odie1962 wrote:In my view the problem comes in when it is applied to others without showing how it applies, such as in saying/posting:
Fair enough. I am not going to go thru all again,but I can give you a couple of reason for not believing either DS or LS.
LS is either one of the dimmest of women or she thinks everyone else is dimwitted. Any woman that knows her marriage is on the rocks and is foolish enough to plant a pregnancy test kit for her already suspicious husband to find is either lying or is not bright enough to me married.
Well I can't disagree with you there. If one party suspects another of being unfaithful, and your marriage is in trouble,it is the height of stupidity to play a joke on them to convince them of that even more. I, however, for reasons I am not going to go into here in this post or thread, do not believe it was a joke. So moving on for now...
Odie wrote:
DS and his "innocent tax request". Say what you want,they can try to explain it anyway they choose. Anyone that has had that type of business long enough to be donating mare's to another ministry much like his own,knows without question what he was suggesting was illegal.
Sigh, yes it would be illegal, and anyone operating that type of business long enough would know that, but honestly
if someone is ignorant of that and hasn't been operating a business at all, much less long enough, I consider them innocent motive and intention wise.
I think it grossly unfair to accuse someone of being a liar, deceiver, and having evil intentions etc when they don't know something. To me that is what has happened here and it is flat out wrong and a downright sin, so I need to explain
why that is the case here.
But honestly, Odie, I am really just so absolutely sick of this whole horses issue, it has been blown so out of proportion, by Pickle and co. I have tried to explain it so many times even on MSDAOL, and BSDA, and just had Pickle keep repeating the same untruths in his broken record style as if I have pointed out no inconsistencies in his interpretation of events, or nothing missing in his partial information. Repetitious rebuttals, (and making valid points) which are never acknowledged or addressed, get tiring after awhile.
It's like running in circles or in place, you get nowhere. So to me it was rather like that throwing pearls before swine or wrestling with pigs scenario. Absolutely a waste of time, and worthless except that the pig gets to trample and seems to enjoy it. By the time you came along and started posting about the horses, I allowed all that to affect how I replied to you about it, and shouldn't have, as you aren't Pickle and had legit questions and concerns which deserved patient answers and explanations, and despite the above I really had no excuse to react to your posts as I would to Pickle's at that point. For example:
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index. ... l#msg11323
I am very sorry.
So, I am going to try this one more time, as the truth is, where you are concerned, I am the one who allowed yout to continue with the wrong idea that the Sheltons were running a horse business after Jack's post to you on AT. I need to explain and correct that. I also need to apologize for abandoning the discussion out of frustration, leaving you to that wrong conclusion.
Here is what "Jack" posted which wasn't very clear, and is what I think led you to that assumption:
If he and Linda had horses and paid for them by breeding them and selling others, that is their business, not yours nor any one Else's. No one comes into your house and claims you can\'t have pets or spend money or resources in feeding and caring for them, as that money should go to the Lord.
Jack was posting an opinion, and nothing more, in reference to an occasional horse sold, or someone wanting to use their horse as a stud. It was in reply to the issue brought up by those accusing Danny, that the Sheltons made money off their horses, as they didn't. Any money which came in from that occasionally just helped toward the upkeep and expenses of owning horses, it did not pay for all as it sounds like was being claimed either. In no way was it meant to claim that the Shelton's did such on a regular basis or were running a business, or making any profit at all. Danny loves horses and loves to ride, that is it.
And contrary to popular opinion they didn't keep buying more and more horses, as I think they even refer to the fact that the later horses were offspring of the other horses they already had. That's why Danny in one of the published letters to Linda refers to the stud claiming they can't use him anymore-- as they would be too inbred...
(It is also expensive to have too many horses, and, this is in my personal opinion and my thoughts about it may have contributed to the Shelton's donating at least 4 horses to another ministry... If they had been interested in a profit, it seems to me they would have sold them instead.. but jmo
)
Odie wrote:
I don't believe the professed iinnocence. You learn very quickly in that kind of a business if you have a accountant that is on the ball. You give them all your records for the year and they ask questions and explain what can and what cannot be deducted. First year for us,I had many things I could not deduct and many things I had not listed that I could. I believe DS is lying just as I believe LS is lying. If not, if both are that lacking in common sense and intelligence they made a good pair.
Common sense only applies if it is common knowledge which the majority should know. See here is the problem, what you say is true, but most would be ignorant before that first year, as you say you were, Not lacking common sense and intelligence, but as in lacking knowledge. But, just as you also said, once you go to file , and talk to your accountant etc the first time then you gain the knowledge and know from then on how it all works.
And here is the deal, the incident in question, which has caused such a bru ha ha, was the first time for both Danny and Linda, Odie. They had not been doing this for years and years, nor were they running a business with horses for years. They had no horse business. Just as you explained that the first year you had to file, you didn't know, neither did Danny.
Despite how this has all been presented, the year in question, with the partial communications between Linda and Danny was the first time they were trying to file a deduction for donating any horses. Linda went and talked to her accountant about the horses she was claiming which she explains to Danny in those letters while disagreeing with him ( and btw, Pickle has the number of horses and thus their worth wrong also, all you have to do is read her letter to plainly see she refers to "horses" plural, NOT ONE HORSE, that she is claiming as the link I supply above points out). But, Danny hadn't yet talked to his accountant, so next he went to his accountant and asked about the horses and filing a deduction for them and found out the same thing from his accountant that they couldn't file them as a cash deduction, so they didn't.
There was NO HORSE BUSINESS. This was the first time filing a horse donation ever came up, and they both learned how to do it properly, and legally, each from their own accountants, and then moved on, and acted with that knowledge, and that's the end of the story.
Unfortunately, or rather convieniently I think, that part of the conversation where Danny talks to his accountant also and finds this out etc is not included in the published part by Pickle.
Whether that is his doing as it suits his spin/twist as is typical, or whether that is because Linda only gave up the first part to the Pickle/Joy team to make it appear the way it does, is something I don't know. I only know that
part of the story [as has been published and presented by Pickle/Joy/Linda]
is not all of it. And I, have heard both the before part, and the rest of the story as Paul Harvey would say... and that part is not and never has been presented by the Pickle/Joy team, or ever acknowledged when others of us bring it up. And I have heard it straight from the horses mouth. smile.
So I know if this even comes up in the lawsuit, Pickle is without a leg to stand on, as in much else where he presents
partial info and then spins and twists and reinterprets it to present people and events in the worst light, most often by putting his words and interpretations in their mouths and applying motives and intents which they never had. He has plainly done this same thing in other allegations and even in his discussions with you and I, and others, as has been pointed out many times on the forums. It is his modus operandi, and imho it would be both foolish and/or shortsided to not take into account that he is doing the same exact thing here in the horse issue, as he does in other issues.
To me, based on both what has been published, and on my behind the scenes questions because of that, and knowledge and the POV i have subsequently formed; it is false witness and sin.
I also consider it embarrassing and a downright shame to have Pickel running around doing such while proclaiming himself ( and allowing and condoning others who claim it for him as well) a righteous and justified servant of God, just concerned with sin in the camp and enforcing repentence and confession and restitution on those he accuses and judges, while easily taking personal offense and demanding apologies from those who disagree with him, all while claiming this is just doing God's work, and he is being persecuted for it.
NOT
anyway.. I'll let you reply here with any comments or questions you may have before replying to the rest, as I don't want too many topics in one post, and this is rather long already. smile.
..ian
to see the day that happens. At this point I am very happy to join the disgust bandwagon and add who cares any longer.
