Dear MNHQ, I didn't see all the problems kick off over poor Revjustabout...

OOh Prof. I quite fancy you. Even if you're a bit.. wavery.

aye, ruty.

Yes Aitch I think you're right.

Still utterly lost as to why, for MNHQ, this is an expertise issue, and not a bullying one.

Justine, I'd really appreciate a response to my earlier post.

I've never heard of flirty fishing, but it doesn't take much imagination to work that one out. Freaky ...

JustAbout is really very careful about what she writes in the RW threads - and I know she really values all the different takes on god and not-god that crop up. Even a good Christian-orientated theological education doesn't come close to giving a full insight into the full range of takes on spirituality. For instance, an average rev is unlikely to be an expert on atheism, humanism, or that other great source of insight that came up this week - swinging.

have you left too Aitch?

It was a bit odd tho how certain posters appeared on said thread out of nowhere when rev's credibility was challenged...

I've decided I do believe in God.

i am no longer privy to what is being said on Moldies but my gut feeling is that those posters represent themselves rather than a group accusation tbh.

I appreciate that it is an unfair thought on my behalf, and perhaps MNHQ would have always treated this situation in this way but the fact that it would appear that only Mouldies were concerned about Rev and yet MNHQ has taken relatively extreme action does leave me with a slightly sour taste.

Swedes, if the reasoning is to protect Rev's RL identity, that is not the reason that MNHQ have put to us as explantion.

They have gone with the she shouldn't identify herself as an expert explantion.

The expert discussion is much wider than Rev as has been said on this thread several times, whether it's in your name or not.

For me though, the issue is, that this comes as a result of a vicious repeated attack and makes Rev look like she has done something wrong or is somehow resonsible for the attack on her.

To me that is really wrong.

Another analogy: like telling Goths who get attacked for looking different, well stop dressing like that.

Surely this is not what MNHQ advocates, but unfortunately that is how it looks.

"It was the fact that she mentioned supervison that made me feel someone was overseeing her posts which puts her (in my mind) in a semi official role"

No, it's not that she was semi-official. It's that she was concerned that all was above-board. And that she didn't make mistakes. And that she could be given guidance if necessary.

I'm not particularly defending (or attacking) anyone (tbh I haven't really seen what was said other than to skim so have no opinion either way). I'm just posting on the 'could revs role have been confused as semi official' question.

the recruitment method that i find the most disturbingly fascinating is flirty fishing....whooaah that is some weird and unethical shit that goes on there!

would never be used by anglican church i don't think, unless by some nutty evangelical faction

Hi sophable

I don't feel embroiled tbh. Recently started posting on MN again and saw the big long thread, read it and thought oh I had that wrong, riiiighhhht I get it now. Or at least I did until onebats last post and am now confused again (it doesn't take much).

I used to belong to a very active church so I have an interest in religious recruitment (although am now atheist). I thought it was an interesting method actually. Although now I find it isn't like that.

jute [i know who you are too! ] the way i see it the supervision was to make sure she didn't abuse her role, even subconsciously, or do anything that might cause someone vulnerable to become dependent.

Everyone knew Cod was a magistrate. It didn't matter if it was in her name or not.

yeah but i think heston is a bit of a nob too tbh.

how to make roasting a chicken the most complicated act on planet earth does not make you clever imo.

and i guess what i'm saying is that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for the behaviour of pph, enid, bubble99 and batters on that thread.

it was appalling.

why even try to defend it?

not judging by her defrocking thread tbh foxy.

is anyone watching this heston blumenthal thing? what a nob the boss is.

"Were I to be posting online, as an individual with acknowledged professional expertise,both I and my professional body would definitely want a disinterested observer to oversee my online life in a general way. They would not, obviously, be standing over my shoulder as I posted - but they would expect to be informed of anything which went beyond the most anodyne advice."

Yes well this is the bit I don't get. It was the fact that she mentioned supervison that made me feel someone was overseeing her posts which puts her (in my mind) in a semi official role.

The difference I see it from todays threads - and the bit I misunderstood- is that she could bring anything in any aspect of her life to supervision. There was nothing special a out MN. But the way you've written it is what made me think she was a representative -of some sort- of the church.

jute. i think i know who you are. hello. i'm sorry you're even remotely embroiled in this sorry mess and wonder why you are tbh.

OK, jute, so given it was just a misunderstanding on your part, why don't you leave it now?

she might want to change her name now though (sorry have actually been working so haven't read zillions of threads)?

In solidarity, but I really am allowed to call myself this and spout nonsense, like a Deacon in fact

Would anyone like to come up and see my certificates?

sophable I didn't read her posts and become suddenly concerned. I read what she had written about her supervision and thought the church were trying a new recruitment method. I'm afraid my interest was rather cynical and didn't extend much beyond 'my goodness how odd'.

I didn't report her or her posts, I am just stating that I independently came to the conclusion (incorrectly) that she was posting in a semi-official role for the church (not MN). Found out today that I'd misunderstood.

As I've never remotely attacked her I rather hope I'm not going to be round on for saying I misunderstood her posts.

i don't think pph is a real princess, for example.

Hmmm, might have popped this on the wrong thread,.. so many about this hideous subject. I am still angry thou! Off to show my support for the Rev on her thread.... but I do agree with the OP!