Hi, thanks for your response. There are three things I would emphasize.

1) A responsible researcher does not put out one-sided accounts of events they were not involved in. If Ekloff was a responsible researcher, he would not only have sought out the viewpoints of people who agreed with him. That's argumentative writing 101: if you don't know what the other person believes, how can you possibly accurately represent them? This entire thing was destined to be a hurtful experience from the start because he has made it clear over and over again that he does not care about how anyone feels but himself. To this day, he still has not reached out to me or anyone else who does not explicitly agree with him and I now doubt he ever will.

2) I did not say not to read Ekloff. I reported what others were saying and expressed my frustration that Ekloff was making money, however little or much, off of twisted narratives of events that he has no direct knowledge of. No one can ban his book, and no one can stop others from reading it.

3) I was there during the debate about the Standing on the Side of Love slogan. I remember the guy that Ekloff mentions. There was a lot of emotions around what he said, but, in the end, almost no one agreed with him. That's what the debate comes down to: dissent does not mean that you get your way. And this is emblematic of every time change has happened in our denomination. There are things I don't agree with in our movement, but the fact that I'm not getting my way doesn't mean I'm not being heard.