Dave:

It is understood that you refuse to answer the simple questions asked.

It seems you are so used to playing manipulative games with people, that you thought that might work here.

You decided to post here, no one forced it upon you.

Please unserstand that whatever you consider acceptable as a "subtle approach" isn't as meaningful as a frank discussion, which includes answering some simple questions.

Sorry you feel that is beyond your ability, or somehow unacceptable.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

The group/leader is always right.

The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Say Dave,

Come on, we're a bunch of free-thinkers here. Your bully-pulpit games aren't going to work.

Quote
Dave McKay
Hi Rick,

Just a tip that I have picked up from some other anti-cult sites. They spend a little bit of time just kind of being friendly and even saying a few positive things to people before they sneak in their "Tell me something bad" demands. {....}
Anyway, Rick, I think if you had tried the more subtle approach that I suggested above, you probably would have been able to get a little more dirt out of people defending us. Hopefully not from many of them, but probably from more than you have reached through the blunt approach.

I think you misunderstand the point of Rick's question. It seems to me he was not trying to 'get the dirt' about you from fran- he has it all in his articles section and through this forum too. Anyone with new complaints and information about your group will come to him and to this forum- he doesn't have to 'wheedle' it out of one of your supporters.

The purpose in asking this of Fran would be to see if she's still using her critical thinking skills. It's in your interests for her to be able to demonstrate the use of those, and for you to allow that.

Then she doesn't look like she is being controlled or has internalised control like a 'cult member'.

Hope you see what I mean. Rick please explain more if I've got it wrong.

'critical thinking skills'? Is that what you call it? I'm afraid that I have found very few 'critical thinking skills' on the part of contributors to this site. I honestly think that almost all of the traits that you say characterise cults relate very strongly to the attitudes evidenced and supported on this site. Fran and others have tried to communicate frankly and candidly with people here and have consistently seen their words twisted to conform with a single obsessive agenda, which is to get dirt on the Jesus Christians. Sorry, guys, but your actions speak louder than words.

Quote
matilda
[quote="apostate"

No probs Xenophone, Yeah, Dave is a hypocrite.

I guess I have more of a problem with the whole "annointed" leader thing. Dave likes to separate and categorise people into "leaders" and "followers"... how demeaning.

Dave fits the hallmarks of a codependent individual in that he needs people to depend on him. When they no longer depend on them, he tries to make them do so, if they do not comply he discards them to look elsewhere for someone to depend on him. He is dependent on such relationships. Without it he cannot function. He whole "annointed leader" premise is based upon this.

?


Apostate. how would you define Cherry's role? An enabler?[/quote]

Yes, and I would add that only is Cherry an enabler for Dave's co-dependency he puts time into training others to be enablers by teaching them that it is their responsibility to trust him... and not his to trust them. There is no equality of relationship with Dave

xx

Dave:

Anyone reading this thread, other than you or your followers, can see who is speaking "frankly and candidly."

Evading questions, as you and Fran have both done repeatedly, is not engaging in either frank and/or candid discussion.

Quote
Dave McKay
'critical thinking skills'? Is that what you call it? I'm afraid that I have found very few 'critical thinking skills' on the part of contributors to this site. I honestly think that almost all of the traits that you say characterise cults relate very strongly to the attitudes evidenced and supported on this site. Fran and others have tried to communicate frankly and candidly with people here and have consistently seen their words twisted to conform with a single obsessive agenda, which is to get dirt on the Jesus Christians. Sorry, guys, but your actions speak louder than words.

Considering the JC's motives in being here. The leader/ co founder seems to want more tolerance from society and to be thought of in a positive light. If he is sincere in this endeavour he needs to consider instigating some change and expecially in areas where he has been very heavily criticised.
Here are some suggestions

Develop a tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

Provide public financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses as all charities do.

Stop promoting fear of the outside world and curb the persecution complex.

Provide full and accurate information about your organisation so all potential recruits are aware of the consequences of their commitment.

Avoid demonising those who leave and and encourage a more open community. Stop the scare mongering tales about 'apostates'


Respond openly and prayerfully to criticism aqnd become open to change.


Move away from the delusion fthat DM is apointed, anointed and always right. Discourage DM from the mistaken beleif that he is the exclusive or main means of receiving revelation.

Encourage more openess, interaction and dialogue betweeen members of the community and their friends and families.

Reconsider ethical stances within the group eg on honesty

Respect the individuals in the group and curb the mental engineering

Become open in all missionary and recruitment activities

Engage in charitable work

Stop the quotas and selling literature

Allow the other co founder to have a voice

Is this a good start ?

Quote
matilda

Quote
Dave McKay
'critical thinking skills'? Is that what you call it? I'm afraid that I have found very few 'critical thinking skills' on the part of contributors to this site. I honestly think that almost all of the traits that you say characterise cults relate very strongly to the attitudes evidenced and supported on this site. Fran and others have tried to communicate frankly and candidly with people here and have consistently seen their words twisted to conform with a single obsessive agenda, which is to get dirt on the Jesus Christians. Sorry, guys, but your actions speak louder than words.

Considering the JC's motives in being here. The leader/ co founder seems to want more tolerance from society and to be thought of in a positive light. If he is sincere in this endeavour he needs to consider instigating some change and expecially in areas where he has been very heavily criticised.
Here are some suggestions

Develop a tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

Provide public financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses as all charities do.

Stop promoting fear of the outside world and curb the persecution complex.

Provide full and accurate information about your organisation so all potential recruits are aware of the consequences of their commitment.

Avoid demonising those who leave and and encourage a more open community. Stop the scare mongering tales about 'apostates'


Respond openly and prayerfully to criticism aqnd become open to change.


Move away from the delusion fthat DM is apointed, anointed and always right. Discourage DM from the mistaken beleif that he is the exclusive or main means of receiving revelation.

Encourage more openess, interaction and dialogue betweeen members of the community and their friends and families.

Reconsider ethical stances within the group eg on honesty

Respect the individuals in the group and curb the mental engineering

Become open in all missionary and recruitment activities

Engage in charitable work

Stop the quotas and selling literature

Allow the other co founder to have a voice

Is this a good start ?

Dave, I am posting your private emails to me as they represent your divisive agenda of pulling people aside privately to try and silence them somehow. As I said in the email, rather than complain about me privately, how about responding publicly to simple questions?

I paste a copy below:

From: apostate To: Dave McKay Posted: 09-14-2006 11:26 AM Subject: Re: Howdy from Dave
Edit message
Dave McKay wrote:
(quote)Hi Tony. Why so secretive about who you are? We've seen your posts here and elsewhere enough to have worked that out. Did you think we would send thugs to beat you up or something?(end quote)


As I said to Fran. These days you sound so much like the church types you teach against. Look at your above questioning. See how similar it is to those you used to meet in the street demanding to know who you were, where you fellowship, why you are not disclosing all the info they want on demand. I guess you are going to have to deal with a similar response. Who I am is not as important as the discussion on this particular thread.

Regarding the question about my concerns about whether you would send thugs around to see me. Who knows these days Dave! You are into whipping people. From what I see of you it is not long before you engage in justified vigilante action.



Outbox :: Message From: apostate To: Dave McKay Posted: 09-14-2006 03:16 PM Subject: Re: Howdy from Dave
Edit message
Dave McKay wrote:
Dave McKay wrote:
Hi Tony,

(quote)The comparison with churchies is relevant to an extent. Certainly, as you have said, what you say is more significant than who you are. But the difference is that I never once hid from them who I was personally. Their concern was always with some organisational identity, that could then be fed into their computers and judged on the basis of the name rather thann the truth in what was being said.

I haven't been that impressed with your own grasp of the truth, including the dig about us becoming vigilantes. Shows an appalling lack of appreciation for what is really about to happen! You have heard something about a whip and come up with, "You are into whipping people....etc."

Anyway, keep it up Tony. The more exaggerations you make, the sillier you look when people find out the full facts. And on that basis, yes, it is very wise to keep your personal identity secret... not because you are going to be thugged, but because people will see you for the irrational ranter that you are.

Dave (end quote)


It is unlikely you would be impressed with any criticism that comes your way as that would be asking a bit much from you at this point of time. Do you honestly expect me to "appreciate" your plans of a public flogging of someone to preach a message. You actually boast about giving someone lashes in Africa as though it was OK and acceptable. Sick, Dave, sick.

You have never hid who you are? Is that right Dave, or should I call you "Anne" or was that "Anita". Your hypocrisy amazes me to this day.

I notice that you have drawn me away to speak privately as opposed to a public forum... why is that? Everything I said was out in the open. But this is how you work isn't it Dave! I remember you saying once that you can recognise divisive types by their actions of wanting to secretly speak with you. But then I guess you do not want others to see the irrational ranter YOU are.

Till we talk again. Make it public next time, as that is where it started and that would be keeping with your own beliefs about walking in the "light", if you can handle that.

Hello again Matilda, In the vein of of frank and candid communication as Dave says the forum lacks, I posted a response to your question about the JC's receiving govt. benefits at Deakin once before but for some reason it never appeared. The answer was Yes. The honest to whom doctrines was at it highest around this time. Followers would also sign blank withdrawal forms for the treasurer to be able to access their centrelink benefits to be put into a communal pot when they were out of the country.

Dave also receives a carers pension for his wife while living in a govt. housing trust flat. The system he criticises so much certainly takes good care of him.