Isn't this the same blog network that some advocated a boycott of because of their endorsement of To Train Up a Child, by Michael and Debi Pearl? Now I didn't approve of that boycott. And blog administrators have the right to disable accounts. Still, I don't care for their actions very much.
OK. I read through two of the posts which were taken down. In one of them, the Southern Poverty Law Center provides some alarming quotes from Christians who justify lying, and that not during a time of war. It seems to some that if you think what you are doing is right, and it qualifies for being a spiritual battle, then you are justified in lying:
http://cynthiagee.blogspot.com/2007/01/behind-hyper-patriarchs.html
http://cynthiagee.blogspot.com/2007/01/behind-hyper-patriarchs-part-ii.html
More chilling is the fact that to Steve Wilkins and his associates and their followers, LYING is perfectly permissible, and even virtuous, if it advances the Patriarchal cause. From page two of the same [Southern Poverty Law Center] article:
“An important tool of the movement is stealth. Theonomists justify this strategy with a Biblical story, “Rahab’s Lie,” of a young woman who lies to protect the lives of Israelite spies in Jericho. In an article posted on the web site of Wilkins’ church, Deacon Kevin Branson praises Rahab as “a spiritual hero” because “she deceived the wicked who sought to kill God’s own people.” Branson said he writes about Rahab because “some of us don’t have a clue about honorable and necessary deception of the wicked.” His conclusion is that “sometimes God requires that we offer by way of our right hand a sweeping sword, and from our lips deception, that the wicked might fail, and Christ and His Bride might flourish.”
36 comments:
There are still tons of ANTI-Pearl blogs at homeschool blogger. I see them all the time. Why would they leave up anti-Pearl posts if they are PRO-Pearl? Why not censor those?
The Pearls probably could have forced those blogs down by demanding the removal of the nasty posts about them, by putting them (homeschool blogger) in a situation where there was potential for a lawsuit on the grounds of libel or of character defamation or of loss of revenue, etc. But the nasty Pearl posts are still up, so apparently the Pearls did not do that.
Who knows why her blog is down, but the censorship angle just doesn't seem to fit.
All Cynthia needs to do is read her email. HSB Admin has sent her two letters, now. Very simple. If she does, she'll understand what's going on. Not sure why she hasn't contacted Admin about this complaint...seems odd.
Not sure what this has to do with the Pearls either. If you didn't approve the boycott, why bring it up as a point for this particular complaint? Not everything is a conspiracy theory...
Gena, I looked. There's nothing in my email from Homeschoolblogger except a newsletter. And when I tried posting to contact the administrator, I was notified by the control page that my account was disabled.
You know, gena, I just thought of something.. maybe Yahoo lost the message somehow. I just emailed you through this address: publisher@thehomeschoolmagazine.com
... and I sent you my alternate email address. Maybe it will work better.
"Not sure what this has to do with the Pearls either. If you didn't approve the boycott, why bring it up as a point for this particular complaint?"
I have a response to this, but will wait until this apparent e-mail situation between you two is cleared up.
Got your message, Gena. You should be receiving my response right about now. It's aggravating that Yahoo let the all the other Homeschoolblogger correspondence come through, but ate your letter notifying me of the letter of complaint you had received and your subsequent deletion of my postings.
But, Yahoo does work in mysterious ways.
Letter of complaint? Cythia, why was your blog disabled? Because someone complained? Did your blog contain lude material? And was your blog disabled or was it just the three posts that were disabled and a few of the names changed as authors of certain comments?
It certainly does seem odd. And it just seems odder when public messages about "check your email" are so cryptic. Why not just let everyone who is reading these blogs know what happened? Did the administrator try and contact you with the specific complaint and ask to hear your side of the story before taking action? It must be a very serious complaint to be handled in this fashion.
Weird.
Hi all... I'll tell you all about it later tonight or first thing tomorrow. Right now I have a real-time storm to deal with, it's snowing cats and dogs where I live and I gotta go run errands, because tomorrow we're supposed to get freezing rain.
Well, I just got another letter from HSB, and I'm not sure how much I can publish about what they told me, at least on my blog. The letter pointed out that there is a clause in the HSB terms of use, which reads:
"User hereby agrees ... (g) not to knowingly create, re-create, provide, upload, link, post, re-post or comment on deleted or banned Material, warning letters, sanctions or private communications from Company, Website or their legal counsel;"
But it doesn't stop me from sharing my "sent messages" folder copy of my letter which I sent to THEM, and here it is:
SentMail: Email 1 of 1 Move to Folder INBOX Draft Screened Mail SentMail Trash < Previous | Next >
Read Message
From:goldndog1@comcast.net
[Add to Address Book]
To:"Publishers, The Old Schoolhouse(R) Magazine"
Subject:Re: HSB blog account
Date:Monday, February 12, 2007 10:37:07 PM
[View Source]
Hello! It looks as though any future communication between us had best be done through this address, rather than through Yahoo.
Just to keep the record straight, though, I want to say that I reposted those articles on purpose, because when they disappeared without any apparent explanation, I assumed that it was the work of a hacker.
I was unaware that anything in any of those three postings was in violation of the HSB terms of use; further, I am especially surprised that James McDonald would complain about his letter being posted on my blog, since it was first posted on my site as a comment by none other than Mr. McDonald himself.
If you like, I will refrain from re-posting those three articles, as well as any other material that may be deleted in the future, provided I am made aware that it has been removed by the HSB administration. However, I would like to post an explanation of what has taken place, including a copy of our present correspondence, in order to set the record straight and explain to people that I was not hacked; and, I would like to provide a link to my other blog, so that blogowners who have linked to "Behind the HyperPatriarchs II" can still find the material they are looking for on my other blogsite. Would that be acceptable?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sincerely, Cynthia
PS.. one other thing -- in order to further clarify the nature of the problem, would it be possible for you to send me a transcript of the letter of complaint, minus the signature, if necessary? Thanks...
Well, it seems that Homeschool Blogger does not believe in the freedom of speech, as guaranteed in the First Amendment.
It seems that Homeschool Blogger received a WRITTEN letter of complaint regarding Cynthia's blog and the things she had been posting, which linked James McDonald and other prominent leaders in certain movements to NeoConfederate authors Pastor Steve Wilkins and Doug Wilson. Following the receipt of the letter, the HSB staff reviewed the posts and stated:
"The review is performed by the staff of HSB and, when appropriate, by HSB's legal counsel. After review, portions of the above-named blog have been deleted. The reasons for these modifications
of the blog content are (1) violation of the Terms of Use
and (2) avoidance of potential legal claims related to the blog content."
In other words, it looks like somebody leaned on Homeschool Blogger and threatened to sue them. This is not a new tactic in these circles, but it seems to be easier than hacking, and if you use Homeschool Blogger, apparently it is more effective as well.
I do have to wonder what kind of legal counsel they employ, though, that doesn't understand that we have the freedom of speech to say public truths about public figures. I would say that all the names used by Cynthia were quite public and she has no need to fear a lawsuit.
Maybe someone with a Homeschool Blogger account could enlighten us as to which terms of use she apparently violated.
I am so glad I use secular blogs!
I just want to stop in and say I'll be praying for the situation, Cynthia. We are iced and snowed in here today, and possibly for the next couple days, so I should have some more time to sit than I did today.
I did not know that Gena had sent some letters. I had thought the posts were deleted without explanation, and although that is their right, as is boycotting, it isn't behavior I care for, so that is why I brought up the subject.
But it looks as though homeschool blogger had pressure put on them, and they did write a letter to Cynthia. So my apologies to Gena Suarez.
I don't see all the dots Cynthia connected in those entries, not being familiar enough with the persons and institutions she mentions, but I do think if you disagree with her, the best thing is to dialogue with her first. She seems open for correction and I've seen her apologise and change her wording.
Jen, I agree. I'm glad I'm on blogger, for the time being, anyway.
Lynn, I didn't know that Gena had sent me any letters. None ever appeared in my Yahoo mailbox, and until she posted about it here I thought that my blog had been hacked. I had tried to contact the HSB administration through the "HELP" feature on the HSB control panel, but couldn't get through, since my blog was disabled.
After Gena posted here, I searched through my entire Yahoo mailbox (including over 2000 letters in my bulk mail), and didn't find anything from HSB except the initial letters they sent me when I first opened my blog, and an Old Schoolhouse newsletter dated from a couple of days ago.
SO, I wrote to Gena using the address in the newsletter, and gave her the address to my Comcast mailbox. Immediately I received a letter there from Gena, part of which I shared with Jen, and which Jen posted here today.
The letter stated that HSB had received a written complaint about several of my postings, and that upon review, those postings had been removed.
I was also told that in order to regain access to my blog, I had to agree not to repost the deleted material.
I wrote to Gena, **from my Comcast mailbox**, and agreed not to repost the things that had been removed, and I asked her if I could post an explanation of what had actually happened on my HSB blog, and include a link to my Blogger blog, so people who had linked to the deleted articles could still find them.
This afternoon, I recieved an answer from HSB, **in my Yahoo mailbox**, informing me that there is a clause in the HSB terms of use, which reads:
"User hereby agrees ... (g) not to knowingly create, re-create, provide, upload, link, post, re-post or comment on deleted or banned Material, warning letters, sanctions or private communications from Company, Website or their legal counsel;"
Upon reflection,I find it very odd indeed that that today's letter, the Old Schoolhouse newsletter, and the initial "Welcome to Homeschoolblogger"-type letters all posted to my Yahoo mailbox quite nicely, but the letter notifying me that my articles had been deleted somehow did not.
And, I have decided that if you wish, I will post all three letters, the two from HSB and my own reply, right here for all to see, and shine a light on this whole thing.
But Lynn, it's your call. I feel that I have been hijacking your blog lately, with all of this hacking/censorship stuff, and I don't want to do that without your permission.
Let me know.
http://greatwolf.blogpeoria (dot) com/
Check out the blog above. The post from 2/12 is about "Reformed Hackers Cabal Revealed". Hmmm?
This blogger goes to McDonald's church and has also claimed that his pastor is accountable to others.
I wonder if this blogger knows that his pastor wrote a post to Cynthia's blog and then turned around and complained to HSB that she is discussing his very own comment that he posted of his own free will? And then it appears that his pastor put some pressure in the form of threat or intimidation of some sort of "legal action" to make HSB take down the posts that discuss his very own comments and the things he teaches and/or believes. HSB gave into this intimidation and took down the three posts.
These threats and intimidation tactics do not surprise me in the least. I am all too familiar with them.
I am a little concerned that these are the elders we are told to submit to and follow. Elders who strongarm anyone who doesn't agree with them or who dares to discuss their teachings and/or beliefs.
This really is censorship at its finest.
Cynthia, were you given the original complaint letter? I only think this is fair, just and right considering the fact that they went into your blog and removed inane posts that had absolutely no offensive content.
Also, was it also HSB that changed "GenerationKeeper" to "anonymous" and my one post about wearing a skort where I left my real name to "anonymous"? Or was that just some coincidental glitch? Just so you know, the skort story is connected in some way to the 3 posts that were removed. There is a common denominator.
I am also wondering what the Terms of Service are that Cynthia violated? Talking about a popular homeschooler's teachings, connections and beliefs? Discussion a comment that was left on her blog by the very person who lodged the complaint?
I am with Jen. I am glad I blog on secular blogs. I wouldn't know how to follow these unspoken rules and I wouldn't know until it was too late that I stepped across some abitrary line.
I also understand what Sarah was saying and I think it is very relevant to this situation. She made a very good and astute point. But, it seems that Sarah's hypothesis is wrong. It seems that the censorship angle does fit. It is just that the Pearls have thick skin and they don't take much stock in what other people think about their teachings so they don't bother writing complaint letters which contain nuances that some sort of legal action could be taken if the posts weren't removed.
I think someone needs to write some sort of script for a homeschooling soap opera. This would make great material for one of the episodes.
I have been following this conversation and all I have to say is wow, ladies I think you are spiraling down into something that is just not prudent with the accusatory tone in some of your comments. That is sad to me. Jen thinks she knows the libel law with this statement: “I do have to wonder what kind of legal counsel they employ, though, that doesn't understand that we have the freedom of speech to say public truths about public figures.”
That is simply not true—you just cannot say whatever you want to. According to the Talk2Action website's Blogger's Rights Online Defamation Law found here http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php (linked from Talk2Action) I found this:
What are some examples of libelous and non-libelous statements?
The following are a couple of examples from California cases; note the law may vary from state to state. Libelous (when false):
*Charging someone with being a communist (in 1959)
*Calling an attorney a "crook"
*Describing a woman as a call girl
*Accusing a minister of unethical conduct
*Accusing a father of violating the confidence of son
***********
It seems as though the things Cynthia was writing could very well be taken as libel. If you look at the HSB Terms of Use here you can see that she clearly did violate them:
(e) not to create, provide, upload, link, post or transmit on, to or through Website any unlawful, harassing, defamatory, libelous, abusive, offensive, inappropriate, sexually explicit, threatening or harmful Material or information, including without limitation offensive, profane, obscene, racist or sexually explicit content or language which substitutes asterisks or other alternative characters for part or all of a term which would otherwise violate the Rules or Terms of Use; (f) not to create, provide, upload, link, post or transmit any Material or information on, to or through Website which encourages or incites conduct which gives rise to actual or potential criminal or civil liability or violates applicable law; (g) not to knowingly create, re-create, provide, upload, link, post, re-post or comment on deleted or banned Material, warning letters, sanctions or private communications from Company, Website or their legal counsel; and (h) not to intentionally interfere with the operation of Website or the use and enjoyment of Website by other Users or third parties. Company and Website reserve the right to immediately delete any Website Content or Material and to terminate the access, use privileges and account of any User whose conduct fails to conform to the Terms of Use.
(Found here: http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/signup.php?task=terms when I went to check all this out there.)
Blogger has similar regulations, that you can find (as I did when I recently signed up for my blog) and also restricts any content that is unlawful, defamatory or fraudulent. HSB is a privately owned site and its terms of use are clearly laid out. No one is forced to blog there but it seems as though many do and enjoy it or they would not be so successful. Blogger also has their own terms of use. Just because it is “public” does not mean you can write whatever you wish. Blogger bloggers are still subject to the same libel laws and some are prosecuted for their words!
The First Amendment covers free speech, not *libel.* Since Cynthia cannot prove her accusations she should be more careful in what she writes. Hey, *I* would want to be anyway. I would be thankful that I learned before it was too late! I would be more careful what I wrote in the future and take the blame that is due me if I broke the terms of use. If HSB received a complaint then that may have forced their hand—who knows. In my poking around the blog world I have seen the HSB folks leave up a lot of things – some things even written about them! You do not see them crying foul or censoring people. However, if you break the clearly laid-out rules, (or libel laws) there are always consequences.
Why not be gracious in your words, ladies? It sure seems as though you are looking to stir up trouble. That is sad for ladies who claim Christ. We should all be careful not to assume the worst of others. I would want that for me—wouldn’t you want that for you?
Please think about it.
Bet
Cynthia, it is probably just a glitch that the only mail that didn't get to your Yahoo account was the mail that told you that your blog would be tampered with and three posts would be taken down for some nebulous TOS violation. Even AOL, a secular company, will be very specific when any such TOS violation is leveled.
What did Cynthia say that was libelous or could be libelous? Please be specific.
Hi Betty.
Your blog says you started blogging so you could comment on other blogs, and the dates indicate that you just started blogging today.
It looks as though you are a brand new blogger, just like GenerationKeeper was a few weeks ago. Welcome aboard.
Hi Corrie... It was actually Blogger that changed Generationkeeper and McDonald's names to "anonymous". I didn't know that they had changed your name as well.
McDonald originally posted the letter contained in "Matthew 18, John 3:20" here on my Blogger blog, in the Comments section of "Behind the Hyperpatriarchs".
"Matthew 18,John 3:20, My Response" was also first posted in the comments section, and was my response to McDonald's letter.
In the interest of candor, I moved both letters to the front page of my Blogger blog, added a preface, and published them on HSB as well.
Cynthia,
Thanks! It is a very strange world here in blogland. :) I was not trying to rile anyone, but bring to light some pretty simple things that seem to be getting ignored.
Corrie,
I did post some examples of things that were found by courts to be libelous. I am not now therefore going to post what I think are potentially libelous comments by Cynthia here for example!
I would however, point you to Cynthia's blogspot blog to see for yourself. Her posts that folks are racist sound an awful like:
"Accusing a minister of unethical conduct" - and she cannot prove that so she could very much be taken as libelous and she could be sued. Why in the world would she want that?
I understand there are issues with those you have concerns with--I really do see that. I have some of them myself, frankly. However, I don't think it is necessary to go so far as to call folks names and to say things that are not provable. Are we not supposed to go to one another in love? What about Matthew 18 or even just the love of the brethren?
We as Christians will be known by our love for one another--not how much mud we can sling. I write to share that I think we should all be cautious. If you have sincere concerns they can be written about in a gracious manner.
At least those are my thoughts anyway.
Bet
I would also like to know what I posted that was libelous.
I posted two letters that had already been posted publicly in the comment section of my other blog.
I wrote an article, "Behind the HyperPatriarchs II", which points out that both Rushdoony and North defended slavery as Biblical, and which otherwise consisted of easily verifiable facts pertaining to neoConfederate Pastors Steve Wilkins and Doug Wilson, including excerpts from a newspaper article, an article from Southern Poverty Law, and information that had been originally posted on Pastor Steve Wilkins' own church website; and, I mentioned in passing that both Pastor James McDonald's "Patriarch's Path" site and Jennie Chancey's LAF site link to articles and/books by Wilson and Wilkins.
I didn't call names, and I didn't say anything "unlawful, harassing, defamatory, libelous, abusive, offensive, inappropriate, sexually explicit, threatening or harmful."
I simply reported the facts.
If someone is going to complain that being mentioned in association with persons in the neoConfederate movement is tantamount to defamation and makes them look bad, then perhaps they should think twice about associating themselves with persons in the neoConfederate movement.
Betty, you wrote, "I would however, point you to Cynthia's blogspot blog to see for yourself. Her posts that folks are racist sound an awful like:
"Accusing a minister of unethical conduct."
Betty, the closest I have come to specifically calling anyone a racist was to tell James McDonald:
"If you publish articles by racists and liars, or by liars with racist connections, you will be judged by the company you keep, even if the articles themselves have nothing to do with race."
....and to state that McDonald publishes articles by Pastor Steve Wilkins, the cofounder of the secessionist group, the League of the South. Wilkin's own church website advocates lying in service of a good cause.
I did not specifically accuse McDonald of misconduct, and he evidently does not consider his association with Steve Wilkins and Doug Wilson to BE misconduct, since he openly publishes their articles.
If Dominionists see nothing wrong with what they do and believe, why should they mind if someone tells people about it?
Betty,
Cynthia didn't call anyone a name. She didn't accuse a minister of misconduct. All she did was speak about fellow Christians who have supported slavery and then told us who publishes articles in praise of these individuals.
If that is "libelous" then HSB should take their many articles down which attack public schools and the people who run them. Couldn't their articles be considered libelous? Or is it called "libel" only when a member of "our team" has a little light shown upon them?
Again, nothing libelous at all in Cynthia's posts. I will get a lawyer to review them just in case.
Also, I highly doubt Generation Keeper is new to blogging. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that I know she is not new to blogging.
Betty, I have needed to deal with the application of what "libel" entails quite extensively lately, so I will endeavor to enlighten you to the legal definition of libel:
"To publish in print an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. It must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion."
The law is different for a public figures as well:
"In the law of defamation (libel and slander), a public figure is a personage of great public interest or familiarity. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate)."
Cynthia's blog is not libelous (there are no lies there) and the burden of proof is on the public figure to prove that Cynthia wrote about [them] with malice aforethought intended to defame.
If Cynthia's blog met those two requirements, hundreds, if not thousands, of other blogs would need to come down now as well.
Blogger would never censor this kind of free speech.
Ladies,
I never claimed to be a lawyer, but when someone starts throwing around terms that are defamatory--well, I don't think it is wise. There are so many *productive* ways to write that I just don't understand why anyone would choose the mode of attack. And I don't see it in scripture--which I think should be our rule of life.
Who is Generation Keeper? I am not sure why that keeps getting brought up, but if y'all think it is me then you are wrong. That sounds like a dominionist or a reconstructionist and I am neither.
I am done with this conversation and will not respond further because I really don't have anything futher to add. I am not Cynthia's judge or jury. I just care that the world sees that Christians are picking each other apart for no good reason.
That is terribly sad to me.
Bet
Hi Betty,
I know you are not GenerationKeeper. :-)
There were no defamatory terms thrown around. It is funny how you come here and get on Cynthia when we have Matt Chancey who started the whole game of calling people "racists". If anyone has a reason to sue for libel, it would be the people Matt Chancey has accused on his silly website. I am still waiting for any sort of proof to come from him. Proof of who Frank Vance is and proof that some people are all in league with the kinists. Where is that proof? It has been a long time. It is so easy to make allegations but so hard to back them up.
But, Cynthia posted her proof at the same time she was pointing out the trend of some to link to those who are pro-slavery. And nothing in Cynthia's posts were defamatory and there was no defamatory language. Sometimes the truth hurts.
People are upset that Cynthia discovered that a bunch of reconstructionists/dominionists/hyper-patriarchalists are promoting the writings of those who are pro-slavery.
How is that wrong? I WANT to know that kind of stuff. I want nothing to do with it.
And the bad name that Christians are getting is because of leaders who are arrogant, power hungry and who treat others with contempt who dare to disagree with them.
I agree with Betty that Homeschool Blogger canceling somebody's blog is hardly censorship or a denial of 'free speech.' You have a right to say what you want. You do not have a right to demand that Homeschool Blogger host what you want to say. They pay the fees and host the service, you follow the rules, even if the rules are hard to follow (and I'll agree that it could be clearer). Refusing to host your speech is not censorship or denial of free speech. It may be unfair, hypocritical (though I am not saying it is in this case), but it's not denying you first amendment freedoms.
I do think they could have perhaps handled this better, but I wouldn't assume some bizarre conspiracy. Emails get lost all the time. There's nothing odd about it at all.
I disagree with the connections and conspiracies Cynthia sees and I don't think the dots she connects actually have any connection (in most cases), but I think many other people who disagree with her are grossly over-reacting, and her actions concern me far less than those of ministries that lie about 'disinterested' or 'independent' investigations, publish preconversion sins of those they wish to punish, and generally act like thugs on the internet until they get called, and then they are the injured party, so wounded by gossip and lies.
Which brings me to what does concern me. Corrie, you recently linked to a website about polygamy, and in a round about but connected way, I came across this:
http://groups.msn.com/mltreceptiongroup/weeklysermons.msnw?action=get_message&mview=1&ID_Message=367&CType=0&CDir=-1
It's a little long, but it's interesting in its own way. Does it remind you of anything or anybody?
There's an interesting back story here. You can find it here:
http://nccg.info
It may be confusing though, so let me sum up.
That first link, the one condemning gossip? That's by a so-called Christian polygamist and cult leader. This cult is engaged in widespread deception and kookiness (I can tell you more if you like, but let's just take that as a given for now).
They present one front to 'seekers', and another to a carefully groomed inner circle. A member of that inner circle recently left the cult in high dudgeon when the cult leader issued a prophecy and proclamation that would have resulted in his death had he believed it and acted upon it (a serious brain infection was called a demonic attack and he was told not to seek medical care). So the scales fell from his eyes and he began invesigation further, as well as thinking of things he was told while he was in the cult. He's found plagiarism, internet deception, lies, and dishonesty and he is publishing those facts for those left within the cult.
And the cult leader's defense is that first link you see above- a lot of talk about not gossiping, not publishing dirty laundry, not talking bad about other Christians, etc, etc, which all reminds me very of certain other defenses we have seen from Ligonier and Philips over the past months.
"I just care that the world sees that Christians are picking each other apart for no good reason."
Betty, Holding Christians accountable to scripture is the best thing we can do. I pray I will be rebuked when needed. As a matter of fact, Betty, we have so many professing Christians following the teachings of mere men, that publicly discussing these things has become very important! Time is short! Follow Christ and be a Berean!!
And as to Matthew 18 in this ...it does not fit this situation. If anyone has published writings, or preached a sermon, etc., it is public teaching and does not fit under Matthew 18. Unsound teaching must be rebuked publicly. We are warned about wolves all through scripture.
Betty, would I be wrong if I went out on a limb here and suggested you may be a tad offended at the intellectual capacity of the women here? Are you involved at all in the Patriarchal movement? I am speculating, of course...mainly from a few sentences in your comments.
JP, I was non-commital about the "dots" CJ was putting together, and you disagree with them. I agree the best way to handle this is for the people who were named in her articles to dialogue with her.
About those e-mails that were said to be lost, I am going to believe they were lost.
This is called giving a person the benefit of the doubt.
Which, getting back to what JP desires to discuss ;-) and something *I* wanted to bring up, giving a person the benefit of the doubt is TOTALLY unlike Matt Chancey giving Ministry Watchman the benefit of the doubt over what they said their webmaster did with the picture.
Right? My apology to Gena still stands, even though I do think this could have been dealt with better.
I had been privately corresponding with Cynthia about this situation and asked if I could do anything to help. Cynthia had sent me all the correspondence from HSB before they told her she was not allowed to comment on it. Since I was already involved, I merely put all the correspondence in order and wrote a synopsis, which Ministry Watchman was kind enough to post.
HSB "forwarded" the "lost" email to Cynthia. It was the most unusual forwarded email I've ever seen, which made me curious. I will not jump to conclusions and accuse anyone, but it was quite odd.
There were no headers forwarded. There were no signs that it was a forwarded email (different colors, indents, etc.). It was in an entirely different font, one which I don't believe I've ever seen in an email before. But the most unusual thing was that while all the other correspondence from HSB had the same closing and the same signature, this email was totally different.
I do agree that this is not exactly a violation of the first amendment, but I do not think HSB understands the legalities of their own policies. I hope that this will merely be a learning lesson for them to make their policies a little more clear to their bloggers.
This is not the first time I have seen people from this group (that Cynthia wrote about) "lean" on web hosting services about the content of the blogs. Maybe some of these leaders could make their message more effective if they were to interact with the bloggers who are concerned. I will have to at least give James McDonald credit for having commented on Cynthia's blog the first time. I respect him for that and would like to see more of it.
"This is not the first time I have seen people from this group (that Cynthia wrote about) "lean" on web hosting services about the content of the blogs. Maybe some of these leaders could make their message more effective if they were to interact with the bloggers who are concerned."
Ditto to that second sentence.
Actually James McDonald wrote to me privately after I put moved his letter from my comments section to my front page. His second letter was a little nicer, and his style of writing was a bit different somehow too.
I responded to his letter in kind, inviting him to engage in dialogue but he never wrote back.
"But Lynn, it's your call. I feel that I have been hijacking your blog lately, with all of this hacking/censorship stuff, and I don't want to do that without your permission. Let me know."
Don't worry about it. I made the entry because I'm interested in what happened to you, and it concerns your blog, so comment away on this thread as much as you like.
Cynthia,
Why did HSB change GenerationKeeper's name to "anonymous"? What does GK have to do with all of this?
Corrie, are you just trying to stir things up? :-)
I think you know very well who GK is!
Actually it was Blogger who changed GK's name to "anonymous", a few days before HSB deleted my postings. Blogger also changed James McDonald's name to anonymous, at about the same time and probably for the same reason. But Blogger didn't notify me of the change, GK did.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CJ
Hmmm.. I just went over to my blog, and looked at the two postings there containing McDonald's letter and my response. I went to the comments section, and the names have been removed from the comments there (I think one of them was by Lynn and one was by Corrie, but I don't recall with certainty.) If I didn't know better, I'd say that someone is either trying to hack the blog, but has been unable to do more than remove the names on the comments, OR that someone has complained to Blogger, and Blogger agreed to remove names from the comments on those postings (both of which pertain to James McDonald), but that was all.
Very strange, either way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CJ
Post a Comment