Hi all. I just got an email from Chris (Tofferer; remember him?) in which he explained to me that he is finished with his involvement with the JCs. He wrote to me that the reservations he had which led to the termination of his relationship with the JCs are doctrinal in nature, rather than behavioral (i.e. the creation/evolution debate and the doctrine of the Trinity.) No matter the cause; the important thing is, he's out (before he and his family were ever "in!")

Another one escapes DM's clutches! Good for you Chris! You have dissacociated yourself from a very bad guy.

BTW: Chris says "Hi!", Malcolm.

[youtube.com]

How do you think Im going to get along,
Without you, when youre gone
You took me for everything that I had,
And kicked me out on my own

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2008 05:56AM by zeuszor.

(Thank-you Zeusor)

Dear Tofferer,

We would still have some fairly major differences of opinion, between us, if you consider the JC's behaviour NOT to be a problem (see Hello's last posting for a "summary" and almost any of Apostates postings for specific details), however (and I admit that I have no right to ask this of you ) I'd personally speaking, almost prefer that you DID continue to post on the JC site....

David has increasingly few connections with "reality"....he only tempers his behaviour when he feels obliged to be seen to "incorporate" the views of potential disciples and other non adversary non-members (...You may for example like to peruse the copy of the internal newsletter (provided by Barbiedoll) that was circulated to the "inner circle" of disciples, earlier this year.....he's so psychotically self-absorbed now, that he can produce such obtuse and irrational circular reasoning, and yet seemingly no longer be "aware" of the madness in it!!!)

In the long run, (into "eternity" and beyond) it's not really going to matter if we "bickered" between ourselves, and both "cursed" each other on the respective forums we inhabit....but it WILL matter, if you are in fact, somehow able to "restrain" David, with reasoning and reference to scripture (....the fact that I've posted this, means that he will be "on your case"...(no matter what you say)...I'd recommend that you launch into a series of tirades about me to make David feel "better"!)....you could consider doing so, not for me, but out of obedience to the compassion Christ calls you to have for the OTHER members of the JC's.

The "Doctrine of the Trinity" may be important to you (I really don't want to enter into a debate on the matter)....but you will of course understand that, behind your back, that David will simply portray you as a "systemized churchie" if you focus on it.....it may be better to concentrate on other scriptural anomalies! The Creationist/Evolutionist debate is to my mind, irrespective of ones opinions on this issue, evidence that David is progressively "selling out".....During my time in the JC's Creationism was orthodoxy.....now its' "marginalized" as unimportant side-issue (David can't respond to Lisa with your knowledge of the issues nor can he be afford to seen not be "in control" of the debate intellectually, hence the matter's brushed aside)....What is happening is more fundamental than the actual merits of the debate here (there are creationist and evolutionists on both this forum and the JC's).......you may remember David commenting that the JC's no longer have to literally obey Christ, as long as they are "prepared to", that's sufficient! (In a nutshell hypocritically repeating the very "heresy" that he as condemned the churches over, for years).

The Christian scriptures, probably (if you'll pardon my personal opinion here Tofferer) which were never very important to David, are being progressively "explained away"particularly where they might "constrain" David's behaviour ......your continued involvement in the JC forum (even if on a less regular basis) would be of enormous help in preventing David wandering down the "Heavensgate" path, the appeal of which will grow, with his increasing age, if the JC's fail to truly "take off" as was always his hope....(Here, I must disagree slightly with you Zeusor, as to how Tofferer may be of ultimate assistance to the cause) .....I'm not asking you Tofferer to say "nice things" about me, or the contents on this forum.....just, between you and your own understanding of what God requires, please continue to provide some occasional psychological reference points of normality for David....

Your dearest "enemy",

Malcolm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2008 08:17AM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.

David McKay has responded to the Australian Quakers with a statement that he and Cherry will be "leaving this weekend on a three-month tour of Australia".

This may simply be a time-buying tactic and it's interesting to note that this hasn't stopped him posting his usual sneering, hate-filled and decidedly un-Christian nonsense on his own website.

A three-month tour of Australia. How nice! All on the Australian taxpayers and the sales of all those books. Seems like all of the JCs must "forsake all" except for David and his consort. It could be a time-buying tactic, and I further suspect DM may try to "disappear" for a while until things might "cool off" for him. Maybe he's going to try to flee.

His world is coming undone and I patiently await, prayerfully watching things work themselves out.

For the hundredth time: it's not what DM teaches that bothers me as much as what DM does. I do not hate any of the individual JCs, either, but I am very concerned for them (they are victims, little more than the props in DM's little fantasy world IMO) and have a strong personal dislike for DM himself. I believe him to be an intrinsically evil man, a sociopath, narcissist, and "cult leader." What he does to children and families is reprehensible. He's a very "bad guy" and you are wise to get away from him whatever your personal reasons may be, Chris: doctrinal, behavioral, whatever. Good for you. It's nice to make your acquaintance.

This is a cut and paste from something that I wrote last August 5.

Following are my five main (generalized) points of objection to JC policy and procedure.

1) Witnessing to and agreeing to meet with minors who are "potentials" is wrong. Period. They have no business talking to any High Schooler who is not yet 18. David ought to respect the rights and boundaries of the parents of these kids.

2) They say they work for love and not money. OK, so what is with all of the constant money-generating schemes? What is with all of the organ and body-fluid donation? Why do they sell David's books on the street? To whom does all of the money go, and who controls it?

Basically, how come it seems like everybody in the JCs has to forsake all except for David and Cherry?

3) It seems to me that DM has put a legalistic over-emphasis on the red letters (Gal 2:16), and that the JCs constantly negatively judge other Christians and churches by that fallacious standard. Their collective attitude and MO seems heavy on judgment and is highly provocative, but I feel no grace from them. (Jam 2:13).

4) (related to 3) They all generally seem to have nothing but contempt for those who would question them. Where are the fruits of the Spirit in what the world can see of the JCs? (Gal 5:19-26)

5) When was the last time that Ash and Joseph called their mothers and told them that they love them? Why does DM prevent parents from having open access to their own children?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2008 01:06PM by zeuszor.

The slander resumes (exposing Dave's projection from his post
[welikejesus.com])

Now that David Lowe has (apparently) not followed
through on taking Dave to court for the persistent hate campaign
against him, Dave feels he has been given the green light to resume his
slander. He is back posting on his forum more of the same lies that he
has been spreading from the start. I might add that these lies are a
continuation of the strategy he has used when he threatened to hurt his
son's career if he failed to identify who the anonymous "apostate" was
and get him to retract a statement regarding Dave's doctrine on
unethical behaviour and a specific example of its application, then
asserting that someone else (Tony) was responsible for what I said and
slandering him mercilessly. The general attitude was that if we
refused to give them the information they sought, then it gave him the
right to make up whatever lies he liked. I'm afraid that Dave and
certain other weighty JC's need to wake up and face reality, because
it's not the way the law works.

It has been David's theory almost from his first post, that if you can
destroy a person's reputation sufficiently, then you become immune to
charges of libel because, in his thinking, "You have not done any
damage, because he had a bad reputation to begin with."

Reputation appears to be Dave's god these days where control is
exercised by his efforts to destroy someone's reputation, regardless of
whether that person is ever given a chance to defend themselves and
regardless of whether there is any substance to the damnation that is
meted out to people who do not toe the line, with the spurious claim
that if he's prepared to say something to someone's face he's justified
in saying it behind their back and he's being "open and honest" when he
shamelessly publishes his lies and bile. Anyone who dares to question
Dave can expect the full force of the JC community's rage down on them
and anyone else they wish to blame by association (real or imagined).

Dave, unlike most gossips who at least have the wisdom to preface their
comments by saying "It is said" asserts his speculation as fact
thinking unless someone can prove him wrong or claim the identity of
the anonymous poster he is seeking to expose, he is protected against a
lawsuit for libel. But the truth is, David, you would have to (in a
court of law) prove not only the truth of what you claim, but the need
for making such statements public. If you can't do that, then it
becomes your own vicious, destructive lie, and you get all the credit
(or all the blame) yourself.

So can you tell me what your source is for the lie that Private Eyes
is David Lowe, that "apostate" was Tony, that he has a multiple
personality disorder, that practically anyone who opposes you has a
mental disorder, that I am a 'sleazy slimebag', 'pig' and a number of
other farm yard animals etc? Until you do then you must take the full credit
for such blatant lies. And any who support and defend you in that lie
need to think seriously about how it may reflect upon them and the
organisations that they represent if/when your dishonesty becomes
public.

For the record, Dave is, IMO, a damned liar, and should be kicked out
of the Australian Society of Friends because of his efforts to destroy
their/our reputation, where he knows diddly squat about what he is
saying.

Dave telling Glenn what to post SOURCE: [welikejesus.com]

In the past you have been good about mentioning in some posts that we strongly disagree, at the same time that you have said things in support of us. If you did something like that at this time, there will be less chance of misunderstanding amongst Friends who read this.

Following up with a rather projecting quote from Jeremy (adding in Glenn's name)
SOURCE: [welikejesus.com]

It just goes to show that these people don't actually CARE about Glenn, although I'm sure they're able to justify their use and abuse of him since they think the "ends justify the means" in this matter.

The meaning of real love has been so distorted that Glenn probably thinks that the "pat's" on the back and compliments he receives from them is actually love. It's a shame, but what can you do?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2008 08:51AM by apostate.

Here again, I must agree with Apostate.

David's treatment of David Lowe (however he may be!) is documented evidence that David personally disrespects every Christian principle of importance that the Quakers claim to stand for....Davids' behaviour towards Mr Lowe corroborates the accusations levelled against him on these pages, and verifies the disrepute that any association with him, would bring the Quakers, into.

Undoubtedly the "three month" holiday is an endeavour to "ride out the storm".....and to forestall action action being taken against him....(David Mckay having as much right to "delay the proceedings" as Robert Mugabwe).

David McKay has just written the most classic piece of paranoid delusion I have ever read:

[welikejesus.com]

Yes, Jezabel,

"Dave- you're delusional and your insistence on this matter is why the Quakers think you're insane. "

And he proves it by his response to that. The longest ramble of self-justification for a delusion I have read in many years. He really rose to the bait and gave a totally off-the-wall rant with no proof whatsoever contained in it.

The man was at the seminar!!! He didn't want to talk to you!!!! That does not prove he is Private Eyes, despite what things you claim to have off Private Eyes computer.

Go get a reality check on your three months holiday David, but before you go, remove your libel against an innocent man and publish an apology.

The more you hang on to your delusion, the lower you sink IMO.

Dear David,

I have no doubt that Private Eyes was possibly/probably/intended to go to but couldn't get to/ the Louise Samways presentation.

The fact that you clocked the wrong man has brought about a great wrong against an innocent bystander.

Please recognise the error you have made, and make amends.

You will be better for it......

Anita.