Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Pickle]

That's right. Never did.

[pbjelly]

I think your initial thoughts are entirely reasonable. Yet at the same time I can understand why you could have gotten the response that you did.

Mr. Bob,
There was a total absence of recollection. Is it possible that you were the sole contact and you had Mr. Gailon do the necessary action?

Mr. Gailon,
I had a total of 3 questions. Please reply when you have the time.

Thank you
PB

I was not the sole contact. I wasn't even the main contact.

But like I said, unless you gave some details of the incident, he might not know at all what you were talking about. And it was possible that the main players in that saga may not have mentioned Gailon's name.

Mr. Bob,

Details of the incident were given. There was a total absence of recollection. Is it possible to get the name of the church that benefited from yours and Mr. Gailon's assistance?

Thank you,
PB

[Bob Pickle]

If you want to call me, maybe I could tell you more. I don't want to post any details publicly.

If you don't know where the incident occurred, you could not have given details of the incident.

[princessdi]

No she didn't tell me that.  That is part of my point.  If they knew that she wanted to be annonymous on the internet....anywhere....then that should be respected.  My point is the same whether or not she is a member here.  Point is, they knew she wanted to remain annonymous, and should have respected that.

Just as with anyone who posts annonymously or even with a screen name(which most do) other than their own given name.  You address them as such until they give you permission to do differently.

Did she tell you that, PrincessDi?

My point is that you did know that Clay stated that you divulge the identity of a "member", however, I am almost sure that you understood that he was actually talking about you all "outing" Cindi anywhere on the internet when you knew she wished to remain annonymous..  It makes no difference that she is not a user/member here at AdventTalk, but that she preferred to remain annonymouse regarding this 3ABN situation.  If you put her full name out there without her permission, then nomatter what else your post said, the damage was done.  Simple.  

[pbjelly]

ADMIN HAT ON

pbjelly, I believe Mr. Pickle just posted that he prefers not to discuss any details of what you are asking.  Did you not see that?  I suggest you either drop it or PM/call him as he requested.  Regardless, let's try to stay on topic.

ADMIN HAT OFF

If you want to call me, maybe I could tell you more. I don't want to post any details publicly.

If you don't know where the incident occurred, you could not have given details of the incident.

Mr. Bob,

The conference president was unable to recall a problem relating to any ex-conference president and his parishioners in which you or Mr. Gailon assisted.

It would be helpful if you could let me know of the name of the church using private channels.

Thank you
PB

[Snoopy]

I see what you are saying, Di.  I don't know if she currently posts here or not.  But I certainly could not gather that one way or the other from anything that was said here.  If anybody outed anybody, it was Clay with his silly little tantrum.

And what about all the outing of people over at the 3ABNDefended Yahoo site and 3ABNtalk.com?  Any thoughts on that?  3ABN defenders over there have gone out of their way to FIND people who wanted to remain anonymous and have been downright nasty to them, dredging up stuff from their past and threatening to try to have them disfellowshiped from the SDA church, etc.  Made me pretty grateful NOT to be a member!  Unless people we know are talking, then the information obtained and presented there was obtained with a defective subpoena, and it is my understanding the defenders have been warned of that.

No she didn't tell me that.  That is part of my point.  If they knew that she wanted to be annonymous on the internet....anywhere....then that should be respected.  My point is the same whether or not she is a member here.  Point is, they knew she wanted to remain annonymous, and should have respected that.

Just as with anyone who posts annonymously or even with a screen name(which most do) other than their own given name.  You address them as such until they give you permission to do differently.

Did she tell you that, PrincessDi?

My point is that you did know that Clay stated that you divulge the identity of a "member", however, I am almost sure that you understood that he was actually talking about you all "outing" Cindi anywhere on the internet when you knew she wished to remain annonymous..  It makes no difference that she is not a user/member here at AdventTalk, but that she preferred to remain annonymouse regarding this 3ABN situation.  If you put her full name out there without her permission, then nomatter what else your post said, the damage was done.  Simple.  

[pbjelly]

ADMIN HAT ON

pbjelly, I believe Mr. Pickle just posted that he prefers not to discuss any details of what you are asking.  Did you not see that?  I suggest you either drop it or PM/call him as he requested.  Regardless, let's try to stay on topic.

ADMIN HAT OFF

Dear admin,
I believe that is what I asked Mr. Bob to do. I requested him to use private channels to send me the church name.

Thank you,
PB

If you want to call me, maybe I could tell you more. I don't want to post any details publicly.

If you don't know where the incident occurred, you could not have given details of the incident.

Mr. Bob,

The conference president was unable to recall a problem relating to any ex-conference president and his parishioners in which you or Mr. Gailon assisted.

It would be helpful if you could let me know of the name of the church using private channels.

Thank you
PB

[Bob Pickle]

If you want to call, I'll respond that way.

[Snoopy]

ADMIN HAT ON

Good.  Then we can expect not to hear any more about it in this thread!!!

ADMIN HAT OFF

Dear admin,
I believe that is what I asked Mr. Bob to do. I requested him to use private channels to send me the church name.

Thank you,
PB

[pbjelly]

ADMIN HAT ON

Good.  Then we can expect not to hear any more about it in this thread!!!

ADMIN HAT OFF

Dear admin,
I believe that is what I asked Mr. Bob to do. I requested him to use private channels to send me the church name.

Thank you,
PB

Dear Admin,

I see that you are correct. May I open another thread with a new topic?

Thank you,
PB

[Snoopy]

Certainly!  You are welcome to do that, pbjelly!

Dear Admin,

I see that you are correct. May I open another thread with a new topic?

Thank you,
PB

[princessdi]

Ok, but this is not all happening in a vaccum at AT.  Like it or not, this forum is a continuation from what was going on at BSDA.  So there are very few if any who would not know to whom they were referring..  Clay's post to my knowledge did not mention any name of who the member was, but I did come to read, and found out from GJ own post.  I actually took the inference that she may have not been amember here from Bob's response to Clay.  As I said, if I am wrong, my apologies.  But it looked like a play on words, basically.

My only point here is that they knew who it was, They knew she posted and/or read annonymously on the internet.....just as you and I do. Now, my info is easily accessible as an Admin at BSDA, I thought that important, so I am not disturbed when some refers to me by my full name as I have in essence given my permission.  However, if I was posting annonymously and Bob and GJ had this info, today I would not feel my annonymity was safe.  I owuld be one wrong step from being outed.....for the cause.   If Bob and GJ were posting annonymously on the internet and I knew their true identities, as I do many memebers as an admin, I would not then think it fair game to go to another site and start posting their identites.  That is not right.  So it makes no difference who knew besides Bob and GJ, they knew, and they were wrong.  It makes no difference where she posts or not posts.  They knew.  That is my point.  Still my brothers in Christ, but in this instance they are wrong.  There is no justifying it.  

I said it once before the the truth is the truth anyhow.........by any means necessary has no place in God's work, because it most often means working form the devils toolbox.  

I see what you are saying, Di.  I don't know if she currently posts here or not.  But I certainly could not gather that one way or the other from anything that was said here.  If anybody outed anybody, it was Clay with his silly little tantrum.

And what about all the outing of people over at the 3ABNDefended Yahoo site and 3ABNtalk.com?  Any thoughts on that?  3ABN defenders over there have gone out of their way to FIND people who wanted to remain anonymous and have been downright nasty to them, dredging up stuff from their past and threatening to try to have them disfellowshiped from the SDA church, etc.  Made me pretty grateful NOT to be a member!  Unless people we know are talking, then the information obtained and presented there was obtained with a defective subpoena, and it is my understanding the defenders have been warned of that.

[Bob Pickle]

princessdi,

If you could be so kind as to quote where Gailon or I outed Cindi Randall by saying anything that could tie her to any user at BSDA, I would be most appreciative. Then I will apologize for mistakenly saying that we didn't when we did.

Let me put it this way: Suppose Walt Thompson were posting on BSDA anonymously. Suppose we knew who he was. Suppose we then discussed Walt Thompson here openly without identifying him as that user on BSDA, since he is the 3ABN Board chairman. Would that be wrong to do? Would that be doing Satan's work?

In other words, just because someone posts anonymously and is allowed to do so, I don't think that keeps them from being discussed in ways that doesn't associate them with a BSDA user when they are playing a major role in this saga.

I repeat: The only posts that I think has outed Cindi Randall as a BSDA user is your posts here. And I would not be against the moderators deleting or editing whichever posts identify Cindi Randall as a BSDA user, which would mean deleting or editing your posts, and certain posts which comment on your posts, like this one.

But the original posts that started this discussion do not in any way connect Cindi Randall to BSDA.

Ok, but this is not all happening in a vaccum at AT.  Like it or not, this forum is a continuation from what was going on at BSDA.  So there are very few if any who would not know to whom they were referring..  Clay's post to my knowledge did not mention any name of who the member was, but I did come to read, and found out from GJ own post.  I actually took the inference that she may have not been amember here from Bob's response to Clay.  As I said, if I am wrong, my apologies.  But it looked like a play on words, basically.

My only point here is that they knew who it was, They knew she posted and/or read annonymously on the internet.....just as you and I do. Now, my info is easily accessible as an Admin at BSDA, I thought that important, so I am not disturbed when some refers to me by my full name as I have in essence given my permission.  However, if I was posting annonymously and Bob and GJ had this info, today I would not feel my annonymity was safe.  I owuld be one wrong step from being outed.....for the cause.   If Bob and GJ were posting annonymously on the internet and I knew their true identities, as I do many memebers as an admin, I would not then think it fair game to go to another site and start posting their identites.  That is not right.  So it makes no difference who knew besides Bob and GJ, they knew, and they were wrong.  It makes no difference where she posts or not posts.  They knew.  That is my point.  Still my brothers in Christ, but in this instance they are wrong.  There is no justifying it. 

I said it once before the the truth is the truth anyhow.........by any means necessary has no place in God's work, because it most often means working form the devils toolbox.   

I see what you are saying, Di.  I don't know if she currently posts here or not.  But I certainly could not gather that one way or the other from anything that was said here.  If anybody outed anybody, it was Clay with his silly little tantrum.

And what about all the outing of people over at the 3ABNDefended Yahoo site and 3ABNtalk.com?  Any thoughts on that?  3ABN defenders over there have gone out of their way to FIND people who wanted to remain anonymous and have been downright nasty to them, dredging up stuff from their past and threatening to try to have them disfellowshiped from the SDA church, etc.  Made me pretty grateful NOT to be a member!  Unless people we know are talking, then the information obtained and presented there was obtained with a defective subpoena, and it is my understanding the defenders have been warned of that.

[princessdi]

You are missing the point.  If WT was posting annonymousiy anywhere on the internet,a nd you knew he wanted to remain so...on the internet...then it is wrong for you to post his name anywhere on the internet.  Especially in the spirit in which this was done.

I said I was not going to argue, and I am not.  You all get my point, I know it, you know it.  It was wrong, I know it, you know it.  If you can live with it, then so can I.  Case closed.  I realize that y ou have a goal and whatever it takes for you to get there is all good by you. I can't change that, but I can speak the truth about it.

princessdi,

If you could be so kind as to quote where Gailon or I outed Cindi Randall by saying anything that could tie her to any user at BSDA, I would be most appreciative. Then I will apologize for mistakenly saying that we didn't when we did.

Let me put it this way: Suppose Walt Thompson were posting on BSDA anonymously. Suppose we knew who he was. Suppose we then discussed Walt Thompson here openly without identifying him as that user on BSDA, since he is the 3ABN Board chairman. Would that be wrong to do? Would that be doing Satan's work?

In other words, just because someone posts anonymously and is allowed to do so, I don't think that keeps them from being discussed in ways that doesn't associate them with a BSDA user when they are playing a major role in this saga.

I repeat: The only posts that I think has outed Cindi Randall as a BSDA user is your posts here. And I would not be against the moderators deleting or editing whichever posts identify Cindi Randall as a BSDA user, which would mean deleting or editing your posts, and certain posts which comment on your posts, like this one.

But the original posts that started this discussion do not in any way connect Cindi Randall to BSDA.

Ok, but this is not all happening in a vaccum at AT.  Like it or not, this forum is a continuation from what was going on at BSDA.  So there are very few if any who would not know to whom they were referring..  Clay's post to my knowledge did not mention any name of who the member was, but I did come to read, and found out from GJ own post.  I actually took the inference that she may have not been amember here from Bob's response to Clay.  As I said, if I am wrong, my apologies.  But it looked like a play on words, basically.

My only point here is that they knew who it was, They knew she posted and/or read annonymously on the internet.....just as you and I do. Now, my info is easily accessible as an Admin at BSDA, I thought that important, so I am not disturbed when some refers to me by my full name as I have in essence given my permission.  However, if I was posting annonymously and Bob and GJ had this info, today I would not feel my annonymity was safe.  I owuld be one wrong step from being outed.....for the cause.   If Bob and GJ were posting annonymously on the internet and I knew their true identities, as I do many memebers as an admin, I would not then think it fair game to go to another site and start posting their identites.  That is not right.  So it makes no difference who knew besides Bob and GJ, they knew, and they were wrong.  It makes no difference where she posts or not posts.  They knew.  That is my point.  Still my brothers in Christ, but in this instance they are wrong.  There is no justifying it. 

I said it once before the the truth is the truth anyhow.........by any means necessary has no place in God's work, because it most often means working form the devils toolbox.   

I see what you are saying, Di.  I don't know if she currently posts here or not.  But I certainly could not gather that one way or the other from anything that was said here.  If anybody outed anybody, it was Clay with his silly little tantrum.

And what about all the outing of people over at the 3ABNDefended Yahoo site and 3ABNtalk.com?  Any thoughts on that?  3ABN defenders over there have gone out of their way to FIND people who wanted to remain anonymous and have been downright nasty to them, dredging up stuff from their past and threatening to try to have them disfellowshiped from the SDA church, etc.  Made me pretty grateful NOT to be a member!  Unless people we know are talking, then the information obtained and presented there was obtained with a defective subpoena, and it is my understanding the defenders have been warned of that.

[Bob Pickle]

If I missed the point, it was because I didn't think you could really be saying what you just said. And I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree with you.

What I see you saying below is that if someone has posted anonymously anywhere on the internet and wanted to remain so, then it is wrong for anyone to ever mention their real name under any circumstances and regarding any topic.

Thus if President Bush has posted anonymously and wants to remain so, no one in the media on the internet can ever do another story on him, such as a story about the speech he gave for the RNC.

Regarding the spirit in which Attorney Randall's name was mentioned, since I was the one who Clay lambasted more than anyone else, what did I say that displayed an improper spirit?

But please, if you respond, do not say that I outed Cindi, since it has already been established by default that I didn't out her as a member of either AT or BSDA.

You are missing the point.  If WT was posting annonymousiy anywhere on the internet,a nd you knew he wanted to remain so...on the internet...then it is wrong for you to post his name anywhere on the internet.  Especially in the spirit in which this was done.

I said I was not going to argue, and I am not.  You all get my point, I know it, you know it.  It was wrong, I know it, you know it.  If you can live with it, then so can I.  Case closed.  I realize that y ou have a goal and whatever it takes for you to get there is all good by you. I can't change that, but I can speak the truth about it.

princessdi,

If you could be so kind as to quote where Gailon or I outed Cindi Randall by saying anything that could tie her to any user at BSDA, I would be most appreciative. Then I will apologize for mistakenly saying that we didn't when we did.

Let me put it this way: Suppose Walt Thompson were posting on BSDA anonymously. Suppose we knew who he was. Suppose we then discussed Walt Thompson here openly without identifying him as that user on BSDA, since he is the 3ABN Board chairman. Would that be wrong to do? Would that be doing Satan's work?

In other words, just because someone posts anonymously and is allowed to do so, I don't think that keeps them from being discussed in ways that doesn't associate them with a BSDA user when they are playing a major role in this saga.

I repeat: The only posts that I think has outed Cindi Randall as a BSDA user is your posts here. And I would not be against the moderators deleting or editing whichever posts identify Cindi Randall as a BSDA user, which would mean deleting or editing your posts, and certain posts which comment on your posts, like this one.

But the original posts that started this discussion do not in any way connect Cindi Randall to BSDA.

Ok, but this is not all happening in a vaccum at AT.  Like it or not, this forum is a continuation from what was going on at BSDA.  So there are very few if any who would not know to whom they were referring..  Clay's post to my knowledge did not mention any name of who the member was, but I did come to read, and found out from GJ own post.  I actually took the inference that she may have not been amember here from Bob's response to Clay.  As I said, if I am wrong, my apologies.  But it looked like a play on words, basically.

My only point here is that they knew who it was, They knew she posted and/or read annonymously on the internet.....just as you and I do. Now, my info is easily accessible as an Admin at BSDA, I thought that important, so I am not disturbed when some refers to me by my full name as I have in essence given my permission.  However, if I was posting annonymously and Bob and GJ had this info, today I would not feel my annonymity was safe.  I owuld be one wrong step from being outed.....for the cause.   If Bob and GJ were posting annonymously on the internet and I knew their true identities, as I do many memebers as an admin, I would not then think it fair game to go to another site and start posting their identites.  That is not right.  So it makes no difference who knew besides Bob and GJ, they knew, and they were wrong.  It makes no difference where she posts or not posts.  They knew.  That is my point.  Still my brothers in Christ, but in this instance they are wrong.  There is no justifying it. 

I said it once before the the truth is the truth anyhow.........by any means necessary has no place in God's work, because it most often means working form the devils toolbox.   

I see what you are saying, Di.  I don't know if she currently posts here or not.  But I certainly could not gather that one way or the other from anything that was said here.  If anybody outed anybody, it was Clay with his silly little tantrum.

And what about all the outing of people over at the 3ABNDefended Yahoo site and 3ABNtalk.com?  Any thoughts on that?  3ABN defenders over there have gone out of their way to FIND people who wanted to remain anonymous and have been downright nasty to them, dredging up stuff from their past and threatening to try to have them disfellowshiped from the SDA church, etc.  Made me pretty grateful NOT to be a member!  Unless people we know are talking, then the information obtained and presented there was obtained with a defective subpoena, and it is my understanding the defenders have been warned of that.