Damage Control, Emails Options

[sister]

It was suggested that I post some information in regard to damage control that has been featured on Maritime. I have chosen not to use Bob's last name. The following emails have been exchanged between Bob and Danny Shelton, and between Bob and Walt Thompson (Chairman of the Board of 3ABN). I will make a number of posts on this topic.

Sister


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 08:05:24 -0600
To: Danny Shelton

Hi Danny.

I don't really have any control over what he does, so I don't think I can "see that he abides by [your] following request."

I have been curious about something, though. You write below that "ASI had agreed to hear mine and Linda's situation." That is good. But I hope that they will deal with more than just that, since the rumors out there concern far more that just your and Linda's situation.

I noticed the 3ABN web site announced two rallies last weekend in Oregon. What I was curious about is why it advertised only you and Tommy being there. In your previous reply to Gailon you did not specifically deny that allegations of child molestation have been leveled against Tommy, and I understand that these allegations have been hanging over him for years. I would think it most unwise from a PR standpoint to push To mmy to the front of things until these allegations are resolved.

Is there anything in the works to resolve these allegations, demonstrating either Tommy's guilt or innocence?

Bob

----- Original Message -----
To: Danny Shelton
Sent: 11/23/2006 8:15:43 AM
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"

Danny,

One thing I've noticed, and I think I mentioned this to you before, is that you seem to use a tactic in damage control which in the end can be quite detrimental to your cause. You wrote:


Quote:
"I already knew about you being a convicted embezzler and have more knowledge than you and your group would be comfortable with, of other personal and financial challenges that are open knowledge surrounding you."

Why would this sort of comment be necessary? How is it helpful? All it appears to do is distract from the issues being raised by attacking others. In my opinion, it would be far better to just deal with the issues raised in a transparent, straightforward way.

I realize that's not your gift. But then you really need to authorize and enable someone else to do that.

Of course, Gailon's email did not raise issues with 3ABN, but I have noticed this sort of problem with your previous replies to issues he has raised.

Bob

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 08:40:21 -0600
From: Danny Shelton

I will refrain from answering your questions at this time. I'm willing for ASI to do it's work with the facts presented by both sides.

Danny

----- Original Message -----
To: Danny Shelton
Sent: 11/23/2006 9:00:28 AM
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"

Hi Danny.

Think about it: If you'd only be willing to approach these questions transparently and straightforwardly, without attacking others, as if you don't have a thing to hide, ASI wouldn't need to be involved at all.

You have spent so many years building up 3ABN's ministry. Why jeopardize it all by continuing an approach that turns off supporters? In other words, what hinders you from answering transparently and straightforwardly the simple question, "Is there anything in the works to resolve these allegations, demonstrating either Tommy's guilt or innocence?"

Not answering that simple question gives the impression that you are engaging in evasion and stonewalling, and that the allegations really are true. And that impression is detrimental to the mission of 3ABN, and should be avoided at all costs.

But I do take it from your reply that the ASI panel will be investigating the allegations against Tommy as well, and that is good.

Bob


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"]
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:30:06 -0600
To: Walt Thompson

Hi Walt.

I thought I'd pass along our email interchange to you.

I really think that 3ABN and Danny need better damage control, and have felt that way since being told by a major 3ABN player in August, simply because I was asking questions, that I was "led of the pits of hell" and was "one sick puppy."

Danny's replies below illustrate yet again the need for better damage control. Tommy has had these allegations hanging over his head for years, and if he has ever been cleared, Danny won't say. And if anything is in the works to either prove or disprove these allegations, Danny won't say. "I will refrain from answering your questions at this time."

Yet while he can't bring himself to answer simple questions, he has no problem whatsoever digging up dirt and using it to attack others with, as he makes clear below.

This sort of PR and damage control approach, it's beyond me.

The whole situation comes across as if the more allegations there are, the more the one alleged to have done wrong ends up in the limelight. That's the appearance when Tommy is featured so prominently at rallies and at the MAP Seminar. And that appearance is not helpful to the mission and prosperity of 3ABN.

If 3ABN is going to prosper in the years to come, there needs to be a drastic change in PR and damage control.

God bless.

Bob


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:38:30 -0600
From: Danny Shelton <danshelton@earthlink.net>

Bob, one last email to you.

Most of the rumors and accusations are based on lies. There are potentially millions of viewers. I nor anyone else can or will ever address all individual rumors with individual people asking the questions. It would be too time consuming.

If the biggest rumors or accusations are addressed by a reputable group like ASI, then people will have more info to base their decisions of whom are they going to believe.

There's a good chance that if ASI decides I have lied about my biblical grounds for divorce, then there is also a good chance that I am lying about other things. If on the other side of the coin ASI decides that Linda has lied about the reasons for our divorce then there is a good chance that the other info she and her friends are feeding the public, may be lies also.

I've been told that you cross one bridge at a time.

good bye.


----- Original Message -----
To: Danny Shelton
Sent: 11/23/2006 10:07:36 AM
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"

Hi Danny.

It just doesn't make sense to me, and I am sure you can understand why. ASI doesn't need to get involved in order for 3ABN to address the huge, mammoth allegation that Tommy molested children. Why pass the buck?

As far as ASI turning up evidence that you lied or didn't lie about the allegations against Tommy, I am unaware that you have said anything definitive about the matter that could be considered a lie. You certainly haven't said anything definitive in your replies below, which in my mind is a serious problem. Someone at 3ABN needs to be appointed to address these kinds of questions in a transparent, straightforward way.

I'll tell you the very real PR problem this all creates. These allegations against Tommy resurfaced in 2003. Linda had her alleged affair in 2004. Melody had an unwed pregnancy in 2005. Linda disappeared, and Tommy and Melody haven't. One is left to wonder what Linda did that was so far worse tha n child molestation and unwed pregnancy.

This type of question needs to be addressed in a professional, Christ-like way, and if ASI has to get involved in order for it to be answered, then something is dread wrong.

Bob

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:40:53 -0600
From: Danny Shelton

Bob,

I'm going to repond to you or Gailon anymore. Thanks for respecting that.

Danny

------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:46:41 -0600
To: Danny Shelton

Hi Danny.

Who then at 3ABN would be a good one for me to ask my question of? Who is responsible for handling damage control regarding serious matters?

It doesn't bother me at all to ask someone else, since your time is valuable. I just need to know who I should be conversing with at 3ABN instead of yourself.

Bob

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:57:01 -0600
From: Danny Shelton

Bob, Please understand that we are letting ASI deal with this first. Whatever is left we will look at later.

ASI has asked us not to discuss this situation in detail with anyone at this time. We are respecting that request.

Hopefully you will understand, if not I'm sorry, but you'll just have to wait until ASI makes a decision.

No need to respond

Danny

------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 12:02:21 -0600
To: Danny Shelton

Hi Danny.

Just a quick question to make sure I understand you correctly. You are saying that ASI is dealing with all allegations concerning 3ABN and its board, officers, and employees? And that ASI has asked 3ABN not to reply to questions about any allegations, even questions as to why Tommy is being put so much into the limelight while the allegations of child molestation are still unresolved?

Your reply suggests such, but I just want to be sure that that is what you meant.

I should add this real quick: A conference official told me that we could all be in trouble with the authorities if the allegations against Tommy aren't reported. Has 3ABN or someone else reported them? If so, to whom and when? I certainly don't want to get into any legal trouble, and if waiting until ASI finally makes some sort of decision before it all gets reported makes me liable in some way, I think it would be better to make sure it has been reported sooner rather than later.

Bob

At this point I will break off in the email correspondence and end this first section with a comment from Bob:

Consider how powerful an organization ASI is that they can request what has been called the second largest Christian broadcaster in the world not to answer simple questions about anything, and they comply.

I suppose then, if this is really an accurate picture of the situation, that if ASI tells a ministry that they need to make certain drastic changes, that ministry will also comply.

Thus, if taken at face value, this appears on the part of Danny to be an admission that the recommendations of the ASI panel will be binding. But I'm unsure that we can take his comments at face value.

This post has been edited by sister: Nov 30 2006, 01:11 PM

[sister]

Part 2: Included in this section are emails exchanged between Bob and Gailon Joy.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"]
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 13:30:48 -0600
From: Walt Thompson

Hi Bob,

ASI has advised us to discontinue communication with our accusers while they are working. I will wait for the process to occur before commenting futher.

Walter Thompson MD

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:18:36 -0600
To: Walt Thompson

Hi Walt.

I would imagine that folks who have a few questions would not be called "accusers," and thus I wonder if you might have a few comments about the propriety of putting Tommy in the limelight before the allegations against him get resolved. It just doesn't seem wise to me.

I was talking to a conference official the other day, and they said that anyone who knows about the allegations regarding Tommy who doesn't report them to the proper authorities could be in trouble. I certainly don't want to get into any kind of legal trouble, and so I'm wondering if these allegations were ever reported to the authorities? To whom and when?

Hope your Thanksgiving is going well.

Bob
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob prefaces the next email with the following comments: The following was Gailon's reply to my last email to Danny. Harold Lance is the one coordinating the ASI panel investigation process.

Gailon refers to Danny's statement that ASI had asked him not to answer anymore questions. Since ASI is supposed to be neutral in this process, Gailon is wondering why they would be advising Danny.

If you believe that Danny is correct that ASI really did advise him in this way, then you might agree that there is a problem. But as always, it is wisest to get both sides of the story before coming to a conclusion.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: "We got a problem"
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:28:45 +0000
From: (G. Arthur Joy)
To: Bob
CC: (Harold Lance, Esq)

Who, at ASI, would be advising him not to answer questions? Am I all wet in assuming that ASI is completely neutral and would prefer the parties resolve as many issues as possible amongst themselves? Is ASI acting as counsel to 3ABN?

Yes, we have a serious problem...he is suggesting that Harold Lance is representing and counseling Danny and 3ABN. I hope that is not the facts in this case!!!

Also, why would 3ABN not deal with all the issues and avoid the need for a tribunal??? Would not this make much better sense??? And it would show some serious reform on the part of the board...which would avoid some other issues as well.

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:26:23 -0600
From: Walt Thompson
CC: Danny Shelton

Dear Bob,

The allegations against Tommy were made about 30 years ago. They were reported to the proper authorities. No physical actions ever occured. Tommy appologized to the kids and offered recompence. The DA said there was no case. No restrictions were ever imposed. Tommy is employed by 3abn with full board approval, knowing the facts. The author of a book, "These kind don't change, do they?" was interviewed on 3abn recently. You may wish to purchase that book and read itl (The sad thing about this is that the ones who are loudest in spreading falsehood know this, yet continue to agitate and keep the fires burning.)

Jesus said, he that is without sin, let him cast the first stone. I would echo Jesus statements today. All of us at 3abn are human. All have sinned. But, thank God, He forgives and uses our fallings as stimulants to make us grow. 3ABN is in the work of healing broken people, but we too are still in a sense broken. Almost every employee has a record they would not be proud of. Yet, Got takes great pleasure in accomplishing His purposes on earth by people just such as us. No where in the Bible are there examples of people who have fallen who have suffered the wrath of God who have confessed their sins and learned from their mistakes. Yet, for the past almost 3 years 3abn has been bombarded with lies and insinuations. Of course, we know where they come from, and we know that no one ever wins when he enters argument with the devil. Therefore, we have tried to let the Lord fight our battles. We have resisted the temptation to take on the battle ourselves and I am sure have sometimes said too much or too little, but never the less, know in our hearts that we have taken the high road in this battle. Attorneys that have looked at the evidence agree full heartedly. While not everyone may agree with the decisions we have made, we have continued to rejoice with the blessing of our Lord.

Yes, it is wearing. I can only thank God for giving Danny the strength of faith and health to hang on as he has done. I am sure it is only by God's amazing grace that this has occured. And I must thank our faithful viewers and supporters who by their prayers of intercession have joined the powers of heaven in this battle.

You speak of the need for damage control. Please place yourself in Danny's shoes for just one day and try to imagine how you would respond. Then imagine being the source of bombardment day after day, seemingly unendingly. It has not been easy. Danny is a fighter. Without his determination and resiliency, this ministry would have been taken down long ago. I have no doubt that God chose Danny for this task, recognizing that all of our greatest strengths are sometimes also our greatest weaknesses. Yes, I know he sometimes would be better off to keep quiet, let the Lord fight his battles and relax, but that is not always easy. Most of all is the difficulty of knowing when to speak and when to be silent. God told ancient Israel that they should wait upon the Lord and He would fight their battles, but I find it interesting that they still had to go into battle and fight - Gideon is the classic example. While God took the battle into His own hands, Israel was called to do it's part before God could do His thing. Rather than faulting Danny for his tendencies to defend himself, I find I must lift him up in prayer.

You propse to me "that folks who have a few questions would not be called 'accusers." This would ordinarily be true, but when in battle for long periods of time, even good soldiers sometimes develop shell shock. When "friends" turn out to be enemies over and over again, one soon "learns" that he can trust no one. A number of e mails and letters that I have written as private responses have appeared on the Internet forums, "spun" to fit the desire of the "friend" who placed them there.

Thanks for your interest,

walt
Walter Thompson MD

A note from Bob:
Notice very carefully that Walt acknowledges that there were allegations, and that something was done to children that had to be apologized for. But what happened and when it occured is still not clear.

Since the above disagrees with the other side of the story, the question arises, what was the source of Walt's information?

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:02:03 -0600
To: Walt Thompson

Thanks very much for your reply, Walt.

[Note: I wrote the following reply before getting two emails from Gailon, and so I want to add this brief note to reassure you: Gailon is NOT getting a blind copy of my reply because, though it may correct false information he has, a few details need to be clarified before it will be effective, and my reply would best not be forwarded hither and yon without those clarifications. No one is getting a blind copy of this reply.]

It is the kind of information that you have provided that is most helpful. I first heard about these allegations around August, and this is the first I've heard that there have not been new allegations for the last 30 years, that no physical actions occurred, and that Tommy apologized. Of course, this puts things in a different light, and it is this kind of information that can go a long ways towards squelching rumors.

And squelching rumors and criticisms is what I like to do. For example, there was a rumor accusing Melody of getting married the day after her new husband's divorce was final, and I was able to verify that his divorce was actually final a year before, and was able to squelch that rumor.

I am a little puzzled about a couple inconsistencies I see. Why in 2003 was it recommended to Tommy by letter sent to you that he issue written apologies when he had already apologized? And if he apologized, how can it also be true that one of the Church of God churches he pastored became split over the issue, some folks taking his side and some folks taking the side of the alleged victims, and that after one of his staunchest supporters died, her son came forward and told his story?

It's possible that the person associated with that congregation was just pulling my leg in giving me these details that make it appear that Tommy did not apologize, and that possibility only appears in light of the information you have given. But on an issue as important as this one I just want to make sure I've got the correct picture. Do you have a suggestion on how to harmonize these two different accounts?

In that 2003 letter you were invited to make contact with some of the alleged victims, their families, and the two associations that had given Tommy his credentials. Of these individuals and parties, how many did you actually contact? I ask that just to verify that the source of your information regarding apologies and no physical actions was not just one-sided. If both sides told you that that was the way it was, then that has to be the way it was, and I can then better use this information to put a halt to some of the rumors circulating out there.

Another possible question might be, if there have not been any new allegations for 30 years, why would the 2003 letter ask Tommy to apologize to the congregation in Virginia where I think he was still pastoring in 1999?

One last, simple request. I can relate to your shell shocked analogy. I think everyone at some point must feel that way. After Hal Steenson told me I was "led of the pits of hell," was "one sick puppy," needed "to get a life," was "sick," and needed "to be born again," and then repeatedly threatened to call security at ASI simply because I was asking a few questions privately in a way that no one else could hear, I tried to excuse his unbecoming behavior by saying that he must have been having a bad day, and must be under strain because of all the attacks. But then when I've gotten no reply whatsoever to my emails asking respectfully and kindly for an apology, when I've gotten no apology whatsoever after asking for one via Joe O'Brien and John Lomacang, and after discussing the matter with Elder Denslow, every month that goes by it becomes increasingly difficult to justify his unbecoming behavior in this way.

It's this kind of thing that is a real problem. Jesus said, "Agree with your adversary quickly while you are in the way." By no stretch of the imagination could I be characterized as an adversary when I chatted with Hal at ASI. If we are to agree quickly with our adversaries, how much more readily with our friends?

So my simple request is that you ask Hal, when opportunity arises, to apologize to me for the insults and threats he gave at ASI.

I have two more issues that trouble me a bit, but this is long enough, and so I'll close for now.

God bless, and have a good Sabbath.

Bob

---------------------------------------------------

End of section 2.

[sister]

This is the third section of emails:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Possible way to win 3ABN critics.
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:07:44 -0600
To: Walt Thompson

Hi Walt.

I've been thinking about this situation a bit, and I think I see an opportunity perhaps for you to gain some credibility in the eyes of the 3ABN critics. It's an approach I've tried a number of times in various situations, and I get to it near the end of this email.

I'll first say that I am holding off till Tuesday before passing on the information you gave earlier about Tommy so that you can clarify the few points I raised, in order to avoid anyone attacking what you wrote before you have a chance to explain it. In other words, no one is getting a blind copy of this email, and no one will see it till Tuesday.

You wrote:
"The allegations against Tommy were made about 30 years ago." This implies that there have been no new allegations since then.
"No physical actions ever occured."
"Tommy appologized to the kids and offered recompence."
The letter you received from the Church of God church in question in 2003 contained the following advice (I quote from the attached "Action Items"):
"Tommy should issue written apologies over his signature to all victims and to their parents," indicating that he had never apologized.
"Tommy also should issue written apologies over his signature for his deceit, as well as inappropriate behavior, etc., to ... the congregation of the Community Church of God, Dunn Loring, Virginia," indicating that he had had similar allegations at the church where he was pastoring as late as around 1999.
Some of your critics would likely jump on these discrepancies and use them to accuse you of dishonesty, which I think would be unwarranted and wrong, and which is why I haven't passed this on as of yet. Now since you wrote that "a number of e mails and letters that I have written" ended up being "spun" in a critical manner, I've tried to give some thought as to the best possible ways to spin these discrepancies. I see two other alternatives:
There is a massive, multi-state, Church of God conspiracy to malign the character of Tommy Shelton, or
You based your information on Tommy and/or Danny's word without contacting the other side, even though you were invited in that 2003 letter to contact the alleged victims, their families, and the two associations that apparently revoked the ministerial credentials they had given Tommy.
Of these various possibilities, the only one that seems plausible and that puts you in the best light possible is this last one. And that possibility, if it be correct (and I would certainly welcome some other explanation more complimentary to yourself), opens up an opportunity to gain a little traction among the 3ABN critics.

If that's what happened, then it certainly was an error on your part. One can't rely solely on the word of an individual when the allegations being raised against that individual include "deceit," which was the word used in that 2003 letter, especially when the charges are as serious as child molestation. To do so opens up churches and supporting organizations to significant liability if a problem occurs.

What I've found is that if I apologize for whatever I can whenever I have made an error of some sort, folks cut me a lot more slack than they would otherwise. And I feel that if the above is what happened, and if you acknowledge that error and pledge to be more thorough in this and the other investigations, then the tone of some of the critics will soften and mellow a bit, and just might become complimentary.

And that would be a victory for 3ABN.

I sincerely welcome your telling me that you did indeed contact the victims, their families, and the associations referred to, or by giving me any alternative explanation that would better explain these discrepancies.

God bless.

Bob

A note from Bob:

Dr. Thompson is incorrect in his statements, and I have proved that conclusively.

He said that the allegations were 30 years old. But the allegations he received in 2003 referred to alleged problems where Tommy was pastoring just 4 years prior to that.

Where then did Dr. Thompson and the board get their information that the allegations were 30 years old?

Unfortunately, the answer which he gave me to that question has a bearing on the Danny/Linda question. And thus I do not see how we can't pursue this until we arrive at the truth of the matter.

I repeat: Dr. Thompson was led to believe by someone that the allegations were 30 years old when in fact the newest ones were clearly, from the very letter he received via registered or certified mail, roughly 4 years old. Who misled Dr. Thompson, intentionally or unintentionally?

A second note from Bob:

...just because there were no charges filed means next to nothing, since most fairly solid cases are that way. Family Services may remove a child from a home because they have enough evidence to do so, but they may not have enough evidence to bring about a conviction. It ahppens all the time.

That's why a pastor's wife who used to do social work told me that when you're doing a background check, you've got to contact social services as well as the court system.

And from what I read on a conference website, part of the conference academy operations is supposed to move to Thompsonville. So this topic is definitely important.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Possible way to win 3ABN critics.
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:10:31 -0600
From: Walt Thompson

Dear Bob,

I am troubled by this whole affair. You claim to be a friend of 3abn and desiring to help, but at the same time you continue to assume that 3abn, its board and its administration are lying, incompetent and sporting a cover-up. That you are also in communication with persons who have already spread rumors and untruths around the world via the Internet bothers me and makes me wonder why I would feel the need to share more information with you. You alledge that by answering your questions I can gain credibility with our critics. This I have trouble believing since it hasn't happened yet. Nothing we have said until now has been accepted as fact, even though presented with ample evidence. Furthermore, it has been spun to suit the purpose of those who refuse to believe. I have been around this world for for a long time, and have often been held up as an example of honesty. You may check with colleagues, church leaders, fellow believers, family - anyone you wish - and though not all will agree with every decision I have ever had a part in making, none will accuse me of dishonesty (accept possibly Linda and Johann!). Likewise, the 3abn board is composed of people with unquestionable characters. The actions that we have taken through the years have not been taken without careful study and deliberation.

I do not understand the responsibility of 3abn to answer the questions of our critics. It is one thing to give answers to people who have honest questions and desire to know the truth, but quite something else to try to convince those who have no desire except to defend their preconceived opinions. If it should be that 3abn had made a mistake, Jesus outlined a path one ought to take in an attempt - privately, not to destroy - but to varify and assist in healing. Instead, a number of those who have come to us seeking information have spread it out on the Internet for the whole world to see and chew on. You see, I do not understand this type of "friend" not this variant of "justice." I may be naive, but this is not how my Bible tells me to do things.

Through the years we have had to make some difficult decisions, not the least of which was the one to let Linda go. Fortunately, most of our viewers and supporters have rallied behind us when we have brought our needs to public attention, and supported us with their earnest prayers and encouragement - doing as I understand all true Christians ought to do. Many, many of our supporters sensed a great loss with the loss of Linda - as all of us have, but they continued to support the ministry and its leadership, knowing that this was the right thing to do until they had ample reason to do otherwise. Fortunately, most or our viewers recognize the burdens carried by the leadership of this ministry, understand that all are human and falible, and love and support us in spite of that, just as God has done. While our "critics" have tried their best to undermine these by spreading lies and rumors, most have been able to "see through" these often vicious efforts and continue their support.

If I sound a bit defensive, please excuse me. I do not doubt your expressed statements to me about wanting to help the ministry. In fact, I appreciate you willingness to do so. But for the reasons mentioned, I fail to understand how your proposals might help the cause. Unless you can give me some very convincing reasons why I should do so, I prefer to merely state that we believe we have done things correctly and above board.

I suppose if I were "smart," I would assume that any and everything I wrote to you would be published for the world to read - even though I fail to understand the ethics of this. In this sense, yes, I am sometimes naive and too trusting. Yes, I know we are living in the age of information technology, but I refuse to believe that makes it right to make private conversations public.

Sincerely,

Walt
Walter Thompson MD


To: Walt Thompson
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: Possible way to win 3ABN critics.

Hi Walt.

If you will re-read my communication, I specifically stated that I was assuming that you were not lying. And I will add that I have had no communication with Linda, except when I wrote her way back and told her I thought she was wrong when she was asking to have her membership dropped at Thompsonville.

We do have a definite problem in that allegations have been made publicly on the internet for far too long by far too many people, and they need to be put to rest in some way. The good of the cause demands it, and the allegations aren't going to disappear if we just ignore them. These public allegations must be met just as publicly, if it is possible to meet them.

As far as Matthew 18 is concerned, I am sure you are aware of the fact that Matthew 18 does not apply to public sins. The Spirit of Prophecy is quite clear about that. And since Tommy's conduct, whatever it was, involved at least six boys in two states, and since it split a church, Matthew 18 does not apply in his case. In other words, what I am trying to say is that your and my communications, which are attempting to resolve a publicly-aired and serious issue, for the good of the cause of God cannot be kept private.

I have not read and analyzed all the communications you have sent out, and thus I can't tell you why in each case people haven't accepted what you have said as fact, but I can state why I cannot yet accept as fact what you told me about Tommy: There are still unresolved discrepancies, and your statements disagree with just about the only evidence I have seen, namely, the letter you received in 2003 from the Church of God that made those allegations.

Now if you can assure me that you did talk to the alleged victims, their families, and the two associations that gave Tommy ministerial credentials, and that they stated that the allegations were 30 years old, that there was no physical actions, and that Tommy apologized, then that makes your statements extremely credible. And I would then endeavor to find out the source of what would have to be slanderous lies about Tommy.

However, if the sole source of your information was directly or ultimately Tommy rather than also the other side, then we definitely have a problem. If I were a pastor and I did something like that, getting my information from only an alleged pedophile when invited to do otherwise, I can imagine my conference president having a little talk with me about my needing to be a bit more competent in such matters.

But we all make mistakes, I sure have, and it behooves us all to be kind toward those who err.

But here is the potential problem as I see it: You have, as you likely know, been accused of listening only to Danny's side in the Danny/Linda issue. Whether that is the case or not, I don't know, and I have yet to see convincing evidence establishing either Linda's innocence or her guilt. Because of the situations I've been in, I've been skeptical of Linda's claims of innocence. But here is the problem: If since 2003 you haven't contacted any of the alleged victims, their families, or the licensing associations as invited to do so by that letter from the Church of God, and if you instead ultimately relied on Tommy's word when the information he provided disagrees with the statements as found in that 2003 letter, then that unfortunately makes the accusation that you have only listened to Danny's side more plausible.

In my opinion, if this is what happened, an acknowledgment of error of judgment and a pledge to do better will help the situation, for a refusal to acknowledge such an obvious error would not benefit 3ABN in the least.

But now let's turn away from you entirely and look at a totally different issue with similar implications as the above. You probably realize as I do that ****** is definitely not pro-Linda. I was put in contact with ****** during ****** because ****** was trying to locate a copy of the 2003 letter. In our conversation ****** told me that ****** because ******. Gailon told me that ******. I could harmonize those two statements without difficulty.

But then a friend of mine was talking to a 3ABN'er, and they said that ******. That was definitely a discrepancy, and so I asked ****** about it. ****** replied that when ******, Danny had threatened ******, and Danny's ******. These had then ******. The board decided to take Danny's word about it all without investigating ******, and ******.

****** said I could share ****** side of the story with whomever had heard the ****** allegation ******, and since you obviously know it, I'm sharing ****** side with you. My guess is that Elder Denslow and you have already discussed this. Since these details are not public knowledge on the internet, unlike the allegations against Tommy, the details of this portion of our communications, given current circumstances, will not be made public.

Consider the implications: Danny is accused of conjuring up evidence against Linda. Someone who is not pro-Linda claims that Danny ordered ****** evidence to be manufactured against ******. What kind of defense can Danny make when a pattern of behavior is claimed by two different parties who aren't on the same page?

Danny is widely accused of financial and managerial improprieties. A non-pro-Linda ****** claims that ******, and was ****** because ******. Again, there is an unfortunate appearance of a pattern of unethical behavior regarding finances and operations.

******. It is quite plain that Linda's side distrusts the board and ASI, and I particularly have been bothered by their distrust of ASI. But ******'s story does raise questions about the board's fairness and competence if it is true that no impartial investigation was made into ******.

It is possible that ****** is lying. Of course. It is possible that Danny never threatened ****** and that the board did do a thorough and impartial investigation. I would welcome evidence to that effect.

But when we line up the huge number of people who claim to have personally been affected by the same kind of financial and operational problems, not to mention the moral problems, even totally ignoring whatever Linda and Johann are claiming, it becomes a big stretch to assume that all these people are lying and only Danny and Tommy are telling the truth, especially when all claimed evidence in their favor is carefully kept under lock and key and cannot be seen by anyone, even when promises to the contrary are adamantly made.

There are still a couple issues that personally trouble me, and I guess I sort of started into one of those with the last part of that last sentence, but once again, this is long enough. I will just say that I do not covet your unenviable position, and my prayers and sympathies are with you. I hope that all these issues can be resolved in a way that is as redemptive as possible, and I pray that God will give you an abundant portion of His wisdom that you may best know just exactly how to proceed.

God bless.

Bob

P.S. Whatever clarifications you can make that would explain the discrepancies between your statements about Tommy and the 2003 letter you received would be most appreciated, as I will add your information to the mix come Tuesday. And do let me know if you contacted any of the alleged victims, their families, or the licensing associations in arriving at the information you gave.

And if the Holy Spirit impresses you, please speak with Hal for me when an opportunity arises.

Blessings.

Dear Bob,

Thank you for you attempt to understand my sensitivity and that of 3abn administratin and board. We believe we have acted responsibly and wisely, appropriate to the circumstances. While one can always be criticized after the fact and without all of the evidence then available for consideration, often those same critics would have made similar judgments had they been there.

As I recall the events of 2003, I received a call from Brad Thorp from the General Conference telling me of Pastor Dryden's accusations. Brad appropriately told me that it was not his concern, and that it was ours to handle. As I recall, I contacted pastor Dryden and heard his side of the story following which I received the letter that is circulating. I was at 3abn at the time and spoke at length with Danny about the matter. He shared with me the details as he understood them. Whether or not I was aware of what generated the letter at that time, I do not remember. Based upon my understanding that Dryden had had a long standing feud with Tommy over factors unrelated to the above accusations, it did not seem indicated to approach the boys in question directly, having been informed that no case had ever been filed with the courts or legal disposition made. We then discussed the situation with the full board. Given the alleged events had occured many years before, attempts had been made to make things right, and no legal action had been taken, we did not see any reason to pursue the issue further nor to follow through with his recommendations. In my reply to pastor Dryden I merely thanked him for fulfilling his obligation to us. (I will make this one further comment. Whereas there are many accusations on the Internet alledging that Danny cannot be trusted, I disagree. I have known Danny now since the beginning of the ministry. Now more than 23 years. I have been fully appraised of many of the difficulties that he has faced during that time. While Danny sees things from his perspective, as we all do, he is honest and trustworthy. I have found no reason to distrust his reports to me. Yes, there are occasions when after having spoken with both sides of an issue it has been a matter of he said vs she said, but in all situations where I could know the facts, Danny has proven true.)

Subsequently, after this issue has been brought back to the forefront (I think there is only one person who could have known about this and brought it to world wide attentionm, and that person was then on the board and voted with the concensus) I contacted the only person from the Chruch of God that I could find that knew about the situation, and who had been present and witness to the events. (Accept for pastor Dryden's personal accounts, there are apparently no other records of the allegations) The picture that was painted by that leader of the Church was exactly as portrayed earlier by Danny. Dryden was jealous of Tommy and was out to get him - a jealousy that has continued to the present. I was again informed that the DA knew about the allegations and not finding a basis, refused to act against Tommy. I have been informed that the Church of God is a congregational type or organization with different jurisdictions in different states and that there was no higher authority that I could speak with to resolve the issue further. It was not entirely clear to me how that worked. I was also told that one leader pestered Tommy over and over again until Tommy voluntarily gave up his ministerial license. These are the facts as I have been able to sort them out.

I will not comment regarding ****** except to say that good people sometimes see things from differing perspectives. We ******. We continue to have communication with ****** and consider ****** a friend of 3ABN.

Since you have not described the other allegations against Danny, I am unable to know what you are referring and therefore unable to comment on them.

I hope this is helpful to you.

I would like to request that you not circulate this letter, but that you merely summarize and varify its contents.

Sincerely,

Walt

End of section 3.

This is the forth section of emails.

To: Walt Thompson
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Possible way to win 3ABN critics.

Hi Walt.

Thanks very much for your clarifications. In hindsight, we can always see how we maybe could have done it a little differently, and learn from that. That's just life.

I'll see what I can come up with regarding an alleged long standing feud between Dryden and Tommy, a feud unrelated to molestation.

How did you get the name of the leader at the Church of God that you spoke to? It would be interesting to know why that person's story differs so radically from that of the alleged victims. If I had to guess, I'd say that maybe they were of the faction in the split church that believed Tommy (a split caused by his allegedly not admitting to the accusations), and that they were not of the faction that sided with the alleged victims. If that be the case, and if you got the name of that person from Danny or Tommy, who certainly would have known who agreed with his version of things, it would explain why that was the person you just happened to talk to, and why you came up with a version of the situation that differs so widely from that of the alleged victims.

If this is how it all happened, if it is true that the allegations are more recent than 30 years and that Tommy did not apologize, then I personally would consider you to be a victim too, but of a different sort. And I think that is a very charitable way to look at it.

How can I contact this person to get their side of the story, and thus verify what you have related?

Do you know who authorized Mike Riva to threaten Pastor Dryden with legal action?

On the other matters I referred to, I'll mention two briefly, and then if we need to discuss details, we can do that.

You referred to Matthew 18, which is a must when dealing with private issues. I'm wondering then why on August 10 on 3ABN Live Shelley Quinn over global television implied that Linda's daughter had lied in her confidential and private testimony about Danny's alleged sexual assault. I found that very troubling, even if Linda's daughter did lie, on two counts: 1) The matter was private and confidential, and 2) repeatedly during that program, the claim was made that they weren't going to defend themselves at all against the lies that were being told about Danny and 3ABN. Yet they did most certainly defend themselves.

In other words, if the matter is a public one, then it should be dealt with in a conclusive way that puts the matter to rest. But to publicly call a lady who asserts sexual assault a liar without providing any conclusive evidence to that effect, and while claiming to not be defending one's self, has the effect of stirring up more concerns in people's minds than what existed before. Such secrecy regarding the evidence while publicly making such insinuations is counterproductive, and gives people the idea that something isn't right.

Secondly, John Lomacang invited folks with questions to call him, so I did on September 1. In that conversation, during which I was listening for something concrete that wasn't based on he said, she said, he stated emphatically that there were phone card phone records of hundreds of hours of phone calls made to Norway by Linda, records of phone calls made prior to March 9, 2004, records he had personally seen. He promised me that if I came to 3ABN I could see them, and told me that wasn't his decision. Thus, it must have been the decision of the board or of management.

On September 8, October 2, 3, 10, 16, and 17 I emailed him concerning taking him up on his offer on my way back from my brother's wedding on October 23. The only reply I ever got from him was after my email of October 2 in which he briefly stated that I would have to contact Mollie who would decide whether the trip would take place. I accordingly wrote her on October 3, 10, 16, and 17, and finally got a reply from her after my email of the 16th stating that John's promise would not be kept after all.

I mention all these dates for a reason. On the first five dates on which I wrote John, I also asked him a super simple question: Were those hundreds of hours of phone calls actual time spent on the phone, or were they billed units. With phone cards it might cost quite a few minutes for every minute on the phone to Norway. I also asked Mollie this question on the 17th, and I asked them both if John had made a mistake when he made his promise, or, if not, why the sudden change in policy. It has been now more than a month since my last email to them, and I have heard nothing in reply to these questions.

I don't see how we can fault anyone if they think there is a cover-up going on, given such experiences as I have had with John, Mollie, and Hal. I really doubt that I am the only one who has been treated this way. 3ABN's damage control as it currently operates causes more damage than it controls.

Just two more thoughts, and I'll close. It might be good for me to get your side of the story regarding ******, since it is a crucial bit of information in trying to sort through everything. It clearly is evidence of fraud on the part of Danny, and something needs to be said to counter that if there is anything that can be said.

As far as passing on your reply, I don't see how I cannot do that and still achieve the goal of getting down to the bottom of things and putting these rumors to rest. If I were to summarize your reply, I would in essence have to quote most of it anyway.

God bless.

Bob

A not from Bob:

To summarize:

Dr. Thompson earlier said that the allegations were 30 years old, that there were no physical actions, and that Tommy apologized to the children.

This contradicts the facts as stated in the May 2003 letter he received via certified mail on Church of God letterhead. That letter says that Tommy needed to apologize for child molestation, including to the congregation he pastored as late as around 1999.

I then asked Dr. Thompson what the source of his information was, and whether he contacted the alleged victims, their families, and the two associations that issued Tommy's ministerial credentials as he was invited to do. He replied above that he had not, and that he relied on Danny for the information that he gave me.

Thus we have Dr. Thompson's testimony that it was Danny that apparently misled him in 2003. (I say apparently because we have to leave open the slim possibility that all these folks in two different states are lying.) Now we must, to be fair, consider the possibility that Danny was himself misled by someone else. And since Dr. Thompson invited me to verify what he has written, I will endeavor to do that in the only way I know how.

We have one key question that needs answering. Who gave Dr. Thompson the name of the individual that he contacted since August? Did Danny or Tommy?

Any encouragement or sympathy you can give Dr. Thompson I would personally appreciate. Since it appears that he was misled, he in some sense becomes one of the victims too, just of a different sort.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Possible way to win 3ABN critics.
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:21:19 -0600
From: Walt Thompson

Dear Bob,

Your e mails have revealed your true colors and have convinced me that you do not have the interest of 3abn at heart. I am requesting that you do not post my recent communications ANYWHERE. These have been sent to you as private correspondence and were not intended to be for the public use. I will not be responding further to your inquiries.

Walt

Walter Thompson MD

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Possible way to win 3ABN critics.
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:45:04 -0600
To: Walt Thompson

Walt? Why would you respond this way? What's wrong?

Specifically, in what way did I write anything that would give you the idea that I don't have the interest of 3ABN at heart?

Walt, I was gearing up to defend you and your decisions all I could, but how can I do that if you react in this way?

As far as not posting your communications, how can I not do that without perpetuating this horrendous he said, she said situation we presently have? It's this super secrecy policy that has created the crisis 3ABN now finds itself in. Only by humbly acknowledging wrong wherever wrong has been done, which as you know is our Christian duty and is a requirement for divine forgiveness wherever sin is involved, can confidence in 3ABN be restored.

You acknowledged that you made the mistake of not contacting the alleged victims, their families, and the associations when invited to do so in 2003. It takes a real man to do that. And people need to see that you aren't afraid to do that. And if anyone is inclined to be harsh toward you for that mistake, then I will do what I can to stop their unkind criticisms.

In what way is that not having 3ABN's interest at heart? What specifically in your communications are you ashamed for people to see?

Bob

-----------------------------------------------------
End of section 4.

[sister]

Section 5:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Verification needed for Walt Thompson's statements.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:34:09 -0600
To: Danny Shelton
CC: Walt Thompson, Elder Ken Denslow

Greetings, Danny.

My apologies for bothering you, but Dr. Thompson suggested that I verify what he told me, and based on his communications I don't know of any other way to approach this than to ask you five questions.

You may remember that after you contacted me last Thursday I asked you a few questions. In answer to those questions Walt wrote:


Originally Posted By: Walt Thompson
"The allegations against Tommy were made about 30 years ago. They were reported to the proper authorities. No physical actions ever occurred. Tommy apologized to the kids and offered recompense."

This information was superb, for it was just the kind that could be used to answer the critics, especially if it came from both sides: No new allegations of child molestation in the last 30 years, and Tommy apologized for some unspecified thing that didn't involve physical actions.

The difficulty, though, is that according to the 2003 letter that Walt received, Tommy has not yet apologized, and there are additional allegations from as recent as the late 1990's in Virginia. These two points are clearly indicated by the Action Items attached to that letter. The question then arose: Did Walt contact the alleged victims, their families, and the two ministerial licensing associations as invited to do so in that 2003 letter to get their side of the story? His reply was as follows:

Originally Posted By: Walt Thompson
"As I recall the events of 2003, I received a call from Brad Thorp from the General Conference telling me of Pastor Dryden's accusations. Brad appropriately told me that it was not his concern, and that it was ours to handle. As I recall, I contacted Pastor Dryden and heard his side of the story following which I received the letter that is circulating. I was at 3abn at the time and spoke at length with Danny about the matter. He shared with me the details as he understood them. Whether or not I was aware of what generated the letter at that time, I do not remember. Based upon my understanding that Dryden had had a long standing feud with Tommy over factors unrelated to the above accusations, it did not seem indicated to approach the boys in question directly, having been informed that no case had ever been filed with the courts or legal disposition made."

I was chatting with a pastor's wife Sabbath before last about this, and she told me something I had never heard before, based on her experience as a social worker. While social workers may be able to get enough evidence of molestation to warrant removing a child, the burden of proof for that is different than for criminal convictions, and thus many cases that social workers act on never have charges filed in them. It was her recommendation that whenever background checks are in order, that social services be contacted as well as the court system, since they know more. Thus it is a fallacy to think that just because no case was filed that there are no grounds for further investigation.

At any rate, according to the above, Walt did not contact the alleged victims, their families, or the licensing associations as invited to do so, and instead got his information about no new allegations for 30 years and Tommy's apologies solely from you. The difficulty is that, besides this information contradicting the 2003 letter, it also appears to conflict with the testimony of the alleged victims and the other parties.

This whole situation puts Walt in an awkward light, for he has repeatedly been accused of only getting your side of the story rather than of fairly weighing both sides of a given issue. On the face of it, just looking at appearances, it appears that he was misled on this one.

I will quickly add that I am more than willing to entertain the possibility that you were misled as well by your sources regarding how recent the most recent allegations really were, and whether Tommy apologized. Thus,

Question 1: Can you give me any information that would help me out on this, such as the specific sources of the information you gave Walt in 2003, and ways that I can verify that information in order to establish that all these alleged victims, their families, and the two associations are incorrect?

It appears fair to say that there was a serious error of judgment here when these other parties were not contacted as suggested. Since the 2003 letter specifically asked Tommy to apologize for "deceit," for Walt to put so much weight on his and his brother's side of the story was unwise, if nothing else, for appearance's sake. Plus, it lends support to the idea that Walt has on other issues not fairly weighed both sides of an issue. But I do not wish to criticize him too much, for we all make mistakes, even when we are doing our very best. I certainly have.

And it also appears unwise on your part to not insist that Walt make a thorough investigation of the matter, especially since you might be accused of having a conflict of interest, since Tommy is your brother. But like I said, we all make mistakes, and we just need to be willing to learn from them. We should be as tolerant of the mistakes of others as we want them to be tolerant of our mistakes. And I mean that sincerely.

At any rate,

Question 2: Do you know who asked and authorized Mike Riva to threaten Pastor Dryden with legal action?

When I first heard of that, it just sounded so foreign to the types of things I've heard Conference officials say about how these kinds of things need to be handled in order to avoid possible liability.

Walt also wrote:


Originally Posted By: Walt Thompson
"We then discussed the situation with the full board."

Question 3: Was a copy of the 2003 letter, along with the suggested "Action Items," given to each board member?

Finally, here is one more bit of information that Walt provided, dealing with the further investigation he conducted recently:

"Subsequently, after this issue has been brought back to the forefront (I think there is only one person who could have known about this and brought it to world-wide attention, and that person was then on the board and voted with the consensus) I contacted the only person from the Church of God that I could find that knew about the situation, and who had been present and witness to the events. (Except for pastor Dryden's personal accounts, there are apparently no other records of the allegations.) The picture that was painted by that leader of the Church was exactly as portrayed earlier by Danny. Dryden was jealous of Tommy and was out to get him - a jealousy that has continued to the present. I was again informed that the DA knew about the allegations and not finding a basis, refused to act against Tommy. I have been informed that the Church of God is a congregational type or organization with different jurisdictions in different states and that there was no higher authority that I could speak with to resolve the issue further. It was not entirely clear to me how that worked. I was also told that one leader pestered Tommy over and over again until Tommy voluntarily gave up his ministerial license."

My understanding is that a church became split over this issue because Tommy denied the allegations, some siding with Tommy and some siding with the alleged victims. If the individual referred to above was of the faction that sided with Tommy, I can understand why his or her account would differ so drastically from that of the alleged victims, their families, and the two licensing associations that Tommy is not in good standing with.

Yet on the other side of the question, Gailon, who had not talked with Pastor Dryden as of yesterday sometime, says that he had no problem finding alleged victims and others who also were witnesses to the events and who tell quite a different story. Thus one is left to wonder why Walt just happened to be only able to locate this one individual who tells such a different story. And that leads up to,

Question 4: Who gave Walt the name of this individual to contact, or how did he get their name, and how can I contact that individual to get their side of the story?

Certainly Tommy would have known who sided with him in the church split, and thus I want to make sure that the reason Walt could only locate this single individual was not because that was the only name that either Tommy or you provided to Walt. And/or, by getting his or her side of the story, it is always possible that I might be able to get information that could be used to vindicate Tommy, such as that he really did apologize.

But as far as proving that there haven't been any allegations for 30 years, I just don't know what I can do about that, given what the 2003 letter plainly states. I welcome your suggestions.

Lastly,

Question 5: What exactly did Tommy apologize for?

I'm guessing that one possible explanation for the discrepancy might be that Tommy did apologize for something, but not for what certain ones wanted him to, and thus it might be helpful to know what he felt he did do wrong that did need apologizing for.

As I told Walt, I have been very concerned that such serious allegations have been on the internet for so long in such a public way. And I am firmly convicted that such public allegations have to be dealt with in a public way. So do think through your responses and try to come across as courteous as possible, so that I can use them to do that without embarrassing anyone connected with 3ABN.

I think it is such a blessing that we can get this one behind us now, if it is possible to do so. You certainly don't need these kind of unresolved issues as the ASI panel process gets in motion.

God bless.

Bob

-------------------------------------------------

A few notes from Bob:

1. I only was doing what Walt suggested I do. He suggested that I verify his information. And since the sole sources of his information were Danny and some unnamed person, I had no choice but to write Danny if I was going to do what he said to do.

This is a smoking gun. We have Walt essentially saying in writing that Danny misled him regarding a super serious issue. He said that Danny told him that the allegations were 30 years old when in fact the 2003 letter from a Church of God church to Walt in May 2003 indicated that the allegations at that time were as recent as 1999.

It's black and white, cut and dried, as far as I can tell.

Listen: If they had only been up front on this and many other issues instead of stonewalling, evading, digging up dirt, and attacking others, none of this would see the light of day. Resolution and reconciliation could all be done in private. And that would be ideal.

2. Danny has clearly indicated that he doesn't want ASI to look at everything, just his and Linda's situation. And he has stated in an email that that is the only issue anyone cares about.

This is one of his damage control tactics: Divert the attention to just Linda.

When I gave Danny plenty of opportunities to clearly assure me that ASI would be dealing with the Tommy Shelton case, he refused to do so. So we are left to speculate whether or not the 3ABN board will buck Danny and agree to let ASI look into everything.

As far as Dr. Thompson goes, you will note that I have given him the benefit of the doubt, and clearly I have done so. The problem we face is that others have accused him of lying. So how do we vindicate Dr. Thompson of these accusations?

The only way I know is to have asked him the questions I did, and now to ask Danny the questions that I did. The only way to clear Dr. Thompson is to conclusively show that someone else lied to him, intentionally or unintentionally, and thus that he didn't know that the information he was conveying was false.

If we can prove that he didn't know, that still doesn't excuse his gross error in not contacting the alleged victims of child molestation, their families, and the two licensing associations when invited to do so. But like I've said before, let's not be too hard on him. He made a serious, serious mistake, but we all have made mistakes. Let's just learn from them, acknowledge them, and move on.

Unfortunately, if the information Gailon has conveyed to me is correct, the situation is not as simple as I have stated it.

3. One more thing. As Gailon pointed out in the emails I posted earlier, ASI really has no authority to order Danny not to write.

ASI is supposed to be an impartial entity in order to hear this case. If they are acting as Danny's attorney, giving him counsel as to whether or not he should respond to questions, and if Danny is directing all questions to ASI, then ASI is no longer impartial and cannot hear the case.

They could then appropriately serve as counsel for the defense in a hearing arranged by some other entity.

End of Section 4.

[fallible humanbe...]

It was suggested that I post some information in regard to damage control that has been featured on Maritime. I have chosen not to use Bob's last name. The following emails have been exchanged between Bob and Danny Shelton, and between Bob and Walt Thompson (Chairman of the Board of 3ABN). I will make a number of posts on this topic.

In an effort to maintain all transperancy and fair balance, wouldn't it be better to leave Bob xxxxxxx last name in? Should he be any more secret than Mr. Joy, or Danny, or Linda, or Johann, or Arvid, or Dr. Thompson?

- fhb


****We will respect everyone's request for annonymity, FHB, especially as you have neglected to tell us who you are, and choose as many others to use an ID. It is not your job here to "out" anyone. Please refrain*****

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Nov 30 2006, 06:16 PM

[fallible humanbe...]

In an effort to maintain all transperancy and fair balance, wouldn't it be better to leave Bob xxxxxxx last name in? Should he be any more secret than Mr. Joy, or Danny, or Linda, or Johann, or Arvid, or Dr. Thompson?

- fhB -
****We will respect everyone's request for annonymity, FHB, especially as you have neglected to tell us who you are, and choose as many others to use an ID. It is not your job here to "out" anyone. Please refrain*****

Understood (though it wasn't neglect on my part but a decision). However, there seems to be a double standard as it is obvious that Dr. Thompson made it unquestionably clear that he was communicating with Bob ****** in a personal and private manner. He was more than generous in his communcations with Bob ****** and yet there seems to be a lack of respect or integrity there in what was done with those personal correspondences. At the very least it adds to the seemingly disingenuous nature of Bob ****** correspondence with Dr. Thompson. Gregory Matthews made it clear a week or so ago that the "Linda Camp" was going to be transparent in their public communcations - which is why he dealt quickly and effectively with the issues surrounding Galion A. Joy. How is this any different?

On a related note, AM's name was "outed" at a point a few months ago (to much anger and hand-wringging) and it wasn't edited out. Also, there is no indication that Bob ****** asked that his name not be posted. "Sister" merely states that she decided to leave it out - not at his request or requirement.


- fhb

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Nov 30 2006, 06:17 PM

[sister]

Fallible Human Being,

Rather than trying to side track the issue in an attempt to out the identity of Bob, why not discuss the main content of the emails? What comments do you have to make in regard to the issues involving Tommy Shelton? It is difficult for me to believe that your primary concern, after reading all the emails, is to know the family name of the individual involved in the correspondance...

I have had contact with Bob after posting his emails and he does prefer to protect his identity by not having his last name posted on an open internet forum.

Sister

[fallible humanbe...]

Fallible Human Being,

Rather than trying to side track the issue in an attempt to out the identity of Bob, why not discuss the main content of the emails? What comments do you have to make in regard to the issues involving Tommy Shelton? It is difficult for me to believe that your primary concern, after reading all the emails, is to know the family name of the individual involved in the correspondance...

I have had contact with Bob after posting his emails and he does prefer to protect his identity by not having his last name posted on an open internet forum.

Sister

Sister,

I will respond to your questions, as you are right the discussion should be about the main point, but they will take a little longer. I addressed what I saw as an immediate issue/concern that arose on the initial reading of the emails. I was not fishing for Bob ****** last name by throwing out what I thought it might be, but rather indicating that I was sure of who the author of the emails was as his name is readily available over on Maritime. It would seem that if Bob ****** would like his name kept from the open discussion taking place here then he should have honored Dr. Thompson's explicit request to not make private communications public. The same request did not occur in his exchanges with Danny Shelton.

My point was to preface things with the comment that there seems to be a bit of disingenuousness in publishing publicly what has been requested to remain private, while asking that your own name not be used. He is requesting chapter and verse in his requests of Dr. Thompson and Danny Shelton including names and dates. He hasn't recieved what he asked for, though the early exchanges between Dr. Thompson and himself did show that Dr. Thompson was willing to engage in a dialogue, so he went public with them in hopes that this would force someones hand into giving him what he wanted.

That being said I will engage in a discussion of the main concern presented in the email exchanges.

- fallible human being

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Dec 1 2006, 11:39 PM

[PeacefulBe]

While I could see Dr. Thompson stating that he had been surprised when emails he thought were private showed up on forums, I also saw Bob lay out quite clearly that he planned on making them public. He also was quite clear in stating the reason he was going to make them public.

I have to say that the questions Bob has asked of both Danny and Dr. Thompson are ones that I would have liked to have asked them myself. I am hoping that full answers will be forthcoming.

I am also very glad that this issue is finally being discussed.

[Johann]

Bob is an authentic name

This post has been edited by Johann: Dec 1 2006, 07:24 AM

[fallible humanbe...]

While I could see Dr. Thompson stating that he had been surprised when emails he thought were private showed up on forums, I also saw Bob lay out quite clearly that he planned on making them public. He also was quite clear in stating the reason he was going to make them public.

I have to say that the questions Bob has asked of both Danny and Dr. Thompson are ones that I would have liked to have asked them myself. I am hoping that full answers will be forthcoming.

I am also very glad that this issue is finally being discussed.

Morning PB,

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) 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.

My contention is that if, from the beginning Bob ******* had intended to share these communications he should have made it perfectly clear. That would have not only been a courtesy, but, I feel, the ethical thing to do. I know that I consider my emails to be part of an ongoing private conversation between myself and the recipient. I would need to indicate the acceptability of sharing or making public such communications before they would do either. I also would never share an email unless I first made a request to the sender to do so and recieved an "okay", or if they indicated from the beginning they did not care that it was shared.

I fear that the act of "forwarding" massive amounts of cute, interesting, or bizarre emails has created an atmosphere where many people consider email correspondence to carry with it no privacy expectations. This is simply not the case in reality as communication of that sort is assumed private from the start - thus my feeling that the actions of Bob ******* display a lack of integrity at worst or at the least an extreme inconsideration on his part.

But, that is enough on that point, as I promised "sister" I will not "beat this horse till dead."

- fhb

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Dec 1 2006, 11:36 AM

[sister]

But, that is enough on that point, as I promised "sister" I will not "beat this horse till dead."

- fhb

Fallible, you have not only beaten this horse until dead, you have also skinned it, butchered it, cured it, put it over some hot coals, applied sauce to the ribs and served it up warm. When do you plan on discussing the content of the emails: the charges against Tommy Shelton? In the post prior to the one, of which I have quoted your "promise" to me, you stated your intention to move on to content. Well, it is time to start cooking or get out of the kitchen, only the French could dine on this much horse meat, otherwise people may begin to wonder if you are side-stepping the issues.

This post has been edited by sister: Dec 1 2006, 12:08 PM

[PeacefulBe]

Morning PB,

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) 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.

My contention is that if, from the beginning Bob ******* had intended to share these communications he should have made it perfectly clear. That would have not only been a courtesy, but, I feel, the ethical thing to do. I know that I consider my emails to be part of an ongoing private conversation between myself and the recipient. I would need to indicate the acceptability of sharing or making public such communications before they would do either. I also would never share an email unless I first made a request to the sender to do so and recieved an "okay", or if they indicated from the beginning they did not care that it was shared.

I fear that the act of "forwarding" massive amounts of cute, interesting, or bizarre emails has created an atmosphere where many people consider email correspondence to carry with it no privacy expectations. This is simply not the case in reality as communication of that sort is assumed private from the start - thus my feeling that the actions of Bob ******* display a lack of integrity at worst or at the least an extreme inconsideration on his part.

But, that is enough on that point, as I promised "sister" I will not "beat this horse till dead."

- fhb

While I don't see Bob's actions as a lack of intregrity your point is taken and I'm glad the horse will live to see another day.

[PeacefulBe]

Fallible, you have not only beaten this horse until dead, you have also skinned it, butchered it, cured it, put it over some hot coals, applied sauce to the ribs and served it up warm. When do you plan on discussing the content of the emails: the charges against Tommy Shelton? In the post prior to the one, of which I have quoted your "promise" to me, you stated your intention to move on to content. Well, it is time to start cooking or get out of the kitchen, only the French could dine on this much horse meat, otherwise people may begin to wonder if you are side-stepping the issues.

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.

[awesumtenor]

...otherwise people may begin to wonder if you are side-stepping the issues.

That ship sailed a long time ago... I'm beginning to think he has a patent for that whole " not see the forest for the trees thing"....

In His service,
Mr. J