Is Danny Over Linda? Options

[husbandoftheyear]

Just a little food for thought....Brandi's second divorce was in 1999. She has two children, ages 12 and 6. Do the math~~~her second was out of wedlock and some have commented on how this child resembles Danny.

I know that I am not a mathmetician here, but it seems that if she were pregnant in 99, had the child in 2000, that it is not illogical for the child, in fact, to be 6 years old is it?

[lurker]

The divorce for her first marriage was in 1999. She remarried in 2000. I have pm'd Jodi and husbandoftheyear with more details.

This post has been edited by lurker: Sep 7 2006, 06:58 AM

[fallible humanbe...]

Just a little food for thought....Brandi's second divorce was in 1999. She has two children, ages 12 and 6. Do the math~~~her second was out of wedlock and some have commented on how this child resembles Danny.

Danny and Linda have been divorced two years. It would seem that Danny and Brandi have been involved for some time, long before her 'employment' at 3ABN.

How do you make this jump in logic? Danny and Linda have been apart for two years (I am assuming it is around this amount of time, maybe slightly longer). Brandy's chlidren are 12 and 6, meaning that at the time of the original seperation the youngest was 4. Now if your logic holds, that means that Danny and Brandy were in contact at least five years prior (at the least four years and nine months). Your logic doesn't stand. Simply because someone says that an individual looks like someone else is no way to go about presenting truth and fact.

The only way that this could be presented as anything other than mere speculaton based on not much at all would be a DNA test. So since that isn't going to happen this notion needs to "stricken from the record" in an effort to only present that which is provable.

- fhb

[Denny]

Just as we do not want to speculate about what happened to the first Mrs Shelton we should not speculate about who fathered Brandy's children. Unlike the Shelton marriage breakdown none of these things can be confirmed here. Looking like someone means nothing I look like plenty of people and are related to none of them.

This post has been edited by Denny: Sep 7 2006, 09:28 AM

[Panama_Pete]

Now if your logic holds, that means that Danny and Brandy were in contact at least five years prior (at the least four years and nine months). Your logic doesn't stand.

The only way that this could be presented as anything other than mere speculaton based on not much at all would be a DNA test.
- fhb

First, two points about your statement:

1. Sometime back, someone stated that Brandy had been to 3ABN with her parents, as a child, and had sung at 3ABN. They said that Danny has known Brandy's family for many years.

2. I was just looking at the birth certificate of someone in my family. It lists both the father and the mother. Both parents of the baby were at the hospital when the baby was born and filled out the information for the birth certificate at that time. Since I can read, I did not need a DNA test to figure out who the parents were.

Now, on to something else that needs to be repeated.

With time, most things come out in the wash, one way or the other.

My personal opinion is that men dump their wives for younger women every day of the week. It is so commonplace that it doesn't even qualify for debate. Most people are not going to stop and analyze things every time they see a Grandpa with a Prom Queen and try to put it into terms of Predicate or Propositional Logic. Their day just isn't long enough for that.

The stories put out by 3ABN about "spiritual adultery" were just plain foolish. Naturally, this left everyone on their own to speculate as to what really happened. And that's what is logical.

By making serious charges, and then refusing to present their "unquestionable" evidence in any reasonable way, 3ABN clearly lost in the court of public opinion.

If 3ABN makes continuing commentary on television, they better be able to back it up. And 3ABN seems totally unable to do that. So, telling people that their "logic doesn't stand" is rather pointless at this late date. It's a public relations disaster for 3ABN, any way you look at it.

[fallible humanbe...]

First, two points about your statement:

1. Sometime back, someone stated that Brandy had been to 3ABN with her parents, as a child, and had sung at 3ABN. They said that Danny has known Brandy's family for many years.

2. I was just looking at the birth certificate of someone in my family. It lists both the father and the mother. Both parents of the baby were at the hospital when the baby was born and filled out the information for the birth certificate at that time. Since I can read, I did not need a DNA test to figure out who the parents were.

There are individuals that I have meet throughout the years who I have had no more contact with, accidentally ran into later on. Simply the meeting of the family is not substantial enough to speculate that because of the one time meeting there was a later intimate relationship. That is far to weak to stand on.

An adopted child's birth certificate has the names of the adoptive parents on it. There isn't a second one that contains the biological parents names on it for obvious legal reasons. You are correct that a DNA test isn't the only way to determine paternity - however it is rather definitive and carry's more wieght than a birth certificate that could be forged, altered after the fact, etc.

Now, on to something else that needs to be repeated.

By making serious charges, and then refusing to present their "unquestionable" evidence in any reasonable way, 3ABN clearly lost in the court of public opinion.

If 3ABN makes continuing commentary on television, they better be able to back it up. And 3ABN seems totally unable to do that. So, telling people that their "logic doesn't stand" is rather pointless at this late date. It's a public relations disaster for 3ABN, any way you look at it.

The reason for making the statement that the logic doesn't cut it is based on my position that in a situation like this if you have a "side", you stand a much greater chance of proving it's veracity if you stick to what "IS", meaning you have the evidence in hand and it is indisputable. The post I responded to was only speculative at best. Thus for those who have come into this flow of imformation late (myself included) I think the point I make isn't pointless.

Your comment that 3ABN doesn't seem to be able to back up their claims does have a flip side. Maybe they do have it and do not want to add to anyone elses pain or embarassment. (I know that this line will get jumped on, so let me be proactive here and say I am not advocating one side over the other just making the common sense observation that there is a plausible alternative)

I would agree that the continual defensive approach taken by some of the individuals at 3ABN does create a perception that is damaging from a PR perspective. If in fact they do have "evidence to convict" and are choosing to take the high road and not embarass Linda further - they should at the very least ignore the opposition against them so as not to create the perception that they are trying to hide something - but to date they haven't.

- fhb

[inga]

Your comment that 3ABN doesn't seem to be able to back up their claims does have a flip side. Maybe they do have it and do not want to add to anyone elses pain or embarassment. (I know that this line will get jumped on, so let me be proactive here and say I am not advocating one side over the other just making the common sense observation that there is a plausible alternative)

I would agree that the continual defensive approach taken by some of the individuals at 3ABN does create a perception that is damaging from a PR perspective. If in fact they do have "evidence to convict" and are choosing to take the high road and not embarass Linda further - they should at the very least ignore the opposition against them so as not to create the perception that they are trying to hide something - but to date they haven't.

I know Dan & cohorts are arguing that they are taking the "high road." However, that argument utterly fails because the direct statements and continuing insinuations do more damage than revealing the worst that Linda could possibly have done.

What is the most incriminating evidence they possibly could have? Is it a video of Linda committing adultery? Is it a recording of Linda's confession of committing adultery? Is it someone else's confession of committing adultery with Linda? Would the revealing of any of this evidence do Linda more damage than what the statements and insinuations have done/are doing?

3ABN is definitely taking the lowest road by their practice! The "high road" would have been to make no statements re Linda's "guilt" in the matter and allow her to leave over "personal differences" or whatever ...

If Linda is so guilty, why was she coerced into signing a gag order? Is that a "high road"?

What is so damaging about the 3ABN approach is that, without concrete evidence, folks do imagine the worst. After all, Danny is "God's chosen messenger," right? And he can do no wrong. And it is likely that's precisel why we see no more specific statements from 3ABN than we have. They know that human nature will imagine the worst -- worse than anything Linda is likely to have done even if she is "guilty."

That "high-road" argument just doesn't hold water!

This post has been edited by inga: Sep 7 2006, 12:23 PM

[fallible humanbe...]

If Linda is so guilty, why was she coerced into signing a gag order? Is that a "high road"?

Okay, for arguments sake I will respond to this one. If Linda is/was guilty as charged it is entirely possible that she would have still wanted to stay a part of the organization. If she did want to stay and wouldn not "leave over personal/creative/spiritual differences" (which ever word you want to use) then she would be perceived as a potentially hostile/disgruntled employee who could spread slanderous lies and rumors about the organization. Kind of like, "If I can't have it, then I will make sure no one else does either." If this was the perception then any organization would have required a gag order, no compete clause, etc.

What is so damaging about the 3ABN approach is that, without concrete evidence, folks do imagine the worst. After all, Danny is "God's chosen messenger," right? And he can do no wrong. And it is likely that's precisel why we see no more specific statements from 3ABN than we have. They know that human nature will imagine the worst -- worse than anything Linda is likely to have done even if she is "guilty."

That "high-road" argument just doesn't hold water!

I have begun to ask individuals, those who would have some frame of reference (because there are those in the church who really do not know much more about 3ABN then it is a telelvision station), if they would classify Danny as "the face of Adventism" or "God's chosen messenger." Almost to a person they do not see either one as reflecting their perception of Danny. Needless to say they would not, then, think that he could "do no wrong." I think the perception here that Danny is the "grand pubah" of Adventism might only exist here. Most of the people I talked to reference shows other than 3ABN Live, which is the scheduling venue you would most like see Danny in. If I were to assign priority of importance of the individuals mentioned by those who shared their thoughts with me, Doug Bachelor and Shaun Boonstra (sp?) garner much more mention than Danny. Next would come many of the individuals who do the cooking shows.

There may very well have been intent to take a high road approach (again common sense has to admit this is plausible), imperfect humans who at times get exasperated and "hot under the collar" do not adhere to their original plan. It is tough to say since none of us were there when this was discussed and decided on. High road or not, there are two sides to the coin, the story, and to understand it one must allow for the possibility that what was once accepted as truth in the end may not be such.

- fhb

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Sep 7 2006, 12:46 PM

[princessdi]

.......and is or will be 7.........I work in finance.........

This is why we are going to leave this type of speculation alone. The children, whom ever they belong to are defintiely innocent in all of this. We are sticking to the events at 3ABN.

I know that I am not a mathmetician here, but it seems that if she were pregnant in 99, had the child in 2000, that it is not illogical for the child, in fact, to be 6 years old is it?

This post has been edited by princessdi: Sep 7 2006, 01:23 PM

[calvin]

Yep, leave this Speculation alone folks.

[sonshineonme]

I have begun to ask individuals, those who would have some frame of reference (because there are those in the church who really do not know much more about 3ABN then it is a telelvision station), if they would classify Danny as "the face of Adventism" or "God's chosen messenger." Almost to a person they do not see either one as reflecting their perception of Danny. Needless to say they would not, then, think that he could "do no wrong." I think the perception here that Danny is the "grand pubah" of Adventism might only exist here. Most of the people I talked to reference shows other than 3ABN Live, which is the scheduling venue you would most like see Danny in. If I were to assign priority of importance of the individuals mentioned by those who shared their thoughts with me, Doug Bachelor and Shaun Boonstra (sp?) garner much more mention than Danny. Next would come many of the individuals who do the cooking shows.
- fhb

I too have talked to individuals - not planning to, but more of a happen to have it come up type thing, and I think I have talked about this in another post - but very different types of people, both react to Dan the same "what? Are you kidding, he is choosen by God, after all, LOOK at him, he is there - HE started this minstry and HE is STILL there..." (yes in quote but mostly my paraphrase, as they were two diff people). I was in shock as the conversation in one was only about "what if's" as in, what if things are not as they appear to be - what if Dan is not being straight about things...what I have seen is people's knee-jerk reaction to DAN being "he's a saint" more or less. This disturbed me deeply, and has ever sense. I realize that I will have to have the court documents to put in front of their face and then HOPE they will accept what they see then, because what I see now is that people DO see him as a saint - choosen by God. Again, very different people, don't know each other, live in the same enviornments, or even the same age. It terrifed me to think that what I was seeing before my eyes was WORSHIP of a person. Like it or not, that is what it is. People have been set up and don't see it. Yes, there are others like Boonstra, Batchelor, and we should all be careful to keep it clear in our minds they are ONLY men. Human and sinful, as are we all. It's a striking lesson to learn that someone you have held up so high, realizing it or not, can and does fall now and again. It's life. It's sin. It's going to end one day, and I look very forward to that.

[Panama_Pete]

Your comment that 3ABN doesn't seem to be able to back up their claims does have a flip side. Maybe they do have it and do not want to add to anyone elses pain or embarassment. (I know that this line will get jumped on, so let me be proactive here and say I am not advocating one side over the other just making the common sense observation that there is a plausible alternative)

- fhb

You're right, it will get jumped on, and here's why:

There is no "flip side" or "plausible alternative" because the accused parties have stated, for the record , that there is no such evidence.

And to date, no such evidence has been presented by 3ABN in any credible manner.

For 3ABN to say they have evidence, if it doesn't exist, is certainly not the high road. It's the very lowest, stagnant, swamp there is, but it is certainly no road.

So, if withholding evidence is meant to lessen pain and embarrassment, it certainly has been a gigantic failure on 3ABN's part.

That's the basic 3ABN dilemma: A charge with no evidence. There's really no way for 3ABN to get around that one except to say, "We have evidence, but nobody's ever going to see it." That's right up there with, "The dog ate my homework."

[fallible humanbe...]

There is no "flip side" or "plausible alternative" because the accused parties have stated, for the record , that there is no such evidence.

The accused always claim innocence. There is nothing so surprising about that. Danny blames/accuses Linda she pleads innocent. Linda balmes/accuses Danny, he pleads innocent.

That's the basic 3ABN dilemma: A charge with no evidence. There's really no way for 3ABN to get around that one except to say, "We have evidence, but nobody's ever going to see it." That's right up there with, "The dog ate my homework."

I am curious, let's say that all parties end up in court over some aspect of this. 3ABN provides the evidence they have and it is clear that this evidence is significant and convicting - would you change your mind about the whole situation?

- fhb

[princessdi]

The accused always claim innocence. There is nothing so surprising about that. Danny blames/accuses Linda she pleads innocent. Linda balmes/accuses Danny, he pleads innocent.

Here is the point you are missing, Linda hasn't accused Danny of enything, she can talk about it at all.

I am curious, let's say that all parties end up in court over some aspect of this. 3ABN provides the evidence they have and it is clear that this evidence is significant and convicting - would you change your mind about the whole situation?

- fhb
That would depend on when it had come to court. If it came to court now, and......Voila!.....this evidence suddenly appears, then no( all that ocmputer generation and all). Had it appeared when they first went to court(when Linda was contesting the divorce) then yes. It is not like Danny has not had an opportunity to present whatever evidence he claims to have, but he hasn't. We are not going to even talk about his initial accusations were not os a sexual affiar, it was the now infamous "spiritual adultery". Something that he thought didn't need anymore evidence than his word about some phone calls that lasted longer than he thought they should.

[sonshineonme]

I am curious, let's say that all parties end up in court over some aspect of this. 3ABN provides the evidence they have and it is clear that this evidence is significant and convicting - would you change your mind about the whole situation?

- fhb

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

Wait, let me add, IF you call a one sided conversation that Dan transcripbed, EDITED and ALSO EXPLAINED WHAT THIS AND THAT MEANT, WITHOUT asking Linda (or anyone else asking Linda) if such things meant or were to mean such and such...well, lets just say, that is still NOT EVIDENCE. It's called a MAGICAL ALLUSION that nobody took serious - but only TOOK THE WORD OF SOMEONE who had nothing to do with any conversation....hmm, if you were a duck hunter, would you go shoot a chicken, dress it up to look like a duck, maybe get some little do-dad to stick in it's mouth so if you squeexed it it make something like a duck sound, and then presented it to a group of people who already would believe anything you said and told them "by golly, this IS a duck!" And they didn't really look closely (that might require some real looking and thinking and annalyzing of the appearance, sounds, etc) but just said "sure thing, whatever you say, must be a duck". One more BIG thing on the "deceit and stretch and exagerate and minipulation" list, I'd say. Hence, there is no EVIDENCE.

This post has been edited by sonshineonme: Sep 7 2006, 09:36 PM