ravn has posted porn

[Rupert]

Ravn has posted an image in the thread "Now that we can make sperm, is this the end of men?" which is not only pornographic, but I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to distribute that image in Australia.

[LL]

On Sep 19, 2016, at 6:50 PM, 'Rupert' via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christia...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Ravn has posted an image in the thread "Now that we can make sperm, is this the end of men?" which is not only pornographic, but I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to distribute that image in Australia.

Are there laws that ban pornography in Australia? 

LL

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity-m...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-christia...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:08:57 AM UTC+2, LL wrote:

On Sep 19, 2016, at 6:50 PM, 'Rupert' via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Ravn has posted an image in the thread "Now that we can make sperm, is this the end of men?" which is not only pornographic, but I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to distribute that image in Australia.

Are there laws that ban pornography in Australia? 

I once did a course about what gets you an RC rating in Australia. I'd say this image would get an RC rating. It's basically a picture of a woman being raped.

I don't know, I'm not sure. I'm not an expert on the law. My understanding of the laws about pornography would lead me to believe that that image would be illegal in most countries, but maybe I've got that wrong.

The point is, it's definitely porn, and porn is supposed to be against the rules.

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:08:57 AM UTC+2, LL wrote:

On Sep 19, 2016, at 6:50 PM, 'Rupert' via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Ravn has posted an image in the thread "Now that we can make sperm, is this the end of men?" which is not only pornographic, but I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to distribute that image in Australia.

Are there laws that ban pornography in Australia? 

I suppose if you read the image as portraying a consensual BDSM scene then it would be legal. If you take it to be part of the content of the image that the woman is not consenting then in that case it would be illegal in most countries, on my understanding of the law at least. So I guess it all depends on whether you take that to be part of the content of the image. Sometimes it can be a tricky thing to determine the content of an image. As I say I am not an expert on the law. Perhaps I over-reacted.

[LL]

Well, it would depend on how porn is defined, wouldn't it? 

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), also known by some legislators as the "Great Internet Sex Panic of 1995", was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the Act.

The Act was Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was introduced to the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Senators James Exon (D-NE) and Slade Gorton (R-WA) in 1995. The amendment that became the CDA was added to the Telecommunications Act in the Senate by an 84–16 vote on June 14, 1995.

As eventually passed by Congress, Title V affected the Internet (and online communications) in two significant ways. First, it attempted to regulate both indecency (when available to children) and obscenity in cyberspace. Second, Section 230 of the Act has been interpreted to say that operators of Internet services are not to be construed as publishers (and thus not legally liable for the words of third parties who use their services).

See more at

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:47:14 AM UTC+2, LL wrote:

On Sep 19, 2016, at 7:12 PM, 'Rupert' via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:08:57 AM UTC+2, LL wrote:

On Sep 19, 2016, at 6:50 PM, 'Rupert' via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Ravn has posted an image in the thread "Now that we can make sperm, is this the end of men?" which is not only pornographic, but I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to distribute that image in Australia.

Are there laws that ban pornography in Australia? 

I once did a course about what gets you an RC rating in Australia. I'd say this image would get an RC rating. It's basically a picture of a woman being raped.

I don't know, I'm not sure. I'm not an expert on the law. My understanding of the laws about pornography would lead me to believe that that image would be illegal in most countries, but maybe I've got that wrong.

The point is, it's definitely porn, and porn is supposed to be against the rules.

Well, it would depend on how porn is defined, wouldn't it? 

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), also known by some legislators as the "Great Internet Sex Panic of 1995", was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the Act.

The Act was Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was introduced to the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Senators James Exon (D-NE) and Slade Gorton (R-WA) in 1995. The amendment that became the CDA was added to the Telecommunications Act in the Senate by an 84–16 vote on June 14, 1995.

As eventually passed by Congress, Title V affected the Internet (and online communications) in two significant ways. First, it attempted to regulate both indecency (when available to children) and obscenity in cyberspace. Second, Section 230 of the Act has been interpreted to say that operators of Internet services are not to be construed as publishers (and thus not legally liable for the words of third parties who use their services).

See more at

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

Thank you for this helpful information. There are two issues here (i) is the image illegal and (ii) it is pornographic and for that reason against the rules of the group. I am not enough of an expert on the law to know if the image is illegal. I know that you cannot legally distribute a video of a woman being raped in most countries, I am not sure of the situation with still images, where it may perhaps not be clear-cut whether or not the image represents the woman as consenting or not.

But we don't need to resolve the question of whether the image is illegal. I thought there was meant to be a "no pornography" rule and that this was a requirement of the Google Groups Terms of Service. It seems to me pretty clear-cut that the image is pornography. There is a thread in this forum where OldMan gives a definition of porn.

If you really see no good reason why you should delete the image, then I don't care, I guess. I thought we had a "no porn" rule and I was just pointing out that it had been breached. Am I to understand that we don't have a "no porn" rule?

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:47:14 AM UTC+2, LL wrote:

On Sep 19, 2016, at 7:12 PM, 'Rupert' via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:08:57 AM UTC+2, LL wrote:

On Sep 19, 2016, at 6:50 PM, 'Rupert' via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Ravn has posted an image in the thread "Now that we can make sperm, is this the end of men?" which is not only pornographic, but I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to distribute that image in Australia.

Are there laws that ban pornography in Australia? 

I once did a course about what gets you an RC rating in Australia. I'd say this image would get an RC rating. It's basically a picture of a woman being raped.

I don't know, I'm not sure. I'm not an expert on the law. My understanding of the laws about pornography would lead me to believe that that image would be illegal in most countries, but maybe I've got that wrong.

The point is, it's definitely porn, and porn is supposed to be against the rules.

Well, it would depend on how porn is defined, wouldn't it? 

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), also known by some legislators as the "Great Internet Sex Panic of 1995", was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the Act.

The Act was Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was introduced to the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Senators James Exon (D-NE) and Slade Gorton (R-WA) in 1995. The amendment that became the CDA was added to the Telecommunications Act in the Senate by an 84–16 vote on June 14, 1995.

As eventually passed by Congress, Title V affected the Internet (and online communications) in two significant ways. First, it attempted to regulate both indecency (when available to children) and obscenity in cyberspace. Second, Section 230 of the Act has been interpreted to say that operators of Internet services are not to be construed as publishers (and thus not legally liable for the words of third parties who use their services).

See more at

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

Just out of interest, what if I want to respond by ravn by posting a whole bunch of images from the pornography that I really do look at, saying "No, that's not what pornography is like, this is what pornography is like"? Would that be allowed?

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:47:14 AM UTC+2, LL wrote:

On Sep 19, 2016, at 7:12 PM, 'Rupert' via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:08:57 AM UTC+2, LL wrote:

On Sep 19, 2016, at 6:50 PM, 'Rupert' via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Ravn has posted an image in the thread "Now that we can make sperm, is this the end of men?" which is not only pornographic, but I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to distribute that image in Australia.

Are there laws that ban pornography in Australia? 

I once did a course about what gets you an RC rating in Australia. I'd say this image would get an RC rating. It's basically a picture of a woman being raped.

I don't know, I'm not sure. I'm not an expert on the law. My understanding of the laws about pornography would lead me to believe that that image would be illegal in most countries, but maybe I've got that wrong.

The point is, it's definitely porn, and porn is supposed to be against the rules.

Well, it would depend on how porn is defined, wouldn't it? 

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), also known by some legislators as the "Great Internet Sex Panic of 1995", was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the Act.

The Act was Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was introduced to the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Senators James Exon (D-NE) and Slade Gorton (R-WA) in 1995. The amendment that became the CDA was added to the Telecommunications Act in the Senate by an 84–16 vote on June 14, 1995.

As eventually passed by Congress, Title V affected the Internet (and online communications) in two significant ways. First, it attempted to regulate both indecency (when available to children) and obscenity in cyberspace. Second, Section 230 of the Act has been interpreted to say that operators of Internet services are not to be construed as publishers (and thus not legally liable for the words of third parties who use their services).

See more at

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

See, the thing is, ravn posted a pornographic image for the purposes of trying to argue "This is the kind of horrible misogynistic pornography that men like Rupert like to look at", whereas I think if I had posted a pornographic image for the purposes of trying to argue "Actually, this is what pornography is really like, it is not misogynistic", then I would have got into trouble. And that kind of annoys me. Furthermore, there is no age verification on this website, and I think you have an obligation to protect children from viewing that image.

But that's all I'm going to say about it. Ultimately I don't really care.

[LL]

On Sep 20, 2016, at 12:29 AM, 'Rupert' via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christia...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

See, the thing is, ravn posted a pornographic image for the purposes of trying to argue "This is the kind of horrible misogynistic pornography that men like Rupert like to look at", whereas I think if I had posted a pornographic image for the purposes of trying to argue "Actually, this is what pornography is really like, it is not misogynistic", then I would have got into trouble. And that kind of annoys me. Furthermore, there is no age verification on this website, and I think you have an obligation to protect children from viewing that image.

There is no age verification on most websites. The law has to do with the Internet as a whole. 

LL

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 2:00:04 PM UTC+2, LL wrote:

On Sep 20, 2016, at 12:29 AM, 'Rupert' via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum@googlegroups.com> wrote:

See, the thing is, ravn posted a pornographic image for the purposes of trying to argue "This is the kind of horrible misogynistic pornography that men like Rupert like to look at", whereas I think if I had posted a pornographic image for the purposes of trying to argue "Actually, this is what pornography is really like, it is not misogynistic", then I would have got into trouble. And that kind of annoys me. Furthermore, there is no age verification on this website, and I think you have an obligation to protect children from viewing that image.

There is no age verification on most websites. The law has to do with the Internet as a whole. 

Am I to understand that we don't have a rule against porn, or am I to understand that you think the image is not pornographic?

[Timothy Hall]

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 9/20/16, 'Rupert' via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christia...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [AvC-M] ravn has posted porn
To: "Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum" <atheism-vs-christia...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2016, 2:31 AM

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016

at 4:47:14 AM UTC+2, LL wrote:

On Sep 19, 2016, at 7:12 PM, 'Rupert'

via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christianity-
moderator-forum@googlegroups. com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:08:57 AM
UTC+2, LL wrote:

On Sep 19, 2016, at 6:50 PM, 'Rupert'

via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christianity-

provisions of the Act.The Act was

Title V of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996. It was introduced to the Senate
Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation by
Senators James
Exon (D-NE) and Slade
Gorton (R-WA) in 1995. The amendment that became the
CDA was added to the Telecommunications Act in the Senate by

an 84–16 vote on June 14, 1995.As eventually passed by Congress, Title V affected

the Internet (and online communications) in two significant
ways. First, it attempted to regulate both indecency (when
available to children) and obscenity in cyberspace.
Second, Section 230 of the Act has been interpreted to say
that operators of Internet services are not to be construed
as publishers (and thus not legally liable for the words of
third parties who use their services).See more at
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Communications_Decency_ Act

Just
out of interest, what if I want to respond by ravn by
posting a whole bunch of images from the pornography that I
really do look at, saying "No, that's not what
pornography is like, this is what pornography is like"?
Would that be allowed?

"Intent" was ravn intent to make money from sexually arousing or using violent sex for the purpose of disenfranchising women? No, the image was clearly used to enhance the text in his argument.

"Intent" If you were to post many porn images as opposed to a single, then you must show that many somehow enhanced your text opposed to single.

Then there would be the argument of "community." How does a single use of a single image of porn effect the AvC ability to attract rational folks to membership of the community vs your single use of mass images of porn to enhance text in a single instance. Regardless of your "intent" the community may rationalize that a single use of a single image to enhance text may not be damaging to membership, while a single use of mass imaging may be enough to damage membership. At some point, "just say no" because of risk.

In the same "just say no", if ravn found reason to enhance text with porn images in multiple post or anyone else rationed that it now ok for them to use a single instance. Because of "actual" risk factor, it may be the case that only one instance over a limited timeline would be acceptable to members. That reoccurring instances in a short timeline would chase away rational members. "actual"

[LL]

I didn't see the image. As far as I know the issue has never come up on AvC. Do you think we should have a rule about it? If so, how should it be handled? Who should be in charge of deciding what is porn and what isn't? Any moderator can delete an image or a post from the archive. 

LL

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:23:40 PM UTC+2, LL wrote:

On Sep 20, 2016, at 5:38 AM, 'Rupert' via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 2:00:04 PM UTC+2, LL wrote:

On Sep 20, 2016, at 12:29 AM, 'Rupert' via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum@googlegroups.com> wrote:

See, the thing is, ravn posted a pornographic image for the purposes of trying to argue "This is the kind of horrible misogynistic pornography that men like Rupert like to look at", whereas I think if I had posted a pornographic image for the purposes of trying to argue "Actually, this is what pornography is really like, it is not misogynistic", then I would have got into trouble. And that kind of annoys me. Furthermore, there is no age verification on this website, and I think you have an obligation to protect children from viewing that image.

There is no age verification on most websites. The law has to do with the Internet as a whole. 

Am I to understand that we don't have a rule against porn, or am I to understand that you think the image is not pornographic?

I didn't see the image. As far as I know the issue has never come up on AvC. Do you think we should have a rule about it? If so, how should it be handled? Who should be in charge of deciding what is porn and what isn't? Any moderator can delete an image or a post from the archive. 

Well, you've put an Adult Content Warning at the entrance to the group now, which you'll have to do if you're going to allow images like that. The trouble with that solution is that some theists won't want to be in the group if it's got adult content in it.

Timbo has been arguing that ravn's use of the image was meant to enhance her argument that pornography contains lots of misogynistic images, and that it should be allowed as a once-off, but that it would be "risky" to allow too many such images. I don't think this is a very good argument. Either you have a rule against porn or you don't. If ravn wants to argue that most pornography is misogynistic and wants to post images to prove her point, then obviously a natural step for me to take would be to post images as a counter-argument. So you'll have to decide, are people allowed to post pornographic images in order to support a point they want to make about pornography or aren't they.

I personally don't mind which way you decide. ButI suspect that a lot of theists in the group would have a preference that a "no porn" rule should be enforced, and I think you should probably respect that.

[Timothy Hall]

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 9/20/16, 'Rupert' via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christia...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [AvC-M] ravn has posted porn
To: "Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum" <atheism-vs-christia...@googlegroups.com>

Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2016, 11:42 PM

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016
at 7:23:40 PM UTC+2, LL wrote:

On Sep 20, 2016, at 5:38 AM, 'Rupert'
via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christianity-

moderator-forum@googlegroups. com> wrote:



On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 2:00:04 PM
UTC+2, LL wrote:

On Sep 20, 2016, at 12:29 AM, 'Rupert'
via Atheism vs. Christianity Moderator Forum <atheism-vs-christianity-

Rupert, I was basing that on my observed history of AvC moderation ethics. Granting that I don't recall such sexually graphic image ever posted of its kind in the past 10 or so years. My concern is that moderation stays true to it's successful history and never repeats past mod mistakes.

In my opinion, I would like the graphic taken down, showing that we are not about being disrespectful to those that this particular imaging is really something that they cannot be involved with whatsoever. Some sort of rule about distasteful full nudity clearly relating to porn will be moderated and tossed.

Yet the success of AVC shows that we never moderate until abuse has shown lengthly and several members are asking to
have the member moderated or at least warned. Like yourself, I am very concerned as to the effect of the Adult content warning. I would really like to see the moderation staff post "asking for opinion before acting so quickly." Except, they were likely dealt with the cards to act quickly or risk being shut-down.

Furthermore, are we community or just another site where folks can stop by, get things off their chest, harass folks with opinions they don't like and so on? Or are we more unique community that enjoys the company of intellectual debate and discussion on topics mostly related to the description of our forum? I think we are more towards the latter. If that is true, it may be in our best interest to post-up some intellectual guide- lines. Not mod rules. Guide-lines that clearly define what we like about our community. Yet I have ask several times over the years that members become more involved and at least check once in awhile on anything new in this mod forum. Seems their is never concern for that until a major issue happens. And that may still be the best way to stay a successful forum or community that we like.

For sure, we all well know the sensitivity of the subject matter and how it has been regulated or unregulated with regarding "Freedom of Speech" As of recent, medicine and law enforcement have been working hard to figure out connections to crime and psychological disorders that may have a root cause in prolonged use. The reality of these studies is that it has just became most recent that the US government has fully accepted psychology as medicine. So we are behind on critical knowledge and therefore reluctant to push buttons we may later regret.

My hopes are that we don't lose members and that owners and moderators post reasons clarifying any actions they were forced or decided to make. It would be a shame that members dropped out under some false pretense or misunderstanding of what the reality was.

Thanks to everyone who chose to log on and read and thanks to everyone who has worked to keep AvC well.

Tim

[LL]

Do you think Ravn's posts should be moderated? It would at least prevent additional objectionable photos from appearing on AvC. I agree that such photos are inappropriate. AvC is supposed to be a forum for religious and philosophical discussions. It has gone way off topic, IMO. 

[Timothy Hall]

--------------------------------------------

On Wed, 9/21/16, LL <llpen...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [AvC-M] ravn has posted porn

To: atheism-vs-christia...@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2016, 12:31 PM

Do you think Ravn's posts
should be moderated? It would at least prevent additional
objectionable photos from appearing on AvC. I agree that
such photos are inappropriate. AvC is supposed to be a forum
for religious and philosophical discussions. It has gone way
off topic, IMO. 

I would like to see the image taken down but with a clear explanation for the justification. But I could be wrong about posting an explanation also. The last thing we need is to open the can of worms more. Maybe take it down and post a link to mod forum explanation? Sometimes we need to ware big pants and take the most rational chance.

Good luck and thank you for whatever you decide.

Tim

[LL]

I don't think an explanation is necessary. Members know very well when they've stepped over the line. 

[Timothy Hall]

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 9/21/16, LL <llpen...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [AvC-M] ravn has posted porn
To: atheism-vs-christia...@googlegroups.com

Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2016, 3:35 PM

I don't think an explanation
is necessary. Members know very well when they've
stepped over the line. 

I think that is correct.

It happened in 2008 and I don't remember it. TG was mod with ranjt. It might of been the year when I was mod for Mike on that new site because everyone was leaving AvC. Joe was in there crying about everything and fighting with TG to add to the craziness. The crazy nun lady was causing a lot of trouble. I kicked her off our site the 1st week. She just came to our site to start the same trouble. The trouble makers were chasing after one another. I think oldman posted the google reg against porn and ranjt posted the standard def for porn.

[LL]

Tom, do you realize you are not listed as a member on AvC, unless you are using an alias? 

I had no idea that you were a moderator or even a member in 2008. 

LL

[Timothy Hall]

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 9/21/16, LL <llpen...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [AvC-M] ravn has posted porn
To: atheism-vs-christia...@googlegroups.com

Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2016, 11:35 PM

Tom, do you realize you are not
listed as a member on AvC, unless you are using an
alias? 
I had no
idea that you were a moderator or even a member in
2008. 
LL

Yes I seen something recently to that effect. I think it was on the mod forum, I can't remember. I checked my profile and everything looks fine. It's either a glitch or I got something screwy . I'll check on my end the best I can.

I was never mod for AvC. I met Mike(Musyks) on AvC either 08 or 09. Mike ask a nice gent from UK(Herbiep) and I if we wanted to start our own during the time of the troubled Trance, Joe, xnun, oprem. We started "Evidence For God" and got the instant spill over from AvC . Mostly great folks at 1st. Then came the gang of trouble chasing after each other. We could mod easily because we could cover the time zones. Musyks in Oz, Herbie outside of London me in the Midwest. I got it pulled up. It looks like it started 09 to the fall of 12 when it dieing out. Trance said the trolls were gone by early 2012. Allen was over there, pastor jennifer a great person, simpleton, simon, brock, liam, pokoj, jetbase, oprem a lot of the usual gang back then from AvC. We had about 30 regulars. I don't see or remember an LL unless you were going by something else. After it died I started visiting AvC and you and Trance were into it most of the time. EforG site is still up. I might look for some interesting stuff and post it up. We were doing a lot of science with Herbiep back then.

Oh by the way it's Tim as in Timbo not Tom. That is quite all right in advance. After all the grammar check you do for me :)

[LL]

Ok, I've got it now. Timbo, though your name is listed as Timothy. If called you Tom it was a typo.

I vaguely remember the other blog. I don't think I signed up for it, or if I did, I didn't participate. AvC went downhill when Trance was moderating. I was tempted to leave, too.

LL