[OBW]

Indiana,

I realize that I have challenged you on your “style” in the past, but feel compelled to do so again. You have started several threads, including the three in this sub section of the forum, yet received only one reply within this subgroup (prior to this one) and few elsewhere except on three or so threads.

First, I should tell a little about myself. I am the kind of person who will read what the opposition has to say for the purpose of understanding both their thoughts and my own. In contexts outside of these LC discussions, I read from all sides of many issues. But I find it difficult to dig into books, articles, web sites, etc., that come off as too preachy about their position, especially if they seem to simply dismiss all others. (That has made it difficult to read back into Lee’s books because that is exactly how he approached most of his subjects. He was the master and what he said was too often to be taken as correct without discussion.)

Now, I also assume that you may be less interested in comments on your post and more interested in people clicking on the link to twoturmoils. And it may be having its effect to some degree. But despite my natural curiosity, my first impression is to skip it. Why? Because I would always read the rest of the post first. Since it consists of two sentences from Nee’s TNCCL, and then the concluding paragraph from the linked site — a paragraph that is highly critical of the existing leadership and even a little condescending of those who simply stick their head in the sand and hide from all negative reports — it will tend to have the opposite effect on those who really need to read it, or anything like it. They have already stuck their heads in the sand. Do you think that they will pick their heads out of the sand because you or anyone else says that is where their heads are? No. They will resist the charge and merely deflect back to you as being negative.

Your facts are well documented. But they are packaged in a manner that only those who already have some agreement will read. I liken it a little to the difference between reporting and editorializing, and between CNN and Fox News. If there is a story, the news will report it. But too often, the reporting is mixed with the editorial comments of the reporters. If you agree with those comments, you will tend to like to get your news from that source; if you do not you will avoid it. In terms of news channels, I like Fox. Others like CNN. To me, CNN is too openly liberal, not just in its editorial content, but in its editorializing of what should be simply the news. Fox has somewhat the opposite slant. They claim to be less editorializing in their reporting, and while I do believe that they are much less so, they still do some, but to the side I prefer. So if you tell me about something you heard on CNN, I will not likely respond until I hear the same story told on Fox. I am quite unlikely to simply turn on CNN to hear it. I don’t trust the source.

So those of us who are already on the side of understanding the gross failures and even wrongdoings of the LC leadership over the past 30 or more years don’t really need to visit your site. You have assembled snippets from sources with which many of us are quite familiar. But those who are not familiar with the materials, but only the claims of ambition and heresy so slanderously put out there by the LC leadership, they will consider your little introduction as proof that they are being asked to trust Pravda for their news. They will leave any reporting on your site to their own version of the CIA — the BBs.

Consider a new approach — even to the actual content on the site. A simple reporting of the events in a chronological sequence without editorial might get some bites. It might change some minds to at least consider discovering more. In effect, a "Two Turmoils" lite site as an introduction to a much meatier site.

Just my opinions.