For all who might wonder whether Entrecard is worth it, especially now that Graham Langdon is advertising "special" deals for $250 each, let me tell you that since the RLCC was banned by Entrecard, traffic has fallen off by a little less than the number of regular droppers. In other words, the content of the site was not compelling visitors but rather the visitors an opportunity quickly to drop to earn a credit. Now, you might think that those Entrecarders were for the most part killing two birds with one stone, so to speak, that they were earning a credit but also reading. Well, now that they've stopped coming en masse, the time that visitors are spending on this site has quadrupled and stands at its highest average rate since this blog went public. So, what would that $250 really buy? Could it be put to better use, perhaps to the highest and best use?

I was on Entrecard to get the message in front of eyes for a while — always knowing that eventually I would be banned. The eyes over there that belong to those who were even slightly interested in what real Christianity might have to offer, in their view, visited and saw. That's that.

After the banning, I was anonymously messaged that I had made a big mistake, meaning I had harmed the cause of the Christian Commons Project. What a shallow view. It is not I who harmed or has been harmed in that sense.

It was time to move on, to shake the dust from my feet, which I have done.

Visitors will also note that no proper responses have been forthcoming from Entrecard or any of its moderators, including M_att O_xley, who has had more than enough time to answer concerning especially EuroYank's banning from Entrecard. That is why I shook the dust.

[NOTE: This post has been subsequently added to the series "Entrecard" because it is referenced in the email response to Entrecard's decision.]


Here is the message I received from Entrecard. Please note that they have precluded any appeal.

Your account 'Real Liberal Christian Church & Christian Commons' on entrecard.com has been deleted. The administrator gave the following reason:

attacking EC staff and misleading members. This decision will not be reversed

Please contact [deleted]@entrecard.com if you have any questions regarding this action.

Please include the following:
User ID: 26275

My email reply:

There was no attack until this:

I have never laid personal attack on you but I have to wonder why there is no category for "zealot" on Entrecard...you may feel more at home there.

see...that doesn't feel too good does it?

That came from your moderator, M_att O_xley.


I have never laid personal attack on you but I have to wonder why there is no category for "zealot" on Entrecard...you may feel more at home there.

see...that doesn't feel too good does it?

I had written nothing attacking Matt or any other EC staff. I had merely suggested a category addition/change: Hardly an attack?

Your moderator even characterized his statement as an attack. He took my suggestion for a category as an attack, and he commenced to do harm, didn't he? You know he did. So will everyone else.

It was a punch from your moderator. It was not called for? I suggested a category. He came to the site and threw the pejorative "zealot" at me. I had called him what he calls himself: Atheist. He knows that the Zealots were anti-Christ. It was an attack, hence his statement, "that doesn't feel too good does it?" That's not mistakable. That's an attack - a first strike. From there, it was a highly activist Atheist versus a highly activist Christian.

What you've done is allowed M_att O_xley to hit out at others and then run behind Entrecard for cover. Anyone telling it as it is thereafter and from a purely religious standpoint is deleted.

From that point, I was inundated with extreme attacks many of whom submitted comments without following the name rule. Therefore, their comments are not showing on the RLCC site.

M_att O_xley expressly wrote about himself, "My feelings are not hurt." Therefore, what attack? However, he also wrote, "My blog is centered on the destruction of religion." That means that his blog is centered on the destruction of my life, yet you call him a non-attacker when he comes to my site to tell me he's out to destroy me? It's okay with you that your moderators can work to destroy my life's work, but I am not allowed to stand up against that? That's utter hypocrisy.

Tell me one thing I did that you say was wrong toward Matt that Matt did not do toward me? I don't stop Matt with anything but my words, but you stop me from being able to speak. Why? Your actions are clearly discrimination on account of religion.

Matt wrote:

I don't think you personally have attacked me prior to this post...but you certainly have shown me your true colors (you already had once, which is why I never bothered responding to your reply to my other comments on your blog)...you wanted to attack me, i just made it easier...i know how you think, though that may surprise you.

When i called you a zealot I was being playful...giving you an opportunity to retort in the way that you truly wanted to...you simply filled the role that I expected you to fill...You have the right to call me evil, be it inherited or chosen on my part, and you don't have to coddle to my Atheism at all.

At best, taking Matt's words on face value, he has admitted that he had not been attacked and called me a "zealot" to start a fight. It's as clear as clear can be, and you're protecting him and providing him with a platform that you are denying me because he's an atheist and I'm a Christian. That's a fact.

Also, since he was acting in his official capacity, then why don't his words matter here: "You [that's me, Tom Usher] have the right to call me evil, be it inherited or chosen on my part, and you don't have to coddle to my Atheism at all." So, your moderator says I can, but "The administrator" can reverse the moderator without notice to the banned blogger or without any right of appeal. That's what has happened here.

Matt also wrote about himself, "nothing I do now harms anyone in any way whatsoever." That was after coming to my site and calling me a zealot, which he admitted was designed to hurt feelings and start a fight.

He also, your moderator, trolling, called me a liar on my own site. He said, "The Truth doesn't know you." He knows my religion is that Jesus Christ is the truth. He came to my site to attack me and to destroy my religion, and you're working to help him. He did so apparently in his official capacity as an Entrecard moderator else you would not have applied any rule concerning your moderators. Your rules apply across the whole Internet no matter the actions of your moderators?

Now, I have to wonder whether M_att O_xley's blog has been likewise deleted. I will check. I'm sure it hasn't. Of course, it's obvious why I'll find it still active in Entrecard. Anti-Christs are welcome. Those who stand up to them, are not. Am I wrong? No, I'm right.

You are mistaken. You have arbitrarily sided with your moderator who instigated. He started the problem, which is indisputable. I have also gone to great lengths to explain the theology of everything I said, much of which M_att O_xley openly, pridefully, embraced in reverse. He embraced the names.

He even claimed in his comment that he was setting me up, taking actions designed to elicit what he says he knew would happen. Do you know that that's illegal? He has deliberately and with malice aforethought damaged the RLCC and Christian Commons Project. He has openly stated on my blog that it was premeditated on his part. Are you really going to let it stand? He did it using Entrecard. He did as an insider at Entrecard. Entrecard has now been told. If it does nothing, it is an accomplice: Complicit.

I posted two posts in detail before discovering that you had deleted the blog. Those posts were written without having been influenced by the deletion. They are honest, open, and direct.

It is clear that on Entrecard at this time, it's okay for your moderators to troll the Internet and to leave attacking comments but that any defense by any Entrecard member will be punished with banishment and in the case of the RLCC, the loss of hundreds and hundreds of hours of work to bank over 28,000 EC [28,950, to be exact], which technically the RLCC owns and you are stealing. Those EC have a future value.

It is up to you how you want to run Entrecard.

Many people are going to realize that you deleted my blog not from a spirit of fundamental fairness but rather in protection of the one who came to the RLCC site and "laid personal attack" and did so first, which is obvious to every honest person.

The Entrecard users have a right to know what happened.

As for misleading members, you'll have to explain that. Misleading them how and about what? I'm the one misleading people here?

Of course, your forum is now restricted so that members will find it very difficult to communicate with one another concerning your unfair actions toward the RLCC.

Now it must appear more than slightly suspicious to all why I was ignored for weeks on end concerning my trouble tickets while other's blogs advertised away and received plenty of click-throughs but the RLCC's ads did not run even though paid for. The spirit there would have dropped everything to get M_att O_xley's ads running if he had had a problem. My problem dragged on week after week with only one murmur and that was to say there is no problem and to notify me that the ticket was closed. There's no misleading anyone about anything on my side. I was open about it all. You are the ones who have become more closed.

Nevertheless, Peace and Blessing to All,

For: The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project
Tom Usher

  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.