|
In Reply to: Re: More... posted by aargh on January 01, 2005 at 21:39:24:
I haven't been back yet this morning, but when I was about to go to bed last night, I checked on, and he had really fallen apart. I'm not sure if this is a person who is used to barking orders and having them blindly obeyed, or if he is just a loose cannon who shouldn't be on the Internet according to Family rules.
He told me to retract my statement, and I declined to do so:
"I refuse to retract my statement at this time. There is overwhelming evidence both written and historical in nature that support it. My opinions are formed by over 25 years of regular interaction with current and former members of The Family. I have access to a fair number of original 70's era Mo Letters, that I have read. By the way, accepting donations in return for sex is prostitution. [[User:Indian Joe|Indian Joe]] 01:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)"
His response was this:
"Well, I am baffled! Here is someone who quotes from Websters, then claims that the letters said to do the same, cannot produce the proof, but includes an excerpt from a letter to back his claims but conveniently leaves out the paragraph that says the exact opposite, was never in the Family but says he knows how hundreds or even thousands of former member thought over a space of 25 years or more in the past. Now he says he has overwhelming evidence both written and historical as though by saying that that is enough to justify his claims and gives him the right to call people names. And I get accused of double speak. And Cassandra, I knew plenty of fish who didn't have to support the Homes. Perhaps dumping them if they didn't is the way you treated yours. Frankly, I thought to hear better from you as those I talked to said you were a loving and thoughtful woman. Anyway, it seems that your minds are made up so I guess I will stop confusing you with the facts. --[[User:Cognomen|Cognomen]] 04:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) "
I responded as follows:
"I didn't call anyone names. [[Prostitute]] is the polite term for someone who trades on sex. What baffles me is how a group that so said to its members '''"IF YOU'RE TO BE GOD'S WHORE YOU CAN'T HAVE MUCH PRIDE!"''', is now too proud to admit that they encouraged their members to become prostitutes. You might be in over your head on this thing. Maybe someone should give Grant or Claire Borowick or one of the PR Spin Docotors a call and tell them to come in here and try to explain this thing away. I'm sure you are a very nice person, and very dedicated to your cause. I am sorry that this has been so upsetting for you right around the holidays and all. [[User:Indian Joe|Indian Joe]] 05:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)"
Now, he has unilaterally declared victory. I think he is living in a dream world, if he thinks that this is what it looks like to win an argument:
"That's nice of you to say I am nice and dedicated. However, I have proven my point but you have not proven yours. Realizing this page is already too full and the administrators are going to want to archive it, I simply declared victory in the debate and left it at that.--[[User:Cognomen|Cognomen]] 07:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I'm trying to archive these discussions here, because there is nothing preventing someone from the Family from erasing the entire section. Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't done it already, considering the terrible job they are doing at defending themselves. I guess this is why they rarely venture into a public forum.
