Confidentiality

Jules: Whild it's no secret that I don't agree with you on many things, I don't recall ever stating this publicly. If you have something that you want to discuss I would be happy to talk it over, but would rather do it publicly since you do not believe in confidentiality of private correspondence anyway. Free speech means that we have the right to think critically about not just the Family but everything else as well. People often disagree with me on different issues, and you certainly have the right to do so as well. However, since you refuse to respond to my questions, I'm just going to write what I think.

Sam: Jules, you don't need to come out publicly, I already know what you believe. I read your posts on your website. I know where you are coming from, where you were going with your questions to me, the same place you did go with this long post that I am answering now.

I didn't even have to read you post to know what you were going to say.

You were asking me too many questions, for one thing. It was kind of overwhelming.

I started answring it, but I realize I was cought in the middle of writing a thesis, so I deleted the whole thing.

But since you wrote your answers first it is a little easier to just respond to those.

Before I go any further I want to respond to your jab about confidentiality.

What my rule about confidentiality is about is this:

I am not saying that everything sent to me will become known.

What I am saying is that I will be the one who determines what will become known or not.

In other words if someone sent me an e-mail that someone is poisoning the water supply of Los Angeles, but he says, don't say anything, keep it a secret, I would say he is crazy even to suggest that.

If you sent me an e-mail that you were sexually abused by so and so in the Family but add: "this is selah" I wouldn't accept that.

If you wrote me about your personal strugles, or private things that are truly private I would never think of making them public, unless there was a very, very good reason for that.

I have been doing this anti-COG thing since 1990.

I soon realized that ex-members are into this selah thing to the extreme in many cases.

They want to tell me things, but I can't use the info. Well, I already know the Family is a distructive cult, one more case of abuse that I hear about is not going to open my eyes. I already know. What good is such info without freedom to use that info?

This became a problem. I knew all these things, but I couldn't use the info because everything is always so confidential. It is almost a sickness with many ex-members.

Some were so super-sensitive! Can't give out someone's phone number until you call them, find them, then get special permission.

Been in the middle of all that exchange and request for addresses I was going crazy.

Then at one time I forgot something was told to me confidentially. It was years ago. I had completely forgotten. I still can't remember.It was a big mess, on excognet, if you happen to have read all that.

So this was the nature of the problem.

I wanted to quote someting from Mary lou's newsletter. This was a public newsletter, everybody has the right to quote as long as you follow the protocol and put it in quotation marks and give the reference or source.

I wrote Mary Lou saying that I was going to quote something in her newsletter. I didn't have to ask her, but being nice and wanting to be sensitive about it, I wanted to let her know. The reason I wrote her was for any possible objections from her. In my mind I had decided that if I don't hear from her in two weeks I will quote it. I didn't even know if she was going to get my letter.

I wouldn't even ask her now. I have the legal and moral right to quote anybody, anytime, any book, and magazine, and COG publication, and ex-COG publication, though I understand there can be some restriction, about which I am not very clear.

I got this very caustic rebuke back from Mary Lou about how dare I do such a thing. I was sore for three day.

Then if my timing is right and I didn't misunderstand, there came this huge big thing on her newsletter about a million rules as to what can't be quoted, the whole nine yards. I believe it was all about me.

It somewhat reminds me of your rules concerning ex-members not posting on your website about or around or near the time I wondered into your chat room. I can't say I am certain or that I know, but I am sure Jules you know. So, was I in part the reason? Was I the main reason?

Anyway, all that to say that, my rule came out in reaction to a real situations which I could no longer endure.

I want to also take this opportunity to go one step further and say that even things that I did agree confidentiality to before or after my rule, I reverse that here and now, and I declare those confidentiality agreements void.

It does not mean I am going to make all that public. Of course not. I don't have any business to. There is no need.

But if they involve matters of child abuse or are relevent and within the perimeters of my conflict with the COG, I have already explained myself on that.

Sam A.

ps. I am really not looking foreward to getting into all that about Barney and Joseph and Joshuah except to say that Barney and I go a long way back.

One who is not familiar with all the backround information, Barney's central role in things for many years, not much unlike your cental role in things now Jules, could not really understand why I felt the urgency to post that e-mail from Josh about Barney on this website.