|
In Reply to: Re: A one-cent suggestion posted by Jo Anne on September 20, 2007 at 18:04:09:
For the record, we are totally for helping people move on and protecting their privacy when it applies. There were several instances in the last year where we removed names of innocent bystanders (One example is here: ), or posters who wished to remove their own info which they submitted voluntarily.
Going by some of the good suggestions below, if the parties concerned come online and discuss this, and there are extenuating circumstances and/or the parties concerned are sincere making themselves available for contact, open to questions, etc, we'd definitely want to help them move on. Removing their names from existing pages will be up for consideration. There are no guarantees in the Internet world, but it's a pretty good deal -- we will do what we can to ensure there are no more search-engine traceable additions of their name on our site. I don't really know how to set criteria for determining "sincere" though, but as someone pointed out, we are left to take their public statement as their word for it.
You wrote: "My question to coodinator is: So what if they used FCF. I don't think it was to give TF legitmacy. I think it was more like survival. If donors could "tithe" through FCF, they were much more willing to give, being able to write it off. Would you rather them of been in TF in a 3rd world country and not used FCF? It was a way to feed their families. Why pin point that group? All donations given to TF are equal, whether funnelled through FCF of not. Some little poor nobody on the feild is not to blame. It is the founder or coordinater of the bogus foundation."
What you pointed out might be true, but it is just one part of the equation, not the whole story. There is a whole school of thought which goes, "if there isn't a budget for it, shut it down." In other words, the other side of the story could also be that if the economics was simply not supporting them they should have faced up to the hard economic facts and realized they were feeding an economic black hole -- not gone for back-door methods of deceit (normally called misrepresentation and/or larceny when you are not up front that you are The Family) and redistributing funds internally (normally called money laundering).
All donations given to The Family were also equal in that they were usable for furthering its aims, including financing leaders in hiding from prosecution.
