Dave states, "We have a whole family of stray cats that live in the alley behind our flat, and we have been working on one of them, whom we call Rajah, just to trust humans enough to come and get some food from us. It's been quite a challenge!"

Dave, I knew there had to be something I would like about you. You may want to help get those cats spayed as not to produce more strays in the alley behind your flat. Keep up the good work with Rajah. I'm delighted.

I have been wondering why the JC's are so stuck on bin raiding. Could it be because with every full bin of out of date, or damaged food their faith in God is strengthened due to them thinking "God" shows which bins are the best to raid? It is similar to the pentecostal tongue talkers who like to show some sort of sign to unbelievers that God is real, especially when it is obvious they deliberately avoid the sad truth that they actually contribute NOTHING to society by promoting Dave's group and asking for donations to fund the promulgating of his writings.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2008 11:47AM by apostate.

Jesse's response to Dave's "confession" that he was factually mistaken in his efforts to prove me guilty of twisting the truth: [welikejesus.com]

"Craig has a horrible way of twisting everything you say or do, Dave, into the most evil corrupt thing possible. It's WAY over exaggerated. I wonder how much of it he believes himself and if that's made him somewhat delusional."

Dave is responsible for his own actions and the lies. All I did is feed it back without the spin and then YOU see "evil" and "corruption". Unfortunately, with co-dependents stroking Dave and telling him its all "Horrible Craig's" fault, they are able to block out the light, return to their collective delusion and project their own dark "shadows" on to me. If you want to accuse me of twisting or exaggerating something and label me "delusional", Jesse, some effort to provide a clear example (like I did with Dave's lies) would help you sound more credible and less like just another Dave sycophant, particularly as Dave just admitted he was the one "factually mistaken" in his efforts to prove me the one manipulating facts.

Thanks for the video link, dogmother. I think the nurturing relationship between the crow and the cat is a blindly obvious metaphor of how seemingly opposing beings can defy our most cynical ideas and actions.

Apostate, it's being made clearer and clearer with almost every one of the JC's posts just how naive and confused they are. Dave's typically inane response reveals more:

"I admitted to a factual mistake, but notice how it always comes out as lies in Craig's thinking and a claim that I admitted that I was "the one" factually mistaken "in my efforts to prove him to be the one manipulating facts". There you have it, right in front of your face... Craig manipulating, while I have only admitted to a factual mistake. Huge difference, and if one or the other is closer to being a deliberate lie, guess which one it would be!"

Doesn't he love the sound of his own interpretations? A factual mistake? Now, how does any reasonable person define that? At least he's given all of us the chance to 'guess' the definition of a 'factual mistake'. Well, of course, I've never doubted Dave's ability to use his intelligence to weasel out of a definition. Consider this:

CHAPTER 951*
PENAL CODE: STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION;
PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Sec. 53a-5. Criminal liability; mental state required. When the commission of an offense defined in this title, or some element of an offense, requires a particular mental state, such mental state is ordinarily designated in the statute defining the offense by use of the terms "intentionally", "knowingly", "recklessly" or "criminal negligence", or by use of terms, such as "with intent to defraud" and "knowing it to be false", describing a specific kind of intent or knowledge. When one and only one of such terms appears in a statute defining an offense, it is presumed to apply to every element of the offense unless an intent to limit its application clearly appears.

Sec. 53a-6. Effect of ignorance or mistake. (a) A person shall not be relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief of fact, unless: (1) Such factual mistake negates the mental state required for the commission of an offense; or (2) the statute defining the offense or a statute related thereto expressly provides that such factual mistake constitutes a defense or exemption; or (3) such factual mistake is of a kind that supports a defense of justification.

This is, of course, from the US penal code, but I'm assuming at this point that it differs little from the Australian code.

What's interesting about this (and, perhaps, the reason why McKay uses his ailing mental faculties as a defense) is that no matter which course of action he choses to take, he'll have to face some authority higher than himself, be it, a judge, psychiatrist or his god.

But I think the point is that his factual mistake was not only published on the Internet several times (hard evidence), but also it questions all his other 'factual' assertions and perceptions.

And it cracks me up thinking that Dave's justification for turning off that young boy's wheelchair was in 'self-defense'. I mean, how pathetic to suggest that a young boy can wield his own wheelchair as a weapon. I think I know how any reasonable person would view that particular episode!

Dear Jack,

(How easily can you access the statutes of the US Criminal Code as a matter of interest?)..... thank you again for your witty and perspicuous observations...


"And it cracks me up thinking that Dave's justification for turning off that young boy's wheelchair was in 'self-defense'. I mean, how pathetic to suggest that a young boy can
wield his own wheelchair as a weapon. I think I know how any reasonable person would view that particular episode!" JOL


Yes, while I, along with Dogmother, welcome any indication of some remaining humanity in David (sensitivity towards animals for example), it is disturbing to see the increasingly transparent and genuinely "laughable" fabrications that David somehow "thinks" he can successfully mask his bogus accusations behind...

..the "hit'n'run" speed demon in a wheel-chair being in the same category as the "vicious and premeditated" assaults Cherry nobly suffered in silence from a two-year old...


...utterly (and transparently) duplicitous allegations, that David (genuinely believes??) and thinks that we will just have to "credit" exactly as everyone else (in his empire) tamely submits to his version of history when instructed to do so...

Can you remember that episode during the Second World War, where in order to engineer an escape from a German High-Security Prisoner of War camp, one of the English soldiers who had been captured, took to pretending that he had become mentally deranged (and thus to be ultimately returned to England as a "non-combatant)....and who eventually actually BECAME deranged, in the process of living out the pretence of being someone who had had a breakdown,....

...so much of the same deterioration of the ability to be able to objectively reflect on your self appears to be occuring in David....I'm sure that it was once simply the guile and selfishness in him that his mother first noted (He lies but he retains an "awareness" that he is lying)....however now David is probably directly contributing to, and feeding his own neurosis....(there is no longer any such thing as a "lie"...only categories of what "advantages" or "disadvantages" David.....see Apostates' postings on an earlier page)

Thanks Jack for your comments.

The point about an honest mistake, is they generally occur when one is unsure of something. The trouble here is that Dave was challenging my account of an incident and presenting a story with certain "facts" he claimed I omitted and which proved me of deliberately twisting the truth. I then proved his story a verifiable lie.

In the general context of lies which Dave has told, this is a fairly petty one, but as it is a current example of what he has been doing for years and is worth examining as a general illustration of how Dave weasels around issues, projects his errors on to others and refuses to admit anything other than that which is irrefutable. He admits to being wrong in his claim of using email five years before the community signed up for that service, only because he had to, but the waffle about whether he was in Sydney hearing about something via phone or mail that occurred to a mythical team in Victoria, or recalling a fuzzy memory involving traffic lights and a jog around "our" house when he agrees we were definitely all living in Geelong, and whether the plug was pulled to stop a boy using a wheelchair to attack someone, or to stop him from being run over at a traffic light, is all unclear because Dave is the one struggling to decipher facts from fabrications.

For some strange reason Dave is still trying to prove me guilty of twisting facts to Jesse who waded in on the issue, and even though Dave has already lost any legs to stand on (someone get the man a wheelchair!) I thought I would counter his commitment to stand his ground in the face of reason, if for no other reason than to prove he can't out bluff the truth.

I apologise if this is getting boring for most readers. Imagine what it is like to have to endure Dave's assertions INSIDE his community, and how hard it would be to hold your ground on ANYTHING when Dave decides to oppose you.


Dave writes: [welikejesus.com]

"Well, Jesse, it didn't take him long to start twisting what you said as well. It's not hard to go through the stuff Craig says, line by line and find in just about every line that he has done a slight "spin". If Jesse says, for example, "I wonder if Criag is delusional," Craig bumps it up to Jesse "labelling" him delusional. And not to be outdone, Craig then talks about Jesse blocking out the light and returning to his collective delusion!"

And yet Dave provides us with a clear example of twisting what Jesse said in manufacturing the hypothetical. "I wonder if Craig is delusional."

Jesse actually wrote: "I wonder how much of it he believes himself and if that's made him somewhat delusional." I read Jesse's comment as wondering if I believe what I write and if this is what has made me "somewhat delusional", which stacks a blinkered query on top of an assumed condition, which I think I am entitled to view as unsubstantiated "labelling", particularly when such speculation is happening in an arena where Dave has ensured I cannot respond.

"I admitted to a factual mistake, but notice how it always comes out as lies in Craig's thinking and a claim that I admitted that I was "the one" factually mistaken "in my efforts to prove him to be the one manipulating facts". There you have it, right in front of your face... Craig manipulating, while I have only admitted to a factual mistake. Huge difference, and if one or the other is closer to being a deliberate lie, guess which one it would be!"

So lets get this clear. Dave admitted to a "factual mistake" in a post that presented "facts" that he claimed I left out of my story, and now says I am "manipulating" when I said he had admitted to being "factually mistaken" in his efforts to prove me the one manipulating facts. I can't see ANY difference. But Dave clearly thinks he can be wrong in the facts and still correct in saying I was wrong for omitting those same factual mistakes. I feel like I am conversing with the Goblin King (Labyrinth) or a character from Alice in Wonderland here! If Dave insists one side needs to be acknowledged as closer to being a deliberate lie, I think the evidence has already proven that point.

"The saddest thing is that it happens with practically everything that comes out of Craig's mouth/computer."

The funniest thing is that Dave keeps doing what he falsely accuse me of doing.

Quote
Malcolm Wesley WREST

..the "hit'n'run" speed demon in a wheel-chair being in the same category as the "vicious and premeditated" assaults Cherry nobly suffered in silence from a two-year old...

This is SUCH a crack up!! It is interesting to note that Dave appears to be taking shelter BEHIND Cherry with these whoppers, as he is attributing them to her. Is this what "two witnesses" in the JC's do to support one-another if they are ever at risk of being exposed. Talk about codependency.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2008 02:20PM by apostate.

Tofferer forms his judgment from afar:
I was finally able to view the RR forums. I am quite unimpressed. Doesn't seem to matter what thread it is, there is nothing positive about that forum. I am of the opinion that a vast majority of the people there have an axe to grind and ultimately don't care whom it is against. I saw enough spins on the facts to make a normal person puke. I must agree that the Rick Ross forum does welcome hatred and discontent.

Tofferer, could you please identify which facts you consider we are putting "spin" on to cause you to "puke". You have made a statement possibly about something I have said. Do I get something specific from you or not?

Grace naively exposes Dave by saying: [welikejesus.com]
That's part of the beauty of Jesus' life and teachings. When people say that Jesus did not mean for us to take his teachings literally, then we can say because of his example, "Then why did he and his followers live that kind of lifestyle if he didn't mean for anyone to?" Jesus showed us by example the type of life we need to lead, what virtues we should display and what rules we should follow.


Dave previously said in response to just such an argument: [welikejesus.com]
"It does seem that through our discussions we are coming to see that Jesus himself did not legalistically follow all of his teachings (e.g. refusing to give bread to the people who asked for more, and pushing through the crowd when they tried to kill him). It seems to me like we need to START with a kind of legalistic approach (or we will just rationalise away everything that he said), but that once we are quite literally prepared to do what he said, then he comes along (at some point... eventually) with clarification on how it doesn't have to be adhered to all the time. This subsequent revelation kind of becomes the personal property of those who were willing to take him literally to begin with, so that we do not have to justify ourselves to every Tom, Dick, and Mary that comes along telling us, for example, that we have to give to them whatever they ask for from us."


Get ready to be corrected Grace. Dave will now teach you that Jesus did not mean for us to take his teachings literally. It must be hard to follow Jesus in a group that has an apostle who teaches it doesn't have to be adhered to all the time.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2008 03:26PM by apostate.

Dear Apostate,

While it would be nice to think that despite his many wicked works that David might still be saved by "Grace", I agree that it it far more likely that Grace herself will eventually be persuaded to abandon the "unrealistic" Christian ideals (e.g. honesty and integrity)she once stood for, in order that she may be a better JesusChristian....

I observe as you do that "Tofferer" continues to toss his (minus) "two cents" worth of puke in.....(no specific examples of the facts that he alleges have been so decisively "spun", as you cogently note!!).....since we may be seeing "bird(brains)" of a feather, flocking together here"....(the strange fellowship of the mentally distressed and the inane)....and of course, you may remember me challenging "Tofferer" to give all that he has over to David McKay and work unpaid for him, if he feels so confident in David (....strangely I am aware of no response from him to date, a little peculiar from someone so otherwise assured of Davids bonhomie....perhaps Tofferer merely has an axe to grind with anyone that threatens the fantasy he can safely indulge in from a distance with the JesusChristians....(but thats SUCH a negative reason to become involved isn't it!!)...)


Hence, with due consideration of all the facts before, I've gone to the conclusion; that in the best interests of all concerned....

Let Tofferer exchange places with Grace!!


We have seen how Grace may actually harbour doubts towards David, by carelessly engaging in the type of freedom of thought which dares to place the lowly doctrines of Christ above Davids' instruction, (...hmmm...sounds like no less than insolence to the Apostle of God to me!!)

Whereas "Tofferer" has already shown the determination to mindlessly accept David' protestations of "innocence", despite the witness of the vast MAJORITY of people who have been directly associated with David( ex-members and family of current members decisively out-numbering those currently trapped within the JC's) triangulating and mutual supportive testimonies that David defrauds whoever he can of their possessions and lively-hood, by progressively isolating them, insidiously persuading them that their erstwhile family and friends (who he proceeds to blackmail with loss of access to their children if they speak out against him) somehow "threaten" their relationship with God..

....Tofferer clearly has the commitment to "filter" information that threaten the delusions he is determined to hold no matter what the verified experiences of others may by, and he also displays the consequent general irrationally which accompany this commitment to a lie, which would thus qualify him for membership....(and moreover as a veritable "leader" in the JesusChristians, I'd say...)

For a "dunce" in a lifetime opportunity, Tofferer,...go on!! Seize the day!! Have that backsliding Grace thrown out, take her place and go to Hell with David MacKay where you can defend him (to whoever will listen!) for the rest of your life....!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2008 06:05PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.