Print

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

[Sister]

Gregory said:

The allegation has been denied.  Dr. A. has been challenged to produce the evidence.  The ball in now in his court and he has the following choices:
1) He can publicly produce the evidence that he implies that he has.  The Thompson family has asked that he do so.
2) He can review the evidence for his claim, decide that it is unsubstantiated, publicly acknowledge that he was wrong and ask forgiveness.  If he does not have the evidence to support his allegation, it would be the response of a person of honor to acknowledge such.
3) He can simply ignore the demand that he produce the evidence.  This would not be the response of a person of honor.

Let us take above that I have bolded and apply it to the situation of Danny and Linda Shelton.

The allegation has been denied.  Linda denied the allegations  Danny made against her.
Danny had the following choices:
1) He can publicly produce the evidence that he implies that he has.  He has not chosen this option.

2) He can review the evidence for his claim, decide that it is unsubstantiated, publicly acknowledge that he was wrong and ask forgiveness.  If he does not have the evidence to support his allegation, it would be the response of a person of honor to acknowledge such.  Danny has not chosen this option.

3) He can simply ignore the demand that he produce the evidence.  This would not be the response of a person of honor. Neither has Danny chosen this option.

According to Gregory's logic: Danny Shelton has not responded as a person of honor. Therefore, we may draw the same conclusion regarding Danny Shelton as Gregory has in his statement:  If Danny made a false statement in this respect, why should we believe that other statements, including adultery, against Linda are true.  Perhaps it is better to assume they are all false.


Linda has waited for Danny to do the honorable thing for a number of years... She is still waiting.

[Pat Williams]

I remember when Linda Shelton's reputation was slandered by false accusations... I remember when both she and her daughter were accused on an international television broadcast of bearing false witness against Danny... what about the pain that Linda and her children have endured, not for just a few days on an obscure website, but televised by 3ABN over the entire world? Nor for only a few days, but for years.

I have always found this claim by Bob Pickle, Johann, Yourself and others to be a very strange one. It never appears to occur to any of you that you are the ones who claimed to recognize a description of Linda and her daughter in the televised show with Shelly Quinn's talk about "persecution" and the example of what Happened to John the Baptist. You all watched it and then proceeded to claim that part was really about Linda instead. Honestly, does it really sound like Linda and her daughter to you? If so, it does not appear you have a very good opinion of them...

Since Mr Pickle actually supplied the quotes on his website as proof that Linda and Alyssa were trashed and accused on TV, and it's the only example which has ever been given of these televised attacks of Linda which you all claim occurred over and over, I will quote his excerpt and proof here in full here so others who know Linda can see what it is you  are remembering here and decide if they too think it is a perfect description of Linda which they can easily recognize as being about her.

"...As a faithful witness for God, he spoke out against a couple who had entered into a sinful relationship. Now the woman entangled in this situation became offended. She was embittered, and she felt scorned. And you know, there's something about her, that she was unconcerned about her relationship in the eyes of the Lord. Her worry revolved more around the possibility of losing her prominent position. So what did she do?" "She devised a plan to eliminate this one who had exposed her, and she enlisted the help of her young daughter. Now prompted by her mother, this daughter became entangled in the web of deceit, and she set out to set her mother's position and save it by destroying this man of God. What we see here is that the scheme was to go forward and go straight for the throat and have his head served up on a platter. Does this story sound familiar to you? To whom am I referring? John the Baptist, of course....Now, how could such a holy, Spirit-filled man, who was hand-picked by God and called to such an important ministry, fall victim to such vile persecution? Why would God allow it?

...

"But the Bible forewarns us that we will face various fiery trials and persecutions. It tells us we'll be ill treated, we'll be discriminated against. We will be tormented, hounded, slandered, even mentally molested, if you will. People will speak evil of us and they will try to ruin our reputation with lies...."

One more thing I would like to add here, in my opinion Shelly Quinn is not one to talk bad about others. I have never heard of her saying anything negative about Linda or Alyssa, much less Nathan, and no one accusing 3abn of slandering Linda has ever supplied one quote written or televised of Shelly Quinn ever even mentioning them either before, or after this broadcast.

3D

[tinka]

There is no real good resolution of this situation.   Yes, there is.  Truth needs to be known as the business was from public funds from honest pew money.   It was wrong for the alligation that Dr. Thompson has performed an abortation on his daughter after which she shortly commited suicide to be publicly posted here.  The letter that Dr. A. wrote to a General Vice-President of the General Conference was a private letter. But they are soliciting funds is a public matter because they claim all for religious evangelism without knowledge of corruption behind the scenes. As posted here it was just as wrong as it was to publicly post the private letter of Linda's daughter against her will. All should be transparent when you survive off public money. Same as government so people can decide for their own funds honestly. Honesty is not here. Every person associated with the posting of Dr. A's letter shoudl be ashamed of themselves and should publicly post an apology to the Thompson family seeking their forgiveness. Why apologize if truth. The same for Brandy if true which I highly suspect. Will somebody else be blamed for what she has done to her 3 daughters? Do you think they shall never find out? also I put a couple of things in Search. yes, a web site is there but imagine this, all the places for her pictures are now blank.

The public posting of Dr. A's commente has understandably caused pain to memebers of the Thompson famly who have had nothing to do with the alleged sins of 3-ABN and the Shelton family.  (Seems many things are acceptable in the whole clan of 3abn) It was wrong to involve them as has been done.  The allegation has been denied.  obviously, who wouldn't under these circumstances Dr. A. has been challenged to produce the evidence.  The ball in now in his court and he has the following choices:
I agree
1) He can publicly produce the evidence that he implies that he has.  The Thompson famly has asked that he do so.
2) He can review the evidence for his claim, decide that it is unsubstantiated, publicly acknowledge that he was wrong and ask forgiveness.  If he does not have the evidence to support his alligation, it would be the response of a person of honor to acknowledge such.
3) He can simply ignore the demand that he produce the evidence.  This would not be the response of a person of honor. Yes, and I think he will respond by the way he writes.


This situation is compounded by the fact that Linda may be hurt by what Dr. A. has claimed.  He has supported Linda in the charges made against her.  If he refuses to respond to the demand by the Thompson famly that he produce the evidence some are going to believe that he made a false statement.  They will ask:  If he made a false statement in this respect, why should we believe that other statements made in support of Linda were true.  Perhaps they were false.  Dr. A. should respond for the sake of LInda.

Well, the next step is up to him.

It looks like there is no good resolution, but he needs to do something. Yes, your right for an honest solution, I thought I caught a glimpse of something else you wrote on here but as  I started it seemed to be gone. It had to do with the pregnancy. So either, that was the girl that they were talking about on post previously connected to DS or very strange because after first reading the first time posted I had the strangest feeling that the one she married was not the father of lost baby. Then the part where she was adopted......yes, I fear the story is not good however it is or you look at it. But the public is not the cause for it.  The public has been deceived.  

[Gregory]

Johann:

You have told us that someone asked you to post Dr. A's letter.  O.K. I believe that you are an honest person and are speaking the truth.

As a result of that statement, people believe that it was Linda who asked you to post that letter.  I have stated that the Linda I once knew, who had seen her own daughter trashed by posting a private letter, would not have asked you to post the letter you posted.

By remaining silent, you foster the perception that Linda was involved in posting Dr. A's letter.  One way or another, it is in the best interests of LInda that you make a clear statement related to any part that Linda may have had in your posting that letter.  A failure to do so on your part will continue to contribute to the negative perception that people have about Linda.

You opened this can of worms, now speak the truth.   If LInda had something to do with it, it will be no worse than it already is and she can share her thinking as to why she did so.  If she had no part in your posting the letter, you will serve to clear her reputation.

[tinka]

I can't see where it makes a difference who had who do anything. I did not even think that it was LS in fact the only thing I see is someone counteracting what the protectors are hiding. But if the Dr. does have proof then ok, present it where ever it comes from. I think this is a little ploy to take LS down because those thoughts of public thinking is presumption.

[Adam]

I can't see where it makes a difference who had who do anything. I did not even think that it was LS in fact the only thing I see is someone counteracting what the protectors are hiding. But if the Dr. does have proof then ok, present it where ever it comes from. I think this is a little ploy to take LS down because those thoughts of public thinking is presumption.

Amen!!!!!

[Johann]

Who is the clear on what? Aren't we fortunate to have some self-appointed strong arbitrators among us? Who is obliged to follow their verdicts

[Fran]

Gregory;

Stop pocking at everyone to give you info you feel you have a need to know!  Linda is not the subject matter at hand!  If I remember right, Linda dropped you as soon as she saw through your, "I can solve all things for you."  You just had to [censored] in!  

Johann, you are not required to answer to Gregory.  He is not involved but so desires to be in charge.  It is an old habit he has.  And, yes, once Gregory lied to me.  I believed him, and have regretted it to this day!  With Gregory, you will find that he has a little knowledge, but speaks authoritatively about law and requirements as if he were an authority!

This is really enough.  Leave Linda alone!  She figured you out.  I beleive you are a day late, and a dollar short!

I am sure that Dr A and Johann both understood the repercussions of their posts.  Remember, They have seen this in full action with Bob and Gaylon!  I am sure that was posted with only enough information to give them pause for a lawsuit.  Maybe that is exactly what they are looking for.

If you have more demands of Dr A, Linda, or Johann, please go private.  I am sure they will NOT jump for joy hearing from you because they know you are right in the middle of the fence and only lean to where you want to be.   How dare you come here and spread hate and discontent about Linda.  You should be ashamed!   Why?  What does this have to do with Linda?

I suppose this is your way to get back at Linda for dropping you?  Is this where you are spiritually also?  

Johann:

You have told us that someone asked you to post Dr. A's letter.  O.K. I believe that you are an honest person and are speaking the truth.

As a result of that statement, people believe that it was Linda who asked you to post that letter.  I have stated that the Linda I once knew, who had seen her own daughter trashed by posting a private letter, would not have asked you to post the letter you posted.

By remaining silent, you foster the perception that Linda was involved in posting Dr. A's letter.  One way or another, it is in the best interests of Linda that you make a clear statement related to any part that Linda may have had in your posting that letter.  A failure to do so on your part will continue to contribute to the negative perception that people have about Linda.

You opened this can of worms, now speak the truth.   If Linda had something to do with it, it will be no worse than it already is and she can share her thinking as to why she did so.  If she had no part in your posting the letter, you will serve to clear her reputation.

[Fran]

NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO TELL HIM ANYTHING ! ! ! ! !                And the beat goes on!

Who is the clear on what? Aren't we fortunate to have some self-appointed strong arbitrators among us? Who is obliged to follow their verdicts

[Gregory]

Who is the clear on what? Aren't we fortunate to have some self-appointed strong arbitrators among us? Who is obliged to follow their verdicts

Well, Johann, I am getting private messages telling me that it must be Linda who put you up to posting the letter.  Do as you wish.  Of course you do not have to tell anybody anything.  But, the bottom line is:  Your silence tends to smear Linda.  Anyone who advised her to have that comment posted, if anyone did, is an unfaithful steward.  As a SDA minsiter, you should have know that it was wrong to post that comment.

[Gregory]

Fran, your version of events is totaly lacking in truth.  Your bear false witness, even though you may believe it to be true.

You would be the first person to tell me to keep Linda's business private if I were to tell what actually happened.  It is out of respect Linda that I have remained quiet.

[tinka]

Linda is no longer responsible or was she ever about the funds at 3abn. She is not the concern . What your missing is the characters that now run 3abn and all the corruption that they previously have done to now come back and kick their own behinds. It is leaking now to become a gusher.
You cannot get away from the arrests, lifestyle, adultery, now Brandi and chase the links. and beyond the wildest thoughts of blaming others for finding out..the cover ups.

Actually, in my very own opinion that doesn't make a difference to anyone is I really believe that DS really did a number and did not know how to get out of it and therefore the change in DS actions that LS noticed in bad treatment of her.  and the characterization of Brandi..(dance spelling) what in the world was he doing!  He sure did prove one thing...with money anything can get picked up. as his ego and boasting let you know.  He just didn't realize that with out the money....

Just think, if he would have been honest, fair, loved Linda and did what he was supposed to and if it was true of her, his actions would never ever been this and all the rest would not have come down on his head. Yes, LS has been stripped of all but that is better then losing your" head".

Now that was a big "glitch". 

[Gregory]

Fran has accused me of lying to her several years ago.  I am not certain what she references as she and I have not discussed this in any depth.  However, here is what she references, I THINK?

I once moderated a 3ABN discussion on CA.  Fran asked me permission to post THE TELEVANGELIST.    I breifly looked at it and it was posted.  After it was posted I read it in detail.  I promptly deleted it as I would not allow what I read to be posted.  All in all it lasted in CA for 15 - 20 minutes.  I think that she claims I lied to her because I removed it after reading it in detail and after telling her it could be posted.

The bottom line:  I made a mistake.  My brief review did not give me a clear picture of what was in the document.  After reading it in detail, I removed it, which is exactly what should have been done.  I was right to remove it.  I was wrong in telling Fran that it could be posted at a time when I had not read it in detail and did not fully understand what was in the document.  I was right in removing it after I read it.

To anyone who wants to charge me with lying to Fran in first telling her that it could be posted and then changing my mind, I will accept that.  I was wrong.  I was not wrong in removing it.  By removing it, I corrected an error in judgement that I made when I first allowed it to be posted.

[Little Grasshopper]

But, the bottom line is:  Your silence tends to smear Linda.

Thank you for the thought, but silence doesn't "smear" anyone.  Jesus was silent at his own trial.

[sonshineonme]

I have knowledge that Linda has not been involved in whats been posted or not been posted. Also, she  does not even come to this site.

Johann:

You have told us that someone asked you to post Dr. A's letter.  O.K. I believe that you are an honest person and are speaking the truth.

As a result of that statement, people believe that it was Linda who asked you to post that letter.  I have stated that the Linda I once knew, who had seen her own daughter trashed by posting a private letter, would not have asked you to post the letter you posted.

By remaining silent, you foster the perception that Linda was involved in posting Dr. A's letter.  One way or another, it is in the best interests of LInda that you make a clear statement related to any part that Linda may have had in your posting that letter.  A failure to do so on your part will continue to contribute to the negative perception that people have about Linda.

You opened this can of worms, now speak the truth.   If LInda had something to do with it, it will be no worse than it already is and she can share her thinking as to why she did so.  If she had no part in your posting the letter, you will serve to clear her reputation.