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

[sonshineonme]

What does that have to do with the price of swisskriss?

Hey, it looks like they have some very helpful products (did a google search), do you know anything about them?
I liked your "price of eggs" too!

[Ian]

Hey, it looks like they have some very helpful products (did a google search), do you know anything about them?
I liked your "price of eggs" too!

laxatives just seemed more in keeping with the garbage and swill served here...

[sonshineonme]

laxatives just seemed more in keeping with the garbage and swill served here...

Oh I so agree with you! You said it sister!!

[Johann]

Johann,

Let's clear up some of your nonsense here. My source of information was not Dr. Thompson. - simply check your yearbooks and they will support my information. I also see nothing here that offers anything at all to refute the details I supplied to the readers here. My being born or not is probably the weakest statement you have uttered. One need not be born and live in a specific time to be able to gather accurate information about that time.

Why don't you offer something of substance if you are going to claim that someone is not correct - your simply saying is nothing more than wind in the willows. I have no way to substantiate that you would "remember him so clearly" after ten years, much less 50.

Again, you offer nothing to disprove or contradict the facts of my earlier post - this leads one to believe that you can't. Your words to the contrary are hollow.

- FHB

Since you know so much better what is in my memory than I do, I see no reason to discuss this any further with you. It is your prerogative calling it all nonsense what I have stored in my memory, and what I substantiate by other sources. How could you verify if I remember Walt or not? You calling my words hollow may seem impressive to some, not the least to those biased in your direction.

In many cases I have also made notes of what I have experienced. Some courts will consider such notes important, I'm told.

[appletree]

Yes, it is sadly true.

As with most of your statements Bob, no it isn't true. I would love to take a poll from people that know you and Dr. Walt and see which one comes up with the most credibility and christian character. Have you even met or talked to Walt face to face? Have you talked to Danny face to face? Spent any time at all with either one? No, of course you haven't. Yet, you spout your conclusions of character as if you were bosom buddies. How you can pronounce harsh judgements on a man like Dr. Walt, then, turn around and actually be bosom buddies with someone like Joy is absolutely amazing. I have never heard a bad word against Dr. Walt except from your team but people have plenty to say about their experiences with Joy and none of it is good. You have chosen to throw in your lot with Joy and because of that, as well as your own actions, you have no credibility left and down deep, you know it. I believe that you resent the fact that Dr. Walt does have an impeccable character and is known by all to be above reproach. Don't be resentlful Bob. It's not to late to change your character and pull away from those who have been a bad influence on you. Instead of being resentful, try to imitate Walt's character. If you're succesful, you might start earning some credibility back.

[appletree]

Since you know so much better what is in my memory than I do, I see no reason to discuss this any further with you. It is your prerogative calling it all nonsense what I have stored in my memory, and what I substantiate by other sources. How could you verify if I remember Walt or not? You calling my words hollow may seem impressive to some, not the least to those biased in your direction.

In many cases I have also made notes of what I have experienced. Some courts will consider such notes important, I'm told.

Am I actually reading this? The notes you made of your memories 50 years ago may be important in court? You probably will be in court but it won't be with notes of your memoirs.

Johann try not to ignore the whole point of FHB's post. It is simply this. You tried to make it sound as if you and Walt were buds way back when. In reality he was just another face in the crowd. Because you two were on the same campus 50 years ago, doesn't mean that you knew him, knew his character or anything about him as your posts tried to imply. I believe FHB was just trying to make that clear.

[Observer]

Don't get me started! Is she even a Dr.? Didn't soembody look up her credentials when she came here? I thought she was some kind of counselor or something....anyway, she is extremely unprofessional. She came here psting confidential information about someone she claimed to have "counseled" Sorry we have enough members who actually work in this field that it was spotted almost immediately. Her crediblity is zero here.........

In making this post, I am going back in my memory several years. As such it is possible that I will make some errors of fact. If so, I welcome any corrections.

The issue as to whether or not Dr. Kay Kuzma acted toward unprofessionally toward Linda Shelton and violated confidentiality is an important one, but it is not as clear cut as some would make it.

By the way, as I recall, Dr. Kuzma has a doctorate in Education. In may States this qualifies her to act as a professional counselor.

The major question, in my mind is: Who was Dr. Kuzma’s client. If Linda was her client one might come up with one set of answers. On the other had, if 3-ABN, or Danny, was her client, then one might come up with another set of answers.

I will suggest that the answer as to who was Dr. Kuzma’s client is fairly clear cut. Linda did not seek out Dr. Kuzma. Rather Dr. Kuzma was a member of the 3-ABN Board. That Board placed Dr. Kuzma on a special committee to investigate the situation. It gave Dr. Kuzma specific instructions as to her role in this investigation. Dr. Kuzma approached Linda from the standpoint of an agent of the 3-ABN Board. As such, her client was the 3-ABN Board. Her client was not Linda Shelton.

Dr. Kuzma was instructed to report back to the Board her contact with Linda, as Dr. Kuzma felt was appropriate. As she was the agent of the Board and it was her client, that was professionally appropriate. If Linda had been Dr. Kuzma’s client, it would have been a violation of confidentiality for her to report back to the Board that she had even spoken with Linda without Linda’s permission. Because she approached Linda as an agent of the Board, she did not need Linda’s permission to report back to the Board as she thought appropriate.

As an agent of the Board, Dr. Kuzma is free to make any public statements in regard to her role in this that is acceptable to the 3-ABN Board and she believes is appropriate. Any violation of confidentiality in her public statements would be that of the 3-ABN Board and not that of Linda.

It should be noted that Linda recognized that Dr. Kuzma came to her as an agent of the 3-ABN Board. As such she refused to enter into any extensive discussion. In other words, a professional counseling relationship was never established between Linda Shelton and Dr. Kuzma.

It is true that the 3-ABN Board sent Dr. Kuzma to Linda with directions to play a specific role and to give Linda specific advice. Lay people commonly might call the giving of such advice counseling. I believe that is what has happened. Some supporters of 3-ABN have claimed that the 3-ABN Board proved Linda with counseling in the person of Dr. Kuzma. The role that Dr. Kuzma played in this was not that of a professional counselor to Linda with Linda as Dr. Kuzma’s client.

I have some concerns regarding the role that Dr. Kuzma has played in this sad saga and I disagree with some of what she has said and done. But, I want to be clear: Dr. Kuzma did not have Linda as her client. She came to Linda as an agent of the 3-ABN Board. Linda recognized that. Therefore, I do not see Dr. Kuzma as violating Linda’s confidentiality. I do not see Dr. Kuzma as acting unprofessionally.



This post has been edited by Observer: Mar 10 2008, 07:00 AM

[Shepherdswife]

Johann,

Let's clear up some of your nonsense here. My source of information was not Dr. Thompson. - simply check your yearbooks and they will support my information. I also see nothing here that offers anything at all to refute the details I supplied to the readers here. My being born or not is probably the weakest statement you have uttered. One need not be born and live in a specific time to be able to gather accurate information about that time.

Why don't you offer something of substance if you are going to claim that someone is not correct - your simply saying is nothing more than wind in the willows. I have no way to substantiate that you would "remember him so clearly" after ten years, much less 50.

Again, you offer nothing to disprove or contradict the facts of my earlier post - this leads one to believe that you can't. Your words to the contrary are hollow.

- FHB

As a lurker and occasional poster who is trying to keep her scorecard up to date, I have asked the question several times of those who are defending DS “What constitutes proof to you?” Documents, interviews, records have all been dismissed with “You were not there, so you have no way of knowing anything”. I have pointed out that detectives, judge and jury were never “there” when the crime occurred, but that does not keep them from collecting and examining the evidence and rendering a verdict. No response.

But after your post here, FHB, I am really confused! You state that “One need not be born and live in a specific time to be able to gather accurate information about that time.” You mean that you can investigate and learn something factual and true about an event that you never even saw? Amazing! And you also said that “I have no way to substantiate that you would "remember him so clearly" after ten years, much less 50”, so even eyewitness testimony, unless corroborated, can be faulty? I will have to think about all this…

I actually agree with your “wind in the willows” statement. For someone to claim that someone else is wrong but that THEY are telling the truth and that we are just supposed to believe them because…because they know what they are talking about and the others don’t ….really bugs me. Lots of wind, lots of willows.

shepherdswife

[Johann]

Am I actually reading this? The notes you made of your memories 50 years ago may be important in court? You probably will be in court but it won't be with notes of your memoirs.

Johann try not to ignore the whole point of FHB's post. It is simply this. You tried to make it sound as if you and Walt were buds way back when. In reality he was just another face in the crowd. Because you two were on the same campus 50 years ago, doesn't mean that you knew him, knew his character or anything about him as your posts tried to imply. I believe FHB was just trying to make that clear.

Poor Appletree. Your eysight must be turning bad. I never said what you read. Get a new pair of glassses.

[justice4jesus]

I would love to take a poll from people that know you and Dr. Walt and see which one comes up with the most credibility and christian character.

I have talked with Bob on several occasions. While I have not ever talked to Walt Thompson, I am aware that he was informed of the molestation allegations against Tommy while he was employed at 3ABN and never even bothered to investigate. That alone is all I need to make my decision. So, when you start your poll, here is your first vote.

Bob Pickle!

That's my choice, and I'm entitled to it.

[fallible humanbe...]

Gregory,

I am not 100% positive but I don't think Dr. Kuzma was ever a member of the board.

To add, her MA is in Child Development from Michigan State and her Ed.D. is in Early Childhood Education.

She was asked, because of her close connections to 3ABN, by the board to work with Linda in an effort to save the marriage. There was the thought that a trusted individual would be able to pray with and work with Linda before she went too far. You can couch this as Dr. Kuzma being a covert agent of the board, but that would not be fair or accurate. Her desire was to keep the family together - she cared for Linda as much as she did Danny and desired for them both a full and complete marriage.

You may very well be accurate that Linda resisted any efforts at reconciliation that may have been possible through working with Dr. Kuzma, but then that would be Linda's responsibility. It should also be noted that Linda also resisted the council of the marital counselors -she- selected as well.

- FHB

In making this post, I am going back in my memory several years. As such it is possible that I will make some errors of fact. If so, I welcome any corrections.

The issue as to whether or not Dr. Kay Kuzma acted toward unprofessionally toward Linda Shelton and violated confidentiality is an important one, but it is not as clear cut as some would make it.

By the way, as I recall, Dr. Kuzma has a doctorate in Education. In may States this qualifies her to act as a professional counselor.

The major question, in my mind is: Who was Dr. Kuzma’s client. If Linda was her client one might come up with one set of answers. On the other had, if 3-ABN, or Danny, was her client, then one might come up with another set of answers.

I will suggest that the answer as to who was Dr. Kuzma’s client is fairly clear cut. Linda did not seek out Dr. Kuzma. Rather Dr. Kuzma was a member of the 3-ABN Board. That Board placed Dr. Kuzma on a special committee to investigate the situation. It gave Dr. Kuzma specific instructions as to her role in this investigation. Dr. Kuzma approached Linda from the standpoint of an agent of the 3-ABN Board. As such, her client was the 3-ABN Board. Her client was not Linda Shelton.

Dr. Kuzma was instructed to report back to the Board her contact with Linda, as Dr. Kuzma felt was appropriate. As she was the agent of the Board and it was her client, that was professionally appropriate. If Linda had been Dr. Kuzma’s client, it would have been a violation of confidentiality for her to report back to the Board that she had even spoken with Linda without Linda’s permission. Because she approached Linda as an agent of the Board, she did not need Linda’s permission to report back to the Board as she thought appropriate.

As an agent of the Board, Dr. Kuzma is free to make any public statements in regard to her role in this that is acceptable to the 3-ABN Board and she believes is appropriate. Any violation of confidentiality in her public statements would be that of the 3-ABN Board and not that of Linda.

It should be noted that Linda recognized that Dr. Kuzma came to her as an agent of the 3-ABN Board. As such she refused to enter into any extensive discussion. In other words, a professional counseling relationship was never established between Linda Shelton and Dr. Kuzma.

It is true that the 3-ABN Board sent Dr. Kuzma to Linda with directions to play a specific role and to give Linda specific advice. Lay people commonly might call the giving of such advice counseling. I believe that is what has happened. Some supporters of 3-ABN have claimed that the 3-ABN Board proved Linda with counseling in the person of Dr. Kuzma. The role that Dr. Kuzma played in this was not that of a professional counselor to Linda with Linda as Dr. Kuzma’s client.

I have some concerns regarding the role that Dr. Kuzma has played in this sad saga and I disagree with some of what she has said and done. But, I want to be clear: Dr. Kuzma did not have Linda as her client. She came to Linda as an agent of the 3-ABN Board. Linda recognized that. Therefore, I do not see Dr. Kuzma as violating Linda’s confidentiality. I do not see Dr. Kuzma as acting unprofessionally.

[Panama_Pete]

It should also be noted that Linda also resisted the council of the marital counselors -she- selected as well.

- FHB

They were private sessions and you would have no idea of what Linda Shelton said or did not say.

[fallible humanbe...]

As a lurker and occasional poster who is trying to keep her scorecard up to date, I have asked the question several times of those who are defending DS “What constitutes proof to you?” Documents, interviews, records have all been dismissed with “You were not there, so you have no way of knowing anything”. I have pointed out that detectives, judge and jury were never “there” when the crime occurred, but that does not keep them from collecting and examining the evidence and rendering a verdict. No response.

But after your post here, FHB, I am really confused! You state that “One need not be born and live in a specific time to be able to gather accurate information about that time.” You mean that you can investigate and learn something factual and true about an event that you never even saw? Amazing! And you also said that “I have no way to substantiate that you would "remember him so clearly" after ten years, much less 50”, so even eyewitness testimony, unless corroborated, can be faulty? I will have to think about all this…

I actually agree with your “wind in the willows” statement. For someone to claim that someone else is wrong but that THEY are telling the truth and that we are just supposed to believe them because…because they know what they are talking about and the others don’t ….really bugs me. Lots of wind, lots of willows.

shepherdswife

SW,

Well, as far as I can tell you weren't there at the birth of Christ, yet I am going to bet that you believe the shepards showed up, as did the kings from the east and the angels. So then it is possible through research to discover the facts of a situation.

Based on that let's look at what I said. For months now Johann has attempted to cast his relationship with Dr. Thompson as spanning a half century. I merely made it clear that there was little if any chance that there was a relationship developed between the two gentlemen back at Andrews University (known as EMC at that time). His "connectedness" is certainly in question as it is obvious that through checking the facts he has embellished this connection.

First, let's consider the distribution of the dorm. Even when I attended AU different floors in Meir Hall were set up as class level wings. For instance third east was a freshman hall. In asking around, the same scenario existed back when Johann and Dr. Thompson attended AU/EMC.

Second, Dr. Thompson was a freshman during the 1952 - 53 school year and lived in Birch Hall. Feel free to email him and ask him, take a look at a yearbook, or check the Alumni newsletter for January as it lists donors by their graduating year (if you take Dr. Thompson's grad year and subtract five it will be clear). Dr. Thompson graduated from AU/EMC in 1957.

Third, During the 1953 - 54 school year, Johann's graduating year, Dr. Thompson lived in central Wisconsin running the family dairy farm.

Next, Dr. Thompson returned to AU/EMC for the 1954 - 55 school year and lived in Birch Hall to start the year. By the 1955 he was a community student where he lived until he graduated.

So, Johann could only have "bumped into" Dr. Thompson during 1953 - 54 school year. The chances of that would be slim as they wouldn't have the same classes - Johann being a Religion major (or in that area of majors) and Dr. Thompson being a Chemistry major, as well as Johann being a junior and Dr. Thompson being a freshman. Unless Johann missed some of his general courses and needed to take them during his junior year.

Now, as far as the connection through his future brother-in-law. Dr. Thompson and the BIL were never classmates. They did attend Wisconsin Academy together for one year. BIL was a senior during the 1950 - 51 school year when Dr. Thompson was a junior. So quickly, BIL was a sophomore during Dr. Thompson's freshman year at AU/EMC and a senior during Dr. Thompson's sophomore year.

The point is, Johann has attempted to cast his relationship in such a way that serves his purposes and it isn't accurate. He has embellished this aspect, which begs the question what else has he embellished. If he can refute any of the above facts then let him do so with specifics and not just a, "No, that isn't true." kind of statement.

- FHB

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Mar 10 2008, 08:51 AM

[Panama_Pete]

SW,

Well, as far as I can tell you weren't there at the birth of Christ, - FHB

No, but you were at Linda's counseling sessions to tell us what should be noted.

[Panama_Pete]

I would also like to add that Kay Kuzma worked exclusively for Danny Shelton, regardless of what official title was given to her and what her "cover story" may have been while she was doing her "interviews" with the staff.

Danny Shelton did all hiring and firing. Period. That's what I was told by Mollie Steenson, herself.

And here's another weird thing. Imagine someone going around the company polling the company employees about one, solitary employee? Isn't that's really weird when you stop to think about it? How is that intended to help that one employee who is the subject of the interviews?

The explanations about counseling sessions and Kay Kuzma interviewing employees is just all so weird.

This post has been edited by Panama_Pete: Mar 10 2008, 09:02 AM