Steven Sharp
Scott, I won't deny that a lot of time has been wasted here. But I think that maybe the value of the time spent is being somewhat understated.
Your claim to telling the TRUTH, and having NO VICTIMS is not in the past-tense. There is simply one more 'example' that can be easily taken out of context and used against the work here. But those are essentially just LIES. And what else is new from the Law Society?
If the Law Society had simply hired a few patsies when TTFL first started, to spend a few months in the group, and then purposely fail in court, throwing around the name Scott Duncan and TTFL group, would that have similarly painted TTFL as a waste of time? If so, I think we're giving in to these pieces-of-shit too easily.
I won't deny the lackluster performance of the group. I mentioned a long time ago, that one of the most surprising things about TTFL was how few people seem to be paying attention; how few people seem to be following your work.
For anyone not up to speed on what that work is, it may be some of the most important, relevant, and imminent work our species is currently involved with, if only for the future accomplishments that may be made possible on its account. What is that work?
Scott Duncan has told the truth; in a world of lies and ignorance.
Scott, when I inquired as to how much of our precious time we really must spend refuting the bullshit made up by idiots, the response was quite one-sided.
Their bullshit has to be stood up against, EVERYTIME.
You say you've kept your promise; well for four years I've been witness to it, and then some. You've done more, and risked more, than anyone I will likely ever know.
I would never claim you owe anything to anyone here. Quite the contrary, to you a debt is almost certainly owed, one that I think you would accept. One I would likely never be able to repay, but should certainly spend the rest of my life trying to, and in your eyes, would probably fail to.
But as I understand it, that's what The Tender For Law is. A place where we can point to the out-of-context/half-truth 'examples' that the Law Society uses, and cut through their bullshit. Publicly show people the obvious(or not so) non-sequiturs and straw-men that they use to get away with their pretense. Shine the light of truth on their deception-through-ignorance.
Whether David-Paul Sip, or any other man or woman does or doesn't start singing the same song as Gail, or any other for that matter, doesn't change the truth, nor this public record of that truth, which is visible for any thinking individual to see.
And from our side of this thing, it seems to me that their positions, no matter what they are, can't be the defining factor of whether or not TTFL is a success or not.
Had I not been attracted to the flame of truth this group represents, there's really no telling what bullshit I would have blindly wandered into.
But I was, and one of the most important things I've learned, is the value of ASKING the question. Not just having a question, but the act of actually asking it. So I have to ask Scott:
Is there no way to maintain/hold/save the value of this group? Must we really concede that David-Paul Sip's ignorant, mistaken public statements are all it takes to taint this pantheon of truth? Can the conditions of this test not be changed, so to speak? If anyone is a master of doing so, its you.