|
In Reply to: Re: please be patient... posted by LTO on September 20, 2007 at 19:10:20:
The point about using bible names was already addressed earlier. I wrote:
"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."
So as far as I have stated repeatedly, doing this in public is a very pursuable option. But the rest of your post seemed to be about not doing this publicly:
"If [the general public] have been decieved then they will not in anyway benefit from any action you or the family involved take. It seems outside of the issue of this discussion to me." (my emphases added)
And I'm sorry but I really don't understand: "your response, point by point: 1) as far as the general public goes, do you really think some guy who bought a poster, or donated out of date inventory to an orphanage somewhere is reading this site or googling the internet? As far as the policies of this site goes, it seems totally irrelavant."
What is your point exactly? Is it about how irrelevant whatever is posted on the site is to people? Because you seemed to say the opposite:
"It seems to me that you may be underestimating the radioactive nature of being in any way linked, even in the distant past, with a group as volatile as The Family. Employers are not generally in the business of trying to help people other than their investors. Very few people either have the will or the time to try and explore the many complex issues raised in the wake of High Control Groups.
You wrote: "Anyway, perhaps I am just unable to understand the goals you feel are being accomplished at present that could not be even better achieved by considering an adjustment ."
We are considering an adjustment -- that's what this whole discussions is about.
I'm sorry, but I'm confused.
