• Be Cautious: Faux Niceness, Victim-Bullies, and Survivor Abuse Blogs

Be Cautious: Faux Niceness, Victim-Bullies, and Survivor Abuse Blogs

 (this post has been updated below, July 5, as well as July 7, July 11, July 15)

Velour and Christiane continue to discuss TWW on Wade’s Istoria blog in this thread as late as July 14 / 15

Update to this post, a part 2: 

Velour Apparently (Was) Posting as Anonymous At Wartburg Whiners Blog – Also: Megs48 Posting to My Blog Same Person as Buzz English


This will be a very, very long post. You may want to get a cup off coffee while you read it.

I really do not want my blog here to turn into a running commentary on other blogs, such as TWW (The Wartburg Watch), but because I don’t feel as free to openly express myself at TWW, and that I don’t want to create any drama on other people’s blogs, I feel more comfortable posting some thoughts here on my blog.

That I don’t feel completely comfortable expressing all my views in their entirety at TWW in and of itself should be an indicator that something is amiss at TWW (and similar blogs, groups, and forums).

In this post, I believe I need to discuss certain personalities and not only general phenomenon.

I’m sorry if this makes me look as though I am being mean or petty, but in my view, certain persons have played a role in some of the negative dynamics going on at TWW.

The persons I will be focusing on the most in this post are TWW participants Velour and Christiane.

I think Deb and Dee are doing a good thing with TWW: their blog exists mostly to highlight the authoritarian natures of many churches and pastors, and the abuse that results in, and they also discuss the poor job churches do at preventing child sexual abuse – all of which is admirable.

My blog post here is not intended to be “anti TWW” or “anti Deb” or “anti Dee.” I hope it is not taken in that way.

I think most of the commentators at TWW are good, fine people – but a few are “bad apples,” and many of the rest are naive and seem blind to what is going on.

I’ve seen about two or three people who post there who I think are savvy to what’s been going on, but they don’t feel at ease coming right out and directly saying what’s on their mind on TWW. They drop mild hints instead. (Except for one fine post I spotted by member Beaker J. That is one of the few exceptions; more on that below.)

When posting to a blog such as TWW, one sort of feels a mild pressure to express their thoughts very obliquely, because the culture of the blog does not allow for direct communication.

(Direct communication is often viewed on many Christian sites, especially Abuse Recovery ones, as being mean and heartless. This is an un-spoken rule at blogs such as TWW; you pick up on it after lurking or posting there for awhile.)

I think at one time that TWW was a safe place for a person to share his or her story. If you’ve ever been hurt by a church, a doctrine, or a set of Christians, that blog was, at one time, a safe spot to share.

Somewhere in the last few months, or over the past year, things changed at TWW.  It’s hard for me to pinpoint exactly when things in the comment box there shifted.

LIBERAL BENT OF THE COMMENT SECTION

I’d say most commentators over there, at TWW, are politically and theologically liberal, so if, like me, you are a conservative, your views are not going to be entirely welcome, or you will have to express your conservative views in a very cautious, hesitant manner.

You’ll find yourself self-censoring your conservative views so as not to start feuds or get yelled at or be thought of as “mean.”

(By the way, this is true not only of TWW but many other spiritual abuse or abuse recovering sites, forums, blogs, and groups I’ve lurked in or posted to: for some reason I do not understand, most of them are left-wing and have un-written rules in place that pressure folks from being forth-right in general terms and/or from challenging liberal perspectives.)

I wrote another post about that here, so I don’t want to spend much more time on this subject in this blog post:

Not Exactly Always Hospitable for Non-Liberals: Ex or Liberal Christian Sites and Spiritual or Abuse Survivor Blogs & the Christian Trump-Bashing Infatuation 

VICTIM-BULLIES

I realize that when people are hurting, they may lash out in anger.

Sometimes the healing process involves moving past the crying and sad stage to the angry, screaming, “Hulk smash!” stage.

(It’s not healthy for anyone to stay in the “Hulk” stage, however. Sometimes the anger and rage also turns into bitterness.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from having a bitter sibling, bitterness hurts the one who holds it, not the ones they are angry with.

If you are bitter, you will drive people away from you. Nobody, after all, wants to hang out with the “Perpetually Angry At The World” Jerk, but generally prefer the company of the smiling, happy, even-tempered, joking, well-adjusted.

I myself am still somewhat in the anger phase, but I at least realize it’s not good to be here – I’m aware of some of these issues and their perils.)

So, when a person is healing from about any type of abuse, they may enter the “angry” phase of recovery, where they snap and snarl at everyone and scream a lot of profanity.

I understand that Dee of TWW understands all that, which is why she will allow some of her participants (who have been victimized by churches or whomever) to express strong anger in the comments section.

To a point, I agree with that. I get it.

Sometimes, however, those who have been hurt, those who are victims, become the bully.

These “Victim Bullies” then run about, un-checked in the comment sections of web sites, terrorizing and spitting in rage at anyone and everyone who disagrees with them.

(I myself blew up at a few people about two or more years ago at TWW. I did, however, realize I was behaving like a rude jackass, so I apologized a day or so later, and then again, a few days afterwards.

Nobody asked me to apologize. I took responsibility for my actions. I also felt genuinely bad about having behaved like a jerk. I apologized by name to those I had lashed out at. For any other occasions I bit someone’s head off and didn’t apologize then: I apologize now.)

Deb does not check in so much at the TWW blog, and Dee has taken ill the last few months, so I take it that she cannot be as involved with her blog.

I don’t know what happened to the TWW moderator, “GBTC” (Guy Behind the Curtain).

Whether it’s due to lack of time and oversight, or from a misplaced sense of compassion for the “angry-hurting,” sometimes, the problematic posters at TWW (and sites like it – don’t mean to single out only TWW here), are permitted to run amok in the comment section, ripping people’s heads off.

Even wounded, hurt, and victimized people should be held accountable for their actions, and even ones on blogs for the hurting. Even on Spiritual Abuse blogs.

Allow such people a certain amount of cussing and shouting on your blog to get the angry and hurt out of their systems, fine; but to allow them to repeatedly act “bossy,” rudely, or with hostility towards others for weeks or months, no. That is not fair or responsible towards the other members.

VELOUR AT TWW

This brings me to one specific commentator at TWW named Velour. Some of this will be about her specifically, but I will also be using her to draw attention to general topics.

I wrote a bit more about Velour and her recent implosion at the TWW in the second half of my post here (under the “RC Jr Sproul” section) if you would like more background:

Non-Church, Non-Spiritual, or Secular Remedies and Treatments Don’t Always Work (Post on this blog)

In this TWW thread about RC Jr Spoul’s problems,

RC Sproul Jr Is Now a Convicted Felon Alcoholic and Is One Step Away From a Tragedy,  (Post on Wartburg Watch blog)

Velour behaved like a bully.

Velour was not a victim – not in that thread.

Even though Velour, was, I suppose, in her mind, on some kind of crusade to defend alcoholic Christians from perceived slights, her poor treatment of others in the thread was not excusable.

As far as I could ascertain, it was this comment by Barbara Roberts (Link to Comment) that set Velour off:

Hi Dee and Deb, just a couple of things you might want to correct in this part of your post:

>> Heart breaking tragedy is not an excuse for substance abuse. Sproul Jr. needs serous help.
I learned an important lesson while working in an alcoholic hospital when I was young. Tragedy does not cause alcoholism. Alcoholism is an excuse to drink and every alcoholic in the world usually tries to find an excuse to drink.<<

Serous help? Haha. Sounds like needs a blood transfusion! …. which is not that far off base: he needs to be born again as this persistent pattern of behaviour shows he is NOT regenerate and is NOT in Christ at all. I wonder whether RC Sproul Senior has accepted that fact yet? I doubt it.

And I’m sure you didn’t mean ‘Alcoholism is an excuse to drink’ — I’m pretty sure you meant something like “Alcoholics use tragedy as an excuse to drink….”

R C Sproul Junior needs to be put out of the church and that needs to be very publicly done because he has been so significant at Ligonier. 1 Corinthians 5:11-13.

// end post by Barbara Roberts

1 Corinthians 5:11-13  reads:

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Velour responded to that post by Roberts here and here.

From that post by Roberts, Velour’s ire began.

Velour proceeded not only to jump on Barbara Roberts but also went after Julie Anne and someone named “H.A.” She later started jumping down my throat in that thread.

Later in that thread, Barbara replied to Velour. I did feel that Barbara’s tone was a little terse, and I’m not a fan of terseness myself. But I don’t feel that Barbara’s terse comeback or her original post warranted Velour’s wrath.

An aside:

While Roberts may have been terse with Velour in that thread, Velour herself got terse with another TWW participant named Jeannette Altes months ago, a woman who used to post a link to her GoFundMe page on every single TWW thread for over a year.

For example, here is Jeanette in action in a post in the open thread, and another post where she’s asking for money and another.

Here is Jeanette helping Velour to figure out the amount of fees to take out for Shauna’s GoFundMe – Link to Comment.

Here is a post and another in the Open Thread where Velour is asking other members to donate to a fund for another woman named Shauna.

In the open thread, Velour got quite short and snippy in tone with Altes (that’s how it came across to me).

It starts out with Velour advising Jeannette to get on to disability.

Velour gets more and more insistent that Jeannette try disability.

Jeannette replied (link):

Velour, I hear you and have great respect for what you do here at TWW. And I am very aware of the situation as you have stated it.

That said, I request to know whether you are speaking on behalf of Dee and Deb and/or the TWW community.

Thank you.

…It feels like my request for assistance had offended you. If so, I am sorry.
If Dee or Deb would like me to stop posting these requests, I will certainly do so. I never expected or wanted this situation to go this long.

Thank you for all the prayers and support you have given.

// end Jeannette quote

Of course, Uppity Bimbo’s response to Jeannette in that same thread was not sugar coated.

Velour, behaving as though she owns the blog, tells Jeannette (comment link):

@Jeannette,

My concern for you, and I hear that in other comments from other people here, is that you have declined suggestions from everyone in the TWW community about how to generate an income and pay your expenses.

You said you have a long-term disability. If that is the case, a physician should be able to certify you for disability/monthly check and would know your medical history and condition.

I was asked to formally take over some pages when TWW is released in a new format.

The TWW community will have, and presently has, other emergency situations that people are facing and they will require our financial assistance to stabilize their situations.

Please see a social worker about your situation, discuss what services are available for you, and come up with an action plan.

// end Velour quote

Not only is the response a little on the snippy side (and it sure bothered Velour when Roberts was snippy with her on another thread), but Velour seemed to adopt this view that because Dee gave her more official blog duties, that she has ownership in the blog.

Velour can now command others around in other threads, is the mindset I was picking up from her.

I notice too that while Velour was ready to tell Jeannette to hit the road jack with her fund-raising, that she was patient and oh-so-nice in trying to raise funds for Shauna.

Someone sent me a private note two or more days ago saying Dee said in some post that Velour told Dee she would never return to TWW.

I went back to TWW and went up and down the threads, where I found the post this person was telling me about.

Here is what Dee said (comment link):

To our readers

It appears that Velour will not be returning to TWW. This was not the wish of the Deebs-far from it. We have not had any difficult conversations with her. We tried desperately to communicate with her but she said she does not have any time to talk with us because she lives on the West.Coast and we are on the East coast. I know, it is something which could be overcome. She has asked me not to try to communicate with her again. So, I told her she was loved and have backed off.

Once again, as a thread becomes more about a commenter’s personal concerns than the subject matter at hand, things go off track. I am so sorry this happened.

// end Dee quote

After that remark, several people chimed in to essentially say, “Oh no, poor Velour, I hope she returns.”  (One sample response here.)

Christiane’s response here.

The post revolved around a topic [alcoholism, but specifically R C Jr Sproul] that is volatile. When it is discussed even in microcosm, there are emotions and reactions that are unpredictable and people respond accordingly. No one’s fault. It happens. Such is the pain of alcholism’s impact on so many. So many.

// end Christiane quote

No, it was not the “volatility” of the topic that got to people. It was Velour’s demeanor that got to people.  Velour was being very rude and obnoxious to anyone in the comment section who did not fully agree with her.

In that thread, Ken G said:

@ dee:

I’m not surprised that Velour left and will not return. In fact she was told,

Start your own blog Velour & come back to normal participation here.

There does seem to be some kind of lack of tolerance for different views. I made some observations about the AOG churches and responses became very defensive, even accusing me of calling people who attend AOG churches, “stupid.”

// end Ken G

Ken G was referring to this post by Beaker J.

Excerpt (from Beaker J written to Velour):

Sorry Velour, you have & are taking this much too far. I’ll email Dee with my concerns later but let me state them for you now so this is public:

* Since starting to comment here you have taken an oddly proprietory tone, as though not-quite that this is your blog, but that somehow you act as ‘hostess’ of the comments here.

At first I thought maybe the Deebs had asked you to do this to help out, but then I realised it was just how you did things, maybe I misread you & what did it matter anyway. Clearly it does matter now as you are gatekeeping this thread & deciding who is behaving as a Christian here.

I happen to agree totally with Beaker J’s view there.

Velour absolutely began to behave as though TWW was her blog.

To Ken G: learn like many of the others there must learn: Velour was the bully, not the victim, in that thread.

Velour, though, continues to think of herself as a Victim of that thread, if her recent comments on Wade Burleson’s “Istoria Ministries” blog is any indication (more on that below).

TOO DEPENDENT ON A SITE, SPENDING TOO MUCH TIME THERE

A reminder for you:

Here is what Dee said (comment link) on TWW in regards to Velour saying adieu:

We tried desperately to communicate with her [Velour] but she said she does not have any time to talk with us because she lives on the West.Coast and we are on the East coast.

// end quote

I am not comprehending this – how can Velour “not have the time” to chat with Deb and Dee, when she posted to TWW at all times of day and night, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day?

I will have to guess here, but I think Velour began posting to TWW sometime around 2015?

(I think I started posting there regularly around 2013 or 2014. I was on there before Velour was.)

Velour began posting there quite frequently once she joined.

Velour was spending an inordinate amount of time on the TWW blog – she was on seven days a week, almost 24 hour a day.

I don’t believe trying to get one’s emotional needs met only, or primarily, at a blog, and spending that much time on a blog, is mentally healthy for a person, nor is it, in my opinion, a sign of mental stability.

I’ve posted to TWW a lot myself in the past, but in the last few months, I’ve lessened my participation, for various reasons.

Even when I was posting at TWW a lot, I would sometimes, on some days, turn my computer off to go on a walk, watch a movie, or go read a book. If I got online, I would sometimes stay away from TWW to visit other sites.

I didn’t often see Velour taking those sorts of breaks.

Any time I would drop in to TWW to lurk after days of skipping the place, I could see from the time stamps on Velour’s posts that she was practically living on that blog, day in and day out.

When one considers the heavy amount of time Velour was investing to TWW, as well as the fact that Dee allowed Velour to be in charge of a Prayer List page on the blog, I think she got the feeling that she was a co-owner of the blog.

So, Beaker J’s post above is absolutely accurate: Velour had this tone about her, as though TWW was her blog, or as though she was the official second moderator, and so she could dictate to others how and what to comment.

And this tone and behavior was extremely arrogant and condescending, and it came to a head in the “RC Sproul Jr Is Now a Convicted Felon Alcoholic and Is One Step Away From a Tragedy” thread.

ON TWW MODERATING – GUY BEHIND THE CURTAIN MODERATOR

By the way, where was TWW’s moderator during all that, during The Great Velour Melt Down? The GBTC (Guy Behind the Curtain)?

Why didn’t he jump in to ask Velour to play nicely?

That moderator guy used to watch the comment box like a hawk, micro-managing things. If you got a period out of place, he’d give you a stern and tersely-worded warning. (I’m not a fan of micro-management, by the way. It’s very annoying.)

I once was permanently banned from TWW about two years ago, because, I was not formatting URLs to TWW moderator guy’s preference (I was using A HREF tags, not full URLs), and I was inserting asterisks into words (such as typing “S*x” for “Sex”) which really annoyed him (I guess it created more work for him, because he had to hang out more in the blog’s admin area).

So GBTC banned me.

I was incredulous when I  found out it was a PERMANENT ban.

The moderator guy later fumed, when he contacted me, that he had told me repeatedly to stop using asterisks or A HREFs, and so on.

Well, okay. (In some cases, I just forgot: who cares if someone uses A HREF, or whatever).

But really, to permanently put someone on ice over something so trivial?

OTHER SPIRITUAL ABUSE BLOGS MAY NOT SUPPORT YOU, EITHER

About that time, I went to Julie Anne’s SSB (“Spiritual Sounding Board” blog) to well, sound off, that I was upset over having been banned at TWW over something so stupid.

After all, TWW (and blogs like it), claim to support victims, and the hurting, and so on. But here they were banning me over a silly reason?

I like Julie Anne, I do, but I was disappointed that she basically told me on her blog when I posted about my anger and disappointment with TWW to quiet down about it – she didn’t want me airing my grievances about TWW on her blog.

Where else was I to go? (I don’t even think I had this ‘Daisy’ blog at that time.)

There’s another lesson in there for you: if you have been hurt by one Abuse Survivor Blog (and banned in the process), and try to discuss it at another Abuse Survivor Blog, the owner of the second blog may be reluctant to let you discuss your experiences, if he or she is cozy friends with the first blog that banned you.

You will sort of be victimized a second time, all over again. Such fun.

After about 8 or 9 months, I finally e-mailed Deb and Dee. I acknowledged it’s their blog to run as they see fit, but honestly, permanently banning someone for mistyping words or using A HREF tags was incredibly petty and, well, very dumb.

I explained to them that I used to be a moderator at a heavily- trafficked Christian board many years ago, and in the several years there, I only used the Permanent Ban Hammer on a very few, select, very egregious cases. I never blocked anyone for trivial things such as poor HTML formatting.

At most, I would revoke a hot-headed person’s posting privilege for 2 or 3 days, so they could cool off, then they were permitted to resume posting.

At any rate, the TWW team lifted my ban, and I was allowed to post there once more, so I started posting again.

But I do wonder about a set of blog owners that are okay with putting the perma-ban on someone for how they type their links.

VELOUR CLAIMING SHE IS BANNED FROM TWW BLOG

Given that Deb and Dee and/or their Moderator Dude will ban people over offenses as trivial as link formation, it’s hard for me to say how accurate or honest Velour’s claim is, that she has been banned from TWW.

In this thread, in the comment section, at the Istoria Ministry Blog, owned by Wade Burleson, Velour says to Christiane:

[Date of post: June 30, 2017, link to the comment]

No, they blocked me from commenting at all on TWW because I brought up the issue of addiction.
This is an issue of addiction. I’m not excusing RC2. But there is an epidemic of
addiction in the church, among the clergy and the folks in the pews (including among women). They offered no hope and help to those who are suffering from addictions, spouses, children, and friends, and what can be done.

It was full of condemnation and relentless put downs of those addicted. I have received horrible follow-ups on social media from some of those people. Drama, drama and more drama.
Many people should go to Al-Anon in my opinion and learn to work on their own lives in the face of addiction.

I was going to ask you to take over the Prayer List, since I won’t be coming back. I think that you are a woman of prayer and mercy and would be a good fit for that role.

Thanks for standing up for Harley. She’s a friend of mine.

// end Velour quote

I want to pick this post apart.

As for offering no hope to addicts: Velour over-promotes secular medicine and treatment plans.

The truth is that secular medicine and psychology do not work for everyone who tries those approaches, and in my view, it’s just as bad to offer people false hope as no hope.

See this post for more:

Non-Church, Non-Spiritual, or Secular Remedies and Treatments Don’t Always Work (Post on this blog)

And this one:

Problems with A.A. (Alcoholics Anonymous) (Post on this blog)

Velour said:

Drama, drama and more drama.

// end Velour quote

Yes. Velour was responsible for creating all the drama, drama, drama on that thread. She should take responsibility for that, instead of acting like it was due to everyone else.

First of all, I suspect that what went on behind the scenes is that Dee contacted Velour privately and asked her to please voluntarily curtail her participation on TWW blog.

But Velour was probably incensed or hurt by that request, since she feels she was the Victim in that thread, who was merely defending the Hurting Alcoholics, so she’s wording things to suggest she has been banned, when all that happened is that Dee probably asked her to just stay off the blog for 2 or 3 days.

Now, it’s possible Velour was literally banned from posting.

Maybe Dee had her moderator, GBTC, put Velour’s name or e-mail address on their blog’s ban filter.

That could be. Seeing as how I was perma-banned at one time at TWW over the innocuous offense of using ‘A HREF’ tags for links, I’d say anything is possible over there with the banning; God only knows.

Secondly, Velour wrote:

No, they blocked me from commenting at all on TWW because I brought up the issue of addiction.

// end Velour quote

Velour is being disingenuous. The topic was about R C Sproul Jr in particular in the TWW thread in question, not about addiction in general.

Had anyone wanted to talk about addiction in general, I don’t think most in the thread would’ve minded: it’s not WHAT Velour was talking about that rankled people there, it was the HOW.

Velour was being smug and obnoxious to everyone in the thread. That was the turn-off, not necessarily the substance of her beliefs.

Velour said:

It was full of condemnation and relentless put downs of those addicted.

// End Quote

Was it? I doubt it was. I haven’t read 100% of the responses on the thread. But from what I did see, nobody was bashing alcoholics. I have several alcoholics in my family, which I think I even mentioned in the thread.

ADDICTS ARE NOT VICTIMS

Velour desperately wants to view any and all addicts as poor, little victims. They are not.

Some addicts leave a trail of destruction behind them.

My brother (who was an alcoholic) married a crack addict (his wife later moved on to heroin).

Let me tell you something about this addict wife: she would regularly steal money from my brother, take his possessions, and that of her son’s (son from a previous marriage), to “hawk” the items at a pawn shop to get money to buy more drugs.

A lot of addicts behave in this manner. They will rob and steal from other people to fund their drug habits. Some lose their jobs due to being sloshed all the time.

Addicts are not always sweet, lovable types – and it’s not your job, mine, or a church’s to “clean them up.” One cannot love an addict out of an addiction, either. No amount of warm fuzzies is going to get someone to stop using alcohol or crack.

Such is addiction that the only person that can stop a person from using is the addict him- or herself. Hence, all the talk in those treatment programs Velour is so fond of promoting that drop words and phrases such as “enabling” and “hitting bottom.”

Maybe the nicest thing a family and church could do is kick an alcoholic out of a church – maybe that would help that person “hit bottom” and point them in the right direction. Why not consider that as an option? Why is it “condemning” to think of that or wonder about it?

But why does Velour not acknowledge that a lot of addicts prey on people? Addicts victimize people, they create victims. Where is Velour’s concern for the victims of addicts?

In the early stages of that Sproul Jr. thread at TWW, Velour asked how I would feel if a church banned me for my former clinical depression or for having anxiety.

I told her, as far as I’m aware, unlike drunkness, there is no Bible verse that instructs Christians to dis-fellowship a person with depression or anxiety.

There are, however, Bible verses that say to ‘expel the drunkard from among you,’  and not to select for leadership positions men prone to drinking too much wine.

Also, my depression and anxiety basically only hurt myself, not those around me. (I don’t rob people to fund an “anxiety habit.” LOL.)

In another post in that same thread, Velour said:

This is the video of a former pastor who is in recovery from alcohol that I wanted to post at Wartburg, but I was blocked from doing so.

// end Velour quote

She seems to be saying she cannot post to that blog any further. That was not what Dee indicated in her public post.

Showing a stunning lack of self-insight and self-awareness, Velour also told Christiane on the Istoria Blog (Comment Link):

Hi CHRISTIANE,

No, I won’t be back. I was treated terribly, what was posted about me by her was untrue,
I asked her to correct it, she knew I was tied up. And she refused. She threatened me in an email and said that she would post my email and everyone would discuss it and that “no one would buy [my] ‘excuse’.” Because I’m busy? Because I don’t have time this week and I am tied up with my job?

I don’t need this kind of drama.

Is this her health problem and her medication? What is going on over there?

I have never gotten so many nasty social media private conversations as from the people over there. Just bizarre. But for the grace of God there go any of us, tumbling into the pit and chains of addiction.

//end Velour quote

I very well wondered the same things about Velour. What is going on with her? Her behavior on that thread (and a bit prior) was obnoxious, erratic, and irrational.

Velour thinks she was treated terribly? No, oh, no. She was the one treating others terribly.

Velour was the one creating all the drama on that thread, not Dee, not myself, not Julie Anne, or anyone else. It was her, all her.

Velour wrote:

But for the grace of God there go any of us, tumbling into the pit and chains of addiction.

//end Velour quote

I don’t think so. People choose how to deal with the stress of life.

Some choose to turn to drugs and alcohol, some food, and some, like me, go on jogs or watch cute cat videos on You Tube.

So please, don’t leave this impression that anyone and everyone is prone to using a substance to cope with life.

I also see Velour threw HA’s apology to her back in his face, or she’s using it as leverage (link to comment):

(comment by) H.A. on Sun Jun 25, 2017 at 08:30 PM said:

Velour wrote (Velour quoting Mae):

Mae wrote:

Ugh…..the nastiness continues.
Verbal bullying is not appreciated, nor warranted.
Please Velour give it up….turn the other cheek, as you have been demanding others do.

(Velour said)

Hi Mae,

Maybe you haven’t read all of the comments?

We have – thank you Lord – made progress. H.A. apologized to me today for the verbal barbs that H.A. repeatedly directed at me and asked for forgiveness. I accepted.

H.A. said that it was an old coping skill and apologized. I accepted.

– – – – –

H.A. replied:

I can see you’re now using my apology and request for forgiveness as some sort of trophy, i.e. “Ahah, chalk one up for me! I won!” Now you’re demanding Barbara and Julie Anne must do the same or you’ll just keep reminding them over and over and over again what meanies they are. I don’t think you’ve forgiven me or you wouldn’t be doing this.

Although I was sincere in asking for your forgiveness, because it’s the right thing to do, I also had another very important reason: it was to set an example, an example not for Barbara and Julie Anne, but for you. I’d hoped that you might come to see a need to humble yourself. Instead your bullying just continues.

// end H.A. post quote

Yes, H.A. has Velour pegged correctly there. The one doing the bullying was Velour.

CHRISTIANE 

I’d have to guess that TWW member “Christiane” began posting to TWW some time in 2016.

Christiane presents herself as being a very loving, caring person. She is not.

Christiane cannot and should not be trusted by Velour, or by anyone.

Christiane pretends to be very nice, but she is not. She uses her flowery, sweet language to paper over her real intent and her anger and her barbs.

Christiane will say fawning, nice things about you one moment but then the next day, slyly and cattily rip you apart in another thread. She has done that to me at least once at TWW that I can recall. She allowed her “Nice Lady Mask” to slip momentarily.

Christiane will cozy up to you on a blog so long as she perceives you as being a member in good standing, one who is well-liked by other commentators.

The moment she deduces you have fallen out of favor and are disliked by other members, she won’t bother defending you or speaking so nicely about you.

I was brought up by a highly codependent mother who communicated in the same fake, sweet way Christiane does – and my mother raised me to be and to talk in the same way; for many years, I did not let anger show openly, but I was a very passive aggressive person.

Christiane – and even Velour – will not come right out in a post and tell you to “Eff off” if they are angry at you, no. They will write a very (on the surface of it) civil sounding post, three to 20 paragraphs long, basically telling you in super nice language to “Go Eff Off.”

And I find that polite “go eff off” to be as rude as the blatant “F_ck you!” one sees on other sites. Both are pretty bad, but at least the “F_ck you” is more honest and concise (unlike my very long blog posts!)

So I recognize the style.

Christiane’s first agenda seemed to be promoting Roman Catholicism at TWW, in a very stealthy manner. That may still be part of her agenda for posting at TWW and at Wade Burleson’s blog and where else else she is haunting online.

After having learned that Christiane has been on other blogs and forums in the past – some Christian related – and she was posting under other names on those blogs and sites and employed similar tactics – feigning innocence and sweetness while quietly slipping a knife into other people’s ribs – I now wonder if she’s up to something more sinister.

I’ve read about people who are NPDs or sociopaths or other mentally unstable individuals who lack empathy and who enjoy preying on vulnerable people for kicks and amusement.

I wonder now if Christane falls into that category, so I was quite creeped out to see this post at TWW that she wrote (excerpts):

(comments by Christiane):

This is so true. Many people have emerged from terrible experiences with a determination to warn others of the dangers of predatory people who prey on the innocent in ‘church’ settings.

I have seen TWW as a sanctuary for recovering victims but also as a place where SURVIVORS could help prevent further victimization from occurring (or at least make an effort in that direction) …..

If a place like TWW can offer a sanctuary that takes in wounded victims of clergy abuse, offers them a voice that had been denied to them and offers a place for them to share their experiences;

//end Christiane quotes

It sounds to me as though Christiane knows TWW’s audience all too well, the way a lioness on the hunt studies a pack of gazelles, seeking which one is the weakest member of the herd to pick off.

If Christiane is toying with people’s minds and emotions, what a better hunting ground than a blog that is quite open about catering to the wounded, hurting, and victimized?

Even if that is not Christiane’s purpose, she inadvertently tosses people aside. When Velour asked Christiane publicly at Wade’s blog to please contact her in private via e-mail, Christian refused, saying she only takes e-mails from family members – which sounds like a brush off to me.

How must Velour feel about this, if she’s perceptive enough to realize that Christiane is blowing her off? She would probably feel hurt and betrayed to realize this woman who presented herself as a true-blue friend on a blog over a period of months is now refusing to be there for her now, when she’s obviously upset.

Christiane is a passive-aggressive person who has some kind of agenda -promoting Roman Catholicism and who knows what else? But in spite of all her flowery and sweet talk, she does not genuinely care about the people with whom she is corresponding on these sites.

As Velour and Christiane began hi-jacking the TWW comment box to do their odd duet, I noticed that other people stopped participating as much there. Threads used to get over 100 comments per thread, with many different people posting, but no more.

At any rate, I think TWW could be a much better place to post, and a safer place, if Christiane were given the heave-ho.

At the very least, if an ounce of Christiane truly cares at all about other people (if she truly believes in the sugary- sweet sounding pablum she writes) she will voluntarily leave TWW and blogs like it, or at least curtail her participation.

Just remember that just because a person treats you nice on a forum, group, or blog and uses nice-sounding words with you, does not mean that the person is nice, nor does it mean that this person has your best interests at heart, nor does it mean that the person really cares about you.

July 5, 2017 —– U-P-D-A-T-E

I was privately sent a link to the comment page of Istoria Ministry’s blog comments. (I had not been to that page since I last posted this on my blog about 3 days ago. This is the first day I’ve been back on the internet in two days.)

I’ve skimmed over a few of the comments.

Apparently, Velour and Christiane are still chatting about these incidents, and Velour is referring to some of us (all of us, or those at TWW?) as being “angry people.”

Velour is still refusing to accept responsibility for her behavior. 

A post or two from that comment page (link to Wade’s Istoria Blog’s comment page):

Post by Velour:

Off-topic.

To: CHRISTIANE

Thanks. I read the comments. It doesn’t really explain what happened (except for the ‘core group’ remark).

But like I said, I’m not going back over there. It was a very irresponsible piece to publish, in my opinion, considering this problem (addiction) is an epidemic in the church. To make it about one guy (a problem pastor) who mathematically represents a much greater problem is simply wrong in my book. No help and hope were offered. No real resources. Sigh. The problem pastor’s wife showed up to defend her husband, and no one offered help to her. The ‘dog piling’ just continued. This is a wife who is in a terrible position: she loves her husband and he has some very serious problems. She should have been shown love, compassion, and proper help.

I don’t believe that “H.A.” (who is new) who was behind that T.W.W. article about the problem pastor should have been given a forum for his ferocious and inappropriate anger. When anyone disagreed with him he spewed his caustic remarks at people right and left.

Please join me in praying for everyone.

Hugs,

Velour

Mon Jul 03, 02:31:00 PM 2017

// End Velour quotes

Velour was actually quite angry at “H.A.” and several others in the thread. She’s got it completely opposite.

By the way, I notice that when Velour suggested to Christiane that Christiane get a web-based e-mail account with G-Mail (which I also sugggested in the comments on this page today), Christiane replied to Velour:

Hi VELOUR,
I’ll talk to the family about your suggestion [to open a G-Mail account, so Velour and Christane can e-mail each other].

You are right that the situation with that comment was ‘sad’. I join you in praying for all involved. Have a great Fourth!

Tue Jul 04, 12:36:00 PM 2017

// end Christiane quote

Mmm-hmm. I can about tell you what happened with that: Christiane thought about Velour’s “set up a G-Mail account” suggestion for about a split second before tossing it in her circular file.

If Velour is reading this post:

I’ve said this before a time or two, but Christiane doesn’t care about you.  I doubt Christiane will ever e-mail you. If she should (and I highly doubt she will), she’ll just send you more sweetly-worded messages of what she thinks you want to hear. Velour: Christiane does not have your best interests at heart.

Velour said to Christiane on Wade’s blog (why is Wade allowing this to continue, I wonder?):

Anonymous Anonymous said…

Off-topic.

To: CHRISTIANE

Thanks for the update. I’ll pray for peoples’ concerns.

There are, in my opinion, lots of unhealthy people at The Wartburg Watch blog who want to take other peoples’ inventories and not their own. It’s not a healthy blog and I won’t be back. I know about half-a-dozen people who are also not coming back to that blog for very similar reasons and they’ve called, emailed me, and sent me messages via Facebook. They’ve reached their limit. (It’ very negative too, the articles. Do we ever hear anything positive?)

I am aware that the person you mention above. Sad. Oh well.

Hugs,

VELOUR

Mon Jul 03, 12:21:00 PM 2017

// end Velour quote

Pot meet kettle. Velour brought up some of the personal things I shared about myself on that blog in months past to sort of use against me later in that thread (tying to compare depression with alcoholism, for instance).

“Take inventories” – that sounds like Alcoholics Anonymous lingo.

As I said on a previous post of mine (I think it may have been this one), it’s not wise to apply 12 step program advice or concepts to people who are not alcoholics or addicts.

(I went through this with my brother, who was in AA, and an alcoholic – I don’t drink and never have. My brother has tried to apply AA concepts to me, but those concepts are not applicable to me.)

Velour is not taking her “own inventory.” She isn’t owning up to her misbehavior on that TWW thread. She is pointing fingers at other people, so, since she likes 12-step lingo: I will ask her what AA sponsors ask drinkers: What Role Did You Play In That?

Velour’s attitudes and behavior were unhealthy.

Velour was being rude, condescending, and obnoxious to people at TWW in the “Sproul Jr” thread whose opinions differed from hers.

In addition, and quite oddly, Velour was angry at me because my personal life experience (that doctor- prescribed medications and secular therapy did not help me) did not support her position that secular therapy and medications are always a guarantee for anyone who tries them.

How strange and irrational to depict my lived reality as being too “debbie downer,” so I should just shut up about it, butt out of the conversation, and go away.

The truth is what it is: therapy, psychiatry, and medications did not help me personally, but I never told others not to try those things; I just inform people to have realistic expectations when they go to see a psychologist or try medications.

Regarding this remark by Velour to Christiane:

(It’ [TWW blog] very negative too, the articles. Do we ever hear anything positive?)

// end Velour quote

This is a rather bogus criticism. TWW is a spiritual abuse blog, so are you expecting all the stories they run there to be sunshine, snails, and puppy dog tails?

How uplifting and positive do you really expect stories about pastors covering up child sex abuse to be?

Yes, a lot of that is negative, but it’s necessary work, and it’s negative by nature.

The problem is that there are preachers who are spiritually abusing adults and adults molesting children, and churches are covering this up – the problem is not with Deb and Dee reporting on those stories.

Velour to Christiane on Wade’s site (link again):

Anonymous Anonymous  [Velour] said…

Thanks CHRISTIANE.

You have a lovely 4th too.

I prayed for all of those angry people over at The Wartburg Watch blog. I will pray for them for 30 days.

Hugs,

Velour

Tue Jul 04, 02:16:00 PM 2017

// end Velour quote

The angry people at TWW? Is she serious? Velour was the angry one, not the TWW commentators – not initially, anyway; not until she pushed some of us with her behavior. Velour is practicing projection there.

By the way, I know the Christiane types of the world well enough to know she is likely visiting this blog post on a continual basis to see if there’s anything new here, and she’ll probably run back over to Wade’s blog to breathlessly inform Velour about my new blog post additions.

Why doesn’t Christiane just post here, on this blog post? Both she and Velour can post here, if they like.

July 7, 2017 —– U-P-D-A-T-E (more than one here)

A member below (see this blog page’s comment box, comment here – link will open in new window) visited Wade’s Istoria blog the other day, and posted a copy of Velour’s newest comments to this blog’s page, below.

Velour is still not taking responsibility, last I saw, for her behavior in the TWW Sproul Jr. thread. She is also refusing to speak directly to people, but talking past them to Christiane (i.e., passive aggressive behavior).

TWW July 7, 2017 Post “A Reflection on the Difficulties of Internet Conflict”

That TWW post is dated Friday, July 7, 2017.

In it, Dee alludes to Velour without mentioning Velour’s name, and includes screen captures presumably from e-mails from Velour.

In those e-mails, Velour states she is too busy with her job to return calls to Dee.

She also quite oddly tells Dee in one e-mail to “attend 30 Al-Anon meetings.”

Why would or should Dee attend 30 Al-Anon meetings, or even one?

Does Velour think that every one at TWW is anti-alcoholic, and if only they attended support meetings for family of addicts, they would discover some new found compassion they are currently lacking?

I don’t think Velour ever grasped that nobody on that thread hates alcoholics or addicts.

Barbara Roberts’ feels  unrepentant addicts who claim to be Christian shouldn’t be allowed among other Christians, but that was about the extent of negativity about that in that thread.

I have alcoholics on one side of my family, and I don’t hate them – not for their alcoholism, and I mentioned some of this on that thread.

Unless Velour is herself an addict, or family member to one, I am not grasping this deep-seated, very emotional reaction by her to anyone there who doesn’t automatically jump in full agreement to all her views about addiction, such as, how should churches deal with addicts, appropriate treatment programs, etc. Strange stuff.

July 11, 2017 —– U-P-D-A-T-E

I’ve not been back on the internet since today (three days off line).

People in the comments on this page say below that Velour and Christiane continue to post at Wade’s blog (“Istoria Ministires”) about TWW.

Someone named Victorious (comment link) asked Christiane to please give Velour Christiane’s e-mail address, so that their conversation could move to e-mail (and off Wade’s blog).

Christiane responds to the request (comment link) with a big, fat no – no surprise there!

There is nothing preventing Christiane from establishing a secondary e-mail with Google Mail, Hot Mail, or Yahoo Mail, only that she has no true interest in being Velour’s friend (her friendship on the blogs is all for show).

Velour depicts Dee wanting to speak with her by phone and/or to post Velour’s e-mails to the TWW blog as being “threats” (comment link). Were they really threats? Maybe they were not, and Velour is only taking them that way.

In that same comment, Velour once more says she finds Dee’s behavior bizarre – well, so too is Velour’s. Velour will not own up to her part in what occurred.

In another post to Christiane (here – dated July 7), Velour says that Dee was “totally out of line”.

Well, maybe, maybe not – without knowing exactly what went down in private, but it all sounds like it’s based on perception. Maybe Velour took any private comments from Dee the wrong way.

Velour was publicly rude, condescending, and obnoxious to a few people (including myself) on that TWW Sproul thread. At least two people (and probably more) contacted Dee privately via e-mail to let her know about it.

I think Dee had to take action because Velour was going bonkers on the comment box on TWW.

At one point, Deb (of TWW) asks Velour (comment link) to remove some TWW- related content from Velour’s blog:

Because Velour has taken such a strong public stand against The Wartburg Watch, I would appreciate her removing the following from her website (https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/):

45 TWW re-posts

24 EChurch re-posts

Velour has made it patently clear that she will no longer be commenting on our blog. Given the exorbitant amount of time she has previously spent at TWW, she should now have an abundance of time to comply with my request.

// end quote

Velour replied to Deb here (in a post dated Sat Jul 08, 11:43:00 AM 2017).

Some snippets:

Hi Deb (Wanda Martin),

To be clear, I haven’t taken “a strong public stand against The Wartburg Watch.”
I’ve taken a strong public stand against being lied about and Dee’s unethical behavior.

I am gone at work and oral surgery appointments in another city miles away in my “free” time. I did not “refuse” to talk to Dee as she stated in her comment to readers about me. I am not available. Big difference.

I asked Dee to correct the record to readers and what she wrote about me in my response to her email to me. She would not. Instead Dee threatened me that she would post my emails for discussion. That is completely out of line and unethical.

Dee made good on her unethical threat and wrote a hit-piece about me, including my private emails…

…Dee blocked me from commenting at all on The Wartburg Watch

/// end Veloour quote

Dee never referred to Velour by name in that post (the TWW post was later redacted to remove screen shots of Velour’s e-mails). One would have to already be familiar with the incidents that went down there to know who or what exactly Dee was referring to.

If some of what Velour wrote is true to Deb there, I can’t say as though I find Dee and Deb to be totally in the okay in this, either – if it’s true they misrepresented Velour or used screen shots of her e-mails to threaten her with.

I don’t think either side comes out smelling like a rose, here, if any of what Velour is saying is accurate (but is it? I think she may have misunderstood Dee’s remarks or motives).

On the other hand, Velour instigated the entire matter – not just in the Sproul thread, but for months before that, when she behaved as though she “owned” the blog, and would take on a bit of a “bossy” tone towards others in the comment box.

In an earlier post on the page, Velour said this to Christiane:

Anonymous said…

Hi Christiane,

And another outraged Wartburg Watch reader contacted me after Dee Parson’s hit piece about me and said that Dee has become like the tyrants she writes about.

The person said she was gobsmacked by Dee’s viciousness and that she too would NEVER return to The Wartburg Watch blog, that its tenor has changed, and she (like many others) wants no part of it.

She wanted to know why “EXACTLY” that Dee would write such an article. She said Dee’s veiled threat came across loud and clear.

-Velour

// end Velour quote

Velour was instrumental in changing the tone and tenor of the comments section at TWW over the last year or more, though.

Beaker left a very level-headed response to Velour here (comment link – dated July 8).

At some stage, Deb or Dee stepped in to apologize to Wade on Wade’s blog that the drama over-flowed on his site.

Deb also, in a separate post, asked Velour to remove TWW from Velour’s blog’s blog roll (comment link). I understand Deb being upset with Velour, but I don’t think I’d ask Velour to remove TWW’s link from her own blog.

Velour replies by telling Deb to change TWW’s post about Velour first (comment link)

Someone named Anonymous said (dated July 8, comment link):

Read the blog post and have scrolled to the comments. Wow, what a bizarre and odd thread!

Since it’s public, I guess anyone can join in!

1) If Velour has her own blog, why is she posting here?

2) What kind of family does Christiane need permission from to set up an anonymous gmail or outlook account where Velour and herself can share all the *hugs* they want?

My only guess is that a public forum is what’s desired – Velour’s blog probably doesn’t get much traffic and private email correspondence is well….not seen by anyone and therefore no attention.

Although how much attention the tail end of week old blog gets, I have no idea. Oh yeah, I found it!

Have fun storming the castle!

// end Anon quote

Many good points there by Anonymous. (That was not me, by the way. I have not posted to that thread at Wade’s blog. If I did, I would sign my name in there somewhere. I have not been on the internet at all for the dates of July 7, 8, or 9)

Velour eventually chipped in to threaten Deb and Dee with some kind of legal action.

Hi Deb (Wanda Martin),

A Wartburg Watch reader just contacted me and read your statement here to me. The Wartburg Watch reader wanted to know when you and Dee plan on removing your unethical article about me from The Wartburg Watch?

Regards,

Velour

(Link to post): Sat Jul 08, 12:29:00 PM 2017

// end Velour quote

Someone jumped in in a post or two (link and link) to ask the moderator to please put the comment box back into shape.

Wade replies that he is not going to moderate the comment block on his own blog (comment link)

Deb (comment link) apologies to Wade about the conflict on his blog.

Michele rightly points out that Christiane was contributing to the kerfuffle on Wade’s blog (comment link).

Wade gives a really long (comment link) reply to Michele explaining why he allows people to hi-jack his comment box and he says moderating his own blog (comment link) squelches the Spirit.

I so far have left one post to Wade’s thread (comment link) and here is what I said (I did not make any posts to that thread prior to today, July 11, nor do I have plans to return at this time):

Hello.
Sorry to Wade’s readers for the off-topic intrusion.

About a week or more ago, a reader named Velour at TWW (Wartburg Watch blog) got angry when another member there, Barbara, made a comment about churches “kicking out” alcoholics.

Velour then went on a rampage down that thread, biting off the heads of several people, including me, who were confused by her posts, or who did not totally agree with her views about alcohol treatment.

Imagine Godzilla (or Kitten-Zilla) stomping on Tokyo. It was like that, but not as cute or amusing.

I published a blog post on my Daisy blog about a week or more ago about all this stuff, linked to that post in a single comment at TWW (Wartburg Watch blog) precisely so anyone from that blog (including Velour and Chrisitane) could post about it there, rather than take TWW or this blog or some other site off-track.

This is the first post I have made to this thread.

To the person above who wrote:

“Anonymous said…
anonymous when pigs fly
…daisies-in-meadow.jpg
Sat Jul 08, 05:41:00 PM 2017”
// end quote

I assume you are accusing some Anonymous poster above of being me, Daisy? That was NOT me who made that post.

I have not even been on the internet at all since July 5 or 6 (I have not been on the internet on July 7, 8, or 9 [edit: I don’t think I was online on July 10, either -edit: I may be getting some of my dates mixed up – I may have been online on the 7th? but I was definitely not online on Saturday (8th), or Sunday, or Monday (10th) – I was sick in bed most of that time]), and the post to which you refer was made on July 8.

If I post here, I will sign off my name as “Daisy.”

Signed, Daisy
– – – – – – –
This is the first (and hopefully last) post I will make to this thread.

I don’t know why Velour and/or Christiane don’t avail themselves of another avenue – such as my Daisy blog thread about this, or Velour’s own blog – to discuss this further.

Or, Christiane could totally make a G-Mail or Yahoo Mail address and give it to Velour.

// end my quote on Wade’s blog

Prediction (and I may be wrong): rather than come over to THIS blog to reply to me, Velour and or Christiane will likely reply to my comment at WADE’S blog.

July 15, 2017 —– U-P-D-A-T-E

As of July 14 and 15, Velour and Christiane continue to discuss TWW here (on the “Istoria” blog).

Partial quote by Velour on that thread, to Christiane:

…. People were reeling from the hateful comments [on Wartburg Watch blog]  about those who struggle with the compulsion to drink, because for many of them that’s their struggle too. I have heard from many of them who no longer deem the community at The Wartburg Watch a ‘safe place’.

Those comments from many readers drove them further into shame and secrecy with their addictions.

They reached out to me, because they know that I will listen and offer help. They know that I will not shame them. They have a bona fide medical problem that changes the brain and the body. (Go to youtube to see the changes.)

[Source: July 14, 2017 Post]

// end Velour quote

What “hateful” comments is she referring to? Up to the time I ducked out of that thread, I did not see any hateful comments by anyone in regards to addicts.

Unless Velour continues to view Robert’s early comment about “kicking out” alcoholics in view of 1 Corinthians to be “hateful.”

But is it hateful? Why can this topic not be discussed and debated? I did a post here about it:

Christianity, Alcoholics, and Addictions: How Should the Church Deal with Addictions and Addicts?

At least so far as my last main post to that Sproul Jr. thread on TWW, I did not see anyone shaming addicts or alcoholics.

Can Velour provide specific examples (with links, too, maybe) to any posts by commentators at TWW that she believes to be shaming and hateful?

I provided examples in my post here by alcoholics who say that attending 12 step programs, such as Alcoholics Anonymous did not help them – Velour thinks it’s “hateful” or “hopeless” to point this out, but, Velour (if you’re reading this), this is simply a fact of life.

I am only quoting what some alcoholics themselves have said.

It’s a fact of life that 12 step programs and secular psychiatry do not help everyone who tries them.

Some things in life require other methods, and sometimes in life, there is no answer or solution for a problem. That is me being realistic, not me trying to discourage people.

July 16, 2017 —– U-P-D-A-T-E

Velour is still on Istoria blog, and she left me a comment there, in which she took my views and actions out of context but accused me of doing so to her (no, I did not).

Here is a link to Velour’s July 15 comment to me on Istoria blog.

I left her a two part response on that blog (dated July 16), which you can read here and here.

I basically reiterated in those two posts what I said in this blog post.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

As I said, I don’t want to turn my Daisy blog into a never-ending dissection of TWW or other blogs (I’d prefer to discuss the yuckiness of complementarianism and other subjects), but I can’t discuss this at Julie Anne’s SSB blog, or she might get upset, and I sure don’t feel I can say some of these things openly at TWW itself, which leaves me with using my own blog.

If you’ve been wounded by a church, doctrine, or a group of Christians, I don’t know if TWW is an altogether safe spot for you to post your woes to – not right now. Maybe a year or more ago, yes, and maybe later on, but not now. Some funky, disturbing things have changed in the comment section.

You might want to e-mail Dee and Deb in private with your story, rather than go to the comment box.

If you do post to TWW publicly about your problems or abuse you have endured, you might want to limit your time there.

Instead of posting at TWW day after day, 365 days per year, maybe limit yourself to once or twice per day or per month.

If the TWW blog continues on course, with Christiane and those like her – passive aggressive types who play deceptive mind games with people who also act like they own the blog – permitted to remain and run wild in the comment section, I would think participation there will continue to drop off.

If you would like to use my blog, this post, to chime in and voice your concerns and observations about any of this (or about abuse blogs in general, it doesn’t have to be about TWW in particular), please feel free.


I will, though, have to approve posts by any new-comers in the moderator section. My blog does not allow un-registered newbies to post right away. You – your posts – have to be approved first.

Some days, I do not log into this account at all, so if you post, please do not be discouraged  or get frustrated if you post something and it does not appear on the blog for several days or a week or more.


This post may be edited in the future to include new links, thoughts, or observations.


More Posts, on this Blog: 

Christianity, Alcoholics, and Addictions: How Should the Church Deal with Addictions and Addicts?

Roman Catholicism and Abuse Survivor Blogs

Topics and Concerns Under-Reported by Christians or Abuse and Survivor Sites

The Left Should Just Admit it: Victims Aren’t Always Good People by Deborah Orr

Not Exactly Always Hospitable for Non-Liberals: Ex or Liberal Christian Sites and Spiritual or Abuse Survivor Blogs & the Christian Trump-Bashing Infatuation 

Non-Church, Non-Spiritual, or Secular Remedies and Treatments Don’t Always Work

Problems with A.A. (Alcoholics Anonymous)

Advertisements

82 thoughts on “• Be Cautious: Faux Niceness, Victim-Bullies, and Survivor Abuse Blogs

  1. All I want to say is, if I’m behaving badly online I hope you, Daisy, or someone else will rebuke me. It’s nicer to me (as well as everyone else) in the long run.

    I have been spending too much time on recovery sites. There are other things I need to focus on.

    • @ Rachel.
      I sure don’t mean to discourage you or anyone else from posting on these sites or reading them, but just be careful and realize that even “abuse survivor” blogs are not as caring and nice as one might first assume.

      You do have some people in the comments section that may at first appear to be very caring and nice people, and they fool a lot of people, but in reality, they have an agenda to promote. They don’t really care about those to whom they’re chatting.

      I’m not even too opposed to people posting a lot on these sites, but there’s a lot, and then there is posting 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and at least one person I saw was doing that. I think that can be a bit much.

      I really do think people like that should maybe take a day or two off from such sites – go on a walk outdoors and enjoy the sun shine, or go bake a cake. Something to get away from some of the same sites over and over.

      I also don’t mean to put this idea out there that I’m perfect. I have gotten angry at people before on other sites and yelled at them, but I usually have apologized for it.

      • Daisy, if you were perfect you’d be absent from your body and surrounded by God’s glory with the holy angels around His throne.:) Not here on earth with the rest of us sinners.

  2. Oh. My. Word. As of last night, I have 3 emails and 2 social media DM from people asking me about Christiane. These are not people who have commented on TWW but old timers like me from SBC blogs who know who she is from those days. They noticed her showing up on SBC blogs where I comment some but more unusual for her to do so. Seriously, is this woman trolling me to bait me?

    But worse, it seems she is advancing some sort of conspiracy theory that sock puppets on TWW are to blame for Velour’s comments and subsequent banning.. (If she was banned)

    There are about 2 hours of my life I can’t get back trying to make sense of this. But that is what dealing with manipulative love bombing deceivers who are never direct so they can plant innuendo seeds of poison with plausible deniability. A typical Christiane tactic I am quite familiar with over the last 10 years. then she becomes the sad victim who is misunderstood and praying for herself. Shampoo, rinse, repeat.

    Sheesh. I got off TWW to avoid her! Then she starts showing up on certain SBC blogs where I don’t remember her commenting for years, if at all. The one she commented most on she was banned. Me too. 🙂

    One reason why I despise deception because trying to sort through the convoluted shadows and planted poison seeds to explain it, never work. That is why they are able to operate for so long. Then Christiane can sigh with her compassion that the person trying to explain seems mentally ill. (A favorite soviet tactic of hers. Wring hands and claim with feigned compassion the person is likely mentally ill)

    Give me the guy with a pitchfork and cup of poison, please. At least I know what I am dealing with up front.

    She accused a commenter at SBC today of being me! Then on SBC tomorrow she had this weird comment about “knowing your words anywhere”. Huh? I commented as Lydia both places. None of it made sense how she came out of no where and made these bizarre comments in blogs she doesn’t comment on until others thought her comments strange and then saw Velour on Wades blog. (Christiane love bombed and groomed her for several years as a BFF then throws her under the bus refusing to email her. So much for her feigned loving compassion).

    To set the record. I did not comment on the RC Sproul thread. I don’t have a dog in that fight. I avoid commenting there for the past few months. It’s operates too much like church where some look the other way, some set the tone, the love bombing, the victim bullies, and others just fall in line. No thanks. I am done with group think. (Most abuse blogs evolve to a core group that set the tone. That’s not unusual. And it’s not a complaint. It is what it is. I have been around long enough to see it happen a lot)

    On the sock puppet conspiracy theory Christiane keeps promoting where she can, From what I can gather from Julie Ann, the commenter H.A. is someone she knows as T Easton which would be the same someone I came across back in 2006 as Frank Vance outing Ligoneir. Ligoneir tried to sue him. The lawsuit was the first of its kind for the Internet and was featured in USA Today and the Orlando Sentinel. Legal pundit, Glenn Reynolds covered it, too. It was significant for internet 1st Amendment back then. The lawsuit did not go anywhere because the Ligoneir lawyers could not find Frank Vance. But they kept the charge on ice for quite a while trying to find him, as I recall. So, if Julie Ann is right, that is who that is and he shows up around blogs talking about the Sprouls/Ligoneir.

    Again, for the record. I did not comment on the Sproul thread. My goal is to avoid Christiane as much as possible. She plays a long convoluted con and I am no where in her league. She is 10 steps ahead and willing to use love bombing tactics that make my skin crawl. Think, angel of light. My guess is the sock puppet conspiracy theory is a defection and and some sort of perverted opportunity for her.

    But Now, for some reason, that she is back commenting on SBC blogs, I guess I will need to avoid those, too. I do wonder sometimes why she doesn’t find some Catholic blogs to feign compassion for their victims?. For some strange reason she targets Baptists/evangelicals. Of course she originally said it was because she wanted to see if they were Westboro types. SMH

    Thanks for allowing me to say this here. I have a very sick feeling where this is going and what her game is. I want to avoid her as much as possible and don’t want to take this to other blogs. But I am starting to feel like there is a target on my back. Especially as she accused a commenter at sbctoday of being me. I find her tactics unhealthy and creepy.

    • *Groan.” Calling someone “crazy” would be mean, but calling them “mentally ill” is kind? I don’t think so. Not when you use is as an insult, it’s not. Even psychiatrists aren’t allowed to call someone “mentally ill” till after they’ve had the chance to diagnose them.

    • @ lydia00
      You’re welcome for the space to comment on this. I didn’t think TWW was a good venue for this.

      You said you wanted to avoid Christiane as much as possible. I don’t blame you, but just FYI – I did say below that Christiane can comment on this thread if she so desires, but I won’t fall for the manipulative games. Maybe she’ll reply here, maybe not. I figure since I called her out by name, it would only be fair to allow her to come on here and state her side.

      Velour may also comment here, if she wants (she has posted to this blog before).

      I was saying this below, but, while I may be put off by Velour’s recent behavior on TWW, I don’t wish her ill will, and I do not want her to be snookered by Christiane any longer.

      When Christiane first began posting at TWW, she was subtly promoting Roman Catholicism. (AND she was taking subtle digs at Baptists and at Republicans and conservatives, which was a big turn-off for me.)

      I too find it very strange that someone would hang out on predominantly Baptist or Protestant blogs, unless her goal is to pick off dis-satisfied Baptists and Protestants and try to get them into a Roman Catholic Church?

      Christiane seems to be going for more than that. I used to work for a woman boss who not only enjoyed harassing employees, but she got a twisted sense of amusement or entertainment out of trying to create drama on the job by pitting co-workers against each other. Maybe Christiane is into that as well.

      I find it weird that one or both of them are still (or were?) commenting about this at Wade’s blog, when Christiane was made aware of this post at some stage (I put a link to this thread at this Daisy blog in the TWW “Sproul Jr” thread about 3 nights ago). Why don’t one or both just come here to respond?

  3. “I’d say most commentators over there, at TWW, are politically and theologically liberal, so if, like me, you are a conservative, your views are not going to be entirely welcome, or you will have to express your conservative views in a very cautious, hesitant manner.”

    [ I would wholly agree ]

    Lydia said:
    “To set the record. I did not comment on the RC Sproul thread. I don’t have a dog in that fight. I avoid commenting there for the past few months. It’s operates too much like church where some look the other way, some set the tone, the love bombing, the victim bullies, and others just fall in line. No thanks. I am done with group think. (Most abuse blogs evolve to a core group that set the tone. That’s not unusual. And it’s not a complaint. It is what it is. I have been around long enough to see it happen a lot)”

    [ I would wholly agree ]

    This post was really thought provoking

    • Megs48.
      Glad you liked the post.

      Are you affiliated in any way with the “Wartburg Whiners” blog, or are you friends with the guy behind that blog? I asked you similar questions under one of the last posts you commented on, and you did not reply.

      I’ve seen some unsettling things go on in the comment box over the past year at TWW, but… my blog is not an anti-TWW blog.

      I totally agree with TWW’s anti- gender complementarian stance, which I’m sure would make the guy at “Wartburg Whiners” site unhappy, since he hates anyone who doesn’t agree with gender complementarianism and he mistakenly refers to them all as “feminists.”

  4. First, I read and occasionally comment on survivor blogs because of situations that have affected me or friends. I find strength and encouragement from the stories of others. However, I don’t live on the blog(s), be it TWW or Spiritual Sounding Board (the two I read the most often). The link is to a funny, but impactful, Carol Burnett video clip of what happens when we spend too much of our lives living in another reality.

    • @ Karen
      I enjoyed that. Thank you. I used to watch Carol Burnett’s show all the time when I was a kid.

      It’s a funny skit, but you’re right, it does make a good point about getting too wrapped up in fantasy or places that aren’t exactly real life.

  5. ‘But worse, it seems she is advancing some sort of conspiracy theory that sock puppets on TWW are to blame for Velour’s comments and subsequent banning.. (If she was banned).’

    Not banned, all her comments were going to be put into immediate moderation for the time being, so they would have to be approved before being posted. Just to tone it down a bit. Not banned. I’m sorry to see her posting on Wade’s blog in that way, & seemingly continuing to do so.

    Many people, myself included, want her to continue at TWW, & I was only as directive as I was ‘start your own blog & come back here as an ordinary commenter’ because of how directive she regularly was, & therefore assumed she would take it in the same spirit she gave it in.

    I found the conspiracy theory of someone posting under various names a bit fantastical tbh & saw no evidence of this.

    I don’t have much else to say about this except that that was a very dispiriting thread & I wish it had gone another way.

    • @ Beaker J.
      Thank you for clarifying the situation with her posting status, that she is not banned, only heavily moderated (from her comments on Wade’s blog, she seems to think she is banned).

      I take it Dee told you in private what was going on?

      I sent Dee an e-mail about that same thread a few days ago (and I told her I believed Velour was going off the rails in that thread), but I’ve been unable to log into that e-mail account lately, so if she sent me a reply, I did not see it.

      For some reason, some sites (including some of the web based e mail providers I use) are loading very, very slow for me on my computer to the point I just give up. I might try to check that account later.

      I agreed with your point that you made at that blog that if Velour scaled down her participation and/or reverted to posting more like a “regular” member that would be a good thing.

      I am surprised that for a blog (TWW) that calls out churches for failing to recognize abusers or for bullying, and for not remembering victims, someone in one of their threads was not recognized as engaging in that very behavior.

      I saw concern in the next, new thread the next day for Velour’s feelings from several participants there (after Dee posted the comment saying Velour had decided to leave the blog), and not a single person (that I saw) mentioned, “how are the targets of Velour’s wrath fairing today?”

      • I wrote to Dee as I said I would, & that was in her reply. It’s actually called ‘permanent moderation’ but it’s exhaustive rather than permanent, as it covers all your posts, but doesn’t usually last forever. TWW bans very few people. I’m not sure that’s not what you were put into Daisy, that you thought was a ban, though I’m happy to be corrected.

        I was (& still am) flabberghasted that V refused to pick up the phone to Dee & has since described Dee as lying to her & as threatening to post an email as some sort of blackmail. I just don’t believe it & can only interpret the refusal to speak to Dee as a silent acknowledgment that she knows she pushed things too far, & certainly beyond the helping with the prayer requests that the Deebs asked her to do. I was especially unhappy with her asking if Dee’s illness & medication were an issue…rather than maybe her own behaviour, which has so far been out of bounds as being reflected on as the source of drama. I’m certain her not taking Dee’s calls is also nothing to do with being out of town for work, if it was surely her comments on Wade’s blog to Christiane would have been about how she’ll speak to Dee when she gets back. It is a shame because, when on form, she was a witty & clear commenter & a really good addition to the Watch, having had some really awful experiences while trying to do the right thing. Such a shame.

        It really stung that V seemed so determined that she alone was on the side of alcoholics & addicts & everyone else had to present their credentials to her for inspection before passing some kind of test on the thread. I do think that was far more fitting to a blog of her own & would urge her to start one where she can post all sorts of help for addicts which fit her criteria, & where a community dedicated to that could be formed.

        I had no idea Christiane was known to people from elsewhere. I thought she was Orthodox, not Catholic, but am very happy to be places where a wide range of views are represented, like TWW & IMonk. I think we mostly discover we have so much more in common that we disagree on.

        Anyway, I think the Watch will survive, it has a gritty resilience because of its determination to deal with the truth & the Deebs ability to be self-critical & to learn, change &/or apologise where necessary.

        • @ Beaker J

          Maybe I’m wrong – I was under the impression that Christiane was Roman Catholic?

          Someone sent me a link to Wade Burleson’s blog again today (the comment section). I took a look at it.

          Christiane and Velour were carrying on a chat about all this stuff there the last couple days (I was off line until today)

          Based upon comments Velour made there at Wade’s Istoria blog to TWW member Christiane in the past two days, Velour is not accepting responsibility for her behavior at TWW.

          She thinks everyone else there (at TWW) has a temper or is being “mean.” She refuses to admit or to see that she played any role in what happened.

          You can go back up to the original post of this page, and look for the heading “July 5, 2017 Update.” I pasted some of her comments from Wade’s blog into the updated part of it.

          Velour doesn’t think TWW is happy and positive enough, which is such a weird thing to say, considering they normally cover topics such as church cover-ups of child sex abuse cases.

          Christiane has a history on other sites and blogs of playing passive-aggressive games. People more familiar with her than myself have illuminated me – but I already was suspicious of her all on my own, from the very first week she began posting there.

          I think TWW can bounce back, yes. As of late though, it’s weird (the comment section). I also wish people could communicate more directly rather than have to dance around what they think about things.

          As for when I was blocked or whatever on their blog a couple years back. It’s possible I am not remembering correctly – they either put me on permanent moderated status or banned me totally.

          Either way, I was angry and puzzled by it, because the reason I was given privately for it is that the moderator didn’t like how I formatted URLs, and so on.

          I have several alcoholics on my mother’s side of the family (I myself don’t drink), so I don’t understand why Velour was portraying so many people who were disagreeing with her on that Sproul thread as hating alcoholics.

          If I dislike my alcoholic family members, it’s not about their alcoholism – they have other personality quirks that drive me nuts that they would still have even if they were “normies” (to use AA lingo), even if they were sober / non-drinkers.

          I am not “anti -alcoholics,” but I don’t deny that sometimes people who have addiction problems can hurt people around them, and I’ve also read former AA members say that AA did not help them personally.

          Why Velour keeps portraying those perspectives as worthy of rejection because they do “not offer hope” I do not know.

          Just because AA doesn’t work for all doesn’t mean those individuals cannot find another method.

          Anyway, her recent comments at Wade’s site reveal she’s in denial about her behavior at TWW.

          • You were just about the only person on that thread that mentioned the many victims of alcoholics in a way someone like me could understand. I have no experience with it. You made a cogent point about the church might end up revolving around the alcoholic.

            I do know some who have experience with drug addicts and it seems like the entire family dynamic constantly revolves around the addict as they are either in denial or in and out of rehab. It’s not just the lying and deception and emotional abuse but financial ruin that comes with it, too. It’s all encompassing. Addicts seem to suck the air out of every room. If rehab or AA doesn’t work, then what? Do families or churches continue the roller coaster? It’s a question that wasn’t answered on the thread. I don’t think there is a One size fits all answer as was presented on the thread by Velour. I dont question the decisions made by those I know dealing with an addict in their family unless I see children harmed or neglected.

            The other factor is that Sproul Jrs spiritual abuse goes back quite a while in addition to the drinking problems. . He got off easy on tax fraud, too!

            Frankly, CPS needs to make sure those kids are safe if the mom isn’t going to.

            • Hi Lydia,

              It is always one of my worries when addiction comes up, that this aspect will go unnoticed.

              There is often an uneven, unequal dynamic that happens where the addict – who is having an awful time, no doubt about it- is given a level of understanding, flexibility & forgiveness that those around the addict, often being absolutely broken by their behaviours, are allowed. Bit by bit often you will see this morph into a situation where everything revolves around the addict, they must not be upset in any way, in case they drink or take drugs, no-one can ever lose their temper with them, no-one can ever be really hurt when their money has been stolen or their car trashed or they’ve been publically humiliated….it’s only the addict who is allowed the full range of emotions & behaviours. Everyone else must clip their wings.I’ve seen this in the church so many times.

              It’s why I believe that boundaries are really important, as well as unconditional love – boundaries are not conditions, they are limits, which limit the damage that people are allowed to inflict on others. It’s also why I’m cautious with addicts, not wanting to get sucked in as an individual.

              I’ve also seen a lot of alleged relationship rebuilding actually also be about the addict, not the person they are supposedly relating to. Their actions can be based more on wanting to relieve guilt, rather than actually anything genuinely other-centred towards the other person.

              It’s a very very complicated area, which is why my Mum found Al-anon such a life saver, & really helped her to make sure Dad’s drinking did not derail the entire family any more than she could possibly prevent. It was bad, it could have been worse.

              • That should read ‘than’ those around the addict in the start of the 2nd para. I’m typing tired. I’ve dealt with a lot of unexpected child protection issues at work this week. And I do agree with your point about CPS. I’m lucky my Mum was a lioness with her cubs- never ever ever would she have let my Dad put us in danger, or if he had, it would happen only once.

              • What a blessing to have such a wise mother, Beaker. I sure do miss mine! We have a severe opioids crisis here. I do have a lot of concern for the victims of addicts. Especially the kids. About 6 months ago, I was in a horrible traffic jam that lasted about 3 hours. We found out by radio a driver had OD’ed at a traffic light. He had 2 small children in the car with him. I can’t stop thinking about those kids.

        • Sorry that should be lying ABOUT her, not lying to her. It’s this bit of her post I’m referring to:
          No, I won’t be back. I was treated terribly, what was posted about me by her was untrue,
          I asked her to correct it, she knew I was tied up. And she refused. She threatened me in an email and said that she would post my email and everyone would discuss it and that “no one would buy [my] ‘excuse’.” Because I’m busy? Because I don’t have time this week and I am tied up with my job?

          I don’t need this kind of drama.

          Is this her health problem and her medication? What is going on over there?

          • I see the convo is still going on over at Wade’s blog – this is a recent post from Velour:
            ‘Hi Christiane,

            In my opinion, Beakerj wasn’t helpful. She inflamed the situation. She didn’t want addiction to be talked about.

            She was nasty to me. She was nasty to Friend.

            Obviously this touched a nerve with Beakerj, but she didn’t step back and say, “Yes, this is addiction [in the troubled pastor].”

            Unlike others, I separate out addictions from other behaviorial problems. ‘

            Let me make it crystal clear to anyone who reads this: I have no issue talking about addiction. I talk about it almost daily at work. It didn’t touch a nerve, what touched a nerve was other commenters being talked down to. I wasn’t nasty to anyone, I was exasperated with her. As far as inflaming the situation goes…haaaaaa.

            And yes, I recognise the addiction in Sproul Jnr, I’m just not excusing his many many poor behaviours because of it, which it seems to me is what V means by ‘separate addictions from other behavioral problems’ – I’d love to know how she does this as it’s normally all so intertwined this is a huge claim & she’s not a forensic Psychiatrist or Psychologist as far as I know.

            I’m sad V is coming out with all this- she clearly still is refusing to do any form of self-reflection or entertaining the possibility she may have been wrong. I consider it terrible manners to not talk to the Deebs about the situation either. Now V is saying she’s in pain from dental stuff, but hey, Dee’s in pain too, & yet she found the strength to ring…& so did V, to carry on a long conversation over on Wade’s blog.

            I find it very sad too that she is now dissing TWW as a negative blog, given her huge level of involvement there. It’s clear she’s been really hurt by the criticism I levelled at her, but is just not able to deal with it maturely, which is unexpected actually.

            • @ Beaker J.
              I just dropped by “Istoria” (Wade’s blog) and took a glance at the comments a few moments ago.

              I don’t know if I should update the topic of this blog’s page to reflect all this or not. I will think about it.

              So, based on the continued comments over there…
              Velour is either being dishonest or is delusional about a few things.

              If Velour was put on slow moderation at TWW (not banned, as she keeps saying) for posting about “addiction,” it’s because she was dragging the topic too far off-topic; the topic was Sproul Jr in particular, not addiction in general.

              However, I suspect Velour was put on Slow Mod there because she was attacking several people in the comment box and showed no signs of changing.

              I don’t think I would’ve cared personally had the comments veered a bit off the main topic on to addiction in general, but it was Velour’s rude attitude that set me off.

              Velour said again on Wade’s site that she believes that blogs such as TWW are not handling addiction subjects properly.

              If Velour feels that strongly about addiction and wants a Christian blog to expose how wrongly churches treat addiction, she can start her own blog on that topic (as I believe you mentioned on TWW to her).

              Had she asked nicely, Deb and Dee may have let her do a Guest Post on the issue. They’ve done guest posts before.

              Great balls of fire, why can Velour just not admit on TWW, here on this blog page, or at Wade’s site that she was out of line?

              (I did so a few years ago after I blew up, and nobody forced me to do so.)

              Velour really wants to keep pointing the finger at folks at TWW. They were not the problem.

              Velour hypes 12 step programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous: AA would ask her, “What role did you play in that,” and ask her to take responsibility for her actions, which she continues to refuse to do so.

              And, Velour does not offer solutions to people who have depression or addictions for whom AA does not work, or for whom medications and psychological visits do not work, either.

              Velour said that Christiane is a “positive person” to Christiane at Wade’s Blog. No, she is not.

              Christiane is probably one of the most negative people at Wade’s site, or where ever she posts, because she is a passive aggressive person with a Nice Girl persona to maintain, so she camouflages her hostility under lovey words.

              Velour is being taken for a ride by Christiane and does not recognize it or prefers to stay in denial.

              Christiane is a game player. She’s duping Velour, and Velour is still falling for it.

              I don’t think Velour said any where that she is an addict or alcoholic, but since she drops 12-step lingo into her casual chats with Christiane at Wade’s blog, it makes me wonder if she herself is one, and that is why she reacted so strongly to this topic at TWW.

              My brother was in AA for years, and he will drop AA jargon into conversations with me, even though he knows I am a non-drinker.

              I can’t imagine many non-addicts using 12-step phrases in conversations with other people.

              After you left a comment on Wade’s blog, Velour left a response below to Christiane – not addressing you directly, I note – telling Christiane to “just ignore Beaker J’s comment.”

              I kind of feel sorry for Wade and his readers.

              Christiane and Velour have hi-jacked Wade’s “Istoria” blog’s comment box to engage in that weird dance they have going on, somewhat akin to what they did at TWW for the past several months.

              Christiane and Velour are welcome to post to THIS thread’s page to discuss all of this. That is part of why I created it, so that it would not spill over at TWW, or Wade B’s blog, and where ever.

              You said,

              I find it very sad too that she is now dissing TWW as a negative blog, given her huge level of involvement there.

              I think Velour thinks she was in the right, she feels wronged by the TWW moderators, so she’s painting them and anyone associated, as being the bad guy.

              I know it cuts to be put on Slow Moderation, I understand that, but – she really, really needs to look in the mirror and admit to herself that her behavior there was in the wrong, and it remains wrong at Wade’s blog.

              Velour said you were being “nasty” to her at TWW.

              No, you were not. Not the post I saw. You were calmly and clearly spelling out your problems with her at TWW

              But see, this is kind of frowned on at TWW. Being direct about something is subtly discouraged there.

              You cannot speak plainly there. Being direct and blunt (yet polite) is considered “mean.”

              You have to sugar coat every phrase and dance around things on TWW or with certain types of personalities.

              I think Velour prefers that sort of indirect, sugary communication, and her dishonest- fake- friend Christiane excels at it.

              Any critical (yet polite) comment not covered under ten pounds of sugar will be viewed as “nasty” or “mean,” even though it’s not.

              My impression is that Velour may not be comfortable with direct communication, which is why she hasn’t posted to THIS blog page or taken a phone call off Dee.

              I don’t think you said or did anything wrong in regards to Velour. Maybe she’ll come around in a few weeks after thinking things over. 🙂

              • I find it hard that V, who was frequently firm & directive with others ‘please do this, that or the other’ etc, can’t take the same done to her.

                I’m also surprised to see she has not time to talk due to work & to dental surgery. It certainly doesn’t seem to stop her posting. Giving a phony reason as to why you can’t talk is the same as refusing to talk.

                Never mind. I am concerned about all those secretly struggling she claims have left TWW. Alcoholism & addiction were discussed many many times in the 4+ years I was around before she started commenting. Nothing ever kicked off before.

  6. I hope I haven’t hurt anyone. If I have, I’m sorry. I really am.

    I started commenting at TWW because of the horrible things I’ve seen in the SBC and they’re often the only ones who talk about them. Most of my IRL Christian friends either run away from the problems or they have become indoctrinated, and frankly, scary. Watching people you care get sucked into cultic behaviors is terrifying. Many of my classmates are out promoting those horrible doctrines. I just couldn’t stand by and do nothing, but I don’t know how to reach them. Many of them know me by my nickname, because it is what I go by IRL, so I hope that I get through to a few people that way.

    I do take breaks. I seem like I’m on there a lot, but I work at home and sometimes get a little stir crazy. When I do post, I try to bring it back to Christ, because I believe He is the only authority in the lives of believers. And somehow, nearly all of their posts come down to “Who do you follow?”

    • Ishy,

      This is a utopian dream of mine but I do so want people to only follow Christ. Not denominations, movements, cult of personality, traditions (not all are bad but let’s at least question them). Group think is insidious and we find it everywhere. I found it in hundreds of organizations in my career. It’s hard not to get sucked in. In some situations it is the choice of being able to pay your mortgage or not. But in most, it is about being accepted. It’s a form of control. And we kill off ourselves slowly from it depending on the level of acceptance we need.

      While Christianity has been well marketed as a corporate movement since its church/state takeover, it both is and it isn’t. People may not realize that when Paul had to get out of town after his first big witnessing fiasco he spent about 14 years in Tarsus until Barnabus sought him out to help. Fourteen years the scripture is silent about. That piece of Christian history (and others that are similar like JTB, etc) really resonated with me after leaving the circuses of official Christianity.

      A more recent example would be my friend, Lana, who emigrated here after the wall fell and was a secret Christian in Moscow. She was some sort of chemical engineer whose career depended on being accepted. It was her grandmother who taught her about Jesus as a little girl. There was no church. Yet she believed and learned what she could.

      I thought, what would it be like to follow Christ with no “official” church involvement . Christianity is simple but ……not easy. And it’s often quite remarkable how we tend to find one another. Voluntary. No authority but Christ. No control over one another, etc. And best, no games. It’s not for everyone and I don’t disparage those who choose official church. It was in my DNA. My mom always had a key to every church we were in. It was our life. So, that decision was extremely hard ……except at ground zero our options were severely limited.

      But I have learned that Christ is it. He is all in all. Even outside the 501 c3 world of church.

      • No doubt. And TGC has really done a number on how many people in my life relate to Christ. Many of them don’t totally buy into ESS, but when I’ve asked them about what their churches teach about Christ, suddenly they realize… they don’t. They don’t talk about Jesus at all. Not ever. And the passages in the NT are wholly defined by verses in the OT.

        To me, that wouldn’t be Christianity. Maybe some Jewish patriarchal sect, but not Christian.

        I also think it’s a bit of a utopian dream, but maybe I can reach just one person who hadn’t realized their church doesn’t talk about Jesus either. Like Daisy, I think that what TWW deals with isn’t pretty, but it’s pretty necessary. Because hardly anyone else is confronting these things. I have friends that read it but don’t comment, and they come back to me with “Why didn’t the news cover this?” or “How can anyone defend that child abuser?” I’ve cried over some of those posts, because I knew they were true. Because I knew the people in them. Because I sat next to them in college or seminary. It’s too easy to follow power and money instead of Christ when nobody will stand up against it.

        • Ishy, My experience is that most don’t want to know. People get very wrapped up in defending their group, tribe, they are involved with. Only in the last 5 years or so are a few people my former sphere starting to question….at all. And they were the types that I figured would sooner or later. It’s very frustrating. I have often used TWW as a link for some wanting to learn about membership covenants or DRiscoll or the Neo Cal movement in general. That sort of information is really needed. I am glad they had the time and resources to provide that. Those kinds of blogs are full time jobs.

          I think a good starting place for all this tribal/group business are grounding our basic principles. I have “Baptistic” principles that influence my beliefs such as ‘No King but Jesus’ and ‘no creed but scripture’ as the groundwork for everything else. But I won’t defend the SBC. I might defend individual issues. Same with politics. My governing principles are libertarian (classical liberal) but I won’t defend parties in general or join one. I just don’t need or want the baggage that comes with group identity. It’s too big of a price in so many respects.

          I still hold out hope that in Christendom, of all places, Jesus will make a comeback. He has been sidelined. We can do our best to bring Him up. When my mom was dying she told me the church was a mission field. It took me a while but I finally understood. Sigh.

    • Hello, Ishy.

      I really didn’t mean to make anyone to feel bad with my comments about how often they post and where. I’ve been guilty at times at posting a lot on some sites.

      I do realize though that it’s really not altogether healthy to be that way.

      Sometimes I take entire days off from the internet, and on other days if I get on, I don’t visit the same sites, or try not to. If you happen to find an online community where you really feel you fit in, it can be tempting to spend a lot of time there.

      When I see someone who is spending an awful lot of time on the same site and their personality starts appearing more extreme, and they start acting as though they “own” the blog, that does send up a red flag with me.

  7. Hi Daisy,

    I agree with much of what you wrote about here and told Velour by private message on Facebook my thoughts and concerns. I thought we got somewhere. I’m not so sure now.

    Re: you bringing TWW issues to SSB: I have to maintain boundaries on my blog. It’s just not appropriate to bring blog drama from one blog to the other. It is a blog disruption and then it forces people to take sides. That’s not healthy. I understand the intense emotions, that it might trigger feelings of an abusive church or church leader, but there has to be a better way to handle those issues, I’m just not sure how.

    I’m sad about all that has transpired on TWW. My blog has had its own share of issues over the years. It’s inevitable, but it’s always sad. It’s difficult to be a blog owner and get everything right. It’s especially difficult when you are going through stuff (illness, school, emotional issues, time constraints, etc). Most people are gracious and understanding. Sometimes grace and understanding are lacking. That’s too bad.

    Thanks for sharing.

    • @Julie Anne.

      I appreciate what you say about blog boundaries and understand that.

      At the time I was banned over at TWW, I was hurt and angry about it, since I had been a pretty well-behaved member. I was told in private by the moderator guy they have that I was banned for link formation (for using A HREFs) and that sort of thing.

      That just really rubbed me the wrong way. I was wanting to vent about it and just let people from that blog know why I was no longer posting at TWW at that time, which is one reason I mentioned it on your blog back then.

      I started this thread here so that anyone from TWW who is freaked out by what went on recently (or in the last few months – the comment section seems to have changed for the worst, kind of) could at least come here to discuss it. I know I sometimes got the feeling I could not completely express myself over there.

      I have not corresponded with Velour since she blew up at me at the TWW blog. Even though I was (or remain a bit) a little miffed at her, I do wish her well. She can post here on my blog if she likes, though I don’t want it to turn into a big re-hash of some of the issues argued over at TWW if possible (like, “should churches kick out alcoholics”).

      I do admire and respect what you’re doing at SSB. I was at the time (back then) rather upset with you, but I’m okay with you now (and have been). I hope there are no hard feelings between us.

      (Edit, Post Script.
      I was not online at all the past two days, which is why I did not approve your post to appear on the blog earlier (I wasn’t here to check in on pending posts). I think after one or two of your posts have been approved by me, any future ones should appear automatically.)

  8. One of Christianes many “stir the pot” off topic Comments on Wades blog

    https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19615457&postID=4009587399192815066

    Blogger Christiane said…
    Velour, be sure to read the comments over at Daisy’s post. I think it will put some light on what happened last week. I wasn’t surprised to read what I saw there and who was involved. Oh dear.

    So, let’s analyze.

    Why so vague? Why doesn’t Christiane have the courage of her convictions to say who she is talking about and “what” was the involvement? This is classic Christiane spreading poisonous innuendo. People are supposed to believe there is some nefarious activity. Is it because Christiane is nice and love bombs people into ignoring the fact there are no facts? . This compliments her other SBC blog comments such as a commenter named Mary was really me. And other drive by comments that she would “recognize” my words anywhere. (As if I did not post my name and there are no other “direct” people commenting on the Internet)

    This was exactly how mega churches operated in order to set people up and marginalize them. It’s the same exact tactic!

    Doesn’t she realize this is evil? And it certainly isn’t “kind”. Which is why she doesn’t define “kind” for me as she has for most on TWW.

    I was not commenting on the Sproul thread. But Christiane certainly wants people to think I did. I just don’t get her endgame. How on earth does she benefit from it? What is the point of her conspiracy theory that sock puppets are to blame for Velours comments? That Velour has no control? Then her recruiting Velour as a sidekick (she did this with someone else years ago on another blog) was for naught when Velour reached out to her to talk privately. Not so BFF as she promoted publicly.

    Any way, thanks for allowing me to comment here. I have seen spiritual abuse blogs that evolved into much worse but there are always a few who seem to need it as some sort of vehicle to self aggrandizement and worth. It becomes a popularity contest campaign for them instead of just delving into issues. They feel a need to recruit people to admire them. Sounds like church.

    People like this never stop. I hope Wade and TWW realize what they are supporting.

    • @ lydia00.
      I have not been online at all until today. I took some of my own advice and stayed off the internet the last two days.

      So much I could say here in reply to your post.

      I do think TWW is a good blog, providing a great service (exposing child / spiritual abuse), but something weird has happened in the commenting box.

      I don’t think allowing commentators to behave as though they “own” the blog and can order others around in the comment box is conducive to having a free-wheeling, open environment to discuss topics.

      I don’t think Christiane was, or is, helping things, either, with her communication style, and how she behaves on these blogs.

      At least my thread here gives anyone not comfortable discussing this at TWW (and they locked down the Sproul Jr thread, I thought I read above?) a place to come to discuss it more freely.

      I would like people to be civil in the comment section here (I’m not advocating all-out war, LOL), but they don’t have to be Fake Nice to participate. 🙂

      You quoted Christiane (via Wade’s blog)

      Velour, be sure to read the comments over at Daisy’s post. I think it will put some light on what happened last week. I wasn’t surprised to read what I saw there and who was involved. Oh dear.

      Velour can do more than read the comments. She can post here if she likes.

      If Velour wants to leave a post telling me she’s so angry at me she’s spitting nails, that’s fine. (She has posted to my blog before.)

      I am or was angry with her, but I don’t hate Velour. I wish her well.

      I want Velour to realize she cannot and should not trust Christiane. I may be a bit annoyed with Velour this past week, but I don’t have an agenda to push like Christiane does. I’m not playing head games with Velour (or with anyone).

      If Christiane wants to post here on my blog, she may post here and state her case, if she would like. However, I’m not going to fall for her mind games.

      You said,

      Doesn’t she [Christiane] realize this is evil? And it certainly isn’t “kind”. Which is why she doesn’t define “kind” for me as she has for most on TWW.

      I agree with you that she likes to act nice and sweet on the one hand while sowing discord on the other – she is into innuendo quite a bit. I think it’s deceptive.

      Christiane believes she is a Christian, right? Doesn’t the Bible say to let your yes be yes and your no be a no, and what you hear in secret yell from the roof tops? Christians are not supposed to be deceptive and manipulative in their dealings with people.

      Velour may hate me now or be angry, but at least I am up-front and say what I mean. I am not pretending to be someone I am not. I don’t feel safe saying that about Christiane.

      You said,

      I was not commenting on the Sproul thread. But Christiane certainly wants people to think I did. I just don’t get her endgame. How on earth does she benefit from it? What is the point of her conspiracy theory that sock puppets are to blame for Velours comments? That Velour has no control? Then her recruiting Velour as a sidekick (she did this with someone else years ago on another blog) was for naught when Velour reached out to her to talk privately. Not so BFF as she promoted publicly.

      I do feel Christiane was wanting to promote Roman Catholicism at TWW and at Wade’s blog (and where ever else she hangs out online), but I do wonder if there is something more going on beyond that.

      I do feel bad for Velour in this. I think Christiane cozied up to Velour on TWW for her own purposes, and when Velour reached out to her later on, Christiane blew her off.

      Christiane says she only takes e-mails from family to explain why she won’t take e-mails from Velour.

      All Christiane has to do is set up a web-based e-mail address (they are free) with G-Mail, Yahoo mail, or Hotmail. That way, she could communicate with Velour in private and keep her family-based e-mail separate from anything from Velour. But you and I both know Christiane has no intention of communicating with Velour in private.

      You’re very welcome to be able to comment here. I just know how TWW works, and we would either not be allowed to discuss this stuff openly there, or people would feel uncomfortable about being so open about it there.

      • Thanks for your input, Daisy. My concern was the vague innuendo conspiracy theory about sock puppets on that thread then accusing commenters on other blogs of being me in what looked like an attempt to brand me using other blogs that I comment on but she didn’t until now? Why take this to other blogs not discussing it at all?

        • @ Lydia00 said,

          Why take this to other blogs not discussing it at all?

          I wonder about that, too.

          I was just saying to Beaker J above, one of my hunches is that Velour is uncomfortable with direct communication.

          After Beaker commented on Wade’s blog, rather than reply to Beaker directly, Velour told Christianie to “just ignore Beaker.”

          As for Christiane – well, I think Velour reached out to her first at Wade’s site. But Christiane seems to be keeping it going over there.

          Christiane is aware of THIS blog post but she not posted here as of yet.

          Maybe one or both are afraid to post to this blog page about it? Hard to say.

          They are dragging Wade’s comment box off- direction in the mean-time.

          At this stage, Velour is still in anger or denial and doesn’t want to acknowledge the part she played at TWW and that her behavior was off over there. Maybe her commenting on this blog post at this time would be a waste of everyone’s time, because she would likely just want to justify herself, keep pointing the finger of blame at others from TWW, etc. She can post here if she wants, though.

          And yes, I see that Christiane runs around insinuating things about people, making up stories about sock puppets, and accusing other people of being other people (even though they’re not).

          • And it’s still going on.

            My hunch is that direct communication is the issue – by doing things this way V can say anything she wants with no immediate comeback or contradiction. Direct communication means a two-way conversation & the possibility of disagreement from the other party.

            I actually feel worried for V, she wouldn’t communicate with Dee about the thread because I assume she knows she was in the wrong & wouldn’t like what was going to be said, so she has flinched away from it in this great big deflection, which I associate with just feeling so pained & ashamed by finding herself in the wrong. Maybe she’s had to fight very hard after all her church stuff to feel like she was in the right & regain confidence, & finding herself in the wrong just threw her?

            It’s still possible to sort it out though. Never too late.

  9. “Maybe I’m wrong – I was under the impression that Christiane was Roman Catholic?”

    “Christiane has a history on other sites and blogs of playing passive-aggressive games. People more familiar with her than myself have illuminated me – but I already was suspicious of her all on my own, from the very first week she began posting there.”

    Christiane is using Jesuit casuistry to promote Catholicism and denigrate evangelicalism.

    https://xcjournal.org/the-errors-of-catholicism/jesuit-casuistry/

    • @ Dale R.
      Thank you for your input.

      I could have sworn Christiane said or indicated at TWW months ago she is a Roman Catholic, but someone above on this thread said she is Orthodox.

      I was raised in the Southern Baptist church and have never been Roman Catholic (I’m thinking I may do a post on this blog about Roman Catholicism, in regards to how some spiritual abuse blogs seem to frown on anyone critiquing RC beliefs, but will allow RC members to take subtle jabs at Baptists or Protestants).

      I studied Roman Catholicism about 12 – 13 years ago but don’t remember hearing about that concept before (Jesuit casuistry).

      I read the page you linked me to, and it says in part:

      The historical use of “whatever means necessary” to promote the truth of Catholicism and the supremacy of the Pope. Founded by Ignatius of Loyola and sanctioned by Pope Paul III in 1540, the Jesuits became stout participants in the counter-reformation. Fiercely loyal to the pope, for centuries the powerful Jesuits acted as a network of spies and insurgents in Protestant countries.
      (Source)

      That sounds a lot like what some Muslims do for Islam – they have terms that state that they can do anything to promote Islam, even tell lies (such as Taqiyya or Kitman).

      Here’s a Wiki page about that:
      Taqiya

      I really would not want to worship any God who is okay with his followers lying to promote their faith, be deceitful, or (in some forms of Islam) decapitate them or force them to pay special taxes. I wouldn’t want to join that religion.

      Seeing how Christiane behaves on other sites does not make me want to run out and join whatever denomination she is a part of.

      I am baffled that she believes acting sweet to hide hostility, treating people like projects (no real concern for them as people or for their problems – feigning concern) and taking pot shots at people’s childhood faiths (Protestantism / or Baptist faith) is the way to entice them to join an RC church. It repels me.

    • “Christiane is using Jesuit casuistry to promote Catholicism and denigrate evangelicalism.”

      This makes so much sense. I came across her around 2006 or so on Baptist blogs doing the enlightened Catholic shitck. It’s very clever if you think about it. Go to evangelical or baptist blogs discussing problems, differences or evangelical related blogs which are about spiritual abuse mainly in evangelism. Perfect audience which mostly consists of unhappy evangelicals.

      It’s not like there aren’t Catholic blogs dealing with their own victims and abuse problems where they want to change things.

      It’s weird. But then she told us way back that she came to the baptist blogs after seeing Westboro Baptist on the news. Sigh.

      I guess she had been sheltered from Baptists?

      • Christiane has always come off to me as male……whatever, she/he always has an agenda, promoting Catholicism. She uses blogs/forums, by dissenting evangelical Christians, as a window of opportunity to inject Catholic theology.

  10. Looks like this has pretty much come to head at the Istoria Blog (Pastor Wade’s Internet home).

    I would say that there were certainly some tactical errors that were made affecting TWW’s credibility.

    1) A blog should never be allowed to devolve into a support group. This might sound a little cold but the amount of prayer requests/ gofundme requests/ off topic requests was getting a little out of control. The former open discussion page became inundated – you couldn’t discuss anything between the needs of others and gofundme updates.

    2) Velour left the blog and for her own reasons (right or wrong) decided not to communicate. When her and Christiane started communicating on the Istoria Blog comments section, it should have been left alone. Whatever they were saying would only eventually reflect poorly on them and eventually would have fizzled on its own. Christiane had no interest in communicating with Velour beyond keeping the drama going on both blog comment areas.

    3) Dedicating a post with no comments allowed to the communication issue was like throwing gas on fire. See comment above.

    4) Christiane and Velour are pretty anonymous. Entering the fray on the Istoria Blog only led to egg being on Dee and Debs face having to apologize to Pastor Wade and his apparently irate audience.

    I notice the prayer needs are ramping up over on TWW again so I suppose the next trigger event will be around the corner. I probably won’t be around to see it.

    Via con dios

    • (My apologies to those of you who left posts here the last few days but they weren’t approved until now to appear – I have not been on the internet at all the last three days.)

      @ John Hotchkiss
      I agree with everything you said.

      I will say I don’t totally fault Velour 100% with trying to contact Christiane initially via Wade’s blog, since (she claims) she had no other way of contacting Christiane and (mistakenly?) believes she was banned from TWW blog (another commentator says no, she was not banned, only put on “slow moderation”).

      But beyond that, I wish the two had either come here (to the Daisy blog) to hash it out, or Christiane had given Velour her e-mail
      (which she won’t do, because Christiane is not sincerely interested in helping anyone she runs into online),
      or, they had used Velour’s blog.

      Velour has a blog (or did, unless she has deleted it?). Velour started her own blog about a year ago, where she talked about her spiritual abuse experiences at her former Neo-Cal church.

      This whole thing got started because Velour blew up over a woman’s comments about alcoholism at TWW.

      IMHO, Velour should’ve gone to her own blog, wrote up a piece about the church and alcoholism, ranted at her own blog about the woman’s comments, and then linked to her blog post from a comment on TWW in that thread.

      I think that would have solved a lot of issues or avoided the uproar.

      While I feel for all the people who are troubled (spiritually and financially) at TWW and don’t object to an occasional prayer request or financial request, it did become overwhelming, when many of the threads (and the Open thread) were inundated on a regular basis with appeals for prayer or Go Fund Me Requests.

      The TWW blog started reading less like a blog covering spiritual issues and more like a Charity Site.

      I think Deb and Dee opened the floodgates on the fund raising stuff, but it was ramped up or propogated over the months by things like Velour popping into the comments to continually ask people to donate to persons X, Y, and Z.

      I’m all for helping people, but there should’ve been a separate blog about that linked to from TWW (maybe Velour could’ve run it), or a separate post on their blog for that stuff (which was put into place later).

      You said,

      3) Dedicating a post with no comments allowed to the communication issue was like throwing gas on fire. See comment above.

      I agree and find it strange that TWW did a post about the Velour situation without mentioning Velour by name and not allowing comments on their blog.

      You said,

      I notice the prayer needs are ramping up over on TWW again so I suppose the next trigger event will be around the corner. I probably won’t be around to see it.

      I’m not even sure where their Prayer Request page is located. I think they made a perma-page for that. It’s not easily found.

      I remember suggesting to them months ago to maybe list such perma-pages in some tab thing at the top of their blog but they did not take up my suggestion.

      Not sure what the point is in having a perma-page on Prayer if a blog visitor cannot easily locate it?

      (edit. Correction: Just took a peek at TWW’s home page, and they HAVE in fact added links to the perma pages since I was last there a few days ago. I didn’t see that before)

      I am currently not participating much at TWW and have not been for the last few months, but if the comment box shapes up, I may join in again.

      It used to draw a diverse crowd and was fun or interesting or educational to post to, but something changed there. I may still stop in at times to skim or post a time or two, but I don’t know about getting as involved now as I was at one time.

      • I was under the impression the weekly church posts would become the prayer request location, but it might be a permapage. The permapages are supposed to be linked in the sidebar eventually, but real life has delayed that.

        I think the issue with the funding requests was one of those things that the Deebs allowed to be nice, but didn’t expect it to get as out of hand as it did–which is why they eventually had to change it. I think that’s the sort of thing that really needs to be turned into a charity organization with its own separate site so it can formally fundraise. But a similar organization where I live has a three month limit, but they help people find jobs during the process, working with agencies and private companies.

  11. I am a long-time lurker for many years at both the TWW and Istoria blogs. So when this episode with Velour spilled over from the TWW blog comments into the Istoria blog comments, I decided to come out of my comfort zone to post some comments myself. I in no way enjoy doing this, but I too believe that Christiane has a hidden agenda beneath her veneer of compassion that I want to make others aware of so they don’t get taken in by her.

    Christiane could have taken up your offer to post her comments here instead of hijacking a thread on the Istoria blog on a topic unrelated to Velour’s woes. As well, she could have spoken to Velour in private when Velour asked her to. Instead she chose to let it play out online all over again. And it is suspicious to me that she appears to have the time to be online commenting on countless blogs 24/7 like its a paid job.

    In one of her comments on the TWW, she accused others of being unkind to Velour. Yet when questioned by several people as to how they had been unkind, she was wily and evasive and would not give a direct answer. I believe that the people who were asking were sincerely concerned and wanted specifics so they could make amends.

    Whether inadvertently or on purpose, Christiane inflamed the situation and allowed it to become worse. As long as Christiane is allowed to post comments at TWW, I would not consider it safe for anyone vulnerable to participate there.

    • @ Michele A.

      You said,

      In one of her comments on the TWW, she accused others of being unkind to Velour.

      And Christiane didn’t seem to notice or care that Velour was in fact the one treating the other commentators unkindly.

      Neither did the several people who said, “Oh no, poor Velour” the following day when Dee posted about it on another thread, saying Velour told her privately she’d no longer be posting to that site.

      None of them saying, “Poor Velour” showed concern for the people who Velour had chewed up the day before on the Sproul thread.

      I thought that blog was supposed to remember targets of mistreatment first? But no concern (outside of Beaker J and by a few others) was shown to the targets of Velour’s behavior. That was disappointing.

      If you’re going to blog about how ignorant or sloppy churches are at dealing with bullies, I would think that those who regularly participate in the comments of such a blog would be able to spot it in their own comment box when it’s going down.

      You said,

      Whether inadvertently or on purpose, Christiane inflamed the situation and allowed it to become worse. As long as Christiane is allowed to post comments at TWW, I would not consider it safe for anyone vulnerable to participate there.

      I agree with all that.

      I really think Deb and Dee should block Christiane on that site, and Wade B. should block her as well on his site. She does not have a pure motive and is only harming troubled people who post to such sites. But those are not my blogs, so I cannot call the shots there.

      And, btw, as I noted above to another commentator: Velour started her own blog about a year ago. Assuming her blog is still up and she did not delete it, she could always ask Christiane to post to her blog.

      Velour could’ve written an impassioned post about the church and alcoholics and posted to her blog post from TWW in a comment on there, thus directing further heated debate about it from TWW to her own blog.

      IMO, that would’ve avoided much of the kerfuffle on TWW and the whole thing at Wade’s “Istoria” blog would’ve been unnecessary.

      I can only imagine how confused recurrent visitors to Wade’s blog must have felt when seeing Christiane’s and Velour’s conversation about TWW on his blog.

    • Michele, I guess you are the Michele who posted the astute comment over at Isatoria? Wade responded as typical Wade. Don’t get involved in conflict because it’s not popular….but perfectly ok to host the one way-conflict? He is also big into instant repentance. Unlike him, I don’t think “Gods people” reconciled anything nor learned any lessons. Christiane was milking it to death as a way to present herself as the great holy one without making personal contact with velour. But Velour got legal so it turned nice quickly. Sigh.

      A mircrocosm of the typical way groups evolve. Beware. It’s in churches everywhere.

      • Yup, same Michele.

        After I read your comment here, I had to go back to the Istoria blog to see what you were talking about. That was surreal—talk about going off on a tangent. I felt compelled to make another comment on that thread in my defense.

        I was disappointed when Dee backed down and removed Velour’s email snippets. Like my mama said, you shouldn’t write something to anyone that you wouldn’t want to see in print on the front page of the newspaper.

        Here is GeneMBridges take on this:

        “12. Speaking for myself, I will not entertain spam emails, rants, and other such items. In the spirit of openness, this means if necessary, I will, speaking strictly for myself, post the contents of emails if they display a pattern of abuse, mean-spiritedness, misrepresentation, unresponsiveness, or willful ignorance. This is to draw your attention to the way you sound, and I say this because I respect you and believe you capable of better behavior, but sometimes it is necessary to do such a thing to make a point.”

        You can find rest of this interesting article here (ironically!):

        http://www.wadeburleson.org/2006/10/10-rules-of-etiquette-for-blog-debates_03.html

        I doubt that if Velour actually files for a takedown of TWW’s site that she would be successful. Dee was not slanderous nor defamatory, and I don’t think publishing Velour’s emails snippets was illegal either. She said it, so she should own it.

        The Electronic Frontier Foundation has some information regarding legal issues for bloggers. You will get a popup on your screen telling you that you are blocked. Wait for it to fade, and you will get a second popup that you will be able to close so you can get onto their site (I guess they’re trying to make a point):

        https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal

        • My first introduction to Velour (she went by another name) was when TWW was covering Tony Jones/Julie McMahon situation. Velour was constantly throwing out legal threats to Tony Jones. She was supposedly filing complaints against his lawyers, the judge, etc, etc. it was OTT. Evidently she works for a law firm. Not a lawyer, though. So, it wasn’t a surprise to me when she pulled the legal threat on Deebs. My guess is that is her normal.

          Of course, Tony went about his evil activities just fine.

          Frankly, I did not see the “spirit” working in that exchange but that’s just me. But my personal rule is people can do what they want with their blogs and I am free not to participate if I don’t like it.. Sort of a free market view. 🙂

          I stayed off that thread. It was like watching a train wreck, though. Christiane was like the pusher handing out sweet drugs to an addict.

            • A blog like TWW is a full time job. I don’t envy them. I gave it up after 2 years because I did not have the time to put into it properly nor the temperament for it. But love discussing issues. It’s becoming harder and harder as so many people now stay perpetually offended over disagreement or views they don’t like. The political correctness is stifling to me.

              My guess is Christiane will be back soon. Love bombing works. People crave it and believe it. I knew this from watching master love bombers at Megas but when I met some very educated SGM folks (phd in physics, lawyer, etc) who fell for it big time at SGM which is a cult compared to where I come from, I knew there was more to it psychologically I had not even begun to fathom. What makes people walking targets for it?

              I was taught to be wary of flattery and overly sentimental stuff. There is a place for it ….but constant? It ends up having no meaning. Feelings are not facts even though they are important and not to be discounted.

  12. Daisy, thanks for posting this. I have observed both Velour and Christiane in comments at TWW for some time. They have both always felt a little off to me. By that, I mean, bluntly, fake. I just tried to avoid them as much as possible. As you noted in the post, that became impossible when Velour chose to take me to task for not doing things the way she thought I should. I had seen her do it to others, but this seemed an escalation to me…perhaps because I was the target.
    I have communicated my concerns to Dee privately and she redponded.
    I my opinion, based on a lifetime of in my face experience and obsevation, I suspect that both C & V are narcissists…slightly different styles, but the same underneath. And I have seen narcissists join forces – each with their own agenda, but projecting a mutual admiration society. That is until one decides they no longer need the other. Then look out.
    To me, the comments that V has made, especially over at Istoria, are classic narcissistic projection – blame-shifting. Even the refusal to talk to dee and the condesending tone of the emails, like many of her comments, is classic projection and avoidance.

    The truly ironic thing is that a narcisdist can be taken in by another narcissist. And they may both be taken in by each other….

    • @ Jeannette

      I regard Christiane as being fake (she has a pro-RC agenda to promote all over other sites). She acts nice when it suits her, but the “nice mask” will slip, or if she perceives you to be un-favored on a blog.

      As to Velour. My impression is that she is sincere but perhaps a troubled individual who made the TWW blog her entire reason for living, which is not a healthy thing to do.

      IMHO, Velour became way, way too wrapped up in the TWW blog to the point she must have felt (I am guessing) that she is the blog’s third owner, along with Deb and Dee, which is perhaps why she felt comfortable “bossing” people around in the comments.

      I think on the one hand Velour tries to communicate in a sugar-coated, direct way, but on other occasions, she doesn’t succeed at it – she can be blunt to the point of coming across as rude-sounding in some posts.

      I don’t know why Velour was so short with you about fund raising there, but then turned around and was so very kind and patient with the other fund-raising lady (Shauna?). There seemed to be a little of a double standard there.

      Someone reminded me a couple of weeks ago that a year or more ago that Velour was going up and down the threads asking for folks there to help her pay for her stuff (for her rent? for her food? I can’t remember what). I vaguely remember that, though.

      I think that Christiane was using Velour (and is possibly still using her).

      Christiane cozies up to whomever she feels is the most popular person on a blog. If that person falls out of favor, Christiane will toss them away like a piece of trash, though not in an obvious manner, lest it blow her ‘Nice Girl’ persona.

      Christiane and Velour had this weird duet going on over there. It seemed as though most of the conversations in the comment boxes under every thread were mainly those two.

      I used to post at TWW a lot myself (over a year ago). I may still post there in the future, but for now, it feels too weird to post to, or not a lot. It used to draw a more diverse crowd, and it used to be more fun to post to.

      • I agree about the weird vibe between them. I don’t read many blogs anymore and have not encountered C elsewhere as some have. But those who have commented here on this issue are people I know and belive (including you). There is definitely the feel of a hidden agenda. Also, it is weird they way C almost comes across as a sycophant to V.

        As to V, I have been wary of her from the beginning at TWW. The only way I know how to describe what I was sensing is this: one of the hallmark traits if a narcissist is their inability to feel empathy. I grew up with narcissists as parents. I am very fimiliar with the vibe. Here is the thing – they learn that to be accepted into a group, they have to seem normal. They recognize the need to put on an appearance, so they will study the way people respond to others and try to imitate it. It looks genuine on the surface and some are very good at it. In fact, many take pleasure in pulling one over and they’ll invest a lot of ego in the appearance of compassion and sympathy. But often, because it is a performance and not real emotion, they don’t quite pull it off. People can sense something off, but can’t quite put their finger on what. This is what I have sensed from V (and also C). It is also why, when they are challenged or no longer need your ‘support,’ they seem to flip a switch and turn into a whole different person. Her respose to me when I challenged her authority (before it was announced she was being given charge over some pages) was startling and telling.

        However, I could be wrong and that is one of the primary problems with online interactions. There is no ability to see body language – facial expression, eye movement, tone of voice…

        • @ Jeannette.
          I picked up on Christiane’s game from the very first week she began posting at TWW (and I forget about exactly when that was, sometime in 2016?), maybe because she was so similar to another Roman Catholic woman who I had run across on another forum years before who played the same game.

          (BTW, one person above says Christiane says she is Orthodox, but I could’ve sworn she is Catholic.)

          I’ve heard from others who have known Christiane when she posted under other screen names on other blogs going back ten or more years. She has, and still posts to, blogs and sites for Baptists.

          Part of Christiane’s deal is to lure troubled Baptists or Protestants over to Catholicism. She does this by pretending to be super sugary sweet and by pretending to care about your and your problems.

          She’s a Fair Weather Friend, however.

          Christiane will latch on to and be Super Duperly Nice to whomever the Cool Kids are on a blog. If you’re perceived by her as being a widely-disliked person, however, she won’t waste time on you, or she will join the others in criticizing you.

          At some stage, Chrisitane must have perceived Velour as being the Number One Cool Kid on TWW (so, she’s going to protect Velour in public, and defend her from critics), so she really cozied up to her, to the point where Christiane’s Nice Mask slipped when I challenged Velour on an issue once or twice.

          Christiane took Velour’s side and got a little testy with me in that disagreement.

          I believe this is so because she felt Velour had more “clout” on the blog at that time than I did (I had dialed back my level of participation there at that time).

          Just the day or two before, Christiane had written some very lovely sounding things about me there, but when I disagreed with Velour, all that instantly flew out the window.

          But long before that, I spotted what Christiane was up to, so I was not surprised by her sudden turn.

          I never trusted her, either.

          You said,

          As to V, I have been wary of her from the beginning at TWW.

          You may be right. I guess I was just giving her more benefit of the doubt.

          I get more of a fake vibe from Christiane than I do from Velour. Christiane has an agenda to push, that I pick up on easily and am amazed that other people on other blogs seem blind to it.

          • My opinion on V: she got called on her behavior and so she’s not going to play anymore. That is classic narcissistic behavior.

            As to C, what you said about her cozy in up to V rings true. And that probably explains the weird public exchange over at Istoria. C was essentially begging V to come back to TWW. C needs V to continue the control….?

            • @ Jeannette.
              Someone on that thread at Wade’s blog was accusing another Anonymous poster of being me, but it was not me.

              I just got back from Wade’s blog, and I updated THIS blog post above to reflect that.

              I did leave a post there (Wade’s blog), today, but I’ve not even been online at all the last 3 – 4 days.

              Someone left a post there as Anon, and another Anon accused that person of being me (it was not me). The first Anon made a post there on Jul 8, and I was not even on the internet at all on Jul 8.

              I did leave a post over there to clear that up.

              If any of what Velour says on Wade’s blog is accurate about how Dee handled herself in private – if the comment about putting the e-mails out publicly was done as a threat, I can see how Velour would be miffed by that.

              But it’s a matter of perception. Perhaps Dee did not mean it as a threat, only to publicize it to clarify how Velour was acting behind the scenes, and so on.

              This whole thing is one big foul up.

              But IMO, Velour started the whole ordeal, and she’s still refusing to just apologize for her part in it. (Puts Christiane in a bind, because she was cozying up to Velour for her own purposes.)

              It just rubbed Velour the wrong way in the TWW thread about Sproul Jr that one lady feels alcoholics should be kicked out of churches and the rest of us, such as me, didn’t totally share her views or enthusiasm over Alcoholics Anonymous or other 12 step programs.

              After having lived a life time being verbally abused by my older sister (who tends to justify the abuse by saying she has life really tough, or she cooks up another excuse), and since recognizing there is no justification for that behavior towards me from anyone, I don’t tend to put up with it online from acquaintances.

              Velour keeps insisting at Wade’s site she had numerous oral surgeries planned that take a long time to drive to, and that is why she cannot talk to Dee on the phone.

  13. I certainly did not take Dees post as a threat to V. She overreached on that one. It was only written communication because V refused to talk. The legal threat was unnecessary and vicious.

    For the record, again, I have not posted on Wades blog on that thread.

    No way was I going to take Christiane’s trying to drag me into this to a blog not discussing it as a topic. She tried very hard to set me up on TWW, SBCToday and SBCtomorrw. The latter two she never commented on or if she did it’s been years. I was shocked to see her on them. And I had not commented at TWW since the Alex Grenier post, if I remember correctly. I did not comment on the Sproul Jr post, for sure. she started in with the sock puppet anonymous stuff on Wades blog, too. And frankly, it was all a deflection and had nothing to do with V behavior. Deceptive.

    She will continue on at TWW like nothing happened. (I did see that Dee deleted a comment she made to Christiane that was very direct. Never thought screen shots would be necessary there! Oh well)

    • I think I edited the Original Post way above to explain, but….

      I did not post to that thread at Wade’s blog (where Velour and Christiane were chatting) AT ALL until today (July 11), and I posted as “Miss Daisy Flower.”

      I did not post to that thread prior to that one post today. And I even used my Daisy Word Press I.D. and did not post as “Anonymous” to make it more obvious.

      You said,

      No way was I going to take Christiane’s trying to drag me into this to a blog not discussing it as a topic. She tried very hard to set me up on TWW, SBCToday and SBCtomorrw.

      She really does seem fixated on you.

  14. I am so grateful that you all are carrying on this conversation over here. Some of you might smile if you heard me saying “Great comment. I agree” with just about everything said here. You all are smart, thoughtful people and have guessed well in order to fill in the blanks.

    I wish I could tell you all of what went on behind the scenes but that would involve, once again, proving my point and that would mean showing private correspondence and breaking some confidences. Let me hint at one thing. We have heard from people who know particular individuals from outside the blogging world. Their input has raised many questions in our minds.

    No threats were made by us and I cannot, in my wildest dreams, imagine threatening anyone over anything on the blog. Good night! I would give up blogging if it led to me becoming a person who threatens hurting people. The very thought sickens me.

    If any of you have specific questions, I urge you to shoot me an email and I can try to be a bit less vague.

    I am so sorry that things went the way that they did. Our motivation to include certain individuals is spelled out in the post about Internet Conflict at TWW. The two of us deeply care about people and some of the mistakes we made were born out of a heart for those who have obviously suffered pain in their lives. Please try to read between the lines.

    Due to my health problems, I overlooked a lot the past few months.Let me spell that our for you. I was diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis in March. I apparently have blood that does not show when I have a serious inflammation. Due to this, treatment was delayed. It was only when I had bone scans and MRI with contrast that the serious inflammation showed up and it caused my physicians great concern. Unfortunately, although treatment was initiated (I take two shots a week as well as daily medication) it was too late for my left leg.

    I developed a serious foot drop of my left foot with total numbness and severe swelling.I can’t fell or move my toes. My nerve conduction studies showed that my peroneal nerve was cut off halfway down my left leg around the area of my calf. This is a rare problem and the neurologist said that I was the interesting case of the week. Great…I have about a 50/50 chance of regaining feeling in my lower leg and full use of my toes and the front of my left foot.

    Thankfully, it appears that my treatment regimen is resulting in drastic improvement in the rest of my body. Just as an aside, due to some comments in another thread, I refused to take opioids while my methotrexate and Enbrel was kicking in. Instead, I spent time off my feet which helped the pain tremendously.

    I hate taking about myself because I know I have been blessed. I am surrounded by excellent medical people who are working hard to help me. Unfortunately, my reticence to discuss my disability also led to people not understanding where I was at from day to day. I am so, so sorry. Now, you have the full story. Again, shoot me an email if you want more info.

    I think you will find some positive changes in the TWW comment section. In fact, my guess is that a few of you have figured out who is and is no longer at TWW. We will be announcing how we are handling prayer in the next week.

    As for the fundraising, an announcement will be going up in another week. We think you may find what we have decided to do in this area interesting, logical and compassionate. We also think that many of you might be really interested in how we can help some hurting people.

    Daisy-kudos to you for starting this blog. It takes a lot of time and strength to do this. It does not surprise me that you have not only done so, but have done so well. I would consider it a privilege if you would approve my comment.I would not be upset if you didn’t.

    I only hope I have not made things worse. You would think that I would get this right after 8 years. I have a lot to learn.

    • @ Dee.

      So sorry for your medical / health issues.

      I have approved your comment to appear.

      Just to let you know, my computer has been acting very wonky the last week or two.

      My internet connection is very slow at times, too.

      On other occasions, certain sites won’t allow me to log in at all, or are so slow, I give up after a few hours.

      Some sites are spotty for me. Twitter is one.

      I already follow you on there as “Daisy” (@MsDaisyFlower) on Twitter.

      Sometimes Twitter will permit me to log in, but won’t allow me to Tweet or reply to Direct Messages.

      My web-based e-mail accounts are also tricky.

      I was going to check and see if you e-mailed me back a week or more ago (you probably did), but my e-mail accounts with that hoster are very pokey, and if or when they finally load, I am unable to reply (I can sometimes read e-mails I get but not reply to them).

      I can try checking my e-mail address again that I’ve used to contact you before (I tried to access it the last couple of weeks, but it won’t let me log in, or else it won’t load).

      You said,

      We have heard from people who know particular individuals from outside the blogging world. Their input has raised many questions in our minds.

      I’m not sure here if this refers to certain people involved in the Sproul Jr. thread.

      I will say that I’ve never lied about who I am on your blog (or here on this one, or on Julie Anne’s blog).

      I’ve never lied about my personal experiences or trolled anyone.

      I don’t always post under the same screen name outside your blog, for safety purposes. (I don’t post as a sock puppet, or under other names on your site.)

      The one time y’all at TWW put me on quasi- blocked mode, I openly let you guys know at the time I was bent out of shape about that and behaved like a jackass at your blog (which I apologized for, at least I think I did – well I do now, if not before. I recall apologizing to a few folks there by name after I acted like a jerk).

      I can occasionally be grouchy, but I am not a liar, a poser, sock puppet, or a troll, nor am I playing head games with people, or misleading them or pretending to be someone I am not.

      As for Wade’s blog and that thread where Christiane and Velour were posting, I only posted there as Daisy (specifically “miss daisy flower” I think) today.

      I was not on the internet at all the last 3 days.

      So any Anonymouses there at Wade’s blog were not me, not in that thread, and certainly not from around July 7/8 to July 10.

      When I posted a link to THIS blog post at your blog, I did so mostly to direct any more fighting or contention over here to this blog – that way, Velour and/or Christiane could come over here and yell at people, or others who felt they couldn’t talk more openly there could vent or discuss here.

      I was not trying to enflame the situation at TWW.

      You said,

      No threats were made by us and I cannot, in my wildest dreams, imagine threatening anyone over anything on the blog. Good night! I would give up blogging if it led to me becoming a person who threatens hurting people. The very thought sickens me.

      My understanding is that Velour felt you telling her in private that you may share her e-mails to you publicly was taken as a “threat.”

      That’s why I said above, I could see how that is troubling if that was your intent, but I posit Velour probably greatly misunderstood your motivation or reasoning.

      I do believe you when you say you would like to include lots of different people on your blog, but I do perceive the blog (the readership, the commentators) as being mostly liberal.

      I’m a conservative and sometimes feel pressured to keep my opinions to myself there, or face ten to one backlash or claims of hurt feelings if I voice my views, so I normally just keep my thoughts to myself.

      Also, I don’t really visit TWW to argue politics or get political with people anyhow.

      I’m generally happy to keep my right wings views to myself, but I at times see the left wing people come right out or subtly take jabs at right wing persons (conservatives theologically or politically).

      I can try checking my e-mail account again today, but I may not be able to log in and reply to you if you contacted me there.

      You can DM me on Twitter – we already follow each other on there, I am @MsDaisyFlower.

      But again, my Twitter account the last 1 – 2 weeks has been super slow, unreliable, and at times won’t let me reply to DMs all the time.

      I’m sorry about the melt down with Velour on the one thread there. I ducked out at one point because she was really ticking me off by the time I decided to quit, and I didn’t want to escalate things.

      I only returned to that TWW blog post a few days later to provide links to two of my blog posts here.

      Velour has her own blog. I’ve no idea why she didn’t write a big post about alcoholism and link it from your blog when things started to get heated. That way, she would’ve gotten her views out, the thread would not have gotten off topic, etc.

      I am truly very sorry for your health problems. The numb foot and leg situation sounds a little painful and very inconvenient.

      I can see how you wouldn’t be able to check into the blog often to make sure things are okay.

      Velour got to the point after months and months where she seemed to feel she was the Unofficial Third Blog Owner of TWW, and I suspect it’s because she invested so much time on there.

      Thank you for taking the time to comment here. You are welcome to again if you like to.

      (Have edited this post to correct some typeos)

    • Dee, kudos for commenting! Glad you are able.

      I hope you have lots of help while off your feet and so sorry about that rare condition. So glad you have access to great medical minds. Blessings.

    • Dee…..I too am sorry to read the extent of your health issues. I have neuropathy in my feet and know how strange , painful it is to have feet that feel weird.
      Also, it’s understandable you have not been able to attend to your blog as closely as you might have liked. Not easy to do much of anything when one is ill.
      Hoping blog corrects itself and old posters come back. Wishing you and TWW the very best.

      Mae

  15. First time commenting here on your blog, Daisy. Anyway, I’m encouraged how this thread has transpired over the course of the last day or so. I’ve been reading the posts at TWW for the most part but not commenting. The reason is that I’ve been waiting for the dust to settle, so to speak. I appreciate the work that TWW has done on behalf of victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence. If it weren’t for TWW, I wouldn’t have the grasp I now do on New Calvinism and its modus operandi. It has been a real eye-opener for me and has helped me to communicate the dangers to other Christians that this movement poses.

    It’s interesting to see the ebb and flow of blogs. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a blog in which I’ve read and/or participated, remain static. Hopefully, as TWW moves forward, the passage of time will ease the tensions that surfaced as of late. As human beings, we all make mistakes. The point is to learn from those mistakes and grow so that we don’t make them repeatedly.

    Dee, here’s hoping and praying that you get well soon! God’s blessings to you as you heal. Daisy, I appreciate your viewpoint on Complementarianism and it’s pitfalls. You have a way with saying things in an unassuming way which makes for easy reading. Take care and God speed!

  16. Miss Daisy,

    Wow, I’m a little late commenting, but I’m in support of your blog. I just found it via Wondering Eagle, which I am having a conflict with regarding his constant anti Trump posts.

    I did have issues with Velour long ago, and we got into it on Julie Anne’s blog. But, my memory is faint regarding as to why.

    I have also had issues with Barbara Roberts stance on divorce, as I do believe that Christians can get divorced simply for not being in love anymore;

    https://chapmaned24.wordpress.com/2016/06/26/divorce-remarriage-not-a-sin-to-begin-with/

    and I am totally against her stance regarding church discipline, as well;

    https://chapmaned24.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/discipline-in-church-is-it-biblical/

    I do not see church discipline in the bible at all.

    However, I do have to admit that I agree with Velour regarding addicts.

    I attend a church which caters to both alcoholics as well as drug addicts.

    http://www.lwcc.net/ministries/h-a-d–ministries.html

    In addition, my ex-wife a couple of years ago was arrested by the Feds for trafficking Meth and Heroin and she was a Meth addict herself. She was looking at a ten year sentence in FEDERAL court.

    Against the recommendations of the prosecution, the judge sentenced her to 4 years SUSPENDED IF she graduations what is known as D.R.E.A.M. Court (what the state would call DRUG COURT).

    One year later, she graduated, and all charges not only were dropped, charges and arrest were erased.

    She had to go to all sorts of addiction classes, including inpatient treatment for 90 days.

    I attended those with her for SUPPORT, because she needed family support.

    Yes, addicts do bad things, but the SEED of addiction is MOSTLY due to TRAUMA done to them. They use the drugs or alcohol as a means to cope with things that they cannot cope with.

    In addition, we both attended a Christian 12 Step Group called Celebrate Recovery.

    So, i am totally against the backlash that Velour received by recommending what I support. I am a Christian who does not believe that alcohol is a sin, nor do I believe that Jesus drank grape juice.

    BUt I do have issues unrelated with Velour.

    Thanks,

    Ed Chapman

    • @ Ed.

      (I have edited this post several times to add new thoughts, and fix typing mistakes)

      I too have a minor disagreement w/ Barbara Roberts, in my case, Re: Codependency
      (if you want to see why, please see this post on my blog)

      Ed, you said,

      So, i am totally against the backlash that Velour received by recommending what I support. I am a Christian who does not believe that alcohol is a sin, nor do I believe that Jesus drank grape juice.

      Velour got backlash because she was behaving like an obnoxious bully jerk on that thread, not for the substance of her views.

      Did you actually read the thread at TWW blog where Velour got all cranky on everyone?

      Did you actually read my blog post about this drama above here on my blog?

      Velour was, and continues, to misrepresent the views of the people who were talking to her in that thread, not just on TWW, but in other places online, such as Wade B’s “Istoria” blog.

      Nobody at that blog (TWW) said that addicts are horrible people who are unworthy of support.

      Many of us said that we ourselves have family members who are addicts or alcoholics, another factor that Velour kept intentionally ignoring.

      Just because we don’t all see eye to eye with her on HOW addicts or alcoholics should be dealt with by churches or the medical community does not mean we’re all on the same level as people who beat up kittens for fun, but she only sees this issue in very black and white terms.

      Velour sort of kept conflating and confusing issues – the TWW post was about a pastor, R C Sproul Jr, who has an alcohol problem, PLUS he’s a big jerk, and he’d go drunk driving with his kids or grand kids in the car (which put them at risk).

      Velour took our discussing a jerk pastor (who happened to be an alcoholic) to jump off topic to make the thread all about alcoholism in general, then to start bashing all of us for not 100% agreeing with her.

      At some points, Velour seemed to me to be speaking out of both sides of her mouth, and she got angry at me for asking her more questions to try to understand her views.

      I do not agree with Velour that all secular methods of treatment work to treat alcoholism, as I wrote about here, and this is what got her pissed off at me:
      Problems with A.A. (Alcoholics Anonymous)

      If you would like to discuss the topics of “how should churches deal with addicts” please use this thread:
      Christianity, Alcoholics, and Addictions: How Should the Church Deal with Addictions and Addicts?

      The one comment that really hacked Velour off and got the ball rolling was by Barbara Roberts, who references 1 Cor. 5 to say that unrepentant drunkards should not fellowship with other Christians, which is, IMO, a legitimate debatable point.

      Velour refused to come to my blog to discuss that further, though.

      Edit. Re: you said:

      which I am having a conflict with regarding his constant anti Trump posts.

      That makes two of us.

      Eagle / David is a nice guy, I admire that he’s trying to do good for people who have been hurt by churches, and I don’t even care if people disagree with Trump, however…

      I am right wing. I did not vote for anyone in the elections b/c I did not like any of the candidates, but I don’t insult people for however they voted.

      Since Trump took office, I’ve seen people I used to follow on Twitter and blogs do nothing but turn into Anti- Trump Bots 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

      I don’t take issue with the occasional anti – Trump blog post or Tweet, but some of these people have turned their blogs or accounts into non-stop Anti-Trump platforms, and so I had to un-follow a bunch of these people on social media, or put them on mute.

      I kind of wrote more about this in this other blog post on my Daisy blog.

      Edit 2. Oh, one of my big pet peeves are the Christian “Never Trumpers” who equate any Christian who voted for Trump as being “anti victim.”

      They will scream and yell on their blogs that if you are an evangelical who voted for Trump that you must secretly hate all abuse victims (and you must secretly be racist, etc, etc). It doesn’t occur to these people that some of the folks who voted for Trump did so for economic reasons and so on.

      • No, I didn’t read her whole diatribe. She got on my nerves over on SSB, so I pretty much stopped listening to her. In this topic, however, I read what she stated regarding addictions, and then I saw your post regarding outside help which was against her recommendations. So, I was confused as to why you would be against outside help. In my mind, any help is better than no help. Then I saw your statements about what addicts do when addicted, and I was like, well, ya, duh! But what we failed to see is what started the addiction in the first place, and that is what I think was missed. Sure addicts rob and steal to support their addictions. But, we need more compassion as to what got them there to begin with in order to deal with it properly. We need to get to the root of the problem, and not just try to pull a weed or two on the surface.

        My ex-wife had a ton of problems that caused her to turn to drugs. She didn’t just wake up one day and out of a sound mind decide to do drugs just to rob people.

        This is why I was in agreement with velour regarding her opposition to Barbara with Barbara’s reference of 1 Cor 5. In my view, an alcoholic is not necessarily an unrepentant drunkard.

        But I’m really interested in your blog, so I will read more. I think we have all had issues with people on abuse blogs. I know I have. I know I’ve made people upset with me, not meaning to. All I know is that Calvinism is a terrible representation of Jesus.

        I’ll check in with you from time to time.

        Take Care,

        Ed

        • @ Ed.
          Well, you may want to check out the links I gave you above on my blog about addiction.

          I have some alcoholics in my family, my brother is married to a heroin addict, etc. I cite links in one of the posts that show that experts on addiction say that 12 step programs and AA are not as effective as the public generally thinks.

          I basically cut ties with one of my siblings. She is a former alcoholic, but her problem is she is a verbal abuser who refused to change. Sometimes you have to cut ties with people if they are a bully or an addict – they have got to want to change, you cannot make them.

          And I refuse to take any more mistreatment off my sister. I would imagine it’s the same with an addicted family member.

          As to Velour on SSB.

          Odd that you had a fall out with her over there.

          I don’t remember her posting over there too much. Velour used to live in the comment box at Wartburg Watch. I didn’t see her at SSB nearly so much.

          You and I (unless I am mixing you up with someone else) had a dispute about CSA (Clergy Sexual Abuse) which I don’t care to get into again. All I will say is that I kind of agreed with you, but you never could see where I was coming from, and I figure it’s a waste of time to keep going round and round about that.

          • Well, I also speak from experience, Daisy, and i can truly say that the 12 step programs worked and is still working for my ex-wife. I don’t think it’s right to bash any addiction program. She was well monitored by the Feds regarding her programs and this isn’t their first rodeo regarding 12 step programs. Those people in the feds are the experts as far as the courts are concerned. But as far as my ex was concerned, the thought of going to prison for 4 years was motivation. For years we tried unsuccessfully to try to talk sense to her. But when she got arrested, we stepped up to the plate. I can’t bash any 12 step programs. Most in them are on probation with the law, and they expect them to go, and they have court papers that must get signed for their participation.

            Yes, we did have it out regarding CSA. I wrote about that on my blog, too…not about you, but the topic regarding Tulian and the elusive women who dropped their own drawers out of their own free will.

            But even if we disagree on a topic, I don’t hold grudges, cuz we still disagree on that topic.

            • @ Ed.

              My post on addiction says that for some, 12 step programs work, which is great, but they do not work for everyone.

              Some alcoholics I quoted in my post who tried AA, for instance, said it did not help, but when they switched to something else (like one guy tried psychology sessions), they were freed from alcohol.

              (My brother tried A.A. and it turned him into a victim blaming jerk, one other reason I don’t recommend it for everyone.)

              See, what burns me up is that Velour just trashed people who don’t agree with her on this stuff.

              I had depression and anxiety for many years, right?

              And I mentioned to Velour how I took doctor-prescribed pills for it and saw around 4 psychiatrists and one psychologist for over 20 yrs, and none of those doctors diagnosed me properly – so the depression and anxiety never went away.

              It was a huge waste of my time and money to see those psychiatrists.

              I had to figure out how to get rid of my depression myself, years later, by going on the internet and doing research.

              So I told Velour, “seeing a doctor or taking pills is NOT going to work for EVERYONE who tries it.”

              That pissed her off. And she just brushed my life experience off like it was nothing, very patronizing of her.

              It’s the same thing with 12 step programs – they just do not work for everyone.

              I have links in the other post that say that the failure rate of AA for most people is like 90% or more. Please see my other posts for more on that.

              You said,

              …and the elusive women who dropped their own drawers out of their own free will.

              It’s not entirely of their “free will” if he’s taking advantage of them when they are in a state of duress – it’s why it is illegal for psychologists to have sex with their patients who see them for sessions. But I don’t care to re hash that argument.

              • Daisy,

                I do not believe that they were in a state of duress. I do not believe that it was illegal for Tullian to have sex with someone not his wife. I do believe that Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery is not only for Tullian, but for the women, too. No one was seeking justice regardless. Revenge, vengeance, yes, but not justice. That’s as much as I will say about that.

                But regarding victim blaming, that isn’t what AA teaches. That, I can tell you for sure. BUT we need to acknowledge that SOMEONE did harm to them at one time, and in that, they can certainly blame.

                Now regarding their own victims, they are to acknowledge whom they have personally hurt in their addictions, and it is against their policy to victim blame. So please do not think victim blaming is acceptable.

                There are also people there that haven’t drank in over 30 years that still attend, and they attend in order to MENTOR others. Without mentoring, aka sponsoring, AA has no effect on anyone, and yes, failure can occur. No one in AA wants anyone to fail. Support is key. Without support, failure can and will happen.

                I understand your depression and anxiety. You have spoken about it on SSB. I have no answer for you but I don’t think its right for me counsel anyone not to seek help. I know people in mental health that need to take meds or they will go nuts if they don’t. They hear voices if they don’t.

                I know that there are religious zealots out there that refuse to seek help, thinking that it is just a lack of faith, or personal sins getting in the way of healing. I say, Hogwash. Jesus believed in doctors. He called them physicians, I believe. The Apostle Paul had a doctor named Luke.

            • Ed, most of Tullian’s victims were not committing adultery with him, they were groomed and used by him, the way adult pedophiliacs groom kids to have sex with kids. There is a power imbalance that makes the whole relationship unfair, it’s not consensual sex.

              I don’t care to discuss this with you here or anywhere else, please drop this topic. Thanks.

              Ed said,
              —–
              ‘I understand your depression and anxiety. You have spoken about it on SSB. I have no answer for you but I don’t think its right for me counsel anyone not to seek help. I know people in mental health that need to take meds or they will go nuts if they don’t. They hear voices if they don’t.’
              ——-

              Ed, doctors and pills and 12 step programs do not work for everyone, and people need to be educated about that. It is not evil to mention that, it’s educating people.

              I already sought help from medical doctors, they did not help me.

              I took pills for two decades the pills did not help.

              I had to fix myself, all alone.

              Ed said,
              “But regarding victim blaming, that isn’t what AA teaches. That, I can tell you for sure.”

              Please see my other threads about this!!!!!

              I already explain all this elsewhere. Did you not read my other posts???

              AA IS IN FACT VICTIM BLAMING!!!

              See this post I made:
              https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2017/06/26/problems-with-a-a-alcoholics-anonymous/

              AA blames rape vics for being raped, “What Role did you play in that” they say to rape vics, one AA guy was MOCKING an eight yr old girl who had been raped, said what role did you play in that, stop your whiny crying, etc.

              My brother pulled that same victim blaming bullshit on me, too, Ed when I confided in him about a hurtful problem I had with someone else and no, I didn’t play a role in it. And my bro got that victim blaming bull shit “what role” crap from AA. He even told me that is where he got it from, AA.

              • Daisy,

                I don’t buy into that grooming thing regarding Tulian. These were adult women, married themselves. No one can tell me that they did not already know Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. They were not ignorant of that commandment.

                I was accused of victim blaming. I retorted, “How can I victim blame when I do not even acknowledge a victim?” One woman…ya, OK, I will listen, and maybe agree about the grooming…but three? I would say that they wanted in his pants just as much as he wanted in theirs. They knew what they were doing, and then vengeance comes when their marriage falls apart, when their secrets are revealed.

                Do their husbands blame their wives for adultery, or Tullian for sleeping with their wives?

                Again, it isn’t AA that allows victim blaming. Whatever happened during your experience is not a representation of authentic AA. Please do not blanket all AA with your weird experience. It’s not their policy to victim blame.

            • Ed said,

              “I don’t buy into that grooming thing regarding Tulian. These were adult women, married themselves. No one can tell me that they did not already know Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. They were not ignorant of that commandment.”

              Clergy Sex Abuse is not adultery, it’s a man abusing his position of influence and power to take advantage of hurting people.

              Do you even understand why the term CSA was invented?

              The term CSA was coined because there is such a thing as disgusting pigs who work as pastors who use their clergy position to groom and exploit teen girls and adult women who think they can trust these men.

              Ed, I’m going to block you. It’s late, I’m tired, and I don’t want to mess with this anymore.

              I’ve asked you once or twice to drop it, but you want to argue it.

              You said

              “Again, it isn’t AA that allows victim blaming. Whatever happened during your experience is not a representation of authentic AA. Please do not blanket all AA with your weird experience. It’s not their policy to victim blame.”

              It is most certainly Alcoholics Anonymous policy to victim blame people, even for stuff that is not their fault, as numerous ex-AA members testify to, which I quote them in my other blog post here:
              Problems with A.A. (Alcoholics Anonymous)

              That post contains cold, hard facts and evidence, with links to back it up, that show without a doubt that AA is a victim blaming group….

              It’s not just a my experience thing, but I don’t appreciate how cavalierly you dismiss my experience – pretty much like what Velour did to me, but with depression.

              AA is a victim-blaming organization that is ineffective at treating addiction for many people, see my other post about it:
              Problems with A.A. (Alcoholics Anonymous)

              That post is filled to the brim with links to pages by ex AA members who explain what a horrible experience AA was for them, women discuss how they were raped and 13 stepped by male AA members they ran into at AA groups.

              AA members even victim blame and mock eight year old girls who have been raped (this is explained in the other post on my blog about AA) – they are a sick and deviant group and they have a 90% or more failure rate with helping alcoholics.

              That link again,
              Problems with A.A. (Alcoholics Anonymous)

              Good bye, Ed, you wore out your welcome.

  17. Tullian got by with it because church is voluntary. Bill Clinton got by with it because well… he was/is Bill Clinton. But, according to the law any manager or supervisor who uses their position to groom for sex is at risk for the judgement of quid pro quo. And they often lose.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s