Chapter 11, Naive.... Options

[awesumtenor]

Note to readers:

100% of Mr Joseys posts to me, or to other's he disagree's with,(in the 3ABN area) are based on false theories and attatching words ,thoughts, actions motives, and intents on us that we haven't done, said or even thought, and then finding fault with us because of that.

Note to Cindy... when you get a free moment, look up "projection". Any one of the several mental health professions who frequent the forum will tell you that what you are doing here is a textbook example of it. 100% of my posts that involve you have hit you where you live and they have noted your bias, your intractability, your acute myopia, your being a respector of persons and other aspects of that "do as I say, not as I do" religion you've modeled since you came here... solely because it is the primrose path you have chosen to walk. You didnt have to come here pushing your particular brand of ugliness and condescension seasoned with just enough presumption to make you consistently wrong, pretending to be "seeking truth" when you in fact were not, figuring this set of colored folk werent astute enough to see what you were doing... and as usual, you were mistaken.

He also specializes in accusing others of what he does, thus his favorite accusation is "hypocrite"

But don't take my word for it, see for yourselves... Watch him.

I don't accuse, Cindy. I merely observe. But as far as you and hypocrisy is concerned.. I am not the only one who has observed your insisting that this forum's discussion of 3ABN was in violation of Matthew chapter 18 and yet when you have taken personal exception to any slight... real or imagined... you have yet to follow that which you insist other's should.

That is hypocrisy... and your doing it makes you a hypocrite.

I am not the one who insists that others prove any and everything they state while at the same time refusing to believe their proof and refusing to provide proof for anything you allege.

That is hypocrisy...and your doing it makes you a hypocrite.

And none of that has anything to do with my 'accusing' you of *anything*. If I had not said a word, it would still be what it is...

So stop trying to hijack the thread and get back on topic... we were on Chapter 11. If you feel that we have to have a frank discussion of your flaws of personailty and perception, please put it in a PM.

In His service,
Mr. J

This post has been edited by awesumtenor: Feb 1 2007, 08:26 AM

[PeacefulBe]

Calvin cleared up how "they knew"??? That's not what you meant, right?

That's not what I said so that's not what I meant. I asked them how they knew and didn't get an answer. Calvin verified their conclusions when he informed all of us that Bystander and wwjd - as well as dewayneholden - were using the same computer.
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12336

Anyway in reference to what else you said, you missed the part where it all started with Sister's questioning identities as usual, immediatly before the posts you refer to, and also the part where calvin said nothing till 9 1/2 hours after my question... and the part where that supposedly had nothing to do with Johanns claims...

Didn't miss it at all. Sister asked if the "annointed one" was here and Bystander answered "No, just me...". She didn't mention anything about using the same computer. I asked Fran and Johann my question because they were discussing it.

Remember? His reasons for checking was Dewayne Holden's post casting doubt on the Clem brother's claims,

Did Calvin tell you that his reason for checking was dewayneholden's post? If not, this is quite an assumption. Are you sure that there was not an investigation already in process? wwjd wrote an intimidating PM to Hersheys99 a few days back and I recall Calvin mentioning that they were investigating.

and that was in an entirely different thread as well as being way after Johann's post...

And your point is..........???

So I fail to see why Di brought that up here, or how calvin's announcement had anything to do with johann's earlier claims that Bystander was posting from Danny's computer.

Yes, you do.

[princessdi]

He basically, told you you were wrong......again....which is true.......as so, so many others have...........get over it. Your friends got caught and tossed........get over that, also. Everyone seemed to understand my post but you, but I am not surprised. I would say more, but they all have done such a wonderful job, they just left me with the official stuff. Here goes:
***If you have anyquestions or concerns about an Admin action, please PM a member of the Admin Team for clarification. Posting snide swipes at the Admins within your posts will result in suspension or deletion of your membership. This really is your only warning, you next violation will result in disciplinary action without further notice***

Note to readers:

100% of Mr Joseys posts to me, or to other's he disagree's with,(in the 3ABN area) are based on false theories and attatching words ,thoughts, actions motives, and intents on us that we haven't done, said or even thought, and then finding fault with us because of that.

He also specializes in accusing others of what he does, thus his favorite accusation is "hypocrite"

But don't take my word for it, see for yourselves... Watch him.

[Guest_task force_*]

Let's cut to the chase bud...

You and Cindy and others presume that this is a "pro-Linda" site... and therefore have set yourselves to attempt to indict Linda as complicit in Danny's misdeeds such that he cannot fall without taking her down... and as such, you assume if you are successful in tying her to his misdeeds, folk will back off him in order to save her.

For the umpteenth time, your presumption is wrong... so rather than go through this whole song and dance, just make whatever point it is you piped up to make... if your point has validity that will be noted... and if it is the same tired mess, that will be noted too...

Folks have things to do and they dont include unnecessary trips down rabbit holes that meander much but ultimately go nowhere.

In His service,
Mr. J

I don't know where you get the idea, steve, that i was indicting Linda for anything, i wasn't. I was saying, maybe the cousin is lying, and Danny did not buy the horses with ministry money at all. Is it not Danny's word against his? For the umpteenth time? Maybe you need to check how many posts i have made before you make that statement.

[princessdi]

Task Force, please use another color for your font, this yellow is difficult to see.

I don't know where you get the idea, steve, that i was indicting Linda for anything, i wasn't. I was saying, maybe the cousin is lying, and Danny did not buy the horses with ministry money at all. Is it not Danny's word against his? For the umpteenth time? Maybe you need to check how many posts i have made before you make that statement.

[awesumtenor]

I don't know where you get the idea, steve,

I'm not steve... and contrary to the opinion of some we don't all look alike... not saying that you are numbered among those who think we do... just pointing that out for the record.

that i was indicting Linda for anything, i wasn't. I was saying, maybe the cousin is lying, and Danny did not buy the horses with ministry money at all. Is it not Danny's word against his? For the umpteenth time? Maybe you need to check how many posts i have made before you make that statement.

If you have the means to refute something, put it out there. If you don't, say so up front and acknowledge that you are putting forth nothing more that your own speculation which may or may not have any basis in fact. How many times you have posted is immaterial because you are hardly the first person to come in here defending Danny... and in all likelihood, you wont be the last... and the track record of those who have preceded you has been one of smoke, mirrors, obfuscation, sleight of hand and general foolishness... and I am sure I speak for many in saying we really dont need yet another act in the same vein... so let's just not get that particular carousel spinning again, ok?

So I ask... do you have proof of purchase for said equines that unequivocally shows the source of the funds utilized to purchase them?

Yes or no will suffice...

In His service,
Mr. J

[watchbird]

So I ask... do you have proof of purchase for said equines that unequivocally shows the source of the funds utilized to purchase them?

Yes or no will suffice...

In His service,
Mr. J

.... .... No, no, Mr J... that is letting him off way too easy... there are also the questions of who built the barns... who paid for the labor that built the barns... whose W2 form was the money on (if any) that went into the checkbook from whence came the check to pay for the horses that lived in the barns that were built by the labor of those who were paid to do work for what institution?

And that is only a beginning of questions....

A yes or a no will not suffice. Not at all.... ......

[YogusBearus]

.... .... No, no, Mr J... that is letting him off way too easy... there are also the questions of who built the barns... who paid for the labor that built the barns... whose W2 form was the money on (if any) that went into the checkbook from whence came the check to pay for the horses that lived in the barns that were built by the labor of those who were paid to do work for what institution?

And that is only a beginning of questions....

A yes or a no will not suffice. Not at all.... ......

Oh My! That sounds a lot like co-mingling. So the monthly check I send to 3abn might be purchasing oats?

-Yogi

[watchbird]

Oh My! That sounds a lot like co-mingling. So the monthly check I send to 3abn might be purchasing oats?

-Yogi

Welll.... probably not that directly.... it would have to go through a few wash and spin cycles first.... but essentially.... ... well you can find more of the story in the Unauthorized History thread pinned at the top... check through the "guided tour" post in that thread.....

[awesumtenor]

Oh My! That sounds a lot like co-mingling. So the monthly check I send to 3abn might be purchasing oats?

-Yogi

or jet fuel... or drinks with little umbrellas in them... or someone's silence... the list goes on...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Johann]

Oh My! That sounds a lot like co-mingling. So the monthly check I send to 3abn might be purchasing oats?

-Yogi

I believe sister gives an interesting account of how the money is divided as it arrives.

[inga]

To give you a clue, Danny may have forgotten to turn off his bystander signature when he wrote a personal letter to a certain person. What Danny calls Alzheimers could be a condition that gives added perception - who knows???

[Aletheia]

He basically, told you you were wrong......again....which is true.......as so, so many others have...........get over it. Your friends got caught and tossed........get over that, also. Everyone seemed to understand my post but you, but I am not surprised. I would say more, but they all have done such a wonderful job, they just left me with the official stuff. Here goes:
***If you have anyquestions or concerns about an Admin action, please PM a member of the Admin Team for clarification. Posting snide swipes at the Admins within your posts will result in suspension or deletion of your membership. This really is your only warning, you next violation will result in disciplinary action without further notice***

Really Di, how do you say the things you do? I don't know and have never met Bystander , and other then two posts on here have never even talked to him. Since everyone keeps claiming who my friends are, maybe since he's back, it's time I introduced myself to him and some others. :-)

2nd-- When and if I decide to make a complaint, I will do so through proper channels.And I will prove my point, not make snide remarks.

My comment about the rules on here applying to some and not others was meant towards you and all the members here, who protest about others and then exempt yourselves and your friends when posting, and was in reference to Johann's blatent disregard for the rules in his post, and all of the regularsr excuses for why people can try to figure out if Danny is here, but better not try and figure out if Linda is here.

Another example. Don't question Duane Clems sexuality-- that's mean, he's aminister and works with kids.
Do question Tommy Shelton's sexuality -- that's righteous because he's a minister and works with kids.

Don't suggest Danny's cousin may have lied-- that's diverting from the topic
Do claim it is fact that Danny did without any proof-- that's justified.



Do write long viperish tirades against Danny like Fran did for that's loving.
Don't even question the factual basis of Sister's chapter 11 here, or you are hatred incarnate, and are not worthy to have Linda wipe her feet upon you,

Do notice the least word from those you disagree with and take offense.
Don't notice fran's hatespeech calling for the death of tommy Shelton...

The list goes on and on and on...

I had no opinions when I arrived, thatnks to reading all here as you all kept telling me to do, I now have many.


3rd Kevin Josey claims I was complaining about Calvin's call,, but he's wrong. I never even brought it up, YOU did, Look at the posts please, and see for yourself.

It's rather hard to tell when you are posting as a Administrator or just a member with your own bias, except for the red letters in my response, I'm just replying to you as a member, so I hope this isn't amiss.

Please do consider that some may be evaluating this website and it's merits as a Seventh-day Adventist one, by what is written here...

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Feb 2 2007, 07:30 AM

[inga]

Another example. Don't question Duane Clems sexuality-- that's mean, he's aminister and works with kids.
Do question Tommy Shelton's sexuality -- that's righteous because he's a minister and works with kids.this website and it's merits as a Seventh-day Adventist one, by what is written here...

If you can't see the difference about the validity of allegations against Tommy Shelton and your impled allegations against Duane Clem, you're either utterly clueless or a liar about not coming here with a bias, possibly both.

To summarize:
More than half a dozen persons allege being approached sexually by Tommy Shelton, with at least one being a minor. This is in writing. Other witnesses allege seeing him in compromising circumstances with minors.

Duane Clem was one of the young people in his pastoral care upon whom Tommy Shelton forced his sexual perversion, and you are trying to reduce his credibility by suggesting that it was consensual sex between adults!!!! And, by the way, sexual abuse does not require actual physical contact.

The issue is not that they are both males or that both may be in similar circumstances in life. The issue is that there is good evidence that Tommy Shelton forced himself sexually on a number of boys and young men in his pastoral care.

And the issue is not homosexuality!

Your tactics are despicable!!

[Aletheia]

.... .... No, no, Mr J... that is letting him off way too easy... there are also the questions of who built the barns... who paid for the labor that built the barns... whose W2 form was the money on (if any) that went into the checkbook from whence came the check to pay for the horses that lived in the barns that were built by the labor of those who were paid to do work for what institution?

And that is only a beginning of questions....

A yes or a no will not suffice. Not at all.... ......

if you don't have the answers to those questions yourself, then you shouldn't be making unsupported accusations or supporting those who do, or finding fault with those who you claim have not done so.

The burden of proof lies on the one asserting something as fact, NOT on those who questions others rush to judgment, or why they don't give the benefit of the doubt, or why they aren't merciful and don't provie what they claim.


Anyone who is honest would question anything which is not supported, or proved against ANY OTHER, that isn't sin or blindness, that's the way God's people are supposed to think and do...

PROVE ALL THINGS, HOLD FAST THAT WHICH IS GOOD.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Feb 2 2007, 11:09 AM