Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

Sounds like what Duane said was on topic.

Danny claimed that he reported a donation of property as cash on his 2003 tax return. The people Duane listed may want to deny that that is an infraction or discrepancy, just like Baghdad Bob wanted to deny that there was a US presence in Baghdad. But it is an infraction or a discrepancy, and no IRS employee who is doing their job is going to deny that, regardless of what the people Duane listed say.

[GrandmaNettie]

Jeanette, could you please explain what you mean?

The simple fact is that, according to Duffy's letter, the IRS has not issued any statement saying that they could not find one infraction or one discrepancy in all of Danny's and 3ABN's books. Unless there is something more, based on what has been stated thus far, the IRS has therefore not exonerated 3ABN.

Glad to explain....

You call the Atoday headline "misleading".  Petunia posted quotes from Inga that clearly show that you do the very same thing.  PKB Syndrome.

Gailon and Bob:

My post was merely meant to point out that Bob misrepresented what Appletree actually wrote. Whether or not Bob's take describes what happened is not the issue.

However, Appletree did not write what Bob claims he wrote in the subject line: "AppleTree says IRS removed 1000's of documents from 3ABN)"! And it does not look good for truth-seekers to misrepresent/spin what others wrote.

Gailon wrote:

Add to this that we have reports from witnesses stating that the IRS took out several boxes of documents and have interviewed most of the financial office staff and several others in Administration and you have Appletree stating rare historical facts that do not appear factually challenged. We even know that financial staff are under the strictest orders not to speak to anyone regarding anything that has happened and we are told this order came from both sides!!!

This may very well be true. However, I am less likely to believe either you or Bob when I see misrepresentations like those of Appletree's post. How do I know that what you report as fact -- as Bob did in the title of this thread-- is not similarly spun from scanty evidence?

All who wish to defend the truth need to be scrupulously truthful.

Not only have you misrespresented this and other statements by misleading headlines, you also demonstrate in this very query to me, another area where you spin information to try to make it fit your own conclusions.

Although others report that they have been contacted by the IRS, since you have not been contacted by the IRS and what others have reported does not meet your specifications for proof, you deem the matter unsettled and make the broad statement that "the IRS has therefore not exonerated 3ABN". The IRS may well have exonerated 3ABN just as others have reported.   Don't get me wrong.... you have a right to weigh the evidence any way you wish and draw your own conclusions to what it means to you.  Where you go too far is attempting to bump your personal opinion up to the level of proven fact.  You just don't have sufficient information to go to that length in this case.

GrandmaNettie

[Bob Pickle]

Although others report that they have been contacted by the IRS, .... The IRS may well have exonerated 3ABN just as others have reported.

I think you are missing the point. The way Duffy and Gilley put it, the IRS has not told anyone that Danny and 3ABN are exonerated. If you think a source that has claimed to have been contacted by the IRS has been told by the IRS that Danny and 3ABN are exonerated, provide a quote that says so.

As to Inga's opinion, she's entitled to her opinion, but I believe she is wrong. I believe that AppleTree did indeed admit that the IRS had removed thousands of records from 3ABN. But that doesn't mean that I have any less respect for Inga because we have a difference of opinion.

Looks like apples and oranges to me. If the IRS had actually made some sort of statement and that statement was interpreted to mean that 3ABN was exonerated, then maybe it would be comparable to my position that AppleTree said that thousands of documents had been removed. Or, if folks would confine their statements to "Duffy claims IRS investigation over," or "Duffy claims IRS exonerates 3ABN and Danny," then it would be comparable.

[GrandmaNettie]

Although others report that they have been contacted by the IRS, .... The IRS may well have exonerated 3ABN just as others have reported.

I think you are missing the point. The way Duffy and Gilley put it, the IRS has not told anyone that Danny and 3ABN are exonerated. If you think a source that has claimed to have been contacted by the IRS has been told by the IRS that Danny and 3ABN are exonerated, provide a quote that says so.

It is  your opinion that I am missing the point because I am not coming to the same conclusion that  you are.

As to Inga's opinion, she's entitled to her opinion, but I believe she is wrong. I believe that AppleTree did indeed admit that the IRS had removed thousands of records from 3ABN. But that doesn't mean that I have any less respect for Inga because we have a difference of opinion.

Inga presented her statement in a respectful way, speaking as someone who has an great grasp of the written word, sentence structure, etc.  And yet you still maintain your interpretation of things is right and she is wrong.  Then, as Petunia pointed out, Eduard thoroughly bashed her as having an argument without merit, which demonstrates the errancy of his own "expert" opinion as well as the dark spirit that drives him.

Looks like apples and oranges to me. If the IRS had actually made some sort of statement and that statement was interpreted to mean that 3ABN was exonerated, then maybe it would be comparable to my position that AppleTree said that thousands of documents had been removed. Or, if folks would confine their statements to "Duffy claims IRS investigation over," or "Duffy claims IRS exonerates 3ABN and Danny," then it would be comparable.

Of course it does.  You seem to see apples where there are oranges, and then attempt to make lemonade out of it all.  Your conclusions would be less objectionable if you would present them as opinions instead of as the irrefutable truth.  Your statements would be less objectionable if you would present things as they are and not manipulate, stretch and spin to represent your findings as what they are not.  Your opinions might hold more weight if you spoke them in a less annoying and repetitive manner.  As it stands for many at this point, Bob, what you are saying sounds like "Oh yeah? Well what about blah blah blah?"

I might suggest that you compile a list of all of your "What about" statements, start a topic with the list and then, instead of launching into what sounds like an annoying song that gets far more play than it deserves, simply post a link to your list and leave it at that.

JMHO

[bonnie]

Bob,

You need to maybe get another focus in your life. If indeed the IRS has closed the case against 3ABN, nothing else is really going to matter. I believe they have come to some kind of agreement. I don't believe the over dramatization by 3ABN. Personally I think that is more about DS wanting to appear as someone so very special that even the IRS made an apology and found absolutely nothing. I don't think that is true, but so what. What ever was found, no matter how minor or major it was resolved. A little more grandiose by DS.

Most of what keeps getting tossed around is absolutely immaterial in a courtroom. They couldn't care less about TS at this stage of the game, unless there are those that can still come forward and press charges. What does a civil law care about what the way DS treated his ex-spouse. So he accused her of adultery. Adultery is not a crime and to claim you believe your spouse committed such an act isn't either.

We had children involved and the moral issue was very important for various reasons to my son. Guess what, no one cared. It was a felony committed by the pastor but became a moot point when he married the party he committed the felony with. None of it mattered.
The only way we were successful is by being able to change the existing law going as far as the MNSC.

I can tell you most couldn't care less about any immorality in this. Money, now they would have had a problem, but the IRS ruling is not going to work in your favor. As long as everyone feels they can rest easy over the money issue,you are going to be trying to reach a lot of deaf people.

Either way they are going to win. I am quite confident that they would withdraw their suit with a carefully worded 
announcement from you.


Either way,DS will still continue to come across as this beleaguered,steadfast ministry of the gospel. To say nothing of the poor man having had to deal with an unfaithful spouse. Like it or not that is another area that is now set in stone for many.
It is not against the law to be a self centered, narcissistic,self serving phony.
One thing I can guarantee you, after the much touted IRS victory, no one gives a fig about the rest.
Even that victory?? had to be played out in a grandiose style, milking it for all it was worth. What should have been a simple announcement like most business or org. would provide,it almost played out like this big cliff hanger, all waiting on "The Man" with baited breath.

Take you life back and let DS eventually shoot himself in the foot.

[Bob Pickle]

Bonnie,

What sort of announcement were you thinking of?

Preachers and members have a God-given right and responsibility to call sin by its right name, suit or no suit. The day will come when laws will be passed in America that will take away that right. Will we cave when that day comes, or will we continue to exercise that God-given right and responsibility?

The suit makes specific claims that puts at issue lots of allegations that the IRS would have no interest is. That being so, the courtroom will have an interest over whether Danny Shelton had biblical grounds for divorce, and, I believe, whether Danny Shelton covered up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton.

Thus far, no one has produced anything in the way of an IRS ruling. We must remember that.

[Bob Pickle]

I think you are missing the point. The way Duffy and Gilley put it, the IRS has not told anyone that Danny and 3ABN are exonerated. If you think a source that has claimed to have been contacted by the IRS has been told by the IRS that Danny and 3ABN are exonerated, provide a quote that says so.

It is  your opinion that I am missing the point because I am not coming to the same conclusion that  you are.

No, I don't think so. You are missing the point I am making, which is an indisputable fact, not an opinion or conclusion. According to Duffy and Gilley's statements, the IRS has not told anyone that Danny and 3ABN are exonerated.

Of course it does.  You seem to see apples where there are oranges, and then attempt to make lemonade out of it all.  Your conclusions would be less objectionable if you would present them as opinions instead of as the irrefutable truth.

Didn't I do that when I said that I believe AppleTree admitted that the IRS removed 1000's of documents? Doesn't the word "believe" indicate an opinion?

Your opinions might hold more weight if you spoke them in a less annoying and repetitive manner.

Well, why do people keep repeating their opinion that the IRS has exonerated 3ABN and Danny? Or that the investigation is closed? That suggests that the problem may not be the repetition but rather the content.

[bonnie]

Bonnie,

What sort of announcement were you thinking of?

Preachers and members have a God-given right and responsibility to call sin by its right name, suit or no suit. The day will come when laws will be passed in America that will take away that right. Will we cave when that day comes, or will we continue to exercise that God-given right and responsibility?

The suit makes specific claims that puts at issue lots of allegations that the IRS would have no interest is. That being so, the courtroom will have an interest over whether Danny Shelton had biblical grounds for divorce, and, I believe, whether Danny Shelton covered up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton.

Thus far, no one has produced anything in the way of an IRS ruling. We must remember that.

The court could not care less about biblical grounds for divorce. Not one whit.The court does not lose any sleep over immorality


 The child molestation chages are going to be the same. Obviously there was something going on or TS would not have written that letter.You have the statute of limitation and a lack of any victim coming forward to file charges or a lawsuit.


You will likely never see anything by way of IRS ruling.

[Habanero]

Btw, the name of this thread says that AT is approved. Approved by who? I don't think 3ABN or Danny have ever approved of them.

[Ozzie]

Btw, the name of this thread says that AT is approved. Approved by who? I don't think 3ABN or Danny have ever approved of them.

Intersting point Habanero. I can't really see DS 'approving' AT!

However, he may be 'using' them for his own ends? 

[quaddie47]

Btw, the name of this thread says that AT is approved. Approved by who? I don't think 3ABN or Danny have ever approved of them.

A bit of sarcasm hidden in a double entendre waiting for someone as astute as yourself to recognize a TIC comment?

A verbal entrapment waiting to be sprung to lead us to a discussion of journalism ethics?

However, I do appreciate that you made the point for me that due to the fact Atoday has drawn the ire of 3abn and DS in the past AT cannot be accused of biased reporting of the matter.

[quaddie47]

Btw, the name of this thread says that AT is approved. Approved by who? I don't think 3ABN or Danny have ever approved of them.

Intersting point Habanero. I can't really see DS 'approving' AT!

However, he may be 'using' them for his own ends? 

How sad.  It would see Ozzie that you also belong to the cult of Danny Shelton.  Who else would continue to attribute to him such power over others?  Maybe you had better warn AT and Mr. Schwantes you are on to something.   

[Fran]

As I see it, this article as being published to not have to retract the "3ABN Financial Irregularities" article.  This was not published as a retraction mind you.  Face it, every person I know, understands how to take care to CYA.

[Ozzie]

Intersting point Habanero. I can't really see DS 'approving' AT!

However, he may be 'using' them for his own ends? 

How sad.  It would see Ozzie that you also belong to the cult of Danny Shelton.  Who else would continue to attribute to him such power over others?  Maybe you had better warn AT and Mr. Schwantes you are on to something.  

Wow. At last we have someone acknowledging that DS has a cult-like following. A following that believes that he is anointed by God. That he is like Moses. That even if he is found to be doing evil, that is OK, because he's the 'anointed'.

About time that is is acknowledged that he has a following who believe that evil is good, that black is white; that trashing one's ex-wife in front of the world is OK; that diddling the books is fine; that using donations for God's work to sue fellow Christians is fine; that scaring his then-wife with a firearm is the hallmark of a loving husband; threatening other Christians who might go to a Camp Meeting is quite legit.

Yes. So sad that people can follow people like DS, David Koresh and others, but it's good to see that quaddie47 acknowledges that is so.

I can't understand the mentality of cult followers (or their leaders), but it is a relief to know that others are finally seeing it and that he 'uses' those people for his own ends. Thank you for pointing that out quaddie.

As for this Mother Duck, there's no way that I'll be leaning that way nor following like a hypnotised sheep. No siree!

[Fran]

Amen!  I think ASI belongs to that cult too!