When I first contacted you, I said this:
I meant that I had been “censured without notice”.
I would have been OK if they had simply erased me without notice because my name would have been in the sea of other names in the transfers/erasures section during that period in 2025. Additionally, there isn’t any social ostracization that comes with a simple erasure.
Chase responded with an email to the HOH that said I misrepresented my erasure and that they did notice me properly:
It’s pretty easy to prove that Chase is either being a) sloppy or b) he’s lying to you. Here’s the email he sent me that he considers as the elder’s proper notice of an “erasure with censure”:
Here is the 2-pager PDF that was attached. It repeats the same themes but more lengthy.
There’s a lot of official-sounding language. Nothing about censure. Here’s when you (and I) found out that I had been “erased with censure”:
Names are redacted to protect privacy.
That’s how it was announced to the Head of Households at one of the HOH meetings last year. Naturally, one of the HOHs had to ask what the “censure” part meant, and if they should treat me differently if they saw me outside of church. Chase responded “no” but if we’re talking as serious people here: who are we kidding?
Call me crazy. I don’t think it’s right if you tell someone in a one-on-one conversation that you’re going to “erase” them, turnaround and publicly announce the individual was “erased with censure”, and then claim the individual was properly noticed.