Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Gregory on August 21, 2008, 07:54:55 AM
-
The Biblical teachings in regard to settling conflict generally are found in Matthew 18:15-19, Romans 13:1-7and in I Corinthians 6: 1-8.
The basic teachings of Matthew 18:15-19 include:
1) Conflicts between church members should be settled within the church and by the church.
2) There is nothing in this passage that suggests that the church can settle disputes where one of the parties is not a SDA, nor when an organization is not controlled by the denomination.
The basic teachings of Romans 13:1-7 include:
1) Civil governments are established by God.
2) Christians are subject to the rule of civil governments as long as that rule does not violate God’s teachings.
3) Civil governments have priority in civil matters such as the payment of taxes. They establish the requirement to pay taxes and Christians must abide by that.
The basic teachings of I Corinthians 6: 1-6 include:
1) The thrust of this passage is to deal with disputes between church members. As in the Matthew passage it does not deal with a non-church member, or with an organization that is not controlled by the denomination.
2) Vs. 1 deals with taking a dispute before the “ungodly.” It should be noted that in the time this was written the judges were pagan. I am not prepared to say that all civil judges in society today are pagan/ungodly. As a matter of fact, many judges are Christians even if not SDA. I am not prepared to call a Christian Baptist judge an ungodly person.
3) Vs 3 suggests that one part of the context of this passage is a “trivial case.” I am well aware that it could be debated as to the meaning of that verse. But, I ask you: Do the parties to this litigation believe that the matters being litigated are trivial? I think not.
4) Vs. 4 states that in dealing with a trivial matter people of “little account” could be appointed in the church to deal with such a matter. Again the meaning of that could be debated. In any case, I will suggest that there is a principle that the people appointed to judge in a matter should be equal to the task. In a trivial matter people of great knowledge and wisdom would not be needed. In matters of great import people of knowledge and wisdom would be needed.
5) Vs. 5 brings in another issue when it says: “Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?” Here is a clear statement that the dispute is between members. It asks if the dispute is complex enough that there would not be wise people in the church able to resolve it. Well, in 1st Cent. Palestine that might have been true. In modern society it would often not be true. I suspect that the Thompsonville congregation did not have people within its membership competent to judge complex issues of trademark, copyright on the Internet, IRS issues and more. In fairness to the accused parties, could it have judged the alleged behavior of a non-SDA? Could it have judged alleged criminal conduct in a manner that would have been fair to all? I do not think so.
I personally consider the issue above to be a major issue: If a local congregation is to investigate charges against another the people who make the decisions should be competent, knowledgeable, fair and have the authority to make final decisions. In our modern society it is often not the case where the local congregation (or any other level of the church) has the ability to do that. As one example, in cases that involve insurance matters the local congregation has neither authority nor ability to enforce a decision.
Because of this lack of competent authority to decide, resolve and enforce the issues I believe that the lawsuit that 3-ABN and Danny Shelton filed does not violate Biblical teachings painful as that may be. That lawsuit deals with issues that lie within the prevue of the civil government and it is within Biblical teachings for people who believe that they have been wronged to take their issues to the civil authorities for settlement.
NOTE: Even at this late date the parties to the lawsuit are not prevented from reaching a settlement outside of further litigation. Such will not likely give anyone everything that they want. But, continued litigation may not give anyone everything either—or it may. No one really knows. Sometimes it is best to get one-half of a pie rather than to get nothing.
-
The truth of the matter is that 3ABN and Danny Shelton did not try to resolve the issues outside of litigation. That, regardless of how one looks at the various issues, was unbiblical and wrong.
-
Bob:
Back up and carefuly consider what you are posting.
As you well know there was a failed attempt to resolve issues that invovled ASI and Harold Lance.
Yes, that attempt failed, but it was an attempt.
Yes, I will say that the responsibility for the failure rests in part on the people involved. But, even with responsisbiliy there was an attempt.
I have some opininons in regard to the attempt by ASI and the reasons for the failure. I may post more on this later, perhaps a Part 3. But, with failure there was an atempt.
As a matter of fact, there has been more than one attempt (more than two) to resolve the issues. Each one has failed. Again, in my opinion the responsibility for the failure rests upon the people involved.
The ASI attempt failed in part because it was to general. That is to say it attempted to deal with to many issues at once. Some people attempted to limit and others attempted to expand it. Agreement could nto be reeached aong the parties as to what issues to deal with. It might have been better to have dwelt with the multitude of issues in a serial fashon--pick one leave the rest alone and when that had been decided move on to another. But, that did not happen. Since that failure there have been some who have attempted to deal with specific issues and the only people involved in thise discussions have been those who were a party to the specific issues, others have not been aware of the discuession. Yes, everyone of which I am aware has also failed. Again, the responsibility rests upon the people involved. In no way can you say that no attempts have been made prior to litigation. Attempts were made prior to litigation and after litigation began.
-
I disagree. I do not think the ASI process was an attempt on the part of Danny and 3ABN to resolve the issues.
First of all, there really wasn't a need to involve ASI if Danny and 3ABN had wanted to resolve the issues.
Second, the 3ABN Board voted to restrict the investigation, and then no one told us that for 10 weeks.
Third, Harold Lance used a go-between to contact Linda rather than Gailon. If this was really an attempt to resolve the issues outside of litigation, why in the world did he do that?
The above thoughts are based on the fact that someone connected with the GC asked ASI to look into the issues Gailon had uncovered, and the issues that individual understood would be considered definitely included the child molestation allegations against Tommy. Therefore, those allegations should have been on the table, and Gailon should have been contacted. At the very least, if there had been a change of plans, Walt, Danny, or Harold should have had the Christian courtesy to contact us and tell us rather than leave us hanging so long.
Then you have Danny's own statements that indicate that he was going to use the ASI process as a smokescreen to make everything else go away.
As far as Duffy's letter goes, I don't think an attorney who in essence says, "SHUT UP!!!!" is really attempting to resolve the issues.
Lastly, I know of no indication that Danny was really climbing on the litigation train until Walt Thompson spilled the beans on who told him what regarding the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations. That was after the ASI process got going, so it would be hard to imagine that the ASI process was really an attempt to resolve issues that didn't even exist until after that process had already commenced.
Perhaps I am wrong and Danny really was thinking about suing before Thanksgiving 2006? Suing over the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations?
-
I disagree. I do not think the ASI process was an attempt on the part of Danny and 3ABN to resolve the issues.
First of all, there really wasn't a need to involve ASI if Danny and 3ABN had wanted to resolve the issues.
Second, the 3ABN Board voted to restrict the investigation, and then no one told us that for 10 weeks.
Third, Harold Lance used a go-between to contact Linda rather than Gailon. If this was really an attempt to resolve the issues outside of litigation, why in the world did he do that?
The above thoughts are based on the fact that someone connected with the GC asked ASI to look into the issues Gailon had uncovered, and the issues that individual understood would be considered definitely included the child molestation allegations against Tommy. Therefore, those allegations should have been on the table, and Gailon should have been contacted. At the very least, if there had been a change of plans, Walt, Danny, or Harold should have had the Christian courtesy to contact us and tell us rather than leave us hanging so long.
Then you have Danny's own statements that indicate that he was going to use the ASI process as a smokescreen to make everything else go away.
As far as Duffy's letter goes, I don't think an attorney who in essence says, "SHUT UP!!!!" is really attempting to resolve the issues.
Lastly, I know of no indication that Danny was really climbing on the litigation train until Walt Thompson spilled the beans on who told him what regarding the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations. That was after the ASI process got going, so it would be hard to imagine that the ASI process was really an attempt to resolve issues that didn't even exist until after that process had already commenced.
Perhaps I am wrong and Danny really was thinking about suing before Thanksgiving 2006? Suing over the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations?
Bob, this is a classic example of why your reasoning skills are losing credibility with some.
"Then you have Danny's own statements that indicate that he was going to use the ASI process as a smokescreen to make everything else go away." (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-round-two-b-gailon-joy.htm)
What did Danny actually say (and was his email posted in its entirety on save-3abn?):
As you know we are letting ASI handle the situation regarding my divorce from Linda.
Did I have biblical grounds for my part in the divorce of Linda and me.
Many lies have been spread by Linda and others using people like Gailon Joy and others.
According to you and Gailon and several others, the 3ABN leadership including myself, have covered up my wrong doing by making Linda the scape goat.
Either this is true or it is not. Much has been said by Johann, Arild, Barbara K. and people who didn't even know Linda and me.
ASI will decide who is doing the cover up. Somebody is lying! After hearing the testimony and evidence from both sides ASI will make a decision. Should ASI decide that the 3ABN board and myself did not "scapegoat Linda" to cover up my sins, then, in my opinion it will become obvious to the public that maybe many of these other accusations are lies also.
If on the other hand ASI decides that me and the 3ABN board covered up my sins to scapegoat Linda, then I believe that it will become obvious that I am probably lying when I deny many of the other accusations coming from Linda and her group.
That's why I choose to wait until ASI handles this huge issue of mine and Linda's divorce before answering questions of all the other accusations manufactured by Linda, Gailon, Derrell Johann, Barbara Kerr and others who have or has had an ax to grind with 3ABN.
For every person accusing me and 3ABN of doing wrong I can show thousands who will testify of all the good that 3ABN in doing including nearly all of it's employees.
Danny
IMO it is a real stretch to manipulate the words of this partial email into any form that would indicate that Danny Shelton was going to use the ASI process as a smokescreen to make everything else go away.
I believe his words are very clear in their meaning. He was planning to let the ASI process review the evidence and decide who was lying.
It would be of interest to see not only the complete email but also the email he was responding to. Perhaps then the the conclusions one could logically draw would be different.
-
IMO it is a real stretch to manipulate the words of this partial email into any form that would indicate that Danny Shelton was going to use the ASI process as a smokescreen to make everything else go away.
I believe his words are very clear in their meaning. He was planning to let the ASI process review the evidence and decide who was lying.
It would be of interest to see not only the complete email but also the email he was responding to. Perhaps then the the conclusions one could logically draw would be different.
Spot on! Over and over Mr. Robert Pickle has edited, manipulated, misrepresented, and misconstrued the words of others in an effort to make himself look right . . . as for providing context by posting emails in their entirety - that won't happen. To do so would mean trusting people to be intelligent and have the ability to discern the truth of the exchanges. As it is Mr. Robert Pickle has been able to mislead many with his "interpretation" of what is being said. In other words - there is no honesty in his presentation and redundant, repetitious posting (NLP) techniques.
Mr. Robert Pickle doesn't believe in presenting information and letting the reading public make their own decisions on what is being said, he wants to make sure and plant his own assumptions into people heads so he edits, manipulates, and misrepresents (puts words in peoples mouths that they never said) . . .therefore, he won't post emails in their entirety WITHOUT his personal commentary - too dangerous to his position.
As for this particular instance . . . it is obvious that Mr. Shelton was stating that he wasn't going to respond to anything as ASI had asked all parties to refrain from commenting until the process was concluded. Mr. Shelton took the wise course of action, while Mr. Robert Pickles spinning went contrary to any common sense participation . . . which leads one to wonder if he will ever go slinking behind the scenes to see if he can cut a deal before this goes to court?
-
Bob, this is a classic example of why your reasoning skills are losing credibility with some.
"Then you have Danny's own statements that indicate that he was going to use the ASI process as a smokescreen to make everything else go away." (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-round-two-b-gailon-joy.htm)
What did Danny actually say (and was his email posted in its entirety on save-3abn?):
...
IMO it is a real stretch to manipulate the words of this partial email into any form that would indicate that Danny Shelton was going to use the ASI process as a smokescreen to make everything else go away.
I believe his words are very clear in their meaning. He was planning to let the ASI process review the evidence and decide who was lying.
It would be of interest to see not only the complete email but also the email he was responding to. Perhaps then the the conclusions one could logically draw would be different.
Huh?
Where is there an ellipsis in that email? Why are you calling it a partial email?
As far as the email he was responding to goes, simply go to the email at "Seeking Verification About the Tommy Shelton Child Molestation Allegations As Requested by Dr. Walt Thompson" (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-untruths-in-detail-reply-1.htm) and click "< Prev" at the top.
And his words are clear. He was hoping to use a positive decision from ASI regarding the divorce and remarriage to make everything else go away.
He went so far as to say "this huge issue of mine and Linda's divorce." Huge? Compared to the cover up of child molestation allegations? And that's what he says in response to my attempts to verify what Walt Thompson had told me? His response was ludicrous! Thumbing his nose at the written request of his own board chairman. What's he think? That 3ABN is his own personal, private, family business or something?
-
Anyman;
Forget all those lies that keep coming from your corner. Let's talk truth!
Why would Tammy lie to us about having an eBay store?
Why would Tammy get the money from items sold by her that were 3ABN items?
What was the split with Danny's family?
Did it start out as a way to get extra cash and soon blossomed into a lucrative side business?
eBay really was a very lucrative operation for Danny and his family until he found out I was really watching 3ABN eBay and other sellers of 3ABN.
Then I figured out about nan_don and all of the missing feedback!!
Danny tried to hide all that feedback! Why? I know why. Let's get to the truth of the matter here!
Are you ready for that? The trial is coming soon. My day in court is coming. It isn't going to be pretty when all the donors hear about where the money went! It will be entered into those law books that are used to study case law and will be used over and over again! Danny will become famous, and not in a good way!
Now that you mentioned emails, what about all those emails between Danny and Gregory? Let's talk about those! Danny knows the ones I am talking about; the ones Danny does NOT want to hit the light of day. I have read them! I believe I even have copies. Come on Anyman. Forget allegations! Let's talk truth and facts before we all have to go to court and expose the real Danny!
Danny knows how to stop that from happening. Surely he doesn't want it to go public! Tell Danny to scrap the lawsuit! It may be time for me to call Jim, Garwin, and Walt to discuss these eBay matters. This will be shameful for 3ABN in the end. I want 3ABN to survive. Will it survive all of this hitting the fan? I don't believe 3ABN supporters will be kind in their giving after this gets exposed and written in FEDERAL LAW BOOKS!
It would really be best if 3ABN parted the waters with Danny in the Lawsuit! Maybe if they distance themselves from Danny they can save 3ABN!
-
Spot on! Over and over Mr. Robert Pickle has edited, manipulated, misrepresented, and misconstrued the words of others in an effort to make himself look right . . . as for providing context by posting emails in their entirety - that won't happen. To do so would mean trusting people to be intelligent and have the ability to discern the truth of the exchanges. As it is Mr. Robert Pickle has been able to mislead many with his "interpretation" of what is being said. In other words - there is no honesty in his presentation and redundant, repetitious posting (NLP) techniques.
Mr. Robert Pickle doesn't believe in presenting information and letting the reading public make their own decisions on what is being said, he wants to make sure and plant his own assumptions into people heads so he edits, manipulates, and misrepresents (puts words in peoples mouths that they never said) . . .therefore, he won't post emails in their entirety WITHOUT his personal commentary - too dangerous to his position.
As for this particular instance . . . it is obvious that Mr. Shelton was stating that he wasn't going to respond to anything as ASI had asked all parties to refrain from commenting until the process was concluded. Mr. Shelton took the wise course of action, while Mr. Robert Pickles spinning went contrary to any common sense participation . . . which leads one to wonder if he will ever go slinking behind the scenes to see if he can cut a deal before this goes to court?
I've already told you, maybe more than once, that I've never had NLP training.
Where is the ellipsis in that email? What is missing?
Your assertion regarding what Danny was stating is absurd. Why would he have to refuse to follow through on his own board chairman's request until ASI had finished NOT LOOKING AT ALL into the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations, since he had refused to allow them to look into that? If that be the case, how can the whole ASI process not be but a smokescreen to hide the child molestation allegations until at the very least the process was completed?
-
Let's talk truth!
Not going to hold my breath for you to start . . .
-
I've already told you, maybe more than once, that I've never had NLP training.
So you say. Not buying it Robert.
Where is the ellipsis in that email? What is missing?
Rather weak response as it is evident that the email is not being presented in it's entirety. A simply knowledge of the flow of conversation evidences that there are portions that have been edited out. You have been caught doing it over and over again - suck it up and admit that you have been less than honest in your presentation of what others have said - and have done so in an attempt to mislead others to join your side.
Your assertion regarding what Danny was stating is absurd. Why would he have to refuse to follow through on his own board chairman's request until ASI had finished NOT LOOKING AT ALL into the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations, since he had refused to allow them to look into that? If that be the case, how can the whole ASI process not be but a smokescreen to hide the child molestation allegations until at the very least the process was completed?
I can't believe anyone falls for this type of nonsense any more - they have to be blinded by their own desire for the destruction of others to buy in any more. Your argument is less solvent than the the mortgage industry. The Board Chair did not ask you to make a mockery of Matt 18 - rather he asked that you verify the information . . . that didn't include making a mockery of God's ministries and you have attempted to make of no account more than one in your two years of self-indulgence. It has been pointed out time and again, but your focus on Mr. T. Shelton raises many red flags about your motivations.
-
Bob, this is a classic example of why your reasoning skills are losing credibility with some.
"Then you have Danny's own statements that indicate that he was going to use the ASI process as a smokescreen to make everything else go away." (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-round-two-b-gailon-joy.htm)
What did Danny actually say (and was his email posted in its entirety on save-3abn?):
...
IMO it is a real stretch to manipulate the words of this partial email into any form that would indicate that Danny Shelton was going to use the ASI process as a smokescreen to make everything else go away.
I believe his words are very clear in their meaning. He was planning to let the ASI process review the evidence and decide who was lying.
It would be of interest to see not only the complete email but also the email he was responding to. Perhaps then the the conclusions one could logically draw would be different.
Huh?
Where is there an ellipsis in that email? Why are you calling it a partial email?
As far as the email he was responding to goes, simply go to the email at "Seeking Verification About the Tommy Shelton Child Molestation Allegations As Requested by Dr. Walt Thompson" (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-untruths-in-detail-reply-1.htm) and click "< Prev" at the top.
I searched your save-3abn site with the keyword "smokescreen" and this is the version of the DS email that came up for me, among others, that was attached to the "smokescreen" characterization. Knowing, from past experience, that you often use only portions of emails on the sites, the observations and questions in my earlier post came to mind.
No elipse in this particular email but it is partial; the "To:/From:/Date/Time" has been removed and the email it is replying to is not presented with it. Also, I have bolded the sentence in the introductory paragraph for this email from Gailon to Harold that uses the often repeated "smokescreen" characterization
Due to the abrogation of the confidentiality agreement by Harold Lance, the following communications are provided for your perusal.
Not having heard back from Harold Lance, Gailon seeks an answer to his question: Has ASI and 3ABN decided that no other issues would be considered by the ASI panel? Gailon also points out to Harold that Danny Shelton on December 5 had made it quite clear that he intended to use a positive ASI decision regarding his divorce and remarriage as a smokescreen to cover up all the other allegations.
-------- Original Message --------
From: G. Arthur Joy
To: Harold Lance
CC: Linda Shelton
Subject: Re: 2nd request for answers? FYEO - Confidential- Do Not Redistribute
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:06:49 +0000
Harold:
You have been noticably silent since my very specific inquiry to your written proposal. However, this is a response from Danny to a third party inquiry and seems to answer the question, except it seems to hyperbolate a rather strange hypothesis that is exactly our concern if other matters are not heard as well as the marriage debate, and would leave all other issues on the table to discover; except your very own counsel to 3ABN has now become the current curtain behind which they stand on the simplest questions that remain. May I suggest that your clear counsel will go far to impede the inquiry into other issues that you and ASI have simply brushed aside, unilaterally, and would require that we handle them as we see fit. I also need a response to my inquiry as to the appropriateness of addressing this with the Division of Assets case still pending, which by the way has spawned a rather interesting appeal pending the settlement, regarding the bizarre ExPatriot Divorce taken by the parties in Guam. And here was his statement dated Tuesday, Dec 5, 2006:
As you know we are letting ASI handle the situation regarding my divorce from Linda.
Did I have biblical grounds for my part in the divorce of Linda and me.
Many lies have been spread by Linda and others using people like Gailon Joy and others.
According to you and Gailon and several others, the 3ABN leadership including myself, have covered up my wrong doing by making Linda the scape goat.
Either this is true or it is not. Much has been said by Johann, Arild, Barbara K. and people who didn't even know Linda and me.
ASI will decide who is doing the cover up. Somebody is lying! After hearing the testimony and evidence from both sides ASI will make a decision. Should ASI decide that the 3ABN board and myself did not "scapegoat Linda" to cover up my sins, then, in my opinion it will become obvious to the public that maybe many of these other accusations are lies also.
If on the other hand ASI decides that me and the 3ABN board covered up my sins to scapegoat Linda, then I believe that it will become obvious that I am probably lying when I deny many of the other accusations coming from Linda and her group.
That's why I choose to wait until ASI handles this huge issue of mine and Linda's divorce before answering questions of all the other accusations manufactured by Linda, Gailon, Derrell Johann, Barbara Kerr and others who have or has had an ax to grind with 3ABN.
For every person accusing me and 3ABN of doing wrong I can show thousands who will testify of all the good that 3ABN in doing including nearly all of it's employees.
Danny
The "smokescreen" characterization attempt specifically tied to the ASI process and Danny shows up yet again in this email under the heading "Danny:"Linda Is My Smokescreen" (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-untruths-walt-admits-2.htm)
Please notice the bolded words of the heading as it appears on the actual site, Danny:"Linda Is My Smokescreen", and then read through the email. Does Danny say the words "Linda is my smokescreen" anywhere in that email? No, and yet those specific words were attributed to him as a quote. The heading doesn't say "Danny infers that Linda is his smokescreen" or "It appears that Danny is using Linda as a smokescreen" or even "I have concluded that Danny is using Linda as a smokescreen". Specific words were put into Danny's mouth that he did not say.
Danny: "Linda Is My Smokescreen"
Danny now makes it fairly clear that he will not allow ASI to examine anything other than his divorce and remarriage, and that he intends to use a positive decision by ASI on that issue to make all the other allegations go away. And he also wants people to believe that his divorce and remarriage is a bigger issue than child molestation.
-------- Original Message --------
From: Danny Shelton
To: Bob
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:38:30 -0600
Bob, one last email to you.
Most of the rumors and accusations are based on lies. There are potentially millions of viewers. I nor anyone else can or will ever address all individual rumors with individual people asking the questions. It would be too time consuming.
If the biggest rumors or accusations are addressed by a reputable group like ASI, then people will have more info to base their decisions of whom are they going to believe.
There's a good chance that if ASI decides I have lied about my biblical grounds for divorce, then there is also a good chance that I am lying about other things. If on the other side of the coin ASI decides that Linda has lied about the reasons for our divorce then there is a good chance that the other info she and her friends are feeding the public, may be lies also.
I've been told that you cross one bridge at a time.
good bye.
I appreciated the link you provided to the full dialogue between you and Danny. Clearly, though, the "smokescreen" characterization is another example where you seem to think if you repeat something that you have concluded as fact often enough it will make it so.
And his words are clear. He was hoping to use a positive decision from ASI regarding the divorce and remarriage to make everything else go away.
He went so far as to say "this huge issue of mine and Linda's divorce." Huge? Compared to the cover up of child molestation allegations? And that's what he says in response to my attempts to verify what Walt Thompson had told me? His response was ludicrous! Thumbing his nose at the written request of his own board chairman. What's he think? That 3ABN is his own personal, private, family business or something?
"Hoping"? Bob, where in the email does Danny specify, infer or say that he is "hoping". Again you have surmised that this is what he is doing and are repeating it often in an attempt to make your assumptions become truth for others, no matter what the facts actually indicate.
-
I think Bob might be considered to be suffering as an impatient defendant. He appears to have alot of probative evidence to disprove the plaintiff's claims and can hardly wait for the trial to begin :rabbit: to prove his innocence. A major give away in this whole MESS is the lack of facts given to dispute Bob's and others claims against 3ABN. How about not attacking Bob but just deal with the facts of the case and try to come to a soution. :dogwag: Remember the old Dragent show when Jack Webb tells the woman JUST THE FACTS MAM, goes along way in my opinion to explain the status of this case. Wouldn't it be nice for the parties to discuss the facts, eliminate the personal attacks, and negotiate and end this MESS. Let both parties start agreeing on the smaller issues i.e. that it was bad judgement to lease a plane for so much money. :pals: :puppykisses:. ;D ;D It appears that bad judgment is to blame for many issues in this case not that a certain person intentionally set out see a end result. But then again I have not heard or seen the facts from one side in this litigation. :scratch: :dunno:
Now Bob has been accussed of using NLP. One of the best ways to confuse a issue is to accuse another of what you are doing. Could it be that Anyman is using NLP and accusing Bob of it thus further confusing the discussion?
:cool:
-
I think Bob might be considered to be suffering as an impatient defendant. He appears to have alot of probative evidence to disprove the plaintiff's claims and can hardly wait for the trial to begin :rabbit: to prove his innocence. A major give away in this whole MESS is the lack of facts given to dispute Bob's and others claims against 3ABN. How about not attacking Bob but just deal with the facts of the case and try to come to a soution. :dogwag: Remember the old Dragent show when Jack Webb tells the woman JUST THE FACTS MAM, goes along way in my opinion to explain the status of this case. Wouldn't it be nice for the parties to discuss the facts, eliminate the personal attacks, and negotiate and end this MESS.
Ah, therein lies the challenge: How are we to determine what is actually probative evidence when much of what Bob has presented is couched in his own opinion of what the evidence actually means. What he believes the evidence shows is not necessarily the way the courts or others will see it. Look at Bob's "smokescreen" claim in rebuttal to Gregory's OP.
Bob: "Then you have Danny's own statements that indicate that he was going to use the ASI process as a smokescreen to make everything else go away."
Now read the email dialogue with Danny that he is basing his claim on. Did Danny really say what Bob claims? Are those emails probative to Bob's claim?
Answers.com defines "probative" as:
adj.
Furnishing evidence or proof.
Serving to test, try, or prove.
Wikipedia describes probative: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probative)
Probative is a term used in law to signify "tending to prove."[1] Probative evidence "seeks the truth". Generally in law, evidence that is not probative (prejudicial evidence), or doesn't prove anything, is inadmissible and may be stricken from the record "if objected to by opposing counsel."[1] A balancing test may come in to the picture if the value of the evidence needs to be weighed versus its prejudicial nature.
So, how does one get to the "facts of the case" in order to be able to deal with them and try to come up with a solution?
You state: "He appears to have alot of probative evidence..." It would be most helpful if you would list some of Bob's facts that you feel rise to the standard of probative.
Let both parties start agreeing on the smaller issues i.e. that it was bad judgement to lease a plane for so much money. :pals: :puppykisses:. ;D ;D It appears that bad judgment is to blame for many issues in this case not that a certain person intentionally set out see a end result. But then again I have not heard or seen the facts from one side in this litigation. :scratch: :dunno:
Now Bob has been accussed of using NLP. One of the best ways to confuse a issue is to accuse another of what you are doing. Could it be that Anyman is using NLP and accusing Bob of it thus further confusing the discussion?
:cool:
In your proposal to settle this mess by having both parties start agreeing on the "smaller issues" an interesting shift has occurred. I notice that we have left "probative evidence" and the call for "JUST THE FACTS MAM" behind and you are advising that the parties start agreeing on opinions instead. How likely is that to happen? What Bob and Gailon might view as issues of bad judgment, the other parties may see as perfectly reasonable.
Best to stick to the facts, IMO, if they can ever be clearly presented.
-
Bob, this is a classic example of why your reasoning skills are losing credibility with some.
"Then you have Danny's own statements that indicate that he was going to use the ASI process as a smokescreen to make everything else go away." (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-round-two-b-gailon-joy.htm)
What did Danny actually say (and was his email posted in its entirety on save-3abn?):
...
IMO it is a real stretch to manipulate the words of this partial email into any form that would indicate that Danny Shelton was going to use the ASI process as a smokescreen to make everything else go away.
I believe his words are very clear in their meaning. He was planning to let the ASI process review the evidence and decide who was lying.
It would be of interest to see not only the complete email but also the email he was responding to. Perhaps then the the conclusions one could logically draw would be different.
Huh?
Where is there an ellipsis in that email? Why are you calling it a partial email?
As far as the email he was responding to goes, simply go to the email at "Seeking Verification About the Tommy Shelton Child Molestation Allegations As Requested by Dr. Walt Thompson" (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-untruths-in-detail-reply-1.htm) and click "< Prev" at the top.
And his words are clear. He was hoping to use a positive decision from ASI regarding the divorce and remarriage to make everything else go away.
Excuse me, but I have to come back out of lurk mode here to point out some basic facts for consideration.
1. The attempted ASI resolution process was not a investigation of Danny Shelton and 3ABN. It was 2 teams trying to resolve a problem between them, thus it was called a "resolution process" . That resolution process was NOT between Bob Pickle and Danny Shelton. It was between two teams, ie; Linda Shelton's team ~~and~~ Danny Shelton and the 3ABN team.
Now let me ask a question...
How many of Joy and Pickle's allegations were a bone of contention between Linda and Danny Shelton, or Linda and 3ABN?
Bingo, now you see the problem here and what Pickle and Joy could not and still don't apparently see or acknowledge, and why ASI according to their own letter had to withdraw. You can read that letter here folks: http://tiny.cc/nFBJV
He went so far as to say "this huge issue of mine and Linda's divorce." Huge? Compared to the cover up of child molestation allegations? And that's what he says in response to my attempts to verify what Walt Thompson had told me? His response was ludicrous! Thumbing his nose at the written request of his own board chairman. What's he think? That 3ABN is his own personal, private, family business or something?
Again, was Tommy Shelton and any allegations against him a bone of contention needing resolution between Linda Shelton and DS and 3ABN? NO.
In addition, it is QUITE PLAIN from the letters Pickle himself published, to any one with eyes to see and possessing a minimum of common sense that is, that Danny Shelton said no such thing as Pickle has been and is still attempting to claim here.
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=82117#Post82117
From the same letter Bob is touting above:
That's why I choose to wait until ASI handles this huge issue of mine and Linda's divorce before answering questions of all the other accusations manufactured by Linda, Gailon, Derrell Johann, Barbara Kerr and others who have or has had an ax to grind with 3ABN.
-
I think Bob might be considered to be suffering as an impatient defendant. He appears to have alot of probative evidence to disprove the plaintiff's claims and can hardly wait for the trial to begin :rabbit: to prove his innocence. A major give away in this whole MESS is the lack of facts given to dispute Bob's and others claims against 3ABN. How about not attacking Bob but just deal with the facts of the case and try to come to a soution. :dogwag: Remember the old Dragent show when Jack Webb tells the woman JUST THE FACTS MAM, goes along way in my opinion to explain the status of this case. Wouldn't it be nice for the parties to discuss the facts, eliminate the personal attacks, and negotiate and end this MESS. Let both parties start agreeing on the smaller issues i.e. that it was bad judgement to lease a plane for so much money. :pals: :puppykisses:. ;D ;D It appears that bad judgment is to blame for many issues in this case not that a certain person intentionally set out see a end result. But then again I have not heard or seen the facts from one side in this litigation. :scratch: :dunno:
Now Bob has been accussed of using NLP. One of the best ways to confuse a issue is to accuse another of what you are doing. Could it be that Anyman is using NLP and accusing Bob of it thus further confusing the discussion?
:cool:
:goodpost:
Very well said, Wendall. I agree.
-
I've already told you, maybe more than once, that I've never had NLP training.
So you say. Not buying it Robert.
And why not? Have I ever not told the truth?
Where is the ellipsis in that email? What is missing?
Rather weak response as it is evident that the email is not being presented in it's entirety. A simply knowledge of the flow of conversation evidences that there are portions that have been edited out. You have been caught doing it over and over again - suck it up and admit that you have been less than honest in your presentation of what others have said - and have done so in an attempt to mislead others to join your side.
I just checked the copy Danny sent to me. It contains 1271 letters, 288 words, 15 sentences, and 11 paragraphs, according to the way WordPerfect calculate such things.
The one that appears on Save-3ABN.com (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-untruths-in-detail-reply-1.htm), I checked it too. It also contains 1271 letters, 288 words, 15 sentences, and 11 paragraphs.
The only difference appears to be that Danny's email has two spaces after every period, whereas a web browser only shows one. But what difference would that make?
Your assertion regarding what Danny was stating is absurd. Why would he have to refuse to follow through on his own board chairman's request until ASI had finished NOT LOOKING AT ALL into the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations, since he had refused to allow them to look into that? If that be the case, how can the whole ASI process not be but a smokescreen to hide the child molestation allegations until at the very least the process was completed?
I can't believe anyone falls for this type of nonsense any more - they have to be blinded by their own desire for the destruction of others to buy in any more. Your argument is less solvent than the the mortgage industry. The Board Chair did not ask you to make a mockery of Matt 18 - rather he asked that you verify the information . . . that didn't include making a mockery of God's ministries and you have attempted to make of no account more than one in your two years of self-indulgence. It has been pointed out time and again, but your focus on Mr. T. Shelton raises many red flags about your motivations.
You have evaded the issue. Walt Thompson, THE 3ABN Board chairman, asked me to verify the information he had given me regarding the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations. He gave me but one name to verify things with when he could have given me more. That one name was Danny. I wrote Danny. Danny refused to answer anything, much less verify anything, and thus THUMBED HIS NOSE at the stated wishes of his own board chairman.
I am absolutely certain that God was appalled that Danny Shelton, claiming to be the Lord's anointed, led or allowed his board chairman to believe that the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton were 30 years old, and that they were due to a feud with a man who lived 800 miles away until 8 years after Tommy's ordination was suspended. The presidents of God's ministries aren't supposed to do that kind of thing, the boards of God's ministries aren't supposed to let their presidents get away with such things, and the boards of God's ministries aren't supposed to sue those who become concerned at the legal liability such negligence could cause for God's minsitries.
-
I searched your save-3abn site with the keyword "smokescreen" and this is the version of the DS email that came up for me, among others, that was attached to the "smokescreen" characterization. Knowing, from past experience, that you often use only portions of emails on the sites, the observations and questions in my earlier post came to mind.
No elipse in this particular email but it is partial; the "To:/From:/Date/Time" has been removed and the email it is replying to is not presented with it. Also, I have bolded the sentence in the introductory paragraph for this email from Gailon to Harold that uses the often repeated "smokescreen" characterization
I think the email you looked at is an accurate and complete copy of Gailon's email to Harold. That being so, it can't include the headers that Gailon, not I, left off when he wrote his email to Harold.
I appreciated the link you provided to the full dialogue between you and Danny. Clearly, though, the "smokescreen" characterization is another example where you seem to think if you repeat something that you have concluded as fact often enough it will make it so.
Not at all. Absolutely not. My stating something doesn't make it so.
The fact of the matter is that Danny made it crystal clear that he intended to use a positive decision from ASI regarding his divorce and remarriage to make everything else go away, including the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations.
And his words are clear. He was hoping to use a positive decision from ASI regarding the divorce and remarriage to make everything else go away.
He went so far as to say "this huge issue of mine and Linda's divorce." Huge? Compared to the cover up of child molestation allegations? And that's what he says in response to my attempts to verify what Walt Thompson had told me? His response was ludicrous! Thumbing his nose at the written request of his own board chairman. What's he think? That 3ABN is his own personal, private, family business or something?
"Hoping"? Bob, where in the email does Danny specify, infer or say that he is "hoping". Again you have surmised that this is what he is doing and are repeating it often in an attempt to make your assumptions become truth for others, no matter what the facts actually indicate.
Not at all. Danny's done that, not me.
Danny said, "If the biggest rumors or accusations are addressed by a reputable group like ASI, then people will have more info to base their decisions of whom are they going to believe. ... If on the other side of the coin ASI decides that Linda has lied about the reasons for our divorce then there is a good chance that the other info she and her friends are feeding the public, may be lies also."
Thus Danny wants everyone to believe that the allegation that he didn't have biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage is a bigger rumor and accusation than the allegations that Tommy molested who knows how many boys, and that Danny used attorneys to try to threaten a non-Adventist pastor into silence.
Now Jeanette, do you buy that? Do you buy the idea that molestation is a smaller issue than unbiblical divorce? I hardly think so.
Danny refused to let ASI look into the molestation allegations, and thus he intended people to conclude that the molestation allegations were lies because ASI had ruled positively on his divorce question.
-
I think Bob might be considered to be suffering as an impatient defendant. He appears to have alot of probative evidence to disprove the plaintiff's claims and can hardly wait for the trial to begin :rabbit: to prove his innocence. A major give away in this whole MESS is the lack of facts given to dispute Bob's and others claims against 3ABN. How about not attacking Bob but just deal with the facts of the case and try to come to a soution. :dogwag: Remember the old Dragent show when Jack Webb tells the woman JUST THE FACTS MAM, goes along way in my opinion to explain the status of this case. Wouldn't it be nice for the parties to discuss the facts, eliminate the personal attacks, and negotiate and end this MESS. Let both parties start agreeing on the smaller issues i.e. that it was bad judgement to lease a plane for so much money. :pals: :puppykisses:. ;D ;D It appears that bad judgment is to blame for many issues in this case not that a certain person intentionally set out see a end result. But then again I have not heard or seen the facts from one side in this litigation. :scratch: :dunno:
Now Bob has been accussed of using NLP. One of the best ways to confuse a issue is to accuse another of what you are doing. Could it be that Anyman is using NLP and accusing Bob of it thus further confusing the discussion?
:cool:
Maybe I should let others answer some of these things. Sounds better perhaps.
-
1. The attempted ASI resolution process was not a investigation of Danny Shelton and 3ABN. It was 2 teams trying to resolve a problem between them, thus it was called a "resolution process" . That resolution process was NOT between Bob Pickle and Danny Shelton. It was between two teams, ie; Linda Shelton's team ~~and~~ Danny Shelton and the 3ABN team.
False on several counts. ASI was asked by a church leader to look into the allegations that Gailon had gathered, and that would necessitate an investigation of Danny and 3ABN. If ASI and 3ABN had decided not to comply with that request, they forgot to inform those who needed to be informed.
Secondly, I was not really part of Linda Shelton's "team," and I told Harold so, and yet I was part of the negotiations. Therefore your statement about it being between Linda's team and 3ABN and Danny's team is false.
Moreover, the way Harold set it up, 3ABN wasn't really part of a team.
How many of Joy and Pickle's allegations were a bone of contention between Linda and Danny Shelton, or Linda and 3ABN?
Bingo, now you see the problem here and what Pickle and Joy could not and still don't apparently see or acknowledge, and why ASI according to their own letter had to withdraw. You can read that letter here folks: http://tiny.cc/nFBJV
Harold demanded, contrary to the understanding of the church leader who got this all going, that the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations would not be on the table. (Why would he do a thing like that?) But at any rate, we were going along with Harold's demands. So why did he withdraw?
Yet notice how unreasonable Harold's demands were. We were all supposed to have input into the process, and yet Harold refused to allow us to have any decisive say on what issues would be considered by the ASI tribunal.
Again, was Tommy Shelton and any allegations against him a bone of contention needing resolution between Linda Shelton and DS and 3ABN? NO.
What does that matter? Church leadership asked ASI to investigate, and the Tommy allegations were one of the things they understood was going to be looked into. If ASI and 3ABN had decided to do something different, they shouldn't have waited 10 WEEKS before telling us.
-
I've already told you, maybe more than once, that I've never had NLP training.
So you say. Not buying it Robert.
And why not? Have I ever not told the truth?
Oh please! There are people working on a definitive work of your misrepresentation of others words. Misrepresentation:
4 results for: misrepresentation
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
mis·rep·re·sent /?m?sr?pr??z?nt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mis-rep-ri-zent] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to represent incorrectly, improperly, or falsely.
2. to represent in an unsatisfactory manner.
Where is the ellipsis in that email? What is missing?
Rather weak response as it is evident that the email is not being presented in it's entirety. A simply knowledge of the flow of conversation evidences that there are portions that have been edited out. You have been caught doing it over and over again - suck it up and admit that you have been less than honest in your presentation of what others have said - and have done so in an attempt to mislead others to join your side.
I just checked the copy Danny sent to me. It contains 1271 letters, 288 words, 15 sentences, and 11 paragraphs, according to the way WordPerfect calculate such things.
The one that appears on Save-3ABN.com (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-untruths-in-detail-reply-1.htm), I checked it too. It also contains 1271 letters, 288 words, 15 sentences, and 11 paragraphs.
The only difference appears to be that Danny's email has two spaces after every period, whereas a web browser only shows one. But what difference would that make?
I think GNettie has done an eloquent job of showing how you have misrepresented what was said. I am sure that if you checked the edited version of the email you have against your version on the "Save-Not" site that they will match . . .
Your assertion regarding what Danny was stating is absurd. Why would he have to refuse to follow through on his own board chairman's request until ASI had finished NOT LOOKING AT ALL into the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations, since he had refused to allow them to look into that? If that be the case, how can the whole ASI process not be but a smokescreen to hide the child molestation allegations until at the very least the process was completed?
I can't believe anyone falls for this type of nonsense any more - they have to be blinded by their own desire for the destruction of others to buy in any more. Your argument is less solvent than the the mortgage industry. The Board Chair did not ask you to make a mockery of Matt 18 - rather he asked that you verify the information . . . that didn't include making a mockery of God's ministries and you have attempted to make of no account more than one in your two years of self-indulgence. It has been pointed out time and again, but your focus on Mr. T. Shelton raises many red flags about your motivations.
You have evaded the issue. Walt Thompson, THE 3ABN Board chairman, asked me to verify the information he had given me regarding the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations. He gave me but one name to verify things with when he could have given me more. That one name was Danny. I wrote Danny. Danny refused to answer anything, much less verify anything, and thus THUMBED HIS NOSE at the stated wishes of his own board chairman.
I am absolutely certain that God was appalled that Danny Shelton, claiming to be the Lord's anointed, led or allowed his board chairman to believe that the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton were 30 years old, and that they were due to a feud with a man who lived 800 miles away until 8 years after Tommy's ordination was suspended. The presidents of God's ministries aren't supposed to do that kind of thing, the boards of God's ministries aren't supposed to let their presidents get away with such things, and the boards of God's ministries aren't supposed to sue those who become concerned at the legal liability such negligence could cause for God's minsitries.
Since you have a direct line to God's thoughts please let us all know what He is thinking about all of us (note bold text above) . . .
One must take Dr. Thompson's email exchanges with you within the context that he was openly exchanging dialogue with you trusting that you were sincere in your claim to be seeking truth and a resolution to the situation at 3ABN.
A. you wrote to Dr. Thompson privately
B. he responded to you privately and suggested that if you wanted to pursue it further that you contact Danny privately
C. He had no obligation to tell you that he had spoken with anyone else - he isn't beholden to you for that kind of information
You spuriously applied a misguided broad interpretation of the email from Dr. Thompson to ease your conscience in taking the tack you did. Following that you take every opportunity to justify your "with any means necessary" approach to life to convince others that you were some Christian superman who was cleansing the temple all by yourself - or at least with the infamous GAJ at your backside.
The difference here is motive. Dr. Thompson was obviously trusting you as a fellow Christian to take your concerns and addressing them to Danny. He wasn't asking you to make a mockery of Matt 18, nor was he asking you publish anything in a public forum - that was your action and your continued blaming of Dr. Thompson for your actions is yet more evidence that you are seeking to sling mud while evading responsibility for your own actions.
BTW, can you provide citation where Danny claimed to be the "Lord's anointed" or are you trying once again to place words in the mouth of someone that they never uttered? Has God led individuals throughout the annals of time to serve Him in specific ways? Absolutely! To argue otherwise would blasphemous. Are you in a position to challenge Mr. Danny Shelton in regards to the raising up of 3ABN to serve the missions of the Savior - NO! Mr. Danny Shelton with the support (early on) of Linda Shelton were called by God to do a work . . . if you challenge or deny that the evidence is stacked against you as high as the Empire State Building (even Linda can not deny that).
As for the Mr. T. Shelton chronology . . . you have relied solely on the testimony of a few individuals who have been shown to have an axe to grind. Not to mention that your applying this issue to the current litigation is to cloud the waters for the intent purpose of avoiding having to support your claims that have been challenged and proven false. You continually drag this out as if it were "the" issue here . . . and you are wrong. If you want to litigate this issue outside of your current legal situations go ahead . . . pull your army of accusers together, file charges, and proceed through the halls of justice - unless you are willing to stand up and lead the fight I proffer that you should just "shut up" because you are not willing to put up. If you have the evidence, lead your minions into battle - convince them . . . after all your claims seem to indicate that your evidence is overwhelming . . .
The truth is you won't do that. You will justify your inaction (as you have done before) and attempt to divert and redirect (ala GAJ) . . . You also know, if you have been spending any time doing research for you current situation, that you do not have a case against 3ABN for the employment of TS. In a court of law, there is substantial evidence that the institution did all it was required to do in regards to the employment of TS. What screams out at this point is that TS was placed in LS position after she made the choices she did, which resulted in her losing those positions. You have to decide . . . are you in this all the way (as it seems GAJ is, with no regard to common sense) or are you in it just to achieve revenge?
-
The fact of the matter is that Danny made it crystal clear that he intended to use a positive decision from ASI regarding his divorce and remarriage to make everything else go away, including the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations.
Here is an example of lying. You have no words to back you up - only YOUR INTERPRETATION of another's words - that in most peoples book would be a lie!
-
Anyman, from the experience I had with you in another thread, which you abandoned without supplying any documentation for your false claims, I can only come to one conclusion: you wouldn't recognize the truth if it came up to you like a dog and licked you up one side of the face and down the other. :puppykisses:
-
I think GNettie has done an eloquent job of showing how you have misrepresented what was said. I am sure that if you checked the edited version of the email you have against your version on the "Save-Not" site that they will match . . .
??? If Danny edited it before he sent it to me, how is that any fault of mine?
He wasn't asking you to make a mockery of Matt 18, ...
Remember, Mat. 18 doesn't apply to public matters.
BTW, can you provide citation where Danny claimed to be the "Lord's anointed" or are you trying once again to place words in the mouth of someone that they never uttered?
Pardon me for my lack of precision. If Danny orchestrated, approved, and appeared on a broadcast that likened him to Moses and called him the Lord's anointed, I would think one could oversimplify the matter in the way that I did. But maybe that isn't best, even if he was given the credit of being the executive producer!
Mr. Danny Shelton with the support (early on) of Linda Shelton were called by God to do a work . . .
Was Linda the Lord's anointed? If so, why didn't Danny, John Lomacang, Walt Thompson, etc. let God straighten her out instead of doing it themselves?
As for the Mr. T. Shelton chronology . . . you have relied solely on the testimony of a few individuals who have been shown to have an axe to grind.
Duane Clem, Roger Clem, Brad Dunning, Sherry Avery, Mom in Pain #1, Mom in Pain #2, four other alleged victims, all folks I have personally talked with. How many people do I have to talk to before it's no longer a few?
And would you be willing to personally be liable for any liability 3ABN and the Illinois Conference might have if there were any incients after Tommy was rehired by 3ABN?
-
ROSA;
Good to see you again! Maybe you can help Anyman with speaking truth about the nan_don eBay feedback.
Who got the money for all those sales?
I believe you could maybe help?
Could you ROSA?
-
Here is an example of lying. You have no words to back you up - only YOUR INTERPRETATION of another's words - that in most peoples book would be a lie!
What Noah said "in most peoples book would be a lie!" In "most peoples book" the Sabbath issue is a lie. In "most peoples book" the SDA "interpretation of another's words" on the state of the dead is a lie. In "most peoples book 3ABN's fundamental doctrinal core is a lie. As you present it, that makes 3ABN "an example of lying." They only have interpretation of the words spoken by others, many of whom have been dead for thousands of years.
-
Bob, this is a classic example of why your reasoning skills are losing credibility with some.
"Then you have Danny's own statements that indicate that he was going to use the ASI process as a smokescreen to make everything else go away." (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-round-two-b-gailon-joy.htm)
What did Danny actually say (and was his email posted in its entirety on save-3abn?):
...
IMO it is a real stretch to manipulate the words of this partial email into any form that would indicate that Danny Shelton was going to use the ASI process as a smokescreen to make everything else go away.
I believe his words are very clear in their meaning. He was planning to let the ASI process review the evidence and decide who was lying.
It would be of interest to see not only the complete email but also the email he was responding to. Perhaps then the the conclusions one could logically draw would be different.
Huh?
Where is there an ellipsis in that email? Why are you calling it a partial email?
As far as the email he was responding to goes, simply go to the email at "Seeking Verification About the Tommy Shelton Child Molestation Allegations As Requested by Dr. Walt Thompson" (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-untruths-in-detail-reply-1.htm) and click "< Prev" at the top.
And his words are clear. He was hoping to use a positive decision from ASI regarding the divorce and remarriage to make everything else go away.
He went so far as to say "this huge issue of mine and Linda's divorce." Huge? Compared to the cover up of child molestation allegations? And that's what he says in response to my attempts to verify what Walt Thompson had told me? His response was ludicrous! Thumbing his nose at the written request of his own board chairman. What's he think? That 3ABN is his own personal, private, family business or something?
Well, Grandma Nettie, must be a real sting to realize that your credibility is challenged? Imagine that. Once again, Grandma, evidence prima facie where you really stand!!! And let me warn you it is qucksand you are standing in. Can I throw you a boulder or two?
But, Pickle, memory shot? or is the stress just getting to you? Of course it was "his own personal, private, family business"!!! And, is one of the biggest OPM efforts in history and with no-one to report to other than that sham of a board!!!
Just think of it, you have played a major role in ending the OPM sponsored "personal, private, [Shelton] family business" and moving it ever closer to the church to which it properly belongs!!! Ain't it great???
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
The "smokescreen" characterization attempt specifically tied to the ASI process and Danny shows up yet again in this email under the heading "Danny:"Linda Is My Smokescreen" (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-untruths-walt-admits-2.htm)
Please notice the bolded words of the heading as it appears on the actual site, Danny:"Linda Is My Smokescreen", and then read through the email. Does Danny say the words "Linda is my smokescreen" anywhere in that email? No, and yet those specific words were attributed to him as a quote. The heading doesn't say "Danny infers that Linda is his smokescreen" or "It appears that Danny is using Linda as a smokescreen" or even "I have concluded that Danny is using Linda as a smokescreen". Specific words were put into Danny's mouth that he did not say.
Are you sure that's true? I took another look at that page, and it looks like perhaps none of those headings are direct quotes. Did I miss something?
Would the average reader think that those headings are actual quotations?
-
The average reader might at first glance think that the headline was a quote; but on further reading would no doubt be able to understand that it was the use of a literary device.
-
I've already told you, maybe more than once, that I've never had NLP training.
So you say. Not buying it Robert.
And why not? Have I ever not told the truth?
Oh please! There are people working on a definitive work of your misrepresentation of others words. Misrepresentation:
4 results for: misrepresentation
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
mis·rep·re·sent /?m?sr?pr??z?nt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mis-rep-ri-zent] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to represent incorrectly, improperly, or falsely.
2. to represent in an unsatisfactory manner.
Where is the ellipsis in that email? What is missing?
Rather weak response as it is evident that the email is not being presented in it's entirety. A simply knowledge of the flow of conversation evidences that there are portions that have been edited out. You have been caught doing it over and over again - suck it up and admit that you have been less than honest in your presentation of what others have said - and have done so in an attempt to mislead others to join your side.
I just checked the copy Danny sent to me. It contains 1271 letters, 288 words, 15 sentences, and 11 paragraphs, according to the way WordPerfect calculate such things.
The one that appears on Save-3ABN.com (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-untruths-in-detail-reply-1.htm), I checked it too. It also contains 1271 letters, 288 words, 15 sentences, and 11 paragraphs.
The only difference appears to be that Danny's email has two spaces after every period, whereas a web browser only shows one. But what difference would that make?
I think GNettie has done an eloquent job of showing how you have misrepresented what was said. I am sure that if you checked the edited version of the email you have against your version on the "Save-Not" site that they will match . . .
Your assertion regarding what Danny was stating is absurd. Why would he have to refuse to follow through on his own board chairman's request until ASI had finished NOT LOOKING AT ALL into the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations, since he had refused to allow them to look into that? If that be the case, how can the whole ASI process not be but a smokescreen to hide the child molestation allegations until at the very least the process was completed?
I can't believe anyone falls for this type of nonsense any more - they have to be blinded by their own desire for the destruction of others to buy in any more. Your argument is less solvent than the the mortgage industry. The Board Chair did not ask you to make a mockery of Matt 18 - rather he asked that you verify the information . . . that didn't include making a mockery of God's ministries and you have attempted to make of no account more than one in your two years of self-indulgence. It has been pointed out time and again, but your focus on Mr. T. Shelton raises many red flags about your motivations.
You have evaded the issue. Walt Thompson, THE 3ABN Board chairman, asked me to verify the information he had given me regarding the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations. He gave me but one name to verify things with when he could have given me more. That one name was Danny. I wrote Danny. Danny refused to answer anything, much less verify anything, and thus THUMBED HIS NOSE at the stated wishes of his own board chairman.
I am absolutely certain that God was appalled that Danny Shelton, claiming to be the Lord's anointed, led or allowed his board chairman to believe that the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton were 30 years old, and that they were due to a feud with a man who lived 800 miles away until 8 years after Tommy's ordination was suspended. The presidents of God's ministries aren't supposed to do that kind of thing, the boards of God's ministries aren't supposed to let their presidents get away with such things, and the boards of God's ministries aren't supposed to sue those who become concerned at the legal liability such negligence could cause for God's minsitries.
Since you have a direct line to God's thoughts please let us all know what He is thinking about all of us (note bold text above) . . .
One must take Dr. Thompson's email exchanges with you within the context that he was openly exchanging dialogue with you trusting that you were sincere in your claim to be seeking truth and a resolution to the situation at 3ABN.
A. you wrote to Dr. Thompson privately
B. he responded to you privately and suggested that if you wanted to pursue it further that you contact Danny privately
C. He had no obligation to tell you that he had spoken with anyone else - he isn't beholden to you for that kind of information
You spuriously applied a misguided broad interpretation of the email from Dr. Thompson to ease your conscience in taking the tack you did. Following that you take every opportunity to justify your "with any means necessary" approach to life to convince others that you were some Christian superman who was cleansing the temple all by yourself - or at least with the infamous GAJ at your backside.
The difference here is motive. Dr. Thompson was obviously trusting you as a fellow Christian to take your concerns and addressing them to Danny. He wasn't asking you to make a mockery of Matt 18, nor was he asking you publish anything in a public forum - that was your action and your continued blaming of Dr. Thompson for your actions is yet more evidence that you are seeking to sling mud while evading responsibility for your own actions.
BTW, can you provide citation where Danny claimed to be the "Lord's anointed" or are you trying once again to place words in the mouth of someone that they never uttered? Has God led individuals throughout the annals of time to serve Him in specific ways? Absolutely! To argue otherwise would blasphemous. Are you in a position to challenge Mr. Danny Shelton in regards to the raising up of 3ABN to serve the missions of the Savior - NO! Mr. Danny Shelton with the support (early on) of Linda Shelton were called by God to do a work . . . if you challenge or deny that the evidence is stacked against you as high as the Empire State Building (even Linda can not deny that).
As for the Mr. T. Shelton chronology . . . you have relied solely on the testimony of a few individuals who have been shown to have an axe to grind. Not to mention that your applying this issue to the current litigation is to cloud the waters for the intent purpose of avoiding having to support your claims that have been challenged and proven false. You continually drag this out as if it were "the" issue here . . . and you are wrong. If you want to litigate this issue outside of your current legal situations go ahead . . . pull your army of accusers together, file charges, and proceed through the halls of justice - unless you are willing to stand up and lead the fight I proffer that you should just "shut up" because you are not willing to put up. If you have the evidence, lead your minions into battle - convince them . . . after all your claims seem to indicate that your evidence is overwhelming . . .
The truth is you won't do that. You will justify your inaction (as you have done before) and attempt to divert and redirect (ala GAJ) . . . You also know, if you have been spending any time doing research for you current situation, that you do not have a case against 3ABN for the employment of TS. In a court of law, there is substantial evidence that the institution did all it was required to do in regards to the employment of TS. What screams out at this point is that TS was placed in LS position after she made the choices she did, which resulted in her losing those positions. You have to decide . . . are you in this all the way (as it seems GAJ is, with no regard to common sense) or are you in it just to achieve revenge?
ANYMAN:
If I thought you or Dr Walter Thompson had just one ounce of credibility, we could sit down and discuss whether any of the allegation made against Linda Sue Shelton could stand the test of a real trial. But, we already knew Dr Walter Thompson was as factually challenged as Danny Lee Shelton and his perpetrator from the dark side, Brenda Walsh. All anyone would have to do is to compare one precept upon another made by Danny Lee Shelton,
Brenda Walsh and Dr Walter Thompson to realize they did not match and see the story get wilder and wilder while they purported to be protecting Linda Sue Shelton. THE ONLY THING THESE MISCREANTS WERE PROTECTING WAS THEMSELVES AND /OR THEIR FINANCIAL INTERESTS!!! Pride is a disdainful thing!!!
Brenda and Danny have certainly reaped well so far. Only problem is that what they have reaped belongs to Linda
Sue Shelton and if she has a brain the size of a thimble she willl reach out and take it back!!! And while she is at it she will take Dr Walter Thompson, Merlin Fjarli, Edson McKee, Garwin McNeilus and a few choice others to the cleaners and let them leave when they have emptied their wallets as well. AND WE ARE EVER THE CLOSER TO PROVING IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT...yes, that is not simply the preponderonce of the evidence, but BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!!! Coming at you as sure as a freight train!!!
Yes, closing in on summary judgment time, except I have a real interest in pursuing our misuse of process claims!!!
Of course, you seem to be beyond reason and so we have to take that into account, but the growing evidence pile is so overwhelming, even the unreasonable will have no alternative but to confess their errors. There is another option...continue to be so blind, you take the wrong turn and end up in the HOT ZONE!!! Given your refusal to face reality, better wear some asbestos !!!!
ANd one other thing..."GOD"S MINISTRY" does not do the things that 3ABN, Danny Lee Shelton, Brenda Walsh and DR Walter Thompson have done. BE REST ASSURED OF THAT!!! It is God's ministry when God is in control, not when we have factually challenged miscreants pulling the strings and causing it it to act as evil as the Dark Days of the Holy Roman Empire!!!! Christians just do not LIE, CHEAT and DENIGRATE!!! And you and your followers are no Christians!!! You are certainly not the ones that stand at the right hand!!!
So go to the cathedral ANYMAN, bring your candles, your prayer beads and your indulgences and seek several hours in the confessional. But rest assured, you will not come out a member of the Remnant unless you take the blinders off, put on some sackclothe and ashes and pay penance for what you have contributed to!!! God's judgment is most surely coming!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
I've already told you, maybe more than once, that I've never had NLP training.
So you say. Not buying it Robert.
Who was it in another Forum who insisted on calling Bob "Robert"; even after he requested that he be called Bob? :dunno:
-
I've already told you, maybe more than once, that I've never had NLP training.
So you say. Not buying it Robert.
And why not? Have I ever not told the truth?
Oh please! There are people working on a definitive work of your misrepresentation of others words. Misrepresentation:
4 results for: misrepresentation
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
mis·rep·re·sent /?m?sr?pr??z?nt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mis-rep-ri-zent] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to represent incorrectly, improperly, or falsely.
2. to represent in an unsatisfactory manner.
Where is the ellipsis in that email? What is missing?
Rather weak response as it is evident that the email is not being presented in it's entirety. A simply knowledge of the flow of conversation evidences that there are portions that have been edited out. You have been caught doing it over and over again - suck it up and admit that you have been less than honest in your presentation of what others have said - and have done so in an attempt to mislead others to join your side.
I just checked the copy Danny sent to me. It contains 1271 letters, 288 words, 15 sentences, and 11 paragraphs, according to the way WordPerfect calculate such things.
The one that appears on Save-3ABN.com (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-untruths-in-detail-reply-1.htm), I checked it too. It also contains 1271 letters, 288 words, 15 sentences, and 11 paragraphs.
The only difference appears to be that Danny's email has two spaces after every period, whereas a web browser only shows one. But what difference would that make?
I think GNettie has done an eloquent job of showing how you have misrepresented what was said. I am sure that if you checked the edited version of the email you have against your version on the "Save-Not" site that they will match . . .
Your assertion regarding what Danny was stating is absurd. Why would he have to refuse to follow through on his own board chairman's request until ASI had finished NOT LOOKING AT ALL into the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations, since he had refused to allow them to look into that? If that be the case, how can the whole ASI process not be but a smokescreen to hide the child molestation allegations until at the very least the process was completed?
I can't believe anyone falls for this type of nonsense any more - they have to be blinded by their own desire for the destruction of others to buy in any more. Your argument is less solvent than the the mortgage industry. The Board Chair did not ask you to make a mockery of Matt 18 - rather he asked that you verify the information . . . that didn't include making a mockery of God's ministries and you have attempted to make of no account more than one in your two years of self-indulgence. It has been pointed out time and again, but your focus on Mr. T. Shelton raises many red flags about your motivations.
You have evaded the issue. Walt Thompson, THE 3ABN Board chairman, asked me to verify the information he had given me regarding the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations. He gave me but one name to verify things with when he could have given me more. That one name was Danny. I wrote Danny. Danny refused to answer anything, much less verify anything, and thus THUMBED HIS NOSE at the stated wishes of his own board chairman.
I am absolutely certain that God was appalled that Danny Shelton, claiming to be the Lord's anointed, led or allowed his board chairman to believe that the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton were 30 years old, and that they were due to a feud with a man who lived 800 miles away until 8 years after Tommy's ordination was suspended. The presidents of God's ministries aren't supposed to do that kind of thing, the boards of God's ministries aren't supposed to let their presidents get away with such things, and the boards of God's ministries aren't supposed to sue those who become concerned at the legal liability such negligence could cause for God's minsitries.
Since you have a direct line to God's thoughts please let us all know what He is thinking about all of us (note bold text above) . . .
One must take Dr. Thompson's email exchanges with you within the context that he was openly exchanging dialogue with you trusting that you were sincere in your claim to be seeking truth and a resolution to the situation at 3ABN.
A. you wrote to Dr. Thompson privately
B. he responded to you privately and suggested that if you wanted to pursue it further that you contact Danny privately
C. He had no obligation to tell you that he had spoken with anyone else - he isn't beholden to you for that kind of information
You spuriously applied a misguided broad interpretation of the email from Dr. Thompson to ease your conscience in taking the tack you did. Following that you take every opportunity to justify your "with any means necessary" approach to life to convince others that you were some Christian superman who was cleansing the temple all by yourself - or at least with the infamous GAJ at your backside.
The difference here is motive. Dr. Thompson was obviously trusting you as a fellow Christian to take your concerns and addressing them to Danny. He wasn't asking you to make a mockery of Matt 18, nor was he asking you publish anything in a public forum - that was your action and your continued blaming of Dr. Thompson for your actions is yet more evidence that you are seeking to sling mud while evading responsibility for your own actions.
BTW, can you provide citation where Danny claimed to be the "Lord's anointed" or are you trying once again to place words in the mouth of someone that they never uttered? Has God led individuals throughout the annals of time to serve Him in specific ways? Absolutely! To argue otherwise would blasphemous. Are you in a position to challenge Mr. Danny Shelton in regards to the raising up of 3ABN to serve the missions of the Savior - NO! Mr. Danny Shelton with the support (early on) of Linda Shelton were called by God to do a work . . . if you challenge or deny that the evidence is stacked against you as high as the Empire State Building (even Linda can not deny that).
As for the Mr. T. Shelton chronology . . . you have relied solely on the testimony of a few individuals who have been shown to have an axe to grind. Not to mention that your applying this issue to the current litigation is to cloud the waters for the intent purpose of avoiding having to support your claims that have been challenged and proven false. You continually drag this out as if it were "the" issue here . . . and you are wrong. If you want to litigate this issue outside of your current legal situations go ahead . . . pull your army of accusers together, file charges, and proceed through the halls of justice - unless you are willing to stand up and lead the fight I proffer that you should just "shut up" because you are not willing to put up. If you have the evidence, lead your minions into battle - convince them . . . after all your claims seem to indicate that your evidence is overwhelming . . .
The truth is you won't do that. You will justify your inaction (as you have done before) and attempt to divert and redirect (ala GAJ) . . . You also know, if you have been spending any time doing research for you current situation, that you do not have a case against 3ABN for the employment of TS. In a court of law, there is substantial evidence that the institution did all it was required to do in regards to the employment of TS. What screams out at this point is that TS was placed in LS position after she made the choices she did, which resulted in her losing those positions. You have to decide . . . are you in this all the way (as it seems GAJ is, with no regard to common sense) or are you in it just to achieve revenge?
ANYMAN:
If I thought you or Dr Walter Thompson had just one ounce of credibility, we could sit down and discuss whether any of the allegation made against Linda Sue Shelton could stand the test of a real trial. But, we already knew Dr Walter Thompson was as factually challenged as Danny Lee Shelton and his perpetrator from the dark side, Brenda Walsh. All anyone would have to do is to compare one precept upon another made by Danny Lee Shelton,
Brenda Walsh and Dr Walter Thompson to realize they did not match and see the story get wilder and wilder while they purported to be protecting Linda Sue Shelton. THE ONLY THING THESE MISCREANTS WERE PROTECTING WAS THEMSELVES AND /OR THEIR FINANCIAL INTERESTS!!! Pride is a disdainful thing!!!
Brenda and Danny have certainly reaped well so far. Only problem is that what they have reaped belongs to Linda
Sue Shelton and if she has a brain the size of a thimble she willl reach out and take it back!!! And while she is at it she will take Dr Walter Thompson, Merlin Fjarli, Edson McKee, Garwin McNeilus and a few choice others to the cleaners and let them leave when they have emptied their wallets as well. AND WE ARE EVER THE CLOSER TO PROVING IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT...yes, that is not simply the preponderonce of the evidence, but BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!!! Coming at you as sure as a freight train!!!
Yes, closing in on summary judgment time, except I have a real interest in pursuing our misuse of process claims!!!
Of course, you seem to be beyond reason and so we have to take that into account, but the growing evidence pile is so overwhelming, even the unreasonable will have no alternative but to confess their errors. There is another option...continue to be so blind, you take the wrong turn and end up in the HOT ZONE!!! Given your refusal to face reality, better wear some asbestos !!!!
ANd one other thing..."GOD"S MINISTRY" does not do the things that 3ABN, Danny Lee Shelton, Brenda Walsh and DR Walter Thompson have done. BE REST ASSURED OF THAT!!! It is God's ministry when God is in control, not when we have factually challenged miscreants pulling the strings and causing it it to act as evil as the Dark Days of the Holy Roman Empire!!!! Christians just do not LIE, CHEAT and DENIGRATE!!! And you and your followers are no Christians!!! You are certainly not the ones that stand at the right hand!!!
So go to the cathedral ANYMAN, bring your candles, your prayer beads and your indulgences and seek several hours in the confessional. But rest assured, you will not come out a member of the Remnant unless you take the blinders off, put on some sackclothe and ashes and pay penance for what you have contributed to!!! God's judgment is most surely coming!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
==================
Edited by Artiste to remove inappropriate content
-
I've already told you, maybe more than once, that I've never had NLP training.
So you say. Not buying it Robert.
Who was it in another Forum who insisted on calling Bob "Robert"; even after he requested that he be called Bob? :dunno:
Gregory Scott Thompson, Walt Thompson's son, posting under the name fallible humanbeing on BSDA. That's what I recall.
-
Yes, but then several others jumped on it as well, once it was made clear that you prefer "Bob" to "Robert".
I've already told you, maybe more than once, that I've never had NLP training.
So you say. Not buying it Robert.
Who was it in another Forum who insisted on calling Bob "Robert"; even after he requested that he be called Bob? :dunno:
Gregory Scott Thompson, Walt Thompson's son, posting under the name fallible humanbeing on BSDA. That's what I recall.