This is a tropical timber message board.
It is not a TATF message board. It's not specifically associated with TATF and no ownership of TATF trees is required in order to post here. At least, that's my understanding. Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure somebody will be happy to do that ;) )
I think belmontx, dupedbysteve, justcfrall and other former tree owners certainly have a right to post here as much as I do or any other current TATF tree owners, or anyone else for that matter. So if the question is whether I want to be exposed to anyone's views in particular, my answer is "yes". I want to hear belmontx's views and dupedbysteve's views as well as David Knight's views and even Ab and Steve if they want to post.
I do hope that if you don't have money at risk, you will consider what others are saying who do. (I exclude from this request anyone who has a payback plan in process - if you are supposed to be getting paid and you are not, then I think you do have money at stake)
I think it's inane to keep calling people shills. It's at least McCarthy-esque. Suggesting that anyone who disagrees with your view is somehow bad and therefore has no right to speak is not promoting a good discussion here. If there are shills on this board, it will be pretty obvious, because it's hard to imagine that anyone can stay truly positive about an investment that is returning no money, including the original ante. There's no point in fighting David Knight. If you are right that this investment is pouring money down a rathole, he will be crying his own tears about that within a couple of years. Enough people on this board have turned from mild questioning to frustration to committed pessimism over the last couple 1000 posts, give David time to lower his expectations. Also, there is plenty of good crap detection going on here - it's hard to imagine that somebody can sneak by with a lot of positive reports without backing it up. It's not happening.
dupedbysteve, it's hard to accept anything that you say when you continue to question others' identity without ever having giving us one single shred of evidence of who you are. You can't even have fear of retribution against your trees now, since you don't own any. If Steve Brunner could have the law on his side against you, then he wouldn't have sent you any money, so you can't have fear of law or courts in this matter. I don't care what your judgment is of David Knight's proof of identity, because at least he provided some. You have never provided any, and with what reason?
dupedbysteve, you certainly have a right to remain anonymous. But if you want to challenge others' identity, I call you to throw your own on the table. Or just stop.
