Update 2012: It appears that the "Jesus Christians" led by Dave McKay have changed the group name. The group now seems to be known as the "Truth Belivers" and has a new Web site.

See [www.wix.com]

Dear David,

It's not often I feel inclined to go into "bat" for you...(just batting you directly is more like it)....however I must say that I appreciate your recent defence of "Creationism" ( even though at the same time, I must stand to my feet and take off my hat, while cheering wildly, to "Tofferer"....PLEASE BRING HIM BACK!!)....despite my disappointment at your evident desire to "wind up the conversation", in the post in order that you don't overly jepordise your constituency....(....in the end we can't really know, can we, so lets just be friends, and move on, shall we.....aka Fran and Kimono insipid contributions).....

I'm probably the only remaining Creation "loon" on the side of your critics.....Hence others may use your recent writings as "evidence" against you (but as some consolation, lucky you, you do have little ol' me on "your" side!!!!) You didn't appear to go to the effort to investigate Lisa's copulation shy salamanders? You're never "too busy" to look into a cause that you can make something out of ....and I don't think you would have find it beyond you to disprove her here.....(you don't appear to have moved on much beyond the old Children of God pamphlet, "Has Darwin made a monkey of you?" which I, of course, first encountered as a young and trusting member of the JesusChristians in the volume of COG material that you kept in your bedroom, all those years ago...the resources are considerably greater these days) Horses and Donkeys "breed" to produce mules.....there is of course no "evolution whatsoever here (...your Great Danes and Chihuahau examples caught Lisa flat-footed of course....as did another posters(?) observation that the said salamanders were reported to "evidently" not breed by the Journal Lisa quoted (.....hence there was nothing necessarily definitive in Lisa definitive example).....however even in the event of "ring species"

Any LOSS of genetic material in a species would of course in no way vouchsafe evolution....the Creationist position being that the genetic code (as you DO point out) can never be ADDED to....The genome can only suffer "entropy" (as Tofferer puts it)....being far less of a gentleman than you David, I of course, would have simply responded by suggesting that Lisa try breeding with the bucolic Bobonos she so admires, and thereby produce a "transitional species" that has ACQUIRED further genetic material as better evidence of her claims.....(but naturally enough, I understand that you'd NEVER engage in such derisory language towards anyone...would you, David!!)


You "reacted" to Lisa, without really taking her to task with material outside her "speciality"....say for example in the field of Astronomy. For (a small!) example:


The yearly rate of recession of orbit of the moon (by the evolutionary time table...it must have at one point would have been several hundred kilometeres underground...and theres no explanation why it still is in orbit of the earth over the supposed "billions of years" it has been drifting out of the earths gravitional pull)...likewise:

The rings of Saturn are gradually disintegrating and "shouldn't" now exist in an evolutionary time scale

The "ice" that fuels a comets tail (and thus causes the halo of light) should long ago have been spent (Lisa here will google "Ort Cloud"....something that has never been observed or proven and as you have already stated postulate something that requires more "faith" in evolution, than it does as "faith" of evidence of science for Creation)

The rates of weakening of the Earths magnetosphere (we "should" have been fried eons ago by microwaves from the Sun on an evolutionary timescale....AND we "should" have ALSO been initially killed by the original strength of the field....)

Spiral galaxies should have long. long ago twisted themselves into chaos (the sections of the arms of these galaxies rotate at different speeds and they are in the process of "tightening"...)

(The lack of meteorite impact dust on the moon is now a disputed "proof" so I'll let that go...although I don't understand how evolutionists account for it (a long period of NO meteorites???)...)

The constant "temperature" of space......inexplicable in an explosion (that would create temperature differences)out of the original "singularity"....


Lisa's tactic of course is too "google" a topic and then overwhelm anyone with the jargon of "technical" data....(so taking her away from the comfort zone of a keyboard and computer, would be an interesting exercise wouldn't it?) She simply "shouted down" Tofferer by writing volumes more than he did (My God! Now that I think of it....could this be a tactic that she has possibly seen in someone else?)....and that of course is how she will respond to any of the examples I provide, but nevertheless the clear cut insinuation she made that only "cold hard facts" support her, is easily troubled......!

She states:

"Agreed, and I hope you aren't thinking that's what I'm advocating. My initial problem is that the vast majority of Creationists I have ever discussed this matter with a) haven't studied science at ALL and revel in their ignorance or b) have read a few Creationist websites or a book and think this means they have studied the matter.

I still have yet to meet a Creationist who has properly investigated the science. I am glad that at least people on this thread are admitting they can't be bothered rather than pretending they have. (Lisa on Page 5)

And then directly and thoughtlessly simply COPIES the simile she provides to you from the very "Journal of non-copulating Salamandars" thereby doing doing exactly what she claims Creations do (.."read" a website and think that they have "studied" a matter...!

In concept, this can be likened to a spiral-shaped parking garage. A driver notices only a gentle rise as he ascends the spiral, but after making one complete circle, he finds himself an entire floor above where he started. 
(Journal)

Think of it as a spiral staircase. As you go up and round, you make only a tiny variation in the height and variation of each step. Yet by the time you've done a circle of these tiny steps, you are significantly above your starting position... just by making tiny changes to your position each time….(Lisa on page 2)

You let her get away saying that Dawkins states that there are no examples of irreducible complexity that can't be explained away....(...well without inane references to science fantasy, that is)....Lisa states "The Body of Christ needs BRAINS". (Page 7) Let her or Dawkins or anyone of her choosing then explain, how how those very brains (say the higher order brain functions such as appreciation of music, or the awareness of the existence of the self) "evolved" beyond a brain stem.....My (future) love of Beethoven makes me more likely to "pick up" the more nubile Neanthderthal "chicks" hanging around the camp-fire, outside the cave, at night???).....or is it little Lisa herself who needs the "brains" she admonishes others to be devoid of....

Lisa provided you with the address of one of the "theistic creation" web sites....being as old as I am, I hope that you wouldn't be inclined to "water down" what was standard teaching in the JesusChristians, in order to make yourself more "saleable".....(then again I have noted in your writings that we only need be "prepared" to obey Christ, and that God may not want us to always literally obey him......perhaps I'm still just a "dinosaur" in the faith, after all these years!)...there are a number of sites you can access. Besides AIG, "www.creationontheweb.com" or "www.creationresearch.net" by way of example.....

We all want a "better" JeusChristians don't we David? Avoiding the drift into permanent "cult-hood" .....Quoting me here on your site, (if you in fact wish to...its' up to you), by simply "cutting and pasting...and acknowledging the author without the need to comment sarcastically", would of course encourage me to treat you likewise......I think I have acknowledged other responsible comments you have made previously (even if in among my condemnation of those, I didn't see as so responsible......)

...but you don't have to.....if you want to make some "clever" observations, about me (or your critics), that always possible.....I'm regarded as "out of control" by many of the others who post on the RR forum......and maybe I can live up to that reputation, if you'd like!




Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2012 05:24AM by rrmoderator.

While we are on the subject of the JC thread discussing evolution/creation, it was amusing to read Alan Richard in one of his postings advising the participants in the thread to read Dr Lifton's work ("Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism")...

This work is often quoted by those working in organizations that are dedicated to undoing the damage cults wreak on people.

For example, see the "The Heresy of Mind Control" by Stephen Martin (fully available on-line through [wellspringretreat.org] on the "links" section of it's resource center heading)

[recognizeheresy.com]

Alan is thus effectively advising those trapped in a cult, to take note of a work that famously identifies the unconscionable practises of cults.....perhaps the members of the JesusChristians should choose not to read it too "closely", if they want to be able to continue to lie to themselves about the practises of deceit and servitude they engage in, on behalf of the "cause" .....

A question, Malcolm (and anyone else who might know about this):

There are certain weird things that I have heard (been told by a reliable ex-member) with respect to some of DM's more bizarre fantasies and ideas, that if factual reveal a truly deluded and crazy mind. Things like this:

1) DM believes that he is one of the (Biblical) Two Witnesses and that he will one day help rule and reign over the earth with the Virgin Army.
2) DM believes that a starship will take the JCs to heaven and that thay'll one day be watching the Marraige Supper of the Lamb on huge big-screen TV's. Once onboard, the aliens angels will explain how the New Jerusalem has been hidden in a secret dimension all this time, and how when the great marriage of God to the Church takes place everyone in New Jerusalem will be able to watch it on big screens.
3) That DM once wrote a screenplay for a movie he called Revelation and predicted that John the Revelator would come forward in time to view the completed film.

Now there's something I hear about how DM had a mental breakdown of some kind shortly before he moved to Australia, because he believed that one of his sons (unclear which one) was the Second Coming of Christ?

That one I heard from some person claiming to be a researcher.

Do you know anything of this, Mal? Do you know anything about other especially weird beliefs that DM may have had in the past with respect to himself? Is there anything especially crazy that you might remember?

Also, might you know if DM has been on psychiatric meds in the past? If so, when etc.?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2008 01:22PM by zeuszor.

Dear Zeusor,

I'm struggling a bit to answer your questions as you are taking me back earlier than "year zero" (when I joined the JesusChristians) and I'm really not in a position to postulate about Davids' history (...his mother would know of course....and his belated meeting, not so long ago, with her following the generous "travel allowance" the Jeremy Kyle program provided him with....would of course been in an attempt to somehow talk her into "shutting up" about his doubtful background......)

I still like to think that he's just got "worse" with time....and that the sometimes warm and human David McKay that I can remember from my internment, still actually exists somewhere, deep beneath "cult-king" David.....however;

"2) DM believes that a starship will take the JCs to heaven and that thay'll one day be watching the Marraige Supper of the Lamb on huge big-screen TV's. Once onboard, the aliens angels will explain how the New Jerusalem has been hidden in a secret dimension all this time, and how when the great marriage of God to the Church takes place everyone in New Jerusalem will be able to watch it on big screens."

This is something I remember being "taught" (without the TV screen elaborations....I wonder if the heavenly hosts prefer Plasma or LCD...that would help answer some important questions, wouldn't it).....secret dimensions or not....I would only see this as harmless speculation on David's part....(... provided that David is still capable of recognizing that it's only "speculation", on his part that is!!)....no worse than any other endeavor to "imagine" what it's all ultimately going to be like....

I can't though help with the latter part of your question;

3) That DM once wrote a screenplay for a movie he called Revelation and predicted that John the Revelator would come forward in time to view the completed film.

Now there's something I hear about how DM had a mental breakdown of some kind shortly before he moved to Australia, because he believed that one of his sons (unclear which one) was the Second Coming of Christ?

Although it is worrying to note what you describe here in your first question;

1) DM believes that he is one of the (Biblical) Two Witnesses and that he will one day help rule and reign over the earth with the Virgin Army.

...as it smacks of some serious "delusions of grandeur".....and is the type of claim one might associate with the likes of Jim Jones or David Koresh!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2008 02:05PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.

Have you ever known of DM to be an overtly violent individual? Have you ever known him to be physically aggressive?

Dear Zeusor,

I have not known David to be physically aggressive, and would like still to be able to think better of him than that, although a little sadly it looks like he is happy to be disingenuously complicit in the violence that others quietly threaten to do on his "behalf"....(here I'm thinking of Rolands' threat to "punch Kevins' face in" during the occasion David swindled those in Australia, who stood up to him, out of their home and the cash they held....I would doubt this to have been the one and only occasion)....I see little evidence that David would restrain someone who legally took the risk themselves, of visiting violence on someone else, to his advantage.....

(Naturally you can deny this David,....and the best way to "deny" it would be to publically state that you would never condone violence directly, or indirectly through "inaction" as the professed Apostle of God, leading the JesusChristians!....We await such a declaration, as well as some public reprimand of Roland for his ugly threats).

While I acknowledge, that it may be difficult for me to compete with the depth of legal knowledge David McKay has clearly acquired from all the years spent avidly watching all those black and white re-runs of Perry Mason, and which he is now in the process of disseminating to Joe, still I venture to submit the following considerations pursuant to a recent posting from Master Joe Johnson, himself.


I give you, Joes(now somewhat annotated!) post in all its glory....



Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject:

NEW POST April 15




FROM JARED:
Quote:
Hello Son, I'm glad to hear that you appreciate my e-mails, I appreciate yours too.

Thanks, Jared. I too hope that we can continue to communicate with each other, and that eventually we will be able to resolve our differences.

This of course will be difficult where Joe deceitfully dissembles information, to aid and abet the malice of the leader of the cult in whose service he now finds himself, still we must admire Jared’s efforts here. PLEASE remember won’t you Joe, “Jus ex injuria non oritur” (No right arises out of wrong doing) no matter how often David assures you that the (“temporary”) wrong doing is only in the wider interests of the “Kingdom of Heaven”

Quote:

The reason I don't write often is because I know you're a grown man and I respect that. I'm not going to pressure you. I just want you to know that I support you and love you son. Your mom is grown she can answer for her own contacts. I never talked to anyone from Rick Ross and I never hired private investigators.

Thanks again, Jared, for saying that. I had actually been thinking all this time that you supported Sheila in her efforts. It is good to know that you don't. But still, I must ask, what about the assault on Reinhard? Was that her fault, or your fault?

Suggestio Falsi. Leading questions and psychological barbs designed to maliciously foment division by playing off Jared against Sheila. In a court your comments would be disallowed.

Is it fair to say that you were respecting my rights as a grown man then? Were you really supporting me, or were you trying to pressure me? And who pays for all of these private investigators that Sheila keeps hiring? I really do believe that you need to stop being the follower in you guys' relationship, and start standing up for what is right if you really do disagree with what she is doing.

Please detail the law that disallows the employment of “private investigators”. (Your pitiful attempt at divisive patrimony is further evidence of the influence of David upon you). Your “rights” to participate in a cult do not preclude the rights of others to disagree with that decision.

Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur (No person suffers punishment for a thought).

Your duplicitous aspersions that any contrary thought of your parent (or that the legal engagement of professional detective services) somehow “pressures” you is transparently vexatious.

Quote:
I don't comment on the incident that took place because of legal reasons. My attorney says that discussion is off limits.

Hmmm... it's a bit hard to believe this one.

I agree that it would be hard for someone who had no knowledge of the Law to understand that the obligations of Contract (The terms of an out of court settlement may be recorded as a formal agreement, which then take effect as a contract – Please see any major legal dictionary!) that may include conditions of non-disclosure.

Qui jussu judicis aliquod fecerit non videtur dolo malo fecisse quia parere necesse est (One who does something by command of a judge is not regarded as having done it with any fraudulent or wrongful motive motive because it is necessary for him or her to comply)

Your statement is probably accurate given your naiveté.


The trial is over. You have already plead guilty of assault on Reinhard and you were found guilty.The trial is history. Why on earth would your attorney tell you that you couldn't discuss it with your own son now?

This would probably be due to the fact that the son is now utterly betoken to the scheming whims of a person of non-repute, who extorts parents into silence with the threat of access to their children, and who would love to exact revenge on a family that publicly humiliated him, by bravely taking him on, and beating him in court.

I am not sure if you are actually aware of this, but when judges do their sentencing, two of the main things that they look for are (1) signs that the offender has taken full personal responsibility for the crime that was committed, and (2) whether they show any genuine signs of remorse for what they did.

I am SURE that David and Joe are actually aware of this, namely that Judges exercise such discretion in situations where they are deliberating sentencing. There is no longer any legally dischargeable duty of sentencing in relation to Jared. (Howbeit in God’s good grace, we await the sentencing of David McKay). The misinformation here is clearly deliberately manipulative.

I It would actually work in your ADVANTAGE (legally, at least) to be saying a LOT about what you did, and how sorry you are that you did it. But you don't even seem able to bring yourself to use the word assault, much less to say that you were the one that was doing it. It's just "the incident" as far as you are concerned.

Joe is engaged in the crime of entrapment here, as an Agent Provocateur on behalf of David McKay, in deliberate breach of the civil rights of Jared, endeavoring to induce Jared into publicly admitting “fault”, (that could presumably be the basis of a later Tort) in a self incriminating admission that would never otherwise be entered into. “Access” (to Joe) is the emotional blackmail, Joe is using here to attempt to legally defraud his father, in collusion with David McKay.

Still, let's not talk about legal terms. Let's talk about Christian terms and family terms. Are you really prepared to put your lawyer before the truth, before your relationship with me, before your relationship with God?

David McKay is a conniving charlatan. The scriptures do not support him at all, in the young people who he swindles of their lives. Your parents are far closer to the truths of Christ than a man who lives and breathes “bad faith” both legally and scripturally.

When are you going to forsake your Godless dependence on McKays’ “approval” to follow the Christ of the scriptures, Joe?.

I am looking for some kind of sign of repentance from you, and you have to understand that it's pretty hard to find. You can say that it is none of my business, but that is only true if it is none of your business whether I ever come home again.

You are again extorting your parents, Joe. Did Christ ever do the same? (Please nominate the scripture, if so.)

I would like to see you again one day, but it is not going to happen while you say that you cannot comment on what you did to my friend, because I have no assurance that the same exact thing will not happen all over again.

Will the whippings of any volunteers ever happen again Joe? Will the donations David deceptively (misrepresentation) gained from the Quakers ever be returned, Joe? Will you too be “encouraged” to sell your organs for the publicity it will be buy? It seems that we have no “assurance”.

Quote:
I'm not poking a stick and you're not an animal. The decision to stay in hiding is your decision.


It is unclear to me whether it is Sheila or you who is playing games with PIs, but I do know who was poking the "sticks" at Reinhard. You are right that the decision to stay away from you guys in my own; but it is a decision based on what you have done and what you are still refusing to do. It is within your power to help change that decision.

It is NOT though within your parents’ power to prevent you, from attempting to “buy” their silence and co-operation, by “bargaining” yourself, in order to prevent any facts from being made public that would discredit David McKay. It is not within their power, because you have been completely duped into believing that any lie you engage in for the “truths” of the JesusChristians are simply part and parcel of “spoiling Egypt” (David’s justification for dishonesty before secular authority).

Hence, any accommodation on their part in deference to your “personal space” and the “infringement of your rights” would only be temporary at best, and would in fact simply encourage David to coax you to do so again in the future.


Quote:
I never employed gangsters from Compton. Those people are friends of John. Some of those people attended your games at Serra.

I don't want to argue over whether that group of gangsters were some of your students, or just some of John's homies . The point is that they were not MY friends (and I never saw any of them at my games at Serra, either), and yet they were hired to pretend they were. And when I said that I had never met them before in my life, Fox News took footage of that one line and pretended that I was saying it to you. You and Sheila still support that lie. Why? Isn't it because you want me to look bad, so the world will think more of you despite the fact that you tried to kill Reinhard?

Your libelous claim of “excessive force” has been already dismissed by the very court that you ask your Father to abjure himself, before. You looked bad, because you have chosen to be part of something “bad”!

FROM SHEILA
Quote:
Dear Joseph, I wanted you to know that initially I tried to hire an investigator to track you down. However, that was in May of 2007.


So are you saying that you only "tried" to hire a investigator... and that you have only ever tried once to hire one private investigator, and that you did not SUCCEED on that one and only occasion? See, what bothers me, Sheila, is that you only seem to admit to something when you have been caught in the act, and even then you often do not admit to it. You started by saying that you had not contacted ANY private investigators, until we showed you the evidence that we knew about that one.

They (Jared and Sheila) have not been caught “in the act” as they have never contravened any law. Thus there is nothing to “admit to”. See, what bothers me Joe is that you equate the inane rantings of one David McKay with the weight of a “legal” right. As you have chosen to live independently of your parents, why should your parents then be obliged to inform you of the (legal) measures they take for the welfare of people they love and care for. (A material consideration which would mitigate against any finding against them, should such a court exist that would pander to your cant.)

And what about your efforts to cause trouble for us with the Quakers?

I was personally one of those who “caused trouble” for you with the Quakers, and while I am not aware of the nature of any efforts on your Fathers’ part here, please explain how the dissemination of information (say for example from David McKay’s son) represents a legal wrong. If you are unable to do so, you are guilty of calumny.

You still have not admitted to holding a gun when Jared and John were trying to kill Reinhard, even though I saw you holding it. Instead, you said things on this forum that tried to make it sound like I am a liar. In fact, I don't think you have ever even admitted that there WAS such an attack, or that it was wrong of you and Jared and John to have done it.

Res inter alios acta alteri nocere not debet (A person ought not to be prejudiced by what has taken place between others)

Was your mother ever subject to any proceedings? Is it legal in America to own a hand gun? (Have you ever at any time, handled the weapon yourself Joe?) Was there an altercation in her domicile, with persons unknown? You are maliciously seeking to impute doubt here Joe, with circumstantial evidence.

You are simply repeating yourself ad naseum here, as the Pharisees did, trying to tell yourself that the more loudly you complain, the more “rights” you will have to your version of justice….it is a tactic that you have slavishly copied from David (assuming that it is actually you writing this posting, and not David simply dictating “your” response).

Quote:
I haven't even tried to hire anyone since then. I apologize that I offended you in my efforts to track you down. I never had a physical address from you and at the time I lacked a telephone number.


So you are not apologising at all for hiring a private investigator to track me down.

Please identify the law that has been transgressed here.

In fact, you are saying that it was justified because I did not give you a "physical address". And why did you need a physical address? Wasn't that so that you would know where to go in making your next move... which would have been to take physical control of me?

Frivolous and vexatious, prejudicial allegations. Please nominate the member of the JesusChristians that has EVER been “physically controlled”. Please comment on the force David and Roland (vicarious liability) employed to remove Kevin McKay from his home or on the whipping of the vounteer in Kenya(….the discharge of responsibility that David had him enter into is a legal nonsense).

The only thing you have apologised for is for offending me. That sounds more like an apology on my behalf. I don't see anything wrong with me being offended at all, so please don't apologise for me being offended. It would be better if you apologised for sending a private investigator to track me down, and then let ME decide if I did something wrong by being offended.

Illogical and self absorbed circular reasoning. You do not deserve the slightest apology at all, and again demanding others negotiate within the “logic” of your childish tantrums is a clear indication of McKay at work.

Quote:
I did speak with Liesel during the Kenya crisis because I panicked. I am not friends with anyone from the Rick Ross group. I haven't contacted Liesel since you told me that it offended you. I'm not in contact with any of those people over there. Also, I wanted you to know that they contacted me because information about our family was on your website.

Once again, you are trying to give the impression that you are not "friends" with anyone from the Rick Ross group, and yet Liesel (a woman whom you have supposedly never met and never been friends with, and who lives 3,000 miles away from you) was the first person that you "talked to" when Dave tried to share information with you about what was happening during the Kenya crisis.

I have categorically never met Jared Johnson or spoken with him (possibly because I have also never yet set foot on US soil), however should I ever be granted the privilege to shake the mans’ hand, I will do so with great honour. Joe is of course, seeking to extort compliance here, with David McKays subterfuge to isolate the families of the young people he has preyed upon, they they not be able to communicate with each other. You are willfully perverting the course of justice here Joe, by seeking to obstruct the access of aggrieved persons to the law (i.e. A Class action)

Well, if Liesel is a better source of information than my friends, then fine... go with her.

(From what I saw of Liesel on the Jeremy Kyle program, I believe your parents would do well indeed to “go with her” as you put it. Finally….a worthwhile suggestion from you, Joe).

But don't tell me that it has anything to do with improving our relationship, or that it had anything to do with concern for my safety at that time. Dave contacted you because he thought you WOULD be concerned and that you would want instant updates; and you rewarded him by contacting Liesel and getting her to turn it against us on the Rick Ross forum.

Your poisoned mind is evidence of what David really “wants”.

Brian has also shared information with us that could only have come from you, so we know that you are in contact with him too.

Are you abrogating your parents’ rights to Freedom of Association? Please refer to the Constitution.

Maybe you should look into adopting Brian and making him your replacement son, because you sure aren't doing much to help our relationship.

Maybe you should look at your replacement parent, the “good” David Mckay, and compare his self-righteous prostitution of the bible with the compassion of Christ, because he sure isn’t doing much to help your relationship with God.


With my usual poetic license, you may remember Joe, that I recently, somewhat famously, described David as the “arsehole from Down Under” (to which I plead Qualified Privilege Joe, if you wish to seek Defamation, although you may also find the small matter of Jurisdiction somewhat problematic here)….that I would consider to be one of the more lyrical verses I have ever penned ….only for me then (…“swoon”…!)to be gutted by the disparaging comments of those who found me too “immoral” to be helpfully part of the consensus, against McKay.

But I ask myself Joe, given the closeness and the special “bond” that you now have with David, and taking into account the content of your candid disclosures of the communication you have with your family (or anyone external to the JesusChristians, for that matter) how could McKay NOT be one big “arsehole” when I can distinctly see his shit all through everything you write????

Dear David,

I see you are posting about the source of your troubles with the Quakers. First of all, let me remind you that I am NOT a Quaker. I had been attending a local Quaker meeting until it closed early this year.

I had been invited maybe two years ago, as an attender, to have my details registered on the Quaker list of attendees. I gave my email address in good faith that it would only be used for official Quaker business. This has remained the case, with one exception.

Last year you decided to send an email to all those who had registered their email address on the Quaker mailing list about a problem you had with the Devonshire Street meeting (a kind of spam?).

A strange email entitled "An email from David and Cherry" (or similar) arrived in every Quaker email account in Australia. May I, ever so politely, suggest that if anyone promoted the Jesus Christians problems within the Quakers, it was yourself, by doing what no other Quaker has done to my knowledge, and broadcasting the problems you had with your local meeting to every email address listed with the Australian Quakers! I would suggest that other than your local meeting and maybe a few office-bearers (and maybe a few readers of the Quaker Forum, I never read it) most Quakers and attendees, like myself, were baffled by the email you sent out, and had no idea what it referred to. I suppose most deleted it as spam! The fact that I decided to find out what it was all about, and began to post here, was due to your own broadcast email, nothing else.

And please don't go over this line by line, and publish everything you know about me on the internet again as punishment for pointing this out to you.

I only post this to give you and other readers some perspective on your latest posting.

Kind Regards

Anita.

The "source" of David's troubles with the Quakers, is of course that he has deliberately prostituted selected "proof" texts (forsaking all, hating your parents) while he has deliberately ignored wider scriptures that clarify the application of his "proof" texts, for the ends of his own self-worship (i.e. self-appointed "Consul for Life" of a group of manipulated individuals who spend their waking hours doing little more with their lives, than selling his self-indulgent writing)....

.....and that the Quakers don't engage in such behaviour....OR want to be seen to endorse such behaviour by condoning the membership of someone who HATES the fundamental plurality of interpretation and spiritual freedom that the Quakers critically adhere to.

"Publish everything he knows about you" is transparently an endeavour to intimidate you (Your bravery here is noted, Blackhat)....owing to my inclination not to pander to David's machinations whatsoever, it does somehow strike me as appropriate that I post (yet again!), everything that I know of Davids mother personal assessment of her son, as "punishment"...(with thanks to Zeusor once more, whose phone interview report appears below)...


"I said that if anybody would remember David as a kid, it would be his mother. She was very open and friendly, plain-spoken. She told me that you have not seen one another in several years and rarely communicate. Such a sweet woman she is, such a deep believer, very religious and strong in faith. She told me that she did her best to teach you right from wrong and always stood up for your when your father was antagonistic and thought that you were up to no good. She told me your father always thought that you were undisciplined and gave you a hard time but that she always stood up for you, and that even as a child you were prideful, vain, rebellious. That was the word she used to sum up her memory of you as a kid: rebellious. She further told me that she now realizes that your father was right and that you were lacking in discipline and were extremely manipulative.;This all does not come as a shock to me; in fact, her testimony only confirms what I have suspected all along. She told me that she did her best to raise you good and that she has not a drop of pride in you or what you do. She knows about how you rip families apart, and how you have a pattern of jumping onto other people’s bandwagons and trying to take over other people’s projects, and told me of how she is just ashamed of you and for who you turned out to be.;She told me that early on you had the goal of going into the mission field, and felt called to live as a full-time missionary, from the age of eight in fact. She confirmed that your family was very religious and that your brothers all turned out to be genuinely pious people.

She told me how as a kid you read the Bible thoroughly and that she was always surprised at how you could memorize and recite whole passages of Scripture. She told me of how you’d preach to neighborhood kids and your classmates. She told of how in high school you started some kind of Bible Club but that it didn’t last long and ended badly, something about interpersonal conflicts.;She told me that she knows how you are, that you have more or less always been that way, and that she knows exactly how you rip families to pieces , use those kids to raise money, turn people against one another, she told me about your weird, hurtful, and attention-seeking stunts as a kid too (she even confirmed that the “beggar story” is true) and were generally manipulative, attention-seeking, and obsessed with the Bible from a very, very early age. She told me that once one group of followers or given group of people gets wise to you, you simply move on and find a new group to feed from, a new host to leech off of, so to speak. And she said you were like that even as a kid. I asked her why you moved to Australia in the first place, and she said that you just said something vague, that you were leaving to be a missionary, and that she hasn’t heard from you much or had much relationship with you since.

She said that you never smoked or drank or partied as a kid, that you were a bit nerdy really, and that you were not exactly a troublemaker, but you were very manipulative, attention-seeking, and always trying to be the center of attention, trying to organize things around yourself. She said of you, “He always wanted to be famous. He always wanted his name in lights.” That you were always critical of Billy Graham and other big-time preachers, and that you wanted to be bigger than them even, that you were in fact jealous, but that you lacked the discipline to go out and do it yourself. She told me of the slick suit, with the white jacket and dark slacks, that you won and went around the world in. Her words were “And then he married that girl and I haven’t heard much from him since. “ Didn’t seem to know Cherry well, or even her name for that matter. She was very open about how she hasn’t spoken with your kids, her grandchildren, in years. She just was very frank and open in speaking with me and gave me a lot of info in not much time.

She told me of how you stayed up all night once in her home, reading the Left Behind series (she said that she loves those books), how you were taking copious notes, and that shortly after that visit you began working on Survivors. She said that LaHaye and Jenkins tried to sue you, also.;The most positive aspect of David's past and present life is his 86 year-old mother, Alice. She's a most kind woman, who is deeply religious. Her faith in God sees her through the grief of having raised a son like David, a man, who causes as much devastation to other families as he has caused to hers. She loves her son, though is ashamed of him, but does not support his self-seeking mission. She hardly ever hears from him and that's hard for any mother, especially in her reclining years.;She is such a nice woman, your mother, a saintly person, and so ashamed of you. She said that she was always nice to you, always stood up for you, and that she doesn't understand why you treat her so poorly. Ashamed to call you her son, she is…"


Hmmm…it seems to me that David's mother really hasn't made him sound very much like “Quaker” material…What a trouble maker, that woman is!! (Here I don't make mention of the letter from her, David proudly posted in the old printed newsletters in the 70's, of his mother castigating him for being the blasphemously dishonest sham that he is!) David needs to pore though this testament line by line, and properly, once and for all, repudiate his despised mother for the bitter hateful resentment that has prompted her to speak so harshly down through all those years ...after all, David went to all the trouble to visit her following the Jeremy Kyle program in order to somehow persuade her to shut up (by deceitfully telling how much he "loves" her, and how much dear brother Robin was embarrassed by her outspokenness, and thereby slyly coax her into rectitude...)....and STILL she failed to supply a retraction!!!!

Lets hear David take his own mother to town BEFORE he sees fit to denigrate any one else (and of course then share that effort with loving brother and dearest son Robin!)...after all, from reading what he (hypocritically) tells others, David needs to hate his mother if he's to truely love God, doesn't he...!



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2008 11:04PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.

Dear Glenn,

You write: (to Simon)

As a final note i must say, you are doing really well on here, you have the support of some of the RR cheer team.

Of course i would be very weary, i had them cheering me on, when i choose not to get on the bus, but those cheers soon ended when i refused to speak evil about Dave and join their rat pack.

And: (to the world in general)

Will anyone else on this thread and come forward and say this is wrong too? As i'm not hearing too much of that, expect now a little from you.


We can only remain the “best of enemies” for the time being Glenn, however let me at least welcome you to the “club”…..David has now abandoned you in favour of the more “promising” Simon….

As David preys off the simplistic "idealism" that Simon doesn't appear to be mature enough to have grown beyond at this stage in his life....he will presumably remain a “favourite” in preference to you, for some time….

I would “come forward” and speak up on your behalf, but (as you may be about to out for yourself) my contributions would only be emasculated for David to then “triumphantly “ trump before his adoring audience.

However in relation to Simon:

Did the “human shields” remain in Iraq between the wars to protect the Iraqi people from the abuses of Saddams regime (i.e the arbitrary internment in Al-gharib of any political opponents) No….well they (Donna for example??) might just as well describe themselves as a “Saddam" shields, as "Human" shields....

Simon fails to discuss the Kurdish north of Iraq which to many extents and purposes, HAS peacefully undergone substantial reconstruction, under self government.

(Even Basra now has its' own stable “government” of war-lords, which has permitted the resumption of basic services!)

Does Simon favour abandoning Afghanstan to the Taliban? (If he claims not to know the answer in this “particular” instance, he has just gutted his own argument).

Should the Peace-Keeping forces in Timor withdraw? (They could potentially injure combatants, and even (God help us!) non-combatants. (Should the UN engage in any peace-keeping duties at all….say for example the current forces situated in southern Lebanon).

Simon has his supporters and I can appreciate the intent of some of Simons contribution to the thread (where David is enjoying belittling you), however with any number of reference to practical examples, I believe that you could reduce his self-centered morality, (that is fundamentally drawn on the luxury of being born in a country where he can take for granted the people, who historically died to establish the independence of the courts and parliament, the circumscription of the powers of the monarch and the establishment of the rule of law), to the realm of fantasy.