| MK forum https://fandaeagles.com/forums/ |
|
| A Fanda MK responds https://fandaeagles.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=353 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Gene Long [ Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | A Fanda MK responds |
On September 4th, 2010 at 00:53, a poster signing him/herself "Fanda MK" posted this on the "about" page: I read this report, and was saddened to find that it is riddled with inaccuracies and absolute false testimony. While there are sections that are true, there are large portions of the report that are absolutely false, poorly researched, and show absolute incompetence by those handling the report to ensure that the truth was told. It amazed me that, they couldn’t even bother to get the names of some people correct, while in other cases they made accusation without ever researching the accused or supposed victims. In the end, the report has become a “Fanda Witch Hunt” and serves a great injustice to the real victims. Several replies have been posted there, but maybe this is a complex enough issue to have its own thread here. Generally speaking, generalizations are not generally helpful, and Fanda MK's comment, while having the unquestioned asset of brevity, is too general to be convincing. Like many of the others who have responded, I would like to know who the "real victims" are. I would also like to know what inaccuracies Fanda MK has found in the report. In which cases (note the plural, as per Fanda MK) was an accusation made without ever researching the accused or supposed victims? GRACE, according to Fanda MK, couldn't get the names of some people correct. Does this mean spelling errors, as on page 44, footnote 325, where Bill Keele's name is spelled "Keel"? Or is it more substantive? |
|
| Author: | Gene Long [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Fanda MK responds |
For a report that is "riddled with inaccuracies," the replies to this thread have been pretty threadbare. . . I found one error that really stood out to me, though I don't think it really touches on the credibility of the overall report. On page 6, fn17: "It is difficult to understate the breadth of the Field Committee’s reach into the lives of those under its charge." This most likely should read, "It is difficult to overstate. . . " or else, "It would be a mistake to understate. . . " In other words, the authors used the exact opposite word from the one they intended. So what? Doesn't sound "riddled" to me. I hope that any inaccuracies will be pointed out. (I've found a couple of more mistakes, by the way. But, again, they don't touch on the credibility of the report.) Until then, it should be borne in mind that NTM has not challenged the accuracy of the report at all. That should count for a lot more than vague assertions. |
|
| Author: | Naomi Cleaves [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Fanda MK responds |
I believe some inacuracies were pointed out in the "ammende final report" and the "addition to the ammended final report". I am happy with the further investigation that was done on my part though. I informed GRACE of the inacuracies that I saw and they fixed them to my satisfaction. I have let GRACE know that I am now happy with the report as it concerns me. If there are other victums that are still unhappy with the report and feel it has inacuracies I would encourage them to contact GRACE. All I want is the truth so PLEASE do contact them! |
|
| Author: | Bonnie [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Fanda MK responds |
I know of one other who has contacted GRACE about some inaccuracies very recently, but I'm not sure if that will change the jist of the report. |
|
| Author: | Naomi Cleaves [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Fanda MK responds |
I think the inacuracies were minor and none of the ones i pointed out changed the recomendations or anything. like i said just minor things but they were important to me! |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|