I'm glad to receive and approve your comments for this blog, so long as they conform to the expectations I've already posted.
Please, don't tell your own story in a comment on someone else's story. That won't be approved. If you have a comment to make about what someone else has written, however, that is perfectly acceptable and I'll be glad to approve it.
I'm again asking that you edit your own stories. Specifically, you need to edit out the e-mail headings if your story includes an e-mail verbatim and remove redundant sections. Your story is worth telling, but you need to be willing to write and edit it. Three to four paragraphs is a good guideline. Quotes are good, but lengthy transcripts need to be condensed.
I've recently rejected two comments for these reasons. Please consider submitting them on their own merits, in a concise narrative. As always, you should send them to BADGEPOSTMASTER -AT- HOTMAIL -DOT- COM.
Friday, June 06, 2008
TELLING YOUR "BADGE OF HONOR" STORY
REPOSTED, RETITLED, and MOVED TO TOP 6/6/08
Are you a Christian? Do you visit so-called "Christian" websites and forums? And have you ever felt unwelcome because you held differing views from the prevailing "party line" on those sites?
How about this: Have you ever been banned, booted, kicked off, or otherwise ejected from such a "Christian" site, simply for expressing a point of view that didn't toe that party line? Or have you experienced blatantly inappropriate or unfair moderation, sanctions, or censorship at the hands of "authorities" on such sites?
If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you deserve a "Badge of Honor."
There are sites from which, quite honestly, it's a badge of honor to be banned! Christians need to know about the unchristlike behavior of the people who run the sites they frequent. There is a time and place for removing people who can't abide by the rules. But when abiding by the rules applies to some but not to others, or the "authorities" make up the rules as they go along so as to target certain members of their communities, that's wrong. That's not how mature Christians are supposed to behave.
HOW TO TELL YOUR BADGE OF HONOR STORY
You may tell your story in your own words. By submitting your story by e-mail to the postmaster at badgepostmaster@hotmail.com (edited 3/17/07 for change in contact e-mail address) for inclusion on "Badge of Honor," you agree to the following conditions:
1. The postmaster may edit your story for the following reasons:
a. Extreme length
Example: For the purposes of this blog, your story does not merit an online novel, no matter how badly you were treated. Please limit your story to approximately 3-5 paragraphs; shorter than that is fine, but no longer, please!
b. Unacceptable language (obscenities and excessive profanity are not permitted)
Example: Even if you were subjected to filthy language by the villain of your story, it is not necessary to use that language in the telling of the story. Mild profanity is acceptable, at the sole discretion of the postmaster.
c. Spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors when excessive and distracting
Example: Some people are highly irritated by bad spelling, punctuation, and grammar and will not even read past the first couple of errors they see. What your spell checker doesn't catch, I will try to.
d. Personal information that could be used to identify or contact you or others, unless you state specifically that you wish to be contacted.
Example: Don't open yourself up to the offending site's loyal fans, or the villain him/herself, spamming you with hate mail or worse. And please, protect the identity of minors at ALL COST! If you WANT to be contacted, it is up to you to provide that contact information. This site is not responsible, however, for whatever contact you receive. Think carefully about this issue.
e. Slanderous or libelous comments that are clearly your opinion. You may name names and sites in your story. However, you are responsible for "sticking to the facts."
Example: If Joe Blow kicked you off of the "Christians 'R' Us" site, that is a fact. If you call Joe Blow an adulterous fool for having kicked you off, you have crossed the line and your story will be edited. Don't open yourself or others up for legal action! It's not worth it. Let the facts speak for themselves.
2. Your story remains your property. The postmaster will, upon your request, remove your story from the site in a timely manner.
3. You are on your honor as a Christian and a human being to be truthful and, if possible, gracious. This site is about telling the truth so that positive change can occur, not about exacting revenge against those who've wronged us. It is hoped that before you request that your story be posted, you've already taken reasonable steps to confront the wrongdoer directly.
4. You accept the postmaster's decisions concerning editing of your story. If you believe the facts of the story have been compromised through editing it, you are free to contact the postmaster to request that changes be made.
5. The postmaster reserves the right to NOT include your story if, in her sole opinion, it does not fit the parameters outlined above. For example, as devastating as it is when churches and individuals mistreat people, only stories about online sites/communities/groups will be included. If your story does not involve mistreatment by an online group or its representative, please do not request that it be posted.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Sytall's Story
Greetings,
I too had the honor of being kicked out of "DailyCross". I am not a Christian and of a different faith. I just want to tell my story to express my views that even as a non-Christian I do not view Fritz as being a valid representative of Christianity.
It is a very poor representation of Christianity, to show fear over a person's belief in another faith. I will repeat myself and say I do not view that site as being represntative of all Christians and understand that you have your share of oddballs just as they exist in my faith.
I know we do have differences, but gentleman of all faiths will disagree with dignity and honor, not with temper tantrums.
I did not initiate any posts promoting my faith. I was simply answering direct questions to me, from members to clear up misconceptions.
Thank You,
sytall (aka Woodrowx2)
[e-mail addresses removed by Badge Postmaster]
Dear sytall,
You have recently been engaged in activity in our Community in a manner or with content determined by our site administrators to be in violation of our Terms of Service. As a participating member of our Community, you agreed to abide by these terms. As a result of this violation your account has been disabled, pursuant to #19 of the Terms of Service. (http://l.salemweb.net/CommunityTermsOfService)
We must unfortunately insist that you not make any attempt to participate further in any of our Communities, even under a different name.
This decision is final and is not subject to discussion.
Sincerely,
Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network
[further links to Salem's numerous venues removed by Badge Postmaster.]
Thursday, July 12, 2007
William's Story
Note: This entry has been edited only to handle the e-mail addresses more expeditiously. -Badge Postmaster
I joined Crosswalk as “Liberalguy.” Despite the provocative handle I tried to engage in serious and civil discussion. I’m not that far to the left, it’s just that Crosswalk’s conservative milieu made it easy to be a “Liberalguy.” There were a few TOS issues during my three year membership. On occasion Fred Alberti surprised me with his fairness, but I felt that it was begrudging and that my status was precarious.
In the thread “Why do we need a Pope?”(in the Christian Doctrine folder) I got off topic discussing religious tolerance with someone called Turretinfan (after the Reformer Francis Turretin.) Some of this discussion can be found on pages 62-63 of the thread. Citing Leviticus 24: 16 Turretinfan defended the 1553 execution of Michael Servetus for denying the Trinity and said a government’s role in “preventing excessive immorality” applied to suppressing deviant
religious views. I called Turretinfan a “theocratic fascist” and even defined the terms to show that I wasn’t being flippant. Alberti expelled me under TOS 20 (now TOS 19) saying that the decision was final and not open to discussion.
I admit I may have been a bit pugnacious. Calling someone a “fascist” is forbidden in the TOS, but I thought it only applied in the context of name calling, not to describing someone who thinks it’s ok to put people to death for their beliefs. (Isn’t that the definition of fascism?) Knowing I probably couldn’t appeal my expulsion I felt that Alberti at least owed me a better explanation than an “Alice in Wonderland” rule that allows him to pronounce the sentence without a verdict.
After two e-mails he cited other TOS numbers.
What got me was that Turretinfan was not expelled or openly reprimanded. Even if my expulsion was justified you’d think Alberti would still take issue with someone advocating capital punishment for hersey. He has zero tolerance for inclusive language Bibles and gay rights. Why didn’t he apply the same policy to what can only be described as a Christian Taliban? Under the circumstances I had to conclude that either Alberti thinks it’s ok for Christians to advocate
executing heretics or his bias got the better of him.
Ten months after my expulsion, on a whim, I wrote Alberti about readmission and asked him about this discrepancy. He said he doesn’t believe in executing heretics and that he enforces the TOS impartially, which seems to imply that Alberti must think it’s acceptable for other Christians to advocate executing heretics even if he doesn’t agree. When I e-mailed him for further clarification he said the matter was closed to further discussion.
Though lengthy, here is the correspondence so you can judge for yourself.
Dear Liberalguy,
Thank you for taking the time to request a review of your status with our Community. Before progressing further, I would like to ask you a few questions.
1. What have you learned during your absence from our Community, and how do you hope to apply it in any future participation?
2. Do you agree to refrain from participation in Current Events folder as well as homosexual related topics?
3. Have you reviewed our Terms of Service, and do you promise to conduct yourself in our Community in a manner that conforms to the rules of conduct as outlined therein?
(http://l.salemweb.net/CommunityTermsofService)
4. Specifically, do you agree to #19 of the Terms of Service? (Included below for your review)
Salem Web Network reserves the right to:
> respond to the violation of any of the above Terms of Service with any of the responses available to Community administrators and moderators without warning including involuntary movement to another area, "booting" (involuntary expulsion from chat and forums), and various forms of prevention of access to all community services including "Private Messages" for any duration of time including permanently at its sole discretion.
> report any violations of the Terms of Service to law enforcement and/or the Internet Community Alliance.
> remove any content which is considered to be disruptive to the Community and that is in violation of the Terms of Service.
> bar, restrict, block any user including Internet Community Alliance offenders for any reason as well as remove any content at our sole discretion.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to these questions. Your responses will assist me in reviewing your status and determining your future participation in our Community.
To clarify, this email does not guarantee your return to the Community. However, we are hopeful of a positive resolution and complete restoration.
Sincerely,
Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network
From: (William's e-mail)
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 6:34 PM
To: Fred Alberti
Subject: Re: [ Liberalguy Status Review ] RE: Rejoining?
Dear Mr. Alberti,
My answer to question 2 is no. While I agreed to stay away from homosexual related topics, the majority of my posts were in the current events folder.
You could have just said no, instead of imposing obstacles.
Regarding my dismissal, why was Turretinfan allowed to remain when he was advocating the execution of heretics? Even if calling him a "theocratic fascist" for it justified my expulsion I would have expected you to have the same zero tolerance for what amounts to a "Christian
Taliban" as you do for same-sex marriage advocates. Did your biases cause you to overlook this or do you think that such views are within the pale of Christianity?
Sincerely,
William Jarrell, once known as "Liberalguy"
Greensboro, NC
From: "Fred Alberti" (F. Alberti's e-mail address)
Date: 2007/06/05 Tue PM 08:38:32 EDT
To: (William's e-mail address)
CC: (salem's "community" e-mail address)
Subject: RE: [ Liberalguy Status Review ] RE: Rejoining?
Hello there!
Thank you for taking the time to write us with your question.
Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to discuss the status of other users with unauthorized personnel.
Clearly, our is not the ideal platform for your activity. Fortunately, the World Wide Web offers you a number of alternatives which I'm sure you will find more accommodating of your style of participation.
Sincerely,
Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network
From: (William's e-mail address)
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:08 PM
To: Fred Alberti
Subject: Status, no status
Dear Mr. Alberti,
I'm not interested in the status of other users, only as to why you have a double standard and why you tolerate such egregious views when other views are unacceptable in CW forums? I would think that executing people for their religious views would be as unChristian as same sex marriages and inclusive language Bibles.
I know that you never had any intention of readmitting me. Your questions were deliberate obstacles. How was I suppose to answer the first question, "What I have learned?" when you never really told me why I was expelled. Ever read Kafka?
I recently discovered a blog where exCW members share their experiences.
No doubt, you are aware of it. I am thinking about submitting my impressions of CW but I am willing to show you the fairness that you never showed me. As I said assessing your handling of my expulsion left me with two possible conclusions:
A. You think it's acceptable for Christians to advocate the execution of heretics. I'm not saying you're a theonomist, but you must think that such views are within the pale of Biblical Christianity. Perhaps you are a theonomist.
B. Your bias (either against me personally or against liberals in general) allowed you to overlook such egregious views. A sort of "they all stick together" if you will.
If there are other possible conclusions I'd like to know since I do not want to misrepresent you. But I'd welcome any clarification of this before submitting comments which might be posted online. (Personally, I tend to think it was B.) After being expelled during an exchange with a person who thinks it's ok to execute people for their religious opinions how else would expect me to assess the situation aside from a double standard or an acceptance of theonomy?
Sincerely,
William Jarrell
Greensboro, NC
From: "Fred Alberti" (F. Alberti's e-mail address)
Date: 2007/06/06 Wed AM 10:00:01 EDT
To: (William's e-mail address)
CC: (salem's "community" e-mail address)
Subject: [ Liberalguy community participation ] RE: Status, no status
Hello there!
I appreciate the offer. Unfortunately, your options are based on assumptions based on the participation of other users of which I am not permitted to discuss with unauthorized users.
1. I do not support executing people just because they are opposed to Christ and/or the Word of God.
2. I enforce the Terms of Service on users despite their political persuasion, religious affiliation, or any other characteristic.
Please do not email me further as I am clearly not going to be able to address your concerns without delving into issues regarding other participants of our site.
I wish you the best in finding a community that is better suited to your style of participation.
Sincerely,
Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network
From: (William's e-mail address)
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:15 AM
To: Fred Alberti
Subject: Re: [ Liberalguy community participation ] RE: Status, no status
Mr. Alberti,
Taking your response at face value I think it's fair to conclude that you must think it's acceptable for Christians to advocate executing heretics even though you do not personally subscribe to this position.
William Jarrell
Greensboro, NC
Dear Liberalguy,
After the recent emails and prior incidence(s) requiring a ban from our Community, it's apparent that our website is not the ideal platform for your style of participation. Fortunately, the World Wide Web offers you a number of alterative communities that I'm sure you would find more agreeable.
Unfortunately, as caretakers of our owned and operated communities, we must at this point insist that you make no further attempts to participate in any of our chats or forums, even under a different name.
This decision is final and not subject to negotiation or any further discussion, so please refrain from further contact.
We appreciate your cooperation in respecting our decision in this matter.
Respectfully,
Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network
I joined Crosswalk as “Liberalguy.” Despite the provocative handle I tried to engage in serious and civil discussion. I’m not that far to the left, it’s just that Crosswalk’s conservative milieu made it easy to be a “Liberalguy.” There were a few TOS issues during my three year membership. On occasion Fred Alberti surprised me with his fairness, but I felt that it was begrudging and that my status was precarious.
In the thread “Why do we need a Pope?”(in the Christian Doctrine folder) I got off topic discussing religious tolerance with someone called Turretinfan (after the Reformer Francis Turretin.) Some of this discussion can be found on pages 62-63 of the thread. Citing Leviticus 24: 16 Turretinfan defended the 1553 execution of Michael Servetus for denying the Trinity and said a government’s role in “preventing excessive immorality” applied to suppressing deviant
religious views. I called Turretinfan a “theocratic fascist” and even defined the terms to show that I wasn’t being flippant. Alberti expelled me under TOS 20 (now TOS 19) saying that the decision was final and not open to discussion.
I admit I may have been a bit pugnacious. Calling someone a “fascist” is forbidden in the TOS, but I thought it only applied in the context of name calling, not to describing someone who thinks it’s ok to put people to death for their beliefs. (Isn’t that the definition of fascism?) Knowing I probably couldn’t appeal my expulsion I felt that Alberti at least owed me a better explanation than an “Alice in Wonderland” rule that allows him to pronounce the sentence without a verdict.
After two e-mails he cited other TOS numbers.
What got me was that Turretinfan was not expelled or openly reprimanded. Even if my expulsion was justified you’d think Alberti would still take issue with someone advocating capital punishment for hersey. He has zero tolerance for inclusive language Bibles and gay rights. Why didn’t he apply the same policy to what can only be described as a Christian Taliban? Under the circumstances I had to conclude that either Alberti thinks it’s ok for Christians to advocate
executing heretics or his bias got the better of him.
Ten months after my expulsion, on a whim, I wrote Alberti about readmission and asked him about this discrepancy. He said he doesn’t believe in executing heretics and that he enforces the TOS impartially, which seems to imply that Alberti must think it’s acceptable for other Christians to advocate executing heretics even if he doesn’t agree. When I e-mailed him for further clarification he said the matter was closed to further discussion.
Though lengthy, here is the correspondence so you can judge for yourself.
Dear Liberalguy,
Thank you for taking the time to request a review of your status with our Community. Before progressing further, I would like to ask you a few questions.
1. What have you learned during your absence from our Community, and how do you hope to apply it in any future participation?
2. Do you agree to refrain from participation in Current Events folder as well as homosexual related topics?
3. Have you reviewed our Terms of Service, and do you promise to conduct yourself in our Community in a manner that conforms to the rules of conduct as outlined therein?
(http://l.salemweb.net/CommunityTermsofService)
4. Specifically, do you agree to #19 of the Terms of Service? (Included below for your review)
Salem Web Network reserves the right to:
> respond to the violation of any of the above Terms of Service with any of the responses available to Community administrators and moderators without warning including involuntary movement to another area, "booting" (involuntary expulsion from chat and forums), and various forms of prevention of access to all community services including "Private Messages" for any duration of time including permanently at its sole discretion.
> report any violations of the Terms of Service to law enforcement and/or the Internet Community Alliance.
> remove any content which is considered to be disruptive to the Community and that is in violation of the Terms of Service.
> bar, restrict, block any user including Internet Community Alliance offenders for any reason as well as remove any content at our sole discretion.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to these questions. Your responses will assist me in reviewing your status and determining your future participation in our Community.
To clarify, this email does not guarantee your return to the Community. However, we are hopeful of a positive resolution and complete restoration.
Sincerely,
Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network
From: (William's e-mail)
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 6:34 PM
To: Fred Alberti
Subject: Re: [ Liberalguy Status Review ] RE: Rejoining?
Dear Mr. Alberti,
My answer to question 2 is no. While I agreed to stay away from homosexual related topics, the majority of my posts were in the current events folder.
You could have just said no, instead of imposing obstacles.
Regarding my dismissal, why was Turretinfan allowed to remain when he was advocating the execution of heretics? Even if calling him a "theocratic fascist" for it justified my expulsion I would have expected you to have the same zero tolerance for what amounts to a "Christian
Taliban" as you do for same-sex marriage advocates. Did your biases cause you to overlook this or do you think that such views are within the pale of Christianity?
Sincerely,
William Jarrell, once known as "Liberalguy"
Greensboro, NC
From: "Fred Alberti" (F. Alberti's e-mail address)
Date: 2007/06/05 Tue PM 08:38:32 EDT
To: (William's e-mail address)
CC: (salem's "community" e-mail address)
Subject: RE: [ Liberalguy Status Review ] RE: Rejoining?
Hello there!
Thank you for taking the time to write us with your question.
Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to discuss the status of other users with unauthorized personnel.
Clearly, our is not the ideal platform for your activity. Fortunately, the World Wide Web offers you a number of alternatives which I'm sure you will find more accommodating of your style of participation.
Sincerely,
Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network
From: (William's e-mail address)
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:08 PM
To: Fred Alberti
Subject: Status, no status
Dear Mr. Alberti,
I'm not interested in the status of other users, only as to why you have a double standard and why you tolerate such egregious views when other views are unacceptable in CW forums? I would think that executing people for their religious views would be as unChristian as same sex marriages and inclusive language Bibles.
I know that you never had any intention of readmitting me. Your questions were deliberate obstacles. How was I suppose to answer the first question, "What I have learned?" when you never really told me why I was expelled. Ever read Kafka?
I recently discovered a blog where exCW members share their experiences.
No doubt, you are aware of it. I am thinking about submitting my impressions of CW but I am willing to show you the fairness that you never showed me. As I said assessing your handling of my expulsion left me with two possible conclusions:
A. You think it's acceptable for Christians to advocate the execution of heretics. I'm not saying you're a theonomist, but you must think that such views are within the pale of Biblical Christianity. Perhaps you are a theonomist.
B. Your bias (either against me personally or against liberals in general) allowed you to overlook such egregious views. A sort of "they all stick together" if you will.
If there are other possible conclusions I'd like to know since I do not want to misrepresent you. But I'd welcome any clarification of this before submitting comments which might be posted online. (Personally, I tend to think it was B.) After being expelled during an exchange with a person who thinks it's ok to execute people for their religious opinions how else would expect me to assess the situation aside from a double standard or an acceptance of theonomy?
Sincerely,
William Jarrell
Greensboro, NC
From: "Fred Alberti" (F. Alberti's e-mail address)
Date: 2007/06/06 Wed AM 10:00:01 EDT
To: (William's e-mail address)
CC: (salem's "community" e-mail address)
Subject: [ Liberalguy community participation ] RE: Status, no status
Hello there!
I appreciate the offer. Unfortunately, your options are based on assumptions based on the participation of other users of which I am not permitted to discuss with unauthorized users.
1. I do not support executing people just because they are opposed to Christ and/or the Word of God.
2. I enforce the Terms of Service on users despite their political persuasion, religious affiliation, or any other characteristic.
Please do not email me further as I am clearly not going to be able to address your concerns without delving into issues regarding other participants of our site.
I wish you the best in finding a community that is better suited to your style of participation.
Sincerely,
Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network
From: (William's e-mail address)
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:15 AM
To: Fred Alberti
Subject: Re: [ Liberalguy community participation ] RE: Status, no status
Mr. Alberti,
Taking your response at face value I think it's fair to conclude that you must think it's acceptable for Christians to advocate executing heretics even though you do not personally subscribe to this position.
William Jarrell
Greensboro, NC
Dear Liberalguy,
After the recent emails and prior incidence(s) requiring a ban from our Community, it's apparent that our website is not the ideal platform for your style of participation. Fortunately, the World Wide Web offers you a number of alterative communities that I'm sure you would find more agreeable.
Unfortunately, as caretakers of our owned and operated communities, we must at this point insist that you make no further attempts to participate in any of our chats or forums, even under a different name.
This decision is final and not subject to negotiation or any further discussion, so please refrain from further contact.
We appreciate your cooperation in respecting our decision in this matter.
Respectfully,
Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network
Saturday, March 24, 2007
K's Story
Hello, brothers and sisters in Christ-
I, TOO, have had an awful experience with Mr. Fred Alberti (aka Fritz) of Crosswalk.com. I figured there must be others who shared my experience. However, I didn't know until now how many there were and that there have been many run-ins with Fritz that are even worse than mine. Here's my story:
Late in 2005, I participated in the forums at Crosswalk and started posting on a thread about the war in Iraq. I disagree completely with this war and made my feelings clearly known. Another poster (named Son In Me) obviously took issue with my comments and continually addressed me and others as "you liberals." It was also obvious that he couldn't respond to my messages in a mature fashion and had to resort to minor name-calling. I found it frustrating and was also perturbed that the mods never slapped Son In Me's virtual hands. Quite the opposite happened.
Son In Me posted a message about an offense he had taken (not from me, I don't think) and it was rather vague. So I asked for clarification by saying, "Did someone call you a $*&^% or something?"
That was it. And the grawlixes ($*&^%) were typed as just that, not as an actual word or insult.
Fritz informed me, without warning, that I was to no longer post on that thread. He eventually kicked me off of Crosswalk entirely. I miss some of the people there and found the fellowship was generally very good. However, the experience was enough to make me grateful I no longer have to deal with Fritz.
Thank you for creating this blog. At least I know I’m in good and, unfortunately, plentiful company.
In Him,
K
I, TOO, have had an awful experience with Mr. Fred Alberti (aka Fritz) of Crosswalk.com. I figured there must be others who shared my experience. However, I didn't know until now how many there were and that there have been many run-ins with Fritz that are even worse than mine. Here's my story:
Late in 2005, I participated in the forums at Crosswalk and started posting on a thread about the war in Iraq. I disagree completely with this war and made my feelings clearly known. Another poster (named Son In Me) obviously took issue with my comments and continually addressed me and others as "you liberals." It was also obvious that he couldn't respond to my messages in a mature fashion and had to resort to minor name-calling. I found it frustrating and was also perturbed that the mods never slapped Son In Me's virtual hands. Quite the opposite happened.
Son In Me posted a message about an offense he had taken (not from me, I don't think) and it was rather vague. So I asked for clarification by saying, "Did someone call you a $*&^% or something?"
That was it. And the grawlixes ($*&^%) were typed as just that, not as an actual word or insult.
Fritz informed me, without warning, that I was to no longer post on that thread. He eventually kicked me off of Crosswalk entirely. I miss some of the people there and found the fellowship was generally very good. However, the experience was enough to make me grateful I no longer have to deal with Fritz.
Thank you for creating this blog. At least I know I’m in good and, unfortunately, plentiful company.
In Him,
K
Saturday, March 17, 2007
JL's Story
G'Day...
I've been threatened with being booted from Crosswalk Forums - http://forums.crosswalk.com - for the following (and I quote) "lengthy list of offences"...
1) In a thread started by a practicing LaVeyan Satanist where he was being dumped on and accused of the whole 'goats and orgies' garbage (great way to reach out to someone involved in the occult and show the love of Christ guys - NOT!) I posted saying that I was sorry for the way he was being treated by some of the others at the Forum and that as an ex-practitioner of the Left Hand Path myself (tho' not a Satanist) I had some idea of where he was coming from and invited him to join "'The Son and the Moon Forums' - a Forum set up and maintained BY and FOR exWitches, exPagans and others who have come to Christ from an occult background" ... Something I had done several times in the past when I had encountered similar behaviour at Crosswalk Forums.... My offence... "advertizing another Forum in breach of our Terms of Service"...
2) In a thread where someone was asking whether it was "permissable" for a married couple to enjoy sex or whether it was purely for procreation I said "God made orgasms for a reason" ... the offence? The use of the word "orgasm"...
3) In another thread I mentioned the site "GodHatesFags.com" as an example of what NOT to do... My offence? I said "Fags" not "gays" or "homosexuals"... Sorry guys but "GodHatesHomosexuals.com" is NOT the name of the site I was talking about...
Just glad I can say "Puritanical IDIOTS!!!!" at my own Forum - http://sonandthemoon.10.forumer.com/ - without setting off the Thought Police...
Yours in Christ
JL
I've been threatened with being booted from Crosswalk Forums - http://forums.crosswalk.com - for the following (and I quote) "lengthy list of offences"...
1) In a thread started by a practicing LaVeyan Satanist where he was being dumped on and accused of the whole 'goats and orgies' garbage (great way to reach out to someone involved in the occult and show the love of Christ guys - NOT!) I posted saying that I was sorry for the way he was being treated by some of the others at the Forum and that as an ex-practitioner of the Left Hand Path myself (tho' not a Satanist) I had some idea of where he was coming from and invited him to join "'The Son and the Moon Forums' - a Forum set up and maintained BY and FOR exWitches, exPagans and others who have come to Christ from an occult background" ... Something I had done several times in the past when I had encountered similar behaviour at Crosswalk Forums.... My offence... "advertizing another Forum in breach of our Terms of Service"...
2) In a thread where someone was asking whether it was "permissable" for a married couple to enjoy sex or whether it was purely for procreation I said "God made orgasms for a reason" ... the offence? The use of the word "orgasm"...
3) In another thread I mentioned the site "GodHatesFags.com" as an example of what NOT to do... My offence? I said "Fags" not "gays" or "homosexuals"... Sorry guys but "GodHatesHomosexuals.com" is NOT the name of the site I was talking about...
Just glad I can say "Puritanical IDIOTS!!!!" at my own Forum - http://sonandthemoon.10.forumer.com/ - without setting off the Thought Police...
Yours in Christ
JL
R's Story
(Unedited except for substituting an initial for the author's name--sorry, R, but I simply don't have the time to do a proper edit.)
I have been a member of Crossdaily/Crosswalk chat for over a year now.
Ever since the inital buyout of crossdaily by salem web networks, as
I'm sure those of you who are familiar with this site know, there has
been an administrator there by the name of Fred "Fritz" Alberti. I am
sure that I'm not the first to register a complaint about this
administrator, nor that I will be the last.
Here, in a nutshell is my experience with him:
Earlier this past summer, I was initially banned from this site for
behavior which was in violation of the terms of service. Eventually I
apologized for this and was allowed back into the chat. I played by
the rules from this moment on, careful to make sure that I was chatting
within the TOS of that site.
On saturday the 17th of February, I recieved this email:
Dear r,
You have been engaged in activity in our Community in a manner or with
content determined to possibly be in violation of the site's Terms of
Service.
Unfortunately, as a result of this activity, we must restrict your
involvement in discussions related to the following topics under our
right reserved under #19 of the Terms of Service.
http://l.salemweb.net/CommunityTermsOfService
RESTRICTIONS:
No PMing other users
No using chat as dating service
Theology/Doctrinal discussions *New restriction*
Please understand that this decision is final and will not be subject to
further discussion.
Sincerely,
Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network
Now, on a Christian chat site, it seems strange to ban any user from
theological/doctrinal discussions. Its my understanding that I was
restricted from this because, as a non-christian, he felt that I was
somehow threatening the beliefs of other members of this chat. In my
discussions on this site, I simply discussed my beliefs and contrasted
them to the beliefs of Christianity. It was not my goal to change the
beliefs of anyone, but instead to foster a healthy discussion of
beliefs, politics, and any other topics which may come up.
On Wednesday, the 21st of February, there was a general spirituality
discussion going on, and I was participating. Fritz interpreted this
as discussion theology or doctrine. I found this 'restriction' to be a
bit much, and told other members of the chat that this restriction was
put on me. At this time I was banned from participating in this chat.
I then recieved this email:
Dear r,
You have recently been engaged in activity in our Community in a manner
or with content determined by our site administrators to be in
violation of our Terms of Service. As a participating member of our
Community, you agreed to abide by these terms. As a result of this
violation your account has been disabled, pursuant to #19 of the Terms
of Service. (http://l.salemweb.net/CommunityTermsOfService)
We must unfortunately insist that you not make any attempt to
participate further in any of our Communities, even under a different
name.
This decision is final and is not subject to discussion.
Sincerely,
Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network
My response to this initial email:
From: R
Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2007 4:19 pm
To: Fred Alberti <fritz@salemwebnetwork.com>
Cc: community@salemwebnetwork.com
Bcc: rick@salemwebnetwork.com
Subject:
RE: r Community Restriction
From:
R
To/CC:
Fred Alberti <fritz@salemwebnetwork.com>, community@salemwebnetwork.com
So Fritz, exactly how is pleading my case to other members of the
community a violation of the TOS worthy of banning me? I feel like I'm
being treated unfairly, and I'm trying to support my cause by letting
people know my situation. If you have a personal problem with me, I
wish you would take it up with me instead of going about it this way.
Instead of giving a nonanswer to this, I wish that at least my case
could be given a fair chance at being heard by both admins and members
of the community. It makes it difficult to be treated fairly when I
can't even discuss my circumstances with members of chat, who I feel
have a right to know what is going on. I have asked you on a number of
occasions to discuss this issue with me, but you have always refused or
referred me to emailing you, as to 'keep a record' of our discussions.
I would simply like an open dialog where we can discuss why you have a
problem with me, and how we can resolve it in a way that benefits you,
me, and the community in general. I don't think that banning me
because I told people about my restriction is exactly a way to foster a
healthy and mature resolution to this problem, and I'm still having
trouble understanding why this restriction was put on me in the first
place, as it has NEVER been a problem with any other moderators or
members of this community.
As a non-christian I can understand that my viewpoints sometimes
conflict with the viewpoints of other community members, but it has
never been, nor will it ever be my intention to try to change people's
beliefs. I simply enjoy discussing the differences and raising
questions that I myself am curious about with regards to Christianity,
as my knowledge of the faith was rather limited when I was a christian.
Yes, at times this can cause a spirited debate, which many at
crossdaily chat have come to enjoy, and I, as a community member, also
enjoy. I respect the beliefs of others, even when I'm handed down
condemnation and damnation for my differing in belief. I've never seen
any problem with having a spirited discussion about various issues nor
do I see anywhere in the TOS how this type of discussion is not
allowed.
I believe I at least deserve a fair shot at either recieving an
explanation about why I was first restricted from discussing any topic
relating to (as you can see in the emails below) Theology or Doctrine,
and then, without any notification, I was essentially restricted from
discussing anything relating to faith, belief, philosophy or anything
along those lines. I feel that this is an unfair restriction, and if
one would simply go over the chat logs, you would find that it is not
my intention to cause anyone any harm, spiritually or otherwise.
This issue aside, I am currently banned (as of about 3:55 this
afternoon) from chat altogether. The only reason I can see for this
would be that I was discussing the restrictions that have been placed
on my chatting with other people, and encouraging people, if they feel
that it is also unfair, to email the admins of this site and work
something out, so as to foster a positive environment in chat, where
people like me, and those I'm frequently chatting with/debating with,
can feel free to discuss the topics of our choice (within, of course,
the bounds of the TOS). I feel that this was done unfairly, and
without a just reason. Again, referring to the chat logs, which I am
sure exist, you can see that I said no bad things about the
administration of this website, I simply explained my situation to
other people in chat, and asked for their support. If this is grounds
for being banned, I would like to see exactly where in the TOS this
falls, and why it is justified.
So to sum up, I've been first restricted from talking about anything
spiritual (which certainly seems strange for a Christian website), and
then banned because I was explaining my situation to others, and
encouraging them to write to the administration if they disagreed with
this situation. I feel that this has been done unfairly, and that I
have been singled out for this for no good reason.
Any and all response to this is greatly appreciated. I enjoy chatting
on your site, and I feel that I've done nothing wrong, and when I was
told that I had, I was given no reason other than rule #19 of the TOS.
I would like to continue to chat here, and I would like to at least be
allowed to plead my case and/or be given a reasonable explanation for
why this has all occurred.
Thank you and God bless,
R
His response in my asking for an explanation to this was:
Dear r,
After the recent incidence(s) requiring a ban from our Community, it's
apparent that our website is not the ideal platform for your style of
participation. Fortunately, the World Wide Web offers you a number of
alternative communities that I'm sure you would find more agreeable.
Unfortunately, as caretakers of our owned and operated communities, we
must at this point insist that you make no further attempts to
participate in any of our chats or forums, even under a different name.
This decision is final and not subject to negotiation or any further
discussion, so please refrain from further contact in an attempt to
debate and/or to gain re-entry.
We appreciate your cooperation in respecting our decision in this
matter.
Respectfully,
Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network
To which I responded with this:
From: R
Date: Thu, Feb 22, 2007 9:51 am
To: Fred Alberti <fritz@salemwebnetwork.com>
Cc: rick@salemwebnetwork.com
Subject:
RE: [ r Review Request ] RE: r Community Status
From:
R.
To/CC:
Fred Alberti <fritz@salemwebnetwork.com>, rick@salemwebnetwork.com
I undertand that you don't like me Fritz, but I don't understand how
I've negatively affected the community here enough to warrant first
being restricted to only the most generic forms of chatting, and now I
have been banned altogether. Aside from your not liking me for
whatever reason, I have in no way violated the spirit of the TOS of
this site. Again, I am submitting all of this correspondence to Rick
Killingsworth for his review, because I feel like I'm up against a wall
unfairly here, and I would like someone else to take a look at this
situation.
I was never given any kind of explanation as to why the restriction on
speaking about theology and christian doctrine was put on me, besides
the fact that you said you'd been lenient up until this point (I
believe this was last week). I respected your restriction and stopped
talking about this. Yesterday, you told me that this restriction
covers speaking about belief, spirituality, and anything else relating
to any sort of philosophical or spiritual matter. In disagreeing with
you on this, I asked for the opinion of members of the community, and
did not mention your name, and did not say that I was being treated
unfairly, nor did I speak badly of any moderators or of you
specifically.
If anyone would speak to some members of the community on their
opinion of me, I think you would find that they find me to be a
valuable member of the community, and while many people do disagree
with me, they respect what I have to say. I'm not sure why you have
singled me out for this, and I feel that you're being very heavy-handed
for no real reason.
I respect you Fritz, and I know that you're a reasonable person, which
is why I'm trying to work this through and come to some kind of common
ground. I'm a reasonable person also, but when I feel that I've been
wronged, I won't rest until I right the situation, so please work with
me here and lets find some common ground. I am a firm believer in
resolving conflicts, and not leaving bad blood. I don't want there to
be bad blood in this situation, and I would like to resolve it. The
sooner we can do this, the better, because this current situation is
only going to foster bitterness. Remember Ephesians 4:26-27 "In your
anger do not sin"[d]: Do not let the sun go down while you are still
angry,and do not give the devil a foothold".
I want to do work this out as members of the same community, not as
adversaries.
R
After which I recieved this final email:
Dear r,
I'm not angry.
It is clear that this community is not the ideal platform for your style
of participation.
Fortunately, the World Wide Web offers you a number of alternative
communities that I'm sure you would find welcoming of you.
This decision really is final and I think it would be best we separated
in peace.
Please do not email us further.
Respectfully,
Fritz
This dispute was all over rule #19 in the Terms of Service of this
website. These terms of service may be found here:
http://forums.crossdaily.com/Terms_of_Service/m_2164/tm.htm
To make things a little easier, this is rule #19 of the terms of
service:
19. Salem Web Network reserves the right to:
- move any discussion in community areas to a different folder or room
for any reason at our sole discretion
- edit any discussion, post, or chat room title for any reason at our
sole discretion
- respond to the violation of any of the above Terms of Service with any
of the responses available to Community administrators and moderators
without warning including involuntary movement to another area,
"booting" (involuntary expulsion from chat and forums), and various
forms of prevention of access to all community services including
"Private Messages" for any duration of time including permanently at
its sole discretion.
- to report any violations of the Terms of Service to law enforcement
and/or the Internet Community Alliance.
- to bar, restrict, block any user including Internet Community Alliance
offenders for any reason as well as remove any content or chat rooms at
our sole discretion.
The final clause in here was the only stated reason for my banning from
this community. I have heard from many other former members of
crossdaily chat that this was the same 'catch all' rule that Fritz has
used in order to get them out of his chat. Other members of this chat
are afraid to speak up about it, because they also run the risk of
being banned. I CC'ed all of my correspondence to Fritz to Salem Web
Networks executives and executives at Salem Communications, but have
heard no reply at all.
This behavior seems to be very unchristlike, and I'm at a loss to
explain why this happened to me, since Fritz continues to give me no
answer, and ignores my requests for an explanation, or requests to
settle this dispute (which I don't understand at all) like adults.
This is my crossdaily story, and I'm glad to have found this website,
where I can voice my frustrations.
R.
I have been a member of Crossdaily/Crosswalk chat for over a year now.
Ever since the inital buyout of crossdaily by salem web networks, as
I'm sure those of you who are familiar with this site know, there has
been an administrator there by the name of Fred "Fritz" Alberti. I am
sure that I'm not the first to register a complaint about this
administrator, nor that I will be the last.
Here, in a nutshell is my experience with him:
Earlier this past summer, I was initially banned from this site for
behavior which was in violation of the terms of service. Eventually I
apologized for this and was allowed back into the chat. I played by
the rules from this moment on, careful to make sure that I was chatting
within the TOS of that site.
On saturday the 17th of February, I recieved this email:
Dear r,
You have been engaged in activity in our Community in a manner or with
content determined to possibly be in violation of the site's Terms of
Service.
Unfortunately, as a result of this activity, we must restrict your
involvement in discussions related to the following topics under our
right reserved under #19 of the Terms of Service.
http://l.salemweb.net/CommunityTermsOfService
RESTRICTIONS:
No PMing other users
No using chat as dating service
Theology/Doctrinal discussions *New restriction*
Please understand that this decision is final and will not be subject to
further discussion.
Sincerely,
Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network
Now, on a Christian chat site, it seems strange to ban any user from
theological/doctrinal discussions. Its my understanding that I was
restricted from this because, as a non-christian, he felt that I was
somehow threatening the beliefs of other members of this chat. In my
discussions on this site, I simply discussed my beliefs and contrasted
them to the beliefs of Christianity. It was not my goal to change the
beliefs of anyone, but instead to foster a healthy discussion of
beliefs, politics, and any other topics which may come up.
On Wednesday, the 21st of February, there was a general spirituality
discussion going on, and I was participating. Fritz interpreted this
as discussion theology or doctrine. I found this 'restriction' to be a
bit much, and told other members of the chat that this restriction was
put on me. At this time I was banned from participating in this chat.
I then recieved this email:
Dear r,
You have recently been engaged in activity in our Community in a manner
or with content determined by our site administrators to be in
violation of our Terms of Service. As a participating member of our
Community, you agreed to abide by these terms. As a result of this
violation your account has been disabled, pursuant to #19 of the Terms
of Service. (http://l.salemweb.net/CommunityTermsOfService)
We must unfortunately insist that you not make any attempt to
participate further in any of our Communities, even under a different
name.
This decision is final and is not subject to discussion.
Sincerely,
Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network
My response to this initial email:
From: R
Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2007 4:19 pm
To: Fred Alberti <fritz@salemwebnetwork.com>
Cc: community@salemwebnetwork.com
Bcc: rick@salemwebnetwork.com
Subject:
RE: r Community Restriction
From:
R
To/CC:
Fred Alberti <fritz@salemwebnetwork.com>, community@salemwebnetwork.com
So Fritz, exactly how is pleading my case to other members of the
community a violation of the TOS worthy of banning me? I feel like I'm
being treated unfairly, and I'm trying to support my cause by letting
people know my situation. If you have a personal problem with me, I
wish you would take it up with me instead of going about it this way.
Instead of giving a nonanswer to this, I wish that at least my case
could be given a fair chance at being heard by both admins and members
of the community. It makes it difficult to be treated fairly when I
can't even discuss my circumstances with members of chat, who I feel
have a right to know what is going on. I have asked you on a number of
occasions to discuss this issue with me, but you have always refused or
referred me to emailing you, as to 'keep a record' of our discussions.
I would simply like an open dialog where we can discuss why you have a
problem with me, and how we can resolve it in a way that benefits you,
me, and the community in general. I don't think that banning me
because I told people about my restriction is exactly a way to foster a
healthy and mature resolution to this problem, and I'm still having
trouble understanding why this restriction was put on me in the first
place, as it has NEVER been a problem with any other moderators or
members of this community.
As a non-christian I can understand that my viewpoints sometimes
conflict with the viewpoints of other community members, but it has
never been, nor will it ever be my intention to try to change people's
beliefs. I simply enjoy discussing the differences and raising
questions that I myself am curious about with regards to Christianity,
as my knowledge of the faith was rather limited when I was a christian.
Yes, at times this can cause a spirited debate, which many at
crossdaily chat have come to enjoy, and I, as a community member, also
enjoy. I respect the beliefs of others, even when I'm handed down
condemnation and damnation for my differing in belief. I've never seen
any problem with having a spirited discussion about various issues nor
do I see anywhere in the TOS how this type of discussion is not
allowed.
I believe I at least deserve a fair shot at either recieving an
explanation about why I was first restricted from discussing any topic
relating to (as you can see in the emails below) Theology or Doctrine,
and then, without any notification, I was essentially restricted from
discussing anything relating to faith, belief, philosophy or anything
along those lines. I feel that this is an unfair restriction, and if
one would simply go over the chat logs, you would find that it is not
my intention to cause anyone any harm, spiritually or otherwise.
This issue aside, I am currently banned (as of about 3:55 this
afternoon) from chat altogether. The only reason I can see for this
would be that I was discussing the restrictions that have been placed
on my chatting with other people, and encouraging people, if they feel
that it is also unfair, to email the admins of this site and work
something out, so as to foster a positive environment in chat, where
people like me, and those I'm frequently chatting with/debating with,
can feel free to discuss the topics of our choice (within, of course,
the bounds of the TOS). I feel that this was done unfairly, and
without a just reason. Again, referring to the chat logs, which I am
sure exist, you can see that I said no bad things about the
administration of this website, I simply explained my situation to
other people in chat, and asked for their support. If this is grounds
for being banned, I would like to see exactly where in the TOS this
falls, and why it is justified.
So to sum up, I've been first restricted from talking about anything
spiritual (which certainly seems strange for a Christian website), and
then banned because I was explaining my situation to others, and
encouraging them to write to the administration if they disagreed with
this situation. I feel that this has been done unfairly, and that I
have been singled out for this for no good reason.
Any and all response to this is greatly appreciated. I enjoy chatting
on your site, and I feel that I've done nothing wrong, and when I was
told that I had, I was given no reason other than rule #19 of the TOS.
I would like to continue to chat here, and I would like to at least be
allowed to plead my case and/or be given a reasonable explanation for
why this has all occurred.
Thank you and God bless,
R
His response in my asking for an explanation to this was:
Dear r,
After the recent incidence(s) requiring a ban from our Community, it's
apparent that our website is not the ideal platform for your style of
participation. Fortunately, the World Wide Web offers you a number of
alternative communities that I'm sure you would find more agreeable.
Unfortunately, as caretakers of our owned and operated communities, we
must at this point insist that you make no further attempts to
participate in any of our chats or forums, even under a different name.
This decision is final and not subject to negotiation or any further
discussion, so please refrain from further contact in an attempt to
debate and/or to gain re-entry.
We appreciate your cooperation in respecting our decision in this
matter.
Respectfully,
Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network
To which I responded with this:
From: R
Date: Thu, Feb 22, 2007 9:51 am
To: Fred Alberti <fritz@salemwebnetwork.com>
Cc: rick@salemwebnetwork.com
Subject:
RE: [ r Review Request ] RE: r Community Status
From:
R.
To/CC:
Fred Alberti <fritz@salemwebnetwork.com>, rick@salemwebnetwork.com
I undertand that you don't like me Fritz, but I don't understand how
I've negatively affected the community here enough to warrant first
being restricted to only the most generic forms of chatting, and now I
have been banned altogether. Aside from your not liking me for
whatever reason, I have in no way violated the spirit of the TOS of
this site. Again, I am submitting all of this correspondence to Rick
Killingsworth for his review, because I feel like I'm up against a wall
unfairly here, and I would like someone else to take a look at this
situation.
I was never given any kind of explanation as to why the restriction on
speaking about theology and christian doctrine was put on me, besides
the fact that you said you'd been lenient up until this point (I
believe this was last week). I respected your restriction and stopped
talking about this. Yesterday, you told me that this restriction
covers speaking about belief, spirituality, and anything else relating
to any sort of philosophical or spiritual matter. In disagreeing with
you on this, I asked for the opinion of members of the community, and
did not mention your name, and did not say that I was being treated
unfairly, nor did I speak badly of any moderators or of you
specifically.
If anyone would speak to some members of the community on their
opinion of me, I think you would find that they find me to be a
valuable member of the community, and while many people do disagree
with me, they respect what I have to say. I'm not sure why you have
singled me out for this, and I feel that you're being very heavy-handed
for no real reason.
I respect you Fritz, and I know that you're a reasonable person, which
is why I'm trying to work this through and come to some kind of common
ground. I'm a reasonable person also, but when I feel that I've been
wronged, I won't rest until I right the situation, so please work with
me here and lets find some common ground. I am a firm believer in
resolving conflicts, and not leaving bad blood. I don't want there to
be bad blood in this situation, and I would like to resolve it. The
sooner we can do this, the better, because this current situation is
only going to foster bitterness. Remember Ephesians 4:26-27 "In your
anger do not sin"[d]: Do not let the sun go down while you are still
angry,and do not give the devil a foothold".
I want to do work this out as members of the same community, not as
adversaries.
R
After which I recieved this final email:
Dear r,
I'm not angry.
It is clear that this community is not the ideal platform for your style
of participation.
Fortunately, the World Wide Web offers you a number of alternative
communities that I'm sure you would find welcoming of you.
This decision really is final and I think it would be best we separated
in peace.
Please do not email us further.
Respectfully,
Fritz
This dispute was all over rule #19 in the Terms of Service of this
website. These terms of service may be found here:
http://forums.crossdaily.com/Terms_of_Service/m_2164/tm.htm
To make things a little easier, this is rule #19 of the terms of
service:
19. Salem Web Network reserves the right to:
- move any discussion in community areas to a different folder or room
for any reason at our sole discretion
- edit any discussion, post, or chat room title for any reason at our
sole discretion
- respond to the violation of any of the above Terms of Service with any
of the responses available to Community administrators and moderators
without warning including involuntary movement to another area,
"booting" (involuntary expulsion from chat and forums), and various
forms of prevention of access to all community services including
"Private Messages" for any duration of time including permanently at
its sole discretion.
- to report any violations of the Terms of Service to law enforcement
and/or the Internet Community Alliance.
- to bar, restrict, block any user including Internet Community Alliance
offenders for any reason as well as remove any content or chat rooms at
our sole discretion.
The final clause in here was the only stated reason for my banning from
this community. I have heard from many other former members of
crossdaily chat that this was the same 'catch all' rule that Fritz has
used in order to get them out of his chat. Other members of this chat
are afraid to speak up about it, because they also run the risk of
being banned. I CC'ed all of my correspondence to Fritz to Salem Web
Networks executives and executives at Salem Communications, but have
heard no reply at all.
This behavior seems to be very unchristlike, and I'm at a loss to
explain why this happened to me, since Fritz continues to give me no
answer, and ignores my requests for an explanation, or requests to
settle this dispute (which I don't understand at all) like adults.
This is my crossdaily story, and I'm glad to have found this website,
where I can voice my frustrations.
R.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
To the recent story/link requestor
Please note that our scope is limited to stories about Christian online communities. This is not a blog on which disputes about non-Christian religions, or political issues, are appropriate. Because your request in no way conforms to the purpose of this site, I will not post anything about the writer you referenced, nor will I post any links to his or your sites. Please understand that this decision is in no way a denouncement of or an agreement with the author you wrote about. What reading I did at the linked site in your message (so that my decision could be an informed one) was interesting; I have certain opinions on these topics. However, this blog is definitely not an appropriate venue for discussion of them.
Of lies and forgiveness: Update on CCC Yahoo public list
One would hope that the lies would burn themselves out and those telling them would surrender their spirit of bitterness up for the Lord to heal. But as with so many lies, those caught up in them become more and more consumed by them. Virtually every post at CCC is obsessed with ridiculous strawman about egalitarians, attributing to us just about every evil imaginable. Several members there insist on feeding an old grudge against an egalitarian author they insist on calling the "Borg Queen." CHRISTIANS DON'T DO THAT. STOP IT, for CHRIST'S SAKE--PLEASE!. Here and now, as your sister in Christ, I call on CCC to stop tolerating such outrageous sin in your midst.
CCC members also continue to bring up specific things they apparently refuse to forgive about people CCC leaders have removed from their list. And yet they publicly judge egalitarians, claiming that we refuse to forgive! It appears to be far easier for them to condemn egalitarians, even though since they refuse to have any association with the egalitarians they judge as unforgiving, so they don't actually KNOW we are aren't forgiving, than to forgive egalitarians for the long public list of real, imagined, and blatantly invented sins allegedly committed by egalitarians.
Hear this, here and now, CCC: I, an EGALITARIAN, FORGIVE YOU--SOMETIMES DAILY--EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU'VE EVER LIED ABOUT US. It's hard work, but I do it. Your false witness against me and what I believe in, has no power over me, but it clearly has poisoned you. I urge you to to seek God's help in overcoming the very natural human tendency to lie about one's opponents, and cease this ongoing falsehood. WE ARE YOUR CHRISTIAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS! Your continued lies about us are horribly detrimental to your witness as disciples of Jesus Christ. You are better than this. We are not your enemies. It grieves my heart that you continue to portray us as though we are. I believe you are absolutely mistaken about patriarchy being a godly thing, but I would never usurp Christ's prerogative to deny that you belong to him, as you continue to claim about your egalitarian Christian brothers and sisters.
Forgiveness doesn't mean we sweep under the rug what has happened. It means that we let go of the hurt others have genuinely caused us, so that it no longer controls us. I suspect that if these CCC members would dare to do that, they'd realize that we egalitarians bear them no ill will. We won't, however, ignore the fact that they are still unrepentant in their lying about us. Forgiveness fades into toleration of relationship-destroying sin if we ignore that ongoing sin.
I pray for you, each and every day, not specifically that you would recognize that mutual submission in church and marriage is biblical (though it is and I would rejoice in that), but that you would come to reflect Jesus Christ on the CCC public list. I also pray that your false witness about us egalitarians would cease. Actually, the latter would be a fruit of the former.
Oh, just in case you are tempted to speculate, I am not "the Borg Queen," nor does the Christian sister you wrong with that mischaracterization know that I've posted this. Who I am, doesn't matter. That you stop with the blatant insults and lies, matters a whole lot. I'm counting on you to show your fellow members and readers a better picture of our Lord.
CCC members also continue to bring up specific things they apparently refuse to forgive about people CCC leaders have removed from their list. And yet they publicly judge egalitarians, claiming that we refuse to forgive! It appears to be far easier for them to condemn egalitarians, even though since they refuse to have any association with the egalitarians they judge as unforgiving, so they don't actually KNOW we are aren't forgiving, than to forgive egalitarians for the long public list of real, imagined, and blatantly invented sins allegedly committed by egalitarians.
Hear this, here and now, CCC: I, an EGALITARIAN, FORGIVE YOU--SOMETIMES DAILY--EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU'VE EVER LIED ABOUT US. It's hard work, but I do it. Your false witness against me and what I believe in, has no power over me, but it clearly has poisoned you. I urge you to to seek God's help in overcoming the very natural human tendency to lie about one's opponents, and cease this ongoing falsehood. WE ARE YOUR CHRISTIAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS! Your continued lies about us are horribly detrimental to your witness as disciples of Jesus Christ. You are better than this. We are not your enemies. It grieves my heart that you continue to portray us as though we are. I believe you are absolutely mistaken about patriarchy being a godly thing, but I would never usurp Christ's prerogative to deny that you belong to him, as you continue to claim about your egalitarian Christian brothers and sisters.
Forgiveness doesn't mean we sweep under the rug what has happened. It means that we let go of the hurt others have genuinely caused us, so that it no longer controls us. I suspect that if these CCC members would dare to do that, they'd realize that we egalitarians bear them no ill will. We won't, however, ignore the fact that they are still unrepentant in their lying about us. Forgiveness fades into toleration of relationship-destroying sin if we ignore that ongoing sin.
I pray for you, each and every day, not specifically that you would recognize that mutual submission in church and marriage is biblical (though it is and I would rejoice in that), but that you would come to reflect Jesus Christ on the CCC public list. I also pray that your false witness about us egalitarians would cease. Actually, the latter would be a fruit of the former.
Oh, just in case you are tempted to speculate, I am not "the Borg Queen," nor does the Christian sister you wrong with that mischaracterization know that I've posted this. Who I am, doesn't matter. That you stop with the blatant insults and lies, matters a whole lot. I'm counting on you to show your fellow members and readers a better picture of our Lord.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Follow-up: Crosswalk Administrator's Horrible E-mail Story
I received the following cc of a letter to the powers-that-be at Salem Communications concerning the reprehensible actions of Fritz Alberti (admin at the "family" of sites run by Salem) when a "community" member was in immediate danger. I have edited nothing except the writer's name (per Badge of Honor policy).
Given the bad-mannered nature of one rejected response to the earlier entry here, which I received even before I could get this letter posted, I'd say that "LW's" letter struck a nerve with someone over at the Salem "family." As with all Badge of Honor comments, any comments submitted must conform to the posted guidelines, or they WILL be rejected. Whatever you happen to think the writers and I are "full of," keep your comments civil if you want them to be accepted.
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to discuss the discriminatory behavior of Fred Alberti (aka
Fritz), the Manager of your site Crossdaily.com and its parralel chatroom.
It involves an ongoing attitude of disrespect, discriminatory enforcement of
policy, and shockingly anti women remarks made often and publicly by
Alberti.
In addition to many other instances I bring to your attention the shocking
exchange involving a woman who had confided online that she was in extreme criminal danger and was certain it was going to happen again. (I am including a link to this email correspondence between a fellow chatroom woman trying to help her and Alberti.)
http://abadgeofhonor.blogspot.com/2006/06/crosswalk-administrators-horrible-e.html
Myself along with many other fellow Christian chatters are deeply shocked by the manner in which Alberti responded to these Women in need. I have spoken with Alberti about this matter and he personally confirms the quotes and in a terrifying manner defended that the wife should submit to her husband.
Regarding his decision, if he is in fact following policy perhaps it is one
that needs to change. Admittedly I am not a lawyer, but I understand that
confidentiality laws for websites of this nature do not apply if they
believe a crime is being committed. I would expect a web manager to be
familiar with this.
Apart from his decision of inaction, the condescending nature and tone of his reply is nothing short of disrespect and speaks loudly to his public disdain for women. We ask for action to be taken to address this as many of us have lost faith in the direction of this chatroom and consequently Salem Communication's views on the rights of women.
We feel it is a very serious sign of the viewpoint of this admin. He has
engaged several opportunities to express his deep belief in women's
inferiority and I myself have witnessed many examples of this through his
discriminatory behavior toward Women on the site he directs. There have been many other instances of this. If any further evidence is necessary of
Alberti exercising his discriminatory views of Women as administrator we can easily provide them.
We request an immediate respectful and public apology to be posted by
Alberti (on the posting site and the chat room) and his resignation.
Anything short of this will be considered by us and by the public to be an
official affirmation of his viewpoint as being that of Salem Communications. We all make mistakes but our Christian leaders must be the most steadfast in sheparding the flock. I would never suggest that Alberti be banned from chatting, but he is not fit to be an official representative of the site or the chatroom.
Many I have spoken with wished to be more public using several of our (very large) congregations as a platform to condemn the site, but I disagreed because i believe our voices will be heard. We have decided that you should be made aware first and given the opportunity to remedy the situation as we believe you will wish to. Your sites have been a joy and a blessing to us all. It would break my heart to feel we are no longer welcome. As I am sure you have probably not been aware of this practice I hope you appreciate this alert. Your action taken in this matter will show great courage and will be deeply respected.
Thank you and god bless,
[letter writer]
Given the bad-mannered nature of one rejected response to the earlier entry here, which I received even before I could get this letter posted, I'd say that "LW's" letter struck a nerve with someone over at the Salem "family." As with all Badge of Honor comments, any comments submitted must conform to the posted guidelines, or they WILL be rejected. Whatever you happen to think the writers and I are "full of," keep your comments civil if you want them to be accepted.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Thank you for honoring Badge's purpose
A reminder: "A Badge of Honor" was created so that people who have experienced unchristlike behavior at so-called Christian online groups and forums, may have a place to report this behavior. The intention is that two things may then happen: The person targeted by such behavior has the opportunity to tell the truth about what happened to him/her (since such venues often shroud their behavior in secrecy), and, through informing other Christians of what happens on these sites, positive change may be effected as members of such groups insist on more christlike behavior from their group leaders and one another.
The purpose of this site has been honored by those who have submitted stories and, for the most part, by those who have submitted comments to them. As always, comments are still welcome (with the exception of one non-story entry for which it is clearly posted that comments will not be accepted).
A number of "Badge" readers have been aware of one notable exception from an individual who blatantly attempted to divert discussion from the stories to grab for center stage for herself, demanding that I follow side issues, despite my statement that I will NOT do that. Again, I will NOT follow you elsewhere to discuss anything. IF you follow the same rules as anyone else, your own story can be posted and your comments will be accepted. IF your comments don't conform to the guidelines posted, they will not be accepted. It's really not difficult. I don't appreciate lies about Badge of Honor told elsewhere, but obviously I don't have any power to prevent people from lying. That's a matter for their own consciences. I really don't appreciate people targeting anyone who tells a Badge of Honor story for slander or ridicule. Again, however, it is beyond my power to prevent this kind of unchristlike, juvenile behavior. If you find yourself doing such things, the responsibility is entirely your own; I hope you find your conscience a tormenting companion until you repent and make amends. But whatever your reasons or lack thereof for this kind of misbehavior, remember that I will not permit you to engage in it here at Badge of Honor. That's not a matter of my "not accepting comments"; on the contrary, it is a matter of my enforcing some standards of Christian decency for comments at this venue.
As with nearly all entries, I will accept comments to this entry, so long as they conform to the posted guidelines. Please do not waste your time or mine by submitting comments that don't.
The purpose of this site has been honored by those who have submitted stories and, for the most part, by those who have submitted comments to them. As always, comments are still welcome (with the exception of one non-story entry for which it is clearly posted that comments will not be accepted).
A number of "Badge" readers have been aware of one notable exception from an individual who blatantly attempted to divert discussion from the stories to grab for center stage for herself, demanding that I follow side issues, despite my statement that I will NOT do that. Again, I will NOT follow you elsewhere to discuss anything. IF you follow the same rules as anyone else, your own story can be posted and your comments will be accepted. IF your comments don't conform to the guidelines posted, they will not be accepted. It's really not difficult. I don't appreciate lies about Badge of Honor told elsewhere, but obviously I don't have any power to prevent people from lying. That's a matter for their own consciences. I really don't appreciate people targeting anyone who tells a Badge of Honor story for slander or ridicule. Again, however, it is beyond my power to prevent this kind of unchristlike, juvenile behavior. If you find yourself doing such things, the responsibility is entirely your own; I hope you find your conscience a tormenting companion until you repent and make amends. But whatever your reasons or lack thereof for this kind of misbehavior, remember that I will not permit you to engage in it here at Badge of Honor. That's not a matter of my "not accepting comments"; on the contrary, it is a matter of my enforcing some standards of Christian decency for comments at this venue.
As with nearly all entries, I will accept comments to this entry, so long as they conform to the posted guidelines. Please do not waste your time or mine by submitting comments that don't.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
"Twerp's" Story
I am complementarian, and was also on the CCC board. I posted under the ID of twerp828. Some discussion -- I think it was whether women wearing slacks was biblical, or unbiblical, was getting pretty heated, and I simply said I would be not posting for a while, but reading. No one was attacking or flaming anybody or anything, as far as I can recall, including myself.
So Mike [McMillan], the list owner, kicked me off the list for saying that I would back away from the discussion underway.
I wrote to two complementarians about this, one is a man who is another moderater on the CCC list, and another man moderates another, much larger theologically oriented discussion forum.
The other moderator from the CCC discussion list wrote me off-list, and was not in the least supportive of Mike McMillan's decision, and the other man did not see the reason for kicking me off the list, either.
"Twerp" requested that we include this correction to the original story:
Just my opinion.
So Mike [McMillan], the list owner, kicked me off the list for saying that I would back away from the discussion underway.
I wrote to two complementarians about this, one is a man who is another moderater on the CCC list, and another man moderates another, much larger theologically oriented discussion forum.
The other moderator from the CCC discussion list wrote me off-list, and was not in the least supportive of Mike McMillan's decision, and the other man did not see the reason for kicking me off the list, either.
"Twerp" requested that we include this correction to the original story:
I just looked up the CCC moderator's comments to me. He actually wrote me BEFORE I was kicked off the list, and said it appeared that Mike was "pigeonholing" me unfairly, in his comments to me. I had said on the board that I would be asking some people to look at my posts and give me their assessments. This CCC moderator was one of the people I contacted. So he never said anything to me about disagreeing that I was kicked off the list, but he did seem to think Mike's comments to me during that particular discussion did not represent a fair assessment, it appeared to him. Just want to issue that correction.
I can understand quietly telling vocal egals that the list is for complementarian discussion only, and rejecting their posts, but the way I have seen both egals and comps kicked off that list, I mean the way the public e-mails are worded, is uncharitable, unchivalrous, and unChristlike.Just my opinion.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Common Sense Online
Blog owner's message - Comments will not be accepted...really, they won't!
Common sense is very important when it comes to how we interact with other people online. We really don't know who is on that other keyboard when we chat, blog, or post. Common sense should caution us to disclose personal information only to people we have good reason to trust (and even they could turn on you). This includes giving out real names, cities, telephone numbers, places of employment, children's names, and so forth.
There are exceptions, of course, when it comes to people who make a living online or whose online ventures contribute to their livelihoods. But by and large, in this day and time, it is not exactly prudent to "let it all hang out" online. While the vast majority of people wouldn't dream of stalking or harrassing people by following them from site to site, there are those who do. I've seen an example of that right here, unfortuately, though the person attempting to post that kind of comment has obligingly violated numerous guidelines on most attempts and most of that person's comments have been rejected.
To that commenter, I have a few things to say: First of all, I don't know anything about you that you haven't posted publicly in the many places on the web where you've gone telling people about the big, bad "new" blog where you've been so allegedly mistreated. However, the truth is, you use your real name on numerous sites, including this one, or so you proudly say when maligning people those of us who post pseudonymously (like a majority of bloggers and forum participants). I honestly don't know if it's your real name or not, and I don't care. You mention what state you live in sometimes when you're discussing things on various sites. In what I've read, I don't know what city you live in and don't have your address, nor do I care. I have no idea what your telephone number is, despite your false claim that I do. I truly couldn't care less what it is, because I wouldn't dream of calling you. Frankly, you're just not that important to me. Important as any child of God is, of course. But to me? Nothing beyond the love I have for any Christian brother or sister.
And finally, I'm simply not who your comments indicate you think I am, so your using of "Badge of Honor" to keep your grudge alive is only that much more ridiculous. I am not a terrorist, nor do I have any reason or desire to "destroy" you, despite your repeated false claims. If it scares you that people know your name, don't use your (supposedly) real name online. It's the only name you've used here, so if someone's going to address you or refer to you, it's all we've got. If it scares you that people know what state you live in, don't reveal that information. If you don't want people knowing exactly what you say about other people and sites, don't continue to post your judgments about them, sometimes years later, on other public venues. If you don't want to constantly fear that the person you've been maligning for years is finally getting even with you after all this time, whenever you think you recognize that person, then leave off referencing your disagreement when you go to sites that person doesn't even participate on. Or better yet, lay down that heavy grudge. It's highly unbecoming and it hurts other people, even if your forum friends won't tell you so.
Everyone, including individuals who have had comments rejected, is free to submit stories (via e-mail) and post comments that conform to the stated guidelines. Do not misrepresent me as "not letting you respond" because I'm "offended." This is not true. Follow the same guidelines as everyone else and don't try to use Badge of Honor for non-BOH communication, and your story and comments will be welcome. If I want to carry on off-BOH conversations with you, I will provide an appropriate means for that to happen.
To all "Badge" participants, including those whose comments are not published: I'm telling you here and now that you have nothing to fear from me except my rejecting your comments, editing your stories, or if you've been really outrageous, maybe a comment of my own like this. It's just words, and I'm saying them here and only here. I won't follow you around and tell everyone I meet what I think of you. I won't call you, visit you, e-mail you, post to your web site, fax you, message you, or put out a contract on you--honest! But there are some people on the web from whom you'd be very wise to protect your personal information. As the old sergeant told the shift in the opening scene of "Hill Street Blues," "Be careful out there."
Edited 8/1/06 - BP
Edited 8/4/06 - BP
Edited 8/5/06 - BP
Common sense is very important when it comes to how we interact with other people online. We really don't know who is on that other keyboard when we chat, blog, or post. Common sense should caution us to disclose personal information only to people we have good reason to trust (and even they could turn on you). This includes giving out real names, cities, telephone numbers, places of employment, children's names, and so forth.
There are exceptions, of course, when it comes to people who make a living online or whose online ventures contribute to their livelihoods. But by and large, in this day and time, it is not exactly prudent to "let it all hang out" online. While the vast majority of people wouldn't dream of stalking or harrassing people by following them from site to site, there are those who do. I've seen an example of that right here, unfortuately, though the person attempting to post that kind of comment has obligingly violated numerous guidelines on most attempts and most of that person's comments have been rejected.
To that commenter, I have a few things to say: First of all, I don't know anything about you that you haven't posted publicly in the many places on the web where you've gone telling people about the big, bad "new" blog where you've been so allegedly mistreated. However, the truth is, you use your real name on numerous sites, including this one, or so you proudly say when maligning people those of us who post pseudonymously (like a majority of bloggers and forum participants). I honestly don't know if it's your real name or not, and I don't care. You mention what state you live in sometimes when you're discussing things on various sites. In what I've read, I don't know what city you live in and don't have your address, nor do I care. I have no idea what your telephone number is, despite your false claim that I do. I truly couldn't care less what it is, because I wouldn't dream of calling you. Frankly, you're just not that important to me. Important as any child of God is, of course. But to me? Nothing beyond the love I have for any Christian brother or sister.
And finally, I'm simply not who your comments indicate you think I am, so your using of "Badge of Honor" to keep your grudge alive is only that much more ridiculous. I am not a terrorist, nor do I have any reason or desire to "destroy" you, despite your repeated false claims. If it scares you that people know your name, don't use your (supposedly) real name online. It's the only name you've used here, so if someone's going to address you or refer to you, it's all we've got. If it scares you that people know what state you live in, don't reveal that information. If you don't want people knowing exactly what you say about other people and sites, don't continue to post your judgments about them, sometimes years later, on other public venues. If you don't want to constantly fear that the person you've been maligning for years is finally getting even with you after all this time, whenever you think you recognize that person, then leave off referencing your disagreement when you go to sites that person doesn't even participate on. Or better yet, lay down that heavy grudge. It's highly unbecoming and it hurts other people, even if your forum friends won't tell you so.
Everyone, including individuals who have had comments rejected, is free to submit stories (via e-mail) and post comments that conform to the stated guidelines. Do not misrepresent me as "not letting you respond" because I'm "offended." This is not true. Follow the same guidelines as everyone else and don't try to use Badge of Honor for non-BOH communication, and your story and comments will be welcome. If I want to carry on off-BOH conversations with you, I will provide an appropriate means for that to happen.
To all "Badge" participants, including those whose comments are not published: I'm telling you here and now that you have nothing to fear from me except my rejecting your comments, editing your stories, or if you've been really outrageous, maybe a comment of my own like this. It's just words, and I'm saying them here and only here. I won't follow you around and tell everyone I meet what I think of you. I won't call you, visit you, e-mail you, post to your web site, fax you, message you, or put out a contract on you--honest! But there are some people on the web from whom you'd be very wise to protect your personal information. As the old sergeant told the shift in the opening scene of "Hill Street Blues," "Be careful out there."
Edited 8/1/06 - BP
Edited 8/4/06 - BP
Edited 8/5/06 - BP
Friday, July 28, 2006
Reposted: Welcome to "A Badge of Honor"!
This was the original home page text from the 4t.com site where "A Badge of Honor" started life. The story guidelines have been revised.
Are you a Christian? Do you visit so-called "Christian" websites and forums? And have you ever felt unwelcome because you held differing views from the prevailing "party line" on those sites?
How about this: Have you ever been banned, booted, kicked off, or otherwise ejected from such a "Christian" site, simply for expressing a point of view that didn't toe that party line? Or have you experienced blatantly inappropriate or unfair moderation, sanctions, or censorship at the hands of "authorities" on such sites?
If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you deserve a "Badge of Honor."
There are sites from which, quite honestly, it's a badge of honor to be banned! Christians need to know about the unchristlike behavior of the people who run the sites they frequent. There is a time and place for removing people who can't abide by the rules. But when abiding by the rules applies to some but not to others, or the "authorities" make up the rules as they go along so as to target certain members of their communities, that's wrong. That's not how mature Christians are supposed to behave.
HOW TO TELL YOUR BADGE OF HONOR STORY
You may tell your story in your own words. By submitting your story by e-mail to the postmaster at badgepostmaster@hotmail.com (edited 3/17/07 for change in contact e-mail address) for inclusion on "Badge of Honor," you agree to the following conditions:
1. The postmaster may edit your story for the following reasons:
a. Extreme length
Example: For the purposes of this blog, your story does not merit an online novel, no matter how badly you were treated. Please limit your story to approximately 3-5 paragraphs; shorter than that is fine, but longer stories may be either edited or returned to the writer for rework. (I may decide to post longer stories, at my sole discretion.)
b. Unacceptable language (obscenities and excessive profanity are not permitted)
Example: Even if you were subjected to filthy language by the villain of your story, it is not necessary to use that language in the telling of the story. Mild profanity is acceptable, at the sole discretion of the postmaster.
c. Spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors when excessive and distracting
Example: Some people are highly irritated by bad spelling, punctuation, and grammar and will not even read past the first couple of errors they see. What your spell checker doesn't catch, I will try to.
d. Personal information that could be used to identify or contact you or others, unless you state specifically that you wish to be contacted.
Example: Don't open yourself up to the offending site's loyal fans, or the villain him/herself, spamming you with hate mail or worse. And please, protect the identity of minors at ALL COST! If you WANT to be contacted, it is up to you to provide that contact information. This site is not responsible, however, for whatever contact you receive. Think carefully about this issue.
e. Slanderous or libelous comments that are clearly your opinion. You may name names and sites in your story. However, you are responsible for "sticking to the facts."
Example: If Joe Blow kicked you off of the "Christians 'R' Us" site, that is a fact. If you call Joe Blow an adulterous fool for having kicked you off, you have crossed the line and your story will be edited. Don't open yourself or others up for legal action! It's not worth it. Let the facts speak for themselves. And don't think it can't happen; it can and it does.
2. Your story remains your property. The postmaster will, upon your request, remove your story from the site in a timely manner.
3. You are on your honor as a Christian and a human being to be truthful and, if possible, gracious. This site is about telling the truth so that positive change can occur, not about exacting revenge against those who've wronged us. It is hoped that before you request that your story be posted, you've already taken reasonable steps to confront the wrongdoer directly.
4. You accept the postmaster's decisions concerning editing of your story. If you believe the facts of the story have been compromised through editing it, you are free to contact the postmaster to request that changes be made.
5. The postmaster reserves the right to NOT include your story if, in my sole opinion, it does not fit the parameters outlined above. For example, as devastating as it is when churches and individuals mistreat people, only stories about online sites/communities/groups will be included. If your story does not involve mistreatment by an online group and/or its representative(s), please do not request that it be posted.
See the previous blog entry for guidelines concerning comments to story entries.
Are you a Christian? Do you visit so-called "Christian" websites and forums? And have you ever felt unwelcome because you held differing views from the prevailing "party line" on those sites?
How about this: Have you ever been banned, booted, kicked off, or otherwise ejected from such a "Christian" site, simply for expressing a point of view that didn't toe that party line? Or have you experienced blatantly inappropriate or unfair moderation, sanctions, or censorship at the hands of "authorities" on such sites?
If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you deserve a "Badge of Honor."
There are sites from which, quite honestly, it's a badge of honor to be banned! Christians need to know about the unchristlike behavior of the people who run the sites they frequent. There is a time and place for removing people who can't abide by the rules. But when abiding by the rules applies to some but not to others, or the "authorities" make up the rules as they go along so as to target certain members of their communities, that's wrong. That's not how mature Christians are supposed to behave.
HOW TO TELL YOUR BADGE OF HONOR STORY
You may tell your story in your own words. By submitting your story by e-mail to the postmaster at badgepostmaster@hotmail.com (edited 3/17/07 for change in contact e-mail address) for inclusion on "Badge of Honor," you agree to the following conditions:
1. The postmaster may edit your story for the following reasons:
a. Extreme length
Example: For the purposes of this blog, your story does not merit an online novel, no matter how badly you were treated. Please limit your story to approximately 3-5 paragraphs; shorter than that is fine, but longer stories may be either edited or returned to the writer for rework. (I may decide to post longer stories, at my sole discretion.)
b. Unacceptable language (obscenities and excessive profanity are not permitted)
Example: Even if you were subjected to filthy language by the villain of your story, it is not necessary to use that language in the telling of the story. Mild profanity is acceptable, at the sole discretion of the postmaster.
c. Spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors when excessive and distracting
Example: Some people are highly irritated by bad spelling, punctuation, and grammar and will not even read past the first couple of errors they see. What your spell checker doesn't catch, I will try to.
d. Personal information that could be used to identify or contact you or others, unless you state specifically that you wish to be contacted.
Example: Don't open yourself up to the offending site's loyal fans, or the villain him/herself, spamming you with hate mail or worse. And please, protect the identity of minors at ALL COST! If you WANT to be contacted, it is up to you to provide that contact information. This site is not responsible, however, for whatever contact you receive. Think carefully about this issue.
e. Slanderous or libelous comments that are clearly your opinion. You may name names and sites in your story. However, you are responsible for "sticking to the facts."
Example: If Joe Blow kicked you off of the "Christians 'R' Us" site, that is a fact. If you call Joe Blow an adulterous fool for having kicked you off, you have crossed the line and your story will be edited. Don't open yourself or others up for legal action! It's not worth it. Let the facts speak for themselves. And don't think it can't happen; it can and it does.
2. Your story remains your property. The postmaster will, upon your request, remove your story from the site in a timely manner.
3. You are on your honor as a Christian and a human being to be truthful and, if possible, gracious. This site is about telling the truth so that positive change can occur, not about exacting revenge against those who've wronged us. It is hoped that before you request that your story be posted, you've already taken reasonable steps to confront the wrongdoer directly.
4. You accept the postmaster's decisions concerning editing of your story. If you believe the facts of the story have been compromised through editing it, you are free to contact the postmaster to request that changes be made.
5. The postmaster reserves the right to NOT include your story if, in my sole opinion, it does not fit the parameters outlined above. For example, as devastating as it is when churches and individuals mistreat people, only stories about online sites/communities/groups will be included. If your story does not involve mistreatment by an online group and/or its representative(s), please do not request that it be posted.
See the previous blog entry for guidelines concerning comments to story entries.
Attention, Commenters
Since "A Badge of Honor" started life last year as a website, the transition to a blog last month wasn't totally seamless. Comments weren't a part of the original design. Therefore, until people began posting comments (which weren't originally moderated), there wasn't a need for guidelines. Very obviously, now there is a need. So here they are:
1. Comments will be moderated. That is not negotiable. I am the moderator and blog owner. I'm human, just as you are, and I don't make a secret of my biases against systems that promote inequality and the people that advocate such systems. However, I will do my best to utilize guidelines 2 & 3 when deciding whether to publish or reject (Blogspot's terminology) your comments.
2. Comments which will be published include those which:
- Address what the story actually said, and which are framed respectfully.
- Engage the writer of that story in further discussion about the events described in the story
- Offer an alternative point of view in a constructive, respectful manner
3. Comments which will be rejected include those which:
- Do not address what the story actually said, and/or which are framed disrespectfully.
- Attempt to create a debate from the story (that's what forums are for) .
- Constitute only a message to another commenter (that's what e-mail is for)
- Constitute your own "Badge of Honor" story. Please follow the instructions for submitting your story so that it becomes a blog entry.
- Criticize the reason for this blog's existence, that existence itself, and/or those who tell their stories for having told them (find a blog or forum designed for that).
- Complain about my comment moderation, though if you ask me to reconsider something, I will take that request under advisement. I simply won't interrupt the comment flow with your request.
I have already rejected a couple of comments for one or more of these reasons and make no apology for doing so. It is possible that further comment and/or post removals will be made in the very near future.
Thank you for visiting "A Badge of Honor" and for abiding by these guidelines if you choose to comment on a story.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Let's clear up some misconceptions, shall we?
"A Badge of Honor" is a clearinghouse for people to tell their stories when they've been treated in an unchristlike manner by online Christian communities. They compose their stories themselves and submit them to the Postmaster for inclusion on "A Badge of Honor." The people who tell their stories are NOT the postmaster. I preserve their anonymity, as well as my own, unless they indicate they want personally-identifiable information to be posted. Read a ways down to find the parameters of story postings here.
I knew only one person who's submitted a story here, before he or she requested inclusion in "Badge." All others I've met when they e-mailed me. I did very limited "advertising" about the site when I first set it up at 4t.com (recently renovated and now in blog format) and people started sending me their stories. I've had to twist no one's arm, nor have I posted fake stories or composites. I don't do background checks on the people who send me their stories and I don't try to figure out their real-life identities. They're on their honor to tell the truth about what happened to them on the sites they write about. With all the nut cases hanging about the web and with the way some of them have been treated, no one ought to blame them for a desire to remain anonymous online.
As for thinking I'm some person or other: As most people who frequent the web are aware, people link to other people's sites all the time. An example is Metacrock, who blogs at Metacrock's Blog, and who visited "A Badge of Honor." Metacrock blogged an entry and linked to "Badge." Metacrock is in no way responsible for the content or scope of "A Badge of Honor." Metacrock is not the Badge Postmaster, nor (I suspect) would he wish to be. So...if you have a gripe with Badge, my e-mail addy is clearly posted all over here. In case you missed it, it's badgepostmaster.hotmail.com (edited 3/17/07 to reflect current e-mail contact). If you want to get in touch with Metacrock, you'll need to contact him yourself; I don't take messages. Who knows? He might even be glad to hear from you. Just don't insult him by confusing him with me. And I've never been a part of the CCC community, nor have I any wish to be. I do read their public archives, and that's the reason why I've never desired to be counted in their number.
So Mike, though I'm in no way upset to have been mistaken for Metacrock, I'm surprised that you made the mistake. He never called himself the Postmaster, we have totally different writing styles, and he has a different Blogger ID than I do (which showed when he commented on "Badge"). You might even want to find out if there's a reason for why he does what you were so quick to ridicule. Were he your brother (as indeed he is in the Lord), maybe you'd think twice before judging him as you have. Do you want people making nasty comments about your spelling and grammar? It could be done, and it might only be carelessness on your part.
Think whatever you like about "Badge." Post whatever you wish, truth or lie, on your sites. But for the sake of your own witness and everyone's well-being, the truth is much preferable!
I knew only one person who's submitted a story here, before he or she requested inclusion in "Badge." All others I've met when they e-mailed me. I did very limited "advertising" about the site when I first set it up at 4t.com (recently renovated and now in blog format) and people started sending me their stories. I've had to twist no one's arm, nor have I posted fake stories or composites. I don't do background checks on the people who send me their stories and I don't try to figure out their real-life identities. They're on their honor to tell the truth about what happened to them on the sites they write about. With all the nut cases hanging about the web and with the way some of them have been treated, no one ought to blame them for a desire to remain anonymous online.
As for thinking I'm some person or other: As most people who frequent the web are aware, people link to other people's sites all the time. An example is Metacrock, who blogs at Metacrock's Blog, and who visited "A Badge of Honor." Metacrock blogged an entry and linked to "Badge." Metacrock is in no way responsible for the content or scope of "A Badge of Honor." Metacrock is not the Badge Postmaster, nor (I suspect) would he wish to be. So...if you have a gripe with Badge, my e-mail addy is clearly posted all over here. In case you missed it, it's badgepostmaster.hotmail.com (edited 3/17/07 to reflect current e-mail contact). If you want to get in touch with Metacrock, you'll need to contact him yourself; I don't take messages. Who knows? He might even be glad to hear from you. Just don't insult him by confusing him with me. And I've never been a part of the CCC community, nor have I any wish to be. I do read their public archives, and that's the reason why I've never desired to be counted in their number.
So Mike, though I'm in no way upset to have been mistaken for Metacrock, I'm surprised that you made the mistake. He never called himself the Postmaster, we have totally different writing styles, and he has a different Blogger ID than I do (which showed when he commented on "Badge"). You might even want to find out if there's a reason for why he does what you were so quick to ridicule. Were he your brother (as indeed he is in the Lord), maybe you'd think twice before judging him as you have. Do you want people making nasty comments about your spelling and grammar? It could be done, and it might only be carelessness on your part.
Think whatever you like about "Badge." Post whatever you wish, truth or lie, on your sites. But for the sake of your own witness and everyone's well-being, the truth is much preferable!
Change in Policy: Reader Comments
Good news and maybe-bad news.
1. Good news: Anyone may now post comments to this blog. This means you don't have to have a Blogger account.
2. Maybe-bad news: Comments are now going to be moderated, which means that I as the Postmaster will review every comment before it is made public. For most people, this is also good news. If you're here simply to derail things, please re-think and save us both some wasted keystrokes.
As always, if you wish to have your story included on "Badge of Honor," please e-mail me at badgepostmaster@hotmail.com (edited 3/17/07 to reflect change in contact e-mail address).. Stories merely "commented" will, in the future, be deleted. Besides, very few people will read your story if you have it as a comment on someone else's story post.
Thank you for your interest in "Badge of Honor"!
1. Good news: Anyone may now post comments to this blog. This means you don't have to have a Blogger account.
2. Maybe-bad news: Comments are now going to be moderated, which means that I as the Postmaster will review every comment before it is made public. For most people, this is also good news. If you're here simply to derail things, please re-think and save us both some wasted keystrokes.
As always, if you wish to have your story included on "Badge of Honor," please e-mail me at badgepostmaster@hotmail.com (edited 3/17/07 to reflect change in contact e-mail address).. Stories merely "commented" will, in the future, be deleted. Besides, very few people will read your story if you have it as a comment on someone else's story post.
Thank you for your interest in "Badge of Honor"!
Friday, July 21, 2006
G R's Story - CCC Forum
I spent about three weeks posting to the Complementarian Christian Coalition forum before I was banned from participation. I joined the forum with the idea that I would agree with the group on basic Christian doctrine, but would differ somewhat regarding the issue of gender roles. In fair play to the people on that forum, it is their group for the purpose of discussing their particular viewpoint. However, I stated outright when joining that I tend toward the egalitarian side of the debate, and they let me on.
Within a week, it became obvious that they consider even moderate egalitarians to be raving feminists, heretics and, in the case of one lady, communist sympathizers. Throughout the discussion, there were various comments about my ignorance and lack of theological knowledge. I was accused of twisting scripture, and twisting the statements of the forum members. I was told I was selfish and should take up pole dancing. Then someone said this to me:
“Indeed, to portray the values, virtues, and blessings of male headship and female submission to it as evils comes very close to what Jesus describedas the unpardonable sin: to credit to the devil what is, in fact, the work of the Holy Spirit. It is here where I warn you again that your soul is in peril of irrevocable damnation. For your own sake, back up and rethink things, if you are still able.”
I responded by telling him that Christ alone saves, and the work of salvation is not dependent on a belief in female submission or male headship. He reiterated: “I merely affirmed that male headship is part of salvation, the gospel, the works.” There were a number of attempts by others to explain his statements, and accuse me of intentionally misinterpreting what he meant by it. Pretty soon thereafter, my posting privileges were cut off. Several people continued to post comments to and about me after they knew I was unable to respond, which is really one of the shabbiest things people can do on any kind of forum.
Do I regret my experience on the CCC forum? No. It was instructive in the same sense that discovering termites have eaten the foundation of your home is instructive. I needed a hammer-to-the-frontal-lobe type of discussion to alert me to the reasons that the comp/egal debate is so bitter. However, please be warned that the CCC forum may (and probably will) chew you up and spit you out like a cheap toothpick if you disagree with their views.
Postmaster's Note: I observed this story as it unfolded--no, I'm not G R--and in my opinion, G R is being far more charitable about what happened than the CCC members deserve. That is one toxic community! (shudder) The head moderator there, who made the decision to "ban" G R, is Michael McMillan. He engages in and tolerates the outrageous sarcasm and denigration of people he has removed from the "community." And G R was not exaggerating about the woman who accuses egalitarians of being communists. She's done that in several venues that I've read. Most troubling about this story, besides what happend to G R personally, is that the "If you think patriarchy is evil, your soul is in peril" gent is a newly-minted Anglican priest in Waxahachie, Texas. His name is William Mouser and he's the brains behind some of the most restrictive and outrageously extrabiblical of the "gender role" publications and seminars being spread around out there. If too many so-called complementarians start believing what Scripture says about equality in Jesus Christ, he stands to lose money. Steer clear of this guy. He's very, very nasty to egalitarian Christians. Up to and including threatening lawsuits of one egalitarian forum's moderators because a couple of participants criticized him harshly for his untruthful statements about biblical equality in his upcoming book. I may create a separate story about that in the near future.
8/14/06 - What's shameful, "Cai," is the fact that online venues such as yours treat people as they do. Hence this blog. CCC disgraces Christianity all the time, and you appear to approve. If you don't want the stories told, don't contribute to the events they describe. You might try reining in your friends when they engage in the kind of shameful behavior for which CCC is unfortunately notorious.
Within a week, it became obvious that they consider even moderate egalitarians to be raving feminists, heretics and, in the case of one lady, communist sympathizers. Throughout the discussion, there were various comments about my ignorance and lack of theological knowledge. I was accused of twisting scripture, and twisting the statements of the forum members. I was told I was selfish and should take up pole dancing. Then someone said this to me:
“Indeed, to portray the values, virtues, and blessings of male headship and female submission to it as evils comes very close to what Jesus describedas the unpardonable sin: to credit to the devil what is, in fact, the work of the Holy Spirit. It is here where I warn you again that your soul is in peril of irrevocable damnation. For your own sake, back up and rethink things, if you are still able.”
I responded by telling him that Christ alone saves, and the work of salvation is not dependent on a belief in female submission or male headship. He reiterated: “I merely affirmed that male headship is part of salvation, the gospel, the works.” There were a number of attempts by others to explain his statements, and accuse me of intentionally misinterpreting what he meant by it. Pretty soon thereafter, my posting privileges were cut off. Several people continued to post comments to and about me after they knew I was unable to respond, which is really one of the shabbiest things people can do on any kind of forum.
Do I regret my experience on the CCC forum? No. It was instructive in the same sense that discovering termites have eaten the foundation of your home is instructive. I needed a hammer-to-the-frontal-lobe type of discussion to alert me to the reasons that the comp/egal debate is so bitter. However, please be warned that the CCC forum may (and probably will) chew you up and spit you out like a cheap toothpick if you disagree with their views.
Postmaster's Note: I observed this story as it unfolded--no, I'm not G R--and in my opinion, G R is being far more charitable about what happened than the CCC members deserve. That is one toxic community! (shudder) The head moderator there, who made the decision to "ban" G R, is Michael McMillan. He engages in and tolerates the outrageous sarcasm and denigration of people he has removed from the "community." And G R was not exaggerating about the woman who accuses egalitarians of being communists. She's done that in several venues that I've read. Most troubling about this story, besides what happend to G R personally, is that the "If you think patriarchy is evil, your soul is in peril" gent is a newly-minted Anglican priest in Waxahachie, Texas. His name is William Mouser and he's the brains behind some of the most restrictive and outrageously extrabiblical of the "gender role" publications and seminars being spread around out there. If too many so-called complementarians start believing what Scripture says about equality in Jesus Christ, he stands to lose money. Steer clear of this guy. He's very, very nasty to egalitarian Christians. Up to and including threatening lawsuits of one egalitarian forum's moderators because a couple of participants criticized him harshly for his untruthful statements about biblical equality in his upcoming book. I may create a separate story about that in the near future.
8/14/06 - What's shameful, "Cai," is the fact that online venues such as yours treat people as they do. Hence this blog. CCC disgraces Christianity all the time, and you appear to approve. If you don't want the stories told, don't contribute to the events they describe. You might try reining in your friends when they engage in the kind of shameful behavior for which CCC is unfortunately notorious.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Concerning Christian Tavern
Postmaster's Note: "M" reported a new forum and I originally included a link to it (Christian Tavern) here. This was back when the only stories reported were about Crosswalk Forums, and the Christian Tavern was a venue where people who had met at CW could meet. The dynamics of CW are such that no one ever knew what happened if someone suddenly stopped posting there. I still think Christian Tavern is a good way for that to happen.
However, that's not a "Badge of Honor" story. As this blog has grown, I've decided to hold it to the purpose for which it was formed: a venue for people wronged by online Christian "communities" to tell their stories. If you wish to check out Christian Tavern for yourself, I'll let you do your own hunting for it. Alternatively, you may e-mail me (badgepostmaster@hotmail.com - edited 3/17/07 for change in contact e-mail address) and I'll give you a link.
Christian Tavern was created and is operated totally separately from this blog. The views expressed on the forum are not necessarily similar to my own, and it was not really intended to be a public forum; only CW "refugees" were initially invited. One of them learned about Badge of Honor, and the link was submitted for inclusion to let the other readers know there was a venue designed to welcome them. While I read there occasionally, I am not responsible for its content. I think it's great that they've created a venue in which to let off some steam. How they choose to do it is entirely up to them. Please judge both the "Christian Tavern" and "Badge of Honor" on their own merits as independent venues. The Tavern has also had some changes made and you will not be permitted to read or comment there unless you have joined. I don't know if new uninvited members are being accepted at present.
However, that's not a "Badge of Honor" story. As this blog has grown, I've decided to hold it to the purpose for which it was formed: a venue for people wronged by online Christian "communities" to tell their stories. If you wish to check out Christian Tavern for yourself, I'll let you do your own hunting for it. Alternatively, you may e-mail me (badgepostmaster@hotmail.com - edited 3/17/07 for change in contact e-mail address) and I'll give you a link.
Christian Tavern was created and is operated totally separately from this blog. The views expressed on the forum are not necessarily similar to my own, and it was not really intended to be a public forum; only CW "refugees" were initially invited. One of them learned about Badge of Honor, and the link was submitted for inclusion to let the other readers know there was a venue designed to welcome them. While I read there occasionally, I am not responsible for its content. I think it's great that they've created a venue in which to let off some steam. How they choose to do it is entirely up to them. Please judge both the "Christian Tavern" and "Badge of Honor" on their own merits as independent venues. The Tavern has also had some changes made and you will not be permitted to read or comment there unless you have joined. I don't know if new uninvited members are being accepted at present.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Lolly's Story - 5/11/06
I first stumbled upon Crosswalk back in 2004. I'm an American living in Great Britain, and I wanted a way to keep in touch with what was going on in the American Christian community. A few months later, CW announced that they were merging with Christianity.com, so I headed over to the other site to see what the people were like. Oh, my goodness. The very first thread I found, moderated by Fritz, was entitled "Why Aren't Women Submitting More?" (I wonder if the guy who started it is the one from Coheir's post? Because he also turned out to be young and single.) Naturally the topic turned to women in leadership, and people began calling them names like Whore of Babylon. One man made a sick joke comparing them to Balaam's donkey. And through all this, Fritz did nothing.
And I remember when Pope John Paul II passed away. There were people on Crosswalk saying that he was going to hell because he was a Catholic and other vicious things. As you can imagine, this terribly offended the Catholic members, and yet, once again, Fritz did NOTHING to stop it.
And let's see. Late last year some twit started a thread gloating about how homosexuals had just lost a Supreme Court case. I mean that literally. He was gloating and saying how wonderful it was that those "awful gays" had been put in their place. Several of us posted that you know? That might not be very loving and Christ-like, and it certainly wouldn't witness to any gay people. Guess what? Fritz contacted us all and said that we were banned from ever participating in disucssions about homosexuality again. I can still remember his e-mail. "Obviously you are not capable of having a discussion about homosexuality." Like rejoicing in another person's misery is having a discussion?
Let me conclude by saying that I, too, have been banned from Crosswalk. At least, I got banned for a month last year. At the time, there was a discussion going about the marriage of Prince Charles. For insisting that I thought he was committing adultery, I was "offending British peeople." (There are several British posters on Crosswalk.) At the end of the month, I had to write an essay about why I had done what I did, and how I would behave better in the future. Unfortunately, I wasn't as brave as Coheir. I sucked it up, wrote the essay, and got re-instated. Surprise, surprise. I then contacted the principal British woman with whom I had been debating, and she hadn't been offended in the least! (I wonder if Fritz had been keeping his eye on me, because I had made my egalitarian views clear in the "Women's Roles" thread.)
I wish I could write more paragraphs. I have a lot more stories to tell...
And I remember when Pope John Paul II passed away. There were people on Crosswalk saying that he was going to hell because he was a Catholic and other vicious things. As you can imagine, this terribly offended the Catholic members, and yet, once again, Fritz did NOTHING to stop it.
And let's see. Late last year some twit started a thread gloating about how homosexuals had just lost a Supreme Court case. I mean that literally. He was gloating and saying how wonderful it was that those "awful gays" had been put in their place. Several of us posted that you know? That might not be very loving and Christ-like, and it certainly wouldn't witness to any gay people. Guess what? Fritz contacted us all and said that we were banned from ever participating in disucssions about homosexuality again. I can still remember his e-mail. "Obviously you are not capable of having a discussion about homosexuality." Like rejoicing in another person's misery is having a discussion?
Let me conclude by saying that I, too, have been banned from Crosswalk. At least, I got banned for a month last year. At the time, there was a discussion going about the marriage of Prince Charles. For insisting that I thought he was committing adultery, I was "offending British peeople." (There are several British posters on Crosswalk.) At the end of the month, I had to write an essay about why I had done what I did, and how I would behave better in the future. Unfortunately, I wasn't as brave as Coheir. I sucked it up, wrote the essay, and got re-instated. Surprise, surprise. I then contacted the principal British woman with whom I had been debating, and she hadn't been offended in the least! (I wonder if Fritz had been keeping his eye on me, because I had made my egalitarian views clear in the "Women's Roles" thread.)
I wish I could write more paragraphs. I have a lot more stories to tell...
Crosswalk Administrator's Horrible E-mail Message
Sharon forwarded this e-mail exchange, which I’m not editing except for personal information for individuals who have not given consent for that information to be disclosed. The exception is Fritz Alberti, who is Crosswalk's Administrator. This time, Fritz has been criminal in his disregard for the people over whom he wields authority. Bear in mind that he is proud of his ability to access the extensive set of personal information on any participant at Crosswalk; he has been known to threaten people about knowing who they are and where they live. His moderators even have to have their pastors’ endorsements. He absolutely has the registration information on the individual about whom “J” (who did not give permission for her name to be used here) was so worried:
Well look at this gals...I have complained to the e-mails provided on the web addy, I'm trying to e-mail as many community (crosswalk) members as I can, this is simply unacceptable:
From: “J”[mailto: “J’s” e-mail address in original]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:23 PM
To: Fred Alberti
Subject: I need your help-urgent!
Importance: High
Fred, I need your help. I received a seriously disturbing message from [Crosswalk user’s nickname] earlier today. I can't display her profile anymore from one moment to the next.
She is in serious, serious danger. Her husband last night was choking her repeatedly until she would pass out over and over again, as well as raping her and is on a drug binge. I am seriously worried about her. Her and I have PM several times and I gave her my contact info and the domestic violence line, as well [another CW participant's nickname] has pm her and asked her to get help through [ministry name in original]. All I know is her name is [victim's first name], I don't have her phone. Is there any way you can contact somebody at [web address in original} (I think that is the contact-[prev. named participant's nickname] probably has it). I can share the PM w/you though I'm not sure it's the right thing to breach her confidence, however I send this to you because breach of confidence or not I think she is at serious risk and is not seeing it. Her fear is paralyzing her and she can't seem to take action. Which is all too common. Can you find where she is or contact her? Possibly we can get help TO her?
From: Fred Alberti [mailto:Fritz’s e-mail address in original]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:54 AM
To: “J”
Subject: RE: I need your help-urgent!
You have given me zero information about her... someone named [victim's first name]?
I'm supposed to figure out who that is?
Sorry, there is nothing I can do with that information. I suggest you try to find out who she is, where she lives, her phone number or mailing address so you can "send her a Bible" or something.
God bless!
Fred "Fritz" Alberti
Manager of Communities
Home School Editor
Salem Web Network
[catalog of Fritz’s various e-mail addresses in original]
Well look at this gals...I have complained to the e-mails provided on the web addy, I'm trying to e-mail as many community (crosswalk) members as I can, this is simply unacceptable:
From: “J”[mailto: “J’s” e-mail address in original]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:23 PM
To: Fred Alberti
Subject: I need your help-urgent!
Importance: High
Fred, I need your help. I received a seriously disturbing message from [Crosswalk user’s nickname] earlier today. I can't display her profile anymore from one moment to the next.
She is in serious, serious danger. Her husband last night was choking her repeatedly until she would pass out over and over again, as well as raping her and is on a drug binge. I am seriously worried about her. Her and I have PM several times and I gave her my contact info and the domestic violence line, as well [another CW participant's nickname] has pm her and asked her to get help through [ministry name in original]. All I know is her name is [victim's first name], I don't have her phone. Is there any way you can contact somebody at [web address in original} (I think that is the contact-[prev. named participant's nickname] probably has it). I can share the PM w/you though I'm not sure it's the right thing to breach her confidence, however I send this to you because breach of confidence or not I think she is at serious risk and is not seeing it. Her fear is paralyzing her and she can't seem to take action. Which is all too common. Can you find where she is or contact her? Possibly we can get help TO her?
From: Fred Alberti [mailto:Fritz’s e-mail address in original]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:54 AM
To: “J”
Subject: RE: I need your help-urgent!
You have given me zero information about her... someone named [victim's first name]?
I'm supposed to figure out who that is?
Sorry, there is nothing I can do with that information. I suggest you try to find out who she is, where she lives, her phone number or mailing address so you can "send her a Bible" or something.
God bless!
Fred "Fritz" Alberti
Manager of Communities
Home School Editor
Salem Web Network
[catalog of Fritz’s various e-mail addresses in original]
JANE'S STORY - 12/29/05
I have had negative experiences with two Christian forums, one of them a very large, very well-known online community and the other a smaller Baptist forum. Both of them have hurt sincere people and taught me the important lesson that faith in Christ does not necessarily make one a kind and compassionate person.
I found the large forum just a month or so after I became a Christian. I grew up in church but didn't pay much attention to my soul until a personal crisis forced me to. I turned to God for forgiveness of my sins and guidance for the present and future. I began attending church and studying the Bible at home but I wanted to be able to fellowship with other believers whenever I wanted to. I searched online for Christian message boards and struck gold: I found a huge and busy community with hundreds of members online at any given time. Impressed by the enormity of the site and the variety of topics, I joi ned in and was warmly welcomed.
I posted regularly at this site for several months. Something that began to bother after a while was the way troublemakers seemed to gravitate to the women's section. There weren't many of them, but every once in a while a male poster would wander into the area for women and start showing off his misogyny. This wouldn't have fazed me if the moderators had put a stop to it, but the intruders weren't given so much as a warning. One of these troublemakers started a topic in which he chastised the female members for aspiring to be anything but perfect little homemakers. He gave the same tired old argument that women are born followers who are too emotional to be anything but wives and mothers (he made it known that he was still a bachelor--no surprise there!). One woman responded with an intelligent and well worded argument that smashed his tirade to bits. Rather than admitting defeat and moving on, he answered her with another tongue-lashing, telling her that she was "unsubmissive" and that she needed a man to keep her in line. He closed his post with "God says that women are to obey men. Are you going to obey or aren't you?" A few more women joined in to defend their section of the board and asked this man if he didn't want to have a smart, brave wife who would be his equal. He proudly said, "No, I want a Stepford wife!" After several complaints to the moderators, a new rule was made that only women could post in the women's section and only men could post in the designated section for men.
I left that forum not long after that mess, but I'm glad I stayed long enough to read a post from a young woman who was confused and angry about so-called Christian men who fight so hard to keep women down. She said that she was disappointed with God because He created half of the human race to be servants and footstools of the other half. I recommended a book to her (Paul, Women & Wives by Craig S. Keener) and she seemed interested in reading it. It's my prayer that she and other women at that forum will wise up and stop listening to the foolishness that is being taught in God's name.
While still a member of that forum I began regularly visiting an online Baptist community. While not an enthusiastic poster, I spent many enjoyable hours reading the discussions. The good times came to an end when I realized that this forum was only hospitable to those who agreed 100% with the moderators. This community had a designated area for the old Calvinism-Arminianism debate and it didn't take much poking around to find out which side the moderators were on. "Pastor Larry" and the other mod for this section (I don't remember his name) came down very hard on anyone who believed that Christ died for all and offers salvation to all. Anyone who dared to suggest that God sincerely desires all to be saved was raked over the coals by Pastor Larry and his fellow man of the cloth. "You've already lost this debate!" they'd huff. "Why are you still posting about this? You're wasting forum space." Avowed Calvinists, however, were more than welcome to post the same things over and over again, and were frequently answered with a hearty "Amen!" from one if not both of the mods. A non-believer once came on board trying to make sense of it all, and was greeted by an arrogant member who told him, "If the plan of salvation does not make sense to you, it's because God has chosen to damn you. There's nothing you can do about it." The mods were silent on the matter and did not reprimand the member who lashed out at the man seeking answers. That was it for me and I left that awful place. I haven't been back since then and I hope it has either changed or been closed.
These days I hang out at ECA [Postmaster's note: Egalitarian Christian Alliance], mostly lurking and reading but occasionally posting. It's so good to have a place that encourages healthy discussion and loving fellowship, and I pray that the two forums I've written to you about will become kinder, gentler havens for tired souls.
I found the large forum just a month or so after I became a Christian. I grew up in church but didn't pay much attention to my soul until a personal crisis forced me to. I turned to God for forgiveness of my sins and guidance for the present and future. I began attending church and studying the Bible at home but I wanted to be able to fellowship with other believers whenever I wanted to. I searched online for Christian message boards and struck gold: I found a huge and busy community with hundreds of members online at any given time. Impressed by the enormity of the site and the variety of topics, I joi ned in and was warmly welcomed.
I posted regularly at this site for several months. Something that began to bother after a while was the way troublemakers seemed to gravitate to the women's section. There weren't many of them, but every once in a while a male poster would wander into the area for women and start showing off his misogyny. This wouldn't have fazed me if the moderators had put a stop to it, but the intruders weren't given so much as a warning. One of these troublemakers started a topic in which he chastised the female members for aspiring to be anything but perfect little homemakers. He gave the same tired old argument that women are born followers who are too emotional to be anything but wives and mothers (he made it known that he was still a bachelor--no surprise there!). One woman responded with an intelligent and well worded argument that smashed his tirade to bits. Rather than admitting defeat and moving on, he answered her with another tongue-lashing, telling her that she was "unsubmissive" and that she needed a man to keep her in line. He closed his post with "God says that women are to obey men. Are you going to obey or aren't you?" A few more women joined in to defend their section of the board and asked this man if he didn't want to have a smart, brave wife who would be his equal. He proudly said, "No, I want a Stepford wife!" After several complaints to the moderators, a new rule was made that only women could post in the women's section and only men could post in the designated section for men.
I left that forum not long after that mess, but I'm glad I stayed long enough to read a post from a young woman who was confused and angry about so-called Christian men who fight so hard to keep women down. She said that she was disappointed with God because He created half of the human race to be servants and footstools of the other half. I recommended a book to her (Paul, Women & Wives by Craig S. Keener) and she seemed interested in reading it. It's my prayer that she and other women at that forum will wise up and stop listening to the foolishness that is being taught in God's name.
While still a member of that forum I began regularly visiting an online Baptist community. While not an enthusiastic poster, I spent many enjoyable hours reading the discussions. The good times came to an end when I realized that this forum was only hospitable to those who agreed 100% with the moderators. This community had a designated area for the old Calvinism-Arminianism debate and it didn't take much poking around to find out which side the moderators were on. "Pastor Larry" and the other mod for this section (I don't remember his name) came down very hard on anyone who believed that Christ died for all and offers salvation to all. Anyone who dared to suggest that God sincerely desires all to be saved was raked over the coals by Pastor Larry and his fellow man of the cloth. "You've already lost this debate!" they'd huff. "Why are you still posting about this? You're wasting forum space." Avowed Calvinists, however, were more than welcome to post the same things over and over again, and were frequently answered with a hearty "Amen!" from one if not both of the mods. A non-believer once came on board trying to make sense of it all, and was greeted by an arrogant member who told him, "If the plan of salvation does not make sense to you, it's because God has chosen to damn you. There's nothing you can do about it." The mods were silent on the matter and did not reprimand the member who lashed out at the man seeking answers. That was it for me and I left that awful place. I haven't been back since then and I hope it has either changed or been closed.
These days I hang out at ECA [Postmaster's note: Egalitarian Christian Alliance], mostly lurking and reading but occasionally posting. It's so good to have a place that encourages healthy discussion and loving fellowship, and I pray that the two forums I've written to you about will become kinder, gentler havens for tired souls.
PAULA'S STORY - 12/21/05
Hi, glad to find a place to vent a little. I clicked on a link to you from a site promoting equal treatment of women in the church. Here's my experience.
In the forum of a 'discernment' site (forum no longer exists), I innocently asked if the owners had ever considered upgrading their forum software, and I suggested a few good open-source products to consider, along with some links to examples using them. One would think from the reaction I got that I had just asked them to change to a different religion! I was accused of divisiveness, being a complainer (this was my first ever 'suggestion' there), wanting only to cause trouble. Both owners of the site, several moderators, and other members all proceded to jump down my throat, all for asking if they'd consider upgrading their software. I was ridiculed and told to leave. Eventually they did upgrade, but I committed the cardinal sin when I dared to ask what finally convinced them.
I've been in many boards and called every name in the book for a variety of reasons, but that one took the prize. I can understand people getting emotional about doctrinal positions, but this was outrageous.
Thanks, I do feel better now :-)
In the forum of a 'discernment' site (forum no longer exists), I innocently asked if the owners had ever considered upgrading their forum software, and I suggested a few good open-source products to consider, along with some links to examples using them. One would think from the reaction I got that I had just asked them to change to a different religion! I was accused of divisiveness, being a complainer (this was my first ever 'suggestion' there), wanting only to cause trouble. Both owners of the site, several moderators, and other members all proceded to jump down my throat, all for asking if they'd consider upgrading their software. I was ridiculed and told to leave. Eventually they did upgrade, but I committed the cardinal sin when I dared to ask what finally convinced them.
I've been in many boards and called every name in the book for a variety of reasons, but that one took the prize. I can understand people getting emotional about doctrinal positions, but this was outrageous.
Thanks, I do feel better now :-)
SHARON'S STORY - 12/05
If you want to hear some "juice" on Fritz's history with Crosswalk (and his past shenanigans), I can give you quite a bit.
First, an overview: Fritz was moderator for Crosswalk, then he switched over to Christianity.com, then back to Crosswalk, then the two sites merged, and he presides over them both now.
This is the big picture, but there's more to it. I'm not sure why Fritz first switched to Christianity.com, but his stay there was very short.
Basically, the moderators and employees under him revolted - complaining to management, etc., about his iron rule, and they fired him. And Christianity.com was pretty darn conservative to begin with. So he went back to Crosswalk and resumed his control of that site. A few years later, Crosswalk bought Christianity.com. Once the merger had settled and the new forum began, Fritz banned all of the forum moderators who had complained about him. And quite a few of them were pretty darn
right-wing on their own; they just weren't aggressive about it.
All of this happened in a 6-7 year span, maybe less.
I was banned by him from Crosswalk the first time around; since Fritz has taken over once more, I haven't had any problems. But reasons for my first ban speak volumes.
As always, Crosswalk has had a "no pro-homosexuality views" policy. But while he was there, lots of people started anti-gay threads anyway. I learned of ways to express the liberal view without spelling them out in ways that would violate TOS. So I never got warnings from him.
When he left the site for Christianity.com, the new Crosswalk management was more laid back. Technically, they still had the same TOS, but they
rarely pressed people about it. So lots of debates about gays ended up going unregulated, so both sides could present their cases. When Fritz returned to Crosswalk, he went through those threads and banned everyone RETROACTIVELY.
In other words, he didn't give people a chance to fall in line with his new rules; he banned everyone who had violated his rules while he had spent a year or two employed by another website. Buit when he banned me, he said his reason was not simply because I talked in favor of homosexuality in his absence; it was because a group of 14 posters had gotten together and tried to see if they could get me banned. What was amazing was, he admitted this to me! I was banned because he got tired of people complaining about my views.
So keep that in mind as you contemplate your banned selves; odds are, there are some posters out there who really, really wanted you to disappear. Fritz is bad news, but I don't think he's the only problem.
First, an overview: Fritz was moderator for Crosswalk, then he switched over to Christianity.com, then back to Crosswalk, then the two sites merged, and he presides over them both now.
This is the big picture, but there's more to it. I'm not sure why Fritz first switched to Christianity.com, but his stay there was very short.
Basically, the moderators and employees under him revolted - complaining to management, etc., about his iron rule, and they fired him. And Christianity.com was pretty darn conservative to begin with. So he went back to Crosswalk and resumed his control of that site. A few years later, Crosswalk bought Christianity.com. Once the merger had settled and the new forum began, Fritz banned all of the forum moderators who had complained about him. And quite a few of them were pretty darn
right-wing on their own; they just weren't aggressive about it.
All of this happened in a 6-7 year span, maybe less.
I was banned by him from Crosswalk the first time around; since Fritz has taken over once more, I haven't had any problems. But reasons for my first ban speak volumes.
As always, Crosswalk has had a "no pro-homosexuality views" policy. But while he was there, lots of people started anti-gay threads anyway. I learned of ways to express the liberal view without spelling them out in ways that would violate TOS. So I never got warnings from him.
When he left the site for Christianity.com, the new Crosswalk management was more laid back. Technically, they still had the same TOS, but they
rarely pressed people about it. So lots of debates about gays ended up going unregulated, so both sides could present their cases. When Fritz returned to Crosswalk, he went through those threads and banned everyone RETROACTIVELY.
In other words, he didn't give people a chance to fall in line with his new rules; he banned everyone who had violated his rules while he had spent a year or two employed by another website. Buit when he banned me, he said his reason was not simply because I talked in favor of homosexuality in his absence; it was because a group of 14 posters had gotten together and tried to see if they could get me banned. What was amazing was, he admitted this to me! I was banned because he got tired of people complaining about my views.
So keep that in mind as you contemplate your banned selves; odds are, there are some posters out there who really, really wanted you to disappear. Fritz is bad news, but I don't think he's the only problem.
CONTACTING CROSSWALK'S "POWERS THAT BE," by COHEIR
CONTACTING CROSSWALK "POWERS THAT BE" (by COHEIR)
Thanks to Coheir's research, here are some ideas if you wish to pursue getting things changed over at Crosswalk.com:
To complain about Fritz Alberti's treatment of Crosswalk forum users, do NOT email the community at Crosswalk. That will go directly to Fritz. Instead, you can try emailing his immediate boss, Tom Perrault. Tom's email address is tom@salemweb.net. If you get no satisfaction there, you can try the following:
Curtis Johnson, Vice President of HR, Salem Communications Corp. (California)
Email: curtisj@salem.cc Telephone 805-987-0400.
You might also try the CEO, Ed Apsinger. I also believe he's at the above number.
I also have the name of Rick Killingsworth, a higher-up employee in Virginia. I'm not sure of his position. His number is 804-768-9404.
When calling or emailing, please be courteous and concise. Know clearly what it is you want to achieve. Don't be contentious, but be firm. Operate from the assumption that these people have the same goal you do for Crosswalk to be a welcoming place and a good witness for Christ, with respect for a variety of viewpoints.
Thanks to Coheir's research, here are some ideas if you wish to pursue getting things changed over at Crosswalk.com:
To complain about Fritz Alberti's treatment of Crosswalk forum users, do NOT email the community at Crosswalk. That will go directly to Fritz. Instead, you can try emailing his immediate boss, Tom Perrault. Tom's email address is tom@salemweb.net. If you get no satisfaction there, you can try the following:
Curtis Johnson, Vice President of HR, Salem Communications Corp. (California)
Email: curtisj@salem.cc Telephone 805-987-0400.
You might also try the CEO, Ed Apsinger. I also believe he's at the above number.
I also have the name of Rick Killingsworth, a higher-up employee in Virginia. I'm not sure of his position. His number is 804-768-9404.
When calling or emailing, please be courteous and concise. Know clearly what it is you want to achieve. Don't be contentious, but be firm. Operate from the assumption that these people have the same goal you do for Crosswalk to be a welcoming place and a good witness for Christ, with respect for a variety of viewpoints.
COHEIR'S STORIES 1 & 2 - 12/7/05
Like many others, I've also been the target of a hostile and unwelcoming climate by the Administrator at Crosswalk, Fritz Alberti. I noticed a pattern of people who were more traditionally-minded being allowed to post links to articles in support of their positions. But if you were an egalitarian, and used the "gold standard" of scholarship to support your position, links to the Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) web site, your post was immediately edited or deleted. Now, CBE is known worldwide for its outstanding Biblical scholarship, and it publishes several award-winning magazines (awards bestowed by the Christian, not secular, community.) So once when the CBE link was edited out of my post, I emailed the community administrator and was told that it violated the Terms of Service. I went through the TOS carefully, finding absolutely nothing that even came close to addressing this situation. So I emailed again, asking for clarification, and was told that the reason the CBE link was edited out was because they supported the TNIV, and support of the TNIV was against the TOS. So, back again I went to the TOS � nothing about the TNIV at ALL. In fact, while this email exchange was going on, there was an active thread about the TNIV on the board, with plenty of people posting in support of it, with no action taken against them at all. So I immediately suspected a red herring. When I once more politely asked for clarification about why the TNIV was against the TOS, since I didn't see anything specific in addressing it there, Fritz sent me an email that said, "Before posting further in any thread that has anything to do with the role of women, please submit a 300 word essay clearing explaining the controversy, Why are so many conservative evangelical Christian leaders opposed to the TNIV?" (I have saved every email as proof of my claims.)
This was absurd. A query for clarification on Terms of Service, in an attempt to understand the reasoning and so that I can better adhere to the terms, results in being treated like a fourth-grader? I believe in standing uup to bullies, so I took action.
I did some research, and found that Crosswalk is owned by Salem Communications Corporation. I contacted the Vice President of HR of Salem, Curtis Johnson. His phone number is 805-987-0400. His email address is curtisj@salem.cc. I found Mr. Johnson to be courteous, and responsive, and he took prompt action on my complaint. I requested three things: a personal apology from Fritz, a cancellation of the essay assignment, and clarification on the policy of promotion of the TNIV. He passed it on down to Fritz's supervisor, Tom Perrault, who telephoned me a couple weeks later.
Mr. Perrault did not sound very pleased to be talking to me, although he was courteous. I got the sense that he was just doing his job, but that he supported Fritz. I received an institutional apology from Crosswalk, not a personal one from Fritz. I was not required to write the essay. And Mr. Perrault personally told me that speaking in support of the TNIV was not a problem. (To this day, though, Fritz still issues warnings to people who support it in posts.) I wish I had asked for clarification about posting a link to CBE in posts, but I neglected to do so.
I continued to participate in Crosswalk until a few weeks ago, when I was banned without any reason whatsoever. (See COHEIR'S Story 2)
If you've been treated inappropriately by Fritz Alberti, who claims to be a Christian and should therefore be acting like one, please see the information about who you can complain to (posted here as CONTACTING CROSSWALK "POWERS THAT BE," above).
Here's what I find so ironic. I'm a moderator at a very active health and fitness forum. It's as active, if not more so, than Crosswalk, so there's a lot to keep up with. (You think theology is controversial? It ain't got nothing on health and fitness afficianados.) Our moderator team encompasses Christians, atheists, Jews, and even a Wiccan � and we have never ever treated our membership with the disdain and rudeness that so many are treated on Crosswalk. The rules are clearly stated, with no ambiguity or arbitrariness like Crosswalk. Even when a member is way out of line, they are treated with RESPECT and given clear explanations for our decisions.
Too bad a Christian website can't conduct itself with the most basic Christian values.
COHEIR - STORY 2
I was recently banned from Crosswalk, although no explanation was given except the citation of "Rule 20" which says nothing about nothing. I can only surmise at what happened.
I was engaged in a thread about the roles of men and women in marriage. One young poster, who is only about 21 years old took me to task, saying something like, "For your own good, you should give up your egalitarian philosophy," and went on to verbally scold me. I found it more than a little funny that a 21 year old single man thought he knew better how I should conduct my life than me. So I responded with something like, "I'm more than twice your age, and have been following Christ longer than you've
been alive. I've been happily married in an egalitarian marriage for over 18 years. When you're a little older, have a little more life experience and wisdom, and a track record of a few years of successful marriage behind you, then you have a leg to stand on. Until then, I don't think you should be advising me how to conduct my marriage." (That's not an exact quote;� my post was deleted.)
Hours later, I was banned.
So, I ask you, why is it okay for a young person to treat an older person with disrespect and scold them, but not okay for the other person to respectfully respond?
Here's why: I think it's very obvious that Fritz has an axe to grind. And that axe is to put women in their place where they belong. When they get uppity, why, he will use every means at his disposal to plunk them right back into their place!
This is NOT the behavior of a spirit-filled Christian. It's also a terrible witness for Christ. Shame on Crosswalk for allowing this nonsense to
continue!
This was absurd. A query for clarification on Terms of Service, in an attempt to understand the reasoning and so that I can better adhere to the terms, results in being treated like a fourth-grader? I believe in standing uup to bullies, so I took action.
I did some research, and found that Crosswalk is owned by Salem Communications Corporation. I contacted the Vice President of HR of Salem, Curtis Johnson. His phone number is 805-987-0400. His email address is curtisj@salem.cc. I found Mr. Johnson to be courteous, and responsive, and he took prompt action on my complaint. I requested three things: a personal apology from Fritz, a cancellation of the essay assignment, and clarification on the policy of promotion of the TNIV. He passed it on down to Fritz's supervisor, Tom Perrault, who telephoned me a couple weeks later.
Mr. Perrault did not sound very pleased to be talking to me, although he was courteous. I got the sense that he was just doing his job, but that he supported Fritz. I received an institutional apology from Crosswalk, not a personal one from Fritz. I was not required to write the essay. And Mr. Perrault personally told me that speaking in support of the TNIV was not a problem. (To this day, though, Fritz still issues warnings to people who support it in posts.) I wish I had asked for clarification about posting a link to CBE in posts, but I neglected to do so.
I continued to participate in Crosswalk until a few weeks ago, when I was banned without any reason whatsoever. (See COHEIR'S Story 2)
If you've been treated inappropriately by Fritz Alberti, who claims to be a Christian and should therefore be acting like one, please see the information about who you can complain to (posted here as CONTACTING CROSSWALK "POWERS THAT BE," above).
Here's what I find so ironic. I'm a moderator at a very active health and fitness forum. It's as active, if not more so, than Crosswalk, so there's a lot to keep up with. (You think theology is controversial? It ain't got nothing on health and fitness afficianados.) Our moderator team encompasses Christians, atheists, Jews, and even a Wiccan � and we have never ever treated our membership with the disdain and rudeness that so many are treated on Crosswalk. The rules are clearly stated, with no ambiguity or arbitrariness like Crosswalk. Even when a member is way out of line, they are treated with RESPECT and given clear explanations for our decisions.
Too bad a Christian website can't conduct itself with the most basic Christian values.
COHEIR - STORY 2
I was recently banned from Crosswalk, although no explanation was given except the citation of "Rule 20" which says nothing about nothing. I can only surmise at what happened.
I was engaged in a thread about the roles of men and women in marriage. One young poster, who is only about 21 years old took me to task, saying something like, "For your own good, you should give up your egalitarian philosophy," and went on to verbally scold me. I found it more than a little funny that a 21 year old single man thought he knew better how I should conduct my life than me. So I responded with something like, "I'm more than twice your age, and have been following Christ longer than you've
been alive. I've been happily married in an egalitarian marriage for over 18 years. When you're a little older, have a little more life experience and wisdom, and a track record of a few years of successful marriage behind you, then you have a leg to stand on. Until then, I don't think you should be advising me how to conduct my marriage." (That's not an exact quote;� my post was deleted.)
Hours later, I was banned.
So, I ask you, why is it okay for a young person to treat an older person with disrespect and scold them, but not okay for the other person to respectfully respond?
Here's why: I think it's very obvious that Fritz has an axe to grind. And that axe is to put women in their place where they belong. When they get uppity, why, he will use every means at his disposal to plunk them right back into their place!
This is NOT the behavior of a spirit-filled Christian. It's also a terrible witness for Christ. Shame on Crosswalk for allowing this nonsense to
continue!
Kathryn's Story - 12/5/05
I used to post at Crosswalk.com several years ago. The fact that I am both a woman and (at the time) a pastor, while I didn't go out of my way to advertise the latter, made me a target. My willingness to defend my beliefs in biblical equality also made me a target. In the Women's folder especially, I received a whole lot of ad hominem comments which went unchallenged by the moderators. When I occasionally refuted them, however, I would get harrangued by the two female moderators in Women's.
At one point, I was threatened in public with being banned from the Women's forum by one of these moderators for my "tone." No specifics, no way of understanding what she meant, because I'd been very carefully factual and avoided ad hominem in my posts. So, I asked her for clarification. This brought Fritz Alberti, the community admin, into the picture. He took me to task for questioning a moderator in public. So I asked him to tell me what, specifically, was wrong with what and how I'd posted, so I'd avoid such hassles in the future.
Instead of responding to my question, he sent me a very threatening e-mail response that said, in essence, that the two moderators as well as some others, didn't like my mode of discourse. Well, that's about as helpful as nothing. I was threatened with being banned altogether if I didn't "learn to respect authority." I thanked Fritz for his response, but noted that since he had not answered my question, I had no way of knowing, despite asking several people, what I was doing wrong and therefore had no way to correct it. I said I would not pursue the matter further. This resulted in an unsolicited, very insulting message. At that point, I added Fritz's address to my spam filter and left the community.
I have visited Crosswalk.com as an unregistered reader occasionally since then. Unfortunately, I've only seen an escalation in Fritz's unreasonable, one-sided targeting of people who don't hold his extremely conservative views of the roles of women in church and home, birth control, homeschooling, politics, and anti-homosexuality. For the most part, even when such people break none of his 20+ Terms of Service rules, he silences them or they "disappear" altogether. I personally know of several he's banned for no reason other than that they stand up--respectfully, despite outrageous ad hominem from others--for their beliefs, which are well within Crosswalk's "Range of Beliefs" (or whatever they call it).
I believe Salem Communications, which owns Crosswalk, needs to either monitor Fritz very closely so that he is forced to obey his own rules, or replace him with someone willing to administer the community with a more christlike and FAR less dictatorial "tone." He's an appallingly bad witness for the gospel of Jesus Christ in the way he treats members of the community. Barring either of those remedies, Crosswalk needs to stop posting their TOS and their "Range of Beliefs" and be honest about being a community for "Conservative Evangelicals who Agree Substantially with Fritz Alberti's Opinions."
For too many Christians, Crosswalk is anything BUT "community," and certainly not a Christian one. Be warned: their only "Christians only" forum is blatantly labeled "For Conservative Evangelical Christians who accept the Terms of Service." If you accept the TOS but aren't considered conservative or evangelical enough to suit Fritz, you can figure out easily enough that you're not considered a Christian. Like so many other problems at CW, that huge dig at mainstream Christians is not up for discussion.
Why bother with CW? I believe in being light in the darkness, but that's one place where darkness is rigidly enforced. There are plenty of other communities where the Spirit of God is alive and well. I've found a very warm welcome at Crossandflame.com, even though they're deliberately an interfaith forum that welcomes non-Christians as well as non-evangelical Christians. And (gasp), they even welcome GLBT people! Funny, the Christians there manage to remain Christian. Perhaps their faith is strengthened, rather than threatened, by treating other people as they themselves would like to be treated.
Another forum community where I've been welcomed, though at times felt the "odd one out" for my mainstream beliefs, is "Egalitarian Christian Alliance" at equalitycentral.com. Honestly, GLBT and decidedly liberal Christians wouldn't probably feel the same kind of welcome I did. But believe me, even these people would receive far more courteous treatment and even-handed moderation than at Crosswalk.
At one point, I was threatened in public with being banned from the Women's forum by one of these moderators for my "tone." No specifics, no way of understanding what she meant, because I'd been very carefully factual and avoided ad hominem in my posts. So, I asked her for clarification. This brought Fritz Alberti, the community admin, into the picture. He took me to task for questioning a moderator in public. So I asked him to tell me what, specifically, was wrong with what and how I'd posted, so I'd avoid such hassles in the future.
Instead of responding to my question, he sent me a very threatening e-mail response that said, in essence, that the two moderators as well as some others, didn't like my mode of discourse. Well, that's about as helpful as nothing. I was threatened with being banned altogether if I didn't "learn to respect authority." I thanked Fritz for his response, but noted that since he had not answered my question, I had no way of knowing, despite asking several people, what I was doing wrong and therefore had no way to correct it. I said I would not pursue the matter further. This resulted in an unsolicited, very insulting message. At that point, I added Fritz's address to my spam filter and left the community.
I have visited Crosswalk.com as an unregistered reader occasionally since then. Unfortunately, I've only seen an escalation in Fritz's unreasonable, one-sided targeting of people who don't hold his extremely conservative views of the roles of women in church and home, birth control, homeschooling, politics, and anti-homosexuality. For the most part, even when such people break none of his 20+ Terms of Service rules, he silences them or they "disappear" altogether. I personally know of several he's banned for no reason other than that they stand up--respectfully, despite outrageous ad hominem from others--for their beliefs, which are well within Crosswalk's "Range of Beliefs" (or whatever they call it).
I believe Salem Communications, which owns Crosswalk, needs to either monitor Fritz very closely so that he is forced to obey his own rules, or replace him with someone willing to administer the community with a more christlike and FAR less dictatorial "tone." He's an appallingly bad witness for the gospel of Jesus Christ in the way he treats members of the community. Barring either of those remedies, Crosswalk needs to stop posting their TOS and their "Range of Beliefs" and be honest about being a community for "Conservative Evangelicals who Agree Substantially with Fritz Alberti's Opinions."
For too many Christians, Crosswalk is anything BUT "community," and certainly not a Christian one. Be warned: their only "Christians only" forum is blatantly labeled "For Conservative Evangelical Christians who accept the Terms of Service." If you accept the TOS but aren't considered conservative or evangelical enough to suit Fritz, you can figure out easily enough that you're not considered a Christian. Like so many other problems at CW, that huge dig at mainstream Christians is not up for discussion.
Why bother with CW? I believe in being light in the darkness, but that's one place where darkness is rigidly enforced. There are plenty of other communities where the Spirit of God is alive and well. I've found a very warm welcome at Crossandflame.com, even though they're deliberately an interfaith forum that welcomes non-Christians as well as non-evangelical Christians. And (gasp), they even welcome GLBT people! Funny, the Christians there manage to remain Christian. Perhaps their faith is strengthened, rather than threatened, by treating other people as they themselves would like to be treated.
Another forum community where I've been welcomed, though at times felt the "odd one out" for my mainstream beliefs, is "Egalitarian Christian Alliance" at equalitycentral.com. Honestly, GLBT and decidedly liberal Christians wouldn't probably feel the same kind of welcome I did. But believe me, even these people would receive far more courteous treatment and even-handed moderation than at Crosswalk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
