Replies to post #2346 on Investing in Timber

[schaef]

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.

[schaef]

"I think I represent investor sentiment when I say they are not interested in the sputtering and fulminating and anguished self-righteousness of the random (and suspicious) forum member, but their primary concern is the lack of any kind of information coming from the company and the owner they entrusted with their money years ago. All those who disagree with this paragraph pleae sign on and say so! "

Since you asked: I disagree.

1. My primary concern is the health of my investment and the potential proceeds.

- I'm certainly very concerned with the lack of communication as it pertains to the health of my investment. However, if Steve wants to keep his mouth shut and just send me lots of big checks, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Not that I see that happening.

- I strongly disagree with your characterization of David Knight as suspicious. You are suggesting that I should trust you more than I trust him. Why? Because you say so? Who are you? I don't put a ton of faith in David Knight, but who cares? I'm not putting a ton of faith in you either. I have a verified name for David Knight (of course, it's verified by another person that I don't know) and I don't have one for you. But I'm not about to hand a blank check to either one of you. What does trust mean on a public, free, mostly anonymous forum? Give it a rest.

- There's enough great crap-detection going on on this forum that I don't think many unsubstantiated positive comments or reports are going to go unchallenged. Shills are not going to survive here because nobody will take them seriously.

- I will take sputtering and fulmination any day over personal attacks, suspicion and McCarthyism. From either side in this discussion. I want to hear everybody's opinion - I can sort it out for myself, thanks.

[David Knight]

belmontx wrote:
"If this whole thing looks ridiculous, it is. This is childish in the extreme. Like, ALL IN FAVOR OF DAVIDKNIGHT'S VIEWS PLEASE SIGN ON AND SAY SO."

The principle difference here is that you continue to say that you represent the vast majority of tree owners, or that you feel you represent the vast majority of tree owners. I have never said I represent anyone but myself.

Why, in a public forum, can't people speak for themselves? Who asked you to speak for them? If you want to express your personal opinion as your personal opinion, more power to you! Anyone that agrees with your posts can post replys to show their support. But when you repeatedly express your personal opinions as though they were fact and that they represent the vast majority of tree owners, then your claim begs proof.

One of your principle complaints against TATF is your belief that they have misrepresented facts and made false claims in their promotional material. By making your own point against them by yourself misrepresenting facts and making false claims hardly inspires great confidence in your judgement or your motives. It also calls into question the moral superiority you have claimed for yourself.