Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
June 20, 2019, 06:30:24 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: A note to Gary Miller, John Van Dyck, Natalie Hoffman, and the rest you  (Read 26531 times)
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #80 on: May 07, 2018, 03:27:29 pm »

And what an utterly stupid comment on spiritual abuse in the bible. I will leave it at that because there is no reasoning with you.

I guess that means no.
Logged
searching
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #81 on: May 07, 2018, 03:29:15 pm »

And what an utterly stupid comment on spiritual abuse in the bible. I will leave it at that because there is no reasoning with you.

I guess that means no.

Can you tell me does the bible address domestic violence?
Logged
HughHoney
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



« Reply #82 on: May 07, 2018, 03:38:39 pm »

Hugh,
I said we don't have context for the others. And I saw your  “erroneous woods" post and it made me laugh. You've got a good sarcastic wit. I admit I don't want to believe this. I know the man and believe in him. We all have our biases, and it seems pretty clear that several here would very much like it to be true. But I'm making my judgments on the facts as I know them, not on blind faith.

Makes sense. I would have a hard time believing if the accusations were rape. The fact that they are clearly less serious than that makes them more believable to me. They are more serious than the typical political stuff that ends GCx relationships though.
Logged
HughHoney
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



« Reply #83 on: May 07, 2018, 03:42:09 pm »

Why would anyone come forward? Look at what has been said about Suzanne and Natalie. You people seriously have no clue.

So just to be clear Searching, you believe it is fair and good (and Christian) that a man's reputation and life can be destroyed by anonymous people making accusations about things that allegedly happened 25 years ago? And further, any man so accused is presumed guilty and must prove his innocence without even knowing his accusers?


Yes, DLM, I do believe these women. I do believe it is fair, just and Christian for light to shine on the darkness and for the truth to be revealed. I know 4 of them personally. Let me go back to what I said, why would anyone come forward with their name...YOU PEOPLE ARE RUTHLESS!

There are pastors at ECC who know the truth. Ask them. Oh wait, they will just tell you they have been asked not to say anything...convenient.

And what an utterly stupid comment on spiritual abuse in the bible. I will leave it at that because there is no reasoning with you.

I agree there is not an upside to coming forward, unless you really want to sign up for the whole experience.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 03:54:02 pm by HughHoney » Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #84 on: May 07, 2018, 03:45:18 pm »

Hugh,
I said we don't have context for the others. And I saw your  “erroneous woods" post and it made me laugh. You've got a good sarcastic wit. I admit I don't want to believe this. I know the man and believe in him. We all have our biases, and it seems pretty clear that several here would very much like it to be true. But I'm making my judgments on the facts as I know them, not on blind faith.




Hey DLM - when you look at the facts, how would you answer the following questions?

1) Do you believe Heidi is lying about the fireplace or just wrong, even though she was in her 20s in the late 80's (vs. Jeromy being like 7), and says she has 5 witnesses who saws fires burning brightly (guess she could be lying about that too)..or is it more likely Mark's supporters desperately want a smoking gun that means none of this is true? So is Heidi lying or just mistaken, in your opinion (or is she correct)?

2) Do you believe Natalie is lying about taking long walks alone in the woods with Mark and discussing his sex drive? If you don't believe her, what about her causes you to doubt her credibility?  Or do you believe it happened but it's somehow okay for an ECC pastor to take long walks in the woods alone with a woman talking about sex? If it happened 6 months ago would that be okay as well?

3) Do you believe fox9 is lying about speaking with a 3rd "victim"?  Do you believe her accounts about sharing honeymoon sex details with Mark?  Do you hold the fact that she hasn't been active on social media against her, even if she's fully complied with ECC's investigative process? Not easy questions..but I'd like to understand your answers.

4) My understanding is Mark is denying, flat out, any of these things ever happened.  Do you support him in his complete denial? If ECC finds these things did happen does his denial make things worse?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 07:31:21 pm by DarthVader » Logged
Gary M. Miller
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9



« Reply #85 on: May 07, 2018, 05:43:47 pm »

Since I was called out on this thread, I feel perfectly free to point out that Haughty by Nature podcast will be interviewing Sarah Catherine Walker http://www.sarahcwalker.com/ this Thursday on the topics of criminal justice reform and #metoo. You can watch live on Facebook or wait until the interview comes out in about a week.

Join us, won’t you? www.haughtypodcast.com #metoo #churchtoo
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 07:42:24 pm by Gary M. Miller » Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1181



« Reply #86 on: May 08, 2018, 04:43:37 pm »

. And up until they first had sex he thought women got pregnant through their belly button.

Jeromy, if you were my employee in a Christian setting in Christian ministry, speaking at schools and prisons and claiming to help people and talk about all the private, personal stuff you do, I’d fire you for this statement alone.

You are not to be trusted with anyone’s confidence.  In the same way  counseling tidbits would sometimes find their way into GCx sermons, this is no one’s business and truly a jerk move to bring it up.  You know it.  

You’ll pound on your high chair tray and claim to be supporting your dad to the death, but truly, this is terrible.  

You need to learn when to share and when not to share.  

Parishioners, be warned by this statement above.  What you say today may be broadcasted from the far reaches of the internet should you dare to challenge something.


This statement has haunted me since the day I read it. It sickens me that you bring up unrelated things callously and without any regard for anyone, your message, or the integrity of an investigation or someone claiming abuse.

How do you even know the details of someone’s wedding night?  Is this an ECC thing?  A pastor thing?  Small group?  How are these details getting shared?  Weren’t you 9 when they got married?!

Can someone screenshot this and send it to Joan if you’re involved?  This is so wrong.  


I can’t even imagine if I were claiming abuse and intimate details of my honeymoon were put on the internet.

Really low. 


« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 04:55:56 pm by AgathaL'Orange » Logged

Glad to be free.
G_Prince
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417



« Reply #87 on: May 09, 2018, 11:29:33 am »

. And up until they first had sex he thought women got pregnant through their belly button.

Jeromy, if you were my employee in a Christian setting in Christian ministry, speaking at schools and prisons and claiming to help people and talk about all the private, personal stuff you do, I’d fire you for this statement alone.

You are not to be trusted with anyone’s confidence.  In the same way  counseling tidbits would sometimes find their way into GCx sermons, this is no one’s business and truly a jerk move to bring it up.  You know it.  

You’ll pound on your high chair tray and claim to be supporting your dad to the death, but truly, this is terrible.  

You need to learn when to share and when not to share.  

Parishioners, be warned by this statement above.  What you say today may be broadcasted from the far reaches of the internet should you dare to challenge something.


This statement has haunted me since the day I read it. It sickens me that you bring up unrelated things callously and without any regard for anyone, your message, or the integrity of an investigation or someone claiming abuse.

How do you even know the details of someone’s wedding night?  Is this an ECC thing?  A pastor thing?  Small group?  How are these details getting shared?  Weren’t you 9 when they got married?!

Can someone screenshot this and send it to Joan if you’re involved?  This is so wrong.  


I can’t even imagine if I were claiming abuse and intimate details of my honeymoon were put on the internet.

Really low. 

I agree. Creepy all around and obviously not true. I'm sure its something his dad told him when he was nine and he's taken it as gospel ever since. It only illustrates just how deeply MD was involved in the sex lives of his parishioners and how flippantly he shared that information.
 
Logged

Here's an easy way to find out if you're in a cult. If you find yourself asking the question, "am I in a cult?" the answer is yes. -Stephen Colbert
araignee19
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 278



« Reply #88 on: May 09, 2018, 12:33:41 pm »

I would have fired him long before we got to this point. In my opinion, he has shown himself unfit to be leading a (church funded?) ministry. The fact that neither ECC or Mark have distanced themselves from Jeromy's words and attacks is interesting, and says a lot in my opinion. There is still time for them to do so, but if they never do, I will assume that is because they see nothing wrong with his behavior.

But I would like to call out that Jeromy had edited his original post to remove the reference to Gary and take out his threat of the "next course." Neither of those things should have been in the original post, as they are awful words. But removing them does not correct the harm or sin done. It does not make him innocent of those words.

If Jeromy took those words out because he regretted it and was convicted it was wrong, good. But he owes a humble public apology and correction. Simply quietly removing the words does not correct them. It is the same pattern hiding or removing bad teachings, incorrect statements, and controversial sermons that many of us have called GCx out on. For anyone following this and wondering if this is a healthy church movement; this is a great example of what we are worried about when we say this movement has a pattern of hiding bad teachings and issues without correction.
Logged
Rypick
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45



« Reply #89 on: May 09, 2018, 12:55:52 pm »

So to avoid hypocrisy, can we expect that if the investigation exonerates Mark, there will be a public apology on this forum from each of you, and that every post, comment, etc. accusing Mark of sexual misconduct will be removed?
Logged
araignee19
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 278



« Reply #90 on: May 09, 2018, 01:02:50 pm »

Your deflection strategy will not work with me. I am not in public ministry. I have publicly apoligized for things I realized I did wrong here. If you point out anything else I sinned in, I will correct it. Discussing public issues and teachings and having opinions is not sin. What Jeromy is doing and has done is sinful and entirely un-Christlike.

Now back to Jeromy.
Logged
freisetzen
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11



« Reply #91 on: May 09, 2018, 01:43:46 pm »

Many on this forum have said their GCC church was spiritually abusive, and someone claimed on record that there pastor specifically spiritually abused and manipulated them.  I don't understand how this is a defense...

So you believe "spiritual abuse" = sexual abuse?

Can you tell me if the Bible acknowledges or addresses spiritual abuse and, if so, where?

DLM, if you do a search for "spiritual abuse" in the forum, you'll find quite a lot of info. I believe the answer to your question about bible acknowledging spiritual abuse is yes, it does. This is completely my own opinion, but I think the following references are a good start. I think a good start to a definition of spiritual abuse is "injury of a persons spiritual health" either by doctrinal error, direct malicious power misuse, or meeting a legitimate need through illigitimate means which weakens other believers. There's probably a broader definition that can be stated, but for my purpose to answer your question, I'll leave it there.

First, let's look at Ezekiel 34 where the word of the LORD came to Ezekiel to prophesy against the shepherds of Israel (note these shepherds are the leaders of Israel, not actual sheep herders). The LORD says that they have been abusing their power by "feeding themselves and not the sheep", as well as "slaughtering the fat ones", and "eating the fat" and "clothing yourselves with the wool" and "not strengthening the weak [sheep]" or "healing the [sick] sheep", or "bounding up" the injured sheep, etc. Because of this misuse of power over the LORD's people, the LORD will remove the shepherds from their position of power and rescue his sheep. Clearly God is rebuking the caretakers of his people for using power for their own advantage rather than those they are to care for, directly injuring the spiritual health (and probably emotional and physical health!) of God's people.

Secondly, let's look at Jesus response to the money changers in the temple. Clearly, Jesus says the temple is being misused and that it is to be a place of prayer not business. I believe this to be an indirect accusation of the leadership of God's people as they are in charge of what happens in the temple. Jesus is angry that the shepherds of God's people are misusing their authority and creating a place where God's people can be taken advantage of, and clearly mis-led.

Thirdly, look at Matthew 24:45-51 where Jesus is speaking about the "master of the house" returning to the one he left in charge of his household "to give them food at the proper time" (this sounds very similar to the Ezekiel passage, doesn't it?). Jesus talks about those "wicked servant"s who take advantage of their power over the household, beating the other servants, eating and drinking with drunkards, and that the master of that servant will return and "cut him in pieces". Jesus seems to be talking about leaders of God's people doing similar things that were prophesied back in Ezekiel's day before the exile. Clearly Jesus is talking about abuse of power over God's people.

Lastly, every attack on the Pharasees that Jesus makes is a statement of spiritual abuse. Matthew 23:4 (cf Luke 11:46) is a good example where Jesus talks about the Pharasees creating unbearable loads for the people of God, injuring their spiritual health and weakening them with undue activities. He is clearly very angry about this kind of leadership. In deed, His yoke is a burden which is light by comparison.

It would seem that there are striking words from scripture about caretakers of the LORD's people abusing power for their own good when that power is supposed to be used for care, strengthening and empowering. Jesus' own example of washing the feet of his friends is the pastoral model; anything less would be an abuse of that power. In deed, the leaders of the church are to be equippers, not lording over those they are caring for. I think these are all examples of spiritual abuse being forwarned against in Scripture.

Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #92 on: May 09, 2018, 02:15:05 pm »

So to avoid hypocrisy, can we expect that if the investigation exonerates Mark, there will be a public apology on this forum from each of you, and that every post, comment, etc. accusing Mark of sexual misconduct will be removed?

It doesn't sound like you really want dialog, rather just a drive by rhetorical comment, but in the interest of hoping there is a reasonable brother in Christ on the other end of the key board, 

1. The vast majority of commenters here aren't accusing Mark of anything, rather saying that they find those who are to be credible. I don't believe this is more or less moral than saying you don't find those who accuse to be credible.
2. Just because someone's family is going through a hard time, does not excuse the behavior that was called out.  For you not to understand seems to show you really are just a partisan - Mark and family can do no wrong, vs. a thoughtful brother in Christ. When Suzanne put Mark's name in the netgrace child abuser database I and many others called her out in the strongest possible terms.  I have not seen one person on "the other side" EVER call out Jeromy for ANYTHING, rather they have engaged in the worst forms of victim smearing.
3. To answer your question (more than we usually get from folks on "your side") - If the victims recant, I would absolutely personally apologize.  If the investigation exonerates mark and provides exceeding clear compelling evidence as to why, I would consider apologizing.  However, most of us have been very clear we have major concerns with the investigation being managed by a secret board of trustees (how many "normal" churches can say they have a secret board - lucky us) which is composed of staff that normally work FOR the pastors under investigation and lay members picked by the pastors under investigation (again, ECC is showing it's true distinctiveness)..including the BOT member from the Rock who is likely a close personal friend of Mark who hasn't recused himself (it's not you is it Smiley ?

Does that answer your question?
Logged
Rypick
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45



« Reply #93 on: May 09, 2018, 03:37:37 pm »

It was rhetorical, I suppose, because I already knew what the answer would be.
And I'm just reasonable enough not to get sucked into wasting any more precious time talking circles around the exact same arguments over and over.
Feel free to bad mouth me if it makes you feel good. I won't be responding.
Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #94 on: May 09, 2018, 03:43:32 pm »

As expected- peace out.
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 451



« Reply #95 on: May 09, 2018, 05:03:36 pm »

I agree.  John Hopler and Lynn Newman were made aware of Jeromy's behavior immediately after "The Reckoning."  So the fact that Jeromy has continued unhindered in his victim attacking activity while on staff at ECC since then indicates that GCC does not consider his behavior problematic enough to stop him.  Which is problematic in itself.



I would have fired him long before we got to this point. In my opinion, he has shown himself unfit to be leading a (church funded?) ministry. The fact that neither ECC or Mark have distanced themselves from Jeromy's words and attacks is interesting, and says a lot in my opinion. There is still time for them to do so, but if they never do, I will assume that is because they see nothing wrong with his behavior.

But I would like to call out that Jeromy had edited his original post to remove the reference to Gary and take out his threat of the "next course." Neither of those things should have been in the original post, as they are awful words. But removing them does not correct the harm or sin done. It does not make him innocent of those words.

If Jeromy took those words out because he regretted it and was convicted it was wrong, good. But he owes a humble public apology and correction. Simply quietly removing the words does not correct them. It is the same pattern hiding or removing bad teachings, incorrect statements, and controversial sermons that many of us have called GCx out on. For anyone following this and wondering if this is a healthy church movement; this is a great example of what we are worried about when we say this movement has a pattern of hiding bad teachings and issues without correction.
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 451



« Reply #96 on: May 09, 2018, 05:22:42 pm »

Thanks for these examples, freisetzen. 

Only because I am reading Jeremiah, I would like to add: Jeremiah 23:1-4 New International Version (NIV)

23 “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!” declares the Lord. 2 Therefore this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says to the shepherds who tend my people: “Because you have scattered my flock and driven them away and have not bestowed care on them, I will bestow punishment on you for the evil you have done,” declares the Lord. 3 “I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and will bring them back to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number. 4 I will place shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or terrified, nor will any be missing,” declares the Lord.

Many on this forum have said their GCC church was spiritually abusive, and someone claimed on record that there pastor specifically spiritually abused and manipulated them.  I don't understand how this is a defense...

So you believe "spiritual abuse" = sexual abuse?

Can you tell me if the Bible acknowledges or addresses spiritual abuse and, if so, where?

DLM, if you do a search for "spiritual abuse" in the forum, you'll find quite a lot of info. I believe the answer to your question about bible acknowledging spiritual abuse is yes, it does. This is completely my own opinion, but I think the following references are a good start. I think a good start to a definition of spiritual abuse is "injury of a persons spiritual health" either by doctrinal error, direct malicious power misuse, or meeting a legitimate need through illigitimate means which weakens other believers. There's probably a broader definition that can be stated, but for my purpose to answer your question, I'll leave it there.

First, let's look at Ezekiel 34 where the word of the LORD came to Ezekiel to prophesy against the shepherds of Israel (note these shepherds are the leaders of Israel, not actual sheep herders). The LORD says that they have been abusing their power by "feeding themselves and not the sheep", as well as "slaughtering the fat ones", and "eating the fat" and "clothing yourselves with the wool" and "not strengthening the weak [sheep]" or "healing the [sick] sheep", or "bounding up" the injured sheep, etc. Because of this misuse of power over the LORD's people, the LORD will remove the shepherds from their position of power and rescue his sheep. Clearly God is rebuking the caretakers of his people for using power for their own advantage rather than those they are to care for, directly injuring the spiritual health (and probably emotional and physical health!) of God's people.

Secondly, let's look at Jesus response to the money changers in the temple. Clearly, Jesus says the temple is being misused and that it is to be a place of prayer not business. I believe this to be an indirect accusation of the leadership of God's people as they are in charge of what happens in the temple. Jesus is angry that the shepherds of God's people are misusing their authority and creating a place where God's people can be taken advantage of, and clearly mis-led.

Thirdly, look at Matthew 24:45-51 where Jesus is speaking about the "master of the house" returning to the one he left in charge of his household "to give them food at the proper time" (this sounds very similar to the Ezekiel passage, doesn't it?). Jesus talks about those "wicked servant"s who take advantage of their power over the household, beating the other servants, eating and drinking with drunkards, and that the master of that servant will return and "cut him in pieces". Jesus seems to be talking about leaders of God's people doing similar things that were prophesied back in Ezekiel's day before the exile. Clearly Jesus is talking about abuse of power over God's people.

Lastly, every attack on the Pharasees that Jesus makes is a statement of spiritual abuse. Matthew 23:4 (cf Luke 11:46) is a good example where Jesus talks about the Pharasees creating unbearable loads for the people of God, injuring their spiritual health and weakening them with undue activities. He is clearly very angry about this kind of leadership. In deed, His yoke is a burden which is light by comparison.

It would seem that there are striking words from scripture about caretakers of the LORD's people abusing power for their own good when that power is supposed to be used for care, strengthening and empowering. Jesus' own example of washing the feet of his friends is the pastoral model; anything less would be an abuse of that power. In deed, the leaders of the church are to be equippers, not lording over those they are caring for. I think these are all examples of spiritual abuse being forwarned against in Scripture.


Logged
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #97 on: May 10, 2018, 07:52:07 am »

My point about "spiritual abuse" is simply this - there is no real definition. It is whatever you want it to be, including things that are clearly not abuse. I googled the term just for fun and here is the first definition I found:

"The term 'Spiritual Abuse' has evolved into a catchall phrase that encompasses a multitude of issues."

The term is purposefully ambiguous and, therefore, harmful. The behaviors described in these verses are clear enough. They don't need to be lumped into some weaponized "catchall phrase" which is then used as a club to beat people.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2018, 08:03:52 am by Digital Lynch Mob » Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 739



« Reply #98 on: May 10, 2018, 08:34:24 am »

My point about "spiritual abuse" is simply this - there is no real definition...
"The term “Spiritual Abuse” has evolved into a catchall phrase that encompasses a multitude of issues."

I mostly agree with this part.

However, that doesn't mean that the phrase is harmful just because it's ambiguous (much less that it's a "weoponised" phrase), any more than broadly inclusive terms such as "child abuse," "pain and suffering," "sexism," or "racism" are harmful or weoponised. That is, they can be weoponised in specific contexts, but they aren't inherently harmful. Calling them harmful is simply an attempt to de-legitimise the complaints of people who've been mistreated.
Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #99 on: May 10, 2018, 09:18:16 am »

My point about "spiritual abuse" is simply this - there is no real definition. It is whatever you want it to be, including things that are clearly not abuse. I googled the term just for fun and here is the first definition I found:

"The term 'Spiritual Abuse' has evolved into a catchall phrase that encompasses a multitude of issues."

The term is purposefully ambiguous and, therefore, harmful. The behaviors described in these verses are clear enough. They don't need to be lumped into some weaponized "catchall phrase" which is then used as a club to beat people.

I don't disagree either DLM, but the way to solve the ambiguity question is to get specific on the behavior in question and make a case by case determination.  So getting away from the label - let's get specific - is it okay for married, male pastors to spend significant alone time with female church members in parks or elsewhere discussing their sex lives & drives?  I don't really care what that is labeled but in my view, it is conduct unbecoming a pastor. Do you have an opinion on that behavior, regardless of what it's called?  Or is the discussion of labels intended to divert attention from the specific behaviors being labeled? I'm to trying to be obnoxious, but it seems like we should be able to describe a behavior, objectively, regardless of who did/does and and reasonably easily say - yes, this is not objectionable or no, it is not.

In my conversations on the subject with my ECC pastor, his stated approach to counseling female congregants is FAR different that the behavior that has been consistently described by multiple women with MD. My ECC pastor counsels women either with their husband/significant other present, or another woman (often his wife) if in person (or in a place within view of his wife) e.g., a home office with the door wide open and wife in the next room. He is exceedingly conscious of trying to avoid even the appearance of impropriety when it comes to members of the opposite sex - and I don't think he would say his behavior is somehow exceptional, but rather should be the norm. But you're free to have a different point of view, of course.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1