I'm not very impressed by the discussion happening right now.
I don't think it would matter when David Knight made an initial post. If he posts something positive about TATF or something that says negativity isn't helping us, you could always look at it as being Steve himself or some shill in response to some negative comment or threat, because that's all that is going on here.
...threat of litigation
...threat of gov't intervention
...questions regarding whether TATF has ever paid anyone
...questions of whether the trees are real and not oversold
...etc. etc. etc.
Just to be clear, I'm saying that if somebody says anything positive it's always going to stand out like a sore thumb on this board, and to some it will sound suspicious based on recent conversations. "Oh, ho, ho!!! A positive post! This must be in response to the 10 most recent negative posts of whatever variety!!! TATF has been jolted into action and is trying to confuse us!!" Only negative posters are believable, everyone else is a shill and must be Steve.
I don't think David is being 100% positive or saying that TATF is doing great, he seems to be trying to be fair and present both the positive and negative parts of his interaction with TATF.
dupedbysteve, you seem to be saying that David is suspect. He has posted who he is, and as I recall gave us a way to verify that. Too lazy to look it up which message right now. Yet you still seem to be saying he just "came out of the woodwork". I agree with mattyo - who are you to say somebody "came out of the woodwork" if you won't say who you are. Matty has been here since the earliest days, but dupedbysteve, you are about 20 messages older than David Knight on this forum. So where do you get the credibility to challenge somebody else, particularly somebody who has identified himself?
dupedbysteve, you have no more credibility than Ab, who also refuses to identify himself, and at least Ab didn't just come out of the woodwork...
Nobody knows who I am (except TATF could probably identify me fairly easily from the content in my postings), so I don't expect anyone to give me credit for being an established contributor here, but dupedbysteve, you seem to assume that you have some status here to discredit others. You say you aren't posting your identity because you are protecting yourself from some potential retaliation by TATF.
How could TATF possibly retaliate unless this is a real, valid company with real assets? If it's a sham and a scam, you have no trees that could be in danger. There is no danger your proceeds will be delayed or your good trees will be reassigned if there are truly no proceeds coming and no trees. Your money is already lost, and if the government has any findings, they will certainly not find anything against you. Why protect your identity if you think you have been duped? I don't get it. That is pure crap.
On the other hand, David and others, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people not to be negative. If the trees are a viable investment and have some value, TATF should have been able to secure enough capital by using their own trees as security, or by selling lumber or wood products, etc. in order to finance their ongoing operations and their capital needs. (Coupled of course with the multiple millions of dollars they should have received from investors already).
Having read a couple hundred of the inital posts, I agree that there have probably been some posters shilling for TATF - whether that was Steve, a close friend of the Brunners, or somebody from TATF I don't know but I think it's reasonable to make that assumption. However, I don't think it adds credibility to the list, or makes it more valuable or readable if anyone who says something positive gets shouted down or called a liar. Let's hear it all and sift through it for ourselves.
