Re: Question

Posted by Simon on June 03, 2010 at 05:06:00

In Reply to: Re: Question posted by CB on June 02, 2010 at 19:53:43:

Your right, I made a mistake on the final number count. What I had also done was to add on a number “out of a hat” of the number of children under 18 years (as that number was not listed).
But here are those numbers broken down: Brazil. 911. Mexico. 508., Japan. 394. India. 353. Europe. 1,197., U.S./Canada. 810. This would include U.S. territories. Americas. 730. Asia/Oceania. 639. Africa/Mideast. 476.
TOTAL: 6018 Total FD, MM, FM, and AM, 18 and up. (There might be about 2000 to 3000+ under 18). So, you’d be looking at 8000 to 9000 in total.

And banning me for speaking the truth or clarifying a few comments (that where 100% wrong ) doesn’t show this site to be open to opinion concerning matters of what is actually right and wrong or give to much credibility to the site overall. Even now, I made a mistake in the numbers and willing to admit it, but a number of users to this site don’t always tell the truth, rant and rave about matters they don’t fully understand, where not there or weren’t even members, but their comments get shoved to the fore, as though its “sound fact”. Ok, I got it wrong with numbers, but you see that’s all some people see. The fact was the person commenting was trying to say that members don’t have bank accounts, don’t have licenses, and don’t own a house or able to rent, don’t have an education and have loads of kids. Is this true today? My answer is it is not true. To some degree there are a number of members that don’t have those things, but they are dwindling in numbers. Another time I spoke out against a person who said that all members where in essence con-artists, not really doing social work, living of donations and so forth (and his comments where strong). Fine, he can speak freely, but not everything he said was factual. He even admitted he was never a member, so his observations are more as an outsider then one who was there. Sure he “works” for some big organisation, but that doesn’t make him an “expert” on family matters, it’s history, problems and so forth, plus that very organisation he works for has it’s own major pit-falls, money wasting scams and so forth, but it doesn’t mean the person themselves is bad. But, he took offence that I disagreed with him.
I’ve lived through a great deal of the history of the family, I was there (not like I left around kahotec, left around “Ban the Bomb”, left around the FFing days, left around “school vision”, left around “Tony Series”, left at “What If”, left at the arrival of the “Charter”). Everything I have said (no doubt a couple points might be off at times as I am not perfect) has been to voice the facts and not ride along on a witch hunt of words. This is the very same thing people on this site accuse members of today, that they aren’t open to "facts". If a person on this site got abused, I have never rebutted their claim (as I know it did happened). If a person claims they got beaten, once again I won’t dispute that. But, if someone who was not there tries to come across as an “expert” and never experienced the situation first hand then I feel out of “freedom of speech”, I can tell them they got it wrong. It’s almost childish how people pick on one thing, but avoid the facts, -- today’s facts. I guess by the time you finish banning everyone here who has a different opinion, there will only be a handful of you left that “speak the truth, and nothing but the truth”.

Replies to this Post:

• Enough with the family-esque persecution complex Coordinator Jun 06, '10 08:41