Posted by AndyN on May 31, 2010 at 11:37:00
In Reply to: Re: I hope this is clearer then posted by WC on May 29, 2010 at 21:43:12:
Thanks for your answer and clarifications.
I do not intend to pursue this anymore; i.e. this settles it as far as I am concerned (but I do understand if you have things to add). IMO failure to realize what is at stake *can* be a cause or reason for misunderstandings or worse, a bias against people who merely disagree about processes as well as goals, which - among other things - can work against the mission statement of this site.
“If you are referring to this post at we never stated as coordinators that we knew for a fact that you were in TFI. Our phrasing was admittedly strong, but we used tentative "if" clauses and asked that people be honest about where they are coming from. We know for a fact that many a TFI member have tried out their deceivers-yet-true stuff on our boards. You appeared on our boards claiming not to be an apologetic, but yet that's exactly what you were, at least from the coordinators' and several board users' perspectives, and I for one, thought that was quite dishonest of you.”
I understand and take note of your view. My responses here are…
1) I was honest from the start about where I come from, so for me it was – and still is - redundant and irrelevant to keep affirming this. It was generally interpreted as meaning something other than what was said (?). If someone wants to believe otherwise, well then I for the most part see that as their own problem, not mine.
2) Whether I could be interpreted as an apologetic would then depend on exactly that, the interpretation. Anecdotal evidence is dubious. Whether I *was* (or am) an apologetic would depend on what I actually wrote.
3) And it is worth to note that it would only be dishonest if I willfully was to try to deceive others.
4) Most here knows that current TFI members often try out “their deceivers-yet-true stuff”, nevertheless I think it would be far better to let any doubt be to their benefit.
5) Whether someone is seriously suspected a current TFI member or not, IMO we ought to curb bias.
Meaning although I think of TFI *system* as a typical corrupt control system, I prefer to look at individual rank and file members as for the most part being victims and caught within the system and in many, perhaps most cases unable to leave on their own. Pretty much everyone who leaves TFI after 20 or 30 years *will* have a huge load of baggage…a large part of their mental wiring is inverted and set in concrete for years to come and to expect them to change overnight is futile. Therefore I suggest they be met where they are at, not where they could be in 20 years or so. But even this does not happen overnight, it takes that we realize that what we now have is not necessarily *the* truth.
“You also jumped the gun on us, and uncalled-for accusations of censorship are normally the M.O. of current members (), so a question naturally arose about where you were coming from exactly.”
Which I understand very well.
I will admit I was frustrated at the time of writing that in part because I thought the post clearly had been culled or delayed. I really was under the impression it was delayed for a longer period as I had no detailed record of when it was originally posted but that is my problem. Some people were coming on pretty heatedly and emotionally back then and to me it was useless to answer back at the time, much less in like manner. (See the netiquette).
You wrote: “Ultimately, all that matters is content.”
Exactly, there is not much else concrete to go on, only hunches and circumstances. As you noted, I have f.x. posted from many different locations, but that is anecdotal.
”And yes, there is of course a difference between making pro-TFI statements and voicing views which go against the general ex-member consensus on how to deal with TFI members. The two may sometimes coincide, but they remain very separable issues.”
Replies to this Post:
Post a Reply