I am beginning to not a pattern here.
First, both sides should stop the insults, RW members as well as RW critics. The name calling doesn't do anyone any good.
I have edited out insults from an RW critic recently.
The most recent post of RW man was left intact, even though it was laced with personal insults.
But that is the last time.
Remember that "flaming" is against the rules and those that engage in this repeatedly will be banned from the board.
It seems to me that RW members don't answer questions or allegations directly, but rather go in circles avoiding disclosing much, if anything, abuout the group, its finances, the leader's wrtings etc.
In my experience if a group has nothing to hide it will be more forthcoming and transparent.
I agree with the moderator.
Those who are interested in exposing what they believe to be hypocrisy and the dangers of this organization, would do best to simply ignore the vitriolic posts by Royal Way Jacumba Michael M. Gottlieb supporters. For that matter, the supporters would do best to ignore the vitriolic posts from their opponents as well, and it would be best for them to post in a friendlier, more calm manner, to show anyone who is reading this bulletin board that one COULD actually criticize the group without fail or risk of personal attacks to themselves, but that is another issue entirely.
I would say the best thing to do at the moment is for ex-members to keep coming forward with their stories about what goes on inside the organization, and for other individuals to keep digging up research and data about the financial workings of the organization.
The moderator is correct, the very fact that these sorts of organizations are NOT transparent financially and otherwise, and are most definitely NOT open to criticism and transparency - is the most suspicious trait of all.
If one were to go to for example to General Electric and ask for the last 10 years of detailed financial statements, they would be most happy to provide them to you, perhaps for a small fee. If one were to take out a Full Page ad in the New York Times criticizing General Electric's specific policy on something, General Electric would most definitely NOT respond with ad hominem attacks and frivolous legal threats against the individual who took out the ad. They would most probably respond with their own 2 Page ad, clearly explaining the situation.