Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alex L. Walker]

Cindy posted this on her "SMUT SITE."

Contrary to the rumors and false accusations being made on adventtalk.com, these closures were NOT due to porn being posted here. We have never allowed porn to be posted here, or allowed links to such. Early on when we first opened our forum we allowed anyone to register or post without permission, but due to this we had an increasing amount of spammers joining and posting here. One morning I had to delete ONE very inappropriate post by a newly registered member which contained sexual references. It was NOT porn, and it was also not here very long before being deleted. Due to that post and not wanting our members or readers to be offended, we decided to change our forum policy, and now require approval for all registrations. (Later, due to multiple violations of our forum rules by new members in their first posts, we also started requiring approval of posts by new members, until it could be determined that the member did not require moderation, and demonstrated that they understood the rules.)

We never established whether the ONE offensive post was posted by a unknown spammer, or by a troublemaker from within the group accusing 3ABN, who's home is on adventtalk. What we do know from their posts is that many of the latter apparently saw it in the short amount of time it was here in that early morning hour. For they immediately, starting with one adventtalk moderator, began to falsely and repeatedly label me a "porn queen", and call this forum "a porn site" and a"smut site"" Now the 3ABN accusers commonly and frequently refer to this forum as the "Smut Site" --so frequently that even their newest members call us that and appear to think we allow porn and smut. Even their forum administrators, Daryl Fawcett and then Johann Thorvaldsson posted that we were a "Smut site" and warned folks to beware of reading here because they might discover porn here. Those false accusations continue to this day. It was just brought up in reference to our recent forum suspension here. It is unfortunate that these folks feel this kind of thing is necessary as that is not honest, and is also in fact slander. They will have to answer for that one day, but even now it reveals to others the characters of the small group accusing the brethren at 3ABN night and day.



Now, Cindy, you need to quit being a LIAR. It was not an offensive post that is being refferred to, as I have seen the photo! There was clearly porn on your site. It was a woman's body part clearly below the beltline and had no panties on! Now, quit lying.

[Gregory]

Here is where honest people may differ, up to a point.  That point is in regard to the defination of the word "porn."   References to rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in regard to "porn" clearly demonstrate the differences in understanding that some people have.

Most common definations of "porn" suggest that porn has an erotic part to it, or is at least intended to be erotic.  I have not seen the photo.  I do not know if it was erotic.  Personally, I do not believe that a photo of a female body part, such as you reference is ipso facto erotic.

However, there is another point in this discussion that I believe is more important:  Cindy has clearly stated:  1) the photo was inappropriate.  2) The photo was posted by some unknown person.  3) It was discovered almost immediately.  4) Once it was discovered, it was removed.

On the basis of that, I will suggest that it is unethical (and rasised an integrity issue) to reference that web site as the "smut site."  That term would only be appropriate if it had intentionally been allowed to remain.

I will agree that there are posts made on 3atalk that do not fairly represent people here.  But, "turn about" is not fair play.  I will suggest that the references that you make here to it as a "smut site" reflect badly on the integrity of the peole who make such references.

[Artiste]

I believe the designation of "smut site" came about to described other posted information on that site, not just a fleeting inappropriate graphic appearing there.

[Alex L. Walker]

Truth posted this on the smut site:


Cynthia, I think we might have a clue to who put some "porn" on this forum long ago, which was removed asap from here as soon as it was found. He posted about it on AdventTalk today and listed in detail what was supposedly on our forum, calling you a liar. How sad that these people have nothing better to do with their lives than to act and talk this way.

Our website here is not a smut sight or porn site. Anyone in their right minds can search anywhere on this site and see that this is the truth. THERE IS NO PORN ON THIS FORUM. But the fact that Walker knows and has described the supposed smut in disgusting detail gives it away as to who possibly could have done this evil deed here. Of course we don't know for sure, but it looks quite suspicious to me. I mean, if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck.....





Um Truth, I was not even coming to the forums when this appeared. I was sent the screen shot by a friend after I arrived, because I did not believe it to be true. Now, believe what you wish, but I did not even know these forums existed at that point. It has been well over a year when I was shown that screenshot, and it was shortly after I arrived. Now, hush your mouth until you get your facts straight.

I suppose truth is so naive that she is not aware that people can take screenshots. Trust me Truth THERE IS a screenshot, because it was sent to me. Why was it sent to me? Like I stated because I did not believe it to be truth.




In a later post Truth posted this:

Of course it is easy to prove we are right. Readers, feel free to search this site -- you will find out well enough that I tell the TRUTH.


You tell the truth? Rofl. If you think spreading rumors and accusing people without facts is TRUTH? Then I must be The Pope.

[Nosir Myzing]

Cindy posted this on her "SMUT SITE."

Contrary to the rumors and false accusations being made on adventtalk.com, these closures were NOT due to porn being posted here. We have never allowed porn to be posted here, or allowed links to such. Early on when we first opened our forum we allowed anyone to register or post without permission, but due to this we had an increasing amount of spammers joining and posting here. One morning I had to delete ONE very inappropriate post by a newly registered member which contained sexual references. It was NOT porn, and it was also not here very long before being deleted. Due to that post and not wanting our members or readers to be offended, we decided to change our forum policy, and now require approval for all registrations. (Later, due to multiple violations of our forum rules by new members in their first posts, we also started requiring approval of posts by new members, until it could be determined that the member did not require moderation, and demonstrated that they understood the rules.)

We never established whether the ONE offensive post was posted by a unknown spammer, or by a troublemaker from within the group accusing 3ABN, who's home is on adventtalk. What we do know from their posts is that many of the latter apparently saw it in the short amount of time it was here in that early morning hour. For they immediately, starting with one adventtalk moderator, began to falsely and repeatedly label me a "porn queen", and call this forum "a porn site" and a"smut site"" Now the 3ABN accusers commonly and frequently refer to this forum as the "Smut Site" --so frequently that even their newest members call us that and appear to think we allow porn and smut. Even their forum administrators, Daryl Fawcett and then Johann Thorvaldsson posted that we were a "Smut site" and warned folks to beware of reading here because they might discover porn here. Those false accusations continue to this day. It was just brought up in reference to our recent forum suspension here. It is unfortunate that these folks feel this kind of thing is necessary as that is not honest, and is also in fact slander. They will have to answer for that one day, but even now it reveals to others the characters of the small group accusing the brethren at 3ABN night and day.



Now, Cindy, you need to quit being a LIAR. It was not an offensive post that is being refferred to, as I have seen the photo! There was clearly porn on your site. It was a woman's body part clearly below the beltline and had no panties on! Now, quit lying.

The truth is Alex Walker just told another bold faced lie.  Alex could never have seen such a photo from the other forum for there was never such a photo posted there. His credibility becomes worse all the time afaic. If he would lie about this, what wouldn't he lie about?


1Ti 1:8      But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully;
1Ti 1:9      Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10      For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1Ti 1:11      According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.


Rev 21:5      And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
Rev 21:6      And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
Rev 21:7      He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Rev 21:8     But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

cc: other forum

[Artiste]

Well...according to the above post by Nosir Myzing, Tommy Shelton had better watch out for fire and brimstone in the future.

[Alex L. Walker]

I am a liar? Hmmmmmmmm. I know of at least 5 people on this forum who have also seen that photo.  I am kind of suprised they have not added more to this discussion. However, I will look for that email and prove that I am not a liar.

So, have your appology in order SIR MIZER!!!!

[Johann]

Cindy admits there was something that was removed. Nozir claims there never was. Which one is in the danger zone?

[Snoopy]

I saw it, too, Alex - you are right.  And when I saw it there a couple of hundred hits.

[Johann]

I saw it too!

[Bob Pickle]

So was Nosir Myzing indulging in evil sirMizing (sic.)?

[Artiste]

So was Nosir Myzing indulging in evil sirMizing (sic.)?

Apparently so.

[Gregory]

I do not have any personal knowedge as to what was posted, or not posted, or anything about the alleged post.  But, for the purpose of this discussion, let is assume that a photograph of female anatomy was posted on that site and that it was seen by some mumber (anywhere from 5 - 100) people.  With these assumptions in place, I will suggest that there are several questions that are important and must be asked:

1) How long did that photo remain in place before it was removed--as I understand it, the photo was removed?
2)What is the name, or pen-name under which the photo was posted?  It is fair to ask what we know as to who may have posted it.  surely there was a name/pen-neme attached to the photo.
3) Is there any known person who saw the photo and then brought it to the attention of the management of that other webvsite?  I have a basic expectation that there should have been an assumption that the website could have been spammed which would result in someone brlnging it to the attention of their management.
4) Is it known who from the other web site removed the photo?

I am reminded of a SDA elementary school principal who discovered, one day, that a callendar had been posted on the wall in his office that depicted some young, attractive, healthy, adult women who were generally more or less in the state in which God had created them.  It seemed that one of the male students had obtained a callendar from his father's business and decided to decorate the principal's office with it.  Nobody really accused the principal of posting it in his office.   And, the principal notified all of the parents as to what had happened as it was not known to him how many students and others might have seen the callendar before he discovered it and  removed it.

In my personal opinion, on the assumption that the alleged photo was posted on the other site, those who call it a "smut site" are going well beyond what is acceptable for a person of integrity.  It would seem to me that in order to call it a smut site one would have to show that the photo was intentionally posted and remaind in view.  IOW, a true smut site would still have the photo up for view.  As far as I know, the photo is not still up for view.

[Nosir Myzing]

FYI:

Re: Judgments and Criticisms

Post by Cynthia  Oct 01, 2011 2:51 pm UTC

What I find interesting and am amazed by is the pettiness and deceit  in the accusations the folks on adventtalk make. I mean, really? One alleged picture, which even if it was posted here, is quite obviously not something we have ever condoned, or would ever allow here, and is not posted here now. That makes this a PORNO site? That justifies their continuing accusations and name-calling? NOT!

Even "IF" such a picture had ever been posted here then we wouldn't have a reason to lie about it, we would simply have removed it and apologized for any offense that caused and that would be given as the reason for the safeguards we put into effect on this forum in addition to, or instead of the inappropriate post I removed and gave as an example in my previous post about this.

The thing is, I as a forum administrator and moderator have done most of the editing and deleting here from day one, and I never saw such a picture posted and am not aware of such a picture or post being deleted by either of the other two administrators either and have no idea how such a inappropriate picture could have had a few hundred hits as Snoopy claims. Not even if a registered member bent on causing trouble had posted it and removed it themselves within the short time allotted for editing a post. A few hundred viewed it, without any of us being aware of it, and without engendering even one complaint or report on this forum? That seems highly unlikely to me, and again, even had that occurred that would hardly qualify us as being "porn queens" or as operating a "Porn site". That would make that individual guilty. Then again, these type of unwarranted and unjustified and false accusations are the same kind of ridiculous and false accusations made against 3ABN, which we, after making inquiries and doing diligent research have found time and again to be misunderstandings and false assumptions, or outright falsehoods and false accusations.

It appears to me, as Alex refers to an email, that IF such an email exists and that's how this all started? Then whoever the originator of that email is, is the bold faced liar here, and any who may have received it have been deceived in this instance, and in probably a lot more instances from the same individual because they refused to be accountable and swallowed lies. Why? Answer: Anyone can be deceived, BUT, as Christians we are called to make diligent inquiry, to prove all things, and if we do such while asking the Lord to lead, we can avoid such. Refusing to do so, and preferring to love lies and spread false rumors and accusations and run up and down among the people being a talebearer indicates to me that something is wrong and the father of lies is being followed instead of the true Christ who is truth.

Sometimes false things are repeated and there is reason to give folks the benefit of the doubt as they aren't deliberately or knowingly lying, but I can find no such reason here. They cannot prove what they claim as it never occurred and so are unjustified and without excuse.These accusations about this being a PORNO site and the excuses they use to justify why they claim this are all lies. IMO, Rather than insisting that we admit guilt and publicly apologize to them for something we are not guilty of those folks need to lose their arrogant self righteousness and humbly ask the Lord to reveal the truth to them. Then they could ask him to forgive them and do whatever to try and make amends. It is they who ARE GUILTY of SIN here. Not only are they bearing false witness, but they are angry without a cause to be... and are wrong in how they handle things. In this case, and in so many others...

That's all I have to say about this, the rest is between them and the Lord...

~ Cindy

[Johann]

- - - - - - -

In my personal opinion, on the assumption that the alleged photo was posted on the other site, those who call it a "smut site" are going well beyond what is acceptable for a person of integrity.  It would seem to me that in order to call it a smut site one would have to show that the photo was intentionally posted and remaind in view.  IOW, a true smut site would still have the photo up for view.  As far as I know, the photo is not still up for view.

I did not keep the picture I saw and I have no idea how it got there nor why it is not there now. Yes, I agree with you, Gregory, that this event alone is not a reason to use the term "smut site". I can only speak for myself but my reason for using this unfortunate term is not based on the picture but because of my experience with the site how irresponsibly they handle truth and making claims that I know is not true.

It is my sincere wish that we could soon find a good reason to use a more pleasant term.