Offending Blogs: Should they Stay or Should They Go?

"Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm"

. . . said Paul to Timothy, without fully appreciating the legal ramifications of such a potentially slanderous statement should Alexander object and take action.

Stop Blog Censorhip01A BIG conversation going on over the last few days regarding two men who are both occasional commenters here, Ken Silva and Richard Abanes. I had email discussions yesterday with both men who I consider friends but hard-headed friends on different sides on an argument. From what I can figure out, Ken posted an article about Richard that Richard thought was slanderous and so Richard complained to Ken's ISP and asked to to have the page taken down. Because Ken refused to take it down, his entire website was taken down by IPower, the same ISP that took Ingrid's Slice of Laodicea down last year.

Ken has since got a new ISP and some help rebuilding his site and the offending article, now three years old, is back in business. But the battle still rages. It was suggested Richard tried to sue Ken (which is false) but the question remains about whether Ken should keep the article online or not, and whether Richard did right by calling for action without talking to Ken. I think Ken should try to be critical without slanderous and he is probably stirring the hornets nest by overreacting. But whether Ken should remove that page is a tricky question with serious consequences for censorship in the blogosphere – which is why I am bringing it up here.


What do you think?

I was thinking about my own policy. Most of the time, I am responsive to requests to change, edit and sometimes delete material that people find damaging. Of course I try not to write a nasty post in the first place but sometimes I find weird and offensive surprises in the comments. Once or twice, someone has left a comment that was in the form of a complaint about a person or their business/ministry and I have  leave it there for the sake of truthfulness and correction. We are all entitled to free speech.

Other times I deleted it as slanderous. I guess each case has its own considerations.

Censorship-Small


But there are ten thoughts that come to mind on how to handle offensiveness in the blog world:

1. Back up your entire site in case someone or some evil company kills your blog. I have used an old program called Pagesucker that literally sucks ups all your pages and puts them on a file. There might be some new apps that are better.

2. If your blog does disappear, you can use the wayback machine to find it again.

3. Talk to bloggers directly if you have a problem and if they don't listen, bring a few others into the conversation. If they still don't listen, maybe you should take it higher but there is a process to respect. But Christians should not resort to legal pressure among other Christians. (and again, Richard did not do this)

4. If you are a controversial blogger, dont use iPowerweb.com as your ISP (oooh – is that slanderous?)

5. Bloggers should be contactable – put your email address on your blog.

6. If you are worried about censorship, download the Handbook from Reporters Without Borders

7. If you really have to delete something immediately, and go the extra step of purging it from the Google search engine cache, you will need Google Webmaster Tools just like I needed them. I did this once when some harmless info on my site proved dangerous to some friends in the Middle East.

8. Emails from someone else should not be published on blogs without prior permission.

9. Attempts to stop or censor blog information will often result in heightened attention, more links and therefore more publicity than if just ignored in the first place.

10. Try being nice in the first place :-] and soften your tone. Like, dont use lawyer voice or CAPTIALS because it scares the hell out of people.

and 11. Allow comments! It lets two or three witnesses give an alternative view if they so choose and it lets two or three others confirm what they see as accurate

ALSO:

Ally in the comments below points out that a similar spat is happening with Lambeth cartoonist Dave Walker and Mark Brewer regarding Dave's cartoons on the trials of the SPCK bookstores. The skinny is here. And a crash course on related legalese for bloggers is here at ministry of truth
Davewalker 2

[Image from Jon but can be found here unless you are a lawyer looking for a blogger to sue, in which case try this link]

Related: Where in the World is Slice of Laodicea?

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Andrew

Andrew Jones has been blogging since 1997. He is based in San Francisco with his two daughters but also travels the globe to find compelling stories of early stage entrepreneurs changing their world. Sometimes he talks in the third person. Sometimes he even talks to himself and has been heard uttering the name “Precious” :-)

84 Comments

  • This is a hot topic right now. YOu have seen the Dave Walker/Mark Brewer/spck debacle also?
    I am at odds on it, and slightly worried about where the censorship of blogs is headed. Ken is very hard-headed as you say, i am not too familiar with the other dude but i read Apprising often and despite regularly being in strong disagreement with his articles i respect his complete right to speak on such issues.
    Perhaps it just takes a little more wisdom when referring personally to another pastor/writer ‘christian’? and Ken could do that whilst still making clear that he disagrees with their theology……………
    Though i still feel like the internet should afford us all to say pretty much what we like? UP until recently we were all getting away with it

  • I got bored very soon after starting to read all the blogging on the Ken/Richard dispute. Far better Godly things to do with my time. Grown men intellectually arguing. How tiresome. Stop it I say! We should be free to write what we like however, but if it is really hateful or incorrect, then expect some backlash. Blogging negative comments in the public domain is asking for trouble. They should both stop, apologise to each other and if need be discuss their differences in private. It gives Christians a bad name, raises the whole ‘hypocritical’ thing more and makes me so very glad I’m not following ‘chrisitan leader man’ any more. God must surely be banging his head against his brick wall up there.

  • yeah helen – and for that reason i kept quiet for a day or two when i read the controversy but i bring it up for more than theological reasons.
    ally – thanks – i did not know about dave and mark but dave is a friend of mine. seems like a similar case.

  • It is interesting dilemma – I guess the real problem arises because both protagonists are Christians plying their views in much the same part of the sea of Christian opinion. I have been subject to three bouts of slanderous material and it is not a good or comfortable experience.
    By the most difficult one was when another Christian was attributing views and actions me which were (deliberately?)either incorrect or subtle distortions. Now neither is us can afford the whole legal process. In the end he withdrew the comments following pressure from readers of his blog. The other was the Far-right’s response to my theological work on the BNP – that was a different question with implications for my families safety and my ministry – I sought and gained the support of the writers ISP who were very co-operative and shut the site down. In the third I was content simply to state what was wrong and libellous since the writer was clearly doing more damage to his reputation than to mine – most people know him for his intemperate and (ill-informed) agenda. So different approaches are appropriate.
    As a Christian I would ALWAYS remove/rewrite a page if some-one else contacted me saying that I was slandering them. There is good biblical precedent for this Ken, and I am sure that your refusal will damage your ministry and credibility on the internet. With freedom comes responsibility.

  • Andrew
    Thanks for addressing this important topic. As one who has had many untrue things said about him in the blogosphere and has taken on his share of controversial issues, this is an important matter.
    “Slander” is a word carelessly used by so many today; and I believe done so by Richard Abanes in this scenario. From all that I have read, Richard never went personally to Ken to share specifically what the paragraphs were that he thought crossed the line and were damaging to his person and character. I posted a comment asking him on his blog last week and it was deleted.
    Should Richard have reported this matter to iPower without first going to Ken? The clear answer biblically is no. If there was true slander and not just a strong differing of opinion, then Richard should grow some hair, suck it up, and play the man. If there was genuine slander, then Richard should have contacted Ken, put together a ministerial board of arbitration to help review and monitor this situation and work towards biblical resolve.
    Unfortunately, this did not happen.
    The blogosphere is not a place for the timid, theological thin-skinned, or those too sensitive about their person. You must learn not to hold ought against another quickly, keep short accounts with those who disagree with your writings, be quick to forgive and to work towards forgiveness, and to do all within biblical parameters to be at peace with all men.
    On a personal note, I appreciate Ken and his ministry very much. Glad to see his site back up and running again. May the Lord continue to honor his ministry as he is faithful to God’s Word.
    In His grace,
    Steve
    2 Cor. 4:5-7

  • Andrew – a few reflections from a religious satirist who has been accused (unfairly I might add) of slander and even had someone send me something that could be construed as a death threat. IF you choose to run a controversial blog:
    1. Don’t be a complete wuss by disabling comments. If you are going to dish it out, be prepared to take it. If you find you’re getting flammed repeatedly on your blog, then think about what you’re putting on the fire. Along those lines, I find it’s helpful for me to pray to make sure I am satirizing a subject and not slamming someone’s soul. When I’ve gone “too far,” it’s been when I didn’t pray enough first.
    2. Having said that, a blog is the property of the blogger so they do have the right to delete comments as they please. But rather than delete comments willy-nilly perhaps a controversial blogger might want to set up a code of conduct for those wanting to comment on their blog so that way people know the parameters of the debate. Here the blogger should also abide by the same code of conduct they’ve set up for their commentators or else they can expect to be called on the carpet for being hypocrites.
    3. Bone up on the censorship laws. There are laws governing perjury, slander, hate crimes, copyright infringement (e.g., Disney sued National Lampoon for putting pasties on Minnie Mouse and while the ‘poon won, the legal battle was very taxing and expensive), and the like. Also, publishing people’s private addresses, phone numbers and email addresses are major no-nos as is posting any email that has a confidentiality notice attached. There is a line that if you cross, you’ll find yourself in court. Even if you win, you could very easily be financially bankrupt.
    4. However, the laws are much more lenient when it comes to parody/satire – see Larry Flynt vs. Jerry Falwell in which Hustler was allowed to publish a truly horrible cartoon depicting Falwell and his mother. (But see #1 – just because you “can” say it, doesn’t mean you should – after all don’t we answer to a higher power?)
    5. Said laws apply to public figures not private citizens. Generally once you’ve published a book, promoted yourself as a speaker, run for political office, made a movie or somehow thrust yourself into the public eye, then you’re considered fair game. (There are stalking laws but I’m referencing writers’ rights to criticize public figures.) Here’s the tricky bit – where do bloggers fit into this mix? At what point does a blogger go from being an aspiring church planter with a blog read by a few friends and family members to being considered a public figure?

  • So Tom, you would ALWAYS remove an article simply because someone claimed slander? What if you and others did not agree that the article was slanderous? You think there is Biblical precedent for caving in to false claims. Perhaps you could cite some scripture for that.
    Andrew – you are being a bit disengenuous when you claim Abanes never threatened to sue. He never explicitly said “I’m going to sue Ken Silva” but he clearly implied legal action in his letter to I-Power. He did this knowing full well that the company would take the easy way out rather than risk any legal action against them. You are giving Abanes too much credit. It was an underhanded attempt to silence a critic.

  • Andrew,
    Thanks for covering this issue. Allow me to express my thought here for everyone to read so that there are NO questions about where I stand.
    ___________________
    1. Mr. Silva and his supporters have COMPLETELY blown this entire matter out of proportion, using it as an opportunity for Silva to play the martyr. Moreover, both he and they, have done so by not only misrepresenting me as a person (again), but also by misrepresenting the facts of the incident, my personal actions, and my intentions. For the record, I did NOT:
    A. File a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
    B. Threaten to file a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
    C. Contact an attorney about beginning a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
    Given these facts, 1 Corinthians 6 (covering Christians suing each other) is not even an issue (in contrast to the cries of protest coming from Silva’s camp). Furthermore, Matthew 18, covering PRIVATE/PERSONAL sins against another brother is also not an issue — since what Silva did was not only very public, but was also a violation of an agreement he had entered into with yet another party (i.e., his ISP, IPOWER).
    ___________________
    2. Silva and his supporters have utterly dismissed the responsibility that Silva ALONE bears for having his original website deleted. The truth is that I sent a simple email to Silva’s ISP requesting that they review ONE of his news articles (out of hundreds, BTW) because I felt that it had not only violated their TOS agreement, but was libelous and offensive in tone. Based on the article’s content, the ISP’s decision was to ask Mr. Silva to remove the article — or else his website would be deleted. Silva stubbornly refused to follow that simple request from the ISP; the very same ISP with whom he had entered a TOS agreement. It was HIS OWN willful defiance of that TOS that caused his website to disappear. I had nothing to do with THAT ultimate turn of events.
    ___________________
    3. As noted, all I really did was call attention to what I thought was a clear violation of IPOWER’S TOS agreement by Silva. And this is something that people are doing probably everyday regarding all manner of TOS disagreements and/or infractions. In fact, the email I sent was a basic template that covers all manner of complaints that can be sent to an ISP (e.g., illegal pornography, unlicensed photograph use, libel, anything that is covered in a TOS agreement). The bottom line message to IPOWER was to kindly review a single article on Ken Silva’s website that I found to be not only objectionable, but also a violation of their TOS agreement—according to my understanding of it.
    I have received such complaints before. I have sent such complaints before. You, too, have received complaints, and responded appropriately, as you note above: “Most of the time, I am responsive to requests to change, edit and sometimes delete material that people find damaging.” I have always responded just as you have responded. And others, like us, have experienced the same thing, and have responded by keeping it in perspective and making an appropriate decision.
    But what has Ken Silva and his camp done? Behold, the Internet circus they have created using this incident!!
    This incident, when viewed in the grand scope of things, is truly no big deal — Ken Silva and his supporters have made it a big deal by raising the frightening specters of Liberalism, First Amendment rights, censorship, global domination, Christian persecution, Phariseeism, Purpose Driven control over the world, Rick Warren heresy run wild, and other subjects designed to inflame the emotions in a negative fashion.
    ___________________
    4. Regarding Free Speech and the First Amendment in America, it is not a First Amendment write to slander people. Nor is it a First Amendment right to stand up in a crowded theater while the movie is playing and shout, “FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!”
    Clearly, there are certain times when a person cannot say whatever they might want to say. And that, for example, is exactly why a TOS is written — i.e., to protect me AND you AND Ken AND others.
    Ken, according to the investigation done by IPOWER broke his TOS agreement by that article. But no one seems to be caring about that, which to me is both interesting and troubling. It must also be noted that, contrary to all the gnashing of teeth, this incident DOES NOT — I repeat, DOES NOT — have anything to do with First Amendment freedoms such as criticizing specific acts as sinful (e.g., fornication, homosexuality, etc.) and declarations about alternate religious belief systems being false (e.g., the New Age) are in no way being endangered. Such assessments are completely protected in the blogsphere by our Freedom of Speech.
    The problem with the article in question was the personal nature of its attack on me. It was not about my theology or doctrinal views.
    ___________________
    5. Just FYI, I received an email from IPOWER, wherein they stated that they DO NOT simply remove a website when a third party complains. IPOWER said that they respond by INVESTIGATING PROMPTLY and then take APPROPRIATE ACTION. They apparently did INVESTIGATE PROMPTLY, and given what they found, subsequently took APPROPRIATE ACTION.
    They apparently felt that Silva had, at the very least, broke their TOS agreement. And that would imply the contents of their TOS, which lists: “defamation, libel and hate speech or other offensive speech or content.” What this means is that Ken actually had violated their TOS agreement. I simply alerted them to it.
    I would ask that your readers link to the following blog posts by me, which provide more in-depth information on the incident, including a very relevant report on when one of ken Silva’s main backers — i.e., Lighthouse Trails Research Ministry — attempted to use threats and intimidation to silence me by getting my publisher to fear legal action! (This is not being talked about very much, and I can only wonder why.) Please see:
    Lighthouse Trails: More Ken Silva Propaganda
    MORE ARGUMENTS: Ingrid Schlueter Speaks!
    Ken Silva – More Lies, More Sensationalism, More Sin
    What we are actually seeing here, I believe, is how a significant number of “Christians” do not want to be accountable or responsible for what they do/say, even though they are the ones who have entered into a TOS agreement.
    As I have stated online in my most recent blogs and answers to readers’ comments, what I did is NO DIFFERENT than lodging a complaint with a grocery store manager, voicing a problem to a company supervisor about a fellow employee, or calling the cops about a neighbor playing their stereo loud in the wee hours of the morning.
    A TOS agreement is “a good thing,” as Martha Stewart would say. But some people, like Ken Silva, Lighthouse trails Research, and others, seem to not want to worry about their words or their accuracy of accusations. They want to continue having the free pass they have so far had, which has allowed them to slander/defame anyone and everyone.
    The Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs) have been allowed to run rampant — attacking whom they wish, dividing the church, falsely accusing the brethren (including those in the Merging Church), spreading gossip/rumors, hurting those who are trusting them, etc. etc. etc. And they have remained accountable to NO ONE.
    This, I believe, is the reason why so many of them are now totally freaking out. They are in a panic because this puts them on notice. They must be more careful about what they say, or else risk a complaint about one of their articles.
    So far, from my side of the battle lines, I have received emails from Ken Silva’s “Christian” supporters threatening me, condemning me to hell, saying I am definitely not a Christian, and calling me actual obscenities. Is this the fruit of Ken Silva’s ministry and the Online Discernment Ministries (ODMS) in general? God help us all!!!
    in Christ,
    R. Abanes

  • ALLY: Perhaps it just takes a little more wisdom when referring personally to another pastor/writer ‘christian’? and Ken could do that whilst still making clear that he disagrees with their theology
    RA: This is the issue, NOTHING in that article in question had anything to do with my theology or doctrine. It was all personal. I have repeatedly issued a challenge all over the Internet to Ken Silva, and ANY of his supporters, as follows:
    “If Ken Silva wishes to place another article up titled “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES,” which actually critiques my theology, then my all means, I welcome it.”
    “I challenge ANYONE to find ANY criticisms, observations, corrections in that Ken Silva article that discusses my theology or doctrinal beliefs. Such material is not there. That article was personal in all its attacks. It was nothing more than an article deliberately designed to impugn my personal/professional integrity.”
    As of this morning, NO ONE has accepted this challenge, including Silva. The only person who has taken the challenge — someone who happens to be an avid Rick Warren critic, and would normally fall into Silva’s camp — responded as follows:
    “I took your challenge of finding anything resembling an argument of your doctrinal and theological positions in that article, and could not find anything substantive. And, the more time I took in reading it and looking for evidence, the more I found myself agreeing with you that the article bordered on being slanderous.”
    I think this says quite a lot.
    R. Abanes

  • SJ: The blogosphere is not a place for the timid, theological thin-skinned, or those too sensitive about their person. You must learn not to hold ought against another quickly, keep short accounts with those who disagree with your writings, be quick to forgive and to work towards forgiveness, and to do all within biblical parameters to be at peace with all men.
    RA: This is not the issue — at all. See my above posts.
    RAbanes

  • STEVE: He never explicitly said “I’m going to sue Ken Silva” but he clearly implied legal action in his letter to I-Power. . . . It was an underhanded attempt to silence a critic.
    RA: Allow me to reiterate: “…..the email I sent to IPOWER was a basic template that covers ALL manner of complaints that can be sent to an ISP (e.g., illegal pornography, unlicensed photograph use, libel, anything that is covered in a TOS agreement). I am not going to go around re-writing templates when I can simply throw it up to use.”
    Now, that is the answer. And that is the truth.
    But you say I implied a lawsuit? Well, for the sake of discussion — Cool! Let’s say I did. Who was that email addressed to? Answer: IPOWER. So if anyone was threatened with a lawsuit, it was IPOWER!!! It was not Ken Silva because that email was not to him! Please tell me, therefore, where 1 Corinthians 6 (or any other scripture) says that we, as Christians, cannot imply a lawsuit against a heathen, godless, worldly institutions when a wrong has been committed.
    Richard Abanes

  • Mr. Abanes once again you have failed to cite specifically what it was in Silva’s article that you considered libelous. And now you add the term “offensive in tone” to your charge against him. I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think “offensive in tone” is a legal term or actionable under any type of law.
    You claim that I-Power did an investigation of the supposed offending material but there is no evidence of any “investigation” that I am aware of. If there was an investigation where is the evidence of a violation of TOS?
    It looks to me like the company made a business decision. It was cheaper to lose one paying customer than to risk possible legal action against them from you.
    This was all brought about by YOUR refusal to ignore a three year old article critical of you. Perhaps you should have taken Paul’s advise and allowed the Lord to deal with any harm that may have been done to you.
    2Tim 4:14
    Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: THE LORD REWARD HIM ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS:
    My question is this: will you now go after Silva’s new ISP and who is next on your hit list?

  • hey hey BOYS! calm down!
    Richard – i just deleted one of your comments . . . but dont worry – it was a repeat of another.
    Steve – when i first heard the word “legal” and “lawsuit” I sent off a harsh email to Richard suggesting he was overstepping his case and going too far. When Richard replied that there were no lawyers involved then I had to apologize to him for assuming there were. An email to a web provider is not the same as calling in the sharks . . i mean lawyers. Good thing i talked with Richard and Ken before I blogged anything.
    I do agree that Richard should have talked with Ken [as Steve said] and in fact I have emailed Ken on a number of occasions when i felt his information was incorrect and he has been gracious enough to change things. or at least put up a good argument why they are there. actually, what i appreciate about Ken is that he actually responds to emails and discusses things with a sense of accountability, even though he and I often end up on the disparate sides of certain disputes.
    but i am hoping this discussion will focus more on blog best practices and a discussion of censorship

  • Andrew – that’s why I posted the comments that I did because this is a subject that comes up ALL the time for religious satirists. There’s three issues – straight reporting, parody/satire and what it means to be a follower of Christ and a blogger.

  • STEVE: …. and who is next on your hit list?
    RA: Well, given the number of lies and slanderous statements out there, it might be hard to make a choice, but I’m narrowing things down. 🙂
    RA

  • Andrew: I do agree that Richard should have talked with Ken [as Steve said] and in fact I have emailed Ken on a number of occasions when i felt his information was incorrect and he has been gracious enough to change things.
    RA: But you, Andrew, are not a Purpose Driven puppet, wallowing in carnality and blinded by the evil one to defend all things Warren. I’m hardly the type of person that any man of God, who is called by Lord to the lofty office of “PASTOR” and mentored by Walter Martin (not), would listen to.
    But seriously, as I’ve said elsewhere, this is not a Matthew 18 issue (not by a long shot). And what has happened in cyberspace over the incident is ALL about Ken Silva — and what he and his devotees have chosen to create.
    RA

  • Mmm… how sad this is all becoming. Who is going to stop first? Who is going to be humble? Who is going to be the more Christ-like? Who really wants the last word?
    I hope my kids never grow up to write to and about other people in the manner of what I’ve had to read today. If any one who follows Jesus wants to write in the public domain, please get it proof read first by Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit.

  • well, it would be nice if everything was always correct and congenial but the question is . . . what happens when it is not?
    i am sure we will not solve the richard vs. ken issue here (and i am not trying to) but it is valuable to land on some best practices for bloggers so that Helen’s kids have a full and accurate account of we were thinking and saying and even better, the rules of self-publishing that Helen’s kids employ will quite likely be evolved from the kinds of things we are now discussing.
    if you cant stand the heat . . . .

  • I’m just curious how we forget the necessity or desire to love. When we slander or throw accusations that are false, aren’t we breaking ourselves in the process as well?

  • My experience has been to notice that blogging is just a mirror. If somebody is offensive out here, it’s because they are offensive.
    There are many blogs I’ve eventually had to just quit reading because I just can’t find anything beneficial in reading the way that they persist in argument after argument.
    It’s as if the truth got lost a long time ago, and the discussion became more centered around who’s right instead of what is right.
    Anyway, if someone is rude here on the internet, it’s because that is what they are – rude.
    Thanks for your post.
    -Greg Allen

  • and with all that, i just wanted to be a typical blogger & say ahem Andrew is it possible for you to make the reference to me in the post into a link to my blog?
    Yes i know, thats hardly the issue here but a blogger has to do what a blogger has to do!
    ally!

  • I want to thank Mr. Abanes for clearing up his position.
    He would never bring a lawsuit against a brother in the Lord but he doesn’t mind using a threat of legal action against a secular company in order to force a brother to comply with his wishes. Now I understand
    One last question for Mr. Abanes, does the term “straining at gnats and swallowing camels” mean anything to you.

  • STEVE: …. but he doesn’t mind using a threat of legal action against a secular company in order to force a brother to comply with his wishes.
    RA: MY wishes??? Hmm, how about the wishes of the ISP who had discovered, thanks to my alert, that Silva had violated their TOS with him. You overlooked that small factoid.
    RAbanes

  • Richard – perhaps you should apply for the position of ISP TOS Czar in the Obama administration, they’ll probably be looking for one. (and I say this with a big smile on my face lest anyone think I am angry 🙂

  • Andrew,
    I remain somewhat concerned about this whole issue… I’m an attorney by day and occasional blogger and, to be honest, I hadn’t read the offending article until this whole incident. When I read it: (1) I understand that Ken and Richard disagree, (2) I understand why Richard would take issue with Ken’s taking him to task, BUT (3) I don’t see anything even remotely approaching defamation in the article.
    Richard has held himself out as a defender of Rick Warren and the Purpose Driven movement, which certainly has detractors, including Ken. I can understand where both sides will argue based on their understanding of the Scripture (or lack thereof). But I definately agree with you that what seems to be the most God-honoring solution to these disagreements rests with discussion between the two involved and, if necessary, arbitration within the Church.
    If I were the in-house attorney for the ISP receiving Richard’s email, I could certainly understand the desire to avoid any issues and simply require removal of the article. I’ve said this in other comment forums, but I really think people who do this – at least without having tried to work through the issue with the other party – seem like bullies to me.
    I’m a little concerned that a position I put up on my blog will offend someone… if so, it feels to me like courses of dealing like the one Richard has taken (and is continuing to take) are WAY overkill and pouring gasoline on an open flame.

  • Not sure why you needed to promote this battle with links, but technically, the crime would be libelous, a written offense, not slanderous, which is a spoken offense.

  • Doulos: (3) I don’t see anything even remotely approaching defamation in the article.
    RA: Apparently, IPOWER felt differently. As I state above, “I received an email from IPOWER, wherein they stated that they DO NOT simply remove a website when a third party complains. IPOWER said that they respond by INVESTIGATING PROMPTLY and then take APPROPRIATE ACTION. They apparently did INVESTIGATE PROMPTLY, and given what they found, subsequently took APPROPRIATE ACTION.
    _______________
    Doulos: But I definately agree with you that what seems to be the most God-honoring solution to these disagreements rests with discussion between the two involved and, if necessary, arbitration within the Church.
    RA: That is actually escalating it even further, IMHO. Take it arbitration within the church??!! My gosh, this is not about either one of us accusing the other of adultery, or money laundering, or God knows what else.
    I sent a PRIVATE email to an ISP about one of their clients. That ISP read my complaint, investigated the complaint, sided with me, and asked one person to remove one article that broke their TOS guidelines. The article should have quietly been removed — or re-written in a manner that actually discussed my doctrines, biblical interpretations, or anything else protected by the First Amendment and blogging etiquette. But instead, we see what Silva and his supporters have done. It’s absurd, IMHO.
    ____________
    Doulso: it feels to me like courses of dealing like the one Richard has taken (and is continuing to take) are WAY overkill and pouring gasoline on an open flame.
    RA: It happens every day all over the Internet. No one freaks out, throws a tantrum, or screams persecution. If there has been any open flame, it was lit by Silva. If there has been any gasoline, it was pulled out of the garage by Silva.
    R. Abanes

  • Doulos: Richard has held himself out as a defender of Rick Warren and the Purpose Driven movement, which certainly has detractors, including Ken. I can understand where both sides will argue based on their understanding of the Scripture (or lack thereof).
    RA: A final note, this whole thing has NOTHING to do with Rick Warren, Purpose Driven, or my understanding of scripture as opposed to Ken Silva’s understanding of scripture — that is yet another misleading argument being advanced by Silva and his camp.
    R. Abanes

  • Andrew,
    I really wasn’t looking to debate Richard here. 🙂
    Richard,
    Would you be open to a phone call or discussion on this matter? I’m a nobody in the internet or any other world, but you’ve responded to me in other forums as well and I believe you’re not hearing me. Otherwise, do you feel the need to respond to everyone who has a point of view that differs from yours in every web forum you find?

  • Doulos: …… do you feel the need to respond to everyone who has a point of view that differs from yours in every web forum you find?
    RA: Think about that question just for a moment, Doulos.
    How many web forums to do think are out there? What is the number of opinions out there on those web forums that you think differ from mine? Add up those numbers, and multiply the total by, say 2 minutes, each for an answer. How many years is that spent typing 24/7?
    Yes, you must be right, I do feel the need to respond to everyone who has a point of view that differs from mine in every web forum I find (sarcasm level +7).
    RAbanes

  • Dude,
    I had a sarcasm level of 0. Feel free not to respond to me anymore – you’re a little too defensive for me. But the offer to talk is still open if you’d like.

  • D: Feel free not to respond to me anymore – you’re a little too defensive for me.
    RA: Gee, dude, lighten up. This has all gotten heavy enough.
    I was just trying to make light of how ridiculous it would be for me to actually “feel the need to respond to everyone who has a point of view that differs from mine in every web forum I find.”
    If anyone is being, well, a bit defensive here, it’s certainly not me. 🙂
    RAbane

  • The overall discussion of blogging values and practise is brilliant and I think your 10 suggestions pretty much cover it – we learn as we develop. We learn from our mistakes and other peoples mistakes too. Anyway I’ll shut up now – I’m off to Italy tomorrow, and I’ll be reading ‘Reimagining the Church’ by FV while lounging by the pool.

  • Ally – I’m trying. I sent Andrew an email containing the “code of conduct” from one of the places where I blog as that might be a good starting point for how we behave in cyberspace. But that requires that we all agree to stay on topic in order to have that discussion. The comments I raised were based on my years as a satirist – identifying what needs to be satirized (we’re the court jesters to the king so my attacks need to be focused on those wielding power not the people in the pews), what I can say legally and how I should proceed in prayer as a Christian. As noted, the rules for satire/parody are more lenient than those for straight reporting.
    IMO – a better example of this debate would be the situation facing Dave Walker where you have a brilliant cartoonist and astute cultural observer who has been rendered unable to offer his opinions on the SPCK bookshop debacle. I’ve skimmed the material and don’t see any sign that he’s come close to committing an offense that would warrant removal of his posts. However, to fight a corporate giant requires money, which is why I suggested to some of Dave’s advocates that they try to find a group of people willing to help out pro bono (people are more likely to offer their services if they don’t have to commit too many hours to a project) to help him here.

  • Ally,
    I hope you consider me one of the two. I really think the Ken/Richard issue is way secondary to the larger issue of how to address “offending” blog articles. Should following Andrew’s helpful suggestions – and they are helpful – even be necessary? In what forum if any should these be addressed?
    I still think we ought to first try and work these things out between the offendee and the blogger and then, if unresolved, find a way to incorporate some “Church” authority – perhaps the elders of the churches of the two involved. I disagree with Richard that this is unnecessarily escalating the issue… isn’t that what Biblical authority is for?

  • ALLY: I really think the Ken/Richard issue is way secondary to the larger issue of how to address “offending” blog articles.
    RA: Amen. yes. I agree 100%.
    ____________
    ALLY: I disagree with Richard that this is unnecessarily escalating the issue… isn’t that what Biblical authority is for?
    RA: Biblical authority per “sin” problems, which would follow Matthew 18, do not apply to blogging issues. Matthew 18 is directly linked to personal/private sins someone has committed.
    As for blogging, that’s what a TOS is for! It’s not that complicated. People read TOS agreements before getting a blog/website, and they agree to abide by it. It’s not different than agreeing to drive the speed limit when you get a license, or agree housing rules when you buy a condo under a home association that has guidelines (e.g., no fence building above 6 ft).
    Again, I say, people are blowing this WAY out of proportion and turning it into something it is not. That is most surprising to me. In effect, what all these people are saying is that they do not want to be held accountable to the TOS of their ISP. I can’t believe this is coming from Christians (not you, others).
    RAbanes

  • According to my reading of the gospel, Ken and Richard should both leave their offering at the alter and first make peace with their brother (Matt 5:23-24). It doesn’t matter who is right and who is wrong–Jesus did not insist on everyone knowing who was right before he went to the cross.
    …and being sensitive and loving to your brother is in no way equivalent to endorsing censorship.

  • After reading Mr. Silva’s article, and then reading Mr. Albane’s response to his readers’ questions and comments, I must say Mr. Albane is out of his league with Mr. Silva. As an apologist for the Purpose Driven philosophy, his writing sounds as juvenile as the teaching espoused by Rick Warren. A total lack of substance, just round about speaking and saying nothing worthwhile. He evidently missed his calling and should look toward politics. I am sure he would be successful. However concerning whether Mr. Silva should remove his article, I must comment that it would not have mattered. For according to Mr. Albanes there were comments made in Silva’s other articles that were also slanderous and he would have probably proceeded to cry and make threats about those as well.

  • Pam: For according to Mr. Albanes there were comments made in Silva’s other articles that were also slanderous and he would have probably proceeded to cry and make threats about those as well.
    RA: You must not have been reading closely. Here’s what I’ve said at my blog to another person: “Did you know that Silva had up more than one article on his website that spoke about me negatively??? I didn’t agree with any of them. And you know what else? I only complained about one of them.”
    R. Abanes

  • huummmmm . . . while i was eating . . .
    hey – here are the rules becky pointed to from beliefnet – link
    poll is about 80% for leaving kens article and 20% to pull it off the internet.
    and becky is right in pointing to the dave walker vs SPCK case as being more worthy of discussion.
    Doulos – you seem like a nice guy and that last link in the blog article does not apply to you at all! thanks for your input.
    everyone – time to make a Pimms for my wife and celebrate the rare sunny and warm evening that we are enjoying. I bid you all goodnight.

  • Becky & Doulos : HIgh 5, totally with you
    Becky: with regards the ‘code of conduct’ it is a great idea if, as you say all parties agree to abide by it but that is unlikely, sadly. This case is perfect, where we have 2 people who are 100% sure that they are acting appropriately and it appears that stalemate is where we find ourselves.
    mass cyber brawl is the only way?

  • Andrew: poll is about 80% for leaving kens article and 20% to pull it off the internet.
    RA: Interesting. My translation = no one wants to be held accountable for what they say/do online. I quote from the article, Blogging And Slander – You Ought To Be Ashamed Of Yourself!:
    Blogging slander is wrong and it destroys what the internet is all about, it hurts social networking and only proves that humans are little more than chimpanzees playing out their normal everyday primate politic games. Think on this.”
    And this is from another article titled Bloggers Beware: You’re liable to commit libel:
    “These days, everybody and his dog has a blog. Unfortunately, almost nobody has a clue about their responsibility under defamation law. . . . Most professional writers and members of the media are familiar with this stuff, but chances are, you’re not. If you write, host, or even comment on a blog, you need to be. That’s because, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, we all have the same rights and responsibilities under defamation law.”
    R. Abanes

  • Andrew,
    Earlier this year, I was involved in a bit of a blog dustup with a Kiwi blooger. (That blogger’s theology and mine are nearly identical and the blogger is much to be admired as a missional church practioner.)
    With testosterone apparently controlling the blog spat, I used an analogy that was more like a nuclear device in an attempt to prove my point and win the argument. (In the heat of the conversation, I didn’t think the other blogger would read it as aimed at him. The problem wasn’t in the reading – it was in the writing.)
    An Australian brother who knows both of us well, contacted us by email – and lovingly rebuked us for bringing harm to the cause of Christ. I didn’t remove the post – but did remove the offensive analogy and publicly apologized for it’s use. I also recognized that when I find myself “heating up” in a blog conversation – it’s time to use the Imbi filter. (Imbi is my far wiser wife, for those of you who don’t know her…yet.)
    There is much heat in “Christian” blogdom – and occasionally a little light. It would be good if we could all (and I’m pointing directly at myself here) take ourselves a little less seriously.
    This XKCD comic seems particularly appropriate to the discussion.

  • Richard,
    Your debate with Ally (7:18 above) is with me. My feeling continues that you’re more interested in debating your point than listening to the people who are trying to make one as well. Slow down and listen! 🙂
    If you want to react, how about to this: If your ISP comes to you and tells you to take down an article that you believe you shouldn’t for reasons that you don’t agree with, what will you do?

  • Doulous: If your ISP comes to you and tells you to take down an article that you believe you shouldn’t for reasons that you don’t agree with, what will you do?
    RA: Funny you should bring that up. One of Ken Silva’s supporters, in apparent response to may actions, actually made quite a serious threat publicly online at my own blog — THREATENING me personally (not even going to my ISP first), stating that he would not only contact my ISP, but ALSO contact his attorney!
    And this is how I responded to Chris Rosebrough.
    I can only wonder why Ken Silva, a “Pastor,” didn’t respond in a similar fashion, and why as a result of his response, his followers and other ODMs are continuing to spin out of control in some very ungodly directions. It’s so tragic to me.
    RAbanes

  • Doulous: If your ISP comes to you and tells you to take down an article that you believe you shouldn’t for reasons that you don’t agree with, what will you do?
    RA: Funny you should bring that up. One of Ken Silva’s supporters, in apparent response to may actions, actually made quite a serious threat publicly online at my own blog — THREATENING me personally (not even going to my ISP first), stating that he would not only contact my ISP, but ALSO contact his attorney!
    And this is how I responded to Chris Rosebrough.
    I can only wonder why Ken Silva, a “Pastor,” didn’t respond in a similar fashion, and why as a result of his response, his followers and other ODMs are continuing to spin out of control in some very ungodly directions. It’s so tragic to me.
    RAbanes

  • NOTE: No one has said A THING negatively about what Chris Rosebrough did publicly — i.e., threatened me with not only contacting my ISP, but also a full blown lawsuit through his attorneys.
    Why do you think no one has been critical in the least of him? In fact, he actually got kudos from Ken Silva’s second website, http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5646 .
    Anyone see some serious double-standard stuff going on here?
    R. Abanes

  • Interesting to see that people read what they want to read (Steve Lumbley’s question to me) I would ALWAYS remove (if I thought the complaint legitimate) or REWRITE which can often be done to remove the element of slander (personal slight)while making the substantive point if correct. – I think that is an appropriate response where offence has been given. I don’t see this as “caving in” rather settling a dispute with a brother or sister in Christ without resort to legal action or the kind of protracted dispute which is now being played out in from of us. I see we have got to the “only using surnames” stage of this dispute. A certain humbleness between Christians is surely appropriate.

  • Tom, with all due respect I was simply responding to what you wrote which was this exact qoute.
    “As a Christian I would ALWAYS remove/rewrite a page if some-one else contacted me saying that I was slandering them”
    Now you are adding qualifers “(if I thought the complaint legitimate)”.
    That is the whole point. Abanes claimed libel and Silva did not think the complaint was legitimate. Therefore he chose not to remove or rewrite the piece. Abanes responded by contacting Silva’s ISP and asserted a violation of the TOS.
    My point here was that the ISP didn’t care if the complaint was legitimate, they only desired to avoid the possible legal action suggested by Mr. Abanes letter so they told Mr Silva to remove the piece.
    Mr Abanes wants to claim that his hands are clean as he was only helpfully pointing out a violation (in his opinion) of the TOS agreement.
    I assert that Mr. Abanes instigated this whole thing based on not a legitimate case of libel but his own opinion and sense of an “offensive tone” in Mr. Silva’s argument. Now Mr. Abanes wants to justify himself before men by claiming no technical violation of scripture although he has certainly violated the spirit of scripture by not doing the following:
    1.First try to work out a something privately between he and Silva (I’m not suggesting a Matthew 18 scenario only a brother to brother chat)
    2. If that fails, find a Christian third party agreed upon by both Mr. Silva and Abanes to mediate the dispute
    2.Failing to get satisfaction from that Mr. Abanes would have been better served to allow himself to be defamed (in his view) rather than resorting to suggested legal action or the judgment of secular companies in a dispute between two brothers.
    These steps would have better fulfilled Pauls instructions in 1Cor 6 rather than the course chosen by Mr. Abanes. (I realize Mr. Abanes claims he was not really going to use legal recourse but relying on the judgment of a secular company to resolve a dispute between brothers strikes me as just as unbiblical)

  • Whenever I hear about or read these public quarrels among believers over doctrine and other differences of opinion — on the blogosphere especially — I wonder where the following scriptural admonitions fit.
    1) “‘Everything is permissible’ — but not everything is beneficial. ‘Everything is permissible’ — but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. … Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God — even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.” – 1 Corinthians 10: 23-24, 31-33
    2) “Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly — mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, ‘I follow Paul,’ and another, ‘I follow Apollos,’ are you not mere men? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe — as the Lord has assigned to each his task.” – I Cor. 3:1-5
    3) “If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? … Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!” – I Cor. 6:1, 4-6

  • STEVE: relying on the judgment of a secular company to resolve a dispute between brothers strikes me as just as unbiblical)
    RA: That is NOT what the Bible says. That is NOT what 1 Cor. says. You have just twisted scripture to cit what you want it to say. The context is CLEARLY about taking believers to court, or threatening to take them to court. It cannot, in any legitimate way, be applied to a letter of complaint to an ISP just because said ISP is secular. Stop perverting scripture.
    A TOS is no different than parking restrictions at a apartment complex, housing development rules, home association restrictions, agreements to be a good employee, etc etc etc.
    What I see going on is everyone scrambling to hide behind 1 Cor. 6 and Matt. 18 in an effort to continue saying/doing whatever they want to say/do on the internet. And that is not biblical.
    _____________
    STEVE: First try to work out a something privately between he and Silva (I’m not suggesting a Matthew 18 scenario only a brother to brother chat)
    RA: This is your subjective opinion of how YOU would have handled it. Fine. I can respect that. But it seems, few people are willing respect my subjective choice. Instead, I am accused of violating both 1 Cor. 6 & Matt. 18, neither which apply.
    ___________
    STEVE: My point here was that the ISP didn’t care if the complaint was legitimate, they only desired to avoid the possible legal action suggested by Mr. Abanes letter so they told Mr Silva to remove the piece.
    RA: Really? You know this for sure? Who is your contact at IPOWER? What email do you have from IPOWER that reveals this? Where was that information disclosed to you? The truth is that this is pure, baseless conjecture on your part.
    And I happen t have an email from IPOWE that flatly states they DO NOT act on just a complaint, but investigate promptly, then take appropriate action. Please, I implore you, stop making things up and deal with the facts.
    RA

  • Austin: Word to Jeremy Del Rio’s comment. Satan’s biggest weapon is in dividing Christians.
    RA: I AGREE. And this is what I have been desperately trying to stop for months with all of my posts on why CERTAIN accusations against Rick Warren are false. Because those accusations are causing unnecessary division in the Body of Christ.
    But such words of caution have also been met with violent opposition, showing once more, that these ODMs do not want to be accountable for what they say that is inaccurate, hurtful, and divisive.
    R. Abanes

  • Richard how about you retire for a few weeks from trying to defend yourself – chances are better than not that much of this would blow over if you weren’t actively trying to paint yourself as the victim of wrongdoing when numerous people have echoed that slander was non-existent in Pastor Silva’s post.
    How about less time defending Richard Abanes and more time studying the Word of God?
    Humble thoughts from the heartland,
    Bill Burke

  • Bill: “How about less time defending Richard Abanes and more time studying the Word of God?”
    REPLY: Why can’t I do both? They are not mutually exclusive. Since the you-know-what hit the fan, I have done: my daily Bible studies, posted on blogs, watched some great TV, done numerous errands around town, posted two new blogs about Eckhart Tolle and Oprah Winfrey (also see my blog posts on Oprah at http://richardabanes.wordpress.com/ ), began writing the introduction to my new book, attended church, and enjoyed quality time with my wife.
    Interestingly, I’ve found numerous people from Ken’s camp telling me to stop. Why? Is anyone telling Ken at his http://christianresearchnetwork.com/ to stop posting article about me that are on the attack? In a few days he has posted I don’t know how many links to articles crucifying me. And others seem far more obsessed than me with the issue. No problems with them? Hmmmm.
    RAbanes

  • RA: But such words of caution have also been met with violent opposition, showing once more, that these ODMs do not want to be accountable for what they say that is inaccurate, hurtful, and divisive.
    is this not evidence to you that entering into any kind of dialogue with these kinds of people is fruitless and potentially more damaging to the Body? I know you feel your words of ‘caution’ are necessary BUT sometimes it is best to not enter into the debate/discussion/argument. They are not accountable to you after all? especially on their thoughts regarding Rick Warren?

  • Every time I think I’m out they pull me back in!!!
    OK this is my last post on this topic – honest -I swear! I’ll let Mr. Abanes have the last word as I know he likes to do.
    First I do not believe it is twisting scripture to apply 1Cor 6 more widely than just legal action. It is about allowing unbelievers to mediate disputes between brothers. Your insistance on applying this only to legal maneuvers strikes me like those who tithed their mint and rue yet avoided the weightier matters of the law by passing over the love of God.
    Second: Mr. Abanes, said “But it seems, few people are willing respect my subjective choice”
    That is because many of us see your “subjective choice” as a violation of the spirit of scripture and a form of bullying. Do you patrol your neighborhood looking for technical violations of the homeowners association bylaws? Do you call a cop when you see a car illegally parked? Come on man you are trying to invoke some great moral principle here when this whole thing was about your taking offense at some criticism.
    Third: I have worked in the business world long enough to know a boilerplate corporate response when I see it. No company is going to admit to caving in to pressure from a complainant. They will always claim they did a complete investigation. But if they did, what did they find that was a violation of the TOS. Don’t you think they had an obligation to Silva to tell him the specifics of the violation?
    That’s it. I’m done. Go ahead and accuse us all of “hiding” behind scripture while you hide behind your basic complaint template and I-Powers canned response. Just remember that God is not mocked and whatever a man sows is what he shall reap.
    PS – I’m a little behind on my yardwork – please don’t notify my HOA! 🙂

  • Ally – I bought up the code of conduct as it presents an outline by which the blog owner can set the parameters by which people can play. (This assumes of course that both bloggers and those offering comments agree to the rules – it’s very hypocritical for a blogger to issue inflammatory comments and then whine when others respond in kind. What’s wuss behavior of the highest magnitude is when a blogger posts a highly explosive posting and then disables comments.
    Having said that, we don’t have a code of conduct on The Wittenburg Door blogs because we’re a satirical site so we have adopted an anything goes satire … it helps to clearly identify something as Satire/parody – if you have to keep explaining “it’s just a joke” then it probably wasn’t one.
    Becky
    Becky G.

  • ALLY: is this not evidence to you that entering into any kind of dialogue with these kinds of people is fruitless and potentially more damaging to the Body? I know you feel your words of ‘caution’ are necessary BUT sometimes it is best to not enter into the debate/discussion/argument.
    RA: I am an eternal optimist.
    _____________
    ALLY: They are not accountable to you after all?
    RA: No, they are not! They are accountable to: a) God; and b) any person/company they strike an agreement with (e.g., a TOS). It’s not a sin on my part to remind them of these issues, and show them where, in my opinion, they have failed in both areas. That’s my opinion I have expressed using: a) scripture; and b) an appeal to a TOS agreement.
    _____________
    ALLY: …. especially on their thoughts regarding Rick Warren?
    RA: I have no problem with people critiquing Rick Warren — or anyone else! I DO have a problem with someone calling themselves an apologist or a discerner, but leveling criticisms as Warren (or anyone else, such as the emerging church, or some other pastor) that are based on false statements, half-truths, misrepresentations of facts, and faulty research.
    RAbanes

  • STEVE: It is about allowing unbelievers to mediate disputes between brothers.
    RA: No. That is NOT what it is saying. You cannot add to scripture. Go read a commentary:
    – Wycliffe Commentary: “B. The LAWSUITS Before the Heathen. 6:1-11. . . . The question of LAWSUITS is introduced (v.1)” — p. 1237
    – Eerdmans Commentary: “Even Jews living in heathen cities did not take such cases before Gentile COURTS. . . . [T]o invoke civil pagan COURTS to settle LAWSUITS between believers was a confession of Christian failure.” — p. 1058.
    – NIV Study Bible: “6:1 . . . Paul seems to be talking about various kinds of CIVIL COURT CASES here…”
    The list goes on and on. This has NOTHING to do with alerting an ISP about a TOS violation. Stop twisting the Bible.
    ___________
    STEVE: That is because many of us see your “subjective choice” as a violation of the spirit of scripture and a form of bullying.
    RA: No, it’s because if I am right, then that would call everyone to a level of accountability they do not wish to embrace. And it’s tragic that Christians would so want to have the freedom to do and say whatever they want to do and say, no matter how much it hurts another person, and no matter of such words are against agreements they accept.
    _______________
    STEVE: Do you patrol your neighborhood looking for technical violations of the homeowners association bylaws?
    RA: That’s an actual job, you know.
    _______________
    STEVE: Do you call a cop when you see a car illegally parked?
    RA: If it’s blocking my driveway, you better believe it.
    ______________
    STEVE: Come on man you are trying to invoke some great moral principle here when this whole thing was about your taking offense at some criticism.
    RA: You keep ignoring the obvious in an attempt to keep spinning it back to condemn me. To say nothing about Silva breaking federal copyright/privacy laws. You say nothing about Chris Rosebrough threatening me with an ISP/attorney lawsuit and complaint. Interesting. You just breeze right by it like it doesn’t even exist. This is totally fascinating.
    _____________
    STEVE: I have worked in the business world long enough to know a boilerplate corporate response when I see it.
    RA: Oh, so you know exactly how IPOWER works because you’ve worked at a company of some kind, even though the email I received from a personal correspondent says differently. Talk about not wanting to be confused with the facts.
    _______________
    STEVE: Just remember that God is not mocked and whatever a man sows is what he shall reap.
    RA: I am praying earnestly for that to happen VERY swiftly!!!! 🙂
    RAbanes

  • Richard, though I think Ken is abrasive in his comments such as “Pope”of PDL, etc., isn’t your actions, though certainly within the legal rights you have, a violation in some sense of the Luke 17, “bondservant” of
    Christ, that those who are in Christ are. Meaning, we don’t have any rights so who are we to complain? Did not Jesus say, in some sense, don’t worry when you are called names because of Me, when you are beaten because of Me?
    Did not Paul write in his epistles to “not think too highly of yourself but esteem others,” in paraphrase. I think it wrong to use the laws of the land to get around the laws of God, even when we have every legal right to do so. Are we not told, “be at peace with one another, so much as it depends on you”? And in the parable of the speck and the log, is not the responsibility on the one with the log in his eye to go to his brother and confess the sin of creating a log in one’s eye and seek forgiveness before we can even consider pointing out the speck in his eye? In other words, someone may have done something to irritate us or worse but our reaction to that action creates a log in our eye all the while we want to vigorously point out the speck that caused us so much irritation.
    What are we to do? Ask our brother for forgiveness and maybe he might ask what he did to cause this. Ken, Richard it is time to seek out each other and ask one another for forgiveness. It doesn’t matter if you do not see the matter similarly. For the record I am a survivor of PDL and have seen how it destroys people, churches, and the Bible in its man-centered efforts to bring the fruit of Peter Drucker’s vision to the world. Regardless, warn the world as I do but do not fall into sin or the ways of the world in your efforts. Remember all you have been forgiven. Isn’t this a little tiny thing in comparison?
    JOhn Frerich

  • Richard, though I think Ken is abrasive in his comments such as “Pope”of PDL, etc., isn’t your actions, though certainly within the legal rights you have, a violation in some sense of the Luke 17, “bondservant” of
    Christ, that those who are in Christ are. Meaning, we don’t have any rights so who are we to complain? Did not Jesus say, in some sense, don’t worry when you are called names because of Me, when you are beaten because of Me?
    Did not Paul write in his epistles to “not think too highly of yourself but esteem others,” in paraphrase. I think it wrong to use the laws of the land to get around the laws of God, even when we have every legal right to do so. Are we not told, “be at peace with one another, so much as it depends on you”? And in the parable of the speck and the log, is not the responsibility on the one with the log in his eye to go to his brother and confess the sin of creating a log in one’s eye and seek forgiveness before we can even consider pointing out the speck in his eye? In other words, someone may have done something to irritate us or worse but our reaction to that action creates a log in our eye all the while we want to vigorously point out the speck that caused us so much irritation.
    What are we to do? Ask our brother for forgiveness and maybe he might ask what he did to cause this. Ken, Richard it is time to seek out each other and ask one another for forgiveness. It doesn’t matter if you do not see the matter similarly. For the record I am a survivor of PDL and have seen how it destroys people, churches, and the Bible in its man-centered efforts to bring the fruit of Peter Drucker’s vision to the world. Regardless, warn the world as I do but do not fall into sin or the ways of the world in your efforts. Remember all you have been forgiven. Isn’t this a little tiny thing in comparison?
    JOhn Frerich

  • Mr. Abanes, if you knew how ridiculous you were looking/sounding, you would stand up, turn off the computer, grab a cup of coffee, and go outside. And then take a big breath. And let it out slowly.
    Please listen to those who are trying to tell you this. They are not your enemies. 100 years from now no one is going to care which of you two bloggers was right or wrong. At that point all that will matter is Christ, and His sure ability to have conformed His children into His image.
    Let’s try not to make His job any harder than it is, shall we?

  • i think a lot of people in this line of comments had a coffee drip going at the same time.
    can we all switch over to herbal tea?

  • “how about the wishes of the ISP who had discovered, thanks to my alert, that Silva had violated their TOS with him.”
    For the record: There is zero evidence that IPower actually investigated the false accusation by Richard Abanes. And it remains false because it never been proven. Things are slander/libel simply because a given individual claims that they are.
    And I have never, ever been supplied–by either party–any specifics concerning this alleged slander, etc. within my opinion piece now in question. Also, I have never spoken privately with Richard Abanes at any time.
    This is not the forum to argue this so I am only going to say: Richard Abanes is certainly welcome to his opinion but I really think it would be more Christian if he would not to continue to spread misinformation.

  • hi Ken.
    thanks Ken for coming on to comment.
    i realise there is a lot of information-related banter going on and i understand the PDL vs. anti-PDL (although Richard is right to suggest this does not apply here] but the more interesting matter on this thread is actually do to with protocol and best practices when these things come up – or stopping them coming up altogether.
    i dont think this issue would have flared up as much as it did if Richard had contacted you in the first place and certainly if you had not used the words “legal” and “sue” in your blog post title which triggered a reaction and stirred up the hornets nest. I realize those words can apply but asking an ISP to ask a blogger to take down a single post that is considered offensive is a lot different from consulting a lawyer to bring legal action against someone, which is how many of us initially understood those legal terms.
    i know you like to stoke the fire. Bad blogger, no cookie!
    I just posted another piece on avoiding legal flareups on the blogs. Link. I suggest commentors shift over so I can close this up.

  • JOHN: Did not Jesus say, in some sense, don’t worry when you are called names because of Me, when you are beaten because of Me?
    RA: Hey, John. In this instance, I am not being called names because of Christ. In other words, I have not preached the Gospel, or proclaimed Christ, or taken a stand for truth, and as a result of such actions, been attacked by someone. That would fall under what simply goes along with being a bondservant and understanding that when we stand up for Jesus will will be persecuted by the world. This controversy has nothing to do with and such scenario.
    ____________________
    JOHN: Did not Paul write in his epistles to “not think too highly of yourself but esteem others,” in paraphrase.
    RA: I am a lowly sinner saved by grace, a man filled with weaknesses/sins like any other, someone who in teh great scheme of things, is relatively meaningless, despite whatever accomplishments have been granted to me by God’s mercy. These facts, however, do not change other facts. This issue reaches FAR beyond just me and Ken Silva. It involves accountablity, responsibility, the proper mode of apologetics/discernment, our conduct as Christians, what it means to strike our hand to an agreement (e.g., a TOS agreement), needless division in the Body of Christ. These issues are huge. That is what I am trying to also call attention to. And the violent response is telling me that the Body of Christ is very, very ill.
    ____________________
    JOHN: I think it wrong to use the laws of the land to get around the laws of God, even when we have every legal right to do so.
    RA: How about using the laws of the land in conjunction with the laws of God.
    ____________________
    JOHN: Are we not told, “be at peace with one another, so much as it depends on you”?
    RA: Yes, and I waited 3 years to say anything about that article.
    ___________________
    JOHN: And in the parable of the speck and the log, is not the responsibility on the one with the log in his eye to go to his brother and confess the sin of creating a log in one’s eye and seek forgiveness before we can even consider pointing out the speck in his eye?
    RA: This verse is not at all applicable.
    ___________________
    JOHN: Richard it is time to seek out each other and ask one another for forgiveness.
    RA: Please see my latest post at MONDAY MORNING INSIGHTS
    Richard Abanes

  • KEN SILVA: For the record: There is zero evidence that IPower actually investigated the false accusation by Richard Abanes. And it remains false because it never been proven. Things are slander/libel simply because a given individual claims that they are.
    RABANES: Untrue. I have in my possession an email from IPOWER telling me very clearly that when they are alerted to an ALLEGED infraction of their TOS agreement by a client, they “investigate promptly” and then they “take appropriate action.” Well, they apparently did “investigate promptly” and subsequently took what they deemed to be “take appropriate action.”
    _______________
    KEN SILVA: I really think it would be more Christian if he would not to continue to spread misinformation.
    RABANES: …. I have no words.
    Richard Abanes

  • yeah – thanks everyone. i think all is said and done. Ken can email me if he wants to say more. time to close up and move on to the next one. LINK

  • Andrew:
    “i know you like to stoke the fire. Bad blogger, no cookie!”
    Uh-oh, now I will have to go and write your ISP because of that libelous statement, which defames my character and hurts my reputation. 😉

  • Andrew,
    I will shift my post about the policy questions you ask to your new thread. I would just offer this slight tweak to John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Jerk Theory
    Normal People + Internet + Lack of Ability to see each other’s Face == Arrogant Jerks
    I think the tone of Ken and Richard’s posts in general, posts here in particular, and the whole way this conflict was handled (from the email to ISP with no personal contact first, to having the ISP take the entire site down instead of removing a single article) proof it.
    Nate

  • Uh, Nate. I hate to interrupt your judgmental comment but a little poetic justice is happenin’. Ya got a typo there; it’s “prove,” not “proof.” Jus’ thought you might wanna know. Ok, carry on now with your self-righteousness…