Re: Lack of respect for privacy...what do you think? -- RSQUBF discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:13:52 08/11/04 Wed
Author: Chris
Subject: Re: Lack of respect for privacy...what do you think?
In reply to: PSUDAB 's message, "Lack of respect for privacy...what do you think?" on 23:16:50 08/10/04 Tue

Once, a "sheep" who was counseled by me and another UBF "shpeherd" told us something with the explicit request to tell nobody else. Kaleb Hong, the chapter director, demanded of us to tell him about his problem. When we told him that he had asked us not to tell anybody else, he insisted nevertheless in telling him about it, pointing out to be the responsible shepherd who has to know everything. We did not tell him, because we knew it was wrong, but this was regarded as "unspiritual" of us.

Also, the UBF group meeting sessions consist mainly in passing on the things the sheep had told their shepherds in the 1:1 sessions; this is called "exchange of prayer topics" (of the sheep). Most sheep don't know that they are the topic of conversation in the group meetings. The group leaders then pass on everything to the chapter director. This is the usual information flow in UBF, in which privacy is constantly violated.

In the beginning of the reform movement, when I was still in UBF, I had sent an email to some reformers. Some days later Kaleb Hong confronted me with that email. Somebody had passed my private email on to him. This was considered very normal.

Recently, somebody asked me to remove a letter written by the late Samuel Lee to himself, under the name of secrecy of letters. That letter revealed nothing, particularly nothing intimate or libelous about that person, but it revealed a lot about Samuel Lee. Because I consider information about UBF and it's founder and former leader highly important, I gave that right for information and the common welfare (helping people to not get betrayed by UBF leadership) a higher value than protecting the secrecy of letters in that case. Of course, if the letter had contained private details, or had been written by that person, and not by Lee in his function as a leader, I wouldn't have published it.

In order to cover up the evilness of the leadership, they suddenly show interest in privacy protection. Yes, it's definitely a double standard.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

lack of respect for privacy and lack of ethics -- Nonny Moose, 10:26:06 08/11/04 Wed

lack of ethics=absolute attitude=overcoming humanistic ideas -- Truth seeker, 15:29:15 08/11/04 Wed

Re: overcoming humanistic ideas -- Chris, 07:57:30 08/12/04 Thu
- Breaking the roof -- Mike K., 09:18:21 08/12/04 Thu