More silliness from Prairie Bible Institute alumni

Catherine Darnell is a patient, quiet, intelligent Canadian who has dedicated her life as an advocate and mentor for abuse survivors.

Catherine has been able to tap into the marvel of social networking to align advocates and survivors together for projects that are having a global impact. Catherine is much sought after by ministries and organizations that see she is passionately aware of the needs of abuse survivors in faith-based environments. She has a passion to see faith communities rise to their God-given responsibility to acknowledge and care for the needs of those wounded.

Catherine helped start the Facebook group for Prairie Bible Institute abuse survivors.

You’d think, given her skills and her polite Canadian approach to PBI leadership, that asking to befriended by a FB group called Friends of PBI wouldn’t be a problem. Since Prairie Bible Institute went to national media in 2011, Catherine has been reaching out to PBI President Mark Maxell and his family members involved with the Alberta bible school. She is a bridge builder, and wants to help PBI alumni understand why PBI survivors aren’t giving up.

When I talked with Mark Maxwell, I mentioned that I felt it was important for me to be able to gain access to group members in order to clear up any misunderstandings, and allow members to ask me questions if they wish. He emailed me a couple of weeks ago to see if I had reconnected with Ruth, and if I had been given permission to join the group. The reasons for banning me make no sense whatsoever!

Friends of PBI, are not interested in befriending Catherine, or any PBI abuse survivors. While I wouldn’t bother trying to be part of a group which does not want anything to do with me, I admire Christians like Catherine who honour their calling as teacher and peace maker.

Friends of PBI

Since the end of 2011, many PBI alumni have had great difficulty acknowledging abuse occurred at their bible school, and many have been aggressive and passive aggressive in their opposition to PBI abuse survivors.  You’d think someone as skilled and as experienced as Catherine would not be a threat, and her peace making skills would be welcomed as encouraging and positive. Nope.

…the administrators have decided that it’s not in the best interest of the group as a whole to have you join our conversation. We don’t mean to offend; however, please understand that we have observed a history over two years in which you and others have joined “general-purpose” FB groups and dominated them with discussions around abuse, be they PBI-related or otherwise. This has typically led to some unhelpful hostility on both sides and resulted in good people leaving the groups previously enjoyed by all. While we believe that the topic of abuse is a very important one and is deserving of FB group time, it’s not the purpose of this particular group. We would say the same to someone who was “taking over” the discussion about any other particular passion, be it homeless in Chicago or AIDS in Africa. We affirm your passion to bring healing to abused people but suggest that instead of bringing that to this group, that you continue to do so in groups that exist for that express purpose and for an audience that share that same passion.

gerdleonhard.typepad

About Bene Diction

Have courage for the great sorrows, And patience for the small ones. And when you have laboriously accomplished your tasks, go to sleep in peace. God is awake.
This entry was posted in Prairie Bible Institute. Bookmark the permalink.

198 Responses to More silliness from Prairie Bible Institute alumni

  1. ZMT says:

    This has gone from ridiculous to insane. Linda shame on you for “outing” young sexual assault victims. You should know better. You should be held responsible and legally liable for the damage that comes their way as a result of your words. Young people are constantly on the internet and will read your garbage. I don’t care if DEW or Doug or the toothfairy is their father or mother. This was wrong on every level. Go ahead and attack me. I am a fully grown man and can take it. Leave the children alone. Everyone deserves to tell their story at the time of their own choosing. If ever.

  2. PG says:

    Oh, now DEW is monitory “swearing”. That’ll shut em up!!

  3. No time for this nonsense…Ted you are the best!

  4. Perhaps we need to share this blog post with a broader audience. How about a #Prairie twitter hashtag campaign where students, Mark, the admin and other interested parties could weigh in and engage in the conversation. I can register hashtags so we can all follow and participate.

  5. fjc says:

    It seems to me that the most un Christian thing that anyone can do is to fail to bring an abuser to criminal justice-since they will without doubt go on to abuse dozens more of innocent victims. I would not want this on my conscience.

    This seems so self evident to me than I simply cannot comprehend why anyone would hesitate to do anything else.

    But I come at this subject from the perspective of common sense and from a parents point of view.

    I did not have a PBI education. And I consider myself very fortunate not have attended PBI if this is truly the predisposition of the leadership, the Board, or the alumni.

  6. MEC says:

    Cath- go for it!

    fjc- I agree with you.

  7. fjc says:

    Putting it ‘under the blood’ is absolutely the silliest, and the most dangerous, thing that I have ever heard.

    Sometimes you just want to say to someone….give your head a shake and get in the real game-the here and now.

    It is no wonder the individuals who espouse this nonsense are viewed with disdain by the public, the law enforcement agencies, the professionals who deal the abused, and the abused themselves. We are not in the dark ages any more.

  8. MEC says:

    I would think Bene that you should get some kind of award for writing blogs that get the most comments!!!! Stirring up the hornets’ nest sure reveals hearts!

  9. ZMT, you can quit scolding me anytime. Perhaps you didn’t know that back in 2011 when this whole war started, Doug wanted to be involved with the survivors. He told everyone online who would listen about his adopted daughters. Apparently he felt this made him an expert on abuse and would make us survivors want to hang on to his every word. The sad thing is that he was as abrasive as Fred Whaples was and succeeded in antagonizing nearly every survivor he came in contact with. He was one of the major players in the breakup of the original FB group for survivors and immediately started the Friends of PBI group. He first called it “The Real Friends of PBI” as a nice slap in the face to the survivors until someone called him on it. It was in this group that people began to pray against us as “enemies of God sent by satan to destroy the school”.

    fjc, you are more fortunate than you know not to have been at this school. The comments here are just the tip of iceberg of the dysfunctional, twisted teaching of PBI. As little children we were brainwashed – right was made to be wrong and wrong was made to be right. “Under the blood” was just a pious way of saying “mind your own business and quit judging”.

    I am fully convinced that PBI has no intention of dealing with the abuse scandal. They had a golden opportunity to work with someone who is a bridge-builder but they have rejected Catherine. They don’t want to deal with the truth – they don’t want to know what happened. They just want to live with their heads in the sand and have their little “bless me clubs” where they can exclude anyone who might have an original thought. They keep praising an institution that is on the brink of death and worship at the throne of LE Maxwell. It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

    When anyone dares to challenge the system and speak the truth, the vicious attackers come out of the woodwork to protect the emperor and his throne. They will do anything to discredit and destroy those who dare to speak out. And these vicious attackers have the full blessing of the administration. Not once has Mark Maxwell ever publicly called for calm and for the alumni to stop these attacks. They are just what he wants.

    Meanwhile the donations keep coming in and the alumni choose to be ignorant and life goes on in a little hick town in Alberta where the Kool-aid is always flowing and ignorance is bliss.

  10. fjc says:

    Linda, from my perspective it is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo by people who are afraid, or unwilling for whatever reason, to confront the truth.

    They use this mumbo jumbo to hide under a rock. Normally it would not matter, but by doing so they have the immense capacity to cause long term harm to the abused and greatly increase the chance that others will be abused.

    I do not understand how they can look themselves in the mirror, let alone live with themselves. The only conclusion that I can reach is that somehow, somewhere, they became twisted.

    Just a bunch of mindless sheep.

  11. So true fjc. I have been working with survivors from Bob Jones University and First Baptist Church – Hammond and they deal with the same trash from their alumni too. It is like they all have the same play book and know how to twist the truth to make themselves look holy and righteous and those who speak out wicked and evil. Thanks for being there and bringing a voice of reason to the mix. I treasure your comments so many times.

  12. DEW says:

    Linda, did God authorize you to be Prairie’s judge? I’d be careful, if I were you.

    fjc, the Bible calls us sheep, and Jesus is the Good Shepherd. He knows His own sheep, and they know Him.

  13. Dew what am I to be careful for? Are you authorized to call down fire and brimstone on me?

    Did God authorize me to be Prairie’s judge? Yep. Here it is: Ephesians 5:11-13
    “Take no part in the worthless deeds of evil and darkness; instead, EXPOSE them. It is shameful even to talk about the things that ungodly people do in secret. But their evil intentions will be exposed when the light shines on them, for the light makes everything visible.” (NLT)

    Catherine, I think it is a good idea to get a wider audience…please register the hashtags and let’s get some real dialogue going.

  14. fjc says:

    DEW, that may be so. But after many years in business, I know when someone is giving me a proverbial load of manure. Who’s kidding whom?

  15. Dory says:

    DEW: I’d be careful if I were you! Really? What???

  16. Hopesome says:

    I STAND AMAZED’

    Loyalty – Honour – Dignity –

    Seems you have deserted them all –

    as for TRUST – You have shown little so how can you expect trust from PBI or anyone else for that matter –

    GOOD COUNSEL takes good people.

  17. fjc says:

    DEW…instead of acting in such a cowardly manner by hiding behind bible verses why not give us YOUR thoughts on these two questions in plain English so that even I can understand. After all, it is Father’s Day.

    -should child abusers be shielded or exposed? Why?

    -should child abusers be subject to the criminal statutes of our country? Why?

  18. I’ve been giving a lot of thought to what drives these unproductive, personal attacks on one anothers’ character or motives. These exchanges result in nothing positive, and always manage to deflect us from the issue that brought us to the post in the first place. It may indeed be a calculated attempt to deflect attention and light from the real issues.

    In the book ‘Breaking Free from Critical Addictions’ by K Marino, sarcasm is described as being a covert and seemingly polite way of hiding critical and often hostile comments. While individuals who use sarcasm to hide their hostile feelings may consider it humorous, sarcasm is offensive because its a veiled attack. When a person is offended by sarcastic remarks, the critic often blames the victim once again by saying, “You are just to sensitive, and “I was just kidding, or “Can’t you take a joke?” K. Marino

    “It’s long been said that the pen is mightier than the sword and in no use of language is that truism more evident than in the use of sarcasm. The energy of sarcasm, the feeling that fuels the power of sarcasm is anger, pure and simple. Not necessarily anger about or around the target of the sarcastic remark, just anger itself.

    The use of sarcasm is addictive. It wins you admiration from others who share your point of view, when the remark is a public one, and it grants you a feeling of superiority and few feelings are more addictive than those. The problem is that what you’ve really done is to draw praise from other angry people, whose anger has been allowed release through your words, upping the overall anger level, which is rarely helpful from the standpoint of personal growth, and you have also feed your own feelings of inferiority by acting aggressively against another, essentially being a verbal bully.’

    Sometimes anger can be a valuable thing; righteous anger has wrought much change for the better in the world. But sarcasm, at its core, is a low-level anger, the anger of unresolved hurts sustained in childhood, and it lacks the respect for humanity that righteous anger carries. Righteous anger is the mature manifestation of an appreciation for life coupled with a keen observation of reality; it is not addictive. It is used on an as needed basis. Sarcasm is a verbal automatic weapon in the hands of someone longing for peace but unable to know that.

    It is not easy to break the habit of being sarcastic for it can bring
    immediate gratification but the energy of sarcasm will eventually eat you up alive, that is what anger does. If you are an addict, just notice. Watch yourself. Feel what happens…when you hear the words that trigger you… as you posit your response…in the energy that comes afterwords, from you and from others. Then decide if that is how – and who – you want to be in the world.” F. Pendergras

    “Sarcasm is an outward expression of pain, usually anger, which itself is a secondary emotion in response to a primary emotion (hurt), like feeling valueless, disrespected, unloved, etc. We can be addicted to anger since it, too, masks the underlying pain, albeit in an unconstructive way. But sarcasm needs to be seen as an expression of the deeper addiction to anger.” S. Gerard

  19. gb says:

    Linda M. Fossen says:
    June 15, 2013 at 3:02 pm

    “….. I don’t have to make assumptions about your how you are dealing with your daughter’s abuse, just looking into their faces speaks volumes.”

    It’s not that you ‘don’t have to’ make assumptions, so much as that you shouldn’t. Mainly because you suck at them. That entire sentence of yours made no sense. It went straight from ‘not having to make assumptions’ to making a very big one, with only one teeny little comma to separate the two contradictions.

    And just like the old pictures of ladies from a bygone era when people looked somber for photos, what you ‘see’ in a picture is not always an accurate reflection of how a person is feeling. Not by a long shot. Really don’t know why you keep pretending to be so intuitive.

  20. Brenda says:

    Wow. What a read…

    Catherine, thank you for posting so thoughtfully. For me, it shows exactly why you would be an asset to the Friends group.

    I realize, too, in reading through all of these comments that I’m putting much more consideration into the postings done under identifiable names — those who appear willing to stand by what they write/say. Maybe that could be a step towards transparency, towards actually creating conversation rather than attack/counter-attack. Just a thought.

  21. TeriHalliday says:

    It is a risk to post thoughts under one’s own name and be willing to stand behind them. It has the potential to put one in the line of fire, from those who are unable to face contrary views and maintain reasonable composure. For example, resorting to personal attacks and sarcasm (thank you for your most recent comment Catherine) is an easy way to represent oneself but leave enough prickles to show a ‘devil may care’ attitude about the thoughts/comments in return, and to allow a falsification-out of responsibility for the real intent behind one’s words…..and it does things which prevent any meeting of the minds.

    We all refuse to be thoughtfully intimate with others who our intuition has told us are false or misleading, such as in the case of excessive sarcasm use.

    This is not me preaching, this is me acknowledging my own thoughtful consideration of what both Brenda and Catherine have said.

  22. It is always disconcerting to be attacked by nameless, faceless enemies. I have had way more than my share of this and it sucks. I don’t think half the things that get said here would be said if people had to take ownership of their words. I will admit that I can be sarcastic with the best of them but at least everyone knows it was me saying it. When people like Hopesome and Dew post comments that are so triggering there is no way to put any context to those comments because you don’t know who you are talking to. I find it very uncomfortable that gb now tells me how I should feel about a picture of a bunch of old biddies from PBI and how I have no right to my perceptions. Excuse me but my perceptions are my perceptions – you have no right to tell me what to think – I am not at PBI anymore and no one tells me what to think.

    I have no faith that there can ever be honest and transparent dialogue with this PBI bunch – they are too engrained in their religion of idol worship to the Maxwells and there is no limit to what they will do to protect the emperor and his kingdom. I think we are way past the point of dialogue and the only thing that will ever chance this situation around is lawsuits and the more the better. Until PBI has to pay out of their pocket, they are never going to get it. Their mindless alumni are going to continue to play their hostile games because that is what is approved by the administration. If Mark had one scintilla of common sense he would take a stand and call for calm. But he hasn’t and he won’t because this is exactly what he wants. That is why I believe that it is going to take an outside source (i.e. a judge and the courts) to force PBI to do the right thing by us survivors. They will never do it on their own. This war has been going on more than 2 years and if they ain’t got it yet, they ain’t never gonna get it.

  23. DEW says:

    it is really, really sad that you, Linda, believe that people worship Mr. Maxwell. by saying so, you are calling fellow Christians idiol worshippers. He was human, just like Abraham, Paul, Peter, Isaiah, Joshua, D.L. Moody., Billy Graham….every other person that God has called to lead His people. Would you say that people made those men into idols and worshipped them, too? They are just leaders.

  24. Yes they are idol worshippers. No, the people did not make the other leaders into idols.

    Now could you please answer the two questions that fjc posted for you? Thank you!

  25. fjc says:

    DEW…are you going to respond to my question?

    It is very straightforward unless of course you have no thoughts of your own on this subject.

  26. Hopesome says:

    You should lay down your weapons – before somebody really gets hurt.

  27. DEW says:

    Hopesome – a good admonition.

    As to fjc’s questions – my opnions are not important, only what God says is. And I will not dignify what Linda says re: idol worshippers – those who listened to Mr. Maxwell’s teaching are no more guilty of idol worship than those who follow Billy Graham. You need to read a bit more of 20th century Christian History.

    Enough is enough – this judging that is going on about PBI is going too far. Let it alone, Linda. You have an axe to grind and are grinding it into iron dust. Leave it be.

  28. Ted says:

    I’ll take “Too chicken to own their shit” for $1000.

  29. Brenda says:

    The reality is that most humans are guilty of idol worship of some kind. It should hardly come as a shock that people outside of PBI recognize that it has happened at PBI. Most evangelicals hover the line, if not rolling right past it, of worshiping their Bibles rather than worshiping the God who inspired the Bible.

    Any time we can’t countenance some criticism of a person, or ideology, then we are operating out of fear — fear of being wrong, fear of getting punished, etc. And that fear says that too much power has been given to that person or ideology — which looks an awful lot like worship.

    Can we get beyond issuing these indictments and get back to the topic at hand? Why can’t the admins of the Friends group give concrete evidence to their decision of not letting Catherine join the group?

  30. fjc says:

    DEW…..based on your response, or your decision to decline, I would think that most people reading this blog now have the measure of you.

  31. Ted says:

    They already did. No one wants to talk about abuse and they are not reasonable enough to ask her not to bring these discussions to their wall nor are they intelligent enough to note her integrity and ability to work well with others, so they keep her out. Exclusion, welcome to religion.

  32. Brenda says:

    Ted — whom I don’t think I know, but I truly do like! — the admin of Friends has brought some allegations. I’m asking for the evidence. They have said that Catherine is a verbal bully, i.e. taking over FB groups, discussions, etc.; they have yet to show where she has done that.

    And no, I don’t suppose I’ll get an answer, but I thought I’d give it one last shot.

  33. Wanda says:

    And that most people reading this blog, now have their measure of Linda. Deflection is always a maneuver created by those who are guilty of some terrible crime for which they will not stand by and acknowledge… at least DEW hasn’t done anything ‘criminal’ on this or any other blog.

    The fact that you all do not know who it is: No one asks who fjc is, or Ted is, or gb, etc. One’s identity is allowed to be ‘hidden’ here. Attacking only one for not revealing whom they truly are is sad wherein most who respond to ‘Bene’ have indeed used names not their own.

    As for the original post: Catherine is not allowed into a FB group. Catherine also has a group that would not allow most into… in fact, has kicked a majority of PBI alumni out… called ‘We were PBI’ something or other that she created with LF. Why is it fine to exclude most alumni from that group but it is ok to question why an alumni cannot get into another? Again, this makes no sense. And, unfortunately, never will.

  34. Ted says:

    I’ll take ‘claims without proof’ for $800 please…..oh look it’s a daily double!

  35. Ted says:

    “Deflection is always a maneuver created by those who are guilty of some terrible crime for which they will not stand by and acknowledge”

    A point proven by wanda herself in her petulant, condescending blurb that she suggested was equal to an apology.

  36. Wanda says:

    At least it wasn’t criminal… last I checked, slander was a criminal offense. And lying about facts, is a moral crime against everyone.

  37. Ted says:

    Ted:

    I’ve deleted your comment – name calling is not acceptable. You’ve been given a play nice warning, please see the BDBO About page. BD

  38. Eldon says:

    Closed groups operate upon an element of trust. Given that historically Catherine and Linda have been portrayed as partners, one can see that there might well be some concerns on the part of the Friends group as to the motivations behind all this. For her part, Catherine is and/or was admin where members of the Friends group were not permitted to be members of that group. One can understand why that approach was held too. Each group has the right to determine membership and should have the freedom to do so without recrimination.

    It’s a fact of life that sometimes our mere associations, and the ensuing perceptions, burn bridges. Think about the optics of this for a minute. Linda Fossen is fighting to get Catherine Darnell admitted to the Friends group. If you were a member/admin of that group, what would your reaction be? If Catherine feels so strongly about a dialogue with those group members, why not start another group and invite them all. Those that want to come will do so. Otherwise, leave them to do their thing, just as Catherine and Linda’s group is free to do theirs.

  39. Wanda says:

    Ted: Your maturity is astounding! And we all wonder why those who associate with Catherine are doing more harm than good. Enough said!

  40. Ted says:

    deflection

  41. Jill says:

    I’m with Brenda, where is the evidence of Catherine being a bully and such? I’ve followed this all for years, and Catherine has a lot of integrity, and I’ve never seen her bully anyone. Never once. Her crime? Her friendship with Linda, and that she’s an advocate for survivors of abuse, survivors from places far and wide, not just PBI. Her posting articles from her life’s work in public places is no different than me posting topics on autism, as that is part of my life. Would I be allowed to post on the topic of autism in the Friends of PBI group? Can one post on topics in the news? Like the Boston Marathon bombings? Or is it just sexual abuse issues that are the big no-no? What is wrong with bringing awareness to any issue?

    I had high hopes that Mark Maxwell would take the time to engage Catherine. I thought if he’d listen to anyone, after all these years of this, he’s take time for her, she’s been nothing but gentle and calm in all of this. She’s earned the respect she deserves. She’s shown no animosity, only calmly stayed in the fray of all of this.

  42. Maribeth (aka MEC) says:

    It’s just too funny reading Wanda’s pompous ” At least it wasn’t criminal… last I checked, slander was a criminal offense. And lying about facts, is a moral crime against everyone.” when she is guilty of both! Her slander riddles this thread and at least one set of lies was what she said about Carmen’s rape. Pot calling the kettle black.
    And that’s not sarcasm… I mean it as said- no hidden meaning.

    To me it is just so sad that the two who most have dedicated their lives to protecting the abused are the ones most attacked here. If the PBI people were really Christians- ie ones who actually well and truly walk in Jesus’ attitudes and admonitions, they would respond with love for the survivors, not hate.

    I don’t quote scripture a lot but I think that “By their fruits you shall know them” is pretty appropriate here. The vitriol pouring out of PBI every time I encounter them, apart from those who consistently support the survivors, declares loudly and clearly what is and isn’t the heart and soul of PBI religion.

    Yes, Linda gets angry; actually she gets triggered by the attacks which so mirror those of her father against her. But she keeps on doing her best to get help for the survivors. She doesn’t pretend to be holier than thou- but she is quick to see discrepancy between words and deeds and she’s not afraid to call a spade a spade. I for one am so tired of the attacks against her. And having been here from almost the very beginning, what I observed was that her initial activities were aimed at helping the survivors with no expectation that PBI et al would attack her and the survivors the way they did… yep- then she got mad! Actually, so did I. The difference is, my abuse wasn’t at the hands of PBI or associates so the ugliness coming from the alumni (except when Wanda aimed stuff right at me) hasn’t triggered me and I’ve been able to be a fairly objective observer. I can respond to the craziness without feeling as though I have to defend myself at the same time – a luxury Linda doesn’t have.

    I really feel that I would like it if Bene would just shut this one down- it’s getting so repetitive. So many writers can’t seem to find anything new to say so just sling the same old fecal matter at the same old rotating blades, hoping to shut up those with whom they do not agree.

    This is not a rational conversation and frankly, I don’t see it ending in anyway that would satisfy either group.

    So why not just call it a day? Battle ends in a draw.

  43. fjc says:

    The real challenge with saying that what only matters is what God says is that is opens it up to so much manipulation, misrepresentation, and outright lying. But I suspect that this is not something foreign to you.

    It is also a complete cop out.

    I would think that someone with a high degree of morale fibre would not be reticent to answer a question(s) like this and would not hide in, so to speak, his mother’s apron.

    It seems more that a little cowardly to me.

  44. gb says:

    Why is there so much hatred in these comments? What is it anyone hopes to accomplish by attacking Wanda or DEW? Disagreeing and pointing out specifics is one thing, but ugly name calling and simply opposing anything that is said regardless of what it is, is petty and comes across as immature at best.
    Eldon, you said it well.

  45. Ted says:

    gb, I don’t understand your feelings, I really don’t get what the big deal is. Who gives a rat’s ass?
    I know that the little hurt child in you wants everyone to get along, but seriously, you just need to accept that rejection happens and move on with your life.
    Now I’m sorry if you have taken my words the wrong way and so if you have hurt feelings, you’re just going to have to get over them because everyone who knows me in person knows how much I really do care and so even if you do take my words wrong, it’s still because you’re not really getting what I say, which is also your fault. Seriously.

  46. gb says:

    If that was an answer to my questions, it was a little vague.
    Did you mean to say that you don’t actually hope to accomplish anything, you just enjoy being nasty?

  47. gb says:

    I just noticed your comment regarding me, Linda, but it’s confusing to me.

    You said ” I find it very uncomfortable that gb now tells me how I should feel about a picture of a bunch of old biddies from PBI and how I have no right to my perceptions. ”

    Hmmm? I didn’t say anything about any ‘old biddies’ from PBI. (?? This is such a strange thing to say…) The comment I directed to you was about you saying that you didn’t need to make assumptions, and then saying that by looking at a picture of someone’s daughter, you could tell that they were being stifled by their parents, which was an assumption.
    My point is that there is no way any person can gain that level of insight into a family or into a person’s level of contentment or happiness simply by seeing a photo.

    A photo is one second in time, and not necessarily representative of the whole. In fact, (as in old photos where people always looked somber or even grim simply because that was the accepted ‘pose’ for photographs) what is seen in photos can be completely misleading.

    And yes, you have every right to your perceptions, but maybe present them as simply that (perceptions) rather than concrete fact, since they are actually assumptions.

  48. Bene Diction says:

    Okay.

    Comments are closed.

    BD

Comments are closed.