The IRS agent

[Stan]

Not being able to tell the difference in spreading stories heard 3rd hand of sexual abuse, that is being told by those who exhibit hate for someone and the mentioning of a board member/CEO of a major ministry explanation on why something has not filtered back, to me is a significant difference.

It is clear from your posts that you view them as both rumour mongering. I really do not care if you see a difference.

[odie1962]

Not being able to tell the difference in spreading stories heard 3rd hand of sexual abuse, that is being told by those who exhibit hate for someone and the mentioning of a board member/CEO of a major ministry explanation on why something has not filtered back, to me is a significant difference.

It is clear from your posts that you view them as both rumour mongering. I really do not care if you see a difference.

Stan
There is no difference whatsoever. Is it different to you because one is sexual abuse and the other just money?
What you repeated and I think wanted everyone to believe had to have been at least 3rd hand.
The IRS would have had to have been stupid enough to take someone from 3ABN or DS into their confidence,hoping that it not be repeated with his name attached, to a uninvolved CEO of another ministry hoping names would not be repeated. CEO of the ministry tells you in confidence expecting that you not name him as the bearer of this little tale.
See little difference in intent.

One side uses "credible sources to shore up their accusations",The other side uses "credible sources" to defuse the other 'credible sources".

Neither able or willing to name their sources of credibility.

[Stan]

He can post if he wants to. I am not going to do so with out his permission and have a band of idiots go after him.

I did not think you could see the difference..

I know you have to have the last word, go ahead and respond with your babble. I will not respond any more..

[odie1962]

He can post if he wants to. I am not going to do so with out his permission and have a band of idiots go after him.

I did not think you could see the difference..

I know you have to have the last word, go ahead and respond with your babble. I will not respond any more..

Now Stan, that wasn't nice. Why are you angry because I don't see things thru your eyes? Is that a requirement? Now who would you be calling an idiot on this forum? You are in agreement with everyone,or almost. Ian doesn't like name calling either.

10-1 you could not get his permission even in this arena where all would be grateful for his coming forward with a confidential report like that.

Gossip is gossip,it is unsubtantiated "information". It is 2nd and 3rd hand information. Bob and gailon use that as well.
Only Bob has to rearrange the truth sometimes ,like rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic,till it looks like he wants it to look. He is very good at it.

[princessdi]

Point of order here, Odie. Gossip can be true facts, as well. I believe "gossip" also refers to the "intent" of the conversation and/or the participants in the conversation. In fact, the definition says nothing about "gossip" be unsubstantiated or false, etc. It reads as follows:
Gossip:

1. idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others: the endless gossip about Hollywood stars.
2. light, familiar talk or writing.
3. Also, gos⋅sip⋅er, gos⋅sip⋅per. a person given to tattling or idle talk.
4. Chiefly British Dialect. a godparent.
5. Archaic. a friend, esp. a woman.
–verb (used without object) 6. to talk idly, esp. about the affairs of others; go about tattling.
–verb (used with object) 7. Chiefly British Dialect. to stand godparent to.
8. Archaic. to repeat like a gossip.

Now Stan, that wasn't nice. Why are you angry because I don't see things thru your eyes? Is that a requirement? Now who would you be calling an idiot on this forum? You are in agreement with everyone,or almost. Ian doesn't like name calling either.

10-1 you could not get his permission even in this arena where all would be grateful for his coming forward with a confidential report like that.

Gossip is gossip,it is unsubtantiated "information". It is 2nd and 3rd hand information. Bob and gailon use that as well.Only Bob has to rearrange the truth sometimes ,like rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic,till it looks like he wants it to look. He is very good at it.

[odie1962]

[quote="princessdi"]Point of order here, Odie. Gossip can be true facts, as well. I believe "gossip" also refers to the "intent" of the conversation and/or the participants in the conversation. In fact, the definition says nothing about "gossip" be unsubstantiated or false, etc. It reads as follows:
Gossip:

1. idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others: the endless gossip about Hollywood stars.
2. light, familiar talk or writing.
3. Also, gos⋅sip⋅er, gos⋅sip⋅per. a person given to tattling or idle talk.
4. Chiefly British Dialect. a godparent.
5. Archaic. a friend, esp. a woman.
–verb (used without object) 6. to talk idly, esp. about the affairs of others; go about tattling.
–verb (used with object) 7. Chiefly British Dialect. to stand godparent to.
8. Archaic. to repeat like a gossip.

Your right it can be true and still be gossip. And the intent of this was what????

If this CEO of a ministry had approached Stan and said ........
3ABN/DS really got nailed for violations ,in fact the agent was fired for not doing his job. Would we be hearing this. Highly unlikely. Stated here it would bring all sorts of arrows flying,with the members wanting to have this verified. Rightly so.

A man that is not known by Stan, his only recommendation seems to be that he is a CEO of a ministry. We have all been around long enough to know that is not always something that can be.accepted without question.
The IRS would have had to take 3ABN/DS into their confidence . If such a thing did happen it would have been with the understanding it not be shared. You know as well as I the IRS is not going to give information to just anyone. Then DS or 3ABN would have had to take this,which is pretty obvious the intent would be not to pass it on and tell someone else. Then that someone was so trustworthy he tells a man he doesn't know(Stan) this interesting little tidbit.

Just about as first hand as many stories coming from Bob and Gailon.

You know,bet we have all done this at one time or another. But the demand for backing up what is said should be same no matter who.

This is a little different in that those that have done same or similar have been called rumormongers,vile and a number of other very strong words by the one doing same now.
Is unsubstantiated stories permissable as long as favorable to DS?? Seems to depend on whose ox is getting gored.

[odie1962]

.
Jon Stewart Rips Bill O'Reilly Over Hypocrisy On Privacy (VIDEO)
Huffington Post | Danny Shea | February 10, 2009 07:16 AM ... Jon Stewart ripped Bill O'Reilly on Monday night's "Daily Show" over his hypocritical stance on ..... Or like Jon, does this too go right over your empty cavity of a head? ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/1 ... 65506.html - 166k -




Not very fond of the Huffington post but this might have some meaning for some. I would almost bet Bill O'Reilly hasn't a clue that he might be using different standards when it involves himself or when he is the one pursuing someone.
Wonder if there has been any of that with the saga of Bob?Gailon and 3ABN/DS.

Seems going thru garbage is not that uncommon

[princessdi]

Sorry Odie my correction was purely a point of order, not to argue any of the particulars. Reading both sites is like a"guilty pleasure" if you will. I am just curious to see where it is going to end up, and how long they all can continue on this level of hate. I really want to turn away, but it is like watchinga train wreck or car accident. I have been SDA ALL of my 50 years, and have not seen anything like this before, in the church or even with godless heathens. I am just amazed!

Your right it can be true and still be gossip. And the intent of this was what????

If this CEO of a ministry had approached Stan and said ........
3ABN/DS really got nailed for violations ,in fact the agent was fired for not doing his job. Would we be hearing this. Highly unlikely. Stated here it would bring all sorts of arrows flying,with the members wanting to have this verified. Rightly so.

A man that is not known by Stan, his only recommendation seems to be that he is a CEO of a ministry. We have all been around long enough to know that is not always something that can be.accepted without question.
The IRS would have had to take 3ABN/DS into their confidence . If such a thing did happen it would have been with the understanding it not be shared. You know as well as I the IRS is not going to give information to just anyone. Then DS or 3ABN would have had to take this,which is pretty obvious the intent would be not to pass it on and tell someone else. Then that someone was so trustworthy he tells a man he doesn't know(Stan) this interesting little tidbit.

Just about as first hand as many stories coming from Bob and Gailon.

You know,bet we have all done this at one time or another. But the demand for backing up what is said should be same no matter who.

This is a little different in that those that have done same or similar have been called rumormongers,vile and a number of other very strong words by the one doing same now.
Is unsubstantiated stories permissable as long as favorable to DS?? Seems to depend on whose ox is getting gored.

[Marv Smith]

I think your point about level of hate is well taken. You would think it would dissipate wouldn't you? Unfortunately it seems to grow to the point that you come away thinking these folks are rather enjoying their hate. In my reading at BSDA, with the notable exception of one married couple, I didn't see such anger and hostility outside the 3abn topics. One or two aberrant personalities is to be expected in groups of any size. Having a whole group exhibit these characteristics is truly amazing.

Sorry Odie my correction was purely a point of order, not to argue any of the particulars. Reading both sites is like a"guilty pleasure" if you will. I am just curious to see where it is going to end up, and how long they all can continue on this level of hate. I really want to turn away, but it is like watchinga train wreck or car accident. I have been SDA ALL of my 50 years, and have not seen anything like this before, in the church or even with godless heathens. I am just amazed!

Your right it can be true and still be gossip. And the intent of this was what????

If this CEO of a ministry had approached Stan and said ........
3ABN/DS really got nailed for violations ,in fact the agent was fired for not doing his job. Would we be hearing this. Highly unlikely. Stated here it would bring all sorts of arrows flying,with the members wanting to have this verified. Rightly so.

A man that is not known by Stan, his only recommendation seems to be that he is a CEO of a ministry. We have all been around long enough to know that is not always something that can be.accepted without question.
The IRS would have had to take 3ABN/DS into their confidence . If such a thing did happen it would have been with the understanding it not be shared. You know as well as I the IRS is not going to give information to just anyone. Then DS or 3ABN would have had to take this,which is pretty obvious the intent would be not to pass it on and tell someone else. Then that someone was so trustworthy he tells a man he doesn't know(Stan) this interesting little tidbit.

Just about as first hand as many stories coming from Bob and Gailon.

You know,bet we have all done this at one time or another. But the demand for backing up what is said should be same no matter who.

This is a little different in that those that have done same or similar have been called rumormongers,vile and a number of other very strong words by the one doing same now.
Is unsubstantiated stories permissable as long as favorable to DS?? Seems to depend on whose ox is getting gored.

[odie1962]

[quote="princessdi"]Sorry Odie my correction was purely a point of order, not to argue any of the particulars. Reading both sites is like a"guilty pleasure" if you will. I am just curious to see where it is going to end up, and how long they all can continue on this level of hate. I really want to turn away, but it is like watchinga train wreck or car accident. I have been SDA ALL of my 50 years, and have not seen anything like this before, in the church or even with godless heathens. I am just amazed!


Got a few years on you ). Mostly why you have not seen anything like this is we did not have the almost instant connection that the internet gives us.
We knew very little about the abuses of some pastor's. They were just moved to a new location.
How much would we know about this without the internet??

I can almost see the torpedo aimed in my direction but just stand back and really pay attention. I really have no time or patience with Bob and Gailon. The cold hard truth is I believe they are both guilty of emotionally abusing snoopy. There are those that are very adept at homing in on and grooming a vulnerable person. Bob is an expert at wordsmithing.
Have seen him many times begin a topic with a question and by the time he is done the act he is questioning has been committed by DS and needs to be atoned for. Bob has used people like Duane Clem in a manner that to be is almost criminal. Most have no sympathy for Duane or outrage over what a pastor did.

I don't believe DS is innocent of all. Nor do I necessarily believe his offenses are just little ones. 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. I don't care how old his partner,I don't care if it was suggested to him. TS is the guilty responsible party first and foremost a pastor that does something like this should never stand behind the pulpit again of any church.
I have gotten to know a couple members here,I believe they are as sincere as possible to be. I just don't believe DS.
It is inconceivable to me that someone like DS has had an alibi for every accusation. I could not give my husband the kind of cover DS is given at every turn. Bob and Gailon have made or are responsible for dozens of accusations that are made. The event in these many accusations is never denied but explained away. How is it that DS has had a witness to any and all that could be said. I don't think DS has had a body guard monitoring his every move. Nor do I believe if DS is guilty of any of this he is about to admit it to those that have infinite trust in him. Every incidence so far has been explained away as only someone holding on to his shirt tail all the way.
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.

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.
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.

Sooner or later another scandal will break and DS will go on and do what he does best.
Bob and Gailon will find another sin to pursue and it will begin again