In Reply to: Re: Thank you.. posted by l.t.o. on September 20, 2007 at 11:48:08:
We still see it very differently.
1) "general public they have decieved". If they have been decieved then they will not in anyway benefit from any action you or the family involved take. It seems outside of the issue of this discussion to me.
For example, the public could benefit from them coming clean and owning up to how they scammed them for donations through charity fronts. The public should be warned about any scams by The Family, past and/or present. The public deserves to see testimonials of how people misrepresented themselves through such legitimate-looking fronts. It would be their moral duty to apologize, in my opinion, not just wish it would all go away. I'm sure there are other opinions about this though.
2)"exmembers they have offended". Wouldn't the solution proposed deal with that just as effectively as the current policy? (I would think moreso.)
No. How would anybody know who we've been talking to if it's all kept a secret? And how would anybody even know they're available for discussion, or find these people if they don't come out and identify themselves and let themselves be confronted? And how would anyone else benefit from discussions if they aren't shared?
3)"other members/exmembers they have encouraged to support the Family". Again, same situation as point 2, it seems to me.
Same answer as above.