*BREAKING*Tulsa gathering beginning to unravel!

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Thad

Kansas preacher,Amos,Pentecostisalive & others say is was hacked into.

are you saying that they don't what they are talking about?

how do you know it wasn't ?

Kansas Preacher apologized for using the word hacked - you must have missed that post.

[Thad]

Originally Posted by CareyM

I just heard that many of these men who considered to join this "new" organization, when they found out NW was in charge, said "NO WAY!". LOL

Jonny Godair and Floyd Odom are going to be in charge- why did you say NO WAY??

[Thad]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Kansas Preacher apologized for using the word hacked - you must have missed that post.

so what is his explanation now ?

[bishopnl]

how do you know it wasn't ?

I'm not a computer expert, but if it was hacked, why would we all be able to see it, rather than just the hacker?

If you type in the domain name, the page comes up. Even if the domain name is not widely known, that's not hacking. The page is accessible on the internet.

Originally Posted by bishopnl

I'm not a computer expert, but if it was hacked, why would we all be able to see it, rather than just the hacker?

If you type in the domain name, the page comes up. Even if the domain name is not widely known, that's not hacking. The page is accessible on the internet.

The page is accessible on the internet, but could not be found without some hacking tools. (Or a good guess) I am not saying that it was hacked, because it could just have been a good guess.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The one who used the unfortunate word, "hacked," took it back and explained that he had mispoken. We should allow him the courtesy to do so. Also he has nothing to do with Tulsa so we shouldn't ascribe the "hacked" attribution to these folks.

Your last statement however is still on the table. What prompts people to make such lists? In my last post I rather gratuitously added myself to the "Tulsa Coordinating Committee!"

What was I thinking? What were my motivations? Am I really justified in comparing my beard to General Grant's?

Oh... and the URL for the page is in Google's cache. Though not all of the pages have updated there. Whatever "surfing" was done, was done by a Google spider bot. Here's a tip: When setting up a new web site, set up a testing server. This can even be a "virtual server" that resides on a hard drive in your home. You can even configure a portable Flash Memory Stick to act as a server. That way you can develop your secret membership lists and your plans for global domination without Google's bots blabbing everything to the world before you're ready to unviel your plans.

You know what this whole scenario is like? Monologuing. Monologuing is what the villain does in the comic books when he's got the hero down and is about to finish him off. Before he pulls the trigger, the villain goes off on this seemingly endless speech about how his powers are greater than the hero's and how defeat was inevitable and world domination and power is now in his grasp... but he goes on too long and the hero is saved by a Google bot tirelessly crawling the world wide web. Happens everytime in the funny papers.

Originally Posted by Amos

Another thing--the liberal intelligentsia around here love to tout the ethical high road, and have tried and tried to find some technicality in the manual to hang the Tulsa men over.

How about the ethics involved in going in and copying pages off a web site that was not intended to be released yet? Even if no hacking was needed, that's like walking into someone's house and taking something, and justifying it by saying, "Well, they should have had their door locked if they didn't want me going in there and getting their stuff."

Give me a break.

Somehow Famous Amos .... you have joined command central in wagging the dog.

This isn't about libs vs. cons ..... this is about incompetency and the ethics involved in publishing lists that can have long lasting effects in how some of these men of God are perceived by the body of Christ and their peers ...

hence affecting their local churches and own personal ministry.

Incompetency has published a list for public consumption twice now ... first on the Apostolic Bible Quizzing site ... then on the WPF site.

If they need help on building a site .... my services are available for a nominal fee <<< serious.

I also do political and promotional consulting. lol.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by bishopnl

I'm not a computer expert, but if it was hacked, why would we all be able to see it, rather than just the hacker?

If you type in the domain name, the page comes up. Even if the domain name is not widely known, that's not hacking. The page is accessible on the internet.

Originally Posted by pentecostisalive

The page is accessible on the internet, but could not be found without some hacking tools. (Or a good guess) I am not saying that it was hacked, because it could just have been a good guess.

Here ya go Thad.

[bishopnl]

Originally Posted by pentecostisalive

The page is accessible on the internet, but could not be found without some hacking tools. (Or a good guess) I am not saying that it was hacked, because it could just have been a good guess.

Somebody, I don't remember who it was, explained how someone with a little bit of knowledge concerning .php could make an educated guess about the page in question.

I know Elfin, and I'd be willing to stake my next year's salary that she used no hacking tools in finding the address for that particular page. Even if someone had, the fact is that the page is accessible on the internet without any type of security keeping it from the public sphere. It's unfortunate that the website owners didn't want the information getting out...but to compare it to stealing is a colossal stretch of logic. Rather than the analogy regarding walking into a home and taking something, it would be more like leaving the curtains open on your bathroom window, then complaining b/c someone saw you getting out of the shower.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by bishopnl

Somebody, I don't remember who it was, explained how someone with a little bit of knowledge concerning .php could make an educated guess about the page in question.

I know Elfin, and I'd be willing to stake my next year's salary that she used no hacking tools in finding the address for that particular page. Even if someone had, the fact is that the page is accessible on the internet without any type of security keeping it from the public sphere. It's unfortunate that the website owners didn't want the information getting out...but to compare it to stealing is a colossal stretch of logic. Rather than the analogy regarding walking into a home and taking something, it would be more like leaving the curtains open on your bathroom window, then complaining b/c someone saw you getting out of the shower.

The educational guess probably came from right clicking on "View Source" ... realizing that the page was using .php ... and then guessing the page name .... or as Pela suggested using Google's spider bot ....

Your analogy about the shower is on point.

I have to think that pride may be blinding the website owners when it comes to publishing these fluid lists twice on the public domain... they want to show their clique ... that somehow they're "moving right along"

These lists should, of course, have been kept private until the meetings in Tulsa and all the ministers contacted and confirmed.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I also do political and promotional consulting. lol.
[/B]

Do you answer PM?