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.
Showing posts with label Bedge of Honor stories. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bedge of Honor stories. Show all posts
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
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.
Monday, June 12, 2006
It's a New Home for Badge of Honor!
"It's a Badge of Honor" stories have moved here. I'm hoping that a blog-format will enable more people to read the Badge of Honor stories so that the word spreads about abusive Christian online communities and their leaders.
If you have a story to submit, please e-mail me at badgepostmaster@hotmail.com (edited 3/17/07 for change in contact e-mail address) and I will post your story as soon as possible.
If you have a story to submit, please e-mail me at badgepostmaster@hotmail.com (edited 3/17/07 for change in contact e-mail address) and I will post your story as soon as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
