No. I carefully and purposefully did not make the mistake of oversimplifying because I wasn't trying to quote anyone. I said specifically that they are not intended to represent quotes of anyone on the board. I will say it again in case there is confusion. I did not intend to quote anyone with those statements. I was not intending to represent anyone's position. They were not "attributed to an unknown source", I very clearly and intentionally did not attribute them to anyone at all. What I was doing was presenting invented examples of speech.
I made exaggerated examples to make the point clear and make it easy to differentiate between the two kinds of statements. All they are is examples of different kinds of speech - objective facts that are helpful vs subjective statements that weaken the discussion.
I gave examples of the kind of statements that I think are harmful. "The sky is falling" is another example of a statement that I think is unhelpful. Or, in a crowded theater, "FIRE!", in the absence of conclusive proof of fire.
Yep, words are all this forum has going for it. I agree wholeheartedly - let's be truthful and objective. Let's not resort to namecalling. Let's not jump to conclusions and then use those unvalidated conclusions to beat people over the head.
You have a great crap detector belmont. I think Ab is full of it. I like it when people say in response to his posts, "keep in mind that this guy has refused to document his identity and is unrelentingly positive in the face of all evidence that things are going poorly" (not trying to quote here either). That is a great fact, and it needs to be added every time he says something to balance what he is saying. Calling him "Steve" isn't the same. Even if you really think that it's Steve - I think the way to handle that is to gather your evidence that it's Steve, put it together in a logical proof, post it, and then refer to it again any time you want to suggest that he may be Steve - but leave room for the possibility that you're wrong. I say this to everyone: don't be "negative Ab" like dupedbysteve was. Rise above.
belmont, you have done a great job of that a lot of the time. I respect a lot of what you post.
Over time, the only thing that will help is truth. That's my idealistic view. I want truth from Steve, I'm willing to be careful in my statements so that he has no reason to think that he won't get a fair shake with me if he comes forward. Let's stop hitting below the belt. But hit above the belt all you want or need to.
Let's keep track of the promises and the outcomes. Let's collect info on what's happening on the farms and with the business - real, verifiable info with circles and arrows and 8x10 color glossy photographs. fawtsc has great posts - he is gathering info, verifying TATF's statements and posting his conclusions. I don't object to putting facts together and drawing conclusions. If TATF is a scam, mismanaged, untruthful, etc., then collecting evidence and posting it logically will gradually be a lot more damning than emotional assumptions (as it already has been). If the evidence leaves room to think that good things are happening then there may be ways that we could eventually be helpful and work together to dig everyone out here. I repeat what I and others have said: any hope we have that TATF will come through is the only chance we have to see our money again. That's my opinion.
If I want to scare myself needlessly I can go to the movies (I say needlessly because my invested money is almost certainly completely out of my control now. Making myself angry or frightened about it isn't going to earn me a penny. My opinion.). I don't need that from you guys on this forum. If I want a lot of apparently unsubstantiated assumptions and baseless statements that are calculated to hype me up I can just go read TATF's website.
