Please make some space in your PM box, Mal.

Try it now....!

On the Jesus Christian forum, near her avatar, it reads little rose THIS USER HAS BEEN BANNED.

Your term "engagement" between McKay and her did make me laugh as that surely was on devil of a courtship created in the hellholes of a couple like-minds. I wonder how McKay's wife viewed his "engagement" with this woman? His wife seems to be very vague, almost absent in interviews I have seen of her. Perhaps McKay needs some female counterpart that is willing to sink to the levels he enjoys and keep fights going long after the "enemy" has left the arena. I've also noted McKay makes a habit of banning people, then carrying on his attacks when they can no longer respond. Then he invites them back when he has rallied his troops as you say Malcolm, and he stands back and enjoys the bloodsport. Sadistic.

If his wife is a quieter personality, not given to these blanket rages and hatreds, perhaps this is why McKay seemed to delight in having a woman on the forum who would support his malicious verbal attacks on people. Could it be that McKay's wife is either silent when he is raging or even goes so far as to caution him to get himself under control and behave like the old man he is instead of a hormonal teenage bully, who hangs with "Mean Girls" types? I expect Cherry McKay must be tired after all these years of McKay's wars with people including their own children. I also expect that McKay would take any attempts to caution him as terrific betrayal so perhaps she does remain silent rather than raise his hackles knowing she might become the target of his ranting.

I also agree with you, Malcolm, that McKay would definitely be keeping score and counting exactly which of his beleaguered members dared to counter the Mighty McKay with a suggestion of distancing himself and the Jesus Christians from someone who was acting like a stalker and tying McKay and the Jesus Christians into a new scandal.
I have noted how McKay keeps scorecards and how he holds a grudge. He is constantly demanding apologies yet when he gets one, it's never good enough. I also noted this same trait with his tubby grey haired shark, she also demanded apologies frequently, found the apologies wanting yet never issued much more than a tiny ooops....when she was so so wrong in what she did to that innocent woman.

I believe people like McKay and that foulmouthed she devil refuse to apologize because they never accept apologies themselves, they don't understand forgiveness, mistakes, preferring to cling relentlessly to their old grudges. Then in their ugly vengeful minds, they have excuses to brutally attack people, using the excuse that the person had it coming somehow. I've seen McKay verbally beat apologies out of members of his forum like, Kirsty, Al, Glenn, Casey, Catherine, Fran.....some of their apologies were obviously heartfelt and the person was nearly destroyed but nothing would stop the merciless McKay from pounding the person and wringing pages from them over a minor error of fact, some minor misspeak. He refused with Bryan to accept something was a typo preferring to bawl and moan that Bryan had "lied" when anyone with a IQ beyond 5 could tell it was an honest typing error. But the old man was intent on making Bryan the new enemy and his pet shark was still welcomed to attack him so they were having great sport. I cannot believe McKay wastes the time he does breaking down posts line by line.....trying to tell his clan what the hidden meanings are and looking for tiny trivial points of error that he can blow into Watergate.

Mind you....I can't believe the time I've wasted on that slimy, gnarly wart-on-the-posterior-of-life. However I do hold that if one person is freed from his grip or one person saved joining, it's worth it. Seeing the group numbers drop by 6 has been a genuine joy!

Seeing McKay standing alone, hopefully naked, cold, hungry and penniless and passport lost in Kenya, murmuring loudly to himself and using his crappy books as TP, would be an even greater joy!

No "Substitutionary Justice" this time, no one lining up to take your ass whupping, just good old fashioned KARMA and she's a bitch-----and she's my cousin! (laugh)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2010 07:00AM by Agur.

It's been suggested that McKay takes a good hard look at the man in the mirror before he judges others.

Also it's been suggested he will soon be very lonely when his membership abandons him entirely.

We can see the proof here that McKay has indeed agreed to take the advice and recognise himself.

McKay rants:

I am going to end this here, because I have never considered myself to be an expert on either evolution or creationism. (If Zoe comes into this, I'm definitely out of here!) My point is not to deal with that endless and futile debate, but rather to deal with a pipsqueak who keeps on imagining himself to be greater than God, when even a dummy like me can see through him.

The bolds are mine.

I am so pleased that McKay is willing to deal with himself and sees himself as we see him and even better sees through himself.

Now if he can clearly and repeatedly pass along this message to his poor slaves and release them from indentured thankless servitude.

..................a pipsqueak who keeps on imagining himself to be greater than God, when even a dummy like me can see through him......................

...............a pipsqueak who keeps on imagining himself to be greater than God, when even a dummy like me can see through him.......................

.................a pipsqueak who keeps on imagining himself to be greater than God, when even a dummy like me can see through him..........................

McKay finally speaks truth.

Quote
Agur
On the Jesus Christian forum, near her avatar, it reads little rose THIS USER HAS BEEN BANNED.

Your term "engagement" between McKay and her did make me laugh as that surely was on devil of a courtship created in the hellholes of a couple like-minds. I wonder how McKay's wife viewed his "engagement" with this woman? His wife seems to be very vague, almost absent in interviews I have seen of her. Perhaps McKay needs some female counterpart that is willing to sink to the levels he enjoys and keep fights going long after the "enemy" has left the arena. I've also noted McKay makes a habit of banning people, then carrying on his attacks when they can no longer respond. Then he invites them back when he has rallied his troops as you say Malcolm, and he stands back and enjoys the bloodsport. Sadistic.

If his wife is a quieter personality, not given to these blanket rages and hatreds, perhaps this is why McKay seemed to delight in having a woman on the forum who would support his malicious verbal attacks on people. Could it be that McKay's wife is either silent when he is raging or even goes so far as to caution him to get himself under control and behave like the old man he is instead of a hormonal teenage bully, who hangs with "Mean Girls" types? I expect Cherry McKay must be tired after all these years of McKay's wars with people including their own children. I also expect that McKay would take any attempts to caution him as terrific betrayal so perhaps she does remain silent rather than raise his hackles knowing she might become the target of his ranting.

Cherry is the ultimate victim. She seems motionless, a broken woman. I feel deeply sorry for the lady. I see most of McKay's family have been able to escape his evil clutches but i seriously doubt Cherry will ever see the light. After decades of manipulation and control she is now reliant on McKay. It's unlikely she'd be able to cope with the outside world. She'd certainly need alot of therapy.

When the cult eventually decided to break into small groups of three or four i wonder which poor sod drew the short straw and had to travel with McKay and Cherry. Is it just the two of them at the moment or is there an unfortunate third party?

Quote
Agur
I also agree with you, Malcolm, that McKay would definitely be keeping score and counting exactly which of his beleaguered members dared to counter the Mighty McKay with a suggestion of distancing himself and the Jesus Christians from someone who was acting like a stalker and tying McKay and the Jesus Christians into a new scandal.
I have noted how McKay keeps scorecards and how he holds a grudge. He is constantly demanding apologies yet when he gets one, it's never good enough. I also noted this same trait with his tubby grey haired shark, she also demanded apologies frequently, found the apologies wanting yet never issued much more than a tiny ooops....when she was so so wrong in what she did to that innocent woman.

I believe people like McKay and that foulmouthed she devil refuse to apologize because they never accept apologies themselves, they don't understand forgiveness, mistakes, preferring to cling relentlessly to their old grudges. Then in their ugly vengeful minds, they have excuses to brutally attack people, using the excuse that the person had it coming somehow. I've seen McKay verbally beat apologies out of members of his forum like, Kirsty, Al, Glenn, Casey, Catherine, Fran.....some of their apologies were obviously heartfelt and the person was nearly destroyed but nothing would stop the merciless McKay from pounding the person and wringing pages from them over a minor error of fact, some minor misspeak. He refused with Bryan to accept something was a typo preferring to bawl and moan that Bryan had "lied" when anyone with a IQ beyond 5 could tell it was an honest typing error. But the old man was intent on making Bryan the new enemy and his pet shark was still welcomed to attack him so they were having great sport. I cannot believe McKay wastes the time he does breaking down posts line by line.....trying to tell his clan what the hidden meanings are and looking for tiny trivial points of error that he can blow into Watergate.

McKay is showing all the signs of a man under a great deal of stress. You highlighted in a previous post that he's now no more than a back bencher which must be incredibly difficult to accept for a man who needs to be in control at all times. His life is now spent in front of a computer screen overanalyzing the most trivial of matters. The pound sign was a perfect example and his obsession over Jose David's language is another. I'm convinced McKay is losing the plot.

Dear Agur,

I too can barely justify the time devoted to McKay given that there are so many other cults with membership running into the thousands, that naturally must rank higher in priority....

...I tell myself though that I am not preventing anyone else from posting concerns about the cult of their experience, and tht McKay's very failure will one day be illustrative in itself....He has done all the "right things", cirminally misrepresented himself, defrauded those who been connived into servitude, of years of their lives, deceitfully libelled those who have threatened his empire, blackmailed parents into silence and compliance (the list goes on...)...and yet STILL McKay is an abject failure as a cult leader. It's not for lack of trying on McKay's part.....

What has, or hasn't he done, to have failed to be able to emulate the major cults of notoriety?

Alf reminds us (yet again) of the "noble sacrifice" that he is engaged in, in his "selfless pursuit" of the "wider good".....which we servants of the Devil are blind to.... in one of the latest "new articles" (When Silence is not Golden....)

"However, in general, I believe we have a responsibility to speak the truth wherever possible, and this includes trying to clear our name where we have been falsely accused. While we are instructed not to hit back physically, we have been given a spiritual weapon, which is the truth, and we are instructed to use that weapon wisely.

We have never kidnapped everyone." [www.jesuschristians.com]

I look here at the Public Law of the state of New South Wales, Australia in which Mr David John McKay, an Australian national resides, and to which he would be subject. (I apologize that I do not have the UK equivalent at hand, however I believe that they would be in many respects, equivalent.) At the time of the alleged offence (Kidnap/Child Abduction) may I ask (Zeuszor perhaps?), what was the age of Bobby Kelly. Should he have been 16 years or younger, I refer to Section (5) in the following...

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 86
Kidnapping
86 Kidnapping

(1) Basic offence A person who takes or detains a person, without the person’s consent:
(a) with the intention of holding the person to ransom, or
(b) with the intention of obtaining any other advantage, (hmm, servitude in a cult perhaps?) is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.
(2) Aggravated offence A person is guilty of an offence under this subsection if:
(a) the person commits an offence under subsection (1) in the company of another person or persons, or
(b) the person commits an offence under subsection (1) and at the time of, or immediately before or after, the commission of the offence, actual bodily harm is occasioned to the alleged victim.
A person convicted of an offence under this subsection is liable to imprisonment for 20 years.

......

(5) A person who takes or detains a child is to be treated as acting without the consent of the child. (That is, it matters not a fig that Bobby was persuaded to agree that he "wasn't kidnapped"....the legal presumption is that a child is NOT in a position to authorize their detention.

(6) A person who takes or detains a child does not commit an offence under this section if:
(a) the person is the parent of the child or is acting with the consent of a parent of the child, and
(b) the person is not acting in contravention of any order of a court relating to the child.
(7) In this section:
"child" means a child under the age of 16 years.
"detaining" a person includes causing the person to remain where he or she is.
"parent" of a child means a person who has, in relation to the child, all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority that, by law, parents have in relation to their children.
"taking" a person includes causing the person to accompany a person and causing the person to be taken.

Master Kellys grandmother WAS the respsonsible adult, with the duties and powers of a parent. With holding information from her as to Bobby's whereabouts, would to my mind constitute an offence as Bobbie's purported "consent" is IRRELEVANT to the charge of kidnap.

Hence, if Master Kelly was 16 years or younger at the time of the alleged offence, I DO find you guilty of kidnap, Alf....and Bobby of course was a precedent, the JC's later covertly grooming Joe Johnson for membership, while he was a minor, without the knowledge or consent of his parents....thus attempting to "outwit" the law that had apparently thwarted their efforts with Bobby Kelly.

Where Bobby to have been under that age of twelve, the principle of the law is even more stingent.

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 87
Child abduction
87 Child abduction

(1) A person who takes or detains a child with the intention of removing or keeping the child from the lawful control of any person having parental responsibility for the child, without the consent of that person, is liable to imprisonment for 10 years. (2) A person who takes or detains a child with the intention of stealing from the child is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.
(3) In this section:
"child" means a child under the age of 12 years.
"detaining a child" includes causing the child to remain where he or she is.
"taking a child" includes causing the child to accompany a person and causing the child to be taken.
(4) In this section, a reference to a person who has parental responsibility for a child is a reference to:
(a) a person who has, in relation to a child, all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority that, by law, parents have in relation to their children, or
(b) a person authorised to be the carer of the child under an Act relating to the care and protection of children.


Also, on another "small" point any "communication" from Littlerose which remains up on your site (despite your discarding her, and preventing her from making any further postings) which incited bodily harm (on Susan Summers in Canada) for example....would appear to me to "indirectly causing to be recieved"...


CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 31
Documents containing threats
31 Documents containing threats

(1) A person who intentionally or recklessly, and knowing its contents, sends or delivers, or directly or indirectly causes to be received, any document threatening to kill or inflict bodily harm on any person is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.
(2) It is immaterial for the purposes of an offence under this section whether or not a document sent or delivered is actually received, and whether or not the threat contained in a document sent, delivered or received is actually communicated to the person concerned or to the recipient or intended recipient of the document (as relevant in the circumstances).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2010 01:12PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.

Verity Evangeline has posted on the X site:

Quote

Is THIS how people remember the whole incident?

[www.jesus-teachings.com]- ... 0&start=10

Dave says:

That dossier that David Lowe was preparing on us was getting pretty good support right across the spectrum until it became apparent that he was collecting information on our opponents as well. Suddenly they were all ready to take legal action, and they were full of outrage that they should be given the same treatment they had been so very recently giving to Cherry and me.


What rubbish and utter lies. No one seemed to know about the dossier. I found out through my husband and Bea who was sent a copy of it by someone. I told Kevin as I knew he would know how to handle it. I was NOT mentioned in the dossier at all so it was not in my own personal interest to have told anyone it was because our household was shocked that this kind of dossier was collected on ANYONE and sent out to ANYONE at all. You could never know what kind of prickly little rose patch could get their hands on it and cause grief to anyone.....you know...things like attacking people at their jobs...that kind of over the top abuse that vicious people without boundaries pull.

So I told Kevin and Kevin did the right thing and alerted the jc's so they could all take steps to protect themselves and in some cases, family members.

There was NO self interest as NO ONE needed to share the information had we not cared to protect ALL people from NUTCASES.

But does Davejc return such kindness? Please. Take a good look at his action towards me over the last few weeks. No I sure as hell don't want a gold star but let's try to just recall things as they actually happened Dave and give credit where it's due.

I'll tell you another thing Dave. After what you did to me this summer and after what you egged little rose onto doing to an innocent person, hoping it was me she was stalking and trying to damage....NO I would not help you or protect you personally ever again and that shames me somewhat but it's how I feel about how you have treated me. So there goes your St. Sisi theory.

I'm not nearly as bad as you or your galpal---I'd never be a subhuman who set out to damage and destroy anyone but I would also likely not help YOU Dave and if I did it help you, it would be out of friendship and Christian love for members of your family that I care about, nothing at all would be because YOU are YOU. It's the same with your galpal. I would never attack her the way she did me but I will never feel pity for her again because I view her as truly evil. All I ever did was try to express sympathy for her loss and council people to be careful with her if she came in here blowing off as she had done in the past and what did it get me? She tried to destroy "my" career....only thing is she attacked an innocent person and despite being told this you both carried on the attacking so kindness to either of you gets spit in my face. A dear friend said not to allow someone to make us lower our own principles but there I admit, I fail because I see nothing good in either of you and I tried. Only God can change how I feel about both of you and I am praying about it as I don't like how badly I think of the pair of you. To me, you are both truly wicked, bad and mad yet you both blather to others about how to be fine Christians. :puke:

Your types create enemies in the most gentle of people and that doesn't make me happy but I'm being honest.

Yep, that's how I remember it. Nobody knew anything about it until McRob posted "Sharing personal information will stop now", because Kevin had sent him info about it which he got from you, Verity.

[jcs.xjcs.org]

Nobody was concerned about WHO was on it; you and Kevin were just concerned that PEOPLE were on it.

And that is how it happened. Dave has done a spin number on it, and I would like to add that to the proposed "Worst of Dave" section which someone has proposed on the RR Forum.

AND EVEN ATTRIBUTING THE DOSSIER TO DAVID LOWE IS LIBEL IN ITSELF. HE IS NOT PRIVATE EYES.

So Dave is guilty of defamation even in this recent posting. How he can hope to get legs for a case is beyond me....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2010 04:43PM by Blackhat.

Malcolm Wrest said in part: ” .............McKay's very failure will one day be illustrative in itself..............”

I could not agree more! We are witnessing his forlorn failure now as his membership numbers drop and he is relegated to the back benches by his remaining members. Just an angry, embittered, rejected old curmudgeon, who spends all day and all night on the computer, dissecting detractors posts line by line, handing out unwanted opinions to his minions, meddling and mithering over minutia, rehashing decades old grievances, spotting sinister enemies at every turn, cultivating cyber crazies, living vicariously through their crimes, uncovering nonexistent conspiracies, rewriting respinning his documented history of hurting fellow humans as much as he could, pathetically clutching and rereading some old COG materials including his prized Berg letter, listing his enemies and all the injustices that have been visited upon him by those who failed to see him as the beloved famous grand Christian leader Mother once told him he would be….all in all a pretty worthless life and a wretched legacy to leave behind, along with some dusty cases of dated CD’s that will be crafted into cutsie Christmas wreathes by Martha Stewart types and his precious unoriginal booklets, which again I state, will make satisfactory TP for street people in Kenya. I can almost see some poor street bloke reading Wanking the Last Taboo before he makes proper use of McKay's self indulgent yip yapping tripe.



[www.associatedcontent.com]

[stylefrizz.com]

Yes, quite the Billy Graham, our Lady Gossip McKay. *insert eye roll here*

My, I must say that you have a REAL talent for poetic expression Agur, the lyrical nature of your derision, is a complete and utter pleasure to peruse... strains of Joseph Conrad ("Heart of Darkness") I dare say.... you must consider contributing to the book, which we have always said that we get around to writing at some point in time (but that at the 467th page really HAS actually already been written!.......well the "fringe version" anyway....the official version of events will no doubt be claimed by the more highly principled souls, of another site, altogether, I imagine.....)

The "fringe version" will of course be full of all manner of uncomfortable facts and distressing dates.....

But as the great bard, once wrote,...

Oh....Dossiers, dossiers....Wherefore art thou dossiers?
Describe thy father and don't refuse to name,
Or if thou wilt not, be sworn to leave,
As I'll no longer be capitulating.......




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2010 02:25AM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.