Asi Responds Options

[Observer]

NOTE: The following quotation was posted by Bystander:

"Cudos Linda, I give credit where credit is due. You are crazy like a fox. The plan that you set up here is absolutely brilliant. Here is the scenerio: You know that 3ABN has solid evidence against you that gives reason for the divorce and your dismissal. So.. How could you make it appear that you
welcomed an ASI investigation into the divorce when in reality, you had much to fear? Simple. Choose someone as your representative that has no credentials, no real insight on this subject (except what you have told him) and appears to have "the I am Somebody" syndrome so, would therefore, welcome, his 10 minutes of fame. Aka ....Gailon Joy. Could you have known in advance that he was convicted of embezzlement while representing himself? That he claims only to have taken money that belonged to him which one would think, would be fairly easy to prove if one was competent at all. Not only could he not prove it the first time, he could not prove it through several appeals. So, Linda, all you had to do was convince him that you were "victimized" and needed his help to "clear" yourself. Now readers, stay with me here, it is complicated. Gailon was chosen, (as well as Pickle I would assume) because of his lack of knowledge and credentials. Why? Because Linda knew that Gailon would bumble and fumble his way through the ASI intervention with unrealistic rules, requests and wanting to bring in many other topics that were never to be considered by ASI. Having done this, ASI had no choice but to withdraw before any "evidence" could be brought forth for their consideration. Bottom line...Linda looks like she wanted ASI's involvement when in fact, it appears she set about the make sure they wouldn't be involved. Great strategy? Absolutely. Only one problem. What excuses can the people on this forum come up with for ASI's findings? So far, everyone that has defended 3ABN and it's leadership has been (according to this forum) Scared, threatened, intimidated, paid off, ect ect....Will the same apply to such a highly respected organization as ASI? Or are you going to accuse ASI of being corrupt like you have 3ABN leadership and the whole board? I think not. We know that ASI is comprised of many accomplished business men and women with the highest integrity. The McNeilus Family & Harold Lance just to name a few. I hardly think that the McNeilus family needs to take a "payoff" from 3ABN or that they would be "intimidated" by the leadership there. That is laughable. People, there are no more excuses, only the facts. ASI had no ulterior motives to make the statement that they did, other than, it is the truth. They are not partial or biased in any way to one side or the other. They have no reason to be. Their findings are based on fact. But...whether Linda set out purposely to derail the investigation or, whether she just got lucky in choosing Gailon, I guess we will never know for sure....

BRING IN THE NEXT TEAM
[/quote]"

Bystander"

Are you not glad that BSDA allows you to freely post whatever you wish. We have no problem with truth, whereverit leads. We are quite willing for people who challenge us to have their say so their position can be considered.

You have opened up some areas. So, now we can be expected to respond. I will probably respond at greater length now. But, later, as I am busiy right now.

Gregory Matthews


This post has been edited by Observer: Jan 24 2007, 06:00 PM

[Panama_Pete]

ASI had no ulterior motives to make the statement that they did, other than, it is the truth. They are not partial or biased in any way to one side or the other. They have no reason to be. Their findings are based on fact.

And for starters, consider this:

ASI donated $100,000 dollars to 3ABN in 2006, alone.

That donation puts ASI beyond any possibility of being truly impartial or unbiased. They had already voted with their pocketbook!

Since when do judges donate $100,000 to one of the parties before the bench? That just doesn't happen, but it happened here: It happened with ASI.

Therefore, I hope this outcome did not surprise anybody. ASI was a highly inappropriate forum from the beginning, due to their close financial and business ties to one of the parties.

This post has been edited by Panama_Pete: Jan 24 2007, 06:52 PM

[inga]

Will YOU be moving on as well? somehow I don't think so...

It occurs to me that the biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage are what matters, regardless of the position taken (or lack thereof) by ASI. ASI's committee was an exercise in futility...that's just my caribbean opinion...As long as spiritual adultery is not mentioned in the Bible, it matters not to me any position of 3ABN, ASI, or any other acronym of your choosing. As we say here in the Caribbean "Wrong is Wrong."

Right on!

If all ASI was willing to discuss was the divorce & remarriage, why all the fuss? It's pretty clear that Dan had no biblical grounds for remarriage, but he married anyhow. And there's no undoing it. So...?

It seems to me that this was slated to be a cover-up for Dan from the very start.

We know that ASI is comprised of many accomplished business men and women with the highest integrity. The McNeilus Family & Harold Lance just to name a few. I hardly think that the McNeilus family needs to take a "payoff" from 3ABN or that they would be "intimidated" by the leadership there.

Is it not true that the McNeilus family has invested rather heavily in 3ABN and is still investing in 3ABN -- perhaps in amounts exceeding the ASI grant?

How then, can you cite the McNeilus family as a demonstration of the objectivity of ASI?

And, by the way, Bystander, it is very evident that you are standing by very close to Dan Shelton.

[Bystander]

And for starters, consider this:

ASI donated $100,000 dollars to 3ABN in 2006, alone.

That donation puts ASI beyond any possibility of being truly impartial or unbiased. They had already voted with their pocketbook!

Since when do judges donate $100,000 to one of the parties before the bench? That just doesn't happen, but it happened here: It happened with ASI.

Therefore, I hope this outcome did not surprise anybody. ASI was a highly inappropriate forum from the beginning, due to their close financial and business ties to one of the parties.

I KNEW IT!!! YOU ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT I PREDICTED THAT YOU WOULD DO. NOW ASI CAN'T BE FAIR OR IMPARTIAL. THAT IS HILARIOUS. ASI HAS GIVEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO ALL KINDS OF MINISTRIES THROUGH THE YEARS, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY COULD NOT HOLD A FAIR HEARING INVOLVING ANY OF THOSE MINISTRIES. WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T BE SO HARD ON YOU, WHAT ELSE CAN YOU SAY?.......

[Clay]

why is Lance's letter posted 3 times?

I KNEW IT!!! YOU ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT I PREDICTED THAT YOU WOULD DO. NOW ASI CAN'T BE FAIR OR IMPARTIAL. THAT IS HILARIOUS. ASI HAS GIVEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO ALL KINDS OF MINISTRIES THROUGH THE YEARS, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY COULD NOT HOLD A FAIR HEARING INVOLVING ANY OF THOSE MINISTRIES. WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T BE SO HARD ON YOU, WHAT ELSE CAN YOU SAY?.......

all caps suggest you are shouting.... please dont... ASI is not in a position to be impartial....

Excuse me? When did this become a skin color issue?

Richard

It hasn't.... except let me say this.... when Linda was put out, I am surprised that folks with means, and/or connections did not come to her aid, assist her with employment so that she would not have to sign a gag order under duress.... It became a color issue when the white church she was attended didn't allow her to participate in its ministry so she ended up attending a black church and fit right in....

[Panama_Pete]

I KNEW IT!!! YOU ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT I PREDICTED THAT YOU WOULD DO.

Predictions?

Jeane Dixon has joined us from beyond the grave.

Spooky

[princessdi]

Ok?!!! We don't have to wait too much longer, it will be out any minute!

And, by the way, Bystander, it is very evident that you are standing by very close to Dan Shelton.

[Bystander]

Right on!

If all ASI was willing to discuss was the divorce & remarriage, why all the fuss? It's pretty clear that Dan had no biblical grounds for remarriage, but he married anyhow. And there's no undoing it. So...?

It seems to me that this was slated to be a cover-up for Dan from the very start.
Is it not true that the McNeilus family has invested rather heavily in 3ABN and is still investing in 3ABN -- perhaps in amounts exceeding the ASI grant?

How then, can you cite the McNeilus family as a demonstration of the objectivity of ASI?

And, by the way, Bystander, it is very evident that you are standing by very close to Dan Shelton.

Not near as close as you are standing to Linda

Predictions?

Jeane Dixon has joined us from beyond the grave.

Spooky

Trust me, it doesn't take a Jean Dixon to predict what this forum will do......

[princessdi]

3ABN has hard evidence? Bring it! It will be posted and weighed along with the rest.....until then let it go! There is no evidence for spritiual adultery(because it doesn't exist), and if she commited actual adultery the evidence should have been out long ago. And one more time, with feeling, if 3ABN had hard evidence they would never have had to ensure Linda's silence.

Frankly, I don't think either "side" can claim to be innocent. Joy has something going on with embezzlement, and Tommy molest boys and young men.....by his own admission. So that kind of mudslinging can be let go. The whole lot of you cannot stand the most cursory investigation. IWO, ALL have sinned and come short, ok? For the record, Joy past embezzlement definitely pales in my eyes to Tommy's past of molestation, and still being allowed to work with children in any compacity at 3ABN. He is supposed to be registered and watched, monitored, somethin'. That is just criminal.

ASI has at least $100,000.00 worth of unterior motive. Plus continued association with 3ABN. Is DAnny not going to be at their annual meeting, I ask again? They had no business even attempting to investigate anything. The investgation was a sham, and if Linda was msart enough to see that, along with others, then good for her! I wouldn't have talked to them either. Not everybody is easily led. I never thought the should do it. They are already biased.

And one more time, I am amazed at the folks who keep coming here trying to act like they are joe Blow from Dust Bowl, MidWest, who just happened upon this site with people saying horrible things about Danny. They never met him but he jes blesses they po' soul..........Then they just burst with all kinds of information!

This team stays, we have home court advantage.........Next!

Cudos Linda, I give credit where credit is due. You are crazy like a fox. The plan that you set up here is absolutely brilliant. Here is the scenerio: You know that 3ABN has solid evidence against you that gives reason for the divorce and your dismissal. So.. How could you make it appear that you...........................................................................................................................................
ASI had no ulterior motives to make the statement that they did, other than, it is the truth. They are not partial or biased in any way to one side or the other. They have no reason to be. Their findings are based on fact. But...whether Linda set out purposely to derail the investigation or, whether she just got lucky in choosing Gailon, I guess we will never know for sure....

BRING IN THE NEXT TEAM

[Clay]

Not near as close as you are standing to Linda
Trust me, it doesn't take a Jean Dixon to predict what this forum will do......

you can step off anytime....

[princessdi]

...and they should not conduct or sit in on any independet investgations of those ministries either. Don't act like you dont' know politics when you see it. The same way Bush sat back and acted like he didn't even know Ken Lay(sp), when Enron ws unders investigation, is the same reason ASI should have stayed out of this investgation.

I KNEW IT!!! YOU ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT I PREDICTED THAT YOU WOULD DO. NOW ASI CAN'T BE FAIR OR IMPARTIAL. THAT IS HILARIOUS. ASI HAS GIVEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO ALL KINDS OF MINISTRIES THROUGH THE YEARS, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY COULD NOT HOLD A FAIR HEARING INVOLVING ANY OF THOSE MINISTRIES. WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T BE SO HARD ON YOU, WHAT ELSE CAN YOU SAY?.......

[jene]

you first..... cya cya.....

How come you can say that but you edited my post in another thread that had... ahem...carefully diluted language edited for church folk? I just have to tease you 'cause I loves you dude.

[Clay]

How come you can say that but you edited my post in another thread that had... ahem...carefully diluted language edited for church folk? I just have to tease you 'cause I loves you dude.

lol.... ummmmm because ummmm see what happened was errrr ummmm

[Richard Sherwin]

Hey Clay I have no problem acknowledging the fact that a black church took here in when a white one turned against here. However I think many white churches would have done the same as that black church. (Of course why is there even black and white churches? )

My hats off to the church that showed compassion for her and was willing to see her side of the story. To tell the truth I accepted as truth what Danny was saying about her however this idea of spiritual adultery caused me some concern and then the final nail was pounded in when he remarried.

Richard

why is Lance's letter posted 3 times?
all caps suggest you are shouting.... please dont... ASI is not in a position to be impartial....
It hasn't.... except let me say this.... when Linda was put out, I am surprised that folks with means, and/or connections did not come to her aid, assist her with employment so that she would not have to sign a gag order under duress.... It became a color issue when the white church she was attended didn't allow her to participate in its ministry so she ended up attending a black church and fit right in....

[Clay]

Hey Clay I have no problem acknowledging the fact that a black church took here in when a white one turned against here. However I think many white churches would have done the same as that black church. (Of course why is there even black and white churches? )

My hats off to the church that showed compassion for her and was willing to see her side of the story. To tell the truth I accepted as truth what Danny was saying about her however this idea of spiritual adultery caused me some concern and then the final nail was pounded in when he remarried.

Richard

I am talking also about the fact that I am sure that someone somewhere within the network of sister churches someone should have been able to employ her so she would not be at Danny's mercy.... Linda's situation may even be a representation of what women in this church have to face if their husbands put them out, or divorce them without cause....