Why All The Sensationalism, Regarding The Televangelist, The Contributor, Etc.?? Options

[tall73]

The first thing I noticed (which makes sense since it was the first thing in it!) about "The Televangelist" is the tendency to poison the well.

Anyone who plays the Hitler card had better have millions of body bags to back it up.

Adolph Hitler turned the failed German economy around and provided millions of jobs. He built a well disciplined society out of the anarchy resulting from World War One and the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. As their savior, Hitler had the full support of the German people, and much of the world until his war of conquest became global, and his true intention shone through. His actions, both good and bad, were taken with the best intentions. He firmly believed that a global Third Reich was the only salvation of the world, yet the world he was trying to save turned on him with a vengeance. In the end, he felt that he had done no wrong.

Pol Pot closed the borders of Cambodia and launched an internal bloodbath almost unequaled in history. Using the “loving father who is cleansing and protecting his children” psychology, he decimated the population of his country. He believed that he was saving the true Cambodia by getting rid of all foreign influence, and eliminating those people who showed any sign of being tainted. He did not consider himself a monster, he was a savior.

This post has been edited by tall73: Aug 25 2006, 11:44 AM

[Panama_Pete]

The first thing I noticed (which makes sense since it was the first thing in it!) about "The Televangelist" is the tendency to poison the well.

Poisoning that well is no longer possible.

[tall73]

Poisoning that well is no longer possible.

Show me the body bags of millions of people killed by 3ABN and I will agree. Whatever the facts show in regards to Danny it does not justify comparisons of this sort. Hence the sensationalism charge.


This post has been edited by tall73: Aug 25 2006, 12:40 PM

[Clay]

Show me the body bags of millions of people killed by 3ABN and I will agree. Whatever the facts show in regards to Danny it does not justify comparisons of this sort. Hence the sensationalism charge.

no that was not why... it was because of the fictionalized way the story was written I believe....

[tall73]

no that was not why... it was because of the fictionalized way the story was written I believe....

I associate the two.

If they are willing to make such leaps in their literal comparisons, what leaps are made in the fiction?

If parts of it are fiction, and they show a grudge right from the outset by poisoning the well, then that to me calls into question the whole thing.

And how fictional is it anyway?

The defense is that it is not the real story because of legal issues. But if they put out an even less real story and then attach real names to it, isn't that more of a legal problem?

This post has been edited by tall73: Aug 25 2006, 12:54 PM

[Clay]

I associate the two.

If they are willing to make such leaps in their literal comparisons, what leaps are made in the fiction?

And how fictional is it anyway?

The defense is that it is not the real story because of legal issues. But if they put out an even less real story and then attach real names it, isn't that more of a legal problem?

actually Tall there is enough factual info that you need not read that narrative at all..... and if after you read all of the other info you conclude that it is not true, then simply say that it's not true in your opinion..... my point is that the story about the televangelist comprises but a small fraction of this whole saga...

[tall73]

actually Tall there is enough factual info that you need not read that narrative at all..... and if after you read all of the other info you conclude that it is not true, then simply say that it's not true in your opinion..... my point is that the story about the televangelist comprises but a small fraction of this whole saga...

I certainly agree with that.

My question is not whether it is needed but whether it hurts the overall case.

Several have said we should direct people here to learn the truth. And I think the Illinois state document and some of the letters, etc. are important evidences in doing that. But I am less likely to send people here when there are also fictionalized works that have these kind of claims in them. Those that support 3ABN who are already inclined to think that Danny is right and these folks are just gossips are turned off by such accounts. It has a dampening effect on the whole argument.

Beyond that I still don't see how the fictionalized thing is helpful.

If you come on a message board and post a fictional story, then put names to it, and insist that is actually true, how does that make you any less liable then coming to a message board, putting out the actual facts, and attaching names?

This post has been edited by tall73: Aug 25 2006, 02:18 PM

[Clay]

I certainly agree with that.

My question is not whether it is needed but whether it hurts the overall case.

Several have said we should direct people here to learn the truth. And I think the Illinois state document and some of the letters, etc. are important evidences in doing that. But I am less likely to send people here when there are also fictionalized works that have these kind of claims in them. Those that support 3ABN who are already inclined to think that Danny is right and these folks are just gossips are turned off by such accounts. It has a dampening effect on the whole argument.

Beyond that I still don't see how the fictionalized thing is helpful.

If you come on a message board and post a fictional story, then put names to it, and insist that is actually true, how does that make you any less liable then coming to a message board, putting out the actual facts, and attaching names?

good point... as opposed to putting the disclaimer out "this story is true but the names were changed to protect the innocent...."

Of course if you were to send someone here for info you would ideally tell them what to look for and what to avoid would you not?

[watchbird]

I certainly agree with that.

My question is not whether it is needed but whether it hurts the overall case.

Several have said we should direct people here to learn the truth. And I think the Illinois state document and some of the letters, etc. are important evidences in doing that. But I am less likely to send people here when there are also fictionalized works that have these kind of claims in them. Those that support 3ABN who are already inclined to think that Danny is right and these folks are just gossips are turned off by such accounts. It has a dampening effect on the whole argument.

Beyond that I still don't see how the fictionalized thing is helpful.

If you come on a message board and post a fictional story, then put names to it, and insist that is actually true, how does that make you any less liable then coming to a message board, putting out the actual facts, and attaching names?

I perceive that your problem with this may be in not understanding its background.

First of all, the author did not come on to this board and post a fictional story. The story was written in May of 2005. It was distributed privately, by email only, with instructions that it was not to be posted on any website. This, as was the line about it being "fiction", was done because of instruction by "legal counsel" that there were legal ramifications to "publishing" it on a web site that went beyond the "safe zone" for distribution. The paper was, as I have said before, written for the purpose of letting people know, in as discreet and as safe a way as possible that there wre many problems at 3ABN. It was sent mostly to church leaders and other concerned individuals. It was NOT put on any forum until comparatively recently, when someone posted it in its entirety to BSDA. If you go to the thread where this was done as the first post, you can see the discussion that followed as to whether this was a violation of copyright and whether the author approved. After giving a period of time for those who knew the author to contact him and get his comments, it was concluded that the author was in harmony with it being posted here. Recent posts by the author sent through Sister have confirmed that he not only approves of this being here, but has sent other stories which are more focused than this for her to post for him.

good point... as opposed to putting the disclaimer out "this story is true but the names were changed to protect the innocent...."

Of course if you were to send someone here for info you would ideally tell them what to look for and what to avoid would you not?

Precisely. And this is what we have done ... now that it is here, surrounded as it is by others who are telling parts of the story ... we point out that this gives a broad overview, and people who read the various views can piece them together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, so that each account gives a little more detail to the whole picture than any one of them would alone.

It has been necessary to tell things in these little bits and pieces for the past two years. Soon, very soon, the story will be told in its fullness. We who have come here and posted the "jots and tittles" have done so hoping that by doing it in this way the shock that will hit some people will be somewhat mitigated by them having already learned things a little bit at a time.

[Johann]

I perceive that your problem with this may be in not understanding its background.

First of all, the author did not come on to this board and post a fictional story. The story was written in May of 2005. It was distributed privately, by email only, with instructions that it was not to be posted on any website. This, as was the line about it being "fiction", was done because of instruction by "legal counsel" that there were legal ramifications to "publishing" it on a web site that went beyond the "safe zone" for distribution. The paper was, as I have said before, written for the purpose of letting people know, in as discreet and as safe a way as possible that there wre many problems at 3ABN. It was sent mostly to church leaders and other concerned individuals. It was NOT put on any forum until comparatively recently, when someone posted it in its entirety to BSDA. If you go to the thread where this was done as the first post, you can see the discussion that followed as to whether this was a violation of copyright and whether the author approved. After giving a period of time for those who knew the author to contact him and get his comments, it was concluded that the author was in harmony with it being posted here. Recent posts by the author sent through Sister have confirmed that he not only approves of this being here, but has sent other stories which are more focused than this for her to post for him.


Precisely. And this is what we have done ... now that it is here, surrounded as it is by others who are telling parts of the story ... we point out that this gives a broad overview, and people who read the various views can piece them together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, so that each account gives a little more detail to the whole picture than any one of them would alone.

It has been necessary to tell things in these little bits and pieces for the past two years. Soon, very soon, the story will be told in its fullness. We who have come here and posted the "jots and tittles" have done so hoping that by doing it in this way the shock that will hit some people will be somewhat mitigated by them having already learned things a little bit at a time.

I agree fully with what watchbird is saying here. To this I could merely add that one of the rearsons the author wrote this as a fiction was to protect as many of the innocent as possble. It is difficult to tell a story like this without also giving some information on other people's activities, and it may be difficult to tell the story without seemingly accusing them of being "guilty" too.

We could discuss till doomsday what is the proper way of doing this, but let's rather get on with the facts without involving more people than neccessary.

[Panama_Pete]

If you come on a message board and post a fictional story, then put names to it, and insist that is actually true....

In the very latest response, Dr. Walt Thompson insists they had "defensible" evidence. In his last statement, he didn't say his evidence was true, he said it was "defensible." That's different than "true." Thompson is a wordsmith. Some will speed-read over everything, impatiently, thinking one word means the same as another and miss the shading of those words.

Please also note that 3ABN has never presented this evidence. Have you noticed that? And it certainly has never been presented to any attorney representing the targeted people for a response. Evidence that is never presented in a proper way counts as genuine "fiction" in my book.

So, if you "really insist that it is actually true" you must start by contacting Dr. Thompson and insisting that he present this evidence to you. These are the people, after all, who made the original charges. So, you need to go to the source of the charges, and ask for the original evidence. In any problem, you always go to the source. That's just common sense.

I repeat, that "evidence" is controlled by Dr. Walt Thompson, Chairman of the Board of 3ABN.

But Thompson is not going to share anything. Therefore, his "evidence" counts as being the fiction. It might as well be evidence of Martians on the moon, if nobody's ever going to see it.

My point is that we have to realize that fictional writing may be taking place on the other side of the table, from the actual source of the controversy, itself, but it just isn't being recognized as such because some of the unwavering, diehard, faithful followers of 3ABN are giving 3ABN the "benefit of the doubt" which is highly unfair and irrational.

The biggest problem is 3ABN claims to have shown their secret evidence to people in "leadership." So, do we ask these people in "leadership" what they were shown? Do we demand that Don Schneider and/or anyone else who was presented with this data come clean and explain it to the rest of us?

Were any of the targeted parties, or their attorneys, present to see this presentation? I think not.

Therefore, the burden is squarely on the shoulders of the people who made the charges in the first place. It's their duty to come forward with their evidence.

If Hitler bombs London, do we criticize the British for the various ways they try to put out the fires? Of course, not. We cannot hold the people driving the fire trucks to a higher standard of expertise than the people who started the massive fires in the first place.

The people who started the current fires are all at 3ABN.

This post has been edited by Panama_Pete: Aug 25 2006, 03:54 PM

[Ralph]

In the very latest response, Dr. Walt Thompson insists they had "defensible" evidence. In his last statement, he didn't say his evidence was true, he said it was "defensible." That's different than "true." Thompson is a wordsmith. Some will speed-read over everything, impatiently, thinking one word means the same as another and miss the shading of those words.

Thanks Pete for bringing our attention to the difference of meaning between two words. Your whole post was great!

[Johann]

Thanks Pete for bringing our attention to the difference of meaning between two words. Your whole post was great!

All say AMEN!

[husbandoftheyear]

Show me the body bags of millions of people killed by 3ABN and I will agree. Whatever the facts show in regards to Danny it does not justify comparisons of this sort. Hence the sensationalism charge.

The body bags you ask for are here, in part, on this forum. You have but to look.

Sometimes it is the death of the spirit, not of the flesh that 3ABN accomplishes.

[sonshineonme]

The body bags you ask for are here, in part, on this forum. You have but to look.

Sometimes it is the death of the spirit, not of the flesh that 3ABN accomplishes.

Precisely. But as long as one is breathing, there is still hope of a spiritual revival, in more then one way.