|
|
 |
|
Getting Out : Media Reports
A Current Affair--Monday, May 9 | from KateCoe - Sunday, May 08, 2005
accessed 2889 times A Current Affair will air a piece on Ricky and TF on Monday. But as an update, as of 1:30 PDT, the piece has been cut even shorter, and I'm so sorry. Please don't think that I felt that Ricky or any of you don't deserve a long, detailed account of your lives. It's pretty dramatic, and emotional, but I can't pretend that I'm thrilled over the re-edit and the re-write, done after I signed off on it. On the other hand, the entire show is pretty much devoted to this story, and that's what I was promised when I was hired.
Thank you for telling me your stories, letting me attend Ricky's service, and for generally being so welcoming and generous. And for those in TF who monitor this site--please, examine yourselves with as much scrutiny as you do the postings and photos here.
Best,
Kate Coe |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from alert:
Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 13:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
when you get to an article from New Content you have to 'refresh' to get the new comments. It wasn't always like that but it is today.
(reply to this comment)
| from neez
Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 18:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have to say, it felt like I was watching an episode of Entertainment Tonight.
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 07:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
I do not know how that happened. My computer was really slow that day, and I've had problems with pop-up's etc... I only posted my comment once, that I'm sure of.
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Current Affair is no 60 Minutes. Actually, I remember in like '93 Current Affair did a story on TF, right around the time that we were "suffering persecution" in Argentina. I was a Jett at the time, and they didn't want us seeing the show, just in case it was unfavorable, which of course it was. Does anyone remember it? I wonder if some one has a copy of it still. It would be interesting to see.
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From sarafina
Friday, May 13, 2005, 23:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
In dogs1a’ s defense, this happens quite a bit. It is a total accident. I’m not sure what causes it but it has happened to others including me many a time.
Jules usually catches it right away and deletes the extra copies however she is not available at this time and is away which is why so many are seeing the error.
From what I’ve experienced it happens when you take to long at the post and are writing it directly in the movingon forum, which is why I have learned to first write my post in “Windows word” before coping it to the forum. I think it is an error in the systems programming it’s self, as I have before been writing stuff in it and it seemed to be posting it as I was writing. I don’t know much about computers to explain it. but I have seen it happen many times.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From roughneck
Friday, May 13, 2005, 15:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm guessing this one probably is a computer-generated fuckup. To err is human, but to really fuck things up requires a computer... or something. :)
That being said, there is a slight user interface issue with the comments form on movingon as well. How? The "Submit" button is only a tab-enter or tab-space away when you're typing. This means that it's real easy to accidentally post your comment before it's finished.
Jules, perhaps swapping the "Spell Check" and "Submit" buttons around would be the solution to this one? :) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on TF. Does anyone remember it? I wonder if some one has it
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on TF. Does anyone remember it? I wonder if some one has it in
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on TF. Does anyone remember it? I wonder if some one has it
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on TF. Does anyone remember it? I wonder if some one has
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on TF. Does anyone remember it? I wonder if some one
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on TF. Does anyone remember it? I wonder if some
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on TF. Does anyone remember it? I wonder if
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on TF. Does anyone remember it? I wonder
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on TF. Does anyone remember it? I
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on TF. Does anyone remember it?
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on TF. Does anyone remember
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on TF. Does anyone remembrt
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on TF. Does anyone
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on TF. Does
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on TF.
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story on
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a story
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did a
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair did
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
60 Minutes it is not. Actually, I remember in like '93 A current Affair
(reply to this comment)
| from tuneman7
Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 12:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
The file is available in Windows Media Format format at the following location:
http://www.stoplyingpeter.com/CurrentAffair_Show.html
I personally had some problems with the MPEG format, but there's an AVI on xfamily.org, which seems to work pretty well too.
Take it easy,
(reply to this comment)
| from Regi
Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 19:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think the show sensationalized our childhood trauma by focusing on the sexual abuse which was not (I think) as frequent or pervasive as the emotional, psychological and physical abuse most of us suffered--even those of us who did not attend the victor camps.
I had never watched a “Current Affair” before and it seems to be a rather sensationalized program, but I do hope that future news and documentary shows will tell the whole story of the abuse perpetrated by that destructive cult.
Don’t get me wrong though, I know Kate did not have full editorial control and I am grateful that she helped tell our story (though it was just a part of it).
(reply to this comment)
| From Regi
Tuesday, May 10, 2005, 19:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
I scrolled down and read the other comments (which I really should have done before posting my opinion). It seems that some others felt the same way I did about the show.
Sara, thanks so much for speaking out publicly. I actually laughed at the “boobs, boobs” remark. It brought back memories of those hideous sarongs.(reply to this comment) |
| | from KateCoe
Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 17:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, I think you guys are being pretty kind. I was distressed and nervous about your various reactions. I had put in more stuff about the Victor programs, and had looked for picutures to illustrate that part, to no avail.
But, one thing about the "boobs, boobs, boobs" comment--yes, I't kind of sensationalized and even silly, but I had actually picked it for two reasons--
(1) Sara's not so mesed up that she can't crack a joke about how strange this all was, and
(2) it lightens an otherwise really emotionally wrenching subject. Same with Don Irwin's comment about not wanting to have sex with older women, but instead play with Legos--that was originally in my piece and got cut for time. These remarks show the reactions any kid would have when confronted with wacked out happenings.
(reply to this comment)
| From roughneck
Sunday, May 15, 2005, 11:33
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Hi Kate,
I watched the Current Affair program, and thought it was quite well done. Thanks for all the hard work you put into it.
I did want to comment on the way that Family young people perceived what was and what was not "strange". For example, in the 80's, seeing "boobs, boobs, boobs, boobs" at the dinnertime serving table was normal, absolutely normal. Not strange at all, but a veritable fact of life. Ditto with seeing your parents indiscriminately copulating with other random home members in public areas of the house, public corporal punishment of your siblings & peers, et cetera, et cetera. Perhaps to children raised a little more conventionally these things would have been a lot more shocking, but to us these were just the daily routine of things.
What I'm saying is, these things definitely did not show up on the radar as strange to kids who'd had The Family's raunchy teachings literally with their mother's milk. Yes, they sure look bizarre now that most of us on this site have a little bit of real-world experience in the way things are supposed to be, but we didn't have a sane frame of reference for what constituted "normal" back then.
I should also note that (sorry Don/tuneman7, I'm not trying to call BS on you or anything :) that if and when someone in authority wanted you to do something (didn't matter what really), and you elected to go play with Legos instead, you certainly would NOT have been left to go on your merry way. A more accurate scenario would typically result in the subject being anointed with oil, (-or some other greasy substance- to repel those demons of pride and stubbornness, natch!) exorcised repeatedly by having a bunch of sweaty-palmed cult members "lay hands" on you in "desperate prayer", followed by at least a few weeks' worth of "Mo Letter" reading assignments (with de rigueur written "reactions" required, of course). If your attitude was found to be particularly execrable, for example, if like me you happened to be a bit of a smart-mouth, you might have been restricted from speaking (duct tape anyone?) for an indeterminate length of time (this was called "silence restriction"), beaten with a paddle, belt, ruler, flyswatter-handle or 1x4 board in front of the home &/or your peer group (sometimes this was filmed for further edification of the masses) &/or be sentenced to months of (unpaid, of course) hard labour.
Sometimes the "shepherd" would be creative and use other punitary methods for the slightly more venial offenses such as "foolishness" (ie, just being a kid and doing normal goof-off kid stuff) or biting one's fingernails, dropping one's pencil in class, et c. A favourite of my "shepherd" was to make us 12 & 13 year olds do the "duck-walk" up and down the 300 metre long driveway, or if he was feeling especially lenient that day, he'd just have you do squat-thrusts or jumping-jacks. (My personal "record" was over 5000 jumping-jacks at a session.) Another favourite of his was to make us stand motionless with our arms outstretched in a crucifix position, with a stroke of the 16" metal ruler applied across the buttocks for every time you lowered your arms. Sometimes it would be "worth it" to take a few whacks across the butt for a couple seconds of rest. This pain of this punishment was frequently exacerbated by the making the victim hold a large book in each hand. (If you think this is a light punishment, I invite you to try it sometime. Let's say I have a love/hate relationship with the World Book Dictionary volumes One and bloody Two. It's delightfully comprehensive and unabridged, which likely accounts for the fact that after 3 minutes at the end of an outstretched arm each volume weighs approximately a metric ton... :)
You may or may not have already been told this, but not only were Family kids of this era massively undereducated academically, (heck, even by third world standards!) we were taught to actively fear the outside world and everyone in it (the "System") by Family publications called "Traumatic Testimonies". These were bald-faced horror stories about What Will Happen To You If You Rebel And Leave The Family. One of the more notable ones featured at least one gang-bang, numerous acts of prostitution, graphic descriptions of domestic violence, et cetera. Another was about Grant Montgomery's (of World Services and Family Care Foundation fame) experience in Reform School. Yet another was about the "dark side" of the Music Industry (Which was basically: David Geffen likes men..whooooah, what a sodomite!!! That particular nugget of a "testimony" was written by Jeremy Spencer as I recall.) & another was about the "brutality" of Ice Hockey. Basically the plot was thus: Subject has some horrible experience in "The System", followed by an "...and I met The Family and lived happily ever after!" type ending. I should add these "testimonies" were required reading for 12 year olds and up at the time they were published. The net effect of these "testimonies" was, of course, to instill a deep-rooted fear of "The System" in us so that we would not imagine that leaving The Family was in fact a step up in the world. It also served as a recurring part of many hot-seat discussions in this vein: "If you don't stop (objectionable behaviour), you're going to backslide and end up just like (traumatic testimony victim) and have (gruesome traumatic testimony event) happen to you! You don't want that, do you??". Psychological warfare, chapter one, subheading "propaganda". :)
Anyway, my point? The way the show was cut seemed to give the impression that it was somehow acceptable for Family kids to Just Say No when confronted with a "choice". You said what you knew they wanted to hear, and did accordingly. If not, you could expect to suffer quite a bit for your troubles. A lot of Family young people (yes, including me) went through extremely traumatic experiences for their lack of "yieldedness" (It's exactly as it sounds: You're not "yielded" if you have a will of your own.) and I just wanted to make this very clear: Normally, the only choice any child raised in The Family had was Hobson's. Perhaps in Don's case the person who propositioned him didn't react in the normal manner, but far and away the real-life reaction to a child's declining to do *anything* would be severe, brutal, and relentless punishment for "rebellion", "stubbornness", "pride", and a host of other "sins". The Family International may have "officially" changed most of these repressive tactics by now, but that doesn't negate the fact that their "mistakes" in this regard directly created our collective trauma 15-odd years ago. I know nothing sells like sex, so I can't blame the way the show was cut to focus on that, but it should be told that abuse in The Family went far, far, beyond inappropriate sexual contact with children. And the real tragedy was we didn't even know what the definition of abuse was, even as we were undergoing the worst of what The Family had to offer.
My apologies for the perhaps excessive use of quotation marks and parentheses in the above. :) (reply to this comment) |
| | From tuneman7
Friday, May 20, 2005, 20:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey Roughneck,
Unfortunately, much of what you say is very true. Is is the case that I was questioned as to whether or not I was really "revolutionary", however, I was in a home, in a very remote location with a very small population at the time of the said incidents.
So of course it was damagine and odd. However, thankfully it didn't result in the type of punishments that you mention, which were meted out my friend, I know this, I know they were meted out to persons very close to me, I know they were meted out to my sister. I know they would have been meted out to my friend Richard, I know they were meted out to my friend Davida. It also was not the case that there was a woman or a man of a predatory nature in that location who wished to perpetrate the crimes you mentioned, which were, in many locations, perpetrated on a wide-scale in a systematic way, including some which I witnessed, or have direct knowledge of.
So Roughneck, I hear what you're saying. And I understand the reasons why you're saying it. I will request this, though, in a spirit of academic gentlemanship, do not presume to question the veracity of my statements unless you know my circumstance, which obviously, you don't. Doing so reflects no credit you or the veracity of any of your other statements which may, in themselves, have accurancy. Do not allow those things which you say that have merit be dismissed because you have spoken or written in ignorance, which has no accuracy.
I know all too well about victor camps, corporal punishment, educational privation and like, as well as fundraising, etc., as well as being seperated from one's biological parents for prologned periods of time, being lied to about ones own sister, being told that there was "going to be consequences", if I persisted in my "carnal minded" thinking etc. ... Do not presume, Roughneck, to use any pejorative in reference to my spoken or written statement, unless you know the circumstance, and doing so on your part is a statement of truth. Which it was not in this case.
Roughneck, I left the cult as a young man with absolutely nothing in a vulnerable state, because I realized the depth of their deciet at the highest levels. Thankfully, I was in a location which was strange, and victor camps where labor and indoctrination were instituted for a short period of time, because outside leadership essentially threatened to send Sara D. if they didn't, which no one wanted at all, even though they're all too cowardly and compromised to say it. Those camps were abusive, I was able to keep myself out of them through sheer conformity and adversion for pain, when I was told "There will be consequences", I understood what they were talking about. I understood what happened to my sister.
Being that I left to escape deciept, you insult me through your ignorance by having the arrogance to address my comments with a pejorative, and to suggest that I am engaging in the one type of behavior that I so utterly abhor, -- dishonesty. I have not done so to you. Why do you do so to me?
I view ignorance as shameful. I view willingness to act, speak, or write on the basis of ignorance, as a halmark of intellectual bankruptcy.
The issue above aside, you had some good points. It's a shame that they didn't use more of what Daniel, Sara and I said, there was a LOT, that Sara, Daniel, and myself shone light on in that interview which was not used, which I believe is the disappointment Kate was refering to above in regards to their final cut.
It's also kind of bogus that they're quoting them in the media as having had issued an apology of any meaning, I've never once seen the media seriously address this bogus nonsense of an apology foolishness they keep talking about.
Take it easy,
Don(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From roughneck
Saturday, May 21, 2005, 20:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Academic gentlemanship my ass, buuuuuuddy! In one big academic, gentlemanly barf you angrily accuse me of deceit, insult, ignorance and apparently endless "pejorative" remarks. You say "I view willingness to act, speak, or write on the basis of ignorance, as a halmark(sic) of intellectual bankruptcy." Shame that doesn't seem to extend to your apparent ignorance of how English is supposed to be written. (If I sound a little pissed off, I am, goddamnit, but that doesn't mean I'm not smiling anyway. OK so I'm not *that* P.O.'d :)
Now normally I consider reading comprehension recommendations to be the lowest form of online critique, (below sarcasm even!) but in your case, I have no choice but to make an exception and indulge. Seriously, dude, put down the bong (or pick it up, if that's what it takes) and pay attention in those Remedial English classes. In due time the acquisition of a large(r) vocabulary and other sundry grammatical skills shall obviate the need for a 9 paragraph online froth-at-the-mouth whenever you don't understand what the nasty man is saying. In the meantime, you've got something on your chin. (And... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it! :)
Now, stating the obvious is usually only necessary for the stupid*, but as you apparently haven't been able to suss this out over the time it takes to bash out 9-odd paragraphs, I'll lay it out for you anyway, nice and simple. Do feel free to avail yourself of a dictionary if my explanation goes over your head, mmkay? (*Not that I'm saying or even implying that you are stupid, but if the shoe fits by all means be my guest. Mi zapato is su zapato, or something.)
First: Does [emphasis and {} mine] "(sorry Don/tuneman7, I'm NOT TRYING TO CALL BS on you or anything :) ring a bell? How about: "Perhaps in Don's case THE PERSON WHO PROPOSITIONED HIM DIDN'T REACT IN THE NORMAL MANNER.."? Are you saying that I'm full of shit for continuing on to say ".. FAR AND AWAY THE REAL-LIFE {ie what the "rest of us" got} REACTION TO A CHILD'S DECLINING TO DO *ANYTHING* WOULD BE SEVERE, BRUTAL, AND RELENTLESS PUNISHMENT.."?
Again, I know stating what should be obvious is lame, but seriously, I don't get why you're so incensed. Did you maybe just skip over the first part of that paragraph? In case you did, this is what I said: "..my point? THE WAY THE SHOW WAS CUT seemed to give the impression that it was somehow acceptable for Family kids to Just Say No when confronted with a "choice".
What part of my critiqing the cut of the show was "pejorative" towards you or your "testimony"? Do tell! I want to know! In so many words I said that the show cutting you as getting off scot-free with lipping an adult off (&/or showing some will of your own) was somewhat less than a completely well-rounded (like a PEA, remember?) picture of what an average family kid could expect for doing the same. You'll note that nowhere in regards to your story did I use any "pejorative" phrasing whatsoever. In fact, you'll note that I specifically said that I *wasn't* calling BS on you. At the very worst I implied that you didn't grow up with quite as many psychos as most everyone else did. Whooptee fucking doo, eh?!?
Are you honestly dense enough to equate "Don's experience as cut by A Current Affair was somewhat less harsh than that of many or most other family kids" with "Don's a lying sack of shit, nyaaaa!!"?? I don't remember you being this splendidly obtuse before. Please tell me that immediately before you posted the above drivel you were just awake too long, or hadn't had your coffee, or had had about half a dozen adult beverages, or failing the above had smoked a joint the width of a city water main. Shit, I'll settle for anything that would tell me you're not normally as addle-brained as the above post makes you sound, fer fucksake.
Another thing, some guys named Bill and Ted showed up in a funky phonebooth this morning. Apparently they want their word back. Yes, I know it's bogus, so do you. Either that or they were looking for Bo & Gus down the hall. I couldn't tell. Yes, I know it's your trademark "pejorative" (a-ha!) word, and you've been saying it since you were yea high, but it isn't very clever at all when you say it as often as you and I both know you do. The eighties, heck, even the nineties are dead, get over it. :)
Anyone want to contribute to the remove-ruff's-tongue-from-his-cheek-before-it-hurts-somebody fund? :D(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From tuneman7
Sunday, May 22, 2005, 10:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Peace Roughneck,
You make some good points. I've never shown an unwillingness to give persons credit for the portions of their statements or observations which are true, even when they reflect poorly on me. No worries there. Inaccuracy or the appearance of it, is problematic to me, uncool man. So some of this is warranted but the rest just the usual pettiness which unfortunately I've succumbed to on this board at this board at this time, as have others.
Okay, I'm off to scour Southern California for the bong you speak of, at the very least an alcoholic beverage dispensary will do just as well. I'm cautiously optimistic about my chances of locating one or both of the above.
Take it easy,
Don
(reply to this comment) |
| | From xolox
Saturday, May 21, 2005, 00:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
"...in a spirit of academic gentlemanship..."- Don, there was nothing academic about your sorry post. Until you've learned to spell, punctuate, and basically compose a coherent thought, I would suggest you refrain from referring to any of your future ramblings as academic. It's just insulting.
"...I view ignorance as shameful. "- Then learn to spell, punctuate and compose sentences.
"Do not allow those things which you say that have merit be dismissed because you have spoken or written in ignorance, which has no accuracy."- Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote this? No? well you should have been.
"I view ignorance as shameful. I view willingness to act, speak, or write on the basis of ignorance, as a halmark of intellectual bankruptcy. "- Then why haven't you learned to spell? We're not talking typos here, or even commonly misspelled words. You have a serious deficiancy here, get it fixed.
Here, I'll give you your first clue: I before E, except after C.(reply to this comment) |
| | From tuneman7
Saturday, May 21, 2005, 08:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sorry about the spelling issues. I type very fast, and seldom re-check a document unless it has a use that is very important to me. I'm known to make all kinds of typos. Thanks for calling them out.
However the spirit and logic of the post are correct and clear.
I'm a little paranoid in using the spelling check on the site given the results that the one fellow got with 20+ posts or so. Perhaps I'll work with the site developers to get that bug ironed out.
Take take it easy,(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From roughneck
Sunday, May 22, 2005, 19:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
"...all the licence necessary..."
Aren't you yanks supposed to (mis)spell it as "license"? I mean, I have no issue whatsoever with you spelling "licence" The Right Way, mind you. (My name is not Joe, but I. am. Canadian..! No freedom of speech up here, though. Sucks to be us. :( )
Think of this comment as more of an introduction than anything else: Stone, meet glass house, glass house, meet stone. (I suspect the breakup will be spec-tac-u-lar!) Just kidding, man. Keep picking this English-butchering community's collective ass. KGFG(rammar)! :D
Confucius say man who live in glass house should change clothes in basement. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From
Sunday, May 22, 2005, 14:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
Usually childhood involves years of education. That's what I was referring to. If we want to do something about our education now, we still have to start wherever we were left off, and where we were left off was not our doing.
LHM for not being clear enough. Will you please pray for this NWO of mine???? ;-P(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vixen
Sunday, May 15, 2005, 16:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Although there is some merit to what you say, I am not in full agreement. I feel that most of the parents in TF were not abusive or neglectful by nature but were following a collective pattern of behaviour, and often particularly concerned about appearing to be 'revolutionary' in the sight of other people they were living with. This meant that even parents who were in actual fact rather more easygoing in their childrearing would often 'tighten up' considerably when living in the Combos. I personally feel strongly that smaller, often single-family homes are a major step in the right direction. I certainly feel that there is less chance of sexual abuse happening to children now that they are in smaller homes, in many cases with just their parents (barring, perhaps, a few isolated cases). Other, more difficult to define abuse, such as emotional/psychological abuse and issues such as lack of a decent education still remain, but no child in the world will have a perfect upbringing and while I am upset that my younger siblings are being raised to believe in comicbook fantasy heroes and villains, I don't at all feel that they are worse off than the original wave of children in TF.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From tuneman7
Wednesday, May 11, 2005, 00:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sorry,
My keyboard messed up. :-(.
Kate, be well. Everyone knows that producers do all the hard work, take all the flights, etc., but don't receive final editorial control.
I thought the piece served to raise awareness in a sense, and I was very happy about the way that Richard was portrayed as the friend he was to us.
Media outlets are known to sensationalize stories. This sells and drives ratings. Hopefully enough awareness is raised and the public interest will drive further and more in-depth, investigative-type reporting.
As far as investigatons by Gonverment agencies are concerned, all I know is that they are actively taking calls from private individuals, most American Citizens, and many victims of childhood abuse, exploitation, privation, and, alledgedly, many crimes of a sexual nature against themsevles as minors.
I am very encouraged that this is the case. The Goverment of the United States has a moral and legal obligation to help its Citizens, especially the most helpless and vulnerable to seek redress for crimes committed against their persons.
I hope the wishes of the Goverment agencies involved will be respected. It is my hope that victims and private individuals coming forward, directly and privately, and not through any intermediary, will act as a catalyst for the execution of Justice. I can only humbly hope that this will be the case. We and our childhood friends, most American Citizens, have waited long enough.
Once again, Kate, thank you for your part in raising awareness, and for your respectful and gracious conduct at my friend's memorial.
Take it easy,
Don(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From KateCoe
Tuesday, May 10, 2005, 19:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
One-- our pieces have to be "evergreen", meaning that they need to be appropriate for re-broadcast at some point in the future and still make sense.
Two--I'd been told by a number of people closely connected to the investigation that now was not the time to go public, despite the local San Diego station's broadcasts.
We have enough information, so that in the future, the show can re-visit the story and give an update on the status of the FBI investigation. (reply to this comment) |
| | from dogs1a
Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 14:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's funny what you're saying about your interview with A Current Affair Sara, because TF really taught us about being media savvy, and understanding how to deal with interviews, and how they really can change a interview completely through editing etc... I'm sure you used that training a little during your interview, subconsciously at least. Ironic, isn't it? You all did great, and came across as honest and sincere, because it came from the heart.
(reply to this comment)
| from dogs1a
Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 07:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Current Affair program was interesting and everything, but all of these news programs about the Family are just regurgitating the same thing over and over again. I know sex abuse was a major problem in TF, but what about all the other problems? I think the Teen training camps, demerit charts, and silence restrictions etc... were far more rampant. The fact is, sex sells, and that's the only reason these news programs even consider doing a show on TF. If there was no sex involved, would the media care? I wonder.
(reply to this comment)
| From
Tuesday, May 10, 2005, 09:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree that it was interesting, I kinda wish it had a "law and order" type ending instead of a "The Family says all abuse stopped in 86" denial. They'll always deny, Zerby will never "apologize" and turn herself over to authorities, that's pie in the sky. Don, whatever happened to Kate announcing the investigation? (reply to this comment) |
| | From sarafina
Tuesday, May 10, 2005, 12:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don’t think we wanted the investigation announced any more then it was. I spoke to Kris from the FBI and she had said in her professional opinion she had advised against making it public in the first place saying that it’s not their policy to do so, so early in and that it can often do more damage then help by making it so public. She said there is NO benefit gained from putting the investigation in the media it only makes their job more difficult.(reply to this comment) |
| | From
Tuesday, May 10, 2005, 14:24
 (Agree/Disagree?)
That's interesting... why would it make their job more difficult? What if someone was watching the show that has info the feds need but has no clue that there is an investigation? I would think a little validation and exposure from the media would help. Nixon would've served full term if the press didn't do a little investigative journalism. I just don't see how keeping it quiet would help an investigation, did the agent really say that? And who is "we"?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From neez
Monday, May 23, 2005, 21:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good stuff, although that site fails to mention "brightest bulb in the store".
It does mention "on the tree"(you win), "in the box", and "on the chandelier. Wtf? I've yet to open a box of lights that are somehow already illuminated. A total fire hazard.
And real chandeliers usually have only one light which is completely hidden by crystals that spread the light around.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From roughneck
Monday, May 23, 2005, 09:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ah yes, quite good. -Though it would be much more effective an insult if one used the correct contraction of "you are", (viz. "you're"), rather than the possessive "your". If this convention is not followed, one risks the appearance of being an apple and sandwich short of a picnic oneself, you see. :)
This word-usage related comment brought to you by The Devil's Workshop. :)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From sarafina
Tuesday, May 10, 2005, 09:36
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I know! it’s all very frustrating. It’s not like we didn’t talk about the other abuse. For example in my interview with them I mostly talked about the Victor programs I was in and the everyday life of posturing and begging as a child and then about the lack of education and how difficult it was to start all over after you leave. Most of what I went through in the family wasn't sexual. They don’t seem to care, or at least they must think the public won’t. It’s very upsetting when you put yourself out there and all your friends and co workers are going to be seeing you, you are at least hoping that the general message gets out and that your statements are represented properly. Now who knows what they are thinking. It didn’t even explain the history very well.
Out of a two hr interview of talking about the physical & mental abuse I suffered and saw others suffer in the VP’s the only part they used was that sentence about looking around and seeing boobs. They had asked me if I recalled any sexual part of the family and I said that other then FFing I recalled “once living in a home as a child in the PI and we all had to be topless and wear our sarongs on our hips and as I child it was odd cause you come to the table to eat and all you could see was boobs boobs, but thankfully we were only there for a few months” I was very disappointed that was the only part they used and they cut out the rest. I was warned though that it got turned into a sensational, hyped show. I know KateCoe did try to keep it in context but like she said it got severely cut up after she signed off on it. Thanks for trying Kate.(reply to this comment) |
| | from tuneman7
Monday, May 09, 2005 - 13:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for the info Kate.
I myself have been pretty apalled by the group's spokespersons' response to this whole situation so far.
It seems to me that an appropriate response would be for Richard's mother to come forward and issue a public apology for making her son the object of all of Berg's, and her own perversions. And I'm not talking about the idiotic general nonsense that she seems to think constitutes an apology, something to the effect of, "Sorry bad things happened, it breaks our heart." What utter tripe!! A statement such as, "I'm sorry that I molested the s__t, out of my own son, and encouraged his nannies to go along with that same criminal perverted behavior. I'm also sorry that I oversaw the picture taking, writing, printing and distribution of a book, chronicling and glorifying my son's abuse, and encouraging others in the same perverted criminal, grossly emotionally damaging treatment of very young children. I'm also personally sorry to all the victims of child rapes, beatings, false imprisonments, molestations, education privation, forced labor etc., which I institutionalized, received reports about daily, and put my stamp of approval on. Now that I've done the sould searching, I'm turning myself over to the authorities for the execution of justice," -- Thats what any true human being and mother would do.
I can't imagine a worse mother or parenting situation that institionalizing the molestation of your own son, and then allowing a book to be published to your cult membership, resulting in the exploitation and suffering of countless other children. It blows my mind that these cult followers look to this child molesting, sexually exploitive, criminally minded, and brain dead woman, for any sort of parenting advice. Well, I suppose if parents are interested in having their children grow up to hate them and wish them serious physical harm, she's the person to follow. What a joke.
That woman should wake up and decide to be a mother, turn herself over to authorities, or at the very least, issue an detailed apology, and thank all of her son's friends who took care of her daughter in law and buried her son with dignity, love and respect. So far she has shown no dignitiy, no love, and no respect to my way of thinking.
And this b_____s___t of her idiotic spokespersons postuuring against victims and attempting to intimidate members of the media.
Kate's right. Instead of scanning pictures, video clips, and harassing honest, loving, and decent people who are the freinds of her son, (most victims of serious child abuse, I might add), they should be thinking of ways to make ammends to these children they have so criminally wronged. A deep shame on these people who claim to be parents and yet caused their children to go through the fire.
This idiotic notion that any persons who are speaking up, (telling the truth, not lying or deliberately mis-leading as Zerby's spokespersons do), having as their goal the "persecution", or disbandment of a missionary group, is so completely out of touch with the truth of the situation. -- It's ludicrous.
I personally don't care if TFI goes on for 100 years and is very successful and grows into a decent religious movement. If people want to engage in religous activism, more power to them. If people want to (or did in the past) molest, committ crimes against children, and lie about my friends, my sister, and myself, they should be held accountable, pay the price of their crimes, and live their life to make ammends to those they so horribly wronged in childhood, of whom Richard was chief, but not the only one by any means.
On a practical note. I will be recording and digitizing this broadcast, and will make it available via the web.
(reply to this comment)
| from Eric Cartman
Monday, May 09, 2005 - 05:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Is there anyway one could view this outside of the states?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]