that and this completely defending piece of ridiculous:

Nathan wrote:

It's kind of interesting that he points out Stef's income, 67 PK's x $500 = $33,500, take that number and divide it by 2.5 years and you have $13,400... throw in the extra change for subscribers and lesser donators and you might have $15k or so - that puts Stef at or below the poverty line in some states.

How he calculates an annual subscription over 2.5 years is pure desperation. Not too mention that Stef has very little over head as he uses a "free" forum and all the gifts in kind he receives, like editing services, artwork and web hosting etc. Either way he would not have quit his day job unless it was proving to be profitable.

And, of course, all of this information is already publicly available. It's just that it's now more visible than before to a wider audience. If Tom was actually worried about people knowing that he's attracted to members of the same sex, the of course he would not have posted about it on a public web forum, or would not have spoken about it on the audio of a freely-downloadable podcast series.

This is Tu Thanh Ha, the Globe and Mail reporter, with a clarification about what defoodDad wrote above.

My understanding of my agreement with him is that, in his case, we would publish first names only.

Since I didn't link to any of his daughter's FDR posts, whatever was removed didn't involve her. (Of course, since threads have been removed he couldn't have known the exact content). And yes, I did notify him, by email.

I normally stay out of debates about the articles. I present some information. People are free to love it, hate it or ignore it.

However I wanted to correct what I feel is a misrepresentation of my actions.

Thank you.

Stef himself said last August that he got $3-5K a month in donations. Probably more now.

Excellent find, Moe!

Heh heh...

Stef wrote:

I'm sure a few marriages broke up because of feminism, it doesn't make feminism a cult.

Ya know the radical strains of feminism? The ones that say that, fundamentally, no men are good? The ones constantly insist that every single action that any given man takes is to assert his dominance over women? The ones that say that the only way to a truly "equal" world is to cut off from these corrupt savages? The ones that say that most other forms of feminism are completely soft and will never ever accomplish anything unless they follow their rules (although they're really just giving feminism a bad name)? Yeah, those are cults. But FDR is nothing like that. Not at all...

_________________
[INSERT MEME HERE]

Is any one following the comments on the Globe and Mail article.

like this one:

Barry Gray from Moose Jaw, Canada wrote:

writes: A proportion of those who act on Mr. M's "philosophy" will, after some years, (as much as fifteen to twenty it's been shown) will make overtures and make nice to their then aging or aged parents to come back into the fold. When that time comes a parent could choose to apply Mr. M's "philosophy" in reverse as it were and regard the adult child as the sociopathic "evil one" in their lives and reject them as potentially being too disruptive, too problematic and damaging to their remaining twilight years. Should the parents welcome the prodigal ones back with open arms, would the parents not always have the feeling that trust has been compromised and that the adult child could again dump them and rekindle the awful pain all over again? Mr. M did not invent his so-called "philosophy" but rather is promoting what has become known in psycho-therapy circles as "pop psychology". It's been around for a long time - over twenty years and has done much damage to family life that number, I'm sure, in the millions. Mr. M has just re-tooled the marketing aspect through the internet which is very clever on his part from a business perspective. A Dr. Tana Duneen blew the whistle on this junk psychology in 1996 in her book entitled "Manufacturing Victims - What the Psychology Industry is Doing to People". It is published by Robert Davies Multimedia. Dr. Duneen holds an Honours Degree BA from McGill and a Doctoral Degree from the University of Saskatchewan. She is a full member of the American and Canadian Psychological Associations. Outing the dangers of what Mr. M advocates in his interactions with those to whom he communicates is the best protection for sons and daughters and their parents.

There are some good responses there and worthy of discussion? When I say good I mean in contrast to responses read prior with regard to defoo that had much reference to god, religion and the state. I am kinda proud of my Canadian bros and sistahs.. though I don't agree with everything, there is some objectivity there and that's refreshing.

Even Sonia Chimes in....

This is my favorite FDR response from the FDR boards, in their thread talking about the Globe and Mail article:

Quote:

I'm curious how I would have reacted to reading this article pre-FDR. I think I might have been turned off.

I read this as saying that if he hadn't heard of FDR before reading the article, he would be turned off from joining FDR. I think it is very interesting that he still thinks this about himself. Now he knows, of course, that FDR is good, but if he didn't already have that information and wasn't a member that had access to proof that it was true, he would conclude that FDR is bad.