strong strong case in point for needing a licence to breed.
I hate ol’ `God Hates Fags’ as much as the next guy, but this reads like a chain letter:
It’s generally Not Good when my warning bells are going full-bore and I haven’t even gotten to the meat of the argument yet.
Moving on.
This is a certainly oddball way to get something:
I’m not judging it. It’s how the secret Scientology documents (the OTs) became public, after all, but why the video would be secret in the first place needs a little explanation.
Summarizing the preface, the materials that were made public were very ant-Phelps and Freddy-boy was Not Happy they were in the open.
The rest of the document appears to be a transcript of the `work product.’ It’s being made available the same way the OTs are being made available, as digital samizdat wrested from the legal system that alternately supports and prosecutes the authors’ enemy. The kind of stuff that’s always on the edge of being eradicated completely by the current Gonzo Copyright Brigade. An overtime dispute is a sideways method to have gotten this material, but something as big as the legal dispute mentioned in the summary would have made headlines beyond Kansas, or at least a sizeable splash in the home state.
I’ve never heard of it.
What I’m hinting at here is that I want a little more by way of independent corroboration. Third-party verification of basic facts would go a long way here.
I only scrolled down 7 times or so, so I can’t figure out what the hell Fred Phelps has to do with this thread. Maybe it’s the rum.
Blackeyes, care to enlighten me?
He is a long time spouse and child abuser.
Cite?
[sub]You do understand that I want external verification beyond the link you’ve already given us and your bald assertion.[/sub]
On a thread on Fred Phelps and his congregation celebrating the anniversary of Matt Shephard’s death (October) a Doper linked and used that as the text. Take it with a grain of salt if you will, I just wanted to contribute a link.
Blackeyes, do you ever intend to give me any reason to believe you?
What do you want from me? I started the thread, someone gave two links on the subject of child abuse, so I contributed another link.
Morally, what the relatives did by completely ignoring the child is reprehensible. Legally, they probably didn’t break any laws. They have no duty to the welfare of the child.
I’m absolutely astounded that the girl is doing as well as the article states. I can’t believe someone could adapt that quickly.
The article doesn’t mention the biological father. I’d like to know if he had any knowledge of the girl’s existence, or if the mother even knew who the father was. Just curious.
Anyhoo.
Humanity just lost another 10 points in my Scale of Worthiness, now comfortably sitting behind amoebae and junkyard critters. :sad:
Wrong. In Texas, if you’re aware of abuse you are legally bound to report it. If you don’t you can be prosecuted.
I want more verification that Fred Phelps is a child abuser.
You’re right. Assuming the relatives knew of course, here is the relevant statute for Texas:
§ 261.109. Failure to Report; Penalty
(a) A person commits an offense if the person has cause to believe that a child’s physical or mental health or welfare has been or may be adversely affected by abuse or neglect and knowingly fails to report as provided in this chapter.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.
No verification as I have no intention of actually residing at the Westboro Baptist Church until I see it firsthand, but he was accused by two of his sons. There does seem to be something to it.
Yeah, he’s so loving and all.
— an excerpt from the linked interview with Mark Phelps
The problem with the linked interview is that it’s from an avowed enemy and only cites one source itself: The anti-Phelps `work product’ mentioned in the preamble. Using that as my sole source for this information would be as bad as taking LaVey (or another Enemy of the Church) as my only source for Christian information.
Operation Clambake shows the best way to do this, something also done by Project Nizkor: Multiple interviews over the same subjects and obsessive archival of all public information (from the OTs released as court records to independent news reports). Those groups do not rely on one source, especially if it is admittedly biased. The Anti-Phelps site is a bad parody of that dedication.
Um, the “avowed enemy” is the son who was abused, Mark Phelps.
Watch the movie Mommie Dearest.
Read up on what actually happened.
I still want verification.
Aw, don’t feel too bad. After all, there is the Polycarp Thread.
My link actually does show that there is something to it beyond just the sons’ words, but unfortunately child abuse cases are sealed.
So, unless he screws up royally and beats the shit out of another one of his kids with the cameras rolling, you’ll have to move to Topeka and let Freddy adopt you to get the real skinny.