what happened to the intended purpose of this newsgroup?
Anton Hein
<rogn...@netcom17.netcom.com> wrote (<7uj3h8$off$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>):
>This newsgroup is *not* exclusively used for ex-members to find support;
>rather, this thread alone shows that it is a forum to launch ad hominem
>attacks against religious minorities.
As the name indicates, the forum where this thread started, alt.support.ex-cult,
is meant for the support of *ex-cult* members. What part of that the name do
you not understand?
Naturally, cults are discussed. However, just as you would not excuse violent
crimes in a newsgroup for rape victims, or advertise alcohol in
alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism, you can logically determine that this is not
a newsgroup to promote or defend cults.
If you want a forum, Roger, you should spend more time in
alt.religion.boston-church. Not only is that a newsgroup devoted to the
discussion of the International Churches of Christ, but you leave lots of
messages there unanswered.
>So long as innocent people are going to be falsely accused and slandered,
>some of those innocent people are going to respond to the false
>allegations--and then a full-fledged argument ensues, often nothing more
>than: "You're in a cult!" "No I'm not!".
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, both here and in
alt.religion.boston-church (recently, in fact), you have no clue when it comes
to determining what is or what is not a cult.
The problem with you is that you pop in and out of these newsgroups, always
repeating your worn-out arguments, never acknowledging your mistakes, and never
learning from them either.
>We can solve the negativity problem in a number of ways:
>
>(1) All falsely-accused members of minority faiths can simply shut up and
>endure the abuse and remain silent while lies are being told about us.
By your logic, I should be able to walk into your church meetings and hold a
speech on why I consider the ICC a cult, both theologically and sociologically.
No one is forcing you to read this newsgroup.
>(2) We can all agree to be civil towards each other: I don't say your
>mother wears army boots and you don't call me a brainwashed cult zombie.
Exaggeration appears to be your middle name. That, too, has been pointed out
repeatedly.
>(3) You can take my church off the "cult" blacklist. I have nothing
>against the UC, Mormons, Catholics, or YWCA but they can fight their own
>battles if they don't like being accused of being cults.
The International Churches of Christ is a cult, both theologically and
sociologically. Know the ad that says, "Only *you* can prevent forest fires"?
Well, only *you* can take your church of what you call a "'cult' blacklist."
>(4) We can simply ignore the problem and continue the "anything goes"
>approach.
Anything doesn't go here. The sooner you learn that, the better.
>There are other ways to address the problem, but (1) is too simplistic
>and impractical. If people here were accurately stating the doctrine and
>practices of the groups in question, members of those groups would not be
>contradicting the posters. Get your facts right, be civil, and when
>wrong be willing to make the correction and the apology.
Like any other cult apologist you claim that those who counter your church have
got their facts wrong, misrepresent your doctrines and practices, etcetera.
As you know, we've been over this before. As always, you are doing your church
a disservice by simply regurgitating the same old Poehlmann spiel.
And as for getting your facts right, no doubt the folks on
alt.religion.boston-church will help you in that endeavor. They have done so
countless times before, but alas... it seems you never learn.
About Cults
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c09.html
Cults - a theological definition
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c09a01.html
About the International Churches of Christ
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i02.html
Anton
--
Apologetics Index: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/
Apologetics and Countercult Information about Cults, Sects,
and Alternative Religious Movements - for Research and Ministry.
Anton Hein
<rogn...@netcom3.netcom.com> wrote
(<4iRP3.184013$5r2.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>):
>But wine enthusiasts could protest that drinking wine does not make them
>"alcoholics" and that they don't want to see the wineries shut down nor a
>return to prohibition. Likewise, they would protest being called
>"drunks" or it said that they were simply "in denial" about their
>"addiction".
I think you are being obtuse on purpose. Try and crash your local AA meeting to
hand out fliers for a sale at Liquor Barn. Perhaps then you'll discover the
stupidity of your argument.
>Likewise, here, members of the Mormon Church, Campus Crusade for Christ,
>the Unification Church, Muslims, Buddhists, Bahai, Scientologists, etc.
>might argue that they are not in "cults". What sort of "support"
>includes violent deprogramming and the abuse of conservatorship laws to
>seize the private property of so-called "cultists"?
A) There are newsgroups for the discussion, pro- and contra, of the groups you
mention. Alt.support.ex-cult is not one of those groups. It is a support
group for ex-cult victims and their loved ones.
B) We have discussed your cry-wolf approach regarding deprogramming and
conservatorship laws on many previous occassions. As my archive shows,
you never learn. Again, I believe you deliberately misrepresent the issues.
>If people want support after leaving one of these groups, they can
>certainly seek it.
Well, thank you so much. Very generous of you. But then, no one asked you for
permission.
>My objection is that this "support" sometimes becomes
>a crusade against their former religion, and is unwelcome by those who
>don't want support, don't feel abused or exploited, and rather like our
>religion and don't want to see ourselves or our friends maligned as
>"cultists".
This is an unmoderated newsgroup. No one here is forced to participate. Most
cult victims and their loved ones lurk here rather than post, precisely because
those who observe this newsgroup for a while know that wolves like you freely
wander in with abusive comments and lies.
The International Churches of Christ is a cult, but theologically (as seen from
an orthodox, evangelical Christian point of view), and sociologically. The
information that leads to these conclusions comes a) from studying the teaching
and practices of the International Churches of Christ, b) from ex-members of the
ICC (ranging from those who simply looked through the charade, and those who
have been seriously hurt).
If you want to defend the International Churches of Christ you are invited to do
so in
alt.religion.christian.boston-church
That is the newsgroup devoted to the discussion of the ICC.
Alt.support.ex-cult, is a newsgroup devoted to the support of ex-cult members
and their loved ones.
Your continued whining and misinformation in alt.support.ex-cult constitutes
harassment of ex-cult members and those who care about them.
>: As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, both here and in
>: alt.religion.boston-church (recently, in fact), you have no clue when it comes
>: to determining what is or what is not a cult.
>
>A cult is someone else's religion that you don't like.
Like I said: you have no clue when it comes to determining what is what is not a
cult.
Definitions and characteristics can be found here:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c09.html
>: By your logic, I should be able to walk into your church meetings and hold a
>: speech on why I consider the ICC a cult, both theologically and sociologically.
>
>Better yet, you can organize a meeting and post an invitation to all
>interested ICC members to come hear you lecture. I personally won't
>attend, but I don't speak for others in my church.
Actually, such a meeting is taking place 24 hours a day:
alt.religion.christian.boston-church
I notice you have a hard time keeping up with the messages there. You fail to
reply to many direct questions.
>: No one is forcing you to read this newsgroup.
>
>No one is forcing you to post slander against the people in my church;
>I'm simply correcting things and asking you to be more courteous. But
>you're right--no one is forcing me, not my minister, not my discipler, no
>one. I come here on my own volition.
You are welcome to learn from the information posted in alt.support.ex-cult, but
if you want to promote your church, alt.religion.christian.boston-church is the
place to do so.
>: The International Churches of Christ is a cult, both theologically and
>: sociologically. Know the ad that says, "Only *you* can prevent forest fires"?
>: Well, only *you* can take your church of what you call a "'cult' blacklist."
>
>Tell me then, what can my church do to be removed from the cult
>blacklist. Members, leaders, and the official ICC website have
>explicitly affirmed the Deity of Christ, salvation by grace through
>faith, the inerrancy of the Bible, the physical resurrection, the
>atonement of Christ on the cross, the virgin birth, and the Trinity.
This, too, has been discussed over and over again. It is has been pointed out
to you that there is a big difference between your church's official statements
and the teachings and practices in the field. Too, you have previously tried to
use Alan Gomes' book "Unmasking the Cults," to argue for the alleged orthodoxy
of the ICC. But, as I showed, Gomes himself considers the ICC a cult:
... I do consider the ICC to be a cult, and do so precisely because I
believe it fits my theological definition. Of course, anyone--including
Poehlmann--is entitled to use my definition and then argue whether any
group does or does not fit it based on the group's doctrinal beliefs.
However, he is not entitled to imply that I myself do not regard the
ICC to be a cult. In fact, I have never used my definition to exonerate
the ICC and in reality I believe it is applicable to them.
- Alan Gomes, email, Apr. 20, 1999. Used by permission.
However, it is clear that you are not interested in facts.
>: Anything doesn't go here. The sooner you learn that, the better.
>
>Yes, the "cult" people are told to shut up, go away, and stop ruining the
>business of the cultbusters. But the cultbusters can say and do whatever
>they please, all in the name of "support".
Want some cheese with your whine?
>: Like any other cult apologist you claim that those who counter your church have
>: got their facts wrong, misrepresent your doctrines and practices, etcetera.
>
>Again, I am not a "cult apologist" since I am not a member of a cult,
>neither do I write apologetics. I am equivalently not a food critic,
>securities analyst or political consultant, although I have opinions
>about these areas. I am a rank-and-file member of the ICC and I have
>been with the group for 10 years, attending services as well as
>interacting with church critics on these newsgroups.
Here we go again. This is another example of why I suggest you archive the
messages in these newsgroups. I have on many occassions explained what makes
the term "cult apologist" applicable to you. For example, on Feb. 15, 1999, I
wrote:
Keep in mind that Roger is a cult apologist (for the International
Churches of Christ), who after 12 years of being discipled still doesn't
known enough about the Bible to understand what the word "apologist"
means. (Yes, I have explained it to him in these newsgroups, but like many
cult members, Roger rejects information that isn't filtered and approved
by his leaders).
"Apologia" is a Greek legal term meaning verbal defense. It is usually
translated as either "defense" or "answer" in 1 Peter 3:15. Here is the
verse in a modern version:
(1 Peter 3:15 NLT) Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your
life. And if you are asked about your Christian hope, always be ready
to explain it.
For Christians, apologetics is the intelligent presentation and defense of
the Christian faith. One can also be an apologist for a cult. Despite
his denials, Roger is such a person.
About Apologetics
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/a00.html#apologetics
>It is interesting, I find, that you notice that many religious minorities
>similarly identify that you are misrepresenting their religion as well.
Yawn.
>Let's suppose that you are right; this means:
>
>-The majority of religious scholars and sociologists who study minority
>religions are wrong (bought off by the cults, blackmailed, etc.). Not
>just a couple bad apples, but nearly every published researcher in the
>field is a "cult apologist".
Whoa! You must be really myopic if you think that. The number of scholars
studying "minority religions" who speak out against cults far outnumber those
who support cults.
>-Representatives from the organization are wrong (spreading deception,
>whitewash, etc.)
You are a prime example.
>-Official statements from the organizations are wrong.
As we say in Holland, sometimes the flag doesn't cover the load. What is
presented up-front, for general consumption, tends to be the marketing point of
view. Every cult presents itself in the best possible light. Dig a little
deeper, and you discover the real product.
>-Rank-and-file members are liars/duped/brainwashed.
Duped, mostly. Most cult members are sincere in their beliefs and practices and
have a wonderful time in the movements of their choice.
But since you consider yourself to be a Christian, you can be expected to know
what the Bible teaches about spiritual deception. Matter of fact, I have had
ICC members in different countries on different continents tell me that *I* am
spiritually deceived *because* I am not part of the ICC.
Orthodox, evangelical Christians - especially those active in counter-cult
ministry - consider those involved in the ICC to be spiritually deceived. If
you are interested in why that is so, spend some time in
alt.religion.christian.boston-church.
From a sociological point of view, the ICC is in trouble as well. From the
deceptive recruitment practices to the invasive and abusive discipleship
tactics, the ICC is known for turning sincere people into duped victims.
>-The 98% of ex-members who are not openly critical are liars, afraid to
>speak, don't exist, etc. (ICC critics estimate there are 200,000
>ex-members in the world; roughly 200 have given "testimonies" of some
>form in criticism of the church. In more localized areas, ex-member
>groups have attracted roughly 0.5% of the believed former members in that
>area, so I'm being very generous with the 98% number).
I am not going to talk numbers with you, Roger. The reason for this is clear.
As many on the alt.religion.christian.boston-church newsgroup can attest, when
it comes to numbers you are such a fountain of misinformation that it would be
embarassing to tackle you on this point.
That said, the vast majority of ex-cult members simply move on without getting
involved in ex-cult or anti-cult activities. That doesn't say anything about
their character or believability.
Problem is that cult apologists such as yourself have a tendency to malign those
ex-cult members who speak out. They are called liars and worse.
>-Exit counselors and anti-cult activists who are needlessly harrassed by
>law enforcement as they rescue "victims" from cults and crusade for truth
>against cultic deception. The few that have sociology or psychology
>degrees are esteemed as the "world experts" on cults and they have not
>sold their souls down the river like those "cult apologists".
This is what you are best at: vague insinuations and generalizations. You are a
master at using the FUD factor, sowing Fear, Uncertaintly and Doubt. And still
you wonder why your posts in alt.support.ex-cult are frowned upon.
>Now, we could accept this grandiose conspiracy theory when *one* group is
>concerned, but multiply this by 4, 10, or 200x the number of groups
>claiming misrepresentation! I only have first-hand knowledge of the ICC;
>I'm not a Mormon, JW, Buddhist, Bahai, etc. but if members of these
>groups are complaining that you're getting it wrong too--maybe you ought
>to listen?
That is rich. Maybe you ought to listen to those who have been hurt in the very
movement you promote. Every cult, religion or business that finds itself
criticized and called to account claims it is misrepresented. The facts,
however, show otherwise.
About Cults - Definitions, articles, books, counseling, and other resources
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c09.html
andy...@my-deja.com
ahein....@xs4all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
in response to Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
<Snip>
>
> If you want to defend the International Churches of Christ you are
invited to do so in alt.religion.christian.boston-church
Consider this, Roger is not defending the International Churches of
Christ, I believe that Roger is defending himself. Allow me to explain,
Roger has stated that he would never expose his wife and family to
something that he would consider dangerous. Yet we have all determined
that he did that by becoming a member of the International Churches of
Christ. If Roger were to come to the same conclusion he would have to
admit that he did expose his family to something that was dangerous.
What would be his reaction then. Some have wrote in their stories of
their feelings about brining loved ones into a group they later realized
was destructive.
It is my considered opinion that Roger is starting to realize
subconsciously that the ICC is indeed the danger that opponents say it
is. In this case his sub-conscious would take some action to protect
himself. In most people the action would entail actions that would
soften the blow of the realization of the truth. I think in Rogers case
the action being taken by the sub-conscious is to protect him from the
emotional trauma altogether. This manifests itself as a conscious
defense of the church. If Roger can keep himself convinced that the
church is OK then he will never have to face the fact that he placed his
family in danger. He uses these NG’s to publicly argue his stance,
thereby convincing himself that the ICC isn’t a cult. Read his
arguments, they are not that good in defending the ICC. They don’t have
to be, he only has to convince himself. I think that if it wasn’t for
these NG’s Roger might well be an ex-member by now.
If I am right about this, I’m only going by my interaction with him via
NG’s, then he is in for some hard times ahead. He can only keep this up
for only a certain period of time before he realizes what is happening.
Lets be there for him when he needs us, we know all to well that certain
groups won’t.
> That is the newsgroup devoted to the discussion of the ICC.
Alt.support.ex-cult, is a newsgroup devoted to the support of ex-cult
members and their loved ones.
Roger, Anton is right, until you leave the ICC Alt.support.ex-cult is
not the place for you. You should be back in ARCBC we miss you.
Until then, if you want to talk e-mail me, OK.
<snip>
>
> Anton
> --
> Apologetics Index: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/
> Apologetics and Countercult Information about Cults, Sects,
> and Alternative Religious Movements - for Research and Ministry.
>
Andy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
rellim6973
andy...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <i1EQOEhWsp2tCSBXeHJUpW=N3...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> ahein....@xs4all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
> in response to Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
> <Snip>
> >
> > If you want to defend the International Churches of Christ you are
> invited to do so in alt.religion.christian.boston-church
>
> > That is the newsgroup devoted to the discussion of the ICC.
> Alt.support.ex-cult, is a newsgroup devoted to the support of ex-cult
> members and their loved ones.
>
> Roger, Anton is right, until you leave the ICC Alt.support.ex-cult is
> not the place for you. You should be back in ARCBC we miss you.
>
> Until then, if you want to talk e-mail me, OK.
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Anton
> > --
> > Apologetics Index: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/
> > Apologetics and Countercult Information about Cults, Sects,
> > and Alternative Religious Movements - for Research and Ministry.
> >
> Andy
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
While I think that there is an element of truth in your analysis of Mr.
Poehlman the sad fact is he is posting to this newsgroup with the
encouragement and sanction of the ICoC. Here's what was written in the
SFCoC bulletin:
" We learned that technology was perhaps the greatest strength of the
Bay Area and that this would be a focus for us in or future ministry
efforts. In September (of 1993) a group of disciples with technology
careers met to brainstorm our approach. These people formed the
foundation of a new focus group. Those present included Tom
Schaffernoth, Tyrone Mendez, Gavin Green, Roger Poehlman, and Don
Evans among others." They formed what was known as the International
Business and Technology forum. It merged it's operations with Hope
Technology group throughout much of 1995.
" The original vision of IBT took on a new
life in September and October of 1995. At this time it became clear
to those who surf the Web that a large amount of negative material was
accumulating on the Internet from those who had become *enemies of
God's movement*."
Just think, the SFCoC has Mr. Poelhman post here as their representative.
Is he the best man for the job. Apparently they thought so.
He is far to modest in his signature line when he claims to be just a
"member".
Evon
rellim6973 <relli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:381211C1...@my-deja.com...
>
>
> andy...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> While I think that there is an element of truth in your analysis of Mr.
> Poehlman the sad fact is he is posting to this newsgroup with the
> encouragement and sanction of the ICoC. Here's what was written in the
> SFCoC bulletin:
>
> " We learned that technology was perhaps the greatest strength of the
> Bay Area and that this would be a focus for us in or future ministry
> efforts. In September (of 1993) a group of disciples with technology
> careers met to brainstorm our approach. These people formed the
> foundation of a new focus group. Those present included Tom
> Schaffernoth, Tyrone Mendez, Gavin Green, Roger Poehlman, and Don
> Evans among others." They formed what was known as the International
> Business and Technology forum. It merged it's operations with Hope
> Technology group throughout much of 1995.
>
> " The original vision of IBT took on a new
> life in September and October of 1995. At this time it became clear
> to those who surf the Web that a large amount of negative material was
> accumulating on the Internet from those who had become *enemies of
> God's movement*."
>
>
> Just think, the SFCoC has Mr. Poelhman post here as their representative.
> Is he the best man for the job. Apparently they thought so.
>
> He is far to modest in his signature line when he claims to be just a
> "member".
Is there, per chance, a connection between this and a web project that has
been initiated entitled the "Disciple's Web Project"?
When this project was first being set up on the internetdynamics
server.....it was open and not passworded. It has since been closed to the
public.
One of the expressed objectives of this project was to:
"TAKE OVER the top spots in ALL major search engines" with positive info
about the ICC.
One of the objectives that I found to be most interesting was this one:
"Flood the non-English web with positive material BEFORE OUR DETRACTORS GET
THERE."
(Does this mean it is too late for the "English-web?)
Or....how about this one:
"Establish an archive of POSITIVE personal testimonials about all major
church leaders
TO COUNTER THE GOSSIP THAT CIRCULATES"
(...or the TRUTH that circulates....)
OR:....
"Establish an historical archive of information about our churches from
every corner of the globe
(BEFORE THE EYEWITNESSES FORGET)"
(...or discover the truth.)
(CAPS emphasis is mine)
Pretty interesting, huh?
Fortunately...I made copies of the info while it was still an open website,
so these are EXACT quotes...not from memory.
I wonder if there is any connection between this project and the information
in the ICC bulletin that was posted here?
Evon
mev...@home.com
Anton Hein
<381211C1...@my-deja.com>):
> While I think that there is an element of truth in your analysis of Mr.
>Poehlman the sad fact is he is posting to this newsgroup with the
>encouragement and sanction of the ICoC. Here's what was written in the
>SFCoC bulletin:
>
>" We learned that technology was perhaps the greatest strength of the
>Bay Area and that this would be a focus for us in or future ministry
>efforts. In September (of 1993) a group of disciples with technology
>careers met to brainstorm our approach. These people formed the
>foundation of a new focus group. Those present included Tom
>Schaffernoth, Tyrone Mendez, Gavin Green, Roger Poehlman, and Don
>Evans among others." They formed what was known as the International
>Business and Technology forum. It merged it's operations with Hope
>Technology group throughout much of 1995.
>
> " The original vision of IBT took on a new
>life in September and October of 1995. At this time it became clear
>to those who surf the Web that a large amount of negative material was
>accumulating on the Internet from those who had become *enemies of
>God's movement*."
>
>
>Just think, the SFCoC has Mr. Poelhman post here as their representative.
>Is he the best man for the job. Apparently they thought so.
>
>He is far to modest in his signature line when he claims to be just a
>"member".
Interesting info. It does indeed put the lie to many of Roger's statements made
here and in alt.support.ex-cult.
andy...@my-deja.com
rellim6973 <relli...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> While I think that there is an element of truth in your analysis of
Mr.
> Poehlman the sad fact is he is posting to this newsgroup with the
> encouragement and sanction of the ICoC. Here's what was written in
the
> SFCoC bulletin:
I think my analysis of Mr. Poehlman is very accurate, however I would
love to talk to him face to face to get a better analysis of him. The
sad fact that you mention is indeed true, I would think that most people
who post here have either the encouragement and/or sanction of the ICC.
This is evident of the fact that the ICC monitors this NG (I have
received e-mails from employees of certain churches, hey contact me
again, I would love to talk), and the control factor that the ICC has
over the membership. No member of the ICC would be posting here if the
church didn't want them to :(
Andy
<snip>
Mark Matthews
tell me more about that...
it sounds rather ominous
=======================
www.theealumni.zzn.com
=======================
Anton Hein
(<6zvQ3.9373$hX5....@news.rdc1.az.home.com>):
This sound a lot like what the "Church" of Scientology has been doing. See:
Scientology's Spam Project
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s04.html#cosspam
andy...@my-deja.com
>
> Just think, the SFCoC has Mr. Poelhman post here as their
representative.
> Is he the best man for the job. Apparently they thought so.
I have agreed with you in a previous reply to this post that Mr.
Poelhman has his churches permission to post here, either outright or
implied. This is evident due to the fact that the ICC does exercise a
certin amout of control over the members life. As for the church
thinking he is the best man for the job, I would have to disagree. After
I read your post I thought about this and came to this conclusion. The
ICC would place in this position someone not by their qualifications to
defend, but by their likelyhood to stay in the group when exposed to the
information in this NG. My assessment of Roger would place him as likely
to stay.
Mr. Engler by contrast is just as likely to remain in the group, but for
different reasons. My assessment of him is that he knows all to well
what is going on in the ICC. I don't believe his claims of his trying to
solve probelms and/or not seeing them in Denver. I believe that he has a
vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
> He is far to modest in his signature line when he claims to be just a
> "member".
Well we just have to take everything said by ICC members, and especially
leaders, with a grain of salt.
Andy
rellim
andy...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <381211C1...@my-deja.com>,
> rellim6973 <relli...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> <Snip>
> >
> > Just think, the SFCoC has Mr. Poelhman post here as their
> representative.
> > Is he the best man for the job. Apparently they thought so.
>
> I have agreed with you in a previous reply to this post that Mr.
> Poelhman has his churches permission to post here, either outright or
> implied. This is evident due to the fact that the ICC does exercise a
> certin amout of control over the members life. As for the church
> thinking he is the best man for the job, I would have to disagree.
After
> I read your post I thought about this and came to this conclusion. The
> ICC would place in this position someone not by their qualifications
to
> defend, but by their likelyhood to stay in the group when exposed to
the
> information in this NG. My assessment of Roger would place him as
likely
> to stay.
>
Well we really do agree on this. It's very likely that the ICoC
considers the fact that Mr. Poehlmann is apt to remain faithful to
them as the single most important qualification in a spokesman. I
think it's telling that his performance on usenet could reflect so
poorly on the ICoC yet he retains their support. You have put your
finger on one of the key reasons: that is unquestioning loyalty to the
leadership which the ICoC ultimately demands.
> Mr. Engler by contrast is just as likely to remain in the group, but
for
> different reasons. My assessment of him is that he knows all to well
> what is going on in the ICC. I don't believe his claims of his trying
to
> solve probelms and/or not seeing them in Denver. I believe that he
has a
> vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Mr. Engler, is indeed,a different sort of person. His agenda is
different though in support of the same cause.
>
> > He is far to modest in his signature line when he claims to be just
a
> > "member".
>
> Well we just have to take everything said by ICC members, and
especially
> leaders, with a grain of salt.
>
Too true. Mr. Baird has told the world as much in a television
interview.
> Andy
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Honesty should be able to recognize vice even when it dresses in brocade
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
: <381211C1...@my-deja.com>):
:> While I think that there is an element of truth in your analysis of Mr.
:>Poehlman the sad fact is he is posting to this newsgroup with the
:>encouragement and sanction of the ICoC. Here's what was written in the
:>SFCoC bulletin:
:>
:>" We learned that technology was perhaps the greatest strength of the
:>Bay Area and that this would be a focus for us in or future ministry
:>efforts. In September (of 1993) a group of disciples with technology
:>careers met to brainstorm our approach. These people formed the
:>foundation of a new focus group. Those present included Tom
:>Schaffernoth, Tyrone Mendez, Gavin Green, Roger Poehlman, and Don
:>Evans among others." They formed what was known as the International
:>Business and Technology forum. It merged it's operations with Hope
:>Technology group throughout much of 1995.
:> " The original vision of IBT took on a new
:>life in September and October of 1995. At this time it became clear
:>to those who surf the Web that a large amount of negative material was
:>accumulating on the Internet from those who had become *enemies of
:>God's movement*."
:>
:>Just think, the SFCoC has Mr. Poelhman post here as their representative.
:>Is he the best man for the job. Apparently they thought so.
I am not and have never been an official spokesman or representative, nor
do I work for the ICC or SFCC. Like everyone else in my church, I am
very active and try to apply my talents as best I can. At the time, I
worked in the software industry designing fiberoptic testing systems.
The IBT forum was a launching pad of the Silicon Valley ministry,
although I think there were only a couple of IBT events. The meetings in
1995 were to discuss whether or not the church should have a website and
what should be on it--they wanted member input and were hoping that
members would offer their time and talents freely. I was rather bogged down
with other responsibilities and had to decline participation in the project.
Others put together an excellent site which reflected the teachings and
practices of our church; another site with the same goals in mind,
www.upcyberdown.org came to have a more San Francisco flavor to it, as
the L.A. Church began to oversee the www.icoc.org website. The bulletin
is certainly right that there is a lot of negative material about the
ICC; now that there are various ICC websites (and member pages), people
can look at all sides of the issues and make up their own minds about the
church.
I did not write any of the content or do any of the programming on either
the www.icoc.org or the www.upcyberdown.org sites.
: Interesting info. It does indeed put the lie to many of Roger's statements made
: here and in alt.support.ex-cult.
This is the kind of snap judgments that is the problem with CMR: I get my
name (mispelled) in a church bulletin and you jump to the conclusion that
I am some kind of official representative and that this is a "job" that I
do. It is not.
Roger Poehlmann
member, SF Church of Christ
(International Church of Christ)
AntiKip
>From: rellim6973 relli...@my-deja.com
>Date: Sat, 23 October 1999 03:51 PM EDT
>Message-id: <381211C1...@my-deja.com>
>
>
>
>andy...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> In article <i1EQOEhWsp2tCSBXeHJUpW=N3...@news.xs4all.nl>,
>> ahein....@xs4all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
(snippage)
>Those present included Tom
>Schaffernoth, Tyrone Mendez, Gavin Green, Roger Poehlman, and Don
>Evans among others." They formed what was known as the International
>Business and Technology forum.
(more snippage)
>He is far to modest in his signature line when he claims to be just a
>"member".
>
So, Roger, HAS been deceiving us, when he says that he is only a member. I had
always wondered about his motivation for haunting this NG so thuroughly. . .now
we know the truth.
Tell me, Roger, where does your church say that all liars go at the end of
time? . . .even those that attempt to combat "enemies of God's movement"? It
has something to do with sulfurous, lakes of fire, if I recall, doesn't it? I
hope you have your asbestos shorts on at the Judgement Day.
Unky Kip
Kleinlister
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann wrote
>I am not and have never been an official spokesman or representative
nor a very effective one
<G>
when was the last time you were personally fruitful?
andy...@my-deja.com
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann <rogn...@netcom13.netcom.com> wrote:
<Snip>
> I am not and have never been an official spokesman or representative,
nor
> do I work for the ICC or SFCC. Like everyone else in my church, I am
> very active and try to apply my talents as best I can. At the time, I
> worked in the software industry designing fiberoptic testing systems.
Roger you tend to sound like a broken record (Ok its an outdated term in
the days of CD's). While you may not be on the payroll, or an "official
spokesman" for the ICC the fact remains that you post here defending the
ICC. Anyone with any experience with the ICC knows that 1) the ICC
monitors this NG, so they know you post here 2) The ICC is a discipling
movement which means that they have a great amount of influence in the
activities of their members 3) add 1 + 2 we have 3 the fact that if the
ICC didn't want you posting here you wouldn't be posting. So the fact
remains that even though you are not "official" you still post here with
the blessing of the ICC.
<Snip>
>
> Roger Poehlmann
> member, SF Church of Christ
> (International Church of Christ)
>
Just a quick thought
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
:>andy...@my-deja.com wrote:
:>> ahein....@xs4all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
:>Those present included Tom
:>Schaffernoth, Tyrone Mendez, Gavin Green, Roger Poehlman, and Don
:>Evans among others." They formed what was known as the International
:>Business and Technology forum.
:>He is far to modest in his signature line when he claims to be just a
:>"member".
: So, Roger, HAS been deceiving us, when he says that he is only a member. I had
: always wondered about his motivation for haunting this NG so thuroughly. . .now
: we know the truth.
The truth of what? As I posted before, I did attend this meeting, as did
a lot of people. I obviously didn't make much of an impression or else
they would have spelled my name right. IBT is defunct now, and I am not
a part of HOPE Technology Group or the Silicon Valley ministry. There
were a number of rank-and-file members who worked and continue to work
very hard in these special ministries--in particular the Special
Resources Lab that works with children with special needs and the
Christians who helped set up the ICC's website in the beginning and the
www.upcyberdown.org site.
: Tell me, Roger, where does your church say that all liars go at the end of
: time? . . .even those that attempt to combat "enemies of God's movement"? It
: has something to do with sulfurous, lakes of fire, if I recall, doesn't it? I
: hope you have your asbestos shorts on at the Judgement Day.
I have always identified myself as a member of the ICC, which I am. I am
not a representative, spokesman, or minister with the group. We have in
SFCC a Board of Directors--I am not one of them. We have deacons--I am
not one of them either. I am a member of the church and I speak my own
thoughts and opinions. Whether I hold some man-made leadership role is
largely irrelevant; what I consider important is whether a person is a
disciple of Jesus Christ, not what title he has or doesn't have.
Produce the lie I have told on this newsgroup; I have told no lie.
Anton Hein
<rogn...@netcom13.netcom.com> wrote
(<itaR3.184964$5r2.4...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>):
>I am not and have never been an official spokesman or representative, nor
>do I work for the ICC or SFCC. Like everyone else in my church, I am
>very active and try to apply my talents as best I can. At the time, I
>worked in the software industry designing fiberoptic testing systems.
You are an amateur cult apologist for the International Churches of Christ.
About cult apologists
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html
>I did not write any of the content or do any of the programming on either
>the www.icoc.org or the www.upcyberdown.org sites.
Resources on the International Churches of Christ
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i02.html
>: Interesting info. It does indeed put the lie to many of Roger's statements made
>: here and in alt.support.ex-cult.
>
>This is the kind of snap judgments that is the problem with CMR: I get my
>name (mispelled) in a church bulletin and you jump to the conclusion that
>I am some kind of official representative and that this is a "job" that I
>do. It is not.
So let me get this straight. You have been telling us over and over again that
we should read official ICC materials to get the official ICC point of view.
Then when someone quotes from an official ICC publication, you tell us they got
it all wrong.
Frankly, I'd be surprised if defending the ICC were indeed your "job." After
all, when one reads your messages and old maxim comes to mind: "With friends
like that, they don't need any enemies." In message after message, you
demonstrate that you have a poor grasp of facts, are given to sensationalism,
have a poor grasp of Scripture, can't be trusted with numbers, etcetera.
Fact is, whether you speak for the ICC as a member of a church-approved focus
group, or simply as a lay member of the SF Church of Christ, you clearly see it
as your task to defend the International Churches of Christ.
I wonder, though, why it is that you don't spend more time answering questions
in the alt.religion.christian.boston-church newsgroup. Are they too difficult?
Have you exposed too often? Do you not know how to answer the critics?
About the International Churches of Christ
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i02.html
Jeremy
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann <rogn...@netcom18.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:WPqR3.185164>
> Produce the lie I have told on this newsgroup; I have told no lie.
Your whole spiel a couple of months back about how critics "hacked" into the
ICC website is a lie. The truth was that an ex-member accidently discovered
sensitive information about members due to a security error on the part of
the ICOC webmaster. This was pointed out to them and the error fixed. The
thread should be available on dejanews, I am afraid I don't recall the name
of the thread, perhaps someone could tag team with me here? Your
perpetuation of this "myth" regarding the critics behaviour, in spite of
having been told the truth is a lie Roger. You were told the truth, you
continue to spout incorrect facts - this is lying.
Jeremy
Evon
over again.
Does this, therefore, equate to approval by your leaders to lie, Roger?
Evon
mev...@home.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeremy <jerem...@home.com> wrote in message
news:TIrR3.24750$%o1.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Anton Hein
<rogn...@netcom18.netcom.com> wrote
(<WPqR3.185164$5r2.4...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>):
>Produce the lie I have told on this newsgroup; I have told no lie.
Wow! Talk about bandwidth.
You constantly lie. You tell tall tales. You twist people's words. You claim
you're a Christian. You make evil insinuations regarding anticultists and
countercultists. I wonder how you can sleep at night.
Does the ICC condone your lying?
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
: "Disciple's Web Project"?
: tell me more about that...
: it sounds rather ominous
Sounds like bad grammar; wouldn't it be the Disciples' Web Project? I
don't know of any connection; but then again I was never very involved
with IBT or the Upcyberdown project.
:>Or....how about this one:
:>"Establish an archive of POSITIVE personal testimonials about all major
:>church leaders
:>TO COUNTER THE GOSSIP THAT CIRCULATES"
:>(...or the TRUTH that circulates....)
If it were the truth that were circulating, there would not be
misrepresentations that required members to correct them.
:>"Establish an historical archive of information about our churches from
:>every corner of the globe
:>(BEFORE THE EYEWITNESSES FORGET)"
What's wrong with that? The internet is a medium for information
exchange; if you want to use it to spread misinformation about the ICC,
why shouldn't members speak up and express what we believe and practice
first-hand? I would think that a contemporaneous record of events and
testimonials would provide a more accurate picture of the ICC, so why do
you oppose that?
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
: Roger/Michelle Poehlmann <rogn...@netcom18.netcom.com> wrote in message
:> Produce the lie I have told on this newsgroup; I have told no lie.
: Your whole spiel a couple of months back about how critics "hacked" into the
: ICC website is a lie. The truth was that an ex-member accidently discovered
: sensitive information about members due to a security error on the part of
: the ICOC webmaster. This was pointed out to them and the error fixed. The
: thread should be available on dejanews, I am afraid I don't recall the name
: of the thread, perhaps someone could tag team with me here? Your
: perpetuation of this "myth" regarding the critics behaviour, in spite of
: having been told the truth is a lie Roger. You were told the truth, you
: continue to spout incorrect facts - this is lying.
This was no lie and certainly no "accident". Catherine Hampton of REVEAL
obtained a URL from an unnamed informant outside the church, which was a
development site that members were working on and testing. She exploited
a security hole and accessed a file containing 2,000+ members names,
addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers. She told 5 friends
about the incident, and e-mailed two ICC members (I was one of them).
She did not report the incident to the SFCC office, but the other ICC
member called the SFCC office and the security hole was patched.
Catherine Hampton then proceeded to post about the incident to this
public newsgroup. Michelle Campbell added some details, including the
name of the party responsible for opening the security hole.
If you're using DejaNews, find the posts dated 10/28/97 and 11/25/97 both
posted by Catherine Hampton.
California Penal Code 502(c)(2) makes it "punishable by a fine not
exceeding $10,000 or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months"
anyone who "knowingly accesses and without permission takes...any data
from a computer, computer system or computer network..." As of this
writing I am unaware of any criminal or civil action being taken against
Catherine Hampton or the REVEAL organization.
As one of those whose personal privacy was violated by the REVEAL
hacking, my only request is that REVEAL refrain from this type of
activity against church members in the future. I am not asking for an
admission or guilt or an apology--simply an oath that this will never
happen again.
andy...@my-deja.com
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann <rogn...@netcom11.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jeremy <jerem...@home.com> wrote:
> : Roger/Michelle Poehlmann <rogn...@netcom18.netcom.com> wrote in
message
>
> :> Produce the lie I have told on this newsgroup; I have told no lie.
>
> : Your whole spiel a couple of months back about how critics "hacked"
into the
> : ICC website is a lie. The truth was that an ex-member accidently
discovered
> : sensitive information about members due to a security error on the
part of
> : the ICOC webmaster. This was pointed out to them and the error
fixed. The
> : thread should be available on dejanews, I am afraid I don't recall
the name
> : of the thread, perhaps someone could tag team with me here? Your
> : perpetuation of this "myth" regarding the critics behaviour, in
spite of
> : having been told the truth is a lie Roger. You were told the truth,
you
> : continue to spout incorrect facts - this is lying.
Thank you for bringing this up again :(
> This was no lie and certainly no "accident". Catherine Hampton of
REVEAL
> obtained a URL from an unnamed informant outside the church, which was
a
> development site that members were working on and testing. She
exploited
> a security hole and accessed a file containing 2,000+ members names,
> addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers. She told 5 friends
> about the incident, and e-mailed two ICC members (I was one of them).
Roger since when is typing in a URL into a web browser considered
exploting a security code? I missed that one in my law classes.
> She did not report the incident to the SFCC office, but the other ICC
> member called the SFCC office and the security hole was patched.
> Catherine Hampton then proceeded to post about the incident to this
> public newsgroup. Michelle Campbell added some details, including the
> name of the party responsible for opening the security hole.
Roger there was no security hole, this information was posted for all to
see on the internet on a unsercure website.
> If you're using DejaNews, find the posts dated 10/28/97 and 11/25/97
both
> posted by Catherine Hampton.
Yes please rad up on these threads and learn the real story. Roger is at
best giving misinformation, at worst lying.
> California Penal Code 502(c)(2) makes it "punishable by a fine not
> exceeding $10,000 or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16
months"
> anyone who "knowingly accesses and without permission takes...any data
> from a computer, computer system or computer network..." As of this
> writing I am unaware of any criminal or civil action being taken
against
> Catherine Hampton or the REVEAL organization.
There is a reason no crimminal action was taken, no law was broken. If
Ms. Hampton broke any law you are just as guilty by reading what is
posted on this NG, or by accessing any web page.
> As one of those whose personal privacy was violated by the REVEAL
> hacking, my only request is that REVEAL refrain from this type of
> activity against church members in the future. I am not asking for an
> admission or guilt or an apology--simply an oath that this will never
> happen again.
Of course this is standard ICC propaganda. It is never the ICC's fault
but someone else's, that would be the one who brought up the error.
> Roger Poehlmann
> member, SF Church of Christ
> (International Church of Christ)
>
Just a thought
Jeremy
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann <rogn...@netcom11.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:srvR3.185236$5r2.4...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> Mark Matthews <theea...@aol.combogus> wrote:
> : "Disciple's Web Project"?
>
> : tell me more about that...
> : it sounds rather ominous
>
> Sounds like bad grammar; wouldn't it be the Disciples' Web Project? I
> don't know of any connection; but then again I was never very involved
> with IBT or the Upcyberdown project.
>
> :>Or....how about this one:
> :>"Establish an archive of POSITIVE personal testimonials about all major
> :>church leaders
> :>TO COUNTER THE GOSSIP THAT CIRCULATES"
> :>(...or the TRUTH that circulates....)
>
> If it were the truth that were circulating, there would not be
> misrepresentations that required members to correct them.
The word misrepresentation is coined by ICC leaders to explain away the
sheer volume of truth that circulates outthere about the ICC. these things
do NOT require members to correct them Roger, althohgh certain members feel
a calling to attempt to do so on a regular basis
>
> :>"Establish an historical archive of information about our churches from
> :>every corner of the globe
> :>(BEFORE THE EYEWITNESSES FORGET)"
>
> What's wrong with that? The internet is a medium for information
> exchange; if you want to use it to spread misinformation about the ICC,
> why shouldn't members speak up and express what we believe and practice
> first-hand? I would think that a contemporaneous record of events and
> testimonials would provide a more accurate picture of the ICC, so why do
> you oppose that?
There's that word misinformation - boy they really got you under their thumb
dont they?
by the way - impressiveuse of the big word :-) Im trying to expand my
everyday cornucopia of big words too - can't let all that expensive
education slide.
Jeremy
Jeremy
> Jeremy <jerem...@home.com> wrote:
> : Roger/Michelle Poehlmann <rogn...@netcom18.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
> :> Produce the lie I have told on this newsgroup; I have told no lie.
>
> : Your whole spiel a couple of months back about how critics "hacked" into
the
> : ICC website is a lie. The truth was that an ex-member accidently
discovered
> : sensitive information about members due to a security error on the part
of
> : the ICOC webmaster. This was pointed out to them and the error fixed.
The
> : thread should be available on dejanews, I am afraid I don't recall the
name
> : of the thread, perhaps someone could tag team with me here? Your
> : perpetuation of this "myth" regarding the critics behaviour, in spite of
> : having been told the truth is a lie Roger. You were told the truth, you
> : continue to spout incorrect facts - this is lying.
>
> obtained a URL from an unnamed informant outside the church, which was a
> development site that members were working on and testing. She exploited
> a security hole and accessed a file containing 2,000+ members names,
> addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers. She told 5 friends
> about the incident, and e-mailed two ICC members (I was one of them).
> member called the SFCC office and the security hole was patched.
> Catherine Hampton then proceeded to post about the incident to this
> public newsgroup. Michelle Campbell added some details, including the
> name of the party responsible for opening the security hole.
ok Roger - so here are the facts.
1. Catherine Hampton was checking out the ICC website
2. Catherine found a security hole
3. Catherine then proceeded to inform you of the security hole, enabling you
to take action to close the hole.
4. There has been no evidence of tampering with the credit cards or
fraudulent purchases. In other words - Catherine chose NOT miuse this
information.
The very fact that Catherine got sensitive information and then chose not to
steal with it, rather she told you so that they you could upgrade security
tells me that this was not a deliberate hack. You should be grateful to
Catherine for telling of this security leak before someone of lower moral
fibre found the info and chose to take a round the world vacation on your
credit card!!!!! You are so hard-hearted regarding this issue. If someone
surfin the web foundmy credit card number online and instead of telling me
about it, chose to help themselves to a new stereo I would be eternally in
their debt - drinks would be on me!!!!
The fact that no charges are pending tells me that saner minds than yours
have recognized the situation for what it is and realized that no fraud was
commited. Does it matter that she posted the incident online? It would have
mattered if she had posted the URL, enabling us to exploit the information.
As far as the URL being for a site in development, you have no way of
knowing how much information Catherine was given regarding the URL. I
regularly go to the ICC website for a laugh, just to remind myself why I
stay away.
> If you're using DejaNews, find the posts dated 10/28/97 and 11/25/97 both
> posted by Catherine Hampton.
>
> California Penal Code 502(c)(2) makes it "punishable by a fine not
> exceeding $10,000 or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months"
> anyone who "knowingly accesses and without permission takes...any data
> from a computer, computer system or computer network..." As of this
> writing I am unaware of any criminal or civil action being taken against
> Catherine Hampton or the REVEAL organization.
The very fact that no charges are pending shows me she didnt violate this
penal code. She found the info, did nothing with it, and told you and
another member about it, enabling you to patch the hole - GET THIS IN YOUR
HEAD!!!! SHE DIDN'T STEAL!!!!!!
and after all this I have the gut feeling that you are going to perpetuate
this deliberate distortion of the facts, in spite of having been informed on
numerous occasions of the truth. To be honest Roger the only reason I
continue a dialogue with you is becuase I want the public at large to see
what you have to say for yourself and your church. It is a shining example
of why I am not in the church anymore....
Jeremy
>
> As one of those whose personal privacy was violated by the REVEAL
> hacking, my only request is that REVEAL refrain from this type of
> activity against church members in the future. I am not asking for an
> admission or guilt or an apology--simply an oath that this will never
> happen again.
>
Looney#86
out right know.... I'll bet Roger is get'n his "Kip's Anti Spiritual
Pornography Dictionary" out right know as well.
Sorry, {puts shameful sarcasm back in closet} I couldn't help it. All those
Kip like answers from Roger were kill'n me. We all know, to be like Jesus
ya gotta imitate Kip! {oops looks like I didn't close the door to the
closet.}
--
Hyenas laugh because they know what's coming next.
ICQ# - 572093
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBN+AC9yFFs3P+hkKjEQL5OgCg2ElFRx+HhVc+YifQwLPnasEdSisAnRem
bx5imzXpD7PKEzc+AeBVm0RE
=3qut
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jeremy <jerem...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ixHR3.2668$Rx2....@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>
> Roger/Michelle Poehlmann <rogn...@netcom11.netcom.com> wrote in message
PatM1967
"Your whole spiel a couple of months back about how critics "hacked" into
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann replied:
"This was no lie and certainly no "accident". Catherine Hampton of REVEAL
obtained a URL from an unnamed informant outside the church, which was a
development site that members were working on and testing. She exploited a
security hole and accessed a file containing 2,000+ members names, addresses,
phone numbers, and credit card numbers."
For the record:
Catherine Hampton has publicly admitted that she does have a computer.
Catherine Hampton has publicly admitted that she does have a web browser.
Catherine Hampton has publicly admitted that she typed a URL into the web
browser.
It is up to the reader to determine if this is a violation of California law...
Perhaps Graham could create an article called "Did Catherine Hampton Hack into
the ICC computers?" on www.tolc.org
I imagine the article would be similar to "Did Kip lie about Indy?" (or
whatever it's called).
This way we could just refer to the URL whenever Roger starts to claim that
Catherine violated the California Penal code ...
Pat
<going back to lurking>
Calvin Kwan
You are "marked", right Mark? Otherwise we would have to kick you out of the
club :-)
Calvin
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann wrote:
> Mark Matthews <theea...@aol.combogus> wrote:
> : "Disciple's Web Project"?
>
> : tell me more about that...
> : it sounds rather ominous
>
> Sounds like bad grammar; wouldn't it be the Disciples' Web Project? I
> don't know of any connection; but then again I was never very involved
> with IBT or the Upcyberdown project.
>
> :>Or....how about this one:
> :>"Establish an archive of POSITIVE personal testimonials about all major
> :>church leaders
> :>TO COUNTER THE GOSSIP THAT CIRCULATES"
> :>(...or the TRUTH that circulates....)
>
> If it were the truth that were circulating, there would not be
> misrepresentations that required members to correct them.
>
> :>"Establish an historical archive of information about our churches from
> :>every corner of the globe
> :>(BEFORE THE EYEWITNESSES FORGET)"
>
> What's wrong with that? The internet is a medium for information
> exchange; if you want to use it to spread misinformation about the ICC,
> why shouldn't members speak up and express what we believe and practice
> first-hand? I would think that a contemporaneous record of events and
> testimonials would provide a more accurate picture of the ICC, so why do
> you oppose that?
>