FV sympathizers?
What is an 'FV sympathizer'? Is it someone who agrees with FV, or someone who does not agree but doesn't think it is that big of a deal?

This is an insightful question, and I appreciate the humor with which others have answered it, but I have chosen to deal with it seriously. In fact, I revised
my current story on the LaP, to comment on this question.
I think if you read
my original story on the Jan. 19 LaP meeting, you will get a sense of how some of the votes were subtly nuanced, with commissioners voting the same way for different reasons. Perhaps I was not subtly nuanced enough, as I got private correspondence from a friend of mine in an FV church, chiding me that there were commissioners at the Jan. 19 meeting voting in a perceivably anti-FV way, who really were pro-FV, but who were voting the way they did in order to protect the LaP vis a vis the SJC. That may be the case, somewhat, but I think not significantly. I think the over-arching point is that groups arrive at truth, or clarify truth, gradually, with different members getting it quicker than others.
Let's take a concrete example. Rev. Wilkins' associate pastor made a motion at the Jan. 19 meeting to disapprove Rev. Wilkins' FV views. He was hoping a negative vote would be construed as a "vote of confidence" on Rev. Wilkins. That motion failed. I voted against it, not because I favored Rev. Wilkins' views, but because I felt the motion was out of order. The moderator had ruled it was in order, and I had not had the presence of mind to appeal the decision of the chair. Probably I would have lost that vote, if I had appealed it.
The point is -- there were subtle shades of issues. We got there gradually. Those of you from elsewhere who are so sure you are clearly pro-FV or clearly anti-FV have trouble understanding why we did this or that. The answer is, I think -- truth is a process, not having arrived fully.