Hi Gordon,Frogblogger, Midas029, Sam and Andreas. First I must tell you that after I had posted my unreserved apology to Gordon for hurt caused him by myself, I respectfully asked him by email to remove his blogg. It was my frustration that he did not at least make the church anonymous that resulted in my last comment which I sincerely regret. I felt like I had fallen in to well laid trap. I was not going to take legal action as implied in my comment but I would like to enquire of my two friends who are lawyers as to whether organisations like our Church and individuals like me have any protection under law from bloggers - at least the same protection as the blogger who has the right to approve or disapprove (and not publish) a comment. Please could you all help me with this one - can people across the country write bloggs about organisations and individuals (be they Church or secular)so that Joe Public who is seeking to visit such can google the name and find a blogg whose apparent aim is to disuade such visits (as in the case of your first comment by Dr Hammond)?Is it possible now in this country that a blogger has the right to ruin a reputaion and even a life without any recourse? (I am not saying that Gordon has done that to me or the Elim Church although I do feel hurt and regret). I would love to visit you Gordon but can you understand that I am now afraid that some of our conversation could be added to your blogg as in your original blogg? The very basic moral value is to do to others as you would have them do to you. I am sure that none of you would like to be so treated as we have however mild (you have even protected you identities). I think you will understand why now I will not be posting any more comments. I pray this sad affair will soon end so that people enquiring about our Church will no longer have the option of reading something off-putting. John.
John | 03.21.09 - 12:11 am | #

You kind of screwed yourself over on this one John. Gordon didn't name names (other than the church) on his blog, and told what happened from his perspective. You're the one who both named yourself and confirmed that you did the things being reported in the post, while never actually trying to right things (it did happen over a year ago after all).

But this blog post isn't about what happened in 2007; it's about you being so unaware that people are allowed to post opinions online that you have to mention that you must "consult with lawyer friends" for some reason, which seems suspiciously like an intimidation tactic. It is my opinion that that was a silly thing to do, and I'm blogging about it.
Sam | 03.21.09 - 11:27 pm | #

The point is that people googling "Elim Church, Livingston" are given the option of reading Gordon's blogg and now your blogg a year and a half after the incident that I unresevedly apologised for. Dr Hammond has been one we know of that has dissuaded his family here from visiting our church based on Gordon's blogg. I only came across Gordon's blogg when told about it recently by an anxious member. I honestly thought that Gordon had accepted my apology and would then at least remove the identity of the church from his blogg. He did not, so I asked him politely and respectfully to do so. Still he refused. In sheer frustration at this I posted that fateful comment which you picked up on. I have said that I regretted that and sure, it does come across as intimidation. I am very sorry that Gordon approved it to be published. I am very new to this game and will not make this mistake again.
John | 03.22.09 - 9:14 am | #

I'm sorry that you feel that Gordon should not have posted about his experience, but he actually deserves to tell his story. It's not even a particularly damning story - it's just an account of something that happened from one person's perspective, and is very mild.

I sympathize with your not wanting your reputation damaged, and I'm glad you'll try not to make this mistake again.
Sam | 03.22.09 - 10:57 pm | #

A threat to seek the advise of lawyer friends is NOT the same as a threat to take legal action. Surely Pen in Black has the intelligence to know the difference. He is the one who needs to grow up - and stop meddling!
Ivan | 03.23.09 - 11:41 pm | #

Ivan,

This is what was said:

"I would consider it fair if bloggs which name Churches such as "Elim Livingston" and that name individuals such as "the new pastor" should also be approved by those concerned. I will consult with lawyer friends about that as we were not consulted for approval."

This reeks of an intimidation tactic. Plus, what good would advice from lawyer friends be if it did not lead to legal action? What useful advice would these lawyer friends give if it did not involve some sort of legal recourse? Plus, both these "threats" are also nonetheless threats, as you mentioned.

On a separate note, did you know that your computer information is identical to that of John's? Strange!
Sam | 03.24.09 - 12:14 am | #