Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
Malcolm Wesley WREST
()
Date: June 30, 2007 08:30PM
Dear Zeusor,
David is seriously trying to downplay the gravity of the charges by a feeble attempt to make light of it all....
You are right to weigh in by pointing out the consistent criminality that the JesusChristians privatley consider themeselves to have every right to do(and which David hopes to "dismiss" publically with his flimsy effort at "wit"...)
David is seriously trying to downplay the gravity of the charges by a feeble attempt to make light of it all....
You are right to weigh in by pointing out the consistent criminality that the JesusChristians privatley consider themeselves to have every right to do(and which David hopes to "dismiss" publically with his flimsy effort at "wit"...)
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
private eyes
()
Date: June 30, 2007 09:03PM
Zeusor asked David two questions. If David wanted correct information out in the public domain, he needed only to reply honestly to the questions. Instead he chose to tell him to, Pxxs Off.
Consequently, David has only got himself to blame if people are forced to speculate, make assumptions, etc.
Bottom line, he was cleverly drawn into finally posting the outcome of the trials (well at least his version). Noone is disputing that Rheinard was hurt, nor is anyone stating that we would wish him to be hurt. However, t there was no attempted murder charge and Rheinhard was allegedly, sufficiently well to be running, albeit slowly in a race less than two months after the event.
A woman claiming to be an ex member of the Children of God is currently asking some questions of David's involvement in the Children of God. Does she get a straight answer? If not, why not? Perhaps David could learn from this experience and start providing some straight answers to some straight questions. Something he would no doubt appreciate as a "so called" journalist.
Consequently, David has only got himself to blame if people are forced to speculate, make assumptions, etc.
Bottom line, he was cleverly drawn into finally posting the outcome of the trials (well at least his version). Noone is disputing that Rheinard was hurt, nor is anyone stating that we would wish him to be hurt. However, t there was no attempted murder charge and Rheinhard was allegedly, sufficiently well to be running, albeit slowly in a race less than two months after the event.
A woman claiming to be an ex member of the Children of God is currently asking some questions of David's involvement in the Children of God. Does she get a straight answer? If not, why not? Perhaps David could learn from this experience and start providing some straight answers to some straight questions. Something he would no doubt appreciate as a "so called" journalist.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
Malcolm Wesley WREST
()
Date: June 30, 2007 09:19PM
....and the latest dishonesty?
David is trying to "corral" all the parents into a forum called "Families" where they may "communicate" with their children.
Obviously this will:
Facilitate Davids' full and direct access to any communiction between parents and "inmates"
Completely preclude any opportunites for private communication
Enable David to regularly "humiliate" or "ridicule" the contributions of any parent that he wants to deride (...and anyone who objects to this treatment will have access to their children denied...)
Conveniently eliminate potentially embarassing discussion from public view on his own web-site....
and David will publically now state (about any parent who elects not to be manipulated in this manner), that they will have "chosen" not to communicate with their children "of their own accord"......
(Extort: Obtain by intimidation.....Websters! (Sigh!)...You've a DOG, David Mckay!!!....)
David is trying to "corral" all the parents into a forum called "Families" where they may "communicate" with their children.
Obviously this will:
Facilitate Davids' full and direct access to any communiction between parents and "inmates"
Completely preclude any opportunites for private communication
Enable David to regularly "humiliate" or "ridicule" the contributions of any parent that he wants to deride (...and anyone who objects to this treatment will have access to their children denied...)
Conveniently eliminate potentially embarassing discussion from public view on his own web-site....
and David will publically now state (about any parent who elects not to be manipulated in this manner), that they will have "chosen" not to communicate with their children "of their own accord"......
(Extort: Obtain by intimidation.....Websters! (Sigh!)...You've a DOG, David Mckay!!!....)
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: July 02, 2007 02:06AM
[b:a5307db228]http://welikejesus.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=11282#11282[/b:a5307db228]
Check this out. Why won't David answer simple questions pertaining to points of fact?
Check this out. Why won't David answer simple questions pertaining to points of fact?
Quote
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2165
Location: Sydney, Australia
Study Quiz Points: 5,464
Rank: 4
Top Forty
Leftovers
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a response from Privy Eyes to the post above. He/She says that if I don't tell him/her whatever they demand, then they have no choice but to make up their own lies about what happened. Yeah, great reasoning!
Then Malcolm comes in with admonitions about how serious the imaginary charges are against Reinhard, and about how many laws I have broken, but which I get away with through my "wit". No, Malcolm, I get away with it through your LACK of wit... or should we say, your lack of witnesses or any other evidence to back up your libellous claims.
While the Rickrobates argue that I should answer all their questions, let's try a couple of hard ones for them:
1. What has Reinhard been charged with in this supposed arrest that you talk of?
2. What place and time did Reinhard get in the 5km race that you say he ran two months after the attack?
Back to top
The Dude
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 50
Study Quiz Points: 0
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:18 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave wrote:
We have a response from Privy Eyes to the post above. He/She says that if I don't tell him/her whatever they demand, then they have no choice but to make up their own lies about what happened. Yeah, great reasoning!
Then Malcolm comes in with admonitions about how serious the imaginary charges are against Reinhard, and about how many laws I have broken, but which I get away with through my "wit". No, Malcolm, I get away with it through your LACK of wit... or should we say, your lack of witnesses or any other evidence to back up your libellous claims.
While the Rickrobates argue that I should answer all their questions, let's try a couple of hard ones for them:
1. What has Reinhard been charged with in this supposed arrest that you talk of?
2. What place and time did Reinhard get in the 5km race that you say he ran two months after the attack?
1. It is my understanding that Reinhard was arrested in Arizona over some type of violation of his visa or other immigration-related issue.
Back to top
Dave
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2165
Location: Sydney, Australia
Study Quiz Points: 5,464
Rank: 4
Top Forty
Leftovers
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 7:32 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I heard he was arrested for abducting someone... second time. And that you were going to let the police know that it was the second time (just in case they didn't know about the "other one"). Which is it, Brian?
Back to top
Guest
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:04 pm Post subject: Let' not play with semantics here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rheinard came in at 49:57:43 compared to you, David at 29:20:41, but even still, Rheinard was 295th out of 515. The point is he entered a 5km race less than two months after being described as critical. Let's not play the game of "well, depends on your definiton of a run." Reinhard could have been pushed in a wheelchair for all I know, but still he was well enough to beat over 200 other people.
Back to top
The Dude
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 50
Study Quiz Points: 0
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:06 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was me, above. Forgot to log in. I thought he was in the hospital on June 17? How could he have competed in a fun run in KY if he was supposedly near death in CA?
Back to top
The Dude
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 50
Study Quiz Points: 0
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhard was arrested in England over the Bobby Kelly Affair, right? If Rheinhard was arrested in Arizona over a visa issue, dontcha think that might have been because he may have come to the authorities notice over the Joe Johnson case? Both originally were thought of as attempted abductions.
If he hasn't been arrested, just say so and we will move on.
Back to top
Dave
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2165
Location: Sydney, Australia
Study Quiz Points: 5,464
Rank: 4
Top Forty
Leftovers
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:45 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, Dude, I already said that he was arrested in 48 states. Okay, so I forgot that he has been arrested in several countries too. Are you sure it was abduction in the U.K.? Wasn't that the time they got him for attempted murder? Or was that the cannibalism charge? I just can't keep up with all these arrests. And yes, of course he was in hospital on June 17. I think it was a prison hospital, where he was being held for... darn, it slips my mind this time what it was for. Maybe it was for escaping from prison to jog off to Kentucky, so he could sprint to the finish in a wheelchair. You know how it is with these guys on the run from the law and hiding out in hospitals as they do it! And didn't they find Joe Johnson tied up under the bed in the hospital after Reinhard regained consciousness? I think that's why he was charged with abduction that time. Well, truth is that he was charged with deadly assault at first, till they worked out that he was the one who had been assaulted, and so that's probably when they charged him with abduction. Gee, Dude, why do you have so much trouble getting your facts straight? Do you always have to come to ME to get them sorted out for you?
Back to top
The Dude
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 50
Study Quiz Points: 0
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:33 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave wrote:
Hey, Dude, I already said that he was arrested in 48 states. Okay, so I forgot that he has been arrested in several countries too. Are you sure it was abduction in the U.K.? Wasn't that the time they got him for attempted murder? Or was that the cannibalism charge? I just can't keep up with all these arrests. And yes, of course he was in hospital on June 17. I think it was a prison hospital, where he was being held for... darn, it slips my mind this time what it was for. Maybe it was for escaping from prison to jog off to Kentucky, so he could sprint to the finish in a wheelchair. You know how it is with these guys on the run from the law and hiding out in hospitals as they do it! And didn't they find Joe Johnson tied up under the bed in the hospital after Reinhard regained consciousness? I think that's why he was charged with abduction that time. Well, truth is that he was charged with deadly assault at first, till they worked out that he was the one who had been assaulted, and so that's probably when they charged him with abduction. Gee, Dude, why do you have so much trouble getting your facts straight? Do you always have to come to ME to get them sorted out for you?
Am I to assume you're too embarrased to answer truthfully whether Rheinhard was arrested/ detained or questioned over a visa/ immigration issue in Arizina recently? Should I quote you as saying, "David McKay will neither confirm or deny the rumour?"
Back to top
Dave
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2165
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, Brian, why bother asking me anything. You are the expert here. You are the one carrying on about half a dozen different things that exist only in your imagination. You ought to be able to make up some good quotes from Dave McKay too, can't you? Something like, "Dave McKay admits that Brian Birmingham is the greatest detective since Sherlock."
On the other hand, if you are going to go with the "neither confirms nor denies" thing, why not make it really good, i.e. that Dave McKay neither confirms nor denies that Reinhard has been arrested numerous times for abduction, in several states and several countries, as claimed by super-sleuth Brian Birmingham.
Back to top
The Dude
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 50
Study Quiz Points: 0
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:58 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave wrote:
Hey, Brian, why bother asking me anything. You are the expert here. You are the one carrying on about half a dozen different things that exist only in your imagination. You ought to be able to make up some good quotes from Dave McKay too, can't you? Something like, "Dave McKay admits that Brian Birmingham is the greatest detective since Sherlock."
On the other hand, if you are going to go with the "neither confirms nor denies" thing, why not make it really good, i.e. that Dave McKay neither confirms nor denies that Reinhard has been arrested numerous times for abduction, in several states and several countries, as claimed by super-sleuth Brian Birmingham.
Thanks for your help David. You have been as arrogant and evasive of answering my questions as usual. This exchange will make a nice addition to my files. Goodnight.
I'll quote you as neither confirming nor denying the rumours.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: July 02, 2007 02:20AM
The above is kinda choppy, as I didn't edit it much (sorry), but I think you all will have no problem sorting out the flow of the exchange between David and myself just then.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
Malcolm Wesley WREST
()
Date: July 02, 2007 10:50AM
As this board (unlike our competitors!) is an actual working democracy of independent minds where no-one is coerced behind the scenes into “toeing the official line”, I think it only reasonable that a variety of styles be permitted, in the broader rebuttal of David’s endeavours to defraud all and sundry with a misrepresentation of the teachings of Christ:
For instance….. I don’t think Zeusor should have to forever bend over backwards to interminably apologize for the use of the military simile of “taking David out”….(or whatever “turn of phrase” may next be leapt upon by the JCs as evidence of our “faults” in the hope that that denouement, might then serve as David’s new “fig-leaf”…..David provides a number of examples of these tactics in his “exchange” with Zeusor (….and thank you for the posting Zeusor)
Some of those who post here have taken the stance that we should be strictly circumspect in the language we use, as that serves as a better form of witness (by goodly contrast) against the prevarications of the Jesus Christians….while I take that point, I think that the forum should also be open to those who do not want to take the deceit that spews out of David’s heart with as much literal respect as others might choose to….
David will be forever clutching at straws to seek to obfuscate any debate of the fundamental issues of dishonesty he wilfully engages in (….and the example Apostate provided of David’s transparent sham in loudly hectoring his son over the use of a “swear word” in order to circumvent discussion of David’s grubby deceptions is a very telling point in case….…..
For those of you can remember this little effort of some years earlier, (and aside from his more recent asinine rejoinders to Zeusor) by the shameless hypocrite….. Jesus is coming…and boy is he Pissed Off!.....(Yes…..at David McKay!!)….)
Thus…maybe given David’s own inclinations towards prevarication, we are justified in being a little less that perfectly “politically correct” at times….although naturally I’d be the first to appreciate that there have to be some sort of “limits” to such behaviour…given the possible consequences…..
For example, Nick may have likened David to a “Rock-Spider” (An Australian euphemism for some one who stealthily preys upon children and other legal minors in order to molest them) somewhere along the way….Tsk, tsk, tsk My God!… Nick please restrain these outburst of your bitterness and anger and choose your words more carefully in future…I feel MOST embarrassed about this (….as since that time any number of Rock-Spiders have now contacted me directly to complain about the denigration of their character that such an association implies for them!...hey Nick, I’m being inundated with rock-spiers coming out right left and center, bitterly resentful at how your rash words have so thoughtlessly impugned them all !! .and….and….like what can I possibly say to placate them all, I ask you ???)
David himself has mentioned how our antics only serve to “unify and strengthen” the JesusChristians in their righteous purpose. While we might choose to believe him it is odd however that David criticizes those who make military similes, while using them himself….ie. the Waco conflagration…
What was the underlying problem behind the tragedy at Waco? Not (in David’s mind) that a small group of people made themselves vulnerable to the selfish manipulative wickedness of a self -important demagogue by allowing themselves to become increasingly isolated from the world around them to the extent that they then lost all nature of perspective on what they were doing to themselves and others….their “trusted benefactor” in fact had no other purpose all along other than to callously use their lives as he saw fit…. These matters are of course not the problems David sees…He makes that perfectly clear by choosing to use “Waco” as the example that he has (.. group “unity” in the face of external condemnation)…Naturally many of us , can imagine why such behaviour would hardly seem out of the ordinary to him at all….(in fact downright mundane David would likely find it)…. they are no more than the superficial surface details…but David knows what the underlying problem behind Waco was….(..and I think I can see what he is pointing out that I too should “know”…)
Really, it’s so obvious!!....What was the underlying problem that we can infer from David’s line of “reasoning”….
The underlying problem behind the Waco tragedy is that Koresh and his followers neglected to mine the perimeter….e.g. home-made EFP’s rigged with trip wires and pressure plates (to avoid counter electronic interference or those tell-tale lengths of copper wire…)
Truly, unity in purpose…..correctly “led” could have averted this disaster……
Politically correct (at times) and pathologically, socially dysfunctional, David “outshines” us all again, with the razor sharp analysis of carefully selected facts that forever prove him right….
(..and the “criteria” that David sets as his own benchmark, mark the sort of standards by which I carefully measure the choice of my own words….)
For instance….. I don’t think Zeusor should have to forever bend over backwards to interminably apologize for the use of the military simile of “taking David out”….(or whatever “turn of phrase” may next be leapt upon by the JCs as evidence of our “faults” in the hope that that denouement, might then serve as David’s new “fig-leaf”…..David provides a number of examples of these tactics in his “exchange” with Zeusor (….and thank you for the posting Zeusor)
Some of those who post here have taken the stance that we should be strictly circumspect in the language we use, as that serves as a better form of witness (by goodly contrast) against the prevarications of the Jesus Christians….while I take that point, I think that the forum should also be open to those who do not want to take the deceit that spews out of David’s heart with as much literal respect as others might choose to….
David will be forever clutching at straws to seek to obfuscate any debate of the fundamental issues of dishonesty he wilfully engages in (….and the example Apostate provided of David’s transparent sham in loudly hectoring his son over the use of a “swear word” in order to circumvent discussion of David’s grubby deceptions is a very telling point in case….…..
For those of you can remember this little effort of some years earlier, (and aside from his more recent asinine rejoinders to Zeusor) by the shameless hypocrite….. Jesus is coming…and boy is he Pissed Off!.....(Yes…..at David McKay!!)….)
Thus…maybe given David’s own inclinations towards prevarication, we are justified in being a little less that perfectly “politically correct” at times….although naturally I’d be the first to appreciate that there have to be some sort of “limits” to such behaviour…given the possible consequences…..
For example, Nick may have likened David to a “Rock-Spider” (An Australian euphemism for some one who stealthily preys upon children and other legal minors in order to molest them) somewhere along the way….Tsk, tsk, tsk My God!… Nick please restrain these outburst of your bitterness and anger and choose your words more carefully in future…I feel MOST embarrassed about this (….as since that time any number of Rock-Spiders have now contacted me directly to complain about the denigration of their character that such an association implies for them!...hey Nick, I’m being inundated with rock-spiers coming out right left and center, bitterly resentful at how your rash words have so thoughtlessly impugned them all !! .and….and….like what can I possibly say to placate them all, I ask you ???)
David himself has mentioned how our antics only serve to “unify and strengthen” the JesusChristians in their righteous purpose. While we might choose to believe him it is odd however that David criticizes those who make military similes, while using them himself….ie. the Waco conflagration…
What was the underlying problem behind the tragedy at Waco? Not (in David’s mind) that a small group of people made themselves vulnerable to the selfish manipulative wickedness of a self -important demagogue by allowing themselves to become increasingly isolated from the world around them to the extent that they then lost all nature of perspective on what they were doing to themselves and others….their “trusted benefactor” in fact had no other purpose all along other than to callously use their lives as he saw fit…. These matters are of course not the problems David sees…He makes that perfectly clear by choosing to use “Waco” as the example that he has (.. group “unity” in the face of external condemnation)…Naturally many of us , can imagine why such behaviour would hardly seem out of the ordinary to him at all….(in fact downright mundane David would likely find it)…. they are no more than the superficial surface details…but David knows what the underlying problem behind Waco was….(..and I think I can see what he is pointing out that I too should “know”…)
Really, it’s so obvious!!....What was the underlying problem that we can infer from David’s line of “reasoning”….
The underlying problem behind the Waco tragedy is that Koresh and his followers neglected to mine the perimeter….e.g. home-made EFP’s rigged with trip wires and pressure plates (to avoid counter electronic interference or those tell-tale lengths of copper wire…)
Truly, unity in purpose…..correctly “led” could have averted this disaster……
Politically correct (at times) and pathologically, socially dysfunctional, David “outshines” us all again, with the razor sharp analysis of carefully selected facts that forever prove him right….
(..and the “criteria” that David sets as his own benchmark, mark the sort of standards by which I carefully measure the choice of my own words….)
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
private eyes
()
Date: July 02, 2007 03:57PM
If anyone wants an idea of how David tries to "correct" and "influence"his critics they should read:
[b:b50b89e040]Jon Ronson
Out of the Ordinary:
True Tales of Everday Craziness, Picador 2006[/b:b50b89e040]
Jon's documentary on the Jesus Christians has been featured elsewhere on this board. This book has a chapter on the documentary and gives some of the behind the scenes details and the effect that Dave and his emails had on Jon.
This is a shameless plug and Jon will probably make a few bucks out of it, but I figure he deserves it for all the stress he had to put up with to get the story out there.
[b:b50b89e040]Jon Ronson
Out of the Ordinary:
True Tales of Everday Craziness, Picador 2006[/b:b50b89e040]
Jon's documentary on the Jesus Christians has been featured elsewhere on this board. This book has a chapter on the documentary and gives some of the behind the scenes details and the effect that Dave and his emails had on Jon.
This is a shameless plug and Jon will probably make a few bucks out of it, but I figure he deserves it for all the stress he had to put up with to get the story out there.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
private eyes
()
Date: July 02, 2007 04:28PM
A great post Malcolm.
However, as one of those who has made a stance on language, I am left with a dilemma:
In my line of business we regularly refer to people as either, "the subject" or in the case of surveillance of baddies, "the target".
I am a still a bit reluctant to refer to David as, "the target" ( I say hiding my Google earth maps of his house) lest he get the wrong idea. He's pretty keen on using the words, Kill and attempted murder, over there on the Jesus Christians site and I don't want to give him any "ammunition". Oh boy, there I go again.
But seriously, you make a good point, we shouldn't let him dictate the terms of our discussion.
However, as one of those who has made a stance on language, I am left with a dilemma:
In my line of business we regularly refer to people as either, "the subject" or in the case of surveillance of baddies, "the target".
I am a still a bit reluctant to refer to David as, "the target" ( I say hiding my Google earth maps of his house) lest he get the wrong idea. He's pretty keen on using the words, Kill and attempted murder, over there on the Jesus Christians site and I don't want to give him any "ammunition". Oh boy, there I go again.
But seriously, you make a good point, we shouldn't let him dictate the terms of our discussion.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: July 03, 2007 02:32AM
I see you, you see me
watch you blowin' the lines when you're making a scene
Oh girl, you've got to know
what my head overlooks
the senses will show to my heart
when it's watching for lies
you can't escape my
Private Eyes
they're watching you
they see your every move
Private Eyes
they're watching you
Private Eyes
they're watching you watching you watching you watching you
You play with words you play with love
you can twist it around baby that ain't enough
cause girl I'm gonna know
if you're letting me in or letting me go
don't lie when you're hurting inside
'cause you can't escape my
Private Eyes
they're watching you
they see your every move
Private Eyes
they're watching you
Private Eyes
they're watching you watching you watching you watching you
Why you try to put up a front for me
I'm a spy but on your side you see
Slip on, into any disguise
I'll still know you
look into my Private Eyes
watch you blowin' the lines when you're making a scene
Oh girl, you've got to know
what my head overlooks
the senses will show to my heart
when it's watching for lies
you can't escape my
Private Eyes
they're watching you
they see your every move
Private Eyes
they're watching you
Private Eyes
they're watching you watching you watching you watching you
You play with words you play with love
you can twist it around baby that ain't enough
cause girl I'm gonna know
if you're letting me in or letting me go
don't lie when you're hurting inside
'cause you can't escape my
Private Eyes
they're watching you
they see your every move
Private Eyes
they're watching you
Private Eyes
they're watching you watching you watching you watching you
Why you try to put up a front for me
I'm a spy but on your side you see
Slip on, into any disguise
I'll still know you
look into my Private Eyes
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: July 03, 2007 05:48AM
Quote
For instance….. I don’t think Zeusor should have to forever bend over backwards to interminably apologize for the use of the military simile of “taking David out”….(or whatever “turn of phrase” may next be leapt upon by the JCs as evidence of our “faults” in the hope that that denouement, might then serve as David’s new “fig-leaf”…..David provides a number of examples of these tactics in his “exchange” with Zeusor (….and thank you for the posting Zeusor)
Some of those who post here have taken the stance that we should be strictly circumspect in the language we use, as that serves as a better form of witness (by goodly contrast) against the prevarications of the Jesus Christians….while I take that point, I think that the forum should also be open to those who do not want to take the deceit that spews out of David’s heart with as much literal respect as others might choose to….
You are welcome, and thanks for having my back on the verbiage issue, Malcolm.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.