Glenn’s Cult Writes “I tried speaking on Sacks website, then realized I had been banned. I have been told that if I reveal personal information about me in a place I do not feel safe that my permissions will be reinstated.”
Actually, “Glenn’s Cult” was permitted to publish hundreds of critical comments on my website. However, she repeatedly violated rule # 1 of My Rules on Blog Comments prohibiting “Personal attacks.”
Normally when someone violates the rules I send them a note explaining what the violation was. If they continue over and over again, I’ll ban them, but usually not until they’ve had several chances. Because “Glenn’s Cult” refused to leave a valid email address, I had no way of communicating with her after she violated the rules, so eventually I got tired of wasting time and banned her.
She could come back if she wants, but only with a valid email address.
BTW, a valid email address–which I ask for from all posters–is all she means when she says I’m demanding that she “reveal personal information.” Another example (sigh) of how feminists twist and distort simple, reasonable things I do. –GS
I would love to know where I personally attacked anyone (I recall it was more like defending myself). But that is neither here nor there. Numerous of his followers have stated that he deleted those comments so what proof does either side have of these attacks. Again, this boils down to a he said she said situation. Hmmmm where does that sound familiar? Anyone care to hazard a guess where he said she said is prevelant?
NOTE: I should note here that I have published a true and accesible email on several blogs (Alas, Womanist Musings, Randi James, and many more) and Glenn still has me blocked. He has in fact taken the route of blocking all people from posting links to their own sites and has removed all link to others sites on his blog in order to be "protective" of his followers. Jim Jones was protective of his followers also. Well until they drank the koolaid.