|
|
 |
|
Getting Out : Inside Out
Setting the Record Straight – The Lack of “Professionalism” in Daniel’s Post | from Claire - Friday, July 12, 2002
accessed 5077 times In regards to the recent posting of the Fam's pub -reply to "Daniel's" letter Dear Julia,
I recently read something a bit disturbing on your web site. As you’re very aware from our former correspondence, we respect the right of former members to express their feelings and opinions and debate and discuss issues on forums such as your web site. Our sincere wish for those who were once part of the Family is that they can lead constructive, fulfilling lives and “move on” to whatever new goals they set for themselves once they decide they no longer wish to make serving the Lord with the Family their lifetime career. Of course, I think I can speak for the majority of current members in saying that it can be disheartening to encounter a few former members engaging in hate campaigns and unable to reciprocate this respect for the rights of Family members. However, we continue to pray for reconciliation and mutual respect in the path that each one has chosen of their own free will.
I believe you have made an admirable effort through your site to assist former members in the process of “moving on” to more constructive models for their lives. There has been a real endeavor to bring about a balanced approach, and I believe, a sincere desire to represent the truth, eschewing the distortions, embellishments and falsehoods that some have regrettably resorted to. Sad to say, however, I recently read through a thread of recriminations on the site, most of which are based on several paragraphs attributed to Ashley, Maria’s secretary, which were not in the original letter sent to Daniel (from “The Professionals”), rendering this letter a “forgery”. Of course, it is not possible for us to know who felt they had to “spice up” the letter in such a way as to incite bitter and angry responses from former members. Perhaps it would rest in your court to investigate how and why these counterfeit paragraphs were added to the original letter. In future, you may want to take a more critical approach regarding writings or postings you receive, especially when these are being attributed to Family members. My personal experience has been that people have posted inflammatory comments in my name on a former member web site, which didn’t reflect my personal beliefs in any shape or fashion. (By the way, I didn’t have the time to review the version of the “Professionals” GN posted on this site, which may have suffered the same fate.)
The question this raises is why the distortion and falsehood? If Daniel had indeed been nefariously mistreated and misunderstood, why would it be necessary to fabricate paragraphs that reflect the opposite of Family policy? If the truth is truth, shouldn’t it stand all by itself without any “help”? Interestingly enough, the majority of angry comments that follow are based on the spurious paragraphs. I found that quite interesting, and in fact, fully in line with sociological research on apostasy, as to the perceived need to embellish, distort and exaggerate accounts in order to reinforce one’s position and agenda. As you know, in court testimony, if a witness is untruthful in one point, the entire testimony is thrown out of court and the person stands being accused of perjury. Unfortunately, the case in point speaks volumes on the questionable credibility of such stories and renders it suspect as to who is telling the truth and who is reinterpreting or recasting the truth. The anonymity factor is another weighty issue, as people cannot be held accountable for their words.
Following are the bogus paragraphs in Ashley’s letter to Daniel:
“I don’t know about your personal respect for prophecy, but as the Lord`s chosen winetaster I pray that you listen to what this prophecy received by mama has to say.
Remember if your not for us, your against us! Do you want to kick against the pricks and against the Lord`s anointed by your strife and division? The Family is led by the Lord and his chosen endtime prophets.
Theres not a whole lot in the form of "useful criticism" that can be offered by kids like you. Perhaps you could have done so prayerfully and through your TW on the TRF. But to send your doubts around through any communications device, in such an uncaring or spiteful manner is harmful to say the least.
Beware Daniel! Beware!”
For the record:
g) Maria’s secretary is not the “Lord’s chosen winetaster”
h) We do not believe that if you are not “for” us you are “against” us. There are millions in the world who are not “for” us, nor do we consider them “against” us. That would be a highly self-centered worldview, don’t you agree? The vast majority of the 30,000 some people who have left the Family are not “against” the Family. Family members maintain close ties with a large number of former members, many of whom are members of their personal families.
i) We do believe the Lord is leading the Family, along with His prophets, which is a right guaranteed to us by law. We equally respect the right of individuals to choose not to so believe and “move on” to what they do believe and wish to pursue.
j) Actually, Family leadership has shown itself very open to listen to the criticism of second-generation members and a multitude of changes have been implemented over the years, thanks to such input. So a young person writing Maria or Peter would not receive such a response as: “There’s not a whole lot in the form of useful criticism that can be offered by kids like you.” All Family members, young and old have the Charter right and mechanism via e-mail to write Maria and Peter directly--they are not instructed to do so via their Home TW or TRF, which would preclude privacy.
k) “Beware Daniel beware!” again is a fabrication, an attempt to present Family leadership in a sinister, threatening light. If Daniel doesn’t feel led to abide by Family policy, which Family members have agreed to adhere to, he is an individual with freedom of choice and should find his own place in this world. We wish him well. If he is the one who created these falsehoods, he has his own conscience to answer to.
l) As was mentioned in Daniel’s reply (not published here) and Ashley’s letter to Daniel, a large number of Family young people were bothered and upset by Daniel’s letter, which is why it was addressed publicly. Daniel’s letter was offensive to Family member second-generation folks who have independently chosen to be “professional” Family members. Scores of them wrote in asking that their “open letters” be published, which they were.
Julia, I value the constructive interaction and communication we have held over the past couple of years. I hope that your site can generate more of the constructive perspectives it has in the past, of helping people to make what can be the difficult transition from one lifestyle to another, assisting people to cull the positive, deal with issues and find new meaningful pursuits for their lives.
Very sincerely,
Claire
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Someome who's met your victims
Sunday, August 18, 2002 - 19:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Claire, your husband is a known pedophile, and you are his accomplice, not to mention many other civil torts you’ve committed in your own right. I would caution you from posting further here, where you and your husband’s crimes are well known.
The defamation for which you were not held liable ten years ago, will not go unnoticed today. The children of whom you took advantage are now professional adults with the resources and ability to expose your crimes and hold you civilly liable for your attempts to defame your victims. In the U.S., there are laws against the actions you performed in South American countries. Again, I caution you from posting on this site. Those with much to hide should not point fingers at others. And just because you've not been held liable for your actions in the past, does not mean that will not happen today.
(reply to this comment)
| from cm
Saturday, July 20, 2002 - 13:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
******************************************************************************, Ahhhh, another day and still no response to my "veritable proof" a few posts down.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from *******
Friday, July 19, 2002 - 10:49
| from Trent
Friday, July 19, 2002 - 06:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Claire you ask why the need for all this distortion and falsehood "if" Daniel has been mistreated and misunderstood. The "if" gives you and the cult leadership away--you will never understand. You answered your own question. When one has suffered such abuse it is only natural to, as you say:
"..embellish, distort and exagerate accounts in order to reinforce one's position and agenda...."
That quote of your favorite sociologist could just as well be used for Berg, Kelly and Zerby about their and all cultic methods of manipulation. Have you read any Mo letters lately for examples of embellishment, distortion and exagerations of Christian doctrine(for example the glittering list of spirit helpers/goddesses that supposedly help the Family. Big historical names for sure)
What you found "distorted and falsehood" is what every "apostate" or ex member/cult leaver knows is the unwritten subtext to all that is written in cultic literature. The revaluation of values that every charismatic cult leader sets in motion as he creates a whole slew of unwritten rules, norms, moral attitudes different than society but just as binding to cult members.
Daniel just wrote what many would recognize as the unspoken condemning subtext of the message: depicting our mental, moral subjection to the cult's unwritten dictates.
If it was embellished well, we are not in court yet--that is the time to polish up one's statements and batton down the hatches as the cult well knows.
(reply to this comment)
| from Alf
Thursday, July 18, 2002 - 05:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
7* I for one think you're really great. You can join Alf's endtime army anytime, afterlife bonuses include a special mansion in 'Alf's corner' (opposite david's one except its got a better fair)and alot of 3-D television sets and the golden gondolas are especially tub-like and well, golden. I'll appoint you as my media spokesperson too if you like, you can defend me against the darts of the enemy. Alf loves you. GBY, TYA, TTA!.
(reply to this comment)
|  From ruffneck
Friday, July 19, 2002, 10:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
funny stuff, Alf. Though I think you are wasting your time trying to "witness" to 7*. You forget, Berg encourages sex with relatives in heaven! Big draw items like that must be hard to compete with, so may I suggest instituting the "Law of Alf" granting (guilt free) unlimited sexual licence to whoever remains on your mailing (tithe) list for 6 months? I think it might boost revenues for the GAMR pubs unit too :-D (Heck it worked great for the F.!) You might even get into telling people to "say the love words to alf", though I'd leave the monkey spanking out of your (printed) doctrine. LOL
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from thepersoniamnow
Monday, July 15, 2002 - 13:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Do I have to open up my personal Email account and let ppl see the orginal Email to me from Mama so that anything can be proved?
And who the hell is this girl?? And why would she have privy to Mama suppossedly private correspondence with members?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From JohnnieWalker
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 07:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's intersting to note that all the spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, etc. are in the alleged forged bits. It seems clear to me that this letter was tampered with. If Daniel claims that what was posted is what he was sent, then the question is: "Who did the tampering?"
Could they be 'last minute thoughts' which someone added to the letter before it got sent and forgot to proof read? Was Ashley over-tired when she typed the letter? Or did Daniel, in fact, add those paragraphs and would now have us believe thy were in the original?
From Daniel's writing style and letter(s) he doesn't sound like he has his act together. Are we to believe such a person? -- Just wondering.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from JohnnieWalker
Monday, July 15, 2002 - 09:56
 (Agree/Disagree?)
It's nice to know we have a few of our "dear folks" from WS visiting this site. I wonder: is it because of their sincere interest in what we "apostates" have to say, or is it their immortal urge to be in control and know what's going on?
Claire, if you're in that close contact with Maria's home members as to be privy to private emails sent to Family members (maybe you even live there???), then you might want to mention to them that many of us would be VERY interested in discussing (not arguing about) certain issues with members of WS or even "the Royals". I know they might not have time for us "black sheep", but it could be a new ministry for someone.
Do we not matter to the Lord anymore just because we 'left His fold'? If Zerby doesn't have time to listen to the Family's former members, then the entire foundation which the Family was built on is called into question.
I know you're reading this, Claire. Please answer.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From afflick
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 21:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
I would really appreciate this comment if I didn't already know that Claire, and all those that claim CM status, are fevently praying for us all to return to our 'true calling' and 'birthright' in the Family. Or at least for the 'Lord' to teach us 'needed lessons'!
We know what goes on in the Homes, we were all there once. Shouldn't they at least try to change their tactics with US! We are not some news reporter, bookwriter or academic coming to them for the first time. To tell us that The Family is only concerned for our wellbeing and rootin' for us to do well is a boldfaced lie. Who does she think she's fooling?
The media team especially hopes to appease exers, hoping we won't reveal the secrets of our past. I don't think a single one of us can read her post and not see the motivation behind it! Tell me, is she fooling anyone?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Jules
Monday, July 15, 2002 - 07:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Claire,
Thanks for your letter. I can appreciate your concern over this issue. The paragraphs in question are certainly inflammatory and for these to have been represented as originating from the current leaders of the Family, if they did not, is certainly valid cause for consternation. I appreciate you taking the time to address something on this web site that you feel is inaccurate. As you know, it’s important to me that the content here is not hype or fiction, but just our own stories in our own words. Although due to the interactive nature of this site, it’s impossible for me to verify everything personally, the integrity of the majority of the participants is apparent, as you noted. It certainly helps to confirm the veracity of the content here when anything that may not be true is rebutted so swiftly. I truly appreciate your support in this and your help “keeping it real”.
It’s true that when a letter is forwarded or published by someone other than the author, it’s difficult for the readers to know for sure who sent it. In the future I think I will request that people post their own content, just to avoid appearing to endorse anything that I haven’t personally verified. If I were to guess at any motive for this alleged embellishment, I might think that perhaps this itself was Daniel’s point though. Unfortunately, prophecy is not something that I currently use to gain answers to questions, or else the real identity of the author and true contents of Ashley’s letter could all be cleared up as simply and definitively as these things were by Maria and Peter about the original “Daniel letter”. In the absence of divine revelation, I do appreciate your detailed explanation so that the readers can decide for themselves what makes the most sense.
Your point about embellishments, distortions and exaggerations is something I absolutely agree with. It seems that in any environment where only one point of view on a given subject is acceptable, whether the group be apostates, a closed religious society, an oppressive regime, or even those fighting oppression, the tendency can be to only publish information that confirms this single perspective. Once a certain paradigm is established, it is all too easy for misrepresentations and alterations to flourish, simply because there is no tolerance for open debate or room for dissension. That is one reason why it is so important to me that all points of view from the second generation have room to be presented here. As you stated: “if the truth is truth, shouldn’t it stand all by itself without any ‘help’?”. I could not agree more.
Jules
(reply to this comment)
| from JohnnieWalker
Monday, July 15, 2002 - 03:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Those things may have been added by Daniel, but they might as well been written by Maria. The tone of voice of the letter minus the offending paragraphs is just as patronizing and condeming as the parts that were added.
The last bit of "prophecy" from Berg, "You can add my name to your birth certificate anytime": It doesn't get anymore patronising than that. -- But somehow I get the feeling Claire will pop up here again and tell us that that last part was made up, too.
(reply to this comment)
| from Craven
Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 16:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Dear Julia,
I recently read something a bit disturbing on your web site."
Disturbing alright! But why did you finish typing it and post it here?
"As you’re very aware from our former correspondence, we respect the right of former members to express their feelings and opinions and debate and discuss issues on forums such as your web site."
LOL No you don't, if you did you wouldn't be here whining.
"Our sincere wish for those who were once part of the Family is that they can lead constructive, fulfilling lives and “move on” to whatever new goals they set for themselves once they decide they no longer wish to make serving the Lord with the Family their lifetime career."
The "lord" is not served in the Family. The whims of power hungry leaders is all that's served. If your wish were sincere you would not contradict it with your every action.
"Of course, I think I can speak for the majority of current members in saying that it can be disheartening to encounter a few former members engaging in hate campaigns and unable to reciprocate this respect for the rights of Family members. However, we continue to pray for reconciliation and mutual respect in the path that each one has chosen of their own free will."
Pray all you want but I have a better idea. How about the cessation of child abuse? How about helping persons abused find their abusers? How about dropping your condescending drivel? You act like it's a "disgruntled few", you could not be more wrong. I'll take my turn to be as haughty as you and say: I think I speak for the overwhelming majority of 2G youth when I say that it is disheartening to see people lie to our faces about truths that are self-evident to any of us who were in the Family's clutches.
"I believe you have made an admirable effort through your site to assist former members in the process of “moving on” to more constructive models for their lives. There has been a real endeavor to bring about a balanced approach, and I believe, a sincere desire to represent the truth, eschewing the distortions, embellishments and falsehoods that some have regrettably resorted to. "
What embellishments? Like that the Family did not foster an environment of sexual, psychological and physical abuse? That is indeed a tragic fact and does not need to be stated with hyperbole.
Sad to say, however, I recently read through a thread of recriminations on the site, most of which are based on several paragraphs attributed to Ashley, Maria’s secretary, which were not in the original letter sent to Daniel (from “The Professionals”), rendering this letter a “forgery”."
A forgery? Is that what you call things you don't like to read? Is my response a forgery just because it doesn't justify the crimes perpetrated by The Family?
"Of course, it is not possible for us to know who felt they had to “spice up” the letter in such a way as to incite bitter and angry responses from former members."
This letter of yours will invoke even greater passion. Your narrow-minded wish to stifle any talk of the unpleasant reality of the abuse The Family continues to perpetrate is a greater insult.
"Perhaps it would rest in your court to investigate how and why these counterfeit paragraphs were added to the original letter. In future, you may want to take a more critical approach regarding writings or postings you receive, especially when these are being attributed to Family members. My personal experience has been that people have posted inflammatory comments in my name on a former member web site, which didn’t reflect my personal beliefs in any shape or fashion. (By the way, I didn’t have the time to review the version of the “Professionals” GN posted on this site, which may have suffered the same fate.)"
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the article posted, mayhap it would rest in your court to learn to understand that not everyone is a doting idiot like yourself.
"The question this raises is why the distortion and falsehood? If Daniel had indeed been nefariously mistreated and misunderstood, why would it be necessary to fabricate paragraphs that reflect the opposite of Family policy? "
Deceivers yet true? You guys are a bunch of liars who publish exhortations toward false statements to cover your own asses. So please shut up with the complaints about falsehood. Nothing is as false as Zerby. Nothing is as false as a theology that denies independent verification through censorship. Nothing is as false as Family members who are in denial of the abusive environment that they help create.
"If the truth is truth, shouldn’t it stand all by itself without any “help”? Interestingly enough, the majority of angry comments that follow are based on the spurious paragraphs. I found that quite interesting, and in fact, fully in line with sociological research on apostasy, as to the perceived need to embellish, distort and exaggerate accounts in order to reinforce one’s position and agenda. As you know, in court testimony, if a witness is untruthful in one point, the entire testimony is thrown out of court and the person stands being accused of perjury. Unfortunately, the case in point speaks volumes on the questionable credibility of such stories and renders it suspect as to who is telling the truth and who is reinterpreting or recasting the truth. The anonymity factor is another weighty issue, as people cannot be held accountable for their words."
Still harping on the truth? Ironic since the Family has a stated policy to lie to save themselves from litigation. What untruth was said? That was not written by you that is.
"For the record:
g) Maria’s secretary is not the “Lord’s chosen winetaster”"
No duh! And Zerbyis no prophetess.
"h) We do not believe that if you are not “for” us you are “against” us. There are millions in the world who are not “for” us, nor do we consider them “against” us. That would be a highly self-centered worldview, don’t you agree? The vast majority of the 30,000 some people who have left the Family are not “against” the Family. Family members maintain close ties with a large number of former members, many of whom are members of their personal families."
Which is usually the only reason we keep contact with your ilk. You are right in that the majority is not against the Family. We are against criminal behaviour that the Family condones. We are against attempts to whitewash crimes perpetrated by the Family.
"i) We do believe the Lord is leading the Family, along with His prophets, which is a right guaranteed to us by law. We equally respect the right of individuals to choose not to so believe and “move on” to what they do believe and wish to pursue.""
You have no right to abuse and break the law, there is not a single Family home thatis not currently breaking the law so I would avoid legal issues if I were you. BTW your risible prophets are a bunch of criminals.
"j) Actually, Family leadership has shown itself very open to listen to the criticism of second-generation members and a multitude of changes have been implemented over the years, thanks to such input. So a young person writing Maria or Peter would not receive such a response as: “There’s not a whole lot in the form of useful criticism that can be offered by kids like you.” All Family members, young and old have the Charter right and mechanism via e-mail to write Maria and Peter directly--they are not instructed to do so via their Home TW or TRF, which would preclude privacy."
Sure we can write, but it matters little if the abuse and denial of abuse continues. Let me hit you on the head with a baseball bat. You can write me to ask me to stop anytime but I won't. It matters little if we can write about injustices your group continues to perpetrate if we are only given lip service about it.
"k) “Beware Daniel beware!” again is a fabrication, an attempt to present Family leadership in a sinister, threatening light. If Daniel doesn’t feel led to abide by Family policy, which Family members have agreed to adhere to, he is an individual with freedom of choice and should find his own place in this world. We wish him well. If he is the one who created these falsehoods, he has his own conscience to answer to. "
Not at all a fabrication. The Family went to great lengths to instill a fear of leaving, to paint those who left as "backsliding demons". Your ilk makes every attempt to demonize those who simply wanted to "move on".
Some who left ended up dead due to criminal negligence on the part of the Family. Their reward for their mistreatment was to be demonized by the Family.
"l) As was mentioned in Daniel’s reply (not published here) and Ashley’s letter to Daniel, a large number of Family young people were bothered and upset by Daniel’s letter, which is why it was addressed publicly. Daniel’s letter was offensive to Family member second-generation folks who have independently chosen to be “professional” Family members. Scores of them wrote in asking that their “open letters” be published, which they were. "
Sure they were, they were favorable to the Family, our open letters are usually answered by some cut and paste bullshit prophecy.
"Julia, I value the constructive interaction and communication we have held over the past couple of years. I hope that your site can generate more of the constructive perspectives it has in the past, of helping people to make what can be the difficult transition from one lifestyle to another, assisting people to cull the positive, deal with issues and find new meaningful pursuits for their lives. "
If that is your wish then shut up and stop whining about what is said. You don't want people to move on. You want to "focus on the positive" and conveniently forget the abusive acts the Family perpetrated.
(reply to this comment)
| from Albatross
Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 13:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Claire: Is it a “hate campaign” to speak out with emotion on a lifetime of emotional, sexual, physical abuse? Is it persecution when someone who spent a childhood bereft of a proper education working to support others, finally says something about it? Do you struggle to understand why we cannot let go of events from 5, 10, 15, and 20 years ago? David Berg held a grudge against the Jews for their 2000-year-old treatment of Christ. You brought up the sociology aspect: if you are doing more than just parroting an article on “apostasy research” you should know that your repeated mantra calling for ”moving on” without any hard feelings is very simplistic and does not take into account the very complex issues that young people who leave your group have to face. Picture this scenario if you will: Take a young man. Raise him in a group that gives him no choice as to what he wants to with his life. Deny him anything beyond a 1st grade education. Sexually abuse him as a child. Tell him how to dress, walk, and make love. Tell him what music to listen to, what films to watch, what to read. Punish him for his questions. Try to “scare the hell out of him” should he ever think of leaving. When he finally gets up enough guts to leave at age 20,- believing that dismal poverty is worth risking for the chance at intellectual autonomy- give him $50 and a bus ticket to his grandparents. This is a middle of the road case. There are extremes on both sides. Multiply that case by several thousand and perhaps you will begin to understand the depth of passion that exists. It is very naive to think that we will just go away and “move on.”
As for the “Daniel letter,” I am not in a position to know if it is authentic or not: but I can tell you this, I don’t need “doctored letters” to support my “position and agendas” The Family has written enough to prove my point. As I asked before… are you willing to debate any of those writings?
On the question of “anonymity and accountability.” Perhaps you had better “ see to thine own house” Claire; Maria, Peter, and just about everyone else in your cult, lives, works, writes, and go about their lives with aliases, selah identities, and often in anonymity. We are still waiting for them to be held accountable.
The Family seems to often allude to how it has changed. Is that an admission that the policies of the past were wrong? That is a good place to start. From there we can begin to hold people responsible. It bears noting however, that just saying you’ve changed, does not absolve you from responsibility, especially since the abuses occurred in the not to distant past.
I agree: you have the legal right to believe whatever you wish. You do not have the right however, to abuse, neglect, and work your children. We have the right to seek redress for those crimes. I believe we will.
Daniel
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from cm
Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 06:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
While I appreciate that "Claire" had the capacity and more importantly, the opportunity to do some (certainly jaundiced) "sociological research", I recommend that her next dispassionate clinical revery include a disquisition on "ignis fatuus."
(reply to this comment)
| from Cosmicblip
Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 04:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
while ashley's reply to daniel may have been "embelished" it still didn't answer anything.
your clarification here may work for outsiders, people who have no personal knowledge or experience in the cult. however, daniels letter could have very well been written by me.
when i was still in the cult i did actually write several letters but never sent them because i could have written the "answer" myself.
i knew the only thing that would have been addressed was my attitude & walk with the lord... obviously i don't have a walk with the lord so it would have been a waste.
& i wouldn't worry too much about reading & correcting any inaccuracies in the letter with "peter amsterdams" comments. most of us probably read that the way we used to read gn's-- just skim the first bold sentence of each paragraph then move on. after all, you can only vommit so many times in one day...
also, amsterdam is a terrible misnomer. the city is quite liberal if i am correct...
(reply to this comment)
| from Rock
Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 03:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
It is really quite amazing how family leadership can write so many paragraphs on and article and say nothing. In almost 30 years of my knowing the family I have never really seen them apologize or accept any allegations of wrongdoing. As Claire speaks they still practice a number of abusive policies and practices. Their lack of any signficant critical thinking in regards to their own behaviour is tedious to see over and over agian. As time goes on each new spokesperson continues to talk until their foot is so completely jamed down their throat the family must produce a new one. Hey Claire and Ado and Arthur, why don't you all just tell the truth for a change?
Sincerely Rocky
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from C
Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 03:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
What’s so tiresome with this cult and its members is that they chose to disclaim any of their published and established beliefs and doctrines whenever it suits them. Truth is not something they are interested in. In fact, truth to them is whatever they see fit to claim it is at the moment. They’re shape-changers. Having an open and honest conversation with them is like trying to get a straight answer from a pathological liar. They’ll debate you on the smallest minute detail of a subject while ignoring the real issue.
Have they taken the time in the past to post a comment to all the rest of the articles here? Have they attempted in true Christian fashion to atone for the real evils and wrongs done to the people who post here? No! Instead, they wait for a moment in which they can debate the most insignificant element of a much larger issue, while ignoring the real issue.
Claire seeks, in her condescending and admonishing tone, to nit pick at two paragraphs of an enormous published letter. First of all, let’s hear your explanation, Claire, of the rest of the letter. Let’s hear a straight answer to Daniel’s questions and the issues he raised. Tell us, in all your infinite wisdom, why the very manner in which Daniel was answered, one letter for everyone else and another one for him, contradicts itself.
Further, if anything you or others like you had to say was the least bit straight forward and believable, and you didn’t have a long history of lies and cover-ups and criminal activity, then maybe someone would listen when you cry foul and disclaim the veracity of two small paragraphs. Instead, you are like the boy who cried wolf. No one believes the person or organization with a long history of lies, cover-ups and corruption.
And one more thing, Claire, before you assume to come here and preach to Jules or anyone else for that matter on the rules of civil procedure, do some research. The term for when a witness is caught lying during sworn testimony is called impeachment. A term, I would have assumed, with which you would have much familiarity. Further, an impeached witness does not then “stand accused of perjury”. Perjury is a charge that must actually be brought against a witness. It does not automatically materialize every time a witness is impeached. I am amazed at your audacity in purporting to lecture an audience to which you obviously have no familiarity. In fact, Claire, if that’s your real name, there are at least two licensed legal professionals who visit and post on this website. When I use the term professional, I use the term according to its legal definition. I do not purport to insult and belittle the professional community by giving myself a title which I have not earned, unlike yourself and your colleague “Peter” or whatever his real name is.
-CBM, Esquire
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From C
Sunday, July 14, 2002, 19:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Magic Green Pants?! Is that you? Why the hell didn't you say so? How the is everyone's favorite curmudgeon? I was going to ask where you and your *YAWN* response were when I read good ole' Claire's post, but here you are.
I have got to put you in touch with my little bro. You and he must be long lost brothers, as he has your exact same sense of humor. Well, now I'm probably going to hear it from him. He's always got something to bitch about, but at least it makes for a good laugh.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Morloth
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 16:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, I am MrNiceGuy,MagicGreenPants,Doo-Dooman,UncleEnoch, and Yoda amongst others. I admit it.
Thanks for offering yr bro but do you have any younger sisters? I do insist on a photograph for obvious reasons.
Jules comes down pretty hard on me(its not even like I swear on her site), but thats obviously because she's mad with herself. Poor simple Julia. My tears are with her.
Cannibal Holocaust is the most touching film I have EVER seen. Don't knock it until you have seen it.
Love Morloth
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From C
Sunday, July 14, 2002, 18:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, Bill, how long ago did you leave? I looked you up on Martindale Hubbell, but couldn't find you. I was wondering when you became licensed, as it could tell me how much you experienced.
There's a really good article posted here by Jules in Getting Out, Inside Out, called Not All Animals Are Equal, which talks about the caste system. The "alphas", "betas", "deltas", etc. with, of course, the "King" and "Queen". If, however, you never lived within the cult or left a long time ago, you wouldn't know what Jules is talking about. If you're someone who was just "ministered to" by "Family" members or used as one of their "kings" they speak of in "Reach The Rich, The Poor You Have With You Always", then your image of the "Family" and what they actually are may be quite different. I suggest you read about some of the personal horror stories told here in the "Creeps" section by a few brave people, each who represent hundreds more just like them, to get a better idea of the children who were abused in the cult and its caste system. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From C
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 20:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nope! Didn't find you there. Just a bunch of movies, actors and books.
Good you finally got out of that cult. From your comment, though, it seems the old saying is true. "You can take the boy out of the [cult], but you can't take the [cult] out of the boy." I suppose people who finally stand up to the cult's threats and bullying and defend others like them with the legal knowledge they learned are 'pompous' in your book. Doesn't bother me. I'm losing any sleep. Let it be known I won't be intimidated, and I will stand up against any further harrassment of the victims of the cult who post here.
I suppose it does suck for the cult.
Oh, I still have no idea who you are or what you do. Did you want me to be impressed by discovering it cause your link didn't lead anywhere. Who's the pompous one?
And psychology, I never liked it, I never defend it. I have a psychology degree, but as I've said before, "The only thing I learned in psychology was that I didn't want to know anything more about psychology."
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From C
Monday, July 29, 2002, 15:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
I just got your little charade. How cute! Someone who divides their time between defending a cult and watching mind numbing movies. It’s appropriate, though, seeing your little comments have about as much intelligence as your half-wit movie. I suppose you’ll post under Napoleon now. How about just running along and finding some other pinhead teenagers for which to debate?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From NightRaven
Saturday, July 13, 2002, 22:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well said Caryn, I was just waiting for your response when the oftrepeated 'lying on the witness stand' story was brought up, sometimes it's good to have a couple lawyers here -- and you would think with all the 'persecution' that someone in her position would've figured out just a little bit about legal proceedings, as in seperating fact from Berg's fiction. Clair, U may be a professional cult-member, but U certainly arent a professional anything-else.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from dave
Friday, July 12, 2002 - 22:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Obviously it's the 'hit dog that howls'... and "Daniel" has sent shockwaves within the family's nervous system. But in the nature of free speech and expression without repression by all means, Claire, carry on. But let me add, this advice: don't stand so close to the trees that you can't see the forest. I think People in the family need to understand what "Daniel" was saying: THINGs HAVE GOTTA CHANGE NOW. (Atcually, it's pathetically too late, most of us from the family second generation have left). So By the way Jules, this site is great.
(reply to this comment)
| from Albatross
Friday, July 12, 2002 - 22:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Perhaps since Claire was willing to correct the misrepresentations from the " Daniel Letter" she could find the time to explain the many genuine Family writings that we read with continuing incredulity. I suggest a forum. You can question us on our postings...we can clarify.....we can question you on the Family's writings...you can clarify. I am especially interested in the Family writings that advocate activities that are illigal or harmful to children. How about it Claire....You up to it? I'd also be interested in hearing what my father Ado has to say about it. Let us debate what is actually written.
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]