Robert Pickle has some important comments to make on AT:
"But really, your reply is totally inappropriate. Rather, you should take a stand for truth and righteousness and conservative Seventh-day Adventist principles, which supports the church's stance that dishonesty in business practices is grounds for church discipline. So misrepresentation in business matters is a serious thing, according to the world church".
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pickle we have been telling the truth from the very inception of all this. Anyman has been correct in all his posts concerning you. But Snoopy, the every-ready moderator like the bunny with ever-running batteries, banned anyman from AT. (Whenever one tells too much of the truth they seem to get banned by her and their posts removed).
So you see it is useless for us to post on AT.
But you say "dishonesty in business practices is grounds for church discipline." How about lying and prevarication of the truth by YOU Robert? The IRS investigation already proved Danny was telling the TRUTH. It is YOU who hasn't told the truth. You said it yourself, those who do not tell the truth should be disciplined by the Church--that goes for YOU too.
Pickle
Moderators: Breezy, Lilly, Truth
-
steffan
- Posts: 242
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:12 pm America/Denver
Re: Pickle - loses credibility from his own side
This is an exchange between watchbird and Pickle (and watchbird is no friend to 3ABN)
watchbird writes:
The most grossly inaccurate detail is that the IRS Criminal Investigation originated with the EEOC complaint in 2006.
Pickle replies:
It may appear inaccurate because I think Gailon had no certain information that a prior notification definitely resulted in the launch of an investigation.
But he did wonder a year ago why the investigation moved from CA to IL so quickly, since transfers like that usually take longer. It made him wonder if they already had an open file.
watchbird replies:
The point is.... it IS inaccurate. Gailon's absolute or relative knowledge either a year ago or now has no bearing on the fact that what he stated does not merely "appear inaccurate".... it IS inaccurate.
You do not strengthen your credibility by seeking to excuse or defend him for reporting something as fact which by your own admission he actually only "wonder[ed]" about. It is, IMO, one of both your and Gailon's unfortunate tactics to state something that is either known to be false or which is "wondered" about as though it were a known fact... in what seems to be hopes that someone will not only challenge the correctness, but provide additional information by "correcting" the errant statement.
I am not the only person to have noticed this and with whom you have both lost credibilty because of this tactic. I would suggest that you would do yourself a favor by not pressing this point further.
You may view this full conversation at : http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/foru ... 84&fpart=3
watchbird writes:
The most grossly inaccurate detail is that the IRS Criminal Investigation originated with the EEOC complaint in 2006.
Pickle replies:
It may appear inaccurate because I think Gailon had no certain information that a prior notification definitely resulted in the launch of an investigation.
But he did wonder a year ago why the investigation moved from CA to IL so quickly, since transfers like that usually take longer. It made him wonder if they already had an open file.
watchbird replies:
The point is.... it IS inaccurate. Gailon's absolute or relative knowledge either a year ago or now has no bearing on the fact that what he stated does not merely "appear inaccurate".... it IS inaccurate.
You do not strengthen your credibility by seeking to excuse or defend him for reporting something as fact which by your own admission he actually only "wonder[ed]" about. It is, IMO, one of both your and Gailon's unfortunate tactics to state something that is either known to be false or which is "wondered" about as though it were a known fact... in what seems to be hopes that someone will not only challenge the correctness, but provide additional information by "correcting" the errant statement.
I am not the only person to have noticed this and with whom you have both lost credibilty because of this tactic. I would suggest that you would do yourself a favor by not pressing this point further.
You may view this full conversation at : http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/foru ... 84&fpart=3