Mr Joy's Creditability, Owner of save3abn.com Options

[Pickle]

Think Bob, you know I'm right.

No, you're wrong, Bystander, and you know you are. Dryden's 2003 letter has nothing to do with a vengeful ex-wife. Walt's claim that Danny told him the allegations against Tommy were 30 years old and due to a feud with Dryden had nothing to do with a vengeful ex-wife. Danny and Tommy lying on the air on Dec. 31, 2006, had nothing to do with a vengeful ex-wife (Tommy said that if it weren't for the ferry, he could cope). Danny lying on the air on Feb. 15, 2007, about ASI being willing to hear any complaints and accusations had nothing to do with a vengeful ex-wife.

[fallible humanbe...]

Yes, this does sound familiar.

Sera,

There seems to be a problem with your posting functions as you just don't seem to be able to get them to quote things correctly. The post you quoted actually said:

. . it appears that it may be difficult to deal with them without it being unnecessarily embarrassing to John.

This sounds rather familiar. I think it was in an email or PM intended to intimitate me into being quite the last time I questioned your side of the fence.

[quote name=Pickle @ Mar 27 2007, 12:46 AM]But Gailon is toying with finding some sort of way to address them. I have no idea what he will decide to do, but he's shared enough details that I can see that there is likely no truth at all in any of it.[/qoute]


Well, Gailon doesn't seem to have a track record that you would want to bet on Bob. I did say in an earlier post (may or may not be true) because I am willing to give G.A. Joy the benefit of offering his side. The only time he has ever offered anything directly from him was when the issue of his embezzelment was raised and it seemed to be quite a bit of song and dance to try and techincally make his actions legitimate.

There are those who have already begun to dig deeper and the truth will reveal itself even if Gailon and you do not Bob. Be patient.

- FHB

[Bystander]

Bob, I am lol! This thread has me really giggling!

My next comment is very true. It really did happen! However, understand that I was not an eyewitness!

Back when this mess began and I was receiving emails from everyewhere about Danny Shelton, one made me really laugh!

I got an email saying Danny Shelton was a male stripper wanna be ! He says he is a Seventh-day Adventist. I remember reading that the desired result was not achieved.

I can remember when I danced on top of tables! That was years ago, of coarse. I had to stop because every one started hitting on me. But, boy it was one of those fleeting, few, wild, and fun times when I was attached to the world!

Now, today, I could dance AND strip on top of a table and everyone would yell FIRE and run for their lives, leaving me to burn! Oh, to be young again!

This is the only reference I have ever heard of a Seventh-day Adventist being a male stripper (Chippendale dancer).

It struck me odd that this new information against Joy could just maybe be coming from...

Yes of course Fran you must be correct. If DS which is obviously who you are insinuating was to go on a forum under an assumed name I am sure he would put a chippendale dancer in his profile. Yes, that would make total sense Fran. By gummies, you've solved another one.

[fallible humanbe...]

Fallible,

It would be helpful if you could dig up some sort of document to support John's allegations. Plus, you have a Christian duty to attempt to contact Gailon about this.

Do you currently, regularly attend the church you call your home church?

Bob,

On point one. You don't have a leg to stand on as has been pointed out to you previously.

On point two, why do you care?

- FHB

[Bystander]

No, you're wrong, Bystander, and you know you are. Dryden's 2003 letter has nothing to do with a vengeful ex-wife. Walt's claim that Danny told him the allegations against Tommy were 30 years old and due to a feud with Dryden had nothing to do with a vengeful ex-wife. Danny and Tommy lying on the air on Dec. 31, 2006, had nothing to do with a vengeful ex-wife (Tommy said that if it weren't for the ferry, he could cope). Danny lying on the air on Feb. 15, 2007, about ASI being willing to hear any complaints and accusations had nothing to do with a vengeful ex-wife.

Bob, I believe FHB was correct that TS goes in another thread.
you and Mr. Joy have the honor of having this one.

[awesumtenor]

Mr. J,

Can you refute the claims in the OP? If you are bothered by the fact that Gailon has put himself into the lime light I find that surprising.

You and I are only taking what is being put out there as the purported truth and asking questions and finding answers. You want Danny, et. al. to answer all questions - so then encourage those you place your lot with to do the same.

- FHB

Im not talking about Danny here; I am talking about your standing around here pondering how it would be if you were king of the forest and wondering if the wizard can give you some courage.

The fact that you wont even identify yourself says the claims of the OP are irrelevant. According to God's law there is no such thing as anonymous testimony and you cant bring a charge against someone else without identifying yourself... not to mention it takes 2 or 3 witnesses to establish a matter.

According to man's law, you made the charge, the burden of proof is on you to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt; if you are not willing or able to do that, I don't even have to be bothered to refute your claims.

You made the charge; you have the burden of proof...but your insistence on anonymity makes you less than credible.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Pickle]

You misunderstood what I said. I wasn't talking about FHB's identity. I was talking about his persona. Look at the bottom of the page. He doesn't allow Fallible Human Being to appear at the bottom of the page when he is around. Bystander and Lee's names aren't appearing either.

That's their right to be an anonymous user if they want to be. It may be because they are afraid. It may be for strategy purposes. All I was doing was asking why, but acknowledging that they have a right to do that.

Pseudonyms vs. anonymous users. Two different issues.

Un Bob now you know this is not allowed. I know you are one of the few you has your identity availabl, but we are going to respect all who wish to keep th eirs annonymous...on both sides.......

Bob, I believe FHB was correct that TS goes in another thread.
you and Mr. Joy have the honor of having this one.

You asked me for a list, and I gave you a few items. Why complain?

[fallible humanbe...]

On the other hand these allegations against Joy didn't come from any ex wife that we know about and we would have to ask ourselves why would some guy come out of nowhere to make false allegations against Joy when he has nothing whatsoever to gain?

Especially since he also indicates he finds himself on Linda's side in regards to the divorce and relieving her of her duties at 3ABN.

- FHB

[Pickle]

Bob,

On point one. You don't have a leg to stand on as has been pointed out to you previously.

On point two, why do you care?

- FHB

On point one, give me solid examples to show that I don't. Since you haven't yet, we can only assume that you know that I definitely have at least one leg that works.

On point two, why is it so difficult for you to say that you currently and regularly attend the church you claim is your home church?

Yes of course Fran you must be correct. If DS which is obviously who you are insinuating was to go on a forum under an assumed name I am sure he would put a chippendale dancer in his profile. Yes, that would make total sense Fran. By gummies, you've solved another one.

No, I think she was referring to the fact that a pastor wrote Danny referring to a male stripper, and Danny responded back. The implication is that Danny is the one being referred to. The allegation is that he was exposing himself.

On the other hand these allegations against Joy didn't come from any ex wife that we know about and we would have to ask ourselves why would some guy come out of nowhere to make false allegations against Joy when he has nothing whatsoever to gain?

Excellent question.

And more importantly, what evidence has he produced to support his claims? Or are his accusations as unsupported as Danny's against Linda?

[fallible humanbe...]

You made the charge; you have the burden of proof...but your insistence on anonymity makes you less than credible.

In His service,
Mr. J

Mr J,

And here you are wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt. I made no accusations, made no claims, I asked if those made by someone else were infact true. If these claims which have been made by others as well were true.

I did not accuse, only asked if they were true. The fire storm that ensued seems to be an indication that the concerns may have validity in fact. We will see as things flesh out over the next few weeks.

- FHB

[Aletheia]

Bystander wrote:
FHB, when someone goes to questioning you about your church attendance, you can be pretty sure, he is avoiding the question.

Bob replied:
I've been talking to Gailon, and he was curious when the last time your church had its books audited, Bystander. Care to comment?

[Pickle]

Regarding FHB's reference to the next few weeks:

Bluff, bluff?

This post has been edited by Pickle: Mar 26 2007, 11:33 PM

[Bystander]

Im not talking about Danny here; I am talking about your standing around here pondering how it would be if you were king of the forest and wondering if the wizard can give you some courage.

The fact that you wont even identify yourself says the claims of the OP are irrelevant. According to God's law there is no such thing as anonymous testimony and you cant bring a charge against someone else without identifying yourself... not to mention it takes 2 or 3 witnesses to establish a matter.

According to man's law, you made the charge, the burden of proof is on you to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt; if you are not willing or able to do that, I don't even have to be bothered to refute your claims.

You made the charge; you have the burden of proof...but your insistence on anonymity makes you less than credible.

In His service,
Mr. J

I am sure, then, that you will want to adjust your "credibility criteria" and no longer listen to sister, watchbird, sonshineonme, mozart, hershey, and a myriad of others coming from your camp. After all, insistence on anonymity makes them less than credible.

[Pickle]

Yes, Bystander, since you dodged that one, how about it? When were the books at your church last audited? Is there accountability regarding how the money is handled at the church you attend?

Notice, no accusations.

[Bystander]

On point one, give me solid examples to show that I don't. Since you haven't yet, we can only assume that you know that I definitely have at least one leg that works.

On point two, why is it so difficult for you to say that you currently and regularly attend the church you claim is your home church?
No, I think she was referring to the fact that a pastor wrote Danny referring to a male stripper, and Danny responded back. The implication is that Danny is the one being referred to. The allegation is that he was exposing himself.
Excellent question.

And more importantly, what evidence has he produced to support his claims? Or are his accusations as unsupported as Danny's against Linda?

Or as unsupported as Linda's against Danny. Bob If you insist on obsessing about FHB's church attendance please start a new thread and I am sure we can all be entertained with the highlights of his church attendance over the years. We can then discuss the questions ask you about being ordained and why aren't you and all the other. But until you do lets focus on you and Joy.