Hi Jack,


I would suggest that the wider community does have boundaries. The wider community requires its citizens to observe basic standards and those who fail to comply can expect to be asked to leave areas where they are creating a nuisance, face a fine, or even be arrested if they put their feet on a train seat, refuse to turn down their stereo, pick a fight etc.


It may seem free and democratic to just let everyone do as they wish, but when one person's freedom unfairly impinges on others, the freedom not to be victimised should take precedence over the freedom to punch someone in the nose.
We can just say everyone is human and make a general comment about everyone's emotions running hot when someone does something to upset someone else, but this is unfair to the person who has been treated unfairly and while we may all have the potential to stray from common decency, its important to maintain that standard.


In the fear of replicating Dave's censorship and control we do not need to bend over backward to see how far we can tolerate unreasonable behaviour. In fact I would argue that it is Dave's failure to observe his own standards that results in DOUBLE standards and a closed shop where he is free to slander everyone at will and ban those for opposing him. We become guilty of doing the same if we allow our posters to do that which we condemn Dave for.


In this instance Blackhat has had her rights to privacy and basic respect trampled all over. Even after the accusations and fears used to justify such behaviour were proven false the perpetrator publishes a PM that further exposes her identity and risk of personal retaliation from Dave who has proven himself ruthless in hunting down all who oppose him, and posts a series of defiant justifications, that only add insult to injury. And, when the flurry of low blows runs out of steam Zeuszor calls a "truce" asking to shake his victim's hand, in fear of what retaliation might follow!


This is a pattern of behaviour that appears to be repeating itself on this forum with increasing frequency and while it is allowed to continue will only further alienate reasonable people from associating with this site.


I think it would be in everyone's interest (including Zeuszor's) for a rule of law to apply in the basic standards of respect required of posters on this forum and I would support the moderator in enforcing that standard.

David,

Notwithstanding anything, I still want to know about whipping the Kenyan Boy. It won't sleep in my soul.

Regards

Anita.

Dear Blackhat,


While, David is struggling over the most semi-plausible "justification" that he can think for the Kenyan whipping,

("Doh....African people have thicker skins and it doesn't really hurt them...and ummm...God cursed Ham's descendants with "dark skin"...and ohhh...its just a lot of fun playing God with people, you know....and oh, the fun you can have with a whip, while you're at it!!!)


A query that I never had answered:


I presume David still likes "demonstrating" what a scholar he is by calculating the likely distribution of the "faithful" through-out the world...with his lists of statistics, (national population tables....the distribution of the "poor in spirit" by income tabulations...and so on...)

Does anyone know how did David ever accounted for why anyone HIS age, never managed to take out "membership" of the Jesus-Christians?

David has assured us (well he used to when I was a member, God knows the story now!!) that the Kingdom of Heaven was not biased towards ethnicity or gender, hence purely on the basis of population, we could expect far greater numbers of say "Indian" or "Chinese" faithful than say among the minor number of people in Australia (who were also considerably disadvantaged in their faith, by the fact that they lived in an affluent society which naturally inclined them towards ungodliness)......however one would imagine that the Kingdom of Heaven would also not be skewed by age (dominated by either the very young or the very old....there would be the usual "bell curve")

Embittered and twisted old soul, that I am, it just strikes me that the reason David is nigh two decades older that the next (non-family) member of the "empire" (Rheinehardt???) is that David preys on the young, who lack the experience in life to be able to see through him, whereas anyone approaching Davids age....easily see through his pretences and thus refuse to ever get involved with the mountebank....

Of course I could be being unkind here, but I just can't remember, David being so gracious as to provide an explanation to my enquiry (pages and pages ago) about how he "explained away" the fact that no-one his age was interested in becoming involved.....

Perhaps he could finally get around to this now....after he explains the whipping incident away.....

(...Umm.....let me see....I'm "God", in the Jesus Christians, aren't I...so...I can do what I like really, can't I!!!)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2008 10:38PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.

Quote
apostate
I would suggest that the wider community does have boundaries. The wider community requires its citizens to observe basic standards and those who fail to comply can expect to be asked to leave areas where they are creating a nuisance, face a fine, or even be arrested if they put their feet on a train seat, refuse to turn down their stereo, pick a fight etc.

Yes, boundaries of behaviour, certainly. What I meant by boundaries in this circumstance was who I regarded as being part of my 'community', which includes friends, family, colleagues, neighbours, shopkeepers, skateboarders, the homeless, etc, etc, etc. It's really just a reminder to me that being passengers on this lifeboat called Earth requires understanding and tolerance.

I'm not suggesting people should do whatever they wish. Certainly there is always scope to extend our freedoms, but never at the expense of hurting or harming another person. This, to me, is a fundamental tenet - perhaps, the only one.

I think if we remind ourselves often enough of our connection with all people, and our basic need to be treated with respect and decency, then many of our problems would have a chance at resolution. I know this sounds idealistic. It is.

I apologise for generalising about the human condition. It doesn't help this discussion much. I certainly don't condone bitter attacks followed by insincere apologies. It seems the curse of the Internet is our increased ability to be smarmy and insincere. And, I suppose, the only thing (short of legal action) we can do is watch out for each other. Again, the soppy idealism, I know.

Quote
apostate
I think it would be in everyone's interest (including Zeuszor's) for a rule of law to apply in the basic standards of respect required of posters on this forum and I would support the moderator in enforcing that standard.

I can't agree with you more! I do think there is something to this affect in the rules of engagement at this forum. Maybe it's time we all took a few minutes out to read those rules again.

David writes: [welikejesus.com]
(Another journey into Dave's twisted mind)


"Hi Brian,
Welcome back. Haven't seen you for quite some time.
I realise that XXX is getting quite angry about the fact that more and more Quakers are waking up to his involvement in the Rick Ross forum, and so obviously he needs all the help he can get from someone like you, to convince me that he is not Private Eyes. But ... even your loud protestations tend to support my case."


Dave thinks he is clever if in his mind he creates a catch 22 scenarios in which he is always the winner. Those who oppose Dave making a false accusation may be working in cahoots with the person Dave names, or just opposing unprincipled behaviour.

When it comes to making loud protests against unprincipled behaviour against complete strangers, Quakers have been doing it for years.

"Pretend, for example, that I was saying that Private Eyes is Joe Schlump, and you knew he wasn't. You would have a laugh at it, tease me a bit about not knowing what I'm talking about, and then get on with something better to do. Even if there happened to be a real Joe Schlump, you would just naturally assume that he could take care of himself if, in fact, it matters to him at all."


The fact is most people do move on after their attempt to correct Dave is rudely rebutted, Dave just doesn't see it or the derision that follows his illogical justifications. We don't know who XXX is, but Dave does, he is a member of the Quakers whom Dave is making more and more angry with such false accusations, and against who he protests against for disassociating themselves from such behaviour. Dave is just cutting off his nose to spite his face.


"The average Quaker would not go near an anti-cult site, so this XXX guy would be a long time even discovering what it was that he was being accused of."


Dave, YOU are making these accusations against XXX on YOUR site, and started making them on the QUAKER site before they shut it down to stop your slander. This site is opposing your lies, not making them, and after your shameful behaviour, a lot more Quakers may be visiting to see the testimony of others who have had to endure your narcissistic and sociopathic ways.


If Dave believes that there is no harm done in making false claims against someone who is unlikely to directly see them, it kind of undermines his whole case against the Quakers whom he claims "gossip" about him behind his back, and makes his protests over comments attributed to his mother being published on an internet forum she would never see seem a little bit hypocritical.


"But, of course, you don't do that. As xxx gets more and more pressure from Quakers who are starting to realise that I know what I'm talking about, he is getting panicky. I have virtually dared him to take legal action against me, because I am looking for a good excuse to provide the evidence I have in a way that will not be glossed over by some weighty Quakers claiming that the way I got the information is reason enough to totally reject the fact that it proves that XXX really is Private Eyes and really has told all the lies that he has told over there on the RR forum."


Dave is daring the person he victimises whom he claims should not know what he saying anyway, to take him to court because he is "looking for a good excuse" to present an argument that Quakers are not interested in hearing? To me this exposes the petty and contentious heart of a man who has fallen a long way from the cornerstone he claims to uniquely represent. The line "What would Jesus do?" comes to mind.


"So how are you going to shut me up? Shouting the way you are doing now is not, of course, going to work. The best thing is really what XXX tried at one stage (before I pointed out that it, too, revealed how he is reacting to the truth), and that is to stop posting altogether. The longer he goes without saying anything, the more people are going to forget about the whole matter (and, coincidentally, the less I will have to talk about, and, so, the worse I will look if I keep pushing the point)."


Dave can say those who oppose him, AND those who walk away from his ravings "can't handle the truth". But it leaves him in a dark corner wishing he could take his argument to court so someone else can validate his delusion.
"I can afford to say that, because I really am looking for what Quakers call "a way forward", i.e. a third option which will help him with what he wants at the same time that it helps us with what we want. We are not out for revenge; but we are determined to shut him up."


Even if it takes accusing an innocent man to do it? Despite his professed idealism, Dave repeatedly shows himself prepared to do 'whatever-it-takes' to achieve his objectives. Dave may think he can "afford" such reckless behaviour by declaring himself materially bankrupt if sued and like he told Jon Ronson when he questioned Dave on what the consequences might be if his little plot to stir up negative publicity through lies spread using a false identity should fail to culminate in the glowing report Dave expected him to write, saying something to the effect of "nobody had heard of us before, so what have we lost?" It seems Dave figures he can handle shame when he has no reputation to begin with.


I am sure the Quakers are unimpressed by the claim that this behaviour represents anything they teach.


"You have stated, Brian, that you have "Private Eyes'" name, address, phone number, and place of employment. I'm not asking you to give them to me or to anyone else; but if you really DO have them, then you know that what I am saying is true. Personally I think that you DON'T have them, as David is EXTREMELY careful about who he gives that kind of information to. Even when he is writing to people off-line, he does not use his real name. He made a special point of not revealing his identity to Anita, even though she was echoing what he said so much that I seriously thought that she was him at one point, and even though she is a Quaker (attender) and you are not. So why would he trust you with such information and not her? (Especially considering that he did not let you in on the Jeremy Kyle plans... and that much you KNOW is true. I fully accept that he has USED you, Brian, but her definitely does not TRUST you enough to give you that information.)"


Does anyone follow that convoluted line of logic? I picked up a line that involved Dave admitting a former assertion regarding XXX was a lie. But we can believe Dave this time? Sure! One day Dave might just get his "good excuse" to try and use his arguments to convince a judge, but it doesn't take Einstein to conclude that this guy is "just a little bit shifty".

[www.exfamily.org]

"The Jesus Christians had 'holier than thou' attitides towards the wealthy couple, who challenged them on not paying tax yet partaking of its benefits, such as free education and the National health Service. They responded with the claim that they contributed to society in other ways. When they were asked to clarify what exactly they contributed to society and they could not answer this, they resorted to preaching,repeating ' Gos made man, man made money, money made man mad' '


Did anyone see the swap program ?


What do the Jesus Christians contribute to society?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2008 07:45AM by muppet.

Dave charging in blindly said: [welikejesus.com]
We picked up not one but TWO letters from David Lowe's lawyers at the post office this week. He is threatening to take legal action against us if we don't take down everything that we have said about him on this forum. It has taken quite some time, but this could be just what we need to move this whole business away from the dishonesty that has characterised so much of the gossip, and into an arena where there will be some accountability on the part of those who have spoken out so strongly against us.

Yes David it will be good to move this whole business away from the dishonesty that has characterised so much of YOUR [ed] gossip, and into an arena where there will be some accountability on the part of those who have spoken out so strongly against David Lowe [ed] I am sure that the judge can work out some sort of compensation repayment installments that you can meet on your welfare pension, as well as ordering you to remove all references to the innocent David Lowe.

Just to be safe, I've gone through a lot of what we have posted on our forum to be sure that we have not said anything that is either unfair or unverifiable. Everything seems set for the showdown. We just have to wait

David do you really think "Private eyes" would take you to court for publicising his real name? Your whole "just to safe" approach to what you have written attacking David Lowe is built on an entirely false premise as Private eyes is not David Lowe. You cannot say we didn't warn you.

I know that many of the people on this forum felt (as I did) that Dave's mother should not have been quoted here.

And I am assuming that most of the JC members felt that way too.

Given that, I don't quite understand why no one on the JC forum has made any comment on Joe's request that his younger brother posts his personal communications on a public forum.

Quote
yasmin
I don't quite understand why no one on the JC forum has made any comment on Joe's request that his younger brother posts his personal communications on a public forum.

I think it is because promoting Dave's interests have become more important than their own, even to the expense of their own family relations. But that is my take. It is yet another question for Dave to ignore, like he ignored the question on how whipping a Kenyan volunteer is compatable with Quaker beliefs and practices.

Discussion of freegan christians, their latest media splash and the perks.


[forums.moneysavingexpert.com]

[community.channel4.com]