John Lomacang Still Around?, Writer claims sign change. Options

[Pickle]

So Shiny Penny, are you as hard on John Lomacang for preaching heresy, namely, that Danny as the Lord's anointed can't be corrected by church or state, as you are on me for asking why the change of the sign?

Are you straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel?

Are you making a man an offender for a word rather than being concerned about the grievous heresy preached over the airwaves on August 10, 2006?

[Ian]

You possibly aren't a reporter, for if you were, you would likely know that reporters have to use such words, as I am doing now, to avoid lawsuits over their stating as fact things they cannot prove beyond a shadow of doubt, but for which they have statements from sources.

And words like "my contact on the ground"?

I would like to interrupt here for a moment, to remind you and the members and lurkers here, that you, Robert Pickle are not a reporter nor a member of the press yourself. Nor is your partner Gailon Joy, despite calling himself AUReporter, and despite both of your attempts to claim "freedom of the press applies to what you have done and are doing. As that is a fact, I don't include the word "possibly".

If you and he were reporters, then you would know the difference between reporting the news; and editorializing or news commentary. The difference being, the first is facts and the other are just opinions.

Reporters know sources need to be credible and verified... for their reputation and credibility is what is at risk when they act on these things and report them.

Reporters know the difference between the New York Times and the National Enquirer, and between CNN and Jerry Springer. Between documented facts, ; and rumor and innuendo, and between reporting and sensationalizing.

When you have facts, you can prove them, and do not have to say "appear to", "probably", "reportedly", or "allegedly" to avoid lawsuits over stating opinions as fact, which can't be proved.


Why? Truth is always a absolute defense against slander and libel.

For example the following is your opinion and personal interpretation of what was broadcast, and it "appears" IMO to be a attempt on your part to once again point at others rather then dealing with the topic.

"...are you as hard onJohn Lomacang for preaching heresy, namely, that Danny as the Lord's anointed can't be corrected by church or state, as you are on me for asking why the change of the sign?

Are you straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel?

Are you making a man an offender for a word rather than being concerned about the grievous heresy preached over the airwaves on August 10, 2006?

Are you making a man a offender for a word? All Christians have a calling and annointing by the Lord.

Do you think you have a calling and annointing to work for the Lord, Mr Pickle?

Did JL actually say the words you put in his mouth here? NO
Does he even believe what you are saying he was saying? NO.
Did he ever say a Man, any man, including Danny Shelton was above being corrected by Church or State? NO
Did he preach heresy? NO

So, Can you prove what you claim? NO

FYI you forgot to include words like "In my opinion" "appeared to me to be saying", "I think what he probably meant was" " what I heard and thought was being taught was"...etc

If what you were doing wasn't hurting others, then I would be just as amused by the way you jump to your conclusions and come up with your theories in these 3ABN issues, as in this sign thread, but...

You are hurting others and God's work, and it's not even close to funny.

This post has been edited by Ian: Nov 13 2007, 06:35 AM

[Observer]

I would like to interrupt here for a moment, to remind you and the members and lurkers here, that you, Robert Pickle are not a reporter nor a member of the press yourself. Nor is your partner Gailon Joy, despite calling himself AUReporter, and despite both of your attempts to claim "freedom of the press applies to what you have done and are doing. As that is a fact, I don't include the word "possibly".

If you and he were reporters, then you would know the difference between reporting the news; and editorializing or news commentary. The difference being, the first is facts and the other are just opinions.

Reporters know sources need to be credible and verified... for their reputation and credibility is what is at risk when they act on these things and report them.

Reporters know the difference between the New York Times and the National Enquirer, and between CNN and Jerry Springer. Between documented facts, ; and rumor and innuendo, and between reporting and sensationalizing.

Ian you are clearly misinformed.

The Federal Constitution does not require that people covered by the Freedom of the Press provisions of the Constitution be employed by any specific organization. It does not require that the product of the reporter be circulated in any specific media. It does not require that the reporter have any specific number of people who read/view that product. Such people can be independent, and operating on their own.

Gailon has been reporting such news as he wanted to report for more than 20 years. At one time he circulated his news in print media to a grooup of people who read and responded to it. At the present time he uses sthe Internet. Reporters are allowed to circulate by means of the Internet. He first used the title of AU Reporter more than 20 years ago. He has a long history of reporting then current news.

You can discuss the ethical issues of the differences between reporting and sensationalizing the news. But the Federal Constitution does not prohibit people from giving an opinon, or otherwise distorting the news, if you will. Reporters do that regularly in the media of today. It happens on the Network TV news programs. It happens in the large corporate newspapers. It is done by investigative reporters in award winning media such as WESTWOOD. Yes, when reporters do such they may face consequences of libel. But, they still are reporters who retain protections under the Federal Constitution.

If you think that Gailon has distorted the truth, you can state your case. Your readers can decide.

You do not have to like Gailon. You do not have to agree with the views that he expresses. You may sue him for damages if he commits a tort against you. But, the fact remains that he retains certain protections given him under the Freedom of the Press provisions of the Federal Constitution.

If you do not like this, you can challenge the applicability of those provisions in a court of law. Until you succeed, and a court rules that they do not apply to him, all can assume that they do.

[watchbird]

If what you were doing wasn't hurting others, then I would be just as amused by the way you jump to your conclusions and come up with your theories in these 3ABN issues, as in this sign thread, but...

You are hurting others and God's work, and it's not even close to funny.

Your words describe yourself perfectly. While I do not always approve of everything Bob says nor how he says it... in this thread he came asking a question that someone had passed on to him to ask. Instead of finding an answer to that question all you and other Danny defenders have done is to d--- him for asking the question. It is not funny. It is not fair. It is not kind. It is note wise. It is not helpful. It is nothing but stupid and tiring.

Why don't you use your connections with 3abn and bring us the answer to the question instead of damning others for asking it. There IS an answer to the basic question... as well as the question behind the question....

Either the person writing Bob is telling the truth... or he is lying. Others "on the ground" (the ground on which the sign is located) have confirmed that the basic fact is correct... the sign was changed.

The more important question is the one behind that question... what is the significance of the change? What does it mean in terms of John Lomacang's present status at 3abn? The answer may be that there is no significance and his status has not changed. If that is so, why are not those "in the know" coming forward and saying so and thus putting some sort of closure to the questions raised by this thread? If that is not so... if there IS significance to the sign change... then what IS that significance.

Could it be that John has fallen from favor and is disappearing without any announcement? I remind you that it would be his friends who would care the most about the answer to that question. So if he has any friends on here, I would recommend that they get busy and find out the answer and bring it to the rest of us. For whether we have been approving of his actions in the past or not, we care about him as an individual. And we would like to know what is happening with him.... for he has certainly not been "front and center" for some time now.

So forget your vendetta against Bob long enough to take upon yourself the mission of learning the facts and presenting them in a manner which gives us some degree of confidence in their truthfulness.

[judibug60]

Thank you Observer and Watchbird.....Thank you for your comments....it is truly getting distressing coming to this site and reading all the harsh and truly bashings that keep coming up....you can't determine if it is beneficial to pose a question here about anything anymore for fear of a bashing.......

I like you, just want to know what has happened To pastor JOhn.....I to like him very much and have wondered for sometime what has happened.........
Thank you both again.......

[maggiecttr]

I like you, just want to know what has happened To pastor JOhn.....I to like him very much and have wondered for sometime what has happened.........
Thank you both again.......

I saw him Thursday night on 3ABN Live. It was a "Guy's Night Out" program, with Danny, John L., Hal Steenson and J.D. Quinn. So he was still on board last week. I haven't watched my tape yet of the whole program, so don't know if anything was said regarding John & his status.

Blessings,
Maggie

[Shiny Penny]

...While I do not always approve of everything Bob says nor how he says it... in this thread he came asking a question that someone had passed on to him to ask. Instead of finding an answer to that question all you and other Danny defenders have done is to d--- him for asking the question. It is not funny. It is not fair. It is not kind. It is note wise. It is not helpful. It is nothing but stupid and tiring.

Why don't you use your connections with 3abn and bring us the answer to the question instead of damning others for asking it. There IS an answer to the basic question... as well as the question behind the question....

Either the person writing Bob is telling the truth... or he is lying. Others "on the ground" (the ground on which the sign is located) have confirmed that the basic fact is correct... the sign was changed.

The more important question is the one behind that question... what is the significance of the change? What does it mean in terms of John Lomacang's present status at 3abn? The answer may be that there is no significance and his status has not changed. If that is so, why are not those "in the know" coming forward and saying so and thus putting some sort of closure to the questions raised by this thread? If that is not so... if there IS significance to the sign change... then what IS that significance.

Could it be that John has fallen from favor and is disappearing without any announcement? I remind you that it would be his friends who would care the most about the answer to that question. So if he has any friends on here, I would recommend that they get busy and find out the answer and bring it to the rest of us. For whether we have been approving of his actions in the past or not, we care about him as an individual. And we would like to know what is happening with him.... for he has certainly not been "front and center" for some time now.

So forget your vendetta against Bob long enough to take upon yourself the mission of learning the facts and presenting them in a manner which gives us some degree of confidence in their truthfulness.

Alas, Watchbird, the information was provided:

John Lomacang IS the pastor of the church at 3ABN, Hal Steenson WAS the speaker . . . thus the reason for his name appearing on the marquee - and the fact it isn't there is because the sign will be updated for upcoming Sabbath services (come on people this isn't rocket science!) . . . this is just another of Robert Pickle's attempts to toss enough red herrings around to keep people from seeing and learning the truth about his actions and the "crisis" he has been instrumental in creating . . .

- FHB

Watchbird, when you do not agree or do not approve of what Pickle says do you respond to his posts to say so?

Marquees at churches change every single week...new sermon, sometimes another speaker. If Pickle cannot do his homework on something as simple as this, rest assured that he is not doing his proper homework on other matters he is presenting. What Pickle has done and continues to do is "not funny. It is not fair. It is not kind. It is note wise. It is not helpful. It is nothing but stupid and tiring."

There was no significance to the sign change. (Hal Steenson may disagree with me). But Pickle would like you and me and others to believe that there is.

Perhaps Pickle's contacts can go back and read the sign this week and let us know that there is a change and who knows Lomacang's name is back up, and oooh la la - shall we expect another thread to be started " has JL been restored as pastor of the church?"

Pickle thinks I am being hard on him - that's what he wrote. Let him toughen up his skin. In his own words "there will be far more important news in the days ahead."

As I have said before and will repeat I am a supporter of 3ABN. Certainly there is room for improvement, and by God's grace 3ABN continues spread the good news of the gospel to the world.

[PeacefulBe]

John Lomacang IS the pastor of the church at 3ABN, Hal Steenson WAS the speaker . . . thus the reason for his name appearing on the marquee - and the fact it isn't there is because the sign will be updated for upcoming Sabbath services (come on people this isn't rocket science!) . . . this is just another of Robert Pickle's attempts to toss enough red herrings around to keep people from seeing and learning the truth about his actions and the "crisis" he has been instrumental in creating . . .

Now, to Shiny Penny's points . . . Robert has a phone and could pick it up and call any one of his "number" of contacts - shoot, why doesn't he just PM HOTY or give Duane a call and get a definitive answer . . . Shiny Penny nailed it on the head . . . "stirring dust" obviously to cloud the truth with ridiculous nonsense . . .

- FHB

I am bringing forward FHB's post from yesterday morning because, as you can see by the section I have highlighted, he did answer the question that Bob asked.

Now, all can choose whether or not to accept FHB's answer.

Observer, bravo for your excellent explanation of the role of a reporter. I would only add, as a further little rebuttal to a part of Ian's post, that reporters are taught to use words like "alleged" when writing about someone who has not yet been convicted of a crime. Perhaps Ian is too young to remember when this became standard practice. Accused criminals have had cases thrown out of court and convictions have gotten overturned because of reporters not using words like "alleged" in their stories, thus giving the suspect or accused the appearance of guilt.

PB

[Observer]

Watchbird, when you do not agree or do not approve of what Pickle says do you respond to his posts to say so?

We who are claimed to be attacking 3-ABN are a diverse group of people. We do not agree on every aspect of Theology. We differ in some aspects of the alleged wroings. We do not agree on every aspect as to what should be done.

We have put aside those differences to unite around a common cause. As we work together we focus on that cause. I will suggest that the manner in which we have worked together might serve as a model for how people withing the SDA Church should relate to each other.

One of the most destructive things that could happen to us, and the cause that unites us, would be for our diverse group to break up into internal fighting. If we do that, the power that unites is in our goal would be gone. We would lose the battle.

To ask the question if WB posts her disagreements with Bob Pickle serves as an attempt, even if not intentional, to divide us.

Leet us not break up in that manner.

[Shiny Penny]

We who are claimed to be attacking 3-ABN are a diverse group of people. We do not agree on every aspect of Theology. We differ in some aspects of the alleged wroings. We do not agree on every aspect as to what should be done.

We have put aside those differences to unite around a common cause. As we work together we focus on that cause. ...

To ask the question if WB posts her disagreements with Bob Pickle serves as an attempt, even if not intentional, to divide us.

Leet us not break up in that manner.

Then please summarize your "common cause" as you call it.

If you spell out the theses of your "cause", you will find out that it is not at all that common as you suggest.

[awesumtenor]

We who are claimed to be attacking 3-ABN are a diverse group of people. We do not agree on every aspect of Theology. We differ in some aspects of the alleged wroings. We do not agree on every aspect as to what should be done.

We have put aside those differences to unite around a common cause. As we work together we focus on that cause. I will suggest that the manner in which we have worked together might serve as a model for how people withing the SDA Church should relate to each other.

One of the most destructive things that could happen to us, and the cause that unites us, would be for our diverse group to break up into internal fighting. If we do that, the power that unites is in our goal would be gone. We would lose the battle.

To ask the question if WB posts her disagreements with Bob Pickle serves as an attempt, even if not intentional, to divide us.

Leet us not break up in that manner.

You forget, Pastor M, that it is the goal of some among us to work that division as much as they can... and as such the question was posed knowing it's potential for said division, IMO...

In His service,
Mr. J

[watchbird]

Then please summarize your "common cause" as you call it.

If you spell out the theses of your "cause", you will find out that it is not at all that common as you suggest.

You are so tiresome.

[Observer]

Then please summarize your "common cause" as you call it.

If you spell out the theses of your "cause", you will find out that it is not at all that common as you suggest.

I will suggest that it is for us to determine how much unites us in a common cause, and it is not our responsibility to post that for your enjoyment.

[princessdi]

Shiny Penny and Ian, please address yourself only to the topic of the thread, and not the character of the poster of the OP, well any post actually. If you have nothing to add or no opinion, please skip posting to this thread. Bob asked a question. He has that right without being ridiculed by you. You also could have called the conference and gotten the answer.

The sign situation is amusing and absurd. I'm wondering why Pickle or his "contact on the ground" - which I suppose is better than a contact under the ground - didn't bother to call the Illinois Conference and ask them. After all, JL is the pastor of the Thompsonville Church (not the pastor of the 3ABN Church). But the point is not to get information, but rather to disseminate rumors and innuendos.

As I read it, Pickle likes to come across as an authority, but does he know the facts? Apparently no.

[fallible humanbe...]

PDi,

Come on . . . you know well that no thread ever begins and ends "on topic" with each and every post sticking rigidly to the OP . . . these discussions evolve and wend their way through a variety of "linked" side discussions that crop up along the way . . . you can't allow that in a thread dominated by your personal POV and then attack it in one where that POV is being challenged . . . it is either the way it is or it isn't. Cyber discussions are more prone to "bird walking" (as an old mentor of mine once called the process of following a side path discussion which resulted from a more directed path) then are more formal "conference table" ones.

- FHB

Shiny Penny and Ian, please address yourself only to the topic of the thread, and not the character of the poster of the OP, well any post actually. If you have nothing to add or no opinion, please skip posting to this thread. Bob asked a question. He has that right without being ridiculed by you. You also could have called the conference and gotten the answer.