Damage Control, Emails Options

[princessdi]

I think the problem is PB, that besides trying to reationlize or at least minimize Danny's actions(when he does address the issue(s), that is), FHB has been on a constant mission to ascertain the identities of Sister( to the point of actually calling her Linda, remember?) and others.....without revealing his own, of course. That is what she means about him beating a dead horse.

Yikes! Both of you guys seem to be going a little extreme here IMO.

Sister, perhaps you need to go grab some lunch or something. I know just reading your above quote made me hungry.

FHB, can we get past that Bob didn't have his surname revealed? I really want to see your thoughts on what I think is one of the most important subjects in this whole situation.

[fallible humanbe...]

Yikes! Both of you guys seem to be going a little extreme here IMO.

Sister, perhaps you need to go grab some lunch or something. I know just reading your above quote made me hungry.

FHB, can we get past that Bob didn't have his surname revealed? I really want to see your thoughts on what I think is one of the most important subjects in this whole situation.

PB,

Yes, you will. When doing research and evaluating information in the process of forming an opinion one needs to use a heuristic. I ask a series of questions and seek the answers before analyzing the content.

1. Who is the author? (meaning what is their authority to write)
2. What is the author's purpose?
3. What is the author's motivation?
4. What is the author's proximity to the situation/event?
5. What is the background and setting of the author's writing and publishing?

This is where I run into trouble here. I will not simply accept whatever is published here as reliable or believable just because it is published here. So you see that my responses to the "meat" of the thread takes time. If the individuals providing information can not provide adequate answers to what I believe are essential questions for arriving at a reasonable understanding of the truth then I have to take that into consideration. Asking, "Who said it?", while not welcomed here, is none-the-less an essential question. I contend, PB, that because I have a slightly contrarian view to the majority here, I must work twice as hard to make even the smallest point. I am dismissed out of hand because I don't agree.

There are two questions that need to be addressed in terms of the content of the emails in this thread. First, what was the nature of the situation in Virginia? If it is identical to one from thirty years ago, then you must consider differently the employability of Mr. Shelton. If the situation is based on an entierly different set of concerns (and by that I mean not of the nature of the early accusations) then you can not connect the two.

While Mr. ******* continues to dog Dr. Thompson, there certainly are avenues he could have persued to discover some significant information. For instance:

1. Why did the DA determine there was no case to be pursued?
2. To what degree was the entire first situation exacerbated by the jealousy between the two men?

If, Mr. ******* wanted to access the public record to see why the DA refused to pursue the situation he needs no permission to do so, only to find out how to legally access the information. Additionally, as to the jealousy issue, he could easily contact members or former members of the congregation and build a picture for himself.

When I first heard of the conflict surrounding 3ABN, I went to as many first person (primary) sources as I could discover and sought to understand what there was to know. Initially, I was able to gain access to individuals on 3ABN's side of the situation. That is were my initial information came from. I was under the impression this (BSDA) was a dialogue about the subject so I came here as it was indicated this would be the other side of the story. I did not run into the same resistance on that side of the situation as I have on this side. Questions were welcomed, as were challenges to the information being presented.

My initial gut reaction to the question of Mr. T. Shelton is this; If his thirty-year-old situation was dealt with (and here I don't think any of us can set the expectation for what that means), and questions satisfied for entities that could have stepped in and mitigated the situation, and no further concerning occurances have taken place then I think this is all a red-herring used to try and cast a cloud over 3ABN that is unfair and unChristian.

However, if there is verifiable evidence (and Dr. Thompson, nor Danny need give Mr. ******* this information since he can go out and gleen it himself) that another identical situation occured more recently, then I would agree that a concern need be raised in regards the employability of Mr. T. Shelton.

There is an additional problem here. Those seeking information (read evidence) on Linda's side of the situation automatically dismiss out of hand anyone who does not give them the answer they want to have (meaning an answer that fits their defense). I find it excedingly difficult to believe that every member of administration at 3ABN and every board memeber have, from the start, uttered nothing but untruths. This isn't even reasonable to consider. So, I choose to believe that they DID spend much time in prayer and discussion of this issue. The exchanges above are also going to be less filled with detail as they are email correspondences which tend to be shorter than a "sit-down conversation."

The flow of the email exchange between Mr. ******* and Dr. Thompson strikes me as more of an attempt to talk in circles in an effort to "catch" Dr. Thompson in a lie than it is to be a facilitator in resolution.

- fhb

[Richard Sherwin]

It seems to me that the concern about Bob's last name is almost red herringish in nature.

It kind of puts us in a pickle, so to speak, between a side issue and the main issue.

Redfog

[Clay]

It seems to me that the concern about Bob's last name is almost red herringish in nature.

It kind of puts us in a pickle, so to speak, between a side issue and the main issue.

Redfog

Redfog you would be correct, however it seems FHB enjoys red herring.....

[fallible humanbe...]

It seems to me that the concern about Bob's last name is almost red herringish in nature.

It kind of puts us in a pickle, so to speak, between a side issue and the main issue.

Redfog

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Dec 1 2006, 06:14 PM

[Lee]

I would like to ask that the moderator remove these letters from Mr. *******. Dr. Thompson specifically asked that they not be published in a public setting. To go against this is rude, unethical and unchristian.

Is this not a "Christian" board?

[Clay]

I would like to ask that the moderator remove these letters from Mr. *******. Dr. Thompson specifically asked that they not be published in a public setting. To go against this is rude, unethical and unchristian.

Is this not a "Christian" board?

it is a board run by Christian people.... the board itself is neutral...... you can submit your request to Calvin via PM as he is the owner... the question is to whom did Thompson make his request? As a rule we do not delete anything, we may however close threads that are deemed inappropriate...

[princessdi]

There were already at Maritime, and then they came here. So they were already public when they got here. Plus I really don't think Dr. thompson is that upset. By now everyone knows where everyone else stands. If he truly didn't want his email piblic, he would have answered Bob at all. Pretty much nothing has been spared. Dr. Thompson is smart enough not to waste an opportunity to play the victim.

I would like to ask that the moderator remove these letters from Mr. ******. Dr. Thompson specifically asked that they not be published in a public setting. To go against this is rude, unethical and unchristian.

Is this not a "Christian" board?

[Chez]

There were already at Maritime, and then they came here. So they were already public when they got here. Plus I really don't think Dr. thompson is that upset. By now everyone knows where everyone else stands. If he truly didn't want his email piblic, he would have answered Bob at all. Pretty much nothing has been spared. Dr. Thompson is smart enough not to waste an opportunity to play the victim.

I agree. Dr. Thompson should not have answered Bob via email (my opinion). If I remember (correct me if I'm wrong), Bob told Dr. Thompson that he would share this information or he never promised not to share this information.

[sister]

I agree. Dr. Thompson should not have answered Bob via email (my opinion). If I remember (correct me if I'm wrong), Bob told Dr. Thompson that he would share this information or he never promised not to share this information.

You are correct Chez, Bob told Dr. Thompson that he would share this information.

[calvin]

I would like to ask that the moderator remove these letters from Mr. ****** Dr. Thompson specifically asked that they not be published in a public setting. To go against this is rude, unethical and unchristian.

Is this not a "Christian" board?

Request denied....and this should be no surprise to most of you. First, the Dr. did not make the request of me and even if he did, I have no obligation to honor such request. Second as Di stated, it was already published elsewhere, that puts it in play.

Please man, not the Christian guilt trip....ain't working.

[husbandoftheyear]

When I first heard of the conflict surrounding 3ABN, I went to as many first person (primary) sources as I could discover and sought to understand what there was to know. Initially, I was able to gain access to individuals on 3ABN's side of the situation. That is were my initial information came from. I was under the impression this (BSDA) was a dialogue about the subject so I came here as it was indicated this would be the other side of the story. I did not run into the same resistance on that side of the situation as I have on this side. Questions were welcomed, as were challenges to the information being presented.

It is always easier to welcome questions from someone you plan to lie to from the beginning. On that same token, it is difficult to answer questions from someone that doesn't believe you from the beginning.

Let me spell it out a little more clearly...

First side of the token...3ABN planned to lie to anyone and everyone from the beginnning. If you know Dan at all then you know that he rambles on and on...and on when he lies. He has never had any problem talking or answering questions...

Other side of the token...you came to this board already believing what you believe and it has shown. So, yes, I'm sure it is difficult for you to get answers here or avoid "resistance."

[Clay]

When I first heard of the conflict surrounding 3ABN, I went to as many first person (primary) sources as I could discover and sought to understand what there was to know. Initially, I was able to gain access to individuals on 3ABN's side of the situation. That is were my initial information came from. I was under the impression this (BSDA) was a dialogue about the subject so I came here as it was indicated this would be the other side of the story. I did not run into the same resistance on that side of the situation as I have on this side. Questions were welcomed, as were challenges to the information being presented.

whateva....... some of the info here will be 1st hand, some 2nd hand or hearsay..... Linda is not here, so you won't read her side at all..... and even if you had "all the truth" what difference would it make to you? Would it enhance and enrich your spiritual life? Help you financially? When it is all said and done, what difference will it make for your quality of life?

Lastly, are you operating under the delusion that people "must" tell you "the truth" when you ask for it?

[fallible humanbe...]

You are correct Chez, Bob told Dr. Thompson that he would share this information.

In the sequence of communication presented (and I don't know if there was more than this) Dr. Thompson mentions twice his desire for the communications to remain private between Bob ******* and himself. It is only after his explicit request in the undated email (posted in the third section of the exchanges posted by "sister") that Mr. ****** indicates he will be passing along the emails. This was followed with a second more pointed request by Dr. Thompson on 27 November 2006.

-fhb

[sister]

In the sequence of communication presented (and I don't know if there was more than this) Dr. Thompson mentions twice his desire for the communications to remain private between Bob ******* and himself. It is only after his explicit request in the undated email (posted in the third section of the exchanges posted by "sister") that Mr. ****** indicates he will be passing along the emails. This was followed with a second more pointed request by Dr. Thompson on 27 November 2006.

-fhb

Fallible, Fallible, Fallible.... When are you going to discuss the real issues, the substance of the emails? You appear to be stuck in the minors and ignoring the majors, as usual.