As I suspected

Our friends at what used to be legitimately known as an "Open Forum" have taken up an interesting... well, for lack of a better word, tactic. When someone such as my own self asks them to be a little less incendiary in their behavior, the remarks just get (poof!) removed. Well, I might be slow on the uptake sometimes, but not today. Normally, there's no need to make copies of what one posts on an "Open Forum," but I've taken up the habit. Let me pull back the curtain and show you the horrible, horrible things I had to say--parental guidance suggested, and such. For ease of comprehension, the remarks of other posters are italicized. I quote thusly, and like so:

Trollcakes said...
Sorry to repost this comment from the last thread, but Bratton still hasn't replied to the following response to his assigning equivalence to anonymity on BBC Open Forum and the lack of transparency and accountability by the church leadership.

Since I've done nothing of the sort, your comment doesn't exactly compute.

I won't hold my breath that he'll answer.

Thankfully, God gave us an autonomic reflex that keeps us from holding our breaths to the point of damage.

I find it ironic that the "personal responsibity" crowd now fall into the pit (or uncharted waters) of moral relativism and situational ethics.

I find it fascinating that that's all you have.

"Bratton, why do you harp on these peoples anonymity so much?

Because it's wrong.

A "reporter" should know that anonymity is as old as the age, and has been employed for many purposes--yet usually to veil the identity of one whom would otherwise feel coerced, badgered and subject to backlash by the wealthy, powerful or simply the impetuous--haha(not naming names).

Since I actually (gasp!) was a newspaper reporter for a brief while (thankfully, it didn't take), you might be surprised to know I'm familiar with the use of unnamed sources. Unnamed sources, however, have never had free rein to spew bile about people with whom they have a disagreement.

Nobody here wants a bevy of deacons, dressed like morticians, jumping their (little) fence for a smattering of spontaneous "fellowship."

My Sunday School... er, Bible Fellowship teacher nicely summed up the incident to which your friend and your own self continue to refer. I can't quote him precisely, but the thought went along this line: "Personally, I'd be flattered to know that my pastor loved me enough to hop my fence and come to my door if he knew there was a problem between us."

You don't think people here have any call to fear some downward pressure from the big guns at BBC, eh?

No.

Not in the slightest.

No, I cannot really think of anybody who ever experienced a negative consequence to their life stemming from the expression of dissent to the leadership of Bellevue."

Can you?

Should I wait for another Nazi or Mafia allusion? Or even a specific example?

Oh, and before I forget, I did notice something to which I wanted to respond:

New BBC Open Forum said...
mike bratton wrote:

"Just for the record, a number of you "regulars" here agree that God hates David Coombs, Larry Ray, Phil Weatherwax, Steve Marcum, Mark Dougharty, Steve Tucker, and Steve Gaines"

How stupid do you think we are? To quote someone from days gone by, don't put words in my mouth.

Then when no one refutes a poster who equates something God hates with a particular individual, what conclusion should a reader come away with--both from the original post, and from the lack of outrage and/or censorship?

"Why can't you simply discuss something or just present your views without trying to pick a fight with everyone here?"

Nass, if you can find a single instance of where I have tried to "pick a fight" with anyone around here, please let me know.

There are serious issues at Bellevue that need addressing by sober, serious-minded people. When people who want to be involved in the discussion behave, as you and yours do, in a way that cannot be mistaken as being either sober or serious-minded, why is it so horrible to encourage you to reconsider your own behavior?

Either cut the c*** (there, I didn't censor it this time) (However, I did.) or I will delete your comments. It's up to you.

Will you be punishing yourself for consciously refusing to follow your own guidelines? Or are references to excrement (as you and at least one other poster have recently made) considered around here to reflect "a respectful, Christian spirit"?

Again, please, either take the high road or don't make the trip.

In recent weeks, I've spent far less time overall reading that site, much less posting there. Will I bellow an "I Quit!" and never visit there again? Of course not; matter of fact, you'll notice that this site still links to them--as with the so-called "saving Bellevue" site, it's important that people have access to different perspectives regarding the issues facing Bellevue Baptist Church.

The point's self-evident: When people can say what they wish without regard for responsibility, what they say is often unflattering and counterproductive. It produces the same kind of opportunism that is found in those few who use the Bellevue situation to make names for themselves--two sides of the same contrarian coin.

We must, as a church body, work together to address the issues before us, or face the real possibility of lasting damage to the church's ability to share the Gospel both locally and globally.

Or, as that noted philosopher Dr. Jack Shephard has said: "Live together, die alone."

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: Now it's getting even more humorous--I understand that posts of mine from that anything-but-Open Forum are being retroactively deleted.

Heh heh heh...