Nelsons daughter and son-in-law accused of sex abuse

[_Res Ipsa]

You don't know that Snow really put pressure on a child. You know that was claimed. I see it claimed in secondary sources. I cite secondary sources and children (whos are highly influenceable) making that claim.

At least two of the children in Bullock testified about the pressure snow placed on them.

It IS a therapist's job to advocate for a child. What else are they doing? They are not impartial nor do they intend to be.

Then quit arguing that they don't act like attorneys. And they should be impartial when they are making a determination of whether a child has been abused and who actually was the abuser. That's a separate process from advocating for the child.

And they can also learn new skills as time goes on. My guess is that Snow learned some new skills about how Courts work as time progressed. What else would you expect.

I have no idea what to expect from Snow today. Some people learn. Some people don't Has she expressed regret for what she did in the 1980s? Has she talked about whether she's changed how she interviews children?

I am defending all the therapists, not just Snow. She's not alone. It's not as if it were ever this one rogue professional the media made it out to be.

No one is attacking all the therapists. Yes, there were others who used the same tactics as Snow. But i don't think they were ever the majority of therapists, and they certainly aren't a significant part of therapists today.

[_Res Ipsa]

And why get after me for the use of the word "let" before "play out"? That means nothing and makes you look like you're just trying to take low jabs. No need. (You are capable of making real arguments, don't stoop.)

So, the couple times you've said "let it play out" means nothing? Or are you saying that "let it play out" means the same thing as "it play out"? What exactly did you mean when you said "let it play out"?

[_Rosebud]

Cinepro.... sorry it's taken me a while to address the whole "Children don't Lie" thing.

I don't have much of a reaction because children lie a lot. It's a normal part of their development and Is actually a posiive sign, when young, that they may not have autism, etc. The whole discussion makes little sense from a develipmemntal perspective. I see the conversation as a sensationalization from the people who claim it as true.

It's hard for me to read much of the article you're posting because the whole conversation is fairly pointless. Kids are obviously very influenceable and they obviously don't always tell the truth.

[_Rosebud]

And why get after me for the use of the word "let" before "play out"? That means nothing and makes you look like you're just trying to take low jabs. No need. (You are capable of making real arguments, don't stoop.)

So, the couple times you've said "let it play out" means nothing? Or are you saying that "let it play out" means the same thing as "it play out"? What exactly did you mean when you said "let it play out"?

All I mean is what we both summarized. Time will pass. New things will happen. Current actors and new actors will take actions and we can observe. I'm interested in watching and recording as we go. I don't want to be much of an actor myself, if that makes sense.

That's one of the reasons I'm here. Message boards are good for a few things. One is keeping dated records of samples of opiniins while macro events "play out" publicly. I like what they record of humanity and individuals' experiences and perspectives.

I'm curious about what kind of thread this will become as things "play out." The future will be recorded here. That's more interesting to me than the discussion itself.

[_Rosebud]

If Doc jumps in and calls Barbara Snow "evil" because some people went to jail, that's valuable. It's a snapshot of people in time.

And when boards can get rid of most of the trolls and have freedom of speech, it's an ideal environment for what I like. It's better if the boards aren't too crowded, too.

And this place? It's tiny...... definitely in the background, but also known.

[_Lemmie]

And why get after me for the use of the word "let" before "play out"? That means nothing and makes you look like you're just trying to take low jabs. No need. (You are capable of making real arguments, don't stoop.)

So, the couple times you've said "let it play out" means nothing? Or are you saying that "let it play out" means the same thing as "it play out"? What exactly did you mean when you said "let it play out"?

All I mean is what we both summarized. Time will pass. New things will happen. Current actors and new actors will take actions and we can observe. I'm interested in watching and recording as we go. I don't want to be much of an actor myself, if that makes sense.

That's one of the reasons I'm here. Message boards are good for a few things. One is keeping dated records of samples of opiniins while macro events "play out" publicly. I like what they record of humanity and individuals' experiences and perspectives.

I'm curious about what kind of thread this will become as things "play out." The future will be recorded here. That's more interesting to me than the discussion itself.

??? That doesn't correspond to the first time you mentioned "play it out. " Then, it was about you not giving evidence:

I am not making assumptions, nor am I required to provide written evidence for every assertion I make on this board. When have I ever done that? I provide written evidence when I choose. In the past, it was offered -after- I allowed the issue to play itself out publicly.

Do you have evidence you are holding back?

[_Lemmie]

If Doc jumps in and calls Barbara Snow "evil" because some people went to jail, that's valuable. It's a snapshot of people in time.

And when boards can get rid of most of the trolls and have freedom of speech, it's an ideal environment for what I like. It's better if the boards aren't too crowded, too.

And this place? It's tiny...... definitely in the background, but also known.

Doc expressed his opinion on the basis of facts. Your statement that he did it because "people went to jail" is not true.

Jersey Girl has given some opinions about the role of child advocates in reporting abuse, etc., maybe she can weigh in. Your statements about therapists seem really unlikely and increasingly insupportable by the facts so it would be a breath of fresh air to hear from someone with expertise in the subject.

[_Res Ipsa]

Rosebud, what do you see as the purpose of assembling the chronology? What information do you think it will give us?

[_Mary]

Rosebud, Massimo Introvigne is an Italian sociologist. He has a particular interest in New Religious Movements.

His article is available on CENSUR, and it is sourced.

It is on the timeline. I'll check again on the Bullock Case to see if Satanism was noted..

[Guest]

Rosebud, what do you see as the purpose of assembling the chronology? What information do you think it will give us?

Primarily, I want to be able to examine what the media reported in comparison to what documented information was available to them at the time. A chronology makes that possible. We can look at court documents and compare them to what the press said about the court documents the next day, for example.

The record, in time, is available. It just hasn't been compiled.

I am very concerned that it's 2018 and that we still don't have a better child protection policy than 2-deep (which, as I've pointed out, was instituted and promoted by a man who was convicted of possession and distribution of child porn).

If we use the premise that sometimes predators work together as the basis upon which we design a child protection program, 2-deep is a problem.

Something better, e.g. (in my opinion) the policy I tried to get the Trib to print as a suggestion but that they did not only not print but that they later removed from their website for no apparent reason and without explanation (even when asked for an explanation -- I have the written record) requires people en masse to believe that 2-deep isn't good enough.

But in order to get people to believe that, media has to help. Right now I don't see evidence that they're helping.

And I also remember therapists reporting in the 80s and 90s that they didn't believe the media was reporting honestly.

I don't know if that's true or not. I was too young.

But now I'm older and more experienced. We can figure it out. If they weren't reporting honestly and were falsely intentionally sensationalizing a "Satanic Panic" that ultimately ended up preventing the public from understanding what kind of child protection policy they needed in order to ensure kids stayed safe, I have a major problem with that.

This problem is too complicated to really get to the bottom of. Too many factors. Too much mental illness.

But a practical child protection policy is a no-brainer. It's 2018. That should have happened by 1990. In the church.

That's 28 years of unnecessary risk for children. I have a MAJOR problem with that.