Article in the Times by Tom Whipple about a son's defoo from his family:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5485325.ece

I think the article is very fair. I don't think Stef sees it that way though. He's busy re-writing his main page at the moment!

As with the Globe article, Stef recorded the interview and has put it on his site so the article can be compared with the recorded interview.

I think the joint phone interview would have been Stef's idea so he could intervene if Tom went off message.

The whole lot of them over there suffer from excessive self absorption, separate from any legitimate feelings they have about their various relationships. At 18, Tom is ripe for it. He clearly has a fine mind and is someone who seems to value knowledge and principle, so hopefully over time he will land in a different philosophical place. Perhaps a little more life lived will lead to a greater depth of experience and a broader empathy for those that might need him even when he doesn't need them.

The good thing is that of all the FDR'ers Tom is one of the very few who seem quite happy and chipper (unlike e.g. Greg, Charlotte, JC, Bockman etc., who just seem so angry and bitter and confused so much of the time). And he truly is an exellent communicator and thinker who expresses himself very clearly. The problematic thing is that in this interview most of the thoughts he so eloquently expresses are really Stefan's thoughts (often even the exact wording, or metaphors). But it is also clear that Tom is not sort of blindly parroting Stef like others might, but has truly thought about and applied these thoughts in his life, for better or worse. They are alive for him and he understands them very well (again, for better or worse).
I was very impressed by Tom.

The more critical questions start from about 75:00, and it's very cool that the interviewer mentioned podcast 1034 (I don't know if he saw a reference to that podcast here or elsewhere or that he just listened to a whole lot of 'em) as an example where Stefan seems to be looking for just any unpleasant experience with a parent to explain the person's current problems with, and that that (and not the general advice of 'stop seeing abusive people') is what people may find problematic and freaky about FDR.

That said, if the interviewer promised Tom and Stef that a link to the interview audio would be included in the print and/or online version and then he didn't do that, then that's pretty shitty of him (it's an odd promise to make btw, so perhaps it was more a matter of miscommunication or something, but perhaps also not since Stefan seems quite confident about it)

it's also interesting that one of the arguments that Stef used against FDR's being a cult was the list over at FACTnet and then he only mentions those things that are obviously not applicable to FDR (how to dress, sexual behavior, when and what to eat) and does not mention all the other ones that may be more relevant. So he is aware of these criteria, but just chooses to ignore them.

also, Stef keeps repeating the lie that he never told Tom to leave his family in that podcast

I've been reading some of the articles Whipple has written and he's a very funny writer, see e.g. here.

I've posted this video before, but heck, I'll do it again "How to Become a Cult Leader"

Barbara, what I was wondering about: if I remember correctly. in the interview Tom talks about the month or so after he had the convertsation with Stef and how in that month he had tried to talk with you about the situation repeatedly, but how that didn't go anywhere. Would you say that you would have done things differently in that month if you could do it again?