Rumors, Lies, & False Accusations Travel With Joy, Confronting AT and Gailon with Truth Options

[Ian]

It is nearly impossible to prove something did not happen, the onus is on Danny to prove his allegations against Linda, not on Linda to prove her innocence. Danny is the one who remarried, he is the one who should prove he had the Biblical grounds.

Richard, the onus is on Danny to prove it to who? The whole world, or whoever has an issue, or axe to grind, or whoever doesn't, or refuses to support 3ABN but still illogically refer to themselves as "stockholders in the pews"?

NO.

Those who were involved have testified it was proved to them, As you said it is nearly impossible to prove something didn't happen; so unless there is a valid reason to prove that didn't happen, or to claim they are lying and it was not proved to them, as in evidence to the contrary, what is the real issue here? What are you making an issue about, and why?

Truly. I'd really like to know.

As Appletree posted:
"As far as your trash TV talk, we have requested repeatedly that someone give us the program number, date or anything that would identify that program. No one has ever provided that information that I know of."

Quite a few have asked this. I myself have repeatedly asked for proof of this as it is supposedly public. I have NEVER received even one answer.

Have you noticed that?

Again. Truly, I'd really like to know.

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 24 2008, 04:23 PM

[LaurenceD]

As far as your trash TV talk, we have requested repeatedly that someone give us the program number, date or anything that would identify that program. No one has ever provided that information that I know of.

You've got to be kidding. Give me something hard.

[Richard Sherwin]

Did you even notice that I was responding to this from Appletree?

Please prove to us here, that Linda is 100% innocent so that you can make us all believe that Danny didn't have grounds for remarriage.

Danny made statements about Linda to the whole world, so yes it's to the world that he should show his proof. Linda has asked for the proofs to be made public.

Of course I think the best thing that could happen would be that the whole thing about the divorce and remarriage get dropped, but since the defenders keep posting it will not be dropped. If you, Appletree, Greg and all the rest just quit posting so would most everyone else. If both sides just quit responding to each other this whole thing would fade into the background.

Richard, the onus is on Danny to prove it to who? The whole world, or whoever has an issue, or axe to grind, or whoever doesn't, or refuses to support 3ABN but still illogically refer to themselves as "stockholders in the pews"?

NO.

Those who were involved have testified it was proved to them, As you said it is nearly impossible to prove something didn't happen; so unless there is a valid reason to prove that didn't happen, or to claim they are lying and it was not proved to them, as in evidence to the contrary, what is the real issue here? What are you making an issue about, and why?

Truly. I'd really like to know.

As Appletree posted:
"As far as your trash TV talk, we have requested repeatedly that someone give us the program number, date or anything that would identify that program. No one has ever provided that information that I know of."

Quite a few have asked this. I myself have repeatedly asked for proof of this as it is supposedly public. I have NEVER received even one answer.

Have you noticed that?

Again. Truly, I'd really like to know.

[appletree]

Did you even notice that I was responding to this from Appletree?
Danny made statements about Linda to the whole world, so yes it's to the world that he should show his proof. Linda has asked for the proofs to be made public.

Of course I think the best thing that could happen would be that the whole thing about the divorce and remarriage get dropped, but since the defenders keep posting it will not be dropped. If you, Appletree, Greg and all the rest just quit posting so would most everyone else. If both sides just quit responding to each other this whole thing would fade into the background.

The defenders are here only because of the untrue accusations that were posted here.
If both sides should not respondto each other, why do you respond? Not that I am disagreeing with you. I would love to see the whole thread shut down but, as long as Calvin doesn't choose to do that, we can hardly allow the ones on your side to continue with their allegations without defending the truth.

[Richard Sherwin]

If the defenders quit defending then I think the accusers would quit accusing. But the whole thing has been complicated immeasurably by the un-Biblical lawsuit. A lawsuit that should have never happened, and never would have happened if the 3abn side would have showed the world the proofs they claim to have. This whole thing has been a tragic mistake from the get go. So many unethical things have taken place, on both sides, that it make me sick. It would be real nice to turn back the hands of time and have a do over.

Another complication is the anonymity of internet. If everyone had to use their own name I'm sure people would have been more civil towards each other and most of the unproven allegations would not have been made.

The defenders are here only because of the untrue accusations that were posted here.
If both sides should not respondto each other, why do you respond? Not that I am disagreeing with you. I would love to see the whole thread shut down but, as long as Calvin doesn't choose to do that, we can hardly allow the ones on your side to continue with their allegations without defending the truth.

This post has been edited by Richard Sherwin: Feb 24 2008, 05:19 PM

[Ian]

Danny made statements about Linda to the whole world,

So you apparently believe and say... But this is exactly what I was commenting on, and asking about, you heard he did? or know he did? where is the proof?

Of course I think the best thing that could happen would be that the whole thing about the divorce and remarriage get dropped, but since the defenders keep posting it will not be dropped. If you, Appletree, Greg and all the rest just quit posting so would most everyone else. If both sides just quit responding to each other this whole thing would fade into the background.

I personally would like for the whole thing to be dropped too, but those accusing and gosiping were here before I arrived, and doing so without my help.... As far as I know they were here doing so before any of those referred to by so many names, such as danny clones, dannyfingers, etc, arrived.

It seems rather unfair to say it is because we rebut and disagree with what they say, and do, that they say and do the things they say and do. ( I don't see you replying and attempting to reason with them...)

Now they have gone off and formed their own forum, AT....

It's a perfect example.

Do they need us there to continue their work and agenda? It seems not...

So, let's not be unrealistic here.

If we left, they would continue just as they did before we arrived, and all you'd be left with is onesided ugliness.

Then who would you blame?

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 24 2008, 05:32 PM

[LaurenceD]

You've got to remember, Richard, these are the same folks that didn't have a clue what 3abn was doing wrong, even after it was spelled out to them by Judge Barbara Rowe in the property tax case.

IOW, appletree and his fanboys always ask for documents and proof, as if thats something to hide behind, but when you show it to them, as in the failed property tax case, they simply shrig it off and say something like, "well, that's her opinion" or "we knew it would go on to the next level." Little would they be able to recognize the validity in Rowe's vast experience, and reasoning, in cases like this...and likewise it goes with everything else here.

These folks aren't here to understand, or get an education, they're simply here to try and raise doubts, and they get all exercised when the doubts are not raised. I've been around these kind of folks. There's nothing that can be done except they be reborn.

[appletree]

You've got to be kidding. Give me something hard.

It must be too hard for you since all you gave me was a smart answer instead of the information I ask for.

[Pickle]

Ian, thank you for taking the time to respond to each of the points made by Snoopy and Pickle. You have clearly showed that the transaction was on the up and up.

So it was just fine that Danny denied that any section 4958 excess benefit transactions had taken place? Under penalty of perjury?

[LaurenceD]

It must be too hard for you since all you gave me was a smart answer instead of the information I ask for.

.
I can only assume you're a little slow. See my post above (#157) and reconsider.

[Richard Sherwin]

I did not see the program in question, but I have heard from people who did. Do I personally have proof? No.

A while back, I don't know how long, 6 month or a year the defenders pretty much quit posting on here for awhile and at that point the accusations pretty much quit as well. You will notice that it takes two to argue. I don't blame anyone for defending their positions but it's mostly a case of people coming on here without any proofs, on either side. If Danny would come on here under his own name, if sister would come on here under his or her own name, and all the others as well then we could have a much more productive discussion IMO. But of course no one is willing to do that.

Neither side has exactly taken the Christian high road in all this.

So you apparently believe and say... But this is exactly what I was commenting on, and asking about, you heard he did? or know he did? where is the proof?
I personally would like for the whole thing to be dropped too, but those accusing and gosiping were here before I arrived, and doing so without my help.... As far as I know they were here doing so before any of those referred to by so many names, such as danny clones, dannyfingers, etc, arrived.

It seems rather unfair to say it is because we rebut and disagree with what they say, and do, that they say and do the things they say and do. ( I don't see you replying and attempting to reason with them...)

Now they have gone off and formed their own forum, AT....

It's a perfect example.

Do they need us there to continue their work and agenda? It seems not...

So, let's not be unrealistic here.

If we left, they would continue just as they did before we arrived, and all you'd be left with is onesided ugliness.

Then who would you blame?

[Richard Sherwin]

I was just addressing the marriage issue. The legal issues I wish were just left to the professionals, like the IRS and the mafia

It is true that the accusers appear to have much more in the way of proofs than do the defenders.

You've got to remember, Richard, these are the same folks that didn't have a clue what 3abn was doing wrong, even after it was spelled out to them by Judge Barbara Rowe in the property tax case.

IOW, appletree and his fanboys always ask for documents and proof, as if thats something to hide behind, but when you show it to them, as in the failed property tax case, they simply shrig it off and say something like, "well, that's her opinion" or "we knew it would go on to the next level." Little would they be able to recognize the validity in Rowe's vast experience, and reasoning, in cases like this...and likewise it goes with everything else here.

These folks aren't here to understand, or get an education, they're simply here to try and raise doubts, and they get all exercised when the doubts are not raised. I've been around these kind of folks. There's nothing that can be done except they be reborn.

[LaurenceD]

I was just addressing the marriage issue. The legal issues I wish were just left to the professionals, like the IRS and the and the mafia. It is true that the accusers appear to have much more in the way of proofs than do the defenders.

Appletree's just playing his regular games. He knows exaclty what we're talking about. He knows exactly how easy it would be for even a blind person to direct him to the broadcast in question.

I'll offer him this challenge and let's see if he accepts or somehow tries to flip it around, like always, and duck (chicken) out.

Let him and I get together at my church and show that famous Thurday night LIVE broadcast of DS painting his wife as someone who can't be trusted, as a wife who rejected all invitations, and demands, to stop seeing this other man--as if that woman has somehow been "unfaithful" (as legally defined by law), and then let's invite Linda and her attorney, and whomever else wants to come (Pickle/Joy for example) to present their version of what happened, and finally let the audience decide who is/was guilty of defamation of character.

We know, according to case law--as decided in many US states, that even implying (verbally or in writing) that a wife is unfaithful, when she isn't, is absolute defamation of charater.

[princessdi]

Now, I have been saying this for a while. There are people who are not involed in anything, on both sides, arguing and fussing to the point of inappropriatemess and excess about the ations of a few people whoj ust go one doing what they have always done. I don't get all the hiding either, or the constant threats of legal action by 3ABN. All that is just crazy to me. Everybody teel who you are and how you know what you know and then everyone could really judge people by their evidence and crediblity.

I did not see the program in question, but I have heard from people who did. Do I personally have proof? No.

A while back, I don't know how long, 6 month or a year the defenders pretty much quit posting on here for awhile and at that point the accusations pretty much quit as well. You will notice that it takes two to argue. I don't blame anyone for defending their positions but it's mostly a case of people coming on here without any proofs, on either side. If Danny would come on here under his own name, if sister would come on here under his or her own name, and all the others as well then we could have a much more productive discussion IMO. But of course no one is willing to do that.
Neither side has exactly taken the Christian high road in all this.

[Pickle]

Let him and I get together at my church and show that famous Thurday night LIVE broadcast of DS painting his wife as someone who can't be trusted, as a wife who rejected all invitations, and demands, to stop seeing this other man--as if that woman has somehow been "unfaithful" (as legally defined by law), and then let's invite Linda and her attorney, and whomever else wants to come (Pickle/Joy for example) to present their version of what happened, and finally let the audience decide who is/was guilty of defamation of character.

Kind of like Reality TV. Should get high ratings even if it shouldn't.