How lenient should we be to JohnL?
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2026 6:29 am
For quite some time, and more vociferously in several recent threads, accusations have been made about JohnL and his relationship to truth (and to MaxPC, whose relationship to truth also appeared tenuous). If you’ve been reading those threads you are familiar with the situation, so I won’t repeat all of that here. Nor will I post scriptures about the importance of telling truth; we all are familiar with them. But the truth is a serious matter, and untruth is a distraction from the forum community.
The moderators have given him opportunity to respond to several specific questions, and he has left most of them unanswered, or answered only partially in ways that cannot be verified (as did Max in response to a similar request years ago).
Neto has suggested that we might require posters to use their real names or identify themselves before they can post. We are not necessarily inclined to take that step, but if we do have reason to ask for identification, we expect you to provide it. This forum is a place for caution in what is posted publicly, but it is not a place for secrets among each other.
Here is a sample of the information available to the moderators that links the accounts of JohnL and MaxPC. There’s plenty more where this comes from. Note that the post is by MaxPC, and that JohnL has also posted multiple times from the same IP address.

Those of us who are Anabaptists are no doubt familiar with the Matthew 18 process of dealing with a brother overtaken in a fault. We have reached the point where the next step is to “take it to the assembly” (the word “church” used in most translations is anachronistic in this passage, and the forum is not a church anyway; but we are a community of believers).
It’s rare for a person to be banned from the forum (bots are another matter), but it has happened a few times, usually by executive order. This time we are asking for your input and would like to reach a community consensus on whether to do so, or not. Please vote accordingly.
This thread will probably be archived at some point after a decision is made.
The moderators have given him opportunity to respond to several specific questions, and he has left most of them unanswered, or answered only partially in ways that cannot be verified (as did Max in response to a similar request years ago).
Neto has suggested that we might require posters to use their real names or identify themselves before they can post. We are not necessarily inclined to take that step, but if we do have reason to ask for identification, we expect you to provide it. This forum is a place for caution in what is posted publicly, but it is not a place for secrets among each other.
Here is a sample of the information available to the moderators that links the accounts of JohnL and MaxPC. There’s plenty more where this comes from. Note that the post is by MaxPC, and that JohnL has also posted multiple times from the same IP address.

Those of us who are Anabaptists are no doubt familiar with the Matthew 18 process of dealing with a brother overtaken in a fault. We have reached the point where the next step is to “take it to the assembly” (the word “church” used in most translations is anachronistic in this passage, and the forum is not a church anyway; but we are a community of believers).
It’s rare for a person to be banned from the forum (bots are another matter), but it has happened a few times, usually by executive order. This time we are asking for your input and would like to reach a community consensus on whether to do so, or not. Please vote accordingly.
This thread will probably be archived at some point after a decision is made.