Dogs Yelping at Loriken's Heels...

[FundieFarmer]

Well, I think the Alexanders may be feeling the heat of the big thread we have going on (I started a new one just to focus on one of her more recent additions!). Lori posted about not being liked, and being unpopular. Ken answers comments for her and calls us left-wing liberals again. All in a day's work, FJ! My favorite exchange is in the comments:

 

Ken: "...Why is it that some can hide behind anonymous monikers yet threaten to "out" Christian bloggers with small children who need protection (could he mean the Rodrigueses?!) or want to destroy a blogger's business because of his religious views? (I wouldn't say "destroy", per se...maybe just "helpfully inform clientele"...) They have inconsistent values that they apply to themselves only when it serves them to do so. They stand as judge, jury and desire to be jailer towards Christian bloggers (Nah, mostly just hypocrites. FJ universally despises hypocrites.). Many a blog has been brought down by such individuals and all because they simply disagree?" (They have?)

 

Francoise (reader): "I can see how this would be an annoyance, but no more than that. Remember what Christians go through in other countries! Thank goodness you live in a country where citizens are ALLOWED to disagree with each other. God bless and thank you for your wonderful blog."

 

Props to you, Francoise.

 

lorialexander.blogspot.com/2015/01/dogs-yelping-at-my-heels.html

 

Edited for riffles...

[church_of_dog]

Ken: "...Why is it that some can hide behind anonymous monikers yet threaten to "out" Christian bloggers with small children who need protection (could he mean the Rodrigueses?!)

I would assume he means Cabinetman. Except that even Robert seems to understand that no one reading his blog (least of all from FJ) is actually posing a threat to him or his family in any way (except perhaps psychologically).

I think Ken is just missing us since none of us have been major EXCEPTIONS!! RED HERRING!1!! DETRACTORS1!! in quite some time...

[salex]

Are there any bloggers posting anonymously that anyone has talked about outing, with or without small children.

Can people be outed if they are posting to a public blog, using their own name, and making their opinions known? No, the point of outing is to point out that a person is not who they say they are.

[browncoatslytherin]

as far as i know, the only blogger we outed was ruth, because she was a fake. unless his definition is different than mine (which it very well could be, cuz, ya know, stupid).

[salex]

I have been thinking. As weird as I find Christopher Maxwell's refusal to photograph weddings that include alcohol, etc, I think it just shines a light on Ken's hypocrisy.

Ken is a self employed consultant who says that he believes working women are part of the whore of babylon and that one woman with a job damages the lives of 2 men.... and other pretty horrible stuff about working women.

Yet, he works in an industry that hires thousands of women as dental hygenists, office managers etc, a growing percentage of dentists are women.

And Ken works for practices owned by women. He works for practices filled with women hygienists. He uses picture after picture of working women in these practices to advertise his services. He is in bed, financially with the whore of babylon.

Either he doesn't really think the things he says when he posts on Lori's blog about the evils of working women, or he is willing to put aside his belief's for money.

The Maxwell's have found ways to earn money without bending their beliefs, as rigid and probably harmful as they are. Ken could have changed his management consulting practice years ago, if he really found working women so horrific to society and so offensive. He could have been "booked" when a woman dentist called for consulting. He didn't. Where would the profit have been in that?

[thoughtful]

Are there any bloggers posting anonymously that anyone has talked about outing, with or without small children.

Can people be outed if they are posting to a public blog, using their own name, and making their opinions known? No, the point of outing is to point out that a person is not who they say they are.

They can't seem to understand this distinction.

I shall leave this here, for when Lorken and Cabinetman get around to reading this thread.

I am anonymous online because I would like to remain safe. I don't want crazy strangers to find me. I actually think such people are rare (and quite distinct from "people whose opinion differs from mine," Lorken and CM), but it only takes one, and I understand that anyone, anywhere in the world, could be reading what I write.

I have nothing to hide from people who know me or might want to make use of my professional services -- "outing" me to them would be no big deal.

If any of my over-18 students (you do know that minors may not join here, right, Lorken and CM?) or the parents of the younger ones read here, I doubt they'd be scandalized.

I guess it's possible that someone would be surprised by my cursing or risque jokes, but only if they hadn't thought through the idea that most professional people, but especially those who teach children, might speak differently at work than at play. I can't picture any of the adults I deal with being clueless enough to think that way.

Family members and friends would not be startled by what I say here, either.

My clients, family, friends and acquaintances include Christians of many denominations (including Mormons and Catholics -- you might not consider them Christians, Lorken and CM, but they do, and I do), Hindus, Jews, agnostics, atheists and people who have never told me what they believe. Politically, they range from the very liberal to the very conservative. A few may not realize I'm an atheist, but I can't imagine they haven't all caught on that I am a left-leaning non-Christian who believes women and men are equal.

I've mentioned that I read and post on a forum about fundamentalists to other adults in my life. If any of them asked the name of it and my screen name, I'd tell them, but it hasn't come up so far. For all I know, a bunch of them are lurking, and have figured out who I am -- if so . . .

hi, guys!

[browncoatslytherin]

i'm not super anonymous on here. i don't think i've said my name, but i've given plenty of identifying information that anyone with goggle tactics could figure out who i am.

also, my name here is the same as my instagram username. the only reason my twitter name is different is because it's too long for twitter (i had to resort to browncoatgrimm instead). i don't think anyone i know would be a bit surprised as to what i post here. and i don't care if they read it.

plus, i dare someone to try to come around and try to scare me with the fiance i have. he can be rather...intimidating...especially with his tiger claw knife ;) i've no doubt even manly man boohoo would run for the hills. :lol:

[FundieFarmer]

Amen, thoughtful. I am anonymous purely for my safety, lest anyone decide they think my frumper's sexy. I actually have shared both FJ and my username with friends, who have come to find the site as hilariously wonderful as I do.

I make it a practice not to say anything behind someone's back that I wouldn't say directly to them. Sometimes I have to eat my hat, but I will say this to Lorken: as a member of a very conservative Protestant Orthodox denomination that is only a distant cousin from your own (lest you think I am some random heathen), I have issues with your interpretation of the Bible. I come from a background that, in many ways, aligns with yours. My pastor himself has a whole snark page here on FJ due to his highly conservative doctrine. So why am I here, snarking on fundies? Because I (and I believe my pastor, as well) draw the line when faith gets dangerous, or painful, or abusive. If my boyfriend forced me to stand until it hurt, I would break up with him- not only because that would be an excellent indication that he does not honor his potential calling as a husband, who is to love his wife as he does the church (which is a guideline I've set for myself, but don't expect everyone around me to follow, hint hint)...but also because I am not going to ride that crazy train for the rest of my life. I would be aware of the red flags set forth in the Bible. I would be aware of the red flags in my own intuition. I can go on re: your interpretations, but I'll spare FJ the rambling.

Bottom line? Nobody is perfect, but love isn't abusive, or manipulative, and that's what scares me about unhealthy fundamental Christian relationships. Your blogs haven't convinced me you believe otherwise.You can choose to be submissive, and follow more restrictive teachings, and that's absolutely fine. You can also choose to swing naked off a balcony on Bourbon Street, and that's your prerogative too. But as a human being who shares your space with others, you have a responsibility to be aware of the potential consequences to others from the things you say and do. So you do whatever you feel led to do, but please do not manipulate others into it as well through feigned mentorship or faulty Biblical reasoning.

Edited for continuity.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Agreed with FundieFarmer and thoughtful.

I've posted comments to their blog precisely because I didn't want to simply talk behind their back, and hoped that I could actually give some useful advice. My use of a screen name here predates my commenting there. Not only were my comments required to be respectful (which they were), but I increasingly discovered that they would not be posted or would be deleted if they were seen as a distraction/red herring - in other words, if I got in the way of Lori's mission as God's own submission prophet by posting an intelligent dissent.

I truly doubt that any of my family or friends or clients would be scandalized that I don't agree with wives automatically submitting to husbands in everything.

FWIW, I'm not a Liberal, I'm fairly religious, I dress more modestly than Lori, and I'm pretty sure that I'm far more respectful toward my husband.

[GeoBQn]

I call dibs on being a pug.

[thoughtful]

I call dibs on being a pug.

I'm torn between greyhound and beagle.

[polecat]

I must have missed the part where the Alexanders were forced to blog under their real names.

We all have the option to either be open with our identities or preserve our anonymity. Ken and Lori chose to "out" themselves. I'm not going to justify my own choice to do differently. I don't have to justify that choice. It was my choice and my right to remain anonymous.

[formergothardite]

The love of money is the root of all evil. And lying is a sin. So there are two options for why Ken is afraid of people contacting his clients to let them know his beliefs.

1. He is lying on the internet because he is a drama whore and he doesn't believe any of this.

2. He loves money so much that he will violate what he says are biblical commandments to accumulate money.

Either way he is sinning according to the Bible. If he has a problem with it, he should really take it up with God, because this isn't just my opinion, it is biblical principles. :whistle:

[Phoebe]

When I have commented on Never Learning, the name I used was my real first name. In addition, the email account I used is the one I normally use (which contains my real last name), not one made specifically to obfuscate.

I'm not sure how this translates to hiding behind a false name. I do use a false name (actually, the name of my youngest cat) here, but I have also left enough information about myself on FJ and elsewhere on the web that a person with a modicum of persistence could decipher who I am and in what city I live, as well as my employer, the names of family members, my pets' names, my hobbies, my obsession with rescue kittens, and how my love life is going.

As a psych nurse, I don't want to make it stupidly easy for any patients to figure out who I am online. In the case of my usual patients, it's not an issue, but there is one patient on the locked unit we see quite often who appears to be fixated on me, and since I have to float to that unit fairly frequently, it's a matter of safety. Luckily, this particular patient doesn't use computers regularly...but it doesn't mean he doesn't have friends who can use the dreaded Goggle Tactics for information.

Goggle Tactics: Not That Hard, Actually.

Edited because HTML, like math, is hard. Let's go shopping instead! /Barbie reference

[Grimalkin]

I call dibs on being a pug.

Isnt that the sign of "The Beast" to have dogs bark and growl at you when you walk past? Or demonic possesions?

[Tesseract]

WOOF!

[browncoatslytherin]

upon further, more intellectual thought...i don't believe "dog" is an accurate term to describe me. i'm much more like a cat. i suppose i could be swiping at their ankles?

[jerkit]

Oh look, another post where Lori C/Ps material that is not hers *yawn*

[formergothardite]

upon further, more intellectual thought...i don't believe "dog" is an accurate term to describe me. i'm much more like a cat. i suppose i could be swiping at their ankles?

Watch out, Lori will kick you. She is an evil woman.

[browncoatslytherin]

Watch out, Lori will kick you. She is an evil woman.

that's okay, this kitty ain't declawed ;)

[docmom]

Yawn, yet another persecution claim by Ken.

Ken, please pay attention...The only person in the world who is actually persecuting you is Lori.

Lori, the only person who is persecuting you is Ken.

[ViolaSebastian]

The love of money is the root of all evil. And lying is a sin. So there are two options for why Ken is afraid of people contacting his clients to let them know his beliefs.

1. He is lying on the internet because he is a drama whore and he doesn't believe any of this.

2. He loves money so much that he will violate what he says are biblical commandments to accumulate money.

Either way he is sinning according to the Bible. If he has a problem with it, he should really take it up with God, because this isn't just my opinion, it is biblical principles. :whistle:

Ken: the drama whore of Babylon.

[church_of_dog]

WOOF!

Woof indeed!

Or as I like to say, "There but for the grace of Dog go I..."

[Phoebe]

I'm torn between greyhound and beagle.

I'm claiming pointer/boxer mix. I have one, and Maggie is the sweetest, happiest creature I know.

[polecat]

I'm claiming pointer/boxer mix. I have one, and Maggie is the sweetest, happiest creature I know.

I'll be a Caucasian Shepherd Dog because fluffy and cute does not equal nice and friendly. :D