Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Avidwalker on January 23, 2008, 04:25:35 PM
-
First of all - look at the FHB's post on BSDA - to me he is way over the top and looks like he has crossed the line. I wonder why he seems so bitter and angry? >:( >:(
There may be more to this - it could be a piece of a puzzle. See my next quote......
(fallible humanbeing @ Jan 7 2008, 01:39 AM)
As for the drinking of Kool-aid . . . the Pickle/Joy version is a rather deadly blend of 1 smidgen of truth, 3 gallons of untruth, mixed carefully in a vat of deception, anger, and pride.
- FHB
-
See below the full e-mail from BSDA written by Walt Thompson, Chairman of the 3ABN Board.
I am asking..... what is Walt Thompson talking about when he said that Greg (his son) is ".....one of the few who have been willing to sacrifice reputation, professional career, family, and whatever was needed to stand for truth - at the hand of some of you who have had no such conscience of right and wrong."
What does Walt Thompson mean by those words...."sacrifice career and family....at the hand of some of you".
In W. Thompson's mind - whose hands caused his son to lose his reputation, career, and family?
I have wondered why such a man as Walt Thompson would go along with this law suit? Is this a vendetta? Is he blaming Joy & Pickle? Is the plan to get back at them for something he thinks is their fault? :-\
Dear **************, Since you** have felt free to post my e mails in the past (against my better judgment), I would appreciate it if you would now post this one, unedited, and unchanged. For reasons that I think I have made quite clear to those I have corresponded with, I do not believe the Internet is the place to resolve conflicts of the nature that 3abn has experienced in recent years. Therefore, it is with a certain reticence that I make this request to you. Nor is it because my name has been posted as the source of FHB's information - but only to clarify a few issues that have arisen by that post. It is true that I am the father of FHB - a fact that many of you have known for a long time, having obtained the information fraudulently. The fact is, FHB has obtained his information from the same sources as most everyone else --by scratching for it - not from me. In fact, the assumption stated in the recent post is the very reason that I have not revealed private things to him. Yes, FHB may have one advantage over some of you. From childhood, I have reminded him of the farmhand in Uncle Arthur's Bedtime Stories who could "sleep through the storm." He knew that if he did his job right, he need not worry about the things that might happen during the night. FHB knows that that farmhand has been one whom I have emulated through life, so that when I told FHB I could sleep through the storm, he knew he need not fear. Nor do I agree with him for joining in the frivolity of his post (and similar posts by others). He is of age, and need not share his thoughts (and posts) with me. Having said this, I wish to make it clear that I am proud of FHB's sense of justice and desire for truth to be told. Were it not for him and a few others who have often not been permitted to post "sensitive" comments, many who read the forums would remain in the dark regarding the truth of the matters at hand. He has been one of the few who have been willing to sacrifice reputation, professional career, family, and whatever was needed to stand for truth - at the hand of some of you who have had no such conscience of right and wrong. (And though a few of you may be innocent, others of you are not, and you know who you are!) Even if everything negative that has been posted against 3abn and its leadership were true, (which it is not) that evil would not begin to compare with the demonic tactics being used by some of you. I have received considerable criticism for 3ABN taking certain persons to court in our attempts to tell the truth regarding events of recent years. Some express the belief that it is a sin to use the court system in the search for truth, implying thereby that it is morally, legally and ethically right to destroy innocent people and ministries via the Internet forums, e -mails, etc. where there are few governing laws and virtually no moral restraints, but that it is evil to use legitimate systems established to determine truth and promote justice. I fail to understand this sense of righteousness. What seems to have been over-looked here is that people, human beings for whom Jesus paid the infinite price, are being lost - while we play our little games. Matters it not that our Lord loves each one of us, and is not in favor of any one of us missing the glories He is preparing? Have you no such love for one another? Ought we all not rather be on our knees before the King of the Universe, pleading for the salvation of each other? Yes, I have stood beside the people at 3abn and defended them based upon what I have seen and experienced there, but it has not been without a deep sense of sadness for all of those who are hurting and/or misled. You are daily, and often many times daily, in my prayers, not asking God to strike any one of you with injury or death, but that somehow, you might find the peace and joy of knowing Him for who He really is - our Savior - who also desires to be our very best friend. We are living on the very edge of eternity. It is no time for any of us to be playing games. For none of us must be missing in that glad day. I am most grateful for those of you who, though perhaps confused as to what to believe, have joined in with frequent prayers of intercession, for 3ABN and for its determined enemies. Thank you--God is not deaf to our pleas! This note is submitted in the precious name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, Walter Thompson MD Chairman, 3abn Board of Directors
-
Do you think there is some connection, AW?
-
I have no personal knowledge but just wondering why the bitterness, why the statement, why the blame? I guess it is the curious part of me asking why and where is the rest of the story?
W.T.'s statement is pretty bold and it just jumped out at me when I read it again today at BSDA. I did a search on FHB's statements and had some difficulty but finally came up with his angry and somewhat bitter post.
So there it is ......if W.T. believes what he wrote (I have no doubt he does) then it just makes sense for him to have jumped on a bandwagon full of emotions instead of reason and then found himself in a fight for a cause that would bring some vindication to his son.
-
Thank-you, Avidwalker, for the question.
We know from a communique we were given nearly a year ago that Danny's brother had claimed that we had cost Greg his job. Since then there have been various allegations regarding this concept. At one point we decided to investigate FHB and discovered it was Greg, which certainly clarified the motivation for the hostility.
As we pressed further, we discovered that Greg had been a student at AUC in the early 89-91 period, while we were actively involved in defending Virginia Jean Rittenhouse from ridiculous allegations of discrimination and "excessive expectation" workloads to the students at the Thayer Music Conservatory and in her New England Ensemble, world renowned at the time. We were just a newsletter then, but read throughout the New England conferences by a number of members. We also supported New England Ministries at the Time, a conservative forum group that sponsored conservative speakers to speak one sabbath a month (these included Osborne, Standish, Spear, Larsen, Ron Goss, etal). For some reason, they seem to believe that a student classmate breached some form of confidentiality and gave us information that we passed to the private school where Greg was teaching and he was terminated midyear.
Frankly, we learned enough to decide that Greg was off limits and we have never told anyone anything of what we learned...it was simply not relevant to the 3ABN/Danny Lee Shelton Discussions...the same position we have taken on Brandy and a host of others such as Lomacang. We find their blindness to the truth profound, but not without motivation, and have simply left it that way.
It is a common tactic by the opponents of journalism to attack the messenger rather than take on the message and defend their position with documentation. I am quite use to it. When we tell the truth and document the same, we will be exonerated time after time by the passage of time and unravelling of the factually challenged statements by blind defenders of fallacy.
The proof is in the documentation. We have repeatedly requested the documentation and they have repeatedly refused to produce the documentation. They claim the purpose of the Lawsuite is to make public the truth, but attempt to impound the case. Bob has done requests to produce the documents and now they attempt to prove to the court that everything is covered by some imaginary confidentiality. They simply avoid documenting the truth and one must logically ask WHY??? They still have not documented the very first allegation and still have not produced one document to prove that Linda was guilty of anything worthy of termination, other than being married to Danny Lee Shelton and a discardable possession that had worn out her welcome.
We would challenge Greg, Danny's brother and Dr Walter Thompson to provide proof of this ridiculous allegation and post it here or anywhere else. And if they are convinced that we were responsible for Gregs' termination, why has Greg not filed suite against us?? I suspect the documentation will be avoided like all other documentation requests.
And they want the truth to finally exonerate them??? The history is not good and I doubt we will see any proof without another court fight!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Thompson recently said in the above email:
"Having said this, I wish to make it clear that I am proud of FHB's sense of justice and desire for truth to be told. Were it not for him and a few others who have often not been permitted to post 'sensitive' comments, many who read the forums would remain in the dark regarding the truth of the matters at hand. He has been one of the few who have been willing to sacrifice reputation, professional career, family, and whatever was needed to stand for truth - at the hand of some of you who have had no such conscience of right and wrong."
A friend wrote the following to me on February 13, 2007, just two days before Danny, Walt, and company announced to the world that they were going to sue:
"[Ronnie Shelton] also said that somehow – he believes that Joy got (I think this is what he said) but got W. Thomson’s son fired from a teaching job because of something he said to a student 15 or so years ago."
At the time we got this, we had no idea what it meant. I don't think either of us knew Walt had a son.
Based on what Walt recently wrote, he believes what Ronnie wrote almost a year ago. Was this story concocted by Danny to persuade Walt to go along with the lawsuit? Hopefully not, but where did this story come from?
And why would Walt possibly think we had anything to do with Gregory's loss of his family, when the divorce was filed in March 2006, and Gailon and I didn't become involved until August 2006? Or was Walt referring to someone else amongst those concerned, not Gailon and myself, when he says that Gregory lost his family at the hands of some of us?
-
I think that sometimes family members feel that long term work-related stresses can cause marraige breakups that may have been a long time in coming.
-
Whew! It seems that there may be some major misunderstandings in the Thompson family!
As we probably all know, family matters can cloud anyone's judgment. And in this case, I don't doubt that Walt Thompson believes absolutely in the truth of the statements in his post. Unfortunately the evidence is very much against him as demonstrated by the behavior of the principals in this drama:
- Danny has had to change his testimony often to fit changing circumstances.
- By contrast, I noticed that when Bob made minor factual errors in his posts, he was quick to acknowledge them, rather than to concoct a new story in the manner of Danny.
- Danny has made many charges which he has not documented.
- Danny and his lawyers have repeatedly attempted to block the publication of evidence that would make the truth be known.
- By contrast, Bob & Gailon have focused on evidence and the publication of that evidence, so the truth might be known.
- Bob & Gailon have not made unfounded charges.
- Bob & Gailon could possibly be described as men who "of the few who have been willing to sacrifice reputation, professional career, family, and whatever was needed to stand for truth."
- Bob & Gailon have both sacrificed time and money to stand for truth
- By contrast, Danny seems to have profited off the 3ABN ministry in more ways than one.
And Greg Thompson/ aka Fallible Human Being/ FHB clearly has had an axe to grind, and that has clouded his judgment.
What a sad, sad situation all around!
But it still boggles my mind that Walt Thompson could be so utterly deceived by Danny that he believes so absolutely in his innocense and divine appointment. (Some of Danny's shenanigans were on the air, and his less-than-Christlike behavior were/are clear to all who are not blinded by preconceived opinions.)
-
Avid Walker, could you help me out please?
I tried to find that post by Walt Thompson on BlackSDA.com and couldn't find it.
When was it posted? Who posted it? (I searched on "Walt" and "Thompson" in the last 30 days & came up blank.) I didn't read all the recent threads, but waded through far more junk than I had time for ...
-
Inga, I read that very recently and I'll look for it for you.
-
Walt Thompson's e-mail, which he requested to have posted, is found in the first page of the 3ABN forum, 9th topic down, titled "Factually Challenged?" on page 5, post#68.
It was posted by runner4him.
-
Inga, as someone who writes a lot, you have a good grasp of the English language, grammar and structure right? Look carefully at what WT said in the paragraph that Bob quoted:
"Having said this, I wish to make it clear that I am proud of FHB's sense of justice and desire for truth to be told. Were it not for him and a few others who have often not been permitted to post 'sensitive' comments, many who read the forums would remain in the dark regarding the truth of the matters at hand. He has been one of the few who have been willing to sacrifice reputation, professional career, family, and whatever was needed to stand for truth - at the hand of some of you who have had no such conscience of right and wrong."
Decades ago I was an English major. Even though some of my skills in the area have faded, just looking at some key parts of the paragraph Bob is referring to allow for a proper interpretation.
Taking the first few words of the bolded section, "He has been one of the few", this points to FHB being a part of a small group.
The next three words, "who have been", corroborate that WT was referring to a group. "Have" is plural. If he had been referring only to FHB he would have typed "has". Finally, carefully look at the tense WT uses. WT is saying that this small group of people have been willing to sacrifice all of the listed things, not that they have necessarily already done so, but that they are indeed willing to do so to stand for truth.
Bob, Gailon, Artiste, Inga et al: There is certainly vengence going on, and it isn't coming from a young man who has posted his perspective and opinions in an intelligent manner most of the time. This whole thread is nothing more than a vendetta by two angry men with axes to grind, lashing out and using Satan's very tools to fight what used to be God's battle. What is the point in all of this innuendo and the bringing up of allegations? Is FHB connected to 3abn other than by being WT's son? Will attempting to destroy him help your defense in the law suit?
Only those with blindfolds on will be fooled by this hideous thing you are doing. Others will see it for what it is - revenge for FHB bringing forward Gailon's embezzlement conviction and for daring to speak his mind in a clear and thoughtful way over on BlackSDA.com. Ever since then steps have been taken, first to out him as WT's son and now to destroy him.
Do you really think Linda Shelton will feel it is appropriate to do this to this young man? Seems to me you are doing just what you claim Danny Shelton has done to those who have crossed him.
What has happened to the battle for truth? When did you all lose sight of God's will in all of this? How can you possibly think you are on a righteous path? Bob, Gailon, I believe that you have now fully purchased your defeat.... not only in the law suit but also in the court of public opinion.
Daryl, as I read through the posts that Gailon, Bob and others have made on this thread, your forum rules came to mind. What is rule number one?
1 - You agree not to post any material which is knowingly false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law.
Sir, my advice is to read this thread carefully and see how many of the points of rule #1 are in violation.
-
Why, Grandma Nettie, thank you for the affirmation and the English lesson. :)
[But where are those smilies we've become addicted to on BlackSDA??]
I will let others reply to some of the astonishing statements you make in your post and restrict myself to just one...
Inga, as someone who writes a lot, you have a good grasp of the English language, grammar and structure right? <snip>
What is the point in all of this innuendo and the bringing up of allegations? Is FHB connected to 3abn other than by being WT's son? Will attempting to destroy him help your defense in the law suit? <snip>
Ever since then steps have been taken, first to out him as WT's son and now to destroy him.
First of all, the most hurtful thing I've said about Greg Thompson/ aka FHB is that he seems to have an axe to grind, and that has clouded his judgment. He posted relatively reasonably on BlackSDA, compared to certain others, but I always thought he seemed to have an axe to grind, which clouded his judgment.
Now Gailon and Bob's posts give a little history, and that explains it.
There's a terrrible misunderstanding somewhere in the past, I'm sure, but your allegations are clearly "over the top."
I was wondering what you meant by "innuendo" until I saw this statement by Gailon regarding history more than 15 years old: "that Greg was off limits and we have never told anyone anything of what we learned." I don't know what you read into that, but I didn't read more into it than he said. Gailon and Bob must have wondered why Greg was so persistently attacking them, and they must both have had an <aha> moment when it became clear that the reasons lay way in the past -- in what appears involve a misunderstanding.
And who is/has been trying "to destroy" whom?
It is clear that Dan Shelton has been trying to destroy Bob and Gailon for reasons that are fairly transparent. Unfortunately Greg T. got into the fray in defense of Dan. Getting so close to someone slinging so much mud doubtless got Greg a little spattered.
And now you characterize our posts as an "attempting to destroy him"?!
And, regarding your concern of Greg being "outed" -- the only persons who have anything to fear for being "outed" in these fora are those who cross Dan Shelton, because Dan has a known history of retaliation. And, to put it in perspective, it was Walt Thompson who identified FHB as his own son.
Otoh, what kind of reprisal do you fear for Greg? That his posts should be attached to his name is hardly a "reprisal." We should all be willing to own up to what we wrote -- including you.
I'm having a really hard time understanding your reasoning here. Perhaps something is clouding your judgment too?
May God give you peace.
Inga
-
Walt Thompson's e-mail, which he requested to have posted, is found in the first page of the 3ABN forum, 9th topic down, titled "Factually Challenged?" on page 5, post#68.
It was posted by runner4him.
Thanks, Artiste, I should have looked in the most obvious place. :-\ No idea why I couldn't find it through the "Search" function, though ... Guess I'm usually in too much of a hurry ..
I have promised myself not to look at these sites tomorrow! I have to get ready for leaving the following day for the weekend. Our newest grandson (just born December 29) is getting dedicated. :)
-
"Having said this, I wish to make it clear that I am proud of FHB's sense of justice and desire for truth to be told. Were it not for him and a few others who have often not been permitted to post 'sensitive' comments, many who read the forums would remain in the dark regarding the truth of the matters at hand. He has been one of the few who have been willing to sacrifice reputation, professional career, family, and whatever was needed to stand for truth - at the hand of some of you who have had no such conscience of right and wrong."
Bob, Gailon, Artiste, Inga et al: There is certainly vengence going on, and it isn't coming from a young man who has posted his perspective and opinions in an intelligent manner most of the time. This whole thread is nothing more than a vendetta by two angry men with axes to grind, lashing out and using Satan's very tools to fight what used to be God's battle. What is the point in all of this innuendo and the bringing up of allegations? Is FHB connected to 3abn other than by being WT's son? Will attempting to destroy him help your defense in the law suit?
Only those with blindfolds on will be fooled by this hideous thing you are doing. Others will see it for what it is - revenge for FHB bringing forward Gailon's embezzlement conviction and for daring to speak his mind in a clear and thoughtful way over on BlackSDA.com. Ever since then steps have been taken, first to out him as WT's son and now to destroy him.
What has happened to the battle for truth? When did you all lose sight of God's will in all of this? How can you possibly think you are on a righteous path? Bob, Gailon, I believe that you have now fully purchased your defeat.... not only in the law suit but also in the court of public opinion.
GrandmaNettie, I feel quite sorry for you as this has obviously hit a raw nerve with you. You sound rather irrational, bitter, vindictive and ready to grasp at straws and 'BLAME' Gailon and Bob for every perceived wrong, whether it be logical or not. Maybe, you need to stand aside, re-read what you have written and in the clear light of day, assess just what is going on in your head.
It was WT's allegations alone which alerted any of us to the fact the FHB was his son. Otherwise, none would have been any the wiser. Is this too close to home for you, that you retaliate with such venom and with little regard for facts?
-
Inga,
The information on Black SDA was originally posted by Sonshineonme -
Jan 6 2008, 11:06 PM
In the thread - Factually Challenged?, Has Walt Thompson got the inside track or outside dilusion?
It was responded to by a number of posters.
AW
-
Why, Grandma Nettie, thank you for the affirmation and the English lesson. :)
[But where are those smilies we've become addicted to on BlackSDA??]
I will let others reply to some of the astonishing statements you make in your post and restrict myself to just one...
Inga, as someone who writes a lot, you have a good grasp of the English language, grammar and structure right? <snip>
What is the point in all of this innuendo and the bringing up of allegations? Is FHB connected to 3abn other than by being WT's son? Will attempting to destroy him help your defense in the law suit? <snip>
Ever since then steps have been taken, first to out him as WT's son and now to destroy him.
First of all, the most hurtful thing I've said about Greg Thompson/ aka FHB is that he seems to have an axe to grind, and that has clouded his judgment. He posted relatively reasonably on BlackSDA, compared to certain others, but I always thought he seemed to have an axe to grind, which clouded his judgment.
Now Gailon and Bob's posts give a little history, and that explains it.
There's a terrrible misunderstanding somewhere in the past, I'm sure, but your allegations are clearly "over the top."
I was wondering what you meant by "innuendo" until I saw this statement by Gailon regarding history more than 15 years old: "that Greg was off limits and we have never told anyone anything of what we learned." I don't know what you read into that, but I didn't read more into it than he said. Gailon and Bob must have wondered why Greg was so persistently attacking them, and they must both have had an <aha> moment when it became clear that the reasons lay way in the past -- in what appears involve a misunderstanding.
And who is/has been trying "to destroy" whom?
It is clear that Dan Shelton has been trying to destroy Bob and Gailon for reasons that are fairly transparent. Unfortunately Greg T. got into the fray in defense of Dan. Getting so close to someone slinging so much mud doubtless got Greg a little spattered.
And now you characterize our posts as an "attempting to destroy him"?!
And, regarding your concern of Greg being "outed" -- the only persons who have anything to fear for being "outed" in these fora are those who cross Dan Shelton, because Dan has a known history of retaliation.And, to put it in perspective, it was Walt Thompson who identified FHB as his own son.
Otoh, what kind of reprisal do you fear for Greg? That his posts should be attached to his name is hardly a "reprisal." We should all be willing to own up to what we wrote -- including you.
I'm having a really hard time understanding your reasoning here. Perhaps something is clouding your judgment too?
May God give you peace.
Inga
Inga, I am only going to respond to the part of your post that I have bolded at this time. It was only recently that Walt Thompson identified FHB as his son on BlackSDA.com I realize that you don't spend a great deal of time over on that forum so you must have missed all of the other incidences. I have done a quick search over on BlackSDA.com so that you and others will be able to see the truth of the matter.
1. April 8, 2007 Bob Pickle got a 2-week suspension on BlackSDA.com. Why? Because he made a post that contained a link to a MySpace page and accompanied that with statements that the owner of BlackSDA.com felt were a clear attempt to reveal FHB's identity.
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=9174&view=findpost&p=190441
Calvin said:
"NO IT IS NOT ALRIGHT. Just because you can find information on the net or have knowledge by any other means of a BSDA member’s identity or information that could lead to their identity does not make it right to post it here. It is still in violation of my privacy policy….and you knew that because I have warned you. You have been the most blatant violator of the policy than any member here with your constant attempt to expose FHB. You have been suspended for 14 days. If you come back and do it again, the suspension will be permanent."
2. So, they took the mission of revealing FHB's identity to save3abn.com:
http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-untruths-walt-admits-1.htm
"It all started with quite a different topic. According to various sources, a common Shelton tactic over the years has been to dig up dirt about anyone who raises questions and use it to silence them. Accordingly, one of Danny Shelton's apologists operating on BlackSDA.com, the son of 3ABN board chairman Dr. Walt Thompson posting under the name of fallible humanbeing, "fhb" for short, started alluding on November 20, 2006, to something he or someone else had found. The following day he got more specific."
On January 7, 2008, Calvin made a policy change:
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=18980&view=findpost&p=231616
Calvin said:
"I don’t have the time or the inclination to protect your identity. So much of this game is being played on both sides, so we are going to bring it out in the open. So you can go ahead and publicly challenge anothers identity.
Note: this does not give you a license for insulting name calling. "
The ramifications of this policy change led a forum member to launch a satirical thread that turned into quite an exercise of good will between both sides, even though it drew the contempt of some. Interestingly, as members "revealed" themselves as various leaders of 3abn, the so-called dannyclones didn't rush in with anger and vengence. Quite the opposite. Two joined in.
3. On January 10, 2008, sister became insensed that FHB would claim to be Linda. Pay special attention to the first sentence in the last paragraph of the part of her post that I have pasted in below(I have bolded it):
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=18985&view=findpost&p=232030
"The source of my information is not Linda S. (aka FHB), but I will reveal the true source of FHB's information: WALT THOMPSON. The reason all FHB information has such a strong "Danny spin" is because it come from Danny, through Walt, directly to FHB. FHB's family relationship and source of information at 3ABN is Dr. Walter Thompson.
How do I know this is true? I check my facts before I post...
Funny, if FHB had not claimed to be Linda, I probably would not have outed him yet. It was simply the extreme poor taste he exhibited in claiming to be Linda, after all the cruel and false accusations he has made regarding her, that saddened me."
4. January 13, 2008, Walter Thompson's email, in which he said FHB was his son and that you refer to in your post was posted by sonshineonme on BlackSDA.com:
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=18959&view=findpost&p=232617
You will notice that this was after all of the above documented attempts by Bob and the final reveals by save3abn and sister.
Just so you know the truth of the matter...
GrandmaNettie
-
Grandma, I have been paying less attention to the identity of the folks online than to the content of their posts.
Let me tell you, though, that Walt Thompson's testimony re the identity of FHB was far more persuasive than anyone else's.
-
Bob, Gailon, Artiste, Inga et al: There is certainly vengence going on, and it isn't coming from a young man who has posted his perspective and opinions in an intelligent manner most of the time. This whole thread is nothing more than a vendetta by two angry men with axes to grind, lashing out and using Satan's very tools to fight what used to be God's battle. What is the point in all of this innuendo and the bringing up of allegations? Is FHB connected to 3abn other than by being WT's son? Will attempting to destroy him help your defense in the law suit?
Only those with blindfolds on will be fooled by this hideous thing you are doing. Others will see it for what it is - revenge for FHB bringing forward Gailon's embezzlement conviction and for daring to speak his mind in a clear and thoughtful way over on BlackSDA.com. Ever since then steps have been taken, first to out him as WT's son and now to destroy him.
What has happened to the battle for truth? When did you all lose sight of God's will in all of this? How can you possibly think you are on a righteous path? Bob, Gailon, I believe that you have now fully purchased your defeat.... not only in the law suit but also in the court of public opinion.
GrandmaNettie, I feel quite sorry for you as this has obviously hit a raw nerve with you. You sound rather irrational, bitter, vindictive and ready to grasp at straws and 'BLAME' Gailon and Bob for every perceived wrong, whether it be logical or not. Maybe, you need to stand aside, re-read what you have written and in the clear light of day, assess just what is going on in your head.
It was WT's allegations alone which alerted any of us to the fact the FHB was his son. Otherwise, none would have been any the wiser. Is this too close to home for you, that you retaliate with such venom and with little regard for facts?
No, GrandmaNettie is right. I don't find her to be angry at all.
From what we know, what happened at AUC in the early 1990s is totally irrelevant to Danny Shelton's shenanigans at 3ABN. If this discussion about FHB brings up some dirt on his past, it had better be directly and incontrovertibly connected. If all this is, is sharing how terrible a person he supposedly is, it will be a real Shame with a capital S ... Shame to Bob and Gailon, Shame to the church, and Shame to those of us who want to see cleanup done in a transparent, Christlike manner.
From all I see, FHB is as wrong as the day is long about 3ABN, Danny Shelton, and his father. Moreover, Gailon's embezzlement conviction was irrelevant and it was wrong -- a sin -- for him to bring it up (especially if one understands the technicalities of that case). Frankly, he owes Mr. Joy an apology.
But if Bob and Gailon decided FHB was off-limits awhile back, why the change, if not anger and revenge? What does a situation in a local school in the early 1990s have to do with Danny Shelton's shenanigans at 3ABN? If the answer is NOTHING (which it sure looks like), then the topic needs to be dropped. Now.
I've made no secret of my support for Pickle/Joy's goals. 3ABN needs a new board, a new constituency, transparency ... justice needs to be worked on Danny, whatever form that takes and whomever it comes from. The truth has to come out, and Pickle/Joy deserve the thanks of the church for standing up publicly to the powers at the channel.
But right things have to be done in the right ways. The ends do not justify the means, because the ends are up to God. Using the wrong means, is also a sin. All we have are means. If Gailon had a run-in with Greg Thompsen in years past, years past is where it needs to stay, regardless of whether Walt is the one who brought it up. Walt is wrong about many things, and what he says should not dictate this conversation.
I would have had no inkling of past history if this thread hadn't begun to exegete a sentence in Walt's e-mail alluding to some old bitterness. Bringing it up was unnecessary and irrelevant.
Greg is not a player, by Walt's own statement. Gailon's anger at him is understandable and justifiable, but striking back is not.
-
GrandmaNettie,
I think I have been quite clear to a number of folks that I was not trying to out FHB in my post. There were a number of folks who read what I wrote and never thought I was doing that. Only some of those who already knew his identity thought I was doing so. I have yet to hear from one person who figured out who FHB was because of what I wrote.
Remember, it was Panama Pete that talked about earthquakes on a date that happened to be FHB's birthday, not me, and who cryptically suggested that FHB lived in Wisconsin. But unless you knew who FHB was, you didn't catch what he was talking about.
SoulEspresso,
Both Ronnie Shelton and Walt Thompson made very explicit claims regarding thinking we had something to do with Gregory's loss of job, and Ronnie did so in some sort of connection to the present lawsuit. Why the plaintiffs filed suit is a question that must be addressed, and it has nothing to do with being unkind or angry.
Especially is this so when I do not believe Gailon even knew Walt had a son when Ronnie said what he did. In other words, Gailon did not have a run in with Gregory years ago, from what we can tell.
-
No, GrandmaNettie is right. I don't find her to be angry at all.
From what we know, what happened at AUC in the early 1990s is totally irrelevant to Danny Shelton's shenanigans at 3ABN. If this discussion about FHB brings up some dirt on his past, it had better be directly and incontrovertibly connected. If all this is, is sharing how terrible a person he supposedly is, it will be a real Shame with a capital S ... Shame to Bob and Gailon, Shame to the church, and Shame to those of us who want to see cleanup done in a transparent, Christlike manner.
I did a bit of digging this morning and found that FHB had spent a grand total of 2 weeks of intensive in class time for an online course he was taking. His being there was coincidental and had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the shenanigans.
From all I see, FHB is as wrong as the day is long about 3ABN, Danny Shelton, and his father. Moreover, Gailon's embezzlement conviction was irrelevant and it was wrong -- a sin -- for him to bring it up (especially if one understands the technicalities of that case). Frankly, he owes Mr. Joy an apology.
But if Bob and Gailon decided FHB was off-limits awhile back, why the change, if not anger and revenge? What does a situation in a local school in the early 1990s have to do with Danny Shelton's shenanigans at 3ABN? If the answer is NOTHING (which it sure looks like), then the topic needs to be dropped. Now.
I've made no secret of my support for Pickle/Joy's goals. 3ABN needs a new board, a new constituency, transparency ... justice needs to be worked on Danny, whatever form that takes and whomever it comes from. The truth has to come out, and Pickle/Joy deserve the thanks of the church for standing up publicly to the powers at the channel.
But right things have to be done in the right ways. The ends do not justify the means, because the ends are up to God. Using the wrong means, is also a sin. All we have are means. If Gailon had a run-in with Greg Thompsen in years past, years past is where it needs to stay, regardless of whether Walt is the one who brought it up. Walt is wrong about many things, and what he says should not dictate this conversation.
I have also seen that there are strong indications of things amiss at 3abn, most specifically the allegations of pastoral abuse and possible cover-ups. I hope to see the truth come out and praise some of the ground work that Bob and Gailon have done in this area. But things do have to be done in the right way. Unfortunately, at times they have shown a willingness to practice the ends justifies the means in this battle as was shown by the Nick Miller incident.
I would have had no inkling of past history if this thread hadn't begun to exegete a sentence in Walt's e-mail alluding to some old bitterness. Bringing it up was unnecessary and irrelevant.
Greg is not a player, by Walt's own statement. Gailon's anger at him is understandable and justifiable, but striking back is not.
Whether this attempted smear of FHB is due to revenge or is a desperate diversionary tactic, it is wrong.
-
Whether this attempted smear of FHB is due to revenge or is a desperate diversionary tactic, it is wrong.
I did not see this as an attempt to smear, nor revenge nor as a desperate diversionary tactic. I honestly do not see anger in Gailon's comments - rather explanation about a situation referred to by WT, which was rather confusing, as WT seemed to be tying it in with 3abn's situation.
What I did see though was a combatant and mean-spirited attack on Bob and Gailon, as well as a very heavy handed approach by you GrandmaNettie as you addressed Daryl as 'Sir' and advised him to re-read Rule 1. I felt that your reaction was way 'over the top'.
That being said, I realise that individuals take different slants on a position to what another sees. The explanation has been given. You have stated how you felt. Others have given their 'take' on what has been stated. Maybe, it does now need to be laid to rest.
-
This is Great news- a partial search for truth:
"I did a bit of digging this morning and found that FHB had spent a grand total of 2 weeks of intensive in class time for an online course he was taking. His being there was coincidental and had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the shenanigans." GrandmaNettie:
Then is is time for you dig some more and explain just what is the basis for their belief that I was ever told anything by any student 16 years ago that I could have divulged to his employer and cost Greg his job last year?.
The point of this discussion is that it is not clear to either Bob or myself why Greg and Dr Thompson believe we had anything to do with the
1)Loss of his Family
2)Loss of his job.
Since you have the ability to "dig" then you have a DUTY to "dig" some more and come up with a real explanation that fits the very clear and accusatory statements.
And, for the record, many of Gregs statements of recent weeks have clearly crossed the line and constitute libel and defamation. WHY? Is he really that anxious to become a party to to this litigation?
His statements are clearly more than the rhetoric of a simple debate...his analysis is clearly erroneous, incomplete, blind to the truth and it is clearly venomous with a motive. WHY?
I await your report back so we can all better understand the mind of the prosecutor.
There is light in the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!!!
Expectantly....
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
This is Great news- a partial search for truth:
Then is is time for you dig some more and explain just what is the basis for their belief that I was ever told anything by any student 16 years ago that I could have divulged to his employer and cost Greg his job last year?.
The point of this discussion is that it is not clear to either Bob or myself why Greg and Dr Thompson believe we had anything to do with the
1)Loss of his Family
2)Loss of his job.
There is light in the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!!!
Expectantly....
Gailon Arthur Joy
What I am seeing more and more is the truth, the whole truth and NOTHING like the truth Gailon. Unfortunately, this is what I have seen presented so much from the proponents of 3abn and anything to do with 3abn side. >:(
On the other hand, that which you and Bob have presented, has been backed up with documentation.
-
This is Great news- a partial search for truth:
"I did a bit of digging this morning and found that FHB had spent a grand total of 2 weeks of intensive in class time for an online course he was taking. His being there was coincidental and had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the shenanigans." GrandmaNettie:
Then is is time for you dig some more and explain just what is the basis for their belief that I was ever told anything by any student 16 years ago that I could have divulged to his employer and cost Greg his job last year?.
The point of this discussion is that it is not clear to either Bob or myself why Greg and Dr Thompson believe we had anything to do with the
1)Loss of his Family
2)Loss of his job.
Since you have the ability to "dig" then you have a DUTY to "dig" some more and come up with a real explanation that fits the very clear and accusatory statements.
And, for the record, many of Gregs statements of recent weeks have clearly crossed the line and constitute libel and defamation. WHY? Is he really that anxious to become a party to to this litigation?
His statements are clearly more than the rhetoric of a simple debate...his analysis is clearly erroneous, incomplete, blind to the truth and it is clearly venomous with a motive. WHY?
Gailon,
If you had nothing to do with Greg's loss of family or job, then you had nothing to do with it. My point is that you don't have to take the bait; it certainly doesn't raise the tone of the discussion.
Soul
-
"From what we know, what happened at AUC in the early 1990s is totally irrelevant to Danny Shelton's shenanigans at 3ABN. If this discussion about FHB brings up some dirt on his past, it had better be directly and incontrovertibly connected. If all this is, is sharing how terrible a person he supposedly is, it will be a real Shame with a capital S ... Shame to Bob and Gailon, Shame to the church, and Shame to those of us who want to see cleanup done in a transparent, Christlike manner." Soul Espresso
Frankly, we do not have any idea what happened 16 years ago at AUC, and we do not know what it is that they have alleged variously that we have done to cost this man his family and his job???
To the very best of our knowledge, I have never spoken to a student about Gregory at any time, let alone 16 years ago. I did not know him then or now!!!
I simply answered AvidWalkers question and trust that the answer stands on it's own.
However, this does not erase the fact that Danny's Brother and the good Doctor Thompson, have posted to the world very clear allegations that I cost this man his
family and his job. THAT IS A FACTUALLY CHALLENGED STATEMENT!!!
We deserve an explanation, a foundation for such outrageous claims...was the foundational source a fabrication designed to ignite the Chairman of the Board to
cross the line and lead 3ABN down the trail of frivolous litigation??? Was the litigation retaliation for the allegations against Tommy and the Loss of a Job by Greg???
How else does one explain twelve SDA Board Members, all SOP Conservatives, crossing the line and hiring a team in Minnesota to conduct a frivolous lawsuite against those calling for reformation???
We search for and deserve answers;
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
"From what we know, what happened at AUC in the early 1990s is totally irrelevant to Danny Shelton's shenanigans at 3ABN. If this discussion about FHB brings up some dirt on his past, it had better be directly and incontrovertibly connected. If all this is, is sharing how terrible a person he supposedly is, it will be a real Shame with a capital S ... Shame to Bob and Gailon, Shame to the church, and Shame to those of us who want to see cleanup done in a transparent, Christlike manner." Soul Espresso
Frankly, we do not have any idea what happened 16 years ago at AUC, and we do not know what it is that they have alleged variously that we have done to cost this man his family and his job???
To the very best of our knowledge, I have never spoken to a student about Gregory at any time, let alone 16 years ago. I did not know him then or now!!!
I simply answered AvidWalkers question and trust that the answer stands on it's own.
However, this does not erase the fact that Danny's Brother and the good Doctor Thompson, have posted to the world very clear allegations that I cost this man his
family and his job. THAT IS A FACTUALLY CHALLENGED STATEMENT!!!
We deserve an explanation, a foundation for such outrageous claims...was the foundational source a fabrication designed to ignite the Chairman of the Board to
cross the line and lead 3ABN down the trail of frivolous litigation??? Was the litigation retaliation for the allegations against Tommy and the Loss of a Job by Greg???
How else does one explain twelve SDA Board Members, all SOP Conservatives, crossing the line and hiring a team in Minnesota to conduct a frivolous lawsuite against those calling for reformation???
We search for and deserve answers;
Gailon Arthur Joy
Gailon, I have more information from my "digging" that I will present at the appropriate time, once all involved have given the go-ahead to use it. In the meantime, I have bolded and adjusted the font size of the part of your post that needs to be addressed.
Please post any links along with the specific text of the "very clear allegations that" you "cost this man his family and his job". This is a charge that merits showing such documentation.
Chrissie, I'm sorry that you interpreted my calling Daryl "Sir" as heavy handed. I meant it as respect for his position as owner.
-
As I've been working on this post, GrandmaNettie has asked for a link to clear allegations, but I'll go ahead and post this anyway.
Those "very clear allegations" ... don't look so clear when one examines the grammar of Dr. Walt's original note.
Taking the first few words of the bolded section, "He has been one of the few", this points to FHB being a part of a small group.
The next three words, "who have been", corroborate that WT was referring to a group. "Have" is plural. If he had been referring only to FHB he would have typed "has". Finally, carefully look at the tense WT uses. WT is saying that this small group of people have been willing to sacrifice all of the listed things, not that they have necessarily already done so, but that they are indeed willing to do so to stand for truth.
I do beg your pardon if I missed something, but wasn't the correspondence about Ronnie Shelton's allegations private? If it was private, how can you say they published it to the world? Your posts, and Bob's, were the first places I read about it. But I do welcome correction.
We know from a communique we were given nearly a year ago that Danny's brother had claimed that we had cost Greg his job.
A friend wrote the following to me on February 13, 2007, just two days before Danny, Walt, and company announced to the world that they were going to sue:
"[Ronnie Shelton] also said that somehow – he believes that Joy got (I think this is what he said) but got W. Thomson’s son fired from a teaching job because of something he said to a student 15 or so years ago."
I want you to win against 3ABN's lawsuit, and I hope the board meeting today leads to numerous positive changes for the ministry. But I'm afraid if you keep looking for opportunities to post peripheral issues, especially with this attitude, you'll further damage your own cause, at least in the court of public opinion. I hope you don't want to become the issue yourself, no offense.
-
snip
And, for the record, many of Gregs statements of recent weeks have clearly crossed the line and constitute libel and defamation. WHY? Is he really that anxious to become a party to to this litigation?
His statements are clearly more than the rhetoric of a simple debate...his analysis is clearly erroneous, incomplete, blind to the truth and it is clearly venomous with a motive. WHY?
I await your report back so we can all better understand the mind of the prosecutor.
There is light in the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!!!
Expectantly....
Gailon Arthur Joy
Gailon, I have highlighted this portion of on of your recent posts that needs addressing.
You make pointed claims that many of FHB's statements in recent weeks have crossed the line and constitute libel and defamation. Please post links and the text to clearly show this.
-
Having thought about it a bit more, let me add this to clarify my post just above:
Their private motivations for suing you, Gailon, may not seem peripheral, since it would explain such clear violations of SOP counsel, not to mention other sacred writings like, oh ... say ... The Bible. But most of us realize that private motives are often unknown to the individual, much less other people. And it looks to me like speculation in an unkind, accusatory spirit.
Put another way: IMO continuing this thread in this manner will undermine your aims. Telling us what lies they told about you behind the scenes doesn't help you. It just digs us all further into the mud.
-
SoulEspresso and GrandmaNettie:
I'm happy that you have come over from BSDA to join us on this forum...
But, I feel things could be more productive. I'm not so happy that you both feel the need to continually criticize and attack the actions and motives of Bob and Gailon. They have enough to concern themselves with what they are currently working on.
I feel that you both have an agenda and that it is not a positive one.
Perhaps you could confine further attacks and criticisms to the "other" forum...i.e. BSDA...
-
Thanks for the welcome. I am sorry if you thought I was making a personal attack (Bob, Gailon ... sorry if that's what you thought). :(
Just because a person supports them doesn't mean supporting everything they do. That's a herd mentality, and it's irresponsible. Don't they also have a responsibility to the "stockholders in the pews" they're standing up for?
I mean, I'd love to see Danny & Co. out on the streets tomorrow, and 3ABN under control of responsible people. I'd love to see honest answers to all the financial questions, a broadcast apology to Linda, admission that Tommy never should have been at 3ABN, and a clearing of all questions of accountability.
But I hope that doesn't mean I have to support unnecessary speculation and veiled character attacks.
Bob and Gailon have taken on the public task of cleaning up 3ABN; since whatever they post is thus open to public scrutiny, everything had better be on the highest road they can climb to. I miss the days of gathering eyewitnesses and original documents. I understand if they can't do that specifically for now, but if it were me, I'd hold off on anything that wasn't completely verifiable. If that meant not posting for awhile and letting people wonder, so be it.
The truth is worth telling; forgive me for thinking there's a right way and a wrong way to tell it. ???
-
SoulEspresso and GrandmaNettie:
I'm happy that you have come over from BSDA to join us on this forum...
But, I feel things could be more productive. I'm not so happy that you both feel the need to continually criticize and attack the actions and motives of Bob and Gailon. They have enough to concern themselves with what they are currently working on.
I feel that you both have an agenda and that it is not a positive one.
Perhaps you could confine further attacks and criticisms to the "other" forum...i.e. BSDA...
Very well said, Artiste!! I had similar sentiments but you articulated the thought much better than I ever could!!
-
SE,
I want to personally thank you for the support you have given over these many months. It is much appreciated.
One challenge we do face is that if we did not touch everything that someone doesn't want us to touch for what they consider valid reasons, we would never be able to defend ourselves.
There are certainly people out there who would get all up at arms if we started asking questions about why my application for membership has twice now been denied by ASI, and the second time without explanation. I received positive recommendations from every level, and yet was voted down by the executive committee. Why?
Has the ASI executive committee added a new membership requirement that you can't speak out against child molestation, private inurement, tax fraud, and corruption? If not, what's the problem?
Has the ASI executive committee disciplined Harold Lance in any way for his role in the debacle one year ago? If not, then why, pray tell, am I being discriminated against? And why is the executive committee apparently scared to tell me what the reasons were for denying my membership a second time?
Now is my asking such questions vengeful or spiteful? Or is it simply something I have to do since 3ABN and Danny Shelton made the stupid mistake of putting into this stupid lawsuit the allegation that we have alleged that there is some sort of conspiracy between 3ABN and ASI leadership, and thus I am left in the awkward position of having to investigate questions that I would very much rather leave alone since ASI is an organization I have had great respect for and have supported?
Going to ASI in 2006 was a huge expense for our family. I wouldn't have done it if I didn't believe in the organization.
If we had to cater to all the wishes of various ones out there, we truly would not be able to defend ourselves.
-
I want to personally thank you for the support you have given over these many months. It is much appreciated.
:)
One challenge we do face is that if we did not touch everything that someone doesn't want us to touch for what they consider valid reasons, we would never be able to defend ourselves.
If we had to cater to all the wishes of various ones out there, we truly would not be able to defend ourselves.
This is absolutely true. Until the Lord comes each of us has to live with ourselves viz what we can and cannot do. What I say should only matter to you if it rings a gong in your conscience. For my conscience, I have to support you when I think you are right, and tell you when I think you are not.
Vice versa, too. ;) I know for me, if I don't have people calling me on stuff, even if I'm in Scripture and prayer, there are things I don't always realize. If unity meant uniformity we'd be in real trouble.
As for ASI, it was wrong and unfair, but not a bit surprising, alas. Would that blood were not thicker than ethics. :( While ASI may have many fine members, it looks to me like certain leaders are not above being influenced behind-the-scenes. Maybe they need a housecleaning as well?
-
"Gailon, I have highlighted this portion of on of your recent posts that needs addressing.
You make pointed claims that many of FHB's statements in recent weeks have crossed the line and constitute libel and defamation. Please post links and the text to clearly show this. " GrandmaNettie
In the event you have a need to know. I would refer you to BSDA and I am sure you could find the same ones I have copied as exhibits from FHB and Ian.
Rather than try and fuel the flames further, Ms Nettie, why don't you complete your most important calling and find out what the basis is for their misconception? It may lead to a reconciliation and avoid the need to seriously expand the pending litigation. Now how much better that role would be!!! Conciliation...a novel idea that could leave one bewildered in their search for peace! But one that should be the goal, nevertheless.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Soul, I do appreciate your post below. It seems a little more clear-eyed than previous ones. :) (I thought you were being harder on Gailon than necessary, but then we must take into consideration that you usually express yourself vigorously. ::) )
I do agree that Gailon and Bob need to follow a higher standard than that set by the Danny defenders. (I've often wished that the statements tying together the evidence on http://www.save-3abn.com/ were a little more subdued. Understatement is often much more effective than more emphatic statements. The latter arouse opposition, whereas the former persuade folks that they arrived at their own conclusions. ;) )
Having thought about it a bit more, let me add this to clarify my post just above:
Their private motivations for suing you, Gailon, may not seem peripheral, since it would explain such clear violations of SOP counsel, not to mention other sacred writings like, oh ... say ... The Bible. But most of us realize that private motives are often unknown to the individual, much less other people. And it looks to me like speculation in an unkind, accusatory spirit.
Put another way: IMO continuing this thread in this manner will undermine your aims. Telling us what lies they told about you behind the scenes doesn't help you. It just digs us all further into the mud.
-
Rather than try and fuel the flames further, Ms Nettie, why don't you complete your most important calling and find out what the basis is for their misconception? It may lead to a reconciliation and avoid the need to seriously expand the pending litigation. Now how much better that role would be!!! Conciliation...a novel idea that could leave one bewildered in their search for peace! But one that should be the goal, nevertheless.
Is this really necessary? :( Do you realize how this sounds to others?
Perhaps I was being too hard on Gailon, Inga ... though you and I agree that the truth doesn't need to shout.
I spoke (wrote) the way I did because, many times, we don't know how we're coming across unless someone else tells us.
-
...I am left in the awkward position of having to investigate questions that I would very much rather leave alone since ASI is an organization I have had great respect for and have supported?
Going to ASI in 2006 was a huge expense for our family. I wouldn't have done it if I didn't believe in the organization.
Bob, I also had great respect and appreciation for ASI in the past and used to attend faithfully each year.
It has been difficult to realize that the ASI I knew and loved could be capable of unfair actions such as those you have described.
-
Rather than try and fuel the flames further, Ms Nettie, why don't you complete your most important calling and find out what the basis is for their misconception? It may lead to a reconciliation and avoid the need to seriously expand the pending litigation. Now how much better that role would be!!! Conciliation...a novel idea that could leave one bewildered in their search for peace! But one that should be the goal, nevertheless.
Is this really necessary? :( Do you realize how this sounds to others?
The fact that we have thus far not expanded the litigation has already been used by the other side as an excuse for our not being given certain information, in a status conference with the judge no less.
Get the idea? The other side is willing to take the position that we can't defend ourselves in the manner we see fit unless we expand the litigation.
-
So it sounds like expanding the litigation might be necessary in order to get information that you need to defend yourselves?
Does "expanding the litigation" mean adding other people to the lawsuit?
Is that what Gailon was referring to when he mentioned expanding the litigation? How many people?
-
The fact that we have thus far not expanded the litigation has already been used by the other side as an excuse for our not being given certain information, in a status conference with the judge no less.
Get the idea? The other side is willing to take the position that we can't defend ourselves in the manner we see fit unless we expand the litigation.
You may well need to do this, I have no idea. The "necessary" part I was concerned about was some word choices on Gailon's part.
-
And I would be greatly surprised if no one ever again questioned any of Gailon's word choices.
Yet a big bulldog just may be what Danny and his attorneys need.
-
Inga, as someone who writes a lot, you have a good grasp of the English language, grammar and structure right? Look carefully at what WT said in the paragraph that Bob quoted:
"Having said this, I wish to make it clear that I am proud of FHB's sense of justice and desire for truth to be told. Were it not for him and a few others who have often not been permitted to post 'sensitive' comments, many who read the forums would remain in the dark regarding the truth of the matters at hand. He has been one of the few who have been willing to sacrifice reputation, professional career, family, and whatever was needed to stand for truth - at the hand of some of you who have had no such conscience of right and wrong."
Decades ago I was an English major. Even though some of my skills in the area have faded, just looking at some key parts of the paragraph Bob is referring to allow for a proper interpretation.
Taking the first few words of the bolded section, "He has been one of the few", this points to FHB being a part of a small group.
The next three words, "who have been", corroborate that WT was referring to a group. "Have" is plural. If he had been referring only to FHB he would have typed "has". Finally, carefully look at the tense WT uses. WT is saying that this small group of people have been willing to sacrifice all of the listed things, not that they have necessarily already done so, but that they are indeed willing to do so to stand for truth.
Bob, Gailon, Artiste, Inga et al: There is certainly vengence going on, and it isn't coming from a young man who has posted his perspective and opinions in an intelligent manner most of the time. This whole thread is nothing more than a vendetta by two angry men with axes to grind, lashing out and using Satan's very tools to fight what used to be God's battle. What is the point in all of this innuendo and the bringing up of allegations? Is FHB connected to 3abn other than by being WT's son? Will attempting to destroy him help your defense in the law suit?
Only those with blindfolds on will be fooled by this hideous thing you are doing. Others will see it for what it is - revenge for FHB bringing forward Gailon's embezzlement conviction and for daring to speak his mind in a clear and thoughtful way over on BlackSDA.com. Ever since then steps have been taken, first to out him as WT's son and now to destroy him.
Do you really think Linda Shelton will feel it is appropriate to do this to this young man? Seems to me you are doing just what you claim Danny Shelton has done to those who have crossed him.
What has happened to the battle for truth? When did you all lose sight of God's will in all of this? How can you possibly think you are on a righteous path? Bob, Gailon, I believe that you have now fully purchased your defeat.... not only in the law suit but also in the court of public opinion.
Daryl, as I read through the posts that Gailon, Bob and others have made on this thread, your forum rules came to mind. What is rule number one?
1 - You agree not to post any material which is knowingly false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law.
Sir, my advice is to read this thread carefully and see how many of the points of rule #1 are in violation.
I sent you a PM regarding this.
-
And I would be greatly surprised if no one ever again questioned any of Gailon's word choices.
Yet a big bulldog just may be what Danny and his attorneys need.
Bob;
I believe your statement to be true. Sometimes you just spin your wheels talking to certain people. It is necessary to be a bull dog to get the peoples attention! I have used that approach several times. I believe that there are times you have to talk on the level of those you are speaking to! Danny is a bull dog; totally and completely! He boldly and brazenly continues his actions as if he has done nothing wrong. I have documentation, and so do you, that this is not the case. Yet, he boldly lies and just acts as if the problems do not exist.
You can make calm, politically correct statements and nothing changes. However, if you step out and tell it like it is, people will get mad at you or the one/thing you are speaking of. I call it, "Shock and Awe." I have been called a "bull dog". When I read that description of me, I smiled and thought, finally someone is paying attention!
Attention to the 3ABN/Danny Shelton would probably have died on the vine had only calm talk had continues. I used that approach to get people to think about what was happening. The Lord knew I needed a rest and sent Gailon. Praise God! His words may not be politically correct at all times. However, no one can deny that this causes thought about what is happening.
Which is worse; listening to a "Bull Dog," or listening to politically correct statements that allows the church to be shamed and open sin to abound? I will take the "Bull Dog" any day of the week; especially when it works as Gailon's many statements have done. The church is listening; 3ABN is listening; the members in the pews are listening; and if his statements seem crash and mean, I see you are not only listening, but hearing.
-
I love Gailon's word choices!
-
And I would be greatly surprised if no one ever again questioned any of Gailon's word choices.
Yet a big bulldog just may be what Danny and his attorneys need.
Bob;
I believe your statement to be true. Sometimes you just spin your wheels talking to certain people. It is necessary to be a bull dog to get the peoples attention! I have used that approach several times. I believe that there are times you have to talk on the level of those you are speaking to! Danny is a bull dog; totally and completely! He boldly and brazenly continues his actions as if he has done nothing wrong. I have documentation, and so do you, that this is not the case. Yet, he boldly lies and just acts as if the problems do not exist.
You can make calm, politically correct statements and nothing changes. However, if you step out and tell it like it is, people will get mad at you or the one/thing you are speaking of. I call it, "Shock and Awe." I have been called a "bull dog". When I read that description of me, I smiled and thought, finally someone is paying attention!
Attention to the 3ABN/Danny Shelton would probably have died on the vine had only calm talk had continues. I used that approach to get people to think about what was happening. The Lord knew I needed a rest and sent Gailon. Praise God! His words may not be politically correct at all times. However, no one can deny that this causes thought about what is happening.
Which is worse; listening to a "Bull Dog," or listening to politically correct statements that allows the church to be shamed and open sin to abound? I will take the "Bull Dog" any day of the week; especially when it works as Gailon's many statements have done. The church is listening; 3ABN is listening; the members in the pews are listening; and if his statements seem crash and mean, I see you are not only listening, but hearing.
Fran,
You are so precious!
-
Yet a big bulldog just may be what Danny and his attorneys need.
Bob;
I believe your statement to be true. Sometimes you just spin your wheels talking to certain people. It is necessary to be a bull dog to get the peoples attention! I have used that approach several times. I believe that there are times you have to talk on the level of those you are speaking to! Danny is a bull dog; totally and completely! He boldly and brazenly continues his actions as if he has done nothing wrong. I have documentation, and so do you, that this is not the case. Yet, he boldly lies and just acts as if the problems do not exist.
You can make calm, politically correct statements and nothing changes. However, if you step out and tell it like it is, people will get mad at you or the one/thing you are speaking of. I call it, "Shock and Awe." I have been called a "bull dog". When I read that description of me, I smiled and thought, finally someone is paying attention!
Attention to the 3ABN/Danny Shelton would probably have died on the vine had only calm talk had continues. I used that approach to get people to think about what was happening. The Lord knew I needed a rest and sent Gailon. Praise God! His words may not be politically correct at all times. However, no one can deny that this causes thought about what is happening.
Which is worse; listening to a "Bull Dog," or listening to politically correct statements that allows the church to be shamed and open sin to abound? I will take the "Bull Dog" any day of the week; especially when it works as Gailon's many statements have done. The church is listening; 3ABN is listening; the members in the pews are listening; and if his statements seem crash and mean, I see you are not only listening, but hearing.
If that is what is needed to get the relevant people to listen, then so be it.
-
Yet a big bulldog just may be what Danny and his attorneys need.
Bob;
I believe your statement to be true. Sometimes you just spin your wheels talking to certain people. It is necessary to be a bull dog to get the peoples attention! I have used that approach several times. I believe that there are times you have to talk on the level of those you are speaking to! Danny is a bull dog; totally and completely! He boldly and brazenly continues his actions as if he has done nothing wrong. I have documentation, and so do you, that this is not the case. Yet, he boldly lies and just acts as if the problems do not exist.
You can make calm, politically correct statements and nothing changes. However, if you step out and tell it like it is, people will get mad at you or the one/thing you are speaking of. I call it, "Shock and Awe." I have been called a "bull dog". When I read that description of me, I smiled and thought, finally someone is paying attention!
Attention to the 3ABN/Danny Shelton would probably have died on the vine had only calm talk had continues. I used that approach to get people to think about what was happening. The Lord knew I needed a rest and sent Gailon. Praise God! His words may not be politically correct at all times. However, no one can deny that this causes thought about what is happening.
Which is worse; listening to a "Bull Dog," or listening to politically correct statements that allows the church to be shamed and open sin to abound? I will take the "Bull Dog" any day of the week; especially when it works as Gailon's many statements have done. The church is listening; 3ABN is listening; the members in the pews are listening; and if his statements seem crash and mean, I see you are not only listening, but hearing.
If that is what is needed to get the relevant people to listen, then so be it.
Even Jesus used a whip.
-
It will take more than a whip or a bulldog to clean up Laodicea!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
It will take more than a whip or a bulldog to clean up Laodicea!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
'Battle Creek fires' in various locations might start to make people wake up to themselves, before it is too late, so you think?
-
Thank-you, Avidwalker, for the question.
We know from a communique we were given nearly a year ago that Danny's brother had claimed that we had cost Greg his job. Since then there have been various allegations regarding this concept. At one point we decided to investigate FHB and discovered it was Greg, which certainly clarified the motivation for the hostility.
As we pressed further, we discovered that Greg had been a student at AUC in the early 89-91 period, while we were actively involved in defending Virginia Jean Rittenhouse from ridiculous allegations of discrimination and "excessive expectation" workloads to the students at the Thayer Music Conservatory and in her New England Ensemble, world renowned at the time. We were just a newsletter then, but read throughout the New England conferences by a number of members. We also supported New England Ministries at the Time, a conservative forum group that sponsored conservative speakers to speak one sabbath a month (these included Osborne, Standish, Spear, Larsen, Ron Goss, etal). For some reason, they seem to believe that a student classmate breached some form of confidentiality and gave us information that we passed to the private school where Greg was teaching and he was terminated midyear.
Frankly, we learned enough to decide that Greg was off limits and we have never told anyone anything of what we learned...it was simply not relevant to the 3ABN/Danny Lee Shelton Discussions...the same position we have taken on Brandy and a host of others such as Lomacang. We find their blindness to the truth profound, but not without motivation, and have simply left it that way.
It is a common tactic by the opponents of journalism to attack the messenger rather than take on the message and defend their position with documentation. I am quite use to it. When we tell the truth and document the same, we will be exonerated time after time by the passage of time and unravelling of the factually challenged statements by blind defenders of fallacy.
The proof is in the documentation. We have repeatedly requested the documentation and they have repeatedly refused to produce the documentation. They claim the purpose of the Lawsuite is to make public the truth, but attempt to impound the case. Bob has done requests to produce the documents and now they attempt to prove to the court that everything is covered by some imaginary confidentiality. They simply avoid documenting the truth and one must logically ask WHY??? They still have not documented the very first allegation and still have not produced one document to prove that Linda was guilty of anything worthy of termination, other than being married to Danny Lee Shelton and a discardable possession that had worn out her welcome.
We would challenge Greg, Danny's brother and Dr Walter Thompson to provide proof of this ridiculous allegation and post it here or anywhere else. And if they are convinced that we were responsible for Gregs' termination, why has Greg not filed suite against us?? I suspect the documentation will be avoided like all other documentation requests.
And they want the truth to finally exonerate them??? The history is not good and I doubt we will see any proof without another court fight!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
Is this backstory still contributing to any of the ongoing issues at this time, other than the fact that the lawsuit is in place as it is now?
-
Is this backstory still contributing to any of the ongoing issues at this time, other than the fact that the lawsuit is in place as it is now?
There are some that have questioned why a purportedly Conservative SDA Board would give permission to file suite. The contenetion is that they were highly motivated by some event or series of events. These same people have proposed that Greg's firing may have been manipulated by DLS and blamed on us in concert with the allegations that we were attacking the entire Shelton family and were trying to get Ronnie, Tommy, Tammy and Danny all fired. Greg would have been an example.
On the other hand, given the failure of the board to reply, investigate or even meet with us from September 2006 onward and then to simply file suite suggets it was simply an issue of bruised ego's with a clear agenda to impede, if not stop the investigation, close up the leaks at 3ABN and to look like they were the victims of a scandalous attack...but then you must wonder just how they explain the interest of the IRS Criminal Investiagtion division?
But then, maybe they think Linda runs that as well!!!
Then there is the story that the GC paid me to deliver 3ABN into the GC hands...but I hear they just don't pay well!!! But this may have ignited quite a bit of excitement to the board of an independent ministry with an agenda and political goals in 2010!!! For the record, I don't believe the GC has much interest in inheriting the 3ABN mess!!! But then, Gilley was crazy enough to try and I give him high marks for trying to climb Mount Everest...in the winter, none-the-less!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Is this backstory still contributing to any of the ongoing issues at this time, other than the fact that the lawsuit is in place as it is now?
There are some that have questioned why a purportedly Conservative SDA Board would give permission to file suite. The contenetion is that they were highly motivated by some event or series of events. These same people have proposed that Greg's firing may have been manipulated by DLS and blamed on us in concert with the allegations that we were attacking the entire Shelton family and were trying to get Ronnie, Tommy, Tammy and Danny all fired. Greg would have been an example.
On the other hand, given the failure of the board to reply, investigate or even meet with us from September 2006 onward and then to simply file suite suggets it was simply an issue of bruised ego's with a clear agenda to impede, if not stop the investigation, close up the leaks at 3ABN and to look like they were the victims of a scandalous attack...but then you must wonder just how they explain the interest of the IRS Criminal Investiagtion division?
But then, maybe they think Linda runs that as well!!!
Then there is the story that the GC paid me to deliver 3ABN into the GC hands...but I hear they just don't pay well!!! But this may have ignited quite a bit of excitement to the board of an independent ministry with an agenda and political goals in 2010!!! For the record, I don't believe the GC has much interest in inheriting the 3ABN mess!!! But then, Gilley was crazy enough to try and I give him high marks for trying to climb Mount Everest...in the winter, none-the-less!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
From what I know, he certainly needs our prayers as it's not exactly what he expected.
Of course, we could have warned him (and some probably tried to) that he may be more then surprised at a few things, as many have also been very surprised to learn there is much more to DS then ever meets the eye, whether on the tv screen or once you're at the "compound". :o Maybe a bit like "hotel california"?? WAKE UP PEOPLE!
-
Amen!!!
GAJ
-
Amen!!!
GAJ
Some people are just slow learners.
-
There are some that have questioned why a purportedly Conservative SDA Board would give permission to file suite. The contenetion is that they were highly motivated by some event or series of events. These same people have proposed that Greg's firing may have been manipulated by DLS and blamed on us in concert with the allegations that we were attacking the entire Shelton family and were trying to get Ronnie, Tommy, Tammy and Danny all fired. Greg would have been an example.
On the other hand, given the failure of the board to reply, investigate or even meet with us from September 2006 onward and then to simply file suite suggets it was simply an issue of bruised ego's with a clear agenda to impede, if not stop the investigation, close up the leaks at 3ABN and to look like they were the victims of a scandalous attack...but then you must wonder just how they explain the interest of the IRS Criminal Investiagtion division?
But then, maybe they think Linda runs that as well!!!
Then there is the story that the GC paid me to deliver 3ABN into the GC hands...but I hear they just don't pay well!!! But this may have ignited quite a bit of excitement to the board of an independent ministry with an agenda and political goals in 2010!!! For the record, I don't believe the GC has much interest in inheriting the 3ABN mess!!! But then, Gilley was crazy enough to try and I give him high marks for trying to climb Mount Everest...in the winter, none-the-less!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
Isaiah 59:4 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
[NASB at Lockman] [The Lockman Foundation] [NASB at Zondervan] [Zondervan]
4No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly
They trust in confusion and speak lies;
They conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.
I think this text says it all.
-
Isaiah 59:4 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
[NASB at Lockman] [The Lockman Foundation] [NASB at Zondervan] [Zondervan]
4No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly
They trust in confusion and speak lies;
They conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.
I think this text says it all.
What a profound statement that sums up the situation in words that we humans would have difficulty putting together. But then... God's Word is sharper than any two-edged sword.
-
Isaiah 59:4 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
[NASB at Lockman] [The Lockman Foundation] [NASB at Zondervan] [Zondervan]
4No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly
They trust in confusion and speak lies;
They conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.
I think this text says it all.
"Says it all" because you believe it applies to this scenario or this is always true no matter what the circumstances?
-
Isaiah 59:4 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
[NASB at Lockman] [The Lockman Foundation] [NASB at Zondervan] [Zondervan]
4No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly
They trust in confusion and speak lies;
They conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.
I think this text says it all.
"Says it all" because you believe it applies to this scenario or this is always true no matter what the circumstances?
No, not at all - unless you happen to believe the Word of God applies to us. Would it be a delusion to make such an assumption?
How about this:
Job 12:17
He leadeth counsellors away spoiled, and maketh the judges fools.
-
Isaiah 59:4 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
[NASB at Lockman] [The Lockman Foundation] [NASB at Zondervan] [Zondervan]
4No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly
They trust in confusion and speak lies;
They conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.
I think this text says it all.
OK. Please tell me what you believe this text says.
-
Isaiah 59:4 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
[NASB at Lockman] [The Lockman Foundation] [NASB at Zondervan] [Zondervan]
4No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly
They trust in confusion and speak lies;
They conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.
I think this text says it all.
OK. Please tell me what you believe this text says.
That chapter refers to people whose sins have separated themselves from God, even though they belong to the church, and are doing great work for the Lord. Separated from God they sue, but that is not honest. They trust in spinning - or confusion - so that the truth is obscured.
It has just been announced that the Jewish Harvard professor who managed to get O. S. Simpson exonerated, is going to conduct a seminar for lawyers and judges at a school not far from where we live. In that connection quite a bit of information on him was found in the local news. I discovered there are so many parallels in how he got the guilty exonerated and how 3ABN is now trying to exonerate their former president. Even the methods you are using seems quite similar. That professor also wrote a book on the ten commandments. . . Truly, where do you find people suing righteously? Even if they write on the ten commandments.
-
That chapter refers to people whose sins have separated themselves from God, even though they belong to the church, and are doing great work for the Lord. Separated from God they sue, but that is not honest. They trust in spinning - or confusion - so that the truth is obscured.
It has just been announced that the Jewish Harvard professor who managed to get O. S. Simpson exonerated, is going to conduct a seminar for lawyers and judges at a school not far from where we live. In that connection quite a bit of information on him was found in the local news. I discovered there are so many parallels in how he got the guilty exonerated and how 3ABN is now trying to exonerate their former president. Even the methods you are using seems quite similar. That professor also wrote a book on the ten commandments. . . Truly, where do you find people suing righteously? Even if they write on the ten commandments.
Thank you for your explanation as it helps me understand what you have said.
Do you think that "spinning - or confusion - so that the truth is obscured." is ever acceptable?
I also presume you are speaking of Alan Dershowitz and it would take quite a bit of ink to adequately describe his career and opinions or even review his books. However, it would not surprise me that Mr. Joy would tell you that Professor Dershowitz's opinions regarding the first amendment are quite consistent with his own.
To answer your question I think we would need a common definition of "righteously", would you agree?
-
Do you think that "spinning - or confusion - so that the truth is obscured." is ever acceptable?
Never!
I also presume you are speaking of Alan Dershowitz and it would take quite a bit of ink to adequately describe his career and opinions or even review his books. However, it would not surprise me that Mr. Joy would tell you that Professor Dershowitz's opinions regarding the first amendment are quite consistent with his own.
Why not?
To answer your question I think we would need a common definition of "righteously", would you agree?
Undir these conditions a common definition of quite a few words anmd terms are essential. Some of these are:
honesty
truth
integrity
ideals
loyalty
faith
Scripture
justification
Three Angels Message
since most of these and other terms have been greatly depreciated by initiating the current court case. If we do not fight against this depreciation it will be difficult to meet the founding fathers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the resurrection.
I do not fear the threats against me by Mr. Appletree. I am willing to face prison or death as long as I stand for what I know is the truth in this matter. Are you?
-
Do you think that "spinning - or confusion - so that the truth is obscured." is ever acceptable?
Never!
Thank you for the clear answer.
I also presume you are speaking of Alan Dershowitz and it would take quite a bit of ink to adequately describe his career and opinions or even review his books. However, it would not surprise me that Mr. Joy would tell you that Professor Dershowitz's opinions regarding the first amendment are quite consistent with his own.
Why not?
Some research online will reveal that Professor Dershowitz is quite well known for his defense of civil liberties as well as his constitutional scholarship. This would include among other things that our first amendment rights should only be subject to very minimal if any censorship.
You might find these comments by him nearly twelve years ago in June, 1996 enlightening:
http://underground-online.troybrophy.com/iu/archive/issue7/onwith7/
To answer your question I think we would need a common definition of "righteously", would you agree?
Undir these conditions a common definition of quite a few words anmd terms are essential. Some of these are:
honesty
truth
integrity
ideals
loyalty
faith
Scripture
justification
Three Angels Message
since most of these and other terms have been greatly depreciated by initiating the current court case. If we do not fight against this depreciation it will be difficult to meet the founding fathers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the resurrection.
I do not fear the threats against me by Mr. Appletree. I am willing to face prison or death as long as I stand for what I know is the truth in this matter. Are you?
It is unlikely you will face prison or death for standing up for what you believe in this matter, but your commitment is noted. But that is not what we were discussing. (and your question “are you?” needs further clarification as to what you mean before I am able to answer).
Your response once again begs the question if you are applying the text that started our dialogue to this specific situation (3abn suing Joy and Pickle) or as you said in post #61 “Truly, where do you find people suing righteously? Even if they write on the ten commandments. “
Do you think it was wrong or unethical for Mr. Dershowitz to defend OJ Simpson? And for the purpose of answering the question, let's assume Mr. Dershowitz knew OJ was guilty of the crime he was charged with.
-
Last year I met seasoned defense lawyer, and we became immediately friends. He told me that some of his *worst* clients readily admitted to him that they had done even more that what they were accused of. But is was his job to defend them, regardless. And confidentiality forbade him revealing what he knew. So several of his real criminals went free. This, he told me, is to be a defense lawyer.
So, are you a defense lawyer under similar circumstances, since you are asking me about Mr. Dershowitz?
-
Ah, ImaAnt, an intellectual discussion!!!
The problem with your question is that you are asking a theologian whose entire foundation is based upon an ecclesiatical perspective of law and the orderly dispositive rule of christian conciliation to answer a question mired in the ethics of juris prudence and the contemporary American Bar, a clear dichotomy of ethics best defined as ecclesiastically challenged!!!
So, ImaAnt, do you seek an ecclesiastical answer seeking conciliation; or an answer steeped in the ethically challenged juris prudence of adversarial law????
One foundation or the other is essential to a sane discussion.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Last year I met seasoned defense lawyer, and we became immediately friends. He told me that some of his *worst* clients readily admitted to him that they had done even more that what they were accused of. But is was his job to defend them, regardless. And confidentiality forbade him revealing what he knew. So several of his real criminals went free. This, he told me, is to be a defense lawyer.
Do you believe the above is responsive to my question concerning what you believe regarding Mr. Dershowitz's representation of OJ Simpson?
So, are you a defense lawyer under similar circumstances, since you are asking me about Mr. Dershowitz?
Am I wrong that the lawyer you refer to in post #61 was Professor Dershowitz?
-
Ah, ImaAnt, an intellectual discussion!!!
LOL GAJ, so many ways to spin that but will restrain myself.
The problem with your question is that you are asking a theologian whose entire foundation is based upon an ecclesiatical perspective of law and the orderly dispositive rule of christian conciliation to answer a question mired in the ethics of juris prudence and the contemporary American Bar, a clear dichotomy of ethics best defined as ecclesiastically challenged!!!
Could you be more specific as to the question that I asked that you are responding to? I am certain you have seen more often than not in posting on boards that assumptions lead to confused or non-responsive answers. :)
Regardless, a general response would be that we do not disagree that Johann responds from a different foundation but therein we have the frequent and ongoing problem with posts on many threads where confusion results from mixing the two disciplines in discussing these issues.
So, ImaAnt, do you seek an ecclesiastical answer seeking conciliation; or an answer steeped in the ethically challenged juris prudence of adversarial law????
Since I prefer not to assume the meaning of a question that does not flow logically from the discussion that precedes it, are you asking GAJ if I believe that the lawsuit can be resolved without a trial on the merits?
One foundation or the other is essential to a sane discussion.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Concordamos
-
Last year I met seasoned defense lawyer, and we became immediately friends. He told me that some of his *worst* clients readily admitted to him that they had done even more that what they were accused of. But is was his job to defend them, regardless. And confidentiality forbade him revealing what he knew. So several of his real criminals went free. This, he told me, is to be a defense lawyer.
Do you believe the above is responsive to my question concerning what you believe regarding Mr. Dershowitz's representation of OJ Simpson?
So, are you a defense lawyer under similar circumstances, since you are asking me about Mr. Dershowitz?
Am I wrong that the lawyer you refer to in post #61 was Professor Dershowitz?
Do you believe the above is responsive to my question concerning what you believe regarding Mr. Dershowitz's representation of OJ Simpson?
So, are you a defense lawyer under similar circumstances, since you are asking me about Mr. Dershowitz?
Am I wrong that the lawyer you refer to in post #61 was Professor Dershowitz?
I was referring to what one defense lawyer told me is the job of a defense lawyer. I have no idea if that is universal or not.
Did you want me to help you get enrolled at his seminar? Under what name do you want to register? The principal is a theologian[Lutheran], so you might get some theological impressions as well.
-
I was referring to what one defense lawyer told me is the job of a defense lawyer. I have no idea if that is universal or not.
Did you want me to help you get enrolled at his seminar? Under what name do you want to register? The principal is a theologian[Lutheran], so you might get some theological impressions as well.
Yes, but why so unwilling to acknowledge if Mr. Dershowitz is the "Jewish Harvard professor" that is speaking at the seminar you brought up. I believe that if I had been wrong that you were talking about Alan Dershowitz that you would not have hesitated to correct my error so I can't fathom why you would not acknowlege if I am correct. It would then have been possible to discuss which of his views might be consistent with those of Mr. Joy as I had stated.
And I appreciate the fact that you spoke with a defense attorney but it was your opinion I was interested in.
-
Yes, but why so unwilling to acknowledge if Mr. Dershowitz is the "Jewish Harvard professor" that is speaking at the seminar you brought up. I believe that if I had been wrong that you were talking about Alan Dershowitz that you would not have hesitated to correct my error so I can't fathom why you would not acknowlege if I am correct. It would then have been possible to discuss which of his views might be consistent with those of Mr. Joy as I had stated.
I am extremely sorry I misjudged your willingness to add two and two and draw obvious conclusions. I guess I am too used to deal with people who do such things without any question. I should have taken your disposition into consideration. I apologize! But this helps me understand better why it is so difficult for you to understand and evaluate information I have given.
My major professor, who had been a missionary to India, told us about the leopard mother which chews the raw meat, gulps it down and digests it before spewing it out again before feeding it to her young. Then he added, that too many people demand fully digested material before they react. This taught us to think before we asked too obvious questions.
At the other extreme we have people who keep drawing unwarranted conclusions. Why is life so difficult?
-
Let's try again, Johann.
You quoted Isaiah 59:4 (New American Standard Bible)
No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly
They trust in confusion and speak lies;
They conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.
However, as you posted elsewhere, not every version interpets this verse as "no one sues righteously" do they? In fact, other versions do not use the word "sue" at all or am I wrong? Am I inaccurate in my understanding that some interpret this to be referring to a break down of the court and justice system at that time and not an admonition that no should sue?
-
Which perspective? Ecclesiastical or Juris Prudence?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Which perspective? Ecclesiastical or Juris Prudence?
Gailon Arthur Joy
I too would be interested in learning which perspective he is referring to.
-
Per staff consensus, the reported post and the direct response to it have both been removed from this topic.
-
Let's try again, Johann.
You quoted Isaiah 59:4 (New American Standard Bible)
No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly
They trust in confusion and speak lies;
They conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.
However, as you posted elsewhere, not every version interpets this verse as "no one sues righteously" do they? In fact, other versions do not use the word "sue" at all or am I wrong? Am I inaccurate in my understanding that some interpret this to be referring to a break down of the court and justice system at that time and not an admonition that no should sue?
Do you pefer this one? Isaiah 59:4 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
[NIV at IBS] [International Bible Society] [NIV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]
4 No one calls for justice;
no one pleads his case with integrity.
They rely on empty arguments and speak lies;
they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.
The various versions refer to injustice.
If you prefer to call it justice when a Christian spends millions of dollars to sue others, then that is your prerogative.
-
Do you pefer this one? Isaiah 59:4 (New International Version)
Actually, I do. Why? Because I do not think your prior use of this verse to prove a point was what the verse was ever intended to mean. Obviously, my opinion after my own consideration of the passage in the context of that chapter of Isaiah.
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
[NIV at IBS] [International Bible Society] [NIV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]
4 No one calls for justice;
no one pleads his case with integrity.
They rely on empty arguments and speak lies;
they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.
The various versions refer to injustice.
If you prefer to call it justice when a Christian spends millions of dollars to sue others, then that is your prerogative.
Can you point to any statement I have made that supports such a comment by you? There are adjectives I could use to describe my perceived tone of your statement but I won't digress.
May I ask what definition of "justice" you are using here? The dictionary has several options so I need to know which one you are using in this context before I can tell you whether I do call it justice or not.
-
And why would you wish an explanation? Do you not already have your own interpretation of the verse and it's application?
Perhaps we could move the discussion up a notch and get your version of Justice. And while you are at it, give us your exogesis of the text.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Do you pefer this one? Isaiah 59:4 (New International Version)
Actually, I do. Why? Because I do not think your prior use of this verse to prove a point was what the verse was ever intended to mean. Obviously, my opinion after my own consideration of the passage in the context of that chapter of Isaiah.
How much does your opinion count? Another portrait of a vivid sunset? What is the context you are referring to? What Bible truth are you dealing with?
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
[NIV at IBS] [International Bible Society] [NIV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]
4 No one calls for justice;
no one pleads his case with integrity.
They rely on empty arguments and speak lies;
they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.
The various versions refer to injustice.
If you prefer to call it justice when a Christian spends millions of dollars to sue others, then that is your prerogative.
Can you point to any statement I have made that supports such a comment by you? There are adjectives I could use to describe my perceived tone of your statement but I won't digress.
May I ask what definition of "justice" you are using here? The dictionary has several options so I need to know which one you are using in this context before I can tell you whether I do call it justice or not.
I am not interested in any previous statements of yours. Only what you say now. I am referring to the justice referred to in the textual context. How much different is yours?
-
This is to inform you I have edited some of your posts for formatting correction purposes only.