- This topic is empty.
- Posts
It simply said: “hello david,” and then it said: “hello david. ARen't you at work yet.” And then it went back to hello david.
And, it didn't say you edited it. So, you can edit things without it showing.
By the way, it's 8:00 Pm here. So, I was done work a while ago.
Nick, your powers scare me. Just wondering how often (on average), let's say per week or per month you use these powers?
I don't think you use them very much, but I'm wanting you to put my mind at ease.
I'm uncertain as to why your editing posts would have to be masked, so that it's not shown that it's edited. We aren't hiding things, are we? So why?
I know, it's T8 that gave you those powers.
So, I ask t8: Whose benefit is it, that Nick should have that ability? We know Nick is imperfect, as we all are, and we all say things we shouldn't. And sometimes we realize this and may go back and try to fix it. But hiding that? I don't know.
Of course, it's your site. And I am nothing. I've only edited about 4 or 5 things, and it hasn't been to get me out of trouble. But editing could be used for that purpose. Of course, you trust Nick, as he's been chosen to work with you on this, and I trust Nick and certainly do not think he edited anything to save himself. But some, on here, might take his ability to completely change his posts without any evidence as, a little too much power.
I'm not asking for this to be taken from Nick. I just wonder:Why?
Quote (heaven @ Sep. 29 2006,02:09) Quote (david @ Sep. 18 2006,00:47) t8 or Nick,
Just out of curiousity, when Nick or an Admin edits something, is it just as when one of us edits something, so that we know there has been an edit?david
Editing rights for an admin only works for the posts that each admin makes. When an edit is made, no date/time stamp is made for an admin.Originally all members were able to edit posts. But because of abuse, that priviledge was removed.
However Nick wanted at least certain members (regular members) to be able to edit and I didn't really want it because I am the one who has to clean up the mess when it is abused.
But I agreed and Nick gave me a list of users he thought that we could trust to give editing rights and I complied and had created a member group that had editing rights and simply moved certain members into that group. So if you have editing rights it is because of Nick that you have them, not me.
But I added in the feature of the timestamp so I could see if abuse was taking place. This was done for administrative purposes only. If a post was edited after other posts were made, then that could indicate abuse of the editing feature. That is the only reason for the timestamp.
I have quoted this earlier post regarding editing rights for admins.To add to the quoted text, I would like to explain why it is the way it is:
When I updated the database and forums to a newer version of Ikonboard, all the posts that contained HTML showed the HTML code (as it was written) and didn't render it graphically. To fix this, I had to go into edit mode of all posts that had HTML in them and then repost. If the timestamp was there, it showed up as t8 editing the post and a timestamp that could be much later. Of course that would not only look stupid but may even be thought of as “why is t8 editing someone elses post. In those days the Super Admin “Heaven” didn't exist and I did all that maintenance work under the t8 ID. But I spit the 2 duties under t8 and Heaven. One was for my posts and the other was a maintenance ID that could be anybody who was able and trustworthy to take that role.
So the timestamp was removed, and I labouriously went through thousands of posts, but thankfully not many had HTML in them. Most of them were mine. Even now I still come across a post that needs fixing as the HTML code shows up in written form.
Anyway, all had editing rights back then and then it was removed except for Admins as there is a trust between Admins. Removing editing rights was just the easiest way to solve a problem. I don't like removing features, but in this case it was necessary.
So we now had Admins who could edit and members who couldn't. So when Nick became an Admin he inherited the priviledges with the 'Admin' group.
Eventually editing was given to members who posted regularly and were unlikely to edit their posts in a deceptive manner. But the timestamp was put in place to keep that in check incase there was misuse of that feature.
I really like the ability to edit, I post much quicker knowing I can edit if I see a mistake later (things like that bug me) and no matter how many times I read it before I post I always seem to miss something.
I never even thought of changing content, usually it's adding missing commas, spelling, or further clarification, writing has never been my strong suit (as if I needed to point that out).
I hope possible abuse by some does not result in the loss of this feature, but if it would eliminate a concern by others, I could live with the humiliation of having bad linguistic skills. Even after edit my posts are probably still wrong anyway, I'm just not smart enough to know it, and the intent is to just get the point across.
NOTE: the edit was to change “there” to “my posts are” I think it reads better (and of course to add this note).
Quote (seekingtruth @ Sep. 29 2006,10:46) I really like the ability to edit, I post much quicker knowing I can edit if I see a mistake later (things like that bug me) and no matter how many times I read it before I post I always seem to miss something. I never even thought of changing content, usually it's adding missing commas, spelling, or further clarification, writing has never been my strong suit (as if I needed to point that out).
I hope possible abuse by some does not result in the loss of this feature, but if it would eliminate a concern by others, I could live with the humiliation of having bad linguistic skills. Even after edit my posts are probably still wrong anyway, I'm just not smart enough to know it, and the intent is to just get the point across.
NOTE: the edit was to change “there” to “my posts are” I think it reads better (and of course to add this note).
YOU ARE SOMETHING SPECIAL SEEKINGTRUTH!Thank you Lord. As always, you are faithful and true.
Dear brothers and sisters. This altercation with Nick and my accusation as to him lying has caused allot of confusion on the forum. And I want to set the record straight.
The situation with Nick was that he lied before and I caught him in a lie. I even made the remark that he fibbed. Yet, when I made this remark, I was off the site for about the period of two to three days if I recall correctly. Upon returning, I noticed some of the conversation was not the same. Now, I did not say anything, because Nick was friends with t8 who is the moderator and I believed that if I said anything, it could lead to my being banned from the group. So I kept my peace.
Any how, Nick has continually filled the pages with his doctrine which I believe are no more than the words of a philospher, not that of a spirit filled man. The reason why I believe this is the thing he stuggles with the most is the milk of the Word, salvation. He is learned when it comes to the Word, but only to the physical aspects of the scriptures. When it comes to that which is spiritual, he is lost. I love this man and have told him often, yet, he thinks that my rebukes are that of one who is jealous of him or envious of him. Yet, the rebukes come because he is not working for the faith, but against the faith. And why I say that is because he is posing as a believer, but he himself I do not believe has ever been saved. If he had been, he would know the things of the Spirit. He would know the things of God. He would understand the Word of God.
1 Cor. 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
As to the situation as to if conversation was changed, the Lord told me to not look for what I could not prove, but look for what I could. He told me to search and see if any of Nick's posts had and place on them if he edited. I found none. I asked t8 if Nick, when he edited if it appeared on the page. He did not answer me directly. Now you know the truth behind the deception. I did not want to carry it this far and gave oppertunity to come to me privately. Yet, the flesh of these men would not allow it.
BEWARE OF WOLVES IN SHEEPS CLOTHING BELOVED.
Quote (seekingtruth @ Sep. 29 2006,10:46) I really like the ability to edit, I post much quicker knowing I can edit if I see a mistake later (things like that bug me) and no matter how many times I read it before I post I always seem to miss something. I never even thought of changing content, usually it's adding missing commas, spelling, or further clarification, writing has never been my strong suit (as if I needed to point that out).
I hope possible abuse by some does not result in the loss of this feature, but if it would eliminate a concern by others, I could live with the humiliation of having bad linguistic skills. Even after edit my posts are probably still wrong anyway, I'm just not smart enough to know it, and the intent is to just get the point across.
NOTE: the edit was to change “there” to “my posts are” I think it reads better (and of course to add this note).
Seekingtruth, your posts are always eloquent….I have no idea why you have such a complex about your linguistic skills…they are fine.
Thank you, it is not false humility when I say God provides the eloquent part. I spend a long time writing a post and still seem to have a problem getting understood (or rather being misunderstood).
Occasionally when posting God will give me a revelation with such clarity I feel like a child trying to find words to express it. Believe me when I say the end product is beyond me (I've actually been known to finish a post, read it, and say to myself “I didn't know that”). That's why I love this site you can be both encouraged and checked out that what was recieved was from God (or how I might of added to it). Since I joined this forum I have grown in leaps and bounds, and have a much better understanding of what it is I believe.
Thank you Brothers and Sisters.
Your servant – WmTo heiscomingintheclouds.
Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ Sep. 30 2006,18:15) I asked t8 if Nick, when he edited if it appeared on the page. He did not answer me directly. Now you know the truth behind the deception. I did not want to carry it this far and gave oppertunity to come to me privately. Yet, the flesh of these men would not allow it.
So lets get this straight.t8 didn't answer the post. Uh huh!
How did you get the answer then?
Did the Lord himself reveal it to you, or did you read it right here in this discussion?
Yet somehow it is still a great deception even though I have laid all the cards on the table.
BTW, am I saved or am I a liar too? I am sorry but this is funny. Are we really suppose to believe that you are the truth and that your pronouncements about Nick and myself are the Lord? Coz it doesn't add up with the great things that the Lord does in my life each day and the answer to prayer that he graciously grants me regularly.
Really H, you should be ashamed of your conduct especially in public.
I think you will find that many here are not as stupid as you may think. When people come here spouting of special revelations that we must all agree with, and teach as if they have the exclusive truth, and act with the authority to rebuke all who are not of their denomination or those who do not follow after them, we know this fruit is that of carnal minded people, who by reason of that carnality cause division in the body.
There have been many before you and I am sure that many will come after you. Most of these types leave eventually, a few have been banned for slander, while others like the yahweh.com denomination end up putting their foot in it anyway.
Now H, had you stuck to debating your thing in the appropriate place you could have remained, but like those others who came before you, they crossed the line into slander and spamming their thing in other unrelated discussions, like this one.
All I can say is that I have been honest with you and you have even been allowed to post your denominational teachings here. I was also nice to you, but that wasn't enough for you. You had to rock the boat because we didn't follow after you. You got upset and when you found out that I wasn't even reading your posts, you seemed furious.
Sorry but that is life, H. You should accept that you earn your right to speak with authority to others. If people see Christ in you, they will read your stuff I believe. If they see a nutter or a guy with special revelation (not spoken of in scripture) that we must all accept, then you should understand that you may be ignored and rightly so. I personally do not have the time to read all the special revelations that some who come here spout off.
But because you didn't get your way with us, in that we didn't follow blindly after you, you took charge of this situation by slandering Nick and then even turning on me because I didn't follow you or read your posts. You were desperate for attention and you appeared upset because we didn't revear you or your teachings about the KJV etc. So you eventually resorted to slander and harsh judgement of some of the Lords servants. This seems to be the pattern for attention seekers.
Was the Lord Jesus an attention seeker?
In this you have revealed your heart for all to see. Now as it stands, you still need to prove your accusations. If Nick deceptively edited his posts, then you would be able to point it out. Otherwise how would you know that he did such a thing?
A feeling is not good enough. A voice in your head is not good enough. Feelings can be the flesh and voices can come from devils. Witnesses is what is needed, true witnesses, or concrete proof.
Where is the witness? Where is the proof? Continuing to abuse other members only digs the hole that you are sitting in, deeper.
T8,
Did I not ask you in a PM is when Nick edited on a post, if it comes up on his page?
Did I not ask you openly on the forum when Nick edited, if it comes up on his page?
Was not my question before your reply? Do not try and change this and take the focus from where it belongs. The Lord revealed to me the deception that was going on and how the things that did get changed were done without being posted on the pages so as to give it away. In other words, when Nick edited, it did not appear on the page so he could go to and fro and change without anyone knowing.
And for your information t8, just to make you aware there are others who are aware of the shaky things going on here in this forum, I PM'ed several before I brought this to light on the forum and asked if they would try and find even one post where Nick had edited. So I suggest you watch what you say.
So what are you going to use in your argument against me t8 in defending your buddy Nick? Since I cannot prove that he outright lied because the proof has been changed through the editing process since when he edits does not show up on the page. Is this the argument you are going to stand on t8? Your credibility is fading as fast as that of the one you seek to defend. You are walking in the flesh and not in the spirit.
Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ Oct. 01 2006,08:14) T8, Did I not ask you in a PM is when Nick edited on a post, if it comes up on his page?
Did I not ask you openly on the forum when Nick edited, if it comes up on his page?
Was not my question before your reply?
Well yes.A reply usually follows the question does it not? Are you expecting me to reply before the question?
I have answered your questions truthfuly.
Now how about some proof of your accusations?
Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ Oct. 01 2006,08:14) The Lord revealed to me the deception that was going on and how the things that did get changed were done without being posted on the pages so as to give it away. In other words, when Nick edited, it did not appear on the page so he could go to and fro and change without anyone knowing.
Fair enough to, if Nick was changing his posts to cover his mistakes.But how many times must I say it.
“PROOF”
That is all I need.
If he indeed deceptively edited posts, then show me. Which ones? The timestamp is not needed. If you know he did it then show the ones that he changed, otherwise how would you know?
If the Lord showed that this kind of deception was going on, then which ones did the Lord say were changed?
WHICH ONES?
Or does it boil down to you not knowing which ones, but that the Lord said it was going on and this is the proof for your actions. I will say it again. The supposed proof is that the Lord told you personally that deceptive editing was going on, but you don't have a clue as to which ones. Is this supposition correct?
Quote (seekingtruth @ Sep. 30 2006,12:02) Thank you, it is not false humility when I say God provides the eloquent part. I spend a long time writing a post and still seem to have a problem getting understood (or rather being misunderstood). Occasionally when posting God will give me a revelation with such clarity I feel like a child trying to find words to express it. Believe me when I say the end product is beyond me (I've actually been known to finish a post, read it, and say to myself “I didn't know that”). That's why I love this site you can be both encouraged and checked out that what was recieved was from God (or how I might of added to it). Since I joined this forum I have grown in leaps and bounds, and have a much better understanding of what it is I believe.
Thank you Brothers and Sisters.
Your servant – Wm
Seekingtruth,I can relate to this brother is it not wonderful!
(I've actually been known to finish a post, read it, and say to myself “I didn't know that”).
Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ Oct. 01 2006,08:14) Since I cannot prove that he outright lied because the proof has been changed through the editing process since when he edits does not show up on the page.
Oh right. So you admit to not having any proof.
That doesn't bode well for you.Look if Nick was deceptively editing his posts you could detect it in a number of ways:
- Your answers to his posts would be incoherent to the questions
- If he answered incorrectly, surely you would point that out, and if he changed the answer, then your rebuttal to his original answer would show that up.
- When you quote his post, the quote on your post would be from Nick's original post. Then you only need compare the quote to Nicks so-called changed post.
Now go and get the evidence.
Here is how Nick and my conversation went on the day that he lied.
He was saying that a man must be water baptized to be saved. I told him that he on another post agreed it was by faith that we are saved. He told me that he did not say that and when I said he fibbed, I was not able to get on the forum for about the space of two to three days. Here is the post that he said it. CAN I BE BAPTIZED, page 1. Nick's own words were obedient, repentant faith. If I recall correctly, the altercation took place in 3 baptisms and that is where I said he fibbed.
I ask all to also read the conversation on UNDERSTANDING BAPTISM and 3 BAPTISMS.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
