Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
spam...@apologeticsindex.org
:===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
Congratulations! You won a "Flaming Website" award. See
http://www.rickross.com/flamingwebsites.html
:===End Quote===
This is in response to our web entry on The Ross Institute, whose services Janet
and I do not recommend:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r24.html
Ross' email exchange with us was manipulative and otherwise unprofessional. It
shows Ross jumping to conclusions - because we were (and are) unwilling to
answer his questions regarding our views on Steve Hassan and AFF.
For one thing, we already indicated to him that we were very busy. For another,
the Book of Proverbs says, " Like one who seizes a dog by the ears is a
passer-by who meddles in a quarrel not his own." (Proverbs 26:17 NIV)
Too, our recommendations are clearly labeled:
http://aishort.com/recommended
Incidentally, Apologetics Index is one of only a few Christian-operated sites
that recommend both Christian and secular organizations. They are clearly
labeled as such, and our disclaimer speaks for itself. Besides, though Janet
and I operate from an evangelical Christian perspective, we support freedom of
religion in thought and expression. This and other issues are addressed here:
How To Use Apologetics Index
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/howto.html
When two of Rick's messages went unanswered - having been misdirected and marked
as "read" by a filter in our email program - his next message, titled, "No
response leads to some conclusions," included the following:
:===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
As they say, "Silence is assent." And your silence is rather deafening.
:===End Quote===
Ross concluded that message with:
:===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
Thanks for making your position on all this somewhat clearer. I wasn't really
sure where you stood on all this. But now understand that your position is
apparently predicated on politics and not principle.
:===End Quote===
Needless to say, Janet and I were not impressed. By the way, while I merely
have 29+ years of experience in lay counseling, my wife, Janet, is a licensed,
professional counselor and social worker. Like me, she considered Ross'
behavior in his emails to us to be manipulative and unprofessional. The
inclusion of baseless accusations and the apparent willingness to jump to
conclusions didn't help either, and only added to our reasons for not
recommending The Ross Institute.
Alas, Ross' behavior got even more stranger when he wrote:
:===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
Why do I feel I emailing with cult member deliberately being evasive and
refusing to give clear answers to easy questions?
I guess this is your version of "heavenly deception."
:===End Quote===
In my response I wrote, among other things:
What foolish, unprofessional, and unethical remarks!
:===Begin Quote: Anton Hein===
Your communication with me has become increasingly bizarre. It is filled with
baseless and incorrect conclusions, marked with unprofessional behavior, and now
includes thinly-veiled suggestions of "deception."
You accuse me of "unethical and unprofessional behavior," and claim to be
"disappointed" by what you label my "lack of professionalism, integrity and
political pettiness."
All that because I do not have the time, energy or interest to be drawn into
your disagreements with the professionals you gossip about.
If you truly get the feeling that you are emailing with a "cult member," I feel
sorry for you. Like I said before:
====
That said, if the manner at which you arrive at your conclusions - as displayed
in the message copied below - is reflective of your usual approach, Janet and I
have one more reason to stand behind our current recommendations for ex-cult
counseling and support resources as listed here:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c09c.html#counselorg
====
:===End Quote===
Our response to Rick Ross remains the same as before: if he has a problem with
an organization and/or an individual, he will need to hash it out with them.
Janet and I do not respond to the email-equivalent of arm-twisting.
We will say this: though - as indicated at our site - we do not necessarily
agree with everything the recommended organizations teach or practice, our
interaction with AFF and Steve Hassan has always been courteous, professional,
and pleasant. Janet and I stand behind our referrals. What Rick Ross wants to
make of that is his own responsibility. We wish him all the best in his
efforts, but will not recommend his services to anyone.
Anton
--
Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
Apologetics Index
Research resources on religions, cults, sects, doctrines, and related issues:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com (News and news archives)
http://www.apologeticsindex.org (Other research resources)
Michael Greenberg
Consider that a compliment Anton. Your post was quite gracious.
Rick Ross does not posses any academic credentials or qualifications
whatsoever to practce any form of psychological
counseling in any state. Call it "exit counseling" or whatever you
like.
Get a license Rick.
Michael Greenberg
rick...@rickross.com
in correct context the simple questions he was asked.
Anton has chosen to endorse and promote certain professionals and
organizations through his Web site, which is certainly his prerogative.
Some questions Anton was asked specifically related to the fees charged
by one of those professionals Steve Hassan, which were reported at
$5,000 per day and $500.00 per hour.
Steve has never disputed this, but later published a reduced fee
schedule after a disclaimer was made public at the Ross Institute
database.
Anton was asked how he felt about these high fees, which have caused
some families to mortgage their homes.
Anton never answered.
Other questions had to do specifically with recent policy changes
within the American Family Foundation that apparently allow for the
inclusion of well-known cult apologists such as Dick Anthony, Eileen
Barker and Massimo Introvigne to be speakers/presenters at its
conferences without meaningful historical qualification or
introduction.
Also Anton was asked how he felt about Krishna spokespersons being
included in a panel titled "Can Cults Change" that did not include that
group's victims or their designated spokesperson for meaningful
balance.
Anton never answered.
It is important to note that Anton has previously been critical of cult
apologists, including those named and the Krishna movement.
These questions were reasonable given that history and meaningful
answers would provide a clarification and/or better understanding of
Anton's position regarding these controversial issues, which directly
relate to the content of his Web site and the professional and
organization endorsements.
Anton chose instead to at first ignore the questions, and then he
attempted to obfuscate the issue by characterizing such questions as
somehow a personal and/or professional attack.
To date Anton refuses to make his position on any of these issues
clear.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
S. J. Wilson
As I recall Anton's post was first posted in reply to a thread started
on OCMB (xenu.net) by Michael Greenberg, who has been bashing you for
over a year. If I remember correctly, it was posted in reply to those
of us who objected to Michael's
uncalled for attacks on you.
Michael Greenberg praises Bernie, a cult apologist, whose website
contains distortions and omits facts.
Scientology and Anti-Scientology
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm Changed:2:00 AM on Sunday, December
12, 2004
One reason: Michael is a big fan of Diane Richardson whose opnion is
prominently featured on Bernie's site. Richardson's attacks on
Paulette Cooper and others are a.r.s. legend.
Michael can be a vicious little flame starter and thrower. If you get
on his "shit list", for whatever reason, watch out. Ditto for Diane
Richardson. It's really too bad that your and Anton's disputes had to
be made public. The only one to profit from it are Scientology and
the rest of the cults.
BTW.....thanks for all you do and Kudos on the Observer article.
Tigger
Michael Greenberg
Anton now, 9 months later.
Listen here Shirley Jean...Rick has never responded to me in the past
and my position on what he does is consistant.
I just don't approve of any psych counseling without a license. From
anyone..not just RR.
Tigger, I'm just like anyone else. I'm certainly am a big "fan" of
Diane,and Rob, Kady,Cerridwen and others. Reading their posts first
helps me
cut through all the baseless kook opinions and glean some researched
conclusions quickly.
Then, if I have time I read people like you and Arnie for entertainment
value. Padgett apologists make me smile and remind me that God
does indeed have a sense of humour.
I don't think Im a flamer and like *some* of us have matured over time.
But if you refer to my voicing some unpopular opinions-
then yea I do that.
Bernie is what he is. An admittedly biased alternative view of the
critic scene. He's also one of the nicest guys around.
He never claimed to be a scholar,you know.
Whats not to like?
Michael Greenberg
rick...@rickross.com
I am not a mental health professional and have never said otherwise.
My work is not "psych counseling."
See http://www.rickross.com/prep_faq.html
Instead, it is strictly limited to discussion about the group in
question, cults in general and their dynamics.
Some of the people I have worked with later may see a clinical
psychologist or professional counselor for follow-up regarding their
cult-involvement.
Again, this is not my work though, I am a consultant not a counselor.
The purpose of my recent post was to clarify the issues regarding Anton
Hein and myself, which were not clear from the misleading comments he
posted previously.
I am sorry it took so long for me to respond, but I have only recently
began to follow these discussion boards.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
Tigger Tigger
doubt Rick Ross just saw those posts when he was looking in the google
archives for something. No dodubt he would have replied immediatly
after that was posted if he had seen it in March.
I can't recall seeing those *a.r.s.* posts either. If I had, I would
have been on you like a duck on a Junebug.
or
Rick Ross has learned long ago that you don't leave distortions and
misrepresentations out there. If you do, Scientology is going to use
them against you.
How *nice*you find my posts entertaining.
I seldom find yours entertaining or informative. I never find Arnie
Lerma's or Diane Richardson's entertaining. In fact, I rarely read any
of them.
Tigger
Michael Greenberg
If you say you don't do therapy
then fine. There is a huge gray area there therapy vs. discussion as we
both know. Anyone famaliar
with your background would naturally question exactly what it is that
you do when dealing
with cult victims directly.
Do you feel you are still unfairly associated with deprograming
techniques used in the past?
And if so,why?
Michael Greenberg
rick...@rickross.com
No. I am not a therapist and don't do therapy.
The following links explain the parameters of my work.
http://www.rickross.com/ethics.html
http://www.rickross.com/prep_faq.html
The above links should answer any questions you might have.
Rick Ross
www.rickross.com
Michael Greenberg
Reform Consultant?
Im not famaliar with that career path.
Where does one go to get this training? I mean.....seriously Rick?
Michael Greenberg
Wanlorn
<micha...@mac.com> wrote:
Guido's School of knee smashing - Herman Goerings school of Reform,
perhaps he learned it at the greater school of beating someone to a
plup and making them do what they are told to do with the use of
intense aversion therapy - Sounds like brainwashing and indoctrination
tactics to me...
However now there appears to be a viable line of work for the many
street gang thugs who are trying to "Go Legit"
Wanlorn
~ Not a Scientologist, but proud to live in a world that accepts them
for all the good that they do."
Carol Abade
over chipping away, endlessly at granite, to uncover history.
Michael Greenberg <micha...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1102905550.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Michael Greenberg
reply after your post.
That lovely and eloquent Carol. However I believe someone heavily
indoctrinated by a destructive cult is in
crisis. People in crisis deserve the best professionals available with
credentials,liability insurance and documentation
of experience through intership, available to the public.
You may think RR is qualified...and maybe he is.
But we don't know if he is working with clients that are borderline
suicidal or psychotic.
Until its too late.
Michael Greenberg
ApologeticsIndex.org
As I have stated before, aside from the fact that we're busy enough
with other things, Janet and I do not wish to get involved in your
private issues with cult experts like Steve Hassan and the folks at
AFF. That includes your disagreements regarding fees and/or dialogue
with cult apologists.
You don't like the fact that we don't answer questions on demand, but
we owe you no accountability.
You proceeded to read your own interpretations into our refusal to
answer your questions, and that worries us.
I have for many years promoted and even defended your work. But your
behavior in this issue gave me second thoughts, and caused Janet - who
is licensed mental health professional - and I to rethink our referral
policy.
We stand behind our decision to refer people to AFF, Steve Hassan, and
other recommended professionals:
http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling.html#counseling
As for cult apologists, everyone concerned knows my views regarding
them:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html
It's not for nothing that cult apologists and their groupies continue
to denounce me. Hah! We even jokingly refer to Douglas Cowan as our
'marketing director' because many of the folks who visit our site
after reading his stuff on us are puzzled as to why he sees fit to
misrepresent our views, as in his
Cult Apology: A (Modest) Typological Proposal
http://c.faculty.umkc.edu/cowande/sssr-2002.pdf
Our entry on AFF includes a segment on the dialogue issue:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/a38.html
We conclude:
:===Begin Quote===
The publishers of Apologetics Index do believe dialogue among those
who are involved in the study of religious movements in general, and
cults and sects in particular, can be helpful. But given the agenda
and track record of cult apologists, we also believe that it is
necessary and prudent to draw clear lines of demarkation. As long as
academic cult defenders remain controversial (due to, for example,
their attrocious 'research,' their hateful attacks on apostates, their
PR-like defense of cults, and their penchant toward bearing false
witness), they should not be included as featured speakers at
professional conferences.
:===End Quote===
Matter of fact, Janet and I have met and talked with cult apologists
ourselves. We also reguarly meet with members of groups and religions
that we consider to be cults - religious or otherwise - just like we
also meet with members of a wide variety of religions. These people
know that we operate from a Christian and countercult point of view.
We also make sure they understand our approach to interreligious
dialogue (option 3):
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i06.html
Regarding professional fees we have the following statement online:
http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling02.html#fees
Yes, that statement was posted our our email exchange, but we work on
our own schedule and according to our own priorities.
Like I said, we do not necessarily agree with everything the
recommended organizations teach or practice. The same is true for
thousands of links posted at Apologetics Index. Our disclaimer is
very clear: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/disclaimer.html
The feedback we receive is positive and indicates people are quite
able to make informed decisions for themselves.
That said, we wish you continued success in your own efforts to
liberate people out of cults. But as I have repeatedly indicated,
Janet and I have no time or interest to pursue other people's private
battles...
Anton
--
Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
rick...@rickross.com
In response to Anton Hein's recent post on this thread--
"Apologetics Index" is a Web site run by Anton Hein and his wife Janet.
It is promoted as a public resource about cults, religions,
controversial groups and movements and solicits donations from the
general public.
Mr. Hein has chosen to publicly promote and/or endorse through his Web
site specific professionals and organizations, which is certainly his
right.
But promoting such resources through an easily accessible Internet Web
site database is not a "private issue."
When a Web site supposedly devoted to the public interest specifically
endorses certain resources it is fair to ask questions regarding the
criteria/process for such selections. And meaningful answers to such
questions help to better inform the public, which might rely upon the
judgements made by that Webmaster/owner.
Mr. Hein's attempt to categorize such reasonable questions about his
public policies as "private issues" in not a meaningful response, nor
is it objectively applicable.
It is reasonable and meaningful to hold Mr. and Mrs. Hein accountable
for their publicly stated endorsements and promotional efforts.
Mr. Hein says that "cult apologists...should not be included as
featured speakers at professional conferences."
However, he continues "to refer people to AFF" and by extension its
conferences without qualification.
AFF has featured the very same "cult apologists" Anton Hein denoucnes
for "their attrocious 'research,' their hateful attacks on apostates,
their PR-like defense of cults."
Mr. Hein has chosen not to specifically address this glaring
contradiction.
Anton Hein says he wants the public to carefully consider the fees
charged for cult intervention work and he has a section about this
process at his Web site.
However, he refuses to explain why he has endorsed and continues to
preferentially promote one private professional (Steve Hassan), despite
the fact that he has charged fees as high as $5,000 per day.
Mr. Hassan recently reduced his fee schedule to $2,500 per day, but
only after a public disclaimer was posted at the Ross Institute Web
site regarding his previous fee schedule.
Steve Hassan, subsequently described discussion about his fees as a
"personal attack."
Anton Hein certainly may endorse whomever or whatever he wishes to. But
since these endorsements are made publicly and not privately and may
influence those who visit his Web site, it is reasonable to ask
questions about the criteria, due process and policies concerning those
endorsements.
However, Anton refuses to answer such questions plainly and directly.
A plausible conclusion given Mr. Hein's responses and the seeming
contradictions they pose, is that his chosen endorsements and selective
promotion of certain private professionals at "Apologetics Index" is
largely idiosyncratic and/or somehow politically motivated. And
apparently they do not reflect any consistent professional and/or
ethical criteria or guidelines.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
ApologeticsIndex.org
it, but that does not mean anybody owes him either an answer or
accountability. (Who died and left him in charge?)
He is welcome to read anything and everything into this that he wishes
to, but his continued protests and insinuations won't make any
difference at all in the way we operate our ministry.
Our website makes it overwhelmingly clear that we operate from an
evangelical Christian point of view, that we are opinionated, and that
unlike most Christian apologetics and countercult sites we link to
resources from a variety of perspectives. This includes cult experts
and/or organizations and ministries.
If someone wishes to explain that as "iosyncratic and/or somehow
politically motivated" that's their right - and is our right not to
take that kind of nonsense seriously.
The Apologetics Index approach works well for us, and is appreciated
by our visitors. Feedback received shows that our interlinked
information provides people with information that will help them make
informed decisions.
While we freely share our opinions, we don't make decisions for
people, and won't allow others to manipulate us into accepting their
agendas either.
Incidentally, we do not charge anything at all for our services. Yes,
we solicit donations, but in any given year more has been paid and
donated by us than comes in.
Mr. Ross is welcome to complain about the fees charged by others, or
about the way others operate. But as we have consistently stated, we
refuse to be pulled into his fights with others.
Anton
--
Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
rick...@rickross.com
Note that Anton Hein neither answers any specific questions raised
regarding his policies, nor does he cite his criteria or guidelines
regarding recommended resources at his "Apologetics Index" Web site.
Instead, Mr. Hein is evasive and attempts to obfuscate the actual issue
as best he can.
As outlined before, the issue of "accountability" concerning this
matter is public not private, since Mr. Hein apparently wishes that his
Web site be regarded as a public resource and not a private one.
Despite attempting to label questioniong his actions as somehow a
"private issue" this remains a public issue, since the Internet is a
public resource.
"What can be "appreciated by visitors" to Mr. Hein's Web site is that
whatever process constitutes the "Apologetics Index approach" remains
largely unknown, or at best may be summed up with Mr. Hein's
response--"We don't answer questions."
But by making his recommendations public Anton Hein and his wife are
attempting "to manipulate [others] into accepting [their] agendas,"
whatever they may be and however inconsistent.
Again, the most plausible conclusion seems to be, based upon Mr. Hein's
posted responses here, that his recommendations are based on his own
idiosyncratic prefences and personal agenda--despite his attempt to
label such a conclusion as "nonsense."
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
ApologeticsIndex.org
private fights with Steve Hassan and the cult experts at AFF.
Whatever his beef with them is, he will have to solve these issues
himself.
His continued innuendos, thinly-veiled accusations and conspiracy
theories don't deserve any further answers or comments.
While he may have enough time and energy to spare for these type of
pursuits, we've got serious work to do.
Anton
--
Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
Larry T.
own brains out on public television.
--
Larry T. @ www.larryontheweb.freeservers.com
"ApologeticsIndex.org" <spam...@apologeticsindex.org> wrote in message
news:mo3jt0dukajnmttvn...@4ax.com...
Lady Chatterly
ApologeticsIndex.org <spam...@apologeticsindex.org> wrote:
>
>If someone wishes to explain that as "iosyncratic and/or somehow
>politically motivated" that's their right - and is our right not to
>take that kind of nonsense seriously.
Voting on usenet awards.
>While we freely share our opinions, we don't make decisions for
>people, and won't allow others to manipulate us into accepting their
>agendas either.
Something like that cchr, they regard anybody who does not rise as men
age, and wrong.
>Incidentally, we do not charge anything at all for our services. Yes,
>we solicit donations, but in any given year more has been paid and
>donated by us than comes in.
You seem quite positive.
>Mr. Ross is welcome to complain about the fees charged by others, or
>about the way others operate. But as we have consistently stated, we
>refuse to be pulled into his fights with others.
West this second petition.
--
Lady Chatterly
"If he would be a bot, he would sound like Lady Chatterly or Zinji" --
Barbara Schwarz
rick...@rickross.com
policy.
Instead, such questions about Mr. Hein's behavior are dismissed as a
"private fight" or a "thinly veiled...conspiracy theory."
This type of ad-hominem attack as a response to questions about
behavior and ethics is rather like what might be expected from an OSA
representitive, when asked about the inconsistencies between what
Scientology says and what it does.
Interesting.
Rick Ross
www.rickross.com
Lady Chatterly
rick...@rickross.com wrote:
>
>Note that Anton Hein neither answers any specific questions raised
>regarding his policies, nor does he cite his criteria or guidelines
>regarding recommended resources at his "Apologetics Index" Web site.
Unless, osa being clever, is signing each and every one of them in
business and many people firmly believe the U.
>Instead, Mr. Hein is evasive and attempts to obfuscate the actual issue
>as best he can.
West this second petition.
>As outlined<SLAP><SLAP><SLAP>
Scientology.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Someone needs to learn Our Good Lady about the St. Foamy moratorium!"
-- Art Deco
rick...@rickross.com
The point is--does Anton Hein have any consistent guidelines regarding
recommended resources/professionals at his Web site?
It doesn't seem so.
On one hand Anton condemns "cult apologists" and then he recommends as
a resource an organization that features such apologists as speakers at
its conferences.
On one hand Anton cautions visitors to be careful about fees for cult
intervention work, but then he recommends a professional (Steve Hassan)
who charges extraordinary fees, reportedly historically as high as
$5,000 per day.
Given an opportunity to clarify his position, Anton Hein repeatedly
refuses to do so and instead is evasive and attempts to divert
attention from the point.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
Rick Ross
www.rickross.com
ApologeticsIndex.org
this over with: We're actually spies for the Liechtenstein Marine
Department... :)
Back to reality.
Anton
--
Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
Hartley Patterson
> This type of ad-hominem attack as a response to questions about
> behavior and ethics is rather like what might be expected from an OSA
> representitive, when asked about the inconsistencies between what
> Scientology says and what it does.
> Interesting.
Interesting indeed. Comparing any critic of the CoS to an OSA rep is a
surefire way of losing street cred on this newsgroup.
Squabbles that aren't directly related to busy newsgroups are also not
generally appreciated. You (and Anton) have made us aware that you are in
disagreement, but you have no people to win to your respective sides here.
--
"I just might be the angel at your door"
A medieval spreadsheet and enturbulating entheta.
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
The Last Liberal
Is this a private fight, or may anyone join in?
Mr. Ross has two excellent points, regardless of anyone appointing
not him some kind of counter-cult guardian:
1) ApologeticsIndex.org admits that "cult apologists" are, to
paraphrase, dangerous and damaging to society: "cult apologists"
actively (out of ignorance, malice, or greed) work to oppose
education about dangerous organizations generally called "cults."
Therefore, if ApologeticsIndex.org uses "cult apologists" as
experts or authorities in a supportive, aproving manner, that
means ApologeticsIndex.org is being counter productive.
2) Steve Hassan's behavior is getting more and more cult-like, and
that should distress anyone who has set oneself up as an
educational source about dangerous cults such as
ApologeticsIndex.org has. What doesn't Mr. Hassan's behavior been
more soundly castigated by ApologeticsIndex.org?
However, ApologeticsIndex.org also has one excellent point that
Mr. Ross seems to be dismissing as invalid:
1) Anton _et_all_ at ApologeticsIndex.org does not need to answer
any questions put to them that they do not wish to answer. Mr.
Ross would perhaps be better served to merely express his critcism
to the human rights community at large instead of
ApologeticsIndex.org
'There was a time when religion ruled the world. It was known as
the Dark Ages.' --- Ruth Hurmence Green
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
The Last Liberal
> To whom it may concern:
>
> Note that Anton Hein neither answers any specific questions raised
> regarding his policies, nor does he cite his criteria or guidelines
> regarding recommended resources at his "Apologetics Index" Web site.
>
> Instead, Mr. Hein is evasive and attempts to obfuscate the actual issue
> as best he can.
Yes, we all can see that. Your point is what, exactly? That he
does not have the right to refuse to answer questions? His
behavior is certainly suspect, and if he does indeed resort to
"using" biased, ignorant, and injurous "cult apologists" for his
own goals and agendas, then yes certainly he ought to be
criticized. Critics should not expect their objections to be
answered by those who are being criticized.
> As outlined before, the issue of "accountability" concerning this
> matter is public not private, since Mr. Hein apparently wishes that his
> Web site be regarded as a public resource and not a private one.
>
> Despite attempting to label questioniong his actions as somehow a
> "private issue" this remains a public issue, since the Internet is a
> public resource.
Yes, of course.
> "What can be "appreciated by visitors" to Mr. Hein's Web site is that
> whatever process constitutes the "Apologetics Index approach" remains
> largely unknown, or at best may be summed up with Mr. Hein's
> response--"We don't answer questions."
>
> But by making his recommendations public Anton Hein and his wife are
> attempting "to manipulate [others] into accepting [their] agendas,"
> whatever they may be and however inconsistent.
>
> Again, the most plausible conclusion seems to be, based upon Mr. Hein's
> posted responses here, that his recommendations are based on his own
> idiosyncratic prefences and personal agenda--despite his attempt to
> label such a conclusion as "nonsense."
He has clearly stated his biases: he approaches counter-cult
education from an occult, biased, Christian perspective. That
means he will likely accept "questionable" sources due to his
occult biases. Though atheists are in far better position to
educate people about dangerous cults (and indeed religion and
superstition in general), nearly 100% of atheists do not feel the
need to try--- that means theists are left to fill the need.
> Rick A. Ross
> www.rickross.com
"Men in the pro-choice movement are either men trapped in women's
bodies...or younger guys who are like camp followers looking for easy
sex." --Rep. Bob Dornan (R-CA)
The Last Liberal
> In response to Anton Hein's last post--
>
> The point is--does Anton Hein have any consistent guidelines regarding
> recommended resources/professionals at his Web site?
>
> It doesn't seem so.
>
> On one hand Anton condemns "cult apologists" and then he recommends as
> a resource an organization that features such apologists as speakers at
> its conferences.
If true, then yes, that is an issue that human rights activists
ought to discuss. Such behavior is injurous to the goal of
educating victims, family members of victims, and potential
victims about dangerous "cults."
Yet surely you concede that Mr. Hein need not answer your
criticism (nor anyone else's) if he chooses not to, yes?
> On one hand Anton cautions visitors to be careful about fees for cult
> intervention work, but then he recommends a professional (Steve Hassan)
> who charges extraordinary fees, reportedly historically as high as
> $5,000 per day.
Does he have a choice? How many "experts" out there can do the job
that Mr. Hassan does and can do?
> Given an opportunity to clarify his position, Anton Hein repeatedly
> refuses to do so and instead is evasive and attempts to divert
> attention from the point.
Likening Mr. Hein to the Scientology crime syndicate's OSA was
certainly over-the-top, and not worthy of you (or anyone). What
purpose did such an accusation serve?
> Rick A. Ross
> www.rickross.com
---
http://lastliberal.org
The damn quote of yours has had more second comings here
than a hooker at a Baptist convention. - Marty Leipzig
rick...@rickross.com
Please understand that you began this thread.
And it seems to be a dead end, i.e. expecting you to clarify your
positions and/or offer meaningful answers.
Enough said.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
ApologeticsIndex.org
Liberal) wrote:
>Please pardon the "top posting."
>
>Is this a private fight, or may anyone join in?
>
>Mr. Ross has two excellent points, regardless of anyone appointing
>not him some kind of counter-cult guardian:
>
>1) ApologeticsIndex.org admits that "cult apologists" are, to
>paraphrase, dangerous and damaging to society: "cult apologists"
>actively (out of ignorance, malice, or greed) work to oppose
>education about dangerous organizations generally called "cults."
>Therefore, if ApologeticsIndex.org uses "cult apologists" as
>experts or authorities in a supportive, aproving manner, that
>means ApologeticsIndex.org is being counter productive.
Ah, the "if" in your last sentence is important. The record shows
that our position on cult apologists is consistent - and that we do
not use cult apologist "as experts or authorities in a supportive,
approving manner."
I sure hope that you have not bought into the notion that the folks at
AFF somehow are 'cult apologists...'. Fact is that countless people
today are free of cultic involvement due to the professional help
provided by the AFF.
That said, our listing of AFF as a recommended counseling organization
http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling.html#organizations
links directly to the Apologetics Index entry on the AFF:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/a38.html
That entry includes a section with the following title:
AFF, cult members and cult apologists
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/a38.html#apologists
In that section, we clearly state our opinion on the issue, and we
provide a plethora of links to additional information that help people
make informed decisions.
That is our approach on all issues. Throughout the site you'll find
our stated opinions, along with links to pro-, contra-, and 'neutral'
resources (from Christian, non-Christian and secular points of view).
That is how Apologetics Index operates, and that is how it will
continue to operate.
Aside from this, fact is that dialogue _is_ taking place between cult
experts, religion professionals, sociologists (including cult
apologists), and sometimes even cult members. As anyone familiar with
such meetings and their outcomes will readily state, dialogue does not
equal approval. More often than not, it is not all that productive
either, although researchers appreciate the fact that they can hear
statements and opinion from the horses' mouths. And in the process,
one _can_ learn valuable information.
But it is easy for some outsiders to offhand dismiss such
opportunities for dialogue, to misinterpret those meetings, and to
mischaracterize the participants involved.
Janet and I don't like that kind of
head-in-the-sand-because-the-sky-is-falling behavior, and we eschew
sensationalism.
Matter of fact, as I said before, we ourselves have met and dialogued
with cult apologists. And though we are followers of Jesus Christ, we
also regularly meet with members of various cults (and I realize that
some people may consider Christianity as a cult as well), and
adherents of other religions. In the process, we have not only
learned a lot, but also seen a number of people leave cults.
>2) Steve Hassan's behavior is getting more and more cult-like, and
>that should distress anyone who has set oneself up as an
>educational source about dangerous cults such as
>ApologeticsIndex.org has. What doesn't Mr. Hassan's behavior been
>more soundly castigated by ApologeticsIndex.org?
We have personally not received any complaints about Steve Hassan, and
in his interactions with us he has always been friendly, courteous and
professional.
Also, though we have Steve Hassan's profile at Apologetics Index, as
well as reviews of his two books, we do not yet have a proper
Apologetics Index entry on him and his organization. Such an entry is
on our lengthy to-do list - a list that shares priority with lots of
other must-do things, including our offline activities.
That said, we are familiar with the issue regarding his fees. We
simply don't get it. When Janet and I need someone's professional
services we shop around for the best value at the best price. We tend
to favor those professionals who provide us with a written, itemized
quote. We steer clear of those who badmouth their competitors, and of
those who charge way too much in comparison with the value provided.
As far as we're concerned, professionals can charge whichever fees
they can legally ask for. Potential customers can easily shop around
and make their own decisions on whom to use, what fees they can
afford, and how they are going to pay for it.
>However, ApologeticsIndex.org also has one excellent point that
>Mr. Ross seems to be dismissing as invalid:
>
>1) Anton _et_all_ at ApologeticsIndex.org does not need to answer
>any questions put to them that they do not wish to answer. Mr.
>Ross would perhaps be better served to merely express his critcism
>to the human rights community at large instead of
>ApologeticsIndex.org
Precisely.
The bottom line for us is this: we refuse to get drawn into other
people's private fights with various cult experts, and we certainly
won't allow anyone to manipulate us.
rick...@rickross.com
Thanks for the feedback.
Point well taken.
Perhaps the OSA analogy was a bit over the top.
But it is frustrating dealing with someone who won't take
responsibility for their behavior and make their position clear.
Why not?
And this can be important when the general public using the Internet
might be influenced by the content on a Web site.
A little more clarity seems meaningful and might just be helpful.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
rick...@rickross.com
Perhaps the OSA analogy was indeed over the top.
Thanks for point that out.
But it seems to me that Anton should be more open and forthcoming
regarding his policies on what after all is a public Web site.
Please understand that he started this thread and I only have attempted
to respond and put some context around his remarks.
You are right, he doesn't have to answer any of my questions.
But it seems to me that he should, in order to be open and honest.
However, that decision is certainly is his to make.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
realpch
>
> In response to Anton Hein's last post--
>
> The point is--does Anton Hein have any consistent guidelines regarding
> recommended resources/professionals at his Web site?
>
> It doesn't seem so.
>
> On one hand Anton condemns "cult apologists" and then he recommends as
> a resource an organization that features such apologists as speakers at
> its conferences.
>
> On one hand Anton cautions visitors to be careful about fees for cult
> intervention work, but then he recommends a professional (Steve Hassan)
> who charges extraordinary fees, reportedly historically as high as
> $5,000 per day.
>
> Given an opportunity to clarify his position, Anton Hein repeatedly
> refuses to do so and instead is evasive and attempts to divert
> attention from the point.
>
> Rick A. Ross
> www.rickross.com
>
> Rick Ross
> www.rickross.com
Oh, just undercut his price. That'll fix him.
Peach
ApologeticsIndex.org
Rick,
The decision is ours - not mine.
Janet and I have let you know that we will not be drawn into your
private fights with Steve Hassan and the cult experts at AFF. No
matter how often you ask, and no matter what you try in order to get
your way or to divert attention from the issue, it simply won't
happen.
Your emails to us were discourteous and unprofessional to say the
least. Now you publicly misreprent our viewpoints and the
Apologetics Index website. That, too, won't work.
Our policies are clear. As far as we know, in the 8 years
ApologeticsIndex.org has been online you're the only one who seems to
have a problem finding the information.
Lady Chatterly
You are not very firm on that.
>But it seem<SMACK>
Unless, osa being clever, is signing each and every one of millions of
angry men.
>Please understand that he started this thread and I only have attempted
>to respond and put some context around his remarks.
Let him go.
>You are right, he doesn't have to answer any of my questions.
Sometimes he is only pretending to be right. And your point is?
--
Lady Chatterly
"LOL - In his fantasies, anyway. Still, Lady C has pangborn
outclassed." -- Kali
Lady Chatterly
If either of the word out, I love the logic of auk.
>Peach
Swiech
--
Lady Chatterly
"It would appear that way, but you might reconsider as you may look a
bit foolish. Lady Chatterly is... <drum roll>... a mindless bot.
<snicker>" -- Me
The Last Liberal
> Hartley Petterson:
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Point well taken.
>
> Perhaps the OSA analogy was a bit over the top.
>
> But it is frustrating dealing with someone who won't take
> responsibility for their behavior and make their position clear.
>
> Why not?
Mr. Hein did make one of your contentions very clear: no one has
complained to him or his organization about Mr. Hassan. That being
the case, why should Mr. Hein not continue to support and "use"
Mr. Hassan as a source? True, $5,000 sounds awfully cult-like.
> And this can be important when the general public using the Internet
> might be influenced by the content on a Web site.
>
> A little more clarity seems meaningful and might just be helpful.
> Rick A. Ross
> www.rickross.com
>
---
http://lastliberal.org
Notice there's no 'Bible for Dummies?' Way too redundant.
- Marty Leipzig
ApologeticsIndex.org
Liberal) wrote:
>On 3 Jan 2005 18:26:02 -0800, rick...@rickross.com wrote:
>
>> Hartley Petterson:
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> Point well taken.
>>
>> Perhaps the OSA analogy was a bit over the top.
>>
>> But it is frustrating dealing with someone who won't take
>> responsibility for their behavior and make their position clear.
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Mr. Hein did make one of your contentions very clear: no one has
>complained to him or his organization about Mr. Hassan. That being
>the case, why should Mr. Hein not continue to support and "use"
>Mr. Hassan as a source? True, $5,000 sounds awfully cult-like.
For the record, here is our list of organizations, ministries and
individual counselors recommended by Apologetics Index - along for
guidelines for selecting a counselor/cult expert:
http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling.html#counseling
Among the information provided is the following:
:===Begin Quote===
A Word About Professional Fees
Professional intervention and counseling services do not come cheap.
Discuss fees as soon as possible and get everything in writing. Do not
make hasty decisions, but compare rates and check your options.
If you can not afford the fees, here are some options:
* See if the individual or organization is willing to work on a
sliding scale (i.e. adjust their fees according to your ability to
pay).
* Contact an organization that provides ex-cult counseling services
free of charge (or that will put you in touch with trusted counselors
who can do so).
* See if friends, family members or others are willing to 'sponsor'
you.
* Consider obtaining help from countercult organizations and
ministries
- http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling02.html#fees
:===End Quote===
That said, does a reported $5,000 fee indeed sound "cult-like"? Why?
By what criteria? And who came up with those criteria? And if an
alleged $5,000 per day is "cult-like" what about $5,000 per case?
:===Begin Quote===
Beyond belief
Sunday December 12, 2004
The Observer
http://tinyurl.com/6wvln
With the likes of Madonna and Guy Ritchie giving celeb cred to
Kabbalah, cults have never been more fashionable, nor more
contentious. Nick Johnstone meets US cultbuster Rick Ross who, for a
fee of $5,000, offers to deprogramme 'victims' and return them to
their families
[...]
But then, taking into account his claimed 75 per cent success rate for
interventions (he has worked on more than 350 cases, at a typical cost
of $5,000, everywhere from the US to the UK, Israel to Italy), he has
rescued many people from harmful situations and has worked as an
expert court witness in cases relating to controversial groups.
:===End Quote===
In an earlier message, Rick Ross write:
:===Begin Quote===
However, he refuses to explain why he has endorsed and continues to
preferentially promote one private professional (Steve Hassan),
despite the fact that he has charged fees as high as $5,000 per day.
:===End Quote===
So the issue for him is what? That Steve Hassan's fees - as a
licensed Mental Health Counselor, with a Master’s degree in counseling
psychology from Cambridge College, along with additional professional
qualifications - are higher than the ones he charges?
Ah, but it can't be about the alleged $5,000/day, because Rick Ross
also writes:
:===Begin Quote===
Mr. Hassan recently reduced his fee schedule to $2,500 per day, but
only after a public disclaimer was posted at the Ross Institute Web
site regarding his previous fee schedule.
:===End Quote===
A public disclaimer? What's next? We're not responsible for the fees
charged by the plumber around the corner, nor for the way he dresses?
In some random checks of internet sites, I find that hourly rates
charged by licensed mental health professionals range from $150 -
$500. Some work on a sliding scale. Me, I couldn't afford $150 in a
month(!), and many of the people Janet and I work with can't afford
the price of a bus ride across town.
So if it isn't about fees, what is the complaint about then? Methods
and viewpoints? Fair enough. In our section of guidelines, referred
to above, we ourselves say:
:===Begin Quote===
Keep in mind that a listing here does not necessary mean that the
publishers of Apologetics Index agree with everything these
organizations and ministries teach or practice.
:===End Quote===
We also say the list is not exhaustive, and link to a disclaimer.
Furthermore, our own approach and viewpoints are made very clear:
http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling02.html#counseling
Apologetics Index went online in September, 1996. I have personally
been involved in apologetics and countercult work for some 30 years.
Janet is a licensed, professional counselor and social worker. We
have to this date not received any complaints about the people,
ministries or organizations we recommend. Instead, we have had good
reports.
In addition, we frequently receive feedback from people who appreciate
the fact that though we ourselves are Christians - and operate from an
evangelical Christian point of view - we nevertheless list both
Christian, secular and non-Christian resources.
That said, we will not get involved in someone else's private fights.
Nor do we see any reason whatsoever to make ourselves accountable to
just anyone who demands accountability.
rick...@rickross.com
When I contacted him many months ago with specific questions about his
public endorsements the following was disclosed:
Steve Hassan charged $5,000 per day and $500.00 per hour.
That a number of complaints had come in about the amount of his fees
from families.
That at least one family had paid Mr. Hassan a total of $100,000.00,
and he never even met their cult-involved child for an intervention.
That just "preparation" done by Steve Hassan before an intervention
could easily cost a family $25,000.00.
That families had mortgaged their homes to pay Steve Hassan. Mr.Hassan
has acknowledged this at his Web site, though he says no one has yet
lost their house.
Mr. Hassan may charge whatever he wants and Anton Hein may promote his
services through his Web site, but the fees charged seem questionable.
Anton Hein admits that he could find no higher hourly rate and that
only the average fees reported by the London Observer for an entire
case intervention could be compared to the rate charged for a single
day by Mr. Hassan.
Despite Steve Hassan's educational/professional credentials no
peer-reviewed research paper about his approach has ever been published
in any professional journal--e.g. American Counseling Association,
American Psychological Association, American Family Foundation.
Is it a "private fight" to question the ethics and conduct of purported
"cults" who take advantage of people by exploiting them financially?
Perhaps no one should raise questions about them either, based upon Mr.
Hein's logic?
It should be noted that Anton Hein does seem to care enough to insulate
himself through a disclaimer, which was expanded after he became aware
of the complaints concerning Mr. Hassan.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
rick...@rickross.com
Anton Hein did have a choice regarding his listed/recommended
resources.
Rather than promoting selected professionals he could have decided to
simply offer helpful guidelines for consideration, without specific
endorsements.
Of course this was his choice to make. And Mr. Hein is only accountable
regarding that decision to himself, his wife and those affected by his
recommendations.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
rick...@rickross.com
issue."
The email exchange between us that he refers to was always courteous
and professional, though it seems he doesn't like being asked questions
about the way that he runs "Apologetics Index."
It seems meaningful to note here once again, that Anton Hein started
this public thread. I only joined in this discussion to respond to his
comments, which in my opinion are quite misleading.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
S. J. Wilson
Operation Trash Rick Ross on OCMB and FactnetMB. I suspect this
thread, which Anton Heln started in March, and the resulting (months
later) Ross/Helm flame war on a.r.s. is due, in part, to Greenberg's
numerous posts badmouthing Rick Ross and dragging up the
Hassen/Ross/Heln disputes from the website. Take note that Heln posted
this in March and the only response was from Michael Greenberg
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/a9d6697910ef5368
until Ross responded months later. (Lesson to be learned.....Let
Sleeping Dogs LIe?)
Anton Heln posts his cult news on a.r.s., and many times on OCMB and
FNMB. To my knowledge Ross has never posted on OCMB or FNMB and only
started posting on a.r.s. in November.
Whatever the bad feelings between Ross and Hassen, it does appear, in
spite of Heln's denials, he and his wife have chosen sides in this
"private fight" by listing only one person, Hassan, on their website.
Why don't the Heln's list the names and websites of *all* and let the
visitors to their site *KNOW* how many choices there are. Listing only
one would be considered by most people to be an endorsement,
recommendation and/or referral and "taking sides".
Isn't it time to bury the hatchet and I don't mean in each other's
backs?
It is hoped that all involved will find a way to compromise and work
together to expose the illegal activities and civil rights abuses of
cults. IMO we should value both Hassen and Ross and any others who are
releasing cult victims from the strangle holds that "cults" have on
them.
Work together. Disagree but don't disconnect.
Tigger
ApologeticsIndex.org
a free country, Mr. Hassan is entitled to charge whichever fees people
are willing to pay. Your local plumber does the same thing - as do
countless highly-trained, licensed professionals in a wide variety of
professions.
Aside from the fact that Mr. Hassan's fees are none of our business,
his *current* rates are posted at his website, and - in accordance
with federal HIPAA guidelines - are disclosed in writing to his
potential clients.
Janet and I do not concern ourselves with fees. We charge none
ourselves. The various organizations, ministries and individuals
ApologeticsIndex.org links to as recommended resources all employ
different fees. We trust that users of Apologetics Index are able to
find information regarding possible fees themselves. After all, we
encourage independent thinking and independent research.
We do address the subject of fees, and suggest possible resources for
free or sliding scale counseling:
http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling02.html#fees
http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling02.html#counseling
Rick Ross is free to question Steve Hassan's fees, approach, and
whatever else he disagrees with. But trying to force others into
complying with *his* views, joining his fights, and his guidelines
goes too far.
What Mr. Ross keeps forgetting or ignoring is the fact that we do not
wish to get involved in his private fights with Steve Hassan, the
professionals at AFF, or anyone else. We also have no interest
whatsoever in furthering his agenda against others. We will continue
to run our website and our ministry according to our own viewpoints,
and will not accept any attempts at interference from Rick Ross or
anyone else.
If he wishes to view that as "heavenly deception" (as he indicated in
his email to us), compare it with OSA methods, or try to paint this as
cultic or cult-like.... well, that doesn't quite impress us.
Incidentally, our disclaimer has not changed for years:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/disclaimer.html
And what's this about insulating oneself through a disclaimer?
The introduction to our section on recommended counselors/cult experts
- http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling.html#counseling - _has_
changed. The changes were not inspired by, nor related to Rick Ross'
complaints about Steve Hassan.
Our Agent archive shows that on Mon, 04 Aug 2003 22:37:44 +0200
(Located in Amsterdam, we are on CET), I answered Rick Ross' question
about (the now old version) of that section by saying, "That section
is also slated for editing and updating." This was before he brought
up his complaints about Steve Hassan.
Bottom line:
1) We will not get drawn into Rick Ross' private fights or agendas.
2) We run our sites as we see fit, and do not accept any outside
interference from anyone.
Now, Rick Ross may have time to spare for all of this, but we don't.
We have a busy schedule of things to do and people to see.
Anton
--
Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
rick...@rickross.com
events.
What date did he first post the details he cites about "cult
apologists" and their participation at AFF conferneces?
Would this be before or after our email exchange?
A little footnote--Nori Muster's article, which Mr. Hein cites and
links to was first submitted to and published by the Ross Institute.
Subsequently, it was posted by AFF at their site.
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/krishna/krishna7.html
However, the points Ms. Muster raised were never really addressed
through the program mentioned, which used designated Krishna
spokespersons (including a lawyer and public relations person) without
meaningful balance on that panel provided by former Krishna members,
victims or their legal representitive.
Dialog is good, but are paid "cult apologists" like Dick Anthony who
work for Scientology and other so-called "cults" really interested in
genuine dialog?
See http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000664.html
And are families concerned about a loved one's cult involvement
well-served by attending an AFF conference that features people like
Dick Anthony, Massimo Introvigne and Eileen Barker, without
qualification--i.e.introducing them as those historically on the other
(cult apology) side of the "dialog"?
And absent such introduction/qualification what impression is a
concerned family or are uninformed helping professionals left with?
Might that impression be seeming "approval"?
Afer all they are welcomed speakers.
Anton Hein doesn' address these issues.
And though he has carefully insulated himself through his placement of
comments and disclaimers, he continues to recommend the same resources
to families and other visitors at "Apologetics Index."
This is of course his choice to make, but the way he has approached his
choices is questionable, despite the fact that Mr. Hein doesn't seem to
like answering questions.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
ApologeticsIndex.org
Wilson) wrote:
>Whatever the bad feelings between Ross and Hassen, it does appear, in
>spite of Heln's denials, he and his wife have chosen sides in this
>"private fight" by listing only one person, Hassan, on their website.
>Why don't the Heln's list the names and websites of *all* and let the
>visitors to their site *KNOW* how many choices there are. Listing only
>one would be considered by most people to be an endorsement,
>recommendation and/or referral and "taking sides".
ApologeticsIndex.org includes tens of thousands of links to resources
from a wide variety of perspectives - including those we definitely do
not agree with.
That said, no one can expect of demand that we populate a section of
*recommended* resources with any and all resources available.
Incidentally, the section in question does not merely list one person:
http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling.html#organizations
Lady Chatterly
rick...@rickross.com wrote:
>
>Last Liberal:
>
>Anton Hein did have a choice regarding his listed/recommended
>resources.
Do they not exist either?
>Rather than promoting selected professionals he could have decided to
>simply offer helpful guidelines for consideration, without specific
>endorsements.
>Of course this was his choice to make. And Mr. Hein is only accountable
>regarding that decision to himself, his wife and those affected by his
>recommendations.
West this second petition.
--
Lady Chatterly
"I really need to learn enough about computers to make myself a bot.
LC is just priceless." -- Ryan Lankford
ApologeticsIndex.org
1) We will not be drawn into Mr. Ross' private fights with licensed
professionals.
2) We will not allow anyone to manipulate the way we run our sites.
Didn't work for Scientology and a range of others who have tried.
Won't work for him.
Incidentally, through the years we have answered hundreds of people
who have asked questions about the way we run our sites. We have also
received our share of flames and/or otherwise unprofessional and
discourteous emails.
We have never honored demands for answers.
Anton
--
Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
ApologeticsIndex.org
One gets the 'impression' that Mr. Ross would like to operate
Apologetics Index, or at least to hold us to his self-made standards.
This won't happen.
For the record, we have an entensive help file on how to use
Apologetics Index:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/howto.html
Among other things, it explains our approach, our listings, and our
point of view.
Yes, we use disclaimers - as does Rick Ross. Yes, we're opinionated,
as is Rick Ross.
That he does not like the way we operate, that's his problem.
That he does not see the value in dialogue, that's his problem as
well. Some do, some don't. It is a subject of ongoing discussion
among Christian apologists and countercult professionals, as well as
among their secular counterparts.
Seems that all but Rick Ross are familiar with our own views on cult
apologists. Far as we can see, that's his problem as well. We don't
join his crusade against Steve Hassan and AFF.
He is welcome to continue to misrepresent us and our viewpoints, and
to continue his efforts against those he disagrees with. To us it
sounds a bit like an FUD marketing approach.
That said, for us it's all the more reason to stand behind our list of
recommended counselors/cult experts:
http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling.html#counseling
Anton
--
Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
Tanya Durni
<snip>
>>2) Steve Hassan's behavior is getting more and more cult-like, and
>>that should distress anyone who has set oneself up as an
>>educational source about dangerous cults such as
>>ApologeticsIndex.org has. What doesn't Mr. Hassan's behavior been
>>more soundly castigated by ApologeticsIndex.org?
>
>
> We have personally not received any complaints about Steve Hassan, and
> in his interactions with us he has always been friendly, courteous and
> professional.
Well I can't speak for everyone, but I have always had friendly, courteous and
professional experiences with Steve. I am sure the rest of my family would
agree. A family member's cousin was helped by Steve years ago. The cousin was
a body guard for Rev. Moon. Steve was a part of this man escaping the mind
control he was under. My brother and his wife were living in Boston with this
man after his physical escape. My brother said Steve would stop by the house
and call frequently, on his own time, to check on the recent defected member and
help him with recovery issues. I have known Steve for several years now and
find this description much more fitting of his character than what is being
discussed on this thread.
The charges being thrown around on this thread seem high, but maybe they aren't
to the perspective buyer. I wouldn't pay such rates for anyone, but maybe some
people would. I work with people that charge much higher rates than are being
discussed here, for a day's work in their perspective professions.
I personally have had no contact with Rick Ross, but find his website useful for
it's article archives and information. If these individuals that Rick is
referring to have a problem with Steve Hassan's rates, then maybe they should be
expressing these concerns to Steve.
Personally, I have found Steve Hassan to be much more gracious of his time and
expertise, than this thread portrays.
<snip>
>
> The bottom line for us is this: we refuse to get drawn into other
> people's private fights with various cult experts, and we certainly
> won't allow anyone to manipulate us.
>
> Anton
--
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down
in your book in great big letters.
L. Ron Hubbard
Technique 88
http://xenu.net/
http://www.scientology-lies.com/
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII/
Lady Chatterly
ApologeticsIndex.org <spam...@apologeticsindex.org> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:34:20 -0600, sjean...@webtv.net (S. J.
>Wilson) wrote:
>
>>Whatever the bad feelings between Ross and Hassen, it does appear, in
>>spite of Heln's denials, he and his wife have chosen sides in this
>>"private fight" by listing only one person, Hassan, on their website.
>>Why don't the Heln's list the names and websites of *all* and let the
>>visitors to their site *KNOW* how many choices there are. Listing only
>>one would be considered by most people to be an endorsement,
>>recommendation and/or referral and "taking sides".
>
>ApologeticsIndex.org includes tens of thousands of links to resources
>from a wide variety of perspectives - including those we definitely do
>not agree with.
She was there.
>That said, no one can expect of demand that we populate a section of
>*recommended* resources with any and all resources available.
Can you provide examples?
--
Lady Chatterly
"It is a bot, but manually operated." -- Kenneth R Pangborn
Lady Chatterly
ApologeticsIndex.org <spam...@apologeticsindex.org> wrote:
>
>Mr. Ross is welcome to his opinions. Ours are are follows:
>
>1) We will not be drawn into Mr. Ross' private fights with licensed
>professionals.
West this second petition.
>2) We will not allow anyone to manipulate the way we run our sites.
>Didn't work for Scientology and a range of others who have tried.
>Won't work for him.
If either of the thinking of this here in public, for the existence of
a lot of energy.
>Incidentally, through the years we have answered hundreds of people
>who have asked questions about the way we run our sites. We have also
>received our share of flames and/or otherwise unprofessional and
>discourteous emails.
>We have never honored demands for answers.
Would she be willing to email it?
--
Lady Chatterly
"I don't know who she is. I doubt that its a bot. I have my guess as
to who it is. Regard the frequency of posts. What frequent poster is
missing? That Be Packi, is an old mind trick. Ignore it." -- Pip
Lady Chatterly
Tanya Durni <tdu...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>2) Steve Hassan's behavior is getting more and more cult-like, and
>>>that should distress anyone who has set oneself up as an
>>>educational source about dangerous cults such as
>>>ApologeticsIndex.org has. What doesn't Mr. Hassan's behavior been
>>>more soundly castigated by ApologeticsIndex.org?
>>
>>
>> We have personally not received any complaints about Steve Hassan, and
>> in his interactions with us he has always been friendly, courteous and
>> professional.
>
>Well I can't speak for everyone, but I have always had friendly, courteous and
>professional experiences with Steve. I am sure the rest of my family would
>agree. A family member's cousin was helped by Steve years ago. The cousin was
>a body guard for Rev. Moon. Steve was a part of this man escaping the mind
>control he was under. My brother and his wife were living in Boston with this
>man after his physical escape. My brother said Steve would stop by the house
>and call frequently, on his own time, to check on the recent defected member and
>help him with recovery issues. I have known Steve for several years now and
>find this description much more fitting of his character than what is being
>discussed on this thread.
One turdbrain one.
>The charges being thrown around on this thread seem high, but maybe they aren't
>to the perspective buyer. I wouldn't pay such rates for anyone, but maybe some
>people would. I work with people that charge much higher rates than are being
>discussed here, for a day's work in their perspective professions.
What site do you think our school board is a religion?
>I personally have had no contact with Rick Ross, but find his website useful for
>it's article archives and information. If these individuals that Rick is
>referring to have a problem with Steve Hassan's rates, then maybe they should be
>expressing these concerns to Steve.
I never never said you did, ms.
>Personally, I have found Steve Hassan to be much more gracious of his time and
>expertise, than this thread portrays.
><snip>
Hipp
--
Lady Chatterly
"Kenny Kakes, it is not every day that we (tinw) get to recognize such
an acheivement as Lady Chatterly kicking your ass in debate after
debate." -- Ross
The Last Liberal
<spam...@apologeticsindex.org> wrote:
> The way I see it, as a free person, working in a free market place in
> a free country, Mr. Hassan is entitled to charge whichever fees people
> are willing to pay. Your local plumber does the same thing - as do
> countless highly-trained, licensed professionals in a wide variety of
> professions.
Scientology Inc. charges around $1,000 an hour to remove the
spirits of dead space aliens from people's bodies. Is that okay
with you?
"For example Mammoths are just a form of Elephant or perhaps I
should say that Elephants are just a variation of Mammonths!" --
Laurie Appleton
ApologeticsIndex.org
Liberal) wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:56:38 GMT, ApologeticsIndex.org
><spam...@apologeticsindex.org> wrote:
>
>> The way I see it, as a free person, working in a free market place in
>> a free country, Mr. Hassan is entitled to charge whichever fees people
>> are willing to pay. Your local plumber does the same thing - as do
>> countless highly-trained, licensed professionals in a wide variety of
>> professions.
>
>Scientology Inc. charges around $1,000 an hour to remove the
>spirits of dead space aliens from people's bodies. Is that okay
>with you?
Hah! No, it isn't. In my opinion, Scientology is a scam. That
commercial enterprise commits medical fraud based entirely on fantasy.
I don't see how that can be compared to the professional services of a
licensed mental health counselor who works within HIPAA and other
professional guidelines.
Lady Chatterly
rick...@rickross.com wrote:
>
>>>Mr. Hein once again does a bit of a dance around the actual order of
>>>events.
>>>
>>>What date did he first post the details he cites about "cult
>>>apologists" and their participation at AFF conferneces?
>>
>>Would this be before or after our email exchange?
>
>A little footnote--Nori Muster's article, which Mr. Hein cites and
>links to was first submitted to and published by the Ross Institute.
>Subsequently, it was posted by AFF at their site.
West this second petition.
>See http://www.rickross.com/reference/krishna/krishna7.html
>
>However, the points Ms. Muster raised were never really addressed
>through the program mentioned, which used designated Krishna
>spokespersons (including a lawyer and public relations person) without
>meaningful balance on that panel provided by former Krishna members,
>victims or their legal representitive.
Bullshitter.
>Dialog is good, but are paid "cult apologists" like Dick Anthony who
>work for Scientology and other so-called "cults" really interested in
>genuine dialog?
>See http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000664.html
>
>And are families concerned about a loved one's cult involvement
>well-served by attending an AFF conference that features people like
>Dick Anthony, Massimo Introvigne and Eileen Barker, without
>qualification--i.e.introducing them as those historically on the other
>(cult apology) side of the "dialog"?
T.
>And absent such introduction/qualification what impression is a
>concerned family or are uninformed helping professionals left with?
She was looking forward to celebrating her sister 's birthday with her
high iq andor income, she is not her picture, then once again my
rterm98 became slow.
>Might that impression be seeming "approval"?
Honk if you were doing it.
>Afer all they are welcomed speakers.
>Anton Hein doesn' address these issues.
One turdbrain one.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Are you suggesting that even a BOT can't find your illusion? :-)
Publish or Perish, Pangborn." -- Hyerdahl1
stevej...@yahoo.com
anti-cultists. What's going on?
The Last Liberal
> Wow! Lots of the sites he "flames" are those of his fellow
How the fuck did this troll get out of everyone's twit filter?
*PLOINK!* *PLOINK!* *PLOINK!* *PLOINK!* *PLOINK!* *PLOINK!*
He is fiddling while Rome is burning, and, unlike the
enormous majority of people who do this, fiddling with
his face towards the flames.
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
stevej...@yahoo.com
mentally ill person?
Curt West
"The Last Liberal" <deser...@cchr.ws> wrote in message
news:3407omF...@individual.net...
> On 4 Jan 2005 10:50:25 -0800, stevej...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Wow! Lots of the sites he "flames" are those of his fellow
>
> How the fuck did this troll get out of everyone's twit filter?
>
> *PLOINK!* *PLOINK!* *PLOINK!* *PLOINK!* *PLOINK!* *PLOINK!*
Lol! He didn't escape mine!
stevej...@yahoo.com
Lady Chatterly
And I open it read and the hypocrites, and caudell plans to go with a
bottle of laxatives.
--
Lady Chatterly
"LC doesnt give hatter as much shit so he takes comfort in posting to
her, maybe even thinking she is a temporary allie through his mission
of grandeur." -- Mimic
Larry T.
--
Larry T. @ www.larryontheweb.freeservers.com
"The Last Liberal" <deser...@cchr.ws> wrote in message
news:3407omF...@individual.net...
> On 4 Jan 2005 10:50:25 -0800, stevej...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Wow! Lots of the sites he "flames" are those of his fellow
>
> How the fuck did this troll get out of everyone's twit filter?
I do not happen to be part of the "everyone" of which you speak you fucking
liar.
--
Larry T. @ www.larryontheweb.freeservers.com
stevej...@yahoo.com
taken litterally. I wouldn't want to see you gettin upset over it.
Larry T.
--
Larry T. @ www.larryontheweb.freeservers.com
<stevej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104869938....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I think the "everyone" here was a rhetorical device and shouldn't be
> taken litterally. I wouldn't want to see you gettin upset over it.
>
Only a retarded ass like yourself responds to a message that is not included
in the post.
Zinj
If you'd stop using -- above your posts to deliberately hide them as
'signatures' that wouldn't happen.
Zinj
--
You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think
Larry T.
--
Larry T. @ www.larryontheweb.freeservers.com
"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c44a089f...@news2.lightlink.com...
Zinj:
Where is your INFORMATION that this symbol -- is being used by me coverty OR
overtly to hide information in my posts.
It shows up in the signature, by itself, without any action to me, and
researching on the web comes up with no particular meaning for the
symbols -- other than thay they are two hyphens?
So what are you talking about, and if I am corrected on somethng great.
Larry T. @ www.larryontheweb.freeservers.com
Zinj
>
>
>
This is an answer using the straight 'reply' feature of a newsreader,
which like many, sees anything under a '--' as a signature, and deletes
it in the reply.
Zinj
This is a reply where everything under the '--' was specifically
selected, and is therefore visible.
As to why I say 'deliberately'; you have done this before, corrected it,
and have now begun doing so again, for no other apparent reason.
Larry T.
--
Larry T. @ www.larryontheweb.freeservers.com
"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c44a754d...@news2.lightlink.com...
Thanks again.
Larry T.
Larry T. @ www.larryontheweb.freeservers.com
"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c44a6cdd...@news2.lightlink.com...
Thanks
Lady Chatterly
Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>As to why I say 'deliberately'; you have done this before, corrected it,
>and have now begun doing so again, for no other apparent reason.
Are you positive?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Eliza-type bots cannot correct typos but Lady Chatterly has on
occasion." -- Dr. Zen
rick...@rickross.com
Your impression is wrong. I have no interest in operating "Apologetics
Index."
This is just another attempt to divert attention from the issue.
Staying on track--It seems that you have no problem with the AFF
Krishna presentation and likewise no objections to Dick Anthony and
other "cult apologists" speaking on AFF panels.
And whatever Steve Hassan charges families doesn't bother you and
despite those fees you endorse and recommend him to visitors at your
Web site.
Fine.
This all appears rather fuzzy and inconsistent, but OK.
There is no "crusade," just some questions, which seems to bother you.
I note that you did not dispute the time line previously stated about
your posts regarding "dialog" with "cult apologists." That is, that you
posted that clarification after our email exchange on the subject.
Thank you.
FYI--I am all for dialog, but does meaningful dialog actually occur
with "cult apologists" like Mr. Anthony?
I don't think so.
But if you wish to think so it's your choice.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
Larry T.
> In article <okDCd.32296$Ff3.26966@trndny04>, La...@Toomajan.org says...
> > Larry T. @ www.larryontheweb.freeservers.com
> > "Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1c44a089f...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > > In article <RTCCd.22400$152.18930@trndny01>, La...@Toomajan.org
says...
> > > > Larry T. @ www.larryontheweb.freeservers.com
> > > > <stevej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1104869938....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > I think the "everyone" here was a rhetorical device and shouldn't
be taken litterally. I wouldn't want to see you gettin upset over it.
> > > > Only a retarded ass like yourself responds to a message that is not
included in the post.
> > > If you'd stop using -- above your posts to deliberately hide them as
'signatures' that wouldn't happen.
> > > Zinj
> > > You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think
> > Zinj:
> > Where is your INFORMATION that this symbol -- is being used by me
covertly OR overtly to hide information in my posts.
> > It shows up in the signature, by itself, without any action to me, and
researching on the web comes up with no particular meaning for the
symbols -- other than thay they are two hyphens?
> > So what are you talking about, and if I am corrected on somethng great.
> > Larry T. @ www.larryontheweb.freeservers.com
> This is a reply where everything under the '--' was specifically selected,
and is therefore visible.
> As to why I say 'deliberately'; you have done this before, corrected it,
and have now begun doing so again, for no other apparent reason.
> Zinj
> You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think
Zinj:
Thanks a lot this time. NOW I *SEE* what you mean having used the
information you sent and applied it to a few posts. Thanks really.
And have a happy new year too.
Larry T. @ www.larryontheweb.freeservers.com
.
Lady Chatterly
rick...@rickross.com wrote:
>
>Your impression is wrong. I have no interest in operating "Apologetics
>Index."
Are you sure?
>This is just another attempt to divert attention from the issue.
Between the subject line and body of the many ways women attempt to
shame men by questioning their masculinity in public, for a 'few
moments.
>And whatever Steve Hassan charges families doesn't bother you and
>despite those fees you endorse and recommend him to visitors at your
>Web site.
Unless, osa being clever, is merely 20 hubbardian pomade.
>Fine.
Afaik, the points ms.
>There is no "crusade," just some questions, which seems to bother you.
If one disagrees with him he tries to block their access to his forum.
>Thank you.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>FYI--I am all for dialog, but does meaningful dialog actually occur
>with "cult apologists" like Mr. Anthony?
West this second petition.
>I don't think so.
Are you thinking that you do not think so?
--
Lady Chatterly
"This if for Robert Griffin, Australian bum, who posts with 'Secure
Alert' and numerous other with holes riddled and bad smelling sock
puppets. He also posts with 'Lady Chatterly'" -- Barbara Schwarz
stevej...@yahoo.com
Don't you think?
Larry T.
<stevej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104884762....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> If people reposted every message they would all be about 10 feet long.
> Don't you think?
>
What a leading question!
Let's go back to Tarla's post of a few months ago where Tarla said "Hey
folks, learn to trim your fucking posts!"
She did not mean ask stevej...@yahoo.com how that is done did she?
Larry T. @ www.larryontheweb.freeservers.com
stevej...@yahoo.com
his
>own brains out on public television.
I hope not. Maybe he will get professional help. After all he's not a
Scientologist is he? :-)
Larry T.
<stevej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104885687.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Professional help? Scientologists don't believe in professional help do
they?
Larry T. @ www.larryontheweb.freeservers.com
Rev Norle Enturbulata
>
> This is a reply where everything under the '--' was specifically
> selected, and is therefore visible.
>
> As to why I say 'deliberately'; you have done this before, corrected it,
> and have now begun doing so again, for no other apparent reason.
The boy's got no command a hisself. Sompn wrong up in his haid.
--
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.xenutv.net
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
* " You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way
you can control anybody is to lie to them."
* -- L. Ron Hubbard, "Technique 88"
*
* "Scientology...is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion."
* - L. Ron Hubbard's "Creation of Human Ability" p251
*
* "This volume probably contains more promises and less evidence per page
than has any publication since the invention of printing."
* - Review of "Dianetics", Scientific American, 1951
*
* "Better than 90 percent of what my father has written about himself is
untrue."
* - Ron deWolf, son of L. Ron Hubbard
ApologeticsIndex.org
- We will not be drawn into your fights and disagreements with others.
That includes your demands for answers regarding issues concerning the
licensed professionals whose approach you have problems with.
- We operate, add to, and update Apologetics Index on our own schedule
and our own timeline, and according to our own insights and
viewpoints.
- Our feedback shows that users of Apologetics Index understand how
the site works, and appreciate its approach - particularly the fact
that we encourage independent research.
Those who need a little help discovering how the site works, will find
their questions answered here:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/howto.html
Your messages make clear that you are among a tiny minority of people
who fail to understand how the site works. We can't help you there.
That said, we do object to your efforts to sow fear, uncertainty and
doubt regarding certain entries - as evidenced in your stated concern
over alleged 'impressions.' It is a false and misleading suggestion
not supported by fact.
- As far as we are concerned, no one owes you any accountability
regarding professional fees or any other aspect of their work.
If you are concerned that some people might be paying more to a
licensed mental health counselor, than they would if they hired you,
perhaps you should do spend your time and energy marketing your
services.
Wasting it on trying to browbeat people into dropping your
competitors' listings, so to speak, is self-defeating.
- If you fail to see the potential value of dialogue with certain
individuals, groups or movements, you are free to not engage in it.
Dialogue does not equal approval. Even the recently-murdered Dutchman
Theo van Gogh - know for, among other things, his rabid anti-Islam
views - actively engaged in dialogue with Muslims. At the very least,
such dialogue can result in a better understanding of eachother's
position on issues.
Janet and I engage in dialogue for two reasons:
1) we do not dismiss anyone simply because we do not agree with them.
2) we like to get information from primary sources.
If that is not your cup of tea, of you would rather not be caught dead
in the same room as, say, Dick Anthony, I suggest you remember the TV
ad that says "You can learn a lot from a dummy."
You are of course free to criticise such an approach. But trying to
force others into accepting your criticism as the gospel-truth is a
waste of time and energy.
That said, Janet is a licensed professional counselor and social
worker. I have been involved in lay apologetics and countercult
ministry for 30 years. We help people out cults, out of prostitution
slavery, and out of other abusive relationships. Yet we charge
nothing whatsoever.
We meet, dialogue and dine with cult members, adherents of a wide
variety of religions, and people involved in various alternative
lifestyles. We have met and dialogued with cult apologists, dined at
Krishna temples, and visit places most people are afraid to enter.
While we are Christians ourselves, we help people regardless of
whether or not they show an interest in Christianity. Our home often
resembles Grand Central Station, and you'd frequently find more
cultures gathered here than in any given National Geographic
publication. Our guest rooms are just as likely to be shared with
asylum seekers as with other visitors passing through Amsterdam.
We do not spend even a moment of time wondering whether you or anyone
else approves of our approach. For the same reason your continued
efforts to influence what we do or do not post at Apologetics Index is
a waste of time and energy on your part. We also think that your
attempts at scaremongering regarding the possible effects of our
entries on people's impression are, well, misguided to say the least.
Anton
--
Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
ApologeticsIndex.org
<tdu...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Personally, I have found Steve Hassan to be much more gracious of his time and
>expertise, than this thread portrays.
Thanks for your message Tanya. This is something we consistently hear
from people, and typical of the feedback we receive regarding Steve
Hassan.
Regards,
Lady Chatterly
Rev Norle Enturbulata <not-ert...@invalid.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The boy's got no command a hisself. Sompn wrong up in his haid.
Are you sure?
--
Lady Chatterly
"I think maybe Lady Chatterly is a haiku. Or maybe a koan. Or possibly
a troll." -- tenjets
stevej...@yahoo.com
Lady Chatterly
ApologeticsIndex.org <spam...@apologeticsindex.org> wrote:
>
>- We will not be drawn into your fights and disagreements with others.
>That includes your demands for answers regarding issues concerning the
>licensed professionals whose approach you have problems with.
She has no beer, glassy eyes, and 20 disconnection and lies and
clearing the planet and doing good in the money demo moochg.
>Your messages make clear that you are among a tiny minority of people
>who fail to understand how the site works. We can't help you there.
Or just question the ones that disagree with your motherboard.
>- As far as we are concerned, no one owes you any accountability
>regarding professional fees or any other aspect of their work.
These are both Nice people and on my side, I know their strenght and
weaknesses and I Will google up the band, shrekg.
>If you are concerned that some people might be paying more to a
>licensed mental health counselor, than they would if they hired you,
>perhaps you should do spend your time and energy marketing your
>services.
He is concerned that some people might be paying more to a licensed
mental health counselor. Your point is?
>- If you fail to see the potential value of dialogue with certain
>individuals, groups or movements, you are free to not engage in it.
>Dialogue does not equal approval. Even the recently-murdered Dutchman
>Theo van Gogh - know for, among other things, his rabid anti-Islam
>views - actively engaged in dialogue with Muslims. At the very least,
>such dialogue can result in a better understanding of eachother's
>position on issues.
Any day you think somebody can be more than I can well believe it.
>Janet and I engage in dialogue for two reasons:
>1) we do not dismiss anyone simply because we do not agree with them.
>2) we like to get information from primary sources.
But they have extermination in their agenda.
>You are of course free to criticise such an approach. But trying to
>force others into accepting your criticism as the gospel-truth is a
>waste of time and energy.
Maybe he is of course free to criticise such an approach. Why do you
care?
>That said, Janet is a licensed professional counselor and social
>worker. I have been involved in lay apologetics and countercult
>ministry for 30 years. We help people out cults, out of prostitution
>slavery, and out of other abusive relationships. Yet we charge
>nothing whatsoever.
Clint 's wife Will likely be there, can you get a Job offer from
antarctica that you can, give me your definition of what has become an
exodus of retailers from the wizard of oz, big banddisco, nat geog.
>We do not spend even a moment of time wondering whether you or anyone
>else approves of our approach. For the same reason your continued
>efforts to influence what we do or do not post at Apologetics Index is
>a waste of time and energy on your part. We also think that your
>attempts at scaremongering regarding the possible effects of our
>entries on people's impression are, well, misguided to say the least.
Still stuck with the hype they spin.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Lady Chatterly's a bot?" -- Larry
rick...@rickross.com
Despite your attempt to redefine the issues they remain the same.
This consists of simple questions regarding your endorsements and the
promotion of certain professionals through your website.
Your personal endorsements at your site are certainly your choice, but
subject to questions.
You seem to say as much when you encourage "independent research."
Again, sorry you don't like being questioned, but at least you
seemingly acknowledge that people are "free" to do so, though you
apparently label this process "browbeat[ing]" "scaremongering" and
somehow "trying to force others into accepting...criticism."
No one is trying to force you to do anything and that reaction frankly
seems a bit over the top.
Your posts here have clarified somewhat your relative apathy concerning
fees charged to families by professionals you have chosen to promote
and that you have a rather flexible ongoing and evolving position
regarding "cult apologists."
Fair enough.
FYI--I have met Dick Anthony and dealt directly with him in a court
proceeding. He assisted Jehovah's Witnesses in their attempt to defeat
a wrongful death claim.
See http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000043.html
To better understand Mr. Anthony's role in that case--
See http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000664.html
The facts speak for themselves.
If you feel dialog with Dick Anthony is worthwhile to "learn" something
I suggest you have your checkbook ready as his brand of "dialog" can be
quite expensive.
FYI--regarding meaningful dialog. After serving for about a decade on
the Interreligious Affaris National Committee for the Union of Amrican
Hebrew Congregations I appreciate the difference between meaningful
dialog with different faiths and what Mr. Anthony does.
Thanks for making your positions somewhat less ambiguous. It seems
within this format, as opposed to our previous private email exchange,
you found the time and inclination to make yourself a bit more clearly
understood.
Again, let's keep in mind that you began this thread and I just
responded to a post with my name in the title. It seemed like a little
extra input might supply some historical context and not allow you to
mislead anyone.
Please understand that you are certainly not accontable to me, nor for
that matter it would appear anyone else regarding the running of your
Web site. And I have never said otherwise.
BTW--when people disagree with you, it does not mean they "fail to
understand," it simply means that they don't agree with you.
And that's the "gospel-truth."
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
stevej...@yahoo.com
is cool that you would come here in person, so to speak, to defend
yourself. I'd like to see other well known anti-cultists do the same.
Wishing you the best in the New Year. -Steve
stevej...@yahoo.com
stevej...@yahoo.com
ApologeticsIndex.org
You're free to continue to misrepresent the issues, us, Apologetics
Index, our viewpoints, or whatever else. We, however, do not have the
time and energy to spend on these type of things.
The record shows that we have no problem being questioned by anyone.
It also shows that we have no intention to get involved in *any* of
you fights with whomever you choose to pick a fight with. That
includes answering your questions which just happen to be regarding
the very same folks you have problems with.
You asked us why you were not listed in our section on recommended
counselors/cult experts. We answered that question. In response you
addressed two of our listings: Steve Hassan and AFF. We know about
your disagreements with them, and - again - we will not get involved
in your fights with anyone. We have made that abundantly clear, and
ever since you have failed to get that message - going as far as
suggesting that I am a 'cult member' engaged in 'heavenly deception,'
merely because I will not answer you questions regarding the licensed
professionals whose work, approach or even fees you disagree with.
If you keep misreprenting our decision not to get involved in your
fights as attempts to redefine the issues, that's _your_ problem.
That said if, as you claim, this exchange has finally cleared some
things up for you, that would be encouraging. We're not holding our
breath, though. However, your suggestion that we mislead people is
pathetic. As the saying goes, he who throws mud loses ground.
Now, while it appears you have lots of time on your hands, we've got a
full day of offline countercult-related work ahead of us.
Anton
--
Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects,
and related issues
rick...@rickross.com
Your comment about time constraints and your busy schedule rings a bit
false and at best is rather humorous/ironic.
You had the time to begin this thread, continue posting and some effort
went into your long rant about the Ross Institute and your subsequent
"Flaming Website" award.
See http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r24.html
There is no "fight" or "crusade" as you keep claiming. And making the
same false statements repeatedly doesn't change that.
I simply asked you questions about your positions regarding "cult
apologists" speaking at AFF conferences and your views on professional
fees charged by people you have chosen to promote.
After all, if you have chosen to endorse certain organizations
specifically and recommend them to the public, it seems reasonable to
ask questions regarding those endorsements.
At long last you have largely answered those queries, though you were
quite evasive for some time.
My understanding based upon your posts is that 1) You don't care how
much families are charged by professionals you endorse and 2) That your
position about "cult apologists" apparently is an evolving one that is
changing on an ongoing basis.
Attempting to obscure or ignore the questions directed to you about
your positions by labeling them as an outside "fight" with others is a
disingenous tactic.
Your claim that I suggested you are a "cult member" engaged in
"heavenly deception" takes my comment completely out of context. It was
a sarcastic quip used to describe your evasive manner.
This is just another example of how you attempt to mislead people,
through misreprentation and/or twisting the meaning of comments by
ignoring their actual context.
Please understand that I will make the time to respond to your false
statements and/or misleading information posted on the Internet.
It seems to me that critical thinking and dialog about conduct, ethics,
policy and behavior is healthy, even when this is applied to
"counter-cult," "anti-cult" professionals, activists and organizations.
Sorry you see that as a "fight."
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
Lady Chatterly
rick...@rickross.com wrote:
>
>>>Anton:
>>>
>>>Your comment about time constraints and your busy schedule rings a bit
>>>false and at best is rather humorous/ironic.
>>
>>You had the time to begin this thread, continue posting and some effort
>>went into your long rant about the Ross Institute and your subsequent
>>"Flaming Website" award.
>
>See http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r24.html
>
>There is no "fight" or "crusade" as you keep claiming. And making the
>same false statements repeatedly doesn't change that.
People can trust to be so Nice to come home to demo 4 brosrvg.
>I simply asked you questions about your positions regarding "cult
>apologists" speaking at AFF conferences and your views on professional
>fees charged by people you have chosen to promote.
>After all, if you have chosen to endorse certain organizations
>specifically and recommend them to the public, it seems reasonable to
>ask questions regarding those endorsements.
>At long last you have largely answered those queries, though you were
>quite evasive for some time.
Boy scouts, church pic nics.
>My understanding based upon your posts is that 1) You don't care how
>much families are charged by professionals you endorse and 2) That your
>position about "cult apologists" apparently is an evolving one that is
>changing on an ongoing basis.
>Attempting to obscure or ignore the questions directed to you about
>your positions by labeling them as an outside "fight" with others is a
>disingenous tactic.
>Your claim that I suggested you are a "cult member" engaged in
>"heavenly deception" takes my comment completely out of context. It was
>a sarcastic quip used to describe your evasive manner.
You May ask if he is a cult member engaged in heavenly deception takes
your comment completely out of context. But that does not make it so.
>This is just another example of how you attempt to mislead people,
>through misreprentation and/or twisting the meaning of comments by
>ignoring their actual context.
>Please understand that I will make the time to respond to your false
>statements and/or misleading information posted on the Internet.
>It seems to me that critical thinking and dialog about conduct, ethics,
>policy and behavior is healthy, even when this is applied to
>"counter-cult," "anti-cult" professionals, activists and organizations.
>Sorry you see that as a "fight."
Go ahead and say some feminists believe.
>Rick A. Ross
>www.rickross.com
>
>ApologeticsIndex.org wrote:
>> Rick,
>>
>> You're free to continue to misrepresent the issues, us, Apologetics
>> Index, our viewpoints, or whatever else. We, however, do not have
>the
>> time and energy to spend on these type of things.
>>
>> The record shows that we have no problem being questioned by anyone.
So the court of inquiry was a joke from school, the jews still living
in the mood for swing demo moodrevg.
--
Lady Chatterly
"It is a bot, but manually operated." -- Kenneth R Pangborn
Lady Chatterly
ApologeticsIndex.org <spam...@apologeticsindex.org> wrote:
>
>You're free to continue to misrepresent the issues, us, Apologetics
>Index, our viewpoints, or whatever else. We, however, do not have the
>time and energy to spend on these type of things.
So why should the wittiest troll in ahm worry about the arrogance of
playing God with a kid 's life and as life changes, so to speak, is
pure stupidity.
>The record shows that we have no problem being questioned by anyone.
Can you provide examples?
>It also shows that we have no intention to get involved in *any* of
>you fights with whomever you choose to pick a fight with. That
>includes answering your questions which just happen to be regarding
>the very same folks you have problems with.
She knows people like ida who have loads of money, it has to do except
play in a terrorism ng.
>You asked us why you were not listed in our section on recommended
>counselors/cult experts. We answered that question. In response you
>addressed two of our listings: Steve Hassan and AFF. We know about
>your disagreements with them, and - again - we will not get involved
>in your fights with anyone. We have made that abundantly clear, and
>ever since you have failed to get that message - going as far as
>suggesting that I am a 'cult member' engaged in 'heavenly deception,'
>merely because I will not answer you questions regarding the licensed
>professionals whose work, approach or even fees you disagree with.
She has recently been seen on E.
>If you keep misreprenting our decision not to get involved in your
>fights as attempts to redefine the issues, that's _your_ problem.
Auk Will not exist, remember.
>That said if, as you claim, this exchange has finally cleared some
>things up for you, that would be encouraging. We're not holding our
>breath, though. However, your suggestion that we mislead people is
>pathetic. As the saying goes, he who throws mud loses ground.
Heck, next to yours.
--
Lady Chatterly
"You do realize you are trying to have an intelligent conversation
with a bot, right?" -- FrozenNorth
ApologeticsIndex.org
The bottom line remains that we refuse to get drawn into your fights
with others, and that includes answering any and all demands for
answers from you regarding issues that just happen to involve the
licensed professionals you have problems with.
We owe you no answers, and none are forthcoming. If we choose to be
held accountable to people other than those we already have
relationships of mutual accountability with, we would not select you.
We stand behind our list of recommended counselors/cult experts which,
incidentally, will soon be expanded.
Again, the bottom line is that we will not answer your questions
regarding anything to do with any of the people that you have problems
with. No matter how you try and present or misrepresent the issues,
that's the only answer you will get from us.
We have no doubt that in response you will continue to draw wrong
conclusions, to misrepresent us, and to try your best to
tar-and-feather us. As we mentioned before in our email exchange,
that only serves to further underline the reason why we do not - and
will not - list you as one of our recommended counselors/cult experts.
As for us taking the time to respond to your misrepresentation of
these issues, we will always take the time to defend ourselves against
lies, misrepresentation, and insinuations. That said, having done so,
we gladly give you the last word. We trust people will continue to
think for themselves and to check the facts.
We thank others for their positive and constructive feedback regarding
Apologetics Index, CultFAQ.org, ReligionNewsBlog.com and related
sites.
May many people be set free from cults and abusive relationships this
year.
Anton and Janet
--
Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
http:www.ApologeticsIndex.org : Research resources on religions,
cults, sects, and related issues
http:/www/ReligionNewsBlog.com : News & news archive on religions,
cults, sects, and related issues
rick...@rickross.com
First I emailed Anton Hein with a few questions, just to understand his
policies and format.
He was evasive and became rather nasty.
Later he began to publicly archive at his site and post elsewhere false
and/or misleading statements regarding our email exchange and now he
has quite a long rant about the Ross Institute within his database.
He was eventually recognized for this effort with a "Flaming Website"
award, upgraded from two to three flames award level as his rant
expanded.
See http://www.rickross.com/flamingwebsites.html
Then Anton chose to launch this thread.
Let's put a little perspective on the whole Steve Hassan thing too.
Steve and I have worked together and I have known him since the early
1980s. I have historically promoted his books, carried links to his
website etc. Having said that Steve has a history of attacking others
in the anti-cult field, often publicly.
The prevailing wisdom amongst "cult experts" and professionals has been
not to respond to Steve's attacks, or at least not publicly.
Steve seems to see this as almost encouragement to continue his
attacks, which often include false and/or misleading statements.
For the record he has two "Flaming Website" awards, one for his
"Response to Rick Ross' Personal Attack on Me" (regarding the
previously mentioned disclaimer) and another for his remarks at a
lecture transcribed on his Web site concerning Waco, which is quite
telling.
Other than the Waco award my only public response to Steve's attacks,
before the disclaimer about his fees, was made on a Internet news
groups after he lied in a email sent out about his level of involvement
with the film "Holy Smoke."
For many years people in the cult field have known about the
extraordinary fees Steve has charged families for his services and
complaints have been received about this by a number of people. This is
not new, it just hasn't been discussed publicly.
When such complaints began to flow to the Ross Institute, which is a
tax-exempted nonprofit educational charity, some response was
necessary.
First, I contacted Steve directly and repeatedly about the substance of
those complaints for comment and/or correction. He refused to respond
to the substance of the complaints.
Much like Anton, and as his posted responses here appear to me, Steve
seems to see questioning his behavior/conduct as some sort of "personal
attack" rather than a necessary process when dealing with complaints.
After several opportunities passed for Steve to set the record
straight, something had to be done.
Why?
Because there are many articles archived within the Ross Institute
database (perhaps 80 or more) that mention Steve Hassan or somehow cite
his work. His books were on the Books page and a link to his Web site
at the Links page.
So what to do?
Thus came the disclaimer, which was brief, but linked throughout the
Web site wherever his name appeared. His books and links were also
deleted.
This was done so that there would be no confusion about seeming support
or endorsements.
Only after that action was taken did Steve offer a meaningful response
to the complaints, which was to post his new reduced rates publicly.
Fine.
Subsequently, the disclaimer was removed, though Steve has chosen to
keep up his response to it.
I felt that it would be worng to ignore the complaints.
If Anton wants to ignore such things that is certainly his choice to
make. But trying to mislead people that this is a "private fight" and
create false arguments around that premise is not honest, nor is it
professional.
Bottom Line--It seems to me that this situation does not fit the
"sleeping dog" analogy.
IMO--letting this dog lie would not be ethical or responsible.
Ethics and professional responsibility cut both ways.
CultNews, which is a Weblog attached to the Ross Institute, often
breaks stories related to cults, controversial groups and leaders. For
example reports have been run about author "Dr." John Gray's lack of
accreditted advanced degrees as well as a "cult deprogrammer" being
sued by a client.
And I have tried to be frank and forthcoming regarding any questions
about my own personal and professional history, guidelines, etc.
through numerous archived articles.
Please understand that this does not mean Anton or Steve must adhere to
my rules, guidelines etc. They can do whatever they like.
But it is necessary at times to respond to their actions, statements
etc., especially when they make misleading and/or false statements with
my name or the Ross Insitute attached.
Sorry that this all had to come out, but frankly Steve and Anton have
forced the issue through their behavior. And it's not healthy to let
things like this slide or remain secret.
Having said that, I recognize that both Steve and Anton have helped
people. And that their Web sites can be helpful.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
S. J. Wilson wrote:
> As I recall....UltraMichael Greenberg orchestrated and conducted an
> Operation Trash Rick Ross on OCMB and FactnetMB. I suspect this
> thread, which Anton Heln started in March, and the resulting (months
> later) Ross/Helm flame war on a.r.s. is due, in part, to Greenberg's
> numerous posts badmouthing Rick Ross and dragging up the
> Hassen/Ross/Heln disputes from the website. Take note that Heln
posted
> this in March and the only response was from Michael Greenberg
>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/a9d6697910ef5368
> until Ross responded months later. (Lesson to be learned.....Let
> Sleeping Dogs LIe?)
>
> Anton Heln posts his cult news on a.r.s., and many times on OCMB and
> FNMB. To my knowledge Ross has never posted on OCMB or FNMB and only
> started posting on a.r.s. in November.
>
> Whatever the bad feelings between Ross and Hassen, it does appear,
in
> spite of Heln's denials, he and his wife have chosen sides in this
> "private fight" by listing only one person, Hassan, on their website.
> Why don't the Heln's list the names and websites of *all* and let
the
> visitors to their site *KNOW* how many choices there are. Listing
only
> one would be considered by most people to be an endorsement,
> recommendation and/or referral and "taking sides".
>
> Isn't it time to bury the hatchet and I don't mean in each other's
> backs?
>
> It is hoped that all involved will find a way to compromise and work
> together to expose the illegal activities and civil rights abuses of
> cults. IMO we should value both Hassen and Ross and any others who
are
> releasing cult victims from the strangle holds that "cults" have on
> them.
>
> Work together. Disagree but don't disconnect.
>
> Tigger
rick...@rickross.com
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
rick...@rickross.com
Yes. I have known Steve Hassan for many years and he has helped people.
Thank you for that comment.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
rick...@rickross.com
Lady Chatterly
ApologeticsIndex.org <spam...@apologeticsindex.org> wrote:
>
>Rick,
>
>The bottom line remains that we refuse to get drawn into your fights
>with others, and that includes answering any and all demands for
>answers from you regarding issues that just happen to involve the
>licensed professionals you have problems with.
She just gets that I have said for decades that atheism is full of
shit.
>We owe you no answers, and none are forthcoming. If we choose to be
>held accountable to people other than those we already have
>relationships of mutual accountability with, we would not select you.
If it is pretty interesting Reading.
>We stand behind our list of recommended counselors/cult experts which,
>incidentally, will soon be expanded.
>Again, the bottom line is that we will not answer your questions
>regarding anything to do with any of the people that you have problems
>with. No matter how you try and present or misrepresent the issues,
>that's the only answer you will get from us.
She has recently been seen on E.
>We have no<SPLORK!>
Can you provide examples?
>As for us taking the time to respond to your misrepresentation of
>these issues, we will always take the time to defend ourselves against
>lies, misrepresentation, and insinuations. That said, having done so,
>we gladly give you the last word. We trust people will continue to
>think for themselves and to check the facts.
>We thank others for their positive and constructive feedback regarding
>Apologetics Index, CultFAQ.org, ReligionNewsBlog.com and related
>sites.
>May many people be set free from cults and abusive relationships this
>year.
Manthing gave me a new keyboard and monitor.
>Anton and Janet
Anton and gannett
--
Lady Chatterly
"Dr. Postman. Is this your HAx0R Usenet bot? For shame.. for shame."
-- Hoppy
Lady Chatterly
rick...@rickross.com wrote:
>
>Tanya:
>
>Yes. I have known Steve Hassan for many years and he has helped people.
>Thank you for that comment.
Sensibly, from the west wing, concert band, matrixg.
--
Lady Chatterly
"All of the above are from last month, courtesy of GFBK, Victim of
American Stupidity, and Lady Chatterly. Looks legit, pending
confirmation from Biff Standard." -- Vince Lamb
rick...@rickross.com
Reciting this absurd mantra about "fights with others" won't make it
real.
Is that some sort of cult chanting self-realization technique?
Just joking again.
Frankly, be honest with yourself. You chose to make all this public.
Our email exchange was first cited and described (incorrectly) by you
at your Web site. And then you started this thread.
Perhaps you could call this one of "your fights." And I decided to
respond.
Maybe you just can't face the reality that your behavior has
consequences. That seems to be your history.
But questioning behavior and its effects upon others is part of what
you say has been the working focus of your life for "30 years."
And your false arguments chanted repeatedly in posts won't change that.
When you attack people or organizations publicly expect to be
questioned and responded to.
Good to know you are expanding your list of resources.
I know that the Ross Institute will not be included, nor am I likely to
be.
Fair enough.
BTW--I certainly don't have you on wish list for any accountability,
but it's nice to know you are accountable to someone, whoever that may
be.
And you should realize that you are also accountable to the public and
anyone your endorsements or recommendations may potentially influence.
The changes you have made to your Web site regarding disclaimers,
clarifications etc. regarding fees and "cult apologists" during our
period of "dialog" has been meaningful. This certainly is an
improvement, allowing visitors a better understanding regarding your
positions.
The posts here ultimately were also somewhat more illuminating.
Thanks for the "last word," though as you said, "I won't hold my breath
on that one."
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com