Chap wrote:How can reposting this open announcement be an invasion of privacy?
Posting his in real life photo without Dan's consent is against board rules. I had overlooked that, and have now corrected it.
Kish had suggested that both threads relating to this topic be deleted or removed.
I disagree. I don't see a problem with the discussions going forward. However, the photo has been removed. I think that is fair.
Hmm ... so far as I recall the screen grab you refer to as "his in real life photo" was not a picture of DCP dancing with the lady in question, but simply consisted of a notification that DCP had watched the video sent round to the large number of people subscribed to his page, with a picture from the video, which is I suspect widely available to anyone who searches for it.
I suppose you are applying Universal Rule 7:
Do not reveal personal or "in real life" information about any poster on this site that he or she has not explicitly revealed here. This includes avoiding mention of his/her actual first or last name, even if he or she has made it available on some other website.*
Personally, I am not sure that the rule quite covers the case in question. But I am happy to defer to a moderator's decision when a judgement call is required.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:Hmm ... so far as I recall the screen grab you refer to as "his in real life photo" was not a picture of DCP dancing with the lady in question, but simply consisted of a notification that DCP had watched the video sent round to the large number of people subscribed to his page, with a picture from the video, which is I suspect widely available to anyone who searches for it.
DCP's photo was also included in the screen capture, indicating that it came from his Facebook page.
Chap wrote:Hmm ... so far as I recall the screen grab you refer to as "his in real life photo" was not a picture of DCP dancing with the lady in question, but simply consisted of a notification that DCP had watched the video sent round to the large number of people subscribed to his page, with a picture from the video, which is I suspect widely available to anyone who searches for it.
DCP's photo was also included in the screen capture, indicating that it came from his Facebook page.
Sorry, didn't see it - the picture was pretty small, and I did not inspect the rather small screengrab with a magnifying glass! But I take your word that it was there.
Would the screengrab have been on the right side of the rule with the DCP picture deleted?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
This is what happened when I was tbm. One of my TBM friends posted on Facebook that he watched this pretty sexual video. This guy is very tbm and I couldn't of imagined him doing it. I was about to click on it myself but I thought to myself that this accidentally got shared on Facebook so then I decided not to click it. I have no problem watching sexy videos but I just don't want to announce it to my mom, aunts, and who ever. I honestly didn't care that my friend looked at the video and figured he's a big boy and can watch whatever he wants.
What I think happened is DCP saw his friend look at the video. He probably was confused about his friend looking at the video and he was curious to see what was in it. Although, a big part of the reason why he clicked on the link was curiosity I am positive there was some excitement that he was going to see J-Lo shaking her ass. In his mind it was justified with curiosity but he knew there was going to be the bonus of ass shaking! Who can blame him though he is a guy!
Does anyone have the link of the video? I want to post it all over Facebook :)
liz3564 wrote:You are correct that a "he said, she said" search of posts would be a waste of time and futile. What I said stands. I have backed Dan, yes, but I have also disagreed with him. Have I backed him MORE than I disagreed with him? Yes. Is he a friend? Yes. I am not ashamed of that. I have backed many friends on the board.
You speak for Dan in his absence, attempting to explain away what he thinks. Dan is a man isn't he? He can speak for himself if he chooses to.
liz3564 wrote:As far as your first quote of mine, you are quoting me out of context. I was explaining what my perception of the traditional Christian view is in regards to the pre-existence. I am still learning about the differences between the beliefs in the EV, Catholic, Gnostic, and other various Christian sects, and find them fascinating.
I quoted you verbatim. Just because it doesn't fit what you supposedly meant doesn't mean I'm twisting anything. Your words are so convoluted you don't even know what you're saying.
liz3564 wrote:I have answered your question regarding my conclusions:
I consider this matter closed. I hope you do as well.
Finally. No this matter isn't closed Liz... I'll reply to the other thread as you again twist and turn your testament of what you find truth in. I'll reply, then you'll run away... either I'm right or you are... we'll see.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. 2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
yeterday when i went on Facebook to chk DCP's page- the only thing showing was public information from wiki; i assumed DCP pulled up stakes and headed out of dodge.
tonight the daniel peterson page is alive and well- lots of friends, dan posting abt every hour or so-of course the note about the social cam incident was nowhere for me to find it.
perhaps dan is starting a new Facebook life-clean and pure and like nothing had happened1
further comments on the disappearance and resurrection of dan on Facebook?
kairos wrote:yeterday when i went on Facebook to chk DCP's page- the only thing showing was public information from wiki; i assumed DCP pulled up stakes and headed out of dodge.
tonight the daniel peterson page is alive and well- lots of friends, dan posting abt every hour or so-of course the note about the social cam incident was nowhere for me to find it.
perhaps dan is starting a new Facebook life-clean and pure and like nothing had happened1
further comments on the disappearance and resurrection of dan on Facebook?
just sayin
k
"DCP malquoted re porn video."
Down the memory hole with it ...
(See George Orwell, 1984)
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
kairos wrote:yeterday when i went on Facebook to chk DCP's page- the only thing showing was public information from wiki; i assumed DCP pulled up stakes and headed out of dodge.
tonight the daniel peterson page is alive and well- lots of friends, dan posting abt every hour or so-of course the note about the social cam incident was nowhere for me to find it.
perhaps dan is starting a new Facebook life-clean and pure and like nothing had happened1
further comments on the disappearance and resurrection of dan on Facebook?
just sayin
k
He didn't realize that he had his Facebook on public setting. We told him how to swtich certain things to private, or only seen by friends. The thread where the discussion of Socialcam is taking place can only be seen by Facebook friends of Dan.