An example of cult-like critic behavior
Monica Pignotti
shutting out of criticism that seems to be quite common in some
circles, I thought I'd post it here as an example of what I've been
concerned about:
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=27815&postorder=asc
"Dorothy" wants to continue the cult-like practice of discouraging
criticism, labelling it as "negativity". She wants only positive
postings and wants critics of Anonymous relegated to a separate forum.
This is a prime example of what I am having a problem with. She wants
everything to be a touchy-feely love fest, "the fuzzy pink slipper
club" as Diane Richardson put it. Dorothy has a very black and white,
us vs. them way of thinking about all this -- she wants no criticism
of tactics of Anonymous or any other Scientology critics on the forum,
which strangely, she equates with "hijacking" although I see no one
being forced to do anything. The problem is that people leaving
Scientology come from the same kind of environment where no negative
criticism of its own (called "entheta") is allowed. Now she and
certain other ex-Scientologists still in this mindset are carrying
this over into people who oppose Scientology. I will continue to point
this out in the hopes that eventually people will begin to better
understand the kind of cult-like shutting out of criticism that is
going on here.
Monica
Emma
"Monica Pignotti" <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:b937fbb0-a9e5-4021...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
As far as I know "Dorothy" doesn't post to ars or possibly even read it. Why
do you feel the need to "make an example" of someone who was just trying to
comminucate with you?
I'm not surprised that people have reacted negatively towards you. Whatever
sense was in your original message has since been lost in your arrogance &
superiority.
The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
Emma wrote:
> "Monica Pignotti" <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:b937fbb0-a9e5-4021...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>>
>> Monica
>
> As far as I know "Dorothy" doesn't post to ars or possibly even read it. Why
> do you feel the need to "make an example" of someone who was just trying to
> comminucate with you?
>
> I'm not surprised that people have reacted negatively towards you. Whatever
> sense was in your original message has since been lost in your arrogance &
> superiority.
>
>
Mrs. Pignotti is superior to nobody, so her sense could just got lost in
arrogance.
Nothing to worry - Tom Newton will pick it up. She then could jump on
his shoulders and at least feel superior to him.
As such they could walk into scientology main building and report their
"win". The leadership will bow to them like never before, unless they
are too busy on jumping on each other's shoulders to give the impression
of superiority.
Endlessly.
--
.Lily.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
For further enlightenment, please read some of Truth Seeker's articles:
:: The Hitchhiker’s Guide Through A.R.S. - Complete List Of Truth
Seeker’s Articles About This Newsgroup ::
To assure, that the link leads to a google-groups thread, please preview
the long address:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2tecyl
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed. wrote:
> I would not interfere normally, but this is too much to be overlooked.
>
> Emma wrote:
>> "Monica Pignotti" <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:b937fbb0-a9e5-4021...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> <snip>
>>>
>>> Monica
>>
>> As far as I know "Dorothy" doesn't post to ars or possibly even read
>> it. Why do you feel the need to "make an example" of someone who was
>> just trying to comminucate with you?
>>
>> I'm not surprised that people have reacted negatively towards you.
>> Whatever sense was in your original message has since been lost in
>> your arrogance & superiority.
>>
>
> Mrs. Pignotti is superior to nobody, so her sense could just got lost in
> arrogance.
> Nothing to worry - Tom Newton will pick it up. She then could jump on
> his shoulders and at least feel superior to him.
>
> As such they could walk into scientology main building and report their
> "win". The leadership will bow to them like never before, unless they
>
are too busy on jumping on each other's shoulders
themselves
Howard
Hi MP
Here is what Toto's minder actually began by saying:
"Recently there was formed a small, loose movement here on OCMB that
I call "Critics of Anonymous". Their purpose was to warn the
Original Critics Movement, or OCMs against being associated with
Anonymous. I suspect this movement was born out of a fear that the
OCM was beginning to merge with Anon, and that they would eventually
become one, indistinguishable, and that the OCM would be held
accountable for any and all actions, and alleged shortcomings,
mistakes, or even alleged crimes that might be pinned on this
Anonymous. I will give this new movement the benefit of the doubt
that their intentions are good and are borne out of caring about the
OCM. However, I wish to also point out the results of their
actions."
"My purpose for this thread is to
1) Show that the OCM =/= Anonymous
2) Recognize that "Critics of Anonymous" is a new movement aside
from OCM and deserves to have its own forum, and
3) Reassure C of A that OCM is perfectly capable of taking care of
itself, maintaining its own identity, and will remain separate
from Anonymous.
4) Address the issue of metrics from a different perspective."
[...]
Now call me an old picky-puss if you wish, but I see few (if any)
significant correspondences between the position of the OP and your
interpretation thereof.
Howard
--
hedmundoatmacmaildotcom
Now playing: Passages - Philip Glass and Ravi Shankar
Alexia Death
You again... Id tell you to go stick your head up your butt but since
its already deeply there that wont help... How about going and
entertaining yourself elsewhere. We have all heard your "BAWWWWWWW"
already.
Oh, and even Anonymous as a whole does not take responsibility for
individual Anons actions. They will shun anybody who acts out of
communally agreed code but thats where it ends, there is no command
chain. OCMB can not be responsible/merged on any way or form. the OCMB
members that put on masks become members of both sets. Just like
everybody can belong to two sports teams...
Hartley Patterson
> Since this person was very eloquent in expressing the cult-like
> shutting out of criticism that seems to be quite common in some
> circles, I thought I'd post it here as an example of what I've been
> concerned about:
>
> http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=27815&postorder=asc
She mentioned YOU, so you've dragged YOUR problem with her over onto ARS.
You want to debate with her, do it there!
> I will continue to point
> this out in the hopes that eventually people will begin to better
> understand the kind of cult-like shutting out of criticism that is
> going on here.
No criticism at all is bad, as happens inside the cult. Too much is also
bad, as that diverts attention away from the actual purposes of the group.
In between is some balance point that the group will never ever agree
upon, and in my view debate on where the point should be set is a waste of
time. It's a sliding scale, not a clear choice.
You're firing off at a non-existent target. Some here will always be more
critical of what's going on than others because we are humans doing what
humans do. Just because the specific subjects I criticise people on are
different from yours doesn't make either of us wrong. Read more.
--
FREEDOM is a trademark owned by
Religious Technology Center
http://mysite.orange.co.uk/newsfrombree/stolgy_0.htm
roger gonnet
news:b937fbb0-a9e5-4021...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Monica, there is something you don't understand very well here.
People who are not in a cult have rights. People from a cult have none.
People out of a cult can express their opinions against the cult and how
they think the struggle should exist. We allow scientologists to say
whatever they think BY THEMSELVES, but certainly, we don't like to see them
expressing the cultic views we know.
By instance, when the cultists say we are hatemongers or whatever, they give
the cult's view, not a fact. That an anon says she does not like to be
criticized does not look as a problem for me. She has the right to do so.
Besides, you could'nt even prove she's really an anonymous: she could be one
of the cultists who try to infiltrate the system so as to decribilize it.
r
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
This is funny though as the approach and operating basis of the anti-
Scientologist would be the very same (although directed towards the
opposite side). Now WHICH are the cults around here, really?
Roadrunner
zo...@yahoo.com
Oh you critic-critics just love to go for equivalency. "It's just two
cults battling each other."
It's ridiculous on its face and doesn't even deserve to have logic or
analysis applied to it.
Fail.
out...@live.co.uk
wrote:
So I take it that every time someone disagrees with you on OCMB you're
going to come to ARS and write a critical analysis of them and accuse
them of 'cult-like' behaviour, If you're taking requests could you
please do one on Daywatch because that would be hilarious.
Monica Pignotti
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
Because I want to. Dorothy is doing far more than just trying to
communicate with me. She is trying to control and urging the
sequestration of critics. I will broadcast that on any forum I can, so
people can wake up and see the extremes some people are going to.
> I'm not surprised that people have reacted negatively towards you. Whatever
> sense was in your original message has since been lost in your arrogance &
> superiority.
That's another ad hominem attack, typical of the true believers. This
has nothing to do with arrogance and superiority and everything to do
with my strongly standing up for my right to criticise and not be
silenced. It doesn't mean that I think I am superior -- that is your
spin doctoring. It might go over with your Mintonesque true believing
friends, but it's not going to go over with everyone here because here
on ARS, there is no such silencing. I am expressing myself very
strongly because when I see people trying to silence critics, I know
that this means big trouble and unhealthy group dynamics. If you don't
like it, Emma, go back to your fuzzy pink slipper club.
Monica Pignotti
<lilyfire...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would not interfere normally, but this is too much to be overlooked.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Emma wrote:
> >news:b937fbb0-a9e5-4021...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> <snip>
>
> >> Monica
>
> > As far as I know "Dorothy" doesn't post to ars or possibly even read it. Why
> > do you feel the need to "make an example" of someone who was just trying to
> > comminucate with you?
>
> > I'm not surprised that people have reacted negatively towards you. Whatever
> > sense was in your original message has since been lost in your arrogance &
> > superiority.
>
> Mrs. Pignotti is superior to nobody, so her sense could just got lost in
> arrogance.
How dare you insult my 87-year old mother. The only "Mrs. Pignotti" is
my mother. Pignotti is my family name, given at birth. I am not a
Pignotti by marriage, so please, stop insulting my mother and either
refer to me as Monica or Ms. Pignotti.
Personal attacks on me for arrogance just because I choose to speak my
mind and refused to be silenced are getting really repetitious and
quite lame.
> Nothing to worry - Tom Newton will pick it up. She then could jump on
> his shoulders and at least feel superior to him.
I have no desire to feel superior to anyone. That is your fictitious
concoction and the others you have fallen into groupthink with.
> As such they could walk into scientology main building and report their
> "win". The leadership will bow to them like never before, unless they
> are too busy on jumping on each other's shoulders to give the impression
> of superiority.
>
> Endlessly.
> --
> .Lily.
>
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
> For further enlightenment, please read some of Truth Seeker's articles:
> :: The Hitchhiker’s Guide Through A.R.S. - Complete List Of Truth
> Seeker’s Articles About This Newsgroup ::
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2tecyl
>
> To assure, that the link leads to a google-groups thread, please preview
> the long address:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2tecyl
>
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Monica Pignotti
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> a écrit dans le message denews:b937fbb0-a9e5-4021...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Are you serious? I do understand that. Dorothy doesn't, though,
because she wants to see critics sequestered and marginalized onto a
different forum. She wants only a positive self-congratulatory fuzzy
pink slipper club. She has the right to express her opinions and I
have the right to express my opinions, only she wants to deny me and
others that right, on OCMB by sequestering us to a separate forum when
the name of the existing forum, ironically, is OPINIONS and DEBATE.
>
> By instance, when the cultists say we are hatemongers or whatever, they give
> the cult's view, not a fact. That an anon says she does not like to be
> criticized does not look as a problem for me. She has the right to do so.
She has the right to say that, but she has no right to demand
sequestration of critics. Read the posting I linked to. That's what
she is recommending -- that we not be allowed to criticise Anonymous
in OPINIONS and DEBATE. I'm not sure what she thinks belongs there --
maybe a debate on what kind of caek to make? She is the one who is
being the control freak, not I. She is trying to get a change on OCMB
to sequester critics of Anonymous and make it into some kind of
"movement" that doesn't exist.
> Besides, you could'nt even prove she's really an anonymous: she could be one
> of the cultists who try to infiltrate the system so as to decribilize it.
Please go back and read the title of this thread. I didn't say she was
an "anonymous". I simply described her as a critic. I believe she is a
recently-exited ex-Scientologist. My point is that she is trying to
suppress and sequester critics of Anonymous, not that she herself is
part of or representative of Anonymous.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
No, I do not intend to do that "every time". I will do it as I see
fit. I think this kind of cult-like behavior needs to be outed. Good
suggestion, re Daywatch, who has an utterly ridiculous posting on that
same thread I linked to where he accuses me of being a racist bigot
because I objected to the spamming of pictures of Asian women on a
thread, pictures that I found degrading of Asians and women, but he
tried to turn that around and call me a racist. Of course, he's so
ridiculous it's hardly worth the time exposing that because such
postings are self-refuting.
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
Tsk, tsk, you are a pretty ignorant observer... Knowledge of other
starts with knowledge of self.
Roadrunner
out...@live.co.uk
I think that was just an attempted ironic parody of Os/smitty's claims
that 'Anon = criminals/ prank callers/ terrorists and that OG critics
should distance themselves from them' in that 50 page Thread O'
Doom.
>Of course, he's so
> ridiculous it's hardly worth the time exposing that because such
> postings are self-refuting.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bugger, I was hoping you'd write a wall of text calling him into
account :( -preferably in bullet point form (sparkly text
optional).
The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
define it simply and clearly. At best in your own words and not as
quotes from some books, out of context and probably misunderstood or
even a bit altered.
I have a question to you, since you seem to have a kind of vision about
that what you call "cult-like-behaviour".
Would a group of people in the desert, who went astray, but decides to
stay together in order to find the path to an oasis develop a
cult-like-behaviour, because they stick together and agree that they
want to survive and therefore do equal steps? Would that behaviour fall
under your definition of it as well?
Could you explain why, or why not or where the difference is, in 3
sentences or max. 30 words?
Cult-like-behaviour requires much more than agreement in putting steps
or than working together for a common goal. It most of all requires e.g.
that the group feels superior to others due to their way of thinking or
due to their way of worshipping something. But that is just a small part
of the differences.
Anonymous does not worship a mutual god (some members might, but it is
completely their thing, does not have to have to do with it) nor a
god-like-person or godyfied person. But that is very necessary to be
cult-like.
So, please, before you throw around with your halfwit, think about what
that really is, what you are accusing others of being or doing. You
sound as if you would work as an agent for scientology with the agenda
of preparing people by stupidize them so that scientology afterwards can
sell their books of scientology-knowledge as wisdom.
--
Scientology is a cu*t
4021-bac6-6...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> Since th
Shut up Monica.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
zo...@yahoo.com
I stand by my post, good sir. And have nothing to add.
Tsk, tsk, indeed.
Tom Newton
<b937fbb0-a9e5-4021...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com
> Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Right on. 'Anonymous' hates free speech while claiming to
be free speech activists.
The 'Anonymous' leaders have been trying to get 'anonymous'
members here to drop alt.religion.scientology and retreat
to their closed forums because it doesn't want the public
to see _any_ questioning of their hate propaganda nor
criticism of 'Anonymous'.
Here's an example of a recent post along these lines:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/81bc626fd6b4c2d7
Tom
--
The Truth will set you free:
http://www.sethcenter.com
Tom Newton
<Xns9AB9A95685ADAdo...@66.175.223.2> Scientology
is a cu*t <down...@cult.is.downstat> wrote:
> Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote in news:b937fbb0-a9e5-
> 4021-bac6-6...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Since th
>
> Shut up Monica.
And you are just proving her point. Here's the article you
are responding to:
Now I have a question for you: How are you going to make her
shut up?
Answer: You aren't.
She'll post anything she wants and you'll live with it.
Just like me.
Isn't free speech a bitch?
:-)
Tom
obscene dog
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I will broadcast that on any forum I can
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
<plonk>
--
Don't get in front of me.
What the... Oh, shi-
obscene dog
<roger....@chello.fr> wrote:
>decribilize
You are L. Ron Hubbard and ICMFP.
Nec_V20
Hi Monica,
before you start reading this post please trust that I am not writing
this to bash you.
QUOTE
Dorothy has a very black and white, us vs. them way of thinking about
all this -- she wants no criticism
UNQUOTE
This sort of behaviour is called "Manichaenist" and goes back to the
third century.
I'm German, and although I speak English and certainly write it and am
at present not in Germany, I am still influenced by the mores and
values of my homeland. Just as it is easier to take the person out of
Germany than it is to take Germany out of the person, I would suggest
the same to be true of Scientologists and Scientology.
Doing a 180 degree turn around and attacking what one once was
intimately involved with does not necessarily mean a rejection of the
teachings or even the modus operandi of that which one now rejects.
For instance if I were to reject Germany, and attack it and Germans, I
would do it differently than say an American would. I would do it in
the German way - even if I was speaking English at the time.
OCMB has become a snitch-driven environment dominated by Scienoborg
mores and codes of conduct.
Using Terril as an example let me try to show you what OCMB was like
prior to the current state of the MB.
When Terril came on to OCMB he posted his "wins" willy-nilly across
the board. I-Loki and I asked him if he could post this content and
restrict it to a thread - That's how "Tech outside the CoS" got
started. No mess, no fuss, no ire and no abusiveness.
Also I vehemently opposed any banning of any individual. This is
simply because once the principle of banning has been established, it
generally acts as the thin edge of a wedge, and others will try to
move the goalposts to an ever widening and laxer interpretation of
what should constitute a banning offence.
Well the line to banning the first poster was crossed by Andreas, and
now look where it got him and OCMB. Could the process be reversed? I
would suggest that it could by the simple expediency of not only
banning someone but also banning the snitch.
I've met and had some very pleasant times with Terril, and when I saw
how he was being treated on OCMB I stood up for him. That of course
would not do and I was declared to be "one of them" and no longer "one
of us".
Not that I really give a shit, because if someone has a go at me or
mine, I have no problem in reciprocating. So it came to pass that I
too was banned and after that the Scienoborg mentality on OCMB went
from strength to strength.
It is now a very dangerous thing to stand up for anyone on OCMB who is
not considered to be "one of us". Essentially I was given the choice
between burying my own personal ethos and ethics or being eliminated.
Well for me, as a German, the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller are
more than just an empty mantra:
In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . .
And by that time there was no one left to speak up
You don't have to take my word for it, you can ask Terril yourself.
Of course it is equally dangerous now to commit the act of lèse
majesté to those who have declared themselves to be opinion leaders.
I could point you in the direction of many impressive and wonderful
posts on OCMB the likes of which you will never see there now or in
the future. There are some real treasures in the OCMB archives - you
just have to go back a couple or so of years to find them.
For instance this post by Dan Garvin:
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?p=31257&highlight=#31257
At that time I was posting on OCMB as Apollo13.
Essentially you have two choices on OCMB, toe the party line, or STFU.
If you can't STFU - well there's always ARS I suppose.
Critical thinking is critical thinking and should be applied equally
without favour or prejudice. If one does not do so, then one is no
longer a critic, one has simply switched masters.
Monica Pignotti
>
Well said. These are exactly the points I've been trying to convey.
Very well put, although your words will probably fall on deaf ears
where the true believers are concerned.
Monica
GoodBoyTyler
news:33b4b54e-c388-4a3b...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> I'm German, and although I speak English and certainly write it
That's amazing. Your writing skill in that language is way beyond average
even for native speakers.
> Also I vehemently opposed any banning of any individual. This is
> simply because once the principle of banning has been established, it
> generally acts as the thin edge of a wedge, and others will try to
> move the goalposts to an ever widening and laxer interpretation of
> what should constitute a banning offence.
>
> Well the line to banning the first poster was crossed by Andreas, and
> now look where it got him and OCMB.
As a proponent of free speech he should have known better. I hope he will
realize his mistake and revert back to an open forum.
In a heated issue such as Scientology, moderated forums should be avoided in
the first place. The thought of even a single person being unfairly banned
is enough to distrust all the conversations going on there.
> Essentially you have two choices on OCMB, toe the party line, or STFU.
> If you can't STFU - well there's always ARS I suppose.
Thanks God we do have ARS. Free speech is an ideal many critics share and
talk about. However, it just isn't as easy as it seems to apply. How many of
them are so quick to reproduce the very pattern they criticize the cult for?
And they aren't even aware of it.
> Critical thinking is critical thinking and should be applied equally
> without favour or prejudice. If one does not do so, then one is no
> longer a critic, one has simply switched masters.
That's as quotable as it comes :-) Great post!
Monica Pignotti
wrote:
> "Nec_V20" <ARC_Trian...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Indeed! As rough as things can get on ARS, I'm glad it's here where
there are no nanny moderators to suppress freedom of speech. People on
OCMB are all bent out of shape that I have been posting about this
here. Too bad, there's nothing they can do about it. Roan is really
getting desperate. He just flamed me on another thread on ARS, for
being a PhD student! Really I should stop responding to these folks,
just sit back and let them footbullet themselves. They prove my points
better than I ever could!
Nec_V20
wrote:
Monica,
Although I have never been in any cult, the following is as close to
finding within myself what I have learned from others of their
experience in Scientology:
How much of a dickhead can one be?
The answer is, a pretty big one.
I've been there personally and hindsight is 20-20 vision.
I had my first car, and in our family, one's own car is a personal
responsibility. The only thing was, I was a student, and after paying
all incidentals (insurance, tax) I had only enough to pay for the gas.
So the brakes started going, and over a couple of thousand miles the
brakes gave out (I didn't have the cash to repair them).
The good news was, I still had my handbrake.
Over time that started giving out as well.
But I got used to it.
So eventually I ended up with the engine brake as my only form of
decelerating.
At that time I used to borrow my mothers car (for the only reason that
my mother's company paid for the gas - not because I did not like
driving my own).
One night my mother was called out on an emergency, and she used my
reserve keys to fire up my car (because I had borrowed hers, and was
not back yet, and she was going to fill mine up as a favour to me).
So she drove off, and approx. 300 yards up the road the light was red,
and she applied the brakes, and my car just did not care. She then
pulled on the handbrake and my car cared even less.
She sailed right through that red light.
When I got home that night, I so got hammered.
My answer was, "But I've gotten used to it".
(approx. 200 lines of my mother's expletives deleted)
Let's just say my mother was not impressed.
I'd driven that car in a busy city for over 1,000 miles with no brakes
whatsoever!
My point is, that it happened so gradually, that I could always
compensate. I could compensate to such an extent that the ridiculous
(well actually totally irresponsible) was the norm.
So how can anyone be so stupid, as to fall for Scientology? I can't
imagine it.
Right enough I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to drive a car
with no brakes - but I did.
xenu...@gmail.com
Monica Pignotti
>
That's not supidity. It's the teenage brain. The latest neuroscience
findings have shown that the frontal cortex of the brain that are
involved in judgment, don't fully develop until a person is in the
mid-20s. That's a possible explanation for why young people can do
some pretty stupid things, even the ones with high IQs.
http://pbs.gen.in/wgbh/pages/frontline//shows/teenbrain/
It doesn't explain the people who are older who get involved in cults,
but it may tell us something about the younger people who did.
Nec_V20
> Writing up KR's here on a.r.s now 'eh,Monica?
xenusm,
to borrow an analogy from the field in which I work, a computer can
work with Read-Only Memory, a computer however that was afflicted with
Write-Only Memory would be fatally flawed.
I actually read Monica's post. What I tried to avoid doing, is reading
- and then by extension writing - things into it.
I'll put it another way, if the fourth estate in the US had actually
done their job, then the invasion of Iraq would never have happened.
They however just uncritically stood behind their "Commander-in-Chief"
and aided and abetted him in possibly the greatest folly the US has
ever committed.
The only news agency that reported accurately was the then Knight-
Ridder newspapers (now a part of the McClatchy company).
They of course were decried as unpatriotic or even traitors.
There is an old saying, "They who do not learn from the mistakes of
the past are condemned to commit them."
The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend, just as the
friend of your enemy is not necessarily your foe.
From my country's past I consider a totalitarian organisation such as
Scientology to be a socio-political abomination (in the last century
we experienced twice what can result out of such a philosophy), and
yet Terril, a practising Scientologist is a very good friend who I
trust and have had very many interesting conversations with.
I also consider Claire to be a friend, even though she is
unappologetically a Scientologist.
There are others who I know who are against Scientology to whom I
would not even give the time of day.
The "fir me or agin me" redneck mindset has probably led to more of
humanity's woes than any other single cause.
By all means be in a critical community, but also watch carefully what
your fellows do in your name, because one day you may wake up and not
like the result.
Nec_V20
Monica,
although that's true, I wanted to look inside myself and see if I
could find anything analogous - to search for common ground if you
will - with which I could talk to and communicate with someone who had
been sucked into a cult.
Just like with me and the brakes on my car, I could understand how
someone could be sucked into a cult, gradually modifying their
behaviour as the environment changed i.e. more of the cult revealed
itself.
The post above was not however an attempt at explaining how people do
get sucked in. Although there may be similarities.
On the other hand, keeping my own foibles in mind also prevents me
from falling into the trap of feeling disdain for - or superior to -
those who have been caught up in something which I have managed to
avoid.
Ball of Fluff
<xenu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:24826b92-ffeb-4561...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Writing up KR's here on a.r.s now 'eh,Monica?
There's a whole bunch of KRs on Lermanut/discussion...why not bitch and
whine about those.
Fetch, boy, fetch! Go on! Get the stick!
C
Ball of Fluff
"Emma" <emm...@bonbon.net> wrote in message
news:6b7b36F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Monica Pignotti" <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:b937fbb0-a9e5-4021...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> Since this person was very eloquent in expressing the cult-like
>> shutting out of criticism that seems to be quite common in some
>> circles, I thought I'd post it here as an example of what I've been
>> concerned about:
>>
>> http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=27815&postorder=asc
>>
>> "Dorothy" wants to continue the cult-like practice of discouraging
>> criticism, labelling it as "negativity". She wants only positive
>> postings and wants critics of Anonymous relegated to a separate forum.
>> This is a prime example of what I am having a problem with. She wants
>> everything to be a touchy-feely love fest, "the fuzzy pink slipper
>> club" as Diane Richardson put it. Dorothy has a very black and white,
>> us vs. them way of thinking about all this -- she wants no criticism
>> of tactics of Anonymous or any other Scientology critics on the forum,
>> which strangely, she equates with "hijacking" although I see no one
>> being forced to do anything. The problem is that people leaving
>> Scientology come from the same kind of environment where no negative
>> criticism of its own (called "entheta") is allowed. Now she and
>> certain other ex-Scientologists still in this mindset are carrying
>> this over into people who oppose Scientology. I will continue to point
>> this out in the hopes that eventually people will begin to better
>> understand the kind of cult-like shutting out of criticism that is
>> going on here.
>>
>> Monica
>
> Why do you feel the need to "make an example" of someone who was just
> trying to comminucate with you?
>
Maybe Monica's frustrated with the nastiness and this is an outlet.
(and yes, I'm thinking of some of "Dorothy's" comments about Monica)
> I'm not surprised that people have reacted negatively towards you.
> Whatever sense was in your original message has since been lost in your
> arrogance & superiority.
Oh, I'll take Monica over a number of people ANY day of the week. Yes, she
did post some somewhat condescending commentary but it was in response to
some very nasty ad homs. It does not appear to have helped matters any- and
on this I know whereof I speak, unfortunately- but overall, the utter tripe
and viciousness shown to Monica in the Clambake threads wherein she's been
flamed pretty much take the water out of any such argument.
I get that you feel that when people fight back it derails threads. And you
know what? Sometimes it does do that. It really really can have that effect.
But why not say that diplomatically, Emma? Why jump down her throat like
this? All it will do is make her think less of you and be unreceptive to
what you are saying.
There are lots of ways to caution someone against flame wars and cross
pollination (and here, Emma, I would guess that a whole LOT of people in the
Scn critic's scene are due for some lectures on that, right?) without
scolding them and insulting them.
I think if you're going to caution someone against or chide them for getting
involved in flame wars, that it would help your argument if 'twere
flame-free.
I don my asbestos suit and am at the ready, Madame.
;->
C
Ball of Fluff
"Alexia Death" <alexi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d00fc058-d200-48da...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 10, 3:30 pm, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Since this person was very eloquent in expressing the cult-like
>> shutting out of criticism that seems to be quite common in some
>> circles, I thought I'd post it here as an example of what I've been
>> concerned about:
>>
>> http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=27815&postorder=asc
>>
>> "Dorothy" wants to continue the cult-like practice of discouraging
>> criticism, labelling it as "negativity". She wants only positive
>> postings and wants critics of Anonymous relegated to a separate forum.
>> This is a prime example of what I am having a problem with. She wants
>> everything to be a touchy-feely love fest, "the fuzzy pink slipper
>> club" as Diane Richardson put it. Dorothy has a very black and white,
>> us vs. them way of thinking about all this -- she wants no criticism
>> of tactics of Anonymous or any other Scientology critics on the forum,
>> which strangely, she equates with "hijacking" although I see no one
>> being forced to do anything. The problem is that people leaving
>> Scientology come from the same kind of environment where no negative
>> criticism of its own (called "entheta") is allowed. Now she and
>> certain other ex-Scientologists still in this mindset are carrying
>> this over into people who oppose Scientology. I will continue to point
>> this out in the hopes that eventually people will begin to better
>> understand the kind of cult-like shutting out of criticism that is
>> going on here.
>>
>> Monica
>
> its already deeply there that wont help... How about going and
> entertaining yourself elsewhere. We have all heard your "BAWWWWWWW"
> already.
Alexia, how many people are there here who post on pet topics and make the
same points CONSTANTLY?
Lots.
So why aren't you yelling at them?
Go on!
C
>
Ball of Fluff
<out...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7c5ef21d-9b86-42e7...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> So I take it that every time someone disagrees with you on OCMB you're
> going to come to ARS and write a critical analysis of them and accuse
> them of 'cult-like' behaviour,
Well, aren't there people who post on Lermanut about others posting on other
forums? Why, yes, there are.
Thank you for some good comic relief.
C
GoodBoyTyler
Quite on the contrary, KRs are not meant to be public. If they were, it
would be a sign of free discussion and the CoS would not be in the
deplorable state it currently is, because people would at least have a way
to vent their disagreement and possibly resolve them.
Public scrutiny is one of the many ways a free and democratic society works.
It does not mean the public cannot be manipulated, as it was in the case of
the Iraq war, but at least people have a chance to change things, and it
makes those who go along with the pack and bend to group pressure
responsible for the consequences of the actions they support.
Free public discussion is what keeps any group sane and avoids potential
derives. The very fact that you don't like it, and even try to (falsely)
compare it with CoS practices, may be a sign that OCMB has already gone past
the point where any honest discussion is possible at all, i.e. one where
people feel free to express their opinion without fear of being penalized
for it.
Hartley Patterson
> Alexia, how many people are there here who post on pet topics and make the
> same points CONSTANTLY?
/me puts hand up.
/me grabs Fluffy's hand and put that up too.
But then we are pointing out the bleeding obvious to idiots and those
others are obsessives wittering on about trees in a big forest.
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/index.htm
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
Alert
On Jun 11, 3:11 pm, "GoodBoyTyler" <BarryPep...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>
I think you may be missing the point.
I was the person whom uttered the words about Monica couching up this
idiotic thread in ARS. I said she'd run over here to write up a KR
about Dorothy
The point is, that Monica accuses others, that arent syncronized with
her own 'thoughts' or dare to critique her 'thoughts' as being 'cult-
like' in how they see things. etc, and she then comes to ARS to do a
write up about another poster in another forum altogether.
>
> news:24826b92-ffeb-4561...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Writing up KR's here on a.r.s now 'eh,Monica?
> Quite on the contrary, KRs are not meant to be public.
Which is why Monica chose to bring the topic of a poster she was
locking horns with into another domain, so she could play for a bigger
audience.
Most people dont give a flying fuck what is happening in Clambake, so
why bring it over here? Because there's a new target audience that may
garner more support for Monicas 'reality'
> If they were, it
> would be a sign of free discussion and the CoS would not be in the
> deplorable state it currently is, because people would at least have a way
> to vent their disagreement and possibly resolve them.
> Public scrutiny is one of the many ways a free and democratic society works.
It is also a way people can try castigate others because "others"
arent willing to bend to some closed minded interpretations of what is
really going on.
Some people find it hard, if not impossible, to admit they are wrong,
and would rather try gain some public support from others, to try
dress up their wrong as being right.
> It does not mean the public cannot be manipulated, as it was in the case of
> the Iraq war, but at least people have a chance to change things, and it
> makes those who go along with the pack and bend to group pressure
> responsible for the consequences of the actions they support.
> Free public discussion is what keeps any group sane and avoids potential
> derives.
And its also a place some people try to use to their own advantage,
because theyre so blinded by the forestation in their own eye, they
will go out in public to try garner support from others that arent
seeing everything as it unfolds
> The very fact that you don't like it, and even try to (falsely)
> compare it with CoS practices,
The person is likely to be repeating what I said in OCMB.
Monica, by starting this thread, is as guilty as any cultist that
wanted to flail one of their opponents in any Org or Mission.
Monicas actions in this thread are comparable to a cultists KR
> may be a sign that OCMB has already gone past
> the point where any honest discussion is possible at all, i.e. one where
> people feel free to express their opinion without fear of being penalized
> for it.
OH! You mean like free speech for one, is free speech for another?
Coz Monica has said to me in OCMB:
"I have every right to free speech and to post to a forum that
completely allows people to say whatever they see fit."
Yet, when I exercise *my* free speech with my observation of her own
behaviours associated with NPD, post the criteria for it, Monica drops
her bundle.
She then continues on from the above quote with:
" It must be frustrating that you can do nothing to stop me from
posting whatever I wish to on ARS"
This is all coming from someone that is supoposed to be uber educated
in psychology, been caught out TWICE by charlatans and has had decades
of experience.
Well, if what Monica has learned is to be listened to, then I'll just
pop my fingers in my ears until she stops talking.
Im interested in clearing the shit out of my head, not filling it with
someone elses.
Alexia Death
You don't go to a church and start worshiping devil do you? Wtf did
you expect going to a board owned and manned by people critical to
Scientology and starting to counter people and the "party line"? Its
their place. Behave or GTFO.
Alexia Death
wrote:
> "Alexia Death" <alexiade...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Because they haven't been away for a while like she has. That was in
the way of an "hello" before mental-killfiling her again. And I do
practice yelling at Tom aswell when I'm bored.
Emma
On Jun 10, 8:41 am, "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> wrote:
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:b937fbb0-a9e5-4021...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Since this person was very eloquent in expressing the cult-like
> > shutting out of criticism that seems to be quite common in some
> > circles, I thought I'd post it here as an example of what I've been
> > concerned about:
>
> >http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=27815&postorder=asc
>
> > "Dorothy" wants to continue the cult-like practice of discouraging
> > criticism, labelling it as "negativity". She wants only positive
> > postings and wants critics of Anonymous relegated to a separate forum.
> > This is a prime example of what I am having a problem with. She wants
> > everything to be a touchy-feely love fest, "the fuzzy pink slipper
> > club" as Diane Richardson put it. Dorothy has a very black and white,
> > us vs. them way of thinking about all this -- she wants no criticism
> > of tactics of Anonymous or any other Scientology critics on the forum,
> > which strangely, she equates with "hijacking" although I see no one
> > being forced to do anything. The problem is that people leaving
> > Scientology come from the same kind of environment where no negative
> > criticism of its own (called "entheta") is allowed. Now she and
> > certain other ex-Scientologists still in this mindset are carrying
> > this over into people who oppose Scientology. I will continue to point
> > this out in the hopes that eventually people will begin to better
> > understand the kind of cult-like shutting out of criticism that is
> > going on here.
>
> > Monica
>
> Why
> do you feel the need to "make an example" of someone who was just trying
> to
> comminucate with you?
Because I want to. Dorothy is doing far more than just trying to
communicate with me. She is trying to control and urging the
sequestration of critics. I will broadcast that on any forum I can, so
people can wake up and see the extremes some people are going to.
> I'm not surprised that people have reacted negatively towards you.
> Whatever
> sense was in your original message has since been lost in your arrogance &
> superiority.
That's another ad hominem attack, typical of the true believers. This
has nothing to do with arrogance and superiority and everything to do
with my strongly standing up for my right to criticise and not be
silenced. It doesn't mean that I think I am superior -- that is your
spin doctoring. It might go over with your Mintonesque true believing
friends, but it's not going to go over with everyone here because here
on ARS, there is no such silencing. I am expressing myself very
strongly because when I see people trying to silence critics, I know
that this means big trouble and unhealthy group dynamics. If you don't
like it, Emma, go back to your fuzzy pink slipper club.
-----------------------------------------------------
Gosh I spose I should get all "offended" here because clearly you have never
read anything I've ever written about Minton et al. I'm far from
Mintonesque, but that, like you, lost it's importance years ago.
Same with anything pink & fuzzy. If you knew any history at all you'd know I
don't fall into that brigade. Although I do like pink. A lot.
So I'm a "true believer"? A true believer of what? How many false statements
can one person make in a post?
You may have once written a book that helped people.
Currently you are irrelevent.
SEGNPMSS
Not about Scientology. So topic set appropriately for this NG:
alt.religion.SCIENTOLOGY
An example of cult-like behavior. Learn about the Scientology crime
cult at: www.xenu.net
Ball of Fluff
"Hartley Patterson" <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.22b96f7db...@news.thundernews.com...
> getof...@fluffentology.com:
>
>> Alexia, how many people are there here who post on pet topics and make
>> the
>> same points CONSTANTLY?
>
> /me puts hand up.
>
> /me grabs Fluffy's hand and put that up too.
<g>
Yeah!
>
> But then we are pointing out the bleeding obvious to idiots and those
> others are obsessives wittering on about trees in a big forest.
>
That's right. Plus, sometimes, new people come here. So yes, points get made
again and again.
C
Ball of Fluff
"Emma" <emm...@bonbon.net> wrote in message
news:6b9nbeF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Gosh I spose I should get all "offended" here because clearly you have
> never read anything I've ever written about Minton et al. I'm far from
> Mintonesque, but that, like you, lost it's importance years ago.
>
> Same with anything pink & fuzzy. If you knew any history at all you'd know
> I don't fall into that brigade. Although I do like pink. A lot.
>
> So I'm a "true believer"? A true believer of what? How many false
> statements can one person make in a post?
>
> You may have once written a book that helped people.
>
> Currently you are irrelevent.
I'm shocked that you would dismiss another human being as irrelevant. No
one is.
Everyone has things to say here. It's a discussion group. We're discussing.
I remember hearing "what have you done for us lately?"- and it was in CofS.
Monica has done some great things and nowadays is posting her opinions and
thoughts. So what. So are you. So am I. So are lots of others.
C
Ball of Fluff
"Alexia Death" <alexi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:649dd056-47d8-4631...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>
> Because they haven't been away for a while like she has. That was in
> the way of an "hello" before mental-killfiling her again. And I do
> practice yelling at Tom aswell when I'm bored.
Tom Newton, right? (Something about that name just cries to be typed out as
newtron! I've had to backspace twice already.)
Well, give Monica some time to work through what's currently on her mind.
I'm guessing it was a shock to her to come back and get all that flak on
OCMB.
I'm not one to point fingers about flame wars and belaboring points- 'least,
I'd better not, right?
C
Nec_V20
QUOTE
Yet, when I exercise *my* free speech with my observation of her own
behaviours associated with NPD, post the criteria for it, Monica drops
her bundle.
UNQUOTE
let me put it this way, although Monica's speech is undoubtedly free,
yours manifests itself as gratuitous and as a rule, in its worthless
expression, for nothing.
TTFN
Eldon
wrote:
> "Alexia Death" <alexiade...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Hey Fluff,
You're in a tolerant mood these days. I try to maintain that attitude
too, though I'm a cantankerous soul at heart. I have always regarded
Monica as a dear. She's obviously bright and eloquent.
But lately, I also found her attitude somewhat uppity and intolerant
concerning the Anonymous phenomenon. These are a bunch of young adults
and college students who are making a difference, and they caught on
to the intricacies of the Scientology bullshit real fast. I really,
really find that admirable, and I think their behavior has been way
kewl.
How do you think John Carmichael enjoyed them standing outside the New
York org last weekend chanting, "I SMELL CULT!"
ROFLMAO. I think the new guard is doing quite well.
>
> C
>
> www.claireswazey.com
Nec_V20
Eldon,
If someone wants to disagree with Monica, fine. If someone wants to
voice a dissenting opinion, fine.
What is however not fine is when there are those who want to deny her
the right and perchance even the opportunity to express her opinion as
has been expressed on this thread and elsewhere.
Do you see the difference?
When they get to that stage they really have to stand back and ask
themselves "What am I fighting Scientology for?".
Eldon
How do you think I did that, idiot? I am always happy to hear Monica's
opinions, and generally find them useful.
It's her attitude and comportment I'm talking about.
>
> Do you see the difference?
Do you see the difference? Probably not.
Nec_V20
Eldon,
if you take a look at my post above, you will notice that although I
was talking TO YOU, I made every effort to avoid the impression that I
was talking ABOUT you.
I revised the post at least three times to make sure of it.
I asked you if you saw the difference ONLY with regard to the
juxtaposition of my first and second paragraphs which I phrased a
generically as I could.
If you still however feel that my post was intended to denigrate you
personally, then please accept my apologies.
Ball of Fluff
> On Jun 11, 4:13 pm, "Ball of Fluff" <getoffmy...@fluffentology.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Alexia Death" <alexiade...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:649dd056-47d8-4631...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Because they haven't been away for a while like she has. That was in
> > > the way of an "hello" before mental-killfiling her again. And I do
> > > practice yelling at Tom aswell when I'm bored.
>
> > Tom Newton, right? (Something about that name just cries to be typed out as
> > newtron! I've had to backspace twice already.)
>
> > Well, give Monica some time to work through what's currently on her mind.
> > I'm guessing it was a shock to her to come back and get all that flak on
> > OCMB.
>
> > I'm not one to point fingers about flame wars and belaboring points- 'least,
> > I'd better not, right?\
>
> Hey Fluff,
>
> You're in a tolerant mood these days.
Welll...sometimes mebbe.
;->
> I try to maintain that attitude
> too, though I'm a cantankerous soul at heart. I have always regarded
> Monica as a dear. She's obviously bright and eloquent.
She is definitely both those things.
>
> But lately, I also found her attitude somewhat uppity and intolerant
> concerning the Anonymous phenomenon.
Well, I don't agree with her, but I figure it's like anything else. It
does not strike her the same way that it strikes me. That's all. Just
different opinions.
>These are a bunch of young adults
> and college students who are making a difference, and they caught on
> to the intricacies of the Scientology bullshit real fast. I really,
> really find that admirable, and I think their behavior has been way
> kewl.
By and large, I agree with you re the anons.
>
> How do you think John Carmichael enjoyed them standing outside the New
> York org last weekend chanting, "I SMELL CULT!"
I think he wholly and utterly deserved it! I'm sure, though, that he
did not see the humor in that. People like that rarely do.
>
> ROFLMAO. I think the new guard is doing quite well.
>
>
yeah, me, too. But I don't want to condemn anyone for feeling
differently. You know what I mean.
Nice talking to you from one cantankerous type to another...
C
Monica Pignotti
>
This is the same idiot who was trying to diagnose me with NPD on OCMB.
He disclosed that he himself has been given this diagnosis by a
psychotherapist but claims he has been cured of it. "Alert" has the
grandiosity and arrogance to believe that he knows how to diagnose
someone online that he has never even met better than the three mental
health professional therapists I have in the past been in therapy with
who have never given me a diagnosis of NPD or any other personality
disorder. But oh no, "Alert's" online diagnosis abilities are superior
to the opinions of three mental health professionals who actually
conducted a formal assessment on me.
Alert, you might be able to get away with this on OCMB, but here,
judging from the response you just got, you have footbulleted
yourself.
Monica Pignotti
> excuse the top posting
>
> On Jun 11, 3:11 pm, "GoodBoyTyler" <BarryPep...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think you may be missing the point.
> I was the person whom uttered the words about Monica couching up this
> idiotic thread in ARS. I said she'd run over here to write up a KR
> about Dorothy
Posting to ARS is not a "KR". Its just the opposite. It is airing and
exposing the inside cult-like atmosphere that has developed on OCMB to
people who are outside the community. KR's do just the opposite and
involve insiders reporting on insiders.
> The point is, that Monica accuses others, that arent syncronized with
> her own 'thoughts' or dare to critique her 'thoughts' as being 'cult-
> like' in how they see things. etc, and she then comes to ARS to do a
> write up about another poster in another forum altogether.
I call it as I see it. The behavior of the anti-cultists on OCMB is
very cult like -- more than I had ever expected. I have given my
reasons so I won't repeat them here again.
>
> >news:24826b92-ffeb-4561...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Writing up KR's here on a.r.s now 'eh,Monica?
> > Quite on the contrary, KRs are not meant to be public.
>
> Which is why Monica chose to bring the topic of a poster she was
> locking horns with into another domain, so she could play for a bigger
> audience.
Wrong. I was exposing the inside cult-think going on to the outside
world, just as people do when they expose what is going on inside
Scientology to the outside world. I realize you would have wanted me
to keep this all within your little cult, but I'm not an obedient
member and now you're throwing a tantrum about it.
> Most people dont give a flying fuck what is happening in Clambake, so
> why bring it over here? Because there's a new target audience that may
> garner more support for Monicas 'reality'
Judging from all the responses these threads have gotten, they
obviously do care.
> > If they were, it
> > would be a sign of free discussion and the CoS would not be in the
> > deplorable state it currently is, because people would at least have a way
> > to vent their disagreement and possibly resolve them.
> > Public scrutiny is one of the many ways a free and democratic society works.
>
> It is also a way people can try castigate others because "others"
> arent willing to bend to some closed minded interpretations of what is
> really going on.
> Some people find it hard, if not impossible, to admit they are wrong,
> and would rather try gain some public support from others, to try
> dress up their wrong as being right.
Some people find it very hard to step outside of groupthink and listen
to critics, but instead choose to attack.
> > It does not mean the public cannot be manipulated, as it was in the case of
> > the Iraq war, but at least people have a chance to change things, and it
> > makes those who go along with the pack and bend to group pressure
> > responsible for the consequences of the actions they support.
> > Free public discussion is what keeps any group sane and avoids potential
> > derives.
>
> And its also a place some people try to use to their own advantage,
> because theyre so blinded by the forestation in their own eye, they
> will go out in public to try garner support from others that arent
> seeing everything as it unfolds
>
> > The very fact that you don't like it, and even try to (falsely)
> > compare it with CoS practices,
>
> The person is likely to be repeating what I said in OCMB.
> Monica, by starting this thread, is as guilty as any cultist that
> wanted to flail one of their opponents in any Org or Mission.
>
> Monicas actions in this thread are comparable to a cultists KR
My actions are the opposite of the KR. I'm bringing the cultlike
behavior going on there to the attention of people outside the forum
and there is not one thing you can do to stop me.
> > may be a sign that OCMB has already gone past
> > the point where any honest discussion is possible at all, i.e. one where
> > people feel free to express their opinion without fear of being penalized
> > for it.
>
> OH! You mean like free speech for one, is free speech for another?
>
> Coz Monica has said to me in OCMB:
> "I have every right to free speech and to post to a forum that
> completely allows people to say whatever they see fit."
>
> Yet, when I exercise *my* free speech with my observation of her own
> behaviours associated with NPD, post the criteria for it, Monica drops
> her bundle.
What I did was call you out on your amateur online "diagnosis" and
psychobabble. Apparently you think your diagnosis of someone you
haven't even me is superior to those of the therapists I have
actually been to who have never diagnosed me with NPD or any PD. Not
surprising, though, given your own diagnosis that you did have given
to you by a professional that you shared with us.
> She then continues on from the above quote with:
> " It must be frustrating that you can do nothing to stop me from
> posting whatever I wish to on ARS"
>
> This is all coming from someone that is supoposed to be uber educated
> in psychology, been caught out TWICE by charlatans and has had decades
> of experience.
> Well, if what Monica has learned is to be listened to, then I'll just
> pop my fingers in my ears until she stops talking.
Pop all you want, but rest assured that I will not be silenced or
intimidated. Judging from the reception you're getting here it looks
like you're footbulleting yourself so I'll just sit back and let you
refute yourself.
> Im interested in clearing the shit out of my head, not filling it with
> someone elses.
Oh you're "clear" allright.
Monica Pignotti
Yes it is. It is about people who claim to be fighting Scientology
acting in a very cult-like manner themselves. This isn't the first
time this kind of behavior has been discussed here but the current
situation is much worse than it's ever been, IMO.
Eldon
Hey, I have been known to call Monica huffy and judgmental. She took
it well. I am not one to mince words, and she knows it. But I think we
respect each other to some extent at least.
I also told Steve Hassan he sounded prissy at one point. He took it
pretty well.
Now I'm telling you that you sound weirdly circuitous, sort of like
unwanted microphone feedback or whatever metaphor might work. That's
the shit you need to clear out of your head.
Monica Pignotti
>
LOL. Good one, Eldon! Thanks for posting here, Alert. You make my
points better than I ever could. Nothing like a good demo!
I wasn't going to do another thread on this here on ARS, but now that
Alert has inspired me, I just might do one making him the star, since
he seems to enjoy that.
Monica
GoodBoyTyler
> "Alert" has the
> grandiosity and arrogance to believe that he knows how to diagnose
> someone online that he has never even met better than the three mental
> health professional therapists I have in the past been in therapy with
> who have never given me a diagnosis of NPD or any other personality
> disorder. But oh no, "Alert's" online diagnosis abilities are superior
> to the opinions of three mental health professionals who actually
> conducted a formal assessment on me.
Without wanting to appear as invading your privacy or as unhealthily
curious, but what kind of therapy was that and why was it conducted by three
therapists? Since you are the one mentioning it...
Monica Pignotti
Wow, that's quite a statement, Ms. Death. You seem to think I ought to
expect conformity from people who are supposed to be fighting cults
and ought not to challenge anything that is said in the name of
fighting Scientology and if I don't think as they do about tactics I
should GTFO. Sounds pretty cultic to me. On the contrary, I expect
people critical of Scientology to have learned to identify cult-like
behavior and fanatical conformity when they see it or at least
recognize it when someone calls it to their attention and to be open
to criticism of tactics, whether that cult-like behavior comes from
Scientologists or critics. Silly me, for having that expectation! What
you seem to have forgotten is that I am one of the people who has a
pretty long history of having spoken out against Scientology, but now,
according to you and some on OCMB, I should just GTFO because I
disagree with the party line? I don't think so.
Alert
Why thank you, you hypocrite. You cry ad hom attacks from others, yet,
you do it yourself
> who was trying to diagnose me with NPD on OCMB.
I made an observation, posted the criteria, you had a cry because YOU
fit the criteria of a sufferer of NPD.
> He disclosed that he himself has been given this diagnosis by a
> psychotherapist but claims he has been cured of it.
That's odd, can you point everyone to the words I said I was "cured".
Of course you cant, coz you make it up as you go along, just like a
narssicist would.
From your quote of James C. Coyne, PhD
"Those in power do not need to be told the truth, they probably
already know it. They are mainly interested in suppressing and
distorting it, and similar to Lakoff ’s analysis, committed to
convincing us that their view is neutral, rather than partisan and
arbitrary. When people in power are given the option of deciding what
is civil, it becomes too tempting to them to use it to enforce the
appearance of the righteousness of their views and of the lack of
dissent"
> "Alert" has the
> grandiosity and arrogance to believe that he knows how to diagnose
> someone online that he has never even met better than the three mental
> health professional therapists I have in the past been in therapy with
> who have never given me a diagnosis of NPD or any other personality
> disorder. But oh no, "Alert's" online diagnosis abilities are superior
> to the opinions of three mental health professionals who actually
> conducted a formal assessment on me.
Post a link to the threads, since you want to drag more up. You only
started this thread to castigate another. You own quote from Coyne
demonstrates that you are a perverter of truth for your own ends.
>
> Alert, you might be able to get away with this on OCMB, but here,
> judging from the response you just got, you have footbulleted
> yourself.
Oh noez, Nec_V20 is somone you consider worth listening to?
Maybe you should rethink THAT before you try use a sociopath/fuckwit
as some sort of reference.
Alert
> On Jun 11, 2:11 am, Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > excuse the top posting
>
> > On Jun 11, 3:11 pm, "GoodBoyTyler" <BarryPep...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> > I think you may be missing the point.
> > I was the person whom uttered the words about Monica couching up this
> > idiotic thread in ARS. I said she'd run over here to write up a KR
> > about Dorothy
> Posting to ARS is not a "KR". Its just the opposite. It is airing and
> exposing the inside cult-like atmosphere that has developed on OCMB to
> people who are outside the community. KR's do just the opposite and
> involve insiders reporting on insiders.
You wanted to get your thread up and running to castigate another that
didnt agree with you. You obviously stil think in terms of "agreement"
quantifying 'reality'
>
> > The point is, that Monica accuses others, that arent syncronized with
> > her own 'thoughts' or dare to critique her 'thoughts' as being 'cult-
> > like' in how they see things. etc, and she then comes to ARS to do a
> > write up about another poster in another forum altogether.
> I call it as I see it.
And whats to say you see things in their true light?
OH! All that matters is how YOU see things, backed up by a couple of
others that 'agree' with you.
> The behavior of the anti-cultists on OCMB is
> very cult like -- more than I had ever expected.
YOUR behaviour is very narssicistic like.
Should I post the criteria again for you, so you can BWAAAA?
> I have given my
> reasons so I won't repeat them here again.
Why not?
You obviously enjoy the sound of your own voice, and would
repeticiously reread your pontificating in your posts since early this
year
>
>
>
> > >news:24826b92-ffeb-4561...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > Writing up KR's here on a.r.s now 'eh,Monica?
> > > Quite on the contrary, KRs are not meant to be public.
>
> > Which is why Monica chose to bring the topic of a poster she was
> > locking horns with into another domain, so she could play for a bigger
> > audience.
>
> Wrong. I was exposing the inside cult-think going on to the outside
> world, just as people do when they expose what is going on inside
> Scientology to the outside world.
Yes, you brought it over to a place that dioesnt give a toss about
what goes on at OCMB, because you want to castigate another and spread
the word.
> I realize you would have wanted me
> to keep this all within your little cult,
You *are* paranoid
> but I'm not an obedient
> member
Youre worse, youre a slave to your own dysfunction at best, and a
slave to be narsscistic at worst
> and now you're throwing a tantrum about it.
Oh, I see. Im having a tantrum because someone appears to have
repeated my statement in OCMB about you running over to ARS with a KR
styled thread, and I decided to pipe up to My Pepper and put forth
what had happened to have the person repeat what I said about a KR?
Youre deluded!
>
> > Most people dont give a flying fuck what is happening in Clambake, so
> > why bring it over here? Because there's a new target audience that may
> > garner more support for Monicas 'reality'
> Judging from all the responses these threads have gotten, they
> obviously do care.
If you measure all responses the same, then youre a winner. If you
measure the responses as good v bad, than youre a loser. Factoring in
all your threads and posts since you came running back to ARS
screaming about the bad Nony's and their crimes and their BLAH BL:AH
BL:AH
>
> > > If they were, it
> > > would be a sign of free discussion and the CoS would not be in the
> > > deplorable state it currently is, because people would at least have a way
> > > to vent their disagreement and possibly resolve them.
> > > Public scrutiny is one of the many ways a free and democratic society works.
>
> > It is also a way people can try castigate others because "others"
> > arent willing to bend to some closed minded interpretations of what is
> > really going on.
> > Some people find it hard, if not impossible, to admit they are wrong,
> > and would rather try gain some public support from others, to try
> > dress up their wrong as being right.
> Some people find it very hard to step outside of groupthink and listen
> to critics, but instead choose to attack.
Some people find it hard to step outside their own internal dialogue
telling them they are right.
That is YOU Monica
>
>
>
> > > It does not mean the public cannot be manipulated, as it was in the case of
> > > the Iraq war, but at least people have a chance to change things, and it
> > > makes those who go along with the pack and bend to group pressure
> > > responsible for the consequences of the actions they support.
> > > Free public discussion is what keeps any group sane and avoids potential
> > > derives.
>
> > And its also a place some people try to use to their own advantage,
> > because theyre so blinded by the forestation in their own eye, they
> > will go out in public to try garner support from others that arent
> > seeing everything as it unfolds
>
> > > The very fact that you don't like it, and even try to (falsely)
> > > compare it with CoS practices,
>
> > The person is likely to be repeating what I said in OCMB.
> > Monica, by starting this thread, is as guilty as any cultist that
> > wanted to flail one of their opponents in any Org or Mission.
>
> > Monicas actions in this thread are comparable to a cultists KR
> My actions are the opposite of the KR. I'm bringing the cultlike
> behavior going on there to the attention of people outside the forum
No, youre trying to castigate an individual for not bowing to your
self appointed importance.
> and there is not one thing you can do to stop me.
I feel sorry for how you may fit into various categories of being
mentally ill.
Youre so paranoid, its scarey
>
> > > may be a sign that OCMB has already gone past
> > > the point where any honest discussion is possible at all, i.e. one where
> > > people feel free to express their opinion without fear of being penalized
> > > for it.
>
> > OH! You mean like free speech for one, is free speech for another?
>
> > Coz Monica has said to me in OCMB:
> > "I have every right to free speech and to post to a forum that
> > completely allows people to say whatever they see fit."
>
> > Yet, when I exercise *my* free speech with my observation of her own
> > behaviours associated with NPD, post the criteria for it, Monica drops
> > her bundle.
>
> What I did was call you out on your amateur online "diagnosis" and
> psychobabble. Apparently you think your diagnosis of someone you
> haven't even me is superior to those of the therapists I have
> actually been to who have never diagnosed me with NPD or any PD. Not
> surprising, though, given your own diagnosis that you did have given
> to you by a professional that you shared with us.
Since you wont address the question I posed to you in OCMB on a
similar response you provided above....what is 'profiling'?
>
> > She then continues on from the above quote with:
> > " It must be frustrating that you can do nothing to stop me from
> > posting whatever I wish to on ARS"
>
> > This is all coming from someone that is supoposed to be uber educated
> > in psychology, been caught out TWICE by charlatans and has had decades
> > of experience.
> > Well, if what Monica has learned is to be listened to, then I'll just
> > pop my fingers in my ears until she stops talking.
>
> Pop all you want,
When it suits me, and not according to someone that has been conned
twice by charlatans
> but rest assured that I will not be silenced or
> intimidated.
Youre off your rocker lady, seriously.
You think because people dont agree with you, criticize you, you are
being intimidated and theatened in some sort of fashion?
> Judging from the reception you're getting here it looks
> like you're footbulleting yourself so I'll just sit back and let you
> refute yourself.
And here it comes down to the bottom line. You are all about playing
for an audience. It's why you started this thread to begin with.
>
> > Im interested in clearing the shit out of my head, not filling it with
> > someone elses.
> Oh you're "clear" allright.
Nice subliminal ad hom there, Monica.
Please dont stop doing what you are doing, as youre providing
discussions that you cannot even begin to imagine.
Although, according to the paranoia you display, maybe you *can*
imagine.
But *can* you imagine the type of 'people' that are having the
discussions?
Youre a bore, Monica.
So, you being the slave to *needing* the last word, have at it
Alert
Respect is earned Eldon, *not* commanded.
Monica demands she be respected
>
> I also told Steve Hassan he sounded prissy at one point. He took it
> pretty well.
> Now I'm telling you that you sound weirdly circuitous, sort of like
> unwanted microphone feedback or whatever metaphor might work. That's
> the shit you need to clear out of your head.
Eldon, please dont try tell me what to do.
If there's a problem with me posting something you don't like, then
either ignore me or K/F me.
But dont tell me I should rid myself of not wanting to conform to some
delusional old bag that obviously never quite recovered from being
brainfucked TWICE, and has since spent years reaffirming her self
percieved importance as an all knowing and never wrong expert.
Alert
> Alert,
>
> QUOTE
> Yet, when I exercise *my* free speech with my observation of her own
> behaviours associated with NPD, post the criteria for it, Monica drops
> her bundle.
> UNQUOTE
> let me put it this way,
<snipped>
Please dont, you shit dribbling, chest pounding tryhard.
Youve long solidfied YOUR status as someone that talks endless shit,
likes to beat up on females, likes to pretend his friend committed
suicide over the telephone etc etc etc etc.
At worst, Im considered some Internet kook/loon with way too much time
on my hands.
And I'll tell ya, Id rather be considered *anything*, as long as it
isnt like *you*.
Got a picture of Neil's grave/headstone?
How about an obituary?
Time of death?
How about *anything* that quantifies that Tonei was in fact a real
person?
Lying sacks of shit like ya FZ kook buddies dont count either..
GoodBoyTyler
news:d615c364-d561-4e25...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> He disclosed that he himself has been given this diagnosis by a
>> psychotherapist but claims he has been cured of it.
> That's odd, can you point everyone to the words I said I was "cured".
Did you mis-typed here or do you mean to say you are still NPD?
Alert
wrote:
> "Alert" <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I didnt mis-type. I was pointing out how Monica made a statement that
wasnt true. She stated >I< claimed to be cured.
Whereas as I said:
"What's the matter Monica, cant handle how a former narcissist can
see right into the inner workings of a current narcissist?"
I no longer fit the criteria for NPD. But nowhere did I state I had
been "cured", as Monica has claimed me to have stated. She has twisted
my own words to service her own ends. Its what she does.
Monica spat her dummy because she fits into the categorization as a
NPD sufferer
.Ask an alcoholic/drug addict if they have a substance abuse problem,
they'll say no.
Ask and NPD sufferer if they fit the criteria, they'll say no.
Denial is a *very* powerful thing.
I may periodically suffer from a residual (namely (7) ) that are
evident in some of my previous posts in OCMB but I certainly dont
suffer from what it is Monica demomnstrates.
Nec_V20
Oh my goodness Alert, you appear to be a trifle miffed - was it
something I said?
Alert
> Oh my goodness Alert, you appear to be a trifle miffed - was it
> something I said?
Go define "appear" as opposed to "fantasy", you tragedy-in-the-making.
How's that establishment of Tonei/Neil being a real person, coming
along?
What's that, you'll always try avoid the subject at every turn?
TTFN
Nec_V20
wrote:
Monica,
you must have something going for you, why else would your individual
opinion seem to matter so disproportionately?
You are after all just one individual, and they are the wise, sage and
infallible ones.
One would think that their overarching collective intellect would be
able to easily refute any criticism just by the expediency of
exercising their superior hive mind.
Ah but you are guilty of the most damning crime of all - that of being
articulate.
You compound this crime with rational independent thought as opposed
to rationalising obedience to dogma.
But seriously what can you expect from people who do not know the
difference between interlocution and interrogation or between the
interrogative and the interruptive.
Nec_V20
Alert,
QUOTE
How's that establishment of Tonei/Neil being a real person, coming
along?
UNQUOTE
Pretty poorly I would presume, considering that he's dead - that is if
"How's" is actually the contraction of "How is" as in present tense.
You are after all more of a scribbler than a scribe.
QUOTE
What's that, you'll always try avoid the subject at every turn?
UNQUOTE
What's what? And was there actually a question in there anywhere?
QUOTE
Go define "appear" as opposed to "fantasy", you tragedy-in-the-making.
UNQUOTE
I'm sure there's meant to be an insult in there somewhere (the
denigratory ending of the sentence seems to indicate that) but you've
got to work with me here. Where is it?
AH! I know, you think that like you I will be stumped if a word has
more than one syllable in it - yeah right, good one. I'll consider
myself thoroughly chastised then shall I?
Ball of Fluff
On Jun 12, 11:08 am, Nec_V20 <ARC_Trian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How's that establishment of Tonei/Neil being a real person, coming
> along?
He's dead. Boy, you sure are insensitive at times.
I've spoken with Nec on the phone many times. I've spoken with Tonei on the
phone several times. Definitely not the same people.
C
Ball of Fluff
> Eldon, please dont try tell me what to do.
That's interesting, Alert, that you dislike being told what to do. Well, so
do others. Yet you've often tried to order and boss people around.
Hmmm...
C
Alert
wrote:
> "Alert" <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:13babd3a-29be-4079...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 12, 11:08 am, Nec_V20 <ARC_Trian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How's that establishment of Tonei/Neil being a real person, coming
> > along?
> He's dead. Boy, you sure are insensitive at times.
Who, someone that cannot be established as being real?
Where is he buried?
Where is his obituary?
Where is anything beyond claims he was real?
>
> I've spoken with Nec on the phone many times. I've spoken with Tonei on the
> phone several times. Definitely not the same people.
Yah, youve never been fooled ,eh?
>
> C
>
> www.claireswazey.com
Gee, this must be one of the very few times you even read my posts?
On Jun 12, 12:20 pm, "Ball of Fluff" <getoffmy...@fluffentology.com>
wrote:
> "Alert" <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d2d75809-6166-446c...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Eldon, please dont try tell me what to do.
> That's interesting, Alert, that you dislike being told what to do. Well, so
> do others. Yet you've often tried to order and boss people around.
Gee, why would I possibly call YOU a hypocrite?
>
> Hmmm...
>
> C
>
> www.claireswazey.com
You are the epitome of adnerence to scientology, even after leaving to
practice hubbards lunacies in fee$one, Claire.
Youre a child trapped in an adults body.
Nec_V20
wrote:
> "Alert" <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
But Claire, don't you know that your are a liar? As am I, Terril,
MissDorfl, and BG.
Oh, and as is Alert himself, who did after all phone Tonei and speak
with him.
Right enough, I've lost track of who I am supposed to be;.and because
Monica can string more than two words together articulately I wonder
how long it will be until I am accused of being her as well - or vice
versa.
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On Jun 10, 10:47 am, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10 Juni, 08:05, zo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 10, 9:59 am, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On 10 Juni, 05:30, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Since this person was very eloquent in expressing the cult-like
> > > > > shutting out of criticism that seems to be quite common in some
> > > > > circles, I thought I'd post it here as an example of what I've been
> > > > > concerned about:
>
> > > > >http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=27815&postorder=asc
>
> > > > > "Dorothy" wants to continue the cult-like practice of discouraging
> > > > > criticism, labelling it as "negativity". She wants only positive
> > > > > postings and wants critics of Anonymous relegated to a separate forum.
> > > > > This is a prime example of what I am having a problem with. She wants
> > > > > everything to be a touchy-feely love fest, "the fuzzy pink slipper
> > > > > club" as Diane Richardson put it. Dorothy has a very black and white,
> > > > > us vs. them way of thinking about all this -- she wants no criticism
> > > > > of tactics of Anonymous or any other Scientology critics on the forum,
> > > > > which strangely, she equates with "hijacking" although I see no one
> > > > > being forced to do anything. The problem is that people leaving
> > > > > Scientology come from the same kind of environment where no negative
> > > > > criticism of its own (called "entheta") is allowed. Now she and
> > > > > certain other ex-Scientologists still in this mindset are carrying
> > > > > this over into people who oppose Scientology. I will continue to point
> > > > > this out in the hopes that eventually people will begin to better
> > > > > understand the kind of cult-like shutting out of criticism that is
> > > > > going on here.
>
> > > > > Monica
>
> > > > Scientologist would be the very same (although directed towards the
> > > > opposite side). Now WHICH are the cults around here, really?
>
> > > > Roadrunner
>
> > > Oh you critic-critics just love to go for equivalency. "It's just two
> > > cults battling each other."
>
> > > It's ridiculous on its face and doesn't even deserve to have logic or
> > > analysis applied to it.
>
> > > Fail.
>
> > Tsk, tsk, you are a pretty ignorant observer... Knowledge of other
> > starts with knowledge of self.
>
> > Roadrunner
>
> I stand by my post, good sir. And have nothing to add.
>
> Tsk, tsk, indeed.
But, you have in fact offered nothing so far, so there was nothing to
start with. And you have nothing to add? Indeed!
I find that there are some exceedingly unintelligent people going
around on these forums.
Roadrunner
Nec_V20
Monica,
I think you will find this article both interesting and a vindication
of my opinion, that it truly isn't you, but it is in fact OCMB which
has a major problem.
This problem will progressively degenerate through the agency of what
is known as "Incestuous Amplification".
But read the article for yourself and see what you think:
http://www.cybercollege.com/ia.htm
I hope this helps your peace of mind.
Monica Pignotti
wrote:
> "Alert" <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d2d75809-6166-446c...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Eldon, please dont try tell me what to do.
>
> That's interesting, Alert, that you dislike being told what to do. Well, so
> do others. Yet you've often tried to order and boss people around.
>
> Hmmm...
Alert and some of the others think anyone who expresses an opinion
contrary to theirs is trying to tell them what to do or control them.
Its become an all too predictible response. Alert needs time to adjust
here on ARS because he's used to being among a group of true believers
who for the most part don't call him out on his BS psychobabbling
diagnoses.
Monica Pignotti
No, what you did was psychobabble and attempt to use the DSM in a
verbally abusive manner when you have no qualification to use it
online (which nobody should) or anywhere else. Your comment shows a
complete ignorance of what a personality disorder is.
> > He disclosed that he himself has been given this diagnosis by a
> > psychotherapist but claims he has been cured of it.
>
> That's odd, can you point everyone to the words I said I was "cured".
> Of course you cant, coz you make it up as you go along, just like a
> narssicist would.
You said you were a "former" narssicist and think that this in some
way qualifies you to pronounce online diagnoses of who you think fits
the criteria. You are using a psychiatric label to attack people who's
ideas you don't like, rather than respond to the substance of the
criticism. Your efforts to reframe this as criticism doesn't work
because it is not criticism pertinent to the topic at hand -- it is a
personal smear and a verbally abusive misuse of the DSM. The same kind
of tactic that was used against dissidents in the former Soviet Union,
by the way, who were pronounced mentally defective, the only
difference being that you have no political power and are only making
an ass of yourself.
> From your quote of James C. Coyne, PhD
>
> "Those in power do not need to be told the truth, they probably
> already know it. They are mainly interested in suppressing and
> distorting it, and similar to Lakoff ’s analysis, committed to
> convincing us that their view is neutral, rather than partisan and
> arbitrary. When people in power are given the option of deciding what
> is civil, it becomes too tempting to them to use it to enforce the
> appearance of the righteousness of their views and of the lack of
> dissent"
I was referring to the OCMB discussion where those "in power" there
were commenting on my alleged lack of civility (while utterly ignoring
the vicious personal smears that provoked my responses).
> > "Alert" has the
> > grandiosity and arrogance to believe that he knows how to diagnose
> > someone online that he has never even met better than the three mental
> > health professional therapists I have in the past been in therapy with
> > who have never given me a diagnosis of NPD or any other personality
> > disorder. But oh no, "Alert's" online diagnosis abilities are superior
> > to the opinions of three mental health professionals who actually
> > conducted a formal assessment on me.
>
> Post a link to the threads, since you want to drag more up. You only
> started this thread to castigate another. You own quote from Coyne
> demonstrates that you are a perverter of truth for your own ends.
What the quote did was identify the dynamics of what was happening on
OCMB. I was a minority dissident who was being chided for my "tone"
while the people in power were allowed to endlessly flame and attack.
Of course, you would see it as a perversion since you yourself are
part of a mob that is perverting things with groupthink. I already
posted links to the OCMB threads in question. You make highly
presumptious and unwarranted pronouncements against a person you have
never even met. It is the same kind of sloppy jumping to conclusions
that true believers on OCMB are doing with regard to other topics.
>
> > Alert, you might be able to get away with this on OCMB, but here,
> > judging from the response you just got, you have footbulleted
> > yourself.
>
> Oh noez, Nec_V20 is somone you consider worth listening to?
> Maybe you should rethink THAT before you try use a sociopath/fuckwit
> as some sort of reference.- Hide quoted text -
Oh so now Nec-V20 gets a diagnosis from you of sociopath. Keep right
on footbulleting yourself with your psychobabble, Alert. You've been
unmasked.
Monica Pignotti
> On Jun 12, 10:17 am, "GoodBoyTyler" <BarryPep...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > "Alert" <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:d615c364-d561-4e25...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> He disclosed that he himself has been given this diagnosis by a
> > >> psychotherapist but claims he has been cured of it.
> > > That's odd, can you point everyone to the words I said I was "cured".
>
> > Did you mis-typed here or do you mean to say you are still NPD?
>
> I didnt mis-type. I was pointing out how Monica made a statement that
> wasnt true. She stated >I< claimed to be cured.
You're very literal. I didn't put quotation marks around cure. What
you said was that you were a former narcissist who had been diagnosed
with NPD, which implies you think you have been cured.
> Whereas as I said:
> "What's the matter Monica, cant handle how a former narcissist can
> see right into the inner workings of a current narcissist?"
Former narcissist implies you think you are cured. You're just
nitpicking on semantics to weasel out of the fact that people here
have called you on what you're doing.
> I no longer fit the criteria for NPD. But nowhere did I state I had
> been "cured", as Monica has claimed me to have stated. She has twisted
> my own words to service her own ends. Its what she does.
Semantic games that in no way change the main point I was making which
is that you are in no position to make pronouncements about people
fitting DSM criteria based on online behavior. This would be true
regardless of your mental health status, but you seem to be implying
that your "former" narcissim qualifies you to make proclamations that
people fit certain DSM criteria. It doesn't. What you're doing is
using the DSM to verbally abuse people who's ideas you don't like.
> Monica spat her dummy because she fits into the categorization as a
> NPD sufferer
> .Ask an alcoholic/drug addict if they have a substance abuse problem,
> they'll say no.
> Ask and NPD sufferer if they fit the criteria, they'll say no.
> Denial is a *very* powerful thing.
That doesn't mean that everyone who denies having a substance abuse
problem is a substance abuser. Faulty logic. And it isn't my "denial".
It is the opinion of three mental health professionals I have been in
therapy with that I do not have this diagnosis, but you presume to
think you know better and can make judgments based on your highly
biased perceptions of me online.
> I may periodically suffer from a residual (namely (7) ) that are
> evident in some of my previous posts in OCMB but I certainly dont
> suffer from what it is Monica demomnstrates.
Unlike you, I don't offer opinions of who fits what criteria based on
online behavior, but I will comment directly on your behavior, which
is using the DSM to verbally abuse someone who's opinions you didn't
like.
Monica Pignotti
Straw man. I have "demanded" no such thing. I am only calling you out
on your verbally abusive misuse of the DSM.
>
> > I also told Steve Hassan he sounded prissy at one point. He took it
> > pretty well.
> > Now I'm telling you that you sound weirdly circuitous, sort of like
> > unwanted microphone feedback or whatever metaphor might work. That's
> > the shit you need to clear out of your head.
>
> Eldon, please dont try tell me what to do.
That's the classic OCMB response whenever anyone offers an opinion.
What's wrong Alert? Do you think you can get away from dishing out
your own "observations" but can't take it when someone else makes one
about you? At least Eldon didn't trot out the DSM, but only gave his
impressions of how your posting behavior is coming off to him.
> If there's a problem with me posting something you don't like, then
> either ignore me or K/F me.
> But dont tell me I should rid myself of not wanting to conform to some
> delusional old bag that obviously never quite recovered from being
> brainfucked TWICE, and has since spent years reaffirming her self
> percieved importance as an all knowing and never wrong expert.
Eldon or anyone else here can tell you anything they see fit to tell
you. You're no longer nested within a group of true believers who will
let you get away with your verbal abuse.
Monica Pignotti
> opinion seem to matter so disproportionately?
I've wondered the same thing.
>
> You are after all just one individual, and they are the wise, sage and
> infallible ones.
>
> One would think that their overarching collective intellect would be
> able to easily refute any criticism just by the expediency of
> exercising their superior hive mind.
Their only rebuttals seem to be psychobabbling abuse of the DSM, other
forms of flaming and posting spamming pictures.
> Ah but you are guilty of the most damning crime of all - that of being
> articulate.
>
> You compound this crime with rational independent thought as opposed
> to rationalising obedience to dogma.
>
> But seriously what can you expect from people who do not know the
> difference between interlocution and interrogation or between the
> interrogative and the interruptive.-
Good point.
Monica Pignotti
We're all supposed to be either OSA or mentally ill.
Monica Pignotti
> On Jun 12, 7:25 am, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 11, 2:11 am, Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > excuse the top posting
>
> > > On Jun 11, 3:11 pm, "GoodBoyTyler" <BarryPep...@invalid.invalid>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > I think you may be missing the point.
> > > I was the person whom uttered the words about Monica couching up this
> > > idiotic thread in ARS. I said she'd run over here to write up a KR
> > > about Dorothy
> > Posting to ARS is not a "KR". Its just the opposite. It is airing and
> > exposing the inside cult-like atmosphere that has developed on OCMB to
> > people who are outside the community. KR's do just the opposite and
> > involve insiders reporting on insiders.
>
> You wanted to get your thread up and running to castigate another that
> didnt agree with you. You obviously stil think in terms of "agreement"
> quantifying 'reality'
No, that's what you and certain others on OCMB are doing, making
arguments from majority. My point is not that agreemeent = reality,
but rather, that when people get wrapped up in one particular group of
people who have a majority who think alike (e.g. OCMB, but it could be
any group) it is healthy to go outside that group to see how others
are thinking who have not been so caught up. That is what "reality
check" means in this context. It is no different from what cult
experts such as Steve Hassan and others have advised people caught up
in groups to do. Go outside the group and see what others have to say.
This doesn't mean that agreement is reality -- just the opposite. It
is a way to get feedback from people who are outside the system. I did
that and this seems to have disturbed you so much you felt compelled
to follow me here with your DSM and psychobabble in hand, but here you
are only footbulleting yourself because not everyone here is into the
groupthink of the group you came from.
<rest snipped, where he demonstrates what I describe above>
Jonnie Tyler
> It is no different from what cult
> experts such as Steve Hassan and others have advised people caught up
> in groups to do. Go outside the group and see what others have to say.
Even better - go into another cult and observe how the dynamic is the same
as the one in their own group. Seeing it from the outside, applied to
someone else, could be highly therapeutic :-)
Alexia Death
> On the contrary, I expect
> people critical of Scientology to have learned to identify cult-like
> behavior and fanatical conformity when they see it or at least
> recognize it when someone calls it to their attention and to be open
> to criticism of tactics, whether that cult-like behavior comes from
> Scientologists or critics.
Cult like behavior? Under your definition all opinion groups are
cults. Every single one.
> Silly me, for having that expectation! What
> you seem to have forgotten is that I am one of the people who has a
> pretty long history of having spoken out against Scientology, but now,
> according to you and some on OCMB, I should just GTFO because I
> disagree with the party line? I don't think so.
I do. You are a TROLL. That means a person that causes drama and does
not give a flying fuck about any form of solution. You are not
constructive and you are not open. You whine and bitch and moan over
the way things are instead of going out there and making a difference
under your own terms if the community's terms you disrupt don't fit
you. Anonymous is a diametric opposite of people like you who will do
anything to get a group to conform to YOUR expectations. In contrast
Anonymous is about doing it your way, and being fully responsible for
doing it your way, and if others agree with your way they can make it
their way as well. One can propose a criticism and if it has merit in
the eyes of the group it is accepted and heeded, if not it gets
ignored. Trolls are people who want power over the group more than the
goal of the group attained will whine and bitch and continue the same
already ignored argument ad hominem. Trolls get told to GTFO.
So Monica the she-troll, GTFO. Come back when you can accept like a
grownup that others find your idea ridiculous and your insistence
stupid and you are able shut up about it and do something
constructive.
Monica Pignotti
> On Jun 12, 1:47 am, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:> On Jun 11, 2:25 am, Alexia Death <alexiade...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You don't go to a church and start worshiping devil do you? Wtf did
> > > you expect going to a board owned and manned by people critical to
> > > Scientology and starting to counter people and the "party line"? Its
> > > their place. Behave or GTFO.
>
> > Wow, that's quite a statement, Ms. Death. You seem to think I ought to
> > expect conformity from people who are supposed to be fighting cults
> > and ought not to challenge anything that is said in the name of
> > fighting Scientology and if I don't think as they do about tactics I
> > should GTFO. Sounds pretty cultic to me.
>
> It sounds sane and polite to me but hey...
>
> > On the contrary, I expect
> > people critical of Scientology to have learned to identify cult-like
> > behavior and fanatical conformity when they see it or at least
> > recognize it when someone calls it to their attention and to be open
> > to criticism of tactics, whether that cult-like behavior comes from
> > Scientologists or critics.
>
> Cult like behavior? Under your definition all opinion groups are
> cults. Every single one.
Not by a long shot. There are plenty of "opinion groups" that allow
for critical commentary or at the very least, don't personally attack
critics.
> > Silly me, for having that expectation! What
> > you seem to have forgotten is that I am one of the people who has a
> > pretty long history of having spoken out against Scientology, but now,
> > according to you and some on OCMB, I should just GTFO because I
> > disagree with the party line? I don't think so.
>
> I do. You are a TROLL.
Your shouting TROLL in all caps is not a substantive rebuttal.
>That means a person that causes drama and does
> not give a flying fuck about any form of solution.
On the contrary, I do propose a solution to fighting cults, and that
is to be able to identify the cult mindset wherever it occurs, whether
it is exhibited by groups classified as "cults" or by the people
fighting them. Now you might not agree with this and that's fine, but
to call me a TROLL only shows your own impotence to respond in a
substantive manner.
>You are not
> constructive and you are not open.
That's your opinion. "Constructive" is in the eyes of the beholder and
as far as open, that is a strange thing to say, given that I've always
used my real name and my actual history is available on the internet.
>You whine and bitch and moan over
> the way things are instead of going out there and making a difference
> under your own terms if the community's terms you disrupt don't fit
> you.
You make highly erroneous assumptions. In fact, I am speaking at a
conference on cults this very month at ICSA and have a very long track
record of doing things.
>Anonymous is a diametric opposite of people like you who will do
> anything to get a group to conform to YOUR expectations.
My criticism on this thread is not specifically directed at Anonymous.
It was directed at certain critics and this behavior has been going on
long before Anonymous ever came on the scene. Maybe that will help you
relax and not get so defensive, but then again, probably not.
>In contrast
> Anonymous is about doing it your way, and being fully responsible for
> doing it your way, and if others agree with your way they can make it
> their way as well. One can propose a criticism and if it has merit in
> the eyes of the group it is accepted and heeded, if not it gets
> ignored.
It doesn't look to me like the criticism on OCMB is being ignored. Go
over there and look at the number of postings and views on the threads
and most of those postings contain attacks, personal smears, or
spamming against anyone who dares to challenge the party line.
>Trolls are people who want power over the group more than the
> goal of the group attained will whine and bitch and continue the same
> already ignored argument ad hominem. Trolls get told to GTFO.
There you go again, falsely equating the expression of criticism with
a need for power -- on the contrary, it is just the opposite.
>
> So Monica the she-troll, GTFO.
No, and you can't make me.
>Come back when you can accept like a
> grownup that others find your idea ridiculous and your insistence
> stupid and you are able shut up about it and do something
> constructive.
I do not take orders from you.
Nec_V20
Monica,
I have come to the conclusion that there is an easier way to define or
rather recognise a cult.
The higher the incidence of the word "Troll" being used by members,
the closer to a cult that group has become.
So when the incidence of the word "Troll" being used instead of
rational argument reaches 100% then the group has become 100% cult.
On that scale where would you place OCMB?
Just a thought.
Monica Pignotti
> Alert,
>
> QUOTE
> Yet, when I exercise *my* free speech with my observation of her own
> behaviours associated with NPD, post the criteria for it, Monica drops
> her bundle.
> UNQUOTE
>
> let me put it this way, although Monica's speech is undoubtedly free,
> yours manifests itself as gratuitous and as a rule, in its worthless
> expression, for nothing.
>
> TTFN
>
>
>
> > excuse the top posting
>
> > On Jun 11, 3:11�pm, "GoodBoyTyler" <BarryPep...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> > I think you may be missing the point.
> > I was the person whom uttered the words about Monica couching up this
> > idiotic thread in ARS. I said she'd run over here to write up a KR
> > about Dorothy
>
Alert and his tactics:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/502ec7acc87a83ff#
Monica Pignotti
>
This is excellent. Thanks for the link. It describes very well what is
going on.
Ball of Fluff
> On Jun 12, 12:19 pm, "Ball of Fluff" <getoffmy...@fluffentology.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Alert" <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:13babd3a-29be-4079...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 12, 11:08 am, Nec_V20 <ARC_Trian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > How's that establishment of Tonei/Neil being a real person, coming
> > > along?
> > He's dead. Boy, you sure are insensitive at times.
>
> Who, someone that cannot be established as being real?
>
> Where is he buried?
> Where is his obituary?
> Where is anything beyond claims he was real?
I have no idea where he's buried. I don't really care.
If he were alive, he'd not be able to resist posting- that I do know.
>
>
>
> > I've spoken with Nec on the phone many times. I've spoken with Tonei on the
> > phone several times. Definitely not the same people.
>
> Yah, youve never been fooled ,eh?
My husband and other people I know also spoke with both of them.
Totally different people.
>
>
>
> > C
>
> >www.claireswazey.com
>
> Gee, this must be one of the very few times you even read my posts?
I read whatever I feel like reading at the time.
Ditto for replies.
>
> On Jun 12, 12:20 pm, "Ball of Fluff" <getoffmy...@fluffentology.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Alert" <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:d2d75809-6166-446c...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Eldon, please dont try tell me what to do.
> > That's interesting, Alert, that you dislike being told what to do. Well, so
> > do others. Yet you've often tried to order and boss people around.
>
> Gee, why would I possibly call YOU a hypocrite?
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=-ATJQR0AAAAWImRKRQT9...
>
>
>
> > Hmmm...
>
> > C
>
> >www.claireswazey.com
>
> You are the epitome of adnerence to scientology, even after leaving to
> practice hubbards lunacies in fee$one, Claire.
I doubt very much that I'm the epitome of adherence to anything. I've
always been a panty waist dilettante, and never more so than since I
left the cult. Most of my friends never were involved in CofS AT ALL
and my recreational and social activities are generally things like
going to movies, the occasional play, visiting friends, doing yoga,
reading, etc.
I did not leave CofS for purposes of "practice(ing) Hubbard's lunacies
in feezone." That's not why I left. And my interests in ideology and
philosophy are certainly not confined to Scn or, indeed, to any one
ism.
Also, that really wouldn't be relevant to a discussion as to who I
like or who I think is dead or alive or whatnot, in any case.
>
> Youre a child trapped in an adults body.
ORLY? Let's see. I have a wonderful husband, I help my family, I have
properties, a good job. I take about 2 sick days a year off at most.
I've received 3 promotions in 5 years. I handled both my parent's
estates AND dealt with all our own financial matters from a distance
of 2000 miles away from my own residence. I have a good credit rating
and a good circle of friends and a variety of interests. No trapping,
no second childhoods here.
I don't think it's efficacious or proves your argument in any way
whatsoever to start posting about children trapped in adult's bodies
or who does what in the Freezone when such is not the topic. AFAIK,
that's called "Ad hominem argument" and it does not support your
arguments. Plus the ad hom comments themselves were inaccurate- to put
it mildly.
C
Ball of Fluff
I, and several others, have been the recipient of many a vehement
post from Alert.
Really really pointless.
C
Emma
<snip>
Unlike you, I don't offer opinions of who fits what criteria based on
online behavior, but I will comment directly on your behavior, which
is using the DSM to verbally abuse someone who's opinions you didn't
like.
--------------------------------------------
But you do categorise people based on very little.
Based on one or two posts you had me pegged as "Mintonesque", "fuzzy & pink"
and "A true believer".
All very wrong.
Monica, you had an opportunity to present some real & present concerns on
the Anonymous phenomenon. You can & do write well and had credibility. But
you kinda blew it.
You do write in a bulldozing manner. You do have a superior tone to your
posts. You like to flaunt your intellectualism. On any forum this style
isn't going to be popular.
There are a lot of recovering ex Scientologists on various fora around the
traps. The HAVE come from a cultic environment. They are just trying to find
their feet after being lied to and betrayed by Scientology, some having
experienced this for the majority of their lives. They are not ready to be
lectured or scolded.
You will find cultic aspects in any group, even the local knitting or book
clubs will have a heirarchy and opinion leaders and followers. It's part and
parcel of any social group.
You aren't wrong to point out cultic aspects on OCMB, ESMB, XSO, ARS, IRC
channels or any other online community. It's just what happens, like it or
not. But to come across in the manner you have has just alienated the very
people you are trying to reach. It's not your arguments that are necessarily
at fault, but more your approach and style.
I know this from personal experience. A few years ago Patty P & I tried to
"change" OCMB because we felt the same, i.e. that there is cultic behaviour
etc on the message board. But guess what? It was a complete disaster. We did
the same as you. Turned up there, all guns blazing, shot our mouths off and
were completely rejected. It wasn't that we were trying to make enemies or
hurt anyone. We just thought that we knew best.
Since then I have come to understand the dynamic on OCMB more and realise
that it is a group, just like any other group, with established opinion
leaders and certain favourable viewpoints. You can't just wonder in there
with a shotgun type approach and expect people to just change for you.
Again, you aren't wrong to be concerned about something you see as dangerous
for people, and you are free to comment on it, but please don't expect
people to be grateful when you (a stranger to most of them) just waltz in
them to tell them they are wrong.
Regards,
Emma
Monica Pignotti
started on this topic are just providing further evidence to support
my point, and the amazing thing is, he doesn't even seem to be aware
of this.
Jonnie Tyler
news:6bdrosF...@mid.individual.net...
> You will find cultic aspects in any group, even the local knitting or book
> clubs will have a heirarchy and opinion leaders and followers. It's part
> and parcel of any social group.
That's true but a group that pretends to criticize cults based on logic,
ethic, and an understanding of cultic behavior is supposed to know better.
OldRookie
>I know this from personal experience. A few years ago Patty P & I tried to
>"change" OCMB because we felt the same, i.e. that there is cultic behaviour
>etc on the message board. But guess what? It was a complete disaster. We did
>the same as you. Turned up there, all guns blazing, shot our mouths off and
>were completely rejected.
Ahh, haa. I'm now starting to remember that episode when a few ex-Scn
friends turned up out of the blue and we liquor-lubricatedly applied
the good ol' tech to this thing with Patty and you....
Classic text-book stuff - 3rd Partying by an SP !
Roan someone or other ?
Gee, that old Ron was on the ball, eh ? :)
Sorry, carry on. Someone might care.
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>I expect
>people critical of Scientology to have learned to identify cult-like
>behavior and fanatical conformity when they see it or at least
>recognize it when someone calls it to their attention and to be open
>to criticism of tactics, whether that cult-like behavior comes from
>Scientologists or critics. Silly me, for having that expectation! What
>you seem to have forgotten is that I am one of the people who has a
>pretty long history of having spoken out against Scientology, but now,
>according to you and some on OCMB, I should just GTFO because I
>disagree with the party line? I don't think so.
Heh. I know the feeling.
They expect to make you dance to their tune, Monica. You're on ~their
internship~ now! You WILL toe the line or expect have your sanity,
credentials, intentions, or previous contributions denigrated.
Your observations remain un-rebutted and actually are proven by their
fanatical reactions. Ad hominem is a much easier response for the
conceptually impaired critics.
Dennis
-----------------
"Everybody's doin' somethin'
I heard it in a dream
But when there's too much of nothing
It just makes a fella mean." - B Dylan
Ball of Fluff
wrote:
> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >I expect
> >people critical of Scientology to have learned to identify cult-like
> >behavior and fanatical conformity when they see it or at least
> >recognize it when someone calls it to their attention and to be open
> >to criticism of tactics, whether that cult-like behavior comes from
> >Scientologists or critics. Silly me, for having that expectation! What
> >you seem to have forgotten is that I am one of the people who has a
> >pretty long history of having spoken out against Scientology, but now,
> >according to you and some on OCMB, I should just GTFO because I
> >disagree with the party line? I don't think so.
>
> Heh. I know the feeling.
>
> They expect to make you dance to their tune, Monica. You're on ~their
> internship~ now! You WILL toe the line or expect have your sanity,
> credentials, intentions, or previous contributions denigrated.
>
> Your observations remain un-rebutted and actually are proven by their
> fanatical reactions. Ad hominem is a much easier response for the
> conceptually impaired critics.
>
Here's what I find risible. Monica ends up in a flame war on OCMB.
People eagerly line up to high five each other while posting ad hom
cracks, nitpicking a number of things she wrote and on and on. Monica
discusses it over here. Some people indicate their disagreement with
her having done so- well, fair enough. But then some people come over
and start attacking her here. And it's a big problem that she
responds.
The thing is, the people posting ad homs could have gotten their
points across so much better had they not stooped to this personalized
crap. They could have said "I disagree with you when you said X, and
here's why." but instead, Monica and some others here were treated to
personal insults. Well, that doesn't get your point across, guys. This
"your grandma wears combat boots" school of debate does nothing to
prove why you might think Monica's wrong about the Anons or about
cultic thingies. All it does is devolve into personalities.
It's a classic phenomenon. Someone sees a stance someone has taken
that they, themselves, cannot live with. So it causes them to not like
the individual. Someone else pokes her head in, then someone else, and
more personality issues erupt. And over on Clambake people are
expressing dismay over scathing ad hominem responses to ad homs
initiated that were much much nastier than the responses were. Well,
in the real world, those of us who inhabit it know full well that if
you come up to people and insult them they are likely to respond. Some
of the things people say on these forums would get them punched in the
mouth on some occasions, should this have occurred IRL. (and before
someone jump all over this and say that I punch people or say that I'd
like to- no. I don't hit people. Why? Because I don't touch people I
don't like. Ick. Plus all that legal/criminal stuff- people like that
aren't worth the hassle.)
Some of the people flaming on these couple of threads have repeatedly
gone on record expressing anger over argumentative type people and
flames- while they themselves flame people, insult them and argue with
them.
You know what? They need to fucking grow up and stop being hypocrites.
A course in netiquette wouldn't come amiss, either.
C
Skipper
Tom Klemesrud
> They expect to make you dance to their tune, Monica.
Your tune is "Pancho and Lefty" Dennis.
http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/w/willie_nelson/pancho_and_lefty.html
>You're on ~their
> internship~ now! You WILL toe the line or expect have your sanity,
> credentials, intentions, or previous contributions denigrated.
The day he laid poor MoFo low, Dennis split for In-y-o
Where he got the bread to go, there ain't nobody knows
All the church attorneys say, they could've got MoFo any day
They only let them go so long, out of appearances I suppose
MoFo needs your prayers it's true, but save a few for Dennis too
He only did what he had to do, and now he's rich and old
A few gray church attorneys say, they could've jerked MoFo any day
They only let them go so long, out of appearances I suppose -B Dylan
zo...@yahoo.com
It's your opinion that I offered nothing. In fact, I pointed out that
you went for the grand prize that all critic-critics yearn for,
equivalency. "Which are the cults around here?" you asked, coyly.
So, I went ahead and indicated that you were being ridiculous.
So, to me that sounds like something. But you evidently disagree.
Let's read what else you have to say.
>
> I find that there are some exceedingly unintelligent people going
> around on these forums.
Ah, so you've chosen to take your misguided premise to the bank and
cash it in. You're a real piece of work!
Talk to you later,
Another Exceedingly Unintelligent Person Going Around These Forums
p.s. I like the "exceedingly" bit, makes you sound smart... maybe try
something more intelligent-sounding than "going around" though...
>
> Roadrunner