Genesis, Part 9

I am pretty much going to let Leah speak for herself here. I had some questions about the old Survivors group and she kindly answered them. I think much of it is relevant, so I reproduce it here, with her permission, of course.

Note: A nice sample of Jack Sparrows is here.

And I would have banned Camille for doing the blocking thing. They were much more patient with her than they should have been. Camille was determined to say whatever she wished with nobody having the ability to stop her (and furthermore, she wished to prevent the moderation team from even seeing what she was writing)—in a forum she didn’t own. Yet if anyone even hinted at disagreeing with her, she demanded their heads roll immediately.

The highlighted sentences are important. This is how I even knew that Brenda Bough and Kim Bumhammer existed in the first place. I was given a heads up that they might be fakes because Leah and Nancy were familiar with them.

So what we have here is Camille, who left the group a long time before it disbanded and didn’t have anything at all to do with it after that, only she did because she kept trying to join under fake profiles. We know for certain that Camille was Brenda Bough.

We also know that the fake Brenda (Camille) had a nice chat with the fake Kim about the fake mother with the fake cancer. So either Camille is also Kim or Camille knows exactly who Kim is—and both of them tried to join the Survivor group.

The Fake Attorney and The Wizard of Boz for more information.

Note: it’s not the concept of somebody talking to an imaginary person that bothers atheists. What bothers us is when it’s said in a condescending tone as though somehow the person is going to tell on us, or the person has some sort of connection with people in high places and we are just insignificant. Tone and intent are everything.

And in closing, there is this from the Pricky Dick himself.

So, a “normal person” would have “laughed at this.” Is that right?

When Alex de Barros hinted that he might know something, a vague completely-unspecified something, about Grant Lewis, Camille went totally apeshit and began demanding that Alex’s comment be taken down and the entire thread removed and Alex banned. Right. Now. Do. It. Now.

And years later, she was still bitching about the “abuse” she suffered because Leah didn’t remove the Alex stuff fast enough to suit her.

All because of a vague, totally non-specific hint of a claim about Grant.

On the other hand, Leah Hayes lives and works in Greenville, and her job requires that people have a certain measure of trust in her (she doesn’t work at Walmart). Greenville has a relatively high percentage of former BJU students, way more, say, than Lexington, Kentucky. Imagine being Leah for the last three years. She had no way of knowing who had followed all that controversy, who had read the stuff about mental illness and empty chairs and medical records leaked from Barge. So every time she ran into somebody from BJU that she thought might be active online, she wondered. “Have they read it? Do they think I’m crazy?” She couldn’t just walk up to them and say, “Hi, there, Fred. Good to see you. By the way, I’m not crazy.”

If the Queen reacted like she did over a silly, nothing comment like the one Alex made, what would she do if I told the world that I know something very specific about her and Grant, about their personal life? Something inflammatory and potentially devastating?

All I’m waiting for is a little more proof.

Are you laughing, Camille? How about you, Dan? Laughing yet?

Genesis, Part 8

At the same time that Dan the Clicky Dick was being given the axe, David Shaffer came up on the chopping block too.

This comes from Truth Seeking Graduates. By this time, Camille had teamed up with Cathy over there. Note something a little bit odd?

This is from TSG. But David Shaffer made the original post.

You can’t do that anymore.

Truth Seeking Graduates has gone from allowing people to post, to not allowing anyone to post anything except an admin, to removing comments for disagreeing with them, and now they moderate every comment before it’s allowed to be seen.

This is the policy instituted by a woman who fussed for years in every forum where she participated (that I know and can find) that she was being unfairly muzzled. Not only did forums muzzle her, but her employers (all two of them) have muzzled her too. Everyone, it seems, is trying to silence “truth.”

Please note Jeffrey’s comment: “Everybody try to be compassionate.” Doesn’t that sound nice?

It’s not nice. The translation is: “Leah is mentally ill and I don’t want to say it aloud, but Camille told me she was. And so we have to be nice to her because she can’t help it.”

The comments by an admin at TSG are by Camille. “She is not well.” “. . .I have personally suffered. . .”

David Shaffer was wrong, bad and horrible for saying what he said about Leah, but at least he actually believed the story Camille had told him that some nurse at Barge leaked Leah’s medical history and that she’d been seen preaching to an empty chair. Camille knew it was bullshit and spread it anyway. I strongly suspect Camille invented it.

Two things I want to say about this:

Not only does Leah Hayes not have a mental health history at Barge—she doesn’t have any history at all of any sort unless they kept her admission physical or whatever they require when you enroll as a student—which she had done off campus and out of state.

I have heard Leah do voice-overs and narration. She is extremely talented, so much so that I was totally shocked. She can do not only one British accent, but several. She can imitate almost anyone or any sort of accent. She has done stand-up comedy. She does public speaking in a variety of venues. She has done book narrations (of the sort that you get when you buy Audible books). And when she practices this stuff, guess how she does it? She practices alone, in an empty room. And she gets paid for doing this.

That is what you do when you take speech (now called “rhetoric”) and you actually know what the hell you are doing and use it for something.

As a pejorative—clearly intended as an insult—somebody suggests that Leah is a closeted lesbian. None of the gay folks present say anything about that. It’s fine because they are mad at Leah.

Jeffrey’s back to “Phil didn’t know he wasn’t a moderator.” Well, Phil would have known if he’d bothered to even visit the fucking forum for weeks and weeks. But he didn’t. He rarely did anything at all except show up in the end and bitch about it. He also never contacted a soul to say, “Hey, what’s the deal here?” He was eliminated as a moderator exactly the same way and at the same time as everyone else—because they were not active and Rebecca gave the forum to Leah and Nancy with her blessing.

At the last comes the final speculation. When all else fails, accuse the person of being manipulated by Bob Jones University somehow.

I remember when this happened and how I thought it was true. I figured they knew what they were talking about. And then I started this website and they began saying it about me. Then I realized that there’s a pattern here.

All the stuff about unreasonable moderating, being in league with Bob Jones, having deep shameful secrets—they do this about anyone who crosses them. Leah, Nancy, Greg Easton, Beth Murschell, me. I’m sure there are more to add to that list, but you get the idea.

And then David Shaffer sent Leah a little love note.

The first time I read this, I just sat and stared at it for a few minutes. I could hardly believe it. This is a man who said over and over and over again that Leah was mentally ill and that he knew she was because he believed his “source”—and he says this to her.

I know he was angry at the time, but just read the whole thing again and think to yourself, “This is a person who sincerely (and very wrongly, but sincerely) believes that Leah Hayes is mentally ill.” What she did to him was to ban him from an internet forum. She didn’t attack him with a hammer. She didn’t assault him verbally. She didn’t do anything except make some administrative decisions he didn’t like and then ban him.

I know what it’s like to be very pissed off with Leah Hayes over administrative decisions. We tangled at one point, pretty vehemently. But even without the mistaken idea that she was having emotional issues, I would never have spoken to her—or anyone else—in such a manner. Even after Camille planted the lie with me and it took root and grew, I still would never have said such a thing to her.

David says that he doesn’t care what people think of him. That’s good, because here he is in his finest moment for everyone to see and here it remains.

And David, a personal word from me to you. This is the reason that I didn’t answer you when you sent me that note thanking me for putting up one of the pages exposing Cathy’s lies on this website.

And it was all downhill from there. Over Memorial Day weekend, in 2012, Leah and Nancy (after quietly removing posts from the forum beginning with the oldest ones first—thus the least noticeable) finished scrubbing the site clean and took it down. Their concern was that Camille and the Court would make massive screen shots of everything possible if they gave any warning at all, and those screen shots would be used against people later on.

And that, of course, is just not even remotely likely to have happened, now, is it?

Genesis, Part 9

 

Genesis, Part 7

We move forward now (and sort of backward) to February 2012. At the bottom of Genesis, Page 2 there is a truncated remark by Dan Keller that begins “This has been my private conversation with Leah Hayes. . .” We’re going to return to that in a moment.

To recap: We have a situation where there is this large Facebook page/forum owned by Rebecca Phillips Ketchie. She added a group of administrators/moderators to the group when it became apparent that the group had grown too large for one person to handle and when the tone and focus of the group had become way more diverse than she ever expected. I know this is true because I have conversed with her and she told me exactly that.

With the advent of Camille’s departure from BJU and subsequent campaign exacting revenge on them, the Disaffected began to participate in this forum. They began to hijack threads, insisted on BJU-bashing almost continuously, and began demanding a double standard whereby they were allowed to say anything they wished, but nobody could disagree with them.

At some point, both Cathy and Camille left the group, but there is good reason to believe that both returned periodically under fake names with no other purpose in mind than to start trouble.

When I was there, there were several of these obvious fakes who attacked me from time to time. Leah stepped in and banned at least two of them.

I’m going to share the exchange I had with “Jack Sparrows” because I think it illustrates what Leah was up against. Remember, in order to follow the rules, she would have had to get a majority of the moderators to agree with her, and they didn’t even bother to answer emails or messages for the most part. I do not have a screen shot of my exchange with “Jack” because I didn’t know how to make screen shots in those days.

Leah removed this whole exchange and banned “Jack” immediately, in the hopes that I never saw that last comment where he implied (the “one way ticket” stuff) that I should be killed.

How much you wanna bet “he” did, in fact, go read Nathan’s beautiful “Profane Rant”?

The problem was that they had instituted a convoluted, complicated process of banning people and removing comments that was supposed to try to keep it all fair, but really which served almost entirely to simply slow down the process and often just stall it entirely.

So, in early 2012, Rebecca made a decision to turn over the forum to somebody else. She asked if anyone wanted to continue it, and Leah Hayes, Nancy Kepler Bean and Phil Lehman all replied that they did.

However, Phil’s answer that he did wish to continue was overlooked. He’d been all but invisible anyway. He’d done virtually zero actual moderating. His remark was short, and got buried in the conversation, and nobody saw it.

At that point, Rebecca totally relinquished control of the group to Leah Hayes and Nancy Kepler Bean. This is important to understand, because Leah and Nancy were subsequently accused of “taking over” as though there was some kind of coup. It is simply not true. The other moderators were almost entirely inactive by this time. Nancy’s work schedule did not permit her to be as active as she would have liked, and as a result, everything fell on Leah’s shoulders. In addition, even when the others participated in behind-the-scenes moderation activities (as the rules required), nobody wanted to be seen as the bad guy, so the face of moderating was typically Leah.

I’ve asked Leah why she didn’t just leave. After all, she was being battered around and it was a thankless task.

Her response was that Rebecca, Leah, and Nancy all knew that the Disaffected wanted to take over the group – and Rebecca specifically didn’t want the group she’d started to turn into a vehicle for Camille Lewis to use to ram BJU. So, she stayed. They hoped they could turn the whole thing around.

After Rebecca gave Nancy and Leah the green light to do whatever they wished, they first removed all the other inactive moderators. They knew that they were going to make some changes, and that at least one or two of the other moderators might take it upon themselves to remove Leah and Nancy and just take over – with the fear being that they would then give the group to Camille Lewis as a little gift. Facebook has that characteristic. Any administrator of any page or group can without warning delete all the other administrators. Happens quite frequently, as the people in one of the “replacement” Survivor groups found out not too long ago.

And then they did what should have been done months, perhaps years, earlier. They banned both David Shaffer and Dan Keller. Nobody was warned. They simply were gone, without notice.

And that’s where we pick this up. Dan was banned and the Court’s Biggest Dick was pissed.

So, this is all the PMs that Dan shared with Leah, and as it customary with these folks, as soon as he’s mad at her, the private messages are no longer private.

Only, that’s really not all of the PMs Dan shared with Leah. He’s trying to make it look like he was always just so nice and sweet and why would Leah ban him suddenly because they were really such great friends. Dan seems to like doing group PMs. Here’s a snippet from one of them:

So Leah is at work while Dan is bitching that she deleted comments and Camille is bitching that they aren’t deleting comments. Do. It. Right. Now.

One other thing to note is that this was several years ago. The ubiquitous smart phone didn’t exist. People were mostly like I am now – tethered to their home or office computer.

A couple of comments. Phil Lehman found out he was no longer a moderator several weeks after he’d been removed. What does that say about the level of Phil’s interest and activity?

This removal was not about the threads in August (the ones I posted). They are just samples. They were not isolated incidents.

And here are the comments that ensued after Dan posted this stuff.

But you see, Dan was wrong here. It was, in fact, Leah’s and Nancy’s group at this point. Rebecca gave it to them with her blessing to do with as they pleased.

And these comments, which appear to come from a different place where Dan posted the original stuff, continue the bashing. He was posting it all over everywhere.

And Grace asks a reasonable question. Who told David this stuff? What nurse “leaked” records?

David ignores Grace’s question and tells us that he knows that this is all true because he believes his un-named source. Gee, I remember some other people who believed their source, too.

You think they’d learn.

Now, if you think all this is bad, just wait.

Genesis, Part 8

Genesis, Part 6

This is the continuation of the Williamson thread from Page 5.

Does any of this sound familiar?

These are not just general statements. Dan is directly saying that he believes that Leah is mentally ill, based on the fact that he doesn’t like how she moderates an internet forum.

He has not one single credential to justify making such a statement and no professional I know anything about would say something like that publicly based on such flimsy nonsense.

Insert

Consider this from a PM that Dan had with several of us about a year ago. This wasn’t public. This was a private message.

Disclaimer: Dan already released part of this without permission of anyone, and naturally out of context.

Notice this: First, I was a registered nurse in my former life. I have taken care a whole pile of burn patients in my time. I have some expertise in the area. I didn’t make the statement publicly. I made it privately. Dan vigorously attacked me for doing so, as you can see.

But he feels completely qualified to recommend that Leah be treated for mental illness just because he doesn’t like the way she moderated an internet forum, and he doesn’t mind saying so publicly in a place read by a potentially a couple of thousand people.

Furthermore, he asserts that he knows under what circumstances an RN could lose her license – for saying I don’t believe Cathy’s story. You have to be kidding me.

Now back to the Williamson thread.

We have more of the “this is a ‘survivor’s’ board, implying that it existed for damaged people. Only Jeffrey goes on to assert that everyone has post-traumatic stress disorder. Uh, no. You don’t get PTSD because somebody was mean to you at college. Look it up.

There are other criteria as well, but this one eliminates “somebody was mean to me at Bob Jones University.”

And Jeffrey goes on to insist that Greg Easton (who, remember, isn’t even participating in any of this) is psychotic. We seem to have a whole lot of armchair psychiatrists around here, don’t we?

And that was the end of the thread.

On the blog associated with this website, I have banned one person. I did so because of her nasty remarks about me and Greg and I think I did so after showing great patience with her.

In Leah’s place, I would have banned both Dan Keller and David Shaffer forthwith, after this vitriol.

They were not banned mostly because there were elaborate rules in place regarding banning people, sort of like trying to get a bill passed through Congress.

But more about that in a bit.

Genesis, Part 7

 

Genesis, Part 5

We come back, now, to where we left off, in the spring of 2010, with the Bob Jones University survivor Facebook group. Cathy and Camille had had their little kerfuffle with Alex de Barros (see, I remembered his last name!) and both had become very silent. Camille may have actually left the group sometime soon after that thread.

Remember, Rebecca (the original owner of the group) had enlisted aid from several people in moderating the now very-active group.

A few major problems had developed, though.

One was the hijacking of the group by what we refer to now as the Disaffected. In the BJU alumni world, there are people who really liked going to school there, are happy with their educational experience and retain a firm belief in the religion. There are also people, like me, who were forced there by their parents, didn’t like a single day of it, think the place generally sucks, and may have abandoned the religion entirely. And there are a whole bunch of folks someplace in the middle.

This works out fine, this kind of diversity, as long as everyone recognizes that there are differing feelings and ideas and everyone is allowed to express themselves reasonably without infringing on everyone else’s rights.

But that’s utopia, and that’s not what existed in this group.

According to everyone I have talked with who didn’t have a major position (thus biased) in the controversy, one of the problems was that the Disaffected tended to hijack nearly every thread that started and turn it into a bash-BJU conversation.

At one point, for example, somebody connected with BJU lost his wife, leaving him with small children to parent. Someone started a thread intended to be something that this bereaved husband could read with nothing in it but encouraging remarks. It was promptly hijacked and turned into a bash-BJU thread, and when the moderator tried to correct course, those who were reminded what the thread was supposed to be about began complaining about “censorship.”

I know from my (admittedly) brief time there, the whole issue of gay rights was discussed endlessly. I remember that it sort of surprised me – I knew, of course, that there were gay students at BJU, but I didn’t realize how vocal they had become. I was glad to see it, but it did dominate the conversation frequently. It seemed like one of the “gay guys” (my expression and not a pejorative) would post something about being gay frequently, far more often than seemed fair. The problem with this was that not everyone wanted to read about being gay all the time, every day, and in every thread.

With hindsight, I think this was in part because gay former students were finally finding their voice, BJUnity didn’t exist yet, and they needed a place to vent. But at the time, it did seem like an avalanche.

In addition, awareness of sexual abuse in the church was increasing, and the very name of the group began to be greatly misunderstood, as you will see. People thought of the word “survivor” in the sense of “having survived some terrible event,” and not in the tongue-in-cheek sense Rebecca used it in the beginning.

And people like me (former Christians, agnostics, freethinkers) were also becoming much more vocal and “out,” leading to some heated discussions.

All this resulted in feelings sometimes running pretty high, and moderation became more and more necessary.

From my own experience in the group, there were really only two moderators who were active: Leah Hayes and Nancy Kepler Bean. The others were listed as moderators, but were silent, inactive, and largely invisible. Most people have very set work schedules. Leah was freer than most to keep up with the group several times a day, which meant that much of the moderation fell on her.

As we’ll see later, all of the conversations that took place in that group were deleted in the end, but a few survived. Here are two that were intertwined that occurred in August, 2011, about 18 months after the ban-Alex debate.

We begin with somebody starting a conversation which was intended to be positive:

Williamson Thread

Notice that this thread consisted of a whopping 7 comments before somebody had to say, “No comment.” If you’re going to make “no comment,” then don’t.

Then it just goes all to hell, with one person being asked why he’s even in the group since he likes BJU.

See how the narrative becomes “there are other groups where you can love BJU” – implication being that if you liked being at Bob Jones, this group is not for you.

Then Dan (of the famous “Clicks for Dicks” Storify page) enters the fray with crappy comments about a different thread entirely. So we shall have to break away here for a bit and peek over there.

Membership Thread

Here is where the mention is first made of another Facebook group. Author? Tita Wyatt. Not Leah Hayes. Not Patti Easton. She says it in passing.

See how it has become a forum “for survivors”? With the clear intent that “survivor” means “somebody who lived through something totally horrible, like a tsunami.”

David Shaffer chimes in with how the BJU-bashers are being bashed. Poor thing. We’ll see how David deals with stuff later on.

Here, Leah, acting not as a moderator, but as a participant, provides a link to the group that Tita mentioned previously.

More of the “this group is for survivors”—with the clear implication that somehow it’s about people who have been damaged in some way.

Just a note from me. I simply get hives when somebody begins declaring how many “truly saved” people are here or there. This is called the “No True Scotsman” fallacy and it’s a very basic error in logic. Don’t do it. People either self-identify as Christian or they do not. Nobody died and left Jeri Massi in the position of Decider.

Here comes the straw man. Nobody said any other group was “better.” Go back and read it. It simply isn’t there.

Here Leah refers back to the Williamson thread where somebody said something nice about his experience at Bob Jones and was asked why he was in the group. Implication was clear: Why don’t you leave?

Notice how Dan immediately attacks Leah. This was nasty and happened frequently.

Tita reiterates that she is the person who brought up the other group, a comment which Dan completely ignores, because he’s after Leah. It isn’t about Tita, and Dan makes sure to make that clear.

suddenly, we veer off-topic to. . . Greg Easton and the Hidalgo Grain Company—his blog. Dan doesn’t like Greg and he’s going after Greg’s wife. Greg is not present. David Shaffer joins in. Everything Greg writes is Patti’s fault.

That ends that. Not too awfully bad, right? I mean, imagine you are the moderator trying to keep the peace, and this sort of thing happens. You want everyone to have freedom of speech, but at the same time, attacking Patti Easton for what her husband said seems sort of wrong, doesn’t it? Asking somebody why they are in a group just because he expressed something positive is sort of wrong, too, isn’t it?

But, if you remember, they revamped the moderation rules back 18 months earlier when the Alex/Camille/Cathy blowup happened, and moderators had their hands tied to a large extent. They couldn’t ban anyone or remove a comment without other moderators agreeing that it should be done. Practically everything required the mods to have a vote.

Problem was, of course, that almost none of the moderators were even participating to any extent, so doing anything in a hurry was nearly impossible.

Keep that in mind as you read. How was Leah supposed to handle this? How would you have handled it? And remember, this sort of thing had been going on for a long, long time.

Back to the Williamson Thread, in progress

Oh, gee, and enter stage left: St. Catherine of Victimhood herself. Whining about the whole Alex/Camille/Cathy thread from 18 months before.

She wants Leah to “resign.” She also says that she tried to join the other group (the one that Leah should resign for even mentioning), and that this group should “shut down.” If they’re supposed to shut down the group, why should anyone resign?

David is back to picking at Patti about her husband’s blog.

it’s very nice to know that when something is posted publicly, it’s fine to address it publicly. Like how about things like “What’s the guy’s name, Cathy?” and “Where’s the speech, Cathy?”

Leah then summarizes the situation and explains that she never said a word about “no hot heads.” The “hot head” thing is typical St. Catherine-speak. She makes up something that you supposedly did or said and then blasts you for doing so. Erect a straw man and then smash him.

Consider that this was not a single occurrence. This happened over and over again. This is what was happening, while simultaneously, these same people (mostly Cathy, Camille, Dan and David) were demanding that Leah take down this comment and ban that person, and do it now. I. mean. do. it. now.

All this was happening in an environment where there was little assistance given her from the other moderators, either due to their real-life work schedule or due to their own apathy. It was a thankless task indeed.

It all finally came to a head.

Genesis, Part 6

Genesis, Part 4

This website was probably inevitable. It’s basically a rebuttal to the harsh child-rearing ideas that are so prevalent in fundamentalist Christianity.

You can see a statement of their beliefs here. Like many (most?) religious folks, they endeavor to show not only that they are doing things a certain way, but that really their way is the only way, because it’s “biblical.”

I looked over the forum a bit, and in general, these tend to be women that I would describe as “crunchy.” There’s a whole section devoted to vegetarianism, for instance. And another to “natural health and nutrition.” And of course, homeschooling. I get the feeling that these are women who are totally immersed in child-rearing and homemaking. There is an actual section over there called “Joyous Homekeeping” and an entire thread devoted to how to clean a toilet. I am serious.

It’s understandable that Camille K. Lewis would have gotten involved with this sort of group. Denied motherhood for a long time, she was very motivated to “do it right” when she finally had a living child. The reaction is natural and commendable. It’s also a bit obsessive. It explains why Camille’s blog, during the years when her children were small, is filled with descriptions of how she quite literally played with them. A lot. I never did such a thing (I was my son’s mother, not his playmate), so I found it all a bit much. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong (I’m the one who could be completely wrong), it’s just different.

All that aside, the site has a forum. And Camille was a participant there for several years. This is where the people who came over to Sharper Iron to help Camille out during the spanking threads originated.

This announcement appears on Camille’s Facebook page, publicly, dated March, 2014. It describes events that occurred seven years earlier. Seven years. And it includes links to all sorts of copied stuff, screen shots and files. I took screenshots of all of it to do this page and I have 118 screen shots. Seriously. 118 screen shots. And she kept it all for seven years.

“The Lord has gifted me…” she says. I’m not sure what to say to that.

And she went to mediation, not to resolve the problem, but to leave. She says so. She had no intention of staying. She just wanted to “scream at the problem” so everyone would “notice.”

Maybe I’m odd, but if somebody came to me with a perceived problem, and told me that all they really wanted to do was “scream” a little bit and then leave, I would ask them to do their screaming elsewhere after they’re gone. Or, conversely, leave their complaint if they like, but don’t pretend to have a discussion that might result in any sort of reconciliation. Intent is everything.

The so-called mediation goes on for pages and pages and it’s in a format that makes it very difficult to determine who is saying what. I am going to highlight in various colors to try to differentiate between speakers. [Pink for Crystal, yellow for Camille] After reading through it pretty carefully, it appears that there were two intertwined issues. One was a beef about Camille’s friend Mollie, who seems to have said something in the forum that got moderated out of existence. Camille thinks that the admin who did this was being unfair to Mollie.

The second, probably more overarching issue is that this is a large forum. The owner has some women who are called “administrators.” But nobody, not even a few people, could keep track of every thread in every section of the forum and deal with a family and children too. So they have “moderators” who are assigned to specific sections. Camille was a moderator.

Crystal (in pink), who is the admin who stepped in with the Mollie situation, made the above comment and it sounds pretty familiar, I think.

Camille replied to Crystal, and it seems that Crystal is just wrong. There will be “silence.”

Remember, Camille already told us that she went into this conversation with no intention of working anything out. She went into it so she could pretty much stomp around and sling mud on everyone and then march out.

It’s clear from Crystal’s reply here that 1) she didn’t see the “Mollie conversation” in the same way Camille did, and 2) she doesn’t understand that what she is witnessing is a temper tantrum, not an attempt to reconcile.

And a bit further on, we get Camille doing her one-word-sentence thing for emphasis.

Funny how Camille is so often “compelled by God” to do things, and that’s just peachy, but if anyone else says that (Beth Murschell, for example) it’s horrible and awful and the sky is falling.

Remember this from about a year ago? Remember how they screamed about this for weeks on end? Remember how Camille never said anything like, “Well, I’ve felt compelled by God to do stuff before, like six years ago”?

Note something: If you resort to “I am compelled by God. . .” you are stifling all discussion. How can there be any debate if you’re directed by God himself to do something? Who can argue with that, other than to point out that maybe you have a serious delusion? This is true whether it’s Camille Lewis or Beth Murschell speaking, but the double standard here is sort of breathtaking.

Realizing that she has totally screwed up, Camille attempted to reword the whole “compelled” thing, but I do not have to have a Ph.D. in “rhetoric” to realize this is weaseling. There is not the slightest chance that Camille would allow anyone else to get away with what she is attempting to do here. Crystal didn’t buy it, at all, and continued to say, periodically, that Camille was accusing her of not listening to “God.”

Crystal refuses to be “helped.” At this point, if Crystal had had any sense at all, she would have exited and never had a conversation with Camille K. Lewis again. However, she didn’t. It went on for pages and pages. Crystal called Camille out for saying that Camille was purporting to straighten Crystal out because Crystal wasn’t “listening to God.” At this point, Camille denies ever saying any such thing, rephrases it, and then insists that the rephrase is her original statement. Of course, it isn’t. She clearly says that she is “compelled” to do this and she says that in the context of being the human being “sent by God” to “prick [Crystal’s] ears.”

Good golly, I have no idea why Camille thought it was a good idea to save this stuff or worse, post it on her own Facebook page, like it’s flattering.

At this point, a third person (Kathy) has entered the conversation. I have highlighted her question in green. She’s asking Crystal about the future. The future. The one there isn’t going to be because, remember, Camille didn’t go into mediation to settle anything. She went into mediation to have a temper trantrum and then leave. Notice that Camille doesn’t correct this notion. She lets them continue to think that she is open to a “future.”

Please note the date here: February 27, 2007. It is significant. On February 27, 2007, Camille allowed these folks to believe that there was a possibility of some sort of “future” – that mediation was intended to repair the rift and allow her to continue in her role as a moderator.

And she tells us that what other people see as a difference of opinion she sees as a “moral obligation.” She was sent by God, of course. This was seven years ago. She’s still doing it.

Can anyone say “lack of self-awareness”?

Having finished arguing with Crystal about leadership and the Holy Spirit and nose boogers (I’m not kidding), Camille then goes at it with Jeri Carr (comments highlighted in green), who is the owner of the forum.

It’s quite clear from the context of this lengthy exchange that the date is after February 27, 2007 – and Camille is still pretending that she isn’t planning to leave, that she’s not “organizing a mod strike” and that GCM is “God’s place.”

Note the sucking-up that Camille is doing. There’s a different tone in these exchanges than there was in the exchange with Crystal. Camille is flattering Jeri. She is also attempting to cover her ass regarding the “compelled by God” thing, so she repeats the morphing crap she pulled (compelled by friendship).

I include this solely because it made me laugh.

Camille made a typo, I think. The information was not “safe.” She meant to type: The information is in my safe.

And this is the final communication between Jeri and Camille. Camille tells us the date is February 28, 2007. And she is still in suck up mode. Jeri is a “peach.” Note that.

Also, I will pause a bit and let it sink in that Camille, at this point, was still employed by BJU. She is telling Jeri that BJU was paying her “a lot of money to help them communicate better.”

“A lot of money.”

Note that.

How often has Camille ranted and raved on Truth Seeking Graduates that BJU doesn’t pay its employees squat? How often?

So then there’s this. A whole different forum. Isn’t that interesting? It appears that Camille and three other women left and started their own forum. Obviously, the problem was not resolved.

It hasn’t been a rip-roaring success. Compare that with GCM, which has in excess of 3000 members, and this during a period when online forums are struggling due to competition from other forms of social media.

But who owns this gem? Who started it?

Well, guess who. . . And please note the date the domain was purchased.

While Camille was busy sucking up to Jeri and conversing with folks about the “future,” she was also busy purchasing and setting up a forum to be in direct competition with GCM.

I can’t emphasize this enough. Camille was yelling about being open and transparent, while simultaneously plotting in the background. She was sucking up to Jeri, saying all manner of nice things, as she was purchasing a competitive domain name and setting her own forum, where she could be the one in charge of everything.

This is the earliest dated post on the forum, five days after Camille was calling Jeri “a peach,” and about a week after she was letting them all believe there was a “future.”

Return to March, 2014 on Camille’s Facebook page

Camille begins by releasing an email that Jeri sent to her after finding out that Camille had removed all that crap from her “safe” and posted it on Facebook.

Let’s get something clear here. When you enter into a private conversation with someone, especially one where the person goes to some trouble to clarify that it is, indeed, private, and you assure them that it’s private – and you then betray that understanding by putting it on the internet in its entirety, you are just a jerk. There is no other way to describe it.

The only valid reasons for revealing the content of a private conversation like that is 1) if you are served a subpoena and it’s not a privileged conversation, 2) it’s obvious that someone is in very real danger if you do not reveal it, 3) if so many years have passed that the principals are all dead long ago and the material has historical value, or 4) if the other party starts releasing it out of context and you wish to correct the public record (in other words, you didn’t initiate the revelation in the first place). If there are others, I don’t know what they might be.

“The Church” doesn’t give a flying fuck about this whole issue, and “the Church” cannot read. “The Church” is just a pious construct Camille came up with to excuse her very bad behavior.

And yes, we know that this is what Camille does.

I realize that all this stuff is confusing. I know that many folks won’t bother to try to put it all together. I did my best to condense it, color code it, and otherwise make a bunch of gobblydegook more intelligible.

In the event that she takes it all private in the wake of this page going up. . .

She did. But we want to see it, don’t we? And she said that “the church” could see it, didn’t she? And I like to do everything I can to help “the church.”

So here it is, in its entirety.

And to go one step further into Bizarro Land, there’s this.

What I want to know is how many of these freebie blogs has Camille started? The internet is littered with them. When does this woman do all this “joyous homekeeping”? When does she actually practice “attachment parenting” or parenting of any sort at all?

This anonymous (but suspiciously Lewis-powered) blog began, you guessed it, in March, 2014, just about the time that Camille posted all that stuff to her Facebook wall.

And with that note, we will return to our previously scheduled programming. Please forgive the interruption. . .

Genesis, Part 5

Gentle Christian Mothers, all files

 

 

Genesis, Part 3

First a couple of disclaimers:

1. Please be aware that if you follow my link over to Camille’s blog, and Camille can figure out that you did, she will block your IP address. Use a proxy. If you don’t know how to do that and really want to read all of it, contact me and I will explain it.

2. After several miscarriages and a still-birth, Camille had two little boys. I unequivocally take her position regarding spanking, although not for her reasons. I simply don’t think that big people should use force against (hit) little people, and I do not care what the Bible says or doesn’t say, or how it’s interpreted. So, in this argument, I basically side with Camille philosophically. I do not side with her behavior.

Back to your regularly scheduled website page. . .

Come with me now to those thrilling days of yesteryear, as we veer off track a little here and visit Camille K. Lewis’ blog, circa 2008.

She explains to us a bit first about how, in July of 2006, she was at home with her kids, and had joined a group called “Gentle Christian Mothers.” And how they talked about the infamous Michael and Debi Pearl and their less-than-delightful child-rearing methods. And how somebody challenged them to speak out against the Pearls if they ever saw anyone advocate for them. And how Camille realized that the “Holy Spirit” wanted her to do just that.

We join her blog article, in progress, as she’s describing how she just happened to land on the Sharper Iron forum website. You know, just out of the blue. She was just noodling around on the net, and wham, there she was.

She explains to us that she joined the damn forum for the express purpose of straightening everyone out about Michael Pearl, because you know, it was all an accident that she landed there and the Holy Spirit must have done it and Jesus.

She’s an expert at internet communications. She’s so damn good at it, so she’s not going to have any problem, not with the Holy Spirit on her side. And Jesus.

It’s really better if you can do this anonymously, because then you don’t have to face the consequences of stating your opinions on everything under the sun. Oh, wait, she didn’t say all that, but you get the idea.

But it was all just a total accident.

It was a “blood bath.” Just awful. Poor Camille. They did ad hominem attacks on her. It was so bad she never went back. And all she tried to do was keep them on task. ‘Cause you know, the Holy Spirit told her to do this.

In case you’re really feeling all frisky and want to read all this stuff, here are the links that Camille provided (dear sweet Flying Spaghetti Monster, she provided links).

Beginning

Additional

Another

Biggie

This, from another entry in Camille’s blog (dated February 18, 2008), is basically what she was arguing.

And that would be fine—only she took that opinion, which contradicts everything I was ever taught as a fundamentalist, into a fundamentalist forum and tried to wage war over it. I’m not sure what she expected. That forum has a statement of faith that people have to sign before they can even register to participate. There is an expectation that the people there largely agree on doctrine.

Of course, Camille is entitled to believe anything she likes, but she is not entitled to expect everyone to agree with her just because some words flow out of her keyboard.

I have read the whole “blood bath,” all four links.

To start with, somebody raised the Pearls as a topic, and got only one response. Got that? One response. Clearly not a topic most people were terribly interested in. It went for about 24 hours like that, and then Camille came riding in on a white horse, er, the Holy Spirit, totally by accident, to start a war.

This is the beginning of message #39. Up this this point, nobody had suggested a word about Camille either spanking or not spanking. The conversation had centered around the Pearl’s book, their theology, and generally what role parenting books should play. There is nothing in context that suggests that this person was targeting Camille.

I couldn’t figure out what she meant by “another.” There wasn’t another one. This was the opening salvo. In schoolyard parlance, Camille started it.

The discussion morphed into four different threads in part because Sharper Iron has a thread-length limit. The above question comes early in the second one.

Camille dodges the question and Matt asks it yet again.

She responds with this:

I don’t even pretend to know what she’s talking about in the first part, but she’s quite certain there’s another ad hominem, which I fail to see. Matt is trying to nail her to a wall, and she’s being Jello.

At this point, one of the moderators posts a short message telling everyone that at least two of the participants in the conversation belong to the group “Gentle Christian Mothers.” This same note was repeated a couple of times during the threads which followed.

At this point, I counted at least four people from GCM, and perhaps there were more. All of them, including Camille, joined Sharper Iron for the sole purpose of participating in this particular discussion.

So she knows what she’s saying is controversial. She came to the forum purposely to start this discussion. She then went and enlisted aid from her buddies at GCM. And everyone is engaging in ad hominems.

Only they aren’t. Somebody please find one for me.

And the moderator here is entirely correct. Camille and her buddies were trolling. They came to the forum, not for the purpose of engaging in community, but for the purpose of having that one conversation, period. When it was over, they all left, never to return. But notice that he didn’t stop it. Even though he knew what she was doing, he allowed it to continue. Does this sound like a “blood bath”?

Ultimately the admin at BJU got wind of this and asked Camille to please cease-and-desist offering up opinions that differed from the views of the university on social media. She declined to cooperate and this was one of the sticking points that led to her and Grant leaving their employ in the summer of 2007, a year later.

But we aren’t done yet with our little detour. We’re going to move up in time a wee bit, though. . .

Genesis, Part 4

Genesis, Part 2

Now we move to Camille K. Lewis, who entered the dialogue between Cathy and Alex to defend Cathy. A relatively heated argument ensued. Alex then announced that to illustrate his point (that it’s not really a great idea to defame people who aren’t present and cannot defend themselves), he was going to return in one hour and reveal something about Grant Lewis.

All hell broke loose.

Let’s let Camille tell us herself.

Notice a few things: first, Camille refers to both “Ambidextrous Q. Prudence” and Alex Unknown Last Name as “trolls.” This entire event occurred in the latter part of March, 2010. I joined this group at some point thereafter, because this had already happened and Camille and Cathy were both gone by the time I got there. And I left in July of 2010.

Both of these people she calls “trolls” were still there when I arrived. “AQP” was simply a bit of an asshole using a fake name and making a general pest out of himself. If I’m not mistaken, he was finally banned.

Alex was different. He was not by any definition a troll. He was confrontational, highly opinionated, and didn’t back down. None of those are trollish qualities necessarily. When I arrived, he went over and looked at my profile and asked me why I had “liked” so many atheist pages. I took a very deep breath and replied that it was because I am an atheist.

A long, sometimes more or less heated conversation ensued which went on for days.

Some people were nice about it. Some were genuinely curious. Some were a bit hostile. Some, and Alex is an example of this, were guys who thought they would straighten out the atheist woman. And there were a (very) few who were so nasty they were ultimately banned.

Overall, it was an interesting experience, and one which I sometimes wish I had avoided. If I had, I wouldn’t be doing any of this today, of course.

But my point is that Camille is seriously overstating her case when she calls Alex a troll. He was not.

Camille starts bitching at 7 a.m. and notice what she does. She hammers away. When neither Leah nor Rebecca respond to her, she gets more and more shrill. Both Rebecca and Leah, of course, had actual jobs, and March 24, 2010 was a Wednesday, so they were at work.

Rebecca tries to explain this to Camille, with a bit of impatience showing (understandably) and Camille’s reaction is condescension, along with barking orders like a damn drill sergeant.

At this point, Rebecca tries to explain that they were in the midst of revamping the moderation guidelines, but that isn’t enough for Camille.

Notice that Camille keeps saying that there was a “sexual accusation” made against Grant. I have talked with several people about this who were there, and nobody remembers any “sexual accusation” at all.

And Rebecca’s take on this – “I didn’t see that” – is exactly what everyone has told me was the case. Alex did not accuse Grant of anything. He was simply trying to make a point about floating accusations about people who were not present.

All this is a little bit astonishing to me coming from a woman who makes up shit about people almost constantly. Leah is mentally ill. I’ve gotten visits from the police. I was involved in a pedophile ring in the AcademyGreg Easton posted photos of Camille’s children.

Keep the highlighted words in mind. They will come back after a while.

This section consists of the comments made after Camille posted the stuff above to her wall, about 18 months after the conversation took place. One other thing to note here is that this was a private message between Camille, Rebecca and Leah. And Camille just decided one day to put the whole damn thing on her Facebook page. Because that’s what Camille does with private messages.

Dan Keller’s comment (which is truncated in this screen shot) will be addressed at length later on.

First, though, we are going to take a little detour. . .

Genesis, Part 3

Genesis, Part 1

In the beginning, Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook.

At first, Facebook was without world-wide exposure. In fact, Facebook was restricted to a few college campuses. Zuckerberg’s original vision was of something that would connect college students. He didn’t see it connecting everyone.

In those long-ago days, you had to be a college student to even access Facebook.

Rebecca Phillips Ketchie was one such college student. Doing graduate work, in 2005, she started a Facebook group called “Bob Jones University survivors.”

She thought it would attract grad students, or transfer students, and let them connect. The word “survivors” was never intended as a pejorative – like “surviving a tornado” or “surviving mistreatment.” It was tongue-in-cheek, like the t-shirts sold in shops along the Alaska Highway—”I drove the Alaska Highway and survived.”

And it did attract some people. And everything rocked along fine for a while, but Facebook became a phenomenon not just of college campuses, but across the nation and then around the world.

And in a matter of just a few years, Rebecca realized she needed some help. For one thing, the number of participants had multiplied beyond anything she ever expected, or even desired. For another, the entire tone of the group had changed.

Intended as a place where former students could laugh about the “good old days” when they were younger, things changed as the Disaffected began to show up. In short, Camille and the Court (in the form of St. Catherine, David Shaffer, and Dan Keller) arrived. Many threads were diverted to BJU-bashing instead of reminiscing.

Rebecca asked a few people to help her do moderation. Among those were Phil Lehman, Nancy Kepler Bean, Hannah Goodman and Leah Hayes.

Here’s the basic story. Cathy Harris joined an ongoing conversation about counselors at BJU questioning guys about whether or not they masturbated. She told her oft-repeated story of having been counseled by Walt Fremont and having Fremont ask her the same question.

A forum member named Alex (I forget his last name and can’t find anyone who remembers it) objected, saying that Walt was dead and it just wasn’t fair to accuse somebody who couldn’t defend himself. Cathy took umbrage. Camille entered the fray, in defense of Cathy.

During the argument that ensued, Alex told Camille that he was going to return in an hour and post something that he knew about Grant.

Camille went completely apeshit and began yelling loudly for somebody to ban Alex, and remove the comment. She insisted that Alex was alluding to some sort of sexual indiscretion on Grant’s part. I wonder why she assumed that?

Alex said that if they removed it, he would simply post it on the net elsewhere, which resulted in all sorts of unhappiness. (I sort of understand how Alex felt. Tell me that you’re going to remove something I said, and watch how I react.)

After the allotted hour, Alex came back with his “story.” It seems that he’d seen Grant going into chapel one day, putting a stick of chewing gum in his mouth. [For the uninitiated, chewing gum on the BJU campus was a major no-no.  I don’t know if that’s still the case, but it sure was in my day.]

That’s the bare bones story. The entire thread was ultimately deleted and no screen shots remain that I know of.

Here’s Cathy’s take on it in the form of a “note” on her Facebook page:

Take note: Cathy’s encounter with Fremont occurred in 1983 when she was 18 years old.

David Reese says that the alleged “letter from Berg” is “unbelievable.” I totally agree. It is.

Below, she tells all about how Alex was bad and Leah (who was trying to moderate this little squabble) was bad.

Alex, after discussing the matter privately with Leah Hayes, agreed not to put the thread/argument back up, but allowed it all to just disappear.

Cathy says, “You know me well enough, Leah, that it take[sic] a whole lot to get me really, really angry.” Actually, it takes very little to get Cathy riled. Just one simple phrase will put her in near hysterics: “I don’t believe that, Cathy.” Try it and see.

The best I can figure out is that the incomprehensible phrase Cathy put here is supposed to be either Russian or Ukrainian swearing. This was during the period when she had “found” Elizabeth and Ed Tozar, her fake parents, and they were supposedly illiterate in English (except when “Ed” wrote a totally plagiarized essay in perfect English).

Please notice this. I’ve snipped it to emphasize it.

She’s clear here. At the beginning of her remarks, she emphasizes that she was talking about something that occurred in the 1980’s. That would have been when she was a young freshman student at Bob Jones University.

Cathy told this version of the story in 2010. She says she was an 18-year-old freshman at BJU, and was “forced” into counseling sessions with Walt Fremont and he asked her if she masturbated.

Three years later, though, she tells the same story and it’s changed:

The link is to a blog entry made the same day that she posted it on GRACE’s Facebook page.

In this version, Fremont is talking with her, not as an 18-year-old freshman student, but as a 13-year-old child. Note that she specifically says the “masturbation” incident occurred “years before.”

I wish, while Cathy is lying about Walt Fremont, she would at least learn to spell the man’s name.

Genesis, Part 2