|
|
 |
|
Getting Out : Seeking Justice
Is Sara D. guilty or innocent? | from Pelusa - Monday, February 23, 2004
accessed 4159 times Is Sara D. innocent until proven guilty? or do we think we're above the law that we know for a fact that she's already guilty. I totally agree with Nick's following comment
"Gezuz, you all have no lives at all do you.
I know where she lives and have been to her house a few times in the past. My X uses them as a baby sitter for my son.
The thing is that even if I did give you all the address, and I wouldn't, you wouldn't do a damn thing about it. Your all talk and hot air."
Ok, I know where she lives as well, and I will too have her (Sara D.) as a nanny for my kids if I need to. Nope, I don't see any problem with that, because I know what she is today. I know as a fact that she won't do any of the things that you've accused her of. But mark my words, that if she should EVER do anything to any of my children I will be the first one and most active person in this planet to make sure she stays behind bars. Now, do you see the difference? I will do something about it, and I'm sure Nick will do something about it if he ever found out that something did happened to his son. Don't we all agree?
My question here is how come you're all so brave to talk so boldly about her but nobody has done anything about it? If she's so dangerous like you've portrayed her, then how come she's walking down the streets, and is able to take care of Nick's son or even my children? The way I see it, is that I should take her to the authorities immediately and tell them there's a whole bunch out there as well who knew about it and did nothing to stop it.
I won't defend her, at least not around any of guys, since I'm aware of your feelings towards her and your minds are made up. Just because we've seen ugly pictures, or read horrible situations or circumstances not allowed by the law, doesn't give us the right to judge her. There's a whole structure system set up for that, Authorities and Governmental personalities that can and should take care of the matter, Lawyers, Prosecutors, Judges, Federal Judges, Jury, etc, etc, etc. So, why not let them judge her instead of fighting and debating whether she's guilty or not? Let's not forget that a person is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. And the same applies to ANY person, including a serial killer, child abuser, or the worst kind of human being. That is the right for any U.S. citizen, I believe. Until that day, all we can do is just keep on talking and be hot air just as Nick stated so wisely.
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from DarkAngel
Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 19:41
  (Agree/Disagree?)
Well ,isn't it common practice in the Fam. to change name or lie in court cases or hide from the law running from countries to countries where the laws are more permissible depending on the places.So then what is the big surprise having Sarah Davidito come out in Ado's home and pretending to be sorry and a good girl????
Off course time is short for the Fam. they are desperately trying to gain time and uphold their image to the public.
Don't be fooled the Fam. leaders have always counted on the blindness and over forgiveness of the followers after all it's in the Word and they have no difficulties in using the Word on their followers.
It's also why they have been able to go on for so long
I don't know if Sarah Davidito is a changed person or not and to be honest this idea has little bearing in the topic of justice for the ex members .
A fox by another name is just the same ANOTHER FOX !!!!
Also if God's prophet and endtime army leaders have no problems concerning praying against people that left the Fam. and constantly lying about them ;then what is the problem with us using the law
Sorry but The Fam.leaders use dirty tactics to wage their so called righteous war and nothing wrong to return the play on them.
The fact that Sarah D should be sorry for what she did and apologise is the first step and then she should also turn herself to the local authorities that would bring a more lenient penalty on her persona...
(reply to this comment)
| from cheeks
Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 19:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Can we put excerpts from the Dito book on this web site? Or at least pharaphrase it? I think it would be helpful for the younger SGA's to understand what we are dicussing, and in what magnitude these things happened. While I realise it is not our story to tell and we may be openining old wounds for the victim I honestly think it would do more good than harm.
(reply to this comment)
| from cheeks
Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 19:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Can we put excerpts from the Dito book on this web site? Or at least pharaphrase it? I think it would be helpful for the younger SGA's to understand what we are dicussing, and in what magnitude these things happened. While I realise it is not our story to tell and we may be openining old wounds for the victim I honestly think it would do more good than harm.
(reply to this comment)
| from cheeks
Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 19:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Can we put excerpts from the Dito book on this web site? Or at least pharaphrase it? I think it would be helpful for the younger SGA's to understand what we are dicussing, annd in what magnitude these things happened. While I realise it is not our story to tell and we may be openining old wounds for the victim I honestly think it would do more good than harm.
(reply to this comment)
| from gragon
Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 02:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hearing this, I feel that I should move back to San Antonio so that I can take advantage of cheap daycare....vomitting profusely....must have more bourbon to rid myself of this sickening feeling....
I am a single parent, and I painfully know how much daycare costs. But, never in my most desparate moment (when I was working 3 jobs) would I have even considered using something like her to save money. I left the F. so that my kid would not have to go through what I went through, and so under no circumstances would I ever turn right back around and place him in her evil hands.
I think a great article - which you should probably read - is the one posted by anovagrrl titled DON"T BE NAIVE OR IGNORANT ABOUT CHILD PREDATORS! She's changed? Have you lived with her? How do you know she doesn't just act like that when you're around? Were you able to change bodies with a child in her home so you could be certain she has changed. Of course she can act sweet! That's how she has been able to gain access to kids in the first place. I remember pleading with my own mother, trying to convince her that stuff was going on - "Oh, don't say that about him sweetie, he's so nice, he'd never do that......"
I still have those nightmares, you don't want to be responsible for your kid having them. Is it worth the $$$ saved? If it is to you then you don't deserve to have kids. We're not saying that it will happen - but the risks far outweigh the benefits! Why can't you see that?
In California, and probably the same in most states, you can have your kids taken away from you if you knowingly place them in harms way. ie... You now know what SD is...a child predator...what she is capable of, and you still decide to let her take care of your child. Let's say that she did do something to your child, now that you have been warned you would be found neglegent and could face the posibility of having your child placed as a ward of the state. Is that really worth the few extra bucks you might save instead of using someone reputable? Is it worth the risk? Maybe she has changed...woop di doo, I don't care, it is a mute point, I wouldn't take that risk with my kid.
(reply to this comment)
| from Wolf
Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 01:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Pedophilia: Sexual attraction felt towards children. (Oxford)
Pedophilia: An abnormal condition in which an adult has a sexual desire for children. (Webster's)
It seems a number of people in this thread have used the wrong term to define Sara D., based on what we know about her. She is a child molester and child abuser, but unless somebody is privy to information other than the Dito book, we don’t know if she has pedophilia.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | |  From Albatross
Friday, February 27, 2004, 03:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you are serious about people taking you seriously, I highly suggest that you use logic when you argue. Wolf read my post again. I said "She had sex with children. Period. She bragged about it in print many times. Period. I would consider that she has an abnormal sexual desire for children. Period." I said nothing about her enjoying it. But the question of whether she enjoyed it or not is moot. She may have enjoyed it. She sure sounds like she did. I for one don't really care.She did it, bragged about it, and has yet to be punished, has yet to apologize, has yet to show public remorse. Do you really think if this ever gets to trial the big question is going to be if she enjoyed it or not? That she did it and admited to it should be enough. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Friday, February 27, 2004, 15:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Apparently you (and a few others) are too worked up on this subject to follow my logic. That may be a good thing, though: If you’re fervor is strong enough to put some of those fuckers in jail, more power to you.
Desire precludes enjoyment. You are perfectly correct in saying “She had sex with children.” Your assumption begins when you say “I would consider that she has an abnormal sexual desire for children.”
I welcome anybody whose knowledge of the law surpasses mine to contradict me, but as far as I know, guilty criminals are often let off the hook because of technical slip-ups in the prosecution’s case. Sara is a guilty criminal, and charging her with child molestation is probably more than sufficient to put her behind bars, when backed up with the available evidence. Now, a word like pedophile gives the defense “wiggle room”. In order to demonstrate that somebody’s a pedophile, it’s necessary to show that they had / have a sexual preference for children. Berg’s putrid sexual preference for children is more than apparent in his writings. In the case of Sara and many other women in the cult, it is unclear whether they had any desire for children or whether they did it because they felt they had to. Why not just call them child molesters or child rapists? That is an accurate description.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Albatross
Friday, February 27, 2004, 21:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wolf. Tell me, what is a normal sexual desire for children? I've spoken to many mental and child welfare professionals about this and they have indicated that women can be just as much pedophiles and just as in it for sexual gratification as men can. Why do I get the feeling you keep trying to give Sara a free pass on the Pedophile thing? I'm saying 1. she had sex with children,. 2 she bragged about it and did not hide it. Simple. She is a pedophile. I will always call her that. But I'll tell you what, if it makes you feel any better wolf, I'll let you sit in on the meetings I have with lawyers, so that you can advise us on how to go about this case.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Wolf
Friday, February 27, 2004, 23:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think you’re smart enough to get what I’m saying, I think you just don’t want to. Of course there’s no such thing as a normal sexual desire for children. What’s at stake here is whether Sara had any sexual desire for children. I’m not trying to give anybody anything, least of all some kind of perverse leniency for Sara, who is just as guilty whether her motivation was desire or obedience. I am only suggesting that we keep our statements within the boundaries of what we know to be true.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Wolf
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 23:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Another fine example of getting worked up in ignorance. If you read the Dito book cover to cover I’d say you have some mental deficiencies yourself, but I did read at least a couple of parts where Sara describes her abuses. This is not about excusing her, she is guilty as hell. It’s about getting your terms right, which will be necessary if anyone here does actually have intentions that go beyond empty threats. A pedophile is someone who ENJOYS sex with children; it’s very likely that Sara did it because she was required to (we know what happened to anyone who refused to obey the pervert-in-chief). Of course, a child molester is just as disgusting as a pedophile, my post is about getting the terms right.(reply to this comment) |
| | From cheeks
Friday, February 27, 2004, 23:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
I read the book from cover more than once, inI believe I was nine to thirteen at the time. I also read everything the Family had printed up until I was fifteen. Every letter article and note written in the side as "comments," what ever that makes me I leave to you. At the very least it makes me informed about a subject before I speak about it. Make no mistake for those of you who have not read the book or read selective pages. Sara enjoyed having sex with Dito, she commented about how easy it was to "come" with him. She did it more than once and not at the insistence of Berg. For those of you who are in a quandary about what to belive there is no mistaking what really happened my e-mail address is on this website and active, ask me and I will tell you the sexual abuse was only one side to what Dito went through. Ricky if you ever read this I am sorry we are even discussing what must have been a tramatic event in your life.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Joe H
Friday, February 27, 2004, 11:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Guys, guys, lay off Wolf for a minute. He did say "she is guilty as hell" He's just quibbling semantics for the sake of quibbling semantics. Obviously, this may not be the best place for such a discussion. Wolf, I suggest you find a grammar discussion board. There's a language discussion board I participate in, but I don't feel like sharing it with you at the moment. NEeehh!@(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Friday, February 27, 2004, 11:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wolf, I was starting to think you were pretty sharp, but this whole line of discussion is starting to make me think otherwise. Nancy would be more qualified to give you one of her legendary verbal ass kickings on this matter, but I will perhaps open it up a little. When our justice system weighs the facts of a child molestation case they are seldom concerned with the quetion of the criminal's enjoyment of the act. When someone has sexual physical contact with a child that is a crime. It doesn't matter if that person is a pedophile, a Francophile, Jimmy Hoffa or Elvis Presley. That person committed a crime and is therefore a criminal. The question of their psychological classification is one that is mostly of interest to the clinicians that treat them in prison. Like Alabatross I don't give a flying fuck what Sara D's mental state was then or what it is now. I don't much believe in redemption, remorse or any of that other romantic bullshit best left to realm of sappy literature. What I do care about and believe in is good old fashioned Justice where criminals are made to pay for the irreparable harm they have caused to their victims. The endless, pointless, semantic gymnastics on this forum make me wonder how far many of you have yet to go before you have purged The Family's perverse sociological and moral notions from your psyches.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from pelusón
Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 23:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
what the ...? how can somebody in his/her right mind allow her (Sara) to look after her/his children, what type of irresponsable parents can do such thing? Jeremy Spencer goes around, he can even play in public places with his old band, but in the court case in England his name was asociated with child/adult ilegal behaviour, in other words, that a criminal goes around freely does not necesarily make the criminal inocent. your way of reasoning is quite amazing. what makes her (Sara) guilty it is not our comments on her,it is what it was dictaminated by the English court and her own writings.
(reply to this comment)
| from itsxena2u
Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 20:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Pelusa, I don't know if everyone is full of "hot air". Isn't Nancy building a case against them? I think that is the main reason she became a lawyer.
I heard a couple of other people who have sworn affidavitts containing detailed descriptions of the abuse. Of course, if I were to testify against someone it would be the person that did the abuse to me or that I saw done to some one else. I can't just go by what other people said so & so did or pictures from books that have been burned years ago. I think those who know Sara and have seen first hand the abuse and have the pictures from the Ditto book to prove it should file charges against her.
I knew Sara when I lived in the Rio Combo in Brazil about 12 yrs ago. She would visit every so often to give meetings, But I wasn't aware of any abuse going on then. But then again, she did live in a "selah" home. So who really knows what went on behind closed doors.
I still wouldn't let her watch my kids though no matter how "nice" she seems to act all the time.
By the way, are you an FGA? or SGA? You may have written your answer somewhere but I didn't find it.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Nancy
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 22:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
People, this is how rumors get started. Nancy is not building a case. Nancy dabbles in combatting the lies and propaganda of the Family concerning their abuses of us, but she is not "building a case." I am much too busy building my financial empire, raising my son, getting my boyfriend home in one piece from Baghdad and just plain getting out of bed every morning. If I were building a case, the Family certainly would know it. They should actually pray that my life stays busy because if I ever chose to concentrate on them, their days would be numbered, at least the ones who are directly responsible for abuses I saw and experienced. The long arm of the law may yet reach to drag them out of the holes in which they hide, but I am not controlling it. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Judge
Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 01:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I find the accused guilty on all charges. And I sentence her to 1 life time per child she abused, including the children harmed by those who followed her teachings, of ridicule, scorn, abuse, poverty and fasting until the members of movinon.org say she has truly repented. Unfortunately, I do not think this will happen. Once a pedophile, always a pedophile. And I'd like to issue a warning/suggestion to her sympathizers. Go see a shrink!
(reply to this comment)
| From itsxena2u
Wednesday, February 25, 2004, 21:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think she's guilty too, but I don't have any evidence. Do you? We could go on all day about how she should be charged and imprisioned. I don't know much about the law. But I think a jury would need more than just us telling them what we heard happened to someone else or pictures we claim to have seen but no longer have. Like I told Pelusa. I think the ones who have experienced the abuse 1st hand by her should be the ones to charge her. I definitely don't sympathize with her though. I just wouldn't want to press charges for something I couldn't back up with evidence. I don't remember reading the Ditto book. My mother kept a lot of those books pretty much hidden. I may have come across a couple of pictures though but this was nearly 15+ yrs ago.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from banal_commentator
Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Maybe I'm really wearing this to the ground, but I don't think I could even have a conversation with Sara D(eranged) or look in her face, I would feel like puking. She doesn't deserve to be treated like a normal person!!! One thing's for sure, I wouldn't let my niece (since I don't have kids of my own) play with kids of people who hang around people like Sara D!!! "Great babysitter"........what fucking ever.
(reply to this comment)
| from cheeks
Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 08:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
I read your article and then I took a deep breath and read the comments. Thank you Albatross and Jules and everyone else who is so articulate and can respond the way I wish I could. Here is my comment. Of all the things I have read on this web site yours is truly the dumbest I have come across. You would wait for a court of law to tell you if someone is guilty or innocent even after they confessed to the crime? Why don't you go and bury your head in the sand? How many children need to be raped, denied of basic nessesities, qurantined for months at a time not even allowed to speak to their sibblings before you wake up and smell the coffee? Would you watch a child being beaten until they are black and blue and do nothing for them? Would you see them tied to the bed at night and be silent? Would you see a child be molested before you very eyes and turn your head?
Sara has done all these things and more AND HAS CONFESSED. No she was not brainwashed. I was born into the Family and indoctrinated before I could speak, and I knew before the age of eight it was wrong. She knew it was wrong and did nothing to stop it but went ahead and promoted and perpatrated more crimes against the most vulnerable members of the Family, the children, who were not strong enough to defend themselves. Who stood up for us? Who helped us? No one! Not our parents, not other adults. We were victims with no where to turn and no one to go to for help. So you go ahead and stand on your soap box and proclaim her innocence and when your child gets molested or beaten don't come crying to us. In my mind we are the prosecutors, the judge and the jury, and she has been found guilty.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From sarafina
Wednesday, February 25, 2004, 17:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok I'm really trying here to stay calm and not get upset at some of these statements but this is all just getting to much.
I'm sorry but have you ever read the Dito book? Where she explains exactly how she gave Dito head and whacked him off ect.?? If you sit there and say you did something and put it in writing that's pretty much a confession. Have you not read anything we've been saying on this subject? I just said both Ricky/Dito and a few teens I know have personally witnessed it. and as far as why she's not behind bars yet..mainly cause no one has actually taken her to court on it and I'll repeat why once again ( for those dense ones out there who need to experience or see everything themselves before believing those who were already victims) from a previous comment of mine....
" There are many reasons but mostly cause the victims Need to heal and they themselves are still struggling to get their own lives in order, find jobs, get a house , take care of their kids, learn to do basic task such as drive, catch up on schooling missed and learning how to survive. To prosecute Any one for such crimes as Sara's would take a lot of time, energy and mental strength. Even just having to relive a lot of those memories that they are trying too deal w/ now is hard enough. Not to mention the humiliation and public embarrassment as they would have to give details of their abuse. For many they are not ready as it's a lot to go through that they are just getting started on their own two feet and adjusting and just now beginning to get acquainted with outside families and friends. So there is proof out there I have heard many personal experience of it and its only a matter of time but eventually it will all be brought out but I think only once the victims have dealt w/ it themselves and are comfortable enough to have their lives trudged up" It takes time a victim to confront their abusers. Does that make any sense to you? (reply to this comment) |
| | From itsxena2u
Wednesday, February 25, 2004, 21:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're absolutely right! Her victims need time to heal but is there anything the rest of us can do? I know a lot of my abusers are no where to be found. Can you prosecute a group as a whole for crimes certain individuals commited?? I know you have a couple people in mind and so do I. But how do we get ahold of all the others? And what can we (the ones who have not suffered abuse from her personally) do about it? Sure, we can say we've heard stories from others and we've seen pictures. But do we have any proof against her right now in our possession?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nancy
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 09:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think this comment is based on lack of knowledge of the law. Yes, an organization can be held responsible for the crimes and acts of the individuals within it. That is what an organization is, a group of individuals. Conspiracy ring any bells? RICO? Civil and criminal. Further, many of us have evidence in our possession. Evidence is not just written, yet that exists as well in mountains. Many of us possess the strongest form of evidence, first hand witness accounts.
I feel like Sarafina here. It's so difficult to have patience with ignorance, especially of such well known facts such as the acts of Sara D. Her own accounts of her acts condemn her, not anything we are dreaming up.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From neez
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 14:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm 23 & the Davidito book still stands out as one of the all time weirdest thing I remembr reading in the cult.
But perhaps you were just a late bloomer. Or just uninterested in reading anything your parents didn't give to you.
To say you've never even seen it though leads me to beleive you suffer from selective memory. Or you lived in Afghanistan at the time.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Mydestinyismine
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 19:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually I was an average bloomer and I didn't read anything during those extremely long "quiet times", I remember a shepherd getting on my case for not reading anything. My memory is workin good. I'd say it was just my lack of interest in reading. I learned how to read with those Peter and Jane books. I read some TKs but never even fully read Heaven's girl or those other "endtime" books. I don't enjoy reading. One other thing, the majority of my childhood, I lived separate from my parents. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 15:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
For some reason I was never interested in reading the Dito Book - I had this impression of it being some childcare instruction stuff, and I seriously couldn't be bothered to look. Which from what I've heard of the contents has proved to have been a very good decision.
I also remember that 'extra' purges were conducted on the pubs in various Asian countries - way before the 'main' ones occurred - and some books weren't even allowed to be brought into the countries. This could account for some who say they never saw those materials.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Bella
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 16:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ne Oublie, you didn't miss anything. I was in childcare and had to read it. There is one picture that will forever remain etched in my memory and I wish I could forget it: little 2 year old David laying without his diaper on, aroused. For all those who support SD and say that she is innocent, you CHOOSE to be blind. That pictured accompanied by her commentary about how he enjoyed being aroused by her, is enough to send any pedophile to the slammer these days. What happened to Davidito is a horrible tragedy and I feel sorry and embarrassed for what he went through and what he continues to go through because of that lady.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nancy
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 14:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Heartless, that's a new one. At least, it's more creative than bitch. Although, heartless bitch has a nice ring to it.
Let me dispel all the rumors. There is no warmth. There is no love. There is no faith. There is no tolerance. There are none of these in my heart, or lack thereof according to Wolf, for the Family. There is not now, there was not then and there never will be. What there is in real life is all the more hell's fury within me for that evil cult and its wickedness aimed against children. They have attacked and victimized, for years, the most vulnerable, their very own children. I have no more respect, tolerance, patience or love for them than I would for someone who abuses a helpless animal. It is one thing to victimize a child, but it is simply pathetic to do so then beg sympathy, understanding, tolerance and lenience for yourself afterward. The Family showed no mercy to their littlest victims. Please, someone make me a persuasive argument why they then should be shown what they denied their own children. Further, their children were innocent. They are not. They are guilty as charged and deserve nothing short of justice. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 15:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was not talking about sympathy for the Family, I was commenting on the responses you gave to lochnymph and others. In responding to them your tactic has been to attack them as an individual, rather than focusing your rage at The Family, and attacking their disagreement with your position. THIS was what I was commenting on.
And yes, like Wolf said, I am not judging you based on your participation on this site, rather I am commenting on your participation itself. I've been told repeatedly that my online character is very different from real life, and I suspect that is the case for most people who use online forums.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 17:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
I haven't said anything about 'not being able to stand the smoke', so I seriously have no reason to 'leave the kitchen'. To the contrary, you're the one who seems to be finding these discussions less than optimal.
I'm repeating the question I've asked you more than once, what specifically have I said that is so 'Family garbage and indoctrination' as you put it? It's obvious that we disagree on many topics, but just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that my opinions are 'Family'. So I would like to hear what that I have said you consider to be 'Family'.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 18:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ne Oublie, tiresome, Ne Oublie, it's a f*cking expression. You bore too much to even begin to analyze your abundant Family indocrination. Just the fact you were recently some Family site member and commentator is enough. You have no credibility with me to even motivate me to answer your stupid little question. Run along and see if you can bait someone else and waste their time as when you are around I find myself overcome with the desire to nap!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nancy
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 22:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
I hear the screeching of the little girls from the Salem witch trials. "Her spirit vexes and pricks meeeeeeeeeee..................." Mean cruel Nancy and Exister!!! They vex Ne Oublie, and he doesn't like it. Make them stop.
Too bad we're still not in the cult, huh Ne? You could go report on us and get us in trouble. Oh, the beauty of freedom and the real world! I did not like little "endtime soldiers" back in the day, and I sure as hell don't like them now, but the real beauty is that now I can say it all I want to. "I do not like them in a house. I do not like them with a mouse. I do not like them with a fox. I do not like them in a box. I do not like them Sam I Am." I do not like them cult. I do not like them when they sulk.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 22:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
* I did not like them in a cult. I do not like them when they sulk. I do not like them when they lie. I do not like them by and by. I did not like Zerby or Berg. I did not believe them, not one word. I do not like the Family as a whole. I do not like the ones they send to scold. I did not like the ones who were all "sold-out." I do not like them now they're out. I do not like them. Let there be no doubt.
I could go on all night, but alas, even "heartless" bitches must sleep.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, February 27, 2004, 03:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, then let me provide you with another sleeping pill, to put you in the mode for a nap again.
Please don't bother giving yourself the credit of sending me into screeches - it'll take more than a couple 'f**king expressions' to do that to me. The only thing I've lost through your tactics is respect for you... and possibly your belief in your argument as well. Typically Ad Hominem tactics are employed when ones argument is unable to stand on its own.
I'm glad to see that your education has paid off, however. Thankfully I was never subjected to the poetry of Dr Seuss, which is perhaps evidenced in my prose.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From R. Kipling for the Yahoo! FYG
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 23:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
"We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true," they shouted. "Now as you are a new listener and can carry our words back to the Jungle-People so that they may notice us in future, we will tell you all about our most excellent selves." Mowgli made no objection, and the monkeys gathered by hundreds and hundreds on the terrace to listen to their own speakers singing the praises of the Bandar-log, and whenever a speaker stopped for want of breath they would all shout together: "This is true; we all say so."
The Jungle Book
Chapter 3 "Kaa's Hunting"(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 11:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sounds like you have a problem. If you can't understand the difference between those who were severely abused and those few ignorant, uninformed folks who think they have the right to question the accounts of the abused because they simply didn't see or experience it themselves or choose not to believe it, then I can't help you. Your "difficulty" is your own and not my problem. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From sarafina
Wednesday, February 25, 2004, 19:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
I did not attack the person Joe I made a general statement saying " I'm really trying here to stay calm and not get upset at SOME of these statements" I don't think that merits being ask to cut someone some slack my reply was cutting her slack. I think what I posted to her was calm and collected compared to a lot of other responses to post on here. And just a suggestion if she is going to make such comments and participate in debates it would do that person well to fully read up on all the other comments on the article first. This way were not repeating the same questions nor are we having to repeat the same answers over and over. Thus causing less frustration to many. =)
As far as my question regarding wither the person had ever read the Dito book..that was an sincere question for if not it would explain the question it's self.(reply to this comment) |
| | From lochnymph
Wednesday, February 25, 2004, 23:52
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Never did read that book. Never wanted to really. I have heard about it, mostly from what I've read here, and know that I have missed out on nothing.
Most of this stuff is new to me. A little disturbing really.
The only fact about Sara D that I know, is that she left her kids for a few years, in the care of other people, and now, barely knows them. Thus, I have no respect for her.
I do not hate her as much as some of you, but maybe that is just because I don't give a crap about her. Maybe as I go on to read more about her, and things that she has done, you will convert me to your hatred. Who knows. I just don't judge people without knowing first, why they are being judged. again, the reason why I browse this site. I want to hear the side of the story that was hidden from me most of my life.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nancy
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 11:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Strange how a group tries to burn their own publications and pretend they never existed. In a court of law, that is a very serious offense to destroy evidence. The sanction is usually that whatever element the evidence spoke to is admitted as a matter of law due to the bad faith on the part of the person destroying the evidence. Does the fact that they had mass burnings of their own publications not strike anyone as suspicious at the very least? What are they trying to hide? What are they now afraid of? If their doctrines and practices are so "godly," then why are they burning evidence of them? And the Davidito Book isn't the only such publication. It is one of many. Remember the Heaven's Girl Book and Heaven's Children. Heaven's Girl was illustrated and condoned and promoted religious prostitution by a 16 year old girl, a minor. Heaven's Children was also illustrated and condoned sexual relations between Techi and Berg. He wrote that he longed for the time when "man's law" would be abolished so he could finally have sex with his "dear" daughter. For those of you too young to remember being read this stuff as the "word of God" or being given this material to read for hours during "quiet time," don't think for a second I'm exaggerating one scintilla of what was written, published and practiced. Before HG and HC there was True Komix with illustrated "letters" with such titles are "Child Sex," "The Girl Who Wouldn't," "Porn," etc.
There is no question that this group promoted and practiced sex with children for years. That is the bottom line. And when it comes to the leadership of this sex cult, they were the instigators and enforcers of such practices. I don't give a good God damn how "nice" people think they are now. They are and always will be child molesters. Those who don't get that are blind and ignorant, if not plain stupid, as well.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Yuck
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 13:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeah, I have a copy of that sicko Heaven's Children quote, where he talks about having sex with Techi. It also has a drawing of Berg between a naked Zerby and Techi, and with the way it's worded it leaves you with the impression that Zerby and Techi are maybe a little too touchy (it has them sharing a bed, for one thing...) It was one of the things that was meant to get "purged".... Pretty sick stuff.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From katrim4
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 13:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Not only are you not exaggerating, but some of us were actually on the teams that did the purging. When I lived at the Saltillo school there was a whole group of us 12 & 13 year olds that spent weeks going through all of the lit trunks that had been shipped to the school from all over Mexico. I can't remember what time slot we used for all of that "purging". It was most definitely in the afternoon though, so either quiet time, get out time or scholastics time. We went through everything! TK books, Dito books, GN's, FSM's. One of the biggest projects was purging out the Heavenly Helpers book that had the whole section on ESing. Does anyone else remember that. It gave specific instructions on how to ES and then "take it to the next level" without getting caught by the escort service company.
I also remember that in some books, where things weren't deemed bad enough to be torn out or cut out, we just used a black marker to black out a particular word or phrase that was no longer wanted. I asked my shepherd at the time about why we were doing this to the "word", but it was about the same time that the whole deceivers yet true series was coming out and we were having class after class with specific instructions on how to lie to authorities, so the answer was right along those lines.
I think my age group (I'm 26) was about the last to see any of that. Right about that time school homes became the rage and the traumatic testimonies were being publish (the first of which was The Last State, the Mene story) and everything began to be classified by age.
I am not surprised (sad maybe but not surprised) that anyone younger than me wouldn't readily beleive every detail of what was going on back then. For the most part I think our younger siblings were mercifully spared a lot of the crap that we put up with. On the other hand though, our younger siblings have a whole different set of issues to deal with that is sometimes more difficult for us to "get". While we had little or no education and we know it, a lot of them THINK they got a decent education and are having to come to grips with the fact that they don't. While we know that we were raised by irresponsible, negligent and many times criminal parents, they have to come to grips with that now when they are much older, and the list goes on and on.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From itsxena2u
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 20:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Are you saying that Jeremy Spencer and Paul were having sex with each other or with other women but in the same room? I also remember seeing a video a long time ago when I was nine years old of a family orgie. They were wildly f...ing and it was pretty explicit. I also remember seeing Mene dancing naked along with several women dancing and Faithy masturbating herself. Being a kid, I giggled and thought it was funny. But years later it became very disturbing. One letter that I remember that was very disturbing was "the girl who wouldn't".
I recently read bit and pieces of the Mene series. I'm so f...ing infuriated with Sara for just sitting back and doing nothing to stop Berg from abusing Mene so terribly!!!!! I was 13 when it came out and I was not allowed to read it. I knew what it was about but I just needed to refresh my memory with the disgusting details. I feel like driving down to her house, bangin' on her door and ask her what the f...ck was going through her mind when she helped abuse Mene like that!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From itsxena2u
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 20:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Are you saying that Jeremy Spencer and Paul were having sex with each other or with other women but in the same room? I also remember seeing a video a long time ago when I was nine years old of a family orgie. They were wildly f...ing and it was pretty explicit. I also remember seeing Mene dancing naked along with several women dancing and Faithy masturbating herself. Being a kid, I giggled and thought it was funny. But years later it became very disturbing. One letter that I remember that was very disturbing was "the girl who wouldn't".
I recently read bit and pieces of the Mene series. I'm so f...ing infuriated with Sara for just sitting back and doing nothing to stop Berg from abusing Mene so terribly!!!!! I was 13 when it came out and I was not allowed to read it. I knew what it was about but I just needed to refresh my memory with the disgusting details. I feel like driving down to her house, bangin' on her door and ask her what the f...ck was going through her mind when she helped abuse Mene like that!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From OMG
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 13:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
While I was a child during the use of all those awful pubs, this "purge" letter was after my time. It is shocking to see for the first time the deliberate and planned destruction of evidence and conspiracy to obstruct of justice that is being ordered to be carried out.
It looks like they wanted the number of pubs people "purged" so they could compare it to the list of how many were printed or distributed, permitting them to guess how many (if any) remained at large in the hands of those "anti-Christ enemies" who are against child abuse.(reply to this comment) |
| | From "Purger"
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 13:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
OMG, I remember that whole purge thing so clearly! ...It was such a big deal. We also lived in a big Combo situation, and had like 15 copies of everything that we had to purge. We had a whole team of us that was actually scheduled to do this. They set us up in this special room with a bunch of tables, and we would each have a copy of the book, and the "shepherd" would read the parts to purge. We had the "slicer" team, who were cutting pages out with the exacto knives, and then the "art" team, and we were drawing bikinis and underwear and dresses on breasts and naked people, and blocking out lines in letters. They would have us go over the lines first in black ink, then in white out. They said that either one alone was too easy to see through or scratch off. It was so funny because we would get into this competition with each other to see who could draw the coolest bikini or bra or whatever, because we were all drawing over the same pictures. We would get going sometimes cutting up and cracking jokes or reading out loud the quotes we were covering up, and then the "shepherd" would come along and correct us, telling us how serious this was, and how we needed to be in the spirit and in prayer, because TF's way of life and our siblings "freedom" was at stake, so we needed to be desperate not to be the "weak link" and draw something wrong or miss something that all those "bad enemies" could then use against us. The team that had been "chosen" had been given a special prep talk before hand, and they were telling us not to read what was being taken out ("it would slow us down"), and talking to us about our "enemies" and how "the system just doesn't understand" and to be sure to talk to your shepherds if you have ANY questions or doubts about what we were doing, etc., and I just remember it feeling like a smoke screen, like they were afraid this might "stumble" us, or like they had something to hide. I think it took us like 3 weeks, doing this every single day. The funny thing was, though, that I remember us all being sad that it was over, because it meant that we were going back to scrubing toilets and changing diapers and watching kids. Funny memories.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Albatross
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 13:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
More Purge Memories:
I remember it was in the Sizzlers Media home in Los Angeles in @ 95 when my poor brother who was tasked with gathering up the DBs for purge came to me for mine. I refused to give them to him. My reasoning was this: If our way of life ever goes to trial, they will use unpurged versions of our pubs against us. Further, they will use the fact that we cut all this stuff out against us, pointing to a sense of guilt on our part causing us to cut it all out. Eventually he was getting heat for not having the purge completed. (we would lose our new mailings). So i said "fine, take them all." I recalled the story Berg told of the guy who gave the pastor the cover of a bible upon his retirement saying, "well you took away everying inside that I believed in, all you left me with is the cover."
It was shortly hereafter, that Ken Kelly (Steve Tall, Peter Amsterdam's brother) determined that I had a demon that needed to be cast out. He wanted to put me on probation. I told Ado (my sometimes father) that if they even tried to pray for me, or put me on probation, I would leave TF. Which I did a couple of months later anyway.
The good news is that copies exists of the purge list, the unpurged pubs, the purged pubs, and everything needed to show exactly what Tf did and why they did it.(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 15:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Daniel, get your ass into my holy room so that we can have an Ace Ventura style exorcism and get that demon of Lust and Style out of you once and for all. We can't tolerate that demon anymore. If one more of us sees you tooling around LA in your 300Z wearing designer clothes we may get "stumbled."
Here is how the exorcism will proceed. First you will be allowed to drink a top shelf Martini and smoke a cigar of your choice. This will cause the demon to think that it is in its natural element: a swank LA night club. Then you will be suddenly blindfolded. The blindfold will not be removed until you are standing in the "Faded Glory" white trash couture section of the local 24 Hr. Wal-Mart wearing only your underwear. You will then be told to make a selection from the clothes at hand. Immediately after this you will be forced to go directly to one of your LA hangouts and be exposed to your acquaintences for the back country bumpkin that you are. Hallelujah PTL TYJ GBAKYIJN.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Nancy
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 15:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
LMAO!!! No, I say forsake all clothes. We make him wear forsake all clothes. You know, the high-water wader/clam digger pants that didn't fit Malachi when they were his, and they sure as hell don't fit you. The faded cotton t-shirt that said "Cowgirl" on the front that you got from Sam and hoped no one read English when you had to wear it out. The old Nike tennis shoes with the orange swish mark on the purple fake leather background. Or, better, the tight short shorts that showed your pasty white legs from only "20 minutes" of sun a day and the up-to-the-knee baseball socks with two different colored strips on each of them. Yeah! And don't forget ditching the "cool" haircut.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Mydestinyismine
Monday, February 23, 2004 - 19:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Pelusa and Nick sound like they got some family doctrines still stuck up in there. Obviously, they don't look at the facts before coming to a conclusion. And they sure do make up their minds pretty fast. That also sounds like my past shepherds. In a way, looking at this from Existers perspective, he seems right.
(reply to this comment)
| from banal_commentator
Monday, February 23, 2004 - 14:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not a parent, but I wouldn't willingly let any kid I cared about go near anyones house who is even affiliated with pedophiles or suspected of being one themselves. A thousand times over; I wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with a pedophile, regardless of whether a cult made them do it, or they were high on the holy ghost at the time. Jesus fucking Christ. So fucking what if Sara D(eranged) didn't get off on it herself and that she was pressured to by Berg. The fact is that she did it once upon a time in a far away land and now has filthy child molestor written all over her face.
That being said, I am sure that she acts and seems very "sweet" and "normal" now.
(reply to this comment)
| from Shaka
Monday, February 23, 2004 - 13:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
What kind of parent would allow their children to even go near a known pedophile, much less be cared for by them? Is there not enough daycare where you people live? You should really try to find a babysitter that doesn't have "performs fellatio on two year olds" on their resume'. Or maybe you think it's good for them. You're no better than the parents who gave their daughters to Berg for his enjoyment. Happy child raising, suckas!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | from Jules
Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
A discussion on the topic of accountability of the individual (vs. "the cult made me do it") came up some time back on one of the FG exmember web sites. What I said there sums up my views on this. I told these people that:
"If any of you who were direct perpetrators really believe that you are blameless, and that you were “forced into sex with children”, then put your money where your mouth is. How much do you really believe that? Would you stake your life on it? Turn yourself in and use that as your defense. If you are right, then you would be giving evidence against a conspiracy to sexually exploit children that you were unwittingly a part of. The outcome of such a case would have worldwide implications for the Family.
If you really believe that the choice should be with the victim, then write them a letter, confessing what you did, where and when, (apologizing if you want) and sign your name to it. That would definitely give them the option of pressing charges with as minimal disruption as possible to their own lives. How much do you really want to make amends, even at cost to yourself?"
Crying on Larry King Live or privately apologising by phone or saying how sorry you are in a general non-descript way means nothing IMO. Until all those who were involved do something CONCRETE to rectify the harm that has been done, they all bear the full burden of guilt and responsiblity. You said "Just because we've seen ugly pictures, or read horrible situations or circumstances not allowed by the law, doesn't give us the right to judge her." You cannot be serious. There is no question as to what she did. No doubt at all. The Family published PHOTOGRAPHS and details IN HER OWN WORDS. She remains a member of this group. She has never publicly even renounced what she did.
It's astounding to me that people who lack the moral substance to take a stand themselves against child sexual abuse and who even go so far as to publicly defend these people, and most shockingly, boast about letting these people mind their own children to prove that they are more "fairminded" than the rest of us, would have the nerve to call those that are actually doing something "full of hot air".
(reply to this comment)
| from exister
Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
I still cannot phathom that anyone could possibly be dumb enough to actually ask this question.
(reply to this comment)
| From sarafina
Monday, February 23, 2004, 13:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree!!. This whole thing is just getting ridicules! Now we've got people who aren't even sure in there minds wither she's pedophile or not?? This is exactly why Ricky /Davidito stopped posting on here. He said It doesn't matter what he'd say cause unless it happened to you or your child personally you wouldn't believe him either he saw it happen ,many times with his post. I've talked to him about some of these things before and there is NO Doubt that she was a pedophile.
Also I'm good friends w/ another girl who lived with Dito and Sara for years she is also a SGA and she has kids of her own. She unlike me generally tends to lean more toward Nicks feeling toward the family and feels it mainly leaderships responsibility and doesn't feel we should go after all the little people or the family as a whole but rather just Maria and a select few. She also has had her children watched by some family members now and then that she personally knows and trust but when I brought up this subject w/ her and asked her what she thought of Sara she was horrified that any one would allow their kids to be baby sat by her. She said she was one of the most abusive and evil woman she has ever met and was personally responsible for a lot of that child porn, initiated & encouraged it many times w/out any encouragement from Berg. Sara her self has also slept w/ minors. She also is very tempermental and snaped easily and was often violent w/ her own children.
These are two people who have lived w/ her and witnessed these actions and I'm sure would testify in court against her . However you ask why have they not then brought her to court. There are many reasons but mostly cause they are still struggling to get their own lives in order, find jobs, get a house , take care of their kids. To prosecute someone like Sara would take a lot of time, energy and mental strengh, just having to relive a lot of the memories that they are trying too deal w/ now is hard enough. Not to mention the humiliation and public embarrassment as the would have to give details of their abuse. For many that is a lot to go through considering they are just trying to figure out who they are and get started on their own two feet and adjust and just now begining to get acquainted with outside families and friends. So there is proof out there I have heard many personal experience of it and its only a matter of time but eventually it will all be brought out but I think only once the victims have dealt w/ it themselves and are comfortable enough to have their lives trudged threw.
Ps. Don't waste your time asking Sara about it do you really think she'd admit to anything unless in court and on trial and even then you'd have to force the truth. Who in their right mine would admit to their own crime and convict themselves.(reply to this comment) |
| | from exister
Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
"But mark my words, that if she should EVER do anything to any of my children I will be the first one and most active person in this planet to make sure she stays behind bars. Now, do you see the difference?"
Yes I see the difference. The difference between you and normal caring parents is that you are perfectly willing to send your child off like a canary into a coal mine. You are willing to wait to see if she sucks off your little boy and then do something? You really don't give a shit about your kids do you? Don't you realize that after the abuse it is too late? The damage is done. You people live in some fantasy world where the lingering effects of abuse disappear with a few hours of therapy. That is just simply not the case. As far as I am concerned you are as bad as most FGA parents.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Pelusa
Monday, February 23, 2004, 19:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
No, I will not wait until my kids are harmed to prove yourselves right. According to you, you've all been harmed already. If that's what you believe, it's fine with me and I respect that. But obviously you don't respect mine opinion, or anybody else's who thinks differently than you. I don't agree with half of what you all say, but at least I try to respect. But you lost all sense of respect the minute you judged me for being a shitty parent. Who gave you that right? Of course you can say whatever you want, but can you support your statement? That's not what this site is all about. Nobody called you names or said anything about what you believe or live for. Jules, don't you guys monitor this kind of comments?
Please, think for a minute if your comment has any weight, because if you do think that I'm a shitty parent, I'll be more than glad to give you my full name, phone number and location so you can call the authorities on me at any given time. I challenge you to do that. If you can, then I'll take your words for being a shitty parent, but until then don't make comments you're not willing to live up to.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 22:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey, Andy, can I get a bit of this action. Can we tag team?
All right, my turn, and I don't have but two words for you: DUMB ASS!!! Your children should be removed from your custody when something does happen because you were reckless in that you knew of a risk and you willfully disregarded it.
No one respects your opinion because it's plain asinine! Yes, we judge you by your own stupid words. "According to you, you've all been harmed already. If that's what you believe" You’re stupider than our sex cult member parents! At least they knowingly admit "harm" happened. You rather claim we can "believe" it happened if we want. Dude, it did happen, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again in lots of countries to hundreds of children. You know who I pity? Your poor children! May God protect them.
Oh, and dude, unfortunately, they don't arrest people for being dumb ass parents. Otherwise, you'd be serving a life sentence. But, please, do give us your name and location so when something does happen we can provide the authorities with your statements which show you were, at the very least, negligent and complicit.
MY GOD!!! What is this website coming to?! Just goes to show that dumb ass parents can raise dumb ass children and indoctrinated sex cult members can pollute the minds of their children to think and act just like indoctrinated sex cult members. Evolution save us! It's our only hope!!!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From exister
Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 12:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't see how I could possibly lose respect for you considering I never had any to begin with. And who the hell are you to come on this site with your "think before you speak" bullshit? I was subjected to that crap for the first 16 years of my life and will stand for no more of it! Finally what pisses me off the most about your tone is that it is perfused with the fake ass authoritarianism that posses most former and current FGAs. Let me be clear on what I think about your authority. You know nothing, you are nothing, and you have no power anywhere. So kindly fuck off and take your perverse child rearing techniques with you. Have a great day :--)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From frmrjoyish
Monday, February 23, 2004, 21:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
"I'll be more than glad to give you my full name, phone number and location so you can call the authorities on me at any given time." If I were you I'd think twice about that! I don't think Child Protective Services would look kindly on a parent with sympathetic views towards the author of a child molestation manuel.
"According to you, you've all been harmed already. If that's what you believe, it's fine with me and I respect that. But obviously you don't respect mine opinion, or anybody else's who thinks differently than you." I don't "believe", I know, that I was harmed as a child by the blantant and rampant sexuality in TF that was a direct result of the adult-child sex that was promoted in the book authored by this woman. Your god-damned right I think "differently" from you! And, hell no, I will never respect the "opinion" of someone who takes up for a criminal who preys upon children!
Berg had a hell of a lot to do with the abuses in TF, but she did her part as a consenting adult. What the hell is wrong with all of you, don't you all believe in personal responsibility anymore?? You're going to absolve this abuser of her crimes because "Berg made her do it"?? All of you child abusing sympathizers should be ashamed of yourselves!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Albatross
Monday, February 23, 2004, 20:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well Pelusa...why don't you come out and tell us a little bit about yourself, namely, your age, FGA or SGA, etc. You comment was supportive of someone many of us point to as one of the instuments of our abuse. That being the case, your surprise at getting flack is interesting. Question: who are you to tell us what this site is about? Have you been paying attention? The comments on this site have never been limited to just the respectful and supportive. Are you asking Jules to impose further censorship? Let me see if I get this right...you don't think we have the right to judge SD just because of the pictures we've seen of her fellating a two year old, or because of her comments, but you want to censor comments that call you a bad parent? I for one have NO RESPECT FOR YOU, PELUSA. Your defense of a serial child abuser has invalidated any claim you may have had to my respect. Furthermore...I DO think you are an irresposible parent if you would let Sara Davidito, a proud and admited child molester, take care of your child. Why don't you tell us your age, where you joined, (if you are an FGA). Let's put this debate on equal footing. I was born in San Juan Puerto Rico in 1975 to cult member parents. I was abused under a system that had Sara Davidito as its top "childcare expert." You ask who gave us the right to "call you a shitty parent?" You did, the minute you stepped up to defend a unrepentant child molester.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Pelusa
Monday, February 23, 2004, 21:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Albatross, thanks for your comment. I respect yours a lot more than I did exister's. By the way, I am not in TF, and I do not support or defend Sara D. for what she did in the past. I was, by the way, defending Nick's point of view. He was being labeled a shitty parent for having a different opinion. Nobody labels you for what you do, so what should you anybody label him or me because we think differently? I truly don't care what you all think of her, and believe me, I'm sure she's done some of the stuff you all claim she did. But then, what's taking you so long to do something about it? Have you ever witnessed any account? Is there anything you can truly do? I sure can't, because I've never seen it. I hardly know the lady. So, why would I believe what you say? I don't know you either. But I respect what you have to say, at least sometimes. You have some interesting points. I don’t have to agree with them all, but I understand.
My comment about Sara D. was this,”OK, I know where she lives as well, and I will too have her (Sara D.) as a nanny for my kids if I need to.” If I need to, that was a key part of it, or did you miss it? My wife can and is able to care for all of our kids, no need for nanny. I don’t even know what a nanny is all about, for all I care. My wife does a wonderful job caring for them. So, there’s no need for people like you to insult the way we take care of our kids. Again, Nick had a point, and I was just trying to side with him. You don’t agree, that’s fine! That’s what this site is about. Posting comments and opinions, not insulting other fellows who are trying to move on just like the rest.
About Jules imposing censorship, nope, I know you’re in charge of this section. But wasn’t the idea of this site to post experiences, comments, etc. without the need to derogate others? Or do I have to say yes, yes, yes, to everything you guys talk about? Isn’t that another form of brainwashing? I don’t agree with TF in a few things. But neither do I agree with yours. I’ve been visiting the site since I signed up, June 2002. My wife hates this site, and she’s quite antagonistic about TF herself. She thinks that if you guys really want to Move On, then you should do so, instead of wasting hours debating who is right or who is wrong. (Including myself, by the way) That’s what makes us different from those that stayed in TF, is that we can and should say what we think, freely.
Again, you don’t have to agree, but can you respect that?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 21:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't why my name came up regarding this at all Pelusa. Let me clarify something for the cognitively challenged. There are many different viewpoints on most things here and we all have the right to our opinons regarding our own experiences. However open debate and dialogue on this web site has never included defending child abuse or abusers. The only young person that was banned from this site was banned for exactly this. Defense of these people is highly offensive and revictimizes all those who have lived through what these criminals have done. You said "Nobody labels you for what you do". That's just not true. We all have the right to freedom of thought and speech, but everybody is judged by what they do. If you put your child in the care of a paedophile then you ARE a very bad parent. That's it. There's no question and there's no room for debate or for "respecting" your right to endanger your children. The only benefit of the doubt I can possibly think of for your statements is that you honestly didn't know what Sara had done. If that is the case may I suggest you do some research on this and the Davidito Book before you dig yourself in deeper. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Albatross
Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 12:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Pelusa:
I am usually loath to write a responding argument in a point-by-point style; however, your post has so many disparate and disjointed arguments that I have no choice but to argue this way.
You say: He (Nick) was being labeled a shitty parent for having a different opinion.
I say: It has nothing to do with his opinion being different from anybody's. It has everything to do with his opinion sounding potential dangerous to his child.
You say: Nobody labels you for what you do.
I say: Do you know me well enough to say that? The fact is I have been labeled the worst possible things for my efforts.
You say: So (why) should you (or) anybody label him or me because we think differently?
I say: Once again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with your thinking differently. Are you so used to everyone around you having group thought that you automatically assume that if a number of people strongly disagree with your position, they must be under the influence of "group thought" and taking issue with your "independent thinking"?
You ask: What’s taking you so long to do something about it?
I say: Once again you seem to think there is some entity that should have done something sooner. These sorts of efforts take time. That you don't see instant results, or earlier result, should not lead you to believe that nothing is being done.
You say: Have you ever witnessed any account?
I say: No not personally…but I have seen the photos.
You say: Is there anything you can truly do?
I say: I don’t know, but I aim to find out.
You say: I hardly know the lady(SD). So, why would I believe what you say? I don't know you either.
I say: You only believe people you know? Have you ever seen the Davidito book?
If that were not proof enough for you, what would be?
You say: My comment about Sara D. was this, OK, I know where she lives as well, and I will too have her (Sara D.) as a nanny for my kids if I need to.” If I need to, that was a key part of it, or did you miss it?
I say: No, I did not miss it, but how is “if I need to” germane to the subject? The fact that you would have her as a nany at all, is the issue.
You say: There’s no need for people like you to insult the way we take care of our kids.
I say: Who’s insulting the way you take care of your kids? Unless you actually do leave your kids with SD, which you’ve indicated you don’t. And even then, it would not be an insult, but rather a critique.
You say: About Jules imposing censorship, nope, I know you’re in charge of this section.
I say: When I posted your article to this section I knew that I disagreed strongly with it. If I were inclined to censor it, would I have just conveniently forgotten to post it?
You say: But wasn’t the idea of this site to post experiences, comments, etc. without the need to derogate others? Or do I have to say yes, yes, yes, to everything you guys talk about?
I say: I am amused at the tendency of those who get defensive when they are disagreed with to suddenly try to define the mission of this site. If you have not noticed, this site has it all. It’s sort of the Wild West. No you don’t have to say “Yes” to everything “we guys” talk about. Who is “You guys” anyway? There is no cabal here; no committee controlling “correct thought.” I think you are confusing this site with another group of people.
You say: My wife hates this site, and she’s quite antagonistic about TF herself.
I say: How is that relevant to your opinions?
You say: She thinks that if you guys really want to Move On, then you should do so, instead of wasting hours debating who is right or who is wrong.
I say: What does it mean to “Move On”? And must we, simply because we frequent this site, conform to your wife’s notion of what it means to move on? If moving on is a process, then I suppose we can consider all that happens here as part of that process. This wonderful world of people coming and going, agreeing and disagreeing, finding friends and making enemies, talking about their lives both good and bad. That, in my opinion is the process. I would not presume to tell anyone here that they have or have not “moved on”, according to some arbitrary schedule that I’ve designated.
You say: That’s what makes us different from those that stayed in TF, is that we can and should say what we think, freely.
I say: Yes you are right. So why is it so often that those, who like yourself, put out controversial and arguable opinions, seem to scream for the ability to say what they want freely, but only when it applies to their opinion. You have spoken your piece. It has been strongly disagreed with. That IS free speech. No one has censored you; they have simply disagreed with you. (And maybe with your wife as well?)
You say: Again, you don’t have to agree, but can you respect that?
I say: I don’t agree with you. I don’t respect your opinion. I do respect your right to present it. I respect the right of all who disagree with you to do so in as strong of terms as they deem necessary.
Daniel
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Pelusa
Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 17:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Albatroz,
I just have a couple of comments and I guess we can just put an end to all this. First of all, I see you've got some interesting points. I just need to clarify a couple of things of my own.
I think people need to hear what others would do if they were in their place. I told you from the beginning that IF... that's me, Pelusa, stating IF. Now, my wife is not sure she feels the same way I do, so here we may have a couple of differences. So I would like to know what others think. I'd prefer to hear suggestions from other parents, but others is ok. You've all placed your opinions, and that's great. But only some mentioned about what they'd do IF. Here's a quote from someone in the site. "from banal_commentator
Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Maybe I'm really wearing this to the ground, but I don't think I could even have a conversation with Sara D(eranged) or look in her face, I would feel like puking. She doesn't deserve to be treated like a normal person!!! One thing's for sure, I wouldn't let my niece (since I don't have kids of my own) play with kids of people who hang around people like Sara D!!! "Great babysitter"........what fucking ever."
I personally think that's one of the best answers yet to my post. Nothing there is mentioned about my decisions, all this person had to comment about was what his/her position is and what he/she would do if faced in that same situation. I had an opinion; he/she had another one. So? Big deal! Comments like that are what might help us to make up our minds about an individual, in this case SD. Comments like yours in the other hand will just make me feel stronger about the way I feel because to me you’re coming across way out of bounds when it comes to raise my kids. Who are you? The last word on how to raise kids? Mind you own business, and I do the same. That’s all! Say whatever you have to say, but apply it to yourself and your situation, and don’t come and preach at me about my decisions. I have nothing to say about how you feel and/or do, that’s totally out of bounds. But, if I were you, this… or that is what I’ll do…
That’s what we all do all day long, make our own decisions. Sometimes we just need people’s help, I definitely know I don’t need yours. Unless you can tell me what you’d do if you were in Nick’s or in my place.
Was that too hard for anybody else to comment about? I don't need nobody to tell me how to raise my kids or what a shitty parent I am, and even if they do, I shouldn't f*****g care, those are my kids and I will have to answer for my decisions, (good and bad ones), not you or anyone else. I knew what you guys thought of her (SD) but maybe I wanted to know what you would do if you were in my place. Now I know!
Again, let me say this one more time, I was not defending SD, if she did what she did, then to hell with her. I was defending (or at least trying to) Nick and his point of view. Maybe I need to make myself clearer next time. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Banshee
Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 19:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Pelusa,
I understand that you are feeling personally attacked right now by members of this site about some of the comments you have made, and especially if it seems to you to be unprovoked or somewhat antagonistic….
But I think you need to also try to see why the comments you made and some of your opinions have touched such a sensitive nerve.
For one thing, you probably already know that most of the SGs on this site feel somewhat uncomfortable with FGs right off the bat. You must realize that we fall into two very different categories: those who were born into TF with no choice of their own, and had to grow into adulthood in the cult, and those like you who chose, of their own free adult will, to join TF. Therefore it can sometimes be difficult not to see all FGs as the oppressors that raised us. This can sometimes be why FG postings on this site are not received with open arms.
So with this atmosphere, when you come along and make comments like the ones you have regarding Sara D, babysitting, and caring for your children, it is like adding insult to injury. Your lack of personal outrage at even the thought of placing a child with a known child abuser strikes a familiar note that we have been listening to all our lives, and quite frankly, we are f**king sick of hearing the song!!! We had to grow up with parents and adults who didn’t seem to really care who the hell was taking care of their children—whether a pedophile or a violent abuser, or just dangerously inexperienced—and let me tell you, we have f**king paid for that!
Your attitude just rides too eerily close to those we were surrounded with growing up: FGs who would just look the other way, minimize or trivialize, or walk away with “it’s not my business” on their lips. When you say “…I shouldn't f*****g care, those are my kids and I will have to answer for my decisions, (good and bad ones), not you or anyone else”, this tends to disturb me. The point I think that people are trying to make is that you SHOULD have to answer to someone for your decisions involving bad child rearing, just as Sara D. should have to, and every other FG who had a hand on us or in us. Parents SHOULD have to answer for their bad decisions. That’s what the Child Protection Agency is for.
Of course, I am only speaking for myself, but because your comments made me react the way they did, and from reading some of the responses to your posts, I think that there are others who feel the same as I do.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Pelusa
Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 22:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's true, I've touched a very sensitive nerve and for that I truly apologized. I didn't mean to purposely provoke you all to anger. I just posted a different point of view, that's all! But I know you're all right about being careful whom we leave our children with. I totally agree with that. I won't argue that! I guess I don't know SD as well as you all do! I'll leave it to that!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Joe H
Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 18:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
You asked what we'd do if we were in Nick's or your place. Well, personally, I wouldn't BE in your place to begin with. I DON'T BREED, and if I did, I'd have enough financial security to hire a professional baby-sitter with references. It would never OCCURR to me to let my dumb blonde ex wife (like I'd marry a blonde!) expose my children to ANYONE afiliated with a cult, much less someone who has admitted to sexually abusing toddlers. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Albatross
Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 18:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Look Peludo,
I'm not in the child rearing business, but if I was,I'd use you as a negative example (based only on your postings and comments) of someone who throws his children's welfare around in hypothetical scenarios just to make a point.
Let me see if I get this right: You are upset because people have a problem with you suggesting that you might aloow your children to be cared for by a know and admited pedophile?
I'm not making a claim to being a parenting expert. Does one have to be, to point out that that is a very bad idea? Walk into a crowded room. Pick someone out at random. Ask them what they would advise. I think you'll find that 99,9 % would agree with my point of view.
You come on this site, tell us that you'd allow your children to be cared for by SD, and then tell us to mind our own business?
I have some more advise for you: get your head checked out.
Way out of bounds? What's with you and setting rules for others? You freely do it. Add that to the list of why I'd hate to be your child.
You have yet to answer my question: Are you an FGA or an SGA?
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Moving towards moving on...
Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 13:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Great point, Albatross, about "moving on." It seems that no matter how many times we cover the subject from every angle, there is somebody else coming around to arrogantly declare their own "moved on" state, and trying to preach to us all how we should follow their most excellent example. They ramble on about how we should just forget the past, stop talking about it, blah, blah, blah.... Just as you mentioned, they all seem to think that they have some sort of personal standard by which they can judge another's "moved on-ness." (Like my new word? :D)
It has occurred to me that really these people are judging us by the cult's standard of "moving on." In the cult, we were taught that to be "moved on" means to "wrap something up in a bundle of faith and put it on the shelf" whether you understand it or not or whether the situation is resolved or not. Basically, just forget about and stop talking about it and never let it bother you again and you've moved on.
People (yes, I’m talking to you, O “great moved-on ones”), you need to realize the very simple concept that one can have “moved on” from a traumatic experience, yet still seek justice or retribution for the crimes against them. One can also be “moved on” from a traumatic experience, yet still have times of anger, rage, or even depression relating to that experience. Just like one can forgive but not necessarily forget.
I have suffered severe abuse at the hands of the cult. Yes, I do still get angry; yes, I still have rage; yes, I still do have to vent sometimes and talk about what happened to me, and yes, if I ever met one of my abusers today, I would like to kick the f**king daylights out of them—but that doesn’t mean I haven’t moved on. I am living my life in peace and in freedom from cult thinking, and in freedom from thinking about the cult. And I’m having a blast! I mean, we LEFT the f**king cult! That is about the biggest “moving on” we can do!!
Just as Albatross, and many before him, have said over and over: moving on is a process. Just because you talk about the shit-for-a-life you had before doesn’t mean you aren’t moved/moving on. It’s a PROCESS. (Hint: that means there is time involved.) My significant other cheated on me a while back with someone who for the entire time pretended to be my friend. When it all came out, my significant other begged my forgiveness with much “atonement”. (The “friend” did not.) I forgave my S.O., decided to stay with him, and in that decision, I “moved on.” Does that mean I didn’t give my S.O. some serious s**t over it? Hell, no! Does that mean the “friend” is not in danger of violence should I ever meet them again? Hell, no! Does that mean that I don’t sometimes still feel the pain of the betrayal, or have it sometimes affect me, or need to talk about it? Hell, no!
Well, I’m sure you see the point I’m making.
Perhaps it’s not just the cult’s influence that makes these people think that only total, oblivious forgetfulness can be considered “moved on.” I think it also must have some roots in Christianity, where somewhere someone got forgiveness confused with lack of memory.
And besides all that, who the hell says we have to forgive? Who the hell says we even have to move on? :D
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Benz
Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 19:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
typically dense – desperate quasi cuteness.
….want everyone to continue discussing you, don't you??
if you're not an FGA, you're infected with their same self obsessive, yet self-destructive, pathetic & stupid mentality.
We should treat people like you, who blatantly back people like Sara D, the same way TF treats us......ignoring your carrying’s on just long enough to figure out how to put the proverbial knife in you, yet unlike you TFer's, inserting face to face, instead of merely resorting to backstabbing, demoralising and betraying like the cowards, perverts and paedophiles you are.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from Nick
Monday, February 23, 2004 - 11:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
Lets look at things from a slightly different perspective here. I guess what you guys are saying is that once a pedophile always a pedophile. My point is that I don’t believe she ever was and this is why.
I think we can all agree on one thing and that is that family did use a lot of brain washing. We all lived in the family and could see first hand the control that Berg had over us and our parents and he could make them do just about anything he wanted.
Now lets just say for a min that Sara did do some of those things. I do not believe she did it for her own sexual desire and that she has pedophile tendencies. I believe she did it because of the great control that berg had over her. Just like all our parents, she was under his control and would do just about anything that he asked. Take FFing. I mean this guy somehow was able to convince hundreds of men to let their wives go off and sleep with really rich men and be OK with that. If that’s not control then I don’t know what is.
I am not excusing anything that was done. I am trying to make you understand why I feel it's safe to have my kid there.
On a side note for all you guys out there that are so full of hot air. You all say, “well I am getting a case prepared and when I have the funding I will then go and prosecute all these people that harmed us”. Well if any of you had ½ a brain you would know that if doesn’t cost you any money to press charges against someone that abused you. Do you think that all those little catholic boys had a huge legal fund? No. All they did is go to the authorities and say that so and so abused me.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Hanna_Black
Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 08:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Of course Berg had control over her!!! But IMO, saying that it's not her nature to be a pedophile cuz she was under the influence of Berg, would be the same as saying that Hitler's generals should get off scot-free since they were "under influence".
As far as you feeling safe to have your kid there, that's your beer. Me, I wouldn't do it. I know that about 2 yrs ago I met someone who was, to put it veeery mildly, "weird" to me as a young girl. Do you think I let him touch my kids or even greet them? Hell no! I did not let them go near him and would never have, in my right mind, let him watch them much less babysit them. How much more if it's someone who's actions were actually documented for the whole Family to see? Call me a sexist if you wish, but if Sara D. had been a man with the same reputation, you would surely not have let ur kid stay there.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Mydestinyismine
Monday, February 23, 2004, 20:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
"I guess what you guys are saying is that once a pedophile always a pedophile. My point is that I don’t believe she ever was and this is why. "
Why don't you ask her? Wouldn't a good parent look into the back ground of their babysitter, history of the school and what kind of neighbours. You shouldn't come to conclusions that counter proof unless you have proof. There is proof she's a pedophile and your theories can't prove otherwise.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Albatross
Monday, February 23, 2004, 12:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nick, what I have learned from my contacts with organized victims of Catholic abuse is that it took them a long time to get to the point where the seriousness of their claims were evident to the authorities, to the media, and to those in position to affect change in the Catholic church. I don't know who you are refering to when you speak of those working to get funding for a case against TF. I know I am not waiting for some magical funding before I do anything about this. How do you know what the "little catholic boys" did? Have you noticed that the "boys" who are now getting the justice they have fought so hard for, happen to be grown men very close to our ages (many are even much older)? They suffered their abuse at around the same ages we did. You say that all they did was go to the authorities and that was it, the guilty were punished. That is was not the case at all. The fact of the matter is that it takes time for these things to work through. Justice does not always come in a day, a month, or sometimes even in a decade. The advance of this caused is of course not helped by apologists for child abusers such as yourself. You are right about one thing though: "The Family did use a lot of brainwashing." I hope for your son's sake that you soon shake its influence.(reply to this comment) |
| | from seeker
Monday, February 23, 2004 - 11:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
People are guilty of crimes whether they are caught and convicted or not.
A person who murders someone is a murderer, even if they are never caught. If they are caught and convicted, then they are a convicted murderer.
There are many criminals walking around who simply never got caught. But they are just as guilty as the ones who were caught and are in prison. They just didn't get caught.
Even if Sarah never did anything but write the Davidito series, she is guilty of a crime in many countries. Why does no one post the Davidito book on a web site? Because it is child pornography.
But Sarah did a lot more than just write the book. Much much more. She has an incredible amount of blood on her hands. Berg originally introduced the idea of child-adult sex, but Sarah was his most ardent disciple in these matters. She evangelised aggressively, far and wide.
An idea that came to me concerns those who use her as a babysitter. Why not ask her about these things? Ask her to explain her version of events. Seems only fair. Ask her what she thinks of the Davidito series -- the original version. Ask her if she ever had sexual contact with a minor, or if she ever promoted it. Ask her what she thinks about Ricky's article on this site. After all, she looked after him for the first 12 years of his life -- there must be some interest in what he says. Ask her if she has read any of the allegations on this site. Ask her what she is doing to redress any wrongs she has been part of.
It would seem to me that if I had a normal babysitter, and I heard all this kind of stuff, I would probably raise a few of these concerns with her. Why would a reasonable person not ask a few questions? Why sweep it under the carpet by remaining silent?
(reply to this comment)
| from cassy
Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
You've touched on something here. However, it's not whether she's guilty or not. There's no debate about that! whether anyone has the guts to speak out and make her pay for her crimes is what this is all about. It's a rosy idea to think that just because "a court of law" finds or doesn't find someone guilty of an offense then that is so. There are so many guilty people that go free and innocents that are wrongly imprisioned by the law. If I watch a child being molested by an adult, I don't care if he never gets put in jail for it or not. If he did it he is a child molester and I will never put my daughter near a ten mile radius of him.
I may even tend to agree with you that she might not do that sort of thing now. So what? The very fact that you chum with her speaks out for your character. If she had actually done something actively to seek out ALL those whose lives she had damaged then I would have a different opinion, but because she chooses to go on merrily as if it was all okay, this is what is wrong. I had someone recently who is not in the Family call me long distance and beg for forgiveness for what he did to me as a child. He was honest and sincere and admitted his own guilt in the matter, not trying to pawn it off on the "Family". I forgave him! But there are still men in the Family who to this day never addressed it to me, never saw the error of their ways, and go on living in denial. This is the problem! Family leadership has given members a way of escape, they don't have to take personal responsibility because they "officially" said sorry.
It's a matter of principal and I hope that you decide to stand with those who deserve it and not those who continue to choose to be blinded to their past.
You ask why no one has shut her up yet? Don't you know anything about the Family's tactics of indimidation? Believe you me, it's not easy for victims to speak up. Just because boys who were molested by priests didn't seek for justice until 20 or 25 years after the fact doesn't mean it didn't happen or that those priests were any less guilty. We as victims are only just beginning to find our voice.
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]