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

[fallible humanbe...]

GM (though not necessarily directed solely toward you),

There is an issue here to be discussed, that of one's labeling one's self a reporter. The issue here seems to be the cavalier way in which these two gentleman (Gailon A. Joy and Robert Pickle) have done so.

I did a search, though not exhaustive, on the basics of journalistic integrity and the "codes of ethics" that the reporting industry holds itself to. We know very well that there are those who flaunt, and at times completely ignore these "rules" - but they exist and are taught in journalism schools none-the-less. I came across a nice concise list at Wikipedia and I thought I would use that as a basis to make my point.

I am not going to copy-and-paste the whole thing, feel free to explore it yourself (Wikipedia) . . . I am going to take some rather pertinent pieces and explain why I think they are important and point to Gailon and Robert as being examples of ones who editorialize rather than report, and yes speculate on the reasons why. (All bold type has been done so by me)

Objectivity
- Unequivocal separation between news and opinion.
- Within the reporting industry there is a clear delineation between reporters and editors
- Reporters must avoid conflict of interest (this includes not reporting on a story that directly effects you)
- Competing POV are balanced and fairly characterized
- Persons who are the subject of adverse news are allowed the reasonable opportunity to respond before the story is published or broadcast

Source
- Accurate attribution of statements made by individuals
- Pictures, sound, and quotations must not be presented in a misleading context (or lack thereof)

Accuracy
- Events with a single eyewitness are reported with attribution. Events with two or more independent eyewitnesses may be reported as fact. Controversial facts are reported with attribution.
- Corrections are published when errors are discovered

Slander and libel considerations
- Private persons have privacy rights that must be balanced against the public interest in reporting information about them. Public figures have fewer privacy rights.

There are others and they may very well fit into the discussion . . . but these are the ones I am going to draw on for now.

It is my contention that the work of Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle has not been the process of reporting, but rather of exercising a personal agenda and an effort to sell others on this agenda in an attempt to lend credence to their claims by presenting themselves as the voice of the people they have directly influenced.

In the postings here, on MSDAOL, and other non-Seventh-day Adventist discussion areas, they have not reported, but have instead editorialized and presented personal opinion as "news." Take a look at the first list "Objectivity" . . .

They have not separated "news" from "opinion" as evidenced by their choice of words:

Now since Remnant Publications' 2006 Form 990 reports an increase in royalty payments in 2006 of more than $480,000 over 2004, Remnant must have run the royalty reports at some point and calculated what Danny had earned for royalties in 2006. Link

Kind of odd, isn't it, that May Chung would have been given a life estate in a property in Illinois, and then deeded that property, if all the while she remained a resident of San Bernardino, California, as the deed below suggests? And why put her name on the title of "Lot 6" at all if she was only going to be on for six months? Link


As 3ABN president Danny Shelton begins to cause legal trouble for Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle, emails written by Danny surface that could raise the eyebrows of the IRS. Hopefully, this is no indication of how he has handled the finances of 3ABN. Link

Danny claims his divorce and remarriage is the only issue anyone cares about, which of course is not true.Link

The above quotations from the website owned by Gailon (and some suspect Robert Pickle is the author of some if not all of the content - something he hasn't denied to this point) indicate a style of editorializing as opposed to strict reporting. The bold is my own and used to identify where these indicate they are editorial in nature and not reporting.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
ed·i·to·ri·al·ize /ˌɛdɪˈtɔriəˌlaɪz, -ˈtoʊr-/
–verb (used without object), -ized, -iz·ing.
1. to set forth one's position or opinion on some subject in, or as if in, an editorial.
2. to inject personal interpretations or opinions into an otherwise factual account.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
re·port /rɪˈpɔrt, -ˈpoʊrt/
–noun
1. an account or statement describing in detail an event, situation, or the like, usually as the result of observation, inquiry, etc.

Gailon's website and both gentlemen's "reporting" is rife with similar examples and should alone be enough to remove the "reporter" labels they have given themselves.

Item three under Objectivity is rather obvious. They are engaged in a lawsuit with 3ABN, to "report" on any of the proceedings or any of the issues raised in same would be a blatant violation of journalist ethics. At the point they became engaged in a lawsuit with the people and entity they claim to have been reporting about is a distinct conflict of interest. Anything "published" since the filing of the lawsuit is tainted by their personal involvement.

The second item under Sources has been one that I have written about here, and elsewhere, as there have been numerous violations of this principle all along.

Early on, the reporting on the website owned by Gailon Joy included claims that Danny Shelton had broken into Linda Shelton's automobile. This was then presented as "fact" by Robert Pickle on a number of discussion boards on the Internet. When challenged he would not back down and claimed that his wording was accurate. Additionally, were his claims that Dr. Thompson, Chairman of the BOD of 3ABN, "admitted" to being misled ("I took Walt's statement that Danny had essentially misled him"), when in fact he never said anything of the sort. Robert then added the word "essentially" to his claims making them read, "essentially admitted to being misled." This still is misleading as it incorrectly portrayed both Dr. Thompson's position and attributed to him ideas that were false (not only that Danny lied to him.) The third example of this egregious approach was the claim that Danny said the marriage was over because Linda hid his gun. The point being made by Danny (or the individual who claims to have heard the statement) was that their marriage had deteriorated to a point of no return - the hiding of anything was inconsequential, but only a symptom of a much larger and deeper problem (Link, Link, Link, Link). The selection of words evidences an intent to mislead, in order to create a perception via editorializing - not reporting.

This would also tie in with the second item under Accuracy as well, there have been no retractions or statements of correction, when and if, such were made.

Finally, the last item in the Objectivity list applied to one of the most recent postings on the website owned by Gailon A. Joy, requires the asking of the following question: "Was Dwight Hall ever approached to respond?"
What about Merlin Fjarli in regards to the posting of his foundations IRS Form 990's?

It is clear that what Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle have undertaken is not a "reporting" of the news, but rather an editorializing of events and individuals in an effort to stir support for their drive to as they put it, "Save 3ABN," a claim that many can reasonably argue is questionable.

- FHB

. . . 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.

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Nov 13 2007, 09:22 PM

[howdy]

GM (though not necessarily directed solely toward you),

There is an issue here to be discussed, that of one's labeling one's self a reporter. The issue here seems to be the cavalier way in which these two gentleman (Gailon A. Joy and Robert Pickle) have done so.

I did a search, though not exhaustive, on the basics of journalistic integrity and the "codes of ethics" that the reporting industry holds itself to. We know very well that there are those who flaunt, and at times completely ignore these "rules" - but they exist and are taught in journalism schools none-the-less. I came across a nice concise list at Wikipedia and I thought I would use that as a basis to make my point.

I am not going to copy-and-paste the whole thing, feel free to explore it yourself (Wikipedia) . . . I am going to take some rather pertinent pieces and explain why I think they are important and point to Gailon and Robert as being examples of ones who editorialize rather than report, and yes speculate on the reasons why. (All bold type has been done so by me)

Objectivity
- Unequivocal separation between news and opinion.
- Within the reporting industry there is a clear delineation between reporters and editors
- Reporters must avoid conflict of interest (this includes not reporting on a story that directly effects you)
- Competing POV are balanced and fairly characterized
- Persons who are the subject of adverse news are allowed the reasonable opportunity to respond before the story is published or broadcast

Source
- Accurate attribution of statements made by individuals
- Pictures, sound, and quotations must not be presented in a misleading context (or lack thereof)

Accuracy
- Events with a single eyewitness are reported with attribution. Events with two or more independent eyewitnesses may be reported as fact. Controversial facts are reported with attribution.
- Corrections are published when errors are discovered

Slander and libel considerations
- Private persons have privacy rights that must be balanced against the public interest in reporting information about them. Public figures have fewer privacy rights.

There are others and they may very well fit into the discussion . . . but these are the ones I am going to draw on for now.

It is my contention that the work of Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle has not been the process of reporting, but rather of exercising a personal agenda and an effort to sell others on this agenda in an attempt to lend credence to their claims by presenting themselves as the voice of the people they have directly influenced.

In the postings here, on MSDAOL, and other non-Seventh-day Adventist discussion areas, they have not reported, but have instead editorialized and presented personal opinion as "news." Take a look at the first list "Objectivity" . . .

They have not separated "news" from "opinion" as evidenced by their choice of words:

Now since Remnant Publications' 2006 Form 990 reports an increase in royalty payments in 2006 of more than $480,000 over 2004, Remnant must have run the royalty reports at some point and calculated what Danny had earned for royalties in 2006. Link

Kind of odd, isn't it, that May Chung would have been given a life estate in a property in Illinois, and then deeded that property, if all the while she remained a resident of San Bernardino, California, as the deed below suggests? And why put her name on the title of "Lot 6" at all if she was only going to be on for six months? Link


As 3ABN president Danny Shelton begins to cause legal trouble for Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle, emails written by Danny surface that could raise the eyebrows of the IRS. Hopefully, this is no indication of how he has handled the finances of 3ABN. Link

Danny claims his divorce and remarriage is the only issue anyone cares about, which of course is not true.Link

The above quotations from the website owned by Gailon (and some suspect Robert Pickle is the author of some if not all of the content - something he hasn't denied to this point) indicate a style of editorializing as opposed to strict reporting. The bold is my own and used to identify where these indicate they are editorial in nature and not reporting.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
ed·i·to·ri·al·ize /ˌɛdɪˈtɔriəˌlaɪz, -ˈtoʊr-/
–verb (used without object), -ized, -iz·ing.
1. to set forth one's position or opinion on some subject in, or as if in, an editorial.
2. to inject personal interpretations or opinions into an otherwise factual account.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
re·port /rɪˈpɔrt, -ˈpoʊrt/
–noun
1. an account or statement describing in detail an event, situation, or the like, usually as the result of observation, inquiry, etc.

Gailon's website and both gentlemen's "reporting" is rife with similar examples and should alone be enough to remove the "reporter" labels they have given themselves.

Item three under Objectivity is rather obvious. They are engaged in a lawsuit with 3ABN, to "report" on any of the proceedings or any of the issues raised in same would be a blatant violation of journalist ethics. At the point they became engaged in a lawsuit with the people and entity they claim to have been reporting about is a distinct conflict of interest. Anything "published" since the filing of the lawsuit is tainted by their personal involvement.

The second item under Sources has been one that I have written about here, and elsewhere, as there have been numerous violations of this principle all along.

Early on, the reporting on the website owned by Gailon Joy included claims that Danny Shelton had broken into Linda Shelton's automobile. This was then presented as "fact" by Robert Pickle on a number of discussion boards on the Internet. When challenged he would not back down and claimed that his wording was accurate. Additionally, were his claims that Dr. Thompson, Chairman of the BOD of 3ABN, "admitted" to being misled ("I took Walt's statement that Danny had essentially misled him"), when in fact he never said anything of the sort. Robert then added the word "essentially" to his claims making them read, "essentially admitted to being misled." This still is misleading as it incorrectly portrayed both Dr. Thompson's position and attributed to him ideas that were false (not only that Danny lied to him.) The third example of this egregious approach was the claim that Danny said the marriage was over because Linda hid his gun. The point being made by Danny (or the individual who claims to have heard the statement) was that their marriage had deteriorated to a point of no return - the hiding of anything was inconsequential, but only a symptom of a much larger and deeper problem. The selection of words evidences an intent to mislead, in order to create a perception via editorializing - not reporting.

This would also tie in with the second item under Accuracy as well, there have been no retractions or statements of correction, when and if, such were made.

Finally, the last item in the Objectivity list applied to one of the most recent postings on the website owned by Gailon A. Joy, requires the asking of the following question: "Was Dwight Hall ever approached to respond?"
What about Merlin Fjarli in regards to the posting of his foundations IRS Form 990's?

It is clear that what Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle have undertaken is not a "reporting" of the news, but rather an editorializing of events and individuals in an effort to stir support for their drive to as they put it, "Save 3ABN," a claim that many can reasonably argue is questionable.

- FHB

Personally I am becoming quite sceptical about these two persons. Seems if they ever did Linda any good that time is long past. Not saying I have changed my mind about Danny's shinanigans but I have stopped reading Pickle

howdy

[Observer]

FHB, & Others:

My response is directed toward the issue as to whether or not GAJ is a reporter, subject to the protections of the freedom of the press provisions of the Constitution, and his useage of the title AU Reporter.

The issue of journalistic ethics is another issue that is seperate from the issue that I addressed. Ethical issues are always important.

My failure to address those ethical issues stems from my beleif that nothing helpful would come from my participation in such a discussion. This is the same standard that I apply to other issues. I have remained silent on many issues that have been raised against 3-ABN and Danny because I beleive that my participation in such public discussions would not be helpful. I prefer to commit my energy in a manner that accomplishes something.

You claim that GAJ and Bob Pickle have been quite unethical. O.K. If a tort has been commited, the injured parties can seek the remedy of the courts. That is exactly what 3-ABN and Danny are doing. That is a central claim of the current litigation against GAJ and Bob Pickle. One way or the other this litigation may (?) resolve some issues. When its over, I may comment.

[Pickle]

FHB,

You can always pick up the phone and call me if you have any questions, just as Gailon called Dwight for maybe two weeks or so, and never got to talk to him.

So are you suggesting that journalists can never write editorials? Are you suggesting that freedom of speech and press should not apply to journals that do not do everything exactly as you suggested?

I am still waiting to hear from you any outrage over the falsehoods told by Danny and Walt, outrage over how Danny tried to convince Linda to commit tax fraud, outrage at how he divorced her when he didn't know if she had committed fornication, outrage over the personal inurement he has engaged in, outrage over how his shenanigans have taken 3ABN to the brink of disaster, and outrage over how the board has just let it all happen.

Do you value obedience to the 7th commandment? The 8th commandment? The 9th commandment? We know we can find the 7th through 9th commandments in the Bible, but where can we find the ethics of journalism in Scripture?

If we let the lawsuit clam us up, Danny would succeed in covering up allegations of child molestation, deceit, and financial improprieties. Should we allow him to achieve such an unrighteous goal?

Looking forward to meeting you in person. Not sure yet when that is going to happen, or if it will happen for sure.

[princessdi]

FHB, I am not concerned with the fact that the thread "waunders", but more that Ian and Shiny Penny do not have an answer to the question and choose instead to attack the OP. The OP is definitely NOT about Bob's character. They are not in court, they don't have to discredit his ability to ask a question. He aksed a question, that is his right as a human. If they had no answer then they should have stayed out. The thread can wauder where ever it will. We don't catch them all, but we all know that personal attackes are not allowed. I caught this one.

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

[Ian]

FHB, I am not concerned with the fact that the thread "waunders", but more that Ian and Shiny Penny do not have an answer to the question and choose instead to attack the OP. The OP is definitely NOT about Bob's character. They are not in court, they don't have to discredit his ability to ask a question. He aksed a question, that is his right as a human. If they had no answer then they should have stayed out. The thread can wauder where ever it will. We don't catch them all, but we all know that personal attackes are not allowed. I caught this one.

Princess Di,

I did a follow up post to FHB's you probably just overlooked it,

I backed up the answer he gave which is true, and I referred all back to the Thompsonville Church website where John Lomacang is plainly listed as Pastor, and reminded all that it was posted in the second post in this thread by Darrell.
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...st&p=224104

The problem here is that the answer was given by shiny penny and by Fallible human being, and myself but nobody believes it.

There is no mystery, no news here. The Church sign just listed that week's speaker. John Lomacang is a much beloved and respected Pastor, he has not been replaced.

Posters here seem to prefer to speculate, and can't seem to notice the answer was already given, or seek that answer for themselves:

The more important question is the one behind t 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?

After Watchbird posted that, and more.

I sent a email this morning, and then was gone all afternoon, so couldn't post it or the answer till now. Here you go:

----- Original Message -----
From: *****@illinoisadventist.org
To: *****
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: Inquiry about Thompsonville Church


Thank you for your enquiry. The pastor of the Thompsonville church is Pastor John Lomacang.

It seems as though you may have a concern in this regard though, and if so, may I suggest that you address your questions directly to one of the following three conference officers, who I am sure, will be able to help you with any concerns:



Elder Ed Barnett - Ministerial Director *****



Elder Kyoshin Ahn - Executive Secretary *****



Elder Ken Denslow - Conference President *****



May God bless you.

*****
*****
Administration Office
Illinois Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
Phone: ****
Fax: *****
E-mail: *****@illinoisadventist.org
Web: www.illinoisadventist.org

"Sharing God's grace with our world through preaching, teaching, and healing."

From: ******
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:16 AM
To: info@illinoisadventist.org
Subject: Inquiry about Thompsonville Church



Greetings to the Illinois Conference,



I'm sorry to bother you, but am seeking a simple answer to an easy question. in order to demonstrate how easy it is to verify facts and get answers and 'prove all things" rather then spreading gossip, rumor and innuendo to the detriment of others.



Can you tell me who is the current Pastor of the Thompsonville Seventh-Day Adventist church?



Are there plans in place to replace him, or has that already been done?



Thank you,

[princessdi]

May bad Ian! You are correct in that you did answer the question. However, you also should have just answered the question and not attacked the OP.

I also saw that the question was answered. I believe the answer. I am trying to see the significance of the OP. to be completely honest. I just packed it away with the rest of the info in this forum, I deem as insignificant, but many others find relelvant.

Princess Di,

I did a follow up post to FHB's you probably just overlooked it,

I backed up the answer he gave which is true, and I referred all back to the Thompsonville Church website where John Lomacang is plainly listed as Pastor, and reminded all that it was posted in the second post in this thread by Darrell.
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...st&p=224104

The problem here is that the answer was given by shiny penny and by Fallible human being, and myself but nobody believes it.

There is no mystery, no news here. The Church sign just listed that week's speaker. John Lomacang is a much beloved and respected Pastor, he has not been replaced.

Posters here seem to prefer to speculate, and can't seem to notice the answer was already given, or seek that answer for themselves:
After Watchbird posted that, and more.

I sent a email this morning, and then was gone all afternoon, so couldn't post it or the answer till now. Here you go:

[awesumtenor]

Princess Di,

I did a follow up post to FHB's you probably just overlooked it,

I backed up the answer he gave which is true, and I referred all back to the Thompsonville Church website where John Lomacang is plainly listed as Pastor, and reminded all that it was posted in the second post in this thread by Darrell.
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...st&p=224104

The problem here is that the answer was given by shiny penny and by Fallible human being, and myself but nobody believes it.

There is no mystery, no news here. The Church sign just listed that week's speaker. John Lomacang is a much beloved and respected Pastor, he has not been replaced.

Posters here seem to prefer to speculate, and can't seem to notice the answer was already given, or seek that answer for themselves:
After Watchbird posted that, and more.

I sent a email this morning, and then was gone all afternoon, so couldn't post it or the answer till now. Here you go:

Before you break your arm patting yourself on the back... note that the Illinois Conference completely blew off the second question in that email you sent... ergo all you've proven is that no move has taken place... but that doesn't preclude the conference from moving in the future... even the very near future...


In His service,
Mr. J

[justice4jesus]

Ian, I would just like to thank you for providing the documentation regarding Pastor John Lomacang. A simple answer to a simple question. That's all it takes to satisfy me, anyway.

Honestly though, folks, this thread got WAAAY out of hand for no good reason.

[Ian]

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".

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...

Mr Matthews, I am sorry to correct you, but I am not misinformed. You did not understand my point and reference to Joy and Pickle's erroneous claim that "freedom of the press" applies to what they have done and are doing.

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.

Mr Matthews, whether I like or dislike Joy is irrelevant. It's not about me suing him, it is not about me stating "my case against him" The fact is Gailon and Pickle are already being sued for defamation of character. 3ABN has a case against them, and claims they have distorted the truth.

In my opinion tho- which I am entitled to- they are deceived, muckrakers, backbiters and gossips, rumormongers, and accusers of the brethren. So, I do disagree with Pickle and Joy, in that regard, and was already saying why here in this forum.

The Fact is that Gailon Joy is NOT a reporter for the Atlantic Union as he claims. Neither He or Pickle are members of the press, but even if they were reporters as you claim...


I do not agree that all should assume that the freedom of the Press and the freedom of speech protections within our Constitution apply to what they have done and are doing now in regards to 3ABN, until the court says differently. That is your opinion. It is interesting, but has no authority.

Actually all but 4 or 5 states acknowledge that certain categories of statements are considered defamation per se, (which is the category of stateements which Pickle and Joy have repeatedly made and which they are are being sued for) That means that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory. In the common law tradition, damages for such statements are presumed and do not have to be proven.

Freedom of the press does NOT guarantee a right to make defamatory statements against another, or protect those doing so.

In my opinion their "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" defense is a sorry one.

The First amendment was not written to guarantee anyone a right to slander or libel others or to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. (nor to destroy a ministry by doing those things.)

Those things are not included in freedom of the press, the right to free speech, nor in the right to religious freedom, (all of which Pickle and Joy claim have been violated by this lawsuit against them.)

Slander, libel and raising an alarm when there is no reason for alarm are not included in those constitutionally safeguarded rights because those things violate the rights of others, and that same constitution protects and insures the rights of those others also.

You are right in this though, the court will decide.

This post has been edited by Ian: Nov 14 2007, 08:02 AM

[Statrei]

afterall it is humans and not angels running the operations.

Is that a theological statement? Are you suggesting that angels cannot make mistakes?

[Clay]

56 (now 57) comments on a non-issue.... talk about slim pickins....... sheesh.....

[awesumtenor]

Mr Matthews, I am sorry to correct you, but I am not misinformed. You did not understand my point and reference to Joy and Pickle's erroneous claim that "freedom of the press" applies to what they have done and are doing.

You are entitled to believe that freedom of the press doesn't apply to Pickle and Joy...that doesn't make said belief correct, however. If it applies to sites like http://www.drudgereport.com, it applies to Pickle and Joy... regardless of whether you believe it should.

In my opinion tho- which I am entitled to- they are deceived, muckrakers, backbiters and gossips, rumormongers, and accusers of the brethren.

There are people in your own glass house who fit this particular shoe... are you sure you want to start throwing stones at others?

So, I do disagree with Pickle and Joy, in that regard, and was already saying why here in this forum.

Thank you for reiterating the obvious... but I believe the forum had already figured that out... what you miss is that you consistently allow your disagreement to color your judgement and destroy your objectivity... and before you say it, that is an observation of fact, not an opinion.

In His service,
Mr. J

[YogusBearus]

56 (now 57) comments on a non-issue.... talk about slim pickins....... sheesh.....

LOL, quit stealing my thoughts! Hopefully the Friday afternoon cycle of goodies on save3abn.com will come through this week. Some new juicy morsels are surely needed. It's much too hard to keep this up without some fresh material…

-bear

[Observer]

The Fact is that Gailon Joy is NOT a reporter for the Atlantic Union as he claims. Neither He or Pickle are members of the press, but even if they were reporters as you claim...

GAJ has taken the title "AU Reporter." You will note that he has never claimed to be a reporter for the Atlantic Union Conference. He has never claimed to be a reporter officially associated with the Seventh-day Adventist Chruch. If I am wrong, someone will immediately correct me.

What does the two letters "AU" mean in the phrase AU Reporter. I will suggest that you go back through the 20 years or so that GAJ has reported, in print (in the beginning) to a group of people who recieved his material. You will find that he reported on happenings in the geographic area that comprises the Atlantic Union Conference. I will suggest that is what resulted in the title AU Reporter. There is no claim of formal connection with the SDA Church in that area.

I do not agree that all should assume that the freedom of the Press and the freedom of speech protections within our Constitution apply to what they have done and are doing now in regards to 3ABN, until the court says differently. That is your opinion. It is interesting, but has no authority.

Actually all but 4 or 5 states acknowledge that certain categories of statements are considered defamation per se, (which is the category of stateements which Pickle and Joy have repeatedly made and which they are are being sued for) That means that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory. In the common law tradition, damages for such statements are presumed and do not have to be proven.

Freedom of the press does NOT guarantee a right to make defamatory statements against another, or protect those doing so.

As both you and I know, so-called freedom of the press may not protect someone from lawsuits for defamation of character, slander and libel. But, as you also know, the requirements to prevail in such litigation differ when the person who claims to be wronged is a so-called "public figure." I will suggest that such applies here to Danny Shelton. Again, even when the issue involves a public figure, action based upon the above may prevail.

I have never claimed that freedom of the press is an absolute bar to recovery in such a lawsuit.

You are right in this though, the court will decide.

Yes. We will have to wait and see what the decision is.

This post has been edited by Observer: Nov 14 2007, 10:29 AM