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
November 27, 2021, 05:22:26 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: This still isn't okay Suzanne van Dyck  (Read 30218 times)
Saddened
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3



« on: April 20, 2018, 09:58:51 pm »

Since the moderator of this site seems to have deleted an entire thread for the purpose of protecting Suzanne, I thought I'd repost this.

Yesterday Suzanne replied to a tweet from Netgrace_org and about #Me2csa.com which is a confidential and anonymous online system for identifying child sex abusers. Her tweet was then re-tweeted to over 3000 additional Twitter users.

Netgrace: "A new resource where abuse survivors can anonymously identify their abusers and be voluntarily connected to others who have abused by the same perpetrator. Together, they will be empowered to expose the perpetrator and/or report him/her to the police. http://me2csa.com " 10:51 AM - 16 Apr 2018
                                           
SUZANNE'S REPLY
                                           
Suzanne van Dyck‏ @notabystandermn Apr 16  Replying to @netgrace_org
I just filled this out! As the SOL has expired for my case, I entered the info about my abuser as an act of empowerment as well as to "expose" the perpetrator, Mark Darling. @Evergreen_NH @evergreen_bloom @EvergreenLake @rockthechurch @wartwatch @ThouArtTheMan @LoriAnneThomps2

Suzanne went to a site specifically for child abuse victims to name their abusers and named Mark because, in her own words, it helped her to feel empowered? It is becoming abundantly clear that her intentions are to destroy a man's life, a man who at one time was a dear and close friend. She is using any public forum she can while protecting herself - by not participating in the investigation - not answering any of the many questions that have been posted recently on this forum - all while receiving support (especially from people that barely know her) as she carries this out.

Why would she not use this new site for what it was intended, to name child sex abusers. She had an opportunity to name the person, or persons, who ruined her childhood if she experienced childhood abuse, and protect others. Instead, she chose to slander Mark. She has already cheapened the value of such a site by abusing it's purpose for her own gain, to help her feel empowered. Does she not feel empowered enough  by publicly bringing down a man with false allegations, offering zero proof of those allegations, and refusing to participate in an investigation, all while knowing that this man will not be able to speak out and defend himself in her public forums? 

This is not okay Suzanne van Dyck.
Logged
UffDa
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2018, 10:35:43 pm »

Crossing my fingers these links work...at 6:05am on April 20, 2018 Suzanne sent these tweets

https://twitter.com/notabystandermn/status/987286096819126273?s=20

https://twitter.com/notabystandermn/status/987286095116296192?s=20
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2018, 06:12:31 am »

UffDa, all of the Mark Darling supporters on here know that she redacted and they do not care.  But thanks for posting those corrections to show that Suzanne tried to fix her mistake. 
Logged
Al
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2018, 06:26:18 am »

From what I know, that was retweeted to thousands of users. Unfortunately the damage is done.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2496



« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2018, 06:28:20 am »

Quote from: Scout’s correction
I filled it out and was alerted yesterday that it is only for those abused by a pastor that were under the age of 18.  I was 19 and the other women that have come forward as victims of pastor Mark Darling's abuse were all college age.

Are you wishing Dee @ WW would retweet this correction to all her followers? Really?

Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Al
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2018, 06:30:46 am »

I'm talking about the original action by Suzanne. I can easily see why redacting wouldn't make anyone feel that much better. It would be like getting an email, "We were wrong about you beating your wife" as that old example goes. So, I'm just trying to provide context for why folks aren't going to be happy.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 06:35:01 am by Al » Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2496



« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2018, 06:39:18 am »

I understand, but the correction involves explaining that the wrong form was used and she thought she was reporting adult sexual abuse. You could private message Dee about it, though.

Scout was supposed to report at myvalidation.org according to the person who replied to her inquiry.

“There is an anonymous reporting system for adults myvalidation.org “
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2018, 06:53:44 am »

Yes Linda, it sounds like Al wants people to know that Mark Darling is being accused of sexual abuse of adults and not sexual abuse of children. 

Although I'm sure he's fine with the tweet ECC first sent out in response to Suzanne that they have since apologized for.  But, the damage was done and I'm sure Al is fine with that.  Their apology and attempt to fix it is okay, Suzanne's is not.

And then there was Joan Harris's e-mail to the BOT that accidentally included Suzanne, when Joan mocked Suzanne for asking for clarification about attorney/client privilelge between Joan and the BOT(they definitely have it) and asked the BOT how to respond to her (even though Joan is completely indepdenent, right?)  But Al, that seems to be no problem for you.

And false allegations made by Tim Pickett on Jeromy Darling's FB page that Suzanne had assaulted him. Jeromy saw and "liked," so he knows it is there and he hasn't removed it.  I understand Tim was "making a point" and if you look at all the other comments you can figure that out, but you can also figure out what happened with Suzanne's tweet if you apply the same methods.  Al, have you asked Jeromy to delete that comment, since he has so many hundreds of admirers?  (or did he say thousands, I don't remember).

I think it is clear that Al and others want to hold alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse to a higher standard than they are willing to hold their church leadership. 
Logged
Al
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2018, 07:27:23 am »

Yes Linda, it sounds like Al wants people to know that Mark Darling is being accused of sexual abuse of adults and not sexual abuse of children.  

Although I'm sure he's fine with the tweet ECC first sent out in response to Suzanne that they have since apologized for.  But, the damage was done and I'm sure Al is fine with that.  Their apology and attempt to fix it is okay, Suzanne's is not.

And then there was Joan Harris's e-mail to the BOT that accidentally included Suzanne, when Joan mocked Suzanne for asking for clarification about attorney/client privilelge between Joan and the BOT(they definitely have it) and asked the BOT how to respond to her (even though Joan is completely indepdenent, right?)  But Al, that seems to be no problem for you.

And false allegations made by Tim Pickett on Jeromy Darling's FB page that Suzanne had assaulted him. Jeromy saw and "liked," so he knows it is there and he hasn't removed it.  I understand Tim was "making a point" and if you look at all the other comments you can figure that out, but you can also figure out what happened with Suzanne's tweet if you apply the same methods.  Al, have you asked Jeromy to delete that comment, since he has so many hundreds of admirers?  (or did he say thousands, I don't remember).

I think it is clear that Al and others want to hold alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse to a higher standard than they are willing to hold their church leadership.  

I've said so very little on this forum so I'm surprised by how much you've assumed of me and my point of view, which you clearly don't understand because I haven't even voiced what that is yet (Im reserving my judgement on many things until I gather more information). I definitely understand why I should be more of an observer than a commenter on this forum. The environment for meaningful dialogue seems to be absent. What I heard was, "You think this, this, and this". I don't even know what I think about many things yet, but I have spoken clearly about Suzanne's recent actions as being wrong. If this offends you, that is fine, but putting words in my mouth will only hinder good communication.
Logged
araignee19
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 278



« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2018, 07:31:25 am »

That thread was not deleted best I can tell. A few crude comments were removed and it was moved to the "moribund equine" forum. Seems to me that is where it belongs, as the original action was redacted and we should stop drawing more undue attention to it. I don't understand why you would post it again. You are drawing even more attention to the original tweet, which continues to keep it alive on the internet. Reposting and discussing and attention is why things never truly die on the internet. How do people not understand his yet? 

Email the twitter account owners where this is still up. Show them Suzanne's redaction. Ask that they proactively correct it. But stop essentially retweeting about it here as well.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2496



« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2018, 07:45:37 am »

Quote from: araignee19
A few crude comments were removed and it was moved to the "moribund equine" forum.
Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn’t realized it was moved there.

Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 955



« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2018, 08:06:03 am »

Linda, the moderator changed the settings of the old thread so that you have to be logged in to see it.

This new thread is an attempt to do an end run around the moderator's decision. Saddened apparently believes that he or she can flout the site owner's wishes on his own site. What a staggering sense of entitlement.
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #12 on: April 21, 2018, 08:08:29 am »

Al, I apologize if you have not been one of the people to try to silence potential victims on this forum as I did respond to you in that way.  I apologize if I made assumptions about your intentions toward alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse.  

GTA, I will make generalizations about Mark Darling supporters (you being his biggest and most dedicated, for some reason) as long as they continue to hold hypocritical positions about standards of conduct regarding potential VICTIMS of clergy sexual abuse.  GTA, you are accusing Suzanne of knowingly doing something dishonest and evil.  
Logged
Godtrumpsall
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142



« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2018, 08:13:49 am »

Al, I apologize if you have not been one of the people to try to silence potential victims on this forum as I did respond to you in that way.  I apologize if I made assumptions about your intentions toward alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse.  

GTA, I will make generalizations about Mark Darling supporters (you being his biggest and most dedicated, for some reason) as long as they continue to hold hypocritical positions about standards of conduct regarding potential VICTIMS of clergy sexual abuse.  GTA, you are accusing Suzanne of knowingly doing something dishonest and evil.  


That is sad that you will generalize a group of people, and not consider the individuals.  Can you explain what you mean by hypocritical positions about standards of conduct regarding potential victims? 
Logged
VicVinegar
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5



« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2018, 08:18:41 am »

Quote
Since the moderator of this site seems to have deleted an entire thread for the purpose of protecting Suzanne, I thought I'd repost this.

The moderator also excommunicated HughHoney from the forum.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2496



« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2018, 08:19:49 am »

DLM and GTA,

Do you believe people who preach against adultery can commit adultery?

Do you believe people who preach that porn is a sin can find themselves watching porn?

Do you believe people ever reach a point in their Christian lives where they are beyond temptation?

Honest questions.

Logged

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

Posts: 238



« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2018, 08:25:28 am »

DLM and GTA,

Do you believe people who preach against adultery can commit adultery?

Do you believe people who preach that porn is a sin can find themselves watching porn?

Do you believe people ever reach a point in their Christian lives where they are beyond temptation?

Honest questions.

Yes, yes, no.
Logged
Godtrumpsall
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142



« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2018, 08:26:07 am »

DLM and GTA,

Do you believe people who preach against adultery can commit adultery?

Do you believe people who preach that porn is a sin can find themselves watching porn?

Do you believe people ever reach a point in their Christian lives where they are beyond temptation?

Honest questions.

Yes, I believe all what you said is possible.  So because I believe that these things are possible, and have happened, and will happen, then Mark is guilty?  I will abandon all logical thought and ignore the actual evidence that has been brought forth (physical and eyewitness evidence). 


Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2496



« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2018, 08:37:29 am »

DLM, Thanks for your honest and simple answers.

Quote from: GTA
So because I believe that these things are possible, and have happened, and will happen, then Mark is guilty?  I will abandon all logical thought and ignore the actual evidence that has been brought forth (physical and eyewitness evidence). 

That wasn’t a question, but thanks for clarifying. I just am trying to figure out your views on sin and temptation because what I “hear” in your replies is something different. So, thanks for clarifying.

Also, my understanding is that those alleging abuse are finding a way to bring their evidence and stories to light. We are all praying that will happen soon.
Logged

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

Posts: 238



« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2018, 09:04:23 am »

Linda, if you look at the 10 reasons I don't believe Suzanne post, you'll see my rationale. It has nothing to do with thinking anyone is immune to temptation or sin.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


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