|
In Reply to: Re: one last thought posted by long time out on September 20, 2007 at 00:42:03:
You wrote: "I imagine you are aware that other websites copy and paste things from this site, which can then be located on search engines. This only compounds the problem Johnny Reb and Jo Anne spoke about."
There is always the risk of copying, but when other non-ex-member websites copy anything, it is from the permanent articles section, as a rule never the fluid bulletin board posts. Posts, once archived are difficult to locate if you're not specifically looking for them.
You wrote: "Finding a consensus amongst anonymous posters about an issue seems both difficult and somewhat pointless. It's not like registered voters.
Finding consensus might not be as difficult as you think, and might well be worth a try. I'd even say it's vital. Does it matter that the posters are anonymous? They are less anonymous to us than to the general public, and we can do our best to ensure there is no snipe-and-run, or "repeat voting." But that is a moot point, as it is not about voting. We need to explore the angles, and this is a big subject. We can try to make sure all views are heard and not shouted down.
You wrote: "It is the coordinators of this site that decide what content serves the best interests of those they serve. You folks decide what is allowed to be posted.
Yes, but we do try to make it all transparent -- we post a list of rules so people know what they are dealing with when they participate on the boards. What we need to avoid doing is setting up rules behind the scenes, tailor-made for the individual. We need to develop a general policy, and make that policy available and clear for everyone.
You wrote: "I am not sure what purpose is served by insisting that the matters in question be discussed on the world wide web, when that is exactly the issue that is affecting the lives of folks, both FG and SG that are trying to move on. But perhaps I am missing something.
Well we see it differently, but the problem is here, and is best confronted here. I have had the same experience trying to clear up my name proliferated on dozens of websites before, and was pleasantly surprised at how helpful webmasters can be. What more can people ask when we state publicly now, that we want to help, as long as they get on the record and clear their names up?
You wrote: "I simply do not see what good is accomplished by the use of legal names of exmembers who are truly sorry and are trying to do the right thing."
We do not allow people to name names without first-hand legally-backupable accusations. The legal names that have appeared on our site are generally of:
a) big leaders and people of notoriety
b) people who volunteered their own names as part of The Family's own public fronting game via the FCF umbrella.
Category a) people will have a lot to answer for publicly, and should publicly distance themselves from The Family, wouldn't you think?
Category b) people: They gave their own names as a matter of public record, to lend a legitimate face to the cult. Shouldn't they have to answer for that? How will we know what they now think until they tell us? Is it not in their own interest to make a statement for the record?
By law, privacy applies less or does not apply at all to people in both categories -- they are public persons, and owners of public charitable enterprises, accountable to the general public.
You wrote: "I can't see why a discussion without the entire planet having access between the parties affected and those who make the decisions that do affect the lives not just of FG's but also (and more importantly!) SG's, wouldn't be a good step."
You do have a point in that ex-members shouldn't be tried on bulletin-board courts of public opinion, as one of our posters pointed out. But you miss the point that there may be more parties affected than just the two you mentioned. Other parties may include but not be limited to:
1) the general public they have deceived
2) other ex-members they have offended
3) other members/ex-members they have collectively encouraged to support The Family
In the case of no. 3), it becomes a matter of importance when they have been well-known, sold-out, zealous and influential types everyone looked up to. They may or may not have had leadership positions, but may for example have written brilliant testimonials about adult-child sex, or done something which encouraged the prolonged attachment and general devotion of other ex-members to the cult, which in turn damaged countless other lives.
You wrote: "Why not keep it simply to Bible names? That would serve your concerns about accoutability, and at least minimize the risk and damages to the children and grandkids at least?"
That was actually already mentioned to the people who wanted to clear their names up. But if people fall under category a) or b) above, their names are public domain, and they have a responsibility to clear up their own reputations, regardless.
