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

[Pickle]

Why hassle with the middle man (unless all correspondence to the JoyPickle site is forwarded to you) just have her send them directly to you.

- FHB

Naw, send them to Save3ABN.com, the Gailon Joy site.

And where is the June 4, 2004 document. What was really spelled out there?

Certain items that Linda brought into the marriage were excluded, as well as the guitars and horses, two glass cases, two treadmills, all antiques and knicknacks in the basement and closet, a blue vibrating chair, a white wicker shelf unit, baby chairs, a doll house, a bedroom set, three glass curio cabinets, antique family tables, and miscellaneous small items. Something like that.

Perhaps there are some items above that have been mentioned twice.

AFAIC The more letters you publish the more it calls into account the credibility and truthfulness of the previous testimony on this forum.

You know, Cindy, it just might be possible that the discrepancy you've brought up will get featured on Save3ABN. On the one hand we have Walt saying that Linda got all the furniture. on the other hand we've got Danny saying in an official document that Linda didn't get all the furniture. Who's telling the truth?

I appreciate you bringing this to our attention.

Additionally, Bob Pickle, one of Linda's most ardent spokespersons has developed your idea of spinning into an art.

Really? You think so?

If I start classes, will you sign up?

[Seraphim7]

[Noahswife]

You know, Cindy, it just might be possible that the discrepancy you've brought up will get featured on Save3ABN. On the one hand we have Walt saying that Linda got all the furniture. on the other hand we've got Danny saying in an official document that Linda didn't get all the furniture. Who's telling the truth?

I appreciate you bringing this to our attention.

[princessdi]

I keep saying it......comprehension is key.....

[daylily]

If Shelly Quinn is co-author, wouldn't she get half the profits from the books?

[PrincessDrRe]

You (Aletheia) stated if Linda lies how can you believe anything from her... so if a person is engaged in twisting the "facts" or spinning the story a certain way, how are they to be believed?

Pot. Kettle. Black.
Excellent point Clay!

....I have only been following this story since it unfolded... and as I stated, even if Linda was the devil incarnate, she should not have been treated as she was..... do you not agree?

...and that's it in a nutshell. Hook. Line. Sinker.

End of story.

Pernt blank.

[Seraphim7]

Pot. Kettle. Black.
Excellent point Clay!


...and that's it in a nutshell. Hook. Line. Sinker.

End of story.

Pernt blank.

Can we say -

- We know these folks aren't listenin

I agree... Pernt blank -

[Observer]

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.

FHB:

Please show me one instance where I have depended upon THE TELEVANGELIST for anything that I said.

NOTE: You called it a fictional piece of work. I am not intendimg to argue in this post whether THE TELEVANGELIST is true, or fictional. On the assumption that you refernced it, I have named it. Show me once where I have done that.

It appears to me that you have smeared with a wide brush, where you have no facts to back you up.

NOTE: I realize that you can respond that you only stated that one person had depended on that work. But, in one sentence you clearly state that I am one who have spun the story. Then in your next sentence you mention THE TELEVANGELIST. So, did (do) I depend upon it? Are you including me? If so, produce the evidence. If not, clearly state such.

This post has been edited by Observer: Mar 22 2007, 07:30 PM

[HUGGINS130]

Pot. Kettle. Black.
Excellent point Clay!


...and that's it in a nutshell. Hook. Line. Sinker.

End of story.

Pernt blank.

Can we say -

- We know these folks aren't listenin

I agree... Pernt blank -

PERNT BLANK, now back to our regularly scheduled program...

[Aletheia]

Bystander... you have not paid attention.... Cindy herself said she was not credible.... likewise your comments have not addressed the issues but are personal attacks.... time out.... 24 hours...

Excuse me?!?

I certainly did not say "I am not credible" You just said that, Mr J has said that, as have others.

I said I am not trying to establish my credibility here. Meaning that was, and is not my intent in posting. What I posted was quotes from others, those quotes stand on their own, and do not rise or fall because of who or what I am. They could have been posted by anybody, and have been adressed by practically nobody, that is far different then saying "I am not credible"

Please do NOT put your opinions in my mouth.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Mar 22 2007, 09:39 PM

[Pickle]

If Shelly Quinn is co-author, wouldn't she get half the profits from the books?

Hard to say. Maybe. But what sort of deal did they work out?

Here's another question: We know TCTR is an excerpt of Antichrist Agenda. Is the latter a rework or an expansion of an earlier work (pamphlet or whatever) on the Sabbath? Anyone know?

[Seraphim7]

Excuse me?!?

I certainly did not say "I am not credible"...

Please do NOT put your opinions in my mouth.

Now that IS a scary visual

[Aletheia]

Hard to say. Maybe. But what sort of deal did they work out?

Here's another question: We know TCTR is an excerpt of Antichrist Agenda. Is the latter a rework or an expansion of an earlier work (pamphlet or whatever) on the Sabbath? Anyone know?

A ongoing discussion about this has already taken over the "new letters at Save3ABN" thread, maybe rather then spreading it out over a bunch of threads it could all be kept in one place?

Can you and daylilly, and whoever else take this discussion there, or to another thread where it is on topic?


Thank you.

[Aletheia]

Clay wrote:
....I have only been following this story since it unfolded... and as I stated, even if Linda was the devil incarnate, she should not have been treated as she was..... do you not agree?

Pot. Kettle. Black.


Excellent point Clay!


...and that's it in a nutshell. Hook. Line. Sinker.

End of story.

Pernt blank.

*IF* that is YOUR standard, *IF* that is how YOU see it, then I agree you should follow that, so do YOU also believe this?

....I have only been following this story since it unfolded... and as I stated, even if Danny was the devil incarnate, he should not have been treated as he was..... do you not agree?

Do YOU?

Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Act 10:34 ... Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons




Jam 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

[awesumtenor]

Excuse me?!?

I certainly did not say "I am not credible" You just said that, Mr J has said that, as have others.

I said I am not trying to establish my credibility here. Meaning that was, and is not my intent in posting.

True; your intent in posting here is to attempt to destroy the credibility of others. The problem you continue to face is that you, by your own admission, are not a "witness"... and you are trying to refute the testimony of those who are.

Lacking a first person testimony of your own, the only way for you to make them less credible is for you to establish that you are more credible than they, in spite of their being principals and participants and your not being so... so whether you are trying to establish your credibilty or not... everything you post is dependent on said credibility... because you have nothing else.

Your read on events and statements is irrelevant if you are not credible... and to date... you are not credible.

Attitude and indignation from you and those who wish to defend you doesn't change that.

Because you are not a 'witness', you can review, assess and interpret statements and events... but your doing so is contingent upon how credible you are deemed by others. You don't have first hand facts to refute anything... because you are not a 'witness'.

You can only go on what you have been told by others... and the majority of those feeding you information are no more 'witnesses' than you... and yet you expect people to take your slant as gospel... even over first hand statements... without your establishing your credibility...

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

In His service,
Mr. J