Disgust!, disgusted by the smear in this site Options

[Johann]

I have info on this subject....3ABN does NOT OWN that jet... they only lease it.. They couldn't afford to own it.
Joe

Then you also know what the monthly lease expenses are, don't you? How much is it? What about the salary of the pilots, fuel and aurport fees?

[Pickle]

I recently chatted with someone who took great offense that anyone would think that maybe just perhaps a membership transfer into an Adventist church of someone with ties to Adventism spanning decades should not be accepted if the prospective transferee claims that they speak in charismatic tongues and has no intention of stopping regardless of what anyone says or shows them.

That individual who took offense maintained that a case of someone living with someone out of wedlock would, however, be cut and dried. I responded that there would still be churches out there containing individuals that would get all bent out of shape over that sort of position, and would cause that individual all kind of grief if he or she took such a stand.

I know it's so, because I've seen it.

It's the same old story whenever serious matters need to be dealt with in the area of church discipline. It's highly appropriate to remember that God is a God of mercy, but if we forget that He is a God of justice too, we do so at our peril.

What we fail to realize is that not kindly dealing with blatant sin is anything but merciful. It is one of the most unloving and unmerciful things we can do in such situations.

[Pickle]

I hope we all realize the extreme disadvantage Danny finds himself at right now.

Because Linda consented to signing a contract that forbids her to speak critically of her ex-husband in public, via email, or even in empty church buildings, if I read the contract correctly, and because Danny did not have the courtesy to enter into a similar agreement regarding speaking critically about his ex-wife, there is an abundance of written material to examine for discrepancies coming from Danny, and a paucity of such material coming from Linda.

Take for example the following email which Johann posted in its entirety just a little earlier in this thread:

-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Shelton [mailto:danshelton@earthlink.net]
Sent: 1. október 2004 07:17
To: Johann Thorvaldsson
Subject:

Johann, if you care anything about Linda please quit writing all this garbage as it is only hurting her.

...

Don't you understand that you can cost her $150,000 that she has coming to her in the next 2 1/2 years.

Nick is not bluffing. What a shame you pretend to care about her but because of selfish pride are willing jepardize her small fortune.

Whether you like it or not she signed an agreement. She is obligated to abide by this agreement if she wants her $150,000.

The agreement states that if she or those close to her, and of course you claim to be her close friend, try to hurt the ministry, as you are now doing you jepardize her money.

... So think about it, you're trying to help Linda by trying to turn people against 3ABN because you think she was treated unfairly, is only going to help 3ABN because now instead of all this money going to Linda, if quite possibly is going to stay within 3ABN.

I know you won't understand one word of this but maybe someone close to you will read this to you and explain to you the damage you are doing to Linda. Your son seems very sharp, maybe he could help you understand, what your foolish pride won't allow you to see.

Once again, if you don't stop, 3ABN's coffers will be $150,000 better off. I want this money to go to Linda! We the board and Linda have an agreement. If you mess it up I hope you are willing to support her to the tune of $150,000 in the next 2 1/2 years.

... You can't win, but please don't take Linda's money down the tube with you.

Danny

My comments are based on the assumption that the above email is genuine.

Did you notice how many times Danny threatened Pastor Thorvaldsson with the loss of Linda's money? Did you notice the basis he gave for this threat? Here it is again:

The agreement states that if she or those close to her, and of course you claim to be her close friend, try to hurt the ministry, as you are now doing you jepardize her money.

Is this a truth or a distortion of the truth?

Danny did use the word "jeopardize," but the entire letter gives the impression that what Pastor Thorvaldsson is doing would do more than merely "jeopardize."

The contract very clearly says that Linda cannot make certain statements in certain ways. This includes not making private statements to be publicly used by others and attributed to her. The contract says nothing about prohibiting others from making their own statements.

The contract also states that if others are making statements critical of 3ABN (statements critical of Linda's ex-husband rather than of 3ABN are not explicitly included in that part of the contract), Linda, upon request of 3ABN, must phone or write, if possible, and ask those others that they cease doing so.

Nothing in the contract says that she is penalized if either 3ABN doesn't ask her to do the above, if it isn't "reasonably possible" to do the above, or if those others refuse to comply with her request.

Now remember, I'm not an attorney, but it does seem to me that all that threatening language to Pastor Thorvaldsson is but a bluff with no real substance to back it up. And some folks out there just might call it a lie, since as long as Linda asks Pastor Thorvaldsson to cease from being critical of only 3ABN only when 3ABN requests her to, she's totally and absolutely in the clear.

Am I correct in this?

If someone wants to, they can write Danny and ask him about this discrepancy. I'll pass for now since he's behind in responding to what I have already sent him.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Dec 21 2006, 08:32 AM

[Chez]

I hope we all realize the extreme disadvantage Danny finds himself at right now.

Because Linda consented to signing a contract that forbids her to speak critically of her ex-husband in public, via email, or even in empty church buildings, if I read the contract correctly, and because Danny did not have the courtesy to enter into a similar agreement regarding speaking critically about his ex-wife, there is an abundance of written material to examine for discrepancies coming from Danny, and a paucity of such material coming from Linda.

Take for example the following email which Johann posted in its entirety just a little earlier in this thread:
My comments are based on the assumption that the above email is genuine.

Did you notice how many times Danny threatened Pastor Thorvaldsson with the loss of Linda's money? Did you notice the basis he gave for this threat? Here it is again:
Is this a truth or a distortion of the truth?

Danny did use the word "jeopardize," but the entire letter gives the impression that what Pastor Thorvaldsson is doing would do more than merely "jeopardize."

The contract very clearly says that Linda cannot make certain statements in certain ways. This includes not making private statements to be publicly used by others and attributed to her. The contract says nothing about prohibiting others from making their own statements.

The contract also states that if others are making statements critical of 3ABN (statements critical of Linda's ex-husband rather than of 3ABN are not explicitly included in that part of the contract), Linda, upon request of 3ABN, must phone or write, if possible, and ask those others that they cease doing so.

Nothing in the contract says that she is penalized if either 3ABN doesn't ask her to do the above, if it isn't "reasonably possible" to do the above, or if those others refuse to comply with her request.

Now remember, I'm not an attorney, but it does seem to me that all that threatening language to Pastor Thorvaldsson is but a bluff with no real substance to back it up. And some folks out there just might call it a lie, since as long as Linda asks Pastor Thorvaldsson to cease from being critical of only 3ABN only when 3ABN requests her to, she's totally and absolutely in the clear.

Am I correct in this?

If someone wants to, they can write Danny and ask him about this discrepancy. I'll pass for now since he's behind in responding to what I have already sent him.

Pickle,
I don't think Danny will reply to you. If he was smart, he shouldn't respond because he keeps putting his foot in his mouth.

[sister]

Pickle,
I don't think Danny will reply to you. If he was smart, he shouldn't respond because he keeps putting his foot in his mouth.

Unfortunately, for Danny, smart has never been an accusation that has been made nor will ever be proven against him. I wonder what Brandy has been applying on his chapped toes recently (his foot is soooo often in his mouth)?

[simplysaved]

According to item #6 of the contract, it specifically includes "friends", "agents", or "third parties" are also not to speak negatively.....publically.

http://www.lindashelton.org/contract.html

I hope we all realize the extreme disadvantage Danny finds himself at right now.

Because Linda consented to signing a contract that forbids her to speak critically of her ex-husband in public, via email, or even in empty church buildings, if I read the contract correctly, and because Danny did not have the courtesy to enter into a similar agreement regarding speaking critically about his ex-wife, there is an abundance of written material to examine for discrepancies coming from Danny, and a paucity of such material coming from Linda.

Take for example the following email which Johann posted in its entirety just a little earlier in this thread:
My comments are based on the assumption that the above email is genuine.

Did you notice how many times Danny threatened Pastor Thorvaldsson with the loss of Linda's money? Did you notice the basis he gave for this threat? Here it is again:
Is this a truth or a distortion of the truth?

Danny did use the word "jeopardize," but the entire letter gives the impression that what Pastor Thorvaldsson is doing would do more than merely "jeopardize."

The contract very clearly says that Linda cannot make certain statements in certain ways. This includes not making private statements to be publicly used by others and attributed to her. The contract says nothing about prohibiting others from making their own statements.

The contract also states that if others are making statements critical of 3ABN (statements critical of Linda's ex-husband rather than of 3ABN are not explicitly included in that part of the contract), Linda, upon request of 3ABN, must phone or write, if possible, and ask those others that they cease doing so.

Nothing in the contract says that she is penalized if either 3ABN doesn't ask her to do the above, if it isn't "reasonably possible" to do the above, or if those others refuse to comply with her request.

Now remember, I'm not an attorney, but it does seem to me that all that threatening language to Pastor Thorvaldsson is but a bluff with no real substance to back it up. And some folks out there just might call it a lie, since as long as Linda asks Pastor Thorvaldsson to cease from being critical of only 3ABN only when 3ABN requests her to, she's totally and absolutely in the clear.

Am I correct in this?

If someone wants to, they can write Danny and ask him about this discrepancy. I'll pass for now since he's behind in responding to what I have already sent him.

This post has been edited by simplysaved: Dec 21 2006, 11:58 AM

[princessdi]

Apparently as early as Oct. of 2004 Danny had threaten Johann with being responsible for Linda not getting the money agreed upon in the contract. Now, I think if is was really enforceable, she would not have gotten the last payment earlier this month.

Thank God!! Linda is not me. Cuz at this pernt I would be telling it to Oprah, the Enquirer, 20/20, Primetime, writing, "Healing Hurting People(or what ever the name of that book is): The Real Story, for at least $500,000.00, and handing Danny back his $250,000.00 and keep steppin'!

[Panama_Pete]

According to item #6, it specifically includes "friends" are also not to speak negatively.....

Not everyone at 3ABN is familiar with the word "friend."

They should stick to words they understand.

Was Brenda Walsh ever Linda's friend?

[seeshell]

Thank God!! Linda is not me. Cuz at this pernt I would be telling it to Oprah, the Enquirer, 20/20, Primetime, writing, "Healing Hurting People(or what ever the name of that book is): The Real Story, for at least $500,000.00, and handing Danny back his $250,000.00 and keep steppin'!

Note to self: Don't mess with Auntie Di!

[Panama_Pete]

Apparently as early as Oct. of 2004 Danny had threaten Johann with being responsible for Linda not getting the money agreed upon in the contract. Now, I think if is was really enforceable, she would not have gotten the last payment earlier this month.

Thank God!! Linda is not me. Cuz at this pernt I would be telling it to Oprah, the Enquirer, 20/20, Primetime, writing, "Healing Hurting People(or what ever the name of that book is): The Real Story, for at least $500,000.00, and handing Danny back his $250,000.00 and keep steppin'!

This is what I would do, too. The parties probably had no "meeting of the minds" with that contract, anyway.

[Pickle]

According to item #6 of the contract, it specifically includes "friends", "agents", or "third parties" are also not to speak negatively.....publically.

http://www.lindashelton.org/contract.html

Read it again. The way I described it is accurate.

Think about it: For the contract to prohibit anyone out there from saying anything negative or else Linda loses her money would make as much sense as saying that she can't get her money if the moon ever fulls. She has about as much control over every person on the planet that has a gripe as she has over the way the moon revolves around the earth.

Whoever the attorney was that drew that contract up would not be that irrational as to require of her the impossible. That's why the contract doesn't read as Danny claims.

In summary: Anyone and everyone can say publicly whatever they want to, and Linda is totally and absolutely in the clear as long as 1) she asks them to stop whenever 3ABN chooses to ask her to ask them, and 2) as long as she did not say something critical privately that is then both a) used publicly by someone else and b ) attributed to her.

Disgust is the title of this thread, and I certainly find it disgusting that anyone would be so unfair, unjust, and unrighteous as to require their ex to sign a contract that prevents them from saying anything negative (in the ways specified) about them personally while at the same time not signing a similar contract, and in fact doing the exact opposite of what that contract required.

I am fairly certain that my Boss feels the same way, since He inspired so many Bible prophets to write out just exactly how He feels about oppression of the weak, vulnerable, poor, and such, and what He intends to do about it when He steps in and sets the record straight. We would all do well to repent before that time comes.

Let all the earth keep silent before Him.

[simplysaved]

You signed the contract. You took the money and spent it. Don't sign anything you have not read with an attorney. Don't sign anything if you do not want to be accounable for the contents.

This is what I would do, too. The parties probably had no "meeting of the minds" with that contract, anyway.

You missed my edit which included "agents" or "third parties"....

Can't speak about Brenda Walsh....

Not everyone at 3ABN is familiar with the word "friend."

They should stick to words they understand.

Was Brenda Walsh ever Linda's friend?

[PrincessDrRe]

Thank God!! Linda is not me. Cuz at this pernt I would be telling it to Oprah, the Enquirer, 20/20, Primetime, writing, "Healing Hurting People(or what ever the name of that book is): The Real Story, for at least $500,000.00, and handing Danny back his $250,000.00 and keep steppin'!

Globe, World Weekly, Inside Edition, "E", Vh1 Behind the Scenes, Nightline, and the Evening News too. Also note: I don't know any "LEGAL" document that can actually stand up in court that states that "OTHERS" that didn't sign a THANG can have their hands tied (or mouths silenced).

Where is LT when you need legal expertise? All I know is you can sign a contract. However ain't nobody on this berd that can control my mouth, cuz I ain't signed a thang.

Note to self: Don't mess with Auntie Di!

PDR either.

Danny would be rockin' in a konah with a straight jacket on.

I don't play either.

This post has been edited by PrincessDrRe: Dec 21 2006, 01:30 PM

[Lee]

To go public with this information against 3ABN would be bringing dishonor the God's Name before the world.

God has told us not to go to the world with our "in church" problems. Read 3 SM beginning with p. 299 concerning lawsuits. We are not to sue our brother and take him to worldly courts. The principle behind this is airing our "dirty laundry" before the world. Too bad it is done on here anyway. A private forum would be better for the exchange of words on this whole subject.

It says when we go ahead and go to worldly courts against fellow SDA's that God does not hear our prayers.

Of course all of the above depends on whether you believe in the SOP or not.

[PrincessDrRe]

To go public with this information against 3ABN would be bringing dishonor the God's Name before the world.

God has told us not to go to the world with our "in church" problems. Read 3 SM beginning with p. 299 concerning lawsuits. We are not to sue our brother and take him to worldly courts. The principle behind this is airing our "dirty laundry" before the world. Too bad it is done on here anyway. A private forum would be better for the exchange of words on this whole subject.

It says when we go ahead and go to worldly courts against fellow SDA's that God does not hear our prayers.

Of course all of the above depends on whether you believe in the SOP or not.

It also depends on if you believe in equality or not..... I guess you don't...