AssemblyBoard

Brian, you are the second person, following Tom, to allege that "frank" is Sondra.  What did I miss?  Upon what evidence is this allegation made?  And, if it has not been openly revealed by frank personally, why is it being made?  I have seen nothing in frank's posts that warrants the exposure of a poster who has chosen to keep his/her identity "hidden."  Has frank committed some ethical violation?  Or have those alleging that frank is Sondra done so?

If it takes nothing more than a difference of opinion to cause a moderator to reveal a "hidden" identity, open posting here will soon be a thing of the past.  Shouldn't we either respect the privacy of "hidden" I.D.s, or do away with the classification altogether & require full disclosure of everyone who posts?

Just trying to understand how the "rules" work...

al

Well put Verne!   :)

Poor al.   :( :'(

2r

Arghh!!  I came on board just to say that!!

Tom,  I await your esponse to Verne's post on this thread.

2r (you all know who I am)

Manana

Thomas Maddux

Long time no see! How great to hear from you... :)
Thanks! I am taking a bit of a risk with some of the things I am saying.
There is no way to theologically prove the reality of the truth I am trying to get across and someone told me I am guilty of ignoring the pearl casting proverb...
I suspect that everyone one who loves and walks with the Savior  knows exactly what I am saying and is probably wondering why I don't just shut up and leave it alone...everything in its time...


Al my good friend, discernment is definitely not one of your gifts... :)  :)  :)
(or maybe you are crazy like a fox...)
Verne

This is important.
Some of us have unfortunatley allowed our experience with the apostate Geftakys and the assemblies, to cause us to throw out the baby with the bath water as it were.
To deny that God speaks to his children is to deny the very essence of relationship.
The only question is whether or not we hear Him.
Forget about the semantics of what it means that God speaks for a moment.
Frankly, if you have to debate or argue about this with someone it is not worth pursueing.
One may very reasonably ask - How does God speak?
Dave what I am going to say is for you personally and meant to be an encouragement to you.

How God speaks depends entirely on you!

Very early in my walk with Him, He made that abundantly clear to me.

I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.
Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee. Psalm 32: 8:9

Having experienced both, I much prefer His eye, to the bit and  bridle.
God uses both with equal facility.
I trust God gives you wisdom to get my drift...the key is learning to hear His voice and that may will be different for each child as you pointed out...
Verne

My post wasn't about discernment, but about principle.  We presently have no guidelines except common sense and decency, both of which are often applied, or not, seemingly by whim.  We can, and should, do better for the sakes of others.

"Frank" may be a little off here & there (who among us dares claim to not be?), but has not given as he/she has got.  If Verne or I were to suggest that frank = Sondra, it may be well within bounds (especially if we were to ask, rather than accuse).  But a moderator must have higher standards IMO, for the sake of all.  This may not be a church, per se, and the moderators not elders or deacons, but (many of) the people posting here are the Lord's own, and should have good examples to follow.

---

If there is hard evidence that frank is Sondra, I would appreciate the opportunity to examine it, but only if there are circumstances warranting the exposure; i.e., frank's open admission of same, OR frank's clear-cut violation of ethical conduct. 

At present, neither discovering that the two are, or that they are not the same person would surprise me, but I have seen nothing in frank's posts that fully warrants the association.  (Does anyone believe that Sondra is so unique that no one else's posts could approximate hers in content?)  We have been through similar unfounded accusations re: identity here before-- anyone remember "Brasswall?"

al

actually, i remember verne and maragaret making the first allegations here, but you raise a good point al, and someone else has raised it to me by pm. this was my bad call. i have access to information that tom does not (such as hidden email addresses and the ip a user posts from) so it is usually quite easy for me to figure out who someone really is. i thought the moderators could see this too, but as it turns out only the admins can, which currently means only me.

so, for the record: i promise not to share this info with anyone.

and like any good rule, it has a few small exceptions. here they are: if i determine that someone has come on here to disrupt the board and is hiding their identity in order to facilitate doing that, i may out them and will certainly ban them. if someone comes on here pretending to be someone they are not (ie someone else setting up an account named "al hartman"), they will be outed and their account deleted.

the original intention of allowing people to register under made up names was to allow people to post here without them getting cut off (or worse) from loved ones still in the assembly. it was also to allow those who might be somewhat shy or embarassed about their role in the assembly to participate here comfortably until they are ready to open up more. it was not intended to allow long-time posters to play games with their identities.

very few long-time posters have attempted to use it this way, and people always figure out who they are within a day or so anyway. once it is considered common knowledge that "fred" is actually "betty" i peronally would feel pretty silly calling an older woman named betty "fred" in the middle of a serious discussion. on the other hand, i do have access to info that some people want to keep hidden, and they need to be able to trust that i will respect that, so from now on i will try to call people whatever they are calling themselves, until it is very well established who a person is and what people are calling them apart from my tech-enhanced insights.

fair enough?

You are joking right?
Please say "Yes I am...!"
If you are not joking, just ignore me... :)
Verne

Hi Everyone,

I don't know if I've ever witnessed a single group of individuals who can get so off track and petty so fast as this group.  Nehemiah would blush.  I was really getting interested in the "revelation" topic and started feeling warm and fuzzy all over when someone came to the bottom of the hill and started asking everyone to put off the building of the wall and to come down and consider a very important topic...."who "frank" really is!!!  Very pressing issue.   ::)   I think many of you suffer from "small pond, big fish" syndrome.  The world is really big out there.  Get out and get some fresh air.   :o

If "frank" were me, so what?  However, several of you have madevery inaccurate assumptions as to who you think "frank" is and have been surprisingly adamant on it.  "Poor Al" and so forth.  Al has actually been pretty reasonable and rational sounding by comparison. 

I have just been sure I knew who certain anonymous posters were on swte....having the IP#'s and all, but eventually learned I was dead wrong. 

Frank is perhaps a composite poster.  Ever consider that?   

People are able to manipulate IP#'s I've learned and when several people live in a certain locality, IP#'s can be very similar.  There are a lot of "smoke and mirrors" type activity in cyberspace in general.  So simply having someone's IP doesn't insure identity recognition. 

I agree that Moderators and Administrators of boards should follow the same protocol that the big guys do such as AOL, Yahoo, and others. (see link below)  Ethics are ethics.  (I messed up once and guessed an identity for what I thought was a good reason at the time.  I was wrong.  I apologize and you know who you are that I wronged.  I am sorry).

If anonymous posting is allowed, then why fault people for doing it?  There are various good reasons why people post anonymously and some not so good.  Some people are simply having fun being sneaky.  But I have to agree that among former Assembly folks, fear of reproach is a primary reason for anon. accounts.  I have had quite a few people tell me they fear giving their true identity on AB.  When it comes to speaking openly re. the assy for fear of harassment, reproach, exposure of friends and/or family - they feared.  I am perhaps one of the best witnesses to fact that fear of revealing one's identity and posting freely and openly is certainly warranted.  I simply have thicker skin than most.     

People who are bugged with anon. posters, IMO, want full control of others they are interacting with.  In some ways, it gives more opportunity to play politics when everyone knows everyone else's identity.  C.S. Lewis' "Inner Ring" concepts come to mind.  Controllers find it difficult to micro-manage anon. posters and macro-managers are clearly unmoved by anon. posters because they follow the ideas being discussed.  As Nehemiah, they continue building the wall and ignore petty differences in personality and ideologies.  The "Control Posse" is still riding, just not as many hangings. 

Anonymous posting has come under fire within the last few years.  The zdnet article below (see link) is a good article that relates in general to the subject of anonymous posting which may help to get some objectivity back on the subject of rules and protocol of anonymous posting. 

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-528630.html?legacy=zdnn

Sondra

p.s. Guess I'll have to break this post up into two installments.   Then, I'm outa here.  Gosh, it just occurred to me this post will probably dominate your discussion now for a long time.  I am done with this subject. 

tata

You know what Sondra? I completely agree with you. I think I am now done as well.
I was really hoping to talk about matters a bit more weighty. The interest level here is apparently too low.
It was worth the try though...
Verne

We're probably running the real risk of over-analyzing this issue here.  However, newspapers have always required letters to the editors to be signed because promotes honest thought when someone has to stand publicly behind their own opinion.  Like in road rage, I might be more prone to shout vile hatred towards someone if they would never know it was me.  (It reminds me of a time when I raised my hands in anger while following a show vehicle only to find that it was someone at my church - he teased me about this for a while and I learned my lesson)  If I have to sign my name to it, I would feel more responsible to be courtious and thoughtfully support my points.

I suppose there is some concern about retribution.  I am not all that convinced since most of the Assembly has gone belly-up.  I doubt seriously if Mark Miller or Jim Hayman or Tim Geftakys gives a rip about what I post.  But, I understand if others feel differently about the fear of retribution.

I personally like to know who I am talking to.  If I don't know the person, I am only involved in concepts and the other person is a mere object.  If it is a post from Tom or Al, I know these folks personally and can relate to them in a more human way.

-Dave

But....but.....the suds are in the bucket and the clothes still hangin on the line.............

Aufwiedersehen bis Frankie

Verne,

I am going to reply to your last post on the "God Grab Bag" thread.

Thomas Maddux

I have no problem with anonymous posters. Anonymity exists for their protection. But it is being used for manipulative purposes.

It does get kind of annoying when certain posters reincarnate themselves like once a week. They come back as a different life form and (surprise! surprise!) keep posting the same thing over and over.  ::)