Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
apostate
()
Date: February 13, 2008 02:20PM
Dave said:
"It has taken quite some time, but this could be just what we need to move this whole business away from the dishonesty that has characterised so much of the gossip, and into an arena where there will be some accountability on the part of those who have spoken out so strongly against us."
This is such a glaring example of Dave's shameless projection that it deserves to be repeated.
DAVE is the one finally being held to account for his dishonest gossip and reckless slander that characterises so much of what he says and writes, and it is good to see one of his victims taking a real "Third Stager" against his bullying. Dave can continue to delude himself, that he is the one asserting himself as he is dragged off to court, but like the lone Minister of Information of Sadam Hussein's regime who continued to broadcast about how they were repelling infidel troops as American tanks rolled unopposed into Baghdad, NO ONE believes you Dave, and it only makes the drama all that more entertaining.
Any good JC will tell you that one of the Teachings of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount instructs; "If someone brings a lawsuit against you and takes you to court, settle the dispute while there is time..." If Dave has any sense he will follow this command, but I can't see a teaching of Jesus getting in the way of his "good excuse" to rant before a judge and I must say I am looking forward to him being forced to face up to what his bullshit rhetoric disguises - reality does not comply with his lies.
Today, in Australian parliament the Prime Minister made history by saying "sorry" for the first time in acknowledging the pain, suffering and hurt that previous policies had inflicted upon indigenous Australians, and in so doing ended a long period of public denial and opened the road to reconciling injustices.
Fran posted an article on the JC forum about the need for those in executive authority to acknowledge their mistakes by making sincere and full apologies and how such honesty ends up being in their interests, because no one respects those who compound their mistakes, by denying the past and making up stories to cover them.
If Dave can't just say sorry for a simple objective truth that he named the wrong person when making public allegations against a mystery internet poster, it does not seem likely that he will ever face up to the myriad of lies and assertions made against others, but on this historical day, it might be worth taking a moment to reflect, Dave on just how many people you have hurt and how much you have lost in your futile efforts to save face, and to consider if it may be time for someone else to take the initiative in finding, as Quakers describe it, "a way forward" for the rest of the JC community.
Just a thought.
"It has taken quite some time, but this could be just what we need to move this whole business away from the dishonesty that has characterised so much of the gossip, and into an arena where there will be some accountability on the part of those who have spoken out so strongly against us."
This is such a glaring example of Dave's shameless projection that it deserves to be repeated.
DAVE is the one finally being held to account for his dishonest gossip and reckless slander that characterises so much of what he says and writes, and it is good to see one of his victims taking a real "Third Stager" against his bullying. Dave can continue to delude himself, that he is the one asserting himself as he is dragged off to court, but like the lone Minister of Information of Sadam Hussein's regime who continued to broadcast about how they were repelling infidel troops as American tanks rolled unopposed into Baghdad, NO ONE believes you Dave, and it only makes the drama all that more entertaining.
Any good JC will tell you that one of the Teachings of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount instructs; "If someone brings a lawsuit against you and takes you to court, settle the dispute while there is time..." If Dave has any sense he will follow this command, but I can't see a teaching of Jesus getting in the way of his "good excuse" to rant before a judge and I must say I am looking forward to him being forced to face up to what his bullshit rhetoric disguises - reality does not comply with his lies.
Today, in Australian parliament the Prime Minister made history by saying "sorry" for the first time in acknowledging the pain, suffering and hurt that previous policies had inflicted upon indigenous Australians, and in so doing ended a long period of public denial and opened the road to reconciling injustices.
Fran posted an article on the JC forum about the need for those in executive authority to acknowledge their mistakes by making sincere and full apologies and how such honesty ends up being in their interests, because no one respects those who compound their mistakes, by denying the past and making up stories to cover them.
If Dave can't just say sorry for a simple objective truth that he named the wrong person when making public allegations against a mystery internet poster, it does not seem likely that he will ever face up to the myriad of lies and assertions made against others, but on this historical day, it might be worth taking a moment to reflect, Dave on just how many people you have hurt and how much you have lost in your futile efforts to save face, and to consider if it may be time for someone else to take the initiative in finding, as Quakers describe it, "a way forward" for the rest of the JC community.
Just a thought.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
apostate
()
Date: February 13, 2008 05:50PM
Casey writes: [welikejesus.com]
"Everytime I read something from Craig, it becomes more and more clear
what a liar he is when it comes to Dave in particular, and the JC's in
general. He tries very hard to make himself sound reasonable, but in
the end he's usually leaving some part of the story out, or making up
something to add to the story, or twisting something around to make
people in the JC's look bad."
I know that when I contradict Dave's story telling it is easier to just
dismiss me as the liar. But I thought I would dig up an issue which I
already answered, but which might be worth making a bit more effort to
address, to prove that whatever you think of me, Dave's story is not
credible.
I had mentioned an incident in which Dave pulled the plug on a boy's
wheelchair to stop him from "walking " away from him.
Dave wrote:
"Let's start with the wheelchair. I was not even there. I don't think I
ever met the boy or his mother. I was (I think) in Sydney, and they
were in Melbourne. But I received an email saying that he was very
badly behaved and that he would use the wheelchair like a weapon when
he was having a temper tantrum, and drive it into people. I suggested
that one option was to disconnect the battery (or at least threaten to
do so) if he mis-used the wheelchair. You see, these are the kind of
facts that are being left out of so much that Craig (Apostate) is
writing over there, besides the fact that virtually EVERYTHING is
written in the overall vein that anything ANYONE does in the group was
actually ORDERED by me. That simply is not true, but because they all
band together (and, of course, most of them were never even in the
group), and agree to say everything like that, it gives a pretty weird
impression of my power over everyone."
In 1991 the community moved house from Medowie to Geelong, Victoria, so
that a number of people could study nursing at Deakin university. This
included Dave, who in addition to his full time studies took on the job
as editor of the student newspaper, which makes any claim that he was
living in Sydney at that time a verifiable nonsense. It's worth noting
that the wheelchair incident happened around the same time as a another
incident in which Dave was challenged for physically and verbally a
visitor with mental health issues and did a big sulk for a couple of
days in the garage bunk house at the community's only residence in
Aphrasia Street, further supporting the point that Dave had no
alternative accommodation at that time.
But the other verifiable lie, is the claim that he received an "email"
about this incident.
In 1991 apart from forum style 'bulletin boards', there was no public
email service in Australia, and the community did not begin to
communicate via email until October 1996 when Tony set up the first
community account through an Internet provider called Giganet, so
Dave's story could not be true.
The story that follows this is that after the Split in 1998 Tony asked
Dave to transfer the community account out of his name, and Dave
refused, claiming he would make Tony liable for all bills he clocked up
in his name if he pushed the matter any further.
No doubt Dave will claim this to be a lie too. We could try testing
the evidence in court if you want to keep calling me a liar. We kept
the emails!
"Everytime I read something from Craig, it becomes more and more clear
what a liar he is when it comes to Dave in particular, and the JC's in
general. He tries very hard to make himself sound reasonable, but in
the end he's usually leaving some part of the story out, or making up
something to add to the story, or twisting something around to make
people in the JC's look bad."
I know that when I contradict Dave's story telling it is easier to just
dismiss me as the liar. But I thought I would dig up an issue which I
already answered, but which might be worth making a bit more effort to
address, to prove that whatever you think of me, Dave's story is not
credible.
I had mentioned an incident in which Dave pulled the plug on a boy's
wheelchair to stop him from "walking " away from him.
Dave wrote:
"Let's start with the wheelchair. I was not even there. I don't think I
ever met the boy or his mother. I was (I think) in Sydney, and they
were in Melbourne. But I received an email saying that he was very
badly behaved and that he would use the wheelchair like a weapon when
he was having a temper tantrum, and drive it into people. I suggested
that one option was to disconnect the battery (or at least threaten to
do so) if he mis-used the wheelchair. You see, these are the kind of
facts that are being left out of so much that Craig (Apostate) is
writing over there, besides the fact that virtually EVERYTHING is
written in the overall vein that anything ANYONE does in the group was
actually ORDERED by me. That simply is not true, but because they all
band together (and, of course, most of them were never even in the
group), and agree to say everything like that, it gives a pretty weird
impression of my power over everyone."
In 1991 the community moved house from Medowie to Geelong, Victoria, so
that a number of people could study nursing at Deakin university. This
included Dave, who in addition to his full time studies took on the job
as editor of the student newspaper, which makes any claim that he was
living in Sydney at that time a verifiable nonsense. It's worth noting
that the wheelchair incident happened around the same time as a another
incident in which Dave was challenged for physically and verbally a
visitor with mental health issues and did a big sulk for a couple of
days in the garage bunk house at the community's only residence in
Aphrasia Street, further supporting the point that Dave had no
alternative accommodation at that time.
But the other verifiable lie, is the claim that he received an "email"
about this incident.
In 1991 apart from forum style 'bulletin boards', there was no public
email service in Australia, and the community did not begin to
communicate via email until October 1996 when Tony set up the first
community account through an Internet provider called Giganet, so
Dave's story could not be true.
The story that follows this is that after the Split in 1998 Tony asked
Dave to transfer the community account out of his name, and Dave
refused, claiming he would make Tony liable for all bills he clocked up
in his name if he pushed the matter any further.
No doubt Dave will claim this to be a lie too. We could try testing
the evidence in court if you want to keep calling me a liar. We kept
the emails!
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Malcolm Wesley WREST
()
Date: February 13, 2008 06:21PM
"It has taken quite some time, but this could be just what we need to move this whole business away from the dishonesty that has characterised so much of the gossip, and into an arena where there will be some accountability on the part of those who have spoken out so strongly against us."
...thanks Apostate.....
....thats another classic "compound" lie on David's part isn't it......( as the theory (of a "brat") goes.....the more outrageously I lie, the more people will disinclined to believe that I would have the gall to lie so blatantly......)
Yes the David Lowe fabrications will be a straightforward finding against the JC's in court....(Can we at all, somehow contribute to Mr Lowes legal expenses??...I don't know how we might contact him....)
As you remark Apostate, David will plea "insolvency", however as he (through his spouses "impairment") is receiving a Govt. benefit...he does have an "income" that may be possibly be subject to any levy of compensation.....if David takes action against the JC's in general (....ie he includes them among the defendants)....then I am wondering if he could have access to the property in Kenya (in Robin and Christines' names???).....
You know though, David makes me wonder, have I spoken out "strongly" enough against him....
Have I pointed out sufficiently clearly that he is an utter monster, who deliberately traps the young and vulnerable in servitude to his twisted, self - serving prostitution of the Christian scriptures, by pyschologically manipulating the ideals that people hold and surreptiously preying on their own (sometimes deliberately created) feelings of "inadequacy", to then find solace in becoming part of his own vain-glorious religious empire....
Have I stated with adequate clarity, that these days he is little better than organized crime in his deliberate welfare fraud, plunder of the private assets of whoever makes membership, blackmail of the family members of individuals within the JC's not to speak out, the blanket denial of basic rights of speech and association to members of the JC's (e.g "Joes" expectation that his younger brother have no private correspondence with him).....
Have I spoken out strongly enough yet.....and what about the "legal" arena (where David self-importantly imagines he would be able to posture so "magnificently")
Of course I can never be precisely certain, (its something I must continue to remain prayerful of) but thank you for raising this important principle, David.....
...thanks Apostate.....
....thats another classic "compound" lie on David's part isn't it......( as the theory (of a "brat") goes.....the more outrageously I lie, the more people will disinclined to believe that I would have the gall to lie so blatantly......)
Yes the David Lowe fabrications will be a straightforward finding against the JC's in court....(Can we at all, somehow contribute to Mr Lowes legal expenses??...I don't know how we might contact him....)
As you remark Apostate, David will plea "insolvency", however as he (through his spouses "impairment") is receiving a Govt. benefit...he does have an "income" that may be possibly be subject to any levy of compensation.....if David takes action against the JC's in general (....ie he includes them among the defendants)....then I am wondering if he could have access to the property in Kenya (in Robin and Christines' names???).....
You know though, David makes me wonder, have I spoken out "strongly" enough against him....
Have I pointed out sufficiently clearly that he is an utter monster, who deliberately traps the young and vulnerable in servitude to his twisted, self - serving prostitution of the Christian scriptures, by pyschologically manipulating the ideals that people hold and surreptiously preying on their own (sometimes deliberately created) feelings of "inadequacy", to then find solace in becoming part of his own vain-glorious religious empire....
Have I stated with adequate clarity, that these days he is little better than organized crime in his deliberate welfare fraud, plunder of the private assets of whoever makes membership, blackmail of the family members of individuals within the JC's not to speak out, the blanket denial of basic rights of speech and association to members of the JC's (e.g "Joes" expectation that his younger brother have no private correspondence with him).....
Have I spoken out strongly enough yet.....and what about the "legal" arena (where David self-importantly imagines he would be able to posture so "magnificently")
Of course I can never be precisely certain, (its something I must continue to remain prayerful of) but thank you for raising this important principle, David.....
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Blackhat
()
Date: February 13, 2008 06:22PM
Fran asks:
"How do your actions line up with the Quaker testimony of Integrity? What about Peace and Community? How many Quakers gave you expressions of support in what you were doing? What were their names? What information have you passed on to other Quakers? How many Quakers have you told about your involvement on the RR forum? In what other ways have you tried to destroy the relationship between the Jesus Christians and the Quakers? These are just some questions. We look forward to your answers."
[welikejesus.com]
I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. I've posted about it, slept on it, sought answer for it, and still have no rest:
Apostate wrote about it, I verified my support for it, and all who value the sentiment and testimony of reconciliation in today's National Apology must surely be asking this question if they knew of the circumstance of what the Jesus Christians did with their power, ownership and authority in Kenya.
How, in God's name, do you justify whipping that Kenyan boy?
"How do your actions line up with the Quaker testimony of Integrity? What about Peace and Community? How many Quakers gave you expressions of support in what you were doing? What were their names? What information have you passed on to other Quakers? How many Quakers have you told about your involvement on the RR forum? In what other ways have you tried to destroy the relationship between the Jesus Christians and the Quakers? These are just some questions. We look forward to your answers."
[welikejesus.com]
I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. I've posted about it, slept on it, sought answer for it, and still have no rest:
Apostate wrote about it, I verified my support for it, and all who value the sentiment and testimony of reconciliation in today's National Apology must surely be asking this question if they knew of the circumstance of what the Jesus Christians did with their power, ownership and authority in Kenya.
How, in God's name, do you justify whipping that Kenyan boy?
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Malcolm Wesley WREST
()
Date: February 13, 2008 06:37PM
Fran,
In what way have you deliberately set out to destroy the relationship between either Ash or Joe with their family (....for example, by telling them that communicating privately with their family was an indication of "spiritual weakness".....that they have to "forsake" their family (in every way necessary to better develop their commitment to their chosen cult)
We look forward to your answers.
Your "relationship" (based on PR fabrications you staged in order to "buy" membership) was destroyed by the public relevation of your illegal and immoral activities.(e.g taking every cent an individual has "in the name of God" for your own ends of self-publicity)...
Your behaviour, once revealed, destroys your relationship with anyone who values the principles Christ taught....hence the Quakers disavow association with you.....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2008 06:38PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.
In what way have you deliberately set out to destroy the relationship between either Ash or Joe with their family (....for example, by telling them that communicating privately with their family was an indication of "spiritual weakness".....that they have to "forsake" their family (in every way necessary to better develop their commitment to their chosen cult)
We look forward to your answers.
Your "relationship" (based on PR fabrications you staged in order to "buy" membership) was destroyed by the public relevation of your illegal and immoral activities.(e.g taking every cent an individual has "in the name of God" for your own ends of self-publicity)...
Your behaviour, once revealed, destroys your relationship with anyone who values the principles Christ taught....hence the Quakers disavow association with you.....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2008 06:38PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Malcolm Wesley WREST
()
Date: February 13, 2008 10:57PM
Dear Apostate,
It is very encouraging to see how the JC's are feeling so threatened by your postings, that they are reverting to "projection" (...accusing you of the very thing that they turn a "blind" eye to in David, because they are too frightened of the consequences of contradicting David, whereas pandering to him, wins the kudos that make you a "leader")
"Everytime I read something from Craig, it becomes more and more clear
what a liar he is when it comes to Dave in particular, and the JC's in
general. He tries very hard to make himself sound reasonable, but in
the end he's usually leaving some part of the story out, or making up
something to add to the story, or twisting something around to make
people in the JC's look bad."
Casey, you give no examples of what part of the story Apostate mischeviously "left out" or indicating what he "made up" or "twisted"....your blanket accusations, (to "defend" David no matter what the facts may be) are a potent indication of how "lost" you really are....
David of course then proceeds to make statements ( of false alibis) which are then able to be verifiably demonstrated false,....(hmmm....perhaps it is SAFER for you to stick with those fabrications of "blanket accusations" Casey!!!...),
....verifiably demonstrated that is by those who are able to independently access information external to David McKays "authorized histories" of the world (that is, the entire population of the planet save the 25 sad individuals who need to "toe the line" that David McKay feeds them or find themselves progressively shunned and ultimately required to starve themselves (fast "prayerfully")...until they can produce sufficient "self-criticism" to humour David that their recantation is somehow genuine.....)
Davids straying memory of course, a transparent endeavour to "prove" himself right (....but it seems "strangely" (and verifiably) that you WERE indeed there, David and that you DIDN'T receive an email about it all, from some "distance" away as you allege.......)
You might possibly (mis)remember too David, that when I was in the Christians ('81-'85) your deliberate instructions that when we were asked who the "leader" of the group was, that we were to reply "Jesus" and that we were to emphasize the "community" nature of the decision making process in the "Christians" in order to allay concerns with your influence over us all....(and of course, we were "free" weren't we, David to make any unimportant decisions that didn't impact upon your intentions.....!)
...sadly I've only grown even more cynical with age, and unhappily must remark that I suspect you continue to instruct your minions to deny the extent and prevalence of your "orders" in the running of the JesusChristians......as you control the finances, movements of the individuals between bases and their access to information, your "orders" are of course carried in the guise of "godly advice".....(which the poor souls who find themselves under your command had better obey or else.....).....your PR fabrications of a "plural democracy" are laughable inventions....
....which, also in a roundabout way, is why (despite a possibly abrasive style in the eyes of some), is why I find that Zeusors' "black and white" assessment of you, (one of the very few) who regularly post here, with no experience of having lived under the same roof with you......something for which he may indeed thank God!) regrettably increasingly accurate, and in response to your remark,
..."they all band together (and, of course, most of them were never even in the group), and agree to say everything".....
I, unlike you, choose to "band together" with those who do not wilfully distort history in order to be able to materially benefit from the ongoing swindle of the possessions and lives of those who are misled into selling themselves for "membership" into the Kingdom of David!
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2008 11:06PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.
It is very encouraging to see how the JC's are feeling so threatened by your postings, that they are reverting to "projection" (...accusing you of the very thing that they turn a "blind" eye to in David, because they are too frightened of the consequences of contradicting David, whereas pandering to him, wins the kudos that make you a "leader")
"Everytime I read something from Craig, it becomes more and more clear
what a liar he is when it comes to Dave in particular, and the JC's in
general. He tries very hard to make himself sound reasonable, but in
the end he's usually leaving some part of the story out, or making up
something to add to the story, or twisting something around to make
people in the JC's look bad."
Casey, you give no examples of what part of the story Apostate mischeviously "left out" or indicating what he "made up" or "twisted"....your blanket accusations, (to "defend" David no matter what the facts may be) are a potent indication of how "lost" you really are....
David of course then proceeds to make statements ( of false alibis) which are then able to be verifiably demonstrated false,....(hmmm....perhaps it is SAFER for you to stick with those fabrications of "blanket accusations" Casey!!!...),
....verifiably demonstrated that is by those who are able to independently access information external to David McKays "authorized histories" of the world (that is, the entire population of the planet save the 25 sad individuals who need to "toe the line" that David McKay feeds them or find themselves progressively shunned and ultimately required to starve themselves (fast "prayerfully")...until they can produce sufficient "self-criticism" to humour David that their recantation is somehow genuine.....)
Davids straying memory of course, a transparent endeavour to "prove" himself right (....but it seems "strangely" (and verifiably) that you WERE indeed there, David and that you DIDN'T receive an email about it all, from some "distance" away as you allege.......)
You might possibly (mis)remember too David, that when I was in the Christians ('81-'85) your deliberate instructions that when we were asked who the "leader" of the group was, that we were to reply "Jesus" and that we were to emphasize the "community" nature of the decision making process in the "Christians" in order to allay concerns with your influence over us all....(and of course, we were "free" weren't we, David to make any unimportant decisions that didn't impact upon your intentions.....!)
...sadly I've only grown even more cynical with age, and unhappily must remark that I suspect you continue to instruct your minions to deny the extent and prevalence of your "orders" in the running of the JesusChristians......as you control the finances, movements of the individuals between bases and their access to information, your "orders" are of course carried in the guise of "godly advice".....(which the poor souls who find themselves under your command had better obey or else.....).....your PR fabrications of a "plural democracy" are laughable inventions....
....which, also in a roundabout way, is why (despite a possibly abrasive style in the eyes of some), is why I find that Zeusors' "black and white" assessment of you, (one of the very few) who regularly post here, with no experience of having lived under the same roof with you......something for which he may indeed thank God!) regrettably increasingly accurate, and in response to your remark,
..."they all band together (and, of course, most of them were never even in the group), and agree to say everything".....
I, unlike you, choose to "band together" with those who do not wilfully distort history in order to be able to materially benefit from the ongoing swindle of the possessions and lives of those who are misled into selling themselves for "membership" into the Kingdom of David!
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2008 11:06PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
muppet
()
Date: February 14, 2008 02:24AM
Dave's post from moneysavingexpert.com
[forums.moneysavingexpert.com]
As a little background, I am also a member of the Christian community that Sue and Rols are a part of, although that is not really relevant to what I'm about to say.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Now for my second point. (Sorry this is so long.)
That is whether or not what Sue and Rols are doing is really work or not. It's convenient to call them beggars, if we just want to insult them. But could we just as easily call the people saying that thieves? Like which is nicer? Someone who offers you a service and says that you can pay whatever you like for it, or someone who offers you a service and more or less sticks a gun to your head and demands that you not only pay them well, but insists that the more you give them, the more you should honour and respect them for having been able to take so much from you?
Rols and Sue distribute literature that aims to educate people on various issues such as freeganism. Some of what they distribute are novels, which some people just see as entertainment. Are we do say that anyone who distributes printed material, or who educates, or who provides entertainment is a blight on our society? If not, then maybe what they are doing is not so totally horrible after all. It seems the real problem people are having is that they provide this service either for free or for whatever people wish to donate to them.
There has also been a lot of fuss over exactly where they get their money. Like should Danny be allowed to own a laptop? Who paid for the motor home? Where do they get their toothpaste, etc. etc.
The simple answer is that people give them money, the same as what happens to most of the people who post on this forum. It's just that most of us call it a salary. They obviously don't get very much (to look at the extremely frugal lifestyle that they live), but would it really be so much more "Christian" if they were to charge high prices for what they do?
I know from personal experience that they have NEVER claimed to be a charity. At the same time I don't think that they have ever made enough money to have to pay taxes. But what they are doing is perfectly legal, and very helpful. Obviously, those grouches who say they would never give their money to Sue and Rols for the literature that they distribute, simply DON'T give their money. But someone does; and it seems that these are not the people who are complaining. If someone gets a full-length novel and pays 40p for it, and enjoys the book, what harm has been done?
End of extract from Dave McKay post on moneysavingexpert.com
[forums.moneysavingexpert.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2008 02:27AM by muppet.
[forums.moneysavingexpert.com]
As a little background, I am also a member of the Christian community that Sue and Rols are a part of, although that is not really relevant to what I'm about to say.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Now for my second point. (Sorry this is so long.)
That is whether or not what Sue and Rols are doing is really work or not. It's convenient to call them beggars, if we just want to insult them. But could we just as easily call the people saying that thieves? Like which is nicer? Someone who offers you a service and says that you can pay whatever you like for it, or someone who offers you a service and more or less sticks a gun to your head and demands that you not only pay them well, but insists that the more you give them, the more you should honour and respect them for having been able to take so much from you?
Rols and Sue distribute literature that aims to educate people on various issues such as freeganism. Some of what they distribute are novels, which some people just see as entertainment. Are we do say that anyone who distributes printed material, or who educates, or who provides entertainment is a blight on our society? If not, then maybe what they are doing is not so totally horrible after all. It seems the real problem people are having is that they provide this service either for free or for whatever people wish to donate to them.
There has also been a lot of fuss over exactly where they get their money. Like should Danny be allowed to own a laptop? Who paid for the motor home? Where do they get their toothpaste, etc. etc.
The simple answer is that people give them money, the same as what happens to most of the people who post on this forum. It's just that most of us call it a salary. They obviously don't get very much (to look at the extremely frugal lifestyle that they live), but would it really be so much more "Christian" if they were to charge high prices for what they do?
I know from personal experience that they have NEVER claimed to be a charity. At the same time I don't think that they have ever made enough money to have to pay taxes. But what they are doing is perfectly legal, and very helpful. Obviously, those grouches who say they would never give their money to Sue and Rols for the literature that they distribute, simply DON'T give their money. But someone does; and it seems that these are not the people who are complaining. If someone gets a full-length novel and pays 40p for it, and enjoys the book, what harm has been done?
End of extract from Dave McKay post on moneysavingexpert.com
[forums.moneysavingexpert.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2008 02:27AM by muppet.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
apostate
()
Date: February 14, 2008 05:59AM
Response to Dave's post from moneysavingexpert.com
I am also a member of the Christian community that Sue and Rols are a part of...
Should read the "Leader, Anointed Apostle, Captain of the Ship... etc."
That is whether or not what Sue and Rols are doing is really work or not. It's convenient to call them beggars, if we just want to insult them. But could we just as easily call the people saying that thieves? Like which is nicer?
It might be more accurate to call them beggars and you a thief for ensuring you get your "levy" while they trust on the goodwill of the public to give them more. The point Dave makes with his hypothetical , though is that he DOES call people who fix a price to their services, "thieves", and thinks he is morally superior for using psychological levers that leave people feeling obliged to pay for something they thought was being offered for free.
Rols and Sue distribute literature that aims to educate people on various issues such as freeganism. Some of what they distribute are novels, which some people just see as entertainment. Are we do say that anyone who distributes printed material, or who educates, or who provides entertainment is a blight on our society?
No, but someone who was an honest provider of such services would not use God and religion as a cloak from which to avoid registering his business, paying taxes, meeting award conditions for employees etc. The hypocrisy or 'blight' here is that your "education" consists mainly in promoting yourself and putting down the rest of society, such that when even your own daughter lives a frugal freegan lifestyle that does not exploit the tax funded benefits you enjoy and gives back to society through providing practical service to those in need, you not only condemn them as phonies, but forbid your 'employees' from having any contact with them.
I wonder how many books Dave would sell if he just put them on a newstand along with other author's efforts to educate and/or entertain?
The simple answer is that people give them money, the same as what happens to most of the people who post on this forum. It's just that most of us call it a salary.
If Dave wants to compare his income generating system with a job that generates a salary, then why condemn teachers, doctors, social workers etc for earning a salary. Apparently we are all "systemites", going to hell for working for money.
They obviously don't get very much (to look at the extremely frugal lifestyle that they live), but would it really be so much more "Christian" if they were to charge high prices for what they do?
Would it be so much more "unchristian" if they did something more useful than flog books that purport to entertain and were adequately rewarded in their efforts to serve others?
I know from personal experience that they have NEVER claimed to be a charity. At the same time I don't think that they have ever made enough money to have to pay taxes. But what they are doing is perfectly legal, and very helpful.
I know from experience that we talk about how we are "working with young people on the street" to imply that we are doing charitable work to help such people rather than actually admit WE were the young people who Dave lured away from university, a career etc to live on the street. If Dave knows that no one is generating enough income to pay taxes, then keep records and prove it, instead of hiding behind weasel words like "I think". As for being legal... We were trained in the art of staying mobile so security guards and police would find it difficult to locate us when shop keepers complained of illegal hawkers working the street.
I am also a member of the Christian community that Sue and Rols are a part of...
Should read the "Leader, Anointed Apostle, Captain of the Ship... etc."
That is whether or not what Sue and Rols are doing is really work or not. It's convenient to call them beggars, if we just want to insult them. But could we just as easily call the people saying that thieves? Like which is nicer?
It might be more accurate to call them beggars and you a thief for ensuring you get your "levy" while they trust on the goodwill of the public to give them more. The point Dave makes with his hypothetical , though is that he DOES call people who fix a price to their services, "thieves", and thinks he is morally superior for using psychological levers that leave people feeling obliged to pay for something they thought was being offered for free.
Rols and Sue distribute literature that aims to educate people on various issues such as freeganism. Some of what they distribute are novels, which some people just see as entertainment. Are we do say that anyone who distributes printed material, or who educates, or who provides entertainment is a blight on our society?
No, but someone who was an honest provider of such services would not use God and religion as a cloak from which to avoid registering his business, paying taxes, meeting award conditions for employees etc. The hypocrisy or 'blight' here is that your "education" consists mainly in promoting yourself and putting down the rest of society, such that when even your own daughter lives a frugal freegan lifestyle that does not exploit the tax funded benefits you enjoy and gives back to society through providing practical service to those in need, you not only condemn them as phonies, but forbid your 'employees' from having any contact with them.
I wonder how many books Dave would sell if he just put them on a newstand along with other author's efforts to educate and/or entertain?
The simple answer is that people give them money, the same as what happens to most of the people who post on this forum. It's just that most of us call it a salary.
If Dave wants to compare his income generating system with a job that generates a salary, then why condemn teachers, doctors, social workers etc for earning a salary. Apparently we are all "systemites", going to hell for working for money.
They obviously don't get very much (to look at the extremely frugal lifestyle that they live), but would it really be so much more "Christian" if they were to charge high prices for what they do?
Would it be so much more "unchristian" if they did something more useful than flog books that purport to entertain and were adequately rewarded in their efforts to serve others?
I know from personal experience that they have NEVER claimed to be a charity. At the same time I don't think that they have ever made enough money to have to pay taxes. But what they are doing is perfectly legal, and very helpful.
I know from experience that we talk about how we are "working with young people on the street" to imply that we are doing charitable work to help such people rather than actually admit WE were the young people who Dave lured away from university, a career etc to live on the street. If Dave knows that no one is generating enough income to pay taxes, then keep records and prove it, instead of hiding behind weasel words like "I think". As for being legal... We were trained in the art of staying mobile so security guards and police would find it difficult to locate us when shop keepers complained of illegal hawkers working the street.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
apostate
()
Date: February 14, 2008 01:05PM
In the midst of all this bluff and bravado by Dave McKay regarding his upcoming court appearane, I just had to post this up here
Thinking Errors Commonly Associated In Antisocial Behaviors
1. Excuse Making - Excuses are made by the antisocial for anything and everything. Whenever held accountable for actions, excuses are often given. Excuses are a means of finding a reason to justify his behavior.
Examples: "I'm dumb - I couldn't help", "I don't know", "I was never loved", "My family was poor", "My family was rich", "She/he did not say stop"
2. Blaming – Blaming is an excuse to not solve a problem and is used by the antisocial to excuse his behavior and build up resentment toward someone else for "causing" whatever has happened.
Examples: "I couldn't do it because he got in my way", "The trouble with you is you're always looking at me in a critical way", "She/he should have told someone sooner", "She/he wanted me to..."
Blaming is often seen in what seems like ordinary conversation, that is, the antisocial may be observing someone else's behavior which has nothing to do with his/her, and still make blaming comments about other people. This often generates excitement for the antisocial and is used to put others down, while he/she builds himself/herself up.
3. Justifying – Justifying is the antisocial’s way of explaining the reason for things.
Examples: "If you can, I can", "I was so lonely I had to...", "She/he yelled at me, so that is why I hit", "No one listens to me so that's why I can't do anything"
The person with antisocial thinking finds justification for any and all issues that he does not wish to own responsibility for.
4. Redefining – Redefining is shifting the focus of an issue to avoid solving a problem.
Examples:
Question - "Why are you running up and down the hall?"
Answer - "I'm not running, I am just keeping time to the music in my head."
Question - "Who put this paper here?"
Answer - "It wasn't there yesterday."
Question - "Where are the books that I borrowed from the library, and left on this desk?"
Answer - "John was hanging around here this morning."
Redefining is used as a power play to get the focus off the person in question. It is also indicative of ineffective thinking; not dealing with the problem at hand.
5. Superoptimism - "I think; therefore it is." The superoptimistic antisocial decides that because he wants some things to be a certain way, or thinks it will be a certain way, therefore it is. This permits the antisocial to function according to what he wants, rather than according to the facts of the situation.
Examples: If the antisocial expects someone to visit them at their house, they may not take into account that the person may have other plans, or simply the arrangements haven't been made. They fully expect the person to show up. When the person doesn't show up, this gives the antisocial an excuse to explode, be angry, or have a tantrum. Superoptimistic people also believe that they can be famous, popular, strong, movie stars, rich, etc. simply by wishing it, and never take into account the practical steps along the way.
6. Lying - Lying is the most commonly known characteristic of antisocial thinking. Lying is done by all antisocials in different ways at different times. Lying is a power play and is often used to confuse, distort, and make fools of other people. There are three basic kinds of lies:
commission - making things up that are simply not true
omission - saying partly what is so, but leaving out major sections
assent - making believe that one agrees with someone else, or pretending, or approving of others ideas to look good when in fact, the person has no intention of going along with this, or does not really agree. The same antisocial at different times can look like he is lying and be telling the truth, can look like he is not lying and be lying, can look like he is lying, and in fact, not be lying. This creates turmoil around him, and people are never sure what is going on.
7. "Making Fools Of" - This is the effect of lying on others, and "taking others with them." Antisocials make fools of others by agreeing to do things, and not following through, by saying things they don't mean, by setting others up to fight, by inviting frustrations and letting people down, and in numerous other ways. Making fools of others is a major ploy for antisocials and a major behavior common to all. Antisocials delight in making fools of professional people, such as therapists, lawyers, judges, anyone they can take in, telling stories to "get over on".
8. Build-up - To an antisocial, everything they perceive as positive, they use to build themselves up, and they generally do this by putting others down. In fact, almost everything said to an antisocial that is not seen as a build-up, is seen as a put down. The antisocial can take insignificant events, such as someone not speaking to them on the street, and assume that this means they are either despised by this other person, or that they are better than the other person. The thinking that goes along with this is that the antisocial is always right and everyone else is wrong.
9. Assuming - The antisocial spends a great deal of time assuming what others think, what others feel, what others are doing. He/she uses this assumption in service of whatever activity or behavior he decides to engage in.
Examples: The antisocial assumes that other people don't like him. This gives him an excuse to blow up, be angry or rob, molest, not pay his taxes, or any other thing he has in mind. Assuming takes place every day and the antisocial makes assumptions about whatever he wishes in order to support his antisocial behavior.
10. "I'm Unique" - The antisocial believes that he is unique and special, that no one else is like him, and so any information that is applied to other people simply doesn't affect him. The beliefs going along with this are things such as "I know everything and I can handle things alone." "I don't need anyone, no one, no understands me anyway." "No one can tell me what to do." It is common in a prison for a criminal to believe that everyone else are criminals, but not him. A child molester may think - "I'm not like all those other dirty child molesters; I'm different."
11. Ingratiating - The antisocial often overdoes being nice to others, and going out of his way to act interested in other people. This is phony and always has a hidden price tag. The antisocial is always out to find out what he can get from other people, how he can manipulate them, use them, or control the situation to his own purpose.
12. Fragmented Personality - "If I like it, okay; if not, to hell with it." It is very common for the antisocial to attend church on Sunday, and beat someone up, or rob someone on Tuesday, and then attend church again on Wednesday. To the antisocial, there is no inconsistency in this behavior. He believes he is a good person, and is justified in whatever he does. His criminal acts are seen as things that he deserves to do, or get, or own, or possess, or control. He never considers the inconsistency between these behaviors.
13. Minimizing - The antisocial often minimizes his behavior and actions by talking about it in such a way that is seems insignificant. This is not accounting for the significance of his behavior. Minimizing is particularly seen when the antisocial is confronted on some irresponsible behavior.
Examples: "I only molested three children, and I could have molested a lot more, but I didn't." "I didn't hand in the paper when it was due, but I handed in everything else, so it's no big deal."
14. Vagueness - The antisocial is typically unclear and non-specific to avoid being pinned down on a particular issue. He is non-committable, and uses words, phrases, and talks in a way to look good to others, but not to commit himself to anything.
Examples: Vague words such as: "I more or less thinks so", "I guess", "probably", "maybe", "I might", "I'm not sure about this", "and It possibly was", etc.
15. Anger - Anger is one of the only emotions the antisocial ever expresses. This is not real anger most of the time, (in fact 99% of the time), but is used to control others, or to use power in a situation. The antisocial has unrealistic expectation about the people in the world, and controls others and situations by aggression, blaming, isolation, giving up, power plays, anything he can do to freeze the situation and make it as he wishes.
16. Power Plays - The antisocial uses power plays whenever he isn't getting his way in a situation; such as walking out of a room during a disagreement, giving up responsibilities, or not completing a job that he agrees to do, refusing to listen or hear what someone else has to say, organizing people to be angry at others in his support.
17. Victim Playing - This is a major role that the antisocial takes. The underlying issue is aggression and power plays. However, the antisocial acts as if they are unable to think, solve problems, or do anything for themselves; they often whine, shuffle, look woebegone, helpless, as if they are too stupid to do anything for themselves. The belief is that if he doesn't get whatever he wants, he is the victim. Since the basic belief is that he is good and others are bad, he justifies his victim playing at all times. The position of victim playing is used to strike back and make fools of others. The victim player transacts with others to invite either criticism, or rescue, from those around him.
18. Drama-Excitement - Since the antisocial does not live a real life in the sense of getting his needs met directly, he does anything and everything for drama and excitement instead. To the antisocial, boredom is the main evil. Excitement is generated at anyone's expense. Whereas other people may get involved in less-than-straight transactions with others in order to feel sad, or hurt, or self-righteous; the antisocial involves himself in activities for the sheer drama and excitement of this. It is seen as exciting, therefore, for an antisocial to watch other people be angry, to set up fights, watch houses burn, to get any kind of action going.
19. Closed Channel - The antisocial is selective, closed-minded and self-righteous. The responsible person is open, receptive, and self critical. Part of the antisocials thinking is that he must keep part of his life secret, to divert issues. He believes that no one is smarter than him, and would never think that he is wrong in a situation.
20. Ownership - "If I want it, it's mine." The antisocial believes that anything he wants - people, possessions are his simply by his wanting it. He is therefore jealous if anyone acts in some way that he dislikes. He treats people as pawns. He also uses his thinking to steal from others anything that he wants.
21. Image - The antisocial's image of a true male is tough and rough and mean and puts other people down. He often has ideas of males as adventurers, cowboys, pirates, etc. The antisocial walks and talks in such a way to support his image - the other image the antisocial plays is that of the victim. The person walks and talks and acts in such a way to support his victim image.
22. Grandiosity - Grandiosity is minimizing or maximizing the significance of an issue, and it justifies not solving the problem.
Examples: "I was too scared to do anything else but sit." "I'm the best there is, no one else can get in my way."
23. Procrastinate - To put off from day to day; to delay; to defer to a future time. To delay action.
Example: "I will bring up the problem tomorrow. I just don't feel like discussing it now."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2008 01:29PM by apostate.
Thinking Errors Commonly Associated In Antisocial Behaviors
1. Excuse Making - Excuses are made by the antisocial for anything and everything. Whenever held accountable for actions, excuses are often given. Excuses are a means of finding a reason to justify his behavior.
Examples: "I'm dumb - I couldn't help", "I don't know", "I was never loved", "My family was poor", "My family was rich", "She/he did not say stop"
2. Blaming – Blaming is an excuse to not solve a problem and is used by the antisocial to excuse his behavior and build up resentment toward someone else for "causing" whatever has happened.
Examples: "I couldn't do it because he got in my way", "The trouble with you is you're always looking at me in a critical way", "She/he should have told someone sooner", "She/he wanted me to..."
Blaming is often seen in what seems like ordinary conversation, that is, the antisocial may be observing someone else's behavior which has nothing to do with his/her, and still make blaming comments about other people. This often generates excitement for the antisocial and is used to put others down, while he/she builds himself/herself up.
3. Justifying – Justifying is the antisocial’s way of explaining the reason for things.
Examples: "If you can, I can", "I was so lonely I had to...", "She/he yelled at me, so that is why I hit", "No one listens to me so that's why I can't do anything"
The person with antisocial thinking finds justification for any and all issues that he does not wish to own responsibility for.
4. Redefining – Redefining is shifting the focus of an issue to avoid solving a problem.
Examples:
Question - "Why are you running up and down the hall?"
Answer - "I'm not running, I am just keeping time to the music in my head."
Question - "Who put this paper here?"
Answer - "It wasn't there yesterday."
Question - "Where are the books that I borrowed from the library, and left on this desk?"
Answer - "John was hanging around here this morning."
Redefining is used as a power play to get the focus off the person in question. It is also indicative of ineffective thinking; not dealing with the problem at hand.
5. Superoptimism - "I think; therefore it is." The superoptimistic antisocial decides that because he wants some things to be a certain way, or thinks it will be a certain way, therefore it is. This permits the antisocial to function according to what he wants, rather than according to the facts of the situation.
Examples: If the antisocial expects someone to visit them at their house, they may not take into account that the person may have other plans, or simply the arrangements haven't been made. They fully expect the person to show up. When the person doesn't show up, this gives the antisocial an excuse to explode, be angry, or have a tantrum. Superoptimistic people also believe that they can be famous, popular, strong, movie stars, rich, etc. simply by wishing it, and never take into account the practical steps along the way.
6. Lying - Lying is the most commonly known characteristic of antisocial thinking. Lying is done by all antisocials in different ways at different times. Lying is a power play and is often used to confuse, distort, and make fools of other people. There are three basic kinds of lies:
commission - making things up that are simply not true
omission - saying partly what is so, but leaving out major sections
assent - making believe that one agrees with someone else, or pretending, or approving of others ideas to look good when in fact, the person has no intention of going along with this, or does not really agree. The same antisocial at different times can look like he is lying and be telling the truth, can look like he is not lying and be lying, can look like he is lying, and in fact, not be lying. This creates turmoil around him, and people are never sure what is going on.
7. "Making Fools Of" - This is the effect of lying on others, and "taking others with them." Antisocials make fools of others by agreeing to do things, and not following through, by saying things they don't mean, by setting others up to fight, by inviting frustrations and letting people down, and in numerous other ways. Making fools of others is a major ploy for antisocials and a major behavior common to all. Antisocials delight in making fools of professional people, such as therapists, lawyers, judges, anyone they can take in, telling stories to "get over on".
8. Build-up - To an antisocial, everything they perceive as positive, they use to build themselves up, and they generally do this by putting others down. In fact, almost everything said to an antisocial that is not seen as a build-up, is seen as a put down. The antisocial can take insignificant events, such as someone not speaking to them on the street, and assume that this means they are either despised by this other person, or that they are better than the other person. The thinking that goes along with this is that the antisocial is always right and everyone else is wrong.
9. Assuming - The antisocial spends a great deal of time assuming what others think, what others feel, what others are doing. He/she uses this assumption in service of whatever activity or behavior he decides to engage in.
Examples: The antisocial assumes that other people don't like him. This gives him an excuse to blow up, be angry or rob, molest, not pay his taxes, or any other thing he has in mind. Assuming takes place every day and the antisocial makes assumptions about whatever he wishes in order to support his antisocial behavior.
10. "I'm Unique" - The antisocial believes that he is unique and special, that no one else is like him, and so any information that is applied to other people simply doesn't affect him. The beliefs going along with this are things such as "I know everything and I can handle things alone." "I don't need anyone, no one, no understands me anyway." "No one can tell me what to do." It is common in a prison for a criminal to believe that everyone else are criminals, but not him. A child molester may think - "I'm not like all those other dirty child molesters; I'm different."
11. Ingratiating - The antisocial often overdoes being nice to others, and going out of his way to act interested in other people. This is phony and always has a hidden price tag. The antisocial is always out to find out what he can get from other people, how he can manipulate them, use them, or control the situation to his own purpose.
12. Fragmented Personality - "If I like it, okay; if not, to hell with it." It is very common for the antisocial to attend church on Sunday, and beat someone up, or rob someone on Tuesday, and then attend church again on Wednesday. To the antisocial, there is no inconsistency in this behavior. He believes he is a good person, and is justified in whatever he does. His criminal acts are seen as things that he deserves to do, or get, or own, or possess, or control. He never considers the inconsistency between these behaviors.
13. Minimizing - The antisocial often minimizes his behavior and actions by talking about it in such a way that is seems insignificant. This is not accounting for the significance of his behavior. Minimizing is particularly seen when the antisocial is confronted on some irresponsible behavior.
Examples: "I only molested three children, and I could have molested a lot more, but I didn't." "I didn't hand in the paper when it was due, but I handed in everything else, so it's no big deal."
14. Vagueness - The antisocial is typically unclear and non-specific to avoid being pinned down on a particular issue. He is non-committable, and uses words, phrases, and talks in a way to look good to others, but not to commit himself to anything.
Examples: Vague words such as: "I more or less thinks so", "I guess", "probably", "maybe", "I might", "I'm not sure about this", "and It possibly was", etc.
15. Anger - Anger is one of the only emotions the antisocial ever expresses. This is not real anger most of the time, (in fact 99% of the time), but is used to control others, or to use power in a situation. The antisocial has unrealistic expectation about the people in the world, and controls others and situations by aggression, blaming, isolation, giving up, power plays, anything he can do to freeze the situation and make it as he wishes.
16. Power Plays - The antisocial uses power plays whenever he isn't getting his way in a situation; such as walking out of a room during a disagreement, giving up responsibilities, or not completing a job that he agrees to do, refusing to listen or hear what someone else has to say, organizing people to be angry at others in his support.
17. Victim Playing - This is a major role that the antisocial takes. The underlying issue is aggression and power plays. However, the antisocial acts as if they are unable to think, solve problems, or do anything for themselves; they often whine, shuffle, look woebegone, helpless, as if they are too stupid to do anything for themselves. The belief is that if he doesn't get whatever he wants, he is the victim. Since the basic belief is that he is good and others are bad, he justifies his victim playing at all times. The position of victim playing is used to strike back and make fools of others. The victim player transacts with others to invite either criticism, or rescue, from those around him.
18. Drama-Excitement - Since the antisocial does not live a real life in the sense of getting his needs met directly, he does anything and everything for drama and excitement instead. To the antisocial, boredom is the main evil. Excitement is generated at anyone's expense. Whereas other people may get involved in less-than-straight transactions with others in order to feel sad, or hurt, or self-righteous; the antisocial involves himself in activities for the sheer drama and excitement of this. It is seen as exciting, therefore, for an antisocial to watch other people be angry, to set up fights, watch houses burn, to get any kind of action going.
19. Closed Channel - The antisocial is selective, closed-minded and self-righteous. The responsible person is open, receptive, and self critical. Part of the antisocials thinking is that he must keep part of his life secret, to divert issues. He believes that no one is smarter than him, and would never think that he is wrong in a situation.
20. Ownership - "If I want it, it's mine." The antisocial believes that anything he wants - people, possessions are his simply by his wanting it. He is therefore jealous if anyone acts in some way that he dislikes. He treats people as pawns. He also uses his thinking to steal from others anything that he wants.
21. Image - The antisocial's image of a true male is tough and rough and mean and puts other people down. He often has ideas of males as adventurers, cowboys, pirates, etc. The antisocial walks and talks in such a way to support his image - the other image the antisocial plays is that of the victim. The person walks and talks and acts in such a way to support his victim image.
22. Grandiosity - Grandiosity is minimizing or maximizing the significance of an issue, and it justifies not solving the problem.
Examples: "I was too scared to do anything else but sit." "I'm the best there is, no one else can get in my way."
23. Procrastinate - To put off from day to day; to delay; to defer to a future time. To delay action.
Example: "I will bring up the problem tomorrow. I just don't feel like discussing it now."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2008 01:29PM by apostate.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
apostate
()
Date: February 14, 2008 02:03PM
After that little bit of interesting light reading on excuses that antisocial personality types can make I thought it would be good to get back to Dave's silly cliams about PI being David Lowe.
While David McKay is defying David Lowe's legal demand that he remove slanderous comments against him, on the basis of a bluff that he can prove everything he said against this person is true, one wonders why a thread titled "Grandma Lowe" which asserts that Blackhat is David Lowe (or his "grandmother") still remains, even though Dave now admits elsewhere on the forum that he was wrong in this assertion and now realises they are a completely different person.
The last post from Dave, dated Jan 18 states: [welikejesus.com]
"It sounds like Brian is threatening to reveal that David Lowe and Blackhat are the same person, in an effort to get David Lowe kicked off the RR forum... David (Blackhat) is in a bit of a panic, and has decided to stop posting, as a way of sneaking away from detection. Obviously Brian has enough evidence to put "Grandma" in the hot seat and David is pretty scared! ... What "grandma" Lowe APPEARS to be saying is that Brian has threatened to prove he is a JC INFILTRATOR. But, of course, that is NOT what he is accusing him of. You dont get kicked off the forum for being a JC. It's more like David is fearful of being exposed as being David Lowe under another name. He seems to be operating under the illustion that if he kills off the "grandma" persona, then theoretically he wont' be kicked off the forum."
It seems like an update is overdue, Dave, either removing the lie or explaining how you were wrong to ever make it and apologising for making such baseless accusations. You might like to refer to Fran's notes on the art of apologising.
Dave has been uncharacteristically absent from his form lately. Could it be that... Dave is in a bit of a panic, and has decided to spend some time going over and editing every post he has made about David Lowe, as a way of sneaking away from facing up to his lies? Obviously he does not have enough evidence to put "Grandma" in the hot seat when he sues the pants of him and Dave is pretty scared!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2008 02:08PM by apostate.
While David McKay is defying David Lowe's legal demand that he remove slanderous comments against him, on the basis of a bluff that he can prove everything he said against this person is true, one wonders why a thread titled "Grandma Lowe" which asserts that Blackhat is David Lowe (or his "grandmother") still remains, even though Dave now admits elsewhere on the forum that he was wrong in this assertion and now realises they are a completely different person.
The last post from Dave, dated Jan 18 states: [welikejesus.com]
"It sounds like Brian is threatening to reveal that David Lowe and Blackhat are the same person, in an effort to get David Lowe kicked off the RR forum... David (Blackhat) is in a bit of a panic, and has decided to stop posting, as a way of sneaking away from detection. Obviously Brian has enough evidence to put "Grandma" in the hot seat and David is pretty scared! ... What "grandma" Lowe APPEARS to be saying is that Brian has threatened to prove he is a JC INFILTRATOR. But, of course, that is NOT what he is accusing him of. You dont get kicked off the forum for being a JC. It's more like David is fearful of being exposed as being David Lowe under another name. He seems to be operating under the illustion that if he kills off the "grandma" persona, then theoretically he wont' be kicked off the forum."
It seems like an update is overdue, Dave, either removing the lie or explaining how you were wrong to ever make it and apologising for making such baseless accusations. You might like to refer to Fran's notes on the art of apologising.
Dave has been uncharacteristically absent from his form lately. Could it be that... Dave is in a bit of a panic, and has decided to spend some time going over and editing every post he has made about David Lowe, as a way of sneaking away from facing up to his lies? Obviously he does not have enough evidence to put "Grandma" in the hot seat when he sues the pants of him and Dave is pretty scared!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2008 02:08PM by apostate.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.