Special Edition Report

We interrupt our ongoing report on the Ministry Watchman scandal with breaking news: Ministry Watchman has revealed just who the person is behind the binoculars. But there is one big problem: the evidence points to yet another scam by Ministry Watchman—and this time, it’s a humdinger!

Author’s Preface: I will soon be posting more installments in “The Unmasking of Mrs. Binoculars”¹ exposé that specifically target the Ministry Watchman scandal—a scandal which seems to grow larger each day. My investigation has unearthed highly questionable activities carried out by the anonymous assassins working with Jennifer Epstein at Ministry Watchman to bring a fraud on the general public and to defame numerous individuals.

At this point, it is clear that Jennifer Epstein and Ministry Watchman have absolutely no compunction about accusing everyone from former interns to Doug Phillips himself with every sort of infamy imaginable without a shred of evidence or documentation. Why? Because they have been caught! They have been caught in lies and deceptions, and they are fighting for their lives. One of their lies is that those of us who see their deceptions for what they are—men as diverse as myself and Michael Metzler of Pooh’s Think—are all a bunch of toadies or, alternatively, are somehow in the employ of Doug Phillips. Rubbish.

In light of the most recent attack on Doug Phillips and the ad hominems directed at me, and for the sake of those individuals who have yet to be sucked into the Ministry Watchman bog, I want to remind my readers of the following auto-biographical points: I am not a former Vision Forum intern, nor am I an employee of Vision Forum, nor am I a child. I am the father of seven children, and a businessman who has assisted in running large companies. I am also a long-time friend of Doug and Beall, whom I happily defend against anonymous and excommunicated liars. In my opinion, the complete non-response of Ministry Watchman to the substantive issues I raised in my previous article, coupled with their unrelenting invective and hatred directed at those who have challenged the grossly unethical nature of their behavior, signal the last whimper of conspirators caught in a public fraud.

However, if my theory concerning their recent post “Who is Behind the Binoculars?” is correct, then the same folks who argued for the right to come after Phillips based on a fictitious counseling relationship with Ligonier (which was proven to be a blatant lie),² who sent out e-mails deceptively looking as if they were from Vision Forum,³ who doctored documents and lied about issue after issue⁴—these same folks reached such a point of desperation yesterday that they all but hammered the last nail in their coffin.

 

Mrs. Binoculars vs. Danny Boy
By Matthew Chancey
December 21, 2006

In case you are wondering, I am still asking the question: “Is Jennifer Epstein Mrs. Binoculars?”

I am asking the question, and I believe you should be asking it too.

Yet I am now asking additional questions, questions that I honestly did not think I would be considering when I began my investigation into the fraud, lies, and vengeance of the anonymous assassins at Ministry Watchman.

Here is just one of my new questions: If the Mrs. Binoculars image was really the photo of a guy in Ireland tagged as “binocularsdude” and downloaded from a Picasa web album purported to have been built on June 29, 2006, why have IT specialists uncovered information from the backend which proves that the web album was in actuality launched this very week? Why do the facts reveal that the Mrs. Binoculars picture in question never hit the web until just the other day—days after my own article (“The Unmasking of Mrs. Binoculars: Part I”) was posted?

Have I lost you? Hold on. You are in for a real ride.

Mrs. Binoculars Meets Danny Boy
Yesterday, Ministry Watchman launched an article entitled, “Who's Behind the Binoculars?” After paragraphs and paragraphs of vicious name-calling and various forms of foaming-at-the-mouth—characterized by completely undocumented claims attacking Doug Phillips, me, former Vision Forum interns, etc.—the “Charles Fisher” personality offered the following comment which is the sum and substance of their response to my article:

So just who is the real binocular person? Sorry to have to rain on the conspiracy theorists’ parade, but bino person is just some guy in an online photo album (and yes, Ministry Watchman did obtain permission to use the image). In short, Jen Epstein is not binocular dude, notwithstanding facial recognition experts and the “thorough” investigation.⁵

There are two things to notice about this response in the context of the rest of the article: First, the “Charles Fisher” personality avoids like the plague any substantive discussion of the different arguments, evidences, and analysis I presented in my article. Their attitude is this:

We don’t need to defend ourselves. We don’t need to justify our actions. We are the anonymous Watchmen. We watch others. We don’t let them watch us. And those who dare to watch us watching others—well, we will just crow and crow about our own brilliance and purity, and then whine all day about how evil and hypocritical it is for the Watchman watchers to watch.⁶

Second, the “Charles Fisher” personality hopes to defeat all doubt concerning Ministry Watchman’s integrity by boldly declaring, “[B]ino person is just some guy in an online photo album.” This is meant to encourage us. It is good to know that they did not steal this image! They got permission from the guy who put up the on-line photo album.

And poof—in one fell swoop, my theory about the Mrs. Binoculars picture is defeated.

They’ve even provided the link to the very online site from whence they obtained permission to get the image. There it is—proof. Mrs. Binoculars is really some guy named “Danny.” The image doesn’t even say Mrs. Binoculars; it reads “binocularsdude.”

Hmmm. I am getting curious.

Like much of the subterfuge presented by the gang at Ministry Watchman, the explanation concerning Danny-boy (a.k.a., “binocularsdude”) seems very plausible at first. In fact, it seems so plausible—and the contrary (that this is a fraud) seems so incredible—that one might by inclined to simply concede the error and move on to the next subject.

I considered the merits of this, but then I reminded myself of something: I am dealing with anonymous people who have joined forces with others who were excommunicated for lying, who have already doctored evidence, who have been proven to falsify claims, who withhold key pieces of information on every story on which they have “reported,” and who are, consequently, not beyond cooking up yet another fraud to cover their tracks.

The Watchman Defense
Ministry Watchman’s entire defense rests on the “Charles Fisher” personality’s claim that they downloaded the image with permission from a Picasa web album called “Ireland Tour”; and that the picture of Mrs. Binoculars is in reality the photo of a boy named Danny standing in a field in Wexford as part of a tour of Ireland. We know this, Ministry Watchman informs us, because they have linked us to the proof—a Picasa photo album hosted by Google containing twenty-four pictures, most of which were obviously taken in some proximity to the Emerald Isle. Among them is the now-familiar photo we have come to know as “Mrs. Binoculars.”

At first glance, everything seems in order. The web album and pictures claim to have been built and posted on June 29, 2006. The pictures seem to be part of a trip to Ireland taken by an amateur photographer named “Roger Buckham.”

And who is this Roger Buckham who so conveniently emerges to “save the day?” Another anonymous Internet ghost with no confirmable identity, with no history, and with no other contact information save—you guessed it—a good-old, non-traceable Gmail address. What’s more: his photo doesn’t even appear on his own travel album! Buckham appears out of thin air on a free, no-identity-confirmation-needed photo site. And he arrives just in time to weigh in at “Charles Fisher’s” command.

And it goes all downhill from there.

More Disclosure
At this point, I should spill some beans. My investigation is getting hot. Real hot.

The anonymous internet terrorists are beginning to come out of their bunkers. They are making mistakes, and they will probably get caught. Aiding me in my investigation efforts are some very capable guys (and no, they are not former Vision Forum interns, etc.) from different parts of the United States who specialize in the very type of IT analysis that comes in so handy when somebody like Ministry Watchman claims to download their pictures from a Picasa album.

To a man, each of these investigators who studied the evidence came back to me with the very same report: the photo album story is a fraud.

Yes, the facts leave one with the definite impression that the claims of Ministry Watchman regarding this web gallery and Danny Boy picture are yet another shenanigan—an elaborate hoax designed to rescue their discredited credentials.

And if my assessment is right, this face-saving scheme was a real rush job by a junior varsity cheat. And because it was a rush job, it was sloppy—really sloppy. In fact, it was so sloppy that it almost strains my already stretched credulity at just how far these Ministry Watchman, anonymous web terrorists are willing to go. But they had to get something online fast. They had to respond.

My Theory on the Binoculars Question
In the rest of this article, I will examine the evidence and ask the questions that any reasonable person should consider in light of the claims presented by Ministry Watchman. Once again, you will have to determine whether the weight of evidence favors the Ministry Watchman claim or whether Ministry Watchman has been caught in another fraud.

Here is my theory:

1. Ministry Watchman is lying about the origin of the picture of “Danny” boy.
2. Ministry Watchman cooked up the Picasa web gallery this very week and faked a July 29 posting date for the web album.
3. Ministry Watchman placed the image of binocular-dude on Monday, December 18, two days after my own article launched and months after the Mrs. Binoculars image was placed as the Ministry Watchman banner.
4. Ministry Watchman tried to cover their tracks, but blew it.
5. Jennifer Epstein is Mrs. Binoculars.

The Truth about the Picasa Web Album
If Ministry Watchman really downloaded with permission an image from “some guy” who uploaded images to a Picasa Web album and placed the picture of “binoculars dude” on it, the following things must be affirmed:

1. The Picasa web album must have existed prior to the launch of Ministry Watchman.
2. There must have been a real trip to Ireland by a real guy named Roger Buckham, who was just “some guy” (and not a friend or acquaintance of the Ministry watchman cabal) who took the pictures and placed them in the photo album.
3. The image must have been locatable via an Internet search engine.

Was the Photo Album Created on June 29, 2006?
At first glance, everything seems legit. After all, the photo album is dated June 29th of 2006—more than three months before the launch of the website ministrywatchman.com.

But is this definitive? Is it convincing proof? Is it possible to make an album appear as if it were created sometime in the relatively distant past, when in reality it was created—oh, say, at 9:01 AM on December 18, 2006?

Emphatically yes! In fact, here’s one that I just created entitled, “O What a Tangled Web We Weave,” filed under “Caught’s” public gallery.

The gallery features a total of seven images, six of which are screen shots of news articles dated Wednesday, December 20. Yet it was quite easy for me to make these news articles appear as having been posted at an earlier date—January 28, 1986 to be precise—a date that far precedes yesterday’s news stories. Of course, the impression I created is clearly preposterous, yet this little experiment demonstrates how easy one can use the Picasa Image Web Album’s program to fake dates and dupe an unsuspecting public.

But if the album date is bogus, is there a way to find out when the photos themselves were actually uploaded?

Unfortunately for the MinistryWatchpersons, the dates of the actual postings are all discoverable.

When was the Mrs. Binoculars Picture Actually Uploaded? How Can We Tell?
If a Picasa photo album is opened in the web browsers Internet Explorer, Firefox, or Safari, they supply a great deal of information, but they do not provide the dates when the images were actually uploaded.

Thus, if the creator of such an album used only IE, Firefox, or Safari to check his work, he would believe that his privacy was safe. However, if he opened the same album in another browser—like Opera, for example—he would discover that the actual upload date is clearly revealed.

Opera is a free web browser with many advanced features. However, it isn’t always properly supported by the latest advanced Web 2.0 Internet sites like Google Calendar or Google Picasa. In Opera, that photo page looks like this. While there is no way to display the extra camera info that Firefox could access, Opera does give us a date—the date that this file was uploaded.

And lo and behold—nearly all of the pictures in the “Ireland Tour” album were uploaded on December 18th, this past Monday! The only exceptions are four images that are added yesterday morning, Tuesday, December 20, 2006, just prior to Ministry Watchman’s launch of their article, “Who's Behind the Binoculars?”

Let me make this perfectly clear: The picture that Ministry Watchman claim was downloaded months ago from Picasa were not even uploaded to Picasa until this week. This week! Just before their response article and days after my initial post!

Could the Picture Upload Dates be Scrambled?
The skeptical reader might ask if it were possible that Opera, not supported by Picasa, is scrambling the dates and displaying them improperly. This is a reasonable question, my team thought, so we checked on a few more sources. Here’s what we found: One of the many neat features of Picasa service is the ability to subscribe to the RSS feed of a photo album and see updates in an RSS reader. Opera has a built in RSS aggregator, and this is what it reveals when subscribed to the RSS feed of Roger Buckham’s “Ireland Tour” album:

Opera's RSS News Reader:

These are the times that the photos were actually uploaded. It is clearly displayed in the Opera RSS reader. As you can see, all but four were posted on Monday, December 18th—two days after my post on MrsBinoculars.com.

But let’s continue to examine the feed to make certain.

Firefox's RSS News Reader:

This is what Firefox’s built-in RSS reader looks like. As you can see, the time is displayed as two hours different, due to probably Opera’s default time-zone setting being Eastern Standard Time. This is only a fragment of the entire feed, but I’ve saved it as a PDF file so you can see the whole thing.⁷

As to the actual posting date of the web album itself, we can be sure of one thing: the key gallery image for “Ireland Tour” (the Irish flag) was the first image to be uploaded to the web. That date: December 18, 2006. Date of my “Mrs. Binoculars” article post: December 16, 2006!

A Close Look at the Individual Pictures
Now let’s look at the individual images themselves. This is a strange vacation album since there is only one picture of a vacationer—Mrs. Binoculars herself. Why is there only one photo of a vacationer-and a uniquely posed human being whose face is obscured, at that? Why is the image cropped in such a strange internet-banner way? And why doesn’t this image match the style of all the other photos in the set?

Four Key Points for Analyzing the Images:

1. The Photos Were Hastily Compiled and Posted (Different Sizes, Different Resolutions, Different Compression Rates): The folder of twenty-four photos include an unusually diverse collection of images for a lay photographer’s trip to Ireland. Some images are sharp pictures, some are fuzzy pictures, some are pictures with very little compression, and others are pictures that have obviously been over-compressed several times. Some are big, some are small, and none of them have similar aspect ratios. The images clearly look as if they were taken by different photographers on different cameras. Some have been obviously tweaked by professional software, and others look direct from a camera-phone.

2. The Implications of This Significant Photo Incongruity: Clearly, this random collection of photos was hastily compiled and posted in order to back MinistryWatchman’s claims that the Mrs. Binoculars banner was a pre-existing piece of artwork. The wildly divergent image details seem to have come from a rapid scavenger hunt across the Internet. Some photos are in color, others greyscale; some are clean, and others appear to be re-sampled GIFs. (To avoid adding new compression artifacts, I saved the above images as lossless PNG files).

 
3. The Ireland Gallery: A Common DPI Value-Save One: In fact, the only thing that these images have in common is their DPI (dots per inch). If you have Photoshop or another image editing program, you can open the files and look for more information. Unfortunately, Picasa strips the image headers off the original files, but it leaves a few image settings, such as the DPI. Please pay close attention to my next point: All of the images within the album have the default “web res” of 72 DPI. All but one, that is. Can you guess which image is not like the others? The answer: Mrs. Binoculars!
    
4. Mrs. Binoculars-the 6000 lb. DPI Gorilla: Our old friend, Mrs. Binoculars, here going by the alias “binoculardude.jpg,” is a whopping 6000 dots per inch. The other files appear to be regular internet images harvested from various websites and imagebanks. But the higher DPI of the Mrs. Binoculars picture points to the high likelihood that it came directly from a digital camera—and it may be the only picture on this site to have come from one. Most of the other images likely come from somebody associated with Ministry Watchman’s computer, or they could have been ripped off other sites. In fact, take a look at the top right corner of the picture of Carickfergus(sic) Castle, either here or on picasa, and you'll see a little “Zoom” tag overlaying the image. Cameras don't add that; this is clearly a screenshot of a web browser or image editor containing the original image.

The Google Search Engine Catastrophe
The list of problems with Ministry Watchman's claims goes on and on. But I want to bring you to one more catastrophic problem with Ministry Watchman’s audacious claim that they downloaded their image with permission from “some guy” who posted it on a Picasa image gallery.

Here is the question: Just how valid is the claim that the Ministry Watchman web design team searched for binocular images and stumbled across this gallery? Answer: highly improbable.

Numerous Google searches for pages about Roger Buckham have revealed little. Searches containing text excerpts of this site have turned up nothing at all.

How could Ministry Watchman contact Roger Buckham and ask him for permission to use his rather unique picture of “Danny” when it’s impossible to find his page in any search engine query? This search absence lends strong credence to the RSS evidence that this site is brand new, since it often takes several days for Google and other search engines to locate and index a new page. The bottom line is that “Roger Buckham’s” public gallery does not appear on any Google search, and his images are unsearchable, because they were not uploaded until this very week!

The issue of how they found the page is a good one. But the real question is this: How come the page isn’t in Google right now when it has allegedly been online for nearly six months? Answer: Because it has only been up for three days.

Summarizing the Ministry Watchman Danny-gate Scam
If you are still with me at this point, let's recap what we have discovered concerning Ministry Watchman’s “Danny-gate” scam:

1. Ministry Watchman did not download the Mrs. Binoculars picture from the Picasa album more than two months ago when they launched Ministrywatchman.com, because these images did not exist in the album referenced at that time.
2. It appears as if Ministry Watchman cooked up the Picasa gallery this very week in an effort to rescue their credibility from the inevitable conclusion to which their own scandalous behavior condemned them.
3. It appears that the neophytes behind this scheme completely botched this otherwise well-conceived scam job. Now they are caught.

Goodbye, Ministry Watchman
And there you have it—strong, compelling evidence that the Jennifer Epstein/Charles Fisher/Frank Vance personalities and entire team at Ministry Watchman are “lying liars who lie.”

It appears that, once again, they have created a fraud to cover the tracks of previous frauds.

But wait a minute? Is there no possible explanation from Ministry Watchman? After all, these guys may be sloppy, but they are really creative, right?

At this point, I am reminded of my favorite quotes from another creative source for information, Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf, Iraqi Minister of Information:

We are not afraid of the Americans, Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid. Do not in fact repeat their lies... There are no American infidels in Baghdad... We will slaughter them all. Our initial assessment is that they will all die... They are coming to surrender or be burned in their tanks... No, I am not scared, and neither should you be. Be assured: Baghdad is safe. You are protected… There are no Americans in Baghdad... We are in complete control of the situation... The American press is all about lies. All they tell is lies and more lies... I have detailed information about the situation... which completely proves that what they allege are allusions... they lie every day... Yes, the American troops have advanced further, but this will only make it easier to defeat them!

Counter Arguments from the Ministers of Propaganda
But what if Jennifer Epstein and her cohorts retort, “Well, we never actually said that we downloaded it from the web site... what we really meant is that we got it from some guy... yeah, that’s it... we got from this guy another way... it is just a coincidence that he posted it on the web just prior to our article... yeah, that’s it?”

I am reminded of the Scott quote, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!”⁸

Here are the problems with this response:

1. If Ministry Watchman now wants to change or amplify their story, we are only left with bigger and more serious questions. For example, if they want to argue the absurd position that “some guy” is really their good friend, and that they did not mean to imply that they downloaded the images from Picasa—only that they could be found on Picasa now—then why didn’t they say so before? Why did the “Charles Fisher” personality give the clear and undeniable impression to all his readers that he got the binoculars picture from the Picasa website “with permission?” Why play fast and loose with the facts on such a vital issue? Why mislead us on the defining question? After all, the question has been raised: “Is Jennifer Epstein Mrs. Binoculars?” They officially responded by pointing us to a site where the image was posted, and they clearly indicated that they asked permission for the picture. Now, it simply won’t fly to rewrite the story.
    
2. But there is an even bigger problem: Why would this “Roger Buckham” character (if he actually exists) decide to launch his site the very week that Ministry Watchman posted their answer to our question? Why would he upload his pictures this week? As a favor to the Epsteins? Doesn’t that implicate him and call into question the entire story? If that is the case, doesn’t it mean that he is in league with the Epsteins and their co-conspirators at Ministry Watchman? If Roger Buckham is not just “some guy” out there in Picasa Internet land, but someone who is willing to work with Jennifer Epstein and team to time the placing of the image on the Internet—just before the release of the new article—doesn’t that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Roger (if he is a real person) is collaborating with them? Doesn’t this just throw doubt on the validity of the origins of the picture and validate my question: “Is Jennifer Epstein Mrs. Binoculars?”

No, these types of responses are marked by desperation. They are simply too much of a stretch. When asked the question, “Who is Mrs. Binoculars?” there should be a simple explanation. But, like so many of the other “facts” presented at Ministry Watchman, everything sounds great until the truth is finally revealed.

Calling on Roger Buckham
Roger, if you are a real person and not another one of Jennifer Epstein and Charles Fisher’s numerous track-covering personalities, please contact me. I would like a face-to-face meeting with you. E-mail won’t cut it. I want to look you in the eye and ask some questions that are really troubling me. I want to know why you waited until I launched my own article to post your pictures on Picasa. What’s more, I would like to see a full-faced picture of Danny boy. Also, I want to know why you were doing alterations on the images all the way up to the final moments before the Ministry Watchmen article about your very picture was launched yesterday. And I have lot more questions. Roger, if you are a real person, let’s talk and get to the bottom of things, because right now it looks very, very bad for the folks at Ministry Watchman who pointed us to your site and claimed they got permission from “some guy” many months ago when Mrs. Binoculars first reared her ocular head.

I Am Not Holding My Breath
Somehow I don’t think I will ever meet the Roger Buckham who posted the creatively-named subterfuge “binoculardude” on Picasa. I don’t think I will meet him because I think that this is scam #437 from the hucksters at Ministry Watchman.

Right now, all evidence points to the fact that the “Charles Fisher” personality has given us another doozey. And, if I am right about this, these con-men (or should I say “con-people,”) have just proven my thesis. The Watchpersons have given all the people they have slandered even more rope by which to hang themselves.

Who is Mrs. Binoculars?
Who is Mrs. Binoculars? Sorry “Charlie,” but I still think it is Jennifer Epstein.

I also think the response yesterday from Ministry Watchmen was not only hooey, but a sign of extreme desperation. I think there is a reason why they waited so long to respond when a simple denial of the charge with real proof would have answered my question concerning the picture. I think it was no accident that neither Jennifer Epstein, nor Mark Epstein, nor Ministry Watchman commented on my article for four days. They did not even allow comments pertaining to the “Who is Mrs. Binoculars?” question. Not one. They avoided the question and the issues I raised, and they wanted nothing said at all until they came out with more vitriol and a little paragraph linked to a recently-spawned web album designed to give them plausible deniability to my claim.

I think there is a reason why so little of their lengthy article has anything to do with the picture, and everything to do with more and more of the same old rabid accusations—the hallmark of this group. I think they had to scramble to cook up an explanation. I think they needed four days to pull it off, and I think they were really hustling. But once again, I think they got sloppy.

In this case, their apparent “errors” (i.e. lies) were so sloppy that I almost could not believe it. That is why I checked my own analysis with some specialists I know from across the states. I got the same basic answer from each of them, “The party’s over for Ministry Watchman.” The claim that they originally got the binoculars picture from the Picasa Web site appears to be a lie. It simply is not supported by the evidence.

The conspirators at Ministry Watchman are running scared. They are scared of being discovered. They are scared of the serious legal implications of their unethical behavior. It would appear that they have written enough libel to hang themselves three times over, and they know it. They apparently did not stop to carefully consider their use of the e-mail or their attempts to unlawfully interfere with a business, and they know they may have to face the piper. They are scared for a host of issues. I think they are scared of each other—scared of being ratted out. Perhaps they should have followed Michael Metzler’s advice and pulled their trash off the Internet a long time ago, but certain individuals who are a part of the Ministry Watchperson team would never consent to this. Some of the co-conspirators of Ministry Watchman, namely “Mrs. Binoculars,” simply have nothing to lose.

Yes, I still think Mrs. Binoculars is Jennifer Epstein. But let me be clear about something:

Whether Mrs. Binoculars is literally Jennifer Epstein (or even Jennifer Epstein’s cousin) does not really matter. I believe the evidence points to the fact that Jennifer Epstein is inextricably tied in to the Ministry Watchman site and has been so from the get-go. She is the self-proclaimed Watchman. She has presented herself as the nearly sinless⁹, true-hearted, woman warrior for exposing all sorts of ecclesiastical tyrants. The public record is crystal clear. Jennifer Epstein has worked directly with Ministry Watchman from the beginning. Because she is the only “real” person involved with Ministry Watchman (Mark Epstein's role has been the dutiful “\amen corner”), she alone has earned the right to the title “Mrs. Binoculars.” As noted in my last article, this one fact (her direct involvement) would prove that the entire premise of Ministry Watchman is a sham and that the assassin team has been engaged in a massive fraud. But there are more facts-thanks, in part, to “Mr. Buckham.”

As time permits, I will demonstrate in future articles that the chameleons at Ministry Watchman are quite adept at changing from Plan A to Plans B, C, D and E when they are exposed. Reinvention of themselves is necessary to distract folks about the true nature of their website. 

Even as I write this, “Charles Fisher” has declared victory. All the anonymous Ministry Watchpersons are crowing.

But the party was over almost as soon as it began.

How Should the Church Respond to Jennifer and Mark Epstein and the Other Assassins at Ministry Watchman?
I close once again with the biblical admonitions concerning individuals excommunicated for habitual lying, for causing divisions, and for railing against church leadership as outlined by Boerne Christian Assembly. I would add that these admonitions should also be applied to all other anonymous web assassins who cower behind pseudonyms:¹⁰

¹⁰  BCA issued this written statement in direct response to the Epstein’s recent public slanders of  Doug Phillips and other members of Boerne Christian Assembly. For the full text of their statement, visit: www.boernechristianassembly.org.