I am sorry it had to go so far.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You want to talk about illegal activity? Filing a false DMCA is illegal and those who do so may be subject to criminal charges.

Fortunately for SeattleSmutWriter, I have a feeling that Dr. Shades is a lot more forgiving of these types of indiscretions than he was.

I think that Dr. Shades should bear all of this in mind, and he may want to set aside his forgiving nature for the time being. There is talk about what to do in an effort to prevent this from happening again. Well, maybe an example should be made of Mr. Berman. Perhaps if Berman is slapped with criminal charges, forced to pay a fine, etc., he (and others of his ilk) will think twice about engaging in this sort of vindictive behavior. Furthermore, I would think that a clear case of violation of the law would mean that he couldn't successfully pass the conditions spelled out in the worthiness interview question about "misdeeds", so he would presumably lose his TR, too.

[_sock puppet]

I wonder what she thinks about his short, but thick member?

Boy, RockSlider, you know how to throw those home-run pitches, don't you? It was all I could do to refrain from redirecting that into a description of many TBMs.

[_sock puppet]

Mr Berman,

Since you interrupted a community of dozens and dozens from interracting for about 29 1/2 hours, I would think it the least that you could do to answer a few questions about the situation.

First, I would like to know if the posting regarding the image in question had stopped as of Friday when at 5:00 PM or was posting ongoing? When was the last post about the image posted prior to 5:00 PM on Friday?

Second, do you think that your actions have drawn more attention to the cached image than would have occurred had you 'let sleeping dogs lie'?

Third, what side benefits do you, as someone who has regained your LDS faith, perceive as a result of shutting down Mormon Discussions for almost 30 hours? Do you think this disruption of Mormon Discussions helped your LDS community?

Fourth, what motivated you to register and post here in the first place?

As I explained above, I think the community that you disrupted is deserving of at least the answers to these questions.

[_Jersey Girl]

Okay, so I went there...

Does anyone find this OP on MD&D a bit odd?

I just received a final answer from Dreamhost that hosts the infamous Dr. Shades Mormon Discussions forum. I have been personally battling with Dream host to remove a particular thread on that discussion forum where they made vile threats towards me, published photo's of myself and family members, and participated in the most outlandish defamation ever.

After consulting with my attorney, they noticed that the photo's they kept online in a discussion thread were copyrighted. I sent my brother-in-law (who took the photo's and is a photo journalists) a copy of the email regarding a "Take down notice" since the photographs of me were copyrighted.

If you go to the website, you will find that Mormon Discussions is no longer online and will get a message from Dream host that the website has not been uploaded. Thankfully, I sent Dr. Shades the same email (when I sent it to Dream Host).

I would not be surprised that they will come back with a new Mormon Discussion, however, maybe Dr. Shades and his ilk followers will realize that they need to maintain some decency and have their discussion forum members realize that they can't simply just swipe someone's photographs without permission, alter those photographs, and then participate in defamation of Latter-day Saint members.

This is what I find odd. In spite of his claims that posters on this board:

made vile threats towards me, published photo's of myself and family members, and participated in the most outlandish defamation ever.

The only thing noted by the attorney was the copyrighted photo.


Am I to assume that the attorney saw no actionable "threats or defamation" on the thread in question, including altered photos?

According to a post by MsJack on MD&D, the image was up for a total of 18 minutes. That is to say, it was REMOVED, which is exactly what SeattleGhostWriter claimed that he wanted.

Or is that what he really wanted?

Doesn't add up.

[_Jersey Girl]

Not liking this:

It seems tragic that force had to be used in this case. I feel strongly that I have been misrepresented in the worst fashion on this board and on others throughout the apostate cyber-world. But you all had it coming.

No, "force" didn't need to be used. You claim that you wrote to Dr. Shades. Did he decline to remove the images? Did you wait for him to reply?

Your attorney saw one, count 'em ONE photo of interest with regards to actionable offenses. In spite of your spite, the rest of the material posted was fair use and fair game, and that includes your painfully fragile ego.

You see, in America we are a civil society wherein poor behavior is not condoned when it crosses into harassment, bullying, theft of ideas, and other vile behavior. I did not want to make the calls I did, but now I hope you vile people understand that it is not acceptable to break the law, involve my family, and threaten people with whom you disagree into silence. Since you pathetic worms cannot engage the ideas you attempt to drag others into your cesspool.

You are a self deluded liar, SWG.

Your attorney identified ONE image on the thread in question that came even remotely close to an actionable offense. The decision to take the board offline had nothing to do with "harassment, bullying, theft of ideas or other vile behavior".

It had to do with the copyright on ONE image. Don't believe me?

Ask your attorney.

I did it once, quite easily, and I can do it again. Think about that the next time any of you low life losers attack me.

You can do it as soon as someone posts your copyright image. Beyond that, you have not a legal leg to stand on.

PS: You are all a laughing stock.

Tell that to Dr. Peterson who, if I am not mistaken, was the first TBM poster to resume posting here as soon as the board went back online last evening.

[_MsJack]

Jersey Girl ~ There were two images of SeattleSmutWriter posted on the thread in question. One was a headshot avatar that had appeared with his erotic fiction. I've seen SSW use this avatar regularly in his comments at Mormon-themed discussion forums. The other was a picture of SSW and his wife and children (including a very young infant daughter) which Polygamy Porter found in his public Facebook albums and displayed briefly.

The second photo was taken down after I protested along with KimberlyAnn and Spurven Ten Sing. Polygamy Porter voluntarily removed it. It was only up for 18 minutes.

The first photo remained up and can still be viewed in the Google cache of the thread because SSW aimed his false DMCA notice at the wrong party.

It is the headshot photo that SSW has been referring to in making his faux legal claims.

[_Infymus]

The only thing noted by the attorney was the copyrighted photo.

Yep, I noticed that too.

Tim writes:

I have been personally battling with Dream host to remove a particular thread on that discussion forum where they made vile threats towards me, published photo's of myself and family members, and participated in the most outlandish defamation ever.

And yep, his attorney basically told him that he didn't have a case. So he goes to the host to demand a thread be taken down? Like the host is going to physically edit the database tables to remove it.

If anything, Tim got lucky, but in the long run, it cost him far, far more. Because now everyone knows who he is, all of his websites, his resume, Facebook, address, phone numbers AND his soft core pornography.

[_Chap]

On the subject of Google caches, it is really nice to know that Bermans's Myspace entry can still be enjoyed HERE.

It has such gems on it as "Also, I am a writer who have had some disappointment ..." and "As an up and coming author, I am attempting to develop a new form of Hardboiled Detective mystery with Erotica as the backdrop."

And will the delights never cease?

'At the Ocean' is cached too!

So go sue Google. And meanwhile the rest of us will be archiving ...

[_Nightlion]

Doesn't add up.

Just another side to the full frontal assault against this board. Who teased the entire SGW into this board? Stop allowing the provocateurs to realize their objectives. SGW only came here to provoke all the more.

Ya know, most of LDS Security are ex-CIA, ex-FBI and Army Intelligence trained operatives. Back in the eighties they planted a false friend on me to sit nearby while I researched for years in the Church Historical Library. He kept over encouraging me to act out and declare myself and make an unseemly noise of all that I knew. But he never invited me to his wedding.

Oh, SGW wrote that BEFORE he repented. How convenient. SET UP!

What's next?

[_why me]

After looking at all the pieces of Tim's online persona I came to the conclusion that he is your typical wannabee mo'pologist. Out of work, thinks he is a fabulous writer/researcher, spends most of his time online as a narcissistic Mormon defender. He reminds me of Pa-Pa and why-me.

Ummmm...please leave me out of this one. But nice to know that I am out of work, narcissistic and spend most of my time online. Thank you for the exmormon compliments.