Save3abn Website, who runs it? Options

[Richard Sherwin]

Why didn't you just say "lier lier pants on fire". Goodgrief....what a great post

Pickle your unwillingness to answer the question shows your are not a honest person. Period end of sentence. But no matter because I have my answer very plainly. Thanks.

I "backtrack" on nothing! The post you are speaking about that has to do with minors were just questions Pickle....HONEST questions which is more than what you can possibly do. Any "reasonable" inteligent person reading my post could see that.

But then perhaps I got too close to the truth of the matter.

This post has been edited by Richard Sherwin: Mar 12 2007, 08:23 PM

[PeacefulBe]

Lee,
In my post #13 above, I honestly asked you for some information. If you apply your own hypothesis to yourself, I'm either going to get some answers from you or that will make you a dishonest person as well. Right?

So, for the record I will frame my request in the form of two questions:

1. Which documents or emails are false, counterfeit or lies?

2. What is your proof that they are false, counterfeit or lies?

[Noahswife]

Bob, you said out of the seven people supposedly molested by TS, one is under age over on Maritime. Did I understand you correctly?

If so, then six of the seven would be considered "consenting" adults. And perhaps even the one under age was consenting, who knows if any of this is true. I have my doubts not because you posted it or because Mr. Joy investigated this, but because none of the 7 prosecuted TS or took him to court. I would certainly suggest to them that they do so as soon as possible.

Lee,

The only questions I see are you asking Pickle if you understood him correctly and you questioning if any of it were true. I believe I have the intelligence of a reasonable person.

nw
C"i"

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Mar 12 2007, 08:40 PM

[Noahswife]

Pickle your unwillingness to answer the question shows your are not a honest person. Period end of sentence. But no matter because I have my answer very plainly. Thanks.

So Lee, may I conclude from your post that when WWJD, Bystander, or yourself are unwilling to answer a question, I and others have the plain answer?

IMO, any "reasonable" intelligent person would not conclude that Pickle is not an honest person but one that is not willing to answer until you have answered his prior questions to you.

nw
C"i"

[fallible humanbe...]

So Lee, may I conclude from your post that when WWJD, Bystander, or yourself are unwilling to answer a question, I and others have the plain answer?

IMO, any "reasonable" intelligent person would not conclude that Pickle is not an honest person but one that is not willing to answer until you have answered his prior questions to you.

nw
C"i"

NW C"i"

The track record shows that Bob Pickle will not answer any question. He does not feel he has to. He feels he is free to act as he wishes, say what he wants regardless of its veracity, and has no responsiblity to answer any questions.

The idea that he doesn't have to answer until they answer is juvenile. He has portrayed himself as a man of integrity and reliability and with nothing to hide. So, if you are correct that he parades around with the attitude that he must have his questions answered first is simply an arrogance that betrays his portrayal of himself. If he has nothing to hide, then just answer the questions and ask yours.

When the JoyPickle web site surfaced it was obvious that the work was being done by Mr. Bob Pickle. He had already made a previous statement to someone that he was involved in a "major internet project" and that it was taking a lot of his time. Shortly after this statement the JoyPickle site surfaced. The language, syntax, sentence structure, and paragraph development are clearly that of Bob Pickle as they are easily overlaid with his postings here and on MSDAOL and the similarity is more than coincidence. Now, recently the pages on that site (JoyPickle) have changed so either there are more people working on the site or he is taking great pains not to sound like himself. He follows this up with posts that are designed to make the casual reader think he has nothing to do with the site (something that is certainly disingenuous if not just a form of lying).

The main point is this, Bob Pickle demands answers from everyone, while always conveniently avoiding questions put to him. I guess he gets what he gives. His methods have proven duplicitous and dishonest, which for those who are aware of what he has done, calls into question the results of his work.

- FHB

Since Bob Pickle is much more widely known than is Gailon Joy... and has a reputation throughout Adventism as being a careful researcher and writer on a number of subjects... then that only lends credibility to the site if he is directly associated with it. And it is certainly no secret here on BSDA that he and Gailon are both engaged in research on matters relative to 3abn.

WB,

To get a more complete view of Bob Pickle's veracity, reliability and his "good reputation" why don't you find out what a number of individuals who work on Wikipedia think of Bob's research methods. On that site, he is not very well thought of by many who work hard to put together reliable information for people to use to do research and obtain reliable information.

You will find him listed on Wikipedia as "DrPickle."

A Dr. he is not and as a reliable source of information there he is not consider that either.

- FHB

[fallible humanbe...]

. . . Now if they are claiming Pickle has written the emails and letters himself, that would be an entirely different matter . . .

nw
C"i"

NW C"i"

I don't know if any one who is supportive of 3ABN would make this claim exactly. There are a number of us however who have experienced first hand Bob Pickle's duplicitous methods, his dishonest claims, and incessant haranguing in an effort to victimize anyone he sets his sights on. There is clear evidence that he has a way with words - a manipulative way where he makes subtly rearrangements, posts this and attaches insinuation and innuendo so that not to many posts later he begins to attribute claims and words to people that they never said or wrote. Of course it is subtly enough that no one notices - and when it is pointed out he puts on his top hat, takes out his cane and does his best imitation of Gene Kelly . . . and of course never addresses the truth.

It is the experience of a number that has led to this thread. You don't have to accept the first hand commentary - but then, you would need to throw out all the other proclaimed first hand testimony in this forum.

- FHB

[PeacefulBe]

It is the experience of a number that has led to this thread. You don't have to accept the first hand commentary - but then, you would need to throw out all the other proclaimed first hand testimony in this forum.
- FHB

Wow, that is quite a broadly brushed statement. I'm not sure it will go down in history as a principle as helpful as Occam's Razor. If you don't agree with our opinions you can't agree with the opinions of anybody else. Hmmmm.

If you, Lee, wwjd and Bystander can establish credibility as first-hand commentary, your opinions will count every bit as much as the others who have developed credibility for theirs. But that is JMO.

PB

[lookin4truth]

You will find him listed on Wikipedia as "DrPickle."

FHB,

Could your provide a link to the Wikipedia info your referred to. I did a search on the following (results listed).

DrPickle. -- No results
drpickle -- No results
dr pickle -- 380 hits

The hits that resulted from "dr pickle" were everything from the cast of Rug Rats, to information about Lyndon Johnson, etc.

I would like to read the information you referred to.

Thanks,
L4T

[PeacefulBe]

Lee,

The only questions I see are you asking Pickle if you understood him correctly and you questioning if any of it were true. I believe I have the intelligence of a reasonable person.

nw
C"i"

NW,

Your post piqued my curiosity and led me to do some research into that January 3rd post by Lee. Okay, I began searching for Lee's post of and the closest I can come up with is Aletheia's ranting attempt at rebutting a post by Bob attributed to Lee.

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...mp;#entry173953

Excuse me? The only reason there is a public "factual forum" on MSDAOL, is so you can air your opinions while everyone else is muzzled Yes I know, if we submit something in the "hidden forum" it will be considered, and you are the moderator, and post "off topic" whenever you are questioned....

AND:
Who said "maybe THE MINOR was consenting?"Not Lee, I know that. Is that why it was on the save 3abn "not" website yesterday, and is not now?


Lee wrote:
Bob, you said out of the seven people supposedly molested by TS, one is under age over on Maritime. Did I understand you correctly?

If so, then six of the seven would be considered "consenting" adults. And perhaps even the one under age was consenting, who knows if any of this is true. I have my doubts not because you posted it or because Mr. Joy investigated this, but because none of the 7 prosecuted TS or took him to court. I would certainly suggest to them that they do so as soon as possible.


underage= under 18
consenting= age of consent 17

and all at this point "alleged"

So, with a little further searching I found Lee's original text and it is just as Noahswife quoted.

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...mp;#entry167315

What was the point of Aletheia's rebuttal? As you posted and anyone can read by going to the link above, it is true that Lee said "And perhaps even the one under age was consenting..." but did not say "maybe THE MINOR was consenting.

What Aletheia went on to attempt to establish was that, per her post, "underage=under 18 and consenting=age of consent 17." On further examination of her statement I must ask, huh? Where did this statistic come from?

With the help of Google I found:
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm

ILLINOIS 17 Illinois law makes 18 the minimum age at which teachers and their students may legally have sex. Age 17 does not apply to teachers or any other school employee in a "position of authority" over the minor.

So, further Googling brought up the following bit of Illinois state Law on Article 11 Sex Offenses:
http://www.moraloutrage.net/staticpages/in...p?page=Illinois

"Child" means a person under 17 years of age.

Google is such an informative tool. FindLaw states:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20060829.html


According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - addressing a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal anti-discrimination law that prohibits workplace sexual harassment -- the answer is that an adult's advances to an underage teen need not be unwelcome in order to be actionable.

So it looks like Illinois law is pretty specific on the fact that "an adult's advances to an underage teen need not be unwelcome in order to be actionable.

Lee,

On January 3, 2007, when you stated "And perhaps even the underage one was consenting" the State of Illinois strongly disagrees with you.

PB

[Pickle]

WB,

To get a more complete view of Bob Pickle's veracity, reliability and his "good reputation" why don't you find out what a number of individuals who work on Wikipedia think of Bob's research methods. On that site, he is not very well thought of by many who work hard to put together reliable information for people to use to do research and obtain reliable information.

You will find him listed on Wikipedia as "DrPickle."

A Dr. he is not and as a reliable source of information there he is not consider that either.

- FHB

Fallible, you know as well as I do that usernames don't necessarily have any basis in reality. "Bystander" certainly doesn't. He is anything but a bystander. So what's the big deal what username anyone chooses at this forum or on WikiPedia?

But that username I chose at WikiPedia does have a basis in reality. It's just that you don't know what it is. But if you talk to some of the folks in the NE Mindinao Mission, as well as certain folks who live in these parts, you'll find out at least two of the reasons I chose that username, which has nothing to do with PhD's or MD's.

Now for you to cite the opinions of papal apologists on WikiPedia who were determined to slam Seventh-day Adventism with bogus claims and information, without also citing where they had to back down and admit that I was right on certain points, aren't you either being dishonest or ignorant in your statements?

May we assume that Danny shares your sentiments, the man who allegedly is dedicated to preaching the undiluted three angels' messages, that he has gone so far as to side with papal apologists who are out to slam the Seventh-day Adventist Church? You and Bystander have alluded to my username on WikiPedia more than once, and Danny went so far as to refer to it on Feb. 15, 2007, on global TV. You guys are so interconnected, one could easily assume that Danny, like you, will at some point cite those same papal apologists as well.

Anything but admit to a mistake. Haven't you guys ever read 1 Jn. 1:9?

[fallible humanbe...]

Now for you to cite the opinions of papal apologists on WikiPedia who were determined to slam Seventh-day Adventism with bogus claims and information, without also citing where they had to back down and admit that I was right on certain points, aren't you either being dishonest or ignorant in your statements?

The individuals you refer to were not out to slam Seventh-day Adventists. What they did was to call into question your research (which has also been admited by Adventist historians and signifiant members of Adventist research to be the opposite of your stance). Your points were insignificant and their main contention in the one article you are focusing on was correct. No Bob, I am not being dishonest nor am I being ignorant. There has been a long standing issue over the particular information you were talking about on Wikipedia, and over the years it has grown more and more obvious that you are amongst those who will not accept the truth that has been uncovered in this regard. It would be great if you were right - but you are not. Your research is based on a faulty premise that has been proven to be untrue. I don't disagree that the CC has attempted to pin titles on itself - but your research has been soundly taken to task and you have been unwilling to concede that you were wrong (just as you have done here - which, after all

It is a fact that one of the individuals you are in contention with on the site is an Adventist pastor from Bermuda. He disagrees with you and made alterations to more accurately portray current SDA thought on the issue.

As an aside, if you read the discussion page you will find that there is a style evident in your writing that also prevades the JoyPickle website.

May we assume that Danny shares your sentiments, the man who allegedly is dedicated to preaching the undiluted three angels' messages, that he has gone so far as to side with papal apologists who are out to slam the Seventh-day Adventist Church? You and Bystander have alluded to my username on WikiPedia more than once, and Danny went so far as to refer to it on Feb. 15, 2007, on global TV. You guys are so interconnected, one could easily assume that Danny, like you, will at some point cite those same papal apologists as well.

Now, Bob, here we have a classic example of your MO. You are trying to take the issue of your questionable methods and the lack of integrity of your research and apply it to the Wikipedia issue. Then by insinuation you try to tie Danny and I together and insinuate that I (and possibly Danny) am a papal apologist and because I support 3ABN they must be also . . . you continue to grow more and more as a good example of dishonesty. So, let me, for the benefit of the innocents who read here make a couple of points:

1. I am not a papal apologist, never will be. I am a Seventh-day Adventist and proud of my affiliation with God's true message. I have no doubt that Danny has never been, and will never be a papal apologist either.

2. I have not spoken to Danny Shelton, nor feed him information about you. (Maybe you would be surprised - no will be surprised at what people do know about you without ever having known each other).

You twist and manipulate the words presented to you. You are unethical in your approaches and this should, for all reasoned readers, call into question your "investigation."

- FHB

[ex3ABNemployee]

why is no one from the PRo-tommy, pro danny side willing to say on the public record Tommy shelton did nothing to Victims 1-10 or tommy did make advance to this guy but not that guy, I mean it is much easyier to forgive and offer healing to the victims and to the victimizer when the whole truth and nothing but the truth is known.

I'm going to address this. I've been wanting to for a while, but I wouldn't do it because of the cocky and arrogant way I was asked about it from certain unnamed people (and I DO mean unnamed).

I posted the apology letter from Tommy Shelton to me for 2 reasons. Obviously, number one was because he took responsibility for what happened and said that I resisted him. He said it was his fault (It was). This puts me in the clear.

Number two was because it did show at least some remorse on Tommy's part for what happened. I thought that maybe it would help to shine a little better light on him. After the letters he and Carol wrote blasting everyone and still not denying what happened, though, I think that's probably a lost cause now.

Now everyone knows why the apology is online. I did it for myself AND Tommy. It's not my fault that it blew up in his face. He has done all this to himself. I'm not happy about it, that's just the way it is.

The main point is this, Bob Pickle demands answers from everyone, while always conveniently avoiding questions put to him. I guess he gets what he gives. His methods have proven duplicitous and dishonest, which for those who are aware of what he has done, calls into question the results of his work.

He has answered plenty of questions from me. I guess it all depends on whether he thinks you can handle the answers.

[fallible humanbe...]

FHB,

Could your provide a link to the Wikipedia info your referred to. I did a search on the following (results listed).

DrPickle. -- No results
drpickle -- No results
dr pickle -- 380 hits

The hits that resulted from "dr pickle" were everything from the cast of Rug Rats, to information about Lyndon Johnson, etc.

I would like to read the information you referred to.

Thanks,
L4T

L4T,

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DrPickle

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...;action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vicarius_Filii_Dei

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Str1977/Archive4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA...stance/Archive6

The issue there is not whether the CC has faulty theology - it is the methods of Bob Pickle's work. His research has been proven to be faulty and even disavowed by the SDA churches historians. It would be a great thing to pin this on the CC, but the evidence isn't there to support it. Even when he has been proven wrong he will not admit it.


- FHB

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Mar 12 2007, 11:49 PM

[Bystander]

I'm going to address this. I've been wanting to for a while, but I wouldn't do it because of the cocky and arrogant way I was asked about it from certain unnamed people (and I DO mean unnamed).

I posted the apology letter from Tommy Shelton to me for 2 reasons. Obviously, number one was because he took responsibility for what happened and said that I resisted him. He said it was his fault (It was). This puts me in the clear.

I am still trying to understand why you didn't post your answer to him. that is only fair.

[Bystander]

The individuals you refer to were not out to slam Seventh-day Adventists. What they did was to call into question your research (which has also been admited by Adventist historians and signifiant members of Adventist research to be the opposite of your stance). Your points were insignificant and their main contention in the one article you are focusing on was correct. No Bob, I am not being dishonest nor am I being ignorant. There has been a long standing issue over the particular information you were talking about on Wikipedia, and over the years it has grown more and more obvious that you are amongst those who will not accept the truth that has been uncovered in this regard. It would be great if you were right - but you are not. Your research is based on a faulty premise that has been proven to be untrue. I don't disagree that the CC has attempted to pin titles on itself - but your research has been soundly taken to task and you have been unwilling to concede that you were wrong (just as you have done here - which, after all

It is a fact that one of the individuals you are in contention with on the site is an Adventist pastor from Bermuda. He disagrees with you and made alterations to more accurately portray current SDA thought on the issue.

As an aside, if you read the discussion page you will find that there is a style evident in your writing that also prevades the JoyPickle website.
Now, Bob, here we have a classic example of your MO. You are trying to take the issue of your questionable methods and the lack of integrity of your research and apply it to the Wikipedia issue. Then by insinuation you try to tie Danny and I together and insinuate that I (and possibly Danny) am a papal apologist and because I support 3ABN they must be also . . . you continue to grow more and more as a good example of dishonesty. So, let me, for the benefit of the innocents who read here make a couple of points:

1. I am not a papal apologist, never will be. I am a Seventh-day Adventist and proud of my affiliation with God's true message. I have no doubt that Danny has never been, and will never be a papal apologist either.

2. I have not spoken to Danny Shelton, nor feed him information about you. (Maybe you would be surprised - no will be surprised at what people do know about you without ever having known each other).

You twist and manipulate the words presented to you. You are unethical in your approaches and this should, for all reasoned readers, call into question your "investigation."

- FHB

Never have I seen a more beautiful example of the Pickled Propaganda. He first says you "must be" a papal apologists, then says if you are then that means that Danny S must be.
Honestly, since we have called everyone's attention to this so much, you would think he would be more careful. Instead he is amplifying his ludicrous assassination of word play.

Also, for those that say Bobby boy does not have to answer questions if the rest of us don't. You would be comparing apples and oranges. None of us have claimed to be an "investigator" on the trail of a "so called corrupt" ministry. None of us have claimed to be a direct representative of anyone. He has. You all tell me. He claims all his info his true, he claims he doesn't push and harass to get it, he claims to be part of an investigative team with Joy, so why distance yourself from the writing at save 3abn not? Somebody has to make up those enquirer type sensational headlines. Sounds right up your alley BBP.