Who registered diosanjoaquin.org?

Huh? Like we care?

Well actually yes we do. There is a new Diocese of San Joaquin website to rival the proper one. The new one has been setup to give details of the Special Convention that is going to be held to reconstitute the Diocese.

Once I got past the hilarity that is the agenda for the convention, an agenda that tells you exactly who will be nominated for which post, who you will ratify and gives no space at all for nominations from the floor – even the delegates to the 2009 GC have already been decided (ain’t democracy in TEC wonderful? It’s great to justify the election of unholy Bishops but let’s not let it get in the way of manipulating meetings), I wondered who had registered the website. Seeing as it is in San Joaquin, it would obviously have been registered and built by someone in the Diocese, a member of the faithful remnant, one who was willing to do the work so that the Diocese could continue?

As if.

If you look at the registration information for the domain, you’ll see that all is not transparent in this community of love and inclusion and openness. The names of the registrant are witheld and instead you have the internet equivalent of a mail forwarding box.

Registrant ID:  tuz9dhsLYgMsbL9A
Registrant Name:  contactprivacy.com
Registrant Organization:  Contactprivacy.com
Registrant Street1:  96 Mowat Ave
Registrant Street2:  
Registrant Street3:  
Registrant City:  Toronto
Registrant State/Province:  ON
Registrant Postal Code:  M6K3M1
Registrant Country:  CA
Registrant Phone:  +1.4165385457
Registrant Phone Ext.:  
Registrant FAX:  
Registrant FAX Ext.:  
Registrant Email:  diosanjoaquin.org@contactprivacy.com

Would it be too much for 815 to simply admit that they have manufactured this new diocese from the start, that there is no-one left on the ground who could in anysense be handed the administrative tasks? The very fact that they cannot be open and transparent about something so simple as who registered the website is a clear sign that talk of welcome and love is just duckspeak.

So, would anybody from 815 like to clarify for us in whose name the domain is (and was originlly) registered and who did the website design? Betcha anything they don’t have anything to do with the new Diocese of San Joaquin.

25 Comments on “Who registered diosanjoaquin.org?

  1. I have to admit when some of the more out-spoken bloggers published comments comparing the TEC’s current leadership to the former Soviet Union or other totalitarian regimes, I thought these bloggers were being a little over-the-top. Now, however, when I looked at the “Diocese of San Joaquin”‘s site and convention agenda these comments seem right on target. This “convention” agenda could be, with a little editing, have been used at a Peoples Congress in the thirties!
    Pax et Bonum,

  2. Thank you for this newsworthy item. Clearly, there are foul forces hiding behind this electronic smokescreen. But, I am sad to report, this is only the tip of the conspiratorial iceberg.

    I submit for your consideration the following domain name registration information:


    Domains by Proxy, Inc.

    15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
    Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
    United States

    Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
    Created on: 04-Mar-04
    Expires on: 04-Mar-09
    Last Updated on: 04-Mar-08

    Administrative Contact:
    Private, Registration STANDFIRMINFAITH.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
    Domains by Proxy, Inc.
    15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
    Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
    United States
    (480) 624-2599

    Technical Contact:
    Private, Registration STANDFIRMINFAITH.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
    Domains by Proxy, Inc.
    15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
    Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
    United States
    (480) 624-2599

    And who is Domains By Proxy, Inc.? Why, a commercial domain registration service whose motto is “Your identity is nobody’s business but ours”(r). And, indeed, there is less information available about the shadowy forces behind Stand Firm than there is about those running the new Diocese of San Joaquin website.

    If, as a previous commenter alludes, Communists might be behind the DioSJ webiste, perhaps Nazis run Stand Firm? Or are there vistors from outer space pulling the strings behind both these sites? The implications are, to say the least, startling.

    Please expand your timely investigation to address this disturbing situation. Enquiring minds want to know.

  3. I can tell you exactly who runs standfirminfaith.com. Greg Griffiths. If you send him an email at greg@standfirminfaith.com he’ll confirm as much.

    Interestingly, I raised exactly the same issue as you did with Greg earlier this afternoon. He explained that there was never any doubt that he had setup the website and anybody who takes two minutes knows that he is the culprit.

    Completely different from the piece I wrote above. NO-ONE knows who is behind this website.

  4. Actually, it’s contact@standfirminfaith.com, and I don’t what you’re talking about, Peter. I can neither confirm nor deny that I have anything whatsoever to do with the web site on which I have made more than a thousands posts and comments. This comment will self-destruct in 30 seconds.

  5. Do we know who this person (if it’s a person at all!) calling himself “Greg Griffiths” really is? Can we prove “he” is not really an elaborate artificial intelligence experiment hatched in the bowels of MIT and gone horribly awry? I thought not.

    Of course, I was only kidding about “space aliens” hiding behind that moniker — that’s just crankery pure and simple. But “Greg Griffiths” as an Atlantean from deep inside the Hollow Earth accessing the Internet telepathically? Now there’s something of substance.

  6. I’m glad we sorted that one out. Greg is responsible for Stand Firm AND is from deep inside the Hollow Earth.

    So now, who runs and pays for the San Joaquin website?

  7. In all seriousness, 815 (or more precisely, the Executive Council) has already announced that it has committed half-a-million dollars to fund ongoing operations in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. The administrative apparatus — including the website and its administrator(s) — of the formerly-Episcopal diocese “went South” with +John-David.

    So it may very well be that 815 has funded a new website. But it’s not as if this represents some major Potemikin diocese initiative. What does web domain hosting run for a small, relatively static site these days? Twenty bucks a month, maybe?. Trivial stuff. But entirely consistent with 815’s openly announced plans. They’ve rented office space in Stockton and have probably bought some stationery, too.

    So I see nothing particularly heinous about an unidentifable “someone” creating a San Joaquin website. Just as I see nothing untoward about using private domain registration services. Lots of people use them and it’s probably a smart idea to do so. I think it would be unwise for, say, Greg Griffiths (whom I know to be a real, living human being, of course) to post his personal contact information for all and sundry to see.

    With all due respect, I think this is a bit of straining at gnats. Thank you for indulging a bit of humour on the topic, which I hope you don’t regard as being at your expense.

    On the underlying topic, though, time will tell, of course, whether the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin is sustainable. I suspect not, but it will be interesting to see how many actually stand up and declare themselves “remaining Episcopal” at the end of this month. The current counting seems dynamic, to say the least.

  8. William,

    Are you not at all perturbed by the completely Stalinistic agenda for the Convention? Everything seems to have been decided beforehand without any input from the floor (i.e. the ordinary parishioners left).

  9. I lost my ability to be perturbed at a lack of democracy in the Diocese of San Joaquin some time ago. It was a top-down organization under Bishop Schofield (whom, I should state, I regard as a godly, orthodox man who is in many ways an excellent pastor) and it appears there will be more of the same with the new regime. So it goes.

    I should confess that my interest at this point is purely sporting; thought a longtime Anglican in the Dio of SJ (Stockton, CA) I swam the Tiber seven years ago. One of my secondary considerations was if I’m going to be ruled by a “prince of the Church” I want it done right. Rome’s “polity” (not that they would ever call it that!) was more coherent than Fresno’s or — heaven forfend! — Manhattan’s.

    Be that as it may, I still have friends on both sides of this issue and I can assure there is plenty of blame to share all around. Just as an aside: there’s a lot of small-town, clan politics being played out in this situation by us “hicks from the sticks” that has nothing to do with theology. You know, “Twenty years ago, so-and-so’s sister got the county job my cousin deserved and he drives an imported car, so I’m against whatever he’s for.” Welcome to rural America.

  10. Stalinistic???

    Please, Peter, he’d have simply had all of you shot. Both sides. You are being absurd. And offensive.

    Any update on Akinola’s manifesto on democracy, freedom and individual liberty?

    (Please tell me it’s at least in the final draft. ?)

  11. I like a conspiracy as much as the next person Peter, but I’ve seen better ones. Clicking the huge great big link in the bottom right hand corner of the site takes you to the website of the makers of the site, digitalfaith.org, the same people who have built the websites for the dioceses of Idaho, Mississippi, Arizona, Kentucky etc etc.

    Lots of people use services that hide the true addresses behind their domains. It is a way of stopping spammers, nuisance telephoners, axe murderers etc.

    This comment was typed whilst moving my head in a funny way.

  12. Dave,

    It’s perfectly clear for all to see that they’re using a CMS from digitalfaith.org. The question still remains – who did the registering? Was it a member of the alleged remnant diocese or was it someone else? Who is doing the management of the site? These are the issues, NOT whether the site is built using a CMS.

  13. The server and the content management system (CMS) that is being used for the new site, is largely irrelevant. What is critical is who (what individual or group) registered the domain name. Whoever it it currently claims the rights to the that name and the right to direct any traffic for that name to a particular IP address – where they have a web server. It’s not all about the mechanics of how the web pages got built, but it is about who has laid claim the the domain name diosanjoaquin.org.

  14. Peter – you did ask ‘who did the website design’.

    As far as I understand it ‘Digital faith’ is more than just the CMS – they provide a whole package which includes registering the domain name for the client. Now you’re going to ask me who ‘the client’ is. Don’t know.

  15. Dave,

    If you look at http://www.gafcon.org, you’ll see that it’s a Joomla installation. Does that mean that Joomla are responsible for the website? Of course not. The design and the expending of the time and resources was done by somebody else. In the same way the fact that the new San Joaquin site uses a CMS doesn’t affect the same core question – who actually designed it and commissioned it and is ultimately responsible for it? That’s the issue that we want addressed – is it a local remnant or is it an 815 job?

  16. And what does all this have to do with loving the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, with all your strength, and loving your neighbor as yourself?

    What does all the negative comments have to do with Jesus?

    Beware: Your Christianity is showing!

  17. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. Saint John 3:16, 17

  18. “If you love me, you will obey my commands”

    You can’t just quote one bit of Scripture Father and think that it wipes out the others. A coherent Biblical theology makes sense of all of God’ Word, not just the bits that you happen to like.

  19. Peter,
    I think I would say the same to you. I am quoting the basis that God has given us for His love in Jesus Christ towards each other. I was commenting on the Christian witness of the comments that have people have made about the new website for The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. How can someone get so bent out of shape over the formation a website? In those comments, how does this witness to the love of Jesus Christ that Christians are suppose to show in their lives, and to others? How will these negative comments bring anyone to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour? I’ve not seen any biblical commands in Holy Scripture concerning websites.

    We need to beware of judging others as Jesus states in Saint Matthew 7. It seems that you have some other agenda on your mind, than what I was commenting about.

    I usually don’t read blogs since I find them vicious and tearing down, rather than building up. A friend from back east told me how to get to this specific one, and noted how strange it was for Christians to dabble in their style of ‘blog Christianity.’ I thought it was a bad witness to the power of Jesus Christ living within.

    A blessed Holy Week to you as we trudge in our brokenness to the cross, and to the tranforming and radical love we can find in the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ!

  20. Tell me Father, are you one of the churches who are staying with the Diocese of SJ as it moves into the Southern Cone or are you part of the group forming the new Diocese?

  21. I would like to think you want the truth. I am a long time member of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, and loyal to the Episcopal Church. I think it is really unimportant who set up the website. We are glad it has been done. We have been looking forward for a long time to support from TEC.
    You discussed the agenda also. If you look more closely at the information provided, you will see that there are 8 lay candidates for Standing Committee for 4 positions; 8 clergy candidates for Standing Committee for 4 clergy positions. Nominations will be accepted from the floor according to the agenda. There are also more candidates for delegates to the national convention than there are positions.
    I am a lay person who has no desire to trade off insults with you. I just have seen so much misinformation being spread about our Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and I would think that the truth should be at the forefront of all of our Christian conflicts and disagreements.

  22. Beryl, I think that you’ll find that the line in the agenda reading “Call for nominations from the floor and introduction of all candidates.” was not present in the original agenda. Perhaps you’d like to confer with the powers that be so they can inform you whether or not that is so. Remember while you’re doing that some of us who browse the web tend to take snap shots of pages at certain points to check whether changes are made later.

    Let us know what the outcome of your inquiries are.

Leave a Reply

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