|
Post by Fl info on Oct 8, 2007 6:35:21 GMT -5
Tom Nussbaum Bill Smith Orlando/Jupiter Area
Dick Cornell Leslie Pulley Apopka-Moss Bluff-Daytona Beach Area
Don Barber Frank Porter Bradenton-Naples Area
Ruth Eoff Karen DeVoil Tampa-Lakeland Area
Irene Harrison Kayla Boyd St. Petersburg-New Port Richey Area
Diann Newhouse Sara Webster Miami-Lake Worth Area
Mary Weeda Gwen Kucera Tallahassee-Pensacola Area
Jane Arnold Julia Brown Jacksonville-Ocala Area
Ray Hoffman to Texas Waverly Pierson to NC Kelli Whitt to SC Ben McMaine to Argentina
John Crews was completely left off this list but was at convention in Florida sitting with his mother.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 8, 2007 10:08:52 GMT -5
Howdy, In regards to: John Crews was completely left off this list but was at convention in Florida sitting with his mother.John is currently 'taking care of family'. From what I have heard, it appears that there have been some issues in his life which have come up which have shown it might be difficult for him to continue in the work. Scott I replaced the word inappropriate with the word difficult
|
|
|
Post by almost laughable on Oct 8, 2007 11:20:33 GMT -5
it appears that there have been some issues in his life which have come up which have shown it might be inappropriate for him to continue in the work. The PR spin "taking care of family" would be almost laughable. Funny how a group which call itself the truth rarely tells it.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 8, 2007 11:55:47 GMT -5
Howdy, I agree that the catch all phrase 'taking care of family' designation is often misused when people question where a worker has disappeared to. Unfortunately it takes away the validity of those workers who DO take time off to care for sick and elderly moms and dads etc. It would make some people wonder if a worker has screwed up when in reality they have a very legitimate reason for being home with family. It is the lack of openness and honesty that makes many professing folks question a lot of decisions that affect them. The church that I attend is totally open when it comes to church issues. Rather than hide sins of the members which affect the church, they are brought out in the open before the congregation, discussed, and the appropriate actions taken. A few years back, the pastor of the church was having an affair with another mans wife. There was a meeting of the elders of the church, they called in the pastor and let him know he was done as the pastor. The following Sunday one of the elders got up and explained the whole situation to the congregation. No messing around with issues such as this. No sweeping under the rug etc. I have only attended this church about a year, and hadn't known about this until asking one of the elders how they would handle a situation such as what happened with Tim Severud. He explained to me how the church would handle it, and used that situation with the pastor as an example of how it would be handled. He gave me the scriptural passages that they used for guidelines in handling such matters. I had posed this question before the meeting with Lyle and Craig to make sure that what I was going to be involved in was keeping with the teachings of the bible. Scott
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Oct 8, 2007 12:34:38 GMT -5
I don't know the situation with John Crews today having been an ex for about 16 years but I can honestly say what I know to be true personally
There are only 2 acceptable reasons for taking a break from the work. Family and health. Those reasons outside that are met with scorn and derision. Johns mom has had many heath problems over the years and very possible that John is doing what he can. I believe that he is a trained Paramedic. He cared for George Walker in his last years. When we made our decision to leave he was the only worker who was honest with me.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 8, 2007 13:25:47 GMT -5
Howdy, In regards to: John Crews was completely left off this list but was at convention in Florida sitting with his mother.John is currently 'taking care of family'. From what I have heard, it appears that there have been some issues in his life which have come up which have shown it might be inappropriate for him to continue in the work. Scott This the openness and honesty that you are seeking? Innuendo's posted on a public forum stating that John Crews is not telling the truth about why he is no longer active in the work. Stating there has been some sort of inappropriate issues/behavior, but leaving the details up to people's imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 8, 2007 13:58:01 GMT -5
In regards to:
Innuendo's posted on a public forum stating that John Crews is not telling the truth about why he is no longer active in the work.
I wasn't saying that John was lying about this. This is the information that the other workers are giving for John not being an active worker at this time.
Stating there has been some sort of inappropriate issues/behavior, but leaving the details up to people's imagination.
I'd appreciate it if you would not add to my post. What I posted was:
It appears that there have been some issues in his life which have come up which have shown it might be difficult for him to continue in the work.
I said nothing about his behavior.
Scott
I changed the word inappropriate with the word difficult in both this post and my previous post
|
|
|
Post by what ever on Oct 8, 2007 14:24:35 GMT -5
Innuendo's posted on a public forum stating that John Crews is not telling the truth about why he is no longer active in the work.
I wasn't saying that John was lying about this. This is the information that the other workers are giving for John not being an active worker at this time. Is there a reason for pointing this out? I must have missed your point.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 8, 2007 14:50:45 GMT -5
In regards to: Innuendo's posted on a public forum stating that John Crews is not telling the truth about why he is no longer active in the work.
I wasn't saying that John was lying about this. This is the information that the other workers are giving for John not being an active worker at this time. This is true, you did not state it implicitly. It was I believe, implied. Stating there has been some sort of inappropriate issues/behavior, but leaving the details up to people's imagination.
I'd appreciate it if you would not add to my post. What I posted was:
It appears that there have been some issues in his life which have come up which have shown it might be difficult for him to continue in the work.
No, Scott, that was not what you posted. That was what you later edited it to be. You did use the word inappropriate and the word issues. Can you think of anything other than some behavior that would make it inappropriate for him to continue in the work? I believe the implication that it was behavior was there. If you have facts, post them. If it is unsupported gossip, what would the purpose of posting?
|
|
under the impression
Guest
|
Post by under the impression on Oct 8, 2007 14:56:14 GMT -5
Isn't it normal that when a worker is home taking care of a parent or family that they usually keep him on the state worker list and note that he is away doing something else?
|
|
|
Post by Peacemaker on Oct 8, 2007 14:59:44 GMT -5
Innuendo's posted on a public forum stating that John Crews is not telling the truth about why he is no longer active in the work.
I wasn't saying that John was lying about this. This is the information that the other workers are giving for John not being an active worker at this time. Is there a reason for pointing this out? I must have missed your point. No, I do not think that you have missed the point at all; but somebody seems to be "gloating" and I do not think that it is you.
|
|
|
Post by Gossip on Oct 8, 2007 15:15:00 GMT -5
To Rational - you are surprised about gossip being posted here? By the same folks who deride the 'gossip' time after the Sunday morning meetings? By the same folks who already have IH in SD, when he is not? Innuedo type fact statements are posted to whip folks into a frenzy I think - though I'm very disappointed in Scott - up until today I held him in good esteem as I followed his discussion regarding TS and the MN situation - I would have thought of all people he would have withheld his 'rush to judgement'. Though I think he did post something about a Canadian worker that at this time seems to be gossip as well -
I make no comment on the guilt or innocence of any of the involved individuals, but am reminded of a conversation we had in the HR dept I once worked in - how a thinly guised insinuation (without proof) can ruin a reputation. And how as HR professionals we were never to make that same rush to judgement until we had all the facts that we could gather - interviewing all involved parties, and witnesses, if some were available.
I would hope the same standard could be held to here, or we're likely to see this board shut down again and this time for good.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 8, 2007 15:30:53 GMT -5
to Gossip:
though I'm very disappointed in Scott - up until today I held him in good esteem as I followed his discussion regarding TS and the MN situation - I would have thought of all people he would have withheld his 'rush to judgment'. Though I think he did post something about a Canadian worker that at this time seems to be gossip as well -
I make no comment on the guilt or innocence of any of the involved individuals, but am reminded of a conversation we had in the HR dept I once worked in - how a thinly guised insinuation (without proof) can ruin a reputation. And how as HR professionals we were never to make that same rush to judgment until we had all the facts that we could gather - interviewing all involved parties, and witnesses, if some were available.
Thank you for the comments. I wouldn't post anything if I didn't have information to back it up. I have with held some information I have because of the recent talks about libel here. I don't actually think I have posted any accusations, but I can understand where you are coming from in the above comments.
Do you think I should withdraw my posts and wait until I can post my 'facts'? I have my reasons for posting what I have, and I have my reasons for not posting ALL that I have.
In regards to the Canada situation. It is definitely not 'gossip'. There is someone else with the same information I have who is much closer to that situation, and I will let them be the one to give out that information.
Most of what I know is not from information given to me by 'exes', but rather by those who are professing who want to get these things brought out of the dark and dealt with as they should be. They have a legitimate fear of posting here on the TMB and the same fear of talking to the workers about the situation. They are tired of the same old stories of why workers are suddenly moved from one area and turning up in others. They want the TRUTH, and they are finding ways to get the truth admitted by those who are in positions of authority over them.
I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens. If I am wrong on any of this I will make a public apology and admit that I was in error.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 8, 2007 16:05:05 GMT -5
To Rational - you are surprised about gossip being posted here? By the same folks who deride the 'gossip' time after the Sunday morning meetings? By the same folks who already have IH in SD, when he is not? No, I am not surprised. I do think it should be brought to people's attention when it is noticed. Just as I think sweeping child abuse under the rug should be brought to people's attention.
|
|
|
Post by Gossip on Oct 8, 2007 16:28:28 GMT -5
Thanks Scott for your measured and calm response - such reasonable give and take is exactly what is needed on this board - though you certainly don't need, nor have asked for, my approval, I'm impressed with your comments.
Do you think I should withdraw my posts and wait until I can post my 'facts'? This is the problem with e-mail and the internet - now I'm wondering if this was a true question or sarcasm - based on your other comments, I'll take it as a true question and just say that you should post whatever your conscience feels comfortable posting. If you're comfortable with posting your comments about John Crews, then so be it.
Just know that many are now wondering what type of behaviour would be considered inappropriate, and amongst those that post on this board - I'm sure that most (not that I would deign to speak for others) would be thinking sexual misconduct of some kind.
Just know that I'm one of those 'professing friends' (like that's a big surprise, right? ;D) - and ANY sexual misconduct is abhorrent to me - no matter who commits it, and should be rooted out AND the perpetrators should be prosecuted. And I have no problem saying that any in authority should be prosecuted for covering it up, IF it can be proven that they did so. In my mind there is NO defense for those who abuse God's special gifts - children - and no ONE can defend neither the actor nor the action.
If I ever get around to registering on this board, I may PM you for a more indepth discussion on this and a couple of other topics.
God bless the children.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 8, 2007 16:31:30 GMT -5
Thank you for the comments. I wouldn't post anything if I didn't have information to back it up. So you are in fact stating that you know there was some inappropriate issues regarding John? If that is the case, why would you not post the facts that you know are true? Posting facts is not a cause for libel. Perhaps directly you did not, but you did say that you had knowledge from someone else that etc., etc. That certainly protects you from libel but allows you to post information that does cast a cloud on John. I think you should not post until you can post your facts. Of course, given that you have used quotes around facts I wonder what alternative meaning you are going to use when you do post your "facts". I am sure you have your reasons. People that spread gossip have reasons. And they have reasons why they do not reveal all they know. Sometimes it is because their all has a lot of holes and is not what most consider to be facts. Other times it is because they have been confided in but have been told not to tell anyone. Which brings up the question of why they tell it when they know they cannot defend their stand. To be able to point back when the facts do come out and say "See, I told you so! I knew about this before you did?" Rather than me guessing about your particular reasons, perhaps you could tell us your reasons for each. 1) I have my reasons for posting what I have,2) I have my reasons for not posting ALL that I have.What meaning are you giving the word gossip? Perhaps you could explain the need for you to post it if you are just waiting for a more informed person to post the facts. Explain how this is getting the information out when you not posting any details? If they want you to post the information, why not post it rather than just hinting about it? Do you share this same fear? If so, why isn't it being posted? If they are coming to you to get the information out, aren't you letting them down? And you are going to tell us that this method is by posting unsupported posts and innuendos about the situations? Leaving the facts to fall at a later time? Do you really think this is the way to go? As a poster above mentioned, once you post information about people that is not true posting an apology at a later date does not make the person whole. They have been damaged.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 8, 2007 16:36:59 GMT -5
Howdy Gossip, No sarcasm on my part. If you would have told me you felt I should pull what I had posted.... I would have done it based on what you had said. If you want you can always send me a regular email to: bescottross@aol.com I have several others who have contacted me in this manner..... It's where I get most of my information about these issues, and a lot of the information I have is from those professing folks who are not registered on the TMB, and in many cases never post here. I have not violated the trust given me by people who email me, and have sent the criminal complaint filed against Tim S to a lot of professing folks who are interested in the truth of the matter, and who are hoping that the overseers in the states they reside in will take similar action to what Lyle has done here in Minnesota. Other workers also have this information, and don't feel surprised to know that workers come here to read without ever posting..... Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2007 16:39:45 GMT -5
Gossip, while I am fan of Scott's, you made a valid point. I had the impression from what Scott initially wrote regarding "inappropriate" was that there was an intimation that the worker named had been involved in some nefarious behaviour. You were right to bring this up so that things could be clarified. The last thing most members here would want, including Scott I'm sure, is the spreading of false accusations. It doesn't take much amongst f&ws for the reputation of fine people to get destroyed and the good that they do get curtailed. Hope you get registered. We could use a few more clear headed friends on this forum. Thanks Scott for your measured and calm response - such reasonable give and take is exactly what is needed on this board - though you certainly don't need, nor have asked for, my approval, I'm impressed with your comments. Do you think I should withdraw my posts and wait until I can post my 'facts'? This is the problem with e-mail and the internet - now I'm wondering if this was a true question or sarcasm - based on your other comments, I'll take it as a true question and just say that you should post whatever your conscience feels comfortable posting. If you're comfortable with posting your comments about John Crews, then so be it. Just know that many are now wondering what type of behaviour would be considered inappropriate, and amongst those that post on this board - I'm sure that most (not that I would deign to speak for others) would be thinking sexual misconduct of some kind. Just know that I'm one of those 'professing friends' (like that's a big surprise, right? ;D) - and ANY sexual misconduct is abhorrent to me - no matter who commits it, and should be rooted out AND the perpetrators should be prosecuted. And I have no problem saying that any in authority should be prosecuted for covering it up, IF it can be proven that they did so. In my mind there is NO defense for those who abuse God's special gifts - children - and no ONE can defend neither the actor nor the action. If I ever get around to registering on this board, I may PM you for a more indepth discussion on this and a couple of other topics. God bless the children.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 8, 2007 16:45:19 GMT -5
Rational,
How about this for an alternative to what you are asking of me. If you will PM me or email me at:
bescottross@aol.com
I will give you all the information I have on these two cases. You can then post them as 'facts' you have heard from someone else.
As I mentioned in another post somewhere, I need at least 3 credible sources unrelated to each other before posting something I feel is a true 'fact'.
I have been involved in conversations with someone 'off board' who is thinking that I do not have 'facts' concerning Tim Severud's case here in Minnesota. The fact that Tim has admitted to several incidences of abuse to this person is not 'fact' since they have not been convicted in a court of law. At what point does something become 'fact' and not gossip? I have struggled with this issue, and am still struggling with it now.
Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2007 17:04:43 GMT -5
May I suggest that if there is any possibility of this latest person being the subject of investigation and judicial proceedings that everyone abstains from presenting whatever facts and circumstances they may learn meantime on any public forum until the process of law is complete (i.e. the matter has either been abandoned or concluded in a court).
This is said in the interests of justice which we do not wish to see compromised, especially if their are victims to consider.
In my view, potentially compromising a case even through negligence is just as unwise as committing libel.
|
|
|
Post by texasdude on Oct 8, 2007 17:04:52 GMT -5
Ah, I knew I had seen your e-mail address Scott, but couldn't remember where to find it. Thanks for re-posting it - (you should just make it part of your signature line - of course now that I'm registered, I can just PM you too.)
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 8, 2007 17:12:44 GMT -5
Good idea Texasdude, I added it in.... Scott
|
|
|
Post by to scott on Oct 8, 2007 18:35:30 GMT -5
Scott,
You cannot win here. And I mean that sincerely.
You withheld some facts for personal reasons, and you were derided for doing so.
I've seen cases in the past on this forum were facts were posted, and the outcry was beyond description.
Basically you are in a no-win situation when it comes to discussing anything on this forum. Where the workers and 2x2ism are concerned, there are many people who will do almost anything to stop you from revealing the problems within that group.
Keep up the good work. Remain faithful to truth (the real truth, not the man-made variety) and remember that you have friends here.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 8, 2007 18:51:36 GMT -5
Keep up the good work. Remain faithful to truth (the real truth, not the man-made variety) and remember that you have friends here.Thank You!
|
|
|
Post by actually on Oct 8, 2007 23:04:03 GMT -5
Actually, getting back to the original theme of this post, John Crews' name has not appeared on a workers list in any capacity since 2004.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 9, 2007 9:21:32 GMT -5
Scott, You cannot win here. And I mean that sincerely. You withheld some facts for personal reasons, and you were derided for doing so. I think the point made was if you cannot provide the facts to support don't post innuendos. If the facts are available why has no one gone to the authorities? Anecdotal recollections do not qualify as facts. Facts are the things you take to the authorities to have a child molester, for example, arrested. I believe the same rules apply to all.
|
|