Maintaining DS was wrong/guilty-- based on what, and why?

[princessdi]

There it is!

[Donna]

I don't believe EVERYTHING that Danny says.

Di,

Just what is all the "Everything" that Danny says that you do not believe?

[Cynthia]

I don't believe EVERYTHING that Danny says.

Di,

Just what is all the "Everything" that Danny says that you do not believe?

This is a good question, or maybe it would be better phrased "what specifically don't you believe and why, and what is that based on?"

Can't we just address and discuss things and issues one at a time? Maybe it's just me, but I like topics and subjects to be separate and organized, so members and readers can easily follow them, ask questions, address them, and hopefully resolve them...

The generic and sweeping condemnation and judgments lacking evidence, proof or support, (or generic defenses which also lack support, for that matter) and the threads and topics here which bring in everything but the kitchen sink help none as far as I can see.

All have opinions and are entitled to them, but the generic, broadbrush sweeping comments and claims on this forum ( as well as the other forums focused on 3abn before this)just seem to move into battles of personal opinions, and don't help any, or solve or prove anything unless the idea is to show how opinionated you are, or to prove you can wear down others and get the last word, or that you can put down another. These things have been proved over and over. But to what benefit?

It is my thought the vague, unsupported, or generic claims, accusations, judgments and even defenses posted actually hinder and obstruct those coming here from getting to the truth and to the facts about different issues, or answers to their specific questions, and instead discourages, overwhelms, or disgusts them. I'm sorry, but I know it does that to me.

To be even more blunt, to me it is just a bunch of babble and confusion, as well as not being in sync with this forum's stated purpose or the principles laid out here, which we need to get back to and uphold... and, heads up to all, it's not going to continue here.

We here need to ask the hard questions, and be first accountable for anything we post, and then ask, encourage, and expect accountability of all others.

What does that mean?

Post evidence or proof with your initial post or when asked to in a reply to it, and apologize or admit you don't know, can't prove it, or it's just your opinion if you can't, then drop it, and don't bring it up or refer to that subject or issue again here, unless you are willing and can provide support, evidence or proof! Otherwise, don't post here. Because posters who can't will have their future posts removed. We are not going to play the repetitious unaccountable game here... Anyone so inclined is very welcome to go do that elsewhere...

Capiche?

..ian
3atalk administrator/moderator

[princessdi]

Ladies, please do not read more into this than there is. What I mean is exactly what I have been saying, that at this point, and probably ALL along both sides have had some culpability in this mess. I don't believe that either side is telling the complete truth and have something to hide. So without some type of "mediation" from a totally unbiased party, or direct invention from God, there will be no real resolution, and with out God no true reconcilliation or restoration.

Bob, Gailon, sister, and that crew say you all are lying and corrupt. You say they are lying and corrupt. Each resort to the same nasty tatics against each other. Both want to be believe, just because we say God is on our side, however, both are exhibiting un Christ like behavior......all the time. I just got through with a "dialog" with Steffan. He called my friendship of Clay and Calvin in to question because I I said I have friends at Adventtalk, and at some point AT memebers has some pretty nasty things to say about them. I also in the same statement that I had friends here, but he didn't call my loyalty in the question for that portion of the statement. However, his posts were just filled angry and with nasty comments about BSDA, because the 3ABN forum exists in general, in particular, the Televangelist posts. Now he said the posts were trash, and lies, and sister who posted them say they are truth. She basically has her words ONLY that it is truth, Steffan basically has his owrds ONLY that they are lies. You all did exactly as you were supposed to at that time. She posted, you all countered. That is all that cam be done there. Removing it now will do you no favors. It can be or even might already be available for viewing at AT.........without allowing you all opportunity to respond. At least at BSDA there are two sides to the story. You all might want to consider that alternative thought.

I do have to have the both ladies, Donna and Ian, have been kind, straight forwaard(which is fine by me.) in your speech, but not angry or abusive, nasty. I am just one who believes that you can disagree but you odnt' have to fall out. That one area does not define either person's entire being, right.

That being said, Ladies, I also said in the same statement where I stated I didnt' believe everything Danny said, that I don't believe everything Bob and Gailon say either. However, you chose to pick out that one point a "create" a problem. Now your problem can be, as Steffan, said, that I place you all on a equal standing, both sides. Neither is doing any better than the other at this point. But, you all are going to have to stop picking to pieces the statments and then proceeding to get offended. I said the same exact thing about the "other side".

This is why i said that everyone should make themselves a committee of one and just be responsible for not posting anymore. Just stop, cold turkey. Imagine what would happen if everyone on both sides would agree to do that.

[Stan]

Look, I am aware that in order to support Danny, you all hve to believe that Linda was dealt with fairly. Trust me, she was not. However, I don't hold her faultess int his either...it takes two. I bleieve a good measure of this is part of the "you reap what you saw". However, When he paid her far less than her part in the value of 3ABN he was wrong. Yes, it was legal and ethical according to man's corporate law, but not right in the sight of God. She was listed an employee just as he was. That was the loophole he used to do his dirt. It doesnt' matter that 250K is a lot of money, if it was not the correct amount. She was cofounder, until Danny got mad, then she became just an employee. I don't know aobut you all, but something ain't right about that picture to me. Cofounder could get half, employee can get a "more than genreous" severance.

The word gag, while technical true, it is more of an inflammatory overstatement of a common business practice, one of my friends who is a president of an institution just had something similar done with an ex employee, the former employee agreed to a settlement, usually an undisclosed amount that also is part of the 'gag' order both parties agree to certain limitations on information they both have.

This does usually not happen in mom and pop kind of business.

I understand their state is an 'at will' state meaning no reason and no settlement needs to be given for termination. If it was a conference run entity the normal severance pay is one week for every one year employed to a max of 20 weeks, with some allowance for deviation on this. I am not sure how much Linda got, and it is really none of my business, but am sure it was part of the non-disclosure agreement. Often breaking the non-disclosure agreement can result in having to pay back the settlement amount, that is a common clause in this kind of separation of employment.

I do doubt that was the sole reason for the separation of employment, that is based on some comments from a production person who said that either she had to go or they would all go. That is an unverified comment made to me some time ago. I am also sure that it would be part of the non-disclosure agreement to give the reasons why the termination took place.

I, like a lot of folks, enjoyed Linda's interview and skills in from of the camera. I would welcome her back on any channel.

As I have stated before, it is my opinion that Linda may never get back on adventist TV as 'the team' have made her, and I quote "too controversial to touch" if they would, and again, my opinion, if they would have rallied around supporting and promoting her, with the same energy they have put into trying to take Danny and 3ABN down, she would have upgraded her ministry to higher than she had before.

I, also like a lot of folks, have not taken any side on who was right and who was wrong. (in the divorce)

[Cynthia]

... I understand their state is an 'at will' state meaning no reason and no settlement needs to be given for termination. If it was a conference run entity the normal severance pay is one week for every one year employed to a max of 20 weeks, with some allowance for deviation on this. I am not sure how much Linda got, and it is really none of my business, but am sure it was part of the non-disclosure agreement. Often breaking the non-disclosure agreement can result in having to pay back the settlement amount, that is a common clause in this kind of separation of employment.

I do doubt that was the sole reason for the separation of employment, that is based on some comments from a production person who said that either she had to go or they would all go. That is an unverified comment made to me some time ago. I am also sure that it would be part of the non-disclosure agreement to give the reasons why the termination took place.

I appreciate you trying to explain this, Stan. Calvin has tried before as have others.

Normally the separation agreement and the amounts payed would not be our business I agree, but I feel that Linda Shelton made it everyone's business when she published it on her public website for all the world to see.

I have added it to our documents section here:
http://www.3atalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=235

The reasons for her termination were not given. At least in the document she published.

She received 90,000 in two installments, and then an additional 6,250.00 a month for 24 mos totaling 150,000. ($240,000 total)

That 104 weeks, far exceeds the 20 wk max you say she would have received as a conference employee.

Part of the problem with princessdi's take on this has always been she perceives it as Linda being bought out as a founder, as if she owned half of the ministry and was entitled to half of it's value. When the truth is she was not, nor is Danny entitled to that then or now. Saying she thinks Danny would deserve the same doesn't matter.

He was and remains an employee of a non profit organization only. Being a founder does not entitle him to anything monetarily, and it was the same for Linda.

It's not just them. That is how it works for all NPO founders. I wish that could be comprehended.

One other thing, it was not DS who fired nor made the agreement with Linda.

It was the 3abn board, and he is now, just as she was then, subject to that board.

..ian

[princessdi]

3ABN is a buisness, with ministry being it's business. The other point that I have maintained is that 3ABn have vacilliated between the two, when it is to their advantage. While $250k is a lot a money, it wasn't enough. Problem is even though it is a lot, it isn't enough. Ethically, truthfully, Danny knows how much blood, sweat and tears then both put into this ministry/business. He should have done the right thing a given Linda an amount representative of the hard work. He would not walk away for $250K, I don't even beleive that he went invisible man for that amount. Then yet and still claims to be the sole founder of 3ABN. That is not only not right, it is a lie and a sin. So even though it might be stardard corporate practice, it is one meant to benefit the company at the expense of the "employee". It should never have been employed by a ministry/business claming to be "The Leader in Christian Living" and hocking books called, "Mending Broken Lives". They had a higher stadard to answer to and they failed. Simple. This is the part we tend to forget when justifying the action.

I appreciate you trying to explain this, Stan. Calvin has tried before as have others.

Normally the separation agreement and the amounts payed would not be our business I agree, but I feel that Linda Shelton made it everyone's business when she published it on her public website for all the world to see.

I have added it to our documents section here:
http://www.3atalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=235

The reasons for her termination were not given. At least in the document she published.

She received 90,000 in two installments, and then an additional 6,250.00 a month for 24 mos totaling 150,000. ($240,000 total)

That 104 weeks, far exceeds the 20 wk max you say she would have received as a conference employee.

Part of the problem with princessdi's take on this has always been she perceives it as Linda being bought out as a founder, as if she owned half of the ministry and was entitled to half of it's value. When the truth is she was not, nor is Danny entitled to that then or now. Saying she thinks Danny would deserve the same doesn't matter.

He was and remains an employee of a non profit organization only. Being a founder does not entitle him to anything monetarily, and it was the same for Linda.

It's not just them. That is how it works for all NPO founders. I wish that could be comprehended.

One other thing, it was not DS who fired nor made the agreement with Linda.

It was the 3abn board, and he is now, just as she was then, subject to that board.

..ian

[Marv Smith]

princessdi, I'm afraid your a bit confused about what severance compensation is all about. Linda Shelton was not selling her interest in 3ABN for $250,000 as she just didn't have a interest to sell in 3ABN. Danny Shelton does not have a right to be bought out either. From a financial standpoint, Linda Shelton was paid quite handsomely from 3ABN in terms of severance. If she feels she has a right to more money for whatever reason, she needs to take action against 3ABN similar to what she is doing in trying to obtain more funds from her ex-husband.

It is becoming apparent that Linda Shelton is very interested in money. I suggest she get on with initiating legal proceedings to get the money she feels she deserves. Anything short of that is just noise.

3ABN is a buisness, with ministry being it's business. The other point that I have maintained is that 3ABn have vacilliated between the two, when it is to their advantage. While $250k is a lot a money, it wasn't enough. Problem is even though it is a lot, it isn't enough. Ethically, truthfully, Danny knows how much blood, sweat and tears then both put into this ministry/business. He should have done the right thing a given Linda an amount representative of the hard work. He would not walk away for $250K, I don't even beleive that he went invisible man for that amount. Then yet and still claims to be the sole founder of 3ABN. That is not only not right, it is a lie and a sin. So even though it might be stardard corporate practice, it is one meant to benefit the company at the expense of the "employee". It should never have been employed by a ministry/business claming to be "The Leader in Christian Living" and hocking books called, "Mending Broken Lives". They had a higher stadard to answer to and they failed. Simple. This is the part we tend to forget when justifying the action.

I appreciate you trying to explain this, Stan. Calvin has tried before as have others.

Normally the separation agreement and the amounts payed would not be our business I agree, but I feel that Linda Shelton made it everyone's business when she published it on her public website for all the world to see.

I have added it to our documents section here:
http://www.3atalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=235

The reasons for her termination were not given. At least in the document she published.

She received 90,000 in two installments, and then an additional 6,250.00 a month for 24 mos totaling 150,000. ($240,000 total)

That 104 weeks, far exceeds the 20 wk max you say she would have received as a conference employee.

Part of the problem with princessdi's take on this has always been she perceives it as Linda being bought out as a founder, as if she owned half of the ministry and was entitled to half of it's value. When the truth is she was not, nor is Danny entitled to that then or now. Saying she thinks Danny would deserve the same doesn't matter.

He was and remains an employee of a non profit organization only. Being a founder does not entitle him to anything monetarily, and it was the same for Linda.

It's not just them. That is how it works for all NPO founders. I wish that could be comprehended.

One other thing, it was not DS who fired nor made the agreement with Linda.

It was the 3abn board, and he is now, just as she was then, subject to that board.

..ian

[princessdi]

Y'all just keep telling yourselves that story to justify what happened. And I am going to let you alone about it. I don't even watch 3ABN, never have, save a few times, and those did not impress m to make it "must see TV".

[Marv Smith]

I'm sorry to have to mess up your reality with some facts. Carry on.

Y'all just keep telling yourselves that story to justify what happened. And I am going to let you alone about it. I don't even watch 3ABN, never have, save a few times, and those did not impress m to make it "must see TV".