Advent Talk

Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on August 27, 2008, 04:29:14 PM

Title: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on August 27, 2008, 04:29:14 PM
I asked Gailon what he meant about Cindi having a NY pseudonym (http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1050.msg12604.html#msg12604), and this is what he said.

When Cindi was in New York, she was said to have been introduced to the gathering by a pseudonym, she knew Gailon knew she was there, she thought Gailon might try to serve her, and she was trying to avoid being served. That's what Gailon tells me.

Gailon thinks Attorney Cindi Randall is a conspirator who plays both sides in this saga.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: bonnie on August 27, 2008, 04:45:46 PM
Quote

I asked Gailon  and this is what he said.

When Cindi was in New York, she was said to have been introduced to the gathering by a pseudonym, she knew Gailon knew she was there, she thought Gailon might try to serve her, and she was trying to avoid being served. That's what Gailon tells me.

Gailon thinks Attorney Cindi Randall is a conspirator who plays both sides in this saga.


Can you point me to the post about gossip and spreading rumor,  I am sure I must have seen it,and Bob I know you would not want to be guilty of spreading gossip about anyone, even if Gailon did.

She was said to have,she knew. Gailon thinks someone is a conspirator , so what gailon thinks becomes truth. Is this the guidelines you have used thru far Bob
I am wondering if any of us can do this.
I have a variety of thoughts concerning a couple of members.
Would it be permmissable .
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on August 27, 2008, 05:25:20 PM
Can you point me to the post about gossip and spreading rumor,  I am sure I must have seen it,and Bob I know you would not want to be guilty of spreading gossip about anyone, even if Gailon did.

She was said to have,she knew. Gailon thinks someone is a conspirator , so what gailon thinks becomes truth. Is this the guidelines you have used thru far Bob
I am wondering if any of us can do this.
I have a variety of thoughts concerning a couple of members.
Would it be permmissable .

bonnie, you were one of the ones asking questions about Gailon's post. So I am trying to provide answers to questions about that post.

What Gailon thinks doesn't make it so. That's one reason why I don't state as fact things I can't personally prove.

While I won't say that Cindi Randall is a conspirator, I do presently believe she is involved in intrigue. If she wants to call me and explain how she isn't involved in intrigue in any way, I'm all ears.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Artiste on August 27, 2008, 07:43:55 PM


Can you point me to the post about gossip and spreading rumor,  I am sure I must have seen it,and Bob I know you would not want to be guilty of spreading gossip about anyone, even if Gailon did.

She was said to have,she knew. Gailon thinks someone is a conspirator , so what gailon thinks becomes truth. Is this the guidelines you have used thru far Bob
I am wondering if any of us can do this.
I have a variety of thoughts concerning a couple of members.
Would it be permmissable .

Bonnie, you speak out of ignorance.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: bonnie on August 27, 2008, 08:05:02 PM
Quote

Can you point me to the post about gossip and spreading rumor,  I am sure I must have seen it,and Bob I know you would not want to be guilty of spreading gossip about anyone, even if Gailon did.

She was said to have,she knew. Gailon thinks someone is a conspirator , so what gailon thinks becomes truth. Is this the guidelines you have used thru far Bob
I am wondering if any of us can do this.
I have a variety of thoughts concerning a couple of members.
Would it be permmissable .

Quote
Bonnie, you speak out of ignorance.

No, I don't think so.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Fran on August 27, 2008, 11:10:52 PM
I will wait to hear the full story which has not been posted yet, I am sure.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Gailon Arthur Joy on August 27, 2008, 11:46:40 PM
I will wait to hear the full story which has not been posted yet, I am sure.

ANd can you imagine that this woman had the gall to call a conference President? Well, Ken Corkum will get two calls!!! Actually, make that three.

Gailon Arthur Joy
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on August 28, 2008, 07:55:50 AM
Perhaps the woman had the gall to call up Clay at BSDA too. Someone called or contacted him and he launched a bitter attack, falsely accusing me of outing a member.

I would like to invite Cindi Randall, wherever she is, to send me written disapproval of Clay's statements on BSDA. I could then post it here for her.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Gailon Arthur Joy on August 28, 2008, 08:10:24 AM
Perhaps the woman had the gall to call up Clay at BSDA too. Someone called or contacted him and he launched a bitter attack, falsely accusing me of outing a member.

I would like to invite Cindi Randall, wherever she is, to send me written disapproval of Clay's statements on BSDA. I could then post it here for her.

Bob,

Just check under the rocks.

Gailon Arthur Joy
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on August 28, 2008, 10:58:24 AM
I had to go look just out of curiousity and came away JUST SHAKING MY HEAD (to steal a phrase from someone I once trusted).

Things have really changed over there for Calvin to allow that kind of garbage - and from a moderator.  Too bad.



Perhaps the woman had the gall to call up Clay at BSDA too. Someone called or contacted him and he launched a bitter attack, falsely accusing me of outing a member.

I would like to invite Cindi Randall, wherever she is, to send me written disapproval of Clay's statements on BSDA. I could then post it here for her.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Sister on August 28, 2008, 09:11:08 PM
I just went over to BSDA and read Clays "rant". I was not impressed, it is typical Clay. As he said himself, he always has to have the last word.  ...And then he closes the thread. What did surprise me was the venom in Bonnie's posts, not what she said, but the way she said it. I heard the sound of frustration echoed through all she had to say.  **** **** ****** **** **** **** ****** ******  ***** *** **** * *****  I believe she added to the discussion, except when she and Gailon had at each other like two junkyard dogs. Both of them could have toned it down a few notches and gained more sympathy. There is no honor in fighting like the devil in order to defend the kingdom of God.


============
Edited by Artiste to remove inappropriate content
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Fran on August 29, 2008, 12:12:17 AM
I am truly saddened by what has happened.

I now know who it was that was outing everyone.  I guess I should feel that what goes around comes around, but I can't.  I was so hurt that 3ABN cheated and found out who we all were so they could destroy our credibility.

The fact comes to mind that I do not have any credibility.  All I have is what God definitely laid in my heart and lap.  I did not want it.  I asked God to ask someone else to do it.  He revealed to me that he expected me to follow through.  Oh, what it has cost everyone!  I am so sorry.  May God forgive me if I have been too unkind or have not always followed His will!

In the information I have provided, I did not do it to destroy any person.  Each and every one of us are God's Child.  We are all sorry specimens of righteousness because there is only One righteous!  I have to plead to be covered by His righteousness.

During these years I have seen some sorry actions by the children of God.  Some who have butted in to have 15 minutes of earthly glory. One is climbing a ladder to stardom on gossip that destroys.

This started with Financial irregularities and has swelled to a mighty whirlwind.  We must stand where God wants us to stand!  May God hold me fast and protect me from those that are out to destroy.

Bob and Gailon were given a message too.  Imperfect as they are, they are the ones that God gave the task of finding out what was true.   We are not a group.  Believe it or not, I stand alone.  Bob stands alone!  Gailon Stands alone!  Gailon posts on his own and Bob posts on his own.  I post on my own.  There is no conspiracy.

I believe God has chosen them for something they have that others do not have.  Otherwise, God would have chosen others.  God has to deal with what he can work with.  No one is perfect!  All of us have done something at sometime that we are ashamed of.

I am so sorry the one outing us was outed.  I am sure she felt she was right also.  I hurt right now because I want this to end, but God has laid it wide open.  Danny and 3ABN started the ball rolling when they decided to sue IL over the Property Tax issue.  God had him do that I am sure!  I believe God was there also during the process of the appeal!  Think about it.  If there had not been a lawsuit, we would not be here.  I believe God used that information to bring things to light that needed to change.

Once that happened, a flood gate opened and there was fall out.  Danny Shelton knows well the way to destroy; divide and conquer.  Has he won already.  I think not.  As for me, I intend to allow God to hold me up because I can not stand on my own!  I will fail and fall. 

Bob has been sued just like IL was sued.  He must do what he has to do to be able to defend himself in court.  It behoves him to do everything that God leads him to do.  Is he always in tune with God?  I am not.  How can I expect it from him?

Gailon was sued.  Each one separately!  He must do his best to do what God wants him to do.  Is he perfect?  Neither am I.  Danny has seen to it his past was published in the Internet.  I do not care about the embezzlement charge he had against him.  It should have been is small claims court!  Yes, he is boustrous!  That may be the very reason God picked him.  I do not know the reason for anything.  All I know is my part.  I can't condemn them because they have been lead where they did not want to go.  So was God!  They stand to loose everything.  So did God.  All that because of Danny Shelton convinced the Board to sue Gailon and Bob with him.

I am really saddened by the events that have transpired.  I have great respect for Calvin at BSDA.  I must have been banned.  I can't log in.  I am OK about that if that is what they have decided to do.  If I have hurt them, I am very sorry.  I miss Bonnie.  We did seem to have a lot of hobbies that matched. 

I hope God will always remind me of my faults so I am more careful about my words.  I am sorry GN and IRSpro.  I apologize publicly for my private words of anger!

Please, if everyone could pray for me, Bob, and Gailon, it would sure be appreciated.  I really need it right now for more than just this mess.  I need you to pray for me as a private request.  Pray for God's will in my life in certain personal matters.

I also want to praise God for what he has done for me.  He shed His blood for me.  He has given to me beyond measure.  Dare I ask for more?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Gailon Arthur Joy on August 29, 2008, 09:02:55 PM
I just went over to BSDA and read Clays "rant". I was not impressed, it is typical Clay. As he said himself, he always has to have the last word.  ...And then he closes the thread. What did surprise me was the venom in Bonnie's posts, not what she said, but the way she said it. I heard the sound of frustration echoed through all she had to say.  **** **** ****** **** **** **** ****** ******  ***** *** **** * *****  I believe she added to the discussion, except when she and Gailon had at each other like two junkyard dogs. Both of them could have toned it down a few notches and gained more sympathy. There is no honor in fighting like the devil in order to defend the kingdom of God.


============
Edited by Artiste to remove inappropriate content

1) Junkyard dogs? Good grief, I have never even posted on Black SDA. But, let me point out that if there is to be a fight, I am usually up to it.

2) Sympathy? Who has applied for sympathy? This is about debate and sympathy is as barren as the Sahara.

3) Clay: I will be quite frank and state emphatically that I neither appreciate, nor like, what I have observed of the obnoxious moderator referred to as Clay, dare I out his real full name? Clay has never exhibited open mindedness, even handedness, moderate temper nor acceptable character. And given his statements, I question whether he has even exhibited a belief in Seventh-day Adventist fundemental beliefs, let alone the second coming. 

4) And Clay's Soviet approach to dealing with issues is classic despotic behaviour. Open a thread, rant without any foundation and then close it to comment? I question his analytical ability. What did we say about Cindy that equated her with any pseudonym? Nothing, absolutely nothing. And did we trash her when we (and some of you) knew we could? Absolutely not.

5) Do we have a right to to discuss Cindy's intrigue and her use of surrogates rather than facing us directly? We absolutely do. And Grandma Nettie is not the only person that played surrogate.

6) And how about Cindy, the dispassionate SDA Church hater, calling Ken Corkum of Maritime Conference to complain? Give me a break. If he knew what I knew, he would have gotten on a jetplane to Ohio to make a pastoral call to deal with some of her issues- and given her cell phone call the lack of credibility and time it deserved-.

7) Cindy made a couple of attempts to contact me in the early days of the 3ABN vs Joy litigation to give advise and assistance. I declined. I knew enough about Cindy to know that we did not need her working with us. And we already knew she was stressed beyond belief. The last thing she needed was more of the same given the magnitude this case would deliver. And you know what they say about a woman scorned...? But then to work both sides? And give Linda Shelton seriously flawed advise (dare I call it ill-legal advise?)!!! A complaint to the right bar association would have sunk that hull real fast. Still could!!!

In fact, our case has never reached the magnitude I thought it would attain, but better days are ahead. As the other side gets more desperate to keep us out of the books, I expect it will intensify and get downright VISCIOUS!!! But we are quite comfortable with Counselor Bob Pickle case managing and working super diligently to give them two runs for every ounce of effort they make. BEST DOG-GONE LITIGATOR I HAVE EVER WORKED WITH!!! And I suspect we will work together again in the future, as often as I can get him into trouble!!! In my opinion, BOB MISSED HIS CALLING!!! (But he is no junkyard dog, he leaves the bark and bite to me).

I have come to realize that Bob Pickle has more tenacity than the entire brotherhood at world famous DLA Piper (formerly DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary) with its 3000 lawyers, one of which congratulated me for the work I did for a lawyer on an insurance case that we blew apart within sixty days by investigating and counterclaiming, including specific allegations against the attorney for the plaintiff, for a misuse of process claim and various other allegations. Ironically, it was dismissed before the insurance company could even determine liability and assign counsel. My only problem is I know Bob could have gotten it done in thirty days!!! (Those young whipper snappers just have too much vim and vinegar for us old dogs to keep up with).

In any event, I have come to the conclusion that I am glad I did not trade Cindy for Bob!!! I just wish she had complained to my conference president, as Bob and I just got them out of a pickle and solved a monstrous little problem that was plaguing a semi-retired former conference president and several of his parishioners. And the little miscreant has decided to move back to his homeland to avoid prosecution. Another job well done, BOB!!!

And I guess that brings us to an interesting proposition- Hey, Clay, why don't you speak to Gregory and see if you have the right to litigate and we can take this issue up in a civil court? Of course, we do get to rebut your rants there and you cannot close the session before we get the opportunity!!! I know that probably does not settle well with despots, but it is the real world of US Constitutional Law. Or you could, in good sense, evaporate that thread to keep people from realizing that you "outted" your own!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy, the Junkyard Dog!!!
(OOP'S, caught again!!!)
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on August 29, 2008, 11:18:44 PM
Did you get in touch with Ken Corkum, Gailon?


I will wait to hear the full story which has not been posted yet, I am sure.

ANd can you imagine that this woman had the gall to call a conference President? Well, Ken Corkum will get two calls!!! Actually, make that three.

Gailon Arthur Joy
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: bonnie on August 30, 2008, 09:51:29 AM
Quote
I just went over to BSDA and read Clays "rant". I was not impressed, it is typical Clay. As he said himself, he always has to have the last word.  ...And then he closes the thread. What did surprise me was the venom in Bonnie's posts, not what she said, but the way she said it. I heard the sound of frustration echoed through all she had to say.  **** **** ****** **** **** **** ****** ******  ***** *** **** * *****  I believe she added to the discussion, except when she and Gailon had at each other like two junkyard dogs. Both of them could have toned it down a few notches and gained more sympathy. There is no honor in fighting like the devil in order to defend the kingdom of God.


sister,
I have no quarrel with you or the fact you disagree with me on some issues. I do not know clay. I have not read with the exception of a post or two the whole 3ABN saga that took place there.  I have enjoyed our time in "Healthy Choices"
You probably are accurate in both reading frustration and venom.  My frustrations comes from a couple of people that enjoy the fight, in fact I believe go searching for the fight. All eagerness to carve another notch on the belt.
I was accused many times by several that I would do anything or say anything if it was against the church. As such I also then had those that looked at me as another opportunity because of what they saw as my hatred, and wanted and expected to be able to use me because of that.

I do not like unfairness. I do not like people that take obvious sheer delight in hurting others,even if "those others" surrounding the issue are not totally bameless, just to get to their prey.  Many innocent or genuinely concerned people can be hurt badly by the behaviour of taking any and all down to get to your goal. I don't have any desire to do that or see that

As to this analogy.....I believe she added to the discussion, except when she and Gailon had at each other like two junkyard dogs.

It is foolish to send a 3 lb yorkie to fight a junk yard dog.


Quote
Both of them could have toned it down a few notches and gained more sympathy. There is no honor in fighting like the devil in order to defend the kingdom of God down a few notches and gained more sympathy.

It was never my intent to gain sympathy. I fight my own battles.  In that I am sure many may think I am wrong. Not a problem. 


Quote
Both of them could have toned it down a few notches
  I am not a 3 lb yorkie in the junk yard analogy


It would be my wish that we could remain forum friends .  I have enjoyed Fran as well as a few that has had the hatred from the junk yard spewed in their direction many times.

I hope that it can remain so
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Gailon Arthur Joy on August 30, 2008, 04:09:59 PM
Welcome to the wild wooley world of "journalism" Ms Bonnie. By the way,I believe you identified the "yorkie" (by the way, My absolutely favorite dog) over at Blacksda:

"Doesn't seem Bob wants to engage the same game he plays at the expense of another expense.

Bob and I both live in MN, I was born up in his neck of the woods and have family and friends there. Gailon said I was a journalist,and journalists investigate rumors and then share the information. I am rather dissappointed that one of the dynamic duo "Dumb and Dumber" did not want to come out and play.

I personally am of the opinion,Bob,Gailon and DS deserve one another. Too bad for them they can't get along. Think of the sucess they could have

In time this will die down and then IMO there is a good chance adventtalk will die with it.The forum is wrapped around Gailon and his rude, abusive,arrogant pompous posts and his ever faithful little yorkie. Yapping in time with Gailon

bonnie"
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Gailon Arthur Joy on August 30, 2008, 04:14:06 PM
Did you get in touch with Ken Corkum, Gailon?


I will wait to hear the full story which has not been posted yet, I am sure.

ANd can you imagine that this woman had the gall to call a conference President? Well, Ken Corkum will get two calls!!! Actually, make that three.

Gailon Arthur Joy

I did, but he was away at a funeral and I had the chance to speak with another officer. I now have Elder Corkum's cell phone and will call him after the weekend. Of course Monday is not labor day in Canada. A little surprised that another conference president asked us to look into the issues when he received a box full of serious allegationa and complaints from a pastor or two.

Gailon Arthur Joy

Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Fran on August 31, 2008, 02:10:06 PM
I am not banned from BSDA!  It was a glitch with my computer I guess.  But Calvin sent me a note telling me how to fix it!  I love you Calvin, & BSDA!  I am so happy!   :rabbit:
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Daryl Fawcett on September 01, 2008, 06:43:46 AM
Today is also Labour Day here in Canada.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Gailon Arthur Joy on September 01, 2008, 02:57:33 PM
Yeah, I forgot. My daughter went to Kingsway and you would have thought I would have remembered that is one that we share.  :oops:

Thanks for the reminder.

GAJ
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: pbjelly on September 01, 2008, 05:07:38 PM
In any event, I have come to the conclusion that I am glad I did not trade Cindy for Bob!!! I just wish she had complained to my conference president, as Bob and I just got them out of a pickle and solved a monstrous little problem that was plaguing a semi-retired former conference president and several of his parishioners. And the little miscreant has decided to move back to his homeland to avoid prosecution. Another job well done, BOB!!!

Mr. Gailon,

I spoke to Frank Tochterman, President of the Southern New England Conference. And I spoke to Dr. Donald King, President of the Atlantic Union Conference. They have not heard of you. They have had nothing to do with you.

Can you please explain this discrepancy?

Thank you,
PB
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: pbjelly on September 01, 2008, 05:20:08 PM
Mr. Gailon,

Before you think I am attacking you please allow me to explain that I am a late-comer. I am catching up and will check everything for myself.

To that end, I plan to ask Danny questions regarding the allegations and will track down every witness or lead that I can. The website clubadventist.com and 3abntalk.com both announce it as this Friday.

I am also going through a site called save-3abn and will verify things to my satisfaction before making up my mind.

Regards
PB
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: princessdi on September 01, 2008, 06:12:48 PM
Well, now, as a new member here, but new to very few here, I come to post my disappointments since this seems to be the place.  I have been comtemplating posting here because I felt that this 3ABN mess gets messier as time goes by, and as many of you know I had already stated at BSDA that to me the lines were getting blurred between the "good and bad guys".  i am not so sure that there is such a thing anymore.  

As you all know, I have always been upfront about the way I feel about anything.  Danny was wrong, I said that,  Bob and GJ were wrong, and I said that also.  ALL are my brothers in Christ, and I still love and see them as such. Guys(Bob and GJ), this IS another low blow.  By any means necessary has no room in God's work, because it often includes employing the devil's tools to do God's work, or at least attempting to .  Bob you came over to dispute Clay's comments, but I am nost sure that you thought it would occur to anyone that you disputed that you outed "a member" here........Cindi is not a member, is she?  That does not look good, Bob.  It is not at all christian.  If I am wrong with this, I apologize, but I dont' think so.

However, after posting quite a few months ago warning against continuing on this path, here you all are, and now you have turned on each other...........on the world wide web.......for Danny and his merry band to see.  What good does that do?

Just on a personal note, I am sorely disappointed in a great many of you who are still members at BSDA.  There were some who said that you ALL were just there to "use" us as the only site not scared to cross Danny and 3ABN, and most of you have proven that to be true, since you have not been back to fellowship since the 3ABN forum was closed.  I know you all probably still visit because there is a large amount of documentation still there and available to read.  However, because you could not sprew new venom daily, you have fled to place where you can.  

Now I quoted Snoopy's post, mainly because she is pretty special to me.  She, Cindi, and others here are the best.  We are kind of a group within a group.  It is not secret that I did not think much of GJ(ain't mad atcha, just not pleased with this choice) for sending folks to post for him at BSDA, but it makes it worse that he now posts freely here.  There is also at least one member who would come even into LC to "meet" with someone in PM, barely taking time to speak or be courteous to those already in the room.  That is just plain rude.  

In case you all don't recognize them, I am talking about just common courtesy, respect and christian love.  You all are so hell bent on this course that it defines even your love or even common courtesy, respect to each other.  I urge you all again, to think about what you are doing.  Not saying give up by saying saying Danny was right, he was wrong.  I thought this a noble and christian cause in the beginning, because I truly believe that those who put themselves on the front lines on "the battlefield" should at least attempt to be right.  I still believe tha Danny is so far gone in his wrong that he can't see a way back without admitting he was wrong(which there isn't, but even so it is still not to far for God.  However, I urge you all to take a look at where this particular path has lead you, what you have sacrificed, how it virtually consumes you lives, shapes your shoices.  

Ok so now that I have voiced my disappointments, I will gladly answer any rebuttals to my post, but I won't fight about it.  

Neither will I get too deep in the 3ABN mess.  however, I do have one question.  I do know that Danny was leaving no stone unturned trying to find out the annonymous members true identities.  As I read this thread I saw that someone mentioned that they cheated and found out some identites, or something to that effect.  Can some just explain that to me?  I am curious as someone who was named on the subpoena and my dientity was alaready known.  So, it was suggested and I am assuming that I was mentioned because I might be "urged" to assist them in their quest....NOT!  

I still do wish you all God joy, peace, and wisdom. I do still love you all with Our Father's Love.


I had to go look just out of curiousity and came away JUST SHAKING MY HEAD (to steal a phrase from someone I once trusted).

Things have really changed over there for Calvin to allow that kind of garbage - and from a moderator.  Too bad.



Perhaps the woman had the gall to call up Clay at BSDA too. Someone called or contacted him and he launched a bitter attack, falsely accusing me of outing a member.

I would like to invite Cindi Randall, wherever she is, to send me written disapproval of Clay's statements on BSDA. I could then post it here for her.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Fran on September 01, 2008, 07:27:55 PM
Hey Princesdi!

Thank you for your timely post about love.  I do love you too.  Just as I love those that are wrong, including myself. 

Please visit more, you are very welcome.   :dogwag:

Could you please tell Calvin I still can't log in on BSDA.  I have not been banned, so it must be something more than my email address.  I still come to BSDA and read humor and have posted humor in the past.     :help:

However, I do read.

I miss you a lot.  You have taken your stand and stated many true things at BSDA.  I appreciated your honesty and fortitude.  I especially appreciate you compassion for the abused.  That was wonderful for me.   :pals:

Come here again and I will see you at BSDA.  I can't join in on the chat room.  My hands hurt and I can't type fast enough to respond until the subject has long gone. :dunno:

Fran   :wave:
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on September 01, 2008, 07:31:02 PM
PrincessDi!!!!      :welcome:   AND     :puppykisses:  I was thrilled to see you sign up here!!

I can understand the feelings you have shared here, and I do so appreciate your forthrightness!!  (Is that a word?!)  And if I am one that has disappointed you, please accept my apology.

I must admit that I am one who has not come back to BSDA very often.  I do miss many of my friends there, but I must say that after receiving a 60 day ban, I was not anxious to go back to be honest!  I was wrong to respond to Clay the way I did, but I certainly did not deserve THAT!  I think it just happened at a time that was particularly stressful to Calvin.  And after reading Clay's recent "mini-rant", I really have no desire to go back there.  I don't know what his problem is, but he certainly has one.  I felt really bad for Calvin, as that must have been quite embarrassing to him.  I am actually surprised Calvin allowed that thread to remain, "on the world-wide web, no less"!!  I was also a bit taken aback to see your post agreeing with Clay, along with some others who posted there!!  But I still love you!!  The fact that Clay just kept going on and on and on with his "sleaze" diatribe until he finally "had the last word" and then closed the thread was unfortunate but not surprising.

There are many things that have changed with regard to the 3ABN case since I left BSDA.  I'll be happy to fill you in on them in private, if you like.

Anyway, I am glad you are here!!

Hugs,

Snoopy


Well, now, as a new member here, but new to very few here, I come to post my disappointments since this seems to be the place.  I have been comtemplating posting here because I felt that this 3ABN mess gets messier as time goes by, and as many of you know I had already stated at BSDA that to me the lines were getting blurred between the "good and bad guys".  i am not so sure that there is such a thing anymore.  

As you all know, I have always been upfront about the way I feel about anything.  Danny was wrong, I said that,  Bob and GJ were wrong, and I said that also.  ALL are my brothers in Christ, and I still love and see them as such. Guys(Bob and GJ), this IS another low blow.  By any means necessary has no room in God's work, because it often includes employing the devil's tools to do God's work, or at least attempting to .  Bob you came over to dispute Clay's comments, but I am nost sure that you thought it would occur to anyone that you disputed that you outed "a member" here........Cindi is not a member, is she?  That does not look good, Bob.  It is not at all christian.  If I am wrong with this, I apologize, but I dont' think so.

However, after posting quite a few months ago warning against continuing on this path, here you all are, and now you have turned on each other...........on the world wide web.......for Danny and his merry band to see.  What good does that do?

Just on a personal note, I am sorely disappointed in a great many of you who are still members at BSDA.  There were some who said that you ALL were just there to "use" us as the only site not scared to cross Danny and 3ABN, and most of you have proven that to be true, since you have not been back to fellowship since the 3ABN forum was closed.  I know you all probably still visit because there is a large amount of documentation still there and available to read.  However, because you could not sprew new venom daily, you have fled to place where you can.  

Now I quoted Snoopy's post, mainly because she is pretty special to me.  She, Cindi, and others here are the best.  We are kind of a group within a group.  It is not secret that I did not think much of GJ(ain't mad atcha, just not pleased with this choice) for sending folks to post for him at BSDA, but it makes it worse that he now posts freely here.  There is also at least one member who would come even into LC to "meet" with someone in PM, barely taking time to speak or be courteous to those already in the room.  That is just plain rude.  

In case you all don't recognize them, I am talking about just common courtesy, respect and christian love.  You all are so hell bent on this course that it defines even your love or even common courtesy, respect to each other.  I urge you all again, to think about what you are doing.  Not saying give up by saying saying Danny was right, he was wrong.  I thought this a noble and christian cause in the beginning, because I truly believe that those who put themselves on the front lines on "the battlefield" should at least attempt to be right.  I still believe tha Danny is so far gone in his wrong that he can't see a way back without admitting he was wrong(which there isn't, but even so it is still not to far for God.  However, I urge you all to take a look at where this particular path has lead you, what you have sacrificed, how it virtually consumes you lives, shapes your shoices.  

Ok so now that I have voiced my disappointments, I will gladly answer any rebuttals to my post, but I won't fight about it.  

Neither will I get too deep in the 3ABN mess.  however, I do have one question.  I do know that Danny was leaving no stone unturned trying to find out the annonymous members true identities.  As I read this thread I saw that someone mentioned that they cheated and found out some identites, or something to that effect.  Can some just explain that to me?  I am curious as someone who was named on the subpoena and my dientity was alaready known.  So, it was suggested and I am assuming that I was mentioned because I might be "urged" to assist them in their quest....NOT!  

I still do wish you all God joy, peace, and wisdom. I do still love you all with Our Father's Love.


I had to go look just out of curiousity and came away JUST SHAKING MY HEAD (to steal a phrase from someone I once trusted).

Things have really changed over there for Calvin to allow that kind of garbage - and from a moderator.  Too bad.



Perhaps the woman had the gall to call up Clay at BSDA too. Someone called or contacted him and he launched a bitter attack, falsely accusing me of outing a member.

I would like to invite Cindi Randall, wherever she is, to send me written disapproval of Clay's statements on BSDA. I could then post it here for her.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: anyman on September 01, 2008, 08:51:51 PM
Very interesting question . . . wonder why there has been no answer yet . . .

In any event, I have come to the conclusion that I am glad I did not trade Cindy for Bob!!! I just wish she had complained to my conference president, as Bob and I just got them out of a pickle and solved a monstrous little problem that was plaguing a semi-retired former conference president and several of his parishioners. And the little miscreant has decided to move back to his homeland to avoid prosecution. Another job well done, BOB!!!

Mr. Gailon,

I spoke to Frank Tochterman, President of the Southern New England Conference. And I spoke to Dr. Donald King, President of the Atlantic Union Conference. They have not heard of you. They have had nothing to do with you.

Can you please explain this discrepancy?

Thank you,
PB
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: GrandmaNettie on September 01, 2008, 08:58:02 PM
In any event, I have come to the conclusion that I am glad I did not trade Cindy for Bob!!! I just wish she had complained to my conference president, as Bob and I just got them out of a pickle and solved a monstrous little problem that was plaguing a semi-retired former conference president and several of his parishioners. And the little miscreant has decided to move back to his homeland to avoid prosecution. Another job well done, BOB!!!

Mr. Gailon,

I spoke to Frank Tochterman, President of the Southern New England Conference. And I spoke to Dr. Donald King, President of the Atlantic Union Conference. They have not heard of you. They have had nothing to do with you.

Can you please explain this discrepancy?

Thank you,
PB

Welcome to Adventtalk, PB.  Cool name!

Glad to see that you are a go-getter; seeking cold, hard facts upon which to base your conclusions.

Did you ask Frank Tochterman about Bob Pickle while you were speaking to him?  I do believe that Bob is known to leadership in that conference.

While you were chatting with these presidents, did you ask if they were aware of the discussions here on Adventtalk?

GrandmaNettie
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 01, 2008, 09:02:55 PM
Bob you came over to dispute Clay's comments, but I am nost sure that you thought it would occur to anyone that you disputed that you outed "a member" here........Cindi is not a member, is she?  That does not look good, Bob.  It is not at all christian.  If I am wrong with this, I apologize, but I dont' think so.

Hi princessdi.

I don't quite follow you, so pardon me if I don't answer the right question.

I took Clay's comments to be an assertion that Attorney Cindi Randall is a user here. I certainly never made that claim, but I thought Clay was making that claim.

Further, I never made the claim here that Attorney Cindi Randall was a user on BSDA or any other forum. Never hinted at it either.

The best spin I can put on Clay's rant is that he took an unconfirmed rumor or claim and ran with it, making false accusations, without checking it out to see if it was so. His thread gives no hint that he ever read what I actually wrote.

Just on a personal note, I am sorely disappointed in a great many of you who are still members at BSDA.  There were some who said that you ALL were just there to "use" us as the only site not scared to cross Danny and 3ABN, and most of you have proven that to be true, since you have not been back to fellowship since the 3ABN forum was closed.  I know you all probably still visit because there is a large amount of documentation still there and available to read.  However, because you could not sprew new venom daily, you have fled to place where you can.

princessdi, I can't speak for anyone else other than myself, but since I've been sued, I'm spread pretty thin. I just don't have the time to engage in a lot of discussion on various topics, though I do take a diversion now and then.

However, I urge you all to take a look at where this particular path has lead you, what you have sacrificed, how it virtually consumes you lives, shapes your shoices.

I just don't have the money to hire a lawyer and let him do all the work. But then, how much money would I need to have?

Neither will I get too deep in the 3ABN mess.  however, I do have one question.  I do know that Danny was leaving no stone unturned trying to find out the annonymous members true identities.  As I read this thread I saw that someone mentioned that they cheated and found out some identites, or something to that effect.  Can some just explain that to me?  I am curious as someone who was named on the subpoena and my dientity was alaready known.  So, it was suggested and I am assuming that I was mentioned because I might be "urged" to assist them in their quest....NOT!

Danny and 3ABN's lawyers got user information for certain users. Email addresses in user accounts can be identifying. Even IP addresses can help identify people, though using them is a bit tough. Make sense?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 01, 2008, 09:10:57 PM
In any event, I have come to the conclusion that I am glad I did not trade Cindy for Bob!!! I just wish she had complained to my conference president, as Bob and I just got them out of a pickle and solved a monstrous little problem that was plaguing a semi-retired former conference president and several of his parishioners. And the little miscreant has decided to move back to his homeland to avoid prosecution. Another job well done, BOB!!!

Mr. Gailon,

I spoke to Frank Tochterman, President of the Southern New England Conference. And I spoke to Dr. Donald King, President of the Atlantic Union Conference. They have not heard of you. They have had nothing to do with you.

Can you please explain this discrepancy?

Thank you,
PB

PB,

I don't recall Gailon talking with Elder Tochterman at the time, but he may have. I know I talked with Elder Tochterman, but that doesn't mean that he will recall our conversation unless you share with him some of the content or the subject material.

At the same time, I don't think it necessarily fair to the wrong doer to give details that would expose the person to any more embarrassment than they already have, which details might be necessary to confirm what Gailon wrote.

Gailon would not have had to speak to Elder Tochterman in order to help resolve the problem. There were others than Elder Tochterman that could have used assistance at the time.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: princessdi on September 01, 2008, 09:34:17 PM
Hey Fran!!!  Thanks for the welcome.  I will give Calvin the message for you!  Gurl, I know LC is not for everyone!   I q
Hey Princesdi!

Thank you for your timely post about love.  I do love you too.  Just as I love those that are wrong, including myself. 

Please visit more, you are very welcome.   :dogwag:

Could you please tell Calvin I still can't log in on BSDA.  I have not been banned, so it must be something more than my email address.  I still come to BSDA and read humor and have posted humor in the past.     :help:

However, I do read.

I miss you a lot.  You have taken your stand and stated many true things at BSDA.  I appreciated your honesty and fortitude.  I especially appreciate you compassion for the abused.  That was wonderful for me.   :pals:

Come here again and I will see you at BSDA.  I can't join in on the chat room.  My hands hurt and I can't type fast enough to respond until the subject has long gone. :dunno:

Fran   :wave:
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 01, 2008, 09:39:04 PM
Perhaps because it hadn't been that long since it got posted. Think so?

Very interesting question . . . wonder why there has been no answer yet . . .

In any event, I have come to the conclusion that I am glad I did not trade Cindy for Bob!!! I just wish she had complained to my conference president, as Bob and I just got them out of a pickle and solved a monstrous little problem that was plaguing a semi-retired former conference president and several of his parishioners. And the little miscreant has decided to move back to his homeland to avoid prosecution. Another job well done, BOB!!!

Mr. Gailon,

I spoke to Frank Tochterman, President of the Southern New England Conference. And I spoke to Dr. Donald King, President of the Atlantic Union Conference. They have not heard of you. They have had nothing to do with you.

Can you please explain this discrepancy?

Thank you,
PB
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: pbjelly on September 01, 2008, 09:42:09 PM
In any event, I have come to the conclusion that I am glad I did not trade Cindy for Bob!!! I just wish she had complained to my conference president, as Bob and I just got them out of a pickle and solved a monstrous little problem that was plaguing a semi-retired former conference president and several of his parishioners. And the little miscreant has decided to move back to his homeland to avoid prosecution. Another job well done, BOB!!!

Mr. Gailon,

I spoke to Frank Tochterman, President of the Southern New England Conference. And I spoke to Dr. Donald King, President of the Atlantic Union Conference. They have not heard of you. They have had nothing to do with you.

Can you please explain this discrepancy?

Thank you,
PB

PB,

I don't recall Gailon talking with Elder Tochterman at the time, but he may have. I know I talked with Elder Tochterman, but that doesn't mean that he will recall our conversation unless you share with him some of the content or the subject material.

At the same time, I don't think it necessarily fair to the wrong doer to give details that would expose the person to any more embarrassment than they already have, which details might be necessary to confirm what Gailon wrote.

Gailon would not have had to speak to Elder Tochterman in order to help resolve the problem. There were others than Elder Tochterman that could have used assistance at the time.

Mr. Bob,

I believe this question was directed to Mr. Gailon. I have put in red letters what Mr. Gailon posted.

Thank you
PB
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on September 01, 2008, 09:47:34 PM
Pbjelly,

Might I remind you that this is a public forum, so posts and questions are fair game for anyone who might want to respond.  If you have a specific question for a specific member, perhaps you would like to utilize the "Private Message" feature of the forum.

Snoopy



Mr. Bob,

I believe this question was directed to Mr. Gailon. I have put in red letters what Mr. Gailon posted.

Thank you
PB
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 01, 2008, 09:48:25 PM
In any event, I have come to the conclusion that I am glad I did not trade Cindy for Bob!!! I just wish she had complained to my conference president, as Bob and I just got them out of a pickle and solved a monstrous little problem that was plaguing a semi-retired former conference president and several of his parishioners. And the little miscreant has decided to move back to his homeland to avoid prosecution. Another job well done, BOB!!!

Mr. Gailon,

I spoke to Frank Tochterman, President of the Southern New England Conference. And I spoke to Dr. Donald King, President of the Atlantic Union Conference. They have not heard of you. They have had nothing to do with you.

Can you please explain this discrepancy?

Thank you,
PB

PB,

I don't recall Gailon talking with Elder Tochterman at the time, but he may have. I know I talked with Elder Tochterman, but that doesn't mean that he will recall our conversation unless you share with him some of the content or the subject material.

At the same time, I don't think it necessarily fair to the wrong doer to give details that would expose the person to any more embarrassment than they already have, which details might be necessary to confirm what Gailon wrote.

Gailon would not have had to speak to Elder Tochterman in order to help resolve the problem. There were others than Elder Tochterman that could have used assistance at the time.

Mr. Bob,

I believe this question was directed to Mr. Gailon. I have put in red letters what Mr. Gailon posted.

Thank you
PB

Yes, it was directed to Gailon.

I do not see a problem with the words in red.

It would not take much for Elder Tochterman to recall the incident and to understand Gailon's involvement.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: pbjelly on September 01, 2008, 09:59:21 PM
Pbjelly,

Might I remind you that this is a public forum, so posts and questions are fair game for anyone who might want to respond.  If you have a specific question for a specific member, perhaps you would like to utilize the "Private Message" feature of the forum.

Snoopy

I apologize if it sounded rude. That was not my intention. It was Mr. Gailon who claimed that he helped his conference president with an important matter. But the conference president did not recall any such person. I believed that this should be addressed by Mr. Gailon. I hope that my response did not offend Mr. Bob.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: princessdi on September 01, 2008, 10:02:38 PM
You could never disappoint me, Snoopy!  You know the love of the "Gathering" transcends our internet origins.  :pals:  

Why were you surprised at my repsonse to that thread?  It was an admin nightmare when that forum was open.  Not eveyone was bad, but enough to keep us more busy than we wanted to be monitoring grown folks, and professed christians at that.  It was a bit disheartening.  However, I found some wonderful friends, as I said, and things always happen for a reason.

I had not responded to Clay's minirant because He can speak for himself, and definitely has already.  However, I can at least tell you that he is coming from a position of mutual respect, or the lack thereof.  Bob, GJ and others have chosen to reveal their identities.  Some for reasons of their own, have not.  That hsould be respected, no matter what side of this coin you fall on. Everyone knew that Cindi posted, not here but at BSDA under her screen name, and hse wished for it to remain that way.  I don't care where you posted on the internet about her, that should have been respected.  Simple.  Common respect and christian love should prevail.  Plus it shows a "conditional" loyalty and the moment you deviate from "the cause" you are now that enemy, and all is fair...in war......because there never was any love.  Now does that sound familiar?  

For me, this cause should be carefull that you[general] are so busy in this fight that you[general] you become that which you are fighting against.  I have to say that this need to "out" everyone was also my least favorite part of this.  My thing is when I disagree with someone, I have to acknowledge and respect that they feel as strongly about their position as I do mine.  Often we are trying to achieve the same goal with different ideas as to how to do that, So it is not about personal attacks, but the best way to reach the goal.  So I rarely "fall out" with people, it is just counter productive.

I definitely would appreciate an update via PM.  it can be Reader's Digest Version............Just the facts, Ma'am.....I know, i know aging myself, I did watch Dragnet each and every week!  :thumbsup:


PrincessDi!!!!      :welcome:   AND     :puppykisses:  I was thrilled to see you sign up here!!

I can understand the feelings you have shared here, and I do so appreciate your forthrightness!!  (Is that a word?!)  And if I am one that has disappointed you, please accept my apology.

I must admit that I am one who has not come back to BSDA very often.  I do miss many of my friends there, but I must say that after receiving a 60 day ban, I was not anxious to go back to be honest!  I was wrong to respond to Clay the way I did, but I certainly did not deserve THAT!  I think it just happened at a time that was particularly stressful to Calvin.  And after reading Clay's recent "mini-rant", I really have no desire to go back there.  I don't know what his problem is, but he certainly has one.  I felt really bad for Calvin, as that must have been quite embarrassing to him.  I am actually surprised Calvin allowed that thread to remain, "on the world-wide web, no less"!!  I was also a bit taken aback to see your post agreeing with Clay, along with some others who posted there!!  But I still love you!!  The fact that Clay just kept going on and on and on with his "sleaze" diatribe until he finally "had the last word" and then closed the thread was unfortunate but not surprising.

There are many things that have changed with regard to the 3ABN case since I left BSDA.  I'll be happy to fill you in on them in private, if you like.

Anyway, I am glad you are here!!

Hugs,

Snoopy


Well, now, as a new member here, but new to very few here, I come to post my disappointments since this seems to be the place.  I have been comtemplating posting here because I felt that this 3ABN mess gets messier as time goes by, and as many of you know I had already stated at BSDA that to me the lines were getting blurred between the "good and bad guys".  i am not so sure that there is such a thing anymore.  

As you all know, I have always been upfront about the way I feel about anything.  Danny was wrong, I said that,  Bob and GJ were wrong, and I said that also.  ALL are my brothers in Christ, and I still love and see them as such. Guys(Bob and GJ), this IS another low blow.  By any means necessary has no room in God's work, because it often includes employing the devil's tools to do God's work, or at least attempting to .  Bob you came over to dispute Clay's comments, but I am nost sure that you thought it would occur to anyone that you disputed that you outed "a member" here........Cindi is not a member, is she?  That does not look good, Bob.  It is not at all christian.  If I am wrong with this, I apologize, but I dont' think so.

However, after posting quite a few months ago warning against continuing on this path, here you all are, and now you have turned on each other...........on the world wide web.......for Danny and his merry band to see.  What good does that do?

Just on a personal note, I am sorely disappointed in a great many of you who are still members at BSDA.  There were some who said that you ALL were just there to "use" us as the only site not scared to cross Danny and 3ABN, and most of you have proven that to be true, since you have not been back to fellowship since the 3ABN forum was closed.  I know you all probably still visit because there is a large amount of documentation still there and available to read.  However, because you could not sprew new venom daily, you have fled to place where you can.  

Now I quoted Snoopy's post, mainly because she is pretty special to me.  She, Cindi, and others here are the best.  We are kind of a group within a group.  It is not secret that I did not think much of GJ(ain't mad atcha, just not pleased with this choice) for sending folks to post for him at BSDA, but it makes it worse that he now posts freely here.  There is also at least one member who would come even into LC to "meet" with someone in PM, barely taking time to speak or be courteous to those already in the room.  That is just plain rude.  

In case you all don't recognize them, I am talking about just common courtesy, respect and christian love.  You all are so hell bent on this course that it defines even your love or even common courtesy, respect to each other.  I urge you all again, to think about what you are doing.  Not saying give up by saying saying Danny was right, he was wrong.  I thought this a noble and christian cause in the beginning, because I truly believe that those who put themselves on the front lines on "the battlefield" should at least attempt to be right.  I still believe tha Danny is so far gone in his wrong that he can't see a way back without admitting he was wrong(which there isn't, but even so it is still not to far for God.  However, I urge you all to take a look at where this particular path has lead you, what you have sacrificed, how it virtually consumes you lives, shapes your shoices.  

Ok so now that I have voiced my disappointments, I will gladly answer any rebuttals to my post, but I won't fight about it.  

Neither will I get too deep in the 3ABN mess.  however, I do have one question.  I do know that Danny was leaving no stone unturned trying to find out the annonymous members true identities.  As I read this thread I saw that someone mentioned that they cheated and found out some identites, or something to that effect.  Can some just explain that to me?  I am curious as someone who was named on the subpoena and my dientity was alaready known.  So, it was suggested and I am assuming that I was mentioned because I might be "urged" to assist them in their quest....NOT!  

I still do wish you all God joy, peace, and wisdom. I do still love you all with Our Father's Love.


I had to go look just out of curiousity and came away JUST SHAKING MY HEAD (to steal a phrase from someone I once trusted).

Things have really changed over there for Calvin to allow that kind of garbage - and from a moderator.  Too bad.



Perhaps the woman had the gall to call up Clay at BSDA too. Someone called or contacted him and he launched a bitter attack, falsely accusing me of outing a member.

I would like to invite Cindi Randall, wherever she is, to send me written disapproval of Clay's statements on BSDA. I could then post it here for her.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Sister on September 01, 2008, 10:02:58 PM
PrincessDi, good to see you here. I still go over and read at BSDA, have posted a few times and played in the arcade. I was probably the one who spent more time in private conversations in the LC, than public. I did join in a few times in the public LC, but too often questions came up that were difficult for me to answer because of my need to keep my identity hidden. If you would like a further explanation PM me.

I am more active here in the "Healthy Choices" section here, than in the 3ABN area. For a few months, I neither read or posted much of anywhere, I was just too burned out and having some health problems...

To be honest I went back and forth so much with "Clay", over the content in the 3ABN area, that I was just got tired of his rants and having to remain silent in order to stroke his ego.

I really appreciated the opportunity that Calvin gave me with the expansion of the 3ABN section and I have told him so.

There were many members at BSDA who were very supportive and you were one of them. Thank you for your kindness during some very difficult situations.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 01, 2008, 10:04:22 PM
Pbjelly,

Might I remind you that this is a public forum, so posts and questions are fair game for anyone who might want to respond.  If you have a specific question for a specific member, perhaps you would like to utilize the "Private Message" feature of the forum.

Snoopy

I apologize if it sounded rude. That was not my intention. It was Mr. Gailon who claimed that he helped his conference president with an important matter. But the conference president did not recall any such person. I believed that this should be addressed by Mr. Gailon. I hope that my response did not offend Mr. Bob.
No problem.

Gailon definitely helped. But that doesn't mean that everyone involved will automatically know who did what, or recall the matter without a few details being added in.

If you absolutely need more info, feel free to PM or call.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on September 01, 2008, 10:11:59 PM
Only because I couldn't tell if you were agreeing with the "sleaze" comment or the opinion that you were glad the 3ABN discussion had moved...  As I have learned  :)  I am certain it was an "admin nightmare"!!  I have a whole new respect for moderators!!


You could never disappoint me, Snoopy!  You know the love of the "Gathering" transcends our internet origins.  :pals:  

Why were you surprised at my repsonse to that thread?  It was an admin nightmare when that forum was open.  Not eveyone was bad, but enough to keep us more busy than we wanted to be monitoring grown folks, and professed christians at that.  It was a bit disheartening.  However, I found some wonderful friends, as I said, and things always happen for a reason.

Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: GrandmaNettie on September 01, 2008, 10:13:47 PM
Sis `Di!!!! Welcome to Adventtalk.  Your thoughts and perspectives are so welcome.

My only comments on some of the content of your post would be that as those lines between the "good and bad guys" have blurred, we would be wise to take a second look at the facts in this saga.  Some of the things we once took as confirmed are now somewhat uncertain as we see some of the tactics used.  I know you have experiences from far before I was a member at BSDA and before Bob and Gailon began their investigation that have led to your present position on some things.  I am, instead, referring specifically to some of the other matters that have been presented by The Investigators.

I admit that it has been discouraging to discover that some who I once considered ethical and trustworthy have  stated things that are both terribly unkind and untrue, and some that I still count as friends have chosen to believe those untruths.

I hope there will come a point when there will be a return to "common courtesy, respect and christian love".  If there isn't, no matter who "wins", everyone who hasn't practiced them loses something far greater.

Well, now, as a new member here, but new to very few here, I come to post my disappointments since this seems to be the place.  I have been comtemplating posting here because I felt that this 3ABN mess gets messier as time goes by, and as many of you know I had already stated at BSDA that to me the lines were getting blurred between the "good and bad guys".  i am not so sure that there is such a thing anymore.  

As you all know, I have always been upfront about the way I feel about anything.  Danny was wrong, I said that,  Bob and GJ were wrong, and I said that also.  ALL are my brothers in Christ, and I still love and see them as such. Guys(Bob and GJ), this IS another low blow.  By any means necessary has no room in God's work, because it often includes employing the devil's tools to do God's work, or at least attempting to .  Bob you came over to dispute Clay's comments, but I am nost sure that you thought it would occur to anyone that you disputed that you outed "a member" here........Cindi is not a member, is she?  That does not look good, Bob.  It is not at all christian.  If I am wrong with this, I apologize, but I dont' think so.

However, after posting quite a few months ago warning against continuing on this path, here you all are, and now you have turned on each other...........on the world wide web.......for Danny and his merry band to see.  What good does that do?

Just on a personal note, I am sorely disappointed in a great many of you who are still members at BSDA.  There were some who said that you ALL were just there to "use" us as the only site not scared to cross Danny and 3ABN, and most of you have proven that to be true, since you have not been back to fellowship since the 3ABN forum was closed.  I know you all probably still visit because there is a large amount of documentation still there and available to read.  However, because you could not sprew new venom daily, you have fled to place where you can.  

Now I quoted Snoopy's post, mainly because she is pretty special to me.  She, Cindi, and others here are the best.  We are kind of a group within a group.  It is not secret that I did not think much of GJ(ain't mad atcha, just not pleased with this choice) for sending folks to post for him at BSDA, but it makes it worse that he now posts freely here.  There is also at least one member who would come even into LC to "meet" with someone in PM, barely taking time to speak or be courteous to those already in the room.  That is just plain rude.  

In case you all don't recognize them, I am talking about just common courtesy, respect and christian love.  You all are so hell bent on this course that it defines even your love or even common courtesy, respect to each other.  I urge you all again, to think about what you are doing.  Not saying give up by saying saying Danny was right, he was wrong.  I thought this a noble and christian cause in the beginning, because I truly believe that those who put themselves on the front lines on "the battlefield" should at least attempt to be right.  I still believe tha Danny is so far gone in his wrong that he can't see a way back without admitting he was wrong(which there isn't, but even so it is still not to far for God.  However, I urge you all to take a look at where this particular path has lead you, what you have sacrificed, how it virtually consumes you lives, shapes your shoices.  

Ok so now that I have voiced my disappointments, I will gladly answer any rebuttals to my post, but I won't fight about it.  

Neither will I get too deep in the 3ABN mess.  however, I do have one question.  I do know that Danny was leaving no stone unturned trying to find out the annonymous members true identities.  As I read this thread I saw that someone mentioned that they cheated and found out some identites, or something to that effect.  Can some just explain that to me?  I am curious as someone who was named on the subpoena and my dientity was alaready known.  So, it was suggested and I am assuming that I was mentioned because I might be "urged" to assist them in their quest....NOT!  

I still do wish you all God joy, peace, and wisdom. I do still love you all with Our Father's Love.


I had to go look just out of curiousity and came away JUST SHAKING MY HEAD (to steal a phrase from someone I once trusted).

Things have really changed over there for Calvin to allow that kind of garbage - and from a moderator.  Too bad.



Perhaps the woman had the gall to call up Clay at BSDA too. Someone called or contacted him and he launched a bitter attack, falsely accusing me of outing a member.

I would like to invite Cindi Randall, wherever she is, to send me written disapproval of Clay's statements on BSDA. I could then post it here for her.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 01, 2008, 10:14:58 PM
Everyone knew that Cindi posted, not here but at BSDA under her screen name, and hse wished for it to remain that way.

I do not think that because someone once posts anonymously on a single forum that that prevents others from discussing them in a way that does not connect them to any forum at all.

Here's the history: Gailon made a cryptic post that referred to "Cindy," and Attorney Randall called Daryl Fawcett and complained. She also called Daryl's conference president and complained, which pressured Daryl to edit Gailon's post.

But Gailon did not associate "Cindy" with any username on any forum, not AT or BSDA or any other forum.

My attempted and actual explanations of Gailon's cryptic post also did not associate Attorney Randall with any user on any forum. There are a lot of Cindy/i's in the world, and how would anyone know that BSDA had a Cindi if they didn't already know that BSDA had a Cindi?

I have to say that this need to "out" everyone was also my least favorite part of this.

That had nothing to do with Gailon and my posts.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 01, 2008, 10:18:55 PM
Some of the things we once took as confirmed are now somewhat uncertain as we see some of the tactics used.

What specifically are you referring to as now being uncertain?

I admit that it has been discouraging to discover that some who I once considered ethical and trustworthy have  stated things that are both terribly unkind and untrue, and some that I still count as friends have chosen to believe those untruths.

Just because anyman stoops so low as to call me a liar 25 different ways without being able to give a single example of such doesn't make it so.

So what specifically are you referring to as being unethical or untrue?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: princessdi on September 01, 2008, 10:21:23 PM
Quote
Hi princessdi.

I don't quite follow you, so pardon me if I don't answer the right question.

I took Clay's comments to be an assertion that Attorney Cindi Randall is a user here. I certainly never made that claim, but I thought Clay was making that claim.

Further, I never made the claim here that Attorney Cindi Randall was a user on BSDA or any other forum. Never hinted at it either.  

The best spin I can put on Clay's rant is that he took an unconfirmed rumor or claim and ran with it, making false accusations, without checking it out to see if it was so. His thread gives no hint that he ever read what I actually wrote.

My point is that you did know that Clay stated that you divulge the identity of a "member", however, I am almost sure that you understood that he was actually talking about you all "outing" Cindi anywhere on the internet when you knew she wished to remain annonymous..  It makes no difference that she is not a user/member here at AdventTalk, but that she preferred to remain annonymouse regarding this 3ABN situation.  If you put her full name out there without her permission, then nomatter what else your post said, the damage was done.  Simple.   

Quote
princessdi, I can't speak for anyone else other than myself, but since I've been sued, I'm spread pretty thin. I just don't have the time to engage in a lot of discussion on various topics, though I do take a diversion now and then.

Understood

Quote
I just don't have the money to hire a lawyer and let him do all the work. But then, how much money would I need to have?

My post has nothing to do with who represents you in court, but the path you take in defending yourself.  Simple question:  Will you win the case, but will that path to that victory cause you to lose your soul?  

Quote
Danny and 3ABN's lawyers got user information for certain users. Email addresses in user accounts can be identifying. Even IP addresses can help identify people, though using them is a bit tough. Make sense?

Oh i definitely understnad that my name was included because they thought I could indentify some of the posters they wished to unveil and drag into court.  Like I really was going to help them out, right?  However, as my Mother says, nothing beats a failure but a try.  They tired, they failed.  What can I say?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on September 01, 2008, 10:24:30 PM
I am in definite agreement with the bolded portions of GrandmaNettie's statements.


Sis `Di!!!! Welcome to Adventtalk.  Your thoughts and perspectives are so welcome.

My only comments on some of the content of your post would be that as those lines between the "good and bad guys" have blurred, we would be wise to take a second look at the facts in this saga.  Some of the things we once took as confirmed are now somewhat uncertain as we see some of the tactics used.  I know you have experiences from far before I was a member at BSDA and before Bob and Gailon began their investigation that have led to your present position on some things.  I am, instead, referring specifically to some of the other matters that have been presented by The Investigators.

I admit that it has been discouraging to discover that some who I once considered ethical and trustworthy have  stated things that are both terribly unkind and untrue, and some that I still count as friends have chosen to believe those untruths.

I hope there will come a point when there will be a return to "common courtesy, respect and christian love".  If there isn't, no matter who "wins", everyone who hasn't practiced them loses something far greater.

Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on September 01, 2008, 10:31:17 PM
Did she tell you that, PrincessDi?


My point is that you did know that Clay stated that you divulge the identity of a "member", however, I am almost sure that you understood that he was actually talking about you all "outing" Cindi anywhere on the internet when you knew she wished to remain annonymous..  It makes no difference that she is not a user/member here at AdventTalk, but that she preferred to remain annonymouse regarding this 3ABN situation.  If you put her full name out there without her permission, then nomatter what else your post said, the damage was done.  Simple.   

Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 02, 2008, 05:35:04 AM
My point is that you did know that Clay stated that you divulge the identity of a "member", however, I am almost sure that you understood that he was actually talking about you all "outing" Cindi anywhere on the internet when you knew she wished to remain annonymous..  It makes no difference that she is not a user/member here at AdventTalk, but that she preferred to remain annonymouse regarding this 3ABN situation.  If you put her full name out there without her permission, then nomatter what else your post said, the damage was done.  Simple.
 

Since neither Gailon nor I identified Cindi Randall as a member of BSDA, I could but conclude that Clay was referring to outing a member of AT.

Let me repeat: We did not identify her as a member of BSDA in those posts, and no one who read those posts would have concluded that she was a member of BSDA. To my knowledge, the only on AT one who has identified her as a member of BSDA is yourself in this thread.

Quote
I just don't have the money to hire a lawyer and let him do all the work. But then, how much money would I need to have?

My post has nothing to do with who represents you in court, but the path you take in defending yourself.  Simple question:  Will you win the case, but will that path to that victory cause you to lose your soul?

That's a valuable question.

I was referring to your statement about "how it virtually consumes your lives." If I could hire a lawyer, then I wouldn't have to do the work myself, and could think about and do other things.

Regarding the path I take in defending myself, I have decided to be honest for one thing. I realize that some folks would rather us not look into certain relevant topics, but looking into relevant topics that others want to prohibit should not in itself cause one to lose their soul.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Fran on September 02, 2008, 06:57:25 AM
Thank you Bob.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: irspro on September 02, 2008, 07:02:56 AM
An aerial geologist disclosed to me that successful oil producers thought there was only one more step after houses, cars, and horses for feeding their egos.  
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: pbjelly on September 02, 2008, 07:25:21 AM
Quote from: Gailon Arthur Joy
In any event, I have come to the conclusion that I am glad I did not trade Cindy for Bob!!! I just wish she had complained to my conference president, as Bob and I just got them out of a pickle and solved a monstrous little problem that was plaguing a semi-retired former conference president and several of his parishioners. And the little miscreant has decided to move back to his homeland to avoid prosecution. Another job well done, BOB!!!

Mr. Gailon,

I spoke to Frank Tochterman, President of the Southern New England Conference. And I spoke to Dr. Donald King, President of the Atlantic Union Conference. They have not heard of you. They have had nothing to do with you.

Can you please explain this discrepancy?

I also do not understand how something can be monstrous and little at the same time.

Please clarify whether the miscreant was small in stature or small in age or small in offense.

Thank you,
PB
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 02, 2008, 07:34:57 AM
What exactly is the discrepancy that you see?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: pbjelly on September 02, 2008, 07:40:29 AM
What exactly is the discrepancy that you see?

Mr. Bob,
Quote
as Bob and I just got them out of a pickle and solved a monstrous little  problem
If I were the conference president I would certainly remember both the people who got us out of a pickle. It seems very strange that such a recollection is missing.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 02, 2008, 08:06:15 AM
Not necessarily, depending on how many people were involved, how long ago the incident occurred, how good one's memory is, whether the particular incident was referred to when inquiring, and what type of role Gailon played.

It didn't happen yesterday.

I think your initial thoughts are entirely reasonable. Yet at the same time I can understand why you could have gotten the response that you did.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: pbjelly on September 02, 2008, 08:48:01 AM
I think your initial thoughts are entirely reasonable. Yet at the same time I can understand why you could have gotten the response that you did.

Mr. Bob,
There was a total absence of recollection. Is it possible that you were the sole contact and you had Mr. Gailon do the necessary action?

Mr. Gailon,
I had a total of 3 questions. Please reply when you have the time.

Thank you
PB
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: anyman on September 02, 2008, 11:39:15 AM
Since the only response to date is Mr. Robert Pickle's less than detailed or forthcoming response . . . maybe it's time to consider that the action referenced by Mr. Gailon Arthur Joy was taken in the sort of Robinhoodish, vigilante style, approach he has gained infamy for. Maybe the reason the Conference President isn't aware of Mr. G. A. Joy is because he was never contacted by him in regards to the (oxymoronic) "monstrous little problem" . . .

It would not be unheard of for Mr's Joy and Pickle to hear a rumor and go in guns blazing to take out anyone and every one they assume is guilty . . . without ever checking with those in position to deal with a "problem" or without following normal procedures. After all Mr. G. A. Joy's rationalization of his actions leading to the embezzlement conviction evidences an attitude that he is above the law.

In addition to your well stated questions you might want to press for public openness and transparency about the funds that Mr's Joy and Pickle have solicited use multiple web sites to finance their defense. You might want to ask for evidence that appropriate IRS documents have been filed, or will be when the time comes . . . digital copies of receipts, travel itineraries, as well as any other documentation that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the dollars of their "stockholders in the pews" have been used only for the process of defending themselves against the law suit. To date there has been no public openness or transparency in this regard - only cloaked claims and no evidence.

Quote from: Gailon Arthur Joy
In any event, I have come to the conclusion that I am glad I did not trade Cindy for Bob!!! I just wish she had complained to my conference president, as Bob and I just got them out of a pickle and solved a monstrous little problem that was plaguing a semi-retired former conference president and several of his parishioners. And the little miscreant has decided to move back to his homeland to avoid prosecution. Another job well done, BOB!!!

Mr. Gailon,

I spoke to Frank Tochterman, President of the Southern New England Conference. And I spoke to Dr. Donald King, President of the Atlantic Union Conference. They have not heard of you. They have had nothing to do with you.

Can you please explain this discrepancy?

I also do not understand how something can be monstrous and little at the same time.

Please clarify whether the miscreant was small in stature or small in age or small in offense.

Thank you,
PB
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 02, 2008, 11:56:46 AM
I think your initial thoughts are entirely reasonable. Yet at the same time I can understand why you could have gotten the response that you did.

Mr. Bob,
There was a total absence of recollection. Is it possible that you were the sole contact and you had Mr. Gailon do the necessary action?

Mr. Gailon,
I had a total of 3 questions. Please reply when you have the time.

Thank you
PB

I was not the sole contact. I wasn't even the main contact.

But like I said, unless you gave some details of the incident, he might not know at all what you were talking about. And it was possible that the main players in that saga may not have mentioned Gailon's name.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 02, 2008, 12:03:13 PM
Maybe the reason the Conference President isn't aware of Mr. G. A. Joy is because he was never contacted by him in regards to the (oxymoronic) "monstrous little problem" . . .

Did Gailon say he had?

Stick with the facts, please.

It would be unheard of for Mr's Joy and Pickle to hear a rumor and go in guns blazing to take out anyone and every one they assume is guilty . . . without ever checking with those in position to deal with a "problem" or without following normal procedures. After all Mr. G. A. Joy's rationalization of his actions leading to the embezzlement conviction evidences an attitude that he is above the law.

You appear to speak out of ignorance.

Regarding the conviction, have you found any evidence that Gailon at the time knew that the law of that state forbid holding on to another's money when that other person also owed you that sum?

In addition to your well stated questions you might want to press for public openness and transparency about the funds that Mr's Joy and Pickle have solicited use multiple web sites to finance their defense. You might want to ask for evidence that appropriate IRS documents have been filed, or will be when the time comes . . . digital copies of receipts, travel itineraries, as well as any other documentation that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the dollars of their "stockholders in the pews" have been used only for the process of defending themselves against the law suit. To date there has been no public openness or transparency in this regard - only cloaked claims and no evidence.

Feel free to call me and tell me what you gave, and I will give you as much information as possible.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: anyman on September 02, 2008, 12:07:27 PM
And there we have it - a tacit refusal to be publicly open and transparent . . . evidence that the modus operandi is "Do as we say, not as we do."

I suspect that due to your constant harping about financial issues (which of course were unraveled in one fell swoop by the IRS) . . . that your failure to disclose openly and transparently in public your use of donated funds will be one that hounds you to the end - and it wouldn't surprise me if someone hasn't already cried - "Release the hounds!"

Feel free to call me and tell me what you gave, and I will give you as much information as possible.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 02, 2008, 12:25:43 PM
I don't think you're making sense.

Why don't you start by quoting exactly what we have said regarding such issues, quotes regarding exactly what we've discussed that needs to be disclosed, and how and when.

Then let's compare.

But I suggest that you do such in a separate thread, unless your inquiries have something to do with the topic, "Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym."
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 02, 2008, 12:34:40 PM
I'm curious, anyman, are you taking the position that 3ABN must give financial reports that include documentation of every expense, and must do so multiple times during the year?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on September 02, 2008, 01:08:29 PM
I don't' recall seeing anywhere that Gailon and Bob declared themselves to be a tax-exempt entity.


And there we have it - a tacit refusal to be publicly open and transparent . . . evidence that the modus operandi is "Do as we say, not as we do."

I suspect that due to your constant harping about financial issues (which of course were unraveled in one fell swoop by the IRS) . . . that your failure to disclose openly and transparently in public your use of donated funds will be one that hounds you to the end - and it wouldn't surprise me if someone hasn't already cried - "Release the hounds!"

Feel free to call me and tell me what you gave, and I will give you as much information as possible.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 02, 2008, 03:36:49 PM
That's right. Never did.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: pbjelly on September 02, 2008, 03:41:57 PM
I think your initial thoughts are entirely reasonable. Yet at the same time I can understand why you could have gotten the response that you did.

Mr. Bob,
There was a total absence of recollection. Is it possible that you were the sole contact and you had Mr. Gailon do the necessary action?

Mr. Gailon,
I had a total of 3 questions. Please reply when you have the time.

Thank you
PB

I was not the sole contact. I wasn't even the main contact.

But like I said, unless you gave some details of the incident, he might not know at all what you were talking about. And it was possible that the main players in that saga may not have mentioned Gailon's name.

Mr. Bob,

Details of the incident were given. There was a total absence of recollection. Is it possible to get the name of the church that benefited from yours and Mr. Gailon's assistance?

Thank you,
PB
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 02, 2008, 05:52:08 PM
If you want to call me, maybe I could tell you more. I don't want to post any details publicly.

If you don't know where the incident occurred, you could not have given details of the incident.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: princessdi on September 02, 2008, 06:43:50 PM
No she didn't tell me that.  That is part of my point.  If they knew that she wanted to be annonymous on the internet....anywhere....then that should be respected.  My point is the same whether or not she is a member here.  Point is, they knew she wanted to remain annonymous, and should have respected that.

Just as with anyone who posts annonymously or even with a screen name(which most do) other than their own given name.  You address them as such until they give you permission to do differently.



Did she tell you that, PrincessDi?


My point is that you did know that Clay stated that you divulge the identity of a "member", however, I am almost sure that you understood that he was actually talking about you all "outing" Cindi anywhere on the internet when you knew she wished to remain annonymous..  It makes no difference that she is not a user/member here at AdventTalk, but that she preferred to remain annonymouse regarding this 3ABN situation.  If you put her full name out there without her permission, then nomatter what else your post said, the damage was done.  Simple.   

Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: pbjelly on September 02, 2008, 06:48:42 PM
ADMIN HAT ON

pbjelly, I believe Mr. Pickle just posted that he prefers not to discuss any details of what you are asking.  Did you not see that?  I suggest you either drop it or PM/call him as he requested.  Regardless, let's try to stay on topic.

ADMIN HAT OFF


If you want to call me, maybe I could tell you more. I don't want to post any details publicly.

If you don't know where the incident occurred, you could not have given details of the incident.

Mr. Bob,

The conference president was unable to recall a problem relating to any ex-conference president and his parishioners in which you or Mr. Gailon assisted.

It would be helpful if you could let me know of the name of the church using private channels.

Thank you
PB
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on September 02, 2008, 07:12:59 PM
I see what you are saying, Di.  I don't know if she currently posts here or not.  But I certainly could not gather that one way or the other from anything that was said here.  If anybody outed anybody, it was Clay with his silly little tantrum.

And what about all the outing of people over at the 3ABNDefended Yahoo site and 3ABNtalk.com?  Any thoughts on that?  3ABN defenders over there have gone out of their way to FIND people who wanted to remain anonymous and have been downright nasty to them, dredging up stuff from their past and threatening to try to have them disfellowshiped from the SDA church, etc.  Made me pretty grateful NOT to be a member!  Unless people we know are talking, then the information obtained and presented there was obtained with a defective subpoena, and it is my understanding the defenders have been warned of that.


No she didn't tell me that.  That is part of my point.  If they knew that she wanted to be annonymous on the internet....anywhere....then that should be respected.  My point is the same whether or not she is a member here.  Point is, they knew she wanted to remain annonymous, and should have respected that.

Just as with anyone who posts annonymously or even with a screen name(which most do) other than their own given name.  You address them as such until they give you permission to do differently.



Did she tell you that, PrincessDi?


My point is that you did know that Clay stated that you divulge the identity of a "member", however, I am almost sure that you understood that he was actually talking about you all "outing" Cindi anywhere on the internet when you knew she wished to remain annonymous..  It makes no difference that she is not a user/member here at AdventTalk, but that she preferred to remain annonymouse regarding this 3ABN situation.  If you put her full name out there without her permission, then nomatter what else your post said, the damage was done.  Simple.   

Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: pbjelly on September 02, 2008, 07:29:35 PM
ADMIN HAT ON

pbjelly, I believe Mr. Pickle just posted that he prefers not to discuss any details of what you are asking.  Did you not see that?  I suggest you either drop it or PM/call him as he requested.  Regardless, let's try to stay on topic.

ADMIN HAT OFF


Dear admin,
I believe that is what I asked Mr. Bob to do. I requested him to use private channels  to send me the church name.

Thank you,
PB
Quote
If you want to call me, maybe I could tell you more. I don't want to post any details publicly.

If you don't know where the incident occurred, you could not have given details of the incident.

Mr. Bob,

The conference president was unable to recall a problem relating to any ex-conference president and his parishioners in which you or Mr. Gailon assisted.

It would be helpful if you could let me know of the name of the church using private channels.

Thank you
PB
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 02, 2008, 07:44:15 PM
If you want to call, I'll respond that way.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on September 02, 2008, 09:46:13 PM
ADMIN HAT ON

Good.  Then we can expect not to hear any more about it in this thread!!!

ADMIN HAT OFF




Dear admin,
I believe that is what I asked Mr. Bob to do. I requested him to use private channels  to send me the church name.

Thank you,
PB

Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: pbjelly on September 03, 2008, 09:43:59 AM
ADMIN HAT ON

Good.  Then we can expect not to hear any more about it in this thread!!!

ADMIN HAT OFF




Dear admin,
I believe that is what I asked Mr. Bob to do. I requested him to use private channels  to send me the church name.

Thank you,
PB


Dear Admin,

I see that you are correct. May I open another thread with a new topic?

Thank you,
PB
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on September 03, 2008, 09:46:02 AM
Certainly!  You are welcome to do that, pbjelly!


Dear Admin,

I see that you are correct. May I open another thread with a new topic?

Thank you,
PB
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: princessdi on September 03, 2008, 05:18:56 PM
Ok, but this is not all happening in a vaccum at AT.  Like it or not, this forum is a continuation from what was going on at BSDA.  So there are very few if any who would not know to whom they were referring..  Clay's post to my knowledge did not mention any name of who the member was, but I did come to read, and found out from GJ own post.  I actually took the inference that she may have not been amember here from Bob's response to Clay.  As I said, if I am wrong, my apologies.  But it looked like a play on words, basically.

My only point here is that they knew who it was, They knew she posted and/or read annonymously on the internet.....just as you and I do. Now, my info is easily accessible as an Admin at BSDA, I thought that important, so I am not disturbed when some refers to me by my full name as I have in essence given my permission.  However, if I was posting annonymously and Bob and GJ had this info, today I would not feel my annonymity was safe.  I owuld be one wrong step from being outed.....for the cause.   If Bob and GJ were posting annonymously on the internet and I knew their true identities, as I do many memebers as an admin, I would not then think it fair game to go to another site and start posting their identites.  That is not right.  So it makes no difference who knew besides Bob and GJ, they knew, and they were wrong.  It makes no difference where she posts or not posts.  They knew.  That is my point.  Still my brothers in Christ, but in this instance they are wrong.  There is no justifying it.  

I said it once before the the truth is the truth anyhow.........by any means necessary has no place in God's work, because it most often means working form the devils toolbox.  
 


I see what you are saying, Di.  I don't know if she currently posts here or not.  But I certainly could not gather that one way or the other from anything that was said here.  If anybody outed anybody, it was Clay with his silly little tantrum.

And what about all the outing of people over at the 3ABNDefended Yahoo site and 3ABNtalk.com?  Any thoughts on that?  3ABN defenders over there have gone out of their way to FIND people who wanted to remain anonymous and have been downright nasty to them, dredging up stuff from their past and threatening to try to have them disfellowshiped from the SDA church, etc.  Made me pretty grateful NOT to be a member!  Unless people we know are talking, then the information obtained and presented there was obtained with a defective subpoena, and it is my understanding the defenders have been warned of that.


Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 03, 2008, 06:14:34 PM
princessdi,

If you could be so kind as to quote where Gailon or I outed Cindi Randall by saying anything that could tie her to any user at BSDA, I would be most appreciative. Then I will apologize for mistakenly saying that we didn't when we did.

Let me put it this way: Suppose Walt Thompson were posting on BSDA anonymously. Suppose we knew who he was. Suppose we then discussed Walt Thompson here openly without identifying him as that user on BSDA, since he is the 3ABN Board chairman. Would that be wrong to do? Would that be doing Satan's work?

In other words, just because someone posts anonymously and is allowed to do so, I don't think that keeps them from being discussed in ways that doesn't associate them with a BSDA user when they are playing a major role in this saga.

I repeat: The only posts that I think has outed Cindi Randall as a BSDA user is your posts here. And I would not be against the moderators deleting or editing whichever posts identify Cindi Randall as a BSDA user, which would mean deleting or editing your posts, and certain posts which comment on your posts, like this one.

But the original posts that started this discussion do not in any way connect Cindi Randall to BSDA.

Ok, but this is not all happening in a vaccum at AT.  Like it or not, this forum is a continuation from what was going on at BSDA.  So there are very few if any who would not know to whom they were referring..  Clay's post to my knowledge did not mention any name of who the member was, but I did come to read, and found out from GJ own post.  I actually took the inference that she may have not been amember here from Bob's response to Clay.  As I said, if I am wrong, my apologies.  But it looked like a play on words, basically.

My only point here is that they knew who it was, They knew she posted and/or read annonymously on the internet.....just as you and I do. Now, my info is easily accessible as an Admin at BSDA, I thought that important, so I am not disturbed when some refers to me by my full name as I have in essence given my permission.  However, if I was posting annonymously and Bob and GJ had this info, today I would not feel my annonymity was safe.  I owuld be one wrong step from being outed.....for the cause.   If Bob and GJ were posting annonymously on the internet and I knew their true identities, as I do many memebers as an admin, I would not then think it fair game to go to another site and start posting their identites.  That is not right.  So it makes no difference who knew besides Bob and GJ, they knew, and they were wrong.  It makes no difference where she posts or not posts.  They knew.  That is my point.  Still my brothers in Christ, but in this instance they are wrong.  There is no justifying it. 

I said it once before the the truth is the truth anyhow.........by any means necessary has no place in God's work, because it most often means working form the devils toolbox.   
 


I see what you are saying, Di.  I don't know if she currently posts here or not.  But I certainly could not gather that one way or the other from anything that was said here.  If anybody outed anybody, it was Clay with his silly little tantrum.

And what about all the outing of people over at the 3ABNDefended Yahoo site and 3ABNtalk.com?  Any thoughts on that?  3ABN defenders over there have gone out of their way to FIND people who wanted to remain anonymous and have been downright nasty to them, dredging up stuff from their past and threatening to try to have them disfellowshiped from the SDA church, etc.  Made me pretty grateful NOT to be a member!  Unless people we know are talking, then the information obtained and presented there was obtained with a defective subpoena, and it is my understanding the defenders have been warned of that.



Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: princessdi on September 03, 2008, 10:05:09 PM
You are missing the point.  If WT was posting annonymousiy anywhere on the internet,a nd you knew he wanted to remain so...on the internet...then it is wrong for you to post his name anywhere on the internet.  Especially in the spirit in which this was done.

I said I was not going to argue, and I am not.  You all get my point, I know it, you know it.  It was wrong, I know it, you know it.  If you can live with it, then so can I.  Case closed.  I realize that y ou have a goal and whatever it takes for you to get there is all good by you. I can't change that, but I can speak the truth about it.


princessdi,

If you could be so kind as to quote where Gailon or I outed Cindi Randall by saying anything that could tie her to any user at BSDA, I would be most appreciative. Then I will apologize for mistakenly saying that we didn't when we did.

Let me put it this way: Suppose Walt Thompson were posting on BSDA anonymously. Suppose we knew who he was. Suppose we then discussed Walt Thompson here openly without identifying him as that user on BSDA, since he is the 3ABN Board chairman. Would that be wrong to do? Would that be doing Satan's work?

In other words, just because someone posts anonymously and is allowed to do so, I don't think that keeps them from being discussed in ways that doesn't associate them with a BSDA user when they are playing a major role in this saga.

I repeat: The only posts that I think has outed Cindi Randall as a BSDA user is your posts here. And I would not be against the moderators deleting or editing whichever posts identify Cindi Randall as a BSDA user, which would mean deleting or editing your posts, and certain posts which comment on your posts, like this one.

But the original posts that started this discussion do not in any way connect Cindi Randall to BSDA.

Ok, but this is not all happening in a vaccum at AT.  Like it or not, this forum is a continuation from what was going on at BSDA.  So there are very few if any who would not know to whom they were referring..  Clay's post to my knowledge did not mention any name of who the member was, but I did come to read, and found out from GJ own post.  I actually took the inference that she may have not been amember here from Bob's response to Clay.  As I said, if I am wrong, my apologies.  But it looked like a play on words, basically.

My only point here is that they knew who it was, They knew she posted and/or read annonymously on the internet.....just as you and I do. Now, my info is easily accessible as an Admin at BSDA, I thought that important, so I am not disturbed when some refers to me by my full name as I have in essence given my permission.  However, if I was posting annonymously and Bob and GJ had this info, today I would not feel my annonymity was safe.  I owuld be one wrong step from being outed.....for the cause.   If Bob and GJ were posting annonymously on the internet and I knew their true identities, as I do many memebers as an admin, I would not then think it fair game to go to another site and start posting their identites.  That is not right.  So it makes no difference who knew besides Bob and GJ, they knew, and they were wrong.  It makes no difference where she posts or not posts.  They knew.  That is my point.  Still my brothers in Christ, but in this instance they are wrong.  There is no justifying it. 

I said it once before the the truth is the truth anyhow.........by any means necessary has no place in God's work, because it most often means working form the devils toolbox.   
 


I see what you are saying, Di.  I don't know if she currently posts here or not.  But I certainly could not gather that one way or the other from anything that was said here.  If anybody outed anybody, it was Clay with his silly little tantrum.

And what about all the outing of people over at the 3ABNDefended Yahoo site and 3ABNtalk.com?  Any thoughts on that?  3ABN defenders over there have gone out of their way to FIND people who wanted to remain anonymous and have been downright nasty to them, dredging up stuff from their past and threatening to try to have them disfellowshiped from the SDA church, etc.  Made me pretty grateful NOT to be a member!  Unless people we know are talking, then the information obtained and presented there was obtained with a defective subpoena, and it is my understanding the defenders have been warned of that.



Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 04, 2008, 05:19:53 AM
If I missed the point, it was because I didn't think you could really be saying what you just said. And I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree with you.

What I see you saying below is that if someone has posted anonymously anywhere on the internet and wanted to remain so, then it is wrong for anyone to ever mention their real name under any circumstances and regarding any topic.

Thus if President Bush has posted anonymously and wants to remain so, no one in the media on the internet can ever do another story on him, such as a story about the speech he gave for the RNC.

Regarding the spirit in which Attorney Randall's name was mentioned, since I was the one who Clay lambasted more than anyone else, what did I say that displayed an improper spirit?

But please, if you respond, do not say that I outed Cindi, since it has already been established by default that I didn't out her as a member of either AT or BSDA.

You are missing the point.  If WT was posting annonymousiy anywhere on the internet,a nd you knew he wanted to remain so...on the internet...then it is wrong for you to post his name anywhere on the internet.  Especially in the spirit in which this was done.

I said I was not going to argue, and I am not.  You all get my point, I know it, you know it.  It was wrong, I know it, you know it.  If you can live with it, then so can I.  Case closed.  I realize that y ou have a goal and whatever it takes for you to get there is all good by you. I can't change that, but I can speak the truth about it.


princessdi,

If you could be so kind as to quote where Gailon or I outed Cindi Randall by saying anything that could tie her to any user at BSDA, I would be most appreciative. Then I will apologize for mistakenly saying that we didn't when we did.

Let me put it this way: Suppose Walt Thompson were posting on BSDA anonymously. Suppose we knew who he was. Suppose we then discussed Walt Thompson here openly without identifying him as that user on BSDA, since he is the 3ABN Board chairman. Would that be wrong to do? Would that be doing Satan's work?

In other words, just because someone posts anonymously and is allowed to do so, I don't think that keeps them from being discussed in ways that doesn't associate them with a BSDA user when they are playing a major role in this saga.

I repeat: The only posts that I think has outed Cindi Randall as a BSDA user is your posts here. And I would not be against the moderators deleting or editing whichever posts identify Cindi Randall as a BSDA user, which would mean deleting or editing your posts, and certain posts which comment on your posts, like this one.

But the original posts that started this discussion do not in any way connect Cindi Randall to BSDA.

Ok, but this is not all happening in a vaccum at AT.  Like it or not, this forum is a continuation from what was going on at BSDA.  So there are very few if any who would not know to whom they were referring..  Clay's post to my knowledge did not mention any name of who the member was, but I did come to read, and found out from GJ own post.  I actually took the inference that she may have not been amember here from Bob's response to Clay.  As I said, if I am wrong, my apologies.  But it looked like a play on words, basically.

My only point here is that they knew who it was, They knew she posted and/or read annonymously on the internet.....just as you and I do. Now, my info is easily accessible as an Admin at BSDA, I thought that important, so I am not disturbed when some refers to me by my full name as I have in essence given my permission.  However, if I was posting annonymously and Bob and GJ had this info, today I would not feel my annonymity was safe.  I owuld be one wrong step from being outed.....for the cause.   If Bob and GJ were posting annonymously on the internet and I knew their true identities, as I do many memebers as an admin, I would not then think it fair game to go to another site and start posting their identites.  That is not right.  So it makes no difference who knew besides Bob and GJ, they knew, and they were wrong.  It makes no difference where she posts or not posts.  They knew.  That is my point.  Still my brothers in Christ, but in this instance they are wrong.  There is no justifying it. 

I said it once before the the truth is the truth anyhow.........by any means necessary has no place in God's work, because it most often means working form the devils toolbox.   
 


I see what you are saying, Di.  I don't know if she currently posts here or not.  But I certainly could not gather that one way or the other from anything that was said here.  If anybody outed anybody, it was Clay with his silly little tantrum.

And what about all the outing of people over at the 3ABNDefended Yahoo site and 3ABNtalk.com?  Any thoughts on that?  3ABN defenders over there have gone out of their way to FIND people who wanted to remain anonymous and have been downright nasty to them, dredging up stuff from their past and threatening to try to have them disfellowshiped from the SDA church, etc.  Made me pretty grateful NOT to be a member!  Unless people we know are talking, then the information obtained and presented there was obtained with a defective subpoena, and it is my understanding the defenders have been warned of that.



Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Daryl Fawcett on September 04, 2008, 06:04:08 AM
Didn't I read a change in policy over at BSDA where identifying members of BSDA is allowed?

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18980
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 04, 2008, 07:03:23 AM
That's true.

That being the case, what was the problem?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: princessdi on September 04, 2008, 12:17:14 PM
That change was only for the 3ABN forum at the time because we could no longer babysit everyone.  Both sides were just childish with their campaigns to identify the other side.  It was still not allowed ares of the site.   It was like th wild, wild west in there with one person doing something to another member, and then reporting someone for doing that same thing to them.  PMs to the Admins, and especially Calvin just flying about who thought they were wronged that day.  Accusing us of being biased by both sides if we didn't side with them that day.  Working hard and making insinuations about who the opponent my be, where they live, go to church, etc., while fiercely clinging to their right to protect that same information about themselves, also posting annonymously.  It was just crazy, and so unchristian in was just plain scary.   I, for one, still believe it to be wrong, and I can only speak for Diane.  One's preferences should just be respected, simple.

As I siad Bob one more time, I will not argue with you.  This is the danger is the path you have taken in that even your basic judgement is skewed.  You are right, though, it was GJ post that I first read about Cindy being identified.  You just cosigned in your post.

I'm sorry, guys, I will just always see things different for a variety of reasons.  Number one being my relationship with God and if this would be an affront to him to offend one of His Children is such a way, and I am impressed that it would.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: GrandmaNettie on September 04, 2008, 01:48:37 PM
I see what you are saying, Di.  I don't know if she currently posts here or not.  But I certainly could not gather that one way or the other from anything that was said here.  If anybody outed anybody, it was Clay with his silly little tantrum.

We'll save this discussion for another day.

And what about all the outing of people over at the 3ABNDefended Yahoo site and 3ABNtalk.com?  Any thoughts on that?  3ABN defenders over there have gone out of their way to FIND people who wanted to remain anonymous and have been downright nasty to them, dredging up stuff from their past and threatening to try to have them disfellowshiped from the SDA church, etc.   Made me pretty grateful NOT to be a member!  Unless people we know are talking, then the information obtained and presented there was obtained with a defective subpoena, and it is my understanding the defenders have been warned of that.

Let's discuss this point for a moment.  Over on BlackSDA is a thread in the 3abn archives called "Coming Out!"  It has, at this moment, nearly 11,000 views.  In the 3abn forum there was nastiness afoot, contentiousness and anger between members when this thread was created.  Oh what fun we all had being just plain silly, much to the chagrin, nay, disdain of a few.  Many of us got into the spirit of the fun and exposed ourselves as various leaders of 3abn as well as superheroes and arch villans.  Then, PB a.k.a. Danny Shelton a.k.a. Garwin McNeilus encouraged a friend to join in the fun and come out as Linda S.  He did.  This enraged Sister to the point that she jumped in, and in full meanspirited vitriol, outed FHB.

Sister's Outing of FHB on BlackSDA.com (http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=18985&view=findpost&p=232030)

Of course, as some of you know, it didn't stop there.  Is it possible that Sister created a tit for tat reaction in those who had been attacked?  Should Sister, or anyone else who takes such actions against others expect no repercussions?


No she didn't tell me that.  That is part of my point.  If they knew that she wanted to be annonymous on the internet....anywhere....then that should be respected.  My point is the same whether or not she is a member here.  Point is, they knew she wanted to remain annonymous, and should have respected that.

Just as with anyone who posts annonymously or even with a screen name(which most do) other than their own given name.  You address them as such until they give you permission to do differently.



Did she tell you that, PrincessDi?


My point is that you did know that Clay stated that you divulge the identity of a "member", however, I am almost sure that you understood that he was actually talking about you all "outing" Cindi anywhere on the internet when you knew she wished to remain annonymous..  It makes no difference that she is not a user/member here at AdventTalk, but that she preferred to remain annonymouse regarding this 3ABN situation.  If you put her full name out there without her permission, then nomatter what else your post said, the damage was done.  Simple.  

[/quote]
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on September 04, 2008, 02:03:52 PM
Oooohhhh - I get it now.  The ugliness of the 3ABN defenders on their various sites is justified by something sister did...  Yeah, right.



Let's discuss this point for a moment.  Over on BlackSDA is a thread in the 3abn archives called "Coming Out!"  It has, at this moment, nearly 11,000 views.  In the 3abn forum there was nastiness afoot, contentiousness and anger between members when this thread was created.  Oh what fun we all had being just plain silly, much to the chagrin, nay, disdain of a few.  Many of us got into the spirit of the fun and exposed ourselves as various leaders of 3abn as well as superheroes and arch villans.  Then, PB a.k.a. Danny Shelton a.k.a. Garwin McNeilus encouraged a friend to join in the fun and come out as Linda S.  He did.  This enraged Sister to the point that she jumped in, and in full meanspirited vitriol, outed FHB.

Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: GrandmaNettie on September 04, 2008, 02:36:58 PM
Perhaps you missed the final part of my post.  My post went on to say:


"Of course, as some of you know, it didn't stop there. Is it possible that Sister created a tit for tat reaction in those who had been attacked?  Should Sister, or anyone else who takes such actions against others expect no repercussions? "

Where do I say anything about either's actions being justified?

Oooohhhh - I get it now.  The ugliness of the 3ABN defenders on their various sites is justified by something sister did...  Yeah, right.



Let's discuss this point for a moment.  Over on BlackSDA is a thread in the 3abn archives called "Coming Out!"  It has, at this moment, nearly 11,000 views.  In the 3abn forum there was nastiness afoot, contentiousness and anger between members when this thread was created.  Oh what fun we all had being just plain silly, much to the chagrin, nay, disdain of a few.  Many of us got into the spirit of the fun and exposed ourselves as various leaders of 3abn as well as superheroes and arch villans.  Then, PB a.k.a. Danny Shelton a.k.a. Garwin McNeilus encouraged a friend to join in the fun and come out as Linda S.  He did.  This enraged Sister to the point that she jumped in, and in full meanspirited vitriol, outed FHB.

Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 04, 2008, 03:33:49 PM
As I siad Bob one more time, I will not argue with you.  This is the danger is the path you have taken in that even your basic judgement is skewed.  You are right, though, it was GJ post that I first read about Cindy being identified.  You just cosigned in your post.

I'm sorry, guys, I will just always see things different for a variety of reasons.  Number one being my relationship with God and if this would be an affront to him to offend one of His Children is such a way, and I am impressed that it would.

I repeat yet again, neither Gailon nor I identified Cindi Randall as a user of any forum anywhere. If someone is playing a major role in this saga, they might become part of the discussion, whether or not they post anonymously on some forum.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Sister on September 04, 2008, 04:12:43 PM
Oooohhhh - I get it now.  The ugliness of the 3ABN defenders on their various sites is justified by something sister did...  Yeah, right.



Let's discuss this point for a moment.  Over on BlackSDA is a thread in the 3abn archives called "Coming Out!"  It has, at this moment, nearly 11,000 views.  In the 3abn forum there was nastiness afoot, contentiousness and anger between members when this thread was created.  Oh what fun we all had being just plain silly, much to the chagrin, nay, disdain of a few.  Many of us got into the spirit of the fun and exposed ourselves as various leaders of 3abn as well as superheroes and arch villans.  Then, PB a.k.a. Danny Shelton a.k.a. Garwin McNeilus encouraged a friend to join in the fun and come out as Linda S.  He did.  This enraged Sister to the point that she jumped in, and in full meanspirited vitriol, outed FHB.


I want to address both items quoted above, first Grandma Nettie. If you read the post you at referring to you will see that I said: "the above quote has left a sour taste behind." To extrapolate from " a sour taste" to mean that I am enraged is a giant leap from reality into pure fantasy on your part, Grandma Nettie. Nor was my post in the lest mean spirited, let alone "full meanspirited vitriol". Grandma Nettie you are reporting what was not there. Shame on you... Did I spoil your foolish little game? Did that enrage you? Enraged, me? No. Disappointed in the silliness and insensitivity of those trashing Linda claiming to be her as part of a childish game? Yes.

Secondly, Snoopy said: "Oooohhhh - I get it now.  The ugliness of the 3ABN defenders on their various sites is justified by something sister did...  Yeah, right."  I hope Grandma Nettie understood your intent before she starts telling people you agree with her. She appears to have difficulty in understanding the spirit behind the words.

On another forum the following was said about me, maybe that is where Grandma Nettie gets her inspiration:

Quote

...in all FAIRNESS, you need to go read every post sister has ever made over on BSDA. SHE STARTED ALL THIS MESS. Sister is at the root of it all. You can go ahead and enjoy her--talking about food--but this woman is at the root of all this costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. She is in deep trouble and the lawyers know who she is. What she has done is no small thing.

Breezy


According to Breezy, I am the root of the entire mess surrounding 3ABN. Sorry Breezy, I only wrote about what Danny, Tommy and others did. It was their acts that brought this whole saga into play; they are now reaping the results of what they have sown. Additionally, I was not the first to post about 3ABN on BSDA. It was already in progress when I began writing An Unauthorized History of 3ABN.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Sister on September 04, 2008, 04:43:44 PM
The following was also posted about me on another forum:

Quote

Sister,... , also made her decisions to be the errand girl of Linda Shelton. Linda is no dummy. She knew she couldn't be the one to say anything against 3ABN or Danny or members of the BoD so she had to find someone to give her voice so she could keep receiving the payments which were part of her severance. Ever since sister began writing numerous individuals who knew her intimately have pointed out how the words of sister could come from no other source than Linda. She did violate the terms of her severance package, an action that in the business world would have led to a law suit and her having to repay the monies she received from 3ABN.


Sorry, for this person's blaring ignorance, but I have not in the past or am I now the "errand girl" of Linda Shelton. Also, Linda Shelton had no input into any part of An Unauthorized History of 3ABN. During the time I was writing it I had no contact with Linda Shelton. Neither the words or the content were influenced by Linda Shelton in any way. I had no contact with Linda or anyone else while I was writing. Everything I wrote came from other sources over a number of years. If they are trying to prove that Linda Shelton violated the terms of her severance package through communication with me, then they are barking up the wrong tree. The person who wrote the above claimed that "numerous individuals who knew her intimately have pointed out how the words of sister could come from no other source than Linda", were completely off track. Or perhaps they, the "numerous individuals", were merely a figment of the writers imagination, like so much that has been said by the Danny's defenders?

Secondly, how can I be both "the root of all this mess" and merely "the errand girl of Linda"? The DD (Danny Defenders) need to get together on their stories.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: childoftheking on September 04, 2008, 05:35:31 PM
I hadn't read this post about who started it because I don't go there but the one who influenced me was judge Rowe and my reading of the government documents was very eye opening. The link to judge Rower's ruling was on one of the early forums. It wasn't blacksda that had the original link that I followed. And Club Adventist really got the discussion going.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 04, 2008, 05:38:38 PM
Funny that Danny didn't sue Judge Rowe for saying that 3ABN gave Danny and Linda a jet to use on weekends, and sued me instead.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: anyman on September 04, 2008, 07:05:17 PM
This is so completely illogical (not to mention whiny) . . . you are comparing apples and Boca Burgers . . .

You are not a judge, you are serving in no official capacity, you have no authority from which to support your actions . . .

This is so out there, it isn't in left field, it isn't outside the ball park . . . it is completely in another league . . .

Funny that Danny didn't sue Judge Rowe for saying that 3ABN gave Danny and Linda a jet to use on weekends, and sued me instead.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on September 04, 2008, 07:37:58 PM
Fact is that she said it and Danny didn't sue her. Why not?

Fact is I never said it, only quoted her, and Danny sued me. Why?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Michael Kopper on September 04, 2008, 11:08:20 PM
its interesing what you find if you google randall and ohio and attorney. could cindi be a nikname.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Gailon Arthur Joy on September 05, 2008, 12:15:14 AM
In any event, I have come to the conclusion that I am glad I did not trade Cindy for Bob!!! I just wish she had complained to my conference president, as Bob and I just got them out of a pickle and solved a monstrous little problem that was plaguing a semi-retired former conference president and several of his parishioners. And the little miscreant has decided to move back to his homeland to avoid prosecution. Another job well done, BOB!!!

Mr. Gailon,

I spoke to Frank Tochterman, President of the Southern New England Conference. And I spoke to Dr. Donald King, President of the Atlantic Union Conference. They have not heard of you. They have had nothing to do with you.

Can you please explain this discrepancy?

Thank you,
PB

Apparently, they have been very good boys and not screwed up enough to be the subject of an article recently.

 However, Dr. King is clearly just short memoried as I did write about his shifting direction in the Lashley re-election and then pressuring the votes to get Lashley re-elected president when his incompetence was well documented. The irony is that King fell victim to his own manipulations as Ben Schoun moved to Adventist World Radio and Dr. King was elected Union President. In fact, we reported that he took the job with a clear contingency that Lashley would resign shortly after King arrived at the Union. But, Lashley reneged and defied the AUC Chairman and Union President. Unfortunately for Lashley, accreditation and financial aid issues finally pinned him into a corner and Dr. King was forced to act.

Now we had already published the warning letter from NEASC regarding accreditation being probationary and about to be withdrawn. Sadly, King was one of the administrators that made it clear everyone should simply ignore us...and they did but NEASC did not accomodate...they cancelled accreditation for AUC.

Suddenly, King came belatedly alive and again asked for Lashley's resignation. Lashley said he would tender it and then his cronies convinced him to stand and fight. But with serious allegations regarding the misuse of Student Loan funds from the US Dept of Education (yes, we invoked freedom of information and received records regarding serious misappropriations that were on there way to a US Attorney's desk when Lashley finally caved with Carnegie, et al)  and the Babcock administration was born, albeit a perpetual financial exigency.

So, King clearly would prefer to forget us, but, we were there, reporting the facts as they came streaming into our office or over the fax machine. And King was a hindrance to reforms until it was way too late. But then they do not have to pay for their mistakes, we do!!!

I cannot explain Tochterman's memory. But it is worth asking him to explain it. I think I still have his number and his e-mail.

Gailon Arthur Joy

Gailon Arthur Joy
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Gailon Arthur Joy on September 05, 2008, 12:37:12 AM
Mr. Gailon,

Before you think I am attacking you please allow me to explain that I am a late-comer. I am catching up and will check everything for myself.

To that end, I plan to ask Danny questions regarding the allegations and will track down every witness or lead that I can. The website clubadventist.com and 3abntalk.com both announce it as this Friday.

I am also going through a site called save-3abn and will verify things to my satisfaction before making up my mind.

Regards
PB

Well Grandma, you have yet another member that is going to re-investigate in search of the truth...I bet PB Jelli never finds the truth!!! He has not yet demonstrated the competence to investigate. On the other hand, guess we would all like to know what he has found in his less than diligent search??? 

And he is a classic closed minded Seventh-day Adventist...he will first investigate the messenger and if we can get past that then we will look carefully at the message. But, they never get past the messenger!!! Now, ain't that a surprise???

So, here we go again, with another less than cunning truth seeker with an alternative agenda, asking less than serious questions, based upon clearly conclusive evidence pretending to be oh, so diligent, in his search for truth.

Well, PBJelli, welcome aboard and may you enjoy the controversy. By the way, do you need a manual for journalistic investigative procedure?

Gailon Arthur Joy
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: CPAATTY on September 05, 2008, 10:16:07 AM


Quote
And he is a classic closed minded Seventh-day Adventist...he will first investigate the messenger and if we can get past that then we will look carefully at the message. But, they never get past the messenger!!! Now, ain't that a surprise???


This may be true. Discovering the lengths the messenger is willing to travel and the methods that messenger uses may indeed be what stops someone from even considering investigating someone else.There is no way to get past that.

CPAATTY
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on October 30, 2008, 12:07:09 PM
I wonder if Cindi Randall disclosed her suspended attorney license when she was trying to influence Linda Shelton's legal decisions?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Gregory on October 30, 2008, 02:52:36 PM
Let me be very clear:

Cindi and  I did not attempt to influence Linda's legal decisions.

On numerous occasions both Cindi and I would tell Linda that she needed to seek the advice of a comptent attorney in regard to decisions that she  needed to make.

As part of that Linda was advised that she should seek the advice of lawyers who worked in the areas of law that related to the legal issues that Linda faced.  Cindi has spent her life in the practice of Social Security law.  She presently litigates Social Security disability cases in hearings where such cases are decided. She has never specialized in the specific areas where Linda had to make legal decisions.  Linda was repeatedly told to seek advice from atornies who specialized in areas of law related to the legal issues that she faced.

A number of years ago, when Linda informed me that she was without legal counsel, I gave her some advice as to how to select counsel to represent her.  I then illustrated my advice with the specific mention of three different law firms that I thought it would be worth her time to meet with and discuss the posibility of representing her (Linda) on a specific issue.  Linda contacted those law firms and ended up selecting an attorney that was not a part of the three that I had mentioned to her.  That was the last time that I ever mentioned a specific law firm or attorney to represent her.  She now understood the issues that I had mentioned to her and she was quite capable of acting on her own.  In every case, from that time on, she selected her own lawyers to represent her without any specific input from either Cindi or I.

Influence Linda on specifc legal issues:  No. 

I doubt that Snoppy has any personal knowledge of advice that we gave Linda.

Yes, we could defend ourselves (Cindi and I).  We could do so by puting out for public view personal information about Linda.  We are not prevented from doing so by any profesonal confidentiality concerns.  Such simply do not exist.

So, why have we not published for the world to see such information that would defend us?   Because we care about Linda.  We want her to get on with her life and celebrate as we see her doing so.  We do not want to embarrass Linda.  In addition, our defense of ourselves would embarrass people other than Linda. 
This is not what we want to do. 
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Fran on October 30, 2008, 07:24:48 PM
So, you want to see Linda fly on her own? 

You want her to prosper as she is doing? 

So why are you here trying to stomp on her parade by leaving hints that you have embarrassing information about Linda?  Were these comments to help Linda or to defend yourself by dropping the comment about how defending yourself would only embarrass Linda. 

And what part are we to believe?

You need to be defended?

Or did you want everyone to know Linda screwed up all by herself? 

It seems to boil down to the fact that you feel the need to defend yourself at Linda's expense!  Is that what you are implying?

I believe Linda is doing just fine since she started making her choices without leaning on a crutch!

In my own personal opinion, she would have flown a lot sooner had she not been involved with you.  I thought talking to a pastor was confidential, but you live by Gregory's ethics.  You perform CYA (cover your own posterior) at the hint of someone questioning your actions.

I believe you ingratiated yourself in Linda's life where you allowed her to use you as a crutch.  After all you were a chaplain!  Then she makes a decision and you are no longer associated with her! 

Some people can be fooled some of the time, but you can't fool them all of the time.

So go ahead an do what you have to do so we can get it over quickly.  It might be a nice diversion from the current SNT type topics that seem to have taken over AdventTalk.

I feel Linda needs to be left alone.  I believe you have an obligation to keep her confidential conversations confidential.  If you don't, then we all will know what makes up your character.


Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: guide4him on October 30, 2008, 07:30:23 PM
Fran,
Hear! Hear!  :goodpost:
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: sonshineonme on October 30, 2008, 08:04:08 PM
THANK YOU FRAN!!! You are awesome! You said it all and you said it very very well. Thank you!!!
 :TY: :TY: :TY: :TY: :TY: :TY: :TY: :TY:



So, you want to see Linda fly on her own? 

You want her to prosper as she is doing? 

So why are you here trying to stomp on her parade by leaving hints that you have embarrassing information about Linda?  Were these comments to help Linda or to defend yourself by dropping the comment about how defending yourself would only embarrass Linda. 

And what part are we to believe?

You need to be defended?

Or did you want everyone to know Linda screwed up all by herself? 

It seems to boil down to the fact that you feel the need to defend yourself at Linda's expense!  Is that what you are implying?

I believe Linda is doing just fine since she started making her choices without leaning on a crutch!

In my own personal opinion, she would have flown a lot sooner had she not been involved with you.  I thought talking to a pastor was confidential, but you live by Gregory's ethics.  You perform CYA (cover your own posterior) at the hint of someone questioning your actions.

I believe you ingratiated yourself in Linda's life where you allowed her to use you as a crutch.  After all you were a chaplain!  Then she makes a decision and you are no longer associated with her! 

Some people can be fooled some of the time, but you can't fool them all of the time.

So go ahead an do what you have to do so we can get it over quickly.  It might be a nice diversion from the current SNT type topics that seem to have taken over AdventTalk.

I feel Linda needs to be left alone.  I believe you have an obligation to keep her confidential conversations confidential.  If you don't, then we all will know what makes up your character.



Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on October 30, 2008, 08:40:20 PM
Don't kid yourself, Gregory.  Cindi has obviously been talking about things I have told her in confidence.

And, how can it be that she "presently litigates Social Security disability cases"?  Did she tell you that?  Did someone forget to tell her that her license is suspended?  Am I just missing something?

Let me be very clear:

Cindi and  I did not attempt to influence Linda's legal decisions.

On numerous occasions both Cindi and I would tell Linda that she needed to seek the advice of a comptent attorney in regard to decisions that she  needed to make.

As part of that Linda was advised that she should seek the advice of lawyers who worked in the areas of law that related to the legal issues that Linda faced.  Cindi has spent her life in the practice of Social Security law.  She presently litigates Social Security disability cases in hearings where such cases are decided. She has never specialized in the specific areas where Linda had to make legal decisions.  Linda was repeatedly told to seek advice from atornies who specialized in areas of law related to the legal issues that she faced.

A number of years ago, when Linda informed me that she was without legal counsel, I gave her some advice as to how to select counsel to represent her.  I then illustrated my advice with the specific mention of three different law firms that I thought it would be worth her time to meet with and discuss the posibility of representing her (Linda) on a specific issue.  Linda contacted those law firms and ended up selecting an attorney that was not a part of the three that I had mentioned to her.  That was the last time that I ever mentioned a specific law firm or attorney to represent her.  She now understood the issues that I had mentioned to her and she was quite capable of acting on her own.  In every case, from that time on, she selected her own lawyers to represent her without any specific input from either Cindi or I.

Influence Linda on specifc legal issues:  No. 

I doubt that Snoppy has any personal knowledge of advice that we gave Linda.

Yes, we could defend ourselves (Cindi and I).  We could do so by puting out for public view personal information about Linda.  We are not prevented from doing so by any profesonal confidentiality concerns.  Such simply do not exist.

So, why have we not published for the world to see such information that would defend us?   Because we care about Linda.  We want her to get on with her life and celebrate as we see her doing so.  We do not want to embarrass Linda.  In addition, our defense of ourselves would embarrass people other than Linda. 
This is not what we want to do. 

Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Gregory on October 31, 2008, 01:54:12 AM

Snoopy said:

Quote
And, how can it be that she "presently litigates Social Security disability cases"?  Did she tell you that?  Did someone forget to tell her that her license is suspended?  Am I just missing something?

Yes, you are missing something.  You lack a basic understanding of the law, legal affairs and what people can and can not do.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Johann on October 31, 2008, 02:13:56 AM

Yes, you are missing something.  You lack a basic understanding of the law, legal affairs and what people can and can not do.

Seems like I have heard a similar statement before. Isn't this close to the magic key with which certain lawyers seek to subdue and impress others?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Habanero on October 31, 2008, 03:47:13 AM

Yes, you are missing something.  You lack a basic understanding of the law, legal affairs and what people can and can not do.

Seems like I have heard a similar statement before. Isn't this close to the magic key with which certain lawyers seek to subdue and impress others?
Johann, the subduing and intimidation of people has been the magic key for lawyers, politicians, gangsters and televangelists for a very long time.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Nosir Myzing on October 31, 2008, 06:16:17 AM
So, you want to see Linda fly on her own? 

You want her to prosper as she is doing? 

It looks like that is exactly what he said to me.

Quote from: Fran
So why are you here trying to stomp on her parade by leaving hints that you have embarrassing information about Linda?  Were these comments to help Linda or to defend yourself by dropping the comment about how defending yourself would only embarrass Linda. 

And what part are we to believe?

You need to be defended?

Or did you want everyone to know Linda screwed up all by herself? 

It seems to boil down to the fact that you feel the need to defend yourself at Linda's expense!  Is that what you are implying?

Like Snoopy feels the need to defend herself at the expense of others?

It looks to me like he is responding as he and Cindi Randall have been attacked repeatedly here, and do need defending but explaining that they cannot do so without dragging in Linda and others, and they prefer not to do that, snoopy included. That is commendable and certainly rare here imo.

Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Nosir Myzing on October 31, 2008, 06:42:11 AM
Don't kid yourself, Gregory.  Cindi has obviously been talking about things I have told her in confidence.

That premise may suit your mindset, but it is not obvious to me.

I, myself know alot about you and your checkered history and
never asked or received any confidences from this woman you are bent on exposing and attacking.

I actually got it all from the internet, based on your public posts and emails.

After all you told us your name, occupation, and history, and even places you have lived and been.

For example; there was that letter you posted saying you were in Nashville. I googled the courts there and just entered your name.


Quote
And, how can it be that she "presently litigates Social Security disability cases"?  Did she tell you that?  Did someone forget to tell her that her license is suspended?  Am I just missing something?


Did you ever consider giving "your former friend" the benefit of the doubt, or of asking her that before attempting to publicly humiliate and attack her on this forum?

It seems to me that one should get all the facts,and ask questions privately and hear all before jumping to conclusions or developing obsessions involving pay backs and revenge for perceived wrongs.

It  also seems to me that you are exposing far more about yourself and your character here then you are others.

IMO, you outed yourself and you are continuing to do so, and are your own worst enemy.

I would venture to say outside of the little fan club you have going here, most others are turned off and disgusted by your display here.

I know I am.





Let me be very clear:

Cindi and  I did not attempt to influence Linda's legal decisions.

On numerous occasions both Cindi and I would tell Linda that she needed to seek the advice of a comptent attorney in regard to decisions that she  needed to make.

As part of that Linda was advised that she should seek the advice of lawyers who worked in the areas of law that related to the legal issues that Linda faced.  Cindi has spent her life in the practice of Social Security law.  She presently litigates Social Security disability cases in hearings where such cases are decided. She has never specialized in the specific areas where Linda had to make legal decisions.  Linda was repeatedly told to seek advice from atornies who specialized in areas of law related to the legal issues that she faced.

A number of years ago, when Linda informed me that she was without legal counsel, I gave her some advice as to how to select counsel to represent her.  I then illustrated my advice with the specific mention of three different law firms that I thought it would be worth her time to meet with and discuss the posibility of representing her (Linda) on a specific issue.  Linda contacted those law firms and ended up selecting an attorney that was not a part of the three that I had mentioned to her.  That was the last time that I ever mentioned a specific law firm or attorney to represent her.  She now understood the issues that I had mentioned to her and she was quite capable of acting on her own.  In every case, from that time on, she selected her own lawyers to represent her without any specific input from either Cindi or I.

Influence Linda on specifc legal issues:  No. 

I doubt that Snoppy has any personal knowledge of advice that we gave Linda.

Yes, we could defend ourselves (Cindi and I).  We could do so by puting out for public view personal information about Linda.  We are not prevented from doing so by any profesonal confidentiality concerns.  Such simply do not exist.

So, why have we not published for the world to see such information that would defend us?   Because we care about Linda.  We want her to get on with her life and celebrate as we see her doing so.  We do not want to embarrass Linda.  In addition, our defense of ourselves would embarrass people other than Linda. 
This is not what we want to do. 

[/quote]
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Fran on October 31, 2008, 07:10:32 AM
Nosir Myzing;

Your character is showing also.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on October 31, 2008, 07:18:02 AM
Yup - just like Ian!!  The similarities are remarkable!
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on October 31, 2008, 07:23:25 AM
Please do expound, Gregory!  So you telling me that Lucinda Dawn Randall is presently litigating Social Security disability cases?  I wonder what the Dayton Bar Association would think of that??  Here is their number (937) 222-7902.  Anybody care to call and check?  GrandmaNettie??  You're always a great one to go after the truth!  Maybe you could make a call and report back to us! 

***********************************************

High court suspends Spring Valley attorney's license
By Lou Grieco

Staff Writer

Thursday, June 12, 2008

DAYTON — The Ohio Supreme Court indefinitely suspended Thursday, June 12, the law license of a Spring Valley attorney.

Lucinda D. Randall was suspended for abandoning the cases of eight clients who had retained her to represent them in Social Security benefits appeals, and the cases of four other clients she agreed to represent in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

ExtrasThe court found that Randall's conduct violated discipline rules that prohibit neglect of entrusted client legal matters, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct that reflects adversely on an attorney's fitness to practice law.

Because Randall failed to answer the complaint against her or to respond to repeated efforts by the Dayton Bar Association and Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline to communicate with her, she also was found to be in violation of the state bar governance rule that requires an attorney to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings, the court found.


http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/06/12/ddn061208attorneyweb.html



Snoopy said:

Quote
And, how can it be that she "presently litigates Social Security disability cases"?  Did she tell you that?  Did someone forget to tell her that her license is suspended?  Am I just missing something?

Yes, you are missing something.  You lack a basic understanding of the law, legal affairs and what people can and can not do.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on October 31, 2008, 07:31:25 AM
 :ROFL: :ROFL:  Still laughing!!

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I don't feel the need to defend myself at the expense of others!  What I do feel is the need to beat you people at your own little games!!



Like Snoopy feels the need to defend herself at the expense of others?

It looks to me like he is responding as he and Cindi Randall have been attacked repeatedly here, and do need defending but explaining that they cannot do so without dragging in Linda and others, and they prefer not to do that, snoopy included. That is commendable and certainly rare here imo.


Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Buttercup Roberts on October 31, 2008, 07:44:29 AM
Yup - just like Ian!!  The similarities are remarkable!

Hmmmm.  Perhaps Michael Kopper could weigh in on similarities...
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on October 31, 2008, 07:48:41 AM
Well this is very enlightening!  You must lead a very boring life if all you have to do is check people out on the internet!  Do you do this for everyone you don't like?  Or am I just special??

Why don't you tell us exactly what you found on the internet??  Do you happen to get the WHOLE story?  Or just bits and pieces that you wanted to find in an effort to smear me like you do everyone else who stands for truth?



That premise may suit your mindset, but it is not obvious to me.

I, myself know alot about you and your checkered history and
never asked or received any confidences from this woman you are bent on exposing and attacking.

I actually got it all from the internet, based on your public posts and emails.

After all you told us your name, occupation, and history, and even places you have lived and been.

For example; there was that letter you posted saying you were in Nashville. I googled the courts there and just entered your name.


Quote
And, how can it be that she "presently litigates Social Security disability cases"?  Did she tell you that?  Did someone forget to tell her that her license is suspended?  Am I just missing something?


Did you ever consider giving "your former friend" the benefit of the doubt, or of asking her that before attempting to publicly humiliate and attack her on this forum?

It seems to me that one should get all the facts,and ask questions privately and hear all before jumping to conclusions or developing obsessions involving pay backs and revenge for perceived wrongs.

It  also seems to me that you are exposing far more about yourself and your character here then you are others.

IMO, you outed yourself and you are continuing to do so, and are your own worst enemy.

I would venture to say outside of the little fan club you have going here, most others are turned off and disgusted by your display here.

I know I am.





Let me be very clear:

Cindi and  I did not attempt to influence Linda's legal decisions.

On numerous occasions both Cindi and I would tell Linda that she needed to seek the advice of a comptent attorney in regard to decisions that she  needed to make.

As part of that Linda was advised that she should seek the advice of lawyers who worked in the areas of law that related to the legal issues that Linda faced.  Cindi has spent her life in the practice of Social Security law.  She presently litigates Social Security disability cases in hearings where such cases are decided. She has never specialized in the specific areas where Linda had to make legal decisions.  Linda was repeatedly told to seek advice from atornies who specialized in areas of law related to the legal issues that she faced.

A number of years ago, when Linda informed me that she was without legal counsel, I gave her some advice as to how to select counsel to represent her.  I then illustrated my advice with the specific mention of three different law firms that I thought it would be worth her time to meet with and discuss the posibility of representing her (Linda) on a specific issue.  Linda contacted those law firms and ended up selecting an attorney that was not a part of the three that I had mentioned to her.  That was the last time that I ever mentioned a specific law firm or attorney to represent her.  She now understood the issues that I had mentioned to her and she was quite capable of acting on her own.  In every case, from that time on, she selected her own lawyers to represent her without any specific input from either Cindi or I.

Influence Linda on specifc legal issues:  No. 

I doubt that Snoppy has any personal knowledge of advice that we gave Linda.

Yes, we could defend ourselves (Cindi and I).  We could do so by puting out for public view personal information about Linda.  We are not prevented from doing so by any profesonal confidentiality concerns.  Such simply do not exist.

So, why have we not published for the world to see such information that would defend us?   Because we care about Linda.  We want her to get on with her life and celebrate as we see her doing so.  We do not want to embarrass Linda.  In addition, our defense of ourselves would embarrass people other than Linda. 
This is not what we want to do. 

[/quote]
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: bonnie on October 31, 2008, 03:13:32 PM
Quote
Well this is very enlightening!  You must lead a very boring life if all you have to do is check people out on the internet!  Do you do this for everyone you don't like?  Or am I just special??

Why don't you tell us exactly what you found on the internet??  Do you happen to get the WHOLE story?  Or just bits and pieces that you wanted to find in an effort to smear me like you do everyone else who stands for truth?

snoopy,
You have provided the information about yourself for the most part. I am not exactly sure why except as a method to spring from that to what you have since posted about others that disagree with you.
If someone else outed you I missed the post that did so.
Just sit back and watch what has actually happened to this forum and the lives of others because of 4 people primarily.

It would be well for both sides to take a long unbiased(as far as possible) look at what they are defending and smearing others for.

Most that defend 3ABN really need to consider the likely reasons for 3ABN wanting to end the lawsuit. I don't think it takes a legal genius to believe it was the most prudent to do so and hopefully avoid more embarrassing revelations. His supporters are accused of being clones.

The same thing holds true for the Bob and Gailon supporters. Have you put, let say Bob under the same scrutiny and accusations made about others. His personal life and how it may tie to certain conduct in this? Does the fact that he is no longer an elder indicate just a desire to no longer serve in that capacity or is it something other than that?
Is there a reason that he never received his credentials as pastor? These questions if asked of the side that is seen as supporting DS would be asked again and again.


 Many times someone's personal life should be just that. In this it doesn't work. DS personal life has been dissected and sliced and diced every which way. Because it does have a bearing on what he professes and claims to be about.
Bob and Gailon's personal life also has a bearing on conduct exhibited here.
Bob will ask many questions and make accusations about any and all connected to 3ABN.

 He refuses to answer specific questions to him. Why?? Does the answer come a bit to close to home? Has he this righteous mandate to win no matter what it takes?

The rightness or righteousness of a cause can be determined by the methodology.
To those that would follow Bob and Gailon over the cliff might need to think about that and take a second look..

 Those that wholeheartedly support DS may also want a good close look again before they follow  him over the cliff.

.








edited to remove duplicate sentence
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on October 31, 2008, 08:55:50 PM
LOL!  No problem, bonnie!!  It is easy to miss what someone else has to say if you are always the one talking!!  Yes, I have provided information about myself, because once I learned the tactics of some of those I have confided in I knew it was only a matter of time before they would use anything they could find to try to intimidate and discredit me!  I predicted it over a week ago, and I was right. 



snoopy,
You have provided the information about yourself for the most part. I am not exactly sure why except as a method to spring from that to what you have since posted about others that disagree with you.
If someone else outed you I missed the post that did so.
Just sit back and watch what has actually happened to this forum and the lives of others because of 4 people primarily.

It would be well for both sides to take a long unbiased(as far as possible) look at what they are defending and smearing others for.

Most that defend 3ABN really need to consider the likely reasons for 3ABN wanting to end the lawsuit. I don't think it takes a legal genius to believe it was the most prudent to do so and hopefully avoid more embarrassing revelations. His supporters are accused of being clones.

The same thing holds true for the Bob and Gailon supporters. Have you put, let say Bob under the same scrutiny and accusations made about others. His personal life and how it may tie to certain conduct in this? Does the fact that he is no longer an elder indicate just a desire to no longer serve in that capacity or is it something other than that?
Is there a reason that he never received his credentials as pastor? These questions if asked of the side that is seen as supporting DS would be asked again and again.


 Many times someone's personal life should be just that. In this it doesn't work. DS personal life has been dissected and sliced and diced every which way. Because it does have a bearing on what he professes and claims to be about.
Bob and Gailon's personal life also has a bearing on conduct exhibited here.
Bob will ask many questions and make accusations about any and all connected to 3ABN.

 He refuses to answer specific questions to him. Why?? Does the answer come a bit to close to home? Has he this righteous mandate to win no matter what it takes?

The rightness or righteousness of a cause can be determined by the methodology.
To those that would follow Bob and Gailon over the cliff might need to think about that and take a second look..

 Those that wholeheartedly support DS may also want a good close look again before they follow  him over the cliff.

.








edited to remove duplicate sentence

Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: bonnie on October 31, 2008, 10:13:22 PM
Quote
LOL!  No problem, bonnie!!  It is easy to miss what someone else has to say if you are always the one talking!!  Yes, I have provided information about myself, because once I learned the tactics of some of those I have confided in I knew it was only a matter of time before they would use anything they could find to try to intimidate and discredit me!  I predicted it over a week ago, and I was right



Are you saying that just became a fear now?? This has been going on for a longtime.
In any event it seems like it was used t excuse your behaviour and have it once again be everyone's fault but yours?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on October 31, 2008, 10:47:38 PM
Are you saying you don't read well?

Are you saying that just became a fear now?? This has been going on for a longtime.
In any event it seems like it was used t excuse your behaviour and have it once again be everyone's fault but yours?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on October 31, 2008, 10:50:32 PM
By the way bonnie...who was the attorney who handled your son's case?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Habanero on October 31, 2008, 10:59:30 PM
Quote
LOL!  No problem, bonnie!!  It is easy to miss what someone else has to say if you are always the one talking!!  Yes, I have provided information about myself, because once I learned the tactics of some of those I have confided in I knew it was only a matter of time before they would use anything they could find to try to intimidate and discredit me!  I predicted it over a week ago, and I was right



Are you saying that just became a fear now?? This has been going on for a longtime.
In any event it seems like it was used t excuse your behaviour and have it once again be everyone's fault but yours?

Huh? Maybe it is just because I am a man, but I am not getting this at all. What has just become a longtime fear and behavioural excuse, and the fault issues and such? This is one of those conversations that just baffles me.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: bonnie on November 01, 2008, 06:50:56 AM
Quote
By the way bonnie...who was the attorney who handled your son's case?

I should tell you, there isn't any reason not to. But as my son  case doesn't have any bearing on outing anyone I will let you find it

As it was well publicized it has been read by many
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: bonnie on November 01, 2008, 06:54:54 AM
Quote
Huh? Maybe it is just because I am a man, but I am not getting this at all. What has just become a longtime fear and behavioural excuse, and the fault issues and such? This is one of those conversations that just baffles me.
Snoopy outed herself because she feared "others" would do so and she wanted to get it out there first. What is the big fear now. If others that she no longer considers friend has had this information and have not put it out there,why the big hizzy fit now
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: bonnie on November 01, 2008, 07:44:26 AM
Quote
By the way bonnie...who was the attorney who handled your son's case?

I just remembered,your dear friend Bob knows,ask him if it is important
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on November 01, 2008, 12:15:57 PM
I believe I was mistaken with this comparison.

Yup - just like Ian!!  The similarities are remarkable!
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on November 01, 2008, 12:21:59 PM
LOL!  Naw - not really important.  But since you've posted just about everything else here related to your son's case I figured I would just ask so I would know who NOT to recommend to someone in Minnesota looking for a lawyer.  That's all - no big deal.


Quote
By the way bonnie...who was the attorney who handled your son's case?

I should tell you, there isn't any reason not to. But as my son  case doesn't have any bearing on outing anyone I will let you find it

As it was well publicized it has been read by many
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: bonnie on November 01, 2008, 12:43:11 PM
Quote
LOL!  Naw - not really important.  But since you've posted just about everything else here related to your son's case I figured I would just ask so I would know who NOT to recommend to someone in Minnesota looking for a lawyer.  That's all - no big deal.

No snoopy I don't think that is why you asked.Yes, I have given information concerning my son. Sorry if you felt forced to read.
It really is a shame you would not care to recommend the best. One that helped change the law so that people like my son had recourse.But before you asked I am quite sure you knew. There is a purpose to you bringing it up and I am sure it will surface.
I gave the name to Bob before I was aware of the tactics being used. As I understand from Bob the attorney turned it down

OTOH,your venom leveled at me is a little strange. I have never said anything about you,I have never tried to gain any information about you,we didn't have a problem in the beginning.

It seems as long as I cannot share your enthusiasm for Bob and Gailon I have become your enemy. If being on friendly terms with you means to agree with and endorse everything you do,it perhaps is best to be "enemies"
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on November 01, 2008, 01:07:21 PM
Yet another chuckle!  Thanks!

I feel no venom nor anger toward you bonnie!  It is unfortunate that you are so defensive!  The feeling I do have is that ever since you announced to the forum readers a couple of months ago that you had been in contact with someone who does not post here regularly, your entire tone has changed.  It is quite obvious who you've been in contact with!

Now you have managed to take an innocent question and somehow make it Bob Pickle's fault!!  Why is everything Bob's fault, bonnie?  For the record, I have never had a conversation with Bob about your son's case.  I am not interested in your son's case!  YOU are the one who has come here and tried to make every possible comparison between the 3ABN saga and your son's case!!  You have monopolized the forum to the point that several have commented.  I just happen to agree with them.

In the remote chance that you might be interested, those I do choose to be on friendly terms with don't attempt to monopolize conversations and make everything about them!!  That's all.  I am truly sorry if I have offended you and I certainly have no desire to argue with you.



Quote
LOL!  Naw - not really important.  But since you've posted just about everything else here related to your son's case I figured I would just ask so I would know who NOT to recommend to someone in Minnesota looking for a lawyer.  That's all - no big deal.

No snoopy I don't think that is why you asked.Yes, I have given information concerning my son. Sorry if you felt forced to read.
It really is a shame you would not care to recommend the best. One that helped change the law so that people like my son had recourse.But before you asked I am quite sure you knew. There is a purpose to you bringing it up and I am sure it will surface.
I gave the name to Bob before I was aware of the tactics being used. As I understand from Bob the attorney turned it down

OTOH,your venom leveled at me is a little strange. I have never said anything about you,I have never tried to gain any information about you,we didn't have a problem in the beginning.

It seems as long as I cannot share your enthusiasm for Bob and Gailon I have become your enemy. If being on friendly terms with you means to agree with and endorse everything you do,it perhaps is best to be "enemies"
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: bonnie on November 01, 2008, 01:17:52 PM
Quote

I feel no venom nor anger toward you bonnie!  It is unfortunate that you are so defensive!  The feeling I do have is that ever since you announced to the forum readers a couple of months ago that you had been in contact with someone who does not post here regularly, your entire tone has changed.  It is quite obvious who you've been in contact with!


My tone changed as I watched and read Bob and Gailon's methods.

Quote
Now you have managed to take an innocent question and somehow make it Bob Pickle's fault!!  Why is everything Bob's fault, bonnie?  For the record, I have never had a conversation with Bob about your son's case.  I am not interested in your son's case!  YOU are the one who has come here and tried to make every possible comparison between the 3ABN saga and your son's case!!  You have monopolized the forum to the point that several have commented.  I just happen to agree with them.

I am not exactly sure how this became Bob's fault in your mind. I said you could get it from Bob as I had given it to him. I don't believe it was an innocent question,meant to imply something. Not sure what but it will come out in time.  I did not tell you to be interested in my son's case. You asked me out of the blue what his name was. As for your conversations with Bob I didn't ask and really don't care




Quote
In the remote chance that you might be interested, those I do choose to be on friendly terms with don't attempt to monopolize conversations and make everything about them!!  That's all.  I am truly sorry if I have offended you and I certainly have no desire to argue with you.




No, not really.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Eduard on November 02, 2008, 08:02:21 AM

You have monopolized the forum to the point that several have commented.  I just happen to agree with them.

Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: bonnie on November 02, 2008, 08:06:35 AM

Quote

You have monopolized the forum to the point that several have commented.  I just happen to agree with them.


Edward, are you still in a bad mood. Maybe you should see if they have anger management classes where you live.
Seriously, you haven't been around for several days or at least posting and it seems you are still in that lousy frame of mind.
But you are entitled to yours and I do not give a fig what you agree with or don't.

Find a life so you don't have to fixate on mine
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Eduard on November 02, 2008, 08:40:42 AM

You have monopolized the forum to the point that several have commented.  I just happen to agree with them.


snoopy,

A rather effective way to sabotage the discussions on this forum is to flood every thread with irrelevant, nonsensical and illiterate comments that distract the readers and to attack and harass all those who approve of and support the work Bob and Gailon do to clean 3ABN and cause the removal of the perverts, robbers, abusers, and impostors from the leadership of this organization which has ceased a long time ago to be a messenger of faith and hope for the world, and has become an example of how arrogant and evil men who assume divine prerogatives can pervert God’s work and become the messengers and instruments of the Devil.

Under the false pretense of seeking justice and righting abuse such people work with Danny Shelton and his gang to promote evil and to victimize all those who dare to say anything against the “prophet” and his accomplices. Just watch carefully how this evil work of deception unfolds. Watch and see with what evil diligence and uncommon persistence such people keep posting day and night without stopping, making innuendos, threatening, harassing and  attacking all those  who want justice to be done at 3ABN, and predicting doom and destruction for those who want to continue their work to clean the robbers’ den which is now 3ABN.




Eduard


Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on November 02, 2008, 09:35:56 AM
Eduard, You are a very wise man.             :dogwag:





Quote
You have monopolized the forum to the point that several have commented.  I just happen to agree with them.




snoopy,

A rather effective way to sabotage the discussions on this forum is to flood every thread with irrelevant, nonsensical and illiterate comments that distract the readers and to attack and harass all those who approve of and support the work Bob and Gailon do to clean 3ABN and cause the removal of the perverts, robbers, abusers, and impostors from the leadership of this organization which has ceased a long time ago to be a messenger of faith and hope for the world, and has become an example of how arrogant and evil men who assume divine prerogatives can pervert God’s work and become the messengers and instruments of the Devil.

Under the false pretense of seeking justice and righting abuse such people work with Danny Shelton and his gang to promote evil and to victimize all those who dare to say anything against the “prophet” and his accomplices. Just watch carefully how this evil work of deception unfolds. Watch and see with what evil diligence and uncommon persistence such people keep posting day and night without stopping, making innuendos, threatening, harassing and  attacking all those  who want justice to be done at 3ABN, and predicting doom and destruction for those who want to continue their work to clean the robbers’ den which is now 3ABN.



Eduard


Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Fran on November 02, 2008, 10:02:20 AM
Quote
I do not give a fig what you agree with or don't.

This says almost everything.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: bonnie on November 02, 2008, 12:22:40 PM
Quote
This says almost everything.

Well Fran if it didn't say everything I must be slipping.I do not care what people like Edward think.
I have seen you around the forums for a long time. I did not know you well,but the Fran that is here defending any and all types of behaviour as long as it is anti-3ABN is not someone that I have seen before.

Stuff like this..... example of how arrogant and evil men who assume divine prerogatives can pervert God’s work and become the messengers and instruments of the Devil.  

is not any different than claiming Bob and Gailon have some divine calling to do whatever it takes. I didn't go searching for Edward, he came to me. You obviously care what he thinks, I do not.
You have two sets of rules on this forum,it really should be made clear by Daryl, no one is welcome here unless they support Bob and Gailon and if they don't do not make it known. Looks like Bob and Gailon supporters took a  page of the rulebook many of you think that DS follows.
The participation in any area is getting less all the time and that is probably for the best. Left alone without "the trash and those of no value" bothering you the way is clear,unimpeded to have a forum totally devoted  to complete agreement and praise of one another in their efforts, no matter how those efforts are carried out to not only destroy 3ABN,but all that do not agree with these "christian" methods . For awhile you will all entertain one another but the day will come when this group needs a new prey or perhaps they will turn on another


PS This may be appropriate.... "When the Saints Come Marching In"



edited to add PS
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Daryl Fawcett on November 02, 2008, 05:58:26 PM
Closing this for staff review.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on November 07, 2008, 02:58:00 PM
I am re-opening this thread, but please lets try to stay on topic.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on November 07, 2008, 02:59:12 PM
On second thought, it looks like maybe it should remain locked a bit longer.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on November 10, 2008, 08:38:17 AM
OK, lets try this again.  I removed some posts from the end of this thread, including some of my own that were less than respectful.  My apologies.

I am reopening this thread in hopes that we can stay a little closer to the original topic.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Daryl Fawcett on November 10, 2008, 09:57:20 AM
Snoopy,

I am glad to see that you publically admitted to those inappropriate posts.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on November 10, 2008, 12:41:40 PM
Daryl, I think I have quite forthcoming with my awareness that I am human and make mistakes just like everyone else.  Do you think you have ever made an inappropriate post?


Snoopy,

I am glad to see that you publically admitted to those inappropriate posts.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Daryl Fawcett on November 10, 2008, 03:49:21 PM
If I were to answer that, you wouldn't like my answer, therefore, I will refrain from answering your question any further than this.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on November 10, 2008, 03:55:42 PM
Actually I think I got my answer!!   :wave:

If I were to answer that, you wouldn't like my answer, therefore, I will refrain from answering your question any further than this.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Gailon Arthur Joy on November 16, 2008, 08:15:39 PM
ADMIN HAT ON

I have edited this post to remove inappropriate content.  Let's try to be respectful of each other, even if we disagree!

ADMIN HAT OFF


Quote
This says almost everything.

Well Fran if it didn't say everything I must be slipping.I do not care what people like Edward think.
I have seen you around the forums for a long time. I did not know you well,but the Fran that is here defending any and all types of behaviour as long as it is anti-3ABN is not someone that I have seen before.

Stuff like this..... example of how arrogant and evil men who assume divine prerogatives can pervert God’s work and become the messengers and instruments of the Devil.  

is not any different than claiming Bob and Gailon have some divine calling to do whatever it takes. I didn't go searching for Edward, he came to me. You obviously care what he thinks, I do not.
You have two sets of rules on this forum,it really should be made clear by Daryl, no one is welcome here unless they support Bob and Gailon and if they don't do not make it known. Looks like Bob and Gailon supporters took a  page of the rulebook many of you think that DS follows.
The participation in any area is getting less all the time and that is probably for the best. Left alone without "the trash and those of no value" bothering you the way is clear,unimpeded to have a forum totally devoted  to complete agreement and praise of one another in their efforts, no matter how those efforts are carried out to not only destroy 3ABN,but all that do not agree with these "christian" methods . For awhile you will all entertain one another but the day will come when this group needs a new prey or perhaps they will turn on another


PS This may be appropriate.... "When the Saints Come Marching In"



edited to add PS


Bonnie, the problem is the 3ABN investigation is far from over. The flow of information was interrupted by the time required to litigate the issues. While we appeal the retreat efforts of 3ABN and Danny Lee Shelton, it will be time to finish up the investigation. It has also resulted in a much wider investigation as we have come to realize just how interwoven 3ABN, ASI and ASI Missions. Inc are, not to mention some others.

3ABN's governance is still not satisfactorilly resolved and needs to be addressed as people considere their choices for where to put there investments from their hard earned money.

You continue to spend your time doing what most detractors do, take shots at the messengers rather than deal with the message. Your perrogative, of course, but your concerns with methodology is laughable, given your own methodology...what's new... you should consider using your time to investigate the facts and report them, but then it is likely someone would not like your methodology!!!

Redardless of your sreaming, yelling and jumping up and down, we will continue our reports and you will continue to be a detractor!!! So keep up the dirty little job you are called to do and we will do ours!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

We also had some very serious allegations relating to the current leadership at Amazing Facts that remain on the plate and require serious consideration.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Artiste on November 16, 2008, 08:55:13 PM
Can we have some more information regarding the allegations of the Amazing Facts leadership?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Gailon Arthur Joy on November 16, 2008, 09:35:04 PM
Can we have some more information regarding the allegations of the Amazing Facts leadership?

Get a list of those who left Amazing Facts in the period from 2006 to 2007 and conduct interviews. Did you know they have an air conditioned warehouse (I am told it was 23,000 sq ft) to inventory all the Batchelor writings from books to pamphlets? And did you know he has his own publishing company as well? Put 2 + 2 together and we have a story to be investigated. Particularly with regard to the relationships between Mountain Publishing and Amazing Facts.

I wonder if you sold all those pamphlets and books, cancelled the warehouse, if you would have had enough money to retain some of those jobs? Or are a lot of other people hearing the stories I am hearing and just "turned off the tap?" I am told at least one "mega giver" did just that!!!

There is a story here and we will assume reformation will take place!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: ex3abnemployee on November 19, 2008, 05:55:20 PM
Can we have some more information regarding the allegations of the Amazing Facts leadership?

Get a list of those who left Amazing Facts in the period from 2006 to 2007 and conduct interviews. Did you know they have an air conditioned warehouse (I am told it was 23,000 sq ft) to inventory all the Batchelor writings from books to pamphlets? And did you know he has his own publishing company as well? Put 2 + 2 together and we have a story to be investigated. Particularly with regard to the relationships between Mountain Publishing and Amazing Facts.

I wonder if you sold all those pamphlets and books, cancelled the warehouse, if you would have had enough money to retain some of those jobs? Or are a lot of other people hearing the stories I am hearing and just "turned off the tap?" I am told at least one "mega giver" did just that!!!

There is a story here and we will assume reformation will take place!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

I'm not saying I'm glad Joe Crews has passed away, but I'm glad he isn't around to see this.

Is it any wonder now why Danny thought 3ABN and Amazing Facts would be so "perfect" together?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Wendall on November 19, 2008, 06:18:01 PM
Questions
1. The name of the publishing company is?
2. Is the warehouse located in hot Rocklin California?
3. Is the air condiitoner for just office space adjacent to the warehouse or the whole warehouse?
4. Why hasn't Amazing Facts spoken out against the evils alleged to on this forum?
5. What are some other alleged misdeeds of Amazing Facts?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on November 24, 2008, 08:49:21 PM
Any updates for us?  Gregory?  GrandmaNettie?

Please do expound, Gregory!  So you telling me that Lucinda Dawn Randall is presently litigating Social Security disability cases?  I wonder what the Dayton Bar Association would think of that??  Here is their number (937) 222-7902.  Anybody care to call and check?  GrandmaNettie??  You're always a great one to go after the truth!  Maybe you could make a call and report back to us! 

***********************************************

High court suspends Spring Valley attorney's license
By Lou Grieco

Staff Writer

Thursday, June 12, 2008

DAYTON — The Ohio Supreme Court indefinitely suspended Thursday, June 12, the law license of a Spring Valley attorney.

Lucinda D. Randall was suspended for abandoning the cases of eight clients who had retained her to represent them in Social Security benefits appeals, and the cases of four other clients she agreed to represent in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

ExtrasThe court found that Randall's conduct violated discipline rules that prohibit neglect of entrusted client legal matters, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct that reflects adversely on an attorney's fitness to practice law.

Because Randall failed to answer the complaint against her or to respond to repeated efforts by the Dayton Bar Association and Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline to communicate with her, she also was found to be in violation of the state bar governance rule that requires an attorney to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings, the court found.


http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/06/12/ddn061208attorneyweb.html



Snoopy said:

Quote
And, how can it be that she "presently litigates Social Security disability cases"?  Did she tell you that?  Did someone forget to tell her that her license is suspended?  Am I just missing something?

Yes, you are missing something.  You lack a basic understanding of the law, legal affairs and what people can and can not do.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: skiguy on November 25, 2008, 12:32:43 AM

I'm not saying I'm glad Joe Crews has passed away, but I'm glad he isn't around to see this.

Is it any wonder now why Danny thought 3ABN and Amazing Facts would be so "perfect" together?
[/quote]
Question, did not DB of AF backed out of the deal?  And could his reason was, DS' corruptions?  I don't know, so just asking
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Buttercup Roberts on November 25, 2008, 05:00:41 AM
Any updates for us?  Gregory?  GrandmaNettie?

Please do expound, Gregory!  So you telling me that Lucinda Dawn Randall is presently litigating Social Security disability cases?  I wonder what the Dayton Bar Association would think of that??  Here is their number (937) 222-7902.  Anybody care to call and check?  GrandmaNettie??  You're always a great one to go after the truth!  Maybe you could make a call and report back to us! 



 What? you haven't already called that number yourself? You are so quick to call and turn in any you condemn. It seems obvious if there was really any dirt you could find you would have posted it as you have all else you think you know.  I dare to say that this appears to be nothing more than another desperate ploy to lure posters and opposition back here. I personally hope they keep giving you all the rope you need.

 Anyone reading here or acquainted with the 3abn issues knows this woman and her private life while fodder here for the devourers, actually has nothing to do with 3abn.

 I think most who have read your posts on this forum for even a short time realize that your fixation on her is personal and all about exacting revenge for what you perceive was a wrong done.  Is that considered Christlike here?


I don't know if it is possible to feel more contempt for this forum, or the acts committed and condoned here than I do at this moment.

BC



 
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on November 25, 2008, 06:12:35 AM
Are you saying, BC, that Cindi was never involved in any sort of covert divide and conquer scheme?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on November 25, 2008, 09:10:28 AM
 :ROFL:  You mean like what you and your little group of schizo friends are trying to do to me??  Like THAT, "buttercup"?? 

We had Gregory come on here and tell us in no uncertain terms that Ms. Randall is "presently litigating Social Security disability cases"!  And I am simply trying to find out if that is true, given her suspended license.  Given the role Ms. Randall tried to play in re-directing Linda Shelton's legal issues, I find this to be quite relevant, don't you, Ian, er, I mean "buttercup"?


Any updates for us?  Gregory?  GrandmaNettie?

Please do expound, Gregory!  So you telling me that Lucinda Dawn Randall is presently litigating Social Security disability cases?  I wonder what the Dayton Bar Association would think of that??  Here is their number (937) 222-7902.  Anybody care to call and check?  GrandmaNettie??  You're always a great one to go after the truth!  Maybe you could make a call and report back to us! 



 What? you haven't already called that number yourself? You are so quick to call and turn in any you condemn. It seems obvious if there was really any dirt you could find you would have posted it as you have all else you think you know.  I dare to say that this appears to be nothing more than another desperate ploy to lure posters and opposition back here. I personally hope they keep giving you all the rope you need.

 Anyone reading here or acquainted with the 3abn issues knows this woman and her private life while fodder here for the devourers, actually has nothing to do with 3abn.

 I think most who have read your posts on this forum for even a short time realize that your fixation on her is personal and all about exacting revenge for what you perceive was a wrong done.  Is that considered Christlike here?


I don't know if it is possible to feel more contempt for this forum, or the acts committed and condoned here than I do at this moment.

BC



 
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Buttercup Roberts on November 25, 2008, 12:36:28 PM
:ROFL:  You mean like what you and your little group of schizo friends are trying to do to me??  Like THAT, "buttercup"?? 

We had Gregory come on here and tell us in no uncertain terms that Ms. Randall is "presently litigating Social Security disability cases"!  And I am simply trying to find out if that is true, given her suspended license.  Given the role Ms. Randall tried to play in re-directing Linda Shelton's legal issues, I find this to be quite relevant, don't you, Ian, er, I mean "buttercup"?




I am not even going to pretend to know what you are going on about here.  I don't want to know either.

I am only going to comment on the Social Security aspect.

Even a paralegal can represent a client at an administrative hearing. ( but not in court). The SS hearings are all considered administrative hearings as the rules that govern SS are administrative laws and not part of the United States Code.

It would behoove you to do a bit of research before posting on certain topics such as this one.

Good day.

BC

Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on November 25, 2008, 12:47:30 PM
Well thanks for that, BC!!  Are you saying that Ms. Kline is a paralegal now?


I am not even going to pretend to know what you are going on about here.  I don't want to know either.

I am only going to comment on the Social Security aspect.

Even a paralegal can represent a client at an administrative hearing. ( but not in court). The SS hearings are all considered administrative hearings as the rules that govern SS are administrative laws and not part of the United States Code.

It would behoove you to do a bit of research before posting on certain topics such as this one.

Good day.

BC


Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Buttercup Roberts on November 25, 2008, 12:58:26 PM
Are you saying, BC, that Cindi was never involved in any sort of covert divide and conquer scheme?

That is a very interesting question which I don't know the answer to. But in light of Mr Matthews and Mr Joy's previous posts here about this, are you claiming that Linda Shelton and yourself are united and standing together in the accusations against 3abn and the lawsuite ect?

If not, then who are you claiming this woman tried to divide?

BC





Quote
Posted by: Snoopy
Well thanks for that, BC!!  Are you saying that Ms. Kline is a paralegal now?

:huh:
 I don't know what her job title is and frankly I don't care.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Bob Pickle on November 25, 2008, 01:49:05 PM
Are you saying, BC, that Cindi was never involved in any sort of covert divide and conquer scheme?

That is a very interesting question which I don't know the answer to.

If you don't know the answer to the question, why did you say, "Anyone reading here or acquainted with the 3abn issues knows this woman ... actually has nothing to do with 3abn"?

Why did you make such an assertion when you admit you don't know whether or not she was involved in a covert divide and conquer scheme?

Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Daryl Fawcett on November 25, 2008, 04:12:10 PM
Why must we play these games?
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Johann on November 25, 2008, 07:35:02 PM
Why must we play these games?

Because too many have fallen for the divide and conquer scheme
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Artiste on November 26, 2008, 04:23:12 PM
Questions
1. The name of the publishing company is?
2. Is the warehouse located in hot Rocklin California?
3. Is the air conditioner for just office space adjacent to the warehouse or the whole warehouse?
4. Why hasn't Amazing Facts spoken out against the evils alleged to on this forum?
5. What are some other alleged misdeeds of Amazing Facts?

Wendall, Amazing Facts has not only not "spoken out against the evils alleged to on this forum", but Doug Batchelor has also stated that the information on this forum is nothing but "internet gossip and lies" or some such thing.

Doug Batchelor has stated that he is a friend and supporter of Danny Shelton's.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Snoopy on November 28, 2008, 01:05:56 PM

Ms. Randall very well might not have anything to do with 3ABN.  What she does have, however, is an exceptionally strong desire to discredit Mr. Joy.


Are you saying, BC, that Cindi was never involved in any sort of covert divide and conquer scheme?

That is a very interesting question which I don't know the answer to.

If you don't know the answer to the question, why did you say, "Anyone reading here or acquainted with the 3abn issues knows this woman ... actually has nothing to do with 3abn"?

Why did you make such an assertion when you admit you don't know whether or not she was involved in a covert divide and conquer scheme?


Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: skiguy on November 30, 2008, 10:40:05 PM
Wendall, Amazing Facts has not only not "spoken out against the evils alleged to on this forum", but Doug Batchelor has also stated that the information on this forum is nothing but "internet gossip and lies" or some such thing.

Doug Batchelor has stated that he is a friend and supporter of Danny Shelton's.
That is sad!  Is it not there a prophecy about great lights to go out?  Something to the idea. 
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Johann on November 30, 2008, 11:03:22 PM
Even a prophet can, at times, make a faulty judgment.
Title: Re: Attorney Cindi Randall & the NY Pseudonym
Post by: Fran on December 05, 2008, 12:12:12 AM
Ain't that the truth!  Look at Saul and Danny's examples!

Even a prophet can, at times, make a faulty judgment.