(Another journey into Dave's twisted mind)
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".