Dave wrote:
SOURCE: [welikejesus.com]

"Well, we finally worked out who "Blackhat" is. Her name is XXX, and she does NOT live in XXX as she claimed (unless she has moved recently). The most recent address we have for her is in XXX.

Now that we know who she is, she becomes legally responsible for the stuff she has posted on the Rick Ross forum. No wonder she freaked out and threatened to leave the forum when Brian gave us her name!"

Previously Dave had used what Brian said to boldly declare that Blackhat was someone else who he reckoned was "freaked out" that Rick Ross would discover he had used two identities on this forum. Wonder if Dave will take legal responsibility for posting that lie? If the individuals Dave had slandered took the same interest in suing him how much more their reputations would be worth when it comes to a court awarding damages... although when someone lies compulsively people stop taking anything they say seriously.


"She is listed as a Quaker attender, and she has had a lot to say about what Quakers should do to Cherry and me. Now I'm going to be asking Quakers to read what she has written on the Rick Ross anti-cult forum, and decide whether this is the kind of image that they want portrayed of themselves. In other words, are the things that she is saying COMPATIBLE with Quaker faith and practice."


Is anything that Dave says compatible with his own contradictory rhetoric, much less the faith and practice of Jesus Christ whom they claim to represent?


"BTW, my own position is that Friends SHOULD tolerate XXX. But, of course, my position is that Friends should also tolerate (and probably even support) Cherry and me in our faith walk. I cannot possibly imagine that the hate-mongering that Anita does on the Rick Ross forum constitutes a faith-walk, but she obviously does have some problems, which Friends may be able to help her with."

It seems the Quakers HAVE been tolerating Dave recklessly slandering them collectively and certain members personally, but of course it would be Dave's position that everyone support his contradictory hate-mongering against ANYONE he even imagines as opposing him, even those he is opposing! Watch out Dave, The Society of Friends MAY think of ways to support their own from your slander.

When someone has a problem with EVERYONE a basic sociological principle suggests they are the one with the problem. But Dave needs to recognise that, before anyone can help him.


"If only Friends were not so busy trying to chase Cherry and me out of the Society."


It seems the Society has been incredibly passive while Dave has been wasting his energies trying to chase down Quakers to attack, using his forum to dismiss the whole Australian organisation as apostate, even scheming ways to use their name to try and force the organisation to oppose him.

I know this is a case of restating the obvious, but Dave has a real problem of projecting his own evil onto others.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2008 08:17AM by apostate.

More musings on Dave saying that he NOW thinks the teachings of Jesus don't have to be adhered to all the time:


The question is whether Dave could extend his new liberalism toward Christ's teachings toward those who HAVE observed the same disciplines as the JC's and who were turned off by the pharisaical literalism that the community used to condemn others and yet continue to live a life directed by an internalised moral code. I am talking about ex-JCers like Boyd and Sheri who reject the fund generating systems of the JC community and continue to work for free living by gifts rather than wages, and whom Dave not only dismisses as enemies posing as friends, but as phonies who are not REALLY living by faith because they manage to stay on friendly terms with 'systemites'. Others continue to "work for love" looking after neglected children, in positions where they care for the physical and emotional needs of others, or in pursuing artistic passions, who are generally dismissed as backsliders for receiving a paid a wage and failing to do more in the Third World.


It would seem that Dave views his revelations as the "personal property" of HIS community and those who remain subservient to him, as I can't see him acknowledging the faith and practice of anyone else.

Kim writes:
SOURCE: [welikejesus.com]

"I am making an official request...can we please change the name of this thread? Please?
Perhaps it could be, Franky is an attention seeker?
Or, perhaps, Franky is a woman.
Or, perhaps, Franky is a woman who takes charge of her own private life?
or something other than what it is? I find it quite revolting seeing it whenever I open up this section."


Here are just a few other discussion threads that Dave has named in an effort to demean the posters (much worse is said inside!), and which others might find offensive, Kim.


Lethal Liesel
The Kateny Cult
The Crafty Crofts
Is Katie Smarter than Men?
Is Craig hateful?
Still crazy after all these years
Craig perjuring himself in an attempt to rubbish Dave
'damaged' ex-members
Attila's gripes
Kev's gripes
Trenton's search for dirt
Dysfunctional Families
Tony's ravings

Like the label "Apostate", Franky was just being up front with the kind of labelling that defines JC practice and taking that power away from Dave. Perhaps Kim could draw up a list of which insults are PC in the JC and which are not.


It might be worth stating once again that Tony was falsely accused of writing under my user name, and as far as I know has never posted on the JC site, and yet Dave made all kinds of hateful threats and accusations regarding his mental condition which makes the accusations of 'slander' that he directs against the Quakers, pale into insignificance.

Fran twists the original point:

Craig keeps pushing this line that anyone who believes it is okay to kill out of love is somehow going against 'turning the other cheek'. Well, Craig, you can get yourself a pen and paper and jot down for the record that I personally do not think that killing out of love is going against Jesus' command to 'turn the other cheek'. Are you saying that euthanasia contradicts Christ's teaching about loving your enemies? If so, how?

Thanks for making your position clearer Fran. I now know that you do not think killing someone "out of love" is going against a "turn the other cheek" ideology. Why you identify yourself as a "Christian" following a person who died, whilst refusing to hurt others, remains a mystery. Maybe one day you can explain that one as well. By the way, I am not pushing any line... the teachings of Jesus you claim to promote push that line, and it is them that you are arguing with as you follow Dave.

Regarding your question: Are you saying that euthanasia contradicts Christ's teaching about loving your enemies? If so, how?

You are obviously confused Fran. The discussion about Dave fantasizing about killing a crazed killer is not a debate about euthanasia. Euthanasia involves the informed consent of the individual involved. In Dave's fantasy he was passing judgement and deciding to be the executioner of someone AGAINST their will. I thought you could reason things out a bit better than that Fran.

These Children of Dave give themselves away. How sad they'll never have a chance to grow into adult independence, of mind, of spirit.

Dave the "Quaker" said:

Our decision to return to the whip as a form of punishment is actually based on a desire to shorten the period of punishment at the same time that we sharpen the message about punishment. Whips have been used in just about every culture, as a form of punishment, because they inflict a lot of pain without causing much more than superficial and temporary injury to the body.

We have already experimented in a small way with an offender in Kenya, where it is customary for police to routinely flog suspects during interrogations, and where a prison sentence usually includes 25 lashes a day for the first three days of imprisonment. A young man had stolen some things from us and sold them to buy home brewed wine. We offered him the option of receiving five lashes of the whip (and signing a paper to the effect that he had done so willingly, that it was because he had in fact stolen from us, and that he was sorry for his behaviour). He gladly accepting the flogging, which was carried out in the presence of local village representatives.

While it may be "customary" for the police in Kenya to routinely flog suspects, it is hardly the Quaker way to resolve problems. The man obviously has some problems with alcohol dependency, if he feels a need to steal from and hock your personal property. (even though you tell people to consider nothing your own) Do you really think such a dependency can be removed by using a whip? In the West people with alcohol problems are provided with guidance and understanding and taught how to cope with life using safe techniques. Using a whip would only serve to reinforce any sense of shame he inevitably experiences by stealing your personal possessions. It seems a bit odd that you ask him to say he is sorry before whipping him. Would the number of lashes have increased if he did not say sorry? Turning the other cheek in this instance would have been more in line with Quaker ideology, don't you think?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2008 12:14PM by apostate.

I just realized that I got an invitation from Dave to join his forum ( thank you for the thread title, Dave)
It was kind of you to offer to dialogue there.
At the moment, though, you can say whatever you want there, (in fact with no restrictions at all, since it is your forum), for me however, I am not sure how what I write would be edited ( as others who have posted on your forum have mentioned has occured at times).Also on this forum, as long as I keep my information private, my privacy will be respected.
Your forum is often interesting, and in my mind one of the more positive things about your group ( I was sad when Apostate was banned again though.) By the way, both this forum and the JCs were having similar discussions about "the secret".
Re the group think, I suppose it is things like the whippings that ( in my opinion), have been worrying. The whippings, in part because there were (in my opinion) apparently no effective disenting voices , also the kidney donations not because one or two people felt a call to help in a special way, but because when person after person does something it appears ( to me) to be an obligation rather than a choice.
You are welcome to reply on your forum. While a little cumbersome, this does give a chance to communicate, and the many far more technologically savvy people here have frequently linked to your posts over there , so actually what you say does get posted here quite regularly.

Welcome back Yasmin. I think that you raise a really good point by saying that there appears to be no effective dissenting voice within the Jesus Christians rearding the whippings they justify. Personally I find the whipping of the Kenyan volunteer to be the most offensive of their actions to this point. To me it represents the racism and arrogance that sits at their core. The action of whipping that Kenyan volunteer is in principle similar to the tale told by Joseph Conrad in his "Heart of Darkness",(published in 1902) and how Marlow finds a man dishing out to the natives in "the horror, the horror" to try to maintain control. Not that David is anywhere near that level... but something about the principle involved which made me think of that book.

The whipping of the volunteer in Kenya is the most serious and least-known least-publicised human criminal action of the Jesus Christians which flies in the face of not only Quaker values, but of "Decent Australian Values" - i.e. "It's Un-Australian"!!!!!! It is the height of arrogance and imagined racial superiority for Dave to order the whipping of that Kenyan and clearly highlights the power imbalance which exists between those inside and those outside his group. He cites the example of a corrupt police force as justification for him doing it when he really should have set a shining example of an alternative way to treat a person suffering from an alcohol dependency, i.e. forgiveness and understanding. Here we have a poor Kenyan who sees and opportunity to work with some rich foreigners, who has at times turned to alcohol to deal with some of life's problems in the impoverished environment in which he lives. Overcome by the urge to drink he steals something from the "Quaker" foreigners only to find himself suddenly facing them in a home grown court case with wierd catch 22 scenarios being offered to him. He has to take a whipping or allow someone he has grown close to take the whipping on his behalf. What to do he must have said to himself. He has had whipping before from the police and knows that he can take it. He looks at his new white freind and thinks to himself it is not right that he gets whipped as that would be shameful to HIM and me. I will take the whipping, as it is (he thinks to himself) "what I deserve". (a questionable thought). He is then asked to sign a peice of paper saying he was taking the whipping "willingly" and has to say "sorry".

Yes, the whipping of the Kenyan volunteer was a racist act by a man who believes he was racially superior to the one he was whipping. It flies in the face of the multi-cultural values of social justice in Australia, America, Great Britain, in fact any country which has outlawed whipping people for crimes.

I will write more about this later. But I should for the sake of accuracy and by requests from Zeuszor retract a statement I made about Dave writing up a psot which said "Still Crazy after all these years". It was in fact Zeuszor himself who wrote it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2008 04:57AM by apostate.

To continue with the thread of how offensive and racist it was for Dave to whip that Kenyan volunteer, I have to make mention of the human rights conventions it breeches.

Whipping breeches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984).
SOURCE: [www.stop-stoning.org]

Why Dave thinks what he does is compatable with Quaker beleifs and practices still remains beyond me.

I think whipping people would be held in much the same light as "spanking" one's wife to keep them in line, especially if one applies a domestic violence perspective to it. You wouldn't do anything like that would you Dave? I am aware that certain COG members have a habit of spanking their wives as a disciplinary measure.


On to a different topic now temporarily, I started reading Dave's rant against Blackhat and thinking "what rubbish!" as the immediate retort to each pathetic attempt to attack Blackhat came to mind. I noticed that the strongest points were just ignored while pedantic issues seized upon, like declaring the term "war of defence" "doublespeak". It seems Dave has to reuse the same terminology that others use against him, as if that retaliation (even if it is a totally different target) purges him of the hurt associated with it? Most people who wage "war" see themselves as "defending" their country even when it involves invading other dominions, and I think it is an apt description of what Dave does as he "outs" those he believes are his enemies and looks for ways to denigrate them, failing to acknowledge his 'atrocities' against people not even involved in his conflict. At one point he acknowledges that he edits something Blackhat said so as to radically change the meaning, because he believes this makes a more 'telling' comment about where Blackhat is really coming from. How does one respond against such illogical reasoning like that? In the end one just gets overwhelmed with the sheer volume of his 'offensive defence' that goes on and on, such that it feels pointless even trying to make a point by point reply, or even reading to the end, lest that effort be seen as legitimising his interminable ravings. It reminds me of grievance meetings that go for days, leaving everyone so fatigued everyone surrenders their point of view just to bring an end to it all. I thought the last sentence of Dave's post sums up my general feeling about it all.

"These kind of rants, unsupported by facts, are not very convincing."

One suggestion for Dave: If you used bold caps, a larger font, wave your arms and shout a bit louder, perhaps your efforts will be more effective. (sarcasm!)

While Dave is doing his darndest to convince the Quakers that he is being unfairly victimised, the question is why practically every other church Dave has joined or associated with has ended up pulling the shades down on his attention seeking behaviour. The question to follow that is what has Dave's response been each time he has overstayed his welcome. You will find a pattern soon emerges that support the diagnoses that Dave is indeed a "narcissistic psychopath". If several people are making that claim Dave, it might mean they are in collusion, that they are actually the same person, or just that they have stumbled upon a glaring truth. Dave used to argue a sociological principle that when your problem is with everyone then the problem probably lies with you. Think about it, Dave.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2008 03:16AM by apostate.

One of my chief gripes with Dave is his insistent need in trying to reveal the identities of people posting on the Internet. To put it plainly, he's a f~<king lowlife:

Quote

DAVE: Well, we finally worked out who "Blackhat" is. Her name is Anita Walker

PTOLEMYGLENN: Are you 100% positive before you go outing someone out, and you're wrong, that this is who Blackhate is?

DAVE: Glenn, I'm not 100% positive that you are the same Glenn who visited us last year, but I'm sure enough to get by.

PTOLEMYGLENN: You can ask me a question only the real Glenn would know, and i can answer it.

DAVE: Being only 99% certain that you are the same Glenn that I met is not the same as thinking you are someone else. I'm trying to say that 100% certainty is pretty difficult with almost anything. But we get by in most of our decisions by being only better than half certain, and to be even 90% certain is quite unusual.

Note: bolding of text was done by me.

On this particular thread Dave makes a list of user names with corresponding real names. Some of them are, no doubt, correct but some of them, without a doubt, are not. Obviously the post above can be seen as being out of context, so please look here: Forum Thread

As I said, this need to disclose the identities of people on a public forum is shameful. It would seem that it is Dave who decides the rules of engagement and, on that point, it would seem hypocritical on his behalf when his private information is made public.

I think the above quote/dialogue reveals the true state of his corruption.