Danny On 3abn 8/31/2006, comments made by danny about information online Options

[princessdi]

Behave, HOTY!

nanny-nanny, boo-boo

This post has been edited by princessdi: Sep 8 2006, 05:09 PM

[Ralph]

Ralph, I think it would be very useful for you to post your transcriptions in this thread. Could you do so, please? (It would be good to include the date & time you recorded these.)

Check out
http://users.rttinc.com/~rseland/private/lomacang.htm

http://users.rttinc.com/~rseland/private/quinn.htm

Corrections appreciated.
rseland@platinum.ca

[sonshineonme]

Check out
http://users.rttinc.com/~rseland/private/lomacang.htm

http://users.rttinc.com/~rseland/private/quinn.htm

Corrections appreciated.
rseland@platinum.ca

Ralph, was this the first "showing" of this particular 3abn live? I know there were already edits done to the second showing.....that always sparks my interest....

[Ralph]

Ralph, was this the first "showing" of this particular 3abn live? I know there were already edits done to the second showing.....that always sparks my interest....

I did not see the first showing, but recorded the audio from a latter one. I transcribed this from a disk that I bought from 3ABN. I compared it with what I had taped and noticed that there was some editing, but only editing of repeated comments that I would have edited out myself.

[watchbird]

allegations of sexual misconduct by any of the Sheltons remains off-limits at this time..... those allegations cannot be proved outside a court of law... so let's stick to what there is evidence for....thank you.....

I'm not understanding this new (to me) emphasis on "court of law". When these things came up originally, as I understood it, there was not to be "speculation" that was not backed up with documentation.... and documentation, as it seemed to be interpreted then was first hand witness, a statement by a victim, or other solid "evidence'. There is nothing that I know of that has been said here on any subject that has been "proved" in any "court of law".

There are those now who *have* stepped forward and given their first hand testimony about "sexual misconduct" on the part of the Shelton brothers. One such affidavite has been sent to GC and other SDA leadership, and in fact has also been shared with leaders of this forum and of Maritime Forum. Out of consideration for the victim those who have received copies of this statement, have been asked that her name be kept out of any discussions on the forums. Besides this, I am told by an attorney who is formally investigating the case, that he has contact with several other women who have stepped forward and given their testimony also. These is no doubt at all at this stage of things, but what Linda had ample grounds to divorce Danny...... she simply did not realize it at the time.

As for Tommy, over on Maritime Forum, the information was posted about the investigation by the Assemblies of God church leaders into the charges against him when he was both a minister and a school teacher in their denomination..... which led to him being defrocked by that church. And information has also been posted there about the letter that was sent from AoG leadership to the 3ABN Board Chairman warning against hiring Tommy at 3ABN. (Another case of Danny and Walt Thompson not "following wise counsel", I guess).

It has also been documented on this forum (by a first person observer of what went on) as to the reason for Tommy not appearing on the official list of sex-offenders ...... that is, the "bargaining" between the Shelton family and parents of the children involved.

I also have in my possession testimony from a young adult male whom Tommy solicited..... who was told to just keep quiet about it when he reported this to Danny.

So I'm rather confused by seeing these present restrictions tightened against even the asking of questions which have already been given here on BSDA, and the follow-up on these topics as investigators share new documentation with some of us.

These are, admittedly, serious allegations........... but this is a serious topic. And these are NOT "speculations". While the documentation will not be posted until those who are accumulating it have either put it in print or are ready to present it in a court case, the documentation does exist for all I am saying here.... and more. As to the scope of the discussions here, there is much much MUCH wrong at 3ABN other than merely the problems which have to do with Linda and Danny's interactions. BSDA has been giving a marvelous service by allowing those who have information to post it where others can see it. It would be a very sad thing if the lines were now drawn so tightly that the wider picture was put out-of-bounds. For it is that wider picture that is so necessary for even a modicum of comprehension as to the "whys" of the narrower one of Danny's divorce and remarriage. And it is certainly the wider picture that is crucial to the church realizing why they simply must sever all connections with the Shelton "dynasty" (including those whose last names are not Shelton..... whatever that may mean regarding the future relationship to 3ABN as a broadcasting entity).

I am certainly in harmony with the guidelines set up at the previous "thread closing" times ... which banned speculation of a sensational (and even criminal) nature in areas where there was no documentation available. But facts are facts, and IMO we should not have to wait for court cases before we share these in a factual but generalized manner so as to protect the identities of those who are giving their statements to official researchers.

[Clay]

then post the facts..... not the speculation..... in the one case where the person asked not to be named, it would be difficult to discuss that issue without identifying who that person is..... so to honor the request that no names be disclosed, the issue has not been discussed..... if there has been a change in the request then the issue can be discussed... I have not seen here any information about Mr. Shelton's brother or his problems, when that documentation is provided that issue can also be explored....

[calvin]

I'm not understanding this new (to me) emphasis on "court of law". When these things came up originally, as I understood it, there was not to be "speculation" that was not backed up with documentation.... and documentation, as it seemed to be interpreted then was first hand witness, a statement by a victim, or other solid "evidence'. There is nothing that I know of that has been said here on any subject that has been "proved" in any "court of law".

There are those now who *have* stepped forward and given their first hand testimony about "sexual misconduct" on the part of the Shelton brothers. One such affidavite has been sent to GC and other SDA leadership, and in fact has also been shared with leaders of this forum and of Maritime Forum. Out of consideration for the victim those who have received copies of this statement, have been asked that her name be kept out of any discussions on the forums. Besides this, I am told by an attorney who is formally investigating the case, that he has contact with several other women who have stepped forward and given their testimony also. These is no doubt at all at this stage of things, but what Linda had ample grounds to divorce Danny...... she simply did not realize it at the time.

As for Tommy, over on Maritime Forum, the information was posted about the investigation by the Assemblies of God church leaders into the charges against him when he was both a minister and a school teacher in their denomination..... which led to him being defrocked by that church. And information has also been posted there about the letter that was sent from AoG leadership to the 3ABN Board Chairman warning against hiring Tommy at 3ABN. (Another case of Danny and Walt Thompson not "following wise counsel", I guess).

It has also been documented on this forum (by a first person observer of what went on) as to the reason for Tommy not appearing on the official list of sex-offenders ...... that is, the "bargaining" between the Shelton family and parents of the children involved.

I also have in my possession testimony from a young adult male whom Tommy solicited..... who was told to just keep quiet about it when he reported this to Danny.

So I'm rather confused by seeing these present restrictions tightened against even the asking of questions which have already been given here on BSDA, and the follow-up on these topics as investigators share new documentation with some of us.

These are, admittedly, serious allegations........... but this is a serious topic. And these are NOT "speculations". While the documentation will not be posted until those who are accumulating it have either put it in print or are ready to present it in a court case, the documentation does exist for all I am saying here.... and more. As to the scope of the discussions here, there is much much MUCH wrong at 3ABN other than merely the problems which have to do with Linda and Danny's interactions. BSDA has been giving a marvelous service by allowing those who have information to post it where others can see it. It would be a very sad thing if the lines were now drawn so tightly that the wider picture was put out-of-bounds. For it is that wider picture that is so necessary for even a modicum of comprehension as to the "whys" of the narrower one of Danny's divorce and remarriage. And it is certainly the wider picture that is crucial to the church realizing why they simply must sever all connections with the Shelton "dynasty" (including those whose last names are not Shelton..... whatever that may mean regarding the future relationship to 3ABN as a broadcasting entity).

I am certainly in harmony with the guidelines set up at the previous "thread closing" times ... which banned speculation of a sensational (and even criminal) nature in areas where there was no documentation available. But facts are facts, and IMO we should not have to wait for court cases before we share these in a factual but generalized manner so as to protect the identities of those who are giving their statements to official researchers.

Then post the Alyssa Shelton letter that has supposedly been sent broadly to church officials and we can put molestation on the table. Seems to me this letter is public knowledge. But you want to spare her? Then you admonish us for closing the thread where you want to discuss all the dirty on Melody Shelton. You can’t have it both ways,

Let me remind everybody. I run a message board here, have been for 8 years. I am not on a mission to find the true on 3abn or bring down the Shelton clad. I commend you for taking up this cause for truth and exposing the wrongs at 3abn, try to understand that most of us (those members than have around here for awhile) don’t share in your zest for this mission many of you have undertaken. There are a lot more things going on in the Adventist church and BSDA than 3abn.

We are going to moderate these discussion the way we see fit. We reserve the right to make rules and change our minds it we want to….and I really don’t owe you any explains when you protest, so don’t always or even most of the time expect me to response to your emails, PM and public protest. Just go with the flow.

[watchbird]

then post the facts..... not the speculation..... in the one case where the person asked not to be named, it would be difficult to discuss that issue without identifying who that person is..... so to honor the request that no names be disclosed, the issue has not been discussed..... if there has been a change in the request then the issue can be discussed... I have not seen here any information about Mr. Shelton's brother or his problems, when that documentation is provided that issue can also be explored....

There are times when I sense a sort of "sliding scale" as to what are considered "facts" and what is considered "speculation". To me there is a definite difference, and all that I posted above I would consider as being facts.... since they represent information that was given to me as to actual occurrances .... as contrasted with things which someone has "reasoned" "might be" what had happened given something that they consider "circumstantial evidence' (which would be my understanding of what would be considered "speculation". Does that coincide with your "working definition of these terms? If not, then hopefully you can help me understand what yours is.

One caveate to this, of course, is the possibility that I might be mistaken in some of the "facts" as I post them. It has happened before, and having only partial information, it is quite possible that it might happen again. When that has happened, I have made public acknowledgement of my error and given the corrected information as I have learned it. But I do make every effort to check my facts before posting, and while I leave out many details, I try to make sure that the partial picture I give is not misleading.

As for the name of the individual mentioned, I think you have seen the compromise that was worked out on Maritime, where the person was identified as to relationship, but not by name. That may seem like a small difference and not one that is important ..... but it seems to be the best that can be done. And the "rules" were significantly altered, whether or not they were officially altered by the person making the disclosure, when Danny at ASI convention, tried to discredit the statement by the things he spread around there..... including his usual "it's all lies" and "she only did it because her mother told her too" and "I have talked to her on the phone and she said that." .... a statement that Mabel Dunbar and others immediately investigated and found to be a false statement since she had gotten a new phone and Danny did not even have phone numbers that would reach her. And then, of course, came the "infamous" sermon by Shelly Quinn, in which she likened Danny to John the Baptist..... and told how he met his demise by a mother/daughter combination. .. and which we discussed in another thread here in that connection. But it is not only the posters on BSDA who see a connection between the two things .... even conference officials and those who are closely connected with the 3ABN board see this as a very crucial document in the "saga".

As to Tommy ... If you go to Maritime you can see a report by a person which gave the results of his own private investigation and consultation with the CoG officials which informed of their previous investigation of the incidents at the time and also of their attempts to warn 3ABN management about the inadvisability of them including Tommy in their lineup. I also have information from a different source that there are copies of the registered letter they sent to 3ABN in the hands of a researcher/attorney. I doubt that the actual document will be released until he has a complete enough set of documents for print publication or for legal action, but I will check on this if I have opportunity.

This post has been edited by watchbird: Sep 17 2006, 11:07 AM

[watchbird]

Then post the Alyssa Shelton letter that has supposedly been sent broadly to church officials and we can put molestation on the table. Seems to me this letter is public knowledge. But you want to spare her? Then you admonish us for closing the thread where you want to discuss all the dirty on Melody Shelton. You can’t have it both ways,

What we asked was that her *name* not be put on the board...... we have referred to her statement elsewhere by identifying her as either Linda's daughter or as Danny's step-daughrter. And what we passed on was her own request. As a matter of fact, there is no such person as "Alyssa Shelton" .... this is NOT her name. And what I had understood you to say previously was that if we had documentation we could send it to you privately .... and it had seemed that the implication was that once you had satisfied yourself that there was real documentation then you would allow discussion. Now you are saying that the documentation itself must be publicly posted? What we had hoped was that the issues surrounding how abuse affects the reactions of the one abused ... especially of children who are brought up in a home where intimacies regularly cross the line beyond what most of us would consider appropriate bahaviour..... could be discussed in general, without using specific people as objects of scrutiny. It was unfortunate, IMO, that this did not happen. I don't know if it is too late for it to happen or not..... or perhaps it is too early. Perhaps this won't happen here until after things appear in print. I guess at this point we'll just have to wait and see.

As to the comparison to Melody .... Melody's history is already a matter of public record. And she is a vital part of the "Shelton Dynasty" that writes their own rules for their own behaviour at the same time as they preach about the "Ten Commandments".

Let me remind everybody. I run a message board here, have been for 8 years. I am not on a mission to find the true on 3abn or bring down the Shelton clad. I commend you for taking up this cause for truth and exposing the wrongs at 3abn, try to understand that most of us (those members than have around here for awhile) don’t share in your zest for this mission many of you have undertaken. There are a lot more things going on in the Adventist church and BSDA than 3abn.

And I commend you for allowing this kind of discussion to go on here. And certainly one thing that "makes it work" is what you just said above ... that you are "not on a mission". In your position as owner of the board, your neutrality is just as important as is the sense of "mission" that some of us have. To focus for a moment on your last sentence above..... There is indeed "a lot more things going on in the Adventist church"...... and while some of that "lot more" is very good, some of it is comparable in ways we wish were not true, to the problems that we see at 3ABN. Our church has, with few exceptions, adhered to a "policy" of keeping everything "swept under the rug".... not informing the laity when there were problems .... except when laity have themselves been the agents of uncovering and publicizing the "hidden" events. I don't know what it will take for the official church to respond to increasing pressures from laity for public disclosure and lines of accountability set up such that such hidden things can no longer be hidden. Will the 3ABN Saga be the catalyst which will finally force the church to re-examine the way it "does business"? I don't know, and I don't want to put more importance on this Saga than it should have, for the efforts to expose their problems are certainly not the only efforts by laity to alter church structure and make it more open, more responsive, and more publicaly accountable in all that it does.

What I want to point out here is that I think boards like this, wiith their ability to put information out into the public domain, may find their role in the church changing and that they will themselves become "agents of change", not merely in individual situations like the rule of the Shelton Dynasty, but in the whole church system of doing business.

We are going to moderate these discussion the way we see fit. We reserve the right to make rules and change our minds it we want to….and I really don’t owe you any explains when you protest, so don’t always or even most of the time expect me to response to your emails, PM and public protest. Just go with the flow.

I appreciate you need for flexibility as things change. And I'm trying to "go with the flow" .... but having been out of cybercontact for 10 days means I have a lot of "catching up" to do in order to find where "the flow" is going. .... I'll do my best. Thanks for your patience.

[steffan]

What we asked was that her *name* not be put on the board...... we have referred to her statement elsewhere by identifying her as either Linda's daughter or as Danny's step-daughrter. And what we passed on was her own request.

So we don't put the name (at the victim's request), but we do identify her. I won't name Calvin, but I can identify him as "one of the people who run this board" ??

There is indeed "a lot more things going on in the Adventist church"...... and while some of that "lot more" is very good, some of it is comparable in ways we wish were not true, to the problems that we see at 3ABN. Our church has, with few exceptions, adhered to a "policy" of keeping everything "swept under the rug".... not informing the laity when there were problems

Once again, I am confused. Is 3ABN is part of the church or it is not? Is 3ABN a privately run corporation which the church has to inform their members about or is it not? If 3ABN is not, then why not just assign it the status that we assign certain fringe outfits that we ignore? How exactly is the church supposed to inform its members about an organization outside its purview?

What I want to point out here is that I think boards like this, wiith their ability to put information out into the public domain, may find their role in the church changing and that they will themselves become "agents of change".

The key word is information. What you are putting out is "insinuations" disguised as "information" and not really useful. Why not just state the facts exactly as they are instead of adding, as it were, spice to every sentence?

Steffan Philip
steffankp@gmail.com

[Panama_Pete]

The fictitious "Margaret Gray" on another board was continually asking for names and identities.

It seemed to be an obsession.

Margaret used different names over the years. But the question was always the same "give me a name" blah blah blah.

Most people got tired of hearing that request after awhile.

Margaret, I understand, is a young, male, lawyer in California, who has done work for Danny Shelton.

[Fran]

So we don't put the name (at the victim's request), but we do identify her. I won't name Calvin, but I can identify him as "one of the people who run this board" ??
Once again, I am confused. Is 3ABN is part of the church or it is not? Is 3ABN a privately run corporation which the church has to inform their members about or is it not? If 3ABN is not, then why not just assign it the status that we assign certain fringe outfits that we ignore? How exactly is the church supposed to inform its members about an organization outside its purview?
The key word is information. What you are putting out is "insinuations" disguised as "information" and not really useful. Why not just state the facts exactly as they are instead of adding, as it were, spice to every sentence?

Steffan Philip
steffankp@gmail.com

Has phishing become the norm? What you want are names and more names. Is that for slander or liable evidence. Maybe the poster will spill the beans, right?

Just curious.

[PeacefulBe]

Has phishing become the norm? What you want are names and more names. Is that for slander or liable evidence. Maybe the poster will spill the beans, right?

Just curious.

I think I understand what phishing means although not positive. What does PM mean?

[sonshineonme]

I think I understand what phishing means although not positive. What does PM mean?

Could be....
PM = Private messaging (as in your control panal, sending/receiving a private message in your mail box)

[Clay]

I think I understand what phishing means although not positive. What does PM mean?

PM = private message