|
In Reply to: To Smiley, et al posted by WC (gen coord) on April 28, 2006 at 08:12:40:
Smiley started off professing ignorance about TF and stating that he was just here to defend his friend, Peters. Then, as the discussions got more heated he began to reveal that he knows a lot more about TF than he was letting on.
For example, Smiley posted a reply to OT2
Posted by S on April 27, 2006 at 22:46:35
In Reply to: Re: I Am not a Family Member and I anot Paul posted by OT2 on April 27, 2006 at 22:19:30:
at the end of which he states: "I Knew Meshach, the Mexican> He was one of the first to pioneer Mexico so you must have know him too."
That's kind of suspicious and sounds like at the very least Smiley is an exmember. He sure knows alot about it.
Elsewhere Smiley said he doesn't agree with all of Maria's doctrines, which implies he is familiar with them.
In another post he challenges the idea that all SGAs were harmed by stating: "Ask the ones who posted on My Conclusion.com." Again, this suggests he's familiar with the issues of abuse in TF.
He also says to read the stories of abuse on movingon with a grain of salt, suggesting that he's also familiar with that site. (what a repugnant statement by him)
Why did Smiley even come to this site in the first place? How did he find it so quickly after the intial post about Peters was posted? I think he knows far more about TF than he lets on.
Also, he has tried several times to make this about something else other than Tim Peters and his affiliation with TF. First he tried to turn the issue on its head by condemning us. Now he's trying to make it an issue of religious freedom. Those are just red herrings. The real issues are truth and justice. Regarding Peters, the truth as to his Family affiliation is the real issue that started these discussions. If he is, he needs to disclose that to potential donors.
We know for a fact that Tim Peters was a Family member as of March 2005 and up to that time had several times proudly acknowledged that fact to third party reporters. While there is always the possibility that Peters has in the past year severed all connections with TF, I'm more inclined to believe that he remains a member until there is evidence that he is not. When TF becomes displeased with a member such as in Steve Matheson's case, they make a public display of kicking them out of their fellowship, warning other members, etc, which hasn't happened with Peters. On the otherhand, if Peters has voluntary cut off his affiliation with TF, why doesn't he make that public?
I find it extremely suspicious that in two previous news articles Peters openly and proudly declared his membership in TF, but in the Times article he doesn't. It is only natural to ask why he is silent on that point now, and also, why didn't the Times reporter ferret that info out by doing a simple internet search.
