|
Post by ilylo on Oct 24, 2008 22:27:47 GMT -5
Why can't you respond to the premise that I posted, instead of revising it first and then responding?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 24, 2008 22:34:14 GMT -5
Rational, there's no telling why people want to know anything. This is true but if you are investigating CSA the length of time someone has belonged to a religion or how they came by their beliefs is immaterial to the CSA investigation. The question is why the additional details are being sought. Oh - this is just to help in the visualization of fantasies! I thought you were wearing the light blue shirtwaist!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 24, 2008 22:43:54 GMT -5
Why can't you respond to the premise that I posted, instead of revising it first and then responding? Because your premise was as leading as the question "Have you stopped beating your wife"? Your implication was clear. CSA does happen in the F&W, the Catholic church, the Mormon church, the Boy Scouts, the Masons, the Presbyterians, librarians, and mail carriers. But you keep on with your implications.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Oct 24, 2008 22:46:15 GMT -5
You are a terrible liar. Where is the implication? Did you actually read it, or are you just jerking your knee again? CSA does happen in the F&W Interesting to note that you disagree with my premise, as quoted here. Too bad you couldn't have answered the first time.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 24, 2008 23:11:21 GMT -5
You are a terrible liar. Where is the implication? Did you actually read it, or are you just jerking your knee again? Of course there was no implication. Your premise did nothing to link CSA and the F&W. Right.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Oct 24, 2008 23:17:23 GMT -5
Thank you. I agree there was no implication.
As for the rest of your tripe, have a nice day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 3:35:10 GMT -5
lin, Premise: CSA does not happen in the 2x2 church. True or false? Don't redefine terms. Just answer this premise as it is worded. Premise: CAS does happen. The religious affiliation of the criminal is immaterial. Do whatever needs to be done to stop it and mitigate its damage. If, for some reason, the religion of the criminal is needed, the length of time or how they came to their beliefs is certainly not material to the process. The religious affiliation may be highly significant in an individual case, particularly in the area of circumstancial evidence and/or any influences or control it gave the perpetrator over his victim or others connected with the case. Without knowing the full circumstances of the case it is a foolish and unwise statement to make that such an affiliation is immaterial. It may well be a highly important "material"fact or circumstance in the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 5:00:34 GMT -5
One other thing, in my country at least (Scotland), any religious affiliation this man may have had at the time of the offence would in all likelihood make it in the public interest to prosecute, over and above other considerations to do likewise.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Oct 25, 2008 5:27:04 GMT -5
You are missing the point all together. What is Wings? Who is Wings? What are their limitations? Where do they get their authority to investigate. Are they qualified to do a proper investigation. What is their true motive for keeping secret files on individuals. Ask the poor souls in Mich. who were falsely accused, and forced to pay costs out of their pocket to defend themselves. Should it be called KGB? I have heard their side too,and it ain't pretty or something to take lightly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 6:20:30 GMT -5
Personally Lin, I do not know much about "WINGS." I do know that in my country that matters such as have been disclosed on this thread are very much in the public interest for exposure and prosecution.
There are several scenarios with WINGS motives here.
a) They have the right motives and their public exposure of this matter is justified.
b) They have the wrong motives but nevertheless what they are doing is justifiable, or at least there is nothing wrong with it.
c) They have the right motives but what they are doing is wrong.
d) They have the wrong motives and what they are doing is wrong.
These scenarios are perhaps not precise and more could be added. However, at least for my part of the world, it would be difficult to condemn the actions of WINGS. They are not after all starting up vigilante groups or suggesting that people take the law into their own hands, rather they are encouraging people to go to the law. Remember, people in authority in an organisation such as a religious sect, who sweep criminal matters under the carpet rather than go to the law, are in effect taking the law into "their" own hands !
Please explain to me what it is you think that WINGS are doing wrong ? They seem to be engaging the right professional people in pursuing their goals. If they are taking professional advice in these matters we may find ourselves out of touch in condemning them, irrespective of our personal feelings.
As for missing the point, sometimes this has to be pointed out !
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Oct 25, 2008 6:24:35 GMT -5
Rational, there's no telling why people want to know anything. This is true but if you are investigating CSA the length of time someone has belonged to a religion or how they came by their beliefs is immaterial to the CSA investigation. The question is why the additional details are being sought. Oh - this is just to help in the visualization of fantasies! I thought you were wearing the light blue shirtwaist! oh, Rational, I'm so sorry to disappoint you, but that shirtwaist thing is just TOO out there for me. I was dressed like all the other suburban housewives: yellow baseball cap, red-and-purple striped blousy pants, leather bustier with the nipples cut out and bunny slippers. How do you think Scott will look in his matching outfit? fs
|
|
|
Post by peridot on Oct 25, 2008 8:31:22 GMT -5
You are missing the point all together. What is Wings? Who is Wings? What are their limitations? Where do they get their authority to investigate. Are they qualified to do a proper investigation. What is their true motive for keeping secret files on individuals. Ask the poor souls in Mich. who were falsely accused, and forced to pay costs out of their pocket to defend themselves. Should it be called KGB? I have heard their side too,and it ain't pretty or something to take lightly. Lin, Why are you so worried about Wings? Anyone can keep a list for any reason, just ask Bert, he loves his lists. If people can afford court costs, they aren't poor. I lived in Michigan for many years, not all that claim they are innocent are innocent. Sorry dude, that is a fact. If you are innocent, and were caught in the cross-fire, get out. People are like leopards and don't change their spots very fast, the situation will continue for a very long time.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Oct 25, 2008 9:03:32 GMT -5
You are missing the point all together. What is Wings? Who is Wings? What are their limitations? Where do they get their authority to investigate. Are they qualified to do a proper investigation. What is their true motive for keeping secret files on individuals. Ask the poor souls in Mich. who were falsely accused, and forced to pay costs out of their pocket to defend themselves. Should it be called KGB? I have heard their side too,and it ain't pretty or something to take lightly. Hey lin, talking about missing the point... you're all over that one. Let's go back to my premise which you ignored. Here it is again for your review: PREMISE: CSA does not happen in the 2x2 church. True or false? Don't reword it. Don't redefine terms. Just answer this premise as it is worded. Then we'll see who is missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by freedonforever on Oct 25, 2008 9:12:32 GMT -5
Judy, I'm sorry to inform you that what I have posted is not heresay!! People wish such negative things is just heresay, because itis upsetting to think such garbage can actually be true. You would think after reading about the Michigan fiasco for months on end, that there is a lot going on that should not have ever been. Positive things are never posted as that doesn't make good reading. There have been positive things in the outcome! But, when someone puts out someones name and ask personal questions, is that known as everyone playing detective? I thought the people who investigate were to be legally hired to do that. If the police or someone wanted to know something about someone, it is pretty sad when you have to go to the means of taking hearsay as the evidence. You will not find any legal investigation officers putting out a reguest for the information that Wings asked for from the public as all investigations are private and if they aren't kept private, there are consequences for the investigator. So, that is why so many just want to know why the Wings is asking personal questions when they have forbid others of posting legal papers with names, addresses and etc. I would think that a person could be sued for a witch hunt!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 25, 2008 9:28:01 GMT -5
Premise: CAS does happen. The religious affiliation of the criminal is immaterial. Do whatever needs to be done to stop it and mitigate its damage. If, for some reason, the religion of the criminal is needed, the length of time or how they came to their beliefs is certainly not material to the process. The religious affiliation may be highly significant in an individual case, particularly in the area of circumstancial evidence and/or any influences or control it gave the perpetrator over his victim or others connected with the case. Without knowing the full circumstances of the case it is a foolish and unwise statement to make that such an affiliation is immaterial. It may well be a highly important "material"fact or circumstance in the case. I did acknowledge that the religious affiliation might be needed. But that would be for the courts. If WINGS is looking to prevent child abuse it needs to get the name of the person out to its readers. The religious beliefs of the person, whether they were B&R, the length of time they have been professing, their political affiliation, is all information that will not add anything to it's mission of preventing additional cases of child abuse. What other information is needed? Shoe preference?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 9:30:00 GMT -5
Judy, I'm sorry to inform you that what I have posted is not heresay!! People wish such negative things is just heresay, because itis upsetting to think such garbage can actually be true. You would think after reading about the Michigan fiasco for months on end, that there is a lot going on that should not have ever been. Positive things are never posted as that doesn't make good reading. There have been positive things in the outcome! But, when someone puts out someones name and ask personal questions, is that known as everyone playing detective? I thought the people who investigate were to be legally hired to do that. If the police or someone wanted to know something about someone, it is pretty sad when you have to go to the means of taking hearsay as the evidence. You will not find any legal investigation officers putting out a reguest for the information that Wings asked for from the public as all investigations are private and if they aren't kept private, there are consequences for the investigator. So, that is why so many just want to know why the Wings is asking personal questions when they have forbid others of posting legal papers with names, addresses and etc. I would think that a person could be sued for a witch hunt! [/quote I'm sorry to inform you, but at least in my country the police do in fact make PUBLIC appeals for information from members of the public. They cannot "name" any suspects, but sufficient details are released so that potential witnesses may identify the matter into which the police are enquiring and realise they may have something important to offer. If it wasn't for the co-operation of the public, the police would find it difficult to investigate many serious cases. It's quitea true to say that the police are only as good as the public they police. There can be a significant difference between a witch hunt and hunting the witches !
|
|
|
Post by degem on Oct 25, 2008 9:42:06 GMT -5
I feel kind of sad reading over this thread this mg. I despise and hate CSA . My head is not in the sand about it. Don't you (hypothetically) all feel that the bottom line is that we all despise CSA? In one of my posts, I wondered why all about the extra personal details that Wings was looking for about this man? Why then wasn't it stated in the OP the need for those very personal details that weren't in the newspaper stories? In case anyone is interested (which I doubt anyone is) I hate coffee and tea, drink of choice is water, wear a shoe size 6 1/2, weighed 115 lbs when I got married 25 years ago, now weigh more than I like, have gone to meetings for over 40 years, not fond of cats....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 9:50:35 GMT -5
The religious affiliation may be highly significant in an individual case, particularly in the area of circumstancial evidence and/or any influences or control it gave the perpetrator over his victim or others connected with the case. Without knowing the full circumstances of the case it is a foolish and unwise statement to make that such an affiliation is immaterial. It may well be a highly important "material"fact or circumstance in the case. I did acknowledge that the religious affiliation might be needed. But that would be for the courts. If WINGS is looking to prevent child abuse it needs to get the name of the person out to its readers. The religious beliefs of the person, whether they were B&R, the length of time they have been professing, their political affiliation, is all information that will not add anything to it's mission of preventing additional cases of child abuse. What other information is needed? Shoe preference? And how are the facts and circumstances regarding any pertinent religious affiliation gathered and presented to the courts ? It is a matter for the investigating agencies and those whom they interview before it is presented in court. It is up to the court to determine its relevance in any particular case. The courts cannot consider its relevance unless the facts and circumstances have been brought before them. One aspect of the penal system (at least in my country) is to prevent further crime. Bringing offenders before the court is supposed to have deterrent value both for the offender and others like him/her. The public announcement of a person's religious affiliation warns other potential offenders within that religious system of their likelihood of being caught should they offend. It also alerts all the members of the risks within their ranks and encourages the members and rulers to take measures to limit risks as far as possible. Applied properly great deterrent value can be applied within the religious system to which the offender belongs. The members also have confidence in seeing justice carried out. It would be unwise (if not illegal) for WINGS to name an offender until they have pled guilty or been found guilty in a court of law. However, I'm unaware of the circumstances in this particular matter. As for "shoe preference," this may be a matter for the "washing of feet" thread ?
|
|
|
Post by peridot on Oct 25, 2008 9:51:42 GMT -5
All personal history and contacts are examined when a person is accused of child sexual misconduct. CSA usually doesn't stop with just one victim. I have read that there can be around 100 victims before being caught, then they are perpetual liars and difficult for the court to sort out facts from coverups. Hope this answers your question Gem.
|
|
|
Post by degem on Oct 25, 2008 9:52:09 GMT -5
Well then I guess I should have put my shoe size in the washing of the feet thread instead of this one, ram.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 9:54:07 GMT -5
I'm a little disappointed that WINGS asked those questions on this forum yet have not responded to requests for an explanation of reasons and motives for asking such detailed questions here.
WINGS is right to expect accountability of the F&W church but ought to be prepared to practice it themselves.
|
|
|
Post by peridot on Oct 25, 2008 9:56:42 GMT -5
Dear Gem, Your shoe size and your weight do not cross into someone elses personal boundaries. When someone admits to child sexual indecencies, they have already violated another human being.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Oct 25, 2008 9:57:41 GMT -5
Anyone know [name removed]? From Lewiston, MN? Wings needs to know the following: Was he one of the friends? Was he born and raised in meetings or was he a latecomer? How long has he been professing? Was he professing in 2007? What is his marital status? children? What is his approx age? Any other information about this man will be welcome. admin@wingsfortruth.info While I am in full support of any information that can be delivered to instruct and illuminate in an effort to reduce/prevent child abuse, I question this post. With the exception of his age, for purposes of identification, what possible use would the others questions be? Why does this matter? If he has abused children what possible difference could it make? Perhaps I am missing something but what is the value of this in preventing abuse? It sounds very much like a witch hunt. I hope there is an explanation. (I have nothing to do with 'WINGS,' but here's how I see it.) WINGS focus is on the 2x2, they are not trying to be a 'one size fits all.' Most abusers are repeat offenders, if he wasn't BR then the general 2x2 population wouldn't have come in contact with him. Mostly the same as the above question. If he was BR, I'm not sure it makes a difference when/how long he professed. That is when the reported crime happened. These questions would help ID the correct person in case there is more than one in the area with the same name.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Oct 25, 2008 9:58:20 GMT -5
I understand the need very well for information on CSA to be made public once the accused is found guilty.To throw out names and try to tie them to where they go to church. If they were born in the church. How long have they been there? Duh. We do care and will soon have a website that informs of the proper way to report abuse,and the educational way to deal with child abuse.This website will not be specific to a certain group though that we are trying to destroy,but can be applied to all people that face this problem. As far as your premise question Ilylo you know the answer. It has been yes. Where doesn't it exist? Does that have anything with it being more wrong no. You have a problem with abuse but in a different way. The cause is the same though, a sick mind.
|
|
|
Post by peridot on Oct 25, 2008 10:04:17 GMT -5
I understand the need very well for information on CSA to be made public once the accused is found guilty.To throw out names and try to tie them to where they go to church. If they were born in the church. How long have they been there? Duh. We do care and will soon have a website that informs of the proper way to report abuse,and the educational way to deal with child abuse.This website will not be specific to a certain group though that we are trying to destroy,but can be applied to all people that face this problem. As far as your premise question Ilylo you know the answer. It has been yes. Where doesn't it exist? Does that have anything with it being more wrong no. You have a problem with abuse but in a different way. The cause is the same though, a sick mind. Said subect has already admitted guilt, now he's trying to lie and buy his way out of it. Offenders usually strike more than once, just because the court may let him off this one, doesn't mean he hasn't had other victims. If the liar can make a big enough case for himself he gets off, what about the poor next vicitim?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Oct 25, 2008 10:09:09 GMT -5
I understand the need very well for information on CSA to be made public once the accused is found guilty.To throw out names and try to tie them to where they go to church. If they were born in the church. How long have they been there? Duh. The best comment here from you is the "duh" as you obviously know nothing about this incident, yet you have flailed uncontrollably to shut it up. We do care and will soon have a website that informs of the proper way to report abuse,and the educational way to deal with child abuse.This website will not be specific to a certain group though that we are trying to destroy,but can be applied to all people that face this problem. How exactly is the WINGS site not informing us of proper ways to report abuse? You hate them just because it's about your church. As far as your premise question Ilylo you know the answer. The point was whether or not you knew the answer. More than anyone (other than rational, perhaps) you appear to have your head buried permanently in the sand.... "I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist." As to why you are so hateful towards those who seek to do something about it in your church, one can only imagine what goes on in your head. It has been yes. Where doesn't it exist? Sad, but true. Why are you so hateful towards those who seek to do something about it in your church? Does that have anything with it being more wrong no. Pointless question. You have a problem with abuse but in a different way. The cause is the same though, a sick mind. Care to explain this crack?
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Oct 25, 2008 10:09:32 GMT -5
I'm a little disappointed that WINGS asked those questions on this forum yet have not responded to requests for an explanation of reasons and motives for asking such detailed questions here. WINGS is right to expect accountability of the F&W church but ought to be prepared to practice it themselves. I agree, IF it is an urgent matter someone could have made a few phone calls or driven a few miles and found all this info out. IMO, someone 'oppsed' and it won't happen again. On the other hand, this can hardly be called a 'witch-hunt' when the persons name and alledged (and charged) crime has been on the internet for most of a year.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Oct 25, 2008 10:13:14 GMT -5
people have admitted guilt under questioning often because they didn't have the capability of understanding the questions. Back to my contention though why can't we wait for the court to decide this matter?
|
|