MennoNet.com

I think it's pretty inappropriate behavior to be character assassinating someone simply because his name is in a subject line of a puzzling pm.

Shame on you.

Uh - who?

Hats Off wrote:Uh - who?

Both you and Quietobserver seem to be somehow associating Steve Stutzman by implication to this puzzling pm simply because his name is in the subject line. The content isn't even about him.

Mrs.Nisly wrote:

Hats Off wrote:Uh - who?

Both you and Quietobserver seem to be somehow associating Steve Stutzman by implication to this puzzling pm simply because his name is in the subject line. The content isn't even about him.

Steve does work with some pretty broken people. If I were to venture a guess, the post was sent by someone feeling protective of him and that Josh is too harsh with his critique of Steve....maybe? I just don't think its fair to bring up something unrelated to the subject, to raise questions about Steve.

Mrs.Nisly wrote:

Mrs.Nisly wrote:

Hats Off wrote:Uh - who?

Both you and Quietobserver seem to be somehow associating Steve Stutzman by implication to this puzzling pm simply because his name is in the subject line. The content isn't even about him.

Steve does work with some pretty broken people. If I were to venture a guess, the post was sent by someone feeling protective of him and that Josh is too harsh with his critique of Steve....maybe? I just don't think its fair to bring up something unrelated to the subject, to raise questions about Steve.

Steve does indeed work with some pretty broken people. That’s what concerns me. Steve has never been willing to publicly address the rather serious allegations that he has mishandled abuse cases. I’m sorry if that sounds like character assassination.

Mrs.Nisly wrote:

Hats Off wrote:Uh - who?

Both you and Quietobserver seem to be somehow associating Steve Stutzman by implication to this puzzling pm simply because his name is in the subject line. The content isn't even about him.

Uh, Sorry - that wasn't my intent at all. I suppose this wasn't the appropriate thread to comment on what I read about Steve. I was shocked to read what I did because in our family Steve is actually respected and defended. I don't know the Stutzmans personally but have listened to some of his recordings.

Mrs.Nisly wrote:I think it's pretty inappropriate behavior to be character assassinating someone simply because his name is in a subject line of a puzzling pm.

Shame on you.

Didn’t cross my mind that H.O. or Q.O. were being mean, nor did I take Josh as suggesting it was S.S. fault.
My guess is the recent thread revival was the prompt, and O.B. just really likes S.S.

I'm sorry, I may have overreacted.
It seems like unless we have the benefit of hearing both sides of a story, it's easy to simply believe rumors.

RZehr wrote:Didn’t cross my mind that H.O. or Q.O. were being mean, nor did I take Josh as suggesting it was S.S. fault.
My guess is the recent thread revival was the prompt, and O.B. just really likes S.S.

... and really dislikes the O.P., apparently.

QuietObserver wrote: Steve does indeed work with some pretty broken people. That’s what concerns me. Steve has never been willing to publicly address the rather serious allegations that he has mishandled abuse cases. I’m sorry if that sounds like character assassination.

Steve's response from the from the article in the Mennonite World Review.

" He said he and his parent ministry, Strait Paths Foundation, “have not responded to these assertions publicly, and believe these types of incidents should be handled more in keeping with Scriptural principle and precedent.”

As I said before, there are always two sides to a story, and yes Steve's side of the story probably should have been heard. However he probably didn't make a statement because he didn't feel it was handled in a scriptural manner.

And Could it be he didn't make public statements concerning the matter because he knew he would be fodder for lengthy, continuing blogs.