An Unauthorized History Of 3abn, Continues Options

[Seraphim7]

PrincessDi,

As to my response to PB, I will not attempt to defend it, but I will offer a brief explanation. To do so would require sharing information outside the scope of what is posted on BSDA about Jeanette, although I hesitate to do so and risk the possibility of being further misunderstood, I will tread carefully. I have known the identity of Jeanette for a long time. Since she has recently begun ending her posts with her actual name, I will refer to her as Jeanette rather than PB. Jeanette has been playing both sides of the 3ABN issue for a long time, networking herself with everyone possible. In the course of her desire to become a self-appointed “peace maker”, selected information has been purposefully “leaked” to her in order to ensure it becomes publicly or passed on to the other side. I realize that makes her little more than a pawn in a larger “game”, but my frustration with this and other actions on her part which I choose not to mention here, personally caused me great frustration. Her last post to me, was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back.

In conclusion, if I gave the impression that I was turning against everyone in my zeal to protect the further abuse of innocent victims of Danny Shelton, I am sorry. Not that I attempted to stop further abuse, but that in doing so I have alienated you and others in the process.

Sister

Personally, I can not disagree with your above assessment. While you are both respected and admired. The love I have for my sisters has not wavered, though we just do not happen to see eye to eye in this particular instance, it happens. With that said, please be aware that everyone does has not misunderstand or feel alienated. It simply is what it is.

Peace

[Seraphim7]

PrincessDi,

I, too, have always admired you for the fairness you have shown in your part as an administrator at BSDA...
In conclusion, if I gave the impression that I was turning against everyone in my zeal to protect the further abuse of innocent victims of Danny Shelton, I am sorry. Not that I attempted to stop further abuse, but that in doing so I have alienated you and others in the process.

Sister

Good Morning Sister,

A couple of thoughts.

What happened to defending the Fiscalini's by backing up what you claimed with eyewitness confirmations or evidence, or documenting the rest of your story?

Ian for someone who has ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION with the principles involved and, no first hand knowledge of ANYTHING you have a lot of nerve trying to take Sister, who has been a part of this issue, on the inside from the beginning, to task.

Can you understand how that might appear more credible then explaining why you can't be friendly or fellowship with others because you must keep your ID secret at all costs, especially after outing and attempting to out all kinds of others.

And for one who has made it clear that you really are only willing to be friendly or fellowship, within limited boundaries, as noted below, you once again make it clear your credibility is lacking

bigblacksista - see the heathen family tree thread.....
Ian - ok, will mosey over onto it...
...
...
Ian - hmmm. went saw and skidaddled BBS, not my place nor my business.
Ian - Does occur to me there's a bigger tree which overshadows all and the one who hung there has arms big enough and strong enough to shelter and hold all
Ian - movin on...

We are encouraged to fellowship with others while we are here by he who hung on a "bigger tree", as you put it. However, Sisters explanation is more than reasonable, while your explanation, for limiting your fellowship with us, comes off as condescending and dismissive. So Ian, you need to look at the man in the mirror before you start questioning any other members motivation or credibility regarding anything.

The golden rules seems sadly lacking in your take of the situation here.
You claim a desire to stop abuse and yet imo your post here is even ore unkind and abusive to jeanette than the previous one.
I don't think it was necessary to attempt to trash her before the entire forum and public.
Surely you could have stopped at explaining you had written in frustration and sent he rest to Di in a pm if you felt you had to explain further?
If you had not written all publicly, you wouldn't be answered here publicly.
I think in the long run yoou are hurting yourself more theanany other.
The end don't really justify the means.

Ian your comment about her being unkind and abusive, about making her statement in public, which happened to be originated with the response to PB (who opted to call Sister out on OPEN forum btw,) is a crock, so stop selling woof tickets Ian because it is very obvious you are only trying to egg the issue on. And Ian, YOU could have just as easily led by example had you followed the golden rule, by taking your comments to PM. Again, Ian needs to look at the man in the mirror. How did you put it Ian

Perhaps if we could all put Christ first, the rest wouldn't be so difficult?

Perhaps, since you insist on trying to teach others, why not first try to lead by example Ian.

[awesumtenor]

Can you understand how that might appear more credible then explaining why you can't be friendly or fellowship with others because you must keep your ID secret at all costs, especially after outing and attempting to out all kinds of others.

can you understand she has done no more or less than you or appletree or others in your camp to whom you have offered no rebuke for the same exact thing?

Did it occur to you that others might have the same concerns?

The golden rules seems sadly lacking in your take of the situation here.

You claim a desire to stop abuse and yet imo your post here is even ore unkind and abusive to jeanette than the previous one.

In *your* opinion. And given the historical bent of those you are allied with, none of you is in a position to decry other's lack of the golden rule in their posting.

I don't think it was necessary to attempt to trash her before the entire forum and public.

Had PB followed biblical counsel and not tried to put sister on blast in public, the response she received would not have been public. It was the bed she made; weep not when she has to lie in it.

Surely you could have stopped at explaining you had written in frustration and sent he rest to Di in a pm if you felt you had to explain further?

If you had not written all publicly, you wouldn't be answered here publicly.

As noted above, this applies as much to PB as it does to sister; in fact moreso since it was PB who launched this particular tangent. it is too late to object to the price the piper needs to be paid after the tune has already been called.

Yes, you have probably caused some damage here, and some hurt, but at what cost?

Sadly, I think in the long run you are hurting yourself more than any other.
The end don't really justify the means.

Perhaps if we could all put Christ first, the rest wouldn't be so difficult?

Perhaps if the physician would heal himself by applying his advice to others to himself first the rest would not be so difficult.

In His service,
Mr. J

[princessdi]

Thanks, Sister, for this most honest response. You have, indeed, eleviated my concerns expressed. Sometimes it just takes talking about things to get a different perspective and understanding(which is why I responded as a member and not an Admin). I, too, look forward to meet you, and you all when you are free to be who you are. I am secretly hoping that this happens before GC 2010, as I really do want ALL of our members(Yes!! including Danny supporters) to attend out BSDA Family festivites as a BSDA Family. Imagine the statement that would make. Some of us made that same statement at my church last year, and people, including my pastor, are still awed by it. But that is just the optimist in me! I am praying toward that end.

BTW, you are still cool with me

PrincessDi,

I, too, have always admired you for the fairness you have shown in your part as an administrator at BSDA. That you have become disappointed in me does give me reason to pause. Part of the reason I have not had the opportunity to fellowship with other members to the degree that I would have preferred is because of my speaking out in regard to the situation at 3ABN. What has allowed me to speak so frankly publically, is unfortunately what has kept me from developing the friendships here that I would desire. Unlike others, I have had to remain on my guard, not allowing myself to share personal information that could lead to my identity. If it were discovered who I am, it would not only effect me, but also my family. Taking that risk on my own behalf is one thing, when it involves those I love, it becomes another matter all together. It is for this reason that I have avoided the LC. There are times that I have been there and in the natural flow of conversation innocent questions have arisen which I am unable to answer to ensure my identity remains protected. I found it easier to avoid this situation by staying away from the LC. The positive aspect of this decision is that I am still able to testify concerning Danny Shelton and 3ABN, the negative aspect is that I am the loser when it comes to enjoying the fellowship that I would desire at BSDA.

I look forward to the day when “Sister” disappears and I can return here as myself, completely disassociated from this persona, and have the freedom to interact as I would choose rather than be hindered by the burden associated with the freedom she has to write here.

As to the impression that BSDA is little more than a “tool” that I am using toward a desired end. I am sorry that you feel that way, but I can understand the reasoning behind your statement. Were our positions reversed, perhaps we would both feel the same way.

I do hate the corruption that I have seen in the church and found echoed in certain posts on the 3ABN forum and you are correct we both are of the same temperament in focusing our attention on a task until it is completed. If I had hurt individuals in the process, I am sorry. I, too, have been hurt in this process, not only by the self-imposed buffer I have placed upon myself to guard my identity, thus having to sacrifice the personal pleasure of the fellowship I desire, but by the constant insults and false accusations I have suffered from those defending Danny Shelton.

I started writing “An Unauthorized History of 3ABN” nearly two years ago. I never thought it would continue this long. I had hoped that everything would be settled long before now. Unfortunately, my optimistic viewpoint has been proven to be faulty. Personally, my desire is to reach an end to this drama as soon as possible.

As to my response to PB, I will not attempt to defend it, but I will offer a brief explanation. To do so would require sharing information outside the scope of what is posted on BSDA about Jeanette, although I hesitate to do so and risk the possibility of being further misunderstood, I will tread carefully. I have known the identity of Jeanette for a long time. Since she has recently begun ending her posts with her actual name, I will refer to her as Jeanette rather than PB. Jeanette has been playing both sides of the 3ABN issue for a long time, networking herself with everyone possible. In the course of her desire to become a self-appointed “peace maker”, selected information has been purposefully “leaked” to her in order to ensure it becomes publicly or passed on to the other side. I realize that makes her little more than a pawn in a larger “game”, but my frustration with this and other actions on her part which I choose not to mention here, personally caused me great frustration. Her last post to me, was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back.

In conclusion, if I gave the impression that I was turning against everyone in my zeal to protect the further abuse of innocent victims of Danny Shelton, I am sorry. Not that I attempted to stop further abuse, but that in doing so I have alienated you and others in the process.

Sister

[sister]

Thanks, Sister, for this most honest response. You have, indeed, eleviated my concerns expressed. Sometimes it just takes talking about things to get a different perspective and understanding(which is why I responded as a member and not an Admin). I, too, look forward to meet you, and you all when you are free to be who you are. I am secretly hoping that this happens before GC 2010, as I really do want ALL of our members(Yes!! including Danny supporters) to attend out BSDA Family festivites as a BSDA Family. Imagine the statement that would make. Some of us made that same statement at my church last year, and people, including my pastor, are still awed by it. But that is just the optimist in me! I am praying toward that end.

BTW, you are still cool with me

PrincessDi,

Thank you for the graciousness you have shown not only to me, but to all the members involved in this most difficult of situations. I, too, have hopes of an end coming to this saga before GC 2010. Although some of us have been deeply divided upon these issues, we all share the same hope of being together in Heaven one day. My desire is that the BSDA Family festivities at GC 2010 will be a small foretaste of Heaven, where we will all be able to openly come as ourselves and greet in person the brothers and sisters that have become so familiar to us here. PrincessDi, I hope at that time you will be prepared for a huge hug, because the woman whose arms will encircle you, but whose face is unfamiliar, will be me! Until that day arrives we can all join you in prayer toward that happy ending.

Sister

[PeacefulBe]

Whoa! This post of mine is blasting Sister? Would someone please define for me what "Blasting" is?

What is this considered?

It almost appears that there is a double standard going on here. Anything goes when those you agree with are criticizing, lashing out or cutting down those who dare to share their differing perspectives or opinions. But when the others reply it's "blasting"?

Yes, I was tempted to lash out at Sister recently for what I consider to be unnecessary and vindictive acts, but I didn't because I didn't want to be just as vindictive.

I was replying to a post that Sister made to me in open forum. Isn't that the point of discussion?

Sister,

I have absolutely no doubt that you are a peaceful individual. I have often seen myself in you (not meaning to offend here, btw) and can totally identify when you have become Mama Bear (as Snoopy dubbed me when Steffan threw nasty accusations out about beartrap one day), defending those you hold dear from attack. Recently I have even been ever so close to doing to you just what you attempted to do to Ian just now, when you Bob and Gailon leveled your crosshairs at FHB, who I care about every bit as much as I care about Beartrap. Mama Bear's claws came out and were ready to slash at you through my keyboard, but two far wiser members grabbed me and cautioned me to calm down. I did.

We do have a duty to fight injustice and strive for truth to be revealed. It is a noble duty indeed. A call for reformation and renewal is a good thing, but we can't force it to happen just like we can't force any other soul on this planet to grow in their relationship with God at our own pace. The folks running that whole Inquisition thing used unkind tactics to force reformation and renewal onto whole groups of people.

If you look at the evidence, the way Gailon and Bob are now leading this campaign, can you honestly say that they are working within the guidelines of the testimony of Scripture? Wouldn't you agree that their strategy has necessitated using Satan's tools rather than operating within the boundaries of God's principles and Christian ethics?

Pray about this, Sister. Try hard to look at the whole picture through God's eyes and see if what is going on is pleasing to Him, is something He can bless.

Jeanette

[awesumtenor]

Whoa! This post of mine is blasting Sister? Would someone please define for me what "Blasting" is?

Publicly chiding her because you took offense at how she said what she said is putting her on blast.

It almost appears that there is a double standard going on here. Anything goes when those you agree with are criticizing, lashing out or cutting down those who dare to share their differing perspectives or opinions. But when the others reply it's "blasting"?

Yes, I was tempted to lash out at Sister recently for what I consider to be unnecessary and vindictive acts, but I didn't because I didn't want to be just as vindictive.

You did, in fact lash out; you just did it in a passive-aggressive manner. If how she said what she had to say bothered you, that was not the way you were supposed to go about that...but you prolly knew that before you posted what you did.

I was replying to a post that Sister made to me in open forum. Isn't that the point of discussion?

Discussion would be your addressing what she said... not how she said it.

In His service,
Mr. J

[inga]

Sister, thank you for confirming what I had thought since coming here. Both Alethia and Ian consistently used "a" in front of words starting with vowels. (not starting that discussion again.)

Not only that. "Ian's" tactics are exactly like those of "Aletheia" on Maritime SDA and "Cindy." I would have caught this much sooner, except for the fact that I know of an "Ian" who has some connection to 3ABN.

It goes back to, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it most likely is a duck."

The taking on of a male pseudonym was likely a deliberate attempt to deceive the administrators and members of this forum. Ian/Aletheia/Cindy may not have the same IP address as previously, but that doesn't prove that it's not the same person. Just changing ISP's immediately gives a person a different IP address. And it's not that unlikely for someone to change ISP's over the space of four years.

Aletheia/ Cindy/ Ian, I find your tactics are as despicable as ever. There's enough of a pot boiling without your stirring it.

[PeacefulBe]

Publicly chiding her because you took offense at how she said what she said is putting her on blast.

You did, in fact lash out; you just did it in a passive-aggressive manner. If how she said what she had to say bothered you, that was not the way you were supposed to go about that...but you prolly knew that before you posted what you did.
Discussion would be your addressing what she said... not how she said it.
In His service,
Mr. J

I scratched my head for a bit over your reply, because I did address what she said.

Then I realized that you had cleverly answered my request for a definition of blasting by providing an example!

I imagine that is what you were attempting to demonstrate to Ian as well:

Faux News? That explains a lot... not the least of which is your maintaining the delusion of your reporting being "fair and balanced"...

In His service,
Mr. J

Thanks! Now I understand what "Blasting" means.

[Seraphim7]

Not only that. "Ian's" tactics are exactly like those of "Aletheia" on Maritime SDA and "Cindy." I would have caught this much sooner, except for the fact that I know of an "Ian" who has some connection to 3ABN.

It goes back to, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it most likely is a duck."

The taking on of a male pseudonym was likely a deliberate attempt to deceive the administrators and members of this forum. Ian/Aletheia/Cindy may not have the same IP address as previously, but that doesn't prove that it's not the same person. Just changing ISP's immediately gives a person a different IP address. And it's not that unlikely for someone to change ISP's over the space of four years.

Aletheia/ Cindy/ Ian, I find your tactics are as despicable as ever. There's enough of a pot boiling without your stirring it.

Actually, there are those of us who caught it a looooooong time ago. If you folks are only acknowledging the posts you make among yourselves then of course you missed it. But in a matter of the day, or the day after, the new nick "appeared" on the scene some were already fully aware of the "likeness". After it was suggested that Cindy (who is banned) might be hiding behind another nick they, or as I refer to them (the house of CinDonIanAl) came out of the closet so to speak, and acknowledged that they were "family members" using the same computer. Funny how the same tactic was used by WWJD and Bi-stander.

Please bear in mind that just because many of us are not in the middle of this mess does not mean we are not paying attention.

[Seraphim7]

I scratched my head for a bit over your reply, because I did address what she said.

Then I realized that you had cleverly answered my request for a definition of blasting by providing an example!

I imagine that is what you were attempting to demonstrate to Ian as well:
Thanks! Now I understand what "Blasting" means.

See PB, you simply refuse to leave well enough alone by insisting on staying peacefully bewildered. You have also been told here and in PM to stop projecting. Unfortunately, in making that choice, you also insist on learning the hard way. But you grown.

[sister]

Personally, I can not disagree with your above assessment. While you are both respected and admired. The love I have for my sisters has not wavered, though we just do not happen to see eye to eye in this particular instance, it happens. With that said, please be aware that everyone does has not misunderstand or feel alienated. It simply is what it is.

Peace

Thank you, Sera...

[Richard Sherwin]

Greenie I don't believe anyone is against justice, or is saying that anyone should be getting away with sin. It's the way we are going about it that has some of us troubled. We are constantly rehashing the same old stories and trading personal barbs, insults and rumors. There is a time for the Battles to end, some feel that now is the time. We might do better with the carrot instead of the stick.

Are you practicing here that which you are advocating? Your post seems more loaded with emotions than I see correspondence to in that to which you are reacting. I agree with your basic premise of wanting to see more kindness here on the forum, but such a form of kindness as you have offered above does not set the example that you might be like to be proud of. In any case, I am one juror who is not swayed by the emotional rhetoric so much as the factual logic.
I'm in harmony with this thought.

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. (Proverbs 29:2, KJV)

To both of you, I would like to respond with a personal testimony:

I was a member of a church in which one man divorced his wife, claiming adultery. Within a day or two of his divorce becoming legal (man's laws), he had remarried. His former wife asserted her innocence from the very beginning. Because this is just the sort of thing which the Bible speaks of in terms of church discipline, the Matthew 18 principle was followed. The man, however, was unrepentant. It finally came to a decision by the church board. A vote was taken as to whether or not to disfellowship him.

The man was well-liked, and the meeting was contentious. A representative from the conference was in attendance to help chair the meeting. Many of the man's friends had showed up to help sway the vote in his direction. Ellen White spoke of situations like this in which a church might face a decision. She said that in moral matters as this, if the church vote did not uphold the right, and if no disciplinary action were taken, that she saw as it were a black cloud hovering over that church from then on, and the blessing of God withheld.

Some of us, as a result, feared that the wrong decision would bring such a dark cloud over us. We prayed. The vote was taken by secret ballot. The votes were counted carefully by the designated ones. He was disfellowshiped.

Immediately, several of his friends asked to have their names removed from the church books. These were angry that the man had been disfellowshiped. They had not been regular attendees to the church services. Some were working on the Sabbath at times already. This was but the final straw for them. Our church had just come through a time of shaking, and some had been sifted out.

God blessed. In the few short years which followed, we saw other Adventist families move in to the small town and fill the vacancies. A new church was started beside the first, with worship services in another language. Many new members came into the church, and those who remained from the previous group were kind, considerate, and warmly welcomed the newcomers, regardless of their appearance, the smell of smoke on their breath, or other hindrances which have caused many to feel rejection in other places.

The man, with his new wife, continued to attend church, though not permitted to lead. A few years later, another pastor came to our church. He heard the story of what had happened. He felt that the man had been wrongly chastised, and that he should be allowed back in on the profession of faith (instead of repentance and rebaptism). He circulated to the various members' homes, persuading each individually. Finally, by his continual pushing of his "grace and mercy" philosophy, he accomplished what he had set out to. In the end, the man was never repentant. Soon after becoming a "member" again, he transferred to another church, a larger one, which knew nothing of his history. Having welcomed him back into membership did not heal the hurts from the past, and only time and eternity will tell if it did more bad than good.

The Bible is clear that we must deal with the sins in the camp decisively. Jesus, too, uttered some scathing rebukes. Yes, there were tears in His eyes. But those tears did not stop the words! We have a duty to perform.

Writing about the Laodicean church, and referencing the story of Elijah on Mount Carmel, Mrs. White said:
What was the "emergency"? It was something which had lasted for YEARS. Elijah, however, did not relent until a decided change was made. The Bible speaks of some in the last days coming in the spirit of Elijah.

Blessings,

Greenie.

[Pickle]

Greenie I don't believe anyone is against justice, or is saying that anyone should be getting away with sin. It's the way we are going about it that has some of us troubled. We are constantly rehashing the same old stories and trading personal barbs, insults and rumors. There is a time for the Battles to end, some feel that now is the time. We might do better with the carrot instead of the stick.

Do you have a suggestion on how to persuade both 3ABN and Danny to call a halt to the war?

[Richard Sherwin]

One way to halt the public war would be to not allow posting under pseudonyms. I think people would be more civil to each other, some would not post, and those that did might give their posts more thought. Is that going to happen? I expect not.

The practical way to call a halt to the war is for people to just not post. One side posts, then the other side replies and back and forth it goes, many times hashing out the same old hashed out stories and the emotional intensity of words goes up and up. Pretty soon the original point gets lost in argument and personal attacks. Accusation get thrown out, rumors get started etc.

At the very least I think we could try for a cold war.

The next question is can the pressure be kept on Danny, 3abn and the board without these public threads going? To that I don't know, but they don't seem to be working as they exist now. Many times pressure just causes people to dig in their heels, and maybe this is what has happened here.

No easy answers, but there never is in wars.

Do you have a suggestion on how to persuade both 3ABN and Danny to call a halt to the war?