Beaverton Grace Bible Church, BGBC Lawsuit, Chuck O'Neal, Crazy Things Church Leaders Say & Do, Extra-Biblical Nonsense, Julie Anne's Personal Stories, Media Interviews with Julie Anne, Misuse of Scripture, No-Talk Rule, Sexual Abuse/Assault and Churches, Spiritual Abuse, Spiritual Bullies

Some Pastors Think They Get to Control the Details of Your Lives, Even the Colors of Clothes You Wear


Pastors who use their assumed position of authority to control personal lives.


for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.

Hebrews 13:17


This is finals week at school, so in the interest of time, I’m going to resurrect an old post from March of 2012, plus add a little more editorial comment. The following article was written in the midst of the $500,000 defamation lawsuit brought on by my former pastor, Chuck O’Neal and Beaverton Grace Bible Church, against four others and me (including my adult daughter). After I spoke out publicly against Chuck O’Neal on Google reviews, he was able to get my negative reviews removed. I then started a blog, hoping to find a place where he couldn’t take away my voice.

Within a week of starting the blog, I was sued along with 4 others. The blog was a big issue for him because he couldn’t control me or my words. I dared to publicly say something about this man and he tried to shut me down by using the lawsuit. I think he thought that the lawsuit would shut me up. It didn’t. I continued to blog about my experience at his church during the lawsuit (with permission from my attorney.) He lost the court case and I’m still talking about him from time to time because he represents so many others who abuse their assumed position of authority in their churches.  Thanks, Chuck O’Neal for giving me the platform, for bringing media attention to the case, and allowing others to identify spiritual abuse they may have experienced so they can begin their recovery process.

This post was written during the lawsuit when I was stewing about the various things that left me wondering, “what was THAT all about?”  You see, when you are in the midst of an abusive or cult-like church, your brain can play tricks with you. Your mind tells you that this pastor obviously is a godly man because he’s a pastor, right? I mean, who would be in a pastoral position without wanting to be godly and lead the congregation appropriately?  Well, some don’t have right motives. They may have some appearances of right motives, but beneath the facade, they are controlling and abusive, and can actually harm or destroy someone’s faith.

Some are in the pastorate because they relish their position of authority. They like having the seniority, the clout, the respect of a whole congregation. They like that people are hanging on to their words. They like that they have power and influence over people and some pastors, take that power and influence beyond the scope of a pastor’s job. That is what this post about – a man who used his position of authority and influence to try to convince his congregants of stupid rules that have nothing – I mean zilch –  to do with the Bible.

Note: The following article originally appeared here.


You Can’t Make This Stuff Up, Part 1

I remember something that was taught. I think it was said at the ladies retreat and/or perhaps on a Wednesday night meeting, but probably not on Sunday (because Sunday’s messages were recorded???).

Anyway, the topic was about men/boys wearing the color pink. We were told that pink was a “feminine” color and men/boys ought not to be wearing those colors.

I don’t ever recall reading anything of the sort in the Bible. Anywhere. I couldn’t even make up something like that. What in the world does a man wearing pink have to do with the love of Christ and sharing the Gospel? Nothing. It’s extra made-up nonsense.

*     *     *
You can buy this shirt from Zazzle for $18.95.
*     *     *

After the ladies retreat, I remember looking through my son’s drawer and seeing a pink shirt. This particular son is a redhead with an angelic white porcelain face. He looks amazing in pink. I want to squeeze him when I see how cute he looks in that color. The pink against his cheeks and red hair was a beautiful sight to his mama’s eyes. There was no way I was going to throw that shirt away. He may have worn that shirt the following Sunday and probably other Sundays as well. I wonder how many people noticed my boy wearing pink?

Does this man look feminine? I think not.

*     *     *

Tommy Hilfiger Classic Polo Shirt  Pink $54.99 (sold out)
*     *     *
For further reading on fashionable dressing for men, check out this article  Can men wear pink?  Decide for yourself if pink is acceptable for your man or men (if you have many sons as I do).
*     *     *


Ok, back to 2014 again. Can you imagine what this kind of teaching, adding extra rules to Christianity, can do? If you have a pastor deciding for you what you can wear, what’s next?  Will he be able to influence what job you take, what woman you marry, what food you can eat, what car you drive? Give me a break.This man put himself between his congregants and God by creating extra rules. He’ll have to answer to God for that.***

152 thoughts on “Some Pastors Think They Get to Control the Details of Your Lives, Even the Colors of Clothes You Wear”

  1. Michaela

    Thanks for Wall Street Journal article “Banned From Church.”
    You referenced @ DECEMBER 10, 2014 @ 9:31 AM

    This is an excellent example of how messed up this extra-biblical,
    non-biblical, anti-biblical, idea of “church discipline” is. 😉

    As you can probably discern, I’m NOT a fan of man made “church discipline.”

    Seems Jesus taught “His Disciples” NOT to “Lord it over” anyone.
    And, NOT TO “Exercise Authority” over anyone.

    Mark 10:42-45 NASB
    42 Calling them to Himself, Jesus *said to them,
    “You know that those who are recognized
    as *rulers of the Gentiles* **lord it over them;**
    and their great men “Exercise Authority” over them.
    43 But it is NOT this way among you,
    but whoever wishes to become great among you
    shall be “your Servant;”
    44 and whoever wishes to be first among you
    shall be “Slave of All.
    45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served,
    but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

    In order for these power guys to do this so-called “church discipline.” Excommunication,” “Shunning.” They become like the *rulers of the Gentiles,* “Lording it Over” and “Exercising Authority.” Both Big No, No’s, for His Disciples.

    And because “church discipline” is NOT in the Bible; How do WE, His Sheep, His Ekklesia, His Church, His Disciples, know who is doing “it” correctly? Doing “it” biblically? Mostly, those with the power will now make up their own rules, their own punishments, that are also NOT in the Bible, to control and manipulate. 😦

    If these guys are “Lording it Over” and “Exercising Authority?”
    Are they one of “His Disciples?”

    What is popular is NOT always “Truth.”
    What is “Truth” is NOT always popular.


  2. Michaela

    Even the Wall Street Journal article points out there are differences, “little consensus,” among the churches who practice “church discipline.” Just scroll down near the end of the article.

    “Little Consensus”
    Among churches that practice discipline, there is little consensus on how sinners should be dealt with, says Gregory Wills, a theologian at Southern Baptist Theological seminary. Some pastors remove members on their own, while other churches require agreement among deacons or a majority vote from the congregation.”

    And, NOT one of these 3 options are found in the Bible either. Oy Vey!!!
    Where, in the Bible, does a pastor “remove members on their own?”
    Where, in the Bible, does it “require agreement among deacons?”
    Where, in the Bible, do WE, His Sheep, get to “Vote?” About anything? 😉

    NO one really knows how to apply this man made “church discipline.”

    In my experience, when folks make up words, terms, NOT in the Bible, like “church discipline,” and call them biblical, long enough, loud enough, people will believe “it” is biblical. But, “it” is NOT biblical, NOT in the Bible. It is really “Commandments of men,” “Doctrines of Men,” that become “Traditions of Men,” that Jesus warned WE, His Sheep, His Servants, about. “Traditions” that “Make Void” the Word of God.

    Mark 7:13
    KJV – Making the word of God of “none effect” through your tradition…
    ASV – Making “void” the word of God by your tradition…
    NIV – Thus you “nullify” the word of God by your tradition…

    Jer 50:6
    “My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
    **THEIR shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*

    1 Pet 2:25
    For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
    BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    I’m Blest… I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul…

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}


  3. “Potbless?”
    Are you kidding me?

    The original word is “Potlatch” meaning “to give away” and was used to describe a feast held by indigenous peoples of the PNW and Canada.

    If you can’t say “Pot-luck”… then you’re way too saved.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. donteatthecrayons,

    If you can’t say “Pot-luck”… then you’re way too saved.

    I don’t think not being able to say Pot-luck is in anyway having to be due to salvation or Jesus. It could be a religious thing. Jesus is not about religion. He is about saving and freeing the lost. The Pharisees were about religion and the law.


  5. At Mass today, my pastor wore pink.
    And St Boniface was decorated entirely in pink.
    Today is Gaudete Sunday (Third Sunday of Advent) on the Western Rite Church Calendar, and the liturgical color for Gaudete Sunday is PINK.


  6. @Hester:

    Yeah, in my experience fundies routinely mistake word association for etymology. I once caught a Seventh-Day Adventist claiming that Hollywood was run by demons, because “stars” live there and the fallen angels who followed Satan are described as “stars” that fell from heaven, and Harry Potter has a holly wood wand so COINCIDENCE?!?!?!?! I THINK NOT!!!!!!

    The type of connect-the-dots-AHA you find only in Christian Culture Warriors, Conspiracy-a-Go-Go, and a dictatorship’s secret police sniffing out Enemies of Fearless Leader.


  7. @Daisy:

    This headline does not even cover it all. This preacher (has a church in Ohio and a TV show) also asked his male church congregants if he could look at their private parts.

    Well, we know what HIS paraphilia is…


  8. HUG, regarding the kinky preacher.
    Y’all really need to click the link I gave above or google more about him.

    One of the more detailed articles I read about him was one of those where you’re reading, and they start describing something tacky or bad the preacher did. And you’re thinking, “Whoa, that is awful!”

    But then you make it to the next paragraph, where they describe something else he did, and it was worse than stuff in paragraph one.

    And just when you think it can’t get worse, there are more accusations in para. 3, more on para. 4, and on and on, and it gets worse and worse or more bizarre the longer you keep reading.

    Just when you think the guy couldn’t get any more controlling, perverted, or weird, the next paragraph describing stuff he did tops the last. It was one of those type of articles.


  9. donteatthecrayons has one of the most hilarious blogs. My favorite post so far is “Dear boys, one day I will come to your house and break all your stuff.” I read it out loud to my husband, and we howled with laughter. I also enjoyed “To the complete and total strangers at Costco.” I need to head back over and catch up on the latest posts. It’s some seriously good reading if you need a laugh.

    Signed, a Red-nex-an. Which might be somewhat related to a Red-nex-ican.

    Merry Christmas to you, donteatthecrayons!

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Michaela,

    You had said:
    “Even the Apostle Paul told Believers to welcome a man back into the church who’d been having an affair with his step-mother or else he would become overwhelmed. The Apostle Paul handled church discipline like a skilled surgeon with a scalpel.”

    My response:

    Could you please give me the Bible reference for this. I’ve heard two others say that same thing, but that’s not how I remember the story.

    I don’t see discipline in this, nor do I see discipline in Matthew 18. Can’t seem to find that word anywhere.

    Kicking a person out is not discipline. Can’t figure out how the Apostle Paul was like a skilled surgeon in something that is non-existent.



  11. Hi Ed,

    I don’t have time to look it up right now.
    You can find on biblecc web site. Matthew Henry Commentary below verse is helpful too.


  12. Michaela,

    When you have the time. It’s kinda hard to get motivated to find something that I believe isn’t there to begin with.

    In addition, I’m not a fan at reading commentary. As I once heard in a very popular 1970’s cop show…just the facts ma’am. Just the facts.

    Bottom line…I’ve never read your statement in the Bible itself. And, I’m wondering where people are finding it.



  13. Bike Bubba, AND Michaela,

    NO ONE can forgive ANYTHING that wasn’t done to them personally.

    No, a priest cannot forgive sins.

    Having said that…in the context of 2 Cor 2, anguish and grief was being caused by someone and upon another. And that had nothing to do with 1 Cor 5.

    Anguish and grief is what was to be forgiven in the context of 2 Cor 2. And who was it that was causing anguish and grief?

    Pauls letters. He was sorry that his letters caused anguish. Why did his letter cause anguish? Paul is asking to be forgiven, in an obscure way.

    If YOU knew Paul, the way that I know Paul, he talks about himself in the 3rd person a lot. The person that needed forgiveness was HIM, Paul. He is the “SUCH A ONE” as noted in the KJV. Again, it was he, who was asking for forgiveness for causing heartache to people.

    If you don’t know that Paul talks about himself in the 3rd person, see 2 Cor 12, then go back to chapter 11.

    I would suggest that you people stay away from Matthew Henry and study it out for yourselves.



  14. @Ed,

    * The believers at the Corinth church were addressed by Paul because they had failed to address sin they knew about in their midst (sexual immorality, a man having an affair with his step-mother). The Corinthian believers did address that and when the man repented Paul told them to welcome him back.

    *Yes, it’s important to study the Bible on our own. Helpful resources, like the hundreds year old and solid Matthew Henry Commentary can be of help. If you choose not to use or recommend the MHC, that’s your personal preference.

    *Yes, I do know about facts. I’ve worked in law for nearly 20-years.

    *Forgiveness: “NO ONE can forgive ANYTHING that wasn’t done to them personally.” I agree that a priest/pastor/elder or anyone else does not have the power to forgive a person unilaterally. Sin does impact other people “personally” even though it might not have been directed at their person. They do have the power to forgive. Example: A California woman came to Christ. Her parents had been brutally murdered by the Manson Family. She went to prison and forgave one of the Manson Family Members (a man) who had also come to Christ. She felt freedom in forgiveness and the Lord gave her His peace.


  15. Michaela,

    That was not the context of 2 Cor 2.

    Again, I default back to that NO ONE can forgive anyone for something that was not done to them personally, which means, priests cannot forgive sins. Neither can you forgive a rape that someone else to someone else. You don’t have that authority.

    And therefore, take another hard look at 2 Cor 2, because 1 Cor 5 had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    I stand by my previous comment…big time.



  16. Michaela,

    Who did the Bereans consult? NO ONE. They searched the scriptures daily to see if what they were being told was true, or false. And because they did that, they were more noble.

    No one gave them an opinion book to read. They formed their own opinion.



  17. Michaela, the bible is clear that you cannot contradict that topic of forgiveness. Either a priest can forgive sins not perpetrated upon the priest himself, but upon another, or…he cannot forgive anything unless it was done to him personally. You cannot have it both ways.

    The manson family murderer can only get forgiveness for MURDER from the victim of the MURDER (OR GOD ALONE), not by a family member.

    The only thing that a family member forgive them for, was for the grief that the murderer did upon them…PERSONALLY.



  18. I haven’t discussed priests, forgiveness, etc.

    Agreed we are to search the Scriptures. (It’s also not a sin to use a book to explain things we may not know or have thought of. It’s a personal preference.)


  19. Ed,
    A murdered person is not able to forgive anyone of anything. They are dead. A family member is also harmed by the murderers acts of violence. A child of a murdered mother or father most certainly can forgive. The death of that child’s parent is also an act against them. It could change their entire life. A priest is not directly affected by the murderer, but a child or family member could be.


  20. Michaela and Ed,
    I have thanked God on several occasions for specific books that I believe he lead me to. Barbara Roberts, “Not Under Bondage” and Leslie Vernicks books on Edmotionally Destructive relationships helped me put together Biblical truths that may have taken me decades and was no condition at the time to put together much of anything. It is much easier being a Berean when you’re not being beat down or beat up.


  21. Brenda,

    I have no problem in that family members of those murdered are victims. But…but they are not victims of murder. The family member cannot forgive anyone for murder. They can only forgive for the destruction of their own lives caused by the murder. So, no, the child cannot forgive the perp for the act of the murder upon another person. The child was not the victim of murder.



  22. Brenda,

    I have no problem of the books that you cite. My issue is that when we use other peoples opinions to form dogma, then we are ignorant of the truth. The only thing that we are knowledgeable in, is another persons opinion on what he/she thinks the bible passage means, and then that person’s opinion is pawned off as dogma/orthodox, etc.

    Are we not protestants? Didn’t the Catholic Church try to force their Bible opinions as orthodox/dogma upon the peasants that couldn’t read, write, speak, or understand Latin?

    We have a bible these days. Let’s not replace the bible with opinion books. Form your own.


    Liked by 1 person

  23. My whole point in all of my comments here, is that 2 Cor 2, which mentions “forgiveness”, has nothing to to with forgiving the person from 1 Cor 5.

    When we know that no one can forgive sins perpetrated upon another, then we also know that no one can forgive the person in 1 Cor 5. Sexual sins are those sins where a person sins against his own body. All sins are sins against God.

    Only God can forgive the sins of the one in 1 Cor 5.

    Therefore, 2 Cor 2 needs another look, and the conclusion is, Paul’s letters caused people to grieve, but Paul’s intentions were that people would be not grieved. Paul felt guilt and therefore, he was saying that he was sorry, and that he wants their forgiveness for the grief that he brought upon them. But, because Paul explained himself in a third person, people seem to think that he is discussing the person in 1 Cor 5. Not true. It is not unusual for Paul to speak of himself in the 3rd person.



  24. Ed,
    A little more emotion, a little less analyzing. The murder of a person also kill’s other people, if not physically then it takes them mentally and emotionally. They are forgiving the perp of murdering their loved one which in turn took them down, as well.

    Nope, I’m not protesting anything. I’ve never claimed to be a protestant. I was never a Catholic. The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew and I believe there were Christians or “The Way” at the time of the Catholic churches beginning in apx 300 AD, but very few in comparison that were not forced into the regime church that kept the secret very well. I believe that Christ instituted the true church and the Roman Catholic political body called a church did not stop what Jesus started. Jesus is so much stronger than that.


  25. Brenda,

    ahhhh, but I am anal….so I analyze things. And, I disagree. The child was not murdered. Therefore, the child cannot forgive for the act of murder. The sin against the child is the anguish based on the murder. Only God can forgive a murderer for the act of murder. But the child can forgive for the anguish brought on by the murder.

    My whole point, no one can forgive anyone of sin that was not against them personally. That is why priests, who think that they have authority to forgive sins, cannot forgive sins. Otherwise, we’d be going to priests, too.

    However, Stephen forgave people who were in the process of murdering him. He said to God, “Lay not this charge against them.”

    In addition, Jesus also did that when he said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

    They were all forgiven for murder, before the death of the person murdered, by the person murdered.

    As for protestant, I used to say that same thing. I never was Catholic either. However, there is two famous factions that came out of reform. Lutherans, and Calvinists. All of them conform to the thoughts of Augustine. That’s why I prefer non-denomination. So, in a sense, I do protest.



  26. Bike Bubba and Michaela,

    It must also be noted, that the sins of the person in 1 Cor 5, there is no victim at all. Both were willing participants. Those kind of sexual sins are sins against their own bodies, not against another person. No victim. Therefore, there is no victim to forgive the person in 1 Cor 5. And so, therefore, only God can forgive them for that sin. Not a church, not even as a corporate body can forgive that sin. There is no such thing as a corporate forgiveness. Victims are the only ones that can forgive. And, based on Bind and Loose, they don’t have to forgive if they don’t want to. It’s a God given right.

    And therefore, the word forgiveness in 2 Cor 2 is not even related to the forgiving of the person in 1 Cor 5.



  27. Ed,
    I’m more emotional, obviously and therefore disagree, but only to an extent. I do agree that priests cannot forgive. I love that Stephen forgave as he knew he was being stoned and going to Heaven shortly. I’m sure he did it with a smile.

    So are you protesting Lutherans and Calvinists or Augustine, or all three? I call myself a Christian because I have chosen to follow Christ. As far as denomination, I no longer prescribe to one. I am getting really tired now and think it is time to shut the brain down further than it was the rest of the day.

    Have a wonderful evening all. In Christ always,



  28. You too, Brenda. I’ll respond to your last by saying, all three. Reason, three mega “orthodox” against one minority non-denomination that disagrees with their “orthodox”. Their orthodox has permeated Christendom like a plague that seeks to kill and destroy, taking away freedom, instituting bondage.

    If you believe that priests cannot forgive those who did not offend them personally, then the next question is, why do you believe that? And a follow up question, how did you come to that conclusion. This is where I get analytical.



  29. Oh Ed, I think you already know why I believe what I believe. Because the Bible says so. Jesus came to die for my sins and overcame death all for anyone who would believe on Him. He is the only intercessor. Priests need the same intercessor that I do. I don’t need a man’s forgiveness. Forgiveness for us humans is for our own hearts not for the offender. If you want chapter and verse, you won’t get it from me right now. I have pumpkin bread to make for my neighbors. I am going to be emotional this Christmas, not analytical.

    Blessings, Brenda

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Brenda,

    Rest assured that I agree with you. Some people just don’t like my attitude of being anal-ytical. That’s OK, tho. If people want to agree with Matthew Henry, I can’t stop them. To me, using an opinion book is like cheating. By reading someones opinion, bypasses the need to read the Bible. Why study the Bible when all the answers are in Matthew Henry’s opinion book?

    The same goes with all of them crazy “confession” meetings that Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists had. The only reason that they had those meetings was to force future generations to believe what they believed at that time. Dead people deciding for me? I wasn’t even present at the meeting. I never got the memo. No one asked me what I thought. My thoughts were dictated to me, “This is what you are to believe…” Well, I don’t believe what they believe.

    None of the three mega orthodox are even in agreement with the word Baptism. And somehow, we are supposed to be lock step with them?

    Anyway, that’s why I am anal-ytical. Opinion books should be just that…opinion. Doesn’t mean that it’s gonna be my opinion, tho.

    But…for Christmas, I get emotional, too!!!



  31. Ed,
    I sure don’t put a lot of stock in opinion or opinion books. I do care what Jesus did for me, what the Father has to say about it and the Holy Spirit’s guidance. I have a couple of opinion books, but don’t take stock in them. I do like to hear good preaching, but have come away many times with head shaking from time to time. If I don’t understand something in scripture, I usually pray about it and sleep on it. It is amazing what God reveals when I wake up the next day.

    Baptism–water immersion showing the death to sin, burial and resurrection. Jesus showed us what to do–enough said in my opinion, of course.

    Surely glad you get emotional at Christmas. That is good news. I have never been an anal person over much. I want to know more tomorrow than I do today, but little things go a long way in that department. Praying for lost children, making a meal for a cancer patients family, writing to a friend who is feeling blue, these things as well as reading the Bible tell me more about my Lord. I’ve been told I have a servant’s heart. I don’t know about all of that, I know I got real tired of being a slave/servant and a target for my now ex-h’s throwing arm.

    I do get very anal about abusive leaders, spouses or in general anyone who thinks they should control other people. I get anal about starving children, rape victims being revictimized, domestic abuse and pedophilia. These things burn me up. I get angry when people call the Samaritan Woman a prostitute. Not one place in that passage does it call her that or imply it.

    Have a great day, Ed.



  32. Brenda,

    The only reason that I took issue with you was when you “agreed” with Bike Bubba that evidence needs to be gathered “before” dialing 911. Just the opposite. Evidence is not a prerequisite to calling the cops. Just the allegation. I think Bike Bubba is concerned with the false reporting. Christian church going women false reporting? That’s what he is concerned with? Really? The default is to believe the church going woman, but for some reason, it seems to me that he wants to think of her as a liar until proven wrong. His first thought, in my opinion, is that the woman is lying. So HE wants to investigate whether she is telling the truth before TRYING to convince her to dial 911, and then telling people that it’s biblical by referencing Matthew 18? To me, that’s coming from a cultish mindset of control freaks. They are the ones controlling what goes to the civilian authorities, or what stays in house. That is control. Control is abusive.



  33. Ed,
    I didn’t agree with that and never will!! I am not sure what I said to make you think that. I think in many instances calling 911 and seeking a physical exam and treatment could both be happening at the same time. But the only one making the decision is the victim, no one else. If she hasn’t gone to the police or emergency room and know about the situation, I would encourage her to go, but never do I think that she should be questioned by anyone other than someone who is experienced with this type of crime and can show empathy to the victim. I would offer a shoulder to cry on. If she wants to talk, listen. If it is someone from within the church that did this horrible thing, it is still up to a judge to decide not anyone from within the church. Too many times people from within will say stupid things like, “but he is such a good Christian”, “he helps so many people”, “he’s been such a good leader, always volunteering”. What a good cover up. They don’t believe Mr. Do Gooder is a rapist, pedophile or wife beater. Wolves in sheep’s clothing will one day mess up and get their sheep suit zipper stuck and the wolf will be revealed.



  34. Brenda,

    December 19 3:25 PM you said:

    “yes, I think it’s appropriate that there be actual evidence that a rape occurred before involving the police.”

    That is what got me to comment to you. I had to scratch my head at that one, and say to myself, “Huh?”



  35. Ed, Yep!! I just looked it up. I should have put quotes around that one and failed to do so. I can see why that was a head scratcher. No, there was no agreement on my part, nor would there ever be. : )



Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s