Reason For Divorce, Is lusting grounds for divorce? Options

[awesumtenor]

It has been established beyond a shadow of doubt that Danny lied about 3ABN, Dona. Did he lie about Linda too? Since he indisputably lied about 3ABN, how can anyone know that he did no lie about all of the rest? He has firmly established through court documentation that he is a liar.

He lied about Linda when he came here... which means he has probably lied about her everywhere else he has brought the subject up...

in His service,
Mr. J

[PeacefulBe]

Johann, I am not attacking anyone or anything. I am merely trying to reason with you so that you might see beyond just one view and see the whole picture. I really don’t care who the person was that wrote the letter so I definately was not questioning who he is. It isn’t important for anyone to know but you. The contents, what the person said, in that letter would show the majority of people that the writer was certainly not a judge. The judges I know and have talked to are wiser than that.

Dona

Dona,

You may not have been attacking but you most certainly were disputing the claims made by the individual in the email. You also were, most definitely questioning who he/she was. While you have not made any claims about your own career path, you did set yourself up as somewhat of an authority on grammar when you said "I am basing my opinion on four things; the basic structure of the letter, sentence structure, punctuation and content." Using your own ruler we now can deterimine, quite safely, that you are not an English teacher.

You have piqued my curiousity. What types of judges do you know and have talked to, and how did you determine they were more wise than the person who wrote that email and was claiming to be a judge?

PB

[Aletheia]

You are right, Aletheia. Some are not on the same page with definitions. I think it might be wise to establish a consistant definition of what "sin" is. As it now stands, Danny/Tommy is not perfect but are doing a great work for God but Linda betrayed her husband and her ministry by talking far too long on the phone with the doctor who was treating her son.
Seems that more than Linda supporters are turning blind eyes, but that's JMO.

Pb, please. All that has been done here in every instance is to either make excuses for why what she did was ok, or bring up maybes or possiblies to discount it, or cast accusations at others to divert from it. You are doing that now. (Look at Di's post, just flat out denying all that's been published here by both sides in these issues) Remember the pregnancy test, how many different theories and excuses were offered to try and make it seem innocent?

Aren't you the woman who cares about your husband's wishes and says he is deservedly jealous of your attention?

if I tried to branch out to any other discussions I'm afraid my husband would pull the plug on my computer! He is deservedly realous for my attention. I told him to speak up if he feels like I am spending too much time here and he has!

And the phone calls were not just about her son, they merely started that way, and that wasn't even what Danny had a problem with. Tt was the conversations, which had nothing to do with her son, as Linda herself admits. (see below)

She on the air on the Live program in Green Bay told about her "new found friend." she called him her "burden bearer" How would your husband feel about that?


Now let's hear from Linda's own mouth, about how her discussions and plans were not just about her son, and how she ignored Danny's wishes and kept on talking to the Doctor privately, and even planned to go see him without "Dan".

How does your husband feel about you doing such or even making plans to do such???

She wrote this in a letter to Johann:

Although I never discussed Dan with the doctor early on, when the serious problems began, the doctor was a friend that I felt would keep things confidential...and he was 6000 miles away.
[Not mentioned: The serious problems was the Doctor]

When I arrived home from Norway I told Dan that I'd found a friend in this doctor and that Nathan was doing excellent. Twice, when I was talking to the doctor on the phone, Dan came and pulled the phone away from my ear so he could listen. ...When the subject changed from "Nathan" to something else Dan said "Hang up...." So from then on, my conversations with the doctor were done privately.
At some point in February I was sharing with the doctor about how busy we were at 3ABN with traveling and schedules and he said, "You know, I'm going to Florida over spring break, and you ought to think about going down there to get some rest." .... A few days later I mentioned to Brenda what the doctor had said. Her response was "Oh, I think that would be fun, let's go!" A week later when the doctor returned from Africa, I mentioned to him that Brenda and I thought we'd go to Florida. He had totally forgotten anything about it. But he agreed to go.... However about two weeks later after Brenda talked with Dan, she came to me and said "Dan is getting pretty irate about you talking to the doctor. We better cancel him."

And this was just February of 2004, and only what she herself admits to, things got much worse as all the letters from Her Pastor and Church, her Board Chairman, and Her husband (which may I add have all been published here and on save3abn) demonstrate.

Thoughts PB?

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Aug 31 2007, 07:13 AM

[Dona]

Ok... just so I can keep my scorecard straight... Cindy and Cindy2 (or should that be CindyToo)...
Which one is Superman and which one is Clark Kent?

Funny how the folk in Danny's camp all of a sudden have had screen name mitosis... lee has become Panther and Lee; Cindy has become Aletheia and Dona; over in the orchard, that appletree walks like a bystander...

Funny...

In His service,
Mr. J

Ok.....since I am an honest Christian who wouldn't want you to get a headache trying to keep score based upon wrong assumptions.......I am just Dona. No body has their hands in my gloves nor does anyone else have my hands in their gloves. In fact the only one I would ever allow to even use me is our Lord Jesus Christ. But it is a compliment that you think Aletheia and I are the same person. Thank you. Now you have more time to spend on something productive for the Lord.

Dona

This post has been edited by Dona: Aug 31 2007, 07:19 AM

[Aletheia]

Dona,

You may not have been attacking but you most certainly were disputing the claims made by the individual in the email. You also were, most definitely questioning who he/she was. While you have not made any claims about your own career path, you did set yourself up as somewhat of an authority on grammar when you said "I am basing my opinion on four things; the basic structure of the letter, sentence structure, punctuation and content." Using your own ruler we now can deterimine, quite safely, that you are not an English teacher.

You have piqued my curiousity. What types of judges do you know and have talked to, and how did you determine they were more wise than the person who wrote that email and was claiming to be a judge?

PB

Who cares?

I myself who was asked, doubt the authenticity of the letter, it just sounds hokey and ridiculous to me. It is not going to be proven here one way or another, and even if some Judge can't find Linda by googling and fears she has been "disapeared into space" and could be dead. So what?

The email proves nothing.

[LaurenceD]

In fact the only one I would ever allow to even use me is our Lord Jesus Christ.

It may be that many of us are more perceptive than you are giving us credit for.

Example: It's only people like Michael Vick and Paris Hilton that have to make it clear, by saying so, that Jesus is in their lives. If our Lord Jesus Christ is using you, you won't have to say so.

[LaurenceD]

Who cares?

I do. Which judges do you know? Some of these in this partial list?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=j...uilty+convicted

[awesumtenor]

Ok.....since I am an honest Christian who wouldn't want you to get a headache trying to keep score based upon wrong assumptions.......I am just Dona. No body has their hands in my gloves nor does anyone else have my hands in their gloves. In fact the only one I would ever allow to even use me is our Lord Jesus Christ. But it is a compliment that you think Aletheia and I are the same person. Thank you. Now you have more time to spend on something productive for the Lord.

Dona

Your indignation and shrewish demeanor only reinforce the idea you are one person wearing two faces... but thanks for pointing out both your honesty and Christianity... now to see if the walk matches the talk... so far it's not adding up.. but it is early yet...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Aletheia]

Ok... just so I can keep my scorecard straight... Cindy and Cindy2 (or should that be CindyToo)...
Which one is Superman and which one is Clark Kent?

Funny how the folk in Danny's camp all of a sudden have had screen name mitosis... l Cindy has become Aletheia and Dona...

Ok.....since I am an honest Christian who wouldn't want you to get a headache trying to keep score based upon wrong assumptions.......I am just Dona. No body has their hands in my gloves nor does anyone else have my hands in their gloves. In fact the only one I would ever allow to even use me is our Lord Jesus Christ. But it is a compliment that you think Aletheia and I are the same person. Thank you. Now you have more time to spend on something productive for the Lord.

Dona

Thanks Dona.

Yeah that's real funny, as in funny ha ha and funny strange. Mitosis? I have always been Aletheia, and am not Dona, and never will be.

But actually it's my understanding we are not to try and post who people are.

P.S. Dona, I'm going to the arcade for a bit, join me? I always like to be beside myself.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Aug 31 2007, 08:12 AM

[awesumtenor]

Ok.....since I am an honest Christian who wouldn't want you to get a headache trying to keep score based upon wrong assumptions.......I am just Dona. No body has their hands in my gloves nor does anyone else have my hands in their gloves. In fact the only one I would ever allow to even use me is our Lord Jesus Christ. But it is a compliment that you think Aletheia and I are the same person. Thank you. Now you have more time to spend on something productive for the Lord.

Dona
Thanks Dona.

Yeah that's real funny, as in funny ha ha and funny strange. Mitosis? I have always been Aletheia, and am not Dona, and never will be.

But actually it's my understanding we are not to try and post who people are.

No one is trying to discern identities... just noting that Dona sounds remarkably like you... eerily so at times... and you never noted your having an identical twin.

While I know abut you the things you have revealed about yourself here, your identity is still unknown, you could bump into me on the streeet and I'd never know it was you... unless of course you were screaming negative things about Linda at the time... then I'd prolly suspect... so stop trying to whine your way out of being opposed; fact is you just arent a significant enough player in this matter for anyone to really be concerned with who you are and in spite of all you have disclosed about yourself... no one from BSDA has come knocking at your door to say "Aletheia, I presume" when you opened it. Your anonymity is an exercise in ego on your part, I am afraid.

The fact remains that your camp has a predilection towards creating false supporters by spawning new BSDA accounts... there is a history of such in this forum... so I... and any other... are not amiss in wondering if your camp has gone back to old tricks.

In His service,
Mr. J

[princessdi]

I do know one thing, Iffn I was going to meet my "man on the side" I would definitely not take my girlfriend with me...In fact, I don't believe I would be discussing it at all, if I was sneaking away. It means nothing that lInda mentions this becuase apparently Brenda had been talking to Danny about the Dr. already to make the comment about him being upset. IOW, she was not trying to sneak off to meet anybody.

Plus, it is also apparent that marriage was already in trouble. You don't get to this stage of meltdown from some phone calls. Also, apparent is that initially she was not talking to the Dr. in private, but you know I would changed that if somebody was busy pulling the phone from my hand.......Naw change that, we are talking about a whole different thing here. He would have one time to "try" to pull the phone one time from my hand. Linda was real good, cuz along with them phone calls, Danny would have been bemoaning the loss of his hand.....Snatching the phone, indeed.

Sorry, I digress. Anyway Danny felt real good aobut being able to get away with pulling that phone out of Linda's hand, that was nothing new. .

Pb, please. All that has been done here in every instance is to either make excuses for why what she did was ok, or bring up maybes or possiblies to discount it, or cast accusations at others to divert from it. You are doing that now. (Look at Di's post, just flat out denying all that's been published here by both sides in these issues) Remember the pregnancy test, how many different theories and excuses were offered to try and make it seem innocent?

Aren't you the woman who cares about your husband's wishes and says he is deservedly jealous of your attention?
And the phone calls were not just about her son, they merely started that way, and that wasn't even what Danny had a problem with. Tt was the conversations, which had nothing to do with her son, as Linda herself admits. (see below)

She on the air on the Live program in Green Bay told about her "new found friend." she called him her "burden bearer" How would your husband feel about that?
Now let's hear from Linda's own mouth, about how her discussions and plans were not just about her son, and how she ignored Danny's wishes and kept on talking to the Doctor privately, and even planned to go see him without "Dan".

How does your husband feel about you doing such or even making plans to do such???

She wrote this in a letter to Johann:
And this was just February of 2004, and only what she herself admits to, things got much worse as all the letters from Her Pastor and Church, her Board Chairman, and Her husband (which may I add have all been published here and on save3abn) demonstrate.

Thoughts PB?

[Panama_Pete]

Pb, please. All that has been done here in every instance is to either make excuses for why what she did was ok,
Thoughts PB?

Even at this late date -- three years later -- you really don't know "what she did." You have not seen any evidence.

You think that if you just repeat this spurious comment long enough it becomes true. That isn't going to happen.

She on the air on the Live program in Green Bay told about her "new found friend." she called him her "burden bearer" How would your husband feel about that?

Once again, you are presuming to know the identity of this friend. Linda never said who the friend was.

That friend could actually be me, not the doctor in Norway, since I was in Green Bay that weekend talking with Linda about certain things. I still have photos of the weekend to prove it.

What was I doing all the way over in Green Bay when I don't even live in Wisconsin? Answer that one.

So you see, Linda, like many churchgoers, had more than one burden bearer. You, with your mind reading, know which friend it is to whom Linda referred?

You have nothing but speculation as to whom Linda's "friend" might really have been. You now have at least two men who could conceivably fit the same description. You are being a bit presumptive if you think you know which friend it is.

If I tell the truth, and testify that I think I am the friend that she was referring to, and that I was in Green Bay that weekend, what do you do, then? Linda never mentioned the identity of the friend. That leaves you with nothing, only surmising as to whom that friend might have been.

It's very logical that Linda and I would become good friends, since we both had the same business goals at the time. I think Danny took that description "friend" and tried to make it apply to just one person. But does it? You don't know. You were not there. I was there.

Also, you don't even know what Linda and I talked about inside the Green Bay church.

Aletheia, you said you would give Linda every consideration. Start doing that now.

[Fran]

Johann, I am not attacking anyone or anything.


I am merely trying to reason with you so that you might see beyond just one view and see the whole picture.

I really don’t care who the person was that wrote the letter so I definitely was not questioning who he is.

It isn’t important for anyone to know but you.

The contents, what the person said, in that letter would show the majority of people that the writer was certainly not a judge.

The judges I know and have talked to are wiser than that.

Dona

Really? You could have fooled me for sure!

Where, oh where are my deep boots?

I praise God I live in the minority.

Obviously, you have taken an official poll and have officially determined that the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE know that email was not written by a judge.

Why was I not polled? Oh, I get it! It was a straw poll!

[Aletheia]

Even at this late date -- three years later -- you really don't know "what she did." You have not seen any evidence.

You think that if you just repeat this spurious comment long enough it becomes true. That isn't going to happen.
Once again, you are presuming to know the identity of this friend. Linda never said who the friend was.

That friend could actually be me, not the doctor in Norway, since I was in Green Bay that weekend talking with Linda about certain things. I still have photos of the weekend to prove it.

What was I doing all the way over in Green Bay when I don't even live in Wisconsin? Answer that one.

So you see, Linda, like many churchgoers, had more than one burden bearer. You, with your mind reading, know which friend it is to whom Linda referred?

You have nothing but speculation as to whom Linda's "friend" might really have been. You now have at least two men who could conceivably fit the same description. You are being a bit presumptive if you think you know which friend it is.

If I tell the truth, and testify that I think I am the friend that she was referring to, and that I was in Green Bay that weekend, what do you do, then? Linda never mentioned the identity of the friend. That leaves you with nothing, only surmising as to whom that friend might have been.

It's very logical that Linda and I would become good friends, since we both had the same business goals at the time. I think Danny took that description "friend" and tried to make it apply to just one person. But does it? You don't know. You were not there. I was there.

Also, you don't even know what Linda and I talked about inside the Green Bay church.

Aletheia, you said you would give Linda every consideration. Start doing that now.

If? Could be?

Are you indeed claiming you were the "NEW friend" she was talking about?

Are You the same NEW friend she told Danny she had made in the Doctor when she came back from Norway?
"the doctor was a friend that I felt would keep things confidential...When I arrived home from Norway I told Dan that I'd found a friend in this doctor "
(see the quoted letter from her above)

It doesn't really appear so.

It appears you are trying to do damage control with facetious arguments.

My opinion.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Aug 31 2007, 11:54 AM

[awesumtenor]

It appears you are trying to do damage control with facetious arguments.

A practice with which you are well acquainted...it could be said even that you are a certified, bona fide expert in such a practice...

In His service,
Mr. J