Quote from a newspaper article posted at xfamily where erroneous information is reported without citing the source or checking the facts:
"Berg, a recluse who never allows himself to be photographed and who now reportedly lives in England, recently met with the Libya's President Khadafy for nine hours, and says they found much in common...Both ban alcoholic beverages and drugs, claim the poor will inherit the earth and object to pro-Israel Zionists."
Since when did Berg ban alcoholic beverages? Did Stephen Bruce Ferguson, the interview source for this story, tell the AP writer, Dennis Redmont, that abstinence was Berg's policy? Too bad Redmont didn't cite his source ("According to Ferguson, both Berg and Gadafy ban alcoholic beverages..."). Instead, Redmont makes a statement of unsubstantiated fact based on a source of information that he neglects to cite. Too bad Redmont didn't check his basic facts by talking to a former member.
NRM Academic: What do the facts matter? It's the active members' perception and recollection of the facts that are important. It's not that big of a difference to say Berg banned alcohol when he definitely banned drugs. So what if the source of my information is lying for the explicit purpose of impression management?
News Hound: Evidence that Family members were willing to lie about Berg's policy on alcohol use in has huge implications. 99% of Berg's so-called "prophesies" were drunken rants. Facts matter. If they'll lie to the public about Berg's teachings on alcohol, what else will they lie about?
BTW, does anyone remember the guys in the photo?