Did Walt admit in writing that Danny Gave -, Bogus information on Tommy? Options

[calvin]

"It gets really sticky. The 3ABN board chairman admitted in writing the Monday after Thanksgiving that Danny in 2003 gave him clearly bogus information about all these allegations of child molestation against Tommy. And yet last Sunday, 3ABN had a special televised tribute to Tommy as he retired a little early, with the promise that he would be back from time to time. He's been working in Kids Time, and he replaced Linda as the head of production two and a half years ago. They said that in things had tremendously improved since he had been in charge, and it came across as if that might have been a slam against Linda, right there on global TV.

I got a lengthy reply from Fallible. here's just a tad from it:
Walt admitted he got that information from Danny, and that information is clearly bogus.

May the scales fall from your eyes, Fallible!

Bob Pickle,

Your claim:

"The 3ABN board chairman admitted in writing the Monday after Thanksgiving that Danny in 2003 gave him clearly bogus information about all these allegations of child molestation against Tommy."

The truth of the matter is this, you are taking Dr. Thompson's response to you explaining the events that occured, then by extrapolating information out of other emails you have received and weaving them together you are claiming that Danny lied to Dr. Thompson. From there you make a gigantic leap in your language above.
The truth of the emails is that Dr. Thompson never said he "admits", "believes", is "concerned that maybe" Danny lied to him. In fact in another email Dr. Thompson makes it clear that he believes Danny has been honest with him in all communications.

This isn't an issue of semantics or even a poor choice of words. It is an issue of you distorting what has been written to you to serve your own purposes. The end result being that any reasoned consideration of what you "share" here must be filtered through the reality that you are willing to attribute claims to individuals that are pattenly false. This is not a small issue! You purport to be after the truth, claim to be presenting the truth - yet this glaring evidence of misappropriating your thoughts to someone else is more than a questional method, it is dishonest. You can attempt to minimize my contention as possibly coming from some grey-haired English teacher picking nits - but it isn't (and by the way isn't the nit of the placement of a comma what has lead the world to beleive there are billions of etheral souls walking around in heaven waiting for us to get there?). I am not an English teacher, but do have grey hair. My contention here is not grammatical in nature, but speaks to the lack of veracity in your claims that it foreshadows. This is not the only situation, nor the only person, where you have done this kind of manipulation and we have discussed that at length over on the Maritime forum.

You are the one who claims Danny lied to Dr. Thompson. In fact you are the one who orginated that claim and then attributed it to Dr. Thompson. It is simple to see. After you engaged in your communications you began to form your own, that would be YOUR own, idea of what is truth. You tried to lay your case before the readers here, and in so doing subtly slipped in the idea that Dr. Thompson admited that Danny was a liar. You did this because it becomes a very powerful tool for you to use. If you can convince your readership that you got the Board Chariman to "admit" that Danny was a liar - you must be the Mighty and Powerful Oz. Additionaly, if infact you could coax an "admission" such as that from the Board Chariman then you just might have an 'in" to force changes at 3ABN. And, finally, if you received an "admission" from the Board Chair that Danny lied - then by extenuation all claims against Danny must be true.

But! You didn't recieve an admission. Anyone reading the communications between you and Dr. Thompson can see this (and quite frankly I don't care if you had done this with Danny, Mollie, or even Greg or Linda! I'd still be making this point!). He shared with you the reality of the events. You believed before this communication that Danny was guilty of lying so you took the honest portral of things said by Dr. Thompson whipped in your own disbelief of Danny and voila you have a Danny lied souffle - sorry to slam the oven door.

- fhb

Pickle,

FHB has call you out on your claim that Dr. Thompson admitted that Danny lied to him in an email he sent to you around Thanksgiving.. You have continued to make this claim in many of your post. Would you be so kind as to post this letter from the Dr. Thompson so I can see who is telling the truth between you and FHB?

thank you

[fallible humanbe...]

Pickle,

FHB has call you out on your claim that Dr. Thompson admitted that Danny lied to him in an email he sent to you around Thanksgiving.. You have continued to make this claim in many of your post. Would you be so kind as to post this letter from the Dr. Thompson so I can see who is telling the truth between you and FHB?

thank you

Calvin,

I am pretty certain this is the email you are wondering about:


------- 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

[calvin]

Was this letter it Bob? Do you have a letter from Dr. Thompson where he actually said Danny lied to him as you have repeatly been saying?

[fallible humanbe...]

Was this letter it Bob? Do you have a letter from Dr. Thompson where he actually said Danny lied to him as you have repeatly been saying?

Calvin,

Here is the only other email Bob Pickle has posted that would fit within the time frame he references (both postings I have provided are completely unedited and appear in their entirety so that readers can arrive at their own reasoned conclusions. The only difference is that I bolded the lines -in this posting- that substantiate my claims in my earlier post about Dr. Thompson's comments).

------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Possible way to win 3ABN critics.
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:04:53 -0600
From: Walt Thompson

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

[Green Cochoa]

Calvin,

I believe I see this from your point of view, Fallible's, and Pickle's. You have a point in calling Pickle on it, because Fallible makes a credible case here. And yet Pickle has a good case too. From what I have picked up in the back-and-forth exchanges between Pickle and Thompson & Danny, Pickle has made a solid case for showing that Thomson admits to some things which in turn demonstrate his negligence in adhering only to what Danny has fed him, and trusting it, blindly, to be factual, when it can be proven false from outside evidence. Therefore, by 1) showing Danny's information to be false, and 2) showing that Thompson had only Danny's say-so, we can make a clear case for 3) Danny lied to Thompson, and Thompson basically admits so, by testifying to his source of the misinformation.

However, as Fallible has pointed out, Thompson admits no fault in the process, nor does he ever say he was lied to in so many words. Therefore, it becomes a classic case of the blind men and the elephant, where no one is really incorrect, and yet the apparent contradiction still exists. Fallible, perhaps, is good at creating the illusion of discrepancy. Or perhaps Pickle has not established the links with such clear force of wording as to prevent such a misinterpretation.

It seems a bit like the Bible puzzle of how old Noah was when Shem was born. The Bible says Noah was 500 and had Shem, Ham and Japheth. But were they triplets? Then the Bible says Noah was 600 when the flood came. Then later it says that Shem was 100 when he had Arphaxad, two years after the flood. Now, I do the math, and I discover that Noah was 502 when Shem was born. But does the Bible say this? Not in so many words. And yet it is there, for those who take the time to reason it out.

Just my three pennies...

This post has been edited by Green Cochoa: Jan 7 2007, 06:33 AM

[Pickle]

Calvin,

Green Cochoa has put it quite well.

In my opinion, since FHB already pounded me pretty hard in PM's over on Maritime about this very thing, he is being totally unreasonable. I have explained myself to him over and over again, and yet he still harps on the same point again and again.

Notice also a sentence you did not quote:

I have done my own calling and discovered that many of the lies that are presented as truth here originate from Linda herself. I am not going to share my sources with you as they have asked that I not reveal their contact information because they don't want to be harassed by constant phone calling and emailing. They are aware of the information here and are clear that there is little if any truth to the stories here. They are also clear that because of the specificity of detail in many of these posts they know for certain that it originates with Linda herself.

I won't go so far as to call these comments "deceit," but I will say that by not getting specific about which issues and storries he is talking about, Fallible opens himself up to that charge.

• Hal Steenson told me about the recording, not Linda.
• John Lomacang told me about the phone card phone records, not Linda.
• Danny told me he wasn't going to disclose what his royalties were on the TCTR book, not Linda.
• Walt told me that Danny had given him certain information about Tommy, not Linda, and that information is clearly bogus.
• Roger Clem testified that Danny and 3ABN attorney Mike Riva threatened and pressured people into silence, not Linda.
• Mike Riva's letter tells me what Riva actually wrote, not Linda.
• Danny, not Linda as far as I know, told Gailon that his name was on Linda's car title, and the title faxed directly from the bank proves that Danny's claim was false.
• Joe Smith was the one who told me that Linda lives in a mansion with a huge pool that is worth almost as much as Danny's house is worth, not Linda, and that he knows about certain things because he was there. Joe, not Linda, was the one who then later told me that any pool is huge and that a $200,000 house is a mansion, and implied that Danny's house is worth a lot more than Linda's and that he's never seen her house and pool.
• Roger Clem, Brad Dunning, Glenn Dryden, the seventh alleged victim, and the letter from the CoG ministerial credentials committee were the ones who told me what Tommy did, not Linda.

So if Fallible wants to push his point, he really needs to get specific about what stories he's talking about, for I don't have a clue what he means on that one.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Jan 7 2007, 09:28 AM

[IMM]

I've followed your line of reasoning, Pickle, and I concur. I have not interpreted your posts as twisting anything, just logical conclusions drawn.

QUOTE(Pickle @ Jan 6 2007, 08:12 AM)
I got a lengthy reply from Fallible. here's just a tad from it:
Walt admitted he got that information from Danny, and that information is clearly bogus.

Perhaps those who do not pay attention to punctuation have misconstrued your words here, but it seems pretty clear to me. Walt admitted his info was from Danny. We have first-hand testimony of several people that what Danny told Walt was not the truth. "Not the truth" in Pickle's words was "bogus."

Come on people, children have been put at risk due to seemingly obvious negligence on the part of the 3ABN Board, and we're nit-picking over commas????? What gives?????

Excerpts from http://dictionary.reference.com/

log·i·cal Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable

con·clu·sion a reasoned deduction or inference

mis·con·strue to misunderstand the meaning of; take in a wrong sense; misinterpret

neg·li·gence neglect; the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may be injuriously affected by the want of such care.

bo·gus not genuine; counterfeit; spurious; sham —Synonyms 1. fraudulent, pseudo, fake, phony.

[Johann]

Pickle,

FHB has call you out on your claim that Dr. Thompson admitted that Danny lied to him in an email he sent to you around Thanksgiving.. You have continued to make this claim in many of your post. Would you be so kind as to post this letter from the Dr. Thompson so I can see who is telling the truth between you and FHB?

thank you

Calvin,

This was your question. You have already given some comments later on. I see that you are online now. Any more comments?

This post has been edited by Johann: Jan 7 2007, 02:23 PM

[Aletheia]

Calvin,

Green Cochoa has put it quite well.

In my opinion, since FHB already pounded me pretty hard in PM's over on Maritime about this very thing, he is being totally unreasonable. I have explained myself to him over and over again, and yet he still harps on the same point again and again.

Notice also a sentence you did not quote:
I won't go so far as to call these comments "deceit," but I will say that by not getting specific about which issues and storries he is talking about, Fallible opens himself up to that charge.

• Hal Steenson told me about the recording, not Linda.
• John Lomacang told me about the phone card phone records, not Linda.
• Danny told me he wasn't going to disclose what his royalties were on the TCTR book, not Linda.
• Walt told me that Danny had given him certain information about Tommy, not Linda, and that information is clearly bogus.
• Roger Clem testified that Danny and 3ABN attorney Mike Riva threatened and pressured people into silence, not Linda.
• Mike Riva's letter tells me what Riva actually wrote, not Linda.
• Danny, not Linda as far as I know, told Gailon that his name was on Linda's car title, and the title faxed directly from the bank proves that Danny's claim was false.
• Joe Smith was the one who told me that Linda lives in a mansion with a huge pool that is worth almost as much as Danny's house is worth, not Linda, and that he knows about certain things because he was there. Joe, not Linda, was the one who then later told me that any pool is huge and that a $200,000 house is a mansion, and implied that Danny's house is worth a lot more than Linda's and that he's never seen her house and pool.
• Roger Clem, Brad Dunning, Glenn Dryden, the seventh alleged victim, and the letter from the CoG ministerial credentials committee were the ones who told me what Tommy did, not Linda.

So if Fallible wants to push his point, he really needs to get specific about what stories he's talking about, for I don't have a clue what he means on that one.

Bob,

That wasn't the issue. This seems to be the way you handle questions, which is to change the subject by bringing up other issues, and (or) changing the subject, and demanding the other person answer your questions to avoid doing that yourself. I say that for that is what you have done with me also. But it does not bury the original point or question for me.

I also have brought up my concerns on Maritime, as you are a moderator there and have this claim about Walt Thompson admitting Danny misled him pinned under the Public forum "3ABN Issues Factual Information" .while any disagreement and questions regarding this can only be brought up in private.

I reccomended that you post that it is your conclusion that Danny misled Walt Thompson, rather then putting those words in his mouth which he did not say, as that is false witness. I wrote"In viewing all that has been written regarding this; I think it would be more charitable, and prudent for you to say "Based on my investigation and evaluation of the e-mails "I" believe the facts are Danny Shelton misled Walt Thompson".

You declined to do that writing:

I chose not to do that ..

"I gave Danny the opportunity to explain the discrepancies, which couldn't have happened in a meaningful way if I had already arrived at the conclusion that Danny misled Walt. Thus I had to stick with the language, "According to Walt, ...."

What if Walt ended up being wrong? Then would I not have been open to the accusation of falsely accusing Danny?"

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

The Problem here is that You are accusing Danny of lying, you are just putting that accusation in Walt Thompsons mouth and then repeating it everywhere, rather then being accountable for it yourself, and by doing so, I'm sorry but you are being dishonest.

~ Aletheia

[Pickle]

I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

[calvin]

So if Fallible wants to push his point, he really needs to get specific about what stories he's talking about, for I don't have a clue what he means on that one.

Bob, I am being specific.

Since I am not going to get a straight forward yes or no answer to this question from Bob I will assume that the answer is “no”; Dr Thompson did not admit that Danny lied to him about Tommy in any letter. Bob you are making two claims here: (1) Danny lied about Tommy’s most recent alleged molestation charges. Well, maybe Danny did. You have brought much out into the open with your probing and investigation. Danny himself may not have been aware of all of this. I don’t know (2) You accurse Dr Thompson of admitting that Danny lied. Well, no where in these letters did the Doctor make that claim or even remotely imply it. The Doctor gives some details in the second letter FHB posted of the action he took to investigate the molestation charges. Now, one can come to a conclusion that 3abn/Dr Thompson did a cursory or incomplete investigation, but hardly that the Doctor admits that Danny lied to him on anything.

[inga]

Calvin,
From what I have picked up in the back-and-forth exchanges between Pickle and Thompson & Danny, Pickle has made a solid case for showing that Thomson admits to some things which in turn demonstrate his negligence in adhering only to what Danny has fed him, and trusting it, blindly, to be factual, when it can be proven false from outside evidence. Therefore, by 1) showing Danny's information to be false, and 2) showing that Thompson had only Danny's say-so, we can make a clear case for 3) Danny lied to Thompson, and Thompson basically admits so, by testifying to his source of the misinformation.

However, as Fallible has pointed out, Thompson admits no fault in the process, nor does he ever say he was lied to in so many words.

That is precisely how I have understood things all along.

I doubt that anyone who has read the exchanges believes that Walt Thompson willingly admitted that Danny lied to him. However, he inadvertently did just that in his reponses to Bob Pickle.

There are shades of meaning to the word "admit." The first one that apparently came to Calvin's mind was the meaning of a specific admission. Of course, that is not what Walt provided. However there are other shades of meaning that allow the use that Bob made of it.

[Pickle]

Bob, I am being specific.

Since I am not going to get a straight forward yes or no answer to this question from Bob I will assume that the answer is “no”; Dr Thompson did not admit that Danny lied to him about Tommy in any letter. Bob you are making two claims here: (1) Danny lied about Tommy’s most recent alleged molestation charges. Well, maybe Danny did. You have brought much out into the open with your probing and investigation. Danny himself may not have been aware of all of this. I don’t know (2) You accurse Dr Thompson of admitting that Danny lied. Well, no where in these letters did the Doctor make that claim or even remotely imply it. The Doctor gives some details in the second letter FHB posted of the action he took to investigate the molestation charges. Now, one can come to a conclusion that 3abn/Dr Thompson did a cursory or incomplete investigation, but hardly that the Doctor admits that Danny lied to him on anything.

Hi Calvin.

If I have not done so here, I have done so elsewhere, and Fallible, if he chooses, can confirm this. I have point blank said that Walt never said, "Danny lied to me." But by admitting that Danny was the source of the clearly bogus information, he did essentially admit that Danny misled him, even though he never said, "Danny misled me."

Misleading is not necessarily lying, in my mind. Lying to me suggests an act of the will rather than merely passing on information that just happens to be false. This is why when I have raised this issue I acknowledged the possibility that Danny had unintentionally misled Walt, since it is possible Danny was misled himself by someone else.

Since this thread suggests that I have said that Walt admitted that Danny "lied" to him, it might be helpful, Calvin, if someone provided quotes where I did this. It's possible that I did put it that way, but it would still be helpful to provide some quotes from where I did.

If that level of precision seems picky, please accept my apology in advance.

Perhaps more precision in my wording would have been helpful. I maybe should have said, "Walt admitted that Danny told him that the allegations were 30 years old, but the letter that Walt received in 2003 around the time that conversation took place proves that Danny misled Walt." But I have no regrets about my wording.

Did Danny know? According to Gailon's sources, he most certainly did. And if he didn't, his actions were still reprehensible. When you have child molestation allegations against one of your workers, you don't just cover it up with threats and without investigating it thoroughly unless you're really wanting to be in the limelight like certain bishops are.

==============================

Ah, Inga, an English teacher speaks out!

This post has been edited by Pickle: Jan 7 2007, 01:27 PM

[Ralph]

Perhaps more precision in my wording would have been helpful. I maybe should have said, "Walt admitted that Danny told him that the allegations were 30 years old, but the letter that Walt received in 2003 around the time that conversation took place proves that Danny misled Walt." But I have no regrets about my wording.

Mr. Pickle, I notice that you have been given a hard time today and I just want to thank you for your work. The poll shows that people believe what you are saying.

When someone chooses to defend the "dark side" they will often divert the discussion by concentrating on technicalities, thus hoping to divert people's attention from the main issues. In the mass of data flowing back and forth, I hope no one falls into this trap.

[fallible humanbe...]

Hi Calvin.

If I have not done so here, I have done so elsewhere, and Fallible, if he chooses, can confirm this. I have point blank said that Walt never said, "Danny lied to me." But by admitting that Danny was the source of the clearly bogus information, he did essentially admit that Danny misled him, even though he never said, "Danny misled me."

. . . .

Since this thread suggests that I have said that Walt admitted that Danny "lied" to him, it might be helpful, Calvin, if someone provided quotes where I did this.

(Significant revision focusing on the addition of quotes from Bob Pickle's posts here on BSDA took place on Sunday, January 7 just prior to midnight and after your response PB. Also, when Bystanders posts were collected and moved a post I had made in this thread and is connected to the points are was moved along with it. You can find that one HERE.)

Bob Pickle,

Quotes have been supplied and there are more. Yes, we did talk at length about this over on Maritime. But, while you may have offered cursory recognition of your inaccurate words, you still play them out here on BSDA.
---
(Additional quotes by you appearing here on BSDA)

"I've got in writing from Walt Thompson that Danny gave him information in 2003 that is clearly bogus."

"I came across a discrepancy yesterday, and was wondering if you could help me out with it. I'll write this as if I'm tacking it on to the four emails I sent at Dr. Walt Thompson's suggestion (he had written me and said, "I would like to request ... that you ... verify [this letter's] contents"), even though the topic is a little different."

In the above quote you edit Dr. Thompson's words interestingly, as they originally appeared this way (as posted over on Maritime):

Quoted from Dr. Thompson's email: "I would like to request that you not circulate this letter, but that you merely summarize and varify its contents."

Quoted from your posts:

"Walt Thompson admitted that Danny Shelton had essentially misled him regarding the serious nature, wide extent, and recent timing of those allegations, and he also admitted that both he and the 3ABN board had taken Danny's word for it without doing their own independent investigation."

"I am not sure what to make of this. Since our current discussion began Wednesday a week ago because of Dr. Walt Thompson's written statement that Danny had essentially misled him regarding the serious nature, wide extent, and recent timing of the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations, are you trying to say that Danny's trusted board chairman and staunch defender was lying to me?"

"In my opinion, Danny's persistent refusal to allow ASI to review all the allegations, including the elaborate fabrication Dr. Thompson indicated that Danny told him in 2003 in order to cover up the serious nature, wide extent, and recent timing of his brother's child molestation allegations, that persistent refusal is a fatal mistake."

"And of course, anyone who finds out that Danny's own board chairman has essentially admitted that Danny misled him regarding the serious nature, wide extent, and recent timing of the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations would likely hesitate to continue financially supporting 3ABN, until these extremely serious issues are resolved. Most folks probably do not want to contribute to a ministry if they think their contribution just might possibly get diverted from the Lord's work and be used instead to defend and settle cases of alleged child molestation. And with the apparent negligence that Danny has shown in this matter, one can only dream of the amount of punitive damages a jury just might award."

"Dr. Thompson said in writing that Danny had essentially lied to him. Danny has had 10 days now to explain the discrepancies, and he has declined to do so."

"Dr. Thompson, on the other hand, is very credible since he is on Danny's side. And we have him in writing that Danny misled him, intentionally or unintentionally."
---
Each and everyone of the above quotes from you is a misrepresentation or outright false presentation of Dr. Thompson's words to you. How are we to believe you when you say you post the truth, the facts? Why should anyone - other than those who merely "want" things to be the way you protray them - take your "investigation" seriously?

No, we settled nothing over on Maritime. You continue to attribute words to individuals that they never said! In the beginning, your emails tried to convince Danny, Dr. Thompson, and others that you were completely devoted to "vindicating Danny" and saving 3ABN. But, the truth became evident as you continued to focus your personal investigation (which by the way is sponsered by no one, and supported only by Linda's camp) on proving that "Tommy was guilty" and that "Danny lied." It was also evident that you had a "side" before you, according to your own admission, began to communicate with Linda in early December 2006.

You used the title to a vehicle you claim belongs to Linda as a tool to present to your readership that Danny is a liar. You crafted a defense of your thesis based on a partial title that you presented claiming that you were doing us all a service by not posting the title - front and back - in its entirety. You constantly claim to do us a "service" by editing your communications and the documents you secure because the unpublished portion is "of no concern" according to you. If you want to post factual evidence either here or on Maritime then do just that, post the entire title, include front and back images, and provide us an explanation of how you came by the title. If you called the bank and requested the title did you collect the name of the individual you spoke with so I can call them and verify that you called and they immediately faxed you a copy of the title. Or, did they need to have approval of Linda before they faxed it? It seems rather odd that in an age of hypersensativity in the area of privacy that just any individual out of the blue, can call a bank and secure a copy of a vehicle title "just because." I wonder if Linda had to approve this or if truly you just picked up the phone, called, and bingo you have a copy of the title.

The quotes I posted are only the bare minimum of how you take the email communications you recieve and twist them to blend nicely with your own "reading between the lines" and speculation. I do have to give you credit for posting them, though sometimes they are edited which for my 2 cents means they can not be accepted as legitimate information. If you want them to be accepted - don't edit. And, more importantly don't tell us that you are doing us a favor by editing them so we don't have to slog through the lengthy ones - those here who want truth want the whole thing and are not satisfied with you doing our thinking for us!

Additionally, exchanges like this are evidence of how you begin the process of attributing words into the mouths of others:
---
Quoted from gracetoyou on December 31: Danny just announced on 3ABN that Tommy is "retiring" from his duties at 3ABN. The reasons given were 1) that the "stress" of his duties at 3ABN was aggravating his "health" problems (high cholesterol, etc.) of which he has a history and ..."

Quoted from Bob Pickle's response to gracetoyou: "Are you absolutely positive that Danny said this? If so, does anyone have a recording or a transcript?

I can't imagine Danny telling the world that allegedly molesting children in Virginia and Illinois while pastoring non-Adventist churches was part of Tommy's duties at 3ABN. No, I can't accept as a fact that he really said such unless I can see the evidence for myself. Recording or transcript please."
---
I anticipate that your defense will be that this was merely sarcasim. However, you followed the same pattern previously and the next step is to begin to attribute words, claims, phrases, to individuals that they never said. It is becoming obvious that this is your modus operendi in an effort to validate yourself with your readership.

I do question your "invetigation" methods because you are willing to draw conclusions and then attirbute your own conclusions to those who communicate with you and pass them off as the words of those individuals. It is obvious that in no way do the two emails you use to claim that Dr. Thompson either "admitted" or "essentially admitted" (which is merely a grammatical game that you are playing and adds no legitimacy to your words) that Danny lied support your claims.

Here are some definitions to consider:

ad·mit /ædˈmɪt/

6. to acknowledge; confess: He admitted his guilt.
7. to grant in argument; concede: The fact is admitted.

And the basic definition that applies to your work in terns of the word essentially is the synonym "basically," which does not qualify your claim at all! The addition of the word "essentially" as an adverb merely means the same thing as if you had said, "Basically, Dr. Thompson admitted that Danny lied to him." There is nothing defensible in the addition of the word "essentially." You still are attributing to Dr. Thompson, and in the other instance Danny, words that obviously they never would have spoken!

The fact here remains that on a minimum of two occassions you have arrived at a conclusion - a personal opinion if you will, that something is true. Then you have crafted your interpretation of the communications you have been engaged in in such a way as to place words into someones mouth that were never said, nor implied, nor evident between the lines. You have simply taken your position and tried to use other names to push it on your readership in an effort to position yourself as a major player who others may "think" can have an influential place in running individuals out of 3ABN and restructuring it in a way as you see fit.

I question your entire "investigation" based on your deceptive methods of presenting your "findings." I have offered limited evidence of how you have done this and you have yet to address it in any significant way. If you want to be taken seriously by anyone other than the faithful few here, then be honest in the presentation of your "investigation." Don't try and do our thinking for us!

- fhb

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Jan 8 2007, 10:24 AM