Like I said, the man was naive. Once he left their monastery his money stayed in their pockets. Was it moral for them to do so after it's obvious he wasn't aware of their history? I'd say no.
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. I was merely pointing out that just because there was a lawsuit, it doesn't necessarily qualify as reason to discredit them.
It wasn't a blanket statement, it was a piece of advice coming from someone who doesn't believe a good portion of what they teach is true
Right.... But when confronted about providing proof, you answer like most who cannot provide an adequate answer, such as:
That won't be necessary.
I remember Salza saying that they were ducking him.
Doubtful, but certainly within the realm of possibilities. The point, however, is that if you're going to accuse them of being frauds, debate them in a public setting and prove it. Saying that they're frauds on an internet forum doesn't do your accusation any justice.
I'm not trying to hold you to anything here on the forum, but if you believe they are truly frauds, then expose them in a debate setting so we can all have proof.