Thompson Responds To Abrahamsen...., borrowed from Maritime Options

[lurker]

To me the joke back fired on her and was a bad mistake imagine if Danny had bought some Victoria secret's lingerie and planted it for Linda to find as a joke and the 'joke' was not in her size......

Poor joke, maybe. But since she told people what she was going to do and why she was going to do it, I believe her. Besides she and her daughter did it together. It's not like she tried to make up an excuse after being found out.

I can see doing it just to bring things out into the open. You aren't thinking like a woman, tall. At least not like this woman. Sometimes abused women deliberately do things they know will provoke anger and I don't know why except maybe they hope to head off a huge tantrum from the abuser just by letting the abuser blow off some steam. And needing to get everything out in the open and make Danny admit what he was up to just says it all for me.

[simplysaved]

Who said anything about knowing it best? This whole discussion is about people evaluating. Or if it is something else it is just sick gossip. When you put things up for evaluation you have to anticipate the possibility that some will reject what you say.
Am I saying I know what happened? No. I am saying that as I read it this looks like a flimsy excuse.

As you said, we don't know Linda. So all we can go on is what you have said. And what you said here didn't convince me. And if I were on a jury just hearing this (and in a sense that is what this is) then I would give Dr. Thompson some points on the pregnancy test. Or more precisely I would give points on the supposed reason for it, as the pregnancy test itself could be explained.
So in this one storyt even if we believe your account one hundred percent we have

-Linda conspiring to form a fabrication
-Linda laughing at Danny being embarrassed
-Linda thinking that (after being accused of an affair) Danny would have no problem with her buying a pregnancy test
And you wonder why this is not the most convincing part of your argument? I am not taking his side over this one piece of evidence, but I am saying this one piece of evidence is always going to be a weak spot in her case. At best it is an insight into the bad part of her character (not as it was portrayed, seeing the best in everyone, and having a good sense of humor). At worst it is a lie to cover up an actual affair. Either way it is a point for Danny's side.
And that is understood. In the same way it is understood that Danny says he has evidence that they are withholding, but which some say we have a right to see. We are not the actual judge in this case, fortunately. And we are not entitled to everything. But we do have to make evaluations so that we know whether to support the ministry or encourage others to. And we can only do that on the evidence provided. So if I don't buy all of the evidence on one side, don't consider it a slight. It is just what it is. The best I can do with the information present.

[tall73]

Poor joke, maybe. But since she told people what she was going to do and why she was going to do it, I believe her. Besides she and her daughter did it together. It's not like she tried to make up an excuse after being found out.

I can see doing it just to bring things out into the open. You aren't thinking like a woman, tall. At least not like this woman. Sometimes abused women deliberately do things they know will provoke anger and I don't know why except maybe they hope to head off a huge tantrum from the abuser just by letting the abuser blow off some steam. And needing to get everything out in the open and make Danny admit what he was up to just says it all for me.

No, and I am not likely to ever think like a woman. I am a man. But these threads were started to make judgments. And I still have to do that despite my gender. I can try to put myself in her place, but I still can't think of a reason to give evidence for an affair as a joke.

If the truth is the truth then whether I am an abused woman or not it should be something that seems credible. I just don't see it as credible at this time. Others do.

This post has been edited by tall73: Aug 1 2006, 10:16 AM

[watchbird]

And this is why I am here, because there are a lot of donors that I know and I want to make a fair assessment. But fair means there may be evidence on both sides. The proponderance is what we are looking for.
This type of argument makes little sense to me. If you have a whole picture, give the whole picture. If you draw it out, letting people make comments on every little part, tantalizing, stirring the pot,.etc. it is a far worse effect on those viewing. It holds their attention for days and weeks and portrays the image that you all are just out to smear them. It would be best just to say what there is, bring it into the light of day, let people make their judgement and be done.

And if your goal is to warn supporters, what of those who need the whole picture to finally make a judgement? By then they will have given months more of support. This thing is already figured in years.

By your very insistence on us presenting "evidence" as though this is a court of law (which it is not) rather than a public bulletin board (which is all that it is) you are destroying your own credibility as a true seeker of knowledge and painting a picture of yourself as someone who has and wants to retain control over a vast number of people....once you have passed your judgement on the evidence.

That does not set well. Not well at all.

You have also painted a picture of yourself as being a very impatient and inconsiderate person.... tell it all now and let the chips fall where they may.....and one that is not willing to do their own "legwork" in learning the facts but wants someone to net out all they know and serve it up to you on your judges platter.

That "sets" even worse.

You also show distinct evidence that you have not even read through all of the information that has been posted on this board over the past two years.

If you want to have credibility and find answers here..... then first of all read all that has been said here..... in as nearly as possible chronological order. Pay attention to what people here thought when they began posting..... some as much as two years ago, more who began this spring after Danny's remarriage, and even more in the past few weeks. Note the pogression of their thought, note the things that caused them to change their minds or solidify their convictions. Learn to read between the lines by comparing one person's comments with another..... which in many cases fills out the sketchy narratives of each and gives life and depth to the allusions made by others.

You mention the matters of financial support. This topic was covered in great depth in a number of threads in the past. Just because our focus is elsewhere now does not mean that there has not been enough said on this board for many to make up their mind whether or not they should continue to send their money to 3ABN. That still may not be convincing to you. So be it. But if it is not, there is little likelihood that anything more we could say would be convincing.

And lastly..... stop worrying so much about those poor sheeple who depend on you to do their thinking for them and tell them what to think and where to send their money. If you are an SDA pastor, then you should be telling them to send it to the church coffers and supporting HOPETV no matter what the evidence on 3ABN. If you are not, then it is certainly none of your business to intersperse yourself between "your people" and the SDA church. Give them the BSDA 3ABN forum url, tell them you have seen things there that have made you wonder, and encourage them to all go and see for themselves.

So far, whenever I see a post from you, the thing that comes immediately to mind is the warning given by Ellen White to and about those who are not patient enough to unravel the difficulties themselves (or to wait for the Lord to unravel them) but attempt to "cut through the knot of difficulty", and in do doing make things much worse than they would be other wise.

[sonshineonme]

No, and I am not likely to ever think like a woman. I am a man. But these threads were started to make judgments. And I still have to do that despite my gender. I can try to put myself in her place, but I still can't think of a reason to give evidence for an affair as a joke.

If the truth is the truth then whether I am an abused woman or not it should be something that seems credible. I just don't see it as credible at this time. Others do.

Maybe you should read this again Tall...the answer IS there, whether you accept it or not.
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...08&#entry142808

[watchbird]

Poor joke, maybe. But since she told people what she was going to do and why she was going to do it, I believe her. Besides she and her daughter did it together. It's not like she tried to make up an excuse after being found out.

I can see doing it just to bring things out into the open. You aren't thinking like a woman, tall. At least not like this woman. Sometimes abused women deliberately do things they know will provoke anger and I don't know why except maybe they hope to head off a huge tantrum from the abuser just by letting the abuser blow off some steam. And needing to get everything out in the open and make Danny admit what he was up to just says it all for me.

No, and I am not likely to ever think like a woman. I am a man. But these threads were started to make judgments. And I still have to do that despite my gender. I can try to put myself in her place, but I still can't think of a reason to give evidence for an affair as a joke.

If the truth is the truth then whether I am an abused woman or not it should be something that seems credible. I just don't see it as credible at this time. Others do.

That's OK ... your credibility just dropped another notch. You admit you cannot think like a woman.... then don't presume to sit in judgement upon a woman. There is no requirement that truth, to be truth, must "seem credible". There is more than one place in the saga of Danny Shelton that people (including lawyers) have exclaimed, "Truth is stranger than fiction".

You say "these threads were started to make judgements." Wrong again. These threads were started to give people opportunity to tell their sides of their stories and place them in a place where every passerby who wanted to could stop and see and read and think. There are no demands made on anyone to come forward and tell their stories. There are no prohibitions on anyone coming and disputing what they see. You are free to believe or disbelieve the testimonies of those who speak.

I did not choose to tell the story of the pg test merely to "present evidence". Both Johann and I refrained from mentioning it so long as the accusations remained vague about the so called "evidence" that Danny claimed he had. Once that became specific in the last letter from Walt's mass mailings that was posted, it was time to tell Linda's side of that story, which both Johann and I did, and others confirmed was the same as what they had heard from Linda's lips. When you attack that story it does not matter whether you approve or disapprove of the action or not. In that sense it doesn't matter if you can "think like a woman" enough for it to appear rational to you. The only question that should concern you is whether or no it is true that Linda said this, and that she did this, and that she gave her reasons as we have reported them.

Frankly, your disbelief in the truthfulness of all of that would also not stand in a court of law merely on the grounds that it "didn't make sense to you". You would have to produce proof in order to show that Linda was lying about both the act and the reasons she had for doing the act. And hind sight 20/20 vision as to wether it was a wise move on her part simply won't "cut it" either. Her wisdom or the lack thereof is not the question. The only question is her truthfulness in what she told her friends, and her friends truthfulness in the way they related what they were told.

Now how about simmering down and taking a look at the other side, and analysing this with the same scrutiny that you have given the statements about Linda.

Danny and Walt's story differs only in one particular from that of Linda's..... so that is the only one we would need to examine. And that is the motive behind the act. Now how can Danny and Walt be considered accurate judges of another person's motives..... even if that person is the wife of one of them? Unless THEY can produce substantiating evidence.... really hard evidence..... that their interpretation of her motives is right and her own statements of what they were is wrong ... what right do you have to take their word for it rather than hers? Would THAT kind of judgement stand up in a court of law?

[Clay]

part of being a compassionate person (which is what a pastor ought to be) is one's ability to put themselves in another's shoes as much as is possible.... we call it empathy.... while I am 100%, I can imagine what it must be like to have been Linda in that situation...and as I said earlier, I can see myself doing something to yank the chain of the one who was tormenting me..... but... that's just me....

[tall73]

By your very insistence on us presenting "evidence" as though this is a court of law (which it is not) rather than a public bulletin board (which is all that it is) you are destroying your own credibility as a true seeker of knowledge and painting a picture of yourself as someone who has and wants to retain control over a vast number of people....once you have passed your judgement on the evidence.

I did not insist on evidence. You put it on the internet before I ever knew it existed, for the purpose of making a statement about 3ABN. but if we are to take your purpose seriously we must evaluate it. The fact that it is not a court of law puts a higher standard in place. There are no built in measures to prevent lying (perjury charges etc.). There is no structure to how things are said. The jury gets to weigh in and sway the proceedings. No, it is not a courtroom. But we must still evaluate.

That does not set well. Not well at all.

You have also painted a picture of yourself as being a very impatient and inconsiderate person.... tell it all now and let the chips fall where they may.....and one that is not willing to do their own "legwork" in learning the facts but wants someone to net out all they know and serve it up to you on your judges platter.

You are the ones saying you have access and that we don't know Linda or all the details. You are the ones trying to make your case. Now you criticize because we want it all served up? Either you are making a case or you are not. But don't assume we will all buy every part of it.

First you said that the reason it was put out in bits and pieces was to protect the reader. Now you are saying it is so that we can do our own legwork. Which is it? My point was that you are not protecting the reader by doing it. And you putting all the information out there does not preclude legwork. In fact it is a starting point for real legwork to happen.

As to you evaluating me perosnally, I am judging what you wrote of the situation. You are judging me because I disagree.

It is not impatience to want the whole story rather than just bits and pieces over time. And if you really want to dissuade giving to this ministry you could do so more effectively by putting it all out at once. Just as some were upset over the part by part delivering of the Dr.'s letter when it was clear the whole thing was out there. It was needless.

That "sets" even worse.

You also show distinct evidence that you have not even read through all of the information that has been posted on this board over the past two years.

Because I think that it was unlikely a person accused of having an affair would demonstrate otherwise by buying a pregnancy test? That does not at all prove that I have not read carefully.

It is not a sign of not reading to not agree with you in a particular.

If you want to have credibility and find answers here..... then first of all read all that has been said here..... in as nearly as possible chronological order. Pay attention to what people here thought when they began posting..... some as much as two years ago, more who began this spring after Danny's remarriage, and even more in the past few weeks. Note the pogression of their thought, note the things that caused them to change their minds or solidify their convictions. Learn to read between the lines by comparing one person's comments with another..... which in many cases fills out the sketchy narratives of each and gives life and depth to the allusions made by others.

And what happens when someone does all that and still thinks it unlikely that the pregnancy test was a joke?

You mention the matters of financial support. This topic was covered in great depth in a number of threads in the past. Just because our focus is elsewhere now does not mean that there has not been enough said on this board for many to make up their mind whether or not they should continue to send their money to 3ABN. That still may not be convincing to you. So be it. But if it is not, there is little likelihood that anything more we could say would be convincing.

All evidence has weight in the final picture. I cannot dismiss this evidence because of other things you have said. It may be that in the end it is determined that one side outweighs the other. But that does not mean that everything one side says is to be dismissed while the other side's take is always accepted.

And lastly..... stop worrying so much about those poor sheeple who depend on you to do their thinking for them and tell them what to think and where to send their money. If you are an SDA pastor, then you should be telling them to send it to the church coffers and supporting HOPETV no matter what the evidence on 3ABN. If you are not, then it is certainly none of your business to intersperse yourself between "your people" and the SDA church. Give them the BSDA 3ABN forum url, tell them you have seen things there that have made you wonder, and encourage them to all go and see for themselves.

Most of them don't have the internet. I am likely going to give them the letters. Of course they already have the ones from Danny. But I might not even do that if I don't think thereis a convincing reason to do so.

And no I don't tell them to just give to the church and Hopetv. God can use people outside of the church.

So far, whenever I see a post from you, the thing that comes immediately to mind is the warning given by Ellen White to and about those who are not patient enough to unravel the difficulties themselves (or to wait for the Lord to unravel them) but attempt to "cut through the knot of difficulty", and in do doing make things much worse than they would be other wise.

I am sorry you see it that way. But then you know even less of me than I know of Linda and Danny. So if it is possible that I am confused about this situation, i certainly leave open the possibility that you are wrong about me.

It boils down to this. You are trying to get people to do something based on your testimony. But we must evaluate your testimony. Telling me that I am impatient and don't deal with difficulties, and saying I am condemned by EGW etc. will not help you make that case with me.

If you don't want what you said evaluated then don't put it.

part of being a compassionate person (which is what a pastor ought to be) is one's ability to put themselves in another's shoes as much as is possible.... we call it empathy.... while I am 100%, I can imagine what it must be like to have been Linda in that situation...and as I said earlier, I can see myself doing something to yank the chain of the one who was tormenting me..... but... that's just me....

I did say I am trying to put myself in her place, but I will still never think like a woman, as if all women thought alike to start with.

And if that is somehow seen as a disqualification then all the men in this post need to stop reading.

But it is obviously not a disqualification. Nor does my saying it mean I am not compassionate. If she was abused then she certainly did not deserve it, and is justified in feeling resentment. But as someone on the outside looking in I can't assume that she was abused, that she did buy it as a joke, etc.

This post has been edited by tall73: Aug 1 2006, 11:19 AM

[Clay]

Tall,
either you will believe the info here or not... I don't think you have been here long enough or read enough to even evaluate what is really here.... in other words you do not have enough information yet to make a logical decision... you've come late to the party and you gotta catch up.... IMO.....

[tall73]

That's OK ... your credibility just dropped another notch. You admit you cannot think like a woman.... then don't presume to sit in judgement upon a woman. There is no requirement that truth, to be truth, must "seem credible". There is more than one place in the saga of Danny Shelton that people (including lawyers) have exclaimed, "Truth is stranger than fiction".

If I do not sit in judgment on the case then I cannot do what you hope I will do by ceasing to support 3ABN.

This was my whole point. The poster was making a point that because I am not a woman I can't judge this case. That is simply untrue. If that were the case then you can't judge Danny, not being a man. But certainly no one is making that statement.

You say "these threads were started to make judgements." Wrong again. These threads were started to give people opportunity to tell their sides of their stories and place them in a place where every passerby who wanted to could stop and see and read and think. There are no demands made on anyone to come forward and tell their stories. There are no prohibitions on anyone coming and disputing what they see. You are free to believe or disbelieve the testimonies of those who speak.

Here is what you said:

Our role here is to expose enough information in a publicly accessible place so as to warn against investing money in an organization that has been at best wasteful with what were intended to be the Lord's funds, and what appears from what has been learned to be serious misappropriations of funds from 3ABN as a ministry to the pockets of the owner of 3ABN--actions which are certainly not expected by donors, ones which they would consider unethical if they knew about them, and some of which may even be shown to be outright illegal fraud.

You said that you were here to warn those who would invest money. That is demanding a judgment.
Even the idea that they are to come and read and think is asking for a judgment.

And you say there are no prohibitions on anyone disagreeing? Yet when I did I was called

impatient
inconsiderate
controlling
jumping to conclusions


and it was implied that I was less than compassionate, and thereby going against my calling.

Now which of those things addressed the actual facts of the case? None of them that I can see. So it comes across to me that disagreement leads to personal attacks against the one who disagrees.

I did not choose to tell the story of the pg test merely to "present evidence". Both Johann and I refrained from mentioning it so long as the accusations remained vague about the so called "evidence" that Danny claimed he had. Once that became specific in the last letter from Walt's mass mailings that was posted, it was time to tell Linda's side of that story, which both Johann and I did, and others confirmed was the same as what they had heard from Linda's lips. When you attack that story it does not matter whether you approve or disapprove of the action or not. In that sense it doesn't matter if you can "think like a woman" enough for it to appear rational to you. The only question that should concern you is whether or no it is true that Linda said this, and that she did this, and that she gave her reasons as we have reported them.

I am sure you would prefer not to tell it at all. Because it is indeed compromising evidence at face value.

And it is also right for you to give Linda's side of it. But if you say the concern is whether it is true or not, how do you expect us to evaluate that? We have to determine whether it sounds plausible, whether it fits the rest of the story, and whether those telling us sound credible. Again, that is a judment, and not everyone will agree with you. I also take into account the fact Danny did not in fact bring out this evidence right away. You all said he was hiding the evidence so he produced this. Either he was actually trying to protect Linda or he was grasping at straws and settled on this. But again, we have to evaluate.

Frankly, your disbelief in the truthfulness of all of that would also not stand in a court of law merely on the grounds that it "didn't make sense to you".

Of course it wouldn't. But in this discussion board we are in the place of the jury. And the jury is not on trial. And what the jury concludes from the evidence does stand in a court of law. They are the ones who decide the case. The difference is in a court of law you wouldn't know what they are thinking until the sentance was given. You couldn't go back and comment on their personal traits or try to convince them by other means. They would simply decide what they think.

You would have to produce proof in order to show that Linda was lying about both the act and the reasons she had for doing the act.

There is only one piece of uncontested evidence in the pregnancy test, and that is that there was one and that Danny found it by snooping. Anything else must be proved by those claiming it. You are one of those claiming something.

Now how about simmering down and taking a look at the other side, and analysing this with the same scrutiny that you have given the statements about Linda.

I have taken what you said with scrutiny, and have read the other posts too.

Danny and Walt's story differs only in one particular from that of Linda's..... so that is the only one we would need to examine. And that is the motive behind the act. Now how can Danny and Walt be considered accurate judges of another person's motives..... even if that person is the wife of one of them? Unless THEY can produce substantiating evidence.... really hard evidence..... that their interpretation of her motives is right and her own statements of what they were is wrong ... what right do you have to take their word for it rather than hers? Would THAT kind of judgement stand up in a court of law?

If I were on the jury I would have every right. And since you are presenting it for us in defense of Linda we have every right to form our opinion.

And if we can never judge a motive or try to determine whether something is truthful then we can never decide anything. And therefore your goal of discrediting 3ABN is hopeless.

Gotta go for a bit. I will check this later if I get time.

And Watchbird I have not at all said that I agree with Danny. His remarriage to me was sickening. It does seem as if he married someone that he had on the back burner for a while who was much younger. I didn't watch 3ABN much anyway because I just now got it in my area. But I can't watch at all now when he is on. This whole dispute came from me saying that I thought one point was strong for Danny. Perhaps you could evaluate that as well. I am not your enemy.

Tall,
either you will believe the info here or not... I don't think you have been here long enough or read enough to even evaluate what is really here.... in other words you do not have enough information yet to make a logical decision... you've come late to the party and you gotta catch up.... IMO.....

Clay, if I have read the information what more is there to do? Not everyone who reads posts.

What gives me the right to make a statement?

How long do I have to be here?'

And if I after reading the information am not informed enough to make a call on it, why is Watchbird, who knows nearly nothing of me able to make an informed decision about what kind of person I am ? I understand that she cares about those involved. I get that. But calling into question who I am does not help her case.

You know me from CF so you might be able to say a bit more about who I am.. So it is that much more upsetting that you imply I am not compassionate because I disagree. If that is your view, I can take it and evaluate it. But at this point I don't agree with it.

This whole thing blew up from one statement that I made that said I thought this was a strong point for Danny's case. I don't see why it needs to be more than that.


This post has been edited by tall73: Aug 1 2006, 11:58 AM

[sonshineonme]

I did say I am trying to put myself in her place, but I will still never think like a woman, as if all women thought alike to start with.

You don't have to think like a women to understand a women - you only have to listen to try to understand - and most things in life are completely hard to understand unless you have been in the same shoes as the person who has been through a particular situation.


But it is obviously not a disqualification. Nor does my saying it mean I am not compassionate. If she was abused then she certainly did not deserve it, and is justified in feeling resentment. But as someone on the outside looking in I can't assume that she was abused, that she did buy it as a joke, etc.

You should not assume anything - you should only listen, put all the available pieces together and accept what you see. If you choose not to, don't then tell the rest who have that they are wrong or have done wrong in their assessment of the enormous information that is available at this present moment. It all paints a big picture that has a whole lot more to do with just what happend to Linda. Patience is a virture, you will get more information as time goes along that is not yet posted. There is ample now to know that there is MUCH more to this whole thing that meets the eye. Do the homework, don't give up or conclude unless you have done so. And welcome to BSDA! It's one of the few places where you can get information from those that KNOW first hand. We are very fortunate for that.

[tall73]

You should not assume anything - you should only listen, put all the available pieces together and accept what you see. If you choose not to, don't then tell the rest who have that they are wrong or have done wrong in their assessment of the enormous information that is available at this present moment. It all paints a big picture that has a whole lot more to do with just what happend to Linda. Patience is a virture, you will get more information as time goes along that is not yet posted. There is ample now to know that there is MUCH more to this whole thing that meets the eye. Do the homework, don't give up or conclude unless you have done so. And welcome to BSDA! It's one of the few places where you can get information from those that KNOW first hand. We are very fortunate for that.

First of all, thanks for the welcome.


I agree, we should not assume. I agree we should put the pieces together and accept what we see.

As to telling the rest they are wrong, I didn't. I said I don't agree with it.

And pages of "hot mess on toast" posts have been made taking one side over the other. Why is it wrong to express my view on it?

There are already letter writing campaigns etc. If there is still information to come why are we encoraging that? Is there or is there not enough information to decide yet? And is there only enough information to decide one way but not the other?


Alright, signing off...this time for real hopefully.

This post has been edited by tall73: Aug 1 2006, 11:54 AM

[simplysaved]

The problem with this particular justification (that may be interfering with empathy here) is that an abused woman would be "terrified" to play any type of pratical joke...and unfortunately, that is how Linda has been presented in this situation. An abused woman would do EVERYTHING in her power to "be perfect" and not do anything that might upset the abuser....

part of being a compassionate person (which is what a pastor ought to be) is one's ability to put themselves in another's shoes as much as is possible.... we call it empathy.... while I am 100%, I can imagine what it must be like to have been Linda in that situation...and as I said earlier, I can see myself doing something to yank the chain of the one who was tormenting me..... but... that's just me....

[lurker]

The problem with this particular justification (that may be interfering with empathy here) is that an abused woman would be "terrified" to play any type of pratical joke...and unfortunately, that is how Linda has been presented in this situation. An abused woman would do EVERYTHING in her power to "be perfect" and not do anything that might upset the abuser....

You can never be perfect enough for an abuser! Never, never, never. He wants to be right. He wants to be right more than he wants to be loved. He wants to catch you at something so he can put you down about it. The cop who follows you long enough will find something to pull you over for if he is looking for something or wants to throw his weight around. So when he pulls you over, you hope it will be for something little so he doesn't keep looking and accuse you of something worse.

It is because he always was ascribing the very worst possible motives to Linda for everything she did or even for stuff she didn't do that the prhase "the dragon was wroth with the woman" keeps running through my head. What person now days wouldn't think that since the test was in Linda's daughter's bag that her mother had bought it for her or that the daughter had bought it and borrowed the money from her mother. Then when he brought it up, they would know he had been snooping. Who would have thought that he would go through the daughter's bag and jump to the conclusion that it was Linda's and that she thought there was a chance she herself was pregnant. That's a big jump! The worst he would be expected to believe was that Linda had thought that her daughter was pregnant and that if Linda's daughter was having a baby it might reflect badly on 3ABN if Linda remained there.

Do the words OUTTA CONTROL ring a bell with anyone?

This post has been edited by lurker: Aug 1 2006, 01:50 PM

[Clay]

Tall said:

And if I after reading the information am not informed enough to make a call on it, why is Watchbird, who knows nearly nothing of me able to make an informed decision about what kind of person I am ? I understand that she cares about those involved. I get that. But calling into question who I am does not help her case.

You know me from CF so you might be able to say a bit more about who I am.. So it is that much more upsetting that you imply I am not compassionate because I disagree. If that is your view, I can take it and evaluate it. But at this point I don't agree with it.

All I am saying is that there is 2 yrs worth of info that is quite interesting and suggests that the reason for the divorce was suspect.... I am not implying that you are not compassionate, I am saying that you should be able to put yourself in another person's shoes even though that person may be a woman..... you may still disagree but that's were I am coming from.....

My position remains unchanged, even IF Linda did everything she was accused of doing, Mr. Shelton should NOT have treated her in the manner that he did.. including making her sign a gag order under duress...