Quote
Blackhat
It's easy to fall into Dave's traps. He set one this morning.
Following Xenophone's concise testimony on the XJC site, Dave tried to divert attention from the damning evidence of Xenophone.
He posted a link to a 2 year old news report about kidney donations, to try to get us off the current subject. Only Stoic fell for it.
While I have defended Dave regarding active child abuse, I have to say that this is a case which may need further investigation by the law. I don't know, but it seems very suspect to me. That is my opinion. The only reason that I can think for it is that Dave might have wanted control over the person who confessed to abusing the two girls, and also control over the mother who he described as over protective. Both reasons are not acceptable.
Recenty the Catholic Church has come under pressure to re-describe how it handles reports of child sex abuse. To me that would be the bottom line for Dave McKay as well
Regardless of confidences, pragmatic considerations, and power structures, this matter has to be addressed by current best practices.
This might mean that Dave has to admit that he failed in his duty of care regarding the case described by Xenophone.
Quote
In one sentence he claims paedophilia is incurable yet in the next he dismisses a child molesting confession as a ''one off''. It's disturbing to think this man may have been working alongside vulnerable children on Kenya for a number of years.
When you have a leader who puts so much trust in paedophile's then bad things often happen.
I agree that this case may need further investigation.
Quote
Kirstie
Dave you would never admit it even if it was true now would you! Everyone else is wrong and lies, except for you.
You just go into every single little detail of everything over and over and over and over again! Untill you wear the other person down and makes them just say something they dont want to so they can catch a breath! You push people to the point of despair but you remain so holy and of course the big one... RIGHT!
Quote
Dave McKay
I just want to use your post as an excuse to further clarify my position with regard to Anita's (Blackhat's) supposed concerns about my honesty. I have deliberately tried to steer clear of any reference to an article which is presently non-existent, partly because I do not have an article to actually show anyone in my own defence (while whispers continue to literally circle the globe about what I know for certain I did NOT say).
What concerned me about what Anita had posted was not really that what I said or didn't say in that particular quote was incriminatory, but because she somehow believed that it proved something about this fictitious article... and also that she failed to put a link where I could go to see the quote in context. I was obviously dealing with someone whose own honesty and desire to know the truth is somewhat crippled, and so I wanted to get her to slow down.
I fully agree with you that there is nothing that I can see in that quote which is objectionable. But neither do I want someone else to create quotes for me which they get me to testify to having said myself (simply because they sound like something that I MIGHT have said), only to find later that there has been some innocuous alteration made to make it jive with some other distortion. I did not feel a need to submit to Anita's grilling, and I have determined that even if the Johnson's lawyer asks me if I have written an article called "Killers for Christ", I will ask to see the article they are referring to before I will agree to having written it. The fact that they CANNOT produce the article means that a title alone is pretty much meaningless, much like them asking me if I have written an article called "Cannibals for Christ". When that article was produced, even my critics laughed at the person who produced it for thinking that it said anything incriminating.
Here is a link to the article which actually SUPERSEDED the article that has been lost in antiquity. Read it and see if it bares any resemblance at all to what Craig and Brian have passed on to the FBI, the Long Beach police, and the Johnson family.
[cust.idl.net.au] ... ifism.html
The article does not use the term "killers for Christ" but it does make reference to people who will support a dictatorial world government believing that even if it kills people it is fulfilling the Christian message: