Comments on: The Editor Strikes Back

By: Chris L

Chris L — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:51:42 +0000

Here's the recent one I wrote, though the discussion was mostly off-topic. In this case, after talking to journalists and some sources they pointed me to, I just found it sad that even by the standards of the secular journalistic world, for whom the bar of 'integrity' is consistently lower than Christ's, what CR?N does falls woefully below even their standards... It might have been this one, which also touched on the subject...

By: Julie

Julie — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:27:49 +0000

I’m pretty sure Chris L. has a post about this unusual reliance upon a nameless editor. Anyone know where that is? I seem to remember some decent discussion there.

By: iggy

iggy — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:55:56 +0000

Tyler,

I agree… Ken can do as he pleases and does… for many of us personally… we put our names to our words and stand by them good or bad.

In that the view is that it is cowardice to not put your name to your words… but Ken can do as he pleases… and be accountable for his words whether he lied or not.

Though I do not understand that anyone would not want to put their name to their work unless they are ashamed of it or that they see it as it is…something that may be slanderous to the other and may even hurt their own ministry… then why post the article?

Anyway… I agree though that Ken and do as he pleases… but then Jesus taught us, “not my will but Yours be done.”

Be Blessed,
iggy

By: iggy

iggy — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:50:42 +0000

I have a full time job also… as well as work in ministry… and run an online radio station and am a father and husband…

Ken is a calling of God in hope to bring restoration to him from his destructive ways… (I mean God simply has laid Ken on my heart to reach out to him… in that I know I have failings right and left yet I know God will not fail.)

But, I hear Ken no longer works a day job… and somehow with only a few people in his church makes enough to live on for his daily needs.

And God be praise for it.

iggy

By: chris

chris — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:16:55 +0000

If Ken is gone some of you will have to get real jobs.

Actually I have a real job. Calling Ken on his inanity is more of a hobby.

By: Tim Reed

Tim Reed — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:30:59 +0000

What CRN.com needs is an ombudsman to offset the ever-effusive editor.

One thing we’ve tried to do is get an opposing viewpoint on the podcast. However, we’d like that opposing viewpoint to be reasonable and open to discussion. My first choice turned me down, and now we’re discussing some alternatives.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:21:18 +0000

I really don’t feel like I’m being “blown off” here, I think they’ve responded efficiently and kindly.

I’m still convinced that Ken is “allowed” to post anonymously. If his reason for doing so is, should someone call him on it, he can respond with “Sorry I didn’t write that” then he’s blatantly lying and will have to answer to God for that. Let him – hypothetically. At least then it will be harder for him to do whatever he does with a clean conscience, right?

By: Julie

Julie — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:25:17 +0000

What CRN.com needs is an ombudsman to offset the ever-effusive editor.

By: Jimmy@RelevantChristian

Jimmy@RelevantChristian — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:14:51 +0000

Tyler…yes ODM stands for “Online Discernment Ministry”.

Chris P….my brother, my brother….we had posts on our site at one time that were posted under ‘Editor’ and Your friends at Slice, Apprising etc, etc, gave us a pretty hard time about it…hence the reason we did away with the ‘Editor’ tag. Now all of our posts…much like here at CRN.infom are all done under the said posters name.

So…what’s good for the goose is good for the gander…yes?

By: Tim Reed

Tim Reed — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 02:22:14 +0000

Tyler rightly rebukes you all, and you blow him off?

Who blew him off? We answered him quite directly as to why it is cowardly and dishonest to post anonymously and that Christians especially should not do it.