MK forum

In Boz's letter from GRACE, he says:

"These actions by NTM leadership seem consistent with a heart that desires to finally do the right thing for the right reasons. Let us remain hopeful as we continue to be watchful....."

The key words here are SEEM and CONTINUE TO BE WATCHFUL. Hope is great if it is being exercised in the right place. We will hope in the Lord and not assume a big turn around in NTM. Yet. Not until we see abuses that are going on right now stopped.

Maybe this should be on another thread. But Bonnie is right. Hope carefully.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but when it was first posted that Larry Brown traveled to GA, and talked to law enforcement, I did not doubt that such action actually took place. I may not be as jaded as some (not judging, for others have ample reason to doubt), but from a legal standpoint, would NTM disseminate such actions if, in fact, such steps had NOT occurred. The distinction from past actions taken by NTM is clearly seen for past "reportings" or "dealings" with abuse were kept "in-house" and not easily refuted (just ask COURAGEOUS and others who had to deal with past NTM "in-house" dealings). This latest step could easily be corroborated (one other person has just done so); but my point is that had NTM just put out they took such action and THEY HAD NOT DONE SO, how stupid would that have been????!!!!!!! Remember, if anything, Larry, et. al., are attempting to win back trust. To act fraudulently in this instance would have been to reap the whirlwind.

So, while I appreciate healthy skepticism, let's not be like the defense attorney cross-examining the medical examiner and pressing him as to whether he was SURE the alleged victim had died. In response to the persistent questioning the ME said he was sure the victim was dead as he was holding the victim's brains in his hands at examination. To which the persistent, if utterly bone-headed, counsel retorted, "But were you sure he was not alive." The ME replied, "No, I suppose he could be alive and practicing law somewhere!" (THIS IS A TRUE EXAMPLE, BY THE WAY!).

Healthy skepticism is okay . . .but let's not go overboard.

@ OT: I don't remember including surrogate back-flips on my website. Must have been the fine-print I my overzealous law clerk included. (geez!!) As Prince Humperdink is reputed to have said, "Good help is so hard to find!"

However, might I suggest a solution to your "contractual conundrum"? Statute of Frauds.

George soros

@ OT: nice form! LOL

I will stick my neck out publicly- because I've already PMed Bonnie about agreeing with her- and say that I also am not that excited about the EC's latest doings. Sure, it's great they did this. But as someone else said, they SHOULD do it and should have done it how many years ago.

I don't think any of them stuck their necks out by going to the sherrif with the information. I think they would have and probably did weigh that all out well in advance, as to how it could or could not affect them each personally, and as a mission.

So, great for them. They did what they should. I hate hearing how "it's a start." A start to what?? How many times does NTM have to "start?"

We should all be very careful about telling each other how to feel, or what is over-the-top and what isn't, in my humble opinion. I can see 100% why some might not feel very hopeful, even with the latest developments; why some may still remain very skeptical and conversely, I can see why some are excited and hopeful.

As a therapist once said, "We can't define someone else's reality." We really can't. People are where they are in this journey, and it's OK if some are hopeful at this and some aren't. I really don't see anyone going overboard on this topic or being overly-skeptical. I just see people where they're "at" right now, and that they have very good reasons for being at that place.

So, I hated to jump in on this, I really did, because I'm an 'outsider.' But I wanted to support those who aren't feeling particularly hopeful at this point, because I can really see their side of it.

@ Mrs. M: I see your heart and acknowledge your side of things. My earlier post (and I suspect, others, as well) was simply to give credit where credit was due (even if the actual doing was WAY long overdue!). To do so was in no way to minimize the injustices of the past.

Can those who've suffered for so long be hopeful, even if such hope is minimal when considered through the prism of the past? Can those who desire to adopt the "trust but verify" approach engage in skepticism without negating those who are hopeful? Might I suggest that one can be both hopeful, yet skeptical; positive steps can be highlighted without betraying the notion that the road ahead remains long, and the journey towards healing must continue in a persistent and consistent manner on the part of NTM.

Neither skepticism nor rising hope need be mutually exclusive.

I only raised the questions I did because I was in the dark, something I am capable of being even at high noon, outside.

I did not mean to question the veracity of Sir Ornery. I value his opinions and expertise; that is why I asked him, not someone else. I had not seen the detailed letter sent out by GRACE, and the NTM blurb used the exact same language as the GRACE report suggestions. Ornery Thornery was posting enticing morsels that made me hungry, metaphorically speaking, and I didn't know where they were coming from. To change the metaphor, I felt like I had wandered into the wrong home room and everyone was laughing at a joke that I hadn't even heard.

Before I posted my questions to Sir Ornery, I edited out a line that said, "I would like to join the celebration." I took it out because it sounded too much like I was trying to find a place at a table that was not set for me, somewhat like sneaking into a state dinner to grab some quick snapshots with Joe Biden. But, I was trying to belly up to the table because I was hungry, not vain. "Men do not despise a thief if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry." Please do not despise me. My soul was famished.

These forums can give rise to serious misunderstandings, and my frequent and sometimes disjointed posts probably do not help. Picking the wrong words can also have devastating effects. I remember with shame saying "mitigate" when I meant to say "militate" in an interview with the BBC. (They honored my appalling ignorance by making sure that particular line made it on the air!) Somewhere on these forums, I wrote "approbation" when I meant "opprobrium." This is what happens when I am trying to get it right. And it is only a small sample. I am too shy to mention the real zingers.

I tried (and humiliatingly failed) to assure readers that I was not casting doubt on who did what; I even said that. I was in total ignorance of the source of all the euphoria, a lack that MK sheri supplied. I took the time to thank her for her post, and said that I hadn't seen the letter before. I will add that my post would never have been made had I seen it first.

I regret saying anything that would indicate that I think the Fanda Eagles are in any way more courageous than Larry Brown and the other leaders who did the job they should have done long ago. It is cruel and thoughtless to demean another person's firmly held convictions, sincerely performed duties. In my defense, I did not know I was doing that. To my shame, I did it anyway. Not meaning evil is a poor substitute for meaning well; it is offering up a serpent when one begs an egg.

I am indebted to Forgotten MK's gentle rebuke. I agree: this thread is not the proper place to point out darkness, raise questions. I didn't mean to bring anybody down; I am happy to have good reason to celebrate the courageous baby steps and brave small bright spots after waiting decades; it is a start, and it should be celebrated. We celebrate New Years, don't we? Yet it is just a start, a promise of what the future could hold. I am speechless just trying to imagine where these baby steps could lead in the next few decades. It's staggering.

You are correct in your generous assumption, Forgotten MK - I do celebrate these wonderful events. I acknowledge your kindness in giving me this benefit of the doubt. I appreciate the undeserved vote of confidence, doubly so in light of my miserably worded post. I would ask that my post be removed, but I'd rather it stay up as a good example of a poor post, a reminder to me, if no one else, of the need to be chose one's words with care.

I will not even attempt to express my admiration for the brave men on the Executive Board who, in spite of not having a good history in this area, actually went by themselves to report these crimes and alert the police. It is so much like firefighters doing their duty, braving the flames of a burning building, just in case there is more they can do. Totally awesome!

"Trust but verify" is a good policy, if not entirely at home on a thread dedicated to celebration.

May I suggest changing "skepticism" to "caution"? Skepticism doesn't lend itself to degrees; it is like chastity in that way.

Caution has more leeway. You can be a little cautious, very cautious, overly cautious. That is probably why the term cautious optimism was coined, dreadful term though it may be.

Words do matter, and I don't mean to imply that I have got it right on this one. Just trying to sort our my own thoughts, not take away from the minimal hopes inspired by the WAY long overdue progress.

I do not make any special plea for my own word choices, by the way. I used other's words in my last post and, although not altogether happy with the results, I posted it anyway. I feel safer using the same words that others are comfortable with.