Quote
private eyes
If Rick Ross Forum participants feel JC member information should be protected, I suggest they write directly to Dave.

I believe it is Dave that releases the most personal information about his members. I note Vicki, one of the parents of two children, who along with her children, weren't on the list that doesn't exist. But the JC's publicise they are home schooled, etc.

Zoe BRIGGS is still carrying on about her information. In the UK as in other countries, it is perfectly legal to search public records, the electoral roll, etc. The authorities responsible for "holding" the information, are the subject of various protection acts.

If you see a person robbing your neighbours house and you pass that information onto the Police. It is the Police that "hold" the information.

I seem to recall similar defences being made by Dave when he would do things that the majority would disagree with. Ex members have not walked away from Dave simply to allow someone else to replace him. I appreciate any assistance you can give, but running rough shod over the requests of what seems to me to be the majority of ex members and associates requests won't help you, and may in fact close any doors open to you from such people. I remain thankful that Rick has seen fit to enforce policies which protect the identities of those who wish not to be identified. A policy which applies to current cult members as much as it does to ex cult members. That is what equality is all about.

I hope you can appreciate this...

Apostate, I am sure that you will understand that I don’t appreciate being compared to Dave. It is also a style of writing I am familiar with and I am sure that Dave won’t hesitate to use discussions, such as this, to his advantage.

I recall Rick Ross addressing Zeusor and stating no lists of group members would be allowed. Is he actually saying that no information at all about individual group members is allowed?

If that is the case, we may as well all pack up our toys and head home.

Score: McKay 1, Opponents: 0

I can understand that ex members don’t want their personal details listed. After all, they are no longer Jesus Christians. However, current members are out there everyday promoting they have all the answers, so it’s only fair we know something about who we are discussing. Obviously, I believe that should be done responsibly. For example, I didn’t list Vicki’s children names, although they are already in the public domain.

You will probably be aware, that there has been a huge amount of information compiled on the Jesus Christians cult and the activities of their cells. Hardly any of it appears on the board. It will quite rightly make its way to the appropriate authorities.

Bear in mind to, that this is a discussion board of independent people from all sorts of backgrounds and belief systems. It is not a cult.

Perhaps some people experience from being in a cult is still shaping their thinking. I suspect that some people are also letting Dave’s strategy of lumping Rick Ross posters into one organized group, effect their thinking. We don’t have to all agree on this. It is okay to have differences of opinions and contribute in a way, each of us see is helpful.

The amount of requests (off the board) for the fairly poor list that never was, indicates that many people think member information is useful.

In regards to substitute leaders. I have no such aspirations, but know of a few ex members that might.

From now on, they will be known as, "those who cannot be named".

And because D & C are also members, perhaps we could just refer to them as, Mr & Mrs Annoited Apostle.

Of course I can no longer comment on ex members who may have leadership aspirations, given we can't name them either.

Now about those teachings and other matters we can discuss. Feel free everyone, to jump in with your evidentiary quality submissions.

I think the tremendous quality of the postings from Private Eyes have greatly strengthened the campaign against David, while I would at the same time, support in principle Apostate, in that in general we should not “out” those who are simply victims, for whatever reason that may be, are unintentionally involved in the course of “happenstance” and who may be vulnerable in some wider sense….(for example the children who may among the members of the JesusChristians…)


I am reminded of the psychological experiments conducted some years ago, where a series of exercises with various panels of people were each of them led to believe that they were taking part in an experiment concerning “memorization”. From behind a glass window, in a connecting room, where they could observe, and be observed by, the purported “subject”, they were called upon to deliver electric shocks to the “subject” (actually the members of the panels themselves were the subjects of the whole thing) when the “subject” failed to respond to word associations correctly, that were progressively read out aloud, by the Director of the experiment. The panel were told that the purpose of the whole thing was to see if someone was able to force themselves to better recall facts where they were exposed to some immediate, unpleasant duress as a consequence of misremembering something.

The “subject” was actually an actor, who pretended to suffer from the electric shocks that the members of the panel thought there were inflicting (indicated to the “subject” by coloured lights that were hidden from the view of the panel). As the experiment progressed, the Director (aware of the point of it all) pretended to become more and more exasperated with the “subject” and demanded that ever increasingly powerful electric shocks be delivered, the actor in turn “crying out in pain” and “writhing ever more, in agony” as the lights indicated the “shock” he was being subject to…..in appearance to be in far more physical pain than the purported aim of the experiment would seem to justify.

The point of it of course, being to see if, or when, anyone in the panel would hesitate or refuse to administer the shocks or who would stand up individually, to call into question what every one else seemed content to be doing.

In the experiment, those panels whose members who were allowed to wear masks of some nature, (thus preventing the subject from ever being able to identify them), were far, far more likely to deliver multiple electric shocks of far greater voltages, and not to question the proceedings, than those panels whose members were immediately identifiable.


The suggestion I’m making here is rather obvious, of course. In my opinion, being able to appropriately call up personal details of selected members of the Jesuschristians when we so wish (not as a matter of course, but WHEN we so wish) “unmasks” them and would contribute to some hesitancy on their part to “inflict” damage on the lives of others.

Here I ask you, what is the guiding belief that David sets his life by? If he can get away with, do it!…I mean, that’s his “spirituality” in a nutshell….if he believes that he can’t “get away with it” he will at least pause temporarily (…while he tries to think of some deception that will allow him to get away with it..)….the man’s utterly bankrupt, morally.

As (until I’m shown evidence otherwise), from all that I observe in his dealings with others, I can only continue to assume he is utterly devoid of conscience or principles, and further, from what I can see all he understands is the power he exercises over others or that others hold over him, ergo: the basis of “negotiation” with David is the threat to “unmask” him in such a fashion that he faces criminal charges and/or utter public ignominy….then you are in a position to have a “conversation” with David McKay. Private eyes is thus making a “dialogue” with David, feasible, through his research.


Where though, do the long term members of the Jesuschristians stop being simple “victims’ and become actual “part and parcel” perpetrators of the misery David inflicts on those he needs something from? I have never met the man, however from what I can see in the postings he has made (dating I note, from the very beginning of this thread on the forum)….In my humble opinion (Others may choose to differ. I invite those who know him personally to say something in his defence) Fran has long passed “victim” stage and is now well and truly a “perpetrator”….yes he has rights, but I weigh those rights of his in relation to the rights of the others he lies to or defrauds for the purpose of Davids’ “Kingdom- building” swindle.

Say, for the sake of argument, Fran chooses to persuade an under age minor to stealthily “donate” all that they may have to the “cause” and subsequently instructs them not to discuss this more widely until they become a legal adult and then at that time, threaten their parents that they will cease communicating with them, if they complain about this publicly to anyone..?....(…something that I don’t imagine is too far out of the question, from what many of us have either seen or directly experienced…)

..then lets “out” Fran!! Release all the details that we may have at our disposals, to whoever may be able to circumvent such behaviour…..Why would I have any compunction over Frans’ “rights”…..Yes, by all means, let him enjoy his rights, namely the “Right to remain silent, the Right to contact an attorney, etc…” as they are read out to him by the arresting officers of the constabulary, but why would I worry further about him?

And at the same time there ARE some clear “victims” (as already discussed, Roland and Sues’ son, other minors, recently “signed-up” members, the majority of the “hangers-on” and so on)…and hence, lets’ avoid anything doing anything that may be injurious to THEM (…understanding of course, that in my saying as much, this will immediately invite a “human shield” response from David “Hussein” Mckay…..i.e. our criticisms of him, inflict ongoing and untold “suffering and anguish” on the innocent lambs in the Jesuschristian fold….rant, rant & raving cant!!)


(Well okay, it IS a little childish to seek reassurance in point-scoring, but by my reckoning…


Satan [0] : Ex-members [1] : David McKay [-1] ……(well…whatever transpires he’s always going to be the biggest loser, after all, isn’t he!)….)

Thanks for the feedback Malcolm.

Milgrims experiment was an interesting exercise in showing how easy it is to follow authority figures to the detriment of another human being. Given your example, I am standing up to what others may be content to do in the public posting of life stories without consent.

Quote
private eyes
Fran, is a 30 something male, not a she. Francisco GONZALES is married to Kim.

My apologise. Still shameful, though! :oops:

No problems, Jack. It just demonstrates how a piece of information can be helpful in clarifying matters.

I am sure that Fran would rather be known by what I have stated, rather than being referred to as a female.

Of course talk of life stories is a gross exaggeration. If you want to see Jesus Christians life stories, don't look to me. I'm making like the three wise monkeys. Simply click on testimonies on the Jesus Christians site.

A girl, let’s call her Lisa, writing on the 14 September 2007:

Quote: "Am I to then presume you do NOT have that information about me? Can't have looked that hard then, as my real name and address isn't that hard to find on the internet!"

Then on Thursday 20 September 2007:

Quote: "Outing" someone on the internet is bad form. Posting my real name and birthdate is BANG OUT OF ORDER."

Well, Lisa, according to you, the information wasn’t that hard to find and was already on the internet. Wasn’t it even you, who confirmed it, was your real name?

Now, perhaps you like to have the same discussion with either,
A Christian or Zion Ben Jonah regarding the information they might be holding on their critics and whether it’s fair for them to use people’s real names, which they seem to do with some regularity. Seeing how you’re so keen to support their work and interested in data protection. You will note that I haven’t used their real names, to protect them from being, “dehumanised”. Though I suspect they may be the same person.
[/quote]

OH MY GOD!! Shock! Horror!!

David IS enjoying the minor fracas ensuing over the policy debate we have been having here.....but I can understand why, "small minds" becoming excited over even "smaller things" and all that....(rather than seeing the dialogue as "healthy" or "normal"' he portrays it as a "house divided against itself" not being able to "stand".....but needless to say, we can all understand why David wouldn't want to consider genuine independant, discussion as "healthy"....his perspective of course, coming from the point of view of a "virus".....)

Hey! Last week, I "exchanged words" with my wife over the choices being made concerning our daughter's diet! OH BOY!!....Now the JesusChristians can throw a party!!! Lucky them...