“They are hypothesizing about the motives of these two women and why they are egalitarians.”

I know, Corrie. There’s nothing wrong with the general hypothesis about abuse and the general outcomes for women escaping abuse and why they may make the choices that they make, but when you start dropping hints about people that lots will recognize the identity of, then start talking about abused women as though they were Gollum, greedy and power hungry and unforgiving, the conversation quickly turns into an “incestuous, feed on each other, gossiping blog.”

YKWIM? 😉

OK, I found the reason why I placed what I said in brackets. The thread started with this hypothesis, and “they” that Donna mentioned refers back to this opener for that particular thread:

26219

Kamilla:
I wonder if they focus on it so much because so many of them have suffered genuine abuse? I can think of two former listmembers here – both were very public about their past experiences. One talked about her abuse when she was in a “shepherding” group and the other talked much about her abusive first husband. I believe most of the abuse they spoke of was genuine abuse. Do you think this might be a pattern within those attracted to an organization like CBE?

My, my. I inserted those words in brackets. They were there for clarity because I didn’t want to copy and paste two entries. I thought everybody understood why I was doing this.

I tell you what. In the interest of fairness, could some people please go to the CCC forum, look up the post number (I had to correct the post number in a later entry on the blog – the accurate number is 26227), read a little in that thread, and tell me if I accurately spelled out in the brackets what the pronoun “they” referred back to?

If not, I will be happy to be corrected.

Correction to comment 192 in here:, that archive was 26227, not the number I gave, sorry.

Here is the first reference on that forum:

24677

BTW, don’t underestimate the internet egals. One of them – the one I call the Borg Queen – is a well-known writer, and has been very influential in the whole movement…MUCH more influential than your seminary friend, or you, will ever dream of being…

24704

Ralph:
Not Sweet Patricia, who has always a nice word to say, oh I
can remember well her and Stan’s debacle with me a few years ago. I’ve since tried discussing a few issues with her, but it just doesn’t work, and she’s a pro at mentoring/cloning others to be like her

And there are many other comments about the Borg Queen, about her books, etc., on that forum, which people can find for themselves.

Here’s a public archive from the CCC forum. It’s available to anybody who has internet access. The post number is #27337. DL is Donna, and Kamilla is Kamilla. I am going to have to eliminate hatch marks in the original in order for the comment to go through. Donna and others constantly mentioned “Borg Queen” on that forum.

DL:
I think that you are correct. However, they [ie women who have been abused who gravitate to CBE] tend to dwell on the abuse. They tend to want to keep the hurt and the memory going. That is not Christian.

Kamilla:
Yes, they cherish it and feed it, lovingly watch it grow until it
comsumes them. They’d rather remain victims, crying “Woe is me, I
have been abused!” on the street corner like the proud pharisee
praying out loud how glad he’s not, yadda yadda yadda.

DL:
Wow! Yes, I fear that you are correct. I am thinking Gollum. He was a disgusting, yet pathetic creature, who had been warped by the ring of power. Is there an analogy, here? It is a fearful thing, since any of us can be corrupted by the desire for power – or empowerment? That “will to power” becomes more precious than
anything else, and we will sacrifice anything and everything, anyone
and everyone to that desire? Maybe?

[Lynn here — Donna, that comparison of abused women who become egalitarian to Gollum is worse than pathetic. That’s the first time I’d seen that.]

Kamilla:
Stepping out of that and into forgiveness is scary. Better the devil you know. . .

DL:
Yes, the land of perpetual forgiveness can be a scary place.
Goodness! I just can’t keep from comparing what you are saying to
Gollum.

DL:
…abuse, then work at forgiving the abuser – even if you don’t have continuing contact with them – , and letting the memories go.

Kamilla:
I think this is one of the key problems – people misunderstand
forgiveness. Forgiveness doesn’t mean restoration nor does it mean
the offender is released from the consequences of his actions.

DL:
I agree, and would add that forgiveness opens the door for restoration, but it is not the restoration itself. Often, a
relationship will not be restored. However, you don’t have to wait
until someone wants restoration in order to begin forgiving.

Kamilla:
Nor does it even necessarily mean you ever communicate your
forgiveness to the abuser.
. . .
Kamilla:
On the contrary, it is between you and God. Forgiveness releases the forgiver, cleanses them and renews them, removes the poison of hate and desire for revenge from their hearts.

DL:
Yes! That goes against the flesh, doesn’t it?

DL:
Actually, that is part of the Borg Queen’s definition of abuse – if
someone makes me feel bad, then I am being abused.

[Now this is interesting, because Donna claims I and others have abused her. Is she then in agreement with Pat?]
. . .

Kamilla:
I always felt like I was “out of phase” when in conversation with the BQ, does that mean she was abusing me? Hmmmm.

DL:

Well, maybe I need to quit calling her the Borg Queen? 😉 Maybe
I’ve got some work to do on my own beams!

…later…after I say this one more thing… . . .

Let me hasten to add crowning people queens in this fashion is unproductive and not conducive to fostering conversation, so I agree with Greg that the charge could be made that his remarks were “less than Christian.”

However, I have seen Donna crown Pat Gundry a queen, but not on a public forum Pat been invited to to speak to, but then turned down, and in the process of turning it down taking a dig at the person inviting her.

Donna, you are being hypocritical. Greg is right. Cheryl has done nothing like what Greg called Kamilla and what you called Pat Gundry, and this whole thing apparently wasn’t Cheryl’s brainchild in the first place — it came from the Baylys.

Yet you claim Kamilla is not here to defend herself. That was Kamilla’s choice. But Pat Gundry wasn’t even invited to the CCC forum where you crowned her queen. Shouldn’t you repent of your gossip about Patricia, then? Or do different standards of decency apply to you and not to everybody else?

I have had a chance to read through some of this thread, and saw the references to “The Red Queen.” This reminded me of the multiple times Donna has referred to Patricia Gundry as “The Borg Queen.” Which by the way, has gotten a pass in the places I’ve seen Donna make the remark.

Now each side has its respective queen, I guess. 😉

To all, the individual Cheryl wanted to converse with said some pretty caustic, accusatory things about me to a third person, and that person shared the email with me in private. I tried to talk to this person IN PRIVATE, as is in accordance with propriety, but was rebuffed and warned to not email her again.

So I don’t blame Cheryl in the LEAST for wanting some public accountability in this matter.

Cheryl, about that potential discussion with Kamilla and her response to you, I have to say that’s par for the course regarding her.

I’m speaking from experience.

There was NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING wrong with your blog forum for a discussion, but she made you out to be a bad person for suggesting that.