quote: instead of punishing the alleged perpetrators.
Oh, so now if anyone is accused of anything, they automatically need to be "punished"???
quote: The internet provides an open forum that allows unfounded assertions to be spread without proof. There seems to be no defense against such attacks getting started when someone has an agenda.
quote: instead of punishing the alleged perpetrators.
Oh, so now if anyone is accused of anything, they automatically need to be "punished"???
I generally know that, when I see these unlinked, partial sentences quoted
by certain posters, that it's a sure sign the full sentence said something
important that got dropped in the partial quote,
akin to quoting the Bible as saying "there is no God" when the full
sentence is "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'".
Here's what the sentence read a post or so up:
Field, who blogs about “overcoming fundamentalist indoctrination,” was going public with allegations from two former students who said they had been raped at Pensacola, and that the school had shamed and expelled them instead of punishing the alleged perpetrators."
So, John's insinuating-once again, refusing to state his opinions
outright, but slyly suggesting them without the courage to state them
outright- John is insinuating that the administration acted
appropriately in what they did and did not do.
John INSINUATED that it would have been wrong to have "punished" the
alleged perpetrators, and that the remaining actions and halts
were appropriate....which would mean he thinks it's just fine that
the school refused to investigate when matters were brought to their
attention- and that it was totally appropriate for the school to have
SHAMED AND EXPELLED the alleged victims when they came forth.
Most schools would have taken a different tack. They could have turned
the entire matter over to local law enforcement, and that would have been
fine. They could have conducted their own investigation, taken limited
action, and THEN turn the entire matter over to local law enforcement.
Instead, they just sat on the reports.
In the case of the second claim, we don't have a lot of information to go
on, so, until more information is presented, it's premature to go into a
lot of detail as to what the best specific actions would have been.
However, in the case of the first, there was a witness who was a school
staffer- a security guard who was required to have reported what he
observed- which was an obvious aftermath of a rape or similar crime
(pending confirmation by police investigators who should have been
called in immediately.) The alleged victim went to the hospital,
where the details of her report and their treatment were logged- and
she went to the police, where the details of her report were logged.
At that point, there's a curious disconnect, since the school never said
"We have a potential crime scene. We don't know if a crime happened here
or not. You're the experts, so you find out." The school SAT on their
end of things. Then, when the student returned to school, complete with
black eye and broken arm, the administration expelled her.
So, she was expelled- "punished"- automatically because she REPORTED a
crime. So, according to John, it's awful if someone is automatically
punished if accused of anything- but it's also preferred for accusations
to be quietly buried, and the ACCUSER is AUTOMATICALLY punished if
accusing anyone of anything.
That's conducive to an environment that shames the victims, empowers
the victimizers and felons, and covers the tracks of the felons so they
can escape consequences and commit more felonies down the road. Since
it does that, there's also an environment present that encourages other
possible felons to commit felonies- since they will face no consequences.
Civilized society is supposed to work a lot differently.
Why would an ex-twi'er and vpw supporter find it acceptable for an
institution to bury felonies, punish and expel victims, and allow
felons to escape consequences?
quote: The internet provides an open forum that allows unfounded assertions to be spread without proof. There seems to be no defense against such attacks getting started when someone has an agenda.
Mm hmm.
It's also the bright light that gets shined on stories where victims
were expected to just accept being shamed, punished, and expelled,
and institutions and individuals just expected them to fade away.
When abuse of power is done, the internet gives victims and eyewitnesses
the voice they were denied- so appropriate action can be taken.
Naturally,
once an institution had tried to silence and punish victims-
a clear abuse of their power-
while refusing to investigate claims-
a clear violation of their responsibilities-
it's in their best interests to later LIE once everyone's been made
aware something happened, and claim this is the first they'd heard
of it. It's obvious, it's transparent, and few people would
actually be fooled by their claims-
generally people who had a vested interest in automatically assuming
any official statement would be nothing less than the unvarnished
Whereas I would agree that punishing an ALLEGED perpetrator is wrong (although, admittedly, it is right to detain a suspect when there is reasonable likelihood that that person will either commit other crimes or flee), I think WordWolf's inference that johniam approved of punishing the VICTIMS is unfair. johniam nowhere states that he thought the treatment of the victims was correct.
And, yes, the internet can bring great light upon evil, but it can also be the vehicle of great lies. Furthermore, not every claim of rape is, to paraphrase an oft-disdained politician, "legitimate." A few years ago, folks were ready to lynch the ALLEGED rapists on the Duke lacrosse team, until the story was shown to be wholly fabricated by the "victim."
Whereas I would agree that punishing an ALLEGED perpetrator is wrong (although, admittedly, it is right to detain a suspect when there is reasonable likelihood that that person will either commit other crimes or flee), I think WordWolf's inference that johniam approved of punishing the VICTIMS is unfair. johniam nowhere states that he thought the treatment of the victims was correct.
That's the greasy thing about INSINUATIONS. People refuse to just state outright
what they think or mean, and cover it up by speaking indirectly.
There's a subtext in play that colors what they said- so that it means something
other than just what's written. I resent that more than if it was just said
outright because I can agree to disagree honestly, but I find insinuations
inherently dishonest since they are deceptive. He objected to precisely
2 things, and left everything else alone. When called on it, he didn't say
"I was misunderstood, here's what I was thinking..." and address how the
accusers were made into victims by the establishments whether or not they
were victims of the accused. (If they are, they were victimized twice,
if they were not, they were punished without any investigation nor
due process.)
If he didn't have a history of relying on insinuations and zero pathos for
possible victims, I'd suspect he somehow missed commenting on equally
important points rather than very specific ones that match his usual
position (accusers make things up, accused are innocent, establishments
don't abuse their power and don't lie or deceive.) Psychologically, it's
fascinating how consistent that's been, but it's really not my place to
get into that, especially since he hasn't hired me as any kind of
professional to do so.
And, yes, the internet can bring great light upon evil, but it can also be the vehicle of great lies. Furthermore, not every claim of rape is, to paraphrase an oft-disdained politician, "legitimate." A few years ago, folks were ready to lynch the ALLEGED rapists on the Duke lacrosse team, until the story was shown to be wholly fabricated by the "victim."
George
As I said earlier, INVESTIGATING before any action is taken is sensible.
However, the school in question did nothing of the kind.
They AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED the accused was innocent- then penalized the
accuser without any investigation before doing so. The accused was left
alone. However, the accused was automatically punished.
BTW,
seems Broken Arrow agreed with me, since they quoted my longer post
and didn't seem to add to it. So, there's differences of opinions
as to whether it was appropriate and on-topic (for those who thought
it was not).
Meanwhile,
it does seem part of the human condition that there will always be social
structures, and some people will use them to abuse others and be bullies,
and cover their tracks if caught.
Yes, that is disconcerting (I would say 'dismaying'), and it is a strange
comfort to know it wasn't just us and the people we knew who were victimized
by the one corrupt group out there...there's lots of other victims who were
never abused and used by vpw and his criminal cadre.
It's disconcerting to know it happens in other groups but comforting, in some twisted way, to know we weren't alone.
Does my observation make any sense?
Not trying to be insulting, but you like to post songs to illustrate points. Perhaps the song for this point is...Barry Manilow's I've made it through the rain. I don't think that's twisted.
WW, you are a control freak who hubristically thinks you are the final word on ANYTHING posted here. Anyone who doesn't track with you is "possessed" and should be "marked and avoided". There, is that insinuating enough for you?
WW, you are a control freak who hubristically thinks you are the final word on ANYTHING posted here. Anyone who doesn't track with you is "possessed" and should be "marked and avoided". There, is that insinuating enough for you?
Now there YOU go, putting words in WW's mouth. Goose, gander, I suppose. :(
WW, you are a control freak who hubristically thinks you are the final word on ANYTHING posted here. Anyone who doesn't track with you is "possessed" and should be "marked and avoided". There, is that insinuating enough for you?
Ok, I much prefer you coming right out and being your mean, vicious self openly,
rather than hide behind "weasel words", and just say what you're really thinking.
Then people can agree or disagree openly.
"control freak"-
I refused the offer to moderate when it was offered.
A control freak would have JUMPED at the chance. Swing and a miss.
"Hubris" -
I've OPENED discussions with people I thought were wrong just in case
I might learn something new, and I've changed my mind when following threads here,
and that's just counting time I've spent here. Swing and a miss.
"Thinks you are the final word on ANYTHING posted here."
No, I actually leave a LOT of threads alone. When I see something that
I think is wrong and needs a response, THEN I respond. It just so happens that a
lot of your posts have logic errors and other things I think need to be challenged.
Any post, any place, they can all be challenged, and the person can try to support their
claims or post. "Actually, I was correct because...." With you, the responses in this thread
don't relate to the actual topic (abuse of power, victims) but about the person
who called you on it. (Ad hominem, personal attacks.) If you want your statements
to just sit there unchallenged, you have to put them someplace private, where others
aren't ALLOWED. Go to the vpw cheerleader locations and post them there, where you're
preaching to the choir. Any place else, and they're free game to be REFUTED.
(Refuting successfully is not a crime, even if it's you that's refuted.)
Swing and a miss.
"Anyone who doesn't track with you is "possessed" and should be "marked and avoided".
You posted. You were refuted. I disagree with LOTS of posters and "agree to disagree"
with most of them on most subjects. So, most people who don't "track" with me
(whatever that's supposed to mean when you're using it) are left alone.
This "possessed" thing is a common claim for people who cling to vpw and his doctrines,
but I didn't even make those claims when I was young, naive, and in twi.
"Marked and avoided." I didn't advocate for that when lcm started it, either.
So, we're getting knee-jerk reactions with stock phrases from twi and ex-twi,
none of which actually relate to me.
Swings and misses.
"There, is that insinuating enough for you?"
You objected to me calling you on being "insinuating" and didn't even bother
to find out what "insinuating" means before trying to use it in a sentence.
This is the internet. You could have found it in seconds without getting up
from your chair.
And I know you didn't look it up because you used it incorrectly here,
and I know you didn't use it ironically (and correctly) here because
you would have written it differently if that's what you meant.
If anything I'm putting an attitude in his head, but IMO it's already there, 24/7, every day.
All this over me catching you ignoring proven victims
(the people who were kicked out were victimized by the school)
while siding with the alleged victimizers,
and proclaiming the internet as a location for smears rather than
a place for "the other side of the story."
Could only see how some people thought the alleged attackers should have
been punished (not stated if any investigation should have proceeded first,
so it looked like they wanted them lynched), and could NOT see how those
who stepped forth were punished without any investigation. Also automatically
accepted the official statement even when it clashed with events.
Gee, it's a sore point that the internet (the GSC and other places) have
been "the other side of the story", and how an establishment can act against
the best interests of the people, and that, since certain people were never
charged in court, he can claim that nobody can recount personal experiences
that reflected negatively on them because they were never charged with a
crime- as if that was the measure of truth or falsehood. I get that.
But when caught on it, you could have either accepted it, or let it go.
Instead, we get the typical "attack the dissenting voice and try to intimidate,
make cheap shots when possible, and silence them if possible." That's such an
old strategy. It was used, pre-internet, with great success in twi, and
post-internet, has been seen on all the ex-twi messageboards every time a
victim said "this happened to me." They were called liars, they were told they
were accomplices, they were told they wanted it, they were told the fault was
theirs- all as a smokescreen, and all to attempt to silence them, to attempt
to fog the issues, to attempt to take the emphasis off who actually did what.
it would be kinda' nice if i could tell wierwille what i think someday. don't know if that could happen but it's nice to think about
sometimes i wonder what his children think now that they are getting closer to his age when he was an abuser
We'll all stand before the judgment seat to give account of ourselves. That's where all the crap we collected for ourselves will be burned off. When you next see VP, you'll be completely healed, and so will he. You'll be able to have the relationship with him (true, Christian love) that you should have been able to have before.
Recommended Posts
johniam
quote: instead of punishing the alleged perpetrators.
Oh, so now if anyone is accused of anything, they automatically need to be "punished"???
quote: The internet provides an open forum that allows unfounded assertions to be spread without proof. There seems to be no defense against such attacks getting started when someone has an agenda.
Mm hmm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I generally know that, when I see these unlinked, partial sentences quoted
by certain posters, that it's a sure sign the full sentence said something
important that got dropped in the partial quote,
akin to quoting the Bible as saying "there is no God" when the full
sentence is "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'".
Here's what the sentence read a post or so up:
So, John's insinuating-once again, refusing to state his opinions
outright, but slyly suggesting them without the courage to state them
outright- John is insinuating that the administration acted
appropriately in what they did and did not do.
John INSINUATED that it would have been wrong to have "punished" the
alleged perpetrators, and that the remaining actions and halts
were appropriate....which would mean he thinks it's just fine that
the school refused to investigate when matters were brought to their
attention- and that it was totally appropriate for the school to have
SHAMED AND EXPELLED the alleged victims when they came forth.
Most schools would have taken a different tack. They could have turned
the entire matter over to local law enforcement, and that would have been
fine. They could have conducted their own investigation, taken limited
action, and THEN turn the entire matter over to local law enforcement.
Instead, they just sat on the reports.
In the case of the second claim, we don't have a lot of information to go
on, so, until more information is presented, it's premature to go into a
lot of detail as to what the best specific actions would have been.
However, in the case of the first, there was a witness who was a school
staffer- a security guard who was required to have reported what he
observed- which was an obvious aftermath of a rape or similar crime
(pending confirmation by police investigators who should have been
called in immediately.) The alleged victim went to the hospital,
where the details of her report and their treatment were logged- and
she went to the police, where the details of her report were logged.
At that point, there's a curious disconnect, since the school never said
"We have a potential crime scene. We don't know if a crime happened here
or not. You're the experts, so you find out." The school SAT on their
end of things. Then, when the student returned to school, complete with
black eye and broken arm, the administration expelled her.
So, she was expelled- "punished"- automatically because she REPORTED a
crime. So, according to John, it's awful if someone is automatically
punished if accused of anything- but it's also preferred for accusations
to be quietly buried, and the ACCUSER is AUTOMATICALLY punished if
accusing anyone of anything.
That's conducive to an environment that shames the victims, empowers
the victimizers and felons, and covers the tracks of the felons so they
can escape consequences and commit more felonies down the road. Since
it does that, there's also an environment present that encourages other
possible felons to commit felonies- since they will face no consequences.
Civilized society is supposed to work a lot differently.
Why would an ex-twi'er and vpw supporter find it acceptable for an
institution to bury felonies, punish and expel victims, and allow
felons to escape consequences?
It's also the bright light that gets shined on stories where victims
were expected to just accept being shamed, punished, and expelled,
and institutions and individuals just expected them to fade away.
When abuse of power is done, the internet gives victims and eyewitnesses
the voice they were denied- so appropriate action can be taken.
Naturally,
once an institution had tried to silence and punish victims-
a clear abuse of their power-
while refusing to investigate claims-
a clear violation of their responsibilities-
it's in their best interests to later LIE once everyone's been made
aware something happened, and claim this is the first they'd heard
of it. It's obvious, it's transparent, and few people would
actually be fooled by their claims-
generally people who had a vested interest in automatically assuming
any official statement would be nothing less than the unvarnished
truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
WW, sorry I woke you up from your nap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm also aware that, when certain posters suddenly change the subject-
often with ad hominem personal attacks or cheap shots, like this one-
that it's as good as an admission that
A) they didn't like what we were talking about
B) were unable to refute what we were saying, not with evidence nor logic
Really. It's a consistent set of flaws in posting that are as good as
coded messages once someone knows how to read them.
(Know the code, and all the subtext might as well be plain text.)
In this case, the translation works out to
"Well done! You have made a strong, logical case for your position
and shown the opposing one to be error-ridden and flawed!"
In response, I say "Thank you for the kind words, even if they
were accidental."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Whereas I would agree that punishing an ALLEGED perpetrator is wrong (although, admittedly, it is right to detain a suspect when there is reasonable likelihood that that person will either commit other crimes or flee), I think WordWolf's inference that johniam approved of punishing the VICTIMS is unfair. johniam nowhere states that he thought the treatment of the victims was correct.
And, yes, the internet can bring great light upon evil, but it can also be the vehicle of great lies. Furthermore, not every claim of rape is, to paraphrase an oft-disdained politician, "legitimate." A few years ago, folks were ready to lynch the ALLEGED rapists on the Duke lacrosse team, until the story was shown to be wholly fabricated by the "victim."
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
:offtopic:/>
WW, stop attacking John, please just address the topic.
If you don't like what John says, either ignore it or address it briefly and stick to the topic.
While you make good points (sometimes), you can be awfully pompous :)
(Cue an attack on Twinky)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i would rather the bast-uds be looked into more closely than doubting the victim -- you know -- the way it's been for YEARS AND YEARS
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's disconcerting to know it happens in other groups but comforting, in some twisted way, to know we weren't alone.
Does my observation make any sense?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's the greasy thing about INSINUATIONS. People refuse to just state outright
what they think or mean, and cover it up by speaking indirectly.
There's a subtext in play that colors what they said- so that it means something
other than just what's written. I resent that more than if it was just said
outright because I can agree to disagree honestly, but I find insinuations
inherently dishonest since they are deceptive. He objected to precisely
2 things, and left everything else alone. When called on it, he didn't say
"I was misunderstood, here's what I was thinking..." and address how the
accusers were made into victims by the establishments whether or not they
were victims of the accused. (If they are, they were victimized twice,
if they were not, they were punished without any investigation nor
due process.)
If he didn't have a history of relying on insinuations and zero pathos for
possible victims, I'd suspect he somehow missed commenting on equally
important points rather than very specific ones that match his usual
position (accusers make things up, accused are innocent, establishments
don't abuse their power and don't lie or deceive.) Psychologically, it's
fascinating how consistent that's been, but it's really not my place to
get into that, especially since he hasn't hired me as any kind of
professional to do so.
As I said earlier, INVESTIGATING before any action is taken is sensible.
However, the school in question did nothing of the kind.
They AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED the accused was innocent- then penalized the
accuser without any investigation before doing so. The accused was left
alone. However, the accused was automatically punished.
BTW,
seems Broken Arrow agreed with me, since they quoted my longer post
and didn't seem to add to it. So, there's differences of opinions
as to whether it was appropriate and on-topic (for those who thought
it was not).
Meanwhile,
it does seem part of the human condition that there will always be social
structures, and some people will use them to abuse others and be bullies,
and cover their tracks if caught.
Yes, that is disconcerting (I would say 'dismaying'), and it is a strange
comfort to know it wasn't just us and the people we knew who were victimized
by the one corrupt group out there...there's lots of other victims who were
never abused and used by vpw and his criminal cadre.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Not trying to be insulting, but you like to post songs to illustrate points. Perhaps the song for this point is...Barry Manilow's I've made it through the rain. I don't think that's twisted.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
WW, you are a control freak who hubristically thinks you are the final word on ANYTHING posted here. Anyone who doesn't track with you is "possessed" and should be "marked and avoided". There, is that insinuating enough for you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Now there YOU go, putting words in WW's mouth. Goose, gander, I suppose. :(
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
If anything I'm putting an attitude in his head, but IMO it's already there, 24/7, every day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, I much prefer you coming right out and being your mean, vicious self openly,
rather than hide behind "weasel words", and just say what you're really thinking.
Then people can agree or disagree openly.
"control freak"-
I refused the offer to moderate when it was offered.
A control freak would have JUMPED at the chance. Swing and a miss.
"Hubris" -
I've OPENED discussions with people I thought were wrong just in case
I might learn something new, and I've changed my mind when following threads here,
and that's just counting time I've spent here. Swing and a miss.
"Thinks you are the final word on ANYTHING posted here."
No, I actually leave a LOT of threads alone. When I see something that
I think is wrong and needs a response, THEN I respond. It just so happens that a
lot of your posts have logic errors and other things I think need to be challenged.
Any post, any place, they can all be challenged, and the person can try to support their
claims or post. "Actually, I was correct because...." With you, the responses in this thread
don't relate to the actual topic (abuse of power, victims) but about the person
who called you on it. (Ad hominem, personal attacks.) If you want your statements
to just sit there unchallenged, you have to put them someplace private, where others
aren't ALLOWED. Go to the vpw cheerleader locations and post them there, where you're
preaching to the choir. Any place else, and they're free game to be REFUTED.
(Refuting successfully is not a crime, even if it's you that's refuted.)
Swing and a miss.
"Anyone who doesn't track with you is "possessed" and should be "marked and avoided".
You posted. You were refuted. I disagree with LOTS of posters and "agree to disagree"
with most of them on most subjects. So, most people who don't "track" with me
(whatever that's supposed to mean when you're using it) are left alone.
This "possessed" thing is a common claim for people who cling to vpw and his doctrines,
but I didn't even make those claims when I was young, naive, and in twi.
"Marked and avoided." I didn't advocate for that when lcm started it, either.
So, we're getting knee-jerk reactions with stock phrases from twi and ex-twi,
none of which actually relate to me.
Swings and misses.
"There, is that insinuating enough for you?"
You objected to me calling you on being "insinuating" and didn't even bother
to find out what "insinuating" means before trying to use it in a sentence.
This is the internet. You could have found it in seconds without getting up
from your chair.
And I know you didn't look it up because you used it incorrectly here,
and I know you didn't use it ironically (and correctly) here because
you would have written it differently if that's what you meant.
All this over me catching you ignoring proven victims
(the people who were kicked out were victimized by the school)
while siding with the alleged victimizers,
and proclaiming the internet as a location for smears rather than
a place for "the other side of the story."
Could only see how some people thought the alleged attackers should have
been punished (not stated if any investigation should have proceeded first,
so it looked like they wanted them lynched), and could NOT see how those
who stepped forth were punished without any investigation. Also automatically
accepted the official statement even when it clashed with events.
Gee, it's a sore point that the internet (the GSC and other places) have
been "the other side of the story", and how an establishment can act against
the best interests of the people, and that, since certain people were never
charged in court, he can claim that nobody can recount personal experiences
that reflected negatively on them because they were never charged with a
crime- as if that was the measure of truth or falsehood. I get that.
But when caught on it, you could have either accepted it, or let it go.
Instead, we get the typical "attack the dissenting voice and try to intimidate,
make cheap shots when possible, and silence them if possible." That's such an
old strategy. It was used, pre-internet, with great success in twi, and
post-internet, has been seen on all the ex-twi messageboards every time a
victim said "this happened to me." They were called liars, they were told they
were accomplices, they were told they wanted it, they were told the fault was
theirs- all as a smokescreen, and all to attempt to silence them, to attempt
to fog the issues, to attempt to take the emphasis off who actually did what.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oh the f'ing duke lacrosse team probably paid somebody off to get off (after they "got off")
and WTF does that have to do with wierweille or the way????
these little logical conversations make me sick lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
VPW was a serial rapist. Why his life should be compared to the Duke incident is a mystery to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Granted,
comparing a serial rapist to an incident with a non-serial rapist (we hope)
doesn't seem like much of a connection (especially 2 non-serial rapists.)
However, there's similarities in having the institution punishing any victims
who dare to come forth and try to speak. Earlier posts made the points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
WW you prove my point every time you post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
We all have our little psychological blind-spots, me included.
George was on the right track, and I missed it.
I keep thinking that all posters actually think before they post,
and read before they think. That's been proven to be wrong, more than once.
I'm not dealing with someone who actually looked over the controversy,
thought it over, then picked a position.
I'm dealing with someone who skipped the links, scrolled down the text,
found a few buzz-words (alleged perpetrators, unfounded assertions)
and REACTED. The rest of the text might as well have been
"Blah blah blah instead of punishing the alleged perpetrators
blah blah blah The internet provides an open forum that allows unfounded
assertions to be spread without proof blah blah blah",
for all the attention paid to the actual issues.
Someone allegedly was raped- and the documentation trail includes a school
official eyewitness to the aftermath (a security guard), the hospital
(who treated them afterwards and can document evidence supporting a claim
of rape), and the police (who were required to file a report when a claim
was made, and are required to investigate...which raises some interesting
questions on its own.) Then the alleged victim, still injured from something
and claiming the injury was from the rape, was called into the school and
punished for making an accusation of rape. No investigation as to whether the
allegation is true or false- the making of an accusation was sufficient reason
to be punished and expelled from the school. That's a gross miscarriage of
injustice by the school, independent of any actual rape. John missed the
entire thing- he saw someone saying an alleged criminal had to be punished
without due process (which isn't fair any more than punishing the victim
for making the claim), and stopped there. He saw the school make a statement
that they didn't know anything about this until the fuss was kicked up online
(an obvious lie since the school took action, which resulted in the fuss
online), and didn't wonder if this was an obvious coverup lie by the school,
he just latched onto a comment about how the internet can spread unfounded
accusations without proof. Technically true, but a distraction in this instance
because the school DID take the action that was being protested. John missed
that rather fundamental detail because he WASN'T READING- he was skimming
for buzzwords and just replying to THOSE. The actual substance of the complaint
was missed because John didn't bother. He didn't care what he was reacting to,
he just found his buzzwords to react to, so he did, then went off, probably
feeling a sense of accomplishment.
So, I made the mistake of over-estimating John, and it means I made the mistake
of putting a lot more thought into his words when reading them than he did writing
them. For that, I apologize to the other posters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
it would be kinda' nice if i could tell wierwille what i think someday. don't know if that could happen but it's nice to think about
sometimes i wonder what his children think now that they are getting closer to his age when he was an abuser
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
We'll all stand before the judgment seat to give account of ourselves. That's where all the crap we collected for ourselves will be burned off. When you next see VP, you'll be completely healed, and so will he. You'll be able to have the relationship with him (true, Christian love) that you should have been able to have before.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
g st. g - right now that's sounds unappealing
i'm posting a song or whatev that should not be posted here
the greasespot gods may fire me if they like ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5jfH7zuMFM
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.