Thursday, January 8, 2009

Thanks for the help and support guys.

Dear Beliefnet member,

I'm sure that you put a lot of time and energy into your personal blog which is wonderful if that's what you wish to do. I however do not have time to read it.

You were given the Infraction because you have repeatedly made negative comments about the Conservative Board inspite (sic) of having been asked to stop. The board was created for those who might wish to use it. Beliefnet provides a number of different types of boards for our Christian members so that as many people as possible can find a place to talk about their beliefs with others who share them. Posting disparaging remarks about the board, and encouraging other members to band together to insist that it be shut down is disruptive.

We welcome you to express your opinion within the limits of the Beliefnet Rules of Conduct which you agreed to abide by when you became a member. This does not include posting public complaints on the site. For your convenience you may review the rules at this link: http://www.beliefnet.com/about/rules.asp.

BeliefnetSabee
Asst. Community Manager

5 comments:

Juanuchis said...

Meh. B'net is a lost cause.

Hugs, Roseann!

susan s. said...

Don't you just want to tell them to F***Off? Of course that wouldn't be nice, but it might be fun! What could they do if you did? Sue you?

Re your earlier post...Sorry you feel like Sh*t. If I could donate I would, but they won't even take my blood. Cancer knocks one out of so many chances to help medically.

((((Roseann))))

StLouisJohn said...

No Susan, she'd get 5 more infraction points and have to stand in the corner.

Or write "I love Bishop Iker" 100 times on the Conservative Board.

Again, I say, Beliefnet thinks Stepford Wives is a business model, not fiction.

Sabee is so out of the ballpark on this one that's it's hard to find a place to even start...but to take a stab at it:

#1 -- Roseann has not made negative comments about the Conservative Board. The main posters (all two or three of them) have decided to make an exit. Roseann remarked that there is no longer any traffic on the board is not a negative comment. It is a simple statement of fact. My favorite color is purple. If your favorite color is green, are you making a negative comment about purple? No -- you're just saying you like green.

#2 -- When did Roseann ever encourage others to "band together" to insist the Conservative Board be shut down? Roseann has never posted a poll or online petition to get the board shut down. Roseann has indicated, in my opinion, that the Conservative Board's purpose has been served and is no longer required. Again, that's just statement of fact. It began, it had its heyday, it has now fizzled out. Why keep it around?

All any of this correspondence I've seen is just a red herring for the real issue. The Beliefnet powers-that-be have something against Roseann, and I can't imagine what. She's received infraction points, she's been banned for a period, and of course posts and threads deleted.

Myself -- I've done far, far worse than anything Roseann ever did -- or that they accuse her of. Sure I've had posts and threads deleted. That's almost a rite of passage at B'net. But the other stuff has never happened to me.

This is so wrong in so many ways...it totally pisses me off.

John

StLouisJohn said...

Something else popped into my head (now I'm on a roll...watch it!) The root of the issue is this. Since the elevation of +Gene Robinson, the Conservatives were a small but significant minority in the THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. The Episcopal Church is the representation of the Anglican Communion in the USA.

The majority of that significant minority, the Conservatives, have willfully, without coercion, chosen, to align themselves with other Provinces, such as the Southern Cone. Implied in that a change in command from The Katharine Jefferts-Schori to Gregory Venables.

On Beliefnet's hierarchical system, Conservative and Anglican/Episcopal are under an "Anglican/Episcopal" label.

That is no longer accurate. To reflect the structure, the hierarchy should be more along the lines of:

Anglican->Episcopal
Anglican->Southern Cone
Anglican->Anglican Church of Canada

The Episcopal Church, as we are so often told, is NOT the majority member of the Anglican Communion. But I would surmise that it was structured that way as Episcopalians are the vast majority of Anglicans that use Beliefnet.

But heaven forbid you suggest anything about that. Beliefnet would prefer to go bankrupt and be sold out, versus listen to their users who read their ads.

Oh...they did go bankrupt and sold out to Fox, didn't they?

John

susan s. said...

This still bothers me... "We welcome you to express your opinion within the limits of the Beliefnet Rules of Conduct..." which means basically "as long as your opinion is our opinion..."

Not only that, it is an awkward statement.
See, this is why I don't have a blog... It would be filled with awkward statements, and I would be mad at myself all the time!