I believe DHK posted 'our' side of the story...
I don't think she broke the rules is telling your side of the story. At least that wasn't my point. My point is that with vague answers like that only one side of the story is out there, and while I don't agree with Claudia theologically and I haven't read everyone of her posts the number of posts that I have read I haven't seen any rules violations and she has certainly been kind in the conversations that we have had.
Again you can take this comment for what its worth . . . When someone is banned and tell their side of the story in detail and the "other" side just says she broke the rules and then they quickly want to divert attention to something else that just seems a little odd to me. I'm not saying that its underhanded, because I don't know the whole story.
Now with that being said I don't know that one has to air all the laundry out in public, but if you have people that are curious a private conversation might be nice. Just for an example it would be nice if I personally knew what rules she broke and an example, because like I said the reasons she gave me were not violations of rules that I could tell.
Very rarely have I seen anyone tell the 'real' reason they were banned. They try to make themselves look like a victim.
If you can't say with 100% accuracy that people fib about why they are banned how am I to know that Claudia is trying to lead me astray. She has never given me a reason not to trust her. And as Shiloh has pointed out just because one doesn't agree with her theology doesn't mean she is a dishonest person.
Bottom line it is just very frustrating and disappointing that things like this have to be handled in a shroud of secrecy. I'm not trying to pry into anyones business I would just like to know the truth, and that doesn't look like it's going to happen
