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

[fallible humanbe...]

Ian, the point that all these ladies are trying to make, which Appletree and his posse have chosen to ignore, is the following:

How does Appletree have so much intimate knowledge about Linda?

"steveister",

Sorry, the point of their posts seems to be making fun of Danny, trying to insinuate that Danny wasn't there or paying attention, and/or trying to divert the fact that there is someone who is at the very least as close as you were to the principals in this situation.

Let's flip this question around and ask how you have the level of intimacy to the principals that you claim to have. You have claimed to be in homes, churches, at functions, family get-togethers, etc. . . . hhmmm . . . who would have that kind of access? You have pranced through the cyber experience like a sprite who has nothing to fear and can wave their wand and salaciously harm anyone your little heart desired. Tell us where your basis of knowledge was derived, reveal your connection and let the readers here evaluate the potential veracity of your poison pen . . . until then one would have to place your word on the shelf as it bears no weight since there is no way in which to connect it to the events you claim to have first hand experience in. No, your word is not enough for the discerning, the accolades of others here do not verify anything - except their desire to have something they can point to (true or false isn't important it would seem) in an effort to fortify their desire to bring down a conservative outlet in the Adventist faith.

You have not provided anything over the course of time to establish for yourself a foundation of viability - only the ability to write a series of Harlequin style vignettes. Step out of the closet, the dark shadows and give your voice credence - until you do it is nothing more than a shadow voice - hallow and empty, carrying nothing more than dripping sarcasm and innuendo.

Your voice only carries weight with those you have been able to hoodwink . . . past that, it is a tuneless sounding gong. So, where does your "authority" come from?

- FHB

[princessdi]

But that is not what he is saying, Ian. Anybody who has ever moved has had that expericence. He(Appletree) is acting as if Danny was in the house with Linda and totally clueless about what she had in the closets, how she was spending their money, he just "existed" in the house....and........This from someone who also according to Appletree started out just sending out the newletter and ansering phone, and not that good at that......and..........

.....if it is not so vital in the grand scheme of things, why do they, Appletree an others, keep bringing it up. That is how anybody here knew Linda had so many shoes and clothes, they brought it up. However, as we say, it does bring up some interesting queations such as the one we are asking. How in the world does Appletree have soooo much intimate knowledge of Linda. Danny didnt' know how many shoes she had, etc, but Appletree did, right? Does that sound right to you? Now, he tried to put me off before with this one by not answering, but if he is going to continue to bring forth this type of info, then somebody(bodies) is going to ask him how he knows.

My first thought on reading all this about the amount of shoes and clothes Linda had, is that none of you must've ever packed up things and moved before. Things appear to be less when they are put away, but in my experience whether it be from moving myself, or from helping others move, most if not all are surprized at how much stuff they have accumulated, whether it be clothes or anything else.
My second thought was, is this really such a vital issue in the grand scheme of things?

[princessdi]

Naw.......... FHB. Now, let me just go "there" for a minute. Y'alls side have brought up everything from Danny's hairpiece, vasectomy to Linda's alleged botox treaments. Your side, not sister, your side. Let's flip this back to how Appletree, and others, know ALL of this. What sister has posted is nothing in comparison to this stuff. Plus it is Appletree making it looka s if Danny was clueless not us,. He didnt' know that she had a lot of clothes and shoes, and didnt' know anything about how the his own check was spent, etc. Those are Appletree's claims. In case you haven't been paying attention, we ain't buyin' that lie. Didn't buy it form Danny first hand, why would we buy it from second or third?.........unless he ain't secon or third.......I'm jes' sayin'............ FLIP!

"steveister",

Sorry, the point of their posts seems to be making fun of Danny, trying to insinuate that Danny wasn't there or paying attention, and/or trying to divert the fact that there is someone who is at the very least as close as you were to the principals in this situation.

Let's flip this question around and ask how you have the level of intimacy to the principals that you claim to have. You have claimed to be in homes, churches, at functions, family get-togethers, etc. . . . hhmmm . . . who would have that kind of access? You have pranced through the cyber experience like a sprite who has nothing to fear and can wave their wand and salaciously harm anyone your little heart desired. Tell us where your basis of knowledge was derived, reveal your connection and let the readers here evaluate the potential veracity of your poison pen . . . until then one would have to place your word on the shelf as it bears no weight since there is no way in which to connect it to the events you claim to have first hand experience in. No, your word is not enough for the discerning, the accolades of others here do not verify anything - except their desire to have something they can point to (true or false isn't important it would seem) in an effort to fortify their desire to bring down a conservative outlet in the Adventist faith.

You have not provided anything over the course of time to establish for yourself a foundation of viability - only the ability to write a series of Harlequin style vignettes. Step out of the closet, the dark shadows and give your voice credence - until you do it is nothing more than a shadow voice - hallow and empty, carrying nothing more than dripping sarcasm and innuendo.

Your voice only carries weight with those you have been able to hoodwink . . . past that, it is a tuneless sounding gong. So, where does your "authority" come from?

- FHB

[fallible humanbe...]

Naw.......... FHB. Now, let me just go "there" for a minute. Y'alls side have brought up everything from Danny's hairpiece, vasectomy to Linda's alleged botox treaments. Your side, not sister, your side. Let's flip this back to how Appletree, and others, know ALL of this. What sister has posted is nothing in comparison to this stuff. Plus it is Appletree making it looka s if Danny was clueless not us,. He didnt' know that she had a lot of clothes and shoes, and didnt' know anything about how the his own check was spent, etc. Those are Appletree's claims. In case you haven't been paying attention, we ain't buyin' that lie. Didn't buy it form Danny first hand, why would we buy it from second or third?.........unless he ain't secon or third.......I'm jes' sayin'............ FLIP!

Ah, so expected . . . no answer only an attempt to divert from the question, "Quick, let's put up a bunch of posts that don't answer the question, but instead make further demands." You haven't answered said question only attempted to go back to before the question was posed to steveister.

Let's see, steveister asked how Appletree might know "insider" information . . . but needs you to come and divert from the same question being posed to the poster, I am guessing the poster can answer the question - but will choose not to . . . as a matter of fact, if it doesn't matter for steveister (defining the validity of connection to the principals) than it doesn't matter for AppleTree - quid pro quo . . .

As far as paying attention . . . hhmm . . . maybe a turn Ad lucem might be in order before you claim to know it all.

- FHB

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Mar 5 2008, 10:32 PM

[sister]

Ah, so expected . . . no answer only an attempt to divert from the real question, "Quick, let's put up a bunch of posts that don't answer the question, but instead make a demand." You haven't answered said question only attempted to go back to before the question was posed to steveister.

Let's see, steveister asked how Appletree might know "insider" information . . . but needs you to come and divert from the same question being posed to her . . . if it doesn't matter for steveister than it doesn't matter for Appletree - quid pro quo . . .

As far as paying attention . . . hhmm . . . maybe a turn Ad lucem might be in order before you claim to know it all.

- FHB

Greg, since you now refer to me as "steveister", I am assuming you believe me to be Steve Shelton--- since this most recent post is not the first time you have suggested this to be my true identity. If that is the case, why hasn't Steve Shelton's name been added along side that of Pickle and Joy in the lawsuit? Is Danny so afraid of what would be revealed about him in the testimony that Steve could give under oath in a court of law? Greg, why don't you be a good little boy and ask your Daddy, maybe he has the answer. I am sure we would all be interested to hear what he has to say.

"Sister"

[fallible humanbe...]

Greg, since you now refer to me as "steveister", I am assuming you believe me to be Steve Shelton--- since this most recent post is not the first time you have suggested this to be my true identity. If that is the case, why hasn't Steve Shelton's name been added along side that of Pickle and Joy in the lawsuit? Is Danny so afraid of what would be revealed about him in the testimony that Steve could give under oath in a court of law? Greg, why don't you be a good little boy and ask your Daddy, maybe he has the answer. I am sure we would all be interested to hear what he has to say.

"Sister"

What is your connection to the principals that would lend validity to anything you have said? To date, your veracity has not been established.

- FHB

[fallible humanbe...]

Greg, since you now refer to me as "steveister", I am assuming you believe me to be Steve Shelton . . .

S?,

Is this a denial?

- FHB

[princessdi]

Still FHB. Appletree needs to answer or not. The fact is now, five of us asked this very same question before the post in which you admittedly flipped to asking sister the same question. Flipping it back on you all, Bro. You can't deny the order ot the posts. And had you been paying attention Appletree and I have been round this corner before, and he didn't answer that time either....... Just so you can keep it straight I am listing the post as they appear in order anda "summary" of each( I am sure if I get it wrong somebody will correct me, I am not perfect).


Post #262, by Inga - Sha asks how Appltree knows so much about Danny's feelings, doubting AT's claim of Danny living in the same house with Linda and having no knowledge of her clothes, etc

Post #263 by Princessdi - concurring that I had asked the same question about Appletree's intimate knowledge of the Shelton's marriage, also doubting that Danny lived in the house 20+ years with Linda and had no knowledge of her clothes, etc.

Post #264 by PrincesDrRe - also doubting Danny's clulessness

Post #266 - By sonshineonme - doubting Danny's cluelessness about Linda's clothes and the family income.

Post #267 By Ian claiming that it really doesn't matter in th grand scheme of things.......

Post #268 by sister - Explaining to Ian what the real deal is, how does AT "know' all of these intimate details of the Shelton's marriage?

Post #270 by sonshineonme - Explaining to Ian amongst other things that it WAS AT who brought up the clothes and shoes.(somthiing I repeated in post #272)

Post #271 by FHB - Misunderstading ALL of the above posts and saying we were making fun of Danny's cluelessness and flipping the same question to sister, without answering the question as it was posed to AT.

Now, that we got that straight sistere did not need me to come and repeat anything,s her post was in answer to my post before hers. The question was posed to Appletree by three other people before sister ever posted. She just broke it down in simple language, in case there was an issue of comprehension. Sometimes you have to go back a page or two to truly get the gist of what is bieng said.

Ah, so expected . . . no answer only an attempt to divert from the real question, "Quick, let's put up a bunch of posts that don't answer the question, but instead make a demand." You haven't answered said question only attempted to go back to before the question was posed to steveister.

Let's see, steveister asked how Appletree might know "insider" information . . . but needs you to come and divert from the same question being posed to her . . . if it doesn't matter for steveister than it doesn't matter for Appletree - quid pro quo . . .

As far as paying attention . . . hhmm . . . maybe a turn Ad lucem might be in order before you claim to know it all.

- FHB

[princessdi]

Once again, sister, was this not the same question we were asking Appletree? The same can be said for him.......so.........Appletree,

"What is your connection to the principals that would lend validity to anything you have said? To date, your veracity has not been established"

Remember, we asked first.......

What is your connection to the principals that would lend validity to anything you have said? To date, your veracity has not been established.

- FHB

[fallible humanbe...]

If the question is applicable to AppleTree then it is equally as applicable to Steveister. So then, what is the answer, maybe you can answer for the poster. Order of the posts is inconsequential - I am addressing the validity of the demand. You claim AppleTree must validate his posts by indicating his connection to the principals - well - the same is then true of steveister . . . read the entire series before posting my first reply, got the gist, thus my question, that should be obvious.

Question still stands - what is steveister's connection to the principals that would make all the "inside information" used in the posters commentary on the issues at hand valid?

- FHB

Still FHB. Appletree needs to answer or not. The fact is now, five of us asked this very same question before the post in which you admittedly flipped to asking sister the same question. Flipping it back on you all, Bro. You can't deny the order ot the posts. And had you been paying attention Appletree and I have been round this corner before, and he didn't answer that time either....... Just so you can keep it straight I am listing the post as they appear in order anda "summary" of each( I am sure if I get it wrong somebody will correct me, I am not perfect).
Post #262, by Inga - Sha asks how Appltree knows so much about Danny's feelings, doubting AT's claim of Danny living in the same house with Linda and having no knowledge of her clothes, etc

Post #263 by Princessdi - concurring that I had asked the same question about Appletree's intimate knowledge of the Shelton's marriage, also doubting that Danny lived in the house 20+ years with Linda and had no knowledge of her clothes, etc.

Post #264 by PrincesDrRe - also doubting Danny's clulessness

Post #266 - By sonshineonme - doubting Danny's cluelessness about Linda's clothes and the family income.

Post #267 By Ian claiming that it really doesn't matter in th grand scheme of things.......

Post #268 by sister - Explaining to Ian what the real deal is, how does AT "know' all of these intimate details of the Shelton's marriage?

Post #270 by sonshineonme - Explaining to Ian amongst other things that it WAS AT who brought up the clothes and shoes.(somthiing I repeated in post #272)

Post #271 by FHB - Misunderstading ALL of the above posts and saying we were making fun of Danny's cluelessness and flipping the same question to sister, without answering the question as it was posed to AT.

Now, that we got that straight sistere did not need me to come and repeat anything,s her post was in answer to my post before hers. The question was posed to Appletree by three other people before sister ever posted. She just broke it down in simple language, in case there was an issue of comprehension. Sometimes you have to go back a page or two to truly get the gist of what is bieng said.

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Mar 5 2008, 11:18 PM

[princessdi]

So, I guess this is what they call a standoff..............still sister's info is no where as near the intimate knowledge that AT claims, but as I said both siades are basically playing the same game..........I just wanted you to realize that sister did not need anyone to cosign, the question had already been asked many time over, before, in other threads, etc. of Appletree. Now that you got that and the timing is in consequential(since you were wrong), i guess both will go on posting what they "know".

[fallible humanbe...]

Not sure how I am "wrong" as I really don't care who asked who first (but if I need to be, then so be it) . . . my point is, was, and will be - if the question is applicable to AppleTree then it is applicable to steveister . . . not sure if it is you and I at a standoff or AppleTree and steveister.

As far as who's information is more "intimate" . . . think that is a toss up.

- FHB

So, I guess this is what they call a standoff..............still sister's info is no where as near the intimate knowledge that AT claims, but as I said both siades are basically playing the same game..........I just wanted you to realize that sister did not need anyone to cosign, the question had already been asked many time over, before, in other threads, etc. of Appletree. Now that you got that and the timing is in consequential(since you were wrong), i guess both will go on posting what they "know".

[princessdi]

AT and sister are at a standoff. Neither is about to tell how they "know' anything. I think we all can agree on that.

Not sure how I am "wrong" as I really don't care who asked who first (but if I need to be, then so be it) . . . my point is, was, and will be - if the question is applicable to AppleTree then it is applicable to steveister . . . not sure if it is you and I at a standoff or AppleTree and steveister.

As far as who's information is more "intimate" . . . think that is a toss up.

- FHB

[Pickle]

BTW Bob, how did your hearing about your attempt to bypass the protection order issue in the discovery process, and issue subpeonas go yesterday???

Since I didn't attempt to bypass the protection order issue, I'll wait until you rephrase your question before replying.

[appletree]

Been asking the exact some question, Inga. I still got no answer to the amount of "intimacy" inferred in Appletrre's posts about Linda. Still waiting for that answer. Danny alloiwng Linda to spend nearly 100K per year and he jes get a small, no, very small allowance? ...and he had no knowledge of hte fact that her lcothes and shoes took up the most of their closet, and probably a few others in the house(like most women). This from the man who called everyone back to erase any trace of Linda from 3ABN......yeah right!
Ok, Inga, maybe you will have better luck getting the answer to your question. I'll go back to lurck mode to wait. LOL!!!

Well, been gone a few days and look what I come back to. Demands on how I know what I know! Well I could get dramatic like sister, the drama king/queen, and say I am a vapor floating around just long enough to make nasty accusations, but, I won't. I will say straight out, your demands fall on deaf ears. I do not, and will not justify or explain my "intimate" knowledge of the subject matter, nor am I required to. I may think differently if you made the same demands across the board, but, you all have consistently been totally lopsided. Especially you, Di. I have yet to see where you have ever made demands on Sister's identity yet, swallow everything he/she says hook line and sinker. Same goes for you Inga and several others.

Difference between sister and I is that sister has been "caught" time and again putting her own twists, turns and falsehoods to every story told. Because I do have "intimate" knowledge, I can counteract those twists with the truth. Whatever association sister claims to have had is in the past and, from her own mouth, usually has been told to her by someone. She says the Fiscallini's told their story to her, she says she has gotten information from Steve S. Sister says he/she has no contact with Linda and, maybe that is true presently, but what about in the past 2 years? No way can sister say he/she hasn't ever gotten some of her nasty little gossip from Linda.

On the other hand, I am a past, present and hopefully, future source. I can check records, verify or dismiss information, talk directly to the "correct" sources to get to the truth. Not to mention, I only have to go through those procedures, if it wasn't something I witnessed myself. Man, have I witnessed some stuff. If I wanted to get down on sister's level, I could write some "ringy dingy" vignettes concerning the life and times of Linda S. but, I just can't bring myself to get down low enough to look at sister eye to eye.

As far as the clothes and shoes goes, all the discussion of how Danny could not know....I had to laugh....Ladies, you are the ones asking the questions so I will address you. Can you honestly tell me that your husbands know what is in your closets? What if you had seperate closets as did Danny and Linda? Do you think they would know what all clothing you owned? I can tell you that I would be clueless as to what my wife would have. I honestly can't think of a man I know that could tell me what all their wives have to wear. That is a typical man thing. Common.

You question how Danny could not know Linda's wardrobe but, turn on a dime and say that Linda didn't know what she was signing, Linda didn't know anything about finances, and Linda didn't understand her contract..etc In essence though Linda was VP of a worldwide television ministry, according to you all, she was dumber than a box of rocks. She was just kind of "there" oblivious to all of this "wrong doing" that you are accusing Danny of. Like the plane for instance. MMHH so much criticism of the 3abn plane Danny rode in but never a mention of Linda. Maybe she was strapped to the top???? Criticism of Danny's house....that...Linda helped design, decorate and then lived there until the divorce. Much useless discussion about Danny's dodge truck and never a mention that Linda was driving a new (at that time) top of the line, toyota SUV. Wait, let me guess...Danny forced her to sign the papers for it and she had no idea that she was driving a new vehicle.......What about her claims that Danny handled all the finances and yet it is her signature on years and years of checks written for their bills, groceries, gas, etc... Oh...wait....I remember now....she didn't know what all those checks were for....At the gas station and the grocery, walmart, and target, Danny forced her to sign her name and he wasn't even with her!!!! Man he is powerful!!!!

In essence, once again, your sense of fair play is so lopsided it's making me dizzy.....