The following is a synopsis of our beef with FactNet as both users and also Christian users where this may apply:
Contrary to the spin "Will" aka "Dodge" aka "Josh125" as this atheist board troll and former moderator at FactNet claims, I am not disappointed because I can no longer insult FactNet users I don't agree with. First of all, that's ridiculous, because I can, have and will right here, just as the anti-Shepherd's Chapel people do at their own websites, as well as FactNet. He keeps claiming that and it's just BS.
I have no issue with Lawrence Wollersheim, something else this idiot Dodge keeps claiming. I'm not convinced he knows anything about what "theadmin" aka "Nabashalam" or "Capt. Furillo" at FactNet did when he not only appointed the board troll atheist Dodge as moderator over the Christian boards, but then lied when claiming he was steeping aside and another appointed, when in fact he was only given a false identity so he can continue in that role. Dodge would rather ignore those facts and claim I have a beef only because I can't abide by the rules of FactNet. That's bullshit, and nothing but bullshit.
As for the so-called rules: The staff and former moderator Dodge hide behind these rules, and use them only to harass those they disagree with. This has become plainly evident, so to call them rules is really not the most accurate way to describe them. They are tools rather than rules, and they are used as weapons rather than a way to preserve civility.Anyone who reads this blog and sees the evidence will see this is so, it's not even the result of slanting or spinning, and there will be more examples as we proceed.
The blog FactNet exposed and my linking to it has nothing to do with any collusion on the part of writers of this blog. We could care less about the long time beef between FactNet and Scientology. And while we cannot make any claims as to how true the material on the FactNet Exposed Blog is, we haven't seen any refutation of the material the blog contains. All we have seen is ad hominem rhetoric, Dodge and "theadmin" referring to us as pawns of Scientology, and that we are running a "smear campaign".
If we are running any campaign, it's to inform as many people as possible to stay away from FactNet due to the behavior of the staff, which has been documented here. If any of FactNet Exposed is true, it's just merely icing on a cake we've already baked.
I agree that Wollersheim probably has no idea about how the site is handled. He probably has much bigger projects than to worry about the internet forum which doesn't really have very many users to begin with.
ReplyDeleteSee that's the thing, if they were honest and upfront and not deceptive they wouldn't be loosing posters. Oh well such as life.
Well, from what I read on the site, Wollersheim is just about retired. So regardless of what he knows, he's almost done with it anyway. He should just retire the site with him.Maybe he'll do what Mark and Neil did with the old CB site, and just hand it over to whomever wants it.
DeleteIf he hands it over to "theadmin" and Dodge or Stage Director for that matter, I figure it will be completely toasted in about six months or less of those two incompetent malcontents.
As for factnetexposed....well I'm not so sure that some of that might just be correct. I've got a bit more info on that as a matter of fact.
ReplyDeletePlease post it, you should be able to write articles for the blog now. I have't checked my mail to see if you've had any problems. I'll check now, it's 11:35 CST.
DeleteCat,
ReplyDeleteI suspect also the associations the FactNet Exposed Blog highlighted must have quite a bit of truth to them, as I see no refutation or counter accusations anywhere. All I've seen is accusation of us running some smear campaign, which reminds me of how Dodge and "theadmin" at FactNet avoid the facts behind their actions with the discussion boards like the plague.
They haven't not addressed the facts, but only using ad hominem distractions and trying to always steer the topic back to what we did or didn't do on those boards.
If someone had said those things about my website, I'd surely have addressed it.
After all, FactNet's current moderators are liberals, and liberals attract morally bereft individuals such as drug addicts, homosexuals, chronic liars, and arrogant board trolls. So why would it be so shocking to find out every bit of that blog is true? As they say, birds of a feather flock together.
I'll be posting a few articles very soon! I agree that if the things were not true then someone would come up with some sort of refutation. It is not surprising that the folks involved with these anti-cult organizations are not devoid and have the same tendencies as the cults they were once part of. A lot of scholarly research has been done on these organizations, as well as new religions such as Scientology, and this has definitely been the case.
ReplyDelete