AToday NewBreak Article on 3ABN Options

[LaurenceD]

With God there are no coincidences.

Knowing how to tell if something is a coincidence, or not, is one of the secrets of life. We can't have God involved in every accident, every illness, or every arising situation. That kind of thinking is the cause of superstition. Everyone must learn the answers for themselves. This is the first step in knowledge.

[Bystander]

Bystander,
Would you characterize the Adventist Today article as truthful? Would you charaterize the Adventist Today article as untruthful?

Untruthful

Do you know either way? Your response to Whtz Happenin (pasted in below) was a little unclear. It seems you were saying "it was only lies". But then why was Tommy removed as production manager and sent touring in a bus? Or did he never actually leave the production department and then never went touring on a bus?

I personally don't know anything about any touring, but I do know there was no bus of any kind. I also know he was not "removed."

If not part of the Shelton clan, wouldn't you be just speculating yourself?

You misunderstood my comparison PB. My point is this...how can so many complete strangers that have never met the people involved or ever even been to 3abn argue and fight with people that have? And that goes for whatever camp you are in. Those that have worked there or whatever and don't like it, or those that have been there and loved it, either way, at least they have something with which to base an opinion on. All the outsiders here do not. Where DS and LS are concerned, If you don't know them personally, it's all he said/she said and I don't understand how strangers can have such strong and argumentative opinions about, people they don't know, situations they have never been around, and a place that they have never been. Yet, they will argue to the death with people that maybe do know something about the people involved or the situations. I think I make a reasonable and valid point with this.

This post has been edited by Bystander: Feb 26 2007, 11:59 PM

[sister]

Bystander,
Would you characterize the Adventist Today article as truthful? Would you charaterize the Adventist Today article as untruthful?

Untruthful

Do you know either way? Your response to Whtz Happenin (pasted in below) was a little unclear. It seems you were saying "it was only lies". But then why was Tommy removed as production manager and sent touring in a bus? Or did he never actually leave the production department and then never went touring on a bus?

I personally don't know anything about any touring, but I do know there was no bus of any kind. I also know he was not "removed."

If not part of the Shelton clan, wouldn't you be just speculating yourself?

You misunderstood my comparison PB. My point is this...how can so many complete strangers that have never met the people involved or ever even been to 3abn argue and fight with people that have? And that goes for whatever camp you are in. Those that have worked there or whatever and don't like it, or those that have been there and loved it, either way, at least they have something with which to base an opinion on. All the outsiders here do not. Where DS and LS are concerned, If you don't know them personally, it's all he said/she said and I don't understand how strangers can have such strong and argumentative opinions about, people they don't know, situations they have never been around, and a place that they have never been. Yet, they will argue to the death with people that maybe do know something about the people involved or the situations. I think I make a reasonable and valid point with this.

Bystander, you seemed to have overlooked PB's last question or were you ignoring it?

If not part of the Shelton clan, wouldn't you be just speculating yourself?

Sister

[SoulEspresso]

Bystander, you seemed to have overlooked PB's last question or were you ignoring it?
Sister

Bystander has painted himself into a corner.

1. If he does know firsthand, then he can only establish his credibility by identifying himself.
2. If he does not know firsthand, then he is only here to deny and dissemble on behalf of Danny. In other words, he has no interest in the truth.

[PeacefulBe]

QUOTE(PeacefullyBewildered @ Feb 26 2007, 02:49 PM)

Bystander,
Would you characterize the Adventist Today article as truthful? Would you charaterize the Adventist Today article as untruthful?

Untruthful

Do you know either way? Your response to Whtz Happenin (pasted in below) was a little unclear. It seems you were saying "it was only lies". But then why was Tommy removed as production manager and sent touring in a bus? Or did he never actually leave the production department and then never went touring on a bus?

I personally don't know anything about any touring, but I do know there was no bus of any kind. I also know he was not "removed."

If not part of the Shelton clan, wouldn't you be just speculating yourself?

Bystander,

Thank you for commiting to answer my queston about the AT article. I would have preferred a more detailed response but now I know you view the entire article as untruthful. Regarding Tommy's touring for 3abn, can you make a call to him or to Danny and get the details of what actually happened after he left the production department in the 90's. If he wasn't doing Gospel concerts and contacting cable companies on behalf of 3abn what was he actually doing?

]You misunderstood my comparison PB. My point is this...how can so many complete strangers that have never met the people involved or ever even been to 3abn argue and fight with people that have? And that goes for whatever camp you are in. Those that have worked there or whatever and don't like it, or those that have been there and loved it, either way, at least they have something with which to base an opinion on. All the outsiders here do not. Where DS and LS are concerned, If you don't know them personally, it's all he said/she said and I don't understand how strangers can have such strong and argumentative opinions about, people they don't know, situations they have never been around, and a place that they have never been. Yet, they will argue to the death with people that maybe do know something about the people involved or the situations. I think I make a reasonable and valid point with this[/color].

What about the 12 members of a jury? They are not personally aquainted with "the accused" but are asked to weigh testimony and come to a judgement.

Sometimes those closest to a situation are the most blind as to what has actually happened. Loyalty and family ties can cause some folks to close their eyes to the facts.

[erik]

Sometimes those closest to a situation are the most blind as to what has actually happened. Loyalty and family ties can cause some folks to close their eyes to the facts.
[/quote]


PB,


Maybe a solution would be to take 12 sda's drawn by picking of lots like from the bible times, and have them in a room and have danny bring his side, and linda bring her side and then lets see what happens, no questions off limits just the information and 12 independent church members and i think it would be better if they were all latity.

erik

[Noahswife]

Sometimes those closest to a situation are the most blind as to what has actually happened. Loyalty and family ties can cause some folks to close their eyes to the facts.
PB,
Maybe a solution would be to take 12 sda's drawn by picking of lots like from the bible times, and have them in a room and have danny bring his side, and linda bring her side and then lets see what happens, no questions off limits just the information and 12 independent church members and i think it would be better if they were all latity.

erik

Talk about loss of control........

nw

[erik]

Talk about loss of control........

nw

NW,


IF 3abn is really concerned about the truth then my idea is at least worth trying, before going and jumping off the cliff called court. To me going to court is totally lossing control of the whole thing court cases have a life of their own.

Erik

[sister]

Bystander has painted himself into a corner.

1. If he does know firsthand, then he can only establish his credibility by identifying himself.
2. If he does not know firsthand, then he is only here to deny and dissemble on behalf of Danny. In other words, he has no interest in the truth.

SoulEspresso, that appears to be a correct evaluation of the situation. Unfortunately, given the choice of option number one or option number two, Bystander's answer will probably be option number three: ignore the question. For him it is a lose/lose situation, which is an inconceivable option.

Sister

[Noahswife]

NW,
IF 3abn is really concerned about the truth then my idea is at least worth trying, before going and jumping off the cliff called court. To me going to court is totally lossing control of the whole thing court cases have a life of their own.

Erik

Erik,

I hope you understood that I could not imagine DS or 3ABN doing such a thing because "controlling the message" is what they seem to be very much about. The forum you propose would be their worst nightmare.

As for court, I am afraid I disagree. There is a great deal of control in the legal world. I think that is one thing that posters here need to understand. There is control in who files a complaint first and their burden of going forward and burden of proof. There are issues of law as well as issues of fact. We discuss the concept of hearsay on this board but there are many exceptions. If 3abn decides to litigate I assure you they will chose competent legal counsel that will keep the issues narrow and on points 3abn believes they have a good chance of being successful on whether in negotiated settlement or court. That is not to say that some information would not come out in legal proceedings. But remember truth is not the same as evidence. I also doubt that there would be any one grand legal proceeding that would include all the issues mentioned in this subforum.

nw

[erik]

Erik,

I hope you understood that I could not imagine DS or 3ABN doing such a thing because "controlling the message" is what they seem to be very much about. The forum you propose would be their worst nightmare.

I realize that, but IF they are really interested in the truth, and if they are 100% in the right on all of this then they would jump on my idea, because it would save a ton of money over going to court and it is bible based. The fact they have not done anything of the kind speaks volumes to me about were the truth really is and it does not appear to be on their side. ew

As for court, I am afraid I disagree. There is a great deal of control in the legal world. I think that is one thing that posters here need to understand. There is control in who files a complaint first and their burden of going forward and burden of proof. There are issues of law as well as issues of fact. We discuss the concept of hearsay on this board but there are many exceptions. If 3abn decides to litigate I assure you they will chose competent legal counsel that will keep the issues narrow and on points 3abn believes they have a good chance of being successful on whether in negotiated settlement or court. That is not to say that some information would not come out in legal proceedings. But remember truth is not the same as evidence. I also doubt that there would be any one grand legal proceeding that would include all the issues mentioned in this subforum.

nw

NW,

I agree that they will try and tightly control the legal action, but once they walk out that door they open the door for others to file counter actions, which might not be limited to the court room, i am right now the public media is not got this out,but going to court greatly increase the chances that this whole mess will leave the smaller circle that is in now, and only God knows what will happen.

In the court room it self, yes 3abn lawyers will try and frame the case in such a manner that they will only discuss very limited subject matter, but look at all the stuff that came out of the last court case about the tax's, In fact if you want my humble option that was God's wake up call to 3abn one that to this point they have not listened to.

If 3abn only goes after the copyright issue then they might be able to control the court room but if they go after slander then they are really opening up the whole ball of wax.

Erik

This post has been edited by erik: Feb 27 2007, 01:20 PM

[Bystander]

Bystander has painted himself into a corner.

1. If he does know firsthand, then he can only establish his credibility by identifying himself.
2. If he does not know firsthand, then he is only here to deny and dissemble on behalf of Danny. In other words, he has no interest in the truth.

You are making the same mistake as others here, you are jumping to conclusions. If I know anything firsthand, why would I have to identify myself. Sister claims to know all first hand, yet she has never identified herself. That has never stopped any of you on this board from believing her. Now be fair here, folks. If you can believe her without ID, then the same should apply to me. One keep in mind, sister is just one here, that claims to know first hand without telling who she is. There are several others. You and others never question them, like you just did me, because they say what you want to hear. They back up your opinions. A little one sided isn't it?

[erik]

You are making the same mistake as others here, you are jumping to conclusions. If I know anything firsthand, why would I have to identify myself. Sister claims to know all first hand, yet she has never identified herself. That has never stopped any of you on this board from believing her. Now be fair here, folks. If you can believe her without ID, then the same should apply to me. One keep in mind, sister is just one here, that claims to know first hand without telling who she is. There are several others. You and others never question them, like you just did me, because they say what you want to hear. They back up your opinions. A little one sided isn't it?

Bystander,

I agree that both you and sister would make the whole process easier for the outsiders if you would print your names. But out side of that happening, and i am not calling for that. i can very well understand why you and her do not.

the question applied to you would also apply to her, although i am not sure she has made the same claims of closeness to the people involved.

I will say this you bring this up a lo, like you really need and want to know who she is, other then linda, which i think at this point is pretty much know that sister and Linda are not the same person.

In closing bystander i will ask you the question my mother always asked me when my brothers and sisters were fighting, WHO IS GOING TO THE BIG PERSON? Lead by example bystander, put your name out there see what happens, or even better then your name put the facts of the matter out there and then the truth will be known!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOu can do that by selling my idea of 12 Sdas jury to 3abn and danny

erik

[Johann]

You are making the same mistake as others here, you are jumping to conclusions. If I know anything firsthand, why would I have to identify myself. Sister claims to know all first hand, yet she has never identified herself. That has never stopped any of you on this board from believing her. Now be fair here, folks. If you can believe her without ID, then the same should apply to me. One keep in mind, sister is just one here, that claims to know first hand without telling who she is. There are several others. You and others never question them, like you just did me, because they say what you want to hear. They back up your opinions. A little one sided isn't it?

Not quite, Bystander. A number of us recognize most of what Sister says from our own experiences and that gives her credibility. As a contrast some of us know from our own experiences in this matter that what you are saying is a thoroughly thwarted image of reality. It could be that you are just too close to see those issues, or you have too much at stake personally to face the facts.

This post has been edited by Johann: Feb 27 2007, 02:21 PM

[SoulEspresso]

You are making the same mistake as others here, you are jumping to conclusions. If I know anything firsthand, why would I have to identify myself. Sister claims to know all first hand, yet she has never identified herself. That has never stopped any of you on this board from believing her. Now be fair here, folks. If you can believe her without ID, then the same should apply to me. One keep in mind, sister is just one here, that claims to know first hand without telling who she is. There are several others. You and others never question them, like you just did me, because they say what you want to hear. They back up your opinions. A little one sided isn't it?

There is a difference, Bystander. It's called a power imbalance.

Let me break it down for you.

Danny has got a satellite channel and all the people on it shilling for him, and the thousands or millions who believe what he says--not to mention all the people, like yourself, shilling for him here. Have you been hired by 3ABN, Bystander, to come on here and muddy the waters?

Who is sister? Sister does not have her own satellite channel or talking heads to repeat what she says. If what we're to read on these boards is plausible, sister may be afraid of retribution from Danny and 3ABN. I don't know for myself that that's the case, but any casual student of human nature or history can tell you that people who are not in power have plenty to fear from the people who are. (300 years of slavery in the New World, for example ...)

Who do you have to be afraid of? Surely sister doesn't have secrets on you she wants to expose to the world!

Anyway, I didn't automatically believe her. I thought it might be plausible, because "power corrupts" (history and human nature again) and I already knew that my church, the Adventist Church, has a horrible history of corruption, particularly when it comes to sexual sin. But I came back here after months of absence because of save3abn.com--and suddenly sister's accounts became 100x more credible.

Techniques used in this post by Bystander:
1. Deflect the issue in question by comparing himself with another poster who has greater reason to remain anonymous.

Back to the issue, Bystander--we're to believe you because you're close to the situation. How do we know? Why can't you tell us who you are? Can you at least explain why you choose to remain anonymous?

In closing bystander i will ask you the question my mother always asked me when my brothers and sisters were fighting, WHO IS GOING TO THE BIG PERSON? Lead by example bystander, put your name out there see what happens, or even better then your name put the facts of the matter out there and then the truth will be known!

Erik is right. In spades.