Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Blackhat
()
Date: December 30, 2010 04:54PM
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, and control over the child involved. All 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.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2010 05:12PM by Blackhat.
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, and control over the child involved. All 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.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2010 05:12PM by Blackhat.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Blackhat
()
Date: December 30, 2010 04:55PM
Error, double posting.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2010 04:58PM by Blackhat.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2010 04:58PM by Blackhat.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Apollo
()
Date: December 30, 2010 05:14PM
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.
The link Dave McKay posted was posted after Stoic's post regarding kidney donations.
Dave won't admit to anything, that we know for a fact. Lie, deny, deflect... it's the McKay way.
He twists paedophilia to suit his own agenda. He's constantly contradicting himself. 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.
What we can do is continue to highlight such incidents. By highlighting such incidents we may be able to make potential recruits think twice.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2010 05:16PM by Apollo.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Blackhat
()
Date: December 30, 2010 05:19PM
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.
We agree!
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Stoic
()
Date: December 30, 2010 05:23PM
'Recenty the Catholic Church has come under pressure to re-describe how it handles reports of child sex abuse.'
Here's a strange turn of phrase. The pressure that the catholic church is under is not a matter of a currently inadequate description of how it handles child abuse--it is under pressure to root out and put a stop to the endemic practice of child abuse.
It is a matter of action, not a juggling of words.
I too have issues with the manner that both Verity and Blackhat seem to be running interference for Davejc, doing his work of confusion and defence--by proxy--both here and on the xJC site.
For a while I thought it the christian way, to profess love for everone regardless of their behaviour, but even christians of integrity do not collude in Davejc's strange belief that a simple re-description of abuse negates the abuse.
And that is what Blackhat seems to be trying to put across here.
It is a very 'Davejc' manner of dealing with the world.
Davejc works most of his manipulation by getting his sympathisers to buy into his 're-descriptions', slowly and carefully, until they are parroting 'the world according to Davejc.'
I find it disturbing to see that same effort, of sustained re-description, happening here also.
It would be interesting to hear from Verity why it was so important for her to sign on here three times, under different names, after being banned--when she is so averse to the company here, as she states repeatedly on the xJC site.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2010 05:30PM by Stoic.
Here's a strange turn of phrase. The pressure that the catholic church is under is not a matter of a currently inadequate description of how it handles child abuse--it is under pressure to root out and put a stop to the endemic practice of child abuse.
It is a matter of action, not a juggling of words.
I too have issues with the manner that both Verity and Blackhat seem to be running interference for Davejc, doing his work of confusion and defence--by proxy--both here and on the xJC site.
For a while I thought it the christian way, to profess love for everone regardless of their behaviour, but even christians of integrity do not collude in Davejc's strange belief that a simple re-description of abuse negates the abuse.
And that is what Blackhat seems to be trying to put across here.
It is a very 'Davejc' manner of dealing with the world.
Davejc works most of his manipulation by getting his sympathisers to buy into his 're-descriptions', slowly and carefully, until they are parroting 'the world according to Davejc.'
I find it disturbing to see that same effort, of sustained re-description, happening here also.
It would be interesting to hear from Verity why it was so important for her to sign on here three times, under different names, after being banned--when she is so averse to the company here, as she states repeatedly on the xJC site.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2010 05:30PM by Stoic.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Apollo
()
Date: December 30, 2010 05:35PM
Blackhat,
What can you tell me about towelgate?
Does it ring a bell?
What can you tell me about towelgate?
Does it ring a bell?
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Stoic
()
Date: December 30, 2010 05:58PM
'Apollo, Verity was here long before you, and is not here to defend herself. I cannot for the life of me think why you would want to vilify her. She has protested long and hard against the Jesus Christians.'
Verity was here in several different disguises, muddying the water and pretending each time to be a new person--a redescription of her/himself, and would still be here to defend herslf had she not repeatedly acted as a troll.
Length of time that one can maintain a facade does not qualify the facade as reality--it is still a facade.
'So why the above post? I suspect you want to denigrate her so that you can climb up some kind of ladder in some fantasy kind of "Second only to Zeuszor" view you have of yourself, or some kind of thing like that.......'
Personalising the issue, turning what Verity has done into a problem of Apollo trying to climb some kind of non-existent social ladder?
Red herring, Blackhat.
Trying to defend your fellow by denigrating the questioner rather than answering the question.
'How dare you make a statement like "Dave still has an emotional hold over her"?'
Perhaps because it stands out like a sore thumb?
I dare to make the same statement--Dave still has an emotional hold over her, her behaviour makes that clear.
Knowingly or unknowingly she is doing Davejc's work for him.
Right now, however, I am not at all sure what you are doing, except trying to disrupt the discussion and pull it off course.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2010 06:01PM by Stoic.
Verity was here in several different disguises, muddying the water and pretending each time to be a new person--a redescription of her/himself, and would still be here to defend herslf had she not repeatedly acted as a troll.
Length of time that one can maintain a facade does not qualify the facade as reality--it is still a facade.
'So why the above post? I suspect you want to denigrate her so that you can climb up some kind of ladder in some fantasy kind of "Second only to Zeuszor" view you have of yourself, or some kind of thing like that.......'
Personalising the issue, turning what Verity has done into a problem of Apollo trying to climb some kind of non-existent social ladder?
Red herring, Blackhat.
Trying to defend your fellow by denigrating the questioner rather than answering the question.
'How dare you make a statement like "Dave still has an emotional hold over her"?'
Perhaps because it stands out like a sore thumb?
I dare to make the same statement--Dave still has an emotional hold over her, her behaviour makes that clear.
Knowingly or unknowingly she is doing Davejc's work for him.
Right now, however, I am not at all sure what you are doing, except trying to disrupt the discussion and pull it off course.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2010 06:01PM by Stoic.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Blackhat
()
Date: December 30, 2010 07:56PM
Stoic is making me sick with his attitude.
Apollo, in answer to your question about Towelgate, you can read it here for yourself:
[www.jesus-teachings.com]
Learn some history of the forum, Stoic.....and stop making personal attacks
Moderator!!!!????
Apollo, in answer to your question about Towelgate, you can read it here for yourself:
[www.jesus-teachings.com]
Learn some history of the forum, Stoic.....and stop making personal attacks
Moderator!!!!????
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Blackhat
()
Date: December 30, 2010 08:01PM
Kirstie (remember Kirstie?) said something profound during Towelgate, and it is worth noting. She said:
Haven't heard from Kirstie in quite a while, so I assume she's ok and not involved with the Jesus Christians any more....
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!
Haven't heard from Kirstie in quite a while, so I assume she's ok and not involved with the Jesus Christians any more....
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Blackhat
()
Date: December 30, 2010 08:24PM
Another fascinating posting on the "Towelgate" thread is where Dave plays games of denial about whether he ever said he had written an article called "Killers for Christ"
Here is his denial, as it is, and as regular readers will know, I eventually found the reference on the JC website where Dave said that he did write an article called "Killers for Christ". Subsequent investigation found that the actual article is not to be found, but another one published shortly after, which Kevin produced on the X site, was indeed found.
[www.jesus-teachings.com]
Oh, it's a fascinating thread....
Here is his denial, as it is, and as regular readers will know, I eventually found the reference on the JC website where Dave said that he did write an article called "Killers for Christ". Subsequent investigation found that the actual article is not to be found, but another one published shortly after, which Kevin produced on the X site, was indeed found.
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:
[www.jesus-teachings.com]
Oh, it's a fascinating thread....
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.