Trudy Metzger/Steve Stutzman

[Soloist]

It almost feels like that other guy… I would say using the arm of her blog to attack someone like is kind of wrong.

If she really was sincere about meeting for coffee, why did she choose to make this sort of thing public rather than address it privately or even come here and make her own account to address it?
That sort of action doesn’t exactly endear me to her claims about her carefulness on accusations.

Grace made public accusations and criticisms of Trudy on a forum that she’s not a part of. I think it’s fair for Trudy to defend herself publicly.

Grace also chose the forum to make these accusations. Trudy isn’t a participant here. Why shouldn’t she also be able to choose how and where she responds?

It’s the who is the audience.
She certainly is free to make an account here and respond but by doing on her blog is using her as ammunition.
I’d have more respect if she came here and responded or if she did so privately.
It’s like a bishop condemning someone from the pulpit when they got told what someone said about them in a small gathering.
The bishop could attend those gatherings or address it to the individual who could respond but for someone who is holding a position of influence to batter someone who does not is effectively maligning her to an audience she has no ability to speak to.
Nothing is limiting Trudy from responding here while Grace is unable to respond.

If the president singled out someone here for something, distorted what was said it would be abuse of power and there would be no ability to defend yourself even if someone would listen.

[Szdfan]

It almost feels like that other guy… I would say using the arm of her blog to attack someone like is kind of wrong.

If she really was sincere about meeting for coffee, why did she choose to make this sort of thing public rather than address it privately or even come here and make her own account to address it?
That sort of action doesn’t exactly endear me to her claims about her carefulness on accusations.

Grace made public accusations and criticisms of Trudy on a forum that she’s not a part of. I think it’s fair for Trudy to defend herself publicly.

Grace also chose the forum to make these accusations. Trudy isn’t a participant here. Why shouldn’t she also be able to choose how and where she responds?

It’s the who is the audience.
She certainly is free to make an account here and respond but by doing on her blog is using her as ammunition.
I’d have more respect if she came here and responded or if she did so privately.
It’s like a bishop condemning someone from the pulpit when they got told what someone said about them in a small gathering.
The bishop could attend those gatherings or address it to the individual who could respond but for someone who is holding a position of influence to batter someone who does not is effectively maligning her to an audience she has no ability to speak to.
Nothing is limiting Trudy from responding here while Grace is unable to respond.

If the president singled out someone here for something, distorted what was said it would be abuse of power and there would be no ability to defend yourself even if someone would listen.

I agree with your concern about the asymmetry. Trudy has a much bigger audience than Grace does.

However, I disagree that MennoNet is analogous to a “private conversation.” There’s nothing private about this conversation. This forum is public and has a much broader range than the small core group of participants suggests. It’s well known in Conservative Mennonite circles and as OJ warned us, a lot of people are reading this thread who don’t usually post here.

Grace also has a bit of power here too. Unlike a Bishop or the President, Trudy has no authority beyond her influence. Grace posts under a pseudonym. Trudy is named personally and directly.

As I stated earlier, I think it was unwise to post about an unresolved, escalating legal conflict between two people who are not involved with this forum that participants here actually know in real life and have relationships with.

There’s potential for real-life damage to both Trudy and Steve because of what people are openly saying about them and neither is an actual member here.

Also, I don’t think Trudy has any obligation to join MennoNet, especially since this isn’t a private space. I don’t think anyone is required to respond to public criticism on the critic’s chosen platform. If someone posts criticism about me publicly on a blog or forum, I’m not obligated to join it if I don’t want to be a part of it. It’s reasonable for me to respond where I already have a voice and presence. Trudy isn’t obligated to respond according to Grace’s terms.

If Trudy should have responded privately, then I think it’s reasonable to say that Grace also should have brought her concerns and accusations privately.

[Soloist]

Grace made public accusations and criticisms of Trudy on a forum that she’s not a part of. I think it’s fair for Trudy to defend herself publicly.

Grace also chose the forum to make these accusations. Trudy isn’t a participant here. Why shouldn’t she also be able to choose how and where she responds?

It’s the who is the audience.
She certainly is free to make an account here and respond but by doing on her blog is using her as ammunition.
I’d have more respect if she came here and responded or if she did so privately.
It’s like a bishop condemning someone from the pulpit when they got told what someone said about them in a small gathering.
The bishop could attend those gatherings or address it to the individual who could respond but for someone who is holding a position of influence to batter someone who does not is effectively maligning her to an audience she has no ability to speak to.
Nothing is limiting Trudy from responding here while Grace is unable to respond.

If the president singled out someone here for something, distorted what was said it would be abuse of power and there would be no ability to defend yourself even if someone would listen.

I agree with your concern about the asymmetry. Trudy has a much bigger audience than Grace does.

However, I disagree that MennoNet is analogous to a “private conversation.” There’s nothing private about this conversation. This forum is public and has a much broader range than the small core group of participants suggests. It’s well known in Conservative Mennonite circles and as OJ warned us, a lot of people are reading this thread who don’t usually post here.

Grace also has a bit of power here too. Unlike a Bishop or the President, Trudy has no authority beyond her influence. Grace posts under a pseudonym. Trudy is named personally and directly.

As I stated earlier, I think it was unwise to post about an unresolved, escalating legal conflict between two people who are not involved with this forum that participants here actually know in real life and have relationships with.

There’s potential for real-life damage to both Trudy and Steve because of what people are openly saying about them and neither is an actual member here.

Also, I don’t think Trudy has any obligation to join MennoNet, especially since this isn’t a private space. I don’t think anyone is required to respond to public criticism on the critic’s chosen platform. If someone posts criticism about me publicly on a blog or forum, I’m not obligated to join it if I don’t want to be a part of it. It’s reasonable for me to respond where I already have a voice and presence. Trudy isn’t obligated to respond according to Grace’s terms.

If Trudy should have responded privately, then I think it’s reasonable to say that Grace also should have brought her concerns and accusations privately.

Generally speaking, you see these things all the time on forums. It’s kind of the nature of it. To compare though, how many of these offenders has she addressed privately?
The answer doesn’t really matter the point though is that it’s silly to think of doing. Maybe Grace has and this is the escalation. I don’t know.
Grace likely is her real name but posts like this underscore the reason not to be public. The chance of public threats just for addressing a public figure is kind of the same issue that she addresses about leadership in these circles.

[Ernie]

It almost feels like that other guy… I would say using the arm of her blog to attack someone like is kind of wrong.

If she really was sincere about meeting for coffee, why did she choose to make this sort of thing public rather than address it privately or even come here and make her own account to address it?
That sort of action doesn’t exactly endear me to her claims about her carefulness on accusations.

The pattern is to address things publicly before having personal conversations and taking along one or two more. I think we all know where this ends up.

[JohnH]

It almost feels like that other guy… I would say using the arm of her blog to attack someone like is kind of wrong.

If she really was sincere about meeting for coffee, why did she choose to make this sort of thing public rather than address it privately or even come here and make her own account to address it?
That sort of action doesn’t exactly endear me to her claims about her carefulness on accusations.

The pattern is to address things publicly before having personal conversations and taking along one or two more. I think we all know where this ends up.

It is a rather big assumption that Trudy hasn’t done that (or at least tried to).

[Soloist]

It almost feels like that other guy… I would say using the arm of her blog to attack someone like is kind of wrong.

If she really was sincere about meeting for coffee, why did she choose to make this sort of thing public rather than address it privately or even come here and make her own account to address it?
That sort of action doesn’t exactly endear me to her claims about her carefulness on accusations.

The pattern is to address things publicly before having personal conversations and taking along one or two more. I think we all know where this ends up.

It is a rather big assumption that Trudy hasn’t done that (or at least tried to).

Its pretty easy for Grace to answer that and if she didn't try with Grace...

[Ernie]

It almost feels like that other guy… I would say using the arm of her blog to attack someone like is kind of wrong.

If she really was sincere about meeting for coffee, why did she choose to make this sort of thing public rather than address it privately or even come here and make her own account to address it?
That sort of action doesn’t exactly endear me to her claims about her carefulness on accusations.

The pattern is to address things publicly before having personal conversations and taking along one or two more. I think we all know where this ends up.

It is a rather big assumption that Trudy hasn’t done that (or at least tried to).

She says in her article "While I do not generally bother responding, I decided to awaken my blog, to respond to Grace, because methodical analysis with images throughout is not possible on FB... I don’t know Grace. For all I know, it could be a man using ‘Grace’ — as in the grace we receive from God — to give the perception that they are female. In any case, this is not personal."

[JohnH]

The pattern is to address things publicly before having personal conversations and taking along one or two more. I think we all know where this ends up.

It is a rather big assumption that Trudy hasn’t done that (or at least tried to).

She says in her article "While I do not generally bother responding, I decided to awaken my blog, to respond to Grace, because methodical analysis with images throughout is not possible on FB... I don’t know Grace. For all I know, it could be a man using ‘Grace’ — as in the grace we receive from God — to give the perception that they are female. In any case, this is not personal."

The idea that someone can slander you on a public forum but you’re somehow obligated to first try to meet with them privately is a bit absurd. I don’t see why it’s wrong to have a public response to a public post here.

[Soloist]

The pattern is to address things publicly before having personal conversations and taking along one or two more. I think we all know where this ends up.

It is a rather big assumption that Trudy hasn’t done that (or at least tried to).

She says in her article "While I do not generally bother responding, I decided to awaken my blog, to respond to Grace, because methodical analysis with images throughout is not possible on FB... I don’t know Grace. For all I know, it could be a man using ‘Grace’ — as in the grace we receive from God — to give the perception that they are female. In any case, this is not personal."

Wife: husband told me about this, and I only got maybe halfway through the article before just stopping because it seemed disgustingly petty. implying that she might be some guy seems intentionally to try to cast her into a negative potentially abusive light. I don’t agree with all of her stances, but she seems to behave very much like a woman, and I would not be surprised if a couple people know who she is.

I would’ve given Trudy more of the benefit of the doubt before seeing her get so vindictive about a random Internet post. It’s like Grace just got her own do not perish denouncement. it’s not unreasonable to share about actual abuse, although maybe sometimes it should be done cautiously on the off chance someone might be innocent, but being so annoyed that a random person on a forum full of different people’s opinions to the point where you have to denounce them seems a bit ridiculous.

There have been people from different organizations that decided to make a Mennonet account, either p.m. or post a public message, or even talk to the moderator on the phone when somebody is spreading slander and gossip on here about them or their ministry/ect. That seems better than a passive aggressive post making assumptions about a person.

[Grace]

Thanks for the support from some of you. Just to let you know I haven't communicated with Trudy, nor has she attempted to communicate with me. If she would create an account here, and wanted to private message me, I "might" respond. But I highly doubt that will happen.

FYI, Trudy has a right to use whatever social media she chooses to say what she wants, even in a lengthy blog. Trudy has the right to speak untruths about me as well. Like she did when she said that I “constantly” nitpicked at her, when the last I posted was a few posts two years ago. (With the exception of one a few weeks back).

I most have really hit a nerve with her, that she dedicated a lengthy FB post and resurrected her blog in response to my post here on Mennonet. IMO Trudy's response to my post here in a lengthy blog post said more about her, then it did about me. But some of you might disagree, and that is okay.