To continue with the thread of how offensive and racist it was for Dave to whip that Kenyan volunteer, I have to make mention of the human rights conventions it breeches.Whipping breeches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984).
Why Dave thinks what he does is compatable with Quaker beleifs and practices still remains beyond me.
I think whipping people would be held in much the same light as "spanking" one's wife to keep them in line, especially if one applies a domestic violence perspective to it. You wouldn't do anything like that would you Dave? I am aware that certain COG members have a habit of spanking their wives as a disciplinary measure.
On to a different topic now temporarily, I started reading Dave's rant against Blackhat and thinking "what rubbish!" as the immediate retort to each pathetic attempt to attack Blackhat came to mind. I noticed that the strongest points were just ignored while pedantic issues seized upon, like declaring the term "war of defence" "doublespeak". It seems Dave has to reuse the same terminology that others use against him, as if that retaliation (even if it is a totally different target) purges him of the hurt associated with it? Most people who wage "war" see themselves as "defending" their country even when it involves invading other dominions, and I think it is an apt description of what Dave does as he "outs" those he believes are his enemies and looks for ways to denigrate them, failing to acknowledge his 'atrocities' against people not even involved in his conflict. At one point he acknowledges that he edits something Blackhat said so as to radically change the meaning, because he believes this makes a more 'telling' comment about where Blackhat is really coming from. How does one respond against such illogical reasoning like that? In the end one just gets overwhelmed with the sheer volume of his 'offensive defence' that goes on and on, such that it feels pointless even trying to make a point by point reply, or even reading to the end, lest that effort be seen as legitimising his interminable ravings. It reminds me of grievance meetings that go for days, leaving everyone so fatigued everyone surrenders their point of view just to bring an end to it all. I thought the last sentence of Dave's post sums up my general feeling about it all."These kind of rants, unsupported by facts, are not very convincing."
One suggestion for Dave: If you used bold caps, a larger font, wave your arms and shout a bit louder, perhaps your efforts will be more effective. (sarcasm!)
While Dave is doing his darndest to convince the Quakers that he is being unfairly victimised, the question is why practically every other church Dave has joined or associated with has ended up pulling the shades down on his attention seeking behaviour. The question to follow that is what has Dave's response been each time he has overstayed his welcome. You will find a pattern soon emerges that support the diagnoses that Dave is indeed a "narcissistic psychopath". If several people are making that claim Dave, it might mean they are in collusion, that they are actually the same person, or just that they have stumbled upon a glaring truth. Dave used to argue a sociological principle that when your problem is with everyone then the problem probably lies with you. Think about it, Dave.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2008 03:16AM by apostate.