|
|
 |
|
Getting Support : Speaking Out
A word from Tracey - re; my 60mins interviews | from traceydarez - Sunday, October 23, 2005
accessed 2840 times Hi, I'm the Tracey who appeared on the AUS and NZ 60 mins programs. I was hoping you'd like to hear a little from me.
Hi, I'm the Tracey who appeared on the AUS and NZ 60 mins programs. I'll preface what I'm about to say by first stating I had not ever been on this site until 3 days ago.
I also spoke out at the time of the raids. I wanted & want to try to help the nameless and helpless kids that couldn't/can’t speak for themselves. It had some fairly personal effects on my life back then. The students at my high school, treated me like a freak. Calling me a whore and a slut, and worst of all the look of 'PITY' in the eyes of the teachers. I am not helpless and don’t need pity. Allow me to be defined by who I am in this moment and in those moments when I chose/choose my path.
I relate to Ken, & how it felt watching Rachel on the TV back then, having lived with her, and having suffered abuse in the same home. But even then I couldn't feel hate for her. I knew if it was 3 years earlier and I was still in TF, I would have thought it was the end time and I would have told the same "truth" I was trained to say by the leaders and the prophet.
It took a long time to decide wether or not to participate in the 60 mins programming, both for the NZ and Australian Interviews. One thing about speaking out, is the memories that flood back to you when you open your closet, and let that emotion kept in the deepest parts of you out, to be seen by the world, the other is knowing the total devastation of your privacy. I had to choose wether the outcome would be worth the personal toll.
But I'll make a stand on behalf of Aussiegirl's plight. It was abhorrent that a black dot couldn't be added to cover the faces of the people in the old footage. That said, I also believe that the sound from that piece of vision needed to be played. Had it been discussed that footage would be shown, I would have made that request. I believe every SG deserves anonymity in the new lives we have carefully etched for ourselves.
In relation to the horror of being seen on film, Natalie hit it on the head, she put herself out there and has been recognised and has had to deal with both negative and positive feedback. I have experienced the same thing and have had a very rocky week. My decision, my consequence. I'm sure in another 10 years when this interview is replayed I'll be cringing into a deep glass of vino, as the phone starts ringing - but I'll know that I spoke the truth as it happened to me, discussed things going on and being done around me in those homes. Let me tell you, it was not easy to reveal those things about my childhood on national television. It broke my heart all over again.
Rachel this part of what I'm saying is for you - directly. You say you experienced and also witnessed no abuse. When you raise your children, (wether current or future, I'm unsure of your current situation) do you plan on raising them in the same “non-abusive” environment you were raised in? Do you envisage them learning the same life lessons you've learned at the same age you learned them? Will you be encouraging them to interact with adults and others their age, the same way, and at the same age you were encouraged to? In short, if you answer yes to any of these questions, then my wish for your children, is that you reassess what your definition of abuse is. Mentally, physically, emotionally, sexually, spiritually. Please.
Now that's all outta the way. What The????? I didn't bare my soul to strangers so we could all sit around and debate media exposure. I didn't let the monster back into my dreams for another year just to make the exSG's have a debate on broadcasting responsibilities.
I did this for the nameless, helpless kids that have no voice. I did this so that maybe just maybe we could get the police over here back on the ball. Shock the politicians into exactly what is going on in this country.
I've read people talking about financial compensation - WHAT THE??? About Joe Bloggs who since leaving TF has a respectable life and who magically doesn't abuse anymore - but he should pay money for his freedom???? The theories are thick and fast - it makes my stomach turn. Paedophiles are narcissists they don't magically get better - but they do get worse. I'm sorry but "Berg told me to do it”, doesn't cut it for me.
Let me assure you - mental, physical, emotional, sexual, & spiritual abuse is not unique to TF SG's. It happens the world over, in this cult and out. This is where we can help more then ourselves. We can name our perpetrator, it has a name, it has a face, and it is not the nameless monster in the cupboard. It plays and feeds on those like us, who want to stop the belligerent behaviour of adult to child. If we just decide on what justice we individually require and work on getting that for ourselves we get it for thousands more. For every paedophile stopped at 30, hundreds of children are spared. I've read on this site lines like "no-one defended us" this is so accurate. No one did - this is why I spoke out.
What would I have been spared had some one stood up for me, had spoken out for me? But still I initially felt unwilling to be that person for another child. I don't need to know the child to know that abuse will cause them harm. And I won't be the person who was too embarrassed to speak out and let the abuse continue.
What I want for all abused SG’s & for every child belonging to a cult, race, religion, or incompetant and uncompassionate parent is, peace. The inner peace of knowing safety from those who have wronged you, and the closure brought when justice is served. If I can do anything to even speed the process of finding that peace for anyone, I’m ready to help.
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from gaijin
Friday, December 30, 2005 - 03:57
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Tracy, what you did was fantastic.
Anybody you work with or knows you who treated you differently after the TV show has problems.
There are strange people everywhere!
Hope everything goes well with your life from here on.
(reply to this comment)
| from traceydarez
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 16:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow, I'm gonna have to check this site more - what an argument!!!
Just so you all know - I did go on to the 60 Minutes show in disguise, not that it fooled anyone in my "world". So many of the people I work & socialise with have recognised me - who'd have thought anyone actually watched news shows anymore?
I've gotta say though the relevance of wether I'm ESJ's daughter or Richard's sister is lost on me. But if it's important to TFI then hey, let's not deny them the most accurate answers we could give, as it's still all about pleasing the leadership.(Now guys that's sarcasim)
I think you'll find that TFI members never admit to being wrong even though Paul did (which I'm still chuffed about). It is always the finger pointing blame game, and should anyone speak out it's because they are crazy, attention seakers. liars & possessed by the devil. TFI are always persecuted for the cause and by my count, have been in the end time for a lot longer then 7 years.
000, while you're in the mood to question, could you ask a couple to them for me.
1) In Mo's teaching's he said 'by their fruit you shall know them' (also in the bible) when they look at the kids around them with no voice do they think maybe we silenced them, when they see this huge number exSG's who are damaged and hurting can they not see maybe they hurt us?
2) Mo's teaching talked a lot about false prophets. He/the bible says 'anyone who gives false testimony is a false prophet'. If he prophesied the end time and heaven on earth would have happened by now (which he did) and it obviously hasn't - doesn't that make him a false prophet??? Even the mere fact that they 'took back the thing about sex with babies and children' that leads us to another false prophecy/prophet. Add the fact that Paul 'admitted' Mo was wrong, that's three, don't make me pull out my Mo letters and start posting every prophecy that hasn't been true - I'll be here forever.
If they can just tell you what their answer to that is and why they're still following a false prophet that'll help me understand. I don't even want to know their A)names, B) Parents, or C)why they aren't wanking or whatever question 3 is
I didn't go on the show to expose myself as a victum who needs a years supply of kleenex. I went on the show to expose the perpetrators, because too many times they they get away with it.
I'll try to log on more often. Any other q's you want answered?
(reply to this comment)
| from Nancy
Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 16:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
I saw the show on www.xfamily.org last night. It was very well done. I have to commend Eva and Tracey and everyone involved, especially the producers. Eva and the producers did an excellent job of articulating subjects which are complex and convoluted. They did so in a way that was accurate and easier for the public to understand both the facts and the atmosphere and mindset of this cult.
Excellent job, Eva! Thank you Tracey and everyone else who participated for your courage.
(reply to this comment)
|  From afflick
Tuesday, November 01, 2005, 14:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
I just watched the show today on xfamily.org and for the first time in nearly twenty years saw myself as a child at the Mexico "Teen Training Camp." At first, I had a hard time believing I was watching footage of myself and my peers, even though I recognized the room, the music, the people. I just couldn't wrap my head around the fact that this blurry, distorted footage was of the same event I attended. I saw nothing but kids in the room! Really little kids!
Being eleven at the time of the TTC, I was one of the youngest with most everyone else a year or more older. In my memory, everyone seemed so much older and more sophisticated than the preteens and young teenagers I saw in that clip.
I have been having a really great year and have attained goals I never thought I would reach in my life, yet in that moment something just broke. Viewing this short, spotty video clip I saw that we were so young, so young, so young. Just babies. Heil Hitler-ing lock step with TFI's dogma.
I have always had this weird disconnect between myself and my peers in TFI back then and children in peril today. I know some of you have also discussed this phenomena. Somehow, on some level my belief has always subconsciously been that we weren't as manipulated as other small children "in the world," that we had more decision-making capabilities than more sheltered children. Perhaps this is why it has been difficult for me to feel deeply about the stories of abuse I have heard from my peers or have lived myself.
But facing my own and others' smiling, chubby, un-blurred-out faces was a catalyst for me to see that we WERE children, in every sense that children can be children. We were young, small, vulnerable, naive and trusting.
While my heart caught in my throat to see my face out there in a unwelcome widely circulated fashion, seeing myself from the "outside" in this way has been a great help in mentally coming to terms with my abuse.
(reply to this comment) |
| | from Houyh
Monday, October 24, 2005 - 15:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
I just finished watching the Montel Show and Don and Nancy put a real human face to the story-great job! I appreciate that Don spoke about the FBI investigation and the statute of limitations problem. The FBI needs a "hot case"-that is, they need someone who has just left TFI who is still under their tolling period to file a complaint. This broadcast will work a long way in that direction, as more media coverage hits, the likelihood of a "hot case" surfacing rises. Montel was very helpful in talking about putting pressure on the authorities to do something about this. The talk-show venues can work!-Especially with such brave people.
(reply to this comment)
| From Oh how I love a Mystery!
Monday, October 24, 2005, 16:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Is Houyh, a female, age 38, telecommunications worker, the same person as Jim LaMattery, or just a word thief, a lazy cut and paster? I know Jim LaMattery values his copyrights. I found this:
Montel
[ Replies to this Post ] [ Post a Reply ] [ Generation eXers Board ]
Posted by
mbll('jimlamattery','hotmail.com','Jim LaMattery')
Jim LaMattery[EMAIL UNAVAILABLE - YOU MUST ENABLE JAVASCRIPT] on October 24, 2005 at 18:19:39
This show proves that the talk-show venue can work- epecially if you have such brave and articulate speakers like Caryn and Don. I am very proud of Don for speaking about the FBI investigation and the problems with the statute of limitations. The FBI needs a "hot case" one in which the tolling period for a victim has not expired. The more media-the more the chances are that a "hot case" will surface. Caryn and Don put a human face to the abuse that went on. Montel did more than what Dr.Phil has promised to do so far- He suggested that the public put pressure on the authorities to DO SOMETHING! This is what we need-I asked the producer of Dr. Phil to watch this Montel show (even though it is his "competition") so that he sees what focus I've been begging for since January. Bravo to Don and Caryn!
Replies to this Post:
- just watched the show Acheick Oct 24, '05 18:29
http://www.exfamily.org/cgi-bin/gf.pl?fmt=dyn&t=chatbbs&m=9&s=0&r=chatbbs/genx/genx_main.html
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from moon beam
Monday, October 24, 2005 - 06:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Tracey and everyone involved in these 2 shows, well done. You've given 110% and I agree with what you have writen-you are a survivor.
All the best K
(reply to this comment)
| from 000
Monday, October 24, 2005 - 02:13
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Tracey,
Thanks for doing what you did, it took more guts than I have.
I live here in Oztralia and recently got into a discussion with someone in TF about the 60 minutes show and they said a few things which I wanted to confirm about your story:
- Is Eva (the FG on the show) your and Richard's mom?
- How old were you when your mom took you away from TF? (ie: were you in TF at the age of 3-5?)
Let me please say that I am not doubting your story but I told this person from TF, that if they were concerned about it I would just ask you to find out
Thanks
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | From ESJ
Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 06:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
It seems obvious that you are caught between two worlds, dear 000, and I don't think it is particularly helpful for you to be 'attacked' while in your current state of 'trying to figure things out'. Confusion is good. It is the first thing that comes up when you are finally ready to begin questioning everything you've always been told, so you can free up your mind and start thinking for yourself.
Voicing the arguements and the lies you are being fed by TF is often a way of getting alternative feedback from other viewpoints, so you can sift through the incoming info and decide for yourself. Personally, I don't see it as a 'bad' thing, and I don't think you should be villified for doing so.
That being said, I find it both sad and amusing that you should confer on me the type of 'power' that TF parents and leaders wish you to believe they have over people and events - and their own SG's. By your comment "if Eva didn't want a public story why did she go on television?" you seem to be imagining that this story was somehow my brainchild or something I 'wanted' and therefore 'made happen'.
I'm only a little single Mum, 000, I do not decide for these big corporate media organizations what stories they are going to do. They decide that based on what's in the news at the moment. Then they find people who know something about it and ask them if they are willing to be interviewed, as they did in my case, and in Paul Hartingdon's case, and in the case of the other SG's interviewed.
As I do not have a career in the world to protect, I was willing to be identified publicly. Some of the SG's interviewed were willing to answer questions for the sake of letting the truth be known by the public, but they needed to protect their jobs and their livelihoods, and therefore their privacy.
TF - (like all cults) - always needs to paint a picture of a seeming 'powerful external enemy' to keep everyone united and busy 'fighting for the Lord'. And it gives me a giggle to think they are 'bestowing' such power on me as to make out that I am somehow 'responsible' for these stories going to air. I just said 'yes' to being interviewed when I was asked, just like Paul Hartingdon did. It is the leadership of TF themselves who are responsible for these TV reports. They sowed that seed the moment they decided to raise Davidito/Ricky as an 'example' to the rest of TF the way they did. Now they are reaping the harvest, but they are still refusing to take responsibility for their crimes. - That's another classic cult tactic: Always blame the victims. And if those victims begin to find a voice and speak out, then suddenly they are 'the enemy'.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From 000
Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 07:22
 (Agree/Disagree?)
" It seems obvious that you are caught between two worlds " - So Eva was that patronising or condescending? - your pick. If that's really how you feel about my comments then let that be your opinion. But I find your assessment of my "two world" state rather amusing (reading a bit too much Alice in Wonderland lately perhaps?).
Firstly, I don't only think, I know you don't have any power over the 60 minutes show, so you can remove " you seem to be imagining that this story was somehow my brainchild or something I 'wanted' and therefore 'made happen' ", from your argument. What I do know is that YOU CHOSE to go on TV, and therefore you opened yourself up to questions which follow. In other words you had "power" over your own decision to make your personal story public, and therefore if certain elements of your public story need clarification, it would sound logical to me that you would just clarify.
Frankly I'm sick of you being condescending to my posing two simple questions and I don't accept that from anyone, not TF & not you! All I ever wanted was to confirm some facts related to your/ your kids appearance on the 60 minutes show. - So you take your dumbass condescension and shove it!
You know, I've never had any reason to oppose your story Eva, but your condescension in your comments has put me at odds with you, but strangely I don't like TF one bit, and neither you. - You seem to see yourself as the white versus TF's black, and I just don't see life that way.
ta ta(reply to this comment) |
| | From ESJ
Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 18:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
The last thing I want to be is 'condescending' or 'patronizing', so forgive me if that's how it came across to you. I did allow myself to sound just a tad that way here and there, however, to keep things light-hearted, but the main thrust of my comments to you have just been with the genuine desire to communicate.(Sorry, I forgot 'kindness' is a dirty word on this site. - I am just a typical 'Mum' after all, ya know).
In reality I was a) feeling that the 'attacks' on you by some of the other commentors were a bit 'over the top' and unfair; and b) I assumed you must be (at best) in a state of confusion or (at worst) still coming out of TF's warped 'mind world' because you still seemed to need further clarification after I had already answered your questions at length and explained everything to you about the 60 Minutes interviews below.
You said, "you had 'power' over your own decision to make your personal story public, and therefore if certain elements of your public story need clarification, it would sound logical to me that you would just clarify." I mean, my God, how many times can you keep harping on that line? Haven't I clarified that enough by now? You brought the (what obviously came across to you as) 'condescending answers' upon yourself, because I thought I must've been dealing with somebody who was particularly slow-witted and thick. So I tailored my communication accordingly.
Now that you've let me know just how smart you are, I don't have to 'walk on egg-shells' any more for fear of confusing you further, and we can hurl insults at each other as equals. Te he!
PS: I don't see things as 'black or white' either, and am glad you don't too. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Eva St John
Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 17:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Forgive me if that's how I came across to you. I was not trying to be condescending or patronizing....Well, perhaps just a tad here and there to keep things light-hearted, but the main thrust of my comments to you have just been with the genuine desire to communicate.(Sorry, I forgot 'kindness' is a dirty word on this site. - I am just a typical 'Mum', ya know).
In reality I was a) feeling that the 'attacks' on you by some of the other commentors were a bit 'over the top' and unfair; and b) I assumed you must be (at best) in a state of confusion or (at worst) still coming out of TF's warped 'mind world' because you still seemed to need further clarification after I had already answered your questions at length and explained everything to you about the 60 Minutes interviews below.
You said, "you had 'power' over your own decision to make your personal story public, and therefore if certain elements of your public story need clarification, it would sound logical to me that you would just clarify." I mean, my God, how many times can you keep harping on that line? Haven't I clarified that enough by now? You brought the (what obviously came across to you as) 'condescending answers' upon yourself, because I thought I must've been dealing with somebody who was particularly slow-witted and thick. So I tailored my communication accordingly.
Now that you've let me know just how smart you are, I don't have to 'walk on egg-shells' any more for fear of confusing you further, and we can hurl insults at each other as equals. Te he. (reply to this comment) |
| | From 000
Wednesday, October 26, 2005, 02:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
no worries,
Thanks for your explanations. It's refreshing to see an ex-FGA who actually cares for her kids (and their privacy). Maybe the reason some of our parents try to cut you down so much is cause you put them to shame.
I only wanted to be able to say "look Eva will answer your questions, she's got nothing to hide, she's not pulling a shifty or lying", and I thank you for taking the time to answer the questions.
cheers
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From 000
Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 05:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
your point being?
I fail to see the harm done by me asking Eva to clarify 2 points which were put to me.
Whats with the outcry Neez? And no, I don't think there is any point in my parents having their own 60 minutes segment to ask Eva those questions.
Geez, I should have just ignored this whole pile of horse crap, why bother to try and find out the facts, lets just all be afraid to ask and believe whatever we decide on a given day! - Sound about right Neezy?(reply to this comment) |
| | From
Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 08:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm glad there's at least one subject regarding which the Family promotes testing and asking questions before believing. When I was in the cult, my honest effort to become truly convinced of what I was being asked to believe was seen as voicing "the Devil's lies." The tricky part was that I did not have an option to not believe what I was being required to believe. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From 000
Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 06:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're missing a major component which would validate your argument Neez. - I did not go on public TV and therefore have not put myself in a position where things I have said may require clarification.
When I do/ if I go on TV I will answer your questions 1 & 2.
For your bonus #3 question: If someone goes on public TV what is private about that? - I have only asked to clarify what was already aired on national tele
enough already
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From 000
Monday, October 24, 2005, 05:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
take a chill pill dude, I'm not in TF.
Like I said, I had a conversation with someone from TF yesterday in fact, and the gist of what they were objecting to in the 60 minutes show was that:
- 2 of the Ex-SG's on the show were Eva's kids, and they thought 60 minutes should have mentioned that
and,
- that Eva's daughter may have been abused after she left
I personally don't know any of these people. Take it from me I'm the last person to discount one of these stories, I meant what I said about being proud of the SG's who went on the show. So, you can keep playing your little games with yourself or you can answer the simple question.
Isn't it funny that normally it is those in TF we have a hard time getting a "straight answer" from but now its you. If you don't think the general public deserve an accurate account when obvious inconsistencies to your public story arise then I'm sorry I can't value your story much, regardless of how much I'd like to believe you.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From weegirlie
Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 02:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Lucky enough" to have parents who are still in TF??????? That sure doesn't sound like something someone who has actually left TF would say, unless they were mentally retarded or severely dillusional. The words that come to mind are unfortunate or cursed enough still to have parents in TF, and that's about the most positive way I could put it. "Lucky" would be if I had normal, law abiding parents who didn't wank off to Jesus in their little benefit funded communes.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Eva St John
Monday, October 24, 2005, 08:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear '000',
What difference does it make who Richard and Tracey's parents are? Are you implying that if they are my kids their accounts of their lives growing up in TF are somehow less credible? Richard and Tracey are two very different people who live completely separate lives in different cities of Australia, and I live in another city from either of them. Like Natalie, they both wanted to tell the truth about their experiences growing up in TF, but both of them value their privacy and have a right to anonymity (as do all SG's).
As such, both of them separately requested that if they talked to 60 Minutes, their real identity would not be revealed so they could continue on with their new lives without too much recognition and disruption in their everyday situations. 60 Minutes honored that request by not revealing their real names and identities during their interviews - which is what the media very often does for individuals who are revealing private details about their abuse as children on national television.
Do you think Tracey would have felt comfortable revealing what she did reveal about her babyhood and childhood in TF if she thought 'everybody at the office' could recognize who she was and know all those intimate details of her past?
Natalie, on the other hand, had apparently already discussed the show with her boss and workmates and pretty much everyone in her life knows she was in TF because she only left relatively recently, so she didn't feel the need to veil her identitiy.
We are all veteran ex Fam members, each with our own tale to tell of the abuses we experienced and/or witnessed while in TF. Each of us was interviewed at separate times and at no time did any of us have any discussion between us beforehand as to what we were going to say or what our 'story' was going to be - (like TF does!) We didn't need to. We each were at ease with the fact that whatever questions they asked us, we could just answer honestly with the truth - and surprise, surprise! - Our separate interviews corroborated each other.
Absolutely no collaboration took place between us before these interviews took place. I only met Natalie for the first time when I was introduced to her by the 60 Minutes crew at the time of her interview, we didn't even know each other before that. And because they live in different locations and have their own lives, to this day, neither Richard nor Tracey have ever even met Natalie, or even spoken to her on the phone or otherwise. I am detailing all this for you just so as to make it clear that none of us made any of this up or 'collaborated' on these 60 Minutes reports in any way.
And for the record: Natalie was in TF from birth until she was 18 yrs old, Richard was in TF from birth until 9 years old, and then again from about 11-12 yrs old, and Tracey was in TF from birth until she was 11yrs old. They were all in TF full time right in the thick of the Davidito Book/Heaven's Girl/FFing/Sharing/Victor's Program era of the 80's (and the 90's for Natalie) and all the abuse they experienced and witnessed was when they were in TF. From what they have told me, none of them expereinced any sexual or other abuse after they left TF, it all happened to them in TF, and was perpetrated by leaders and other FG full time members.
I, myself was in TF from the time I was 16 until 29 years old when I was excommunicated for repeatedly questioning the leaders about their harsh treatment and abuse of my own and other children. However, after I left TF kept in constant touch with me and then 're-instated' me as a live-out and then a 'full time independent home' until the end of 1989 when I broke away from them altogether after recieving the 'Heavenly City School' and 'Battle For Japan' books (among many other memos and publications) which outlined the horrific treatment they were meting out on their own children in the Teen Training and Victor's Camps.
Got it straight now? Good! Don't let them lie to you 000. Why would we make any of this stuff up? It costs dearly to put ourselves out on a limb like this and publicly tell the very worst details of our private past in front of the whole world. It's humiliating and demeaning. The only reward in it is knowing we are letting the truth be known for the sake of all the SG's who have been hurt and damaged by TF's past beliefs and practices. Enough said.
Love, ESJ.(reply to this comment) |
| | From 000
Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 02:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Eva,
Thanks for your reply. Don't worry, I "won't let them lie to me", or, more likely, I won't and don't believe everything "they" tell me. - I take things on face value, TF or not, its my general approach.
Its not my opinion that you/60 minutes were required to disclose that they were your kids, it really makes no difference to me because you're right, what Richard said could have been said by practically anyone his age who grew up in TF.
I raised this question here because I had no other way of confirming what TF were saying without bringing it up. It seemed appropriate and seeing that since the topic was in public domain I did not think the questions were out of line.
cheers,(reply to this comment) |
| | From Just a tip
Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 11:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
000, Family members have this really awful passive-aggressive way of responding to ex-sga's. You sound just like them:
"We're really sorry that you feel you were abused"
"Mistakes may have happened, and if so we're really sorry"
"I'm not accusing you of lying but, (Insert meaningless diversion. Example: every point you brought up)
If you think someone is lying then just come right out and say it. But please stop this insinuation game, ok?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from wizzzidovoz
Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 16:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Right on Tracey! You've got such guts! You didn't just blow the lid off, you blew them out of the water. I reckon if a lot more SG's had the guts to come out publicly in the media like you have with your story TF would've been totally outed and blown apart years ago. Its only a matter of time now....they're history.
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]