Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
December 12, 2019, 04:49:19 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 16   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Reckoning  (Read 77784 times)
Gladtobegone
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



« Reply #120 on: March 11, 2018, 08:51:58 pm »

From reading the allegations from the 3 victims there was more than counseling going on. He called one of them nearly ever day for 5 years.  Talking late into the night.  He took one to a secluded park and built a fire.  He talked with them as someone would talk to a girl friend.  Commenting on their looks and telling them how to wear their hair.  It seemed reading their testimony it was more than counseling.  He hugged them in an intimate way.  Asking intimate details about their sexual past.   How is this part of counseling?
Logged
Al
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« Reply #121 on: March 12, 2018, 06:03:54 am »

From reading the allegations from the 3 victims there was more than counseling going on. He called one of them nearly ever day for 5 years.  Talking late into the night.  He took one to a secluded park and built a fire.  He talked with them as someone would talk to a girl friend.  Commenting on their looks and telling them how to wear their hair.  It seemed reading their testimony it was more than counseling.  He hugged them in an intimate way.  Asking intimate details about their sexual past.   How is this part of counseling?

You're correct to ask those questions because if those statements are true, those things sound sleezy, however my big question is how can a man exist on both ends of the spectrum, being a clearly loving, appropriate, servant based on most stories, but being an absolute sleezebag on the side? Maybe it's possible, I just don't find likely. Something is amiss. Either these statements from these unnamed people are lying, or the majority of people within this church are lying. The reason I'm here on this forum is to try to discuss the stuff from the letter because it really threw me for a loop. @Gladtobegone, what were your thoughts on the content in "The Reckoning" statement?
Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #122 on: March 12, 2018, 06:34:52 am »

From reading the allegations from the 3 victims there was more than counseling going on. He called one of them nearly ever day for 5 years.  Talking late into the night.  He took one to a secluded park and built a fire.  He talked with them as someone would talk to a girl friend.  Commenting on their looks and telling them how to wear their hair.  It seemed reading their testimony it was more than counseling.  He hugged them in an intimate way.  Asking intimate details about their sexual past.   How is this part of counseling?

If you read my letter, you'd have heard from an EYE WITNESS that not a single one of these things ever happened.
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454



« Reply #123 on: March 12, 2018, 06:43:21 am »

Al, this is exactly how people who would do things like that operate.  They have different personas/sides so that they have 1. access to victims and 2. a cover.  Who lets in a sleazebag type person to their home/family/church without restriction?  Of course no one does that, they let in the respectable person who knows the right things to say.  And once an abuser has a reputation and plenty of people who believe that great side, they have much more freedom to do what they want.  Because when someone says "this person who appears to be an upstanding citizen harmed me," now there are hundreds or thousands of people who say "No way!  You are lying!  He would never do that!"  This is a problem especially in churches were Christians are taught to think the best of people, forgive easily, and be trusting.  

Now, most loving people are not abusers, but just because someone acts in a loving manner most of the time doesn't mean they aren't capable of abuse. It's very possible that the people from church AND the victims are telling the truth in Mark Darling's situation.  Obvious examples are Jerry Sandusky, Larry Nassar, catholic priests, and there have been teachers, coaches, etc.  who have lots of folks rallying around them saying *this person would never do this* because they only saw the good persona.  But...they did it.  

Regarding the people in the church, they have also been led to believe that their pastor is a good (better than good) person.  I have listened to Mark Darling's teachings and he talks about himself A LOT.  A church member listening to him week after week gets the message about how humble he is, how much he loves Jesus, how much he loves his family, how hard he works for the gospel, how much he is willing to sacrifice (I heard him yelling about getting up at 3 or 4am to pray, sure sounds holy, right?), he talks about large venues in which he's spoken, all the thousands of people he's ministered to over the years--sure, he reveals som vulnerabilities, shares about some mistakes but he deals with them a good way, and don't we all make mistakes?  (the answer is yes, and that gets us to think he is transparent).  He is in a unique position to create an image that the rest of us can only do on a smaller platform on social media Wink  So then when people meet and interact with him, they assume that's who is is and the totality of who he is.

Part of the reason I find the victims credible is that, as an outside person who has listened to Mark Darling (before these accusations came out), he seems self-focused and narcissistic to me.  So the victim accounts of demands for emotional support, praise, time and attention seem legitimate for someone who is self-focused in his sermons.  What I am sharing is my impression, but there are speech analysts who study these things formally and I would be curious what they think.  He just talks about himself too much for someone who is supposed to be teaching the gospel, bible, etc.  Of course pastors are going to share personally but he, in my opinion, reveals something about himself in those teachings.

As a side note, Jeromy said his mom went to bed at 8 or 9 every night due to her health problems, so that leaves hours for Mark to be on the phone with another woman as Victim A stated.  I am not sure why Jeromy thought that little fact debunked anything.

  
Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #124 on: March 12, 2018, 06:48:40 am »

As a side note, Jeromy said his mom went to bed at 8 or 9 every night due to her health problems, so that leaves hours for Mark to be on the phone with another woman as Victim A stated.  I am not sure why Jeromy thought that little fact debunked anything.

Because there was nowhere in the house to have a private phone conversation - and the children didn't go to bed at 8 or 9, so apparently you didn't read my letter very clearly. Also my mom is not a FLAMING IDIOT or COWARD who wouldn't have asked her husband why he was always coming to bed so late, so you must have missed that part as well. You have denigrated my mother in all of this, even more than my father, and you seem completely oblivious to this horrific, disgusting sin. My father defies ALL data on sexual abusers. And if you hate him so much, why in the world are you listening to his teachings? To dissect them and hate him more?
Logged
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #125 on: March 12, 2018, 06:51:31 am »

Probably worth noting that at this point these "witnesses" are named A and C. Do they actually exist? Maybe, maybe not. Their only words have come from the filter of Suzanne. People shouldn't get to hide under the cloak of anonymity while destroying a man's reputation online, if they even exist at all.
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454



« Reply #126 on: March 12, 2018, 06:57:20 am »

Jeromy, you can't be an eye witness to things that didn't happen?

Suzanne said she wrote a letter to your dad.  Your "debunking evidence" is that you have a letter written by John.

I don't know what is up with the fireplace/basement situation but I'm guessing these victim accounts spanned years and people remodel or change things in their homes.  I would be surprised if as children we remembered every detail of what our childhood home was like at different times.  Also, since you like the phrase eye witness, people aren't always good with recalling details completely accurately.  I could be stabbed by a guy and I think he was wearing a red shirt, but he was wearing a blue shirt.  Doesn't mean he didn't stab me. So the fireplace issue doesn't mean your dad didn't do anything. If he was having secret inappropriate relationships, he could have been having secret fires as well.

Since you demand names around here, I would like to know the name of the psychologist who supposedly violated confidentiality.  I saw your FB posts saying he was at complete liberty to discuss your father in relation to an issue concerning a therapy client.  So, if he was not out of line in doing so, share his name.  That would only lend credibility to your "evidence."

Nothing else in your letter is really worth mentioning because it "proves" nothing.  I don't actually think your "evidence" does either.

I feel bad for you, I really do.  I'm sure you must feel desperate right now.  But nothing you wrote proves your dad didn't do the things the victims have said.  You insist that people accept your eye witness account. I accept the fact that you saw a letter written by John that did not address sexual abuse.  I accept that you have specific memories of your basement.  I accept that you talked to an unnamed therapist (who might not have been Suzanne's actual therapist, how can we know without a name?) who possibly violated confidentiality, so while I accept that you spoke with him, why would we consider him trustworthy.  Got any other "evidence?"  How awesome you think your father is and how awful you think Suzanne and her family are isn't evidence.  


Logged
Gladtobegone
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



« Reply #127 on: March 12, 2018, 06:59:15 am »

I thought others said this was a pastors job to be couseling and caring for these women?  

All I know is it easier to refute 1 victim but there are supposedly 7.  Three have given their statements publicly.

This is why it is necessary to have a 3rd party independent investigator.

Abuse victims often want to be anonymous since bullying and harassing on social media and elsewhere happens!  
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454



« Reply #128 on: March 12, 2018, 07:00:48 am »

By not accepting your "The Reckoning" as the final truth, I am not denigrating your mother Jeromy.
Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #129 on: March 12, 2018, 07:13:17 am »

Jeromy, you can't be an eye witness to things that didn't happen?
Correct, I can be an eye witness to WHAT DID HAPPEN

Suzanne said she wrote a letter to your dad.  Your "debunking evidence" is that you have a letter written by John.
You clearly need to read my letter again. Suzanne wrote 3 of the pages in the letter, and that was the letter that prompted the meeting with the therapist

I don't know what is up with the fireplace/basement situation but I'm guessing these victim accounts spanned years and people remodel or change things in their homes.  I would be surprised if as children we remembered every detail of what our childhood home was like at different times.  Also, since you like the phrase eye witness, people aren't always good with recalling details completely accurately.  I could be stabbed by a guy and I think he was wearing a red shirt, but he was wearing a blue shirt.  Doesn't mean he didn't stab me. So the fireplace issue doesn't mean your dad didn't do anything. If he was having secret inappropriate relationships, he could have been having secret fires as well.
Secret fires IN MICAH'S BEDROOM? Because that's where the fireplace was - again, you clearly didn't read more than a few sentences of my letter. I'm not sure if you're quoting what you've learned from watching CSI, but I actually agree with you - people can misremember things. Like say, a person sitting in an intense EMDR session with their Psychotherapist, 15 years later

Since you demand names around here, I would like to know the name of the psychologist who supposedly violated confidentiality.  I saw your FB posts saying he was at complete liberty to discuss your father in relation to an issue concerning a therapy client.  So, if he was not out of line in doing so, share his name.  That would only lend credibility to your "evidence."
Terry Zielke

Nothing else in your letter is really worth mentioning because it "proves" nothing.  I don't actually think your "evidence" does either.
But you didn't read my letter, clearly, you didn't read my letter.

I feel bad for you, I really do.  I'm sure you must feel desperate right now.  But nothing you wrote proves your dad didn't do the things the victims have said.  You insist that people accept your eye witness account.
Not desperate at all - this has been quite cathartic, since again, there's only about 15 ACTIVE members on this website that believe any of this, I don't have to feel desperate at all. My letter has gotten more likes and shares across facebook than basically all of Suzanne's posts combined.

I accept the fact that you saw a letter written by John that did not address sexual abuse.  I accept that you have specific memories of your basement.  I accept that you talked to an unnamed therapist (who might not have been Suzanne's actual therapist, how can we know without a name?) who possibly violated confidentiality, so while I accept that you spoke with him, why would we consider him trustworthy.
Well now I told you his name, soo....also, answering ONE yes/no question from a session 18 years ago and offering an unprompted compliment about my father should definitely tell you a lot about him as a therapist. Apparently he felt the destruction of an innocent man was worth answering one question

Got any other "evidence?"  How awesome you think your father is and how awful you think Suzanne and her family are isn't evidence.
I do. The Reckoning was only Phase 1 Smiley
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 07:15:16 am by jeromydaviddarling » Logged
iamnotafraid
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 35



« Reply #130 on: March 12, 2018, 07:28:39 am »

Jeromy, you can't be an eye witness to things that didn't happen?

Suzanne said she wrote a letter to your dad.  Your "debunking evidence" is that you have a letter written by John.

I don't know what is up with the fireplace/basement situation but I'm guessing these victim accounts spanned years and people remodel or change things in their homes.  I would be surprised if as children we remembered every detail of what our childhood home was like at different times.  Also, since you like the phrase eye witness, people aren't always good with recalling details completely accurately.  I could be stabbed by a guy and I think he was wearing a red shirt, but he was wearing a blue shirt.  Doesn't mean he didn't stab me. So the fireplace issue doesn't mean your dad didn't do anything. If he was having secret inappropriate relationships, he could have been having secret fires as well.

Since you demand names around here, I would like to know the name of the psychologist who supposedly violated confidentiality.  I saw your FB posts saying he was at complete liberty to discuss your father in relation to an issue concerning a therapy client.  So, if he was not out of line in doing so, share his name.  That would only lend credibility to your "evidence."

Nothing else in your letter is really worth mentioning because it "proves" nothing.  I don't actually think your "evidence" does either.

I feel bad for you, I really do.  I'm sure you must feel desperate right now.  But nothing you wrote proves your dad didn't do the things the victims have said.  You insist that people accept your eye witness account. I accept the fact that you saw a letter written by John that did not address sexual abuse.  I accept that you have specific memories of your basement.  I accept that you talked to an unnamed therapist (who might not have been Suzanne's actual therapist, how can we know without a name?) who possibly violated confidentiality, so while I accept that you spoke with him, why would we consider him trustworthy.  Got any other "evidence?"  How awesome you think your father is and how awful you think Suzanne and her family are isn't evidence.  



Al, this is exactly how people who would do things like that operate.  They have different personas/sides so that they have 1. access to victims and 2. a cover.  Who lets in a sleazebag type person to their home/family/church without restriction?  Of course no one does that, they let in the respectable person who knows the right things to say.  And once an abuser has a reputation and plenty of people who believe that great side, they have much more freedom to do what they want.  Because when someone says "this person who appears to be an upstanding citizen harmed me," now there are hundreds or thousands of people who say "No way!  You are lying!  He would never do that!"  This is a problem especially in churches were Christians are taught to think the best of people, forgive easily, and be trusting.  

Now, most loving people are not abusers, but just because someone acts in a loving manner most of the time doesn't mean they aren't capable of abuse. It's very possible that the people from church AND the victims are telling the truth in Mark Darling's situation.  Obvious examples are Jerry Sandusky, Larry Nassar, catholic priests, and there have been teachers, coaches, etc.  who have lots of folks rallying around them saying *this person would never do this* because they only saw the good persona.  But...they did it.  

Regarding the people in the church, they have also been led to believe that their pastor is a good (better than good) person.  I have listened to Mark Darling's teachings and he talks about himself A LOT.  A church member listening to him week after week gets the message about how humble he is, how much he loves Jesus, how much he loves his family, how hard he works for the gospel, how much he is willing to sacrifice (I heard him yelling about getting up at 3 or 4am to pray, sure sounds holy, right?), he talks about large venues in which he's spoken, all the thousands of people he's ministered to over the years--sure, he reveals som vulnerabilities, shares about some mistakes but he deals with them a good way, and don't we all make mistakes?  (the answer is yes, and that gets us to think he is transparent).  He is in a unique position to create an image that the rest of us can only do on a smaller platform on social media Wink  So then when people meet and interact with him, they assume that's who is is and the totality of who he is.

Part of the reason I find the victims credible is that, as an outside person who has listened to Mark Darling (before these accusations came out), he seems self-focused and narcissistic to me.  So the victim accounts of demands for emotional support, praise, time and attention seem legitimate for someone who is self-focused in his sermons.  What I am sharing is my impression, but there are speech analysts who study these things formally and I would be curious what they think.  He just talks about himself too much for someone who is supposed to be teaching the gospel, bible, etc.  Of course pastors are going to share personally but he, in my opinion, reveals something about himself in those teachings.

As a side note, Jeromy said his mom went to bed at 8 or 9 every night due to her health problems, so that leaves hours for Mark to be on the phone with another woman as Victim A stated.  I am not sure why Jeromy thought that little fact debunked anything.

  

As a person who has studied psychology you have some real deep wounds Rebel (in a tragic way). It sounds like the Word of God has no influence on your life. You are so easily offended because the sin in your life has run rampant and you are offended not convicted. This is a tragic state to live in. You question a wonderful man with beautiful character, who truly Loves his savior. You pile your pathetic crap on him, like you are some kind of Saint when you know you've got some serious repenting to do. You may not be a pastor but you still stand before God and will have to speak about your behavior in how you hang people with your words. I'm sorry you are so lonely but this pathetic forum does not gain you friendships or respect.
Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #131 on: March 12, 2018, 07:28:51 am »

By not accepting your "The Reckoning" as the final truth, I am not denigrating your mother Jeromy.

 it's not the accepting of my truth that denigrates my mother, it's entertaining anything Suzanne is saying that denigrates my mother, and impugns her mental capacity and righteousness. And you're  doing it anonymously behind a keyboard on a website no less...
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454



« Reply #132 on: March 12, 2018, 07:48:34 am »

Whoever said I wasn't a pastor?
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2378



« Reply #133 on: March 12, 2018, 07:50:40 am »

Just a reminder. There are rules here. This site is not really for defenders of GCC. No one should be ridiculed for staying anonymous. There are anonymous people from GCC churches posting here and saying intimidating things and offering words of spiritual rebuke. They have their reasons for staying anonymous. They are free to post here even though some of the posts of rebuke violate the rules and seem intimidating. This is an open forum.

Honoring the rules of the forum and understanding its purpose while questioning things would reflect better on those who post here, but disagree or think we are terrible people.

Forum rules
on: March 13, 2007, 12:52:37 pm
Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, and the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology. De-Comm started out as a blog by several people not affiliated with GCMWarning.Com. It later moved to a forum and merged with the GCMWarning site. Because of its history, some of the older threads may refer to the forum as a blog. Below are a set of rules for users of this forum:

1. Be civil. It's okay to be open about your feelings and experiences, but name calling, profanity, and obscenity are not appropriate. Keep in mind that current GC'ers read this site, and acting inappropriately reflects badly on the rest of the people posting here.

2. Be truthful. Do not post unfounded accusations directed towards any group, person, or poster here.

3. Respect the right to anonymity. Do not exert pressure on others to name real life names, or identify which specific GC church they attended. Many still have relationships with those in GC churches and are reluctant to jeopardize those by revealing their identity. Others fear possible harassment or other repercussions, and simply don't want to deal with it. Do not attempt to reveal the identity of another poster who does not want their identity revealed.

4. Be mindful of the topic. A small deviation from the original topic is permissible, but if your post is going to radically alter the direction of a thread (known as "thread hijacking") simply make it into a brand new thread. In some cases we may split threads and move off topic posts to a more appropriate forum. Also be mindful of which forum would be most appropriate when posting a new thread.

5. No excessive arguing, aka trolling. There is a line between making your point, and continuously harping on that point to the detriment of the conversation. Feel free to share a conflicting opinion, and further explain it, but let others have their say as well, and accept that not everybody will always agree. Posting something for the sole purpose of angering others or disrupting conversation is not allowed.

6. Respect the nature of this site. This is a site created by ex-GC'ers, designed primarily to serve those who have left the movement, and populated mostly with former members of the group. Although healthy debate is encouraged, we do not guarantee equal time with current GC'ers. Current members should keep that in mind before posting here. That said, current members are welcome to read and post here.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #134 on: March 12, 2018, 08:45:01 am »

Whoever said I wasn't a pastor?

 so I take it you're not going to address all of the points that we just made then? And I know you're not a pastor because a real Pastor would not be on a website like this
Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #135 on: March 12, 2018, 08:47:23 am »

Just a reminder. There are rules here. This site is not really for defenders of GCC. No one should be ridiculed for staying anonymous. There are anonymous people from GCC churches posting here and saying intimidating things and offering words of spiritual rebuke. They have their reasons for staying anonymous. They are free to post here even though some of the posts of rebuke violate the rules and seem intimidating. This is an open forum.

Honoring the rules of the forum and understanding its purpose while questioning things would reflect better on those who post here, but disagree or think we are terrible people.

Forum rules
on: March 13, 2007, 12:52:37 pm
Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, and the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology. De-Comm started out as a blog by several people not affiliated with GCMWarning.Com. It later moved to a forum and merged with the GCMWarning site. Because of its history, some of the older threads may refer to the forum as a blog. Below are a set of rules for users of this forum:

1. Be civil. It's okay to be open about your feelings and experiences, but name calling, profanity, and obscenity are not appropriate. Keep in mind that current GC'ers read this site, and acting inappropriately reflects badly on the rest of the people posting here.

2. Be truthful. Do not post unfounded accusations directed towards any group, person, or poster here.

3. Respect the right to anonymity. Do not exert pressure on others to name real life names, or identify which specific GC church they attended. Many still have relationships with those in GC churches and are reluctant to jeopardize those by revealing their identity. Others fear possible harassment or other repercussions, and simply don't want to deal with it. Do not attempt to reveal the identity of another poster who does not want their identity revealed.

4. Be mindful of the topic. A small deviation from the original topic is permissible, but if your post is going to radically alter the direction of a thread (known as "thread hijacking") simply make it into a brand new thread. In some cases we may split threads and move off topic posts to a more appropriate forum. Also be mindful of which forum would be most appropriate when posting a new thread.

5. No excessive arguing, aka trolling. There is a line between making your point, and continuously harping on that point to the detriment of the conversation. Feel free to share a conflicting opinion, and further explain it, but let others have their say as well, and accept that not everybody will always agree. Posting something for the sole purpose of angering others or disrupting conversation is not allowed.

6. Respect the nature of this site. This is a site created by ex-GC'ers, designed primarily to serve those who have left the movement, and populated mostly with former members of the group. Although healthy debate is encouraged, we do not guarantee equal time with current GC'ers. Current members should keep that in mind before posting here. That said, current members are welcome to read and post here.

 Linda if you want anyone to take these rules seriously you need to enforce them on your own users like Jason and G Prince.  then you need to set up an application process because currently this is a public forum that any human being can legally engage in. Nowhere in the Bible are we encouraged to anonymously write letters about churches we had bad experiences in which is why youre now getting some pushback in your former safe space
Logged
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #136 on: March 12, 2018, 08:49:55 am »

Seems odd that I've never seen Blonde (Jason) rebuked for his slanderous garbage.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2378



« Reply #137 on: March 12, 2018, 08:59:30 am »

These are not MY users any more than you are. As a mere poster here, I can just ask that all respect the rules and try their best to abide by them.

Of course people who disagree can post here. See Rule 5.

I am not anonymous.

The Bible does speak of exposing sin and correcting error.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #138 on: March 12, 2018, 09:02:44 am »

These are not MY users any more than you are. As a mere poster here, I can just ask that all respect the rules and try their best to abide by them.

Of course people who disagree can post here. See Rule 5.

I am not anonymous.

The Bible does speak of exposing sin and correcting error.

Linda you are not a mere poster, you are the main poster, by about 50 days. writing on a website is not exposing sin. You expose sin to a person's face.  this website would be akin to writing Anonymous letters and posting them on the doorposts of people's homes back in the early church.
Logged
G_Prince
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417



« Reply #139 on: March 12, 2018, 09:03:26 am »

Evergreen's unwillingness to agree to a third-party investigator clearly shows that they are hiding something. What that is I don't know, but it gives a lot of credence to Suzanne's story.

On top of that, their ongoing campaign to discredit Suzanne fits the now familiar profile of  more recognizable cases. The same tactics were used by Harvey Weinstein and Roy Moore and they are at play here.

In general, I think this shows a disturbing nonchalance toward sexual abuse at Evergreen. I wonder what it would take for them to seriously pursue action instead of circling the wagons.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 09:55:46 am by G_Prince » Logged

Here's an easy way to find out if you're in a cult. If you find yourself asking the question, "am I in a cult?" the answer is yes. -Stephen Colbert
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 16   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1