The IRS agent

[steffan]

Your opinion

I don't believe DS is innocent of all. Nor do I necessarily believe his offenses are just little ones.

No longer your opinion, but presenting untruth as fact. Imagine Peter callously allowing Saul/Paul to become a missionary for the "Christians". Did you somehow overlook the fact that Duane contacted him many years later and was told that this was a bad idea? Perhaps you should read that letter. Surprisingly, Duane's first letter is nowhere to be found, but the reply is.

His callous disregard in placing his brother in a position of trust and ability to commit again,for me doesn't speak well of DS.

Once again, your opinion

I just don't believe DS.

Opinion now slowly trying to turn into untruthful "fact". You are now insinuating that an alibi has been given for every accusation. What alibi are we talking about? Does it somehow escape you that an innocent person can really be innocent?

It is inconceivable to me that someone like DS has had an alibi for every accusation.

Now you start getting offensive. The only One who I infinitely trust is God. Nobody else. That goes for the little group that has defended 3ABN, quite unlike the group that want to "save" 3ABN. Danny has never been perfect, neither am I. But I can judge, based on the sleaze-bearers, which side I should be on. For example, on [not]Advent, "Danny used a screwdriver to force open a young girl's door at night!!!"

he is about to admit it to those that have infinite trust in him.

I've said this before, I really don't care about whether an IRS agent was fired. That event has no relevance to me. You, on the other hand, are now trying to turn this into something "we" started. No evidence = no relevance. Please feel free to project your horse pucky elsewhere.

He even has a witness of sorts in the iRS agent. Somebody messed with DS unfairly and he was fired. Personally I think that is nothing but horse pucky.

And yet, you now bring a "story" to this forum, the same way you accuse Stan of bringing a "story" to this forum. Enough already.

Shortly after this nasty little mess broke someone I know quite well commented. He has never had anything to do with the forums or taken any side. Rarely offers a personal opinion. I have never known him to lie,exaggerate or spread stories. He is a very credible man. Does this give me the freedom and the expectation that all take without question this incidence with DS and LS? I really don't think so.

Then stop already. Since you have no relevance to either Danny or Linda, figure out something else to do with your life

What he told me as to his experience with both DS and LS left a whole lot to be desired. Not anyone I would want to know from that information.

Another case of opinion trying to turn into fact

Sooner or later another scandal will break and DS will go on and do what he does best.

[odie1962]

Your opinion

I don't believe DS is innocent of all. Nor do I necessarily believe his offenses are just little ones.

No longer your opinion, but presenting untruth as fact. Imagine Peter callously allowing Saul/Paul to become a missionary for the "Christians". Did you somehow overlook the fact that Duane contacted him many years later and was told that this was a bad idea? Perhaps you should read that letter. Surprisingly, Duane's first letter is nowhere to be found, but the reply is.

When I said "I don't believe DS is innocent of all" it is my opinion. Not sure how you turn" I don't believe into untruth as fact".

Peter allowing Paul to become a missionary is hardly a comparison. DS is not comparable to Peter and TS is not comparable to Paul. No I didn't overlook anything concerning Duane Clem.
Perhaps you did when I said it didn't matter if it were Duane Clems idea. What matters is the responsibility of a pastor in this type of situation. The only excuse that TS would have is if he were a victim of force. While you may look at it as a one time event in the life of TS, his conduct says different. A married man with family just wakes up one morning and decides to
indulge in homosexual activity ,decides that was wrong and does not have a problem.? Not likely.
Someone that commits these acts in this way has a almost perfect sense of who he can groom for his own satisfaction. This was an act that rests squarely with TS first and foremost.
If those that commit these acts are converted and realize the enormity of what they have done
need help and support. Those that are truly converted will tell you the same thing.
You do not place them back in the same circumstance of trust,as much as for their own sake as any potential victim.

His callous disregard in placing his brother in a position of trust and ability to commit again,for me doesn't speak well of DS.

Once again, your opinion

I just don't believe DS.

Exactly,my opinion. For the protection of the reputation of 3ABN and for the protection of his brother TS, he was disregarding what could be a very bad outcome. Many insurance companies will not cover sexual abuse issues if there has been and is known prior events of this conduct

Opinion now slowly trying to turn into untruthful "fact". You are now insinuating that an alibi has been given for every accusation. What alibi are we talking about? Does it somehow escape you that an innocent person can really be innocent?

It is inconceivable to me that someone like DS has had an alibi for every accusation.

I do not believe those that can "vouch" for every incidence that Bob and Gailon throw out there
are lying. What is really tough to believe is that for every incidence there is a detailed explanantion. An explanation that has to come from DS in many cases.



Yes, those blamed or accused can be innocent. Usually the problem of those that are innocent is they do not have the luxury of an alibi for every act they are accused of.

Now you start getting offensive. The only One who I infinitely trust is God. Nobody else. That goes for the little group that has defended 3ABN, quite unlike the group that want to "save" 3ABN. Danny has never been perfect, neither am I. But I can judge, based on the sleaze-bearers, which side I should be on. For example, on [not]Advent, "Danny used a screwdriver to force open a young girl's door at night!!!"

he is about to admit it to those that have infinite trust in him.

We are not talking about anyone being perfect,whether that is DS or someone else. And No you cannot judge based on sleezebearers. Those that engage in this behavior often appear more credible and godly than the victim reporting. They have perfected their"craft" to a fine art. Whether it is DS or anyone else in a position of trust,I certainly can't say he did and you cannot say he didn't. As someone that has faith in DS conduct the most you can say is"You don't believe he would" . You cannot say he didn't unless you were on the other side of the door,which I assume you are not going to claim.
But this brings up another problem that people like Bob and Gailon help create. More often than not a "victim" of this conduct is not believed and Bob and Gailon with their sleeze make it just that much tougher on a victim

I've said this before, I really don't care about whether an IRS agent was fired. That event has no relevance to me. You, on the other hand, are now trying to turn this into something "we" started. No evidence = no relevance. Please feel free to project your horse pucky elsewhere.

I made no attempt to turn this into a "we started". You are pulling a bob with those kind of comments.. You should care in one way whether or not a IRS agent was fired.
If the man,unknown at this time is spreading this highly unlikely story without proof,without knowing who he is,how many other stories are spread and believed. This happens on both sides

And yet, you now bring a "story" to this forum, the same way you accuse Stan of bringing a "story" to this forum. Enough already.

Shortly after this nasty little mess broke someone I know quite well commented. He has never had anything to do with the forums or taken any side. Rarely offers a personal opinion. I have never known him to lie,exaggerate or spread stories. He is a very credible man. Does this give me the freedom and the expectation that all take without question this incidence with DS and LS? I really don't think so.

Not quite. But let's keep to your train of thought. An incident,no details,believed by most that know him to be highly credible, something that this party found objectionable to him should be accepted. Or at least that is how I read Stan's comments

Then stop already. Since you have no relevance to either Danny or Linda, figure out something else to do with your life

Now you sound suspiciously like some on adventtalk. I don't know and suspect that I never will know DS and LS. But this should concern SDA's in general.
I have many things to do with my life,Thank You. But maybe that would be good counsel for all the rest as well. Do you have a relevance to DS and LS. Could you explain what that is?

What he told me as to his experience with both DS and LS left a whole lot to be desired. Not anyone I would want to know from that information.

Another case of opinion trying to turn into fact

At times you sound and act like Bob Pickle. Where did I imply this was anything other than my own opinion? I was not there and have nothing to go on other than this man's reputation.
If I said otherwise and claimed it as fact I trust that you as owner of this board have the capabilities of deleting it if I presented as fact


By the time you are done with this,you just might have convinced yourself that I did try to turn this into fact.