Quote
matilda
Well the JC's do expect to rule the world. They intend to divide it up and rule over different sections.

Yes, I think you were right Cultmalleus, the safest thing is to rejoin and sabotage their efforts.

Actually, I remember reading how Dave wanted to go on a cruise. He wrote about it in one of his illustrious articles. Perhaps the safest and kindest thing to do is raise money to make sure he goes on a really long one! We could do a sponsored whipping!

I liked reading all of your impressions about a JC ruled world.

lol @ the 'killing fields' illustration. I'm glad that everyone here is not paranoid like Dave is...

What a grim world the JCs would create, Cultmalleus. Strangely it's not much different from a dictatorship or other 'policed state'. It kind of makes me think of other Christian groups who support rightwing ideologies. It seems the flavour of the decade with all our global fear and loathing. And what a tyrant-ruler David would be: a whip in one hand and a 'printed in India' Bible in the other. And that grimace on his face as the world falls into line, one by one. So many prophets and yet we can't get the wax out of our ears! Orwell's 1984, anyone? Huxley's Brave New World? Bradbury's Fahrenheit 521? Herbert's Dune?

There would be no New World Order according to Dave and his JCs...because they're just a bunch of naughty kids! I mean, I've seen them try hard and mean handing out their novella, Survivors. And who the HELL is Zion Ben???

My apologise for getting all science fiction...but it's a strangely apt way of envisioning a JC-like New World Order. Perhaps, like Dune's Harkonnen they should just get their own planet. Bad luck their belief system doesn't allow for such possibilities. It doesn't seem to cater for much outside the notions of their industrious leader, Baron McKay!

Luckily for us the JCs are little more than a helpless babe in its cot screaming for attention.

And by the way, please leave the shoddy fiction writing to L. Ron Hubbard!

Well said Jack,

I'm not too familiar with L Ron but have to agree on the 'shoddy fiction' tag. Yes it does deserve an award for worst book of the year.


Hello Ashwyn,

With one sweeping judgement, you have just implied we are all paranoid because of a comment from one poster ....or is that comment evidence of a sense of humour?
Perhaps you agree that it is a lot of fiction then? or are you prepared for the big clean up and burials ?

Hello again Ash, good to see you laughing about something although it is a belief that the JC's have that they, being part of that 144,000 strong army, will be with Jesus on flying horses slaughetring all the disobedient. If you have any doubts on what I say regarding this, simply ask Roland. I am sure he will confirm what I say. You know how he loves the military type stuff.

I understand that the operation to remove your kidney is not going ahead. What reason did the forensic pscyhiatrist and hospital give for that? With all that is going on with regard to kidneys (i.e. Netherland TV screening dying patients giving up kidneys) it is good to consider the ethics involved, and where the line get crossed with coercive techniques, etc. I appreciate that you just want to do what you want to do, and on one level it is quite noble, but the bigger picture is that ethical practice needs to be followed to protect both donors and recipients. It is called "process", and "process" is VERY important when human beings are involved, as it should be.

Also for everybody else on this forum who can access Australian TV "Australian Story" which covered the whole kidney saga in Canada will be screening it on Monday June 4 on Channel 2 at 8pm.

THIS IS AN EXTRACT FROM DAVE"S POST on WELIKEJESUS about THE TORONTO HOSPITAL DECISION



This is kind of jumping the gun on the ABC documentary to be aired on
Monday
ni
ght's "Australian Story" (when the general public will be able to hear
the
story of Ash's battle to help Sandi get a kidney, and Craig, Nick, and
Kate's efforts to stop it).

After nearly three months hanging around in a hotel in Toronto, Ash was
finally told by Toronto General Hospital today that they are not going
to
bother taking his kidney and giving it to Sandi after all, despite the
fact
that he passed every possible test with flying colours, including two
psychological examinations.

Their reason was surprisingly honest.

They said, for starters, that Craig and Kate's claims that Ash was under
undue influence were total rubbish. The psychiatrist did not support
those
false claims. We thank God for that. (It is our suspicion that they
actually
encouraged the psychiatrist to back up Craig and Kate's claims, because
it
would have given them the excuse they needed to back out of doing the
operation gracefully and to blame the Jesus Christians for their
decision.)
The psychiatrist gave permission for his report to be released to Ash,
but
the hospital is still dragging its heels about doing that, even though
they
admit that they already have it in their hands. It's as simple as
feeding it
through a photocopy machine to give Ash a copy, and they are simply not
doing it.

So why did Toronto General Hospital refuse to perform an operation that
they
admit is badly needed, and that they admit Ash is fully qualified to
assist
with? They said that they have done it because they are scared of
adverse
publicity! Seriously. They are afraid of Kate and Nick (Ash's mother and
stepfather) going to the media and saying that they don't think their
grown
son should be allowed to make such a decision because they do not
respect
his rights as an adult. The hospital is obviously of the opinion that
the
law means nothing when abusive parents decide to play the heartbroken
mother
card... and sadly, we have found that to be true. Mothers can literally
kill
people on such grounds and get away with it!

We are hopeful that the general public will see that it is not the
responsibility of a hospital to pander to abusive parents, but rather to
get
on with the job of healing people, which is their real purpose for their
existence. We are also hopeful that the ABC report will present a more
balanced picture of what is happening and that the general public will
NOT
support what the hospital has done.

The hospital's public relations officer specificaly mentioned the fact
that
they had been approached by the ABC about filming the operation; but of
course, that's what the media has to do to get permission, and they had
said
from the beginning that it would be okay to film after the go ahead. The
ABC
agreed not to broadcast until a decision had been made and now that the
decision has been made, they will broadcast, and I don't think the
hospital
is going to look very good trying to blame the ABC for their
gutlessness.

The ABC is the one that was going to give them GOOD press if the
operation
had gone ahead. They had no intention of doing anything harmful to their
reputation. But it is obviously the CNN coverage (and Jon Ronson's
documentary) that they are frightened of... the gutter press... and the
guttersnipes who promote that approach like Nick and Kate.

What does Dave do when he does not get his own way? Why he makes up a series of accusations and conspiracy theories against the person or organisation that dared to refuse him.

For example:

Attack No. 1

[i:0b4bb1188d]"(It is our suspicion that they actually encouraged the psychiatrist to back up Craig and Kate's claims, because it would have given them the excuse they needed to back out of doing the operation gracefully and to blame the Jesus Christians for their decision."[/i:0b4bb1188d]

Attack No. 2

[i:0b4bb1188d]"The psychiatrist gave permission for his report to be released to Ash,
but the hospital is still dragging its heels about doing that"[/i:0b4bb1188d]

Attack No. 3

[i:0b4bb1188d]"The hospital is obviously of the opinion that the law means nothing"[/i:0b4bb1188d]

Attack No. 4

[i:0b4bb1188d]"Mothers can literally kill people on such grounds and get away with it! "[/i:0b4bb1188d]

Attack No. 5

[i:0b4bb1188d]"I don't think the hospital is going to look very good trying to blame the ABC for their gutlessness. "[/i:0b4bb1188d]

Attack No. 6

[i:0b4bb1188d]"They said that they have done it because they are scared of adverse
publicity! Seriously"[/i:0b4bb1188d]

He must be faltering, as I only counted six attacks on the hospital in the few paragraphs. Talk about throwing a Tizzy fit :roll:

Ash, So dis is wot he says man about your family ...............................................

Seriously. They are afraid of Kate and Nick (Ash's mother and
stepfather) going to the media and saying that they don't think their
grown son should be allowed to make such a decision because they do not
respect his rights as an adult. The hospital is obviously of the opinion that
the law means nothing when abusive parents decide to play the heartbroken
mother card... and sadly, we have found that to be true. Mothers can literally
kill people on such grounds and get away with it!


Ash man, he Seriously scared stiff of de ladies and hates dem or wot. Seriously, have words with him bout it. He repeats himself with a different target. Do not let him diss your folk.

Turtle posted this on livingdonorsonline.


Turtle
Member since 3-Sep-06
38 posts 02-Jun-07, 10:24 AM (EDT) 6. "RE: Toronto General bans Jesus Christian donation"
In response to message #2

Living within the area of TGH and St. Mike's in Ontario, I am very familiar with what occured here, because I have been one of the proponents of antruistic donation and my recipient especially has put much pressure on both the Ontario Government and the hospitals (Toronto General (TGH) and St. Michaels)to create a policy in regards to altruistic donations and internet donations.
6 months ago there was no such policy even on the radar and both TGH and St. Mike's were in the process of creating a policy about shared donations only...altruistic donations weren't even on their radar.
.
When I first approached St. Mikes about donating to the recipient I met here at LDO, I was rejected as a donor because the hospital found out that we met online.
There excuse was that they had no policy in place that dealt with that kind of donation.
My recipient, took up the cause and forced the hospitals to deal with the issue.
I am not really familiar with what he did, but I do know through him the hospitals created a new policy as it relates to altruistic donation.
The donation which you two are relating to, would have been one of the first such donations in Ontario.
The hospitals are very sensitive to altruistic donations, and therefore because this is new area for them are very careful.
Whistleblower...the policy in regards to altruistic donations, including those who met online, is NEW, whomever raised this issue with the Hospital administration just put the whole issue in jepoardy.
Craig, I find your "it wasn't me who complained" rather hollow, for it is obvious to me you had something to do with this.
In the other thread, before it was removed, you had clearly stated that you did raise this issue with the Hospital board, and now you say you are "clean"?
Whatever..
Whether it was you who actually complained is a moot point.
You were part of the process, whether egging on in the background or frontline.
Lost in this pathetic display is not only the one donor you "saved", but the recipient, as well as the hundreds of others whom would benefit from an altruistic donation.

Realize, that not only have the concerns raised by whomever jepordizes the recipient in this case, but the hundreds of potential donations that have absolutely nothing to do with the Jesus Christians.
While you may have issues with the JC's and Dave Mackay in particular, you need to realize that "motives" is affecting others as well, including me..which has no affiliations with either Dave Mackay or the JC's.
IMO, It looks like TGH took the safe route here, only because the policy is so new and were most likely worried about the potential publicity you would have most certainly brought to bare regarding this particular donation.
I think it is a large stretch for you now to say you have been vindicated with this decision and it proves your accusations.
Far from it.
All you did was delay the procedure and at the same time put the whole altruistic policy in jepoardy.
The whole issue of altruistic donations is the focus, and it is good to see TGH concerned about the whole issue and delaying this particular donation.
The negative publicity had the donation occured would have put the whole policy in jepoardy.
I feel for the donor and the recipient, whom are the real losers in this farse.
Blessings
At least the hospital saw the big picture.



Hello there Turtle,

I am not a kidney donor so will not trouble LDO with my response. I hope RR will not mind me responding here.

You think this is just a farse and that ex members just have a few issues with the JC’s and Dave and that their motives are detrimental to others like yourself who have no affiliations with Dave Mackay or the JC’s.

We had no affiliations with Dave Mackay either until one day a young family member overseas disappeared, having been instructed by the group to say nothing to family members. A young person acting suddenly out of character and gone without a word or without a whisper. Bereaved and in pain, the family were kept apart as Dave sniped and jeered at their efforts. Dave spoke in the same way about my relatives as he does now about the Ash’s parents.
More than a year later and after extensive negotiations with McKay, the family met briefly on another continent under the watchful eye of Dave McKay, after they agreed to his terms. These involved providing information and signing documents at his direction. My observation at the time was that Dave used his members like pawns on a chessboard.

I have no doubt in my mind that Dave can and does manipulate young people. He turns truth on its head. For those of us who have been blighted by this experience, we know the consequences of such blind loyalty. He appears to do everything he can to turn them against their relatives and their old life. This is not a farse Turtle, it is a tragedy.

Our relative had to accept many group decisions and get on with it or be subdued and broken with their endless system of grievances. Why should anyone who has a young relative in this group accept a situation like the one happening there in Canada?

You must realise that the person you need to be in discussion with is Dave himself. He needs to change his policy of splitting up and causing division in families. He needs to clarify the ‘motives’ behind his latest publicity seeking exercise. Your issue is with Dave himself.
No one should make such big decisions in isolation. If any of my relatives living a free life, wanted to donate a kidney, I would give them all the support I could.
If our youngster decided to donate while under Dave’s manipulation and being denied normal communications and interactions, I would have objected very strongly.

Dave has engaged in a number of ‘causes’ over the years. It is ironic that Dave’s methods of getting publicity generally tend to be detrimental to those causes. Turtle before you begin blaming whistleblower or anyone else for the loss to ' hundreds', learn a little about the damage Dave has already done.

Eoin