Bob is now on You Tube. :)TV is sometimes called the "boob tube". Can we call this the "Bob tube"?
I am ashamed of Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy to do this on youtube. To put out blatent lies. All I can say is that they are in serious trouble now. But more than that. A record has been made in heaven of this. I would not want to be under the curse of God for doing this kind of thing against His work.
I believe these two men have gone too far.
I am ashamed of Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy to do this on youtube. To put out blatent lies. All I can say is that they are in serious trouble now. But more than that. A record has been made in heaven of this. I would not want to be under the curse of God for doing this kind of thing against His work.What "blatant lies" were told? Name them please....
I believe these two men have gone too far.
I am ashamed of Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy to do this on youtube. To put out blatent lies. All I can say is that they are in serious trouble now. But more than that. A record has been made in heaven of this. I would not want to be under the curse of God for doing this kind of thing against His work.I don't recall seeing Gailon Joy in these videos, do you? Are you lying, or just making assumptions here? As to puting out blatant lies, how do you feel about the blatant lies put out by the people who run and operate this "His work" as you put it? Do you suppose that a record has been made in heaven of that? Are they in serious trouble? Or does lying in God's name and under the banner of evangelism and doing great things in His name qualify as... well... doing great things in His name?
I believe these two men have gone too far.
I am ashamed of Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy to do this on youtube. To put out blatent lies. All I can say is that they are in serious trouble now. But more than that. A record has been made in heaven of this. I would not want to be under the curse of God for doing this kind of thing against His work.
I believe these two men have gone too far.
Pardon me, Junebug, but do not connect my name with this news service.
On the other hand, here we go again, execute the messenger and avoid the message. Why don't you address the message.
Gailon Arthur Joy
I ran across the following on YouTube and was amazed to hear some allegations that even I hadn't heard before!
Check out the following links to see and hear Bob Pickle on YouTube explaining difficult 3ABN material as well as adding new details:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbXzNxGbIM0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbXzNxGbIM0)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiOyODujfWk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiOyODujfWk)
It seems that some more will be coming after these two.
Information of a "must hear" category!
Fine.
The message is in blatant contradiction to God's standards and Principles which clearly state "Publish it not", and "thou shalt not be a talebearer" "thou shalt not bear false witness" ETC ETC ETC, and prescribe how to handle problems.
As if Pickle and you aren't in enough trouble already...
:praying:
What "blatant lies" were told? Name them please....
I don't believe that you had nothing to do with this Mr. Joy. You are involved with everything else, why not this too?
So who is the voice interviewing Mr. Pickle then if not you? Did you know Mr. Pickle was going to do this? Of course you did.
But God's work will go forward no matter what you say and do. We serve a very strong God who takes care of His work.
Absolutely true. And the Lord Jesus, if need be, will grab a whip and turn over the tables and drive the wicked priests out of the temple. And if they still don't get the message and repent, not one stone will be left upon another.
Why are you being sued? Really, think about this one, if it isn't too much trouble.
That's Jesus, NOT YOU.
Well Mr. Pickle, you were the one that wrote out the allegations--why should I try to find them and repeat them here? If you don't think I can from what YOU have written here and on the Black forum, then why are you here? Why are you being sued? Really, think about this one, if it isn't too much trouble.
Junebug and Ian,
What has been told that is a lie? I'm tired of people coming in to the forums anonymously and saying this or that is a lie, but never being able to prove it. I'm calling you out. What lies are you talking about?
If you can't answer specifically, maybe it's time to be quiet.
-- edited to correct punctuation --
You are being sued, not to shut you up, but to STOP the untrue allegations. You think about it. If someone were saying untrue things about you in a public manner, you would sue to stop it too. Please think about this seriously.Does this mean that Gailon should sue you for saying untrue things about him in a public manner? I wonder if he is thinking about it seriously?
You are being sued, not to shut you up, but to STOP the untrue allegations. You think about it. If someone were saying untrue things about you in a public manner, you would sue to stop it too. Please think about this seriously.
Duane read the threads at BSDA again if you don't have a clue what we have always been saying is lies, and why. I am not into running in circles or repeating myself over and over.
You are being sued, not to shut you up, but to STOP the untrue allegations. You think about it.
The videos were sickening! The actions taken in telling the words to the whole world proves what God tells us about in Romans 1. When we insist on continuing to do our own thing God gives us over to a reprobate mind.
What a shame to try to bring dishonor and disrepute to God's Holy Name by doing this.
No matter what anyone says or believes, there is no justification for making those UTubes.I didn't realize you had final authority to make that determination.
Duane, you don't seem to understand. People who preach the truth and have It Is Written on their network are infallible. They can't be wrong. If they are wrong then some of what they preach might be wrong. If some of what they preach is wrong then the people who follow them might be wrong in placing their souls in the hands of the televangelists who are their life and salvation. If they are wrong then... you can imagine what that means. They cannot allow it to be wrong. They will fight to the bitter end to make the guardians of their souls right. Admission of anything else would be utter devastation.No matter what anyone says or believes, there is no justification for making those UTubes.I didn't realize you had final authority to make that determination.
I don't believe that you had nothing to do with this Mr. Joy. You are involved with everything else, why not this too?
So who is the voice interviewing Mr. Pickle then if not you? Did you know Mr. Pickle was going to do this? Of course you did.
But God's work will go forward no matter what you say and do. We serve a very strong God who takes care of His work.
You are being sued, not to shut you up, but to STOP the untrue allegations. You think about it. If someone were saying untrue things about you in a public manner, you would sue to stop it too. Please think about this seriously.
I am ashamed of Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy to do this on youtube. To put out blatent lies. All I can say is that they are in serious trouble now. But more than that. A record has been made in heaven of this. I would not want to be under the curse of God for doing this kind of thing against His work.
I believe these two men have gone too far.
What I'm wondering, though, is why you two don't show any outrage at the grievous sin in the camp? Deceit, unbiblical divorce, misappropriation of funds, why don't you care?Bob, as long as people are made comfortable in what their itching ears want to hear and are content to rest their souls in the hands of the mouth that speaks the word that make them happy and proud, they will not see the things that you have pointed out because it will neccesitate the discomfort of having to rethink and adjust accordingly. That is not what people want. Give them what they want and they will overlook anything you might do or say that is unsavory. You really need to face that reality Bob.
No matter what anyone says or believes, there is no justification for making those UTubes.By the same justifications that you use for your statement, it can be said that no matter what anyone says or believes, there is no justification for making those 3ABNs.
Yes, Donna, those youtubes are sickening. I'm sorry this was done. What a shame to try to bring dishonor and disrepute to God's Holy Name by doing this. It is Written was just on 3ABN tonight. Also some other main speakers earlier. What must these Leaders in our church think of this. It brings a certain distaste to one's mouth.Yes Junebug, those thesis were sickening. So many were sorry they had been done. What a shame to bring dishonor and disrepute to God's Holy Name by doing this. Cardinals and Popes had just been in the pulpit. Also some other main speakers like the leaders of the inquisition. What must these leaders in the church think of this. It certainly brings distaste to one's mouth.
But God will vindicate His Holy Name.
I am ashamed of Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy to do this on youtube. To put out blatent lies. All I can say is that they are in serious trouble now. But more than that. A record has been made in heaven of this. I would not want to be under the curse of God for doing this kind of thing against His work.
I believe these two men have gone too far.
Pardon me, Junebug, but do not connect my name with this news service.
On the other hand, here we go again, execute the messenger and avoid the message. Why don't you address the message.
Gailon Arthur Joy
It is the same message we all have been reading and hearing for quite a long time now and still it is nothing but allegations based upon heresy and surmising without any factual proof given.
I am ashamed of Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy to do this on youtube. To put out blatent lies. All I can say is that they are in serious trouble now. But more than that. A record has been made in heaven of this. I would not want to be under the curse of God for doing this kind of thing against His work.
I believe these two men have gone too far.
Junebug,
(By the way, Junebug is not a nice word in our house. They are devastating to gardens!)
Yes, a record is being made in heaven. But I wouldn't say that they are in any more trouble now than previously. All sides need to take a breather in this. From us standing on the sidelines of this lawsuit, we should have known it was going to eventually get pretty rough and tumble.
I'll repeat what I first said back in what was probably my first post on this forum, in January, of which I quote from here:
"I noticed that the www.save3abn.com website is running. But we should all be careful and verify everything that is written there before rushing to judgment. I too, am shocked at the sheer quantity of allegations and improprieties that are listed there. Again, we should search these things out to see if they are true or just a pack of lies. My heart faints to think that they could all be true. May God have mercy if they are. If not, those responsible should be ashamed."
I would ascribe to the youtube postings the same as the stuff on save3abn.com. If it's true, let's deal with it. If it's false, let's deal with it.
It doesn't do us much good to for either side to yell at each other because the forum has been set which will decide it---the court system. Although personally, I pray that the two sides can come to some kind of agreement before that all happens.
In the meantime, let's keep searching for that truth!
SDAminister
It is the same message we all have been reading and hearing for quite a long time now and still it is nothing but allegations based upon heresy and surmising without any factual proof given.
Not sure that you are making sense here. Anyone in the world can watch the Aug. 10, 2006, broadcast and see that it says what we've said it says. Isn't that factual proof?
And Linda's daughter's letter has been circulating for nearly two years now. So it is a fact that it exists.
It is also a fact that Dryden's 2003 letter exists, and that new allegations were announced in late 2006 in Virginia.
Which of these things is there no factual proof for?
The message has continued to be addressed. It is the same message we all have been reading and hearing for quite a long time now and still it is nothing but allegations based upon heresy and surmising without any factual proof given.
Your side even seeks information from those at 3ABN because you do not have the proof of what you are putting out. Many have tried to show you the error of your ways but it falls upon deaf ears and the blind do not seem to even want to see. It has gone so far that it now is in the hands of the courts. Since your side is being taken to court it should tell you that they other side does have factual proof. Instead of preparing and waiting for the time, where both sides will be heard, there is still a rush to get your message out as if that could help. Judas rushed ahead and what he accomplished was to find that he was actually working against God.
Yes but Pickle brought a new word up in his video "rape"
Pickle now says there are 7 alleged victims, yet people have been reporting 20-25... without him saying a word...
Yes Dryden's letter exists, but no documentation as to it's authenticity in regard to the allegations... and none from Pickle either...
Darrell Mundall has made the allegation that Tommy was after him in a sexual way as Pickle claims in his video -- where is proof this happened??
Allegations aren't proof. Particularly when they are done secretly or anonymously...
By the way, if you go to Daryl's Maritime site, you can watch Bob Pickle's YouTube videos right there on the "3ABN Issues Factual Information" forum as Daryl has embedded them there.
Nicely done, Daryl!
Yes but Pickle brought a new word up in his video "rape"
I don't recall saying that anyone did that.Pickle now says there are 7 alleged victims, yet people have been reporting 20-25... without him saying a word...
And your point is? I've talked with 7 personally. Doesn't mean that folks can't come up with names of alleged victims that others have talked to.Yes Dryden's letter exists, but no documentation as to it's authenticity in regard to the allegations... and none from Pickle either...
And your point is? The fact that the letter exists and that 3ABN handled it the way they did is enough to potentially cost 3ABN millions if there is a future claim.Darrell Mundall has made the allegation that Tommy was after him in a sexual way as Pickle claims in his video -- where is proof this happened??
What makes you think I was talking about Derrell? Just curious.Allegations aren't proof. Particularly when they are done secretly or anonymously...
The allegations I referred to weren't anonymous. I know the names of every alleged victim I spoke to.
Even if allegations aren't proven, if 3ABN doesn't handle them correctly, they could be out millions if there is a future claim. And that has been my point since around December 2006. And for making that point Danny got the ball rolling on this stupid, frivolous, unconstitutional lawsuit.
By the way, if you go to Daryl's Maritime site, you can watch Bob Pickle's YouTube videos right there on the "3ABN Issues Factual Information" forum as Daryl has embedded them there.
Nicely done, Daryl!
Still being a shill?
You posted to start this thread:
"I ran across the following on YouTube.."
:ROFL:
"And, by the way, the biblical standard is that one only need two witnesses to establish a foundation for clear issues."
Two witnesses which qualify... maybe that is a discussion for another thread?
Because we also have this:
Exd 23:
1Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment
7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.
Deu 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him [that which is] wrong;
17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy [is], shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, [if] the witness [be] a false witness, [and] hath testified falsely against his brother;
19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
Deu 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard [of it], and enquired diligently, and, behold, [it be] true, [and] the thing certain, [that] such abomination is wrought in Israel:
5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, [even] that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.
8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, [being] matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose;
9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:
10 And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:
11 According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, [to] the right hand, nor [to] the left.
12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.
Yes but Pickle brought a new word up in his video "rape"
That wasn't in even Allyssa's letter...
Yes anyone can watch the broadcast, where no names were mentioned, and take the biblical principles to heart, and understand a Christian reproof , if it applies to them. I could make one about the sin of lying and evil surmising and evil talk, giving biblical examples of such...
If you jump up and say "ouch" when you see it, that's on you, and the only proof you need. Other's have no idea it pricked your conscience, unless you make a stink about it, and react defensively, or begin to attack in reply.
So what kind of proof is this really?
Pickle now says there are 7 alleged victims, yet people have been reporting 20-25... without him saying a word...
Yes Dryden's letter exists, but no documentation as to it's authenticity in regard to the allegations... and none from Pickle either...
Darrell Mundall has made the allegation that Tommy was after him in a sexual way as Pickle claims in his video -- where is proof this happened??
There is more, but I will stop here.
Where is the proof for all of this?
Allegations aren't proof. Particularly when they are done secretly or anonymously...
Further, Pickle used the word "raped", as in if you have a allegation stating she has been raped,or whatever you don't trash her, in his how he got involved video" And why would I think he was talking about Darrell Mundall?well he named Darrell Mundall specifically , and said Tommy was after him sexually in the Tommy video. The links are above, see (listen) for yourselves..
I agree with Ian. I too heard Bob say rape on one of the UTube videos yesterday. It was very clear. Now for him to say he did not say that is astounding.
He said it right toward the end of the second video where he was talking about Alyssa (not sure of the spelling).
By the way, if you go to Daryl's Maritime site, you can watch Bob Pickle's YouTube videos right there on the "3ABN Issues Factual Information" forum as Daryl has embedded them there.
Nicely done, Daryl!
I agree with Ian. I too heard Bob say rape on one of the UTube videos yesterday. It was very clear. Now for him to say he did not say that is astounding.
He said it right toward the end of the second video where he was talking about Alyssa (not sure of the spelling).
Now that that is taken care of, where did I say "Derrell"?
Why twist my words, Donna? I never said that I didn't say the word.If anyone finds it, will you let me know too please?He said it right toward the end of the second video where he was talking about Alyssa (not sure of the spelling).
I stand by what I said. "If you've got a lady that says she's been raped or whatever, you don't ..., and if it's confidential, if her testimony is confidential, you don't trash her on global TV."
It's just a matter of Christian ethics. If you have a lady that claims she was raped or sexually assaulted or anything like that, when her statement is confidential, you don't trash her on global TV.
Now that that is taken care of, where did I say "Derrell"?
I am ashamed of Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy to do this on youtube. To put out blatent lies. All I can say is that they are in serious trouble now. But more than that. A record has been made in heaven of this. I would not want to be under the curse of God for doing this kind of thing against His work.
I believe these two men have gone too far.
Junebug,
(By the way, Junebug is not a nice word in our house. They are devastating to gardens!)
Yes, a record is being made in heaven. But I wouldn't say that they are in any more trouble now than previously. All sides need to take a breather in this. From us standing on the sidelines of this lawsuit, we should have known it was going to eventually get pretty rough and tumble.
I'll repeat what I first said back in what was probably my first post on this forum, in January, of which I quote from here:
"I noticed that the www.save3abn.com website is running. But we should all be careful and verify everything that is written there before rushing to judgment. I too, am shocked at the sheer quantity of allegations and improprieties that are listed there. Again, we should search these things out to see if they are true or just a pack of lies. My heart faints to think that they could all be true. May God have mercy if they are. If not, those responsible should be ashamed."
I would ascribe to the youtube postings the same as the stuff on save3abn.com. If it's true, let's deal with it. If it's false, let's deal with it.
It doesn't do us much good to for either side to yell at each other because the forum has been set which will decide it---the court system. Although personally, I pray that the two sides can come to some kind of agreement before that all happens.
In the meantime, let's keep searching for that truth!
SDAminister
SDAminister, you have quoted yourself from January of 2008, and then indicated that you personally, as one of those sitting on the sidelines, still do not know what is truth at this time, five months later, even though much documentation is available for you to puruse.
You have expressed further your apparent belief that the court system will tell us all what the truth is.
I am confused by this. Even though the court system in our country is meant to reveal truth and justice, has our experience been that truth and justice are always and invariably served through the court system?
******************************************************
Yes, Donna, those youtubes are sickening. I'm sorry this was done. What a shame to try to bring dishonor and disrepute to God's Holy Name by doing this. It is Written was just on 3ABN tonight. Also some other main speakers earlier. What must these Leaders in our church think of this. It brings a certain distaste to one's mouth.
But God will vindicate His Holy Name.
:scratch: Just can't understand this, but Junebug writes so much like Ian! Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that? :dunno:
Same ole, same ole
There are a couple more videos on YouTube...
For myself, I am understanding much better the significance of Ezra Church of God Pastor Glenn Dryden's letter in 2003 to 3ABN Board Chairman Dr. Walt Thompson after hearing it explained in context.
To have that sharing of information out of concern for an Adventist-related ministry by someone not of our faith denigrated by a threatening letter from one of 3ABN's attorneys is something that is difficult to comprehend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hau-1OqtU0Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnH7eDZnHpg
How about something worth watching, something uplifting and not designed to being more hateful speech and conflict into the world. How about something positive. Don't bother lecturing me I know your response will be about me being blind, me being neglectful, me being a harborer of that favorite phrase of that Gailon guy, sin in the camp. Here let me respond before you respond. I am not blind, I don't believe you or your gurus Pickle and Joy. I am not being negelectful since I think that the accusations they spew are false there is nothing to negelct, and as far as sin in the camp goes see my last two sentences.
Anyways, how about something positive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5BxymuiAxQ
WONDERFUL ANYMAN! Very uplifting and positive!
There are a couple more videos on YouTube...
For myself, I am understanding much better the significance of Ezra Church of God Pastor Glenn Dryden's letter in 2003 to 3ABN Board Chairman Dr. Walt Thompson after hearing it explained in context.
To have that sharing of information out of concern for an Adventist-related ministry by someone not of our faith denigrated by a threatening letter from one of 3ABN's attorneys is something that is difficult to comprehend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hau-1OqtU0Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnH7eDZnHpg
I'll repeat what I first said back in what was probably my first post on this forum, in January, of which I quote from here:
"I noticed that the www.save3abn.com website is running. But we should all be careful and verify everything that is written there before rushing to judgment. I too, am shocked at the sheer quantity of allegations and improprieties that are listed there. Again, we should search these things out to see if they are true or just a pack of lies. My heart faints to think that they could all be true. May God have mercy if they are. If not, those responsible should be ashamed."
I would ascribe to the youtube postings the same as the stuff on save3abn.com. If it's true, let's deal with it. If it's false, let's deal with it.
It doesn't do us much good to for either side to yell at each other because the forum has been set which will decide it---the court system. Although personally, I pray that the two sides can come to some kind of agreement before that all happens.
In the meantime, let's keep searching for that truth!
SDAminister
SDAminister, you have quoted yourself from January of 2008, and then indicated that you personally, as one of those sitting on the sidelines, still do not know what is truth at this time, five months later, even though much documentation is available for you to puruse.
You have expressed further your apparent belief that the court system will tell us all what the truth is.
I am confused by this. Even though the court system in our country is meant to reveal truth and justice, has our experience been that truth and justice are always and invariably served through the court system?
******************************************************
You're right. Truth and justice are not always served through the court system.
My feelings re the court system are that all the tapes, letters, files, depositions, and testimony will be made public. Then there can be much less chance of this all being decided by a he said/she said. I'm as anxious to see 3ABN prove Pickle and Joy wrong as I am to see Pickle and Joy prove their case. Does Pickle have the evidence he says he has? Okay, let's haul it out and see it. Sure, I've seen some of it on those websites but that's not the same. Likewise, does 3abn have their evidence to back their side?
Is that fair enough?
How about something worth watching, something uplifting and not designed to being more hateful speech and conflict into the world. How about something positive. Don't bother lecturing me I know your response will be about me being blind, me being neglectful, me being a harborer of that favorite phrase of that Gailon guy, sin in the camp. Here let me respond before you respond. I am not blind, I don't believe you or your gurus Pickle and Joy. I am not being negelectful since I think that the accusations they spew are false there is nothing to negelct, and as far as sin in the camp goes see my last two sentences.
Explanations of Danny Shelton's book deals and land deals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5oeRGlJa1g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS2bBpwckQ8
SDAminister, your reasoned and dispassionate statements of position probably seem logical to you, but you are addressing some people on this forum who have gone through and experienced these 3ABN problems.
In the meantime, let's keep searching for that truth!
SDAminister
SDAminister, your reasoned and dispassionate statements of position probably seem logical to you, but you are addressing some people on this forum who have gone through and experienced these 3ABN problems.QuoteIn the meantime, let's keep searching for that truth!
SDAminister
The above brings to mind a hypothetical situation in which a Muslim runs into a Jew at a social gathering. In time, their converstion comes around to the holocaust.
The Muslim says to the elderly Jew, who has numbers tattooed on his arm, "I have a number of acquaintances who believe that the holocaust never happened."
The Jew says, "I know it happened because I was there."
The Muslim replies, "Well, as one on the sidelines of this issue, it seems to me that there are arguments for both sides. But, I think that we should keep searching for the truth."
Typical ... He doesn't care if allegations are true, or if people came up with 20-25 victims based on his confusing claims, posts, and save 3abn articles, that's not his point, nor concern...
Ian,
the 'prophet' is naked.
eduard
This Breaking News was brought to my attention a few moments ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73p2FWGHMk8
This Breaking News was brought to my attention a few moments ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73p2FWGHMk8
Maybe so, but I have no doubts whatsoever, that Bob has planned for such contingencies. It has already been 'out there' and people have seen them. One wouldn't expect that it would be too long before DLS/3abn tried to curtail freedom of speech again.
Maybe so, but I have no doubts whatsoever, that Bob has planned for such contingencies. It has already been 'out there' and people have seen them. One wouldn't expect that it would be too long before DLS/3abn tried to curtail freedom of speech again.
There one day, gone the next. But the disappearing videos don't change any facts. I can just picture the scrambling going on behind the scenes to get them taken down. I'm surprised it took as long as it did.Did you notice how many times they had been viewed in the short time they were there?
There one day, gone the next. But the disappearing videos don't change any facts. I can just picture the scrambling going on behind the scenes to get them taken down. I'm surprised it took as long as it did.Did you notice how many times they had been viewed in the short time they were there?
Did you notice how many times they had been viewed in the short time they were there?
It's no big deal. There are much greater venues for broadcasting the info. It's just a matter of time before the right contact is made.
I didn't. Did you?If you go to the page where the vids were it will still show you how many times each was viewed. 2 of them had 400 views each.Did you notice how many times they had been viewed in the short time they were there?
Bob who?
If you go to the page where the vids were it will still show you how many times each was viewed. 2 of them had 400 views each.
Of course, we don't know how many of those views were Danny, Mollie, Walt and others tuning in. :ROFL:
Quite amazing really.There one day, gone the next. But the disappearing videos don't change any facts. I can just picture the scrambling going on behind the scenes to get them taken down. I'm surprised it took as long as it did.Did you notice how many times they had been viewed in the short time they were there?
There one day, gone the next. But the disappearing videos don't change any facts. I can just picture the scrambling going on behind the scenes to get them taken down. I'm surprised it took as long as it did.
Oh my giddy aunt! I'm just trying to picture that 'scrambling'. :rabbit: Quite hilarious really! :ROFL:
And the number of times each was viewed in such a short space of time! :scratch:
It must have taken most of their holiday weekend, to manage to get them taken down, but just think, how many people will have already copied them too! :dunno:
And... the word is 'out there'! :oops: One can't get the chicken back into the egg, once it's out. :hot:
Ozzie, are you absolutely sure about that chicken??? Have you ever tried???
For Immediate Release:
Due to a legal dispute with
the content creator of the
Bob Pickle interview series
And upon advice and
council, VNS is
withdrawing the Pickle
interview series.
VNS was also given notice
of the content creator's
desire that the interview
series be in the public domain.
VNS has acted ethically at all times
and reserves the right to pursue all options
regarding all aspects of
this issue
Inquiries regarding this
issue may be sent by
personal message to the
VNS You tube account.
If you go to google and put in "Victory News Service" nothing comes up. I think VNS was started by your supposed reporters: Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy. They want to be seen as investigators I guess.
Doesn't that mean that anyone who has a copy of the video clips is free to post it on YouTube?For Immediate Release:
VNS was also given notice
of the content creator'sdesire that the interview
series be in the public domain.
QuoteDoesn't that mean that anyone who has a copy of the video clips is free to post it on YouTube?For Immediate Release:
VNS was also given notice
of the content creator'sdesire that the interview
series be in the public domain.
It is a bit confusing, isn't it? But I am now of the mind that it wouldn't be such a good idea to have it out there right now. Things are becoming a lot clearer...QuoteDoesn't that mean that anyone who has a copy of the video clips is free to post it on YouTube?For Immediate Release:
VNS was also given notice
of the content creator'sdesire that the interview
series be in the public domain.
It is a bit confusing, isn't it? But I am now of the mind that it wouldn't be such a good idea to have it out there right now. Things are becoming a lot clearer...QuoteDoesn't that mean that anyone who has a copy of the video clips is free to post it on YouTube?For Immediate Release:
VNS was also given notice
of the content creator'sdesire that the interview
series be in the public domain.
Well, why don't you get them from your friends and test that out Snoopy???
I wonder why you can search in vain for any reference to VNS, or the videos now...
All is so very open, transparent and public on your party's side???
It is a bit confusing, isn't it? But I am now of the mind that it wouldn't be such a good idea to have it out there right now. Things are becoming a lot clearer...QuoteDoesn't that mean that anyone who has a copy of the video clips is free to post it on YouTube?For Immediate Release:
VNS was also given notice
of the content creator'sdesire that the interview
series be in the public domain.
Well, why don't you get them from your friends and test that out Snoopy???
I wonder why you can search in vain for any reference to VNS, or the videos now...
All is so very open, transparent and public on your party's side???
Test WHAT out, Ian??It is a bit confusing, isn't it? But I am now of the mind that it wouldn't be such a good idea to have it out there right now. Things are becoming a lot clearer...QuoteDoesn't that mean that anyone who has a copy of the video clips is free to post it on YouTube?For Immediate Release:
VNS was also given notice
of the content creator'sdesire that the interview
series be in the public domain.
Well, why don't you get them from your friends and test that out Snoopy???
I wonder why you can search in vain for any reference to VNS, or the videos now...
All is so very open, transparent and public on your party's side???
Ummm where did Snoopy say anything about wanting them? Would you like to point that out to us Ian? I didn't see Snoopy saying anything like that. Did anyone else? Snoopy? In fact Snoopy said that it wouldn't be a good idea to have them out there right now. Right Ian?It is a bit confusing, isn't it? But I am now of the mind that it wouldn't be such a good idea to have it out there right now. Things are becoming a lot clearer...QuoteDoesn't that mean that anyone who has a copy of the video clips is free to post it on YouTube?For Immediate Release:
VNS was also given notice
of the content creator'sdesire that the interview
series be in the public domain.
Well, why don't you get them from your friends and test that out Snoopy???
I wonder why you can search in vain for any reference to VNS, or the videos now...
All is so very open, transparent and public on your party's side???
Ummm where did Snoopy say anything about wanting them? Would you like to point that out to us Ian? I didn't see Snoopy saying anything like that. Did anyone else? Snoopy? In fact Snoopy said that it wouldn't be a good idea to have them out there right now. Right Ian?It is a bit confusing, isn't it? But I am now of the mind that it wouldn't be such a good idea to have it out there right now. Things are becoming a lot clearer...QuoteDoesn't that mean that anyone who has a copy of the video clips is free to post it on YouTube?For Immediate Release:
VNS was also given notice
of the content creator'sdesire that the interview
series be in the public domain.
Well, why don't you get them from your friends and test that out Snoopy???
I wonder why you can search in vain for any reference to VNS, or the videos now...
All is so very open, transparent and public on your party's side???
???
Is that true? then WHY would Pickle's words and accusations not be a good idea to have out there right now?
Aren't they already out there? Isn't he already being sued for defamation of character (aka lies) ? Doesn't he already have your's and Snoopy's support in claiming his condemnations are true and can be proved?
Explain please.Ummm where did Snoopy say anything about wanting them? Would you like to point that out to us Ian? I didn't see Snoopy saying anything like that. Did anyone else? Snoopy? In fact Snoopy said that it wouldn't be a good idea to have them out there right now. Right Ian?It is a bit confusing, isn't it? But I am now of the mind that it wouldn't be such a good idea to have it out there right now. Things are becoming a lot clearer...QuoteDoesn't that mean that anyone who has a copy of the video clips is free to post it on YouTube?For Immediate Release:
VNS was also given notice
of the content creator'sdesire that the interview
series be in the public domain.
Well, why don't you get them from your friends and test that out Snoopy???
I wonder why you can search in vain for any reference to VNS, or the videos now...
All is so very open, transparent and public on your party's side???
Test WHAT out, Ian??
Doesn't that mean that anyone who has a copy of the video clips is free to post it on YouTube?
It is a bit confusing, isn't it? But I am now of the mind that it wouldn't be such a good idea to have it out there right now. Things are becoming a lot clearer...
???
Is that true? then WHY would Pickle's words and accusations not be a good idea to have out there right now?
Aren't they already out there? Isn't he already being sued for defamation of character (aka lies) ? Doesn't he already have your's and Snoopy's support in claiming his condemnations are true and can be proved?
Explain please.Ummm where did Snoopy say anything about wanting them? Would you like to point that out to us Ian? I didn't see Snoopy saying anything like that. Did anyone else? Snoopy? In fact Snoopy said that it wouldn't be a good idea to have them out there right now. Right Ian?It is a bit confusing, isn't it? But I am now of the mind that it wouldn't be such a good idea to have it out there right now. Things are becoming a lot clearer...QuoteDoesn't that mean that anyone who has a copy of the video clips is free to post it on YouTube?For Immediate Release:
VNS was also given notice
of the content creator'sdesire that the interview
series be in the public domain.
Well, why don't you get them from your friends and test that out Snoopy???
I wonder why you can search in vain for any reference to VNS, or the videos now...
All is so very open, transparent and public on your party's side???
Test WHAT out, Ian??
Did you, or did you not say:QuoteDoesn't that mean that anyone who has a copy of the video clips is free to post it on YouTube?
If it means that... as you were asking other's to confirm, are you now saying "anyone" doesn't include you, or that you are not free to post them on youtube, and won't?
Whyever not?
Because it is a bad idea as you also claimed, and that is becoming clearer to you?
Why?
surely this explanation and clarity should not be kept a secret from those who are known as, and called "stockholders in the pews" when all here has always been so very public??It is a bit confusing, isn't it? But I am now of the mind that it wouldn't be such a good idea to have it out there right now. Things are becoming a lot clearer...
ADMIN HAT ON
Ian, you need to watch yourself. My post was obviously referring to the YouTube videos. I said nothing about Mr. Pickle's words and accusations. I believe you have been warned previously about putting words in people's mouths.
ADMIN HAT OFF???
Is that true? then WHY would Pickle's words and accusations not be a good idea to have out there right now?
Aren't they already out there? Isn't he already being sued for defamation of character (aka lies) ? Doesn't he already have your's and Snoopy's support in claiming his condemnations are true and can be proved?
Explain please.Ummm where did Snoopy say anything about wanting them? Would you like to point that out to us Ian? I didn't see Snoopy saying anything like that. Did anyone else? Snoopy? In fact Snoopy said that it wouldn't be a good idea to have them out there right now. Right Ian?It is a bit confusing, isn't it? But I am now of the mind that it wouldn't be such a good idea to have it out there right now. Things are becoming a lot clearer...QuoteDoesn't that mean that anyone who has a copy of the video clips is free to post it on YouTube?For Immediate Release:
VNS was also given notice
of the content creator'sdesire that the interview
series be in the public domain.
Well, why don't you get them from your friends and test that out Snoopy???
I wonder why you can search in vain for any reference to VNS, or the videos now...
All is so very open, transparent and public on your party's side???
It is a bit confusing, isn't it? But I am now of the mind that it wouldn't be such a good idea to have it out there right now. Things are becoming a lot clearer...QuoteDoesn't that mean that anyone who has a copy of the video clips is free to post it on YouTube?For Immediate Release:
VNS was also given notice
of the content creator'sdesire that the interview
series be in the public domain.
Well, why don't you get them from your friends and test that out Snoopy???
I wonder why you can search in vain for any reference to VNS, or the videos now...
All is so very open, transparent and public on your party's side???
If you go to google and put in "Victory News Service" nothing comes up. I think VNS was started by your supposed reporters: Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy. They want to be seen as investigators I guess.
The fact that VNS has mysterious and quietly disappeared from the face of cyberspace. There is no channel at YouTube named VNS or Victory News Service. It's gone along with the videos that were there. Is it possible that your buddy posted them so that you could download them and pass them along? Was Mr. Pickles only goal to spread his venom in a new format. Post, let people download, then run away and hide letting you pass them along? A few calls revealed that no one official on the 3abn side of things was aware of the videos until Tuesday. So the disapperance of the videos was obviously due to a conflict on that side of the fence and 3abn or their attorneys had not a thing to do with it. Pull Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy down off their pedestals you have put them on and examine then in the plain light of the day and you might have your eyes opened.
???
Is that true? then WHY would Pickle's words and accusations not be a good idea to have out there right now?
Aren't they already out there? Isn't he already being sued for defamation of character (aka lies) ? Doesn't he already have your's and Snoopy's support in claiming his condemnations are true and can be proved?
Explain please.
???
Is that true? then WHY would Pickle's words and accusations not be a good idea to have out there right now?
Aren't they already out there? Isn't he already being sued for defamation of character (aka lies) ? Doesn't he already have your's and Snoopy's support in claiming his condemnations are true and can be proved?
Explain please.
Ian,
Did you just make the mistake of calling Bob Pickle a liar? Got insurance? Or is you closest relative a pro bono lawyer?
You may just make the trial yet, as a third party defendant!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
???
Is that true? then WHY would Pickle's words and accusations not be a good idea to have out there right now?
Aren't they already out there? Isn't he already being sued for defamation of character (aka lies) ? Doesn't he already have your's and Snoopy's support in claiming his condemnations are true and can be proved?
Explain please.
Ian,
Did you just make the mistake of calling Bob Pickle a liar? Got insurance? Or is you closest relative a pro bono lawyer?
You may just make the trial yet, as a third party defendant!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
???
Is that true? then WHY would Pickle's words and accusations not be a good idea to have out there right now?
Aren't they already out there? Isn't he already being sued for defamation of character (aka lies) ? Doesn't he already have your's and Snoopy's support in claiming his condemnations are true and can be proved?
Explain please.
Ian,
Did you just make the mistake of calling Bob Pickle a liar? Got insurance? Or is you closest relative a pro bono lawyer?
You may just make the trial yet, as a third party defendant!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
I read that too Gailon. :goodpost: Ian is getting rather loose-tongued when she calls Bob a liar.
Well, maybe she does want to be part of the three-ring circus that Danny has created by taking you and Bob to court? Just no telling with some people, what they'll do to be part of the show! :oops:
The causes of action, defamation of character, slander, and libel are closely related. They involve the allegation that the defendant told untruths about the plaintiff, thereby causing the plaintiff to suffer harm. The precise elements of these causes of action vary from state to state.
Defamation, Libel and Slander
Generally speaking:
Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm.
Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.
Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a fixed or medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
The typical elements of a cause of action for defamation are:
A false and defamatory statement concerning another
Reality check: Whether you like it or not.. Pickle and Joy are in fact defendants being sued for defamation of character, which according to the definition means they are both being accused in a court of law of lying about the Plaintiffs, and are being held accountable by the Plaintiffs for their statements and for the damages they caused.
Reality check: Whether you like it or not.. Pickle and Joy are in fact defendants being sued for defamation of character, which according to the definition means they are both being accused in a court of law of lying about the Plaintiffs, and are being held accountable by the Plaintiffs for their statements and for the damages they caused.
Not so. Notice in the latest filing that they apparently do not consider it to be relevant whether donors stopped or decreased giving because of what we said.
Notice also how they apparently do not consider it relevant whether Danny had biblical ground for divorce, or whether Danny covered up the child molestation allegations. Yet in reality, if our investigative reports caused a decline in donations, would it not have been over issues like that, particularly the former?
Notice also how they twist the royalty issue into whether we said that 3ABN didn't receive the royalties they had earned, and how they garble the funnel-money-to-Brandy issue into whether the 3ABN Board had prohibited donations to Cherie Peters. And they have the gall to say that what I have written is incomprehensible?!?!?!?!
For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side. Report, [say they], and we will report it. All my familiars watched for my halting, saying, Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge on him. - Jer 20:10
SAD...
Deu 13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently...
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Lev 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.
What is the problem with understanding, "thou shalt", "thou shalt not", or who the Lord is here?
The fact that VNS has mysterious and quietly disappeared from the face of cyberspace. There is no channel at YouTube named VNS or Victory News Service. It's gone along with the videos that were there. Is it possible that your buddy posted them so that you could download them and pass them along? Was Mr. Pickles only goal to spread his venom in a new format. Post, let people download, then run away and hide letting you pass them along? A few calls revealed that no one official on the 3abn side of things was aware of the videos until Tuesday. So the disapperance of the videos was obviously due to a conflict on that side of the fence and 3abn or their attorneys had not a thing to do with it. Pull Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy down off their pedestals you have put them on and examine then in the plain light of the day and you might have your eyes opened.
Oh, boy, guess I would rather stay on the pedaestal so I don't end up in the slime-pit with you, anyman.
But thanks for the cue that 3ABN did not get a chance to copy them. I was rather looking forward to seeing all twelve clips again at trial, but would guess that opportunity has been missed. C'est la vie!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
Reality check: Whether you like it or not.. Pickle and Joy are in fact defendants being sued for defamation of character, which according to the definition means they are both being accused in a court of law of lying about the Plaintiffs, and are being held accountable by the Plaintiffs for their statements and for the damages they caused.
Not so. Notice in the latest filing that they apparently do not consider it to be relevant whether donors stopped or decreased giving because of what we said.
Notice also how they apparently do not consider it relevant whether Danny had biblical ground for divorce, or whether Danny covered up the child molestation allegations. Yet in reality, if our investigative reports caused a decline in donations, would it not have been over issues like that, particularly the former?
Notice also how they twist the royalty issue into whether we said that 3ABN didn't receive the royalties they had earned, and how they garble the funnel-money-to-Brandy issue into whether the 3ABN Board had prohibited donations to Cherie Peters. And they have the gall to say that what I have written is incomprehensible?!?!?!?!
Reality check: Whether you like it or not.. Pickle and Joy are in fact defendants being sued for defamation of character, which according to the definition means they are both being accused in a court of law of lying about the Plaintiffs, and are being held accountable by the Plaintiffs for their statements and for the damages they caused.
Not so. Notice in the latest filing that they apparently do not consider it to be relevant whether donors stopped or decreased giving because of what we said.
Notice also how they apparently do not consider it relevant whether Danny had biblical ground for divorce, or whether Danny covered up the child molestation allegations. Yet in reality, if our investigative reports caused a decline in donations, would it not have been over issues like that, particularly the former?
Notice also how they twist the royalty issue into whether we said that 3ABN didn't receive the royalties they had earned, and how they garble the funnel-money-to-Brandy issue into whether the 3ABN Board had prohibited donations to Cherie Peters. And they have the gall to say that what I have written is incomprehensible?!?!?!?!
Which latest filing is that, Bob?
Did they really twist those issues like that? That's very interesting!
Way to ignore what I posted! Did you happen to notice he flat out denied an obvious fact above, and said "not so" when we all know it is so?
You know what? You have a choice Artiste, ask him for the quotes and prove and see things for yourself, or keep drinking the koolaid, but I would suggest to you that willful ignorance or blindness is not a excuse for believing false witness.
Speaking of ignoring posts, Ian, when are you going to acknowledge that you attrbuted a post to me that I did not make????
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,482.msg6715.html#msg6715
Way to ignore what I posted! Did you happen to notice he flat out denied an obvious fact above, and said "not so" when we all know it is so?
You know what? You have a choice Artiste, ask him for the quotes and prove and see things for yourself, or keep drinking the koolaid, but I would suggest to you that willful ignorance or blindness is not a excuse for believing false witness.
Speaking of ignoring posts, Ian, when are you going to acknowledge that you attrbuted a post to me that I did not make????
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,482.msg6715.html#msg6715
I will gladly do so now. I already wanted to reply and apologize but the thread was closed by the time I realized it. I was actually going to pm you today and do so. I thought what Inga posted was what you wrote and that is why I was posting to you rather than her.
I am very sorry, and can understand why you were confused by what I was saying to you. My fault entirely.
I am sorry for the confusion.
Blessings,
Ian
Way to ignore what I posted! Did you happen to notice he flat out denied an obvious fact above, and said "not so" when we all know it is so?
You know what? You have a choice Artiste, ask him for the quotes and prove and see things for yourself, or keep drinking the koolaid, but I would suggest to you that willful ignorance or blindness is not a excuse for believing false witness.
Did you happen to notice he flat out denied an obvious fact above, and said "not so" when we all know it is so?
Did you happen to notice he flat out denied an obvious fact above, and said "not so" when we all know it is so?
I trust you know how to read.
You said that we are being held accountable for our statements. Which statements?
And thu8s I was correct in saying, "Not so."
Considering the case was filed a year ago, and you were served the complaint detailing exactly what it was about. and that you have been given discovery items demonstrating what the complaint filed against you was about... This is not a great mystery.
You said Not so, to this
"Reality check: Whether you like it or not.. Pickle and Joy are in fact defendants being sued for defamation of character, which according to the definition means they are both being accused in a court of law of lying about the Plaintiffs, and are being held accountable by the Plaintiffs for their statements and for the damages they caused."
Folks, Pacer documents show he was told and that he and Joy made a joint reply.
Considering the case was filed a year ago, and you were served the complaint detailing exactly what it was about. and that you have been given discovery items demonstrating what the complaint filed against you was about... This is not a great mystery.
And thus you display your ignorance. I have not been served discovery items that demonstrate what the complaint is about, and that is the problem.You said Not so, to this
"Reality check: Whether you like it or not.. Pickle and Joy are in fact defendants being sued for defamation of character, which according to the definition means they are both being accused in a court of law of lying about the Plaintiffs, and are being held accountable by the Plaintiffs for their statements and for the damages they caused."
And I say again, Not so.
Folks, Pacer documents show he was told and that he and Joy made a joint reply.
Your response doesn't make sense.
Which specific statements that I have made am I really being held accountable for, based on the latest filing? Anything I've said about Tommy? About Danny getting royalties from Remnant? About donations of horses? About Danny divorcing without biblical grounds? About Danny's abuse of power by trashing his critics on TV?
The latest filing seems to surrender most of the issues of this scandal, does it not?
Secondly, what damages am I being held accountable for? Because I referred to something Judge Barbara Rowe said about the 3ABN plane? And how can they win a judgment against me because I referred to what a judge said in official court documents? And how much damage did my reference to her comment cause in real dollars?
3ABN is out to lunch if they think they can waltz into court and say, "We lost $3 million in 2006, and they said bad stuff about us," and think they can win on that basis. One thing they have to prove is that we caused the loss. They also have to prove that we were reckless or malicious, and it has to be established that what we said was false.
So anyman, do you know how to read? If so, then read the latest filing and you will see very plainly that they don't want to hold me accountable for a lot of what I have said.
When they give a list of things that they consider to be the ONLY topics that can be investigated, they are saying very plainly that they aren't going to hold me accountable for anything but those.
Problem is that they will have a hard time proving that I said a number of the things that are in their short list.
As far as holding me accountable for damages, they will have to allow enough discovery to determine what those damages really are. And they don't want to do that.
ASI will decide who is doing the cover up. Somebody is lying! After hearing the testimony and evidence from both sides ASI will make a decision. Should ASI decide that the 3ABN board and myself did not "scapegoat Linda" to cover up my sins, then, in my opinion it will become obvious to the public that maybe many of these other accusations are lies also.
From http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-intro.htm (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-intro.htm)Quote from: Danny SheltonASI will decide who is doing the cover up. Somebody is lying! After hearing the testimony and evidence from both sides ASI will make a decision. Should ASI decide that the 3ABN board and myself did not "scapegoat Linda" to cover up my sins, then, in my opinion it will become obvious to the public that maybe many of these other accusations are lies also.
Now are you willing, Ian, to admit that you did not recall Danny's statement correctly?
Ian, you are telling falsehoods.
Danny made it quite clear that he didn't want ASI handling anything but the Linda issue, and that he was going to use a decision on the Linda issue to make everything else go away.
The latest filing states exactly what the plaintiffs think are the "ONLY" things that are able to be discovered, and whether Danny had biblical grounds for divorce isn't on the list! That issue in the complaint but isn't on their list in the latest filing.
Now since you do have access to the documents, have you gone beyond telling falsehoods to telling lies?
From http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-intro.htm (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-intro.htm)Quote from: Danny SheltonASI will decide who is doing the cover up. Somebody is lying! After hearing the testimony and evidence from both sides ASI will make a decision. Should ASI decide that the 3ABN board and myself did not "scapegoat Linda" to cover up my sins, then, in my opinion it will become obvious to the public that maybe many of these other accusations are lies also.
Now are you willing, Ian, to admit that you did not recall Danny's statement correctly?
From http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-intro.htm (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-intro.htm)Quote from: Danny SheltonASI will decide who is doing the cover up. Somebody is lying! After hearing the testimony and evidence from both sides ASI will make a decision. Should ASI decide that the 3ABN board and myself did not "scapegoat Linda" to cover up my sins, then, in my opinion it will become obvious to the public that maybe many of these other accusations are lies also.
Now are you willing, Ian, to admit that you did not recall Danny's statement correctly?
Ian, you failed to comment on the above quote. Is he not saying that he is going to use a positive decision from ASI on the Linda question to make everything else go away?
Well, if you want to know who is telling the truth, go to this website where you can find all PACER documents under the files section. You have to join in order to see them, as I found out.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/3abnDefended/messages
But the documents on PACER don't necessarily contain truths. They said they gave us 2500 docs when they only gave us 250, for example.
People have to read critically, and some people don't.
But the documents on PACER don't necessarily contain truths. They said they gave us 2500 docs when they only gave us 250, for example.
People have to read critically, and some people don't.
According to the documents on Pacer they have provided:
"On March 28, 2008, following informal requests from Defendants, Plaintiff's produced approximately 12,575 pages of documents that had been identified in Plaintiffs Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, but which were not deemed confidential or privileged. (Hayes Aff. P 23). Following issuance of Magistarte Judge Hillman's Confidentiality and Protective Order on April 17, 2008, Plaintiffs produced an additional 2,500 pages of materials on April 25, 2008, and a second set of 26(a)(1) documents consisting of some 200 pages of additional materials containing confidential, proprietary or trade secret information on May 10, 2008. (Hayes Aff. PP 23 and 25)."
So it would seem that you are once again, though you have been cautioned against doing so, called 3ABN's attorney a liar. It might behoove you to afford 3ABN's attorney the appropriate and civil respect required in the process.But the documents on PACER don't necessarily contain truths. They said they gave us 2500 docs when they only gave us 250, for example.
People have to read critically, and some people don't.
The causes of action, defamation of character, slander, and libel are closely related. They involve the allegation that the defendant told untruths about the plaintiff, thereby causing the plaintiff to suffer harm. The precise elements of these causes of action vary from state to state.
Defamation, Libel and Slander
Generally speaking:
Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm.
Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.
Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a fixed or medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
The typical elements of a cause of action for defamation are:
A false and defamatory statement concerning another
You keep running around and digging up more dirt, and keep bringing up things which aren't in the case and you think this makes sense to any but you and those buying your bridge or drinking your koolaid?
These tactics may have brought ASI to a stalemate, and ended the resolution process 3ABN cooperated in and asked for, but I very much doubt a court of law is going to buy it, or accept it.Quote
Ian, you know what they say about dirt? If there was none to dig, we would not need a shovel...and we have needed so many shovels, it is frightening to think they have not already been taken to task. But, alas, you missed the opportunity to seek reformation and accountability...so we had to do it. And we keep having to buy shovels...and waht a pile of jewels we have uncovered.
Gailon Arthur Joy
waht a pile of jewels we have uncovered.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Yes, the precious jewels that our Lord Jesus Christ will be receiving when He comes for us.Quotewaht a pile of jewels we have uncovered.
Gailon Arthur Joy
You will address that discrepancy and any others you feel have been made and make sure the record subsequently shows the actual amount that they gave you, right?Not necessarily, but in this case, probably.
So it would seem that you are once again, though you have been cautioned against doing so, called 3ABN's attorney a liar.
Folks, Pacer documents show he was told and that he and Joy made a joint reply.
Your response doesn't make sense.
Which specific statements that I have made am I really being held accountable for, based on the latest filing? Anything I've said about Tommy? About Danny getting royalties from Remnant? About donations of horses? About Danny divorcing without biblical grounds? About Danny's abuse of power by trashing his critics on TV?
The latest filing seems to surrender most of the issues of this scandal, does it not?
Secondly, what damages am I being held accountable for? Because I referred to something Judge Barbara Rowe said about the 3ABN plane? And how can they win a judgment against me because I referred to what a judge said in official court documents? And how much damage did my reference to her comment cause in real dollars?
3ABN is out to lunch if they think they can waltz into court and say, "We lost $3 million in 2006, and they said bad stuff about us," and think they can win on that basis. One thing they have to prove is that we caused the loss. They also have to prove that we were reckless or malicious, and it has to be established that what we said was false.
Folks, Pacer documents show he was told and that he and Joy made a joint reply.
Your response doesn't make sense.
Which specific statements that I have made am I really being held accountable for, based on the latest filing? Anything I've said about Tommy? About Danny getting royalties from Remnant? About donations of horses? About Danny divorcing without biblical grounds? About Danny's abuse of power by trashing his critics on TV?
The latest filing seems to surrender most of the issues of this scandal, does it not?
Secondly, what damages am I being held accountable for? Because I referred to something Judge Barbara Rowe said about the 3ABN plane? And how can they win a judgment against me because I referred to what a judge said in official court documents? And how much damage did my reference to her comment cause in real dollars?
3ABN is out to lunch if they think they can waltz into court and say, "We lost $3 million in 2006, and they said bad stuff about us," and think they can win on that basis. One thing they have to prove is that we caused the loss. They also have to prove that we were reckless or malicious, and it has to be established that what we said was false.
They may not win on that basis alone but it certainly won't be hard to prove as your side has bragged for months about how donations are down now that people are "reading the truth". I bet the attorney's for 3abn have huge stacks of your own words that can be used against you concerning any drop in donations.
Isn't the bottom line that Bob's and Gailon's words have to be proved to be false?
Quote from: EmmaIsn't the bottom line that Bob's and Gailon's words have to be proved to be false?
......or proven to be true?
I don't know. I am just asking.
They may not win on that basis alone but it certainly won't be hard to prove as your side has bragged for months about how donations are down now that people are "reading the truth".
Quote from: EmmaIsn't the bottom line that Bob's and Gailon's words have to be proved to be false?
......or proven to be true?
I don't know. I am just asking.
Quote from: EmmaIsn't the bottom line that Bob's and Gailon's words have to be proved to be false?
......or proven to be true?
I don't know. I am just asking.
Quote from: EmmaIsn't the bottom line that Bob's and Gailon's words have to be proved to be false?
......or proven to be true?
I don't know. I am just asking.
For claims of defamation, what we said has to be proven untrue. For claims of defamation per se, what we said has to be proven true. That is how I understand it.
In the case of public figures, recklessness and maliciousness need to be proven is what I recall.
3ABN is out to lunch if they think they can waltz into court and say, "We lost $3 million in 2006, and they said bad stuff about us," and think they can win on that basis. One thing they have to prove is that we caused the loss. They also have to prove that we were reckless or malicious, and it has to be established that what we said was false.
synthian2 Thu Jun 5, 2008 9:33 am
Can anyone explain what Bob is saying here? I don't get it.....
QuoteBob Pickle
Re: Explosive Charges Leveled Against 3ABN on YouTube!
« Reply #139 on: Today at 09:30:17 PM »
So anyman, do you know how to read? If so, then read the latest filing and you will see very plainly that they don't want to hold me accountable for a lot of what I have said.
When they give a list of things that they consider to be the ONLY topics that can be investigated, they are saying very plainly that they aren't going to hold me accountable for anything but those.
Problem is that they will have a hard time proving that I said a number of the things that are in their short list.
As far as holding me accountable for damages, they will have to allow enough discovery to determine what those damages really are. And they don't want to do that.
So anyman, do you know how to read? If so, then read the latest filing and you will see very plainly that they don't want to hold me accountable for a lot of what I have said.
When they give a list of things that they consider to be the ONLY topics that can be investigated, they are saying very plainly that they aren't going to hold me accountable for anything but those.
Problem is that they will have a hard time proving that I said a number of the things that are in their short list.
As far as holding me accountable for damages, they will have to allow enough discovery to determine what those damages really are. And they don't want to do that.
Well asking if anyman can read is a put down of course implying he is ignorant or unable to understand, as is typically allowed on AT, and part of Pickle's modus operandi, but as to what Pickle is referring to, it is usually a lost cause trying to get him to answer any question directly, so my understanding is as follows...
It is because of Pickle's usual tactics and methods. You know how every time we have addressed something he claims or question it, he refuses to answer and digs up a bunch of other stuff and tries to bury us in it? He did the same thing with ASI according to their letter, they agreed to attempt to resolve and bring resolution to the issue of the Divorce and Linda's termination, and he just kept bringing up more and more things and attacking and they couldn't ever get started on the resolution process or try to resolve anything, so had to with draw...
[The ASI letter explaining why the felt it necessary to withdraw from the resolution process is in our files section if any want to see what I am referring to for themselves]
Well Mr Pickle appears to be doing the same thing, or trying to, in the lawsuit. It was filed a year ago, and yet he has been busy bringing up new things ever since and keeps trying to bring them up in his court filings and demanding discovery on them instead of dealing with what he said previously which brought about the lawsuit. He did so again in his "Motion to compel" and 3ABN responded by saying he was bringing up things outside the scope of the lawsuit, which they were not going to address, as they are trying to deal with what is already in the lawsuit.
So of course being Pickle he claims that's because they don't care to hold him accountable for these new things, and don't want to deal with them because they are guilty..
The problem is... if ever time Pickle brings up something new, they expand the lawsuit to include it also, then there will be no end to this and it will never get to trial...
The lawyers are smart enough to see his tactics and are not going to let him bury them and stalemate the legal process and let him escape a judgment.
I don't know if you have read them yet, or seen them, but I uploaded Pickle's motion to compel, and the opposition to his Motion to compel on our forum during the past two days, it includes an affidavit from Jerrie Hayes and the exhibits she attached to that some are letters between her and Pickle we have read before but they also include the cover letters for the discovery items already given to Pickle and Joy, so his claim that he hasn't received any is a bunch of hooey.
What I thought interesting is one letter refers to the fact he was given the info that 3abn recieved about advent talk from bluehost.
I wonder why he's never made a peep about that on AT, while all have been posting nd wondering and asking about this?
I finally got the forum rules posted and in our files system also. If any have idead changes or revisions, let me know, was kinda hard trying to figure it out.
Feel free to post a link to our forum at any time or anywhere to refer people to those PACER documents in our files there, as forum owner I want to but feel kinda weird and shy about doing it myself.
Anyway did this help you understand Pickle's reference any better? He is difficult for me to understand too as his mind, and logic and reasoning doesn't seem to work like ours..
His latest posts on AT regarding all this seem to be more of what he typically does, dragging things out of context and making arguments about how they mean things other than they say. I have a hard time knowing what to answer and what not to as one thing leads to another, and soon all are way down a rabbit trail and totally off topic. sigh...
But was hoping my answering him there might help in explaining and answering your question a little better. You can read that here, if you haven't already:
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,482.msg6898.html#new
Blessings,
Ian
Post by: :sammy39377dl Thu Jun 5, 2008 2:18 pm
Re: RP on AT- I don't get it
I've noticed these tactics by pickle too. I don't know how he thinks he can get away with this very long before people start to wonder. Sounds like he is good at manipulation. Do you think he could even try to manipulate the Judge?
Now I understand why ASI couldn't get anywhere with Linda and her representatives.
Posted by synthian2 Thu Jun 5, 2008 3:36 pm
Re: RP on AT- I don't get it
I have wondered too Sammy. It is actually a burden for me too. Problem is we can recognize action (fruits as Jesus calls them) and recognize that they are righteous or unrighteous, just or
unjust,because of God's word, and law and principles, but don't know what is going on in another's head or heart or where they are in their calling, or walk with the Lord.
So who knows what he thinks he can get away with or if he even thinks that is what he is doing...
Whether someone follows the deceiver knowingly, willingly or through deceit and believing a lie, the actions are the same...
The point is all we can do is decry error or sin, and pray that he, ourselves and others have the ears to hear and the eyes to see.
It's kinda scary actually for none of us are exempt from being deceived, and the heart is desperately wicked and who can know it, or show us that but our Lord?
Let's just keep praying that we can recognize and reveal the truth and let the Holy spirit do the convicting.
We know the end does not justify the means, so let's just keep praying our actions reflect Christ's will and ways and keep confident that he will triumph as promised.
Blessings...
I think some of both will be included in this lawsuit,
Although some of what is being litigated is considered defamation per se because of the type of accusations and assertions Pickle and Joy have made. Those type of accusations automatically assume damage to the plaintiff, so in those specific types of accusations the burden of proof is definately on the defendants to prove what they have said is true, for all the Plaintiffs have to do is quote them making or repeating these types of statements. Which has already been done by quoting both forum posts, and their website.
It is usually true though that he who asserts must support and prove the assertion.
For example if I suddenly accused you of collecting donations on behalf of a missionary cause and pocketing the money ( we know you haven't done this, it's just an example) How would proof of this be established. Should I tell others well if it's not true he needs to prove it! ? No.
You would no doubt deny this false accusation, and it would be up to me to prove it was true, you wouldn't even know what to address or rebut if I didn't reveal and let you know what led me to this false conclusion and accusation whether it be something I saw or thought or something another had told me they saw, heard or thought...
Much in this case is like this IMO.
Just how many people are talking on the 3abndefended site? 2 or 1?
WOW - Ian!!! You are really starting to sound like a lawyer!!
I think some of both will be included in this lawsuit,
Although some of what is being litigated is considered defamation per se because of the type of accusations and assertions Pickle and Joy have made. Those type of accusations automatically assume damage to the plaintiff, so in those specific types of accusations the burden of proof is definately on the defendants to prove what they have said is true, for all the Plaintiffs have to do is quote them making or repeating these types of statements. Which has already been done by quoting both forum posts, and their website.
It is usually true though that he who asserts must support and prove the assertion.
For example if I suddenly accused you of collecting donations on behalf of a missionary cause and pocketing the money ( we know you haven't done this, it's just an example) How would proof of this be established. Should I tell others well if it's not true he needs to prove it! ? No.
You would no doubt deny this false accusation, and it would be up to me to prove it was true, you wouldn't even know what to address or rebut if I didn't reveal and let you know what led me to this false conclusion and accusation whether it be something I saw or thought or something another had told me they saw, heard or thought...
Much in this case is like this IMO.
...like a lawyer who thinks they know something :scratch:WOW - Ian!!! You are really starting to sound like a lawyer!!
I think some of both will be included in this lawsuit,
Although some of what is being litigated is considered defamation per se because of the type of accusations and assertions Pickle and Joy have made. Those type of accusations automatically assume damage to the plaintiff, so in those specific types of accusations the burden of proof is definately on the defendants to prove what they have said is true, for all the Plaintiffs have to do is quote them making or repeating these types of statements. Which has already been done by quoting both forum posts, and their website.
It is usually true though that he who asserts must support and prove the assertion.
For example if I suddenly accused you of collecting donations on behalf of a missionary cause and pocketing the money ( we know you haven't done this, it's just an example) How would proof of this be established. Should I tell others well if it's not true he needs to prove it! ? No.
You would no doubt deny this false accusation, and it would be up to me to prove it was true, you wouldn't even know what to address or rebut if I didn't reveal and let you know what led me to this false conclusion and accusation whether it be something I saw or thought or something another had told me they saw, heard or thought...
Much in this case is like this IMO.
It really isn't that hard to get to the bottom of things - if you do it with the intent of discovery of truth and not a personal agenda of revenge.
It really isn't that hard to get to the bottom of things - if you do it with the intent of discovery of truth and not a personal agenda of revenge.
Exactly what I have personally found to be true. Hope Ian tries it.
WOW - Ian!!! You are really starting to sound like a lawyer!!
I think some of both will be included in this lawsuit,
Although some of what is being litigated is considered defamation per se because of the type of accusations and assertions Pickle and Joy have made. Those type of accusations automatically assume damage to the plaintiff, so in those specific types of accusations the burden of proof is definately on the defendants to prove what they have said is true, for all the Plaintiffs have to do is quote them making or repeating these types of statements. Which has already been done by quoting both forum posts, and their website.
It is usually true though that he who asserts must support and prove the assertion.
For example if I suddenly accused you of collecting donations on behalf of a missionary cause and pocketing the money ( we know you haven't done this, it's just an example) How would proof of this be established. Should I tell others well if it's not true he needs to prove it! ? No.
You would no doubt deny this false accusation, and it would be up to me to prove it was true, you wouldn't even know what to address or rebut if I didn't reveal and let you know what led me to this false conclusion and accusation whether it be something I saw or thought or something another had told me they saw, heard or thought...
Much in this case is like this IMO.
I think some of both will be included in this lawsuit,
Although some of what is being litigated is considered defamation per se because of the type of accusations and assertions Pickle and Joy have made. Those type of accusations automatically assume damage to the plaintiff, so in those specific types of accusations the burden of proof is definately on the defendants to prove what they have said is true, for all the Plaintiffs have to do is quote them making or repeating these types of statements. Which has already been done by quoting both forum posts, and their website.
It is usually true though that he who asserts must support and prove the assertion.
For example if I suddenly accused you of collecting donations on behalf of a missionary cause and pocketing the money ( we know you haven't done this, it's just an example) How would proof of this be established. Should I tell others well if it's not true he needs to prove it! ? No.
You would no doubt deny this false accusation, and it would be up to me to prove it was true, you wouldn't even know what to address or rebut if I didn't reveal and let you know what led me to this false conclusion and accusation whether it be something I saw or thought or something another had told me they saw, heard or thought...
Much in this case is like this IMO.
I think some of both will be included in this lawsuit,
Although some of what is being litigated is considered defamation per se because of the type of accusations and assertions Pickle and Joy have made. Those type of accusations automatically assume damage to the plaintiff, so in those specific types of accusations the burden of proof is definately on the defendants to prove what they have said is true, for all the Plaintiffs have to do is quote them making or repeating these types of statements. Which has already been done by quoting both forum posts, and their website.
It is usually true though that he who asserts must support and prove the assertion.
For example if I suddenly accused you of collecting donations on behalf of a missionary cause and pocketing the money ( we know you haven't done this, it's just an example) How would proof of this be established. Should I tell others well if it's not true he needs to prove it! ? No.
You would no doubt deny this false accusation, and it would be up to me to prove it was true, you wouldn't even know what to address or rebut if I didn't reveal and let you know what led me to this false conclusion and accusation whether it be something I saw or thought or something another had told me they saw, heard or thought...
Much in this case is like this IMO.
Your grasp of the concept is fairly good. However, you missed a central point...with regard to several claims made, they must first PROVE we said them...then, if they can prove WE said them, it would be our problem to prove they were reasonably accurate reflections of the record. IF we did not say them, and they dod not demonstate evidence they were said, request to admit and or motions to strike would eliminate these allegations. You forgot this significant detail in your summary.
However, on the ones we have indeed claimed or have claimed others have claimed, assuming they were defamation per se, that is not yet absolutely established, only alleged. On the other hand, some claims may be well beyond ripe if the IRS moves before trial.
But for the few, if any, that indeed would qualify for per SE claims, well...shall we say the evidence required is most certainly relevant, isn't it? Things like records from Michigan, the Auditor, etc, will all go to establish veracity. And who knows, you may be able to contribute significantly here.
Point is, just too early in the game to know for sure what the landscape will look like at trial. SO, chew some more and see if you can work through that series of conditions and come up with a strategic game book that will work here for the plaintiffs. May have to redraw the entire gamebook!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
I think some of both will be included in this lawsuit,
Although some of what is being litigated is considered defamation per se because of the type of accusations and assertions Pickle and Joy have made. Those type of accusations automatically assume damage to the plaintiff, so in those specific types of accusations the burden of proof is definately on the defendants to prove what they have said is true, for all the Plaintiffs have to do is quote them making or repeating these types of statements. Which has already been done by quoting both forum posts, and their website.
It is usually true though that he who asserts must support and prove the assertion.
For example if I suddenly accused you of collecting donations on behalf of a missionary cause and pocketing the money ( we know you haven't done this, it's just an example) How would proof of this be established. Should I tell others well if it's not true he needs to prove it! ? No.
You would no doubt deny this false accusation, and it would be up to me to prove it was true, you wouldn't even know what to address or rebut if I didn't reveal and let you know what led me to this false conclusion and accusation whether it be something I saw or thought or something another had told me they saw, heard or thought...
Much in this case is like this IMO.
Your grasp of the concept is fairly good. However, you missed a central point...with regard to several claims made, they must first PROVE we said them...then, if they can prove WE said them, it would be our problem to prove they were reasonably accurate reflections of the record. IF we did not say them, and they dod not demonstate evidence they were said, request to admit and or motions to strike would eliminate these allegations. You forgot this significant detail in your summary.
However, on the ones we have indeed claimed or have claimed others have claimed, assuming they were defamation per se, that is not yet absolutely established, only alleged. On the other hand, some claims may be well beyond ripe if the IRS moves before trial.
But for the few, if any, that indeed would qualify for per SE claims, well...shall we say the evidence required is most certainly relevant, isn't it? Things like records from Michigan, the Auditor, etc, will all go to establish veracity. And who knows, you may be able to contribute significantly here.
Point is, just too early in the game to know for sure what the landscape will look like at trial. SO, chew some more and see if you can work through that series of conditions and come up with a strategic game book that will work here for the plaintiffs. May have to redraw the entire gamebook!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
Dear Friends:
It has become clearly apparent to me that even when the final verdict in this case is reached, particularly when it goes against DSL et al (and I have no doubt that's what it will be!), they will still be crying "Foul! We've been painted to look wrong by the enemy and he has won for now. But we will continue to fight him and all his liars :horse: and WE WILL WIN! God will not fail us twice!!" :hot:
May God have mercy on their souls. :help: :praying:
GrammieT :hamster:
Dear Friends:
It has become clearly apparent to me that even when the final verdict in this case is reached, particularly when it goes against DSL et al (and I have no doubt that's what it will be!), they will still be crying "Foul! We've been painted to look wrong by the enemy and he has won for now. But we will continue to fight him and all his liars :horse: and WE WILL WIN! God will not fail us twice!!" :hot:
May God have mercy on their souls. :help: :praying:
GrammieT :hamster:
And, on the other hand, there is always the possibility that if 3abn wins the Pickle and Joy team will cry foul and "how can we compete with the big dogs" and "they had the money for "real" attorney's and we don't"......yada yada
Yes Grandma Nettie, you know it's true.
Dear Friends:
It has become clearly apparent to me that even when the final verdict in this case is reached, particularly when it goes against DSL et al (and I have no doubt that's what it will be!), they will still be crying "Foul! We've been painted to look wrong by the enemy and he has won for now. But we will continue to fight him and all his liars :horse: and WE WILL WIN! God will not fail us twice!!" :hot:
May God have mercy on their souls. :help: :praying:
GrammieT :hamster:
Does this mean it's safer betting on the party where the money is? :purr:
And who is running the pool? I hear Joy and Pickle are 30 to 1 odds, we are just so dog gone incompetent...are the players allowed to bet in this pool?
I'd like to have you spot me $100k and put all on Pickle and Joy. Can you handle that???
Ah, but GrandmaNettie, it's only a hundred k??? And think of the upside if we win? I'd even split it with you, but I hear you are betting both sides.
Gailon Arthur Joy
"Linda, You Lost the $1000 Bet!"
While on July 17, 2004, 3ABN president Danny Shelton had no proof that his ex-wife Linda had given him biblical grounds for divorce the previous month, his opinion had definitely changed by September 6, not 8 weeks later. He was so certain of this that he tried to collect on his $1,000 bet.
What was so convincing to Danny was that Linda had gone to Norway for medical treatment to Dr. Abrahamsen's clinic, and to visit Elder and Mrs. Johann Thorvaldsson, the latter of whom was battling bone cancer. And Linda had gone not once, but twice.
(Ian's note and insertion: is this true?? then perhaps Johann could and should have clarified this before instead of making it sound like she never went at all...)Quote from: Johann on BSDA Sep 14 2006, 11:04 PMQuote from: PeacefullyBewildered on BSDA Sep 15 2006, 05:43 AM
I found it quite easy to figure out that the letter was refering to Kay and Brenda.
I just don't see how you can conclude that Linda and Arild couldn't have traveled through Europe because Danny and Linda were divorced by June 26, 2004. How does the divorce make a trip impossible? Am I missing something?
I have asked Walt Thompson what evidence he has that this visit took place. He replied there was good evidence. I asked him if he had seen it. He admitted he had not, but that he had heard it. . . .
My wife and I were spending most of our time in the vicinity of Dr. Arild Abrahamsen, she received frequent treratments from him, and we were in daily communication with Arild. It would have been a millionth of a chance we could have missed Linda's visit to Europe during that period. This is merely one more of a multitude of lies emanating from 3ABN. So what can you trust of whata they say?[/b]Quote from: Johann on BSDA Aug 31 2007 03:54 AMMore than a year ago this was posted. This time I have put my comments in itallics. They are just as true today as they were last year. Nobody has been able to refute any of what I said then....- end of Ian's inserted quotes...
Dr Walter Thompson:
Is it OK for one's wife to make plans to visit her doctor to spent time together seeing the sights of his homeland - a trip that was later made?
[Johann Thorvaldsson:] When were these plans made and when did such a trip occur? Walt is really mixing up his chronology of events in this case, and this he has done frequently during this whole process
I have followed Linda's coming and going ever since 2003, and when did she make a trip together with Dr. Abrahamsen just to see the sights of his homeland? Be careful what statements you make, Walt! Irmgard tried to arrange a trip where Linda could see more of Norway, but Linda never went until Linda traveled to Bergen to attend Irmgard's funeral in August 2005. Such plans were never made while Danny and Linda were married.
Watch your chronology of events, Walt!
But we do wonder, how was Danny so certain? And if he really had evidence to that effect, why hasn't he made it public as requested by Linda on February 15, 2007, 482 days ago?
September 6, 2004: Danny Says, "Pay Up Time!"QuoteQuote-------- Original Message --------
From: Danny Shelton
To: Linda Shelton
Date: Monday, September 06, 2004 12:17 AM
Kim Smith just called me. Herb's son just killed himself tonight. Please pray for them. He was a little older than Melody.
Melody said Lisa fell off a ladder and broke her arm in 3 places. The doctor said it was really bad. It needs some pins in it but the dr. said the bones were broken too badly.
Alyssa said you wanted to move on Sunday the 19th.
I have a board meeting that day so it won't work to get the rest of the furniture out of my house. You have lots of books too that need moving.
I guess if they took everything early in the day on the truck that's already loaded maybe they could load up the furniture at my house late in the day.
X
I'd like you to pay off your $1,000.00 you owe me from our bet. You know and I know and God knows, you lost that bet. It's a good thing you don't have to pay me one grand for each time you failed. I'd be rich by now. I hear viagra can really help a 61 year old. Of course I'm sure he's denying having to use it.
According to Johann, it seems you and the Dr. must talk a lot about s*x. If you are talking about our past s*x life, you must surely be talking about yours and his now.
By the time you get back you will have spent 5 out of the last 8 weeks with him. Shameful!
Anyway, I take cash or even a check will do!
Seventh-day Adventist Position on Gambling
Seventh-day Adventists do not believe in gambling. In fact, the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual lists as one of the "Reasons for Which Members Shall Be Disciplined":
2. Violation of the law of God, such as worship of idols, murder, stealing, profanity, gambling, Sabbathbreaking, and willful and habitual falsehood.
(Church Manual, p. 195)
Church discipline may take one of two forms:
* Vote of Censure: One loses one's church offices and cannot have a voice or vote in the affairs of the church for a stated period of time.
* Disfellowship: One ceases to be a member of the church.
And who is running the pool? I hear Joy and Pickle are 30 to 1 odds, we are just so dog gone incompetent...are the players allowed to bet in this pool?
I'd like to have you spot me $100k and put all on Pickle and Joy. Can you handle that???
Ah, but GrandmaNettie, it's only a hundred k??? And think of the upside if we win? I'd even split it with you, but I hear you are betting both sides.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Dear Friends:
It has become clearly apparent to me that even when the final verdict in this case is reached, particularly when it goes against DSL et al (and I have no doubt that's what it will be!), they will still be crying "Foul! We've been painted to look wrong by the enemy and he has won for now. But we will continue to fight him and all his liars :horse: and WE WILL WIN! God will not fail us twice!!" :hot:
May God have mercy on their souls. :help: :praying:
GrammieT :hamster:
And, on the other hand, there is always the possibility that if 3abn wins the Pickle and Joy team will cry foul and "how can we compete with the big dogs" and "they had the money for "real" attorney's and we don't"......yada yada
Yes Grandma Nettie, you know it's true.
Hey Sam, GrandmaNettie here.... I'm sure GrammieT is a wonderful person but she is not moi.
From my perspective, at this point I believe both of you might possibly be right. Time will tell. How about if we all sit back and let Time fill us in when it is, um, time? Or, we could set up a pool, take our chances and place our bets...see who wins the jackpot. Or we could all keep gnawing at each other.
Here again - in Ian's post above - is another demonstration that makes me consider that I have never in my 50 years of working for the Lord met a person who is greater at twisting, deducting and falsely adding together her twists of what I have said, drawing conclusions of what I have said that are eons at a distance from reality. And she seems to think she can get away with it in the long run. In your garbs I do not recognize what I have said, because you turn it into falsehood.
May the Lord have mercy!!!
Twist and shout! Ian, if you were in the room I would have to take you out on the floor for a spin. That is the place where twisting is what its all about. LOL! All this talk about twisting has me in the mood for a dance.
And how about a game of twister. I haven't played that in years. Blue, red, geen and yellow? Those are the colors, right?
Sometimes we just need to loosen up and have some fun together. We can scrap and squabble, and we can debate lofty and debased matters, but we are all still just humans living together on a tiny speck in the middle of infinity. A little merriment would be good for our souls, individually and collectively. Collaborative merriment tends to reduce enmity so I think that it is one of the more important parts of life.
Twist and shout! Ian, if you were in the room I would have to take you out on the floor for a spin. That is the place where twisting is what its all about. LOL! All this talk about twisting has me in the mood for a dance.
And how about a game of twister. I haven't played that in years. Blue, red, geen and yellow? Those are the colors, right?
Sometimes we just need to loosen up and have some fun together. We can scrap and squabble, and we can debate lofty and debased matters, but we are all still just humans living together on a tiny speck in the middle of infinity. A little merriment would be good for our souls, individually and collectively. Collaborative merriment tends to reduce enmity so I think that it is one of the more important parts of life.
Hey, that sounds like fun!! Is your dance card full sir?? Could I have the next dance?? :dogwag:Twist and shout! Ian, if you were in the room I would have to take you out on the floor for a spin. That is the place where twisting is what its all about. LOL! All this talk about twisting has me in the mood for a dance.
And how about a game of twister. I haven't played that in years. Blue, red, geen and yellow? Those are the colors, right?
Sometimes we just need to loosen up and have some fun together. We can scrap and squabble, and we can debate lofty and debased matters, but we are all still just humans living together on a tiny speck in the middle of infinity. A little merriment would be good for our souls, individually and collectively. Collaborative merriment tends to reduce enmity so I think that it is one of the more important parts of life.
No No No, it must be the barn march!!!! :o
A march? I suppose one could figure out some moves that would go with Sousa but I'll have to think about that one. Or is the "barn march" a dance that I don't know?No No No, it must be the barn march!!!! :o
Is that what we call the Barn Dance in this country - the guys are in the inner circle and the ladies progress from one to the next - from memory it goes 3 steps forward, 2 back and she turns around.
Guess it could be seen as a parable that the ladies progress and the guys stay in the same place but that would be OFF TOPIC and slightly provocative! :oops: :australia:
A march? I suppose one could figure out some moves that would go with Sousa but I'll have to think about that one. Or is the "barn march" a dance that I don't know?No No No, it must be the barn march!!!! :o
Guess maybe I'm aging myself, but when I was in Adventist Academy some "play periods" we marched to Sousa type music and did certain moves while marching around in circles. Vege dancing. I can't be the only one who knows what I'm talking about. :huh:
A march? I suppose one could figure out some moves that would go with Sousa but I'll have to think about that one. Or is the "barn march" a dance that I don't know?No No No, it must be the barn march!!!! :o
Guess maybe I'm aging myself, but when I was in Adventist Academy some "play periods" we marched to Sousa type music and did certain moves while marching around in circles. Vege dancing. I can't be the only one who knows what I'm talking about. :huh:
Guess I'm aging too, as I'm trying to get my feet to remember the exact steps, but GRAT, I missed out on the vegan variety of dancing. I did not hear of Adventism till I was in my mid-20's :oops:
Oh, but for the circular waltz! I could dance all night with my Dad, who was a beautiful dancer. Give all those young guys a miss, just to waltz with my dear ole Dad! Those were the days, my lad! :oops: :australia:
I really want to learn to swing and jitterbug!!
Brilliant idea, Ozzie. I guess I could start a thread in the Healthy Choices section.
I am of course reminded of a Garfield cartoon I saw years ago, a very overweight cat comfortably lying down, going "Puff, puff, puff" and telling himself,
"They say exercise is 50% mental effort. I will do the physical part some other time!"
And now if we do not all get back on topic we will all be reported :rabbit: