Print

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

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Mr. Gailon,

Before you think I am attacking you please allow me to explain that I am a late-comer. I am catching up and will check everything for myself.

To that end, I plan to ask Danny questions regarding the allegations and will track down every witness or lead that I can. The website clubadventist.com and 3abntalk.com both announce it as this Friday.

I am also going through a site called save-3abn and will verify things to my satisfaction before making up my mind.

Regards
PB

Well Grandma, you have yet another member that is going to re-investigate in search of the truth...I bet PB Jelli never finds the truth!!! He has not yet demonstrated the competence to investigate. On the other hand, guess we would all like to know what he has found in his less than diligent search??? 

And he is a classic closed minded Seventh-day Adventist...he will first investigate the messenger and if we can get past that then we will look carefully at the message. But, they never get past the messenger!!! Now, ain't that a surprise???

So, here we go again, with another less than cunning truth seeker with an alternative agenda, asking less than serious questions, based upon clearly conclusive evidence pretending to be oh, so diligent, in his search for truth.

Well, PBJelli, welcome aboard and may you enjoy the controversy. By the way, do you need a manual for journalistic investigative procedure?

Gailon Arthur Joy

[CPAATTY]

And he is a classic closed minded Seventh-day Adventist...he will first investigate the messenger and if we can get past that then we will look carefully at the message. But, they never get past the messenger!!! Now, ain't that a surprise???

This may be true. Discovering the lengths the messenger is willing to travel and the methods that messenger uses may indeed be what stops someone from even considering investigating someone else.There is no way to get past that.

CPAATTY

[Snoopy]

I wonder if Cindi Randall disclosed her suspended attorney license when she was trying to influence Linda Shelton's legal decisions?

[Gregory]

Let me be very clear:

Cindi and  I did not attempt to influence Linda's legal decisions.

On numerous occasions both Cindi and I would tell Linda that she needed to seek the advice of a comptent attorney in regard to decisions that she  needed to make.

As part of that Linda was advised that she should seek the advice of lawyers who worked in the areas of law that related to the legal issues that Linda faced.  Cindi has spent her life in the practice of Social Security law.  She presently litigates Social Security disability cases in hearings where such cases are decided. She has never specialized in the specific areas where Linda had to make legal decisions.  Linda was repeatedly told to seek advice from atornies who specialized in areas of law related to the legal issues that she faced.

A number of years ago, when Linda informed me that she was without legal counsel, I gave her some advice as to how to select counsel to represent her.  I then illustrated my advice with the specific mention of three different law firms that I thought it would be worth her time to meet with and discuss the posibility of representing her (Linda) on a specific issue.  Linda contacted those law firms and ended up selecting an attorney that was not a part of the three that I had mentioned to her.  That was the last time that I ever mentioned a specific law firm or attorney to represent her.  She now understood the issues that I had mentioned to her and she was quite capable of acting on her own.  In every case, from that time on, she selected her own lawyers to represent her without any specific input from either Cindi or I.

Influence Linda on specifc legal issues:  No. 

I doubt that Snoppy has any personal knowledge of advice that we gave Linda.

Yes, we could defend ourselves (Cindi and I).  We could do so by puting out for public view personal information about Linda.  We are not prevented from doing so by any profesonal confidentiality concerns.  Such simply do not exist.

So, why have we not published for the world to see such information that would defend us?   Because we care about Linda.  We want her to get on with her life and celebrate as we see her doing so.  We do not want to embarrass Linda.  In addition, our defense of ourselves would embarrass people other than Linda. 
This is not what we want to do. 

[Fran]

So, you want to see Linda fly on her own? 

You want her to prosper as she is doing? 

So why are you here trying to stomp on her parade by leaving hints that you have embarrassing information about Linda?  Were these comments to help Linda or to defend yourself by dropping the comment about how defending yourself would only embarrass Linda. 

And what part are we to believe?

You need to be defended?

Or did you want everyone to know Linda screwed up all by herself? 

It seems to boil down to the fact that you feel the need to defend yourself at Linda's expense!  Is that what you are implying?

I believe Linda is doing just fine since she started making her choices without leaning on a crutch!

In my own personal opinion, she would have flown a lot sooner had she not been involved with you.  I thought talking to a pastor was confidential, but you live by Gregory's ethics.  You perform CYA (cover your own posterior) at the hint of someone questioning your actions.

I believe you ingratiated yourself in Linda's life where you allowed her to use you as a crutch.  After all you were a chaplain!  Then she makes a decision and you are no longer associated with her! 

Some people can be fooled some of the time, but you can't fool them all of the time.

So go ahead an do what you have to do so we can get it over quickly.  It might be a nice diversion from the current SNT type topics that seem to have taken over AdventTalk.

I feel Linda needs to be left alone.  I believe you have an obligation to keep her confidential conversations confidential.  If you don't, then we all will know what makes up your character.

[guide4him]

Fran,
Hear! Hear! 

[sonshineonme]

THANK YOU FRAN!!! You are awesome! You said it all and you said it very very well. Thank you!!!
 

So, you want to see Linda fly on her own? 

You want her to prosper as she is doing? 

So why are you here trying to stomp on her parade by leaving hints that you have embarrassing information about Linda?  Were these comments to help Linda or to defend yourself by dropping the comment about how defending yourself would only embarrass Linda. 

And what part are we to believe?

You need to be defended?

Or did you want everyone to know Linda screwed up all by herself? 

It seems to boil down to the fact that you feel the need to defend yourself at Linda's expense!  Is that what you are implying?

I believe Linda is doing just fine since she started making her choices without leaning on a crutch!

In my own personal opinion, she would have flown a lot sooner had she not been involved with you.  I thought talking to a pastor was confidential, but you live by Gregory's ethics.  You perform CYA (cover your own posterior) at the hint of someone questioning your actions.

I believe you ingratiated yourself in Linda's life where you allowed her to use you as a crutch.  After all you were a chaplain!  Then she makes a decision and you are no longer associated with her! 

Some people can be fooled some of the time, but you can't fool them all of the time.

So go ahead an do what you have to do so we can get it over quickly.  It might be a nice diversion from the current SNT type topics that seem to have taken over AdventTalk.

I feel Linda needs to be left alone.  I believe you have an obligation to keep her confidential conversations confidential.  If you don't, then we all will know what makes up your character.

[Snoopy]

Don't kid yourself, Gregory.  Cindi has obviously been talking about things I have told her in confidence.

And, how can it be that she "presently litigates Social Security disability cases"?  Did she tell you that?  Did someone forget to tell her that her license is suspended?  Am I just missing something?

Let me be very clear:

Cindi and  I did not attempt to influence Linda's legal decisions.

On numerous occasions both Cindi and I would tell Linda that she needed to seek the advice of a comptent attorney in regard to decisions that she  needed to make.

As part of that Linda was advised that she should seek the advice of lawyers who worked in the areas of law that related to the legal issues that Linda faced.  Cindi has spent her life in the practice of Social Security law.  She presently litigates Social Security disability cases in hearings where such cases are decided. She has never specialized in the specific areas where Linda had to make legal decisions.  Linda was repeatedly told to seek advice from atornies who specialized in areas of law related to the legal issues that she faced.

A number of years ago, when Linda informed me that she was without legal counsel, I gave her some advice as to how to select counsel to represent her.  I then illustrated my advice with the specific mention of three different law firms that I thought it would be worth her time to meet with and discuss the posibility of representing her (Linda) on a specific issue.  Linda contacted those law firms and ended up selecting an attorney that was not a part of the three that I had mentioned to her.  That was the last time that I ever mentioned a specific law firm or attorney to represent her.  She now understood the issues that I had mentioned to her and she was quite capable of acting on her own.  In every case, from that time on, she selected her own lawyers to represent her without any specific input from either Cindi or I.

Influence Linda on specifc legal issues:  No. 

I doubt that Snoppy has any personal knowledge of advice that we gave Linda.

Yes, we could defend ourselves (Cindi and I).  We could do so by puting out for public view personal information about Linda.  We are not prevented from doing so by any profesonal confidentiality concerns.  Such simply do not exist.

So, why have we not published for the world to see such information that would defend us?   Because we care about Linda.  We want her to get on with her life and celebrate as we see her doing so.  We do not want to embarrass Linda.  In addition, our defense of ourselves would embarrass people other than Linda. 
This is not what we want to do. 

[Gregory]

Snoopy said:

And, how can it be that she "presently litigates Social Security disability cases"?  Did she tell you that?  Did someone forget to tell her that her license is suspended?  Am I just missing something?

Yes, you are missing something.  You lack a basic understanding of the law, legal affairs and what people can and can not do.

[Johann]

Yes, you are missing something.  You lack a basic understanding of the law, legal affairs and what people can and can not do.

Seems like I have heard a similar statement before. Isn't this close to the magic key with which certain lawyers seek to subdue and impress others?

[Habanero]

Yes, you are missing something.  You lack a basic understanding of the law, legal affairs and what people can and can not do.

Seems like I have heard a similar statement before. Isn't this close to the magic key with which certain lawyers seek to subdue and impress others?

Johann, the subduing and intimidation of people has been the magic key for lawyers, politicians, gangsters and televangelists for a very long time.

[Nosir Myzing]

So, you want to see Linda fly on her own? 

You want her to prosper as she is doing? 

It looks like that is exactly what he said to me.

So why are you here trying to stomp on her parade by leaving hints that you have embarrassing information about Linda?  Were these comments to help Linda or to defend yourself by dropping the comment about how defending yourself would only embarrass Linda. 

And what part are we to believe?

You need to be defended?

Or did you want everyone to know Linda screwed up all by herself? 

It seems to boil down to the fact that you feel the need to defend yourself at Linda's expense!  Is that what you are implying?

Like Snoopy feels the need to defend herself at the expense of others?

It looks to me like he is responding as he and Cindi Randall have been attacked repeatedly here, and do need defending but explaining that they cannot do so without dragging in Linda and others, and they prefer not to do that, snoopy included. That is commendable and certainly rare here imo.

[Nosir Myzing]

Don't kid yourself, Gregory.  Cindi has obviously been talking about things I have told her in confidence.

That premise may suit your mindset, but it is not obvious to me.

I, myself know alot about you and your checkered history and
never asked or received any confidences from this woman you are bent on exposing and attacking.

I actually got it all from the internet, based on your public posts and emails.

After all you told us your name, occupation, and history, and even places you have lived and been.

For example; there was that letter you posted saying you were in Nashville. I googled the courts there and just entered your name.

And, how can it be that she "presently litigates Social Security disability cases"?  Did she tell you that?  Did someone forget to tell her that her license is suspended?  Am I just missing something?

Did you ever consider giving "your former friend" the benefit of the doubt, or of asking her that before attempting to publicly humiliate and attack her on this forum?

It seems to me that one should get all the facts,and ask questions privately and hear all before jumping to conclusions or developing obsessions involving pay backs and revenge for perceived wrongs.

It  also seems to me that you are exposing far more about yourself and your character here then you are others.

IMO, you outed yourself and you are continuing to do so, and are your own worst enemy.

I would venture to say outside of the little fan club you have going here, most others are turned off and disgusted by your display here.

I know I am.

Let me be very clear:

Cindi and  I did not attempt to influence Linda's legal decisions.

On numerous occasions both Cindi and I would tell Linda that she needed to seek the advice of a comptent attorney in regard to decisions that she  needed to make.

As part of that Linda was advised that she should seek the advice of lawyers who worked in the areas of law that related to the legal issues that Linda faced.  Cindi has spent her life in the practice of Social Security law.  She presently litigates Social Security disability cases in hearings where such cases are decided. She has never specialized in the specific areas where Linda had to make legal decisions.  Linda was repeatedly told to seek advice from atornies who specialized in areas of law related to the legal issues that she faced.

A number of years ago, when Linda informed me that she was without legal counsel, I gave her some advice as to how to select counsel to represent her.  I then illustrated my advice with the specific mention of three different law firms that I thought it would be worth her time to meet with and discuss the posibility of representing her (Linda) on a specific issue.  Linda contacted those law firms and ended up selecting an attorney that was not a part of the three that I had mentioned to her.  That was the last time that I ever mentioned a specific law firm or attorney to represent her.  She now understood the issues that I had mentioned to her and she was quite capable of acting on her own.  In every case, from that time on, she selected her own lawyers to represent her without any specific input from either Cindi or I.

Influence Linda on specifc legal issues:  No. 

I doubt that Snoppy has any personal knowledge of advice that we gave Linda.

Yes, we could defend ourselves (Cindi and I).  We could do so by puting out for public view personal information about Linda.  We are not prevented from doing so by any profesonal confidentiality concerns.  Such simply do not exist.

So, why have we not published for the world to see such information that would defend us?   Because we care about Linda.  We want her to get on with her life and celebrate as we see her doing so.  We do not want to embarrass Linda.  In addition, our defense of ourselves would embarrass people other than Linda. 
This is not what we want to do. 

[/quote]

[Fran]

Nosir Myzing;

Your character is showing also.

[Snoopy]

Yup - just like Ian!!  The similarities are remarkable!