Things That Make You Go Hmmm..., --letters on save 3ABN not -- contradict earlier testimony here Options

[Clay]

O.. kay. Guess you missed Mr J's usual accusations, and focus on the poster, rather then on what is posted??

Cindy, that is not the focus of this discussion.... at least I didn't think it was.... now if that is the direction you wish to go in, let us know....

[HUGGINS130]

Aletheia said:

Linda chose another man over her ministry and her husband.

Verify the facts please

[awesumtenor]

O.. kay. Guess you missed Mr J's usual accusations, and focus on the poster, rather then on what is posted??

Mat 7:1-5 Judge not, that ye be not judged. (2) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (3) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (4) Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? (5) Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

All you have done since coming to this forum is sling accusations and focus on attacking and discrediting posters.

"...with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged and with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again... "

Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Or in the vernacular... "dont start none; wont be none..."

You neither like nor appreciate being held to this scrutiny; ergo the Christianity you profess say you need to stop scrutinizing others in like manner... right now you have the golden rule twisted; you want men to treat you one way while you do something altogether different to them.

So, in the words of a hip-hop prophet... you need to check yourself before you wreck yourself...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Clay]

Mat 7:1-5 Judge not, that ye be not judged. (2) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (3) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (4) Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? (5) Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

All you have done since coming to this forum is sling accusations and focus on attacking and discrediting posters.

"...with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged and with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again... "

Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Or in the vernacular... "dont start none; wont be none..."

You neither like nor appreciate being held to this scrutiny; ergo the Christianity you profess say you need to stop scrutinizing others in like manner... right now you have the golden rule twisted; you want men to treat you one way while you do something altogether different to them.

So, in the words of a hip-hop prophet... you need to check yourself before you wreck yourself...

In His service,
Mr. J

while what you have said may be true... my concern is that Cindy has chosen to view Danny's version of the events to the exclusion of everything else no matter how compelling that evidence may be.....

It goes back to a comment I made earlier and probably ties into something you have just posted (judging evidence but not wanting our evidence judged in like manner), that being even with compelling evidence some that support Danny will not believe said evidence..... and that may have to do with perception... and those who support Danny perceive that he is more "credible."

We can continue to discuss that interesting position without making this thread about Cindy.... even though she started this thread......

This post has been edited by Clay: Mar 22 2007, 10:12 AM

[awesumtenor]

while what you have said may be true... my concern is that Cindy has chosen to view Danny's version of the events to the exclusion of everything else no matter how compelling that evidence may be.....

It goes back to a comment I made earlier and probably ties into something you have just posted, that being even with compelling evidence some that support Danny will not believe said evidence.....

We can continue to discuss that interesting position without making this thread about Cindy.... even though she started this thread......

True... the point I'm making is with her not being a 'witness'... to any of this... she is not in a position to say what happened or did not happen... nor is she in a position to refute the testimony of someone who was there with her own observations and experience... so the only club in her bag is ad hominem, in the hope of discrediting those who have stated their experience enough to make them incredible...

It boils down to she don't know nuthin' 'bout nuthin'; everything she has is based on what someone told someone else who told her... the hypocrisy comes in when she only selectively listens to such hearsay and does not insist those she will believe provide proof in like manner as she demands of those she will not believe...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Aletheia]

Clay:

Perhaps.... are you righteous enough to cast the first stone?

I don't ever knowingly or willfully lie, if I say somethiing false in error, or because of assuming, I try to correct it and apologise as soon as it's brought to my attention, so in this regard, yes, I believe it's ok for me to point out a lie.

But the problem here Clay, is this forum is full of sticks and stones, so is this thread, and are you asking all the posters doing so, if they are righteous?

so your point is what? Because you did not hear them, it must not have happened? Again, other people have indicated they some things Danny said to them, yet you have chosen not to believe them. Which supports my point that you will not believe anything negative about Danny because it does not agree with your perception of him.

My point is I have neither defended and condoned, nor criticised and condemned, for I lack the knowledge to do either. I said I have not seen evidence of this early trashing, except third party reporting or vague references to the limited explanation offered by 3ABN for Linda's absence, and nothing else specific. Now if someone wants to present the "evidence of the trashing". then I'll look at it. I have asked previously what people were talking about and got nothing.

When relationships break down it is my experience that there is more than enough blame to go around.
You know this to be a fact how? You have stated that you were not a witness. So you don't know what happened behind closed doors or on the phone. In essence you have chosen to believe Danny's version of what happened. That is fine, just admit that as opposed to suggesting that Danny's version is the only version that exists.

I am only going by what has been posted here, and on the save 3abn website, and what I have or have not been able to verify.

Then Cindy if that is the way you feel, perhaps you need to go to that other site and state just that.....
indeed it is Cindy.... if the messenger is not credible then people tend not to believe the message.... People will evaluate the message based on the credibility of the messenger....

The save3abn website is not a forum... the people contributing and running it are here....

Anyone can quote what is posted here as evidence, and it doesn't disapear or lack validity because someone objects to the poster.

I have to go clean out my car before it gets picked up and do some other things.

I'll check back in later, maybe somebody will actually comment on the content of my initial post...

[Clay]

Cindy said:

I personally can't understand someone having this opinion:
"The simple fact is this, even if Linda did every thing she was accused of, even if she was a modern day Gomer, she should not have been treated as she was. That's it in a nutshell for me. It seems to me that those who support Danny have condoned his initial treatment of her. I do not. His treatment lacked compassion, justice and humility... it did however include humiliation..."

who can't in all fairness after reading all here and on the Save3ABN website, make this same claim:

"The simple fact is this, even if Danny did every thing he was accused of, even if he was a modern day __ he should not be treated as he is. That's it in a nutshell for me. It seems to me that those who support Linda have condoned her initial treatment of him, and their continuing treatment of him. I do not. Their treatment lacks compassion, justice and humility... it does however include humiliation..."

So then you are agreeing with me Cindy that Linda was mistreated?

Danny is still on the set of the ministry he helped establish.... that ministry has assets of 42 million dollars... It will be difficult to prove how Linda has mistreated Danny given those facts. However, you may have evidence that suggests she did.... do you?

[awesumtenor]

Cindy said:

So then you are agreeing with me Cindy that Linda was mistreated?

Danny is still on the set of the ministry he helped establish.... that ministry has assets of 42 million dollars... It will be difficult to prove how Linda has mistreated Danny given those facts. However, you may have evidence that suggests she did.... do you?

How can she... when, by her own admission, she is not a witness, nor has she ever seen or spoken to DS...

Where would such a one obtain said evidence... and how was it verified?

In His service,
Mr. J

[Clay]

Cindy said:

I have to go clean out my car before it gets picked up and do some other things.

I'll check back in later, maybe somebody will actually comment on the content of my initial post...

Your initial point.... hmmmmmm let's see, it appears you are attempting to suggest that someone or someone's testimony is not "credible" yet you said yourself here in this thread that your credibility is not important. So then, if your credibility is not important why would you make an effort to prove someone else is not credible?

That is my comment on your initial post....

[awesumtenor]

Cindy said:

Your initial point.... hmmmmmm let's see, it appears you are attempting to suggest that someone or someone's testimony is not "credible" yet you said yourself here in this thread that your credibility is not important. So then, if your credibility is not important why would you make an effort to prove someone else is not credible?

That is my comment on your initial post....

That is also the essence of my comment on said post...

In His service,
Mr. J

[watchbird]

O.. kay. Guess you missed Mr J's usual accusations, and focus on the poster, rather then on what is posted??

Cindy, that is not the focus of this discussion.... at least I didn't think it was.... now if that is the direction you wish to go in, let us know....

Just from reading... and rereading, in fact.... the posts in this thread from its beginning, it seems apparent to me that Cindy's focus was upon personalities who have posted rather than facts that have been posted. The slim amount of "facts" that she presented had only to do with the question of how much Linda moved out of the house that had been hers and Danny's.

But this was never posed as a question. Conflicting statements about this were posted as evidence that Linda was lying. They were not posted in a manner that gave evidence of seeking additional evidence on one side or the other... or possibly on a "third side" which might have found a way to give context to each so they might each be true reflections of what happened. The stated and reiterated purpose was to show that Linda was a liar.

And since we have ample evidence from prior postings of how Cindy has twisted what someone has said in posts that immediately preceded hers, there is little to keep us from assuming that once more she is expecting us to take her reading of things as the only truth that matters. Thus, by default, if not by design, this thread IS about her and her way of looking at things.

while what you have said may be true... my concern is that Cindy has chosen to view Danny's version of the events to the exclusion of everything else no matter how compelling that evidence may be.....

And/or her view of the evidence which has been gleaned from Danny's own emails. This, however, does not take into sufficient account the facts that Danny is not consistent in his own emails, and that one can get a MUCH different veiw of the "evidence" just by reading a series of his emails... sometimes done within a very short time of each other... and sometimes the inconsistency shows up within the very same email.

It goes back to a comment I made earlier and probably ties into something you have just posted (judging evidence but not wanting our evidence judged in like manner), that being even with compelling evidence some that support Danny will not believe said evidence..... and that may have to do with perception... and those who support Danny perceive that he is more "credible."

We can continue to discuss that interesting position without making this thread about Cindy.... even though she started this thread......

I think, if you will occasionally go back and read through the whole series of posts in this thread rather than trusting memory for that, that you will discover that it will be well nigh impossible to keep from "making this thread about Cindy"... since that is the direction she keeps pushing it.

Now IF it were actually about the facts of the topics in her opening post... that is, about the truth of the allegations about the division of their personal property.... then there would be some appeals for information from objective sources. For example... since there is an as yet unconcluded court inquiry into this question.... since there are some yet unanswered questions in some areas.... then surely the lawyers involved must have done some rather detailed work on the divisions that have taken place so far. But I'm not seeing any evidence that Cindy is even interested in this fact.... much less any indication that she has made any effort to contact objective sources as to what the details of the property divisions actually were.

What is interesting is that there are people reading this forum who know some of those facts. Why are they not speaking up? It is my guess that they realize that this thread is not part of a search for truth, but merely one more case of Cindy trying to establish her credibiliy as an arbitrator, judge, and jury all rolled into one... and not merely on the allegations on Danny and Linda, but on the credibility of all who speak up to give their testimonies or the results of their research.

[awesumtenor]

I don't ever knowingly or willfully lie

Positing absolute negations you've already violated is not going to help your credibility, Cindy...

if I say somethiing false in error, or because of assuming, I try to correct it and apologise as soon as it's brought to my attention, so in this regard, yes, I believe it's ok for me to point out a lie.

Which means it's ok for your lies to be pointed out... nothing personal; it's strictly business.

My point is I have neither defended and condoned, nor criticised and condemned, for I lack the knowledge to do either.

You do realize this statement contradicts your initial statement quoted above, don't you? There are myriad posts from you full of your defending DS and criticizing/condemning LS... in spite of your professed lack of knowledge.

Which either means that you do, in fact, knowingly and willfully lie... or that you are confused in the extreme and you do not realize when you make contradictory or mutually exclusive statements...

Anyone can quote what is posted here as evidence, and it doesn't disapear or lack validity because someone objects to the poster.

This statement applies to you too; the sooner you realize it, the better you'll be...

This post has been edited by awesumtenor: Mar 22 2007, 11:04 AM

[fallible humanbe...]

. . . Conflicting statements about this were posted as evidence that Linda was lying. They were not posted in a manner that gave evidence of seeking additional evidence on one side or the other... or possibly on a "third side" which might have found a way to give context to each so they might each be true reflections of what happened. The stated and reiterated purpose was to show that Linda was a liar.

Cindy has done her research - included in that are the words of sister and yourself. You and others continually claim that she (among others) is attempting to "spin" things in her direction. It is easily arguable that you, WB, as well as sister, Johann, Bob Pickle, Greg Matthews, and G.A. Joy, via his surrogates, have all spun a story as well. Your dependence on a fictional piece of writing as your basis for your position is a "spin" exercise by the definition that has been developed for that word in this community.

Additionally, Bob Pickle, one of Linda's most ardent spokespersons has developed your idea of spinning into an art. This has been pointed out numerous times and the evidence has been unmistakable and yet you support his interpretations as though they were divinely inspired as well as the words of sister.

Now, along come individuals who are questioning inconsistencies in what you have based your opinions on and you don't like it. I understand. No one likes to have the world they have constructed around themselves to be questioned - because that means having to face inconsistancies and falsehoods that are used to prop up that world. But, that doesn't make the challenges of no import. Instead it should bring you to re-examine your world and see if it needs some housekeeping.

Cindy's point is not to convice you, Emerson said, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." . . . so Cindy isn't trying to change your mind - instead she is working to bring a balanced perspective, and truth, to the discussions that have taken place here. She isn't talking to you, but to those who want to examine the situation anew - and part of that means adding an understanding of Linda's character and those defending her, since your side has already attempted to create a picture of Danny's and 3ABN's character.

And since we have ample evidence from prior postings of how Cindy has twisted what someone has said in posts that immediately preceded hers, there is little to keep us from assuming that once more she is expecting us to take her reading of things as the only truth that matters. Thus, by default, if not by design, this thread IS about her and her way of looking at things.

No, you would like to make it about her because then that takes the focus off the evidence of lies and misleading on the other side of the coin. If you can successfully make this about someone other than Linda and her defense team, then you effectively hijack the thread and turn it into a personal attack. However, that does not diminish the fact that what is presented is strong evidence that the "spinning" and misleading has been done by Linda's side of the coin.

. . . For example... since there is an as yet unconcluded court inquiry into this question....

I raised this question in an earlier thread, maybe since your proximity to Linda is what it is, you can answer this question. Why was the case almost thrown out recently? Why did the judge almost end the proceedings? The answer I have received from people very aware of the proceedings would support the claim that Cindy is making in her OP. There is much untruth coming from the Linda camp - always has been.

. . . objective sources as to what the details of the property divisions actually were.

Has your opinion been formed from objective third party sources - or directly from Linda?

It is my guess that they realize that this thread is not part of a search for truth . . .

How do you know the intent of this thread? Can you read minds? You make the above statement as if you talked to Cindy this morning and she said the thread was not a search for the truth.

Your post is an attempt to discredit and call into question Cindy, you are not addressing the OP, nor are you adding any information that is substantive. Instead you are continuing your exercise of disparaging anyone who comes along to claim that there is filth in the Linda camp and that if one is to understand the whole complex issue they need to know that the "evidence" presented by Joy, Matthews, Pickle, et. al. has been altered, manipulated, and I am going to go out on a limb and say some of it may be manufactured.

For ages now, you and others of Linda's staunch defenders have claimed that she has said nothing. That in itself is a massive untruth. The emails between her and Danny for instance come directly from her - and you can not hide behind the idea that they came from a third party because she happened to BCC people in her replies. Her personal correspondence, between herself and Danny, had to be turned over by her to others either in the from of BCC, or emailing them to a third party who then passed them on . . . the point being that they could have not come from any other originating source then Linda since she was the one who received them. They were hers, she decided to do what she did with them and it is obvious she shared them with others and then clearly gave her permission for their use as they are currently being used. A thrid party, sympathizing with Linda, would not pass them on to individuals such as Bob Pickle, Greg Matthews, or Gailon A. Joy, without her permission. She has clearly given the go ahead for all that has been made public about her relationship with Danny and his family and friends - that is the same thing as saying it yourself. The things that are so deeply personal and are now public have her signature of approval all over them.

At any given point, if she truly wanted to take the high road she would have said "NO" to making public all of these things. If she wanted to take the high road she wouldn't have shared stories about her intimate life with Johann (and that is the one we know of so far). The truth is this, you expected to be able to have your space here and vent your anger and frustrations about 3ABN without challenge. Challenge has arrived and you would like to do nothing more than silence it and keep the world you have created in tact.

- FHB

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Mar 22 2007, 12:05 PM

[Lee]

I don't ever knowingly or willfully lie, if I say somethiing false in error, or because of assuming, I try to correct it and apologise as soon as it's brought to my attention, so in this regard, yes, I believe it's ok for me to point out a lie.

But the problem here Clay, is this forum is full of sticks and stones, so is this thread, and are you asking all the posters doing so, if they are righteous?
My point is I have neither defended and condoned, nor criticised and condemned, for I lack the knowledge to do either. I said I have not seen evidence of this early trashing, except third party reporting or vague references to the limited explanation offered by 3ABN for Linda's absence, and nothing else specific. Now if someone wants to present the "evidence of the trashing". then I'll look at it. I have asked previously what people were talking about and got nothing.
I am only going by what has been posted here, and on the save 3abn website, and what I have or have not been able to verify.
The save3abn website is not a forum... the people contributing and running it are here....

Anyone can quote what is posted here as evidence, and it doesn't disapear or lack validity because someone objects to the poster.



I have to go clean out my car before it gets picked up and do some other things.

I'll check back in later, maybe somebody will actually comment on the content of my initial post...

Cindy--just go ahead and post your facts on here. Show us the lies. Obviously Clay and Mr. J. are trying to stop you from doing this by arguing over trite issues. Ignore them. Just ignore all their posts and all their comments and all the unfounded accusations as well as others. I'm very interested in what you have found. And I appreciate your first post on here. I am quite sure others do too.

[Clay]

Cindy--just go ahead and post your facts on here. Show us the lies. Obviously Clay and Mr. J. are trying to stop you from doing this by arguing over trite issues. Ignore them. Just ignore all their posts and all their comments and all the unfounded accusations as well as others. I'm very interested in what you have found. And I appreciate your first post on here. I am quite sure others do too.

Cindy indicated she was not a witness so she cannot post facts... she can share what she believes...... No effort has been made to stop Cindy from posting anything, I asked her a few questions....

Remember Lee things will be done politely as possible from this point on... so mind your manners..... this is not a threat, but a reminder... if you need to speak to me specifically, feel free to PM me...