Linda Has Finally Updated Her Website, Check it out Options

[LaurenceD]

And what's it called when you put the fear of God in someone who's afraid of being afraid?

BTW, I like that Pete...confabulations!

[roxe]

Ms. Linda Shelton-Moore

huh??

[sonshineonme]

And what's it called when you put the fear of God in someone who's afraid of being afraid?

wake up call?
a miracle??
last chance???

huh??

Actually, they have it wrong (as usual).
She was a Moore BEFORE she was a Shelton.
Therefore, it would be Linda Moore-Shelton.

[Fran]

Ahha!

quodlibetarian: someone who constructs elaborate arguments about the fine points of any subject just for the pleasure of arguing; a troll

Well, considering I am not a Wordsmith in any sense of the word, it seems to me, both you and Sonshineonme have discovered what we have here.

FHB, educate me please. Does this describe you and your persona group?

Bystander, which ones apply to you & DS.

Hey, Maybe it is true, "Birds of a feather flock together"?

I believe I have a one word description of both of you guys, XXXXXXXXXX, but I can't spell it out here! Sorry.

[roxe]

Actually, they have it wrong (as usual).
She was a Moore BEFORE she was a Shelton.
Therefore, it would be Linda Moore-Shelton.

thanks, sonshine!
they're "blowin in the wind" again, eh??
been reading all these posts tonite... wow, sure is getting twisted n sick, showing true colors...
so glad Rev 20 is coming... and evil can do NOTHING to stop it!!!!!!

This post has been edited by roxe: Mar 5 2007, 12:11 AM

[Panama_Pete]

You state the plan is not working or FHB wouldn't be here. Lets turn that right around then, and say if LS plan was working you wouldn't be here.

Let's not.

[Johann]

Ralph,

You are right about desperation,
- - -

This is desperation Ralph, but God will protect and in the end the truth will prevail.

- FHB

You remind me of a good sermon our pastor preached last Sabbath. He gave many samples of people believing they had the truth, but in the end they were wrong and many lives were lost.

I agree with you that truth will prevail. It is quite interesting to discover how more and more influential leaders in the Seventh-day Adventist Church are now expressing their conviction that because of what has happened and his behavior, Mr. Danny Shelton has to disappear in order to save 3ABN. Several of these express that is was when Danny married again so soon that they had no more doubts of Linda's innocence.

Yes, even if most of what you have said seems fallible, you have turned in the right direction when you state that truth will prevail in the end.

And what's it called when you put the fear of God in someone who's afraid of being afraid?

BTW, I like that Pete...confabulations!

Keep *write* on ridin' that bike of yours, Lawrence. Keeps you in trims.

[lurker]

The Questions section of Linda's website has been updated.

[LaurenceD]

The Questions section of Linda's website has been updated.

Thanks, lurker.

I noticed this on LS's updated website.

Q. What about the illegally taped phone conversation? What were the contents of this conversation?
A. Dan marched into the house one day in May of 2004, just days before we parted, and announced that he had "proof." He made a big deal about recording a cell phone conversation I had earlier in the day as I was driving to West Frankfort from Thompsonville. He said it was recorded by private investigators. I do not remember every detail of the conversation, but I do remember that I did not feel ashamed of what was said that day in the conversation. But I was again convinced Dan was not thinking or acting normally, as I had felt for some time.

Illinois State Law:

720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-1, -2: An eavesdropping device cannot be used to record or overhear a conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation under criminal statutes. An eavesdropping device is anything used to hear or record a conversation, whether the conversation is in person or conducted by any means other than face-to-face conversation, such as a telephone conversation.

In addition, it is criminally punishable to disclose information one knows or should know was obtained through an eavesdropping device. Offenses of the eavesdropping law are punishable as felonies, with first offenses categorized as lesser felonies than subsequent offenses. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-4. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages is authorized as well. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-6.

So, this must be the smoking gun. The next best thing our 3abners/4Chihuahuas can do here is keep claiming they have the evidence, but not at liberty to disclose it. Hostage taking. No wonder they've worked themselves into a corner...and continue to deny it. Empty shell. About time someone call their bluff. BTW, LS maintains there's nothing in the taped ph. call.

[Clay]

in essence they are criminals..... they engaged in criminal activity to get a conversation that may not be as damaging as its claimed.....

foolishness..... and then the dannyclones want us to believe that foolishness.... they can't share the evidence because its against the law.... figures......

[PeacefulBe]

Thanks, lurker.

I noticed this on LS's updated website.

Q. What about the illegally taped phone conversation? What were the contents of this conversation?
A. Dan marched into the house one day in May of 2004, just days before we parted, and announced that he had "proof." He made a big deal about recording a cell phone conversation I had earlier in the day as I was driving to West Frankfort from Thompsonville. He said it was recorded by private investigators. I do not remember every detail of the conversation, but I do remember that I did not feel ashamed of what was said that day in the conversation. But I was again convinced Dan was not thinking or acting normally, as I had felt for some time.

Illinois State Law:

720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-1, -2: An eavesdropping device cannot be used to record or overhear a conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation under criminal statutes. An eavesdropping device is anything used to hear or record a conversation, whether the conversation is in person or conducted by any means other than face-to-face conversation, such as a telephone conversation.

In addition, it is criminally punishable to disclose information one knows or should know was obtained through an eavesdropping device. Offenses of the eavesdropping law are punishable as felonies, with first offenses categorized as lesser felonies than subsequent offenses. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-4. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages is authorized as well. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-6.

So, this must be the smoking gun. The next best thing our 3abners/4Chihuahuas can do here is keep claiming they have the evidence, but not at liberty to disclose it. Hostage taking. No wonder they've worked themselves into a corner...and continue to deny it. Empty shell. About time someone call their bluff. BTW, LS maintains there's nothing in the taped ph. call.

One has to wonder how many felonies Danny is willing to be charged with for this evidence. Seems like the P.I.'s would also be culpable here. That they would record conversations against the law does not make them appear very reputable. Who hired them? Would that person also be culpable for the felonies?

[Uncle Sam]

I understand this all being illegally obtained, but this isn't a court of law. I mean if Danny has evidence than in the court of public opinion it should stand. I would like to see his evidence even if it was obtained illegally. I do have issues that it was a one sided conversation. I mean you can twist that anyway you like unless she said something directly about Danny or an affair. With that said I think if they had wanted to they could have sat down and worked out all of this. IF Linda and the Dr were not having an affair and she still "needed" to talk with him, and she had nothing to hide. Maybe Danny could have jumped on board and been part of this instead of trying to cut this all off. But maybe Linda didn't want Danny involved in this relationship maybe it was too late.

All is fair in love and war....

I have one more question...for now. Did Linda and the Dr EVER have a relationship after the divorce? That would make a big diffeence to many people I think. If she did even after she was divorced it seems that it would make her look guilty. I have asked this before but I don't feel I got a direct answer, just that she was free to if she wanted to....

[princessdi]

Ok small point of clarification here. Danny bugged the house or Linda's cell phone? I ask because US refers to it being a one sided conversation.

I understand this all being illegally obtained, but this isn't a court of law. I mean if Danny has evidence than in the court of public opinion it should stand. I would like to see his evidence even if it was obtained illegally. I do have issues that it was a one sided conversation. I mean you can twist that anyway you like unless she said something directly about Danny or an affair. With that said I think if they had wanted to they could have sat down and worked out all of this. IF Linda and the Dr were not having an affair and she still "needed" to talk with him, and she had nothing to hide. Maybe Danny could have jumped on board and been part of this instead of trying to cut this all off. But maybe Linda didn't want Danny involved in this relationship maybe it was too late.

All is fair in love and war....

I have one more question...for now. Did Linda and the Dr EVER have a relationship after the divorce? That would make a big diffeence to many people I think. If she did even after she was divorced it seems that it would make her look guilty. I have asked this before but I don't feel I got a direct answer, just that she was free to if she wanted to....

[Seraphim7]

in essence they are criminals..... they engaged in criminal activity to get a conversation that may not be as damaging as its claimed.....

foolishness..... and then the dannyclones want us to believe that foolishness.... they can't share the evidence because its against the law.... figures......

[Observer]

I have one more question...for now. Did Linda and the Dr EVER have a relationship after the divorce? That would make a big diffeence to many people I think. If she did even after she was divorced it seems that it would make her look guilty. I have asked this before but I don't feel I got a direct answer, just that she was free to if she wanted to....

Relationship, relationship. What does that mean. That word covers so many areas of interest.

1) If Nathan was still in treatment, or for other reasons, Dr. A. was consulted regarding him, then a relationship existed.

2) Linda and Dr. A are linked in the minds of many people, and by the accusations of some in a prior inappropriate relationship. That linking has carried forward to the present. It would be quite understandable for those two people to occasionally communicate regarding their shared experience, and/or in regard to current charges that people still make about them. Folks, such communication is a relationship.

3) There are other ways in which a relatlionship could exist. It has been charged that Dr. A. lent Linda money to purchase her home. That would make her a debtor to him, and obligated to make payments to him to pay off her debt. That is a relationship.

4) Typically, two people who had gone through the shared experiences that Dr. A. and Linda have gone through, the charges, and counter charges, along with the denials, would find themselve bound together as friends, even if not planning marriage.

5) Typically, people who have recently gone through either a divorce, or the death of a spouse, would become friends with someone of the opposite gender. That is a relationship. But, it does not mean that either have ever considered marriage to the other. It does not constitute an inapproprite relationship. Look at this for a moment: Linda likely considers Johann to be a friend of hers. As I have been an advisor to her, she may very well consider me to be a friend. All of that is a relationship, of sorts. Johann is married, and likely involves his current wife in his relationship with Linda. So am/do I. There is nothing wrong with any of this.

So, Yes, if you want it said that way, it may be said that Linda has a current relationship with Dr. A. Make the best of that. But, in the interests of integrity, place that in context. Simply put: Linda is not contemplating marriage to anyone. She is not in that type of a relationship.

Now, if someone wants to claim that Linda is selling herself on the street, or that she is sexually active, without selling herself, . . . .. After reading comments in regard to Linda previously haveing a yeast infection, I guess I can expect just about anything.

Relationship, relationship. What does that mean. That word covers so many areas of interest.

1) If Nathan was still in treatment, or for other reasons, Dr. A. was consulted regarding him, then a relationship existed.

2) Linda and Dr. A are linked in the minds of many people, and by the accusations of some in a prior inappropriate relationship. That linking has carried forward to the present. It would be quite understandable for those two people to occasionally communicate regarding their shared experience, and/or in regard to current charges that people still make about them. Folks, such communication is a relationship.

3) There are other ways in which a relatlionship could exist. It has been charged that Dr. A. lent Linda money to purchase her home. That would make her a debtor to him, and obligated to make payments to him to pay off her debt. That is a relationship.

4) Typically, two people who had gone through the shared experiences that Dr. A. and Linda have gone through, the charges, and counter charges, along with the denials, would find themselve bound together as friends, even if not planning marriage.

5) Typically, people who have recently gone through either a divorce, or the death of a spouse, would become friends with someone of the opposite gender. That is a relationship. But, it does not mean that either have ever considered marriage to the other. It does not constitute an inapproprite relationship. Look at this for a moment: Linda likely considers Johann to be a friend of hers. As I have been an advisor to her, she may very well consider me to be a friend. All of that is a relationship, of sorts. Johann is married, and likely involves his current wife in his relationship with Linda. So am/do I. There is nothing wrong with any of this.

So, Yes, if you want it said that way, it may be said that Linda has a current relationship with Dr. A. Make the best of that. But, in the interests of integrity, place that in context. Simply put: Linda is not contemplating marriage to anyone. She is not in that type of a relationship.

Now, if someone wants to claim that Linda is selling herself on the street, or that she is sexually active, without selling herself, . . . .. After reading comments in regard to Linda previously haveing a yeast infection, I guess I can expect just about anything.

If I need to be more blunt: Linda has not had an inappropriate relationship with Dr. A.