The Best Way To Clean Up This Forum...

woobadooba · Apr 30, 2007

tomatoe said:
I would love to assist you in any endeavor to take this stuff off of the forums.

Well, we can certainly work on getting it off this one.

What we really need in here is mods that care enough to do something about slanderous threads.

tall73 · Apr 30, 2007

There is a rather easy way to eliminate those threads.

Have Danny register as a member, then the flaming rule applies. It is not necessarily that the mods enjoy the threads. They are the ones who have to spend their time moderating them when they would rather not. But there is no rule against the discussion. If he was a member then some of the more aggrivated statements would be considered flaming him.

woobadooba · Apr 30, 2007

tall73 said:
There is a rather easy way to eliminate those threads.

Have Danny register as a member, then the flaming rule applies. It is not necessarily that the mods enjoy the threads. They are the ones who have to spend their time moderating them when they would rather not. But there is no rule against the discussion. If he was a member then some of the more aggrivated statements would be considered flaming him.

That's a good point Tall.

I think rule 2.5 needs some adjustment.

Establishing such a rule as that which would not allow members to speak of outside entities as some have been speaking of Danny, Linda and 3Abn, would certainly be another solution to the problem. Of course, I think either Danny or Linda would have to say something to those in charge here about this to really get it moving.

As I see it, the owners of this website can be held accountable for some sense of responsibity in allowing this slanderous activity to take place, if this matter were to go to court as such.

Personally, if I were Erwin I would never allow such things to be spoken about others in this way, not merely because it is unethical, but also because it has the potential to put CF at risk if legal action is pursued.

RC_NewProtestants · Apr 30, 2007

CF is at no risk, you have to show malicious intent before slander or libel charges can be prosecuted. Why the continued need to hide information and pretend that interest in unethical behavior of people at 3ABN is gossip. DJ can gossip about Desmond Ford but mentions of people at 3 ABN is condemned gossip. It is a double standard.

djconklin · Apr 30, 2007

DJ can gossip about Desmond Ford but mentions of people at 3 ABN is condemned gossip. It is a double standard.

I told you quite clearly before, and I will tell you again, that I had not gotten permission from my source to give his name. It was a statement of fact from him--it is not gossip.

woobadooba · Apr 30, 2007

RC_NewProtestants said:
CF is at no risk, you have to show malicious intent before slander or libel charges can be prosecuted. Why the continued need to hide information and pretend that interest in unethical behavior of people at 3ABN is gossip. DJ can gossip about Desmond Ford but mentions of people at 3 ABN is condemned gossip. It is a double standard.

As I had said, either Danny or Linda would have to request that this kind of stuff not be posted about them.

CF would at least have to take their word that this stuff that is being said about them is trash.

If they allow this to continue after such a request is made, while knowing that either one of them has stated that the allegations are false, then CF would be held accountable for allowing this to continue.

Moreover, because each group has a story which conflicts with the other, it is obvious that someone is lying. Hence one can conclude that this is being done out of malice.

Now, let's get back on topic please and ignore any further interruptions from antagonistic posters.

RC_NewProtestants · Apr 30, 2007

Now, let's get back on topic please and ignore any further interruptions from antagonistic posters.

What is the problem woob you seem to be very hostile if we can't discuss things here then what is the point of the forum at all?

truthmagnet · Apr 30, 2007

TrustAndObey said:
Rosie, you are more than welcome in this forum. Gossipping is not. It's a poor reflection of our church and on Christ's people.

The thread you started wasn't about uplifting 3ABN, it was about asking things like "did Danny have hidden assets?"

Things we cannot possible know unless we're his accountant.

Let God take care of the person responsible for that marriage.

And Rosie, please don't bring that type of stuff in here anymore. I'm asking you as a sister to please learn from this.

I am glad that God convicted you to close the thread.

And, welcome.

~Lainie

hey lainie,
thank you for calling sin what it is.

freeindeed2 · May 1, 2007

woobadooba said:
Moreover, because each group has a story which conflicts with the other, it is obvious that someone is lying. Hence one can conclude that this is being done out of malice.

Wooba, SDA's don't even agree amongst themselves. There is no concensus when it comes to applying their beliefs and doctrines, thus you have several different places/sub-forums for different 'types' of SDA's to go.

So which group(s) is lying, and which ones oppose the others out of malice?

freeindeed2 · May 1, 2007

RC_NewProtestants said:
CF is at no risk, you have to show malicious intent before slander or libel charges can be prosecuted. Why the continued need to hide information and pretend that interest in unethical behavior of people at 3ABN is gossip. DJ can gossip about Desmond Ford but mentions of people at 3 ABN is condemned gossip. It is a double standard.

My thoughts exactly.

woobadooba · May 1, 2007

freeindeed2 said:
Wooba, SDA's don't even agree amongst themselves. There is no concensus when it comes to applying their beliefs and doctrines, thus you have several different places/sub-forums for different 'types' of SDA's to go.

So which group(s) is lying, and which ones oppose the others out of malice?

The purpose of this thread is to encourage people to be respectful of others, as was Jesus.

Let's put all of this anger aside and seek to walk as He walked...

http://www.christianforums.com/t5276289-are-you-up-for-a-challenge.html

franny · May 1, 2007

In any given situation there are several sides and the truth.

Each side must be able to express their thought and reveal their side of any given situation.

This is why we have debates.

My recommendation would be that Rossie55 and tomatoe have their thread and discuss to their hearts content about their side of the story. This would be called "3ABN's Truth".

Then there is the side of the investigators and they should have a thread so "Their Truth" can be read.

There are regular members on both sides, Maybe a thread for those on 3ABN's (Danny's) side and one for those that are not on 3ABN's (Danny's) side.

This gives everyone a voice and it is fair to those reading, because everyone will have a choice as to what to read.

Moderators will not have problems with flaming and arguing. Yet, opinions can be expressed freely. No group can take a post from someone else's thread and past it in their forum to flame it.

We live in a country that provides Freedom of speech, yet here on this forum, those liberties are not always heard.

In our country we can have civil disobedience without violence. We have freedom of press to print things as we please as long as no laws are broken.

There is a problem with some associating Danny as being 3ABN. 3ABN is a wonderful ministry built by God and should remain as such.

For some reason, 3ABN'ers and others believe some are trying to destroy 3ABN. That is not true. I do not believe that man should put asunder what God has created.

These subjects have nothing to do with God's wonderful ministry. And God's ministry it is. It is other problems that exist.

Think about it. Maybe you can open your hearts to allowing several threads for several truths. After these thread have a few pages, then open a rebuttal thread.

Here people can bring posts in for use in rebuttals. One rebuttal per member per post. They have one chance and one chance only for that post.

No new posts can be made without having a post from one of the original threads. The whole thread will contain only rebuttals.

This could work for both sides.

woobadooba · May 1, 2007

franny said:
In any given situation there are several sides and the truth.

Each side must be able to express their thought and reveal their side of any given situation.

This is why we have debates.

My recommendation would be that Rossie55 and tomatoe have their thread and discuss to their hearts content about their side of the story. This would be called "3ABN's Truth".

Then there is the side of the investigators and they should have a thread so "Their Truth" can be read.

There are regular members on both sides, Maybe a thread for those on 3ABN's (Danny's) side and one for those that are not on 3ABN's (Danny's) side.

This gives everyone a voice and it is fair to those reading, because everyone will have a choice as to what to read.

Moderators will not have problems with flaming and arguing. Yet, opinions can be expressed freely. No group can take a post from someone else's thread and past it in their forum to flame it.

We live in a country that provides Freedom of speech, yet here on this forum, those liberties are not always heard.

In our country we can have civil disobedience without violence. We have freedom of press to print things as we please as long as no laws are broken.

There is a problem with some associating Danny as being 3ABN. 3ABN is a wonderful ministry built by God and should remain as such.

For some reason, 3ABN'ers and others believe some are trying to destroy 3ABN. That is not true. I do not believe that man should put asunder what God has created.

These subjects have nothing to do with God's wonderful ministry. And God's ministry it is. It is other problems that exist.

Think about it. Maybe you can open your hearts to allowing several threads for several truths. After these thread have a few pages, then open a rebuttal thread.

Here people can bring posts in for use in rebuttals. One rebuttal per member per post. They have one chance and one chance only for that post.

No new posts can be made without having a post from one of the original threads. The whole thread will contain only rebuttals.

This could work for both sides.

Freedom of speech? I can't believe what I'm reading here!

Don't you think Danny and Linda have a say in what is posted about them in a public domain? Don't you think that they should be the ones to decide whether or not they want something like this to be set up on their behalf?

People are arguing with each other over what the truth is about them; yet, don't these people even care about the damage that is being caused to both Danny and Linda over this? Are we to publicly humiliate people like this? Don't these people understand that stuff like this causes great emotional pain to those who are the object of such outrage?

I can't control what is put on the internet, but I can at least attempt to encourage others to be more respectful of the privacy of others. I realize that many people have an issue with such a request because they so love to pry into other peoples lives; but my request that such slanderous trash not be posted in this forum still stands.

Such a set-up would not edify our church in the least bit, nor would it glorify God; rather, it would give Satan a foothold on the productivity of God's people, and thus hinder the work of Jesus Christ as the Holy Spirit would continue to be grieved by those who are not making good use of God's time!

Why can't we just talk about Jesus rather than throw stones at each other? Really!

Which activity of the two does God approve of?

freeindeed2 · May 1, 2007

woobadooba said:
The purpose of this thread is to encourage people to be respectful of others, as was Jesus.

Let's put all of this anger aside and seek to walk as He walked...

http://www.christianforums.com/t5276289-are-you-up-for-a-challenge.html

What 'anger' are you talking about? My point was that if agreement is your indication of 'respect', then why are there so many fractions in SDAism?

And how far do you carry out 'walking as He walked'? Do you shed your blood as an atonement for the sins of the world?

woobadooba · May 1, 2007

freeindeed2 said:
What 'anger' are you talking about? My point was that if agreement is your indication of 'respect', then why are there so many fractions in SDAism?

And how far do you carry out 'walking as He walked'? Do you shed your blood as an atonement for the sins of the world?

What I mean by respect is that it isn't for us to pry into peoples personal lives and expose their shortcomings in a public domain. That is highly disrespectful, and an invasion of their privacy.

Also, we don't have to insult each other, or speak to one another in a condescending manner to make a point. There are far too many flames going around in here by both Traditional and Progressive SDAs.

This forum should be an uplifting place. It should glorify our Lord, and shun the characteristics of the devil, so as to edify both those who are non-members and members of it.

TrustAndObey · May 1, 2007

1 Corinthians 3:3
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

Apparently "walking as men" isn't a good thing.

Ephesians 5:8
For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light.

John 8:12
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

We're to walk as He walked, and that has absolutely nothing to do with, nor does it imply that anyone that does is putting themselves on the same level as Christ Himself.

Amen?

woobadooba · May 1, 2007

TrustAndObey said:
1 Corinthians 3:3
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

Apparently "walking as men" isn't a good thing.

Ephesians 5:8
For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light.

John 8:12 (Whole Chapter)
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

We're to walk as He walked, and that has absolutely nothing to do with, nor does it imply that anyone that does is putting themselves on the same level as Christ Himself.

Amen?

djconklin · May 1, 2007

Just notice that it's the LIGHT WITHIN us, Christ himself, that produces only what is good right and true (v.9). We don't produce it by ourselves

Amen! Good old-fashioned SDA theology!

(which means we have no ground to be 'fruit inspectors' of other Christians).

1) Non sequitur from what went before.
2) If you mean in the sense of us going out and checking to see if others pass muster then you are quite correct--such behavior is not Christian. On the other hand, (the way I was taught) we should be careful inspectors of all who try to pass themselves off as Bible-believing Christians when in fact they are spreading heresy and attacking the brethren.

truthmagnet · May 1, 2007

woobadooba said:
Well, we can certainly work on getting it off this one.

What we really need in here is mods that care enough to do something about slanderous threads.

I tried to do exactly that by addressing the falsely titled thread "3ABN Lawyer Discussion" which had nothing to do with any Lawyer Discussions.
that thread was addressed to one poster ONLY, who is not a lawyer so how can one give it the title of "lawyer discussion"? and how can it be called a forum when you only ask for one person's opinion and one person only and that person isn't even a lawyer? why wasn't it done in email or a PM.? if you just want one person's views that seems to be the right way to do it.
a few things IMO that need to be addressed.
1-labeling threads falsely to create salacious interest
2-designing a thread for the specific agenda of slander and bias
3-creating a thread in "a discussion" forum where replies are asked to be restricted to only one person.
4-dishing it out, but not handling it coming back on you so you scream "foul" and you close your thread.

i think these issues need to be addressed and i think that anyone pulling such pranks should be diciplined.
why can't we call sin by it's name without being censored? there was much insulting towards opposing posters in that thread and it is still here for all to read.

DarylFawcett · May 1, 2007

You can always create a new one titled, 3ABN Lawyer Discussion Continued.

The Best Way To Clean Up This Forum...

Legend

Sophia7's husband

Legend

Senior Veteran

Moderate SDA

Legend

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

In Christ We Are FREE!

In Christ We Are FREE!

Legend

Junior Member

Legend

In Christ We Are FREE!

Legend

TrustAndObey

Guest

Legend

Moderate SDA

Regular Member

Ticket Support Manager

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency