|
Post by learnedaboutgrace on Dec 12, 2008 11:35:36 GMT -5
Not sure if you were implying anything about me but I was not the one doing the drinking...Did the drinking and swearing have anything to do with why I left? Depends on how you look at it. The family of the ones doing the drinking were very well thought of 2x2's who couldn't do anything wrong and in fact is believed that they are ones who are "managing" some of the bank accounts to this very day. The are well off financially and this seems to contribute to who can get away with what. We on the other hand were dirt poor and even wearing jeans skirts got us "talking tos". So in a way the double standard is part of why I left. I knew I could never be a "good enough" person to be a 2x2 and the thought of going to meetings made my stomach hurt... Wow, so 2x2's don't swear or drink alcohol...very interesting. I grew up in a staunch 2x2 home. Meeting in our home. Dad did and still does swear. Not just "soft swears" either. As for the drinking, many people I was quite close to not only drank but went to bars and drank to excess and showed up in meetings Wed/Sun and took part every meeting. I think it is very weak to use those as criteria as whether someone is "in" or "out". Well, now we know why you're out. You were never in. Neither were your parents. Guess what, this is not a typical experience. Ask my kids; ask all their friends.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2008 11:42:42 GMT -5
Not sure if you were implying anything about me but I was not the one doing the drinking...Did the drinking and swearing have anything to do with why I left? Depends on how you look at it. The family of the ones doing the drinking were very well thought of 2x2's who couldn't do anything wrong and in fact is believed that they are ones who are "managing" some of the bank accounts to this very day. The are well off financially and this seems to contribute to who can get away with what. We on the other hand were dirt poor and even wearing jeans skirts got us "talking tos". So in a way the double standard is part of why I left. I knew I could never be a "good enough" person to be a 2x2 and the thought of going to meetings made my stomach hurt... Well, now we know why you're out. You were never in. Neither were your parents. Guess what, this is not a typical experience. Ask my kids; ask all their friends. The point is that having meeting and managing the money have nothing to do with being "in" and "out" of the fellowship. Swearing and drinking to excess do. Incidentally, remember that Judas was the money manager for the disciples. All I mean, is please don't go by the people you know. Salvation is a personal responsibility. I have looked to different individuals who have inspired me by their example, and the marks in their life. Whether they have a meeting in the home and the honour that comes from man is irrelevant. (Although one of my closest mentors does have a meeting in his home; but that's not why he's a mentor).
|
|
|
Post by lin on Dec 12, 2008 11:44:20 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 11:47:25 GMT -5
The counselor is a potential witness who would have to be spoken to. They would have to give their reasons for whatever course of action they chose to make. Maybe their advice was not heeded. In any case I'm sure you will agree the allegations are a long series of criminal behaviour ? What better way to get to the truth of the matter than for it to be investigated by the proper authorities ? At least we could have confidence in it being approached in a fair and impartial way, where the importance is put of properly established facts and circumstances in order to arrive at the right conclusion and the correct course of action. It would begin with a fair approach to the writer's account. Although it is a harrowing account of abuse against "both" parents, not just the father, albeit he is the main perpetrator, with both parents having been members of the church. Both parents are implicated and both are under suspicion. Nevertheless, at this stage the writer's account is as yet an uncorroborated long-standing series of accusations of abuse and criminal conduct against both of her parents, none of which has as yet been proved. Please note I am looking at the account in isolation and am completely unaware of any other pertinent facts and circumstances that may exist, e.g. has the sister provided a version ? Anyway, that's where we stand on the writer's account. It may well be a very true account of her experiences and recollections but it begs proper investigation to substantiate it, particularly in view of the alleged criminal acts. As for its appearance on VOT. One of their representatives has stated the account has not been altered in any way, except perhaps for spelling, etc. At the moment the full account, including headers and footers, must be taken at face value and understood as having been presented on the website with the full knowledge and agreement of the writer. There is much mud-slinging here at VOT, a group that I am largely ignorant about. It may be that some or all of that mud-slinging is justified, but so far not one fact has been presented to show that the account has been twisted or altered in any devious way, or which shows the character of the full article is not what it is so far presented to be. Any perceived previous misconduct or poor practices by VOT may give rise to justifiable caution and suspicion but they do not in themselves overturn the position at the moment that this may indeed be a full and frank account of a very unfortunate matter. The agenda of VOT may be questionable, but we must be careful that any accusations made against them must be substantiated. This case stands on its own merits, not on the good or bad practices of other cases, or perceived motives and reputations of the presenters. A proper fair investigation by the appropriate bodies would establish as far as possible the important facts. It is right that an investigator should be made aware of any concerns about VOT, but these in themself do not alter the truth of the matter one little bit. However, accusers should beware. Proper investigations very often turn things on their heads. Be careful of what you accuse, you might end up being accused of "what are you hiding, what are you trying to protect, you're attempting to put investigators of the scent" and so on. In summing up we have two main things. 1) a tragic story of serious child abuse occurring over a period of years, involving "both" parents who belong to a religious sect, which "may" be implicated either directly or indirectly in the causes of that abuse. The allegations as far as is known have not been substantiated (proven). Neverthess, this may be a true account in its entirety. There is no evidence at present to suggest otherwise. On what has so far been presented, it remains an "open" case. 2) Despite the numerous suspicions and allegations made against VOT on this thread, so far nothing of any substance has been presented to show that on this occasion the article has not been presented with the consent and full understanding of the writer. One must at least until shown otherwise, assume the writer has seen the article on the website and is in agreement with the manner of its presentation. Meanwhile, the expressed concerns about VOT suggest a cautious approach. FWIW this is an attempt at a fair and impartial approach to this matter. We're clearly speaking at cross purposes here. There is no criminal investigation and anything one would offer about whether there could be one, and how it might go is conjecture. Speculate on it if you wish. What is at question is the association between this girl's story, as presented, and the function of the VOT site. There is no "mud slinging", that is, suggestion or innuendo, going on. The story is on the site. I don't see any dispute of the story itself, so why do you act as if there is? What is at dispute is the relevance of this story to the editorial purpose of the VOT site. We know what the site is there for - to discredit the fellowship. And there is a term for the technique that VOT is using called "association fallacy". It goes like this: A is a child abuser. A is a member of the fellowship. Thus all members of the fellowship are child abusers. It can be a very successful technique as history has shown. I feel sorry for this girl to have been victimized once, and now once again, as a poster child for such a reprehensible group of villains. I have a different way of looking at things and my way can benefit all sides. Whatever VOT's purposes are, I'm taking for granted they have posted this girl's sad story with her full consent. There have been many accusations against VOT for their presentation of it and their motives for doing so. I have no allegiance to VOT. I also have no time for lies and deception. In this matter, because of the ongoing controversy which has been aroused, I am striving to show how to take an unbiased, informed, fair approach to the presentation. In doing so, I am making a fair and impartial approach to the known facts and circumstances of this matter. The more speculative comments appear to be coming from those acting on unproven suspicions in THIS case and who may have agendas to fulfill. I do not have any such agenda. The absence too of a proper criminal investigation (which should have occurred years ago) has merely offered licence to people to tailor their approach towards their own ends. If you feel I can act more impartially and with greater fairness to all sides in this matter please enlighten me, or do you believe I should show more fairness to one side than the other ? Please at least recognise I am being governed by the known facts to date in this matter. You can throw a thousand accusations against someone, but if there is no substantive evidence for these accusations, you have proved nothing. Please don't misunderstand me. I take on board the voices against VOT, but so far in this particular case it only advises caution. As yet there is no substance to it. Face the fact. I'm not calling anyone a liar. I am not taking sides. As long as I remain in a fair and impartial position, concentrating on the facts of the case, I will be able to drive a coach and horses through anyone's mere opinions. Of course once any suspicions or accusations are proven to be fact, they enter my domain. If you have any proof that VOT has altered this lady's account or that she has not been agreeable to it being presented on their site, please offer up this evidence so that I can factor ir in to my stance. If there are other established facts in this matter favourable to your position, then let's have these also. Keep them coming and before long we might be on the same page.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2008 11:53:34 GMT -5
I agree with what clearday has stated here, and don't need any information from the girl to make this assessment. Here is why. It doesn't look like the girl has an agenda against the friends, because she states that the problem was her father's "version of the truth". She seems to steer clear of attacks or polemic against the fellowship and her story seems quite honest. So she's been unwittingly conscripted into the attack. It's different if you read a story by Bradley May or someone who is overtly working against the fellowship. They know what they're getting in to.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2008 11:57:49 GMT -5
We're clearly speaking at cross purposes here. There is no criminal investigation and anything one would offer about whether there could be one, and how it might go is conjecture. Speculate on it if you wish. .... I am making a fair and impartial approach to the known facts and circumstances of this matter. The more speculative comments appear to be coming from those acting on unproven suspicions in THIS case and who may have agendas to fulfill. I do not have any such agenda. The absence too of a proper criminal investigation (which should have occurred years ago) has merely offered licence to people to tailor their approach towards their own ends. If you feel I can act more impartially and with greater fairness to all sides in this matter please enlighten me, or do you believe I should show more fairness to one side than the other ? Please at least recognise I am being governed by the known facts to date in this matter. You can throw a thousand accusations against someone, but if there is no substantive evidence for these accusations, you have proved nothing. Please don't misunderstand me. I take on board the voices against VOT, but so far in this particular case it only advises caution. As yet there is no substance to it. Face the fact. I'm not calling anyone a liar. I am not taking sides. As long as I remain in a fair and impartial position, concentrating on the facts of the case, I will be able to drive a coach and horses through anyone's mere opinions. Of course once any suspicions or accusations are proven to be fact, they enter my domain. Please read my next post # 111, if you would.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Dec 12, 2008 11:58:43 GMT -5
the point to me is how the story came to be here. VOT did not post it here for us to read. but rather Cherie I think this hair has been split beyond further molecular recognizability.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 12:08:14 GMT -5
I agree with what clearday has stated here, and don't need any information from the girl to make this assessment. Here is why. It doesn't look like the girl has an agenda against the friends, because she states that the problem was her father's "version of the truth". She seems to steer clear of attacks or polemic against the fellowship and her story seems quite honest. So she's been unwittingly conscripted into the attack. It's different if you read a story by Bradley May or someone who is overtly working against the fellowship. They know what they're getting in to. You are talking nonsense "what !" You need a course in proper investigate practices. Do you honestly think I would accept such garbage without having it verified by either myself or other competent person ? You are smokescreening. You are diving for cover because your position is becoming ever more untenable. You see what happens when someone sticks to the truth of known established facts, without fear, favour, malice or ill-will against anyone ? It is like armour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 12:25:33 GMT -5
Ram, The point of the posters here is that the publication of the story is a 'smear tactic' by VOT. Do you agree or disagree? You haven't committed yourself on this point. Firstly, I will re-iterate my ignorance about VOT and what it stands for, although I am a bit better informed than I was this time yesterday. I have no doubt that VOT have an agenda about publicising such accounts which may adversely reflect on the F&W's church. Whether this can be called "smear tactics" or "concerned warnings" will be determined by the tactics employed. I personally have nothing against honest reporting of circumstances, irrespective of the cause. It is a right which we all have in the free world. You will appreciate that I have so far only become familiar with this current case. On this thread I have read many unsubstantiated allegations about VOT, which in fairness alerts my caution. However, I cannot say at this time that I see any evidence of what I would call "smear tactics." In fact, I would have to say that in the absence of further information and background knowledge, any smear campaign label would have to be directed at some of those attacking VOT. Given time I might change my opinion. However, as far as this present case is concerned I have yet to see any evidence of malpractice in the presenting of this girl's sad story. It may exist, but where is it ? I'm on the side of facts. I'm not interested in what VOT had for their dinner last night. It alters nothing.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Dec 12, 2008 12:49:27 GMT -5
The smear campaign is coming from those who can't stand having VOT out there telling the truth about their precious little church (no matter how faulty their precious little church is). They call themselves "the truth" yet they don't want the truth to be told. Go figure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 12:59:54 GMT -5
Ram, I have no problem in accepting the truth of the girl's story. In fact, I believe she wrote it all, even the church opinions at the beginning and end. Still, it does not change the fact that a family abuse story was published on site that wants to the public to perceive that the abuse came from the church, not the father. That's where the deceit lies, not with the girl's story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 13:08:32 GMT -5
An example of the abuse that is going on here is in how the Democrats used Cindy Sheehan's grief over her dead son in Iraq against George Bush. She willingly got involved and campaigned hard against GB, even to the point of trying to get elected. However, many people saw though how the Dems shamelessly manipulated that woman's grief for their own purposes.
Ms.Sheehan's situtation was different in this respect: she could draw a line, at least a dotted line between GB's decision and her son's death. The VOT cannot do the same between the girl's abuse and the 2x2 church although they are probably sitting at the drawing board right now as we speak, trying to come up with a connection.
|
|
|
Post by degem on Dec 12, 2008 13:26:57 GMT -5
I think the girl's story is very sad and tragic too. IMO, I believe the father would have acted in such an awful way towards his family no matter if he went to meeting, didn't go to meeting, attended churches, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 13:36:46 GMT -5
Ram, I have no problem in accepting the truth of the girl's story. In fact, I believe she wrote it all, even the church opinions at the beginning and end. Still, it does not change the fact that a family abuse story was published on site that wants to the public to perceive that the abuse came from the church, not the father. That's where the deceit lies, not with the girl's story. Clearday, I take your point. At this stage I cannot pass any judgement on that. In my view a professional investigator, based on the girl's written testimony would have to have the sect in the frame for investigation at the very least. If the sect were not a factor in these unfortunate events, they would soon be cleared of any involvement. It is a process of elimination FWIW I'm getting a bit tired of this debate. It's getting ugly. In all honesty I'm glad I'm in the middle, on my own, trying not to be tainted with either side, in order to remain as fair and impartial as I can. Some time ago I was in a similar situation when I vigorously defended the workers in a matter where I felt unfair assessments were being made about their decisions and behaviour. Such is life.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2008 13:37:54 GMT -5
I agree with what clearday has stated here, and don't need any information from the girl to make this assessment. Here is why. It doesn't look like the girl has an agenda against the friends, because she states that the problem was her father's "version of the truth". She seems to steer clear of attacks or polemic against the fellowship and her story seems quite honest. So she's been unwittingly conscripted into the attack. It's different if you read a story by Bradley May or someone who is overtly working against the fellowship. They know what they're getting in to. You are talking nonsense "what !" You need a course in proper investigate practices. Do you honestly think I would accept such garbage without having it verified by either myself or other competent person ? You are smokescreening. You are diving for cover because your position is becoming ever more untenable. You see what happens when someone sticks to the truth of known established facts, without fear, favour, malice or ill-will against anyone ? It is like armour. Ram, I have to say that I wish I was upset by this post, because that would mean I understood what you are saying. Sorry. But I'm not and I don't. You have me totally confused.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Dec 12, 2008 13:43:56 GMT -5
CD: Are you planning to post your views for all the similar stories on VOT? Why are you just singling out this one story to oppose. This story is unique because it happens to be the newest one posted there. There are many many others on VOT.
For the past 12 years that VOT has been in existence, a huge part of what is on VOT is a collection of the stories of the "walking wounded" (VOT's term). If you are going to give them equal opposition time, you will be kept quite busy for awhile.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 13:46:06 GMT -5
Ram, here's why we seem to be talking past each other. You and I are sitting in different court rooms.
You are sitting in the court room trying to deal with the girl's abuse at the hands of her father. In that respect, you are being very fair and yes, the church as well as the school, the signifcant neighbours, the relatives, the medical professionals would all have to be factored in with the investigation of the abuse.
I'm sitting in the court room trying to deal with the exploitation of the story by the VOT. It's a completely different room than yours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 13:49:09 GMT -5
You are talking nonsense "what !" You need a course in proper investigate practices. Do you honestly think I would accept such garbage without having it verified by either myself or other competent person ? You are smokescreening. You are diving for cover because your position is becoming ever more untenable. You see what happens when someone sticks to the truth of known established facts, without fear, favour, malice or ill-will against anyone ? It is like armour. Ram, I have to say that I wish I was upset by this post, because that would mean I understood what you are saying. Sorry. But I'm not and I don't. You have me totally confused. Let's call it quits then "What." I should have used the same sentiments for some of your posts. I mean that sincerely. I just let things go. At one point I thought "VOT the H--- is he on about ?" I will finish by saying, if you can advise me how I can be more fair and impartial towards all parties, then please tell me. That is the professional way to establish the truth of a matter.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2008 13:50:00 GMT -5
Ram, The point of the posters here is that the publication of the story is a 'smear tactic' by VOT. Do you agree or disagree? You haven't committed yourself on this point. Firstly, I will re-iterate my ignorance about VOT and what it stands for, although I am a bit better informed than I was this time yesterday. I have no doubt that VOT have an agenda about publicising such accounts which may adversely reflect on the F&W's church. Whether this can be called "smear tactics" or "concerned warnings" will be determined by the tactics employed. I personally have nothing against honest reporting of circumstances, irrespective of the cause. It is a right which we all have in the free world. You will appreciate that I have so far only become familiar with this current case. On this thread I have read many unsubstantiated allegations about VOT, which in fairness alerts my caution. However, I cannot say at this time that I see any evidence of what I would call "smear tactics." In fact, I would have to say that in the absence of further information and background knowledge, any smear campaign label would have to be directed at some of those attacking VOT. Given time I might change my opinion. Okay, ram, I think you answered the question. In other words, you disagree. How about we leave it there. Sure thing, ram. I feel I've made my point already (post # 109), so rather than belabour the issue let's call it a day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 13:52:13 GMT -5
I have no plans for such at the moment Cherie. It was you who singled out this story and brought it to this forum for discussion, and that's what we are doing.
I had considered starting a thread for VOT analysis, but the admin of the site have sufficiently signalled what they are all about.
12 years ago the VOT had some integrity when SandiG ran it. I was familiar with it then and had no qualms that I can recall.
I think that this story that you singled out gives readers plenty of pause to consider just how far the editors of the VOT will go to present the 2x2 church as 100% evil. It shows how the truth can be used to tell a lie.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2008 13:54:40 GMT -5
Ram, I have to say that I wish I was upset by this post, because that would mean I understood what you are saying. Sorry. But I'm not and I don't. You have me totally confused. Let's call it quits then "What." I should have used the same sentiments for some of your posts. I mean that sincerely. I just let things go. At one point I thought "VOT the H--- is he on about ?" I will finish by saying, if you can advise me how I can be more fair and impartial towards all parties, then please tell me. That is the professional way to establish the truth of a matter. Well, read CD's post #128. He expresses exactly how I feel about our conversation - in that particular post - and does a better job. And if one of my posts makes no sense - you have my permission to not let it go by - if that helps.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2008 14:03:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Dec 12, 2008 14:15:28 GMT -5
VOT is responsible ONLY for being a repository of stories. Their alleged crime was in posting the singled out story under their child abuse section. Period. They made no comments about it on the VOT site. They didn't add to it or take from it. The comment at the end is siimply the last line of the story reiterated.
Seems like you are basing your conclusions from an Argument of Silence...?
The author/woman was not a Catholic, not a Baptist, nor a Methodist, etc. She was raised in the 2x2 church. How closely or loosely connected her parents were is irrelevant. This was their only church and they are still a part of it. She along with any others who were ever associated with that church have a right to be heard on a website that posts stories of people who were ever associated with that church--however loosely or closely doesnt matter.
I find it amazing and extremely sad that the accounts by the victims who have been hurt in the most horrific ways, have brought out the most opposition and persecution of the friends; i.e. Marge, Jean, and now this lady. It's incredulous really! It's really hard to believe.
Where would you recommend would be a more appropriate place for this lady post her story???
Why couldnt this entire thread have been one that simply poured out sympathy and empathy for this woman and explored ways to make sure this couldnt happen in our day and time. Thats often why someone write their story--to help others avoid their pain.
Why not more positive post like you CD started on what can we learn from this? What could/should be done differently. Find a website on physical child abuse for the workers and elders to take a course so they know what is the proper procedure, like was done for the CSA issue?? etc. Find the definitions and rules all of us need to know for reporting child physical abuse, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 14:31:48 GMT -5
"What" let me assure you that I am not challenging you views about VOT. It may be that in time I will come to agree with you. I have a long occupational history of viewing matters with an open mind. It was a legal requirement. I can stand between warring factions and put to one side my prejudices and favouritisms. I don't care if Adolf Hitler posted this girl's story on the billboard of his bunker, or what his motives would have been, it does not alter the material facts of the matter. So far it is an unsubstantiated account of years of abuse in which her parents and in my view the sect are implicated. NOTHING has been proved. Whatever VOT's or whoever's motives are, the story remains intact. Any parental or church culpability would be established or dismissed by a proper investigation. VOT may be culpable in 99 cases out of 100 in the manner you allude to. This one case just might be the one case we need pay heed to ? Don't think that I am trying to defend VOT. In this, my inaugural occasion in being involved in controversy over them, I have read many allegations, but not one shred of proof against them in this case. If what you and some others are saying is true, I will come to the same conclusions in due course, although I might do it by different routes. Have no fear of that. Hopefully, some of the things that I have contributed will act as good standards for myself, VOT and any others reading here for future times when we come to assess matters.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Dec 12, 2008 14:32:24 GMT -5
All posts (c) what 2008 and may not be copied without permission. LOL!!!!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2008 14:54:28 GMT -5
VOT is responsible ONLY for being a repository of stories. Their alleged crime was in posting the singled out story under their child abuse section. Period. They made no comments about it on the VOT site. They didn't add to it or take from it. The comment at the end is siimply the last line of the story reiterated. Seems like you are basing your conclusions from an Argument of Silence...? The author/woman was not a Catholic, not a Baptist, nor a Methodist, etc. She was raised in the 2x2 church. How closely or loosely connected her parents were is irrelevant. This was their only church and they are still a part of it. She along with any others who were ever associated with that church have a right to be heard on a website that posts stories of people who were ever associated with that church--however loosely or closely doesnt matter. I find it amazing and extremely sad that the accounts by the victims who have been hurt in the most horrific ways, have brought out the most opposition and persecution of the friends; i.e. Marge, Jean, and now this lady. It's incredulous really! It's really hard to believe. Where would you recommend would be a more appropriate place for this lady post her story??? Why couldnt this entire thread have been one that simply poured out sympathy and empathy for this woman and explored ways to make sure this couldnt happen in our day and time. Thats often why someone write their story--to help others avoid their pain. Why not more positive post like you CD started on what can we learn from this? What could/should be done differently. Find a website on physical child abuse for the workers and elders to take a course so they know what is the proper procedure, like was done for the CSA issue?? etc. Find the definitions and rules all of us need to know for reporting child physical abuse, etc. I think the answer to that is to post these stories somewhere away from the clutches of VOT. I also detect a little bit of doublespeak here. "The comment at the end is simply the last line of the story reiterated." So - tell us straight - was that comment written by the author or by VOT editors? Specifically, did the words "I have to ask, and I invite others who read this to ask, what kind of an operation are these people running?" come from the writer of the story?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 14:56:06 GMT -5
Cherie, you could have made me go away a long time ago on this subject with just a few words. Rather, the VOT trio have chosen to combatively rationalize their mistake and that gives me the grave concern about the site. Had the VOT admitted that the story did not meet their criteria as anti-2x2 material but chose to include it for other (stated) reasons, and agreed to preface the story with the reasons for it being posted on an anti-2x2 site, I would have been gone immediately from this issue. Now it is surfacing that the VOT is censoring Todd's posts on the discussion forum. It just keeps getting worse....... VOT is responsible ONLY for being a repository of stories. Their alleged crime was in posting the singled out story under their child abuse section. Period. They made no comments about it on the VOT site. They didn't add to it or take from it. The comment at the end is siimply the last line of the story reiterated. Seems like you are basing your conclusions from an Argument of Silence...? The author/woman was not a Catholic, not a Baptist, nor a Methodist, etc. She was raised in the 2x2 church. How closely or loosely connected her parents were is irrelevant. This was their only church and they are still a part of it. She along with any others who were ever associated with that church have a right to be heard on a website that posts stories of people who were ever associated with that church--however loosely or closely doesnt matter. I find it amazing and extremely sad that the accounts by the victims who have been hurt in the most horrific ways, have brought out the most opposition and persecution of the friends; i.e. Marge, Jean, and now this lady. It's incredulous really! It's really hard to believe. Where would you recommend would be a more appropriate place for this lady post her story??? Why couldnt this entire thread have been one that simply poured out sympathy and empathy for this woman and explored ways to make sure this couldnt happen in our day and time. Thats often why someone write their story--to help others avoid their pain. Why not more positive post like you CD started on what can we learn from this? What could/should be done differently. Find a website on physical child abuse for the workers and elders to take a course so they know what is the proper procedure, like was done for the CSA issue?? etc. Find the definitions and rules all of us need to know for reporting child physical abuse, etc.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Dec 12, 2008 15:11:59 GMT -5
What on earth are you talking about? The story met their criteria--the author was formerly associated with the 2x2s as in she grew up in it. The criteria is ASSOCIATION. Whats there to discuss or admit that?
Looks like he needs to clean up his language to me. I noticed where Todd called VOT an "anti-Christ" website in his inaugural post on TMB. This is outright libel. Defamation of reputation. VOT is full of verbage being pro-Christ, and they are sincere about it.
|
|