In regards to the Global announcement,

[Jamie]

with the explanation and reason why we could not login, post or read here on this forum last week. More specificly in response to the post quoted within that announcement, and the question the adventtalk forum moderator asked of me:

from: Snoopy on August 20, 2011, 08:01:18 AM

from: Nosir Myzing on August 20, 2011, 02:42:12 AM

from: childoftheking on August 16, 2011, 04:58:25 AM

Snoopy if the mods would like to remove the last name-place name that is fine with me as I didn't know until recently that that might be a no-no and I didn't see where I could go back in to modify it.

No reply and it's still there, eh?

It's only a "no, no" if it's personal info or commentary about a a 3abn critic, :console: otherwise it's allowed :pals: as all should be able to see by now...

Sir Mizer, given your apptitude for forum management, please advise what specific rule COTK's post violates.

As I have left the adventtalk forum discussions permanently -- [except for announcements] due to my conclusion that they don't want either the answers or the truth that they demand. Why? They either repeatedly ask questions, and ignore the answer, or babble right over it; OR one of the moderators deletes either part, or all, of the replies calling them "inappropriate". Pickle and others then post claiming the failure to answer them (whether we have attempted to, or actually done so once or numerous times) proves that they are right. (ARROGANCE!)-- I will answer Snoopy here on this forum.


The specific rule it violated was the same one referred to by Artiste on July 17, 2011@ 01:28:47 PM when she deleted part of Sam's post:

Please see the posted topic "Important Addition to the Forum Privacy Policy" in the material at the top of the 3ABN forum for an explanation."

That posted topic "Important Addition to the Forum Privacy Policy" , although only addressed to the 3ABN defenders, states:

An Important Message for 3ABN Defenders
July 26, 2008, 11:00:50

In light of the fact that our 3ABN Forum on Advent Talk is dedicated to the respectful discussion of what we consider to be problematic situations, as well as certain individuals, in the 3ABN saga, I would like to mention the following points:

1. We endeavour to keep the discussion centered on issues rather than attacking Forum members disagreeing with us.

2. The fact that the 3ABN issues include Danny Shelton, Walt Thompson, and other 3ABN staff as well as other Shelton family members does not negate the above provision.

3. It is a fallacy to believe that because there is discussion of the above noted 3ABN-related individuals on Advent Talk, there is justification for adverse personal comments on Forum members in general.

4. The Advent Talk Administrative Staff is dedicated to provide the same courtesy to all Forum members, regardless of what position they take on the issues.

5. Adverse or inappropriate references to Forum members' families, personal lives, geographical locations or identities will continue to be prohibited on the Forum.

You should have known that, Snoopy, and how the golden rule applies, so when I previously replied to posts on adventtalk linking to alleged pictures of this forum's owner, his wife, his church, and his contact info, and asked:

Isn't that personal and apart from what is being discussed here? In any case, what does that have to do with 3abn issues, and why is that important to know either for yourself, or for others, according to your thinking???

It was in my view very "inappropriate" for you as a moderator to reply with only rolling laughter as you did. When you followed that up by asking what rule was violated that was, in my view, even more "inappropriate".

Furthermore as 3atalk was suspended due to a certain adventtalk moderator identifying herself and then complaining to Bluehost when we referred to her by name after that, then I would think you could comprehend that naming folks on your forum ---> and even worse posting or linking to addresses, contact info and pictures would also not be allowed by Bluehost and would definitely be a violation of the TOS, and not ask what rule that violated. Bluehost is Adventtalks server also.

http://www.who.is/whois/adventtalk.com/

Domain Name: adventtalk.com
Updated: 1 second ago - Refresh

Registrar: MYDOMAIN, INC.
Whois Server: whois.namesdirect.com
Referral URL: http://www.namesdirect.com
Status: clientDeleteProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited

Expiration Date: 2012-01-19
Creation Date: 2008-01-19
Last Update Date: 2011-09-01

Name Servers:
ns1.bluehost.com
ns2.bluehost.com

I think that answer is sufficient, Snoopy.

[Lilly]

Jamie, here is one more example of how they will break their own rules but if we dare say anything close to the truth, which they do not want to hear, then we are either banned or our comments deleted with the words: "inappropriate content" written in as if we have used foul language.

Look here how Gailon Joy got away with calling Nosir Myzing a "wind-bag" http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index. ... 85.15.html and yet it still is up on the forum for all to read. If we called one of them anything remotely like this we would have been banned immediately.

It is called a "double standard."

But let me ask a question and this proves our point: WHY do you think we took the time, effort and money to get our own forum? You guessed it--we got tired of being banned and treated disrespectfully over on BSDA and AT. We can tell the real true story here and thankfully people are reading here and realizing it.

Why else would Adventtalk try to get this forum closed?

And while I'm at it, "youngwarrier" is wrong about the years Tommy Shelton worked at 3ABN. Keith--your memory is failing you.

[uncovering truth]

I wonder what that mark in Gailon and Robert's right hand and forehead represent?

[Stan]

The host shut you down because of comments made about people?

[Nestor]

It is my wish that in these hours of the Sabbath the Lord will be with you-all and that you may be refreshed by the Sabbath Peace the the Lord desisres you to recieve.

[Truth]

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.....

[Echo]

Cynthia, Truth... imo, whoever grabbed the screen shot of the photo posted here and then used it to prove to AW that this site is a so-called "smut" site is more likely than AW to be the one who posted the photo initially. With some on AT using the "by any means necessary" strategy, it wouldn't be a surprise that one of them would plant such a thing and then exploit it.

As far as someone complaining about their name being used here after they have used Cynthia's name incessantly on their site, couldn't you complain to their provider and get the same result?

[Cynthia]

Cynthia, Truth... imo, whoever grabbed the screen shot of the photo posted here and then used it to prove to AW that this site is a so-called "smut" site is more likely than AW to be the one who posted the photo initially. With some on AT using the "by any means necessary" strategy, it wouldn't be a surprise that one of them would plant such a thing and then exploit it.

As far as someone complaining about their name being used here after they have used Cynthia's name incessantly on their site, couldn't you complain to their provider and get the same result?

That is possible but they would have had to have removed it themselves before the time allotted for editing expired...If the photo was even posted here. We have no records of it. We have no complaints or reports from members about it. None of the admins here claim to have seen it or to have deleted it... Perhaps someone used photo shop, or maybe they made it up? I have no idea... Either is equally likely in my opinion.

And yes, I could probably complain and get them shut down. I considered it but I am not them and their ways are not mine.