In Reply to: Yes, I am posted by Confused on November 02, 2005 at 07:32:29:
You are trying to draw a general conclusion from a single case, and that is not a reasonable thing to do. If by "trends" you are referring to the hard questions and sharp commentary provoked by James Seemore, consider the possibility that he isn't a true victim. James set up the conditions under which he chose to engage in dialog with people here. If he received something less than kid-glove treatment, it might have something to do with his behavior, particularly his evasiveness.
James came to an exer board and made claims about TFI being a safe place to raise children. Rather than engage in a discussion with people who seriously challenged those claims, he chose to focus on comments from people who questioned his identity. Well, we can argue until the cows come home about whether James is or is not an SG Family member in good standing. At this point, we're off topic, btw, and James now chooses to play the part of indignant visitor who's gotten trashed by hostile apostates. What's next? Oh, yeah. Now we can start recriminations against each other for failing to treat the visitor with kindness & courtesy.
How might things have been different if James had stayed on topic--the topic HE brought to this board, a topic that the Coordinator repeatedly posted. Do you suppose people would have become so skeptical and aggressive if James had chosen to respond to informed commentary and questions about raising children in TFI? His persistent refusal to address the topic he raised in the first place lead many of us to ask a simple question: What are you doing here? I got particularly annoyed when he took on the victim role, as though his behavior had no relevance whatsoever to the perceptions and responses of longterm participants at this site. The avoidance of personal responsibility for the consequence of one's choices is classic Family behavior. I experience it as extremely manipulative.
I don't think it's necessarily the content of someone's belief that makes it a evil doctrine. To me, true evil is when a person refuses to critically analyze and logically defend the assumptions and claims on which a controversial belief is based. James believes TFI is a safe place to raise his children, but he refuses to discuss the assumptions and claims on which that belief is based. Then why is he posting on this board? Exfam exists for the express purpose of exposing the irrational beliefs and deceptive practices of the Family.
Besides trying to generalize conclusions from a single case, you are also trying to compare apples and oranges. People's attitudes toward relatives and friends who are still in TFI have been formed in the context of longstanding history and private communication. The substance of those relationships don't get played out on a PUBLIC internet board with a bunch of anonymous people. Therefore, I would logically expect the attitudes people have toward TFI friends and family to be very different than their attitudes toward the suspicious behavior of a virtual guest.