320 thoughts on “Excuses”

  1. When you assume… ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Obviously, he understands copyright about as well as he understands TV and, quite likely, plenty of other things.

  2. He spent far more time pointing out that he hates homosexuality than dealing with the issue that he broke the law by stealing somebody else’s photo for commercial purposes.

    It was nice that he made his priorities so clear.

    1. Also, I don’t know who called him a ‘nut’, but it was deceitful of him to assume she was ‘of the world’ just because she disagreed with him.

      Also: persecution complex. Look, it’s only persecution when you’re being treated badly for doing good and honouring God. This is not persecution.

      1. It blows my mind that he thinks he thinks we accused him of condoning homosexuality, when what we accused him of was (a) being clueless; and (b) stealing a photograph.

        1. In fundieland, everything is about sex or power.

          Where possible, sex and power.

          There’s a reason their worship looks so much like Stockholm syndrome.

    2. it doesn’t matter that he stole it. He stole it from evil, God-hating, sodomizing liberals and that’s all that matters. It all belongs to God anyway. Besides he’s so holy he doesn’t own a TV, so how was he supposed to know it belonged to somebody else? It’s not like you expected this man of god to take extra time out of his day to actually RESEARCH the image and find out where it came from! You didn’t, did you? I didn’t think so.

      If “avoiding the appearance of evil” is such a big deal, then this situation is a golden argument against withdrawal from the culture and mainstream media in the name of “holiness.” Ignorance is NOT innocence or bliss.

      1. He’s so holy he doesn’t have a TV, yet uses the internet? If I was going to give up one or the other for spiritual reasons, the internet would have to go first.

  3. Ummm No. We never assumed that this blow hard watched the show. So no, sorry Matthew the martyr the SFL post never accused him of watching the show. It simply pointed out the irony of the situation. I will accuse him of lying about not knowing that his google search would turn up non-copywritten photos however. That is a blatant falsehood. Nice lie…oops. Nice try Doug. Geez ๐Ÿ™„

    1. Dear Tiarali:

      At least the prophets indicated when they were using God’s materials. With all the times the KJV says, ‘Thus saith the Lord’ you’d think he’d know this mattered.

      Christian Socialist

      1. Christian Socialist,

        Yet another example of fundie logic.

        If you were a prophet of old, then you were persecuted.

        You are being persecuted.

        Therefore, you are like a prophet of old.

        Classic converse fallacy. ๐Ÿ™„

    1. Unless stated otherwise, I assume that pictures I can find on the internet are free for public use… it’s to me like putting a bunch of graduation pictures of my son in a restaurant; they are out in the public. Sounds like my understanding is flawed.

      But even granting he was not aware of any of this (but I think before using some random picture in a book, he should have done more research)… this is still not being falsely accused. He is being “truly accused” because of his spelling errors promoting the book and the use of a photograph that represents a family that is the opposite of what the book says.

      NOT A FALSE ACCUSATION!

      1. GR,

        An image is not copyrighted unless you copyright it, but it’s safe to assume that a major TV show would copyright all their promotional material. Leaving pictures at a restaurant implicates the property doctrine of abandonment. But, if you had a copyright on those pictures, then someone else could not simply scan them and use them as they wished.

        1. I understand that, but how would someone not familiar with televisions shows (I’ve never heard of the show) happen to KNOW that it is a major TV show and probably copyrighted? Some additional research clearly needed to be done on his part.

        2. I agree, GR, and furthermore, one would think that before PUBLISHING A BOOK WITH A PICTURE ON THE FRONT COVER, one would take the time to make sure it’s a free image!

        3. ^^This.

          Public use is one thing. Putting a picture on a book you are publishing for profit is another thing entirely. Someone publishing a book should take the 5 minutes to find that out.

        4. @ Deacon’s Son said,
          “GR,An image is not copyrighted unless you copyright it”
          ———–
          ๐Ÿ’ก โ— That information is false.

          Copyright is bestowed upon a work upon its creation; the artist or photographer does not have to apply for it, or even put a copyright symbol on the work.

        5. I stand corrected . . . sort of. It is true that in the most technical legal sense, copyright attaches automatically to any work as soon as it is produced. However, when I said “copyright,” I was referring to the process of copyright registration, without which it is essentially impossible, as a legal matter, to bring a copyright claim against anyone else. Registration is a requirement for proof of ownership, similar to obtaining a deed for real property. Since most people posting pictures on the internet have no interest in registering their copyrights, due to the expense and hassle, re-using most internet material won’t subject anyone to liability as a practical matter. But, as I said, it is always a good idea to assume that a major media conglomerate is going to register its copyright for ALL of its images.

          There is a lot of reactionary stuff out there on copyright issues vis-ร -vis the Internet (from both sides), but legal technicalities don’t match up with the real world. Bottom line: it’s never a good idea to assume that using an image off the Internet is safe, absent a clear indication that the image is free, but the reality is that there is plenty of stuff out there that will never give rise to legal liability under any circumstances. That’s the practical reality to which I was referring in my initial poorly-worded comment.

        1. The books there are free for use (reading), but are copyrighted, and clearly stated in the book. When I search Google for pictures, I didn’t think they stated whether or not they were copyrighted. Trying it just now, every picture I pulled up said “Images may be copyrighted”, so I’m thinking that he must have ignored that statement.

      2. Ummm … no.
        Stuff on the Internet is generally not free to use as you like unless the owner of the picture or text or movie or whatever says you can use it without payment (such blanket permission is not unusual, but it’s not the default assumption), or it’s so old that the creator’s rights to it have expired (usually meaning the creator is long dead).

        There are some “fair use” exceptions for reviews and news reporting and commentary and so on, but there’s no way that the case in question could possibly fall into any fair use category.

        That’s also true of printed or recorded material in general and almost any kind of image.

        To use the analogy of putting out photos in a restaurant, if you put out a stack of your own photos with a sign that says “Take one,” members of the public are free to help themselves to the copies of the photo, but they do not have the right to reproduce the photo unless you say they can, especially if they are somehow charging for whatever contains your image or using it for advertising.

        Declaring a copyright is a way of registering your claim to exclusive rights over material, but those rights exist even if a copyright has not been formally registered.

        1. I was familiar with what you outlined as far as printed material, but I didn’t think the same thing existed as to photographs.

          I’m amazed that I could put pictures of my son in his graduation robes in a restaurant, and still have any control over how it was used.

          Thanks for the summary.

        2. Beyond all that, neither the lucky restaurant patrons, nor you as photographer, would have the right to commercially exploit your son’s recognizable image without HIS consent (assuming that he is at least 18).

        3. Well, if he did some newsworthy event (such as graduation), I don’t think he can claim that no one can use his photograph as long as the graduation is a news event.

          If they take the picture and blur his features, then they can use it? Interesting area, but is probably distracting from the main issue of the lame excuses this guy made.

      3. Unless a picture is in the public domain, it is protected by copyright law. Yes, even the pictures I took of my kittens a few days ago are protected by copyright law. It’s always safe to assume that, unless otherwise stated, ANY content you find online is protected.

        1. See, I used the word “See” online — now, anytime someone uses it, they are infringing on my copyright. ๐Ÿ‘ฟ

          I appreciate the point you are making, but this can get ridiculous: If I send you email, and you forward it to others, have you violated my “copyright”?? Seems more sensible to assume that if you post a picture of yourself or others in a public place, you’re taking a risk of what people might do with it.

        2. If you post on Facebook or twitter, etc, you often release your copyright by TOS when you created your account. If you create a website & post original content to that website (such as SFL), it is still your content, pics, posts, etc.

        3. I didn’t sa it was all copyrighted. I an said it was safe to assume it was — in other words, CYA by not copying and pasting crap from all over just because “The Internetz is free, y’all!!!”

          I have absolutely no use for plagiarists and people who infringe on copyrights. Some of us make a living with our intellectual property. When someone comes and scrapes that content, they are stealing from us and taking money from our pockets.

          I get that this is a joke for some people, but I can’t see the humor in stealing from others. shrug

        4. Guilt Ridden, some of the points you raise have to do with the expectation of privacy (that’s a legal term of art). At a public or semi-public event like a graduation ceremony, there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy, just as there would be none in a park or on a street. So it’s fair game for anyone to take a picture, and to use it in news reporting and so on. But that doesn’t mean the photographer can then do whatever she or he wants to with the image. For example, if a graduation gown company wanted to use your son’s picture in an ad, they would still need his permission, and customarily they should pay him something for the use. They might get around much of this is his face were so blurred no one knew it was him, but that would make a decidedly inferior ad.

          What kind of privacy people are entitled to on the Internet is a contentious issue that is far from being settled, but on Facebook and Twitter there’s probably no “expectation of privacy.” Just this week, Google even said there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy for g-mail messages. So people can freely repeat or publicize what you say on Twitter or Facebook and maybe even in your own g-mail. However, if they wanted to collect all your pearls of wisdom into a book and sell the book, they would need your permission.

          About copyrighting the word “see”: You can never copyright (or patent) something that’s already in widespread use, nor something you did not originate. The word “see” has been in very common use for centuries, so no luck there. There are inherent problems with claiming ownership of a word, so in general no word can be copyrighted. You can sometimes trademark a word, but that doesn’t mean other people can’t say that word or write it; they just can’t use it as a brand name for a similar product.

        5. * unless you’re a patent troll companies IP attorney, including now-a-days, Apple, Samsung, Google, Microsoft, etc.

        6. Some of this discussion makes my point that assuming “everything” on the internet is copyrighted is just as bad as saying everything is free.

          As Big Gary says, it is a complex area (I wasn’t serious about “see”, as I assume everyone reading it knows). I can certainly see someone not realizing that a picture posted in public (like the Internet) may not be free for use, but the author certainly should have checked what the picture was of, and he made things much worse by getting defensive and claiming he was being persecuted.

  4. Typical fundy M.O. Get caught doing something wrong, illegal etc. just blame the accuser.

    Or in the this case, blame the enemy. Which is apparently us idiots on SFL. :mrgreen:

  5. Wow. I call B.S. on this guy. Instead of saying “oops, I messed up. I had no idea that was a TV show picture and not some “Awkward Family Photo,” he said, “FALSELY ACCUSED!” No one lied, or broke the 9th Commandment.

    My Granny used to get so mad at these preachers who preached against owning a TV. She always said, “I bet their family pulls a TV out of the closet after they leave and watch it all day.”

    1. Our preacher used to rant and rave against TV and worldly music and then one day my sisters went to a birthday party for the preacher’s granddaughter at his house and they played GAC country music TV the whole time. Later found out that our pastor watched Oprah and Dr. Phil all the time as well, even though he regularly preached against those shows as well. But we all finally realized that there was no way that he could have known things about those shows unless he had actually watched them.

  6. He took someone else’s professional photo, showing someone else’s “family,” posted on someone else’s website, and used it without permission on a product he listed for sale for his own profit on Amazon. Seems legit. (at least according to globally accepted Fundy copyright law)

    1. Fundy prooftext for copyright violations:

      Exodus 3:22: “But every woman shall borrow of her neighbor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.”

      Never mind the fact that IN THE SAME BOOK OF THE BIBLE, God prohibits stealing. Fundies interpret this verse to mean that we can take what we like from “the world” without any compunction or qualms.

        1. Yes. I missed the conversation yesterday about copyright because I was out of town, but this was always the prooftext I was told justified copyright violations. I once pointed out that it didn’t really make sense in the context of Xeroxing choir music and ACE paces, but that was justified with Acts 2:44 about the early church holding all their property in common.

          I grew up in a very smart-ass fundy church.

        2. You got to Xerox your PACEs?? We had to erase them and re-use them, and all that time, we could have been practicing copyright violation with God’s Stamp of Approval. I feel defrauded now.

        3. For the record, I never Xeroxed any PACEs. But the Christian school at our church did so regularly. (I didn’t go to said Christian school, because they are worldly and sinful and the only biblical way of educating a child is at home. When my dad became a deacon, my mother was invited to give her testimony at a Sunday evening service and instead of giving her testimony, she preached a sermon about why home-schooling is the only Biblical way to educate your children, using Deut. 11:19 as her prooftext. Yeah. It was super awkward, especially since the church school was still operating at that time.)

  7. Two hover texts in one post. Bonus!

    Still can’t get over the whole “Falsely Accused” thing. “Rightfully Accused” of using a picture from Modern Family is more like it.

    Jes’ fess up and move on, Sehorne.

  8. Interesting that he would never condone the wickedness of TV but here he is on the internet…

    Also, with sites like Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, etc., the phrase “I don’t own a TV” has now become meaningless.

    1. – I won’t have a tv because there is wickedness on tv.

      – I will have an internet connection because there is no wickedness on the internet

      Oh, wait…

    2. That was my first thought. If he has access to the internet, maybe he shouldn’t be worrying so much about all the wickedness on the TV set.

      Actually, he should use that internet connection to do a quick Google search on some basic copyright law.

      1. I don’t own a tv. I don’t have time for tv, and the few shows we do watch (ok, just one right now – Longmire – but only until the new season of Doctor Who) is available on Amazon and is way cheaper than tv. I am thinking about getting one to watch football, though.

        1. With the way Philly is shaping up this year you may as well wait another decade or so. ๐Ÿ˜›

    3. I confess that I was proud of not owning a television set.
      Then I started watching a lot of videos on the computer, and my wife started spending half the day looking at her iPhone.
      I admitted defeat, and bought a TV so we could watch movies on a larger screen. ๐Ÿ˜

    1. Yeah, somebody oughta get a copy of the book, then scan and post it online for free download. Then say, “Well, I found it on the internet, so I assumed it wasn’t copyrighted…”

      See how long that holds water with him. ๐Ÿ˜ˆ

  9. Oh lord, a book on children? Let me guess: “beat ’em ’til they bleed while screaming jesus in their ears.” Just that one sentence, over and over, with a few tips on how to hide bruises & scars from child-snatching CPS.

    That’s the true horror here. Fundie parenting books. ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

  10. I know a few fundies who claimed they didn’t have a TV but would discuss popular shows with great knowledge. I always wanted to ask them , “Then how did you know about X?” but never had the nerve to. :mrgreen:

  11. It’s behavior from guys like this which makes me want to enroll in seminary.

    Where’s the fruit of the Spirit, Mister Manogod dude? Grow a set, scrape together some humility, & admit you screwed up!

  12. Maybe someone needs to write an ebook promoting liberal theology and homosexuality and use his picture on the cover, assuming it would be okay . . . any volunteers?

        1. FALSLEY ACCUSED! I had no idea when I googled large bearded man that there was some wicked meaning behind the term!

          [Insert Bible Verse here]

        2. Here’s the verse (and it’s from Doug Sehorne’s favorite book):

          “Better to meet a she-bear robbed of her cubs, whan to confront a fool immersed in folly.”
          Proverbs 17:12

        3. Let’s try that again, George:

          โ€œBetter to meet a she-bear robbed of her cubs, than to confront a fool immersed in folly.โ€
          Proverbs 17:12

    1. Dear R. Wales:

      We don’t need to write a book. Plenty exist now. I’m currently reading Gustavo Gutiรฉrrez’ ‘Theology of Liberation.’

      We’ve got Doug’s mug shot. We just need to steal Gutiรฉrrez’ work and then pretend we didn’t know this was a ยฉ violation.

      I’m sure this procedure is sound because Doug says that the accusation against him is false.

      Christian Socialist

    2. Dear R. Wales,

      Are the the R. Wales from Maine who had a young lady from Australia visit your home in September of 2005? If so, it’s great to see you on here, and I grew up some. ๐Ÿ™‚

      1. “The beard debate” sounds like an argument among gay BJU grads as to what women they should take as their fake girlfriends to their fellow BJU grad’s wedding. (And if you don’t think that happens ALL THE TIME, you don’t have enough former BJU friends on Facebook!)

        1. OK, I have no trouble believing that the beard-at-the-friend’s-wedding thing is common with BJU grads, but do they really debate on Facebook about who to bring?

        2. Poor wording: they don’t get dates on facebook. But the gays (closeted and not) at the wedding issue comes up with greater and greater frequency in the BJU community, esp among the arts grads.

  13. Dear Doug Sehorne Reader:

    ‘Wo be to you when all men prayse you: for so dyd their fathers to the false prophetes’ (Luk 6:26 Tyndale’s Bible].

    Here in Cleveland Ariel Castro, confessed kidnapper, rapist and murderer has depicted himself as a good, kind, caring and non-violent person who has been victimized by society and some mysterious disease.

    Might Ariel Castor qualify for the Lu 6:26 exemption?

    Christian Socialist

    PS: Didn’t I imply just yesterday that if 10 or more people read his screed, that there’d be a phone call? Fess up, guys! Who paid the $.99 just to cause trouble for this imbecilic orangutan?

    PPS: Just say ‘yes’ to beards! Why?

    1] I have one.
    2] Sometimes, pissing against the wall just isn’t enough.

    PPPS: If you laughed at the previous remark, you should pay me $.50; remember, I’m doing the Lord’s work here.

    1. PPS: Just say โ€˜yesโ€™ to beards! Why?
      1] I have one.
      2] Sometimes, pissing against the wall just isnโ€™t enough.
      3] They’re awesome. And sexy.
      4] Jesus had one. Be like Jesus.

      ^There, CS. Fixed that for you. ๐Ÿ˜›

    2. I can think of a lot of people who’d like to make use of this doctrine that when people say you’ve done wrong, it means you’re holy:

      Anthony Weiner (who at least does his own photography)
      Bob Filner (who has just been banned from HOOTER’S: http://abcnews.go.com/US/mayor-bob-filner-banned-san-diego-hooters/story?id=19958389 )
      Governor Bob McDonnell http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/08/bob_mcdonnell_turns_on_jonnie_williams.php
      Jesse L. Jacskon, Jr. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/jesse-l-jackson-jr-set-to-be-sentenced-in-dc-federal-court/2013/08/13/ac5e8296-0452-11e3-88d6-d5795fab4637_story.html

      etc.

      1. I do love love love the story on Filner being banned from Hooters. I saw last night that apparently either Glen Beck started the campaign to ban him from Hooters or at least is promoting it, and that works just fine with me. The more people protesting sexual harassers/assaulters the better.

        1. Glen Beck is now defending the honor of Hooters?

          Either irony is dead, or there’s nothing left but irony in the world.

        2. Whatever gets their name out there. It’s a show and their end goals is $$$. Nothing more, nothing less.

        3. I just can’t decide whether it’s more ironic for Hooters to position itself as the defender of respect for women, or for Glenn Beck to do so, or for the two names to be associated in this context. ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

  14. I would bet that this guy spends countless hours lambasting parents about how the Teletubbies are subverting our youth, and we need to be vigilant against the devil’s tricks…all the while never cutting anyone slack for an “honest mistake” like he is claiming here. His response pegged the “Hypocrite” setting on my Fundy BS Detector.

  15. Luke 19:8b:
    and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore [him] fourfold.

    It would seem to me the Biblical Way to make it right would be to contact Disney with an apology and pay them 4x the cost of licensing fee for the photo’s use.

    1. Note: Jesus, Zacchaeus & Luke all failed to check whether the people had been stolen from or were to be repaid were morally upright enough to merit retribution.

      1. My fundy mother once applied this verse as follows. Somehow, I forget how, my siblings and I had these bags of candy. I inadvertently ate a small bag of M&Ms from one of my siblings’ bags, believing that I had taken it from my own bag. My mother then allowed my sibling to select four items from my bag as retribution for my “hateful theft and deceit.”

        1. You have to be making some of your mom stories up. Please. You’re making some up, right? Pretty please? Dude.

        2. Some moms really are pretty evil ๐Ÿ™ Mine wasn’t as blatant with her spite and anger, but she came pretty close to what DS describes in intent and outcome. It can happen.

        3. I don’t make them up, unfortunately. In fact, I omit the really bad ones. I just enjoy telling the bizarre ones, because they usually involved my mother thinking she was such a genius fundy mom to come up with whatever she did, but it really just made her look ridiculous.

        4. You know you grew up fundy when you can read/watch Running with Scissors, and think, “wow, that was weird, but it wasn’t THAT weird.”

        5. D’S, still think we should send your mother to the Middle East, she sounds like the only person formidable enough to pull it off. ๐Ÿ˜€

        6. I meant, make peace in the Middle East and make it stick. Fingers ran ahead of my brain again. ๐Ÿ˜ณ

  16. Doesn’t scripture also say:
    Do all things without grumbling or disputing, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world…

    and

    Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,

    I just finished reading Romans 12-15 and I found quite a bit in there that I would counsel Mr Sehorne to take some time and read, study and meditate on. I know that I shall after reading it.

    The take away here is “Ethics”. Just because one wears the title Evangelist or Christian doesn’t mean that their ethics are automatically sanctified and marked with God’s stamp of approval. In fact, I believe more often than not the so-called Christian’s ethical behavior becomes a stumbling block to those around them, especially those who have positions of authority in the Christian subculture.

    I know I have been guilty of such behavior in the past, not that I have ever had a position of authority. However, the more authority one claims the more egregious the behavior becomes. That is why it is so important to have men of good moral and ethical character in political and religious positions of power. (Though I believe either Plato, or Aristotle, would argue that the immoral person would be the more effective in that position.) I would counsel Mr Sehorne to own up to his error and remove his stumbling block post-haste.

    1. One of my Ethics professors used to say, “The fact that I’m an ethicist doesn’t mean I behave better than other people. It just means I know why what I do is wrong.” ๐Ÿ˜‰

  17. You guys do realize that all of this is just going to end up as a future sermon illustration, don’t you? He’ll get the amen corner shouting and spitting as he talks about getting percykuted for standing against the sodomights!

    Bleh.

      1. Scorpio, you have an amazing ability to remember phrases used by IFB preachers. It is very impressive.

        “wrestle with what to preach” man, it’s been two decades since I’ve heard that!

  18. Oh I totally bought his book, read it, and returned it. I grew up hearing this man preach often. It the same thing you hear anywhere.
    If they are old enough to pull up, you should be smacking their hand and saying no, older kids require more severe punishment, sometimes leaving marks (by the blueness of the wound…), he one time spanked his 3 or 4 yo daughter 18 times to teach her to stay in bed, and his oldest son was spanked 23 times for repeatedly saying “NO!” to him.
    You know. The usual stuff.

      1. “This book is older, as it makes reference to his daughter, who he no longer recognizes …”

        Obviously he’s an expert on good parenting, then. ๐Ÿ‘ฟ

        1. Grew up, got out of the Fundy crap, has her own life. Just the usual for us former Fundy Kids.

        1. It’s pretty sad. I’ve been in games at Papa John’s Cardinal Stadium in Louisville and Heinz Field in Pittsburgh where the WVU fans actually outnumbered the fans of the home team. And games where they didn’t outnumber but were still louder. But I generally like both cities and totally understand why their fans have more self-respect than to cheer against the Mountaineers.

      1. Yeah, even though the New Testament specifically FORBIDS “breaking the will.” That is, it tells parents not to cause their children to become “athumeo” which roughly means “without a heart” (with “heart” having the ancient connotation of courage, spirit, etc.).

      2. So what does “breaking the will” mean exactly? And how is that different than “breaking the spirit”? My dad always said about the two of us who were strong-willed that he had to break our wills without breaking our spirits. I never knew what he meant, but it sounded scary to a kid hearing it.

        1. I guess the goal is to have you blindly obey, but be happy about it.
          That’s probably not a realistic goal, but that’s about the best I can do to construe “break the will but not the spirit.”

  19. So it completely flew over his head that the big problem here was that he STOLE what did not belong to him? That he violated a copyright?

    And instead of apologizing for his theft and copyright infringement, he goes on a diatribe about how he hates teh gayz?

    Well ok then.

  20. I’m the one that wrote the review and called him a nut. I grew up in fundyland and thankfully I realized what a cult they all are. Mr. Sehorne is far too interested in what other people spend their money on and picking fights on FB.

  21. I never heard of this guy, so I’m not going to question his sincerity. However, based on the things I’ve read here, he seems to be totally off his rocker. In my humble opinion, the best response to an unintentional copyright violation is an, “Oops. Sorry I was a bonehead for not exercising due diligence.” His response was bizarre, self aggrandizing, and just plain silly.

    In any event, here’s a guy that has 41 followers. My middle son has more than twice that many, and he’s only in the 6th grade.

    Question: How serious is the danger–if indeed there is any danger at all–posed by a crank with a teeny tiny platform?

    Peace,

    1. He only has a few followers because generally speaking, the churches he associates with don’t approve of FB. His platform is not tiny; he is an evangelist that is in a meeting quite frequently and as a person who often sat under his teachings as a teenager, he makes his own rules about topics that can mess with a persons head. I know it did mine. He can by an absolute tyrant if he needs to be.

        1. Meh. About 60-100 per meeting, he’s had about 10 meetings this year, and probably 3/4 of those, mostly the menfolk, are in agreement with him and his beliefs. Maybe not a huge, Hyles amount of people, but enough to mess with some people. I heard him 2-3 times a year as a child/teenager and he often preached sermons that messed with my head and soul. If he influences on more person like he did me, then that’s one too many.

  22. So are the people who are reading this and reporting to him going to report back that we knew perfectly well he never watched that particular TV program (and I honestly don’t think many of the posters here do either). It was the irony that he picked that picture randomly off of google imagines without looking at the source or for copyright information. There are pictures on there that have a free use clause with them…just takes a bit of searching.

    1. I’ve never seen that TV show, and I don’t care what its content is.
      I just think it’s hilarious that he swiped that picture without knowing what it was, and not caring that it was somebody else’s property, and now he’s feeling all martyred because those facts have been pointed out.

      1. What is even more disconcerting to me is that his random selection of a family photo on google images could have been a non-fictional one. My family (or yours) could have graced the cover of his “booket”.

        1. My family’s not photogenic enough (especially when I’m in the picture).
          If yours is, well, congratulations. ๐Ÿ™‚

  23. I had a similar experience. Evangelist Dave Young preached at a seminary I was attending. In his message he used the phrase “Git ‘er done!” Afterwards I approached him and casually mentioned that I was also a fan of Larry the Cable Guy. He had no idea what I was talking about (or pretended not to) and then proceeded to rip me up one side and down the other for knowing of an “ungodly worldly tv show from the devil”.

        1. I have some firsthand knowledge of his bad behavior and a LOT of secondhand knowledge of the same, mostly from my wife who worked as a counselor at the Bill Rice Ranch for two summers when he was “staff evangelist” there. In typical fundy fashion, it’s the million little things that add up to one super dud of a guy, but it’s hard to point to just two or three “big things” in a blog comment. If I had to pick just one, it would be his staggering pride/ego. Not a trait I admire in any minister of the gospel.

  24. Luke 6:26 “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you” Great choice of verses; tell Doug not to worry, that’s not going to happen anytime soon. Seems he’s more upset over something that didn’t happen than what did. (Sounds like my ex.) ๐Ÿ™„
    I do suppose this blowhard has a point, however pithy, once he found out his precious Fundy book was adorned with a picture associated, however distantly, with a gay couple on TV that WASN’T being damned, I could understand his feelings of embarassmen– I mean persecution, hay-men? ๐Ÿ˜›
    Me thinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

  25. Regarding Sehorne’s 2nd post above –

    He is glad people think he is a nut. That schtick may play well with the kool-aid drinkers, but how does that play to the lost in the world?

    1. Everyone knows that reaching the lost is much easier if they think you’re a nut, right? Because Philippians 4:5 means to moderate debates, not to be a reasonable person? ๐Ÿ™„

    1. I’ve never heard of a Baptist pastor staying until a new pastor was called.

      They pretty much always leave and then the church starts the hunt for a new leader.

      1. I did not know that. Oh wait, I meant to say:

        FALSELY ACCUSED!
        1. I have never been a pastor
        2. blah blah blah
        3. blah blah blah
        4. blah blah sodomites blah

    2. I concur with Darrell. There are only a few instances I know of where the old pastor has stuck around until the new one was installed. And those were nepotistic appointings. ๐Ÿ˜•

      In my spouse’s case, he warned the deacon board 2 months’ notice BEFORE he officially announced his resignation. His resignation was effective 1 month after the announcement, so they had 3 months to seek a new pastor. The church didn’t begin to look for a replacement (despite our encouragement otherwise) until after we were gone.

    3. Perhaps I’m getting more skeptical, but there have been enough IFB pastor who “resign” and “go into evangelism” – only to find out later that they were guilty of some gross immorality and covered it up by “going into evangelism”, where the rules for being a pastor don’t apply…

      This has happened enough that I wonder every time I hear a pastor has “resigned and gone into evangelism” if he was actually caught at something.

        1. No, screwing the nut is what his wife does … or used to do.

          I didn’t just say that, did I? ๐Ÿ˜ณ

  26. Funny how when these so called Pastors loose their jobs pastoring… all of a sudden Ala-ka-Bamm-Qualified* …presto-chango they are Evangelists!!

    *at no time did you see my arm leave my sleeve

  27. I have always found it interesting how they preach their “Bible-based” human standards at everyone and use those standards to pass judgment on everyone’s spirituality or lack thereof. Then when they get caught in some sort of wrong doing, they somehow still manage to quote all sorts of Bible verses to justify their wrong doing and still put the blame on everyone else. The absolute arrogance and absolute hypocrisy is astounding! Yet they are so blind to it it and take such pride in their own ignorance. To be proud of being a “NUT” . . . there is just something wrong with that thinking.

  28. Any moron should know that you just can’t yank a pic off the Internet and use it. Seriously. What makes him think he can do that? The nerve to basically STEAL then call out the people who called him on it ‘wicked’!

    1. Ah, but it’s not really stealing because it’s being used for the LAWD’s work, hay-men! so that means it’s perfectly okay! ๐Ÿ˜›
      Except of course this was a picture connected to those Godless homosexuals, so somehow it’s the owner’s fault for having such sinful pictures, which is like going to the police to complain that the car you stole doesn’t work and therefore you want to persecute the car’s owner. ๐Ÿ™„

  29. Bwhahahahahaha! That is perfect. I love that they called him about it though. I also love the idea that since it was on the internet he automatically assumed it was free.

      1. That’s too bad. The book’s probably not going to be that good. Maybe I’ll go to Barnes and Nobles and order it using “See Horny.” Those folks will appreciate a good laugh.

        1. Alright DS. You can still play on the internet. But you still have to be in bed by 10pm sharp.

  30. Calling this a false accusation is a flat out lie. He stole a picture. Will he apologize to the owner of the picture he stole? Are they not good enough in his eyes to be worthy of an apology?

    And I agree that someone should write a booklet Doug Sehorne would not approve of and use his non-copyrighted picture on the cover! It would serve him right for doing the exact same thing to the actors in the picture and owners of the image. An eye for an eye and all that.

  31. This is hilarious to me on so many levels. He’s a man-child who cannot admit when he is wrong, cannot make an apology. He gets angry at others for his own incompetence. He refuses to hold himself up to the expectations of any normal adult by acting the victim for plagiarizing. Seriously, he is like one of those kids on youtube that write “no copyright infringement intended!” as if that excuses them from legal liability.

    And yet he’s the one teaching others through preaching and writing. That part is not so funny ๐Ÿ™

    You would think that this fiasco would teach him a lesson about being more careful and knowledgeable, but instead he assumes the world is out to get him. Must be nice to have a theology that excuses you from being a responsible human being.

  32. How many of you have reached out to him? Curious. Not suggesting that he should get a bunch of snarky, profanity-laced missives, but curious if anyone has tried to engage him.

    1. There’s a good 20 tweets to him as of this morning. At first I wasn’t sure if he ever logged in or checked twitter (most of his posts are autogenerated links to his facebook posts), but there are several where he replied to a tweet, so he must check sometimes (probably not often). I’m unaware of anyone else contacting him via any other means.

      1. I always assume that if I’m not a friend they are very unlikely to see the message. Those go into a sub folder “other” and you have to know to go look for them.

        1. I don’t expect him to read my message any more than I expect him to realize that he committed a copyright violation.

      2. I wasn’t willing to click “follow” to try to comment on his ridiculous statements. I believe he does see twitter comments (he responded to someone pleading innocence/ignorance).

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.