Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on March 23, 2008, 07:51:35 PM
-
From http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?act=findpost&hl=maternity&pid=241394 (http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?act=findpost&hl=maternity&pid=241394)
Di, don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say. "It's all right as long as no one knew about it" came out of the air. I never said any such thing.
As far as the next red highlighted sentence you evidently have no idea how the IRS works. To hear your scenerio, they got some calls, breezed in to 3abn, GLANCED at 23 years of financial records (right there on the premesis) and said "hey looks good. You're in the clear". Pleeeease. Surely you don't believe that?
The IRS comes in and removes literally thousands of records from the financial dept. While they are there they question relevant people. When that is finished, they leave with the records and it is usally months and months before you hear anything one way or the other. This case has been held up even more by the investigating agent going on maternity leave. (FHB was correct when he made that statement)
Nothing is ever simple with the IRS and you will find that out if you are ever audited.
-
Quite a significant confession considering earlier claims.
-
Do you get the impression that Appletree has somehow been deluded as to what has actually gone on at 3ABN, or the he/she is just spinning the evidence?
-
Do you get the impression that Appletree has somehow been deluded as to what has actually gone on at 3ABN, or the he/she is just spinning the evidence?
My impression is that Appletree is well and truly 'in the know' and is spinning the evidence.
-
You know, I really hate to be a wet blanket on the celebration of the "opposition's" stupidity, BUT the title of this thread is wrong. It's spinning the original post.
Appletree wrote this:
you evidently have no idea how the IRS works. To hear your scenerio .. <snipped>
The IRS comes in and removes literally thousands of records from the financial dept. While they are there they question relevant people. When that is finished, they leave with the records and it is usally months and months before you hear anything one way or the other. This case has been held up even more by the investigating agent going on maternity leave. (FHB was correct when he made that statement)
I'm glad you gave the context, Bob, because that makes clear that Appletree's intention was to indicate "how the IRS works." Appletree did not say that the IRS removed literally thousands of records from the financial dept of 3ABN!
Now, it may very well be true that that's what happened, but that's not what he wrote!
Your testimony would look much more credible if you stuck to the bare facts.
You know, the current situation with the 3ABN lawsuit reminds me of something Ellen White wrote re the American Civil War. She had a vision in which she saw that the Lord did not allow the Northern forces to win because the North did not have the right reasons for the war. It was only after the Emancipitation Declaration that the North was allowed to win. I may not have this exactly right, but that's the gist.
The moral of the story -- the way I see it -- is that God cannot bless our endeavors if we use the enemy's tactics to try to do the work of the Lord. In fact, we may be hampering what the Lord wants to do.
So, I'll say it again. Let's really try to stick to the Golden Rule.
:TY:
-
Hi Inga.
I agree that not everyone will interpret what AppleTree wrote the way I did, but I think my read of his statement is correct. If I am misunderstanding him, he is free to correct me.
To hear your scenerio, they got some calls, breezed in to 3abn, GLANCED at 23 years of financial records (right there on the premesis) and said "hey looks good. You're in the clear".
In these words he is clearly talking about the IRS coming in and looking at 3ABN's financial records. It's just that he is trying to correct what he claims is a misperception of how that actually took place. In correcting how the investigation actually took place he then states:
The IRS comes in and removes literally thousands of records from the financial dept. While they are there they question relevant people. When that is finished, they leave with the records and it is usally months and months before you hear anything one way or the other. This case has been held up even more by the investigating agent going on maternity leave. (FHB was correct when he made that statement)
He most definitely is talking about how a typical criminal investigation takes place. But he is also clearly talking about how the investigation at 3ABN took place.
-
I agree, Bob. That sounds the most reasonable.
-
Hi Inga.
I agree that not everyone will interpret what AppleTree wrote the way I did, but I think my read of his statement is correct. If I am misunderstanding him, he is free to correct me.
To hear your scenerio, they got some calls, breezed in to 3abn, GLANCED at 23 years of financial records (right there on the premesis) and said "hey looks good. You're in the clear".
In these words he is clearly talking about the IRS coming in and looking at 3ABN's financial records. It's just that he is trying to correct what he claims is a misperception of how that actually took place. In correcting how the investigation actually took place he then states:
The IRS comes in and removes literally thousands of records from the financial dept. While they are there they question relevant people. When that is finished, they leave with the records and it is usally months and months before you hear anything one way or the other. This case has been held up even more by the investigating agent going on maternity leave. (FHB was correct when he made that statement)
He most definitely is talking about how a typical criminal investigation takes place. But he is also clearly talking about how the investigation at 3ABN took place.
Add to this that we have reports from witnesses stating that the IRS took out several boxes of documents and have interviewed most of the financial office staff and several others in Administration and you have Appletree stating rare historical facts that do not appear factually challenged. We even know that financial staff are under the strictest orders not to speak to anyone regarding anything that has happened and we are told this order came from both sides!!!
So enjoy the breathe of fresh air and take in the rare factual assessment and give the man his dues. If he is like so many that we have worked with over the past year and a half, there is a great probability that even he will convert and recognize the truth and join the ranks of reformers!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Gailon and Bob:
My post was merely meant to point out that Bob misrepresented what Appletree actually wrote. Whether or not Bob's take describes what happened is not the issue.
However, Appletree did not write what Bob claims he wrote in the subject line: "AppleTree says IRS removed 1000's of documents from 3ABN)"! And it does not look good for truth-seekers to misrepresent/spin what others wrote.
Gailon wrote:
Add to this that we have reports from witnesses stating that the IRS took out several boxes of documents and have interviewed most of the financial office staff and several others in Administration and you have Appletree stating rare historical facts that do not appear factually challenged. We even know that financial staff are under the strictest orders not to speak to anyone regarding anything that has happened and we are told this order came from both sides!!!
This may very well be true. However, I am less likely to believe either you or Bob when I see misrepresentations like those of Appletree's post. How do I know that what you report as fact -- as Bob did in the title of this thread-- is not similarly spun from scanty evidence?
All who wish to defend the truth need to be scrupulously truthful.
-
I feel that Bob's reading of what appletree said on BlackSDA was something that a lot of other people would understand also.
It seems like hairsplitting to parse appletree's statements so finely.
-
Thank God, Artiste!! I so agree with you! I was having a hard time understanding what the problem was, but thought maybe it was just me.
-
My post was merely meant to point out that Bob misrepresented what Appletree actually wrote. Whether or not Bob's take describes what happened is not the issue.
I respect your opinion that I misrepresented what he wrote, even while I maintain that I did not represent anything. I understand why you came to this conclusion, even though I have reached a different conclusion.
-
From Gailon,
"Add to this that we have reports from witnesses stating that the IRS took out several boxes of documents and have interviewed most of the financial office staff and several others in Administration..."
If what Fran says is true, it sounds like the IRS does plan to go to court--or whatever is the IRS equivalent--with this situation.
-
I think it likely that when Appletree described "how the IRS works," that he described what actually happened at 3ABN. However, anyone who reads the original post can see that's not what he actually wrote.
Sorry if I seem picky, but if we intend to deal in truth we cannot afford to use our conclusions as evidence against someone. (I.e. Like Bob, I concluded that Appletree probably described an actual event with which he was familiar and that that event probably took place at 3ABN. However, that is my conclusion; it is not what he wrote.)
And I also agree with Artiste that, if Fran's description is correct, a criminal court case may be in the offing. However, this bit of apparent evidence is not proof.
It is likely that IRS agents have more than one way of working. If an investigation looks like it might result in a crimnal court case and it is likely to take days or weeks to investigate, it would not be prudent for them to leave documents on the premises, since these could be destroyed/doctored at night.
Thus it appears that a court case may be in the offing, but we cannot truthfully say this is certainty.
From Gailon,
"Add to this that we have reports from witnesses stating that the IRS took out several boxes of documents and have interviewed most of the financial office staff and several others in Administration..."
If what Fran says is true, it sounds like the IRS does plan to go to court--or whatever is the IRS equivalent--with this situation.
-
(I.e. Like Bob, I concluded that Appletree probably described an actual event with which he was familiar and that that event probably took place at 3ABN. However, that is my conclusion; it is not what he wrote.)
So our difference of opinion isn't too great.
-
Gailon and Bob:
My post was merely meant to point out that Bob misrepresented what Appletree actually wrote. Whether or not Bob's take describes what happened is not the issue.
However, Appletree did not write what Bob claims he wrote in the subject line: "AppleTree says IRS removed 1000's of documents from 3ABN)"! And it does not look good for truth-seekers to misrepresent/spin what others wrote.
Gailon wrote:
Add to this that we have reports from witnesses stating that the IRS took out several boxes of documents and have interviewed most of the financial office staff and several others in Administration and you have Appletree stating rare historical facts that do not appear factually challenged. We even know that financial staff are under the strictest orders not to speak to anyone regarding anything that has happened and we are told this order came from both sides!!!
This may very well be true. However, I am less likely to believe either you or Bob when I see misrepresentations like those of Appletree's post. How do I know that what you report as fact -- as Bob did in the title of this thread-- is not similarly spun from scanty evidence?
All who wish to defend the truth need to be scrupulously truthful.
Inga:
People with advanced reading skills understand that decoding other people’s communications requires interpretation. They also understand, even if they have not been trained as linguists, the notions of CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE ( “a conclusion which is not asserted by a speaker but which is nevertheless drawn by the listener on the ground that, if the conclusion were not true, the speaker would have said something different” – Trask, 1997, pp. 55-56), ENTAILMENT (“a possible relation between two statements” – ibid. p.78), and PRESUPPOSITION ( “a proposition which must be taken for granted if some utterance is to be regarded as sensible” – ibid. p.175).
There is a lot you don’t know about such matters, but one thing is clear: you are looking for absolute truth conveyed through an imperfect instrument (language). You are criticizing Bob for his interpretation of appletree’s statement, but at the same time you offer nothing better – another INTERPRETATION. You also ignore the factual evidence that corroborates Bob's interpretation.
Your arguments are without merit.
Eduard
-
Gailon and Bob:
My post was merely meant to point out that Bob misrepresented what Appletree actually wrote. Whether or not Bob's take describes what happened is not the issue.
However, Appletree did not write what Bob claims he wrote in the subject line: "AppleTree says IRS removed 1000's of documents from 3ABN)"! And it does not look good for truth-seekers to misrepresent/spin what others wrote.
Gailon wrote:
Add to this that we have reports from witnesses stating that the IRS took out several boxes of documents and have interviewed most of the financial office staff and several others in Administration and you have Appletree stating rare historical facts that do not appear factually challenged. We even know that financial staff are under the strictest orders not to speak to anyone regarding anything that has happened and we are told this order came from both sides!!!
This may very well be true. However, I am less likely to believe either you or Bob when I see misrepresentations like those of Appletree's post. How do I know that what you report as fact -- as Bob did in the title of this thread-- is not similarly spun from scanty evidence?
All who wish to defend the truth need to be scrupulously truthful.
Inga:
People with advanced reading skills understand that decoding other people’s communications requires interpretation. They also understand, even if they have not been trained as linguists, the notions of CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE ( “a conclusion which is not asserted by a speaker but which is nevertheless drawn by the listener on the ground that, if the conclusion were not true, the speaker would have said something different” – Trask, 1997, pp. 55-56), ENTAILMENT (“a possible relation between two statements” – ibid. p.78), and PRESUPPOSITION ( “a proposition which must be taken for granted if some utterance is to be regarded as sensible” – ibid. p.175).
There is a lot you don’t know about such matters, but one thing is clear: you are looking for absolute truth conveyed through an imperfect instrument (language). You are criticizing Bob for his interpretation of appletree’s statement, but at the same time you offer nothing better – another INTERPRETATION. You also ignore the factual evidence that corroborates Bob's interpretation.
Your arguments are without merit.
Eduard
Well that is a summary conclusion, if ever there was one!!!
Maybe what we also have to recognize is that some are also tip toeing through the tulips, belatedly, given an unwarranted fear of litigation from the gang that can't shoot straight. Personally, Bob and I have nothing more to fear but fear itself, and I have always rejected fear as an annoying and debilitating emotion that leaves one impotent on the battlefield of life. Clearly, Bob has opted for the same conclusion!!! Action invariably leaves fear without a home and if executed well, leaves the intimidator intimidated!!!
I recognize that Inga's point is that we all should show some caution with regards to our conclusions and we all should show some moderation in the utilization of
"unfounded" accusations and innuendo. The problem is that Bob's Headline, while a bit sensational, is based upon sound conclusion, particularly in light of the colaterall evidence. The alternative would be to even question the "maternity leave" which was also supported by the evidence based upon the various descriptions of the lead investigator throughout the fall of 2007. Virtually every witness I spoke to was surprised to find the lead investigator was pregnant!!! Therefore, one must conclude his maternity conclusion is partially correct, except that we know that there is an entire team working on this case and only one was pregnant and the federal leave is limited to 120 days. Since it is normal for the accounting geniuses and the US Attorney to take up to a year to put their case together, we are far from being "delayed".
Unfortunately, Appletree has proven to be so accurate on some issues and so painfully up to his ankles in horse manure on others that we will have no choice but to subpoena Mr Appletree at some point, not so far in the future, and see just what he really knows and what his ethics really are, assuming he has any at all.
But then Ian and the mother also will have to step into the light of day and cough
up the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
We just need "ALL" the documents to make available to them for their studied interpretation so we can decide whether they are worth dragging in as third
parties or simply as adverse witnesses against the prevarications of their sources
for their intellectual brainstorms. They have proven so dramatic at BSDA that we have determined they will all be excellent fodder for the jury!!! A little something to lighten up the trivia that will draw the case into ad infinitum.
Remember, people, there is nothing to fear here. Besides, if Danny didn't know about those subpoenas and Gilley didn't know about those subpoenas to BSDA and Blue Host, then clearly it is simply a witch hunt...any witches out there??? I didn't think so!!!
Think of it this way, just another opportunity to stop them in their tracks and trace it all the way back to Dodge Center......Minnesotta, that is!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
What about adding Shiny Penny and phoenix to the list? I saw the tone of Shiny Penny's posts change dramatically over the last several months. And while poster "phoenix" is relatively new to the brouhaha (at least under that name), s/he has posted some pointed missiles, in my opinion.
...
Unfortunately, Appletree has proven to be so accurate on some issues and so painfully up to his ankles in horse manure on others that we will have no choice but to subpoena Mr Appletree at some point, not so far in the future, and see just what he really knows and what his ethics really are, assuming he has any at all.
But then Ian and the mother also will have to step into the light of day and cough
up the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
We just need "ALL" the documents to make available to them for their studied interpretation so we can decide whether they are worth dragging in as third
parties or simply as adverse witnesses against the prevarications of their sources
for their intellectual brainstorms. They have proven so dramatic at BSDA that we have determined they will all be excellent fodder for the jury!!! A little something to lighten up the trivia that will draw the case into ad infinitum.
Remember, people, there is nothing to fear here. Besides, if Danny didn't know about those subpoenas and Gilley didn't know about those subpoenas to BSDA and Blue Host, then clearly it is simply a witch hunt...any witches out there??? I didn't think so!!!
Think of it this way, just another opportunity to stop them in their tracks and trace it all the way back to Dodge Center......Minnesotta, that is!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Well that is a summary conclusion, if ever there was one!!!
I recognize that Inga's point is that we all should show some caution with regards to our conclusions and we all should show some moderation in the utilization of "unfounded" accusations and innuendo.
Precisely, Gailon. :)
I have had the "privilege" to be unjustly accused and slandered more than once. Generally I am relieved that I am the "accused" rather than the "accuser," considering who the original "accuser" is. ;)
I would hope that all who consider themselves followers of Christ would rather be "accused" than "accuse."
Of course, in this case, I was not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusion that there's good reason to believe that the IRS took many boxes of records with them from 3ABN. However, that was no reason to twist Appletree's words into a "confession," which it was not, Eduard's "summary conclusion" notwith standing. To report that Appletree "says" what Bob claims is simply not true.
The problem is that Bob's Headline, while a bit sensational, is based upon sound conclusion, particularly in light of the colaterall evidence.
If he had left out the words "Appletree says," it would have been sensational enough. ;)
I confess I'm not fond of sensationalism -- either on web sites or in evangelistic series. I don't see any evidence of Jesus being sensational. He tended, rather, to go about doing the business of His Father and letting Him take care of the consequences. (Can you imagine what startling and sensational but true information He could have disseminated? Instead, he went out of His way to avoid public exposure!)
The alternative would be to even question the "maternity leave"
Not necessarily. Sticking with the truth is always best. Conjecture may be appropriate if there is sufficient evidence. However, conjecture should be presented as such, rather than presenting the conjecture as words in someone else's mouth.
Unfortunately, Appletree has proven to be so accurate on some issues and so painfully up to his ankles in horse manure on others that we will have no choice but to subpoena Mr Appletree at some point
So you're going to require a copy of those records for which 3ABN/Dan Shelton subpoenaed Calvin? :dunno: At least those folks made some very clear statements relevant to the questions at issue -- as compared to those folks who clearly did not claim to be "insiders," with one individual only making three innnocuous posts!! :dunno:
-
"I confess I'm not fond of sensationalism -- either on web sites or in evangelistic series. I don't see any evidence of Jesus being sensational. He tended, rather, to go about doing the business of His Father and letting Him take care of the consequences. (Can you imagine what startling and sensational but true information He could have disseminated? Instead, he went out of His way to avoid public exposure!)? Inga
Here, I have to take exception...had I been a reporter in 28 - 30 AD I would have had plenty of "sensation" to report!!! From the baptism by John and the Holy Ghost, to the Great Wine Miracle at Cana and on through incredible healings, resurrections, exorcisms and the feeding of vast crowds!!!
Then add to it the Transfiguration, the deception, the trial, the crucifixion, the burial and resurrection and finally the Ascension!!!
Now if that is not sensational, there never has been any. Some day as the spirit uses us to give the loud cry, we will give every ounce of sensation it deserves and do it with unmatched fervor.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
"So you're going to require a copy of those records for which 3ABN/Dan Shelton subpoenaed Calvin? At least those folks made some very clear statements relevant to the questions at issue -- as compared to those folks who clearly did not claim to be "insiders," with one individual only making three innocuous posts!!" Inga
There is not yet a valid subpoena to Calvin. We intend to keep it from ever becoming valid. And we are also seeking to recall the Blue Host documentation since it was also gotten from an invalid subpoena. These are tough and time consumming battles and would be greatly enhanced by a case for injunctive relief, preferrably a class action, to stop this kind of improper "witch hunt" from continueing. Particularly since they are not relevant to the current claims in the Plaintiffs stated claims and objectives.
Can we win...I think so, but as Gregory has pointed out, we will win some and lose some, but we have a duty to try!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Hi Gailon,
Can't argue with your post below. ;)
However, I see a difference between the kind of "sensation" you refer to and "sensationalism" -- the same kind of difference as there is between "authoritative" and "authoritarian."
Some real events cause a sensation because of their unexpectedness or unusualness. To properly appreciate these events, the context is very helpful. By contrast, the "sensationalism" is an unbalanced focus and an overemphasis (often to the point of distorting facts and often out of context) on certain issues in order to create an emotional reaction. It is this which I had in mind. The biblical reporters did not do this.
Authoritative statements are always good because they are trustworthy. Authoritarian behavior is not good because it is a way of claiming authority in areas where the person has no real authority. Authoritarianism also tends to be unbalanced, with a focus on exercising "authority" in areas of personal preferences, acting as though these personal preferences were the preferences of God. (If I'm not careful I shall get up on one of my soap boxes!! ;) )
"I confess I'm not fond of sensationalism -- either on web sites or in evangelistic series. I don't see any evidence of Jesus being sensational. He tended, rather, to go about doing the business of His Father and letting Him take care of the consequences. (Can you imagine what startling and sensational but true information He could have disseminated? Instead, he went out of His way to avoid public exposure!)? Inga
Here, I have to take exception...had I been a reporter in 28 - 30 AD I would have had plenty of "sensation" to report!!! From the baptism by John and the Holy Ghost, to the Great Wine Miracle at Cana and on through incredible healings, resurrections, exorcisms and the feeding of vast crowds!!!
Then add to it the Transfiguration, the deception, the trial, the crucifixion, the burial and resurrection and finally the Ascension!!!
Now if that is not sensational, there never has been any. Some day as the spirit uses us to give the loud cry, we will give every ounce of sensation it deserves and do it with unmatched fervor.
Gailon Arthur Joy