Well. I know I'm not you, Apollo, are you sure you're not me?
Zeuszor's pretty sure he's not me, I'm leaving that one open for some reflection as in some alternate quantum universe (its a slow night here) I suppose I could argue that we are all one.


Talking of alternate universes.........

Here is my latest death threat (from a heavily disguised zeus, natch--although actually heavily re-interpreted and edited by Davejc) to Davejc:

'First it was Brian and Oerlkon carrying on conversations with each other. Then it was Brian and Apollo. Now it's Apollo and Stoic (as Brian tries harder to hide his tracks). But his various trademarks are generally revealed sooner or later.

Like this one from Stoic:

Unfortunately, in my view, Davejc breathes and has life.'


The problem with having 'a special ear' is that you start to believe all the whispered crap. Far better to listen to someone who has real world practical experience ---of whatever problem is faced----and is willing to pass it on.
Being averse to tides of crap, I always befriend my plumber.

Here is one of my favourites, Sun Tzu on defeat:

[www.military-quotes.com]

'The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy. To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat, but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy.'

and:

'If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.'


I'm going to take it to heart and spend some time in that alternate universe getting to grips with whether or not I really am zeus.


I was thinking about a narcissist I knew today, and how he responded when denied his narcissistic supply. The sentimental self-pity was truly gobsmacking, you'd need a heart of stone not to laugh.

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2010 07:31AM by Stoic.

DM is obviously, desperately trying to figure things out. He's really pretty good, as he does go through all the posts in detail and works out things that don't make sense. But he doesn't have the full picture and that's where we have the upper hand.

One of his techniques is to make a guess at something. People will respond saying he is wrong, but invariably, they will also give him a clue that will point him to the right answer.

I know better now than to be baited by his nonsense. This is why I generally do not respond to him.

'I know better now than to be baited by his nonsense. This is why I generally do not respond to him.'

That's good advice, Zeuszor, thanks.

Blackhat seems to be on R & R, but something struck me about an earlier statement.


'Now you can't get any clearer than that. And even Kevin's testimony about Dave saying that they couldn't dine with adulterers shows a conservative approach to sex.'

I would have said that Davejc's prohibition about dining with adulterers showed a conservative approach to dining companions rather than a conservative approach to sex. Do he and Blackhat both fear that alleged adulterers will leap across the dining table and ravage the missus between courses? What a strange, fearful world conservatives live in.

'If Apollo and Stoic want to continue down this path of saying that Dave was an apologist for paedophilia, then so be it, but I will not be a part of it. Trying to understand a complex human problem of child sex offences with humanity and Christian conscience does NOT equate to being an apologist for child sexual offences.'

Except that he's not trying to understand a complex human problem at all, he is trying to reduce it to a simplistic solution of exile, away from the temptations of the world, where the paedophiles can all live together in harmony and love one another. (Again, acknowledged prison behaviour of inmates and the cautionary tale 'Lord of the Flies' gives the lie to that one)
I am again struck by how similar Davejc's proposed solution to the paedophile problem is to his building of an extended family of voluntary exiles, who hold themselves away from the temptations of the world, and try to love one another and live in harmony--this is avoidance, not an attempt to get to grips with a complex human problem at all.

Do his voluntary exiles truly believe themselves so beyond acceptance and integration that they must shun god's great and endless creative diversity? Or is this what a too narrow attention to the gospel according to Davejc's 'special ear' leads them to believe?


Come to that, who charged Davejc to come up with a more humane and loving solution to the paedophile problem? That 'special ear' again?
And why does Blackhat fall for and defend this crap? Why does Blackhat pm me to ask if I am Rick Ross? Am I Rick Ross? Do I need to know whether or not I am Rick Ross, Apollo, Zeuszor or stoic? Does Blackhat need to know--and why? Who is Blackhat? Who is the master who makes the grass green?
I am getting confused myself in this topsy turvy world, must find a way out of these pesky alternate universes.


Davejc's 'special ear' has no problem with alternate universes:
'What I would gladly campaign for is a sympathetic form of exile. We can afford to build incredibly expensive cages for criminals, so why not a community (the bigger the better) where they can move about as they please (with other paedophiles), but from which they will never be allowed contact with children? It need not be any more inhumane than the best TB sanitorium in the world. Treat paedophilia as an infectious disease, and isolate it.

And, for Christ's sake, stop hating them.

Note: If exile seems too extreme, then we challenge critics to suggest a softer, more loving approach that is going to effectively protect children.'


The rest of the world appears to have no problems when deciding whether paedophilia should be treated as the crime it has been defined as or as an infectious disease, just like the TB that Davejc seeks to redefine it as--at least to his sympathisers.
The rest of the world has no problem with locking up these vicious predators--indeed we do build incredibly expensive cages for criminals and incarcerate criminals to protect the wider society--why is Davejc so obssessed with a more humane and loving solution for the paedophile rather than a more loving and humane attitude to his victims---who do not figure in Davejc's selective solution of a loving and humane exiled closed community

Davejc's challenge to his critics to suggest a softer, more loving approach presupposes a problem (that the rest of the world is seeking a softer more loving approach towards paedophiles) where none exists, except in Davejc's aplogetic worldview.

In a closed community there is only room for one dominating predator. In a closed community if all were similarly predatory the community is only a few feeding frenzies from extinction. Even the eventual winner would starve to death sooner rather than later.
Open, flexible systems do far better in the survival stakes.
Closed, rigid systems nevertheless have a constant need for recruitment, or 'new blood' to feed that one dominant predator at the top, who is so easily bored with what this vast complex world presents to him.
It all gets so samey, same critics, same credo, same identities, same paranoia.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2010 09:42PM by Stoic.

Quote

'Now you can't get any clearer than that. And even Kevin's testimony about Dave saying that they couldn't dine with adulterers shows a conservative approach to sex.'

About the thing of refusing to dine with 'adulterers'.

One doesnt know whether someone has committed adultery until the matter has become public.

So refusing to dine with adulterers may indicate not merely conservatism, but mere concern for one's public reputation.

And hyperconcern about one activity as being bad (adultery) can be a way to cut oneself slack for other stuff one refuses to face up to.

The interesting thing about Jesus is that he reportedly got into trouble because he was willing to share meals with people who were outside of his clan, and with people who had bad public reputations.

However, there is this:

Quote

17:1 Jesus 41 said to his disciples, “Stumbling blocks are sure to come, but woe 42 to the one through whom they come! 17:2 It would be better for him to have a millstone 43 tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea 44 than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

One would have to twist ones mind into a pretzel to use this same set of texts (or ignore it) and engage in the pattern of activity that has become of concern to us here.

Here is a comment from Cait, who I don't know from Adam, but who appears to have some direct experience with Davejc and his habitual behaviour:

[jcs.xjcs.org]

'just wanting to add my thrupenceworth : when Ash returned from Canada after his initial offer to donate was put on hold by the hospital board, I naturally wanted to meet with him, and I believe that he equally wanted to meet with me. However, I was told that this could only happen :
a) at Dave's place
b) when it suited Dave, and
c) that I could only attend unaccompanied - no husband, no friend, no disinterested third party.'

I don't know the background to this story of a donor but thought it a good opportunity to shoehorn in the link that I omitted in an earlier post and to point out yet another congruence of Davejc's habitual behaviour with Ofshe's number 1 on the list in his criteria for defining a cult, Milieu Control:

[www.cultnews.com]


1. “Milieu control,” which Ofshe describes as the control of the environment and communication.

2. “Mystical manipulation,” which Ofshe explains as emotional and behavioral manipulation done through the guise of group beliefs and practices.

3. “The demand for purity,” or what Ofshe describes as demands for absolute conformity to behavior as prescribed and derived from the group ideology.

4. “The cult of confession,” what Ofshe sees as the obsessive demands for personal and group confession, which ultimately render individual members completely vulnerable, transparent and without a sense of individual privacy.

5. “The sacred science,” which Ofshe explains as agreement that the group ideology is absolutely perfect, faultless, or what Lifton calls its ultimate vision for the ordering of all human existence.

6. “Loading the language,” explained by Ofshe as the manipulation of language often characterized by thought terminating clichés, which substitute for critical and analytical thought.

7. “Doctrine over person,” further described by Ofshe as the reinterpretation of human experience and emotion as seen through the lens and according to the terms of group doctrine.

8. “The dispensing of existence,” which Ofshe sees as the classification of those not sharing the group’s beliefs as inferior and not worthy of respect.

Distinctions are then made between the process of coercive persuasion or thought reform and other forms of persuasion such as education, advertising, propaganda and indoctrination.

'So refusing to dine with adulterers may indicate not merely conservatism, but mere concern for one's public reputation.'


I had assumed that Davejc with his mania for 'any publicity is good publicity' was immune to worries concerning his public reputation--but it appears not.
Cherryjc has been allowed to post an article, defending her consort's position and deploring the debate, such as it is, on the xJC site concerning paedophilia and its many corollaries. She avoids mention of the much greater debate on the same subject on this site.

That tells me where the current objective is for Davejc, and it ain't here, identity confusion or no.

Which brings me to ponder this:

Just to summarise: Kevin offered to meet with me if I would accept a counsellor being present. I accepted, but said that the counsellor needed to be a disinterested third party.

His advisers tht they all panicked, and pointed out that a disinterested third party would not do. It had to be someone steeped in hatred and fear.

Kevin agreed and then everyone accused me of having maliciously planned the whole proposal from the start. Just more evidence of what an awful man I am.

Gee, I love the Internet when it allows people to watch something like this through from start to finish! It's all there, on the first page of this thread, plus this post.

Davejc was a journalist, if he doesn't want people to watch his internal family struggles from start to finish on the Internet, why is he only communicating with his family through that medium?
He allows no-one the natural privacy we all need to be ourselves, free from prying eyes---- number 4 on Ofshe's list, the Cult of Confession.

Quote
Stoic
Davejc was a journalist, if he doesn't want people to watch his internal family struggles from start to finish on the Internet, why is he only communicating with his family through that medium?

What has become evident over the last 48 hrs is that Dave has no interest in 'reconciling' with his son and grandchildren. If he truly was serious about that then he would contact his son either through email or telephone. The fact he has chosen to play it out in public (almost reveling in the drama) shows what his real agenda was. It's all about Dave desperately trying to improve his own image. When Dave says ''let's meet in the middle Kevin'' what he really means is ''i demand you retract everything you've ever said about me, true or false, otherwise there will be no reconciliation''.

Kevin has further responded to Dave on the subject of paedophilia. There are a few comments which i would like to pick up on...

Kevin wrote:

Quote

Initially this man's history was restricted, but Cherry insisting on parents right to be informed. Disclosure came in stages but the India team was outside of these discussions. This included one family who returned to Australia and left their kids alone in this person's care in complete ignorance - Dave believed their children were too young to be at risk. They had no idea of this man's history until months later when he offended in India.

This truly is shocking.

How can you possibly be too young to be at risk? What on earth was Dave playing at?

There's literally thousands of cases worldwide of babies being abused by paedophile's.

There is no age restriction. ALL children are potential targets of paedophile's.

It's appalling that this family weren't told about this man's past.

Kevin wrote:

Quote

Dave was not in India when this occurred (I was not either), but he insisted he be returned to Australia immediately where he was met at the airport and with the counsel of those from the group he came from, was handed over to Federal Police. As has already been stated due to his full and honest confession, he was jailed for ten years.

Any particular reason why Dave didn't insist the paedophile be reported to the Indian authorities immediately?

How do you know it was a full and honest confession? That should have been up to the Indian authorities to decide.

Kevin wrote:

Quote

Clearly Dave thought he could help this guy by making him feel accepted by a community that would restrict his freedom to offend. But there is no denying that we failed in this objective. I agree with Dave that the responsibility for this failure is not his alone, however he was the captain of the ship.

As leader of the cult Dave must be held accountable. Ultimately it was his decision to allow this paedophile to join.

Kevin wrote:

Quote

Soon after this discussion another discussion occurred on the JCs forum that involved a mother claiming her children had been put at risk due to information being withheld from her. This concerned a JCs member who had confessed to fondling his girlfriend's daughter(s) "while they were sleeping", being sent on an outreach with her and her two children, and his known history being kept from her. It came out when another member who knew the person's history counselled the person to inform the mother. Dave has objected to the term pedophile being used to describe that individual and believed this was a one-off incident. Whatever the legal definition, the mother believed she should have been informed to make that call in relation to who travels with her children.

This is an issue of huge importance which needs to be addressed.

Was this man reported to the police? Was this man still a member of the JCs? (up until the disbanding rumours)

If someone has admitted to fondling a minor then he is a serious risk and should be reported to the police immediately. We have laws in this world. It's not up to Dave McKay to decide who is or isn't a paedophile.

How on earth can Dave dismiss such a huge confession as a one off?

It's not as if the guy has stolen a Mars Bar from the local shop, he's admitted to fondling a minor! This is horrifying.

One thing i'm starting to pick up on is just how trusting of paedophile's Dave is. Paedophile's are known liars. They're very good at deceiving people. How can Dave be sure it was a one off incident? (which is bad enough anyway)

We now see two examples of children being left in the care of a paedophile without the parents being informed of the person's past. Dave should be ashamed of himself.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2010 02:33AM by Apollo.

Here's an apposite tune as light relief, and a quick apology for the mantra inclusion. I looked it up and came across this rather wonderful translation of the sanskrit: "glory to the shining remover of darkness" which seems to me to be sufficiently non-specific to avoid offense, but I could be wrong on that.

[www.youtube.com]

There is an interesting comment on the creative process from the man himself, under 'Composition', here:

[en.wikipedia.org]

'I was a bit irritated and I went downstairs and it turned into a sort of cosmic song rather than, 'Why are you always mouthing off at me?'...'

'Any particular reason why Dave didn't insist the paedophile be reported to the Indian authorities immediately?'

My guess is that this is a twist on the Robert Ringer strategy of 'far, far, away.'
Davejc wanted a lot of distance between his group, this man's crimes while in his group and under Davejc's direction and care, and the inevitable outcome.

Distance, in hierarchy, has a function of protection of the upper echelon from the potential fall-out of their little experiments.
Passing the buck, to you and me.

A report to the Indian authorities would have left a trail back to Davejc whether or not he was actually present in India. A quick hand-off back to the group he originally came from was a passing of the buck and the responsibility, out of Davejc's hands.

Although on the spot in Australia, Davejc does not seem to have involved himself with the reporting to authorities there either----no need, the experiment and Davejc's interest in it, was over.

I'm wondering what publicity Davejc hoped to gain from his experiment, had it proved more successful?
A step too far, I think.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2010 05:32AM by Stoic.