Forum name

annie1speed · Apr 13, 2008

Hey there,

I believe Jon has the key here:

If there was a seventh-day adventist forum, without qualifier, and I wasn't allowed to post in it, I would complain.

If they keep SDA in the forum name, people who worship in SDA churches could claim the right to post. The other things Tall mentions I am sure contribute to the decision, but bottom line I believe CF is trying to avoid legal trouble NOT from GC, but from SDA's who are considered SDA by their congregations, yet denied here on the board.

tall73 · Apr 13, 2008

woobadooba said:
CF solicits donations in the NAME OF CF, not in the name of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Thus your point is utterly moot!

Moreover, the SDA forum is a sub-forum WITHIN a website, not the website itself. And even if it were the website itself, as long as the webmaster isn't trying to solicit funds in the name of the Trademarked entity while not being officially linked to them as a licensed rep., then there is no grounds for legal action.

You obviously don't know much about e-commerce. And I am not going to try to explain the rules to you AGAIN. Just go back and read my previous post.

The GC has every right to trademark the name, and were not wrong for doing so. As I had said before, a person could take the name and claim to be an official representative of it, while totally misrepresenting it. The trademark serves as a protective force to keep that thing from happening, or at the very least to stop it when it does occur.

Lee is not at risk for LISTING the name as a sub-forum. And Dan knows this.

See CaDan's reponses in the other thread.

CF does not qualify to use the name in its forums. CF could be misrepresenting the brand of the church by utilizing that name for some of its forums. CF does take in donations, partly on the basis of providing home forums for people. And as CaDan pointed out CF is now imposing posting requirements to debate in one of its forums, including the Adventist statement of faith. That is different than just giving a review on a product.

More to the point, if Lee doesn't want legal hassles with the GC, he has every right to avoid them. Whether you think the GC would pursue it, or whether you think it would hold up doesn't matter. He has the right to avoid such issues. He has done so by using an accepted abbreviation.

As to trademarking the name being right, tell that to the conservative church that it sued for preaching the Adventist message. The GC was embarrassed by a church that actually published abroad what Adventists teach.

JonMiller · Apr 13, 2008

annie1speed said:
Hey there,

I believe Jon has the key here:

If they keep SDA in the forum name, people who worship in SDA churches could claim the right to post. The other things Tall mentions I am sure contribute to the decision, but bottom line I believe CF is trying to avoid legal trouble NOT from GC, but from SDA's who are considered SDA by their congregations, yet denied here on the board.

As in example, back when it was SDA forum, someone asked whether we thought that worshiping on Sunday was sinful. I said no. Traditionals disagreed with me, and said people should worship on the Sabbath.

I posted a post quoting the fundamental belief and saying that the traditional poster was mistaken. I think that it is important to represent the SDA churches views properly if the SDA churches name is being used. I don't feel that the traditionals here at CF honestly represent the SDA church.

BTW, my post was reported and than deleted. This was after the name change by the way. I would be much more vocal in my complaining about this if the name was seventh-day adventist forums, as that would mean that CF was deciding what the proper representation of seventh-day adventist beliefs were.

Jon Miller
(Just to clarify, the fundamental belief says nothing about worshiping on Sunday as being sinful or dooming people to hell. It only says that Saturday is the Sabbath and should be kept holy. It doesn't talk about Sunday at all.)

Adventist Dissident · Apr 13, 2008

I am going to keep harping on this issue, but I want to request the "Moderate" label be dropped from the Name and "Evanglical" be added instead.

Hear are the following reasons.

1. Until you used the term "Moderate" I had never heard the term used to describe any group in adventism.

2. "Moderate" as compared to what?

3. "Evanglical" is a term alread used and common in Adventism. In fact both supporters and detractors use the term to identify a specific group in Adventism.

4. Evanglical specifically identifies a way of thinking,an approach to spirituality and a unique set of doctrinal belief that are in keeping with Mainline Christianty, Moderate does not identify this.
5. there is an Article on this issue in AT.
6. Neither progressive or moderate identify this group. progressive is all inclusive you can disagree with 1 of the 28's or all of the 28, moderative is not even applicable

JonMiller · Apr 13, 2008

Well, if you think about it, a progressive is defined here and someone who doesn't agree with one of the fundamentals. A moderate would than be someone who agrees with all fundamentals, but isn't exclusionary over them or is open to other ideas/etc.

JM

Adventist Dissident · Apr 13, 2008

JonMiller said:
Well, if you think about it, a progressive is defined here and someone who doesn't agree with one of the fundamentals. A moderate would than be someone who agrees with all fundamentals, but isn't exclusionary over them or is open to other ideas/etc.

JM

fair enough, If moderate is a mindset then sure, but that still does not cover a clearly defined doctional postion

RC_NewProtestants · Apr 13, 2008

annie1speed said:
Hey there,

I believe Jon has the key here:

If they keep SDA in the forum name, people who worship in SDA churches could claim the right to post. The other things Tall mentions I am sure contribute to the decision, but bottom line I believe CF is trying to avoid legal trouble NOT from GC, but from SDA's who are considered SDA by their congregations, yet denied here on the board.

I think this really sums up the issue regardless of SDA trademark issues. As long as the forum which is now called Traditional Adventist prohibits current SDA members such as myself and Stormy they are not accurately title SDAed, as they restrict current SDA members. The SDA church does not require anyone to affirm their set of 28 fundamentals and nor to reaffirm Baptismal vows.

So even saying one believes the 28 fundamentals does not make one an SDA for example certain independent ministries would agree with the 28 and yet call the SDA leadership Babylon and corrupt.

For the purposes of the people on the TSDA forum they would be better off accepting the current description as their use is different than the official SDA church and its membership requirements.

StormyOne · Apr 13, 2008

RC_NewProtestants said:
I think this really sums up the issue regardless of SDA trademark issues. As long as the forum which is now called Traditional Adventist prohibits current SDA members such as myself and Stormy they are not accurately title SDAed, as they restrict current SDA members. The SDA church does not require anyone to affirm their set of 28 fundamentals and nor to reaffirm Baptismal vows.

So even saying one believes the 28 fundamentals does not make one an SDA for example certain independent ministries would agree with the 28 and yet call the SDA leadership Babylon and corrupt.

For the purposes of the people on the TSDA forum they would be better off accepting the current description as their use is different than the official SDA church and its membership requirements.

exactly.... the members here who are comfortable calling themselves traditionals have imposed criteria for membership that the REAL organized church has not.....

Mankin · Apr 13, 2008

The truth is it doesn't really matter what the name is. People are sue happy and Lee wants to avoid that. Who cares if the name is slightly altered in the forums.

synger · Apr 13, 2008

It seems to me that the names for the two forums need to be parallel as much as possible, to clearly differentiate for users what is expected and accepted in each one. I think that originally, the forums were going to be:

Traditional Seventh Day Adventists
Progressive and Moderate Seventh Day Adventists

I think that was when there was some outcry that the Progressives could not use the term "Seventh Day Adventist" because it was copyrighted... and so the copyrighted term was removed from both forums.

freeindeed2 · Apr 13, 2008

woobadooba said:
You don't want to be a part of our church anymore, so why bother voicing your thoughts, except to attempt to justify what you know is morally wrong!

How is it 'morally wrong' for a privately owned website taking measures to protect themselves from perceived legal threats?

In CHRIST alone...

CaDan · Apr 13, 2008

synger said:
It seems to me that the names for the two forums need to be parallel as much as possible, to clearly differentiate for users what is expected and accepted in each one. I think that originally, the forums were going to be:

Traditional Seventh Day Adventists

Progressive and Moderate Seventh Day Adventists

I think that was when there was some outcry that the Progressives could not use the term "Seventh Day Adventist" because it was copyrighted... and so the copyrighted term was removed from both forums.

Trademark, not copyright.

woobadooba · Apr 13, 2008

freeindeed2 said:
How is it 'morally wrong' for a privately owned website taking measures to protect themselves from perceived legal threats?

In CHRIST alone...

Because it is religious discrimination.

Now, if they are really being honest, and fear that the GC will take legal action against them, then it isn't morally wrong.

However, since the GC didn't order them to remove the name, while ordering them to remove the image, this indicates that their excuse for fear of legal action being taken against them is just that--an excuse, not an honest answer to the question.

But that's just my opinion.

tall73 · Apr 13, 2008

Only Lee knows for sure on that one.

Sophia7 · Apr 13, 2008

StormyOne said:
you are correct Tall and at BSDA we have been discussing if the GC says no what our alternatives (name wise) might be....

So they did grant a license for BlackSDA to use the name because Calvin took down the banner ads even though "SDA" isn't actually trademarked by the GC? What about the issue of requesting donations?

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14556&view=findpost&p=207852
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14556&view=findpost&p=207864
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14556&view=findpost&p=207865
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14556&view=findpost&p=215507
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14556&view=findpost&p=217867

Telaquapacky · Apr 14, 2008

icedragon101 said:
Until you used the term "Moderate" I had never heard the term used to describe any group in adventism.

2. "Moderate" as compared to what?

3. "Evanglical" is a term alread used and common in Adventism. In fact both supporters and detractors use the term to identify a specific group in Adventism.

4. Evanglical specifically identifies a way of thinking,an approach to spirituality and a unique set of doctrinal belief that are in keeping with Mainline Christianty, Moderate does not identify this.
5. there is an Article on this issue in AT.
6. Neither progressive or moderate identify this group. progressive is all inclusive you can disagree with 1 of the 28's or all of the 28, moderative is not even applicable

I consider myself moderate. I know what Evangelical means, but when I think of "Evangelical," I think of robed neocons like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Share that label? No, thank you! I think Jon's definition of moderate is pretty good:

Originally Posted by JonMiller

Well, if you think about it, a progressive is defined here and someone who doesn't agree with one of the fundamentals. A moderate would than be someone who agrees with all fundamentals, but isn't exclusionary over them or is open to other ideas/etc.

JM

StormyOne · Apr 14, 2008

Sophia7 said:
So they did grant a license for BlackSDA to use the name because Calvin took down the banner ads even though "SDA" isn't actually trademarked by the GC? What about the issue of requesting donations?

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14556&view=findpost&p=207852
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14556&view=findpost&p=207864
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14556&view=findpost&p=207865
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14556&view=findpost&p=215507
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14556&view=findpost&p=217867

it is in limbo at the moment... if Calvin decides to remove the ads then BSDA has permission, however if Calvin decides to solicit money and have ads, then they probably will not give permission... so its up to Calvin to decide what he wants to do....

Sophia7 · Apr 14, 2008

StormyOne said:
it is in limbo at the moment... if Calvin decides to remove the ads then BSDA has permission, however if Calvin decides to solicit money and have ads, then they probably will not give permission... so its up to Calvin to decide what he wants to do....

OK, thanks for clarifying.

synger · Apr 14, 2008

CaDan said:
Trademark, not copyright.

Sorry. *grins* I'm more a big-picture person than a detail person... I keep getting those two mixed up. Thanks for the clarification.

CaDan · Apr 14, 2008

synger said:
Sorry. *grins* I'm more a big-picture person than a detail person... I keep getting those two mixed up. Thanks for the clarification.

I should have added /snark at the end of my post.

Forum name

Senior Member

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

A Strange Mixture of Random Components.

Confessional Liturgical Lutheran

In Christ We Are FREE!

I remember orange CF

Legend

Sophia7's husband

Tall73's Wife

Unconquerable Good Will

Senior Veteran

Tall73's Wife

Confessional Liturgical Lutheran

I remember orange CF

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency