Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Eduard]

Gailon and Bob:

My post was merely meant to point out that Bob misrepresented what Appletree actually wrote. Whether or not Bob's take describes what happened is not the issue.

However, Appletree did not write what Bob claims he wrote in the subject line: "AppleTree says IRS removed 1000's of documents from 3ABN)"! And it does not look good for truth-seekers to misrepresent/spin what others wrote.

Gailon wrote:

Add to this that we have reports from witnesses stating that the IRS took out several boxes of documents and have interviewed most of the financial office staff and several others in Administration and you have Appletree stating rare historical facts that do not appear factually challenged. We even know that financial staff are under the strictest orders not to speak to anyone regarding anything that has happened and we are told this order came from both sides!!!

This may very well be true. However, I am less likely to believe either you or Bob when I see misrepresentations like those of Appletree's post. How do I know that what you report as fact -- as Bob did in the title of this thread-- is not similarly spun from scanty evidence?
All who wish to defend the truth need to be scrupulously truthful.

Inga:

People with advanced reading skills understand that decoding other people’s communications requires interpretation. They also understand, even if they have not been trained as linguists, the notions of CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE ( “a conclusion which is not asserted by a speaker but which is nevertheless drawn by the listener on the ground that, if the conclusion were not true, the speaker would have said something different” – Trask, 1997, pp. 55-56), ENTAILMENT (“a possible relation between two statements” – ibid. p.78), and  PRESUPPOSITION ( “a proposition which must be taken for granted if some utterance is to be regarded as sensible” – ibid. p.175).


There is a lot you don’t know about such matters, but one thing is clear: you are looking for absolute truth conveyed through an imperfect instrument (language). You are criticizing Bob for his interpretation of appletree’s statement, but at the same time you offer nothing better – another INTERPRETATION. You also ignore the factual evidence that corroborates Bob's interpretation.


Your arguments are without merit.


Eduard

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Gailon and Bob:

My post was merely meant to point out that Bob misrepresented what Appletree actually wrote. Whether or not Bob's take describes what happened is not the issue.

However, Appletree did not write what Bob claims he wrote in the subject line: "AppleTree says IRS removed 1000's of documents from 3ABN)"! And it does not look good for truth-seekers to misrepresent/spin what others wrote.

Gailon wrote:

Add to this that we have reports from witnesses stating that the IRS took out several boxes of documents and have interviewed most of the financial office staff and several others in Administration and you have Appletree stating rare historical facts that do not appear factually challenged. We even know that financial staff are under the strictest orders not to speak to anyone regarding anything that has happened and we are told this order came from both sides!!!

This may very well be true. However, I am less likely to believe either you or Bob when I see misrepresentations like those of Appletree's post. How do I know that what you report as fact -- as Bob did in the title of this thread-- is not similarly spun from scanty evidence?
All who wish to defend the truth need to be scrupulously truthful.

Inga:

People with advanced reading skills understand that decoding other people’s communications requires interpretation. They also understand, even if they have not been trained as linguists, the notions of CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE ( “a conclusion which is not asserted by a speaker but which is nevertheless drawn by the listener on the ground that, if the conclusion were not true, the speaker would have said something different” – Trask, 1997, pp. 55-56), ENTAILMENT (“a possible relation between two statements” – ibid. p.78), and  PRESUPPOSITION ( “a proposition which must be taken for granted if some utterance is to be regarded as sensible” – ibid. p.175).


There is a lot you don’t know about such matters, but one thing is clear: you are looking for absolute truth conveyed through an imperfect instrument (language). You are criticizing Bob for his interpretation of appletree’s statement, but at the same time you offer nothing better – another INTERPRETATION. You also ignore the factual evidence that corroborates Bob's interpretation.


Your arguments are without merit.


Eduard

Well that is a summary conclusion, if ever there was one!!!

Maybe what we also have to recognize is that some are also tip toeing through the tulips, belatedly, given an unwarranted fear of litigation from the gang that can't shoot straight. Personally, Bob and I have nothing more to fear but fear itself, and I have always rejected fear as an annoying and debilitating emotion that leaves one impotent on the battlefield of life. Clearly, Bob has opted for the same conclusion!!! Action invariably leaves fear without a home and if executed well, leaves the intimidator intimidated!!!


I recognize that Inga's point is that we all should show some caution with regards to our conclusions and we all should show some moderation in the utilization of
"unfounded" accusations and innuendo. The problem is that Bob's Headline, while a bit sensational, is based upon sound conclusion, particularly in light of the colaterall evidence. The alternative would be to even question the "maternity leave" which was also supported by the evidence based upon the various descriptions of the lead investigator throughout the fall of 2007. Virtually every witness I spoke to was surprised to find the lead investigator was pregnant!!! Therefore, one must conclude his maternity conclusion is partially correct, except that we know that there is an entire team working on this case and only one was pregnant and the federal leave is limited to 120 days. Since it is normal for the accounting geniuses and the US Attorney to take up to a year to put their case together, we are far from being "delayed".

Unfortunately, Appletree has proven to be so accurate on some issues and so painfully up to his ankles in horse manure on others that we will have no choice but to subpoena Mr Appletree at some point, not so far in the future, and see just what he really knows and what his ethics really are, assuming he has any at all.
But then Ian and the mother also will have to step into the light of day and cough
up the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

We just need "ALL" the documents to make available to them for their studied interpretation so we can decide whether they are worth dragging in as third
parties or simply as adverse witnesses against the prevarications of their sources
for their intellectual brainstorms. They have proven so dramatic at BSDA that we have determined they will all be excellent fodder for the jury!!! A little something to lighten up the trivia that will draw the case into ad infinitum.

Remember, people, there is nothing to fear here. Besides, if Danny didn't know about those subpoenas and Gilley didn't know about those subpoenas to BSDA and Blue Host, then clearly it is simply a witch hunt...any witches out there??? I didn't think so!!!

Think of it this way, just another opportunity to stop them in their tracks and trace it all the way back to Dodge Center......Minnesotta, that is!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Snoopy]

What about adding Shiny Penny and phoenix to the list?  I saw the tone of Shiny Penny's posts change dramatically over the last several months.  And while poster "phoenix" is relatively new to the brouhaha (at least under that name), s/he has posted some pointed missiles, in my opinion.

...

Unfortunately, Appletree has proven to be so accurate on some issues and so painfully up to his ankles in horse manure on others that we will have no choice but to subpoena Mr Appletree at some point, not so far in the future, and see just what he really knows and what his ethics really are, assuming he has any at all.
But then Ian and the mother also will have to step into the light of day and cough
up the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

We just need "ALL" the documents to make available to them for their studied interpretation so we can decide whether they are worth dragging in as third
parties or simply as adverse witnesses against the prevarications of their sources
for their intellectual brainstorms. They have proven so dramatic at BSDA that we have determined they will all be excellent fodder for the jury!!! A little something to lighten up the trivia that will draw the case into ad infinitum.

Remember, people, there is nothing to fear here. Besides, if Danny didn't know about those subpoenas and Gilley didn't know about those subpoenas to BSDA and Blue Host, then clearly it is simply a witch hunt...any witches out there??? I didn't think so!!!

Think of it this way, just another opportunity to stop them in their tracks and trace it all the way back to Dodge Center......Minnesotta, that is!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

[inga]

Well that is a summary conclusion, if ever there was one!!!

I recognize that Inga's point is that we all should show some caution with regards to our conclusions and we all should show some moderation in the utilization of "unfounded" accusations and innuendo.

Precisely, Gailon.   

I have had the "privilege" to be unjustly accused and slandered more than once. Generally I am relieved that I am the "accused" rather than the "accuser," considering who the original "accuser" is. 

I would hope that all who consider themselves followers of Christ would rather be "accused" than "accuse."

Of course, in this case, I was not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusion that there's good reason to believe that the IRS took many boxes of records with them from 3ABN. However, that was no reason to twist Appletree's words into a "confession," which it was not, Eduard's "summary conclusion" notwith standing. To report that Appletree "says" what Bob claims is simply not true.

The problem is that Bob's Headline, while a bit sensational, is based upon sound conclusion, particularly in light of the colaterall evidence.

If he had left out the words "Appletree says," it would have been sensational enough.

I confess I'm not fond of sensationalism -- either on web sites or in evangelistic series. I don't see any evidence of Jesus being sensational. He tended, rather, to go about doing the business of His Father and letting Him take care of the consequences. (Can you imagine what startling and sensational but true information He could have disseminated? Instead, he went out of His way to avoid public exposure!)

The alternative would be to even question the "maternity leave"

Not necessarily. Sticking with the truth is always best. Conjecture may be appropriate if there is sufficient evidence. However, conjecture should be presented as such, rather than presenting the conjecture as words in someone else's mouth.

Unfortunately, Appletree has proven to be so accurate on some issues and so painfully up to his ankles in horse manure on others that we will have no choice but to subpoena Mr Appletree at some point

So you're going to require a copy of those records for which 3ABN/Dan Shelton subpoenaed Calvin?  At least those folks made some very clear statements relevant to the questions at issue -- as compared to those folks who clearly did not claim to be "insiders," with one individual only making three innnocuous posts!! 

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

"I confess I'm not fond of sensationalism -- either on web sites or in evangelistic series. I don't see any evidence of Jesus being sensational. He tended, rather, to go about doing the business of His Father and letting Him take care of the consequences. (Can you imagine what startling and sensational but true information He could have disseminated? Instead, he went out of His way to avoid public exposure!)? Inga

Here, I have to take exception...had I been a reporter in 28 - 30 AD I would have had plenty of "sensation" to report!!! From the baptism by John and the Holy Ghost, to the Great Wine Miracle at Cana and on through incredible healings, resurrections, exorcisms and the feeding of vast crowds!!!

Then add to it the Transfiguration, the deception, the trial, the crucifixion, the burial and resurrection and finally the Ascension!!!

Now if that is not sensational, there never has been any. Some day as the spirit uses us to give the loud cry, we will give every ounce of sensation it deserves and do it with unmatched fervor.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

"So you're going to require a copy of those records for which 3ABN/Dan Shelton subpoenaed Calvin?   At least those folks made some very clear statements relevant to the questions at issue -- as compared to those folks who clearly did not claim to be "insiders," with one individual only making three innocuous posts!!" Inga

There is not yet a valid subpoena to Calvin. We intend to keep it from ever becoming valid. And we are also seeking to recall the Blue Host documentation since it was also gotten from an invalid subpoena. These are tough and time consumming battles and would be greatly enhanced by a case for injunctive relief, preferrably a class action, to stop this kind of improper "witch hunt" from continueing. Particularly since they are not relevant to the current claims in the Plaintiffs stated claims and objectives.

Can we win...I think so, but as Gregory has pointed out, we will win some and lose some, but we have a duty to try!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

[inga]

Hi Gailon,

Can't argue with your post below.

However, I see a difference between the kind of "sensation" you refer to and "sensationalism" -- the same kind of difference as there is between "authoritative" and "authoritarian."

Some real events cause a sensation because of their unexpectedness or unusualness. To properly appreciate these events, the context is very helpful. By contrast, the "sensationalism" is an unbalanced focus and an overemphasis (often to the point of distorting facts and often out of context) on certain issues in order to create an emotional reaction. It is this which I had in mind. The biblical reporters did not do this.

Authoritative statements are always good because they are trustworthy. Authoritarian behavior is not good because it is a way of claiming authority in areas where the person has no real authority. Authoritarianism also tends to be unbalanced, with a focus on exercising "authority" in areas of personal preferences, acting as though these personal preferences were the preferences of God. (If I'm not careful I shall get up on one of my soap boxes!!  )

"I confess I'm not fond of sensationalism -- either on web sites or in evangelistic series. I don't see any evidence of Jesus being sensational. He tended, rather, to go about doing the business of His Father and letting Him take care of the consequences. (Can you imagine what startling and sensational but true information He could have disseminated? Instead, he went out of His way to avoid public exposure!)? Inga

Here, I have to take exception...had I been a reporter in 28 - 30 AD I would have had plenty of "sensation" to report!!! From the baptism by John and the Holy Ghost, to the Great Wine Miracle at Cana and on through incredible healings, resurrections, exorcisms and the feeding of vast crowds!!!

Then add to it the Transfiguration, the deception, the trial, the crucifixion, the burial and resurrection and finally the Ascension!!!

Now if that is not sensational, there never has been any. Some day as the spirit uses us to give the loud cry, we will give every ounce of sensation it deserves and do it with unmatched fervor.

Gailon Arthur Joy