Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Christy Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 17:01 (Agree/Disagree?) I've definitely had a lot to unlearn when it comes to money. I didn't even apply for a credit card for a few years after I left. I was so used to the philosophy of avoiding dept by paying for everything up front that I didn't consider all the benefits of establishing good credit. I've learned that a credit card doesn't cause dept; bad spending habits, a lack of understanding of finances, or lack of financial planning is what causes debt. I too have been reading books about money and have been trying to change my old mind sets. It's all very new to me even though I've always been pretty good at saving money. I've recently been trying to learn more about investing. I'm still in school so I don't have a lot of extra cash flow. Still, I do save enough each month that it would be worth transfering the money to an account that would get me more interest then I get from my savings account. I'd be interested in what others have learned about getting their money to work for them. (reply to this comment)

from Ne Oublie Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 05:04 (Agree/Disagree?) I have to agree with you there, I've seen a lot of disunity - and even marriages breaking up - over money. But I think that the 'cause' is actually a combination of the two quotes you opened up with - you see, the reason for all that disunity, is because not only did the individuals involved 'not have' money, but they had a 'LOVE of money'! You see, when I was in the Family, my family and I lived just as economically as the rest, however money has NEVER been an issue amongst us! Maybe it has to do with my heritage, but saving has ALWAYS been a part of my life - whether it meant saving the pennies that I managed to get, or 'hoarding' provisioned goods, that I figured could do me more good later on, down the road. Because of that I came to be known as a 'wealthy' guy - whenever people needed to borrow (or 'provision') money, guess who they came to :D So,when I left the Family I had Credit Cards, as well as a considerable bank balance, to start me out. If there is anything I can say to young people leaving the Family, it would be to SAVE UP! Don't blow all your 'personal money' on partying, save it so that when you leave you'll have something to start out with when you go into the 'big bad world' - it'll make a world of difference! Believe me! (reply to this comment)

From Persephone Saturday, August 09, 2003, 10:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Ne Oublie, I've been thinking about what you said in regards to the "disunity" being caused from people both not having money & also having a love of money & I disagree with that statement. In all of the homes that I lived in, I definitely think Maslow's hierarchy of human needs applies. In the most simplist of terms, Maslow's studies are based on three premises: 1) that people are wanting animals whose needs depend on what they already posses; 2) A satisfied need is not a motivator -- only needs that are unsatisfied can influence behavior & 3) that people's needs are arranged in a hierarchy of importance, meaning that higher-level needs cannot even be addressed until lower-level needs have been satisfied. It's a pretty basic and widely accepted concept. The base needs that people have to have satisfied before anything else can be addressed are the physiological needs: food, clothing shelter. After that are the safety needs which include income stability. Social needs rank 3rd, and "unity" would fall under that category. In the situations I'm referring to, if people didn't have the food they needed, proper clothes & shoes & housing -- not to mention stable income and enough to meet the bills, they just weren't able to move up the ladder to unity (social needs), plain and simple. It's absolutely wonderful that you lived in an enlightened home. I guess in the few years before I left the Family, I did too. But it's interesting to note that in this "financially enlightened" home that I was in, the only disunity we had was with one person whom nobody could stand and whom I hope never leaves the Family. Enough like that and the Family will internally combust. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, August 09, 2003, 12:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Interesting analysis there Perephone. Just one comment, though, thankfully, I was almost never in a Home that was suffering from disunity - my comments were based on situations which I had either seen or visited. In particular, in that last Home I was in, we all got on VERY well together - and the people there are still my good friends. Regarding Maslow's premises, in each of the situations I've seen - and it's my belief that in practically all current Family Homes (but I'll only speak for the ones I've seen) - they DO have their Phisiological Needs met: they have air, water, food, sleep, sex, etc. Their Safety Needs are (at least partially) met through their faith: safety needs sometimes motivate people to be religious. Religions comfort us with the promise of a safe secure place after we die and leave the insecurity of this world. The same with their Love Needs: Humans have a desire to belong to groups: clubs, work groups, religious groups, family, gangs, etc. Where I do, however, take exception from Maslow's theory - based on the human behaviour that I have personally witnessed (both in and out of the Family) - is that people can, and DO, act unselfishly even before their more 'basic' needs are met! I have seen beggars on the street, or dispossessed refugess perform acts that are equally - or sometimes even MORE - unselfish than the 'upper/middle' classes. I have also seen these same people behave with greater confidence, and displaying a higher level of satisfaction of their Love and Esteem Needs than many who had their Physiological Needs fully met. Thus, the extent to which I do agree with his theory, is that a person should not be expected to act unselfishly until their basic needs are met - however, that only serves to highlight an even greater amount of integrity and altruism in those who display this behaviour without their personal needs being met.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Saturday, August 09, 2003, 15:45 (Agree/Disagree?) You have got to be fresh off the boat, so to speak! You sound like you just left the cult last week. You use cult words like disunity. It turns my stomach being reminded of all that crap, for lack of a more appropriate term. Dude, lose the cult jargon. It's conflict, not disunity! Further, you're really over your head here attempting to discuss psychology. Have you ever even studied it? Your take on Maslow is laughable. Love needs? Safety needs? What are those? Are those some needs the cult made up? How old are you? You argue your opinions as if they were gained through scientific research. You should save this stuff your spouting. Print it out and after you've gotten a legitimate education, go back and read it. You'll get a good laugh! (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Tuesday, August 12, 2003, 19:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy, normally we can respect you for being passionate about your cause, but I'm afraid this time you're just being a mean old bitch! Ne oublie stated very clearly that he was only talking about his own experiences. He never painted a friendly gloss on the family. In other threads you've claimed to be happy for those who grew up and/or left the Family later on when the standard of living had approved, but here you've clearly shown that you're an bitter, angry person, taking it out on those who never did anything to hurt you. We all know you suffered, but Ne Oublie is not responsible. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Monday, August 11, 2003, 11:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy, are you objecting to Ne Oublie's terminology or his description of the Family homes he has seen fulfilling people's needs? Admittedly I am not nearly as educated as many other people here, but as a self-help book junkie, personally those terms don't sound too strange or cult like to me. For me personally, my experiences and observations of Family homes were quite different, probably due to both the time periods (teen training, DTR/school vision eras) and the fact that my sister and I were separated from our parents at 11 and 12 and were not fund raisers, musicians, leader's children/pets or anything else worthy of having access to money or even "provisioning". My sister and I shared a single pair of shoes and a coat for years. Ne Oublie's experiences were obviously different, as he has repeatedly said, and I wish I had been able to have that sort of experience myself. (Honestly though, isn't listing air and water as needs met within Family homes stretching it just a bit?) (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Monday, August 11, 2003, 15:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Both, I object to Ne Oublie and his/her sunny little gloss job on the Family in general. It sounds eerily similar to some FCF propaganda. I object to his/her flimsy grasp on established psychological principles and theories used to support his/her opinion of the benign nature of the cult. That sounds a lot like Claire Borowick, and her continual quoting of "scholars," etc. which she twists to support that harmful cult. I have nothing but pity and hope for those coming out of the cult. I know there is a long period in which one has to psychologically severe what the cult forced on them all their life and what they personally believe. I know that they often suffer from Stockholm syndrome during this period. I know that they often defend the cult during this period while they are coming to terms with issues psychologically. I know that it is difficult to severe cult doctrine from ones own views and from God himself because the cult convinces people that they represent God and they are turning their back on God and his chosen if they leave. I know this is a process. I know because I went through it, as well as many of us did. I know that people who leave grapple with guilt, shame, anger, sadness, etc. even though they often don’t even realize it. In order to come to terms with their decision to leave, many have to come to the realization of what the cult is and the subsequent realization that their time in the cult was wasted, at the very least. During this process, people are often defensive, and it’s often easier not to push them but let them come to their own conclusions, while offering them support. When I object is when the person going through this or a similar process attacks others who have already been through it, for their beliefs that the cult is wrong and evil. My sympathies and support goes more to those who really suffered at the hands of the cult, not those few who were protected or pampered for whatever reason and who attack the legitimacy of the experiences of those who were not so fortunate. There are a few here, like Ne Oublie and Wolf, who are or give the impression to be fresh out and who continually take the position against those who left long ago and who have really struggled to be where they are. At every turn, they use whatever available to discount and disagree with those who they really have no idea of their experiences. They claim they didn’t suffer. They claim they didn’t struggle. They had it easy or easier, but their experiences are not those of everyone else. And now, one of them wants to be treated with caution because he/she is fresh out and wants special consideration for their views and wants “encouragement.” Well, not from me. If you use psychology or the law in an attempt to justify or support the practices of the Family or your participation in it, then be prepared to have your theories challenged, especially when you change them for your own purpose. I won’t be pressured into conceding what I know to be true from hard work and experience to someone who attacks others with their cult learned arguments, just because they happen to have just stepped off the boat. I especially won’t for some foul mouthed, sexist pigs with little or no education of which to speak who think their mere year or two out of the cult makes them a master on all subjects that some of us have busted our asses to learn. I read some arguments here peppered full of the foulest, inane language which reveals only self-absorbed clichés, and it turns my stomach. There’s a reason I hauled ass out of that sick cult 12 years ago, and those who blather on here like that remind me of that reason. What’s more, some of them are even more revolting because they sprinkle their own disgusting profanity and sexist pig remarks with the unoriginal cult doctrine they were taught and spew it all over this site. I am not speaking of Joe here or Alf or any of the listed female’s comments I’ve read. At least, some like Joe have a natural intelligence that makes one rethink their strongly held positions. They keep one on their toes and make one think through their opinions, not to mention spelling. Even if I may disagree with a majority of some's politics, I still have to concede some respect. Alf, well, he and MGP, may be foul-mouthed, but at least, he’s funny and still knows a line. He makes me laugh at stupid cult practices which previously only served to cause shame and anger. And you, well, you claim not to have a lot of education, which I find hard to believe, but even despite that, like many people here, you make that little fact seem insignificant. What I’m talking about is totally different. It may seem like I’m picking on a poor little cult kid for their lack of education, but I’m not. No, I’m responding to their attacks all over this site, even beyond this specific thread. I’m not so mean that I would attack someone for lacking education or having just left the cult. No, I’m picking holes in the arguments of a couple who have relentlessly attacked those whose experiences were the worst in the cult and who have strongly held beliefs against the cult, as an understandable result. Those of which I am writing have a right to their anger. That cult, like I have said before, is pure unadulterated evil. It is much more than the mere sum of its parts. I, like all of us, got away from it. I, like many of us, worked extra hard because of the lack of head start in life. We have a right to our hard-earned opinions and beliefs, including the facts of being a single mother, an attorney or whatever. When a couple of those FOBs (fresh off the boat) have earned the same, then they can tell people what’s what or when they’ve experienced the hardship many of us did, then I’ll lend more credence to their benevolent beliefs on the cult. When they have experienced the sex industry as the only option to support oneself, as many of the women I've heard of here, because of a complete and total lack of education and being dumped in a country alone and penniless, then I might listen to their take. I certainly don't when all they do is criticize, complain and spew profanity on those they have never even met. These few, of whom I write, attack the women here who have obtained professional and academic success while also calling other women profane names for their choice, or lack thereof, of job/career in adult clubs. Then, I even read one of them defending Zerby, the original prostitute who drug a whole generation, and even some of the second generation, along with her. This site hase taken a turn. There are a couple running around here who make this place seem more like that yahoo Family listserv with profanity, than movingon. I've also noticed that some people who used to post, who have some really compelling and impressive stories and experiences, don't anymore. That is a shame. We all know what Wolf and Ne Oublie think, but what about those out there who we haven't heard from, who have only rarely posted, who are literally still scared to death of the Family and what it did to them? Their stories and experiences need to be heard, but they will never be when some of these continue to discount, attack and attempt to discredit others wronged by the Family. I don’t go around telling people what’s what concerning money, finances or accounting because I suck at math and money. I wouldn’t know what the hell I was talking about, and I sure as hell don’t go around telling people what’s what on those topics and then expect special consideration and treatment because I didn’t learn math in the cult or I avoided it in college or because I’m a friggin’ single mother.(reply to this comment)

From Agrees Tuesday, August 12, 2003, 17:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy, I thought about whether I should say anything, as I’m sure you of all people do not need someone defending your thoughts or opinions. But I have to say I agree with you almost entirely. Not that I have any claim to knowing more than anyone else, just that my reaction to some of the recent posts is similar to your responses. It seems a couple of newbies have discovered the financial investment section of a real bookstore they happened to chance upon in their recent visit to the “big smoke”. This, coupled with what they consider financial success whilst in the group (most likely by defrauding their “sincere” cult colleagues), has given them a real EDGE, which they are now kind enough to share with the rest of us. – It’s one thing to want to discuss money making ideas, investment strategies, etc, and another altogether to start trying to be an authority on the subject. As far as the terminology goes, in my opinion the fact that “disunity” is such an important thing to these guys shows our new ex-fam’s realized at some point (though probably only subconsciously) that a stable environment is beneficial to a flourishing economic environment. These kinds of people know they’ll get nothing by “rocking the boat” or “rebelling”, so they don’t object or raise their voice to things they know they can’t change. It’s, I believe a mentality of “knowledge is power – money is power”, which does work, even in TF if you don’t question “your beliefs” or question “leadership” on policies etc. I personally think the recent handling of Brasil has more to do with a diminishing amount of tithes whilst in the blatant face of members doing such individualistic things as “buying their own car” – wow, what success!! I think though, regardless of whether these guys admit it, are grappling with stark contradictions of “real life” (as opposed to what they’re used to in TF) that greet them now. It’s easier for them to put on a brave face to you, and play off of your open anger towards TF, trying to make themselves look “better adjusted”, and sources of great information on “gaining wealth”. – Don’t worry boy’s you will get yours, there are many ruthless people out who know exactly how to take you for all your ever worth, legally too I might say, and who will certainly “have a little chuckle” if they ever see what “money making know-it-all’s” you portray yourselves as. By the way, there are actually ex-fam SGA’s who have degrees in economics and such, perhaps leave the “all-out advice” to those who have the credentials to back up their opinions. It doesn’t matter what your intentions are if your advice causes someone to follow you blindly on false pretenses and eventually lose out. The only question I have is about the portrayal of “TF” as “evil”. I cannot say I am over grappling with this. It just seems in this day and age every murderer, rapist, and even terrorist has someone trying to understand them on a “human level”. – At times this just pisses me off, but at times I seem to understand the anger of someone who is willing to commit a crime to revenge a crime, proven or not. My present personal definition of an “evil” person or group is someone or something which forces their will on someone else to the betterment of themselves and the detriment of the other party for no other reason than personal gain. – I know this is an abstract idea, with no basis in study, but it is drawn from my own experiences and personal feelings of how people, both in TF & out have affected me or those I love on a personal level. So while I agree that we all should “do our research” before spouting advice to people, I sometimes think that my experiences from TF are so “outside of the box”, that no amount of written material will properly categorize it. I suppose I argue that if psychologists and experts know so much, why is it I so often feel I am sorting it all out myself, and that nothing they have to say actually puts a finger on the numerous destructive pressures and influences I experience(d), rather it all just seems another piece to a big puzzle left to me to put together. I think you do yourself an inservice by portraying TF as "monstors", because they want you to do just that so they can portray you as a belligerent aggressor from which they need protection (yes, O how pathetic).(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Wednesday, August 13, 2003, 12:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Let me see if I’ve got the timeline straight: After finally breaking free of the cult’s vile grasp, an individual becomes a “newbie”. They obviously had a reason for leaving, so invariably they don’t think the cult is the paradise it’s made out to be. However, the Copenhagen syndrome (oops, I meant the Stockholm syndrome -- damn those Swedes are smart) keeps them from realizing that any good memories they have from their childhood in the sinister group were actually placed there by their morbid brainwashers, and every individual that remains in the cult is evil through and through. After an unspecified number of years spent learning “what’s what” the former newbie finally becomes a sour grape who hates everybody that has any pleasant memories from their time in the foul sect. At last they realize that every person who becomes a member of the cult for any amount of time is a twisted and degenerated pervert, just waiting for the first opportunity to molest a child and / or discover the joys of incest. Sounds like newbies have a lot to look forward too!(reply to this comment)

From Agrees Thursday, August 14, 2003, 00:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Anything’s possible Wolf, as far as I know there is no set criteria for being a "newbie". The word was used as part of general conversation and not as any specific term or definition. - I'm sure everyone adapts to life outside of "The Family" in their own way and in their own time. I know many people who leave say they have to re-learn a lot, and many experience a fair amount of culture shock. Obviously though, some people don't have the same amount of difficulty, I assume this could be partly due to the amount that someone was personally affected by "The Family's" doctrines, or what they were able to experience of "the world" when in "TF". Some have obviously been allowed to hold secular jobs, accumulate savings etc, while others would have been loaded with guilt for simply thinking of trying to make "filthy lucre" by any other means than the tried and proven "godly means" such as postering, selling memberships, or what have you. I’m not sure why I’ve posted in defence of someone who wouldn’t value my opinion anyhow, and I’m certainly not going to waste any of my time defining what a “newbie” is as if I’ve really bothered to sit down and come up with a profile. I have enough to do trying to make up for lacks, abuses and harm which I experienced in my childhood, which is taking plenty of effort to compensate for, somehow undo, or just work around. But at least I know now that each step is a step forward to further achieving a standard of living worth the amount of effort I put in. Whether you want to continue to believing “the family” remains a harmful influence on people or not is of absolutely no consequence to me personally, in fact the very idea that you seem to entertain this as a valid argument simply amuses me. – There’s only so many time’s I’m willing to tell someone an egg is rotten, if they want to keep arguing about it I’m happy to sit just back and watch them take a big bite, while they smile and try to convince me how good it tastes. Seriously dude, I don’t care anymore, think what you want, I know I do! – Enjoy! (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Thursday, August 14, 2003, 02:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Good luck in your efforts to achieve a standard of living worth the amount of effort you put in (said in full sincerity). For what it’s worth, I agree with the rotten egg description of the cult as a whole, I just don’t think every person in the cult is a rotten egg. I also agree that the group’s influence on people is usually harmful. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, August 13, 2003, 16:06 (Agree/Disagree?) (reply to this comment)

From Persephone Tuesday, August 12, 2003, 20:55 (Agree/Disagree?) To Agrees: If I happen to be one of the ones you are referring to when you say, "It seems a couple of newbies have discovered the financial investment section of a real bookstore they happened to chance upon in their recent visit to the “big smoke" ", I am not a recent departee of the Family. Although, maybe it might be helpful if you would clarify what time frame qualifies a "newbie" and for that matter, if someone leaves the Family and vocalizes only negative opinions about the cult and refrains from offering information on any other topic of interest does that exempt them from "newbie" status?(reply to this comment)

From Agrees Wednesday, August 13, 2003, 01:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Ha, You do have a sense of humour! Sure, I'll create a "newbie" profile if you'd like. I'll just need your help with a few things first. Please advise: 1). Explain your definition of "negative opinions about the cult" (puzzling I thought the word "cult" would be a "negative" descriptive in itself). - Does this include "truthfull opinions", if what you know or remember, and know other people remember are mainly negative and unpleasant things about it? 2). Does politics, education, art, small talk fall for consideration under your description of "information of any other topic of interest"? 3). Please provide a bit more information about yourself, like: a) When did you leave "The Family" (Date/Time/Location. b) Present age. (Date of Birth/ Sunsign/Rising sign) c) Marital status (any dependants? - If so full particulars are needed). d) List any qualifications you have (In particular in the area of "finance", "accounting" "financial consulting", "economics", or similar) e) Advise why you think Zerby is "the bomb". - (Or fiercely deny ever saying so). f) Advise whether you think the "big smoke" and a "fat joint" are the same thing. If you could just shoot a response back, we can get crackin' on that profile you're after. (reply to this comment)

From Persephone Wednesday, August 13, 2003, 10:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, Agrees, it's two for a sense of humor. I loved the points on your "personal information list". In seriousness though, if postings so benign as pointing interested parties in the direction of useful information, and offering a suggestion to do your research before allowing someone to tell you what to do with your money can cause one to be labeled a "newbie" with no valid say on the subject, then, what topic isn't considered "information" or "of interest". Quite frankly, although my education is in a business field, it is not a finance degree (my business partner has a finance degree, and thus far, I've not seen any reason why I should have needed one personally). I would be overjoyed, elated, ecstatic, I would go into rapturous ecstasy if ONLY those among us with a finance education would offer their advice on the money world. This was the original intent of this particular post. To see helpful information about finance on this site from someone besides me, someone better versed in it than me, would make my day -- no my month. If you seriously think that someone blindly following anything resembling advice that I've written on the subject of money would place them in a position of unnecessary risk, please by all means speak up and give the specifics, because to not do so would be allowing harm to happen. I want to know. I will be happy to learn from you. (This is not sarcasm). Even if that were the case, I find it difficult to believe that anyone on this site, after having been ordered around and having had ideology of all sorts shoved down their throats their entire life would take anybody's advice blindly. To suggest that does us all a disservice. I know a heck of a lot more about money & the investment world than most people I come in contact with, but there are a millions who know much more than I do, and quite probably, some of those millions are among us. I want to learn. If someone can shortcut my way to the money apex by allowing me to benefit from the information they've gleaned from both their failures and successes, or just stuff they found plain useful, I am grateful. The woman who recommended to me the book, "The One Minute Millionaire" is a multi-millionaire former real estate agent. It had been recommended to her by Gary Keller. (In case you do not know who Gary Keller is, here’s a link pulled off of google with information: http://www.kw.com/kw/pr/press/NRentreYr060603.pdf) I owe her big time for that recommendation. To me, the information contained in that book alone is worth its weight in gold. Why not pass it on?(reply to this comment)

From SugarRay Thursday, August 14, 2003, 12:28 (Agree/Disagree?) C'mon guy's all he's triyn to say is that many of the problems/tension between various bodies in the family revolved around/involved financial issues. and he's very right about that. and if you've never suffered financial problems when you were in the Fam you probably either have a pretty F**d up veiw of financial stability,or "hell Now we know where all the money went". and as far as newbeis and oldbees, from a neutral third party point of veiw, it's just a decoy from the real point of Persephone article. and ends up to be just another battle off ego's rather than intelligence,.... last of all.. "Can Money Buy Happiness?"...well look at the F**king grin on my face....good to hear ur doing good persephone, as far as investments go I've done my share and I'm always eager to swap Ideas with others who are intrested in Making $$ .....where I am I've made good $$ in the energy sector did 30% in the last 5 months, as far as Realty goes its been pretty slow. What r u into?....I luv IPO's if you've got any hints please let me know. I don't have a degree in Fin myself but my partner has a MBA spec.(technical analysis) so I never deemed it necessary to continue study in that area.......hit me back. (reply to this comment)

From Persephone Thursday, August 14, 2003, 17:08 (Agree/Disagree?) THANK YOU! For this comment and also for cutting straight to the point. You must be doing quite well for yourself to be able to have met the requirements for getting into IPOs. I haven't reached that stage, but I would love to chat and get your take on the experience. I will contact you through your profile.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Thursday, August 14, 2003, 17:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm not sure what you mean by "must be doing quite well for yourself to be able to have me the requirements for getting into IPO's" Any joker can invest in an IPO, they're usually some of the cheapest stocks out there.(reply to this comment)

From Persephone Thursday, August 14, 2003, 20:42 (Agree/Disagree?) I could be mistaken, I'm relying on what I learned a few years ago (and haven't used since), but I was under the impression from what I studied before (and now I'm realizing my memory on this is rather hazy) that to invest in an IPO an investor had to pass the SEC qualifications for an "accredited investor" & if the investor was not accredited, he/she had to pass other requirements -- the immediate two that come to mind are that the investor had to have at least $200,000 per year income for the past two years and is expecting to earn at least that much in the current year, or at least one million in assets. Quite possibly I'm confusing requirements for investing in IPOs with those of investing in unregistered securities, in which case -- ooops. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Monday, August 11, 2003, 23:41 (Agree/Disagree?) For the 100th time, NOBODY IS DISCOUNTING YOUR EXPERIENCES OR YOUR OPINIONS! We realize you and others had a horrible life in the cult, and we’re sorry! Furthermore, nobody has attacked your opinions, unless you attacked theirs first, in which case only our rights to our own opinions have been defended. You’re like a kid who visited France and didn’t like it, then goes around beating up anybody in her school who says they visited France and liked it. (reply to this comment)

From what??? Monday, August 11, 2003, 17:41 (Agree/Disagree?) "Relentlessly attacked?" Please, that is like the kettle calling the teapot black.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, August 11, 2003, 16:54 (Agree/Disagree?) In an effort to prevent causing Nancy any further distress, I shall pre-empt this post by acknowledging that NANCY KNOWS BEST! However, if I may be allowed to post my humble (and inferior) opinion, I shall do so: In your post you repeatedly alleged that I was going around 'attacking' (you used a couple of terms) you who have suffered, or had it rough both in and out of the Family. I beg to differ in the strongest terms! I have expressed my OWN OPINIONS - the same as you! I have NOT ONCE discredited anyone's experiences! You complain that vulgar language has been used in attacking yourself, again I ask you to find ONE example of myself using such language on this site! Granted, others have, however please don't lump me in with the others just because you disagree with both my and their opinions - in many (most?) cases I disagreed with their opinions myself! And, if nothing else, I disagreed with their presentation and language - I believe I have made my position clear regarding the use of derogatory terms. You used the term 'sexist pigs' in a general sense when answering a question specifically about myself - I again ask you to find a single example of myself voicing opinions worthy of such a title! You also inferred that I have discredited others' opinions and then complained about my treatment - this is again, an allegation with no foundation in fact! I have done neither! It's ironic, actually, that you would complain of the volume of mine and Wolf's comments - since the volume of my participation on this site has been increased significantly in response to your own attacks on ourselves, our characters and our opinions. I was also under the impression, that unlike the Family listserv you keep refering to that MovingOn is an OPEN forum for ANY opinions to be aired - not only those which coincide with the management's views. As such, I find complaining about the opinions presented in this forum to be an attempt to revert to a censored media, in which only views supporting your own are allowed - something which I hope will never happen on MovingOn. Bearing your latest post, along with this current one of mine, in mind I assume that you feel threatened by opinions which differ from your own, and as such feel the need to respond in a threatening manner similar to that which you feel is being used on you. Your fears, however, are entirely unfounded, as I have no desire to discredit, threaten, or cause you distress. I respect your resilience and strength of character in surviving what you have, yet I am glad that I have not endured those same difficulties, nor do I have any intention of putting myself through similar hardships. I do not believe that one must have experienced the worst of life in order to recount their comparably pleasant expriences. To the contrary, I have found recounting happy stories to in most cases be an uplifting event, and one which was welcomed by most - regardless the personal history of the characters! I also don't believe that being 'scared to death' of the reactions of fellow ex-members is preferable to being 'scared to death' of the reactions of the Family. I don't allow the latter to affect my opinions, why should I allow the former to?(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Monday, August 11, 2003, 18:19 (Agree/Disagree?) I assure you little Obi Won or whatever you call yourself, I am not distressed by you. You are not capable of distressing me. Don't flatter yourself. I pity you, if anything. Neither am I afraid of you or any of your opinions. You have so very little perspective on the people on this site. No one here "put [themselves] through" anything. Again, your assumptions are incorrect. And yes, there are people scared to death, for lack of a better term. There are horrific stories which have never been told. Just because you might have lived in your "happy...uplifting" bubble, doesn't mean everyone else lived there in la la land with you. Consider your audience before you preach your Pollyannaish, psychobabble. No, those who were abused as children by the cult the Family, in which you claim to have lived in such blissful "unity," do not welcome your "happy stories" which attempt to belittle and discount their experiences. I don't find your arguments threatening. I find them just sad and pathetic. You sound like you're in the troughs of Stockholm syndrome, since you refer to your cult experiences as "comparably pleasant." Yes, it's really just sad, especially when it comes with the cult conceded attitude. "We are the chosen. We are better than all the rest of you. We're heaven's children. blah, blah, blah..." No, you're really just washed-up cult members with no retirement, since your predictions of the end of the world never materialized and you make yourself feel better by discounting the experiences of those smart enough to have left years ago. I heard someone complain recently, someone who left the cult in the early 1990's, that they were asked to prepare a statement of their position on the cult and a resume of their experiences by someone who left less than a year ago. The guy was so offended, he laughed! Especially given the requestor's recent defense of the cult. Yeah, I think that's laughable, too. This guy figured out 10 years ago what this other guy realized just last year. I think that sort of condescending attitude is used just to make one feel better about themselves. As far as those who worked harder for what they have, well, that's just so simple it's not worth explaining. Those who have worked for what they've accomplished do not suffer by comparison to those who were handed it. Neither are they afforded the same respect. If you start from mile 16, rather than 1 or minus 10, in a marathon, you don't get the same credit as those who did and went on to complete it, especially when you're still at mile 16 or 17 and criticizing those at the finish line. How's that for analogies? (reply to this comment)

From Jules Tuesday, August 12, 2003, 01:17 (Agree/Disagree?) I do understand the insult it is when people belittle or attack those who experienced such hell in the Family. I do know that it is true though that some people honestly did not experience what others of us did growing up. I think that the real question that should be asked here though is why that is. It used to be that to leave the Family was the worst possible crime that someone could commit. I asked to leave the Family and live with my grandparents when I was 13 and was not allowed to do so. Instead I was put on months of “special programs” and “spanked” for entertaining doubts. There were some who managed to actually leave or run away, and although Family leaders tried to scare the rest of us with tales of how God had judged them, they survived and we saw it was possible to choose something more than what we were born into. As more and more young people left, the Family leadership was forced to finally accept that despite their best efforts, we could not be forced to conform to their rule. The people who left and struggled and succeeded on their own paved the way for us and the many young people who are leaving the Family every day. The Family likes to claim that they decided to change all on their own, and that they realised that “mistakes were made” and that children needed both more freedom and protection. However, the charter, which marked a significant change in the way the Family operates internally, came about as a direct result of the court case in the UK. I was there in the Family in England during that time, and I know first hand that if it were not for the young ex-members who testified in that case about their experiences growing up in the Family, the real issues would have never ever been addressed. It is no longer established Family policy to beat children, or to put them on silence restriction or in isolation for months or even years. Intrusive OHRs, separation from one’s parents and manipulative training programs are no longer required rites of passage. That is because the judge in England actually heard what went on in the Family and demanded that these things stop, and he heard this because of the people who stood up and told him. Many of the Family’s publications clearly advocated sexual interactions between adults and minors and this material was freely available to many of us as children. For myself, having this material classified along with the Bible as divine guidance created an incredible amount of confusion and guilt when molestation and sexual abuse occurred. What has been perhaps the most pervasive effect of the abuse for me is the psychological effect and struggling to come to terms with the fact that what happened was wrong. The publications that advocated sexual interactions with minors were burned as a direct result of the raids in the early nineties. Many younger people who were born in the Family cannot remember or have never seen some of this material, and as a result it did not have the effect that it did on us. Many of the younger second generation were able to get somewhat of an education in the Family. Sexual and physical abuse and neglect was lessened considerably. Why? Who were the teachers and on whom did the majority of the responsibility for raising the younger children fall? It was the older SGs who were thrown into parental roles while still children and teenagers themselves, and the majority did their best to protect, care for and educate their younger sibling and charges. While many of those caring for children were much much too young to ever have been given such responsibility, and while I certainly do not mean to belittle anyone’s experience at all, generally compared to what many children experienced under the first generation there was at least some level of protection and care. The Family is still the Family and will always be the strange little world of religious fanatics and illogical and bizarre doctrines that we all know much too well. Unquestioning obedience is still required and any environment that demands such allegiance within isolation has the potential for harm if there is no accountability for the actions of those within that environment. For me personally though, to know that a child I took care of in the Family has some “happy stories” of their childhood would be the best thing I could hear. Every child deserves a childhood and to hold on to their innocence as long as possible. I don’t think that “happy stories” in any way belittle the experiences of other people. What they do show is that the courage and strength of people like Cherish, Miriam, Mene, Andrew, Lamont, Abigail, Kristina, Heaven, Dicon and Maresha has made an difference in the lives of thousands of children. The same people who instituted “a victor program in every home” and stood by while Merry Berg was beaten and molested still run the Family. They personally directed places like the PI Jumbo and the HSC during the worst times. These are not people who relinquish control willingly. The young people who first stood up against abuse did so alone and while being publicly denounced and prayed against by their own parents, brothers, sisters and friends. But it is because they did so that sexual and physical abuse is no longer policy or doctrine. People like you, who fought so hard for your freedom and your success, show the rest of us that it can be done. We are all at different places and on different roads, but we all made the decision to change our lives and leave the Family. The only person we owe anything to is ourselves, but every day that we are alive and free to think, speak and live as we choose has more of an effect than we will ever know. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Tuesday, August 12, 2003, 06:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Excellent Jules. I don’t think anybody could say it better. (reply to this comment)

From Mir Tuesday, August 12, 2003, 06:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Well said Jules. The best way I could explain the CoG to Japanese reporters back in '92 was: "The Children of God are like a piece of frozen rotten fish. It looks edible, it smells edible, but it's still rotten to core and if you were to eat it, you could die". I still believe that. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, August 11, 2003, 19:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Analogies abound... answers are sorely lacking! For the record, In this forum I am 'calling myself' Ne Oublie... not to be confused with Obi Won, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker or any other Star Wars character! I'm very glad that you are neither threatened or distressed by my comments - therefore I shall feel free to continue them! Touched as I am to recieve your pity, I fear it is wasted on me, as I'm genuinely not in need of it. However, I hate to be an ingrate, and accept it gratefully! I don't believe I questioned whether anyone was 'scared to death' by the Family. I also did not mean to infer that anyone had 'put themselves through' any difficulties - I was simply stating that I would not do so for the sole purpose of having 'been there and done that' in order to give me a platform of experience from which to speak. It would also appear that you are putting words into my mouth there, by using the analogies of "We are the chosen. We are better than all the rest of you. We're heaven's children. blah, blah, blah..." as that has never been the intent of my posts. So, Nancy, I propose a truce! Everyone knows that we disagree, they have heard our respective positions - many times - and are probably bored of hearing them (pipe up anyone, if you want this to continue... I mean, I'm having fun :D). So why don't we move on to discussing the topics at hand (such as investments and money matters), and leave defending our rights to our own opinions for the time being? If you want to take this as my 'surrender' then do so (although it isn't). But I promise to refrain from continuing this discussion further... unless popular opinion dictates otherwise, or I just can't resist the temptation any longer! HA!(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, August 11, 2003, 15:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Jules, my apologies for not making it clearer. I copied that list of 'Phisiological Needs' verbatim from the website I listed in a following post. I was not inferring that air or any of the other needs were necessarily being supplied 'by' the Family, rather that those needs were being met, ie: they are able to breathe, drink, eat, sleep, etc... I was making this point in response to Persephone's position that Family members were possibly unable to 'progress' to the other 'needs' due to some of the basics not being met. Nancy, I readily admit that I have not studied psychology, nor have I studied Maslow's Theory. In order to properly formulate my response, I researched his theory online (isn't Google the best!) and paraphrased from one of the websites I found. I was under the impression, however, that it did not require a Phd for one to voice their opinion. Nor do I believe that one must have conducted an 'academic study' in order to present observations they have made in their life.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Sunday, August 10, 2003, 18:18 (Agree/Disagree?) There's no need to be so condescending, Nancy(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Sunday, August 10, 2003, 19:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh but there is. Those that live in glass houses... Don't assume to tell people's what's what, then get upset when someone responds. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, August 11, 2003, 06:05 (Agree/Disagree?) I fail to see the application of that quote to this thread, would you care to elighten me, please?(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Sunday, August 10, 2003, 23:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I haven't told anyone "what's what" esp. not on this thread!! I just don't see a need to try to put someone down for no good reason! Just seems a little arrogant to me! If you really think he just got out of the cult maybe some encouragement would be in order! We all "just got out of the cult" and used "cult jargon" at one time or another!(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Monday, August 11, 2003, 11:05 (Agree/Disagree?) I was referring to Ne Oublie telling people what's what, not you. For encouragement, one might want to look to the SPF. There's not a lot of hand holding and poor little cult kid around here when one jumps right into attacking other people, especially when doing so with suspect information and arguments. "No good reason" - everyone has reasons, even if you "don't see" them. I don't expect special treatment in discussions because I'm a single parent, etc., especially when I'm going after other people or claiming I'm right.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, August 11, 2003, 14:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy, First off, I have never requested or expected special treatment on this site. What I have said so far has been either the irrefutable truth, or my own opinion. I don't expect everyone to share my opinion, and I do believe I have been respectful of others' opinions that have been voiced. I would like to understand your reasoning behind labelling my opinions as "telling people what's what" as oposed to the other opinions which have been voiced in here? I suppose that in understanding that I, and everyone else, would also be able to "see" the "good reason" for your comments. From what I recall, apart from holding opposing views on most of the discussions we've had, your specific complaints about my posts were that I 1) used Bible verses in presenting one argument; 2) used 'Family' terms in another. However, in both cases I was merely responding in kind to the original topic: in the first case I was responding to Mir's Biblical reference; and in the second I used the same word as had originally been used by Peresphone in order to maintain continuity. I would be interested to understand why you found my comments offensive, as opposed to the others'. It is natural that in a forum such as this that there will be all kinds of opinions, ranging from supportive to antagonistic, however, your complaints so far have not been in regards to my opinions, rather to my presentation - I'm having difficulty understanding those complaints for the reasons above. So far as I can recall, I have not discredited anyone else's opinion, nor have I insulted anyone for either expressing theirs, or the manner in which they did so. I can't think of any instances where I inhibited anyone's freedom of expresion - unless you consider where I requested that we stick to factual accusations to be so (although that would only be infringing on the right to air libellous accusations) in any case, that was my opinion, and I have neither the ability, nor the desire to actually censor anyone's posts. As such I am interested in what exactly has been so offensive to you in my posts?(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Monday, August 11, 2003, 13:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Is Ne Oublie’s “suspect information” his own experiences? Are you saying he was so brainwashed that he didn’t actually have his physiological needs met, even though he thought he did? There ARE shrinks who can help you, men who’ll say they love you (if you pay them), and sex shops that will sell you devices that might provide the satisfaction you seem to be sorely lacking. (reply to this comment)

From mex Sunday, August 10, 2003, 14:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Am i too late to throw in $.02? Ok I will save it for next time. But I insist that you are a lovely person.(reply to this comment)

From mex Sunday, August 10, 2003, 14:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Am i too late to throw in $.02? Ok I will save it for next time. But I insist that you are a lovely person.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, August 09, 2003, 16:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy, I choose my terminology based on the terms used in the discussion at hand, if you will read Persephone's original post, you will find that he used the word dissunity, so that was the term I chose to use in writing my opinion on his comments. As for 'Love Needs', 'Safety Needs' etc, I borrowed them from the following (non-Family) website, which discusses his Theory: http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM This page was written by a Professor at the University of Tennessee in 1997 - I figure they, at least, know what they're talking about. Now that I'm out of the Family I would like to think that I am free to choose whatever words I like to explain my thoughts, and I don't particularly care to have someone dictate what terms I can or cannot use - although, now that you have made your dislike of terms used in the Family clear, I will attempt to minimise my use of them in my discussions with you. I suppose I'll be able to return to this site for my self-depreciating laughs once I have had what you consider to be a 'legitimate education'... well, at least I'll be able to laugh at JW's 'Hitler on Brazil', or Spat's 'Hey Brian It's my life too!!!' Yea, I'm sure I'll have plenty to laugh about! Thanks for the concern.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Saturday, August 09, 2003, 16:10 (Agree/Disagree?) You know Nancy, I thought I was an asshole, but your unprovoked bashing of Ne Oublie has put me to shame. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, August 09, 2003, 17:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, Joe, at least your ass has a hole. Looks like somebody’s ass is missing a hole and stuffed full of shit (how’s that for cult lingo)!!(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Sunday, August 10, 2003, 19:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Aren't you Ne Oblie's little shipmate? Does that make you Gilligan or Skipper? Nothing like fresh cult kids to act like they know it all. It's almost beginning to sound like that yahoo listserv they run.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Monday, August 11, 2003, 01:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Alright, Nancy, sing along: “Jesus wants me for a sunbeam...”(reply to this comment)

From mikio Monday, August 11, 2003, 01:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Woa there, sounds like someone's trying to defend their psychology degree. I'd have to bet money that U were a psych major cuz sometimes U sound so much like my psyc major roommate. I studied Maslow's hierarchy of needs in a Marketing class -- granted it was a pretty limited application, but every time he'd see some topic in a book of mine that was remotely connected to psycology, he'd have to enlighten me on why whoever wrote the book was wrong/didn't do a proper clinical/gave too elementary a definition. Man, what is it with psych majors...or humanities majors in general? Disclaimer: most people in humanities are quite intelligent. U do have to wonder though about the reasoning of theater, philosophy, women's/black/asian/chinese/humans-who-look-like-plants studies, and any other majors that could fall into the "underwater basket-weaving" category (close to nil practical use in getting a job). (reply to this comment)

From Persephone Thursday, August 07, 2003, 17:51 (Agree/Disagree?) When I was a kid, living with my parents before the "combo" days, we did a lot of "litnessing" and my dad always let us keep 10% out of the gross income that we pulled in. I guess you could say I was a saver because I usually held on to my money. The problem is, when we hit lean times, my dad would borrow it from me and then never pay it back. He must've gotten at least a $1,000 off of me before I turned 12. What's a kid to do? Then we moved to "the field" and everything went downhill from there so far as personal money was concerned. I remember when I was 16 being desperate to get my hands on some deodorant. I ended up a "rider" for a shopping trip one day and I sweet talked the guy I was with to getting it for me on the side. I rationed that bottle like it was gold. For things like clothes and shoes it was even worse. But like some of the others have commented here, when I left the Family, I didn't leave broke. I'd managed to stash several months' worth of living expenses. No, it wasn't stealing. Prior to leaving myself and some friends had our own home and since we were doing some really great projects, we found sponsors for practically everything. Basically that meant we didn't have to raise much in the way of funds. We kept a tight eye on the home budget, lived frugally & then on the side we would work odd jobs, the proceeds of which went straight into our pockets. That went on for nearly two years before we finally left so we had ample time to get some savings together. That in itself made the transition from Family to "system" a whole lot easier than if I'd run away in the middle of the night -- which is what I've heard quite a number of ex-young members either attempted or succeeded in doing in the past. Not everyone has it as easy as I did though. Maybe some of it has to do with not knowing how to hold on to money, but I think that most of it has to do with not having any money. I can't imagine what it would be like to grow up in Thailand or India or Indonesia where saving a few Baht or Rupees or whatever gets you absolutely nowhere. I'd agree that saving is really important in the world of "getting ahead". But I've also come to understand that saving, just for the sake of saving is really a losers game. Stashed under a mattress, or even if put into a normal savings account, the growth of the money barely keeps up with the rate of inflation (and for sure it doesn't if it's just hidden somewhere) & the idea is to get ahead of the game and out of the race, not merely keep up. Ne Oublie, I would be interested to know how it is for you now that you are out of the Family. Any specifics you'd like to give us on what you've personally done to expand your wealth?(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, August 07, 2003, 13:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Bingo! I think we've just discovered the vast difference in your perspective and others, including my own, on this site. You left with "a considerable bank balance" through saving "your 'personal money.'" I have never heard of such a thing. When I left, and many of those on this site left, you could not just leave. You had to run away in the middle of the night and hope not to be caught, like others were. There was never any "personal money." There was little food, as a number of those on this site can attest. Albatross can confirm this. There were no clothes or other personal items available. Nothing was ever bought for you. The things you did have were given to you second hand from someone else lucky enough to have received something new from relatives and then lucky enough to be allowed to keep it. All money given to us was confiscated, even from relatives for clothes or medical care or glasses, etc. Yes, I think we've found the difference. You might have spent years in the cult, but you might have been a teenager and young adult after a time in which the most severe mistreatment and deprivation had been relaxed a bit. That might also account for some people's differing view on the cult and its evil. If you experienced what many of us who came before you did, you wouldn't feel as indifferent, much less benevolent towards the cult. You might not even believe that it was ever any different. Someone, you or Wolf, that they never heard or saw a child screaming from being abused. It shocked me. That was an EVERYDAY occurrence in almost every home I ever lived in. It just happened less frequently in some than in others depending on the people living within.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, August 07, 2003, 19:49 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm glad we're finally finding a way to respect each other's opinions and experiences! As I've said before, I'm speaking for myself, and my experiences - not for what other people experienced. It's just been irritating to see my perspective dismissed out of hand, simply because it wasn't shared by everyone.(reply to this comment)

From Christy Thursday, August 07, 2003, 17:15 (Agree/Disagree?) My dad was really good about letting us keep money that our grandparents sent us. Later, in the teen home days that became a little more of a problem as there were the occasional "bag checks". A lot has to do with when you left. By the time that I left there were a lot more options and ways to make and save money. For example, you could open your own home with a few other young people and all have outside jobs, etc. After my home closed down I went on the road for a few weeks and raised funds. I knew I would soon be leaving and going to college so when I joined my next home I simply kept the money I had raised in a savings account. When I left TF about a year later, I had enough money to at least get me through my first month or two. I do remember the days of teens running away in the middle of the night so I don't want to discount your point of view. There were several such incidents in homes where I lived. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, August 07, 2003, 17:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for your comment. It gives a good perspective. I think some of us who left 1992 and before and then had no contact with the Family since while we were getting our educations and our lives together, remember the Family the way it was. While some who stayed longer or were younger, remember it the way it changed with relaxed rules on money, travelling, etc. So, in my mind, having left in 1991, I remember only horror. While others, thank goodness, remember better days. I do remember some people who had fairly responsible parents who looked out for their children and were lucky enough to be in areas where it was allowed. I remember some kids having new clothes that their relatives gave them or sent money for them to buy. I remember some kids even having braces and dental work, while others, including myself, were made to have my braces removed because it was "a waste of the Lord's time and money." It is wonderful that not everyone suffered as much as others. Yet, it is still terrible the suffering which did occur.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Thursday, August 07, 2003, 14:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy, for the sake of perspective, how old were you when you felt the only way of escaping the cult was running away? Did you live with your parents at the time? Ne Oublie, is your name Jesse Horwitz? If so, I’m coming after you for my cut.... (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, August 07, 2003, 19:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Nope, I'm most definitely NOT Jesse!(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, August 07, 2003, 16:47 (Agree/Disagree?) It was not simply that I "felt" it was the only way. It was the only way. The only way for myself and many, many others on this site. There were endless numbers of others who attempted to run away and were caught. The erie thing is that many of our stories are very similar, early 90s, we were all 17 or there about, a lot of us were in South America, etc. Wolf, it seems that you have very little knowledge of the personal stories of scores of people on this site all who have these accounts to tell. In respect for their privacy, I have only spoken of my own experiences. But, I continually speak with and correspond with individuals with the same, if not worse, stories as mine. That is how it was. It's probably a good thing that for whatever reason, being too young or protected somehow, that you are not aware of these facts. My youngest siblings, who are 19, 21, 24 and 25 remember very little. Thank God!(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Thursday, August 07, 2003, 11:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Since the only way you could make a considerable amount of dough in TF was stealing, you must be a thief as well :-D(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, August 07, 2003, 12:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Incidentally, no! I just so happened to live in a 'financially enlightened' home.(reply to this comment)