This Should Not Be News, But it is. Options

[watchbird]

I think it has become obvious long ago that bystander just stood by while Linda was thrown under the bus.....

au contraire..... I think it has become obvious long ago that bystander is no more true in his selection of a name than of the other things he says.

[Clay]

au contraire..... I think it has become obvious long ago that bystander is no more true in his selection of a name than of the other things he says.

he is a multiple personalitied (new word) person... so one of his personas stands "by" while the other persona is busily typing away....

[watchbird]

he is a multiple personalitied (new word) person... so one of his personas stands "by" while the other persona is busily typing away....

Good addition to the dictionary.... .... but that was not all that I was implying in my statement... relative to what you had said..... ......

[watchbird]

While I am a newbie to posting, I am NOT a newbie to reading.... (I've been reading BlackSDA since June/July of 2006) There is no substitute for reading yourself. Personally, I found that the "fictional" accounts can be helpful to pull together a picture which allows you to clearly see where some are coming from, however I do not find them as evidence of anything.

When reading the only account that claims on its cover sheet to be "fiction" it is well to recall the time in which it was written and the purpose for which it was written. It is also well to keep in mind the difference between fiction and fictionalized.... and to keep in mind the reason why someone would call a work designed to present truths that would raise questions without endangering the persons portrayed as a work of "fiction".... when in fact it was not.

It is also well to ask why anyone at all, least of all Danny Shelton, would have paid any attention to it if it were truly nothing but a work of fiction.... especially why he would have stated that there were some things in it that were not true..... ESPECIALLY when he was not named anywhere in the document.

It is also well to keep in mind the time frame in which it was written, Spring of 2005.... before Danny remarried and before most of the readers or writers came to BSDA and showed any interest in what had really happened in the early months of 2004.

It is, in fact, the document by which many were first introduced to the concept that there was more to the story than merely the question of who was guilty of what relative to Danny and Linda's divorce and her ouster from 3abn. This is why I recommend that newbies today enter at the same level that the majority of those who were new to the story in 2005 entered it... with the reading of The Televangelist and the discussion following it. This is not designed to give answers. It is designed to raise questions. Many of which would never occur to those coming new to the scene and who think that it is all about Linda and Danny and their private relationships. Once one has these questions in mind, one is better prepared to understand what has been written here that expands upon the vingettes that give glimpses into the problem areas other than those private relationships.

If you go back far enough you will learn the identities of some who post under pseudonyms, and you will learn enough about those who use pseudonyms.... and the reasons why they use them... so it will become relatively easy to sort out which are giving factual matter and which are here for the purposes of obfuscation.

Patience will give its rewards.

[sonshineonme]

he is a multiple personalitied (new word) person... so one of his personas stands "by" while the other persona is busily typing away....

I
L I K E
I T


This post has been edited by sonshineonme: Mar 13 2007, 10:37 AM

[princessdi]

Ok people. let's be nice......everybody....OK?

[from-the-pew]

Some responses.....

When reading the only account that claims on its cover sheet to be "fiction" it is well to recall the time in which it was written and the purpose for which it was written. It is also well to keep in mind the difference between fiction and fictionalized.... and to keep in mind the reason why someone would call a work designed to present truths that would raise questions without endangering the persons portrayed as a work of "fiction".... when in fact it was not.

I understand the difference between fiction and fictionalized that you described. I was trying to keep my comments brief... and yet, understanding the differences, I cannot use that document as "proof" in my mind. I don't know the author... I haven't seen what they have seen... They may be right, but I must wait and see what transpires.... Some of what was written in that account I believe has been substantiated. I haven't thrown it out, I simply cannot use it as concrete evidence. It certainly is very useful to me to understand where some members here are coming from...

Yes, there is more than guilt or innocence... but many issues are effected by the guilt or innocence of those involved.... I referenced the guilt/innocence part specifically because there seems to be an impression by some that proving Linda is guilty will exhonerate Danny of any wrongdoing... This simply is not so.

It is, in fact, the document by which many were first introduced to the concept that there was more to the story than merely the question of who was guilty of what relative to Danny and Linda's divorce and her ouster from 3abn. This is why I recommend that newbies today enter at the same level that the majority of those who were new to the story in 2005 entered it... with the reading of The Televangelist and the discussion following it. This is not designed to give answers. It is designed to raise questions.

The Televangelist is very successful at raising questions. It was also successful at making me sick to my stomach... My first reaction was to discard it. Then, when I stopped, and realized that even if only 2 or 3 of the things mentioned in that document are actually true, then there is a really big problem here! Not to mention if even more than that is true....

Sometimes, like in the instance of my still-unanswered question regarding the date of the trip to Norway that Johann was referring to in his account of Danny following Linda to the airport, even if something has been mentioned previously in the Televangelist etc, it is useful to me to ask the person telling their story to reinterate what date they are referring to... Helps keep us all straight! And also helps establish credibility... especially in a situation where someone is being called a liar (something I find detestible).

If you go back far enough you will learn the identities of some who post under pseudonyms, and you will learn enough about those who use pseudonyms.... and the reasons why they use them... so it will become relatively easy to sort out which are giving factual matter and which are here for the purposes of obfuscation.

I am aware of some of the reasons some post under pseudonyms... they NEED to.... Unfortunately, until the lid blows completely off of this situation, the anonymity will leave their testimony status as unconfirmed in my mind. Of course, it does all add up in the "who is the most credible" game.

Please give me a little benefit of the doubt, as it is not practical for me to write out my entire spectrum of thoughts on these issues at once - it would be so lengthy, that nobody would want to read it... I'm just addressing things a little bit at a time....

Is that fair enough?

Patience will give its rewards.

Oh yes, www.save3abn.com gives you a real jumpstart on concrete info... even if you choose to ignore the commentary and only read the emails posted, it makes a picture emerge fairly quickly. As much as I'd like to see this thing hurry up and get over with, info really is popping out of the woodwork at a fast pace right now...


Anyway, enough of my thoughts! As if anyone cared!

This post has been edited by from-the-pew: Mar 13 2007, 11:13 AM

[watchbird]

Anyway, enough of my thoughts! As if anyone cared!

We care very much... and you have expressed your thoughts very cogently. If I came across as belittling your thoughts previously, I apologize. I did not intend to do so, but only to use your post as a starting point for adding a few more thoughts. And you have now added more of your own.... and it is in this way that we learn the various viewpoints and how they were formed.... which I am sure helps others find their way through the jungle of information available here.

I was especially interested in your description of your initial reactions to The Televangelist. This, I suspect, describes very cogently the intitial reactions that many have had to it. I recall when I first showed it someone very close to me... in printed form.... that his only comment when finishing it was, "I will have to process this for a while before I can even comment on it".

And your points about what you can use as "proofs" are right on the money also. This is not a court of law.... and even a court of law can only establish things as true or false "beyond a reasonable doubt". All we can do here is to listen to the testimonies of those who claim to have first hand experience, and the results of the research of those who claim to have researched, and then see where the "balance of evidence" leads us. Once we establish credibility for some over others in our own minds, then, and only then, will a picture emerge with increasing clarity as the discussions continue on.

Thank you much for your input.

[from-the-pew]

This is not a court of law.... and even a court of law can only establish things as true or false "beyond a reasonable doubt". All we can do here is to listen to the testimonies of those who claim to have first hand experience, and the results of the research of those who claim to have researched, and then see where the "balance of evidence" leads us.

Interesting that you mention a court of law... This is true that it is not a court of law...

I have observed in my discussions regarding this issue with others, that we each have a sort of "court of me", where we decide which evidence is admissible for drawing our personal conclusions.... This "personal court" collectively would be called "the court of public opinion".

Sadly, 3abn attempted what they thought would give them a win in the court of public opinion, and it backfired. I believe that even if a court of law were to exhonerate Danny et al, that the emails and other evidence that are out there would not be enough to clear the "taint" on his leadership.

For this, and other reasons, I believe 3abn would be wise to begin contemplating new leadership asap - a salvage operation, if you will.

[YogusBearus]

Interesting that you mention a court of law... This is true that it is not a court of law...

I have observed in my discussions regarding this issue with others, that we each have a sort of "court of me", where we decide which evidence is admissible for drawing our personal conclusions.... This "personal court" collectively would be called "the court of public opinion".

Sadly, 3abn attempted what they thought would give them a win in the court of public opinion, and it backfired. I believe that even if a court of law were to exhonerate Danny et al, that the emails and other evidence that are out there would not be enough to clear the "taint" on his leadership.

For this, and other reasons, I believe 3abn would be wise to begin contemplating new leadership asap - a salvage operation, if you will.

Very well stated. I think you've cut through to the nub of things. If DS really cares about the ministry of 3abn, he really does need to step down permanently and the sooner the better. What he has said and written leaves one with the unescapable conclusion that he is seriously over his head and probably has been for quite a few years. There should be no shame in admitting this and allowing the board to seek a suitable replacement. The board would also have to charge a replacement with doing a thorough house cleaning of Mid and Upper managment to really get 3abn back on course.



-Yogi

[Jnana15]

I am a newbie also and promised myself that I would read before writing. If Danny hadn't of opened his big mouth on a 3ABN live program in February 2007, I would have NEVER found this wonderful site. Thank you Calvin and others.
My husband tells me daily to read and let him know what's going on with 3ABN. We both feel that we have found lots of good information on this site. I told him that Bystander commented yesterday on this thread and that he stays in the line of fire.
Who knows, I might be in Big trouble myself.

[sonshineonme]

I am a newbie also and promised myself that I would read before writing. If Danny hadn't of opened his big mouth on a 3ABN live program in February 2007, I would have NEVER found this wonderful site. Thank you Calvin and others.
My husband tells me daily to read and let him know what's going on with 3ABN. We both feel that we have found lots of good information on this site. I told him that Bystander commented yesterday on this thread and that he stays in the line of fire.
Who knows, I might be in Big trouble myself.

Welcome Jnana15! I really appreciate hearing from the new posters...each one shows how they have takeN time to read, put energy into finding out what's been going on and putting things together. I appreciate various perspectives too...it's no secret that DS worst enemy is DS, and yet, he never quits. God works in mysterious ways!

Very well stated. I think you've cut through to the nub of things. If DS really cares about the ministry of 3abn, he really does need to step down permanently and the sooner the better. What he has said and written leaves one with the unescapable conclusion that he is seriously over his head and probably has been for quite a few years. There should be no shame in admitting this and allowing the board to seek a suitable replacement. The board would also have to charge a replacement with doing a thorough house cleaning of Mid and Upper managment to really get 3abn back on course.



-Yogi

If only the board was a real board in the sense of the definition of a board:

"An organized body of administrators or investigators: a board of trustees; a board of directors. "

Board of Directors

"noun:
A group of persons chosen to govern the affairs of a corporation or other large institution.
The group of people responsible for supervising the affairs of a corporation. The board of directors generally sets broad corporate policy rather than participating in day-to-day managerial decisions, although selection of the chief executive officer is the board's responsibility. Members are elected by the firm's stockholders and may or may not be stockholders themselves.




Guess we'll see....but, my opinion is that DS sees himself AS 3abn, he is the "board" and the people that represent the "board" are in word only. They would have to step up and exert their expected roll as defined above...in a whole new way. Will that happen? Can it happen? I hope that DS doesn't insist on taking the ship down with him, but that is what I fear will happen.

This post has been edited by sonshineonme: Mar 13 2007, 02:17 PM

[PeacefulBe]

Some responses.....
I understand the difference between fiction and fictionalized that you described. I was trying to keep my comments brief... and yet, understanding the differences, I cannot use that document as "proof" in my mind. I don't know the author... I haven't seen what they have seen... They may be right, but I must wait and see what transpires.... Some of what was written in that account I believe has been substantiated. I haven't thrown it out, I simply cannot use it as concrete evidence. It certainly is very useful to me to understand where some members here are coming from...

Yes, there is more than guilt or innocence... but many issues are effected by the guilt or innocence of those involved.... I referenced the guilt/innocence part specifically because there seems to be an impression by some that proving Linda is guilty will exhonerate Danny of any wrongdoing... This simply is not so.
The Televangelist is very successful at raising questions. It was also successful at making me sick to my stomach... My first reaction was to discard it. Then, when I stopped, and realized that even if only 2 or 3 of the things mentioned in that document are actually true, then there is a really big problem here! Not to mention if even more than that is true....

Sometimes, like in the instance of my still-unanswered question regarding the date of the trip to Norway that Johann was referring to in his account of Danny following Linda to the airport, even if something has been mentioned previously in the Televangelist etc, it is useful to me to ask the person telling their story to reinterate what date they are referring to... Helps keep us all straight! And also helps establish credibility... especially in a situation where someone is being called a liar (something I find detestible).
I am aware of some of the reasons some post under pseudonyms... they NEED to.... Unfortunately, until the lid blows completely off of this situation, the anonymity will leave their testimony status as unconfirmed in my mind. Of course, it does all add up in the "who is the most credible" game.

Please give me a little benefit of the doubt, as it is not practical for me to write out my entire spectrum of thoughts on these issues at once - it would be so lengthy, that nobody would want to read it... I'm just addressing things a little bit at a time....

Is that fair enough?
Oh yes, www.save3abn.com gives you a real jumpstart on concrete info... even if you choose to ignore the commentary and only read the emails posted, it makes a picture emerge fairly quickly. As much as I'd like to see this thing hurry up and get over with, info really is popping out of the woodwork at a fast pace right now...
Anyway, enough of my thoughts! As if anyone cared!

FTP,
As WB said, we do care! Your input is so clearly on the mark. If newbies will pay close attention to the discussion between you and WB just now, they would learn a lot!

PB

I am a newbie also and promised myself that I would read before writing. If Danny hadn't of opened his big mouth on a 3ABN live program in February 2007, I would have NEVER found this wonderful site. Thank you Calvin and others.
My husband tells me daily to read and let him know what's going on with 3ABN. We both feel that we have found lots of good information on this site. I told him that Bystander commented yesterday on this thread and that he stays in the line of fire.
Who knows, I might be in Big trouble myself.

Welcome Jnana15!

I'm happy that Danny's invitation brought you to us! There have been quite a few others who have as well.

PB

This post has been edited by PeacefullyBewildered: Mar 13 2007, 02:18 PM

[Richard Sherwin]

Welcome to BSDA. And yes I agree and was also convicted all was not well because of the words of Danny and the Dannyscribes and Dannyites.

Richard

I am a newbie also and promised myself that I would read before writing. If Danny hadn't of opened his big mouth on a 3ABN live program in February 2007, I would have NEVER found this wonderful site. Thank you Calvin and others.
My husband tells me daily to read and let him know what's going on with 3ABN. We both feel that we have found lots of good information on this site. I told him that Bystander commented yesterday on this thread and that he stays in the line of fire.
Who knows, I might be in Big trouble myself.

[vanburton]

Welcome Jnana15! I really appreciate hearing from the new posters...each one shows how they have takeN time to read, put energy into finding out what's been going on and putting things together. I appreciate various perspectives too...it's no secret that DS worst enemy is DS, and yet, he never quits. God works in mysterious ways!
If only the board was a real board in the sense of the definition of a board:

"An organized body of administrators or investigators: a board of trustees; a board of directors. "

Board of Directors

"noun:
A group of persons chosen to govern the affairs of a corporation or other large institution.
The group of people responsible for supervising the affairs of a corporation. The board of directors generally sets broad corporate policy rather than participating in day-to-day managerial decisions, although selection of the chief executive officer is the board's responsibility. Members are elected by the firm's stockholders and may or may not be stockholders themselves.
Guess we'll see....but, my opinion is that DS sees himself AS 3abn, he is the "board" and the people that represent the "board" are in word only. They would have to step up and exert their expected roll as defined above...in a whole new way. Will that happen? Can it happen? I hope that DS doesn't insist on taking the ship down with him, but that is what I fear will happen.

About the 3abn board. How long has Walt Thompson been the chairman? A well run board in my mind would have a constitution that, amoung other things, would require a new chairman to be elected every few years. This is important for many reasons. Unless Walt is relatively new as chairman, the current 3abn board situation would be a "red flag" for me.