Linda's Concerts In Kentucky, October - November 2007 Options

[Pickle]

where do you think they have gotten private emails between her and Danny??????

I've been asked by a friend to be more explicit.

I have gotten some emails from Linda. Personally, I suspect that I have gotten more of Danny and Linda's emails from other sources.

Frankly, it has been easier to get them from other sources. In fact, she even asked some folks not to give any of these emails to me, and I think that kind of thing goes back to last year and lasted for months.

I'm told that women from abusive relationships have a hard time trusting anyone. AppleTree, do you think that might have been part of her difficulty?

More importantly, AppleTree, do you believe in church discipline? If Danny cannot document that he did indeed have biblical grounds for divorce, something he already acknowledged as not having, should he be considered for a vote of church censure? Or have we come to the point that anything goes within our faith, that anyone can do anything and get away with it, as long as their name isn't Linda Shelton?

[YogusBearus]

I've been asked by a friend to be more explicit.

I have gotten some emails from Linda. Personally, I suspect that I have gotten more of Danny and Linda's emails from other sources.

Frankly, it has been easier to get them from other sources. In fact, she even asked some folks not to give any of these emails to me, and I think that kind of thing goes back to last year and lasted for months.

I'm told that women from abusive relationships have a hard time trusting anyone. AppleTree, do you think that might have been part of her difficulty?

More importantly, AppleTree, do you believe in church discipline? If Danny cannot document that he did indeed have biblical grounds for divorce, something he already acknowledged as not having, should he be considered for a vote of church censure? Or have we come to the point that anything goes within our faith, that anyone can do anything and get away with it, as long as their name isn't Linda Shelton?

While I don't have much question that Mr. Shelton is in all likelihood as guilty of improper behavior as many have pointed out, I'm weary of these tactics.

Does anyone else feel that the publishing/sharing of e-mail correspondence between the Sheltons is just plain tacky? Where is the line? I know this is not a new development but it's really starting to trouble me.



-bear

[Pickle]

While I don't have much question that Mr. Shelton is in all likelihood as guilty of improper behavior as many have pointed out, I'm weary of these tactics.

Does anyone else feel that the publishing/sharing of e-mail correspondence between the Sheltons is just plain tacky? Where is the line? I know this is not a new development but it's really starting to trouble me.



-bear

Seen anything new that has been published? At some point, whatever is already available is enough.

Danny claimed to have the evidence of Linda's guilt, but refused to divulge it, even when asked. So the one thing left to do was to sift through whatever evidence existed and was available. Doing that turned up his July 17, 2004, quasi-admission that he didn't have biblical grounds for divorce.

As far as my initial interest late last year, for I wasn't interested in that topic prior to that, Harold Lance wanted to kick me off the ASI tribunal "committee" since I didn't consider myself to be a member of Linda's team. I could not in good conscience commit myself to her side if I wasn't convinced of her innocence, and thus the time had to come when I had to investigate that issue.

So how does one investigate the facts without getting into he said, she said, or gossip? What I chose to do was look at each person's statements against their own positions, and take those statements as probably correct.

Such an approach should be considered far less tacky than some of the communications concerned.

[PeacefulBe]

While I don't have much question that Mr. Shelton is in all likelihood as guilty of improper behavior as many have pointed out, I'm weary of these tactics.

Does anyone else feel that the publishing/sharing of e-mail correspondence between the Sheltons is just plain tacky? Where is the line? I know this is not a new development but it's really starting to trouble me.

-bear

As a side note to this, when LS and I were visiting on our way to the lovely Northern California coast last July, she expressed her bewilderment that these emails were posted for all to see. Linda had not wanted them made public. These are words I heard from her with my own ears, btw. This makes Appletree's claims that she was responsible for their posting all the more distasteful and I am happy that she has now been cleared of at least that charge.

Where is the line between important information and tacky? That is a hard one. Some I have spoken with say the emails really opened their eyes to a side of Danny's character they had never before witnessed, so they were grateful they were there. Others feel that they were way across the line of common decency, exploiting words written during times of turmoil. I hesitate to try to resurrect a dead horse and beat on it further, so I'll leave it at that.

Personally, I don't demonize those defending Danny and 3abn, as I don't demonize those who support and defend Linda. There is some truth on both "sides" and the opposite is true as well. This is a passionate fight for both. Everyone has done things they regret. All have said things and have made choices that might have been different if they would have thought things out more cooly and clearly. Getting at the truth of the matter will properly level the playing field, even if it is just one little nugget at a time.

PB

[Shiny Penny]

Does anyone else feel that the publishing/sharing of e-mail correspondence between the Sheltons is just plain tacky? Where is the line? I know this is not a new development but it's really starting to trouble me.

-bear

I did a moment's worth of research online and found the following at netmanners.com:

"On an aside, also keep in mind that if you are forwarding a private email that was sent to you, you must get the sender's permission to forward it on to others (or post it publicly). Emails are copyright protected by their authors. Not only that, common courtesy dictates that you should ask the author first if the email sent for your eyes only can be forwarded to strangers or others for which it was not originally intended."

[Ian]

Why does it matter to you how much she received or not?

In His service,
Mr. J

Because it's true She reccieved a 240,000 settlement and severance from 3ABN, plus her own rights and royalties for her music etc. and then at least 150,000 from her ex husband, as well as household and marital property already?

Because many here have tried to make out like she was cut off and thrown out without anything, and keep making it a pity party for her, as if that's nothing?


For example, after she sold her home in Carbondale and received an extra 100,000 from her Doctor friend to buy a New home in Springfield, Johann justifid this as being needed because she was practically destitute and in dire circumstances.

I guess it's all relative.

But it seems to me, that's more then alot of us here have to live on and work with, and those reading here should know the amounts involved, so they can read and understand, and decide what's going on and claimed here for themselves.

Things are what they are. Let's bring it all out in the open. Isn't that what her defenders keep claiming and asking for?

Why protest, or attack another everytime that's attempted?

[Johann]

For example, after she sold her home in Carbondale and received an extra 100,000 from her Doctor friend to buy a New home in Springfield, Johann justifid this as being needed because she was practically destitute and in dire circumstances.

I guess it's all relative.

Is that what I said? No spin on your part?

[awesumtenor]

Because it's true She reccieved a 240,000 settlement and severance from 3ABN, plus her own rights and royalties for her music etc. and then at least 150,000 from her ex husband, as well as household and marital property already?

Because many here have tried to make out like she was cut off and thrown out without anything, and keep making it a pity party for her, as if that's nothing?
For example, after she sold her home in Carbondale and received an extra 100,000 from her Doctor friend to buy a New home in Springfield, Johann justifid this as being needed because she was practically destitute and in dire circumstances.

I guess it's all relative.

But it seems to me, that's more then alot of us here have to live on and work with, and those reading here should know the amounts involved, so they can read and understand, and decide what's going on and claimed here for themselves.

Things are what they are. Let's bring it all out in the open. Isn't that what her defenders keep claiming and asking for?

Why protest, or attack another everytime that's attempted?

Whatever, Cindy Ian... the fact remains this thread was not about Danny; it wasn't about court settlements and it wasn't about 3ABN. It was about how she is trying to do ministry... period. And you and appletree and others should be ashamed of yourselves for hijacking the thread solely for the purposes of tearing her down.

If you and appletree felt her legal endeavors were worthy of comment, all you had to do is start another thread... but this collective accuser of the brethren thing your camp has going anytime her name comes up is petty and spiteful ... which, while consistent with your practice here in this forum, is patenly inconsistent with the Christianity you profess.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Ian]

I repeat, I am not Linda's representative, and I believe I have already informed you of that fact, as I informed Harold Lance last year. And if you doubt, ask her.

Then you had no business being on Linda's team and representing her with ASI.

"Actions speak louder then words"

You seem to think you are fair and justified in all that you do and say, but your posts and articles and arguments prove the opposite as far as I am concerned.

I am entitled to my opinion just as you all are.

And in my opinion:

Have you raised some legitimate questions? sure. But you always err when you seek the answers.

Everything you do and say in these issues is onesided. You have been speaking and acting with bias and partiality, and actually as if you are a prosecutor trying to indict Danny since you first started posting here on these issues.


Looking for dirt on one side to justify the negative opinions, and making endless accusations and allegations, against him and his family, and friends and #ABN and all involved, all while making endless excuses and playing apologetics (as here in this post) for the other side. If people can't see that, then they don't want to.

Are you suggesting that no one else had those emails, and that she could have been the only source for them?

Why play stupid, and as if you don't know that?

I'm not suggesting anything. "YES, she is the only source of them"

It is a FACT, documented on your website, and your posts here and elsewhere that the emails between Linda and Danny were private, and just between the two of them.

It is a FACT that they somehow were given to others. It is also a Fact that it had to be Linda or Danny who violated the other's right to privacy, and gave them to others.

Next, it is a Fact that they have only been revealed and published by Linda's supporters and defenders, or Danny's and 3ABN's attackers and accusers.

It is just simple logic to figure out that they came from Linda herself, and not Danny.

Why not be straight forward and honest as you ask the others side to be?

These games with words you play, and the arguments like this that you make don't help your side. Nor do they make you, or them, appear credible or ethical. IMHO

Again if others can't see this, and this I do suggest for the readers here to consider,
They Don't Want To, lack common sense and logic, or just can't deal with reality.

This post has been edited by Ian: Nov 7 2007, 06:35 AM

[Ian]

Is that what I said? No spin on your part?

Let others judge for themselves who's spinning things. There are actually quite a few times you posted here and gave that impression.

Did you write this?

(published private letter)
"...In 2004 instead of encouraging Linda to stay with me... He put up $100,000 and she put up the other approx. $100,000.. the nearly $250,000 that that 3ABN gave Linda as a separation agreement is about depleted. Linda has said that she is not going to work. She said, and I quote, "I'm not going to cook hamburgers the rest of my life." She wants people to support her financially. The Dr. has to help her in order to get his own money back...."

(Then you, J.T. answering it here, rather then by email:)
This is a very interesting account, Danny... she bought a mobile home in Carbondale. I know, because I was there. Walt claims in a recent letter that you were very kind to her, helping her with all kinds of things, doing construction work for her, etc. I have a number of those e-mails you sent to me at that time when you gave your account of your good works, even buying Linda some flowers.... she had to sell that home and move to Springfield.... She found the right house, and managed to keep the location secret from you for a while, so that you would not come there and harass her after the unfortunate divorce. Linda was still suffering from what you had done to her, and you know what THAT includes. She had no employment because you fired her, and therefore no bank would finance her. Neither did she have any sickness and health insurance. You took all of that from her. You divorced her, humiliated her before the world, and now you even want to discredit her because a friend helps her in her agony because of your evil behavior!

This post has been edited by Ian: Nov 7 2007, 07:55 AM

[Ian]

Whatever, Cindy Ian... the fact remains this thread was not about Danny; it wasn't about court settlements and it wasn't about 3ABN. It was about how she is trying to do ministry... period. And you and appletree and others should be ashamed of yourselves for hijacking the thread solely for the purposes of tearing her down.

If you and appletree felt her legal endeavors were worthy of comment, all you had to do is start another thread... but this collective accuser of the brethren thing your camp has going anytime her name comes up is petty and spiteful ... which, while consistent with your practice here in this forum, is patenly inconsistent with the Christianity you profess.

In His service,
Mr. J

Mr. J,

As you are concerned about the rules and off topic posting, you might want to consider that your posts here in this thread are not on that topic. All I did was reply to what was already posted here, and even in answer to your own question. Maybe you should lead by example and start new threads yourself?

Also.

I will tell you this much, I have a mother, a sister, and a brother who are also members here in this forum, and you might be surprised to find out who they are,

Actually, if the facts were actually known about who the posters here are, I am sure people would be very surprised at who they have backed and who they have attacked, and it might be a wake up call for many.

But be that as it may, we are not supposed to be trying to figure out who posters are, or posting about it as you seem to be trying to do.

Can't we just stick to the issues being posted about from now on? You know nothing about my relationship with Christ nor my standing as a Christian, and frankly it's not your business to judge me or another in that regard, nor am I interested in your opinion of what is petty and spiteful ect...

This post has been edited by Ian: Nov 7 2007, 07:43 AM

[Ian]

I've been asked by a friend to be more explicit.

I have gotten some emails from Linda. Personally, I suspect that I have gotten more of Danny and Linda's emails from other sources.

Frankly, it has been easier to get them from other sources. In fact, she even asked some folks not to give any of these emails to me, and I think that kind of thing goes back to last year and lasted for months.

So why'd she give them to them in the first place? And wasn't that the point? That it was, and is Linda working behind the scenes, and giving them out, but trying to stay in the shadows and pretend she's not?

I'm told that women from abusive relationships have a hard time trusting anyone. AppleTree, do you think that might have been part of her difficulty?

Maybe police or court records can prove which of the two has a history of abusing or assaulting a spouse? Of course you have to check out both sides with equal fervor to find that answer, something you haven't been big on up till now.

This post has been edited by Ian: Nov 7 2007, 08:11 AM

[Johann]

Because many here have tried to make out like she was cut off and thrown out without anything, and keep making it a pity party for her, as if that's nothing?
For example, after she sold her home in Carbondale and received an extra 100,000 from her Doctor friend to buy a New home in Springfield, Johann justifid this as being needed because she was practically destitute and in dire circumstances.

I guess it's all relative.

Yes, I'd say you have put a spin to what I wrote, and I have seen what you posted to "prove" your point. Perhaps relative?

[awesumtenor]

I will tell you this much, I have a mother, a sister, and a brother who are also members here in this forum, and you might be surprised to find out who they are,

Who you are related to is not even a concern... to me, at least.

Actually, if the facts were actually known about who the posters here are, I am sure people would be very surprised at who they have backed and who they have attacked, and it might be a wake up call for many.

Perhaps... but I'm not many.

But be that as it may, we are not supposed to be trying to figure out who posters are, or posting about it as you seem to be trying to do.

Yeah, whatev... Cindy was prone to hide behind this too... even if you aren't she... you definitely manifest her posting tendencies... attack Linda at every and any opportunity, complain people are trying to determine who you are, complain about where others stand in regard to the rules when it's convenient, etc...

If it walks like a duck, etc.

Can't we just stick to the issues being posted about from now on? You know nothing about my relationship with Christ nor my standing as a Christian, and frankly it's not your business to judge me or another in that regard, nor am I interested in your opinion of what is petty and spiteful ect...

I know the fruit you manifest in this forum... and that fruit, frankly is overripe and soon to rot. I never said anything about your standing as a Christian; that's not my call... but your walk and your talk just are not matching up. When you do that in public, you run the risk of being called on it.

The "issues" in this thread are Linda's ministry, period. Not her court cases or your loathing of her or how much she got or did not get. Post something about that and then we'll be sticking to the issues.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Seraphim7]

Calvin/Clay/PDi, this thread has been hijacked.

Would you please consider moving the portions of the discussion that HAVE NO BEARING on op to it's own thread PLEASE.

Thank You