Cultic behavior nothing new in cult critic circles
henri
with his bullshit lies about being a Jonestown survivor, when he was
really working for OSA.
More recently: notorious lunatic Pamela Lichtenwalner a scheduled
speaker at a mainstream counter-cult conference
http://www.fair-cult-concern.co.uk/conferenceaudiofiles2006.htm
This is despite having been exposed on this newsgroup by Dave
Touretzky and attorney Ford Greene: http://tinyurl.com/42w4hh
Even a simple Google search would have uncovered that this person
should not be considered an authority on anything.
(No, this is not the only time Pamela Lichtenwalner has been given a
speaking engagement somewhere, even recently. I just have a URL for
this one.)
One could almost say that cultic studies in general have been pervaded
by gullibility. There are numerous examples of frauds whose stories
were never even remotely credible who were embraced by the anti-cult
community, paraded about as poster children, and only finally
grudgingly abandoned after the evidence of their frauds became
overwhelming; and this has usually been after defending the fraud to
the death and viciously attacking the original critics of their wild
tales.
feministe
news:73nv549dcb6lqb9ho...@4ax.com...
What you present as evidences is not evidences. You're just showing that
sometimes anticultists are wrong on some facts or topics, while cultists are
almost always wrong on all topics.
What else?
There is no problem that Pam has spoken about cults: she knows a number of
facts about them. So what?
Re Garry Scarff: the cult has been more than annoyed by the few declarations
from Gary. Because even if some were possibly exxagerated or not enirely
true, most were. While most of what Hubbard ever said about psychiatry,
psychology, medicine, scientology and dinaetics was and remains wrong!
r
realpch
Et tu, Brute?
: D
I become increasingly self-satisfied at having not used the term "cult"
much over the years. Cult, cult, cult, cult, cult. Good god!
: D
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
henri
>henri wrote:
>Et tu, Brute?
>: D
>I become increasingly self-satisfied at having not used the term "cult"
>much over the years. Cult, cult, cult, cult, cult. Good god!
I suppose my point is pretty oblique. It's that ascribing cultic
behavior to Anonymous in isolation without reference to the cultic
behavior of previous anti-Scientology activism is futile. If
Anonymous is cultic then so are the rest of us.
This would include ICSA, where Monica is going to be shortly, which
arose out of the American Family Foundation, which was originally a
large recipient of cash from Richard Mellon Scaife, who personally
funded much of the fiction-based Dead Agenting of Bill Clinton during
his Presidency.
Unlike Anonymous, the anti-cult or counter-cult movement often
consists of actual organizations.
This isn't to denigrate any of the good work done by such
organizations, just to point out that mirroring of cultic behavior may
have ultimately more to do with close exposure to the behavior or
cults, awareness of their tactics, and unconscious modeling of them
than it does to do with being Anonymous or wearing Guy Fawkes masks or
whatever other silly-ass reason Monica Pignotti wants to use to
explain why Anonymous is more of a cult than any previous anti-cult
group. People see Scientology use these tactics, they see them
sometimes work (or at least the cult gets away with them), and then
are tempted to and sometimes do use them themselves.
I would be tempted to say that it's that ex-members of cults still
retain the behavior patterns they picked up in the cult, and this does
not entirely lack merit, but you'll see the same behaviors out of
people who were never in the cult in the first place.
Monica Pignotti
> Examples: the way in which Garry Scarff was embraced with open arms
> with his bullshit lies about being a Jonestown survivor, when he was
> really working for OSA.
>
> More recently: notorious lunatic Pamela Lichtenwalner a scheduled
>
> This is despite having been exposed on this newsgroup by Dave
> Touretzky and attorney Ford Greene: http://tinyurl.com/42w4hh
> Even a simple Google search would have uncovered that this person
> should not be considered an authority on anything.
>
> (No, this is not the only time Pamela Lichtenwalner has been given a
> speaking engagement somewhere, even recently. I just have a URL for
> this one.)
>
> One could almost say that cultic studies in general have been pervaded
> by gullibility. There are numerous examples of frauds whose stories
> were never even remotely credible who were embraced by the anti-cult
> community, paraded about as poster children, and only finally
> grudgingly abandoned after the evidence of their frauds became
> overwhelming; and this has usually been after defending the fraud to
> the death and viciously attacking the original critics of their wild
> tales.
You'll get no argument from me on this one, Henri. I was in denial
about it for a long time, but no more.
Monica Pignotti
> "henri" <he...@nowhere.com> a écrit dans le message denews:73nv549dcb6lqb9ho...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Examples: the way in which Garry Scarff was embraced with open arms
> > with his bullshit lies about being a Jonestown survivor, when he was
> > really working for OSA.
>
> > More recently: notorious lunatic Pamela Lichtenwalner a scheduled
> > speaker at a mainstream counter-cult conference
> >http://www.fair-cult-concern.co.uk/conferenceaudiofiles2006.htm
>
> > This is despite having been exposed on this newsgroup by Dave
> > Touretzky and attorney Ford Greene: http://tinyurl.com/42w4hh
> > Even a simple Google search would have uncovered that this person
> > should not be considered an authority on anything.
>
> > (No, this is not the only time Pamela Lichtenwalner has been given a
> > speaking engagement somewhere, even recently. I just have a URL for
> > this one.)
>
> > One could almost say that cultic studies in general have been pervaded
> > by gullibility. There are numerous examples of frauds whose stories
> > were never even remotely credible who were embraced by the anti-cult
> > community, paraded about as poster children, and only finally
> > grudgingly abandoned after the evidence of their frauds became
> > overwhelming; and this has usually been after defending the fraud to
> > the death and viciously attacking the original critics of their wild
> > tales.
>
> What you present as evidences is not evidences. You're just showing that
> sometimes anticultists are wrong on some facts or topics, while cultists are
> almost always wrong on all topics.
Making mistakes and being wrong is not the issue here. Sure, everyone
makes mistakes and no one is perfect nor would I expect that, but the
real problem is with the attitude some anti-cultists who will shout
down and personally smear anyone who even remotely criticizes a
critic.
> What else?
>
> There is no problem that Pam has spoken about cults: she knows a number of
> facts about them. So what?
>
> Re Garry Scarff: the cult has been more than annoyed by the few declarations
> from Gary. Because even if some were possibly exxagerated or not enirely
> true, most were. While most of what Hubbard ever said about psychiatry,
> psychology, medicine, scientology and dinaetics was and remains wrong!
>
> r- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Monica Pignotti
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:40:26 -0800, realpch <real...@aol.com> wrote:
> >henri wrote:
> >Et tu, Brute?
> >: D
> >I become increasingly self-satisfied at having not used the term "cult"
> >much over the years. Cult, cult, cult, cult, cult. Good god!
>
> I suppose my point is pretty oblique. It's that ascribing cultic
> behavior to Anonymous in isolation without reference to the cultic
> behavior of previous anti-Scientology activism is futile. If
> Anonymous is cultic then so are the rest of us.
I agree, Henri. Point taken.
> This would include ICSA, where Monica is going to be shortly, which
> arose out of the American Family Foundation, which was originally a
> large recipient of cash from Richard Mellon Scaife, who personally
> funded much of the fiction-based Dead Agenting of Bill Clinton during
> his Presidency.
One thing I'll say for ICSA is that they really have allowed for a
diversity of points of view and they manage to do this in a pretty
civil manner, all things considered. They've welcomed people as
speakers who would be consider "cult apologists" and I think this is
healthy.
>
> Unlike Anonymous, the anti-cult or counter-cult movement often
> consists of actual organizations.
It's not the organizations that are necessarily the problem -- its the
behavior and group dynamics and that can happen both inside and
outside of formal organizations.
> This isn't to denigrate any of the good work done by such
> organizations, just to point out that mirroring of cultic behavior may
> have ultimately more to do with close exposure to the behavior or
> cults, awareness of their tactics, and unconscious modeling of them
> than it does to do with being Anonymous or wearing Guy Fawkes masks or
> whatever other silly-ass reason Monica Pignotti wants to use to
> explain why Anonymous is more of a cult than any previous anti-cult
> group.
I never said it was "more of a cult than any previous anti-cult
group". In fact, I've pointed out that this seems to be a repeat of
what was happening earlier here with Bob Minton and the rabid response
of his followers to anyone who dared challenge him.
>People see Scientology use these tactics, they see them
> sometimes work (or at least the cult gets away with them), and then
> are tempted to and sometimes do use them themselves.
>
> I would be tempted to say that it's that ex-members of cults still
> retain the behavior patterns they picked up in the cult, and this does
> not entirely lack merit, but you'll see the same behaviors out of
> people who were never in the cult in the first place.
Again, I agree, Henri. Good observation.
Monica
Jonnie Tyler
news:8b197602-d89a-4ff5...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 5:03 pm, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> This would include ICSA, where Monica is going to be shortly, which
> arose out of the American Family Foundation, which was originally a
> large recipient of cash from Richard Mellon Scaife, who personally
> funded much of the fiction-based Dead Agenting of Bill Clinton during
> his Presidency.
One thing I'll say for ICSA is that they really have allowed for a
diversity of points of view and they manage to do this in a pretty
civil manner, all things considered. They've welcomed people as
speakers who would be consider "cult apologists" and I think this is
healthy.
===============
What is this ICSA? Do they have a web site?
Android Cat
>
> What is this ICSA? Do they have a web site?
They at least have a collection of news items on Scientology. I'll have to
see if there's any that I don't have already.
http://search.live.com/results.aspx?cp=1252&FORM=FREESS&q=Scientology&q1=site%3Aicsahome.com
--
Ron of that ilk.
Jonnie Tyler
news:48ce7$48603b4d$d8fea521$12...@PRIMUS.CA...
Thanks.
Looks good technically and some interesting stuff. I particularly like that
one
http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_new/icsanewdocview.asp?Subject=A+History+Scholar+Selects+Essential+Works+About+Fanaticism
Unfortunately I don't see much traces of what Monica talks about when she
says cult apologists are invited to conferences. That may be the case but at
least from this web site they are all but absent. A group that wants to play
on the academic field leaving out half of its peers is not going to be taken
very seriously by the profession.
realpch
>
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:40:26 -0800, realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >henri wrote:
>
> >Et tu, Brute?
>
> >: D
>
> >I become increasingly self-satisfied at having not used the term "cult"
> >much over the years. Cult, cult, cult, cult, cult. Good god!
>
> I suppose my point is pretty oblique. It's that ascribing cultic
> behavior to Anonymous in isolation without reference to the cultic
> behavior of previous anti-Scientology activism is futile. If
> Anonymous is cultic then so are the rest of us.
Well, yeah!
: D
> This would include ICSA, where Monica is going to be shortly, which
> arose out of the American Family Foundation, which was originally a
> large recipient of cash from Richard Mellon Scaife, who personally
> funded much of the fiction-based Dead Agenting of Bill Clinton during
> his Presidency.
Indeed.
> Unlike Anonymous, the anti-cult or counter-cult movement often
> consists of actual organizations.
>
> This isn't to denigrate any of the good work done by such
> organizations, just to point out that mirroring of cultic behavior may
> have ultimately more to do with close exposure to the behavior or
> cults, awareness of their tactics, and unconscious modeling of them
> than it does to do with being Anonymous or wearing Guy Fawkes masks or
> whatever other silly-ass reason Monica Pignotti wants to use to
> explain why Anonymous is more of a cult than any previous anti-cult
> group. People see Scientology use these tactics, they see them
> sometimes work (or at least the cult gets away with them), and then
> are tempted to and sometimes do use them themselves.
>
> I would be tempted to say that it's that ex-members of cults still
> retain the behavior patterns they picked up in the cult, and this does
> not entirely lack merit, but you'll see the same behaviors out of
> people who were never in the cult in the first place.
Yes, so it's pretty damn silly raising the whole "you're all in a cult"
business here in the first place. What a freaking waste of time. It
would be better to describe the behavior one objects to specifically.
And then object to it. One wouldn't be hard pressed to find all these
behaviors in any group. The PTA. The Girl Scouts. The City Council. Any
City Council. The Ladies' Quilting Society. The Podunk Cat Fanciers. So
what's the point? Monica has managed to insult and inflame any number of
people, and for what? To dine out on in academically inclined anti-cult circles?
Monica Pignotti
wrote:
> "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48ce7$48603b4d$d8fea521$12...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
> > Jonnie Tyler wrote:
>
> >> What is this ICSA? Do they have a web site?
>
> >http://www.icsahome.com/
>
> Thanks.
>
> Looks good technically and some interesting stuff. I particularly like that
>
> Unfortunately I don't see much traces of what Monica talks about when she
> says cult apologists are invited to conferences.
Eileen Barker is a very famous one who has been labeled that way and
is a speaker at the current conference. She has also spoken at
previous conferences, as have others.
Monica Pignotti
No one ever said "you're all in a cult". One doesn't have to be "in a
cult" to be engaging in cultish behavior but that also doesn't mean
that everyone behaves in a cultish way. Certain people where were
never in cults still have a cultish mindset. Not everyone. What I was
doing was pointing out some extremely cultish behavior of personal
smearing of anyone who dares to criticize an anti-Scientologist and no
it does not go on with the kind of intensity it does in the anti-cult
community with the PTA, Girl Scouts, etc. I'm far from being the only
one to have noticed this and no, it isn't just with Anonymous. It
happened with Minton and his true believing followers as well and this
attitude has been around for awhile. I agree with Henri, though, that
some of the most cultish behavior I've seen here is from certain
individuals who claim to have never been in a cult and enjoy bragging
about this and asserting their superiority when such people themselves
are behaving in a very cultish way.
>What a freaking waste of time. It
> would be better to describe the behavior one objects to specifically.
> And then object to it.
That's what I have been doing for the past several weeks. I have been
over and over this but attention keeps getting refocused on the
personal smear campaign against me, deflecting from the issues I
raise.
>One wouldn't be hard pressed to find all these
> behaviors in any group. The PTA. The Girl Scouts. The City Council. Any
> City Council. The Ladies' Quilting Society.
The Podunk Cat Fanciers. So
> what's the point? Monica has managed to insult and inflame any number of
> people, and for what?
>To dine out on in academically inclined anti-cult circles?
Oh come on now. I think you are deliberately evading and missing the
point here by making this about me when what this is about is the
personal smear campaign against me. You might be able to get the true
believers here to buy into this, but outsiders who have a more
objective perspective that I have shown these threads to immediately
can see the kind of outrageous cult-like smear campaign I am being
subjected to here. It is obvious to anyone not so caught up in the
groupthink they can't see it.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with "academically inclined anti-
cult circles". Straw man. No, what I did initially was express some
concerns, attacking no one personally and what I got back were the
rudest flames and insults and outrageous personal smear campaign I
have ever in my life been subjected to and that's saying something --
you anti cultists you've even outdone anything the Scientologists have
said about me. I haven't come even close to that kind of insult. Don't
try to reverse things because what you're ignoring is the personal
insults and flaming I have been subjected to. That was initiated
against me only because I disagreed and criticized some things about
Anonymous. After I was viciously attacked, only then did I defend
myself and have normal human responses to the insults I have been
subjected to and then the personal smears against me were ignored.
This is very cult-like and no, this kind of nastiness does not take
place in ordinary organiations -- not with this kind of intensity on
this level.
>
> : D
>
> Peach
> --
> Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
> Save some dough, save some grief:http://www.xenu.nethttp://www.scientology-lies.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Jonnie Tyler
On Jun 23, 8:58 pm, "Jonnie Tyler" <BarryPep...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48ce7$48603b4d$d8fea521$12...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
> > Jonnie Tyler wrote:
>
> >> What is this ICSA? Do they have a web site?
>
> >http://www.icsahome.com/
>
> Thanks.
>
> Looks good technically and some interesting stuff. I particularly like
> that
> onehttp://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_new/icsanewdocview.asp?Subject=A+His...
>
> Unfortunately I don't see much traces of what Monica talks about when she
> says cult apologists are invited to conferences.
Eileen Barker is a very famous one who has been labeled that way and
is a speaker at the current conference. She has also spoken at
previous conferences, as have others.
===========
Her name does indeed bring a lot of hits on that web site (though very
little of her own writing), and no wonder since it seems she was the one to
initiate the dialogue:
http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_cagsandnrmscholarsdepolarization_abs.htm
In the late 1990s a dialogue began between a handful of critics and
sympathizers (much credit goes to Dr. Eileen Barker for initiating this
dialogue). This dialogue has resulted in many private conversations
(personal and e-mail) and talks at the "other camp's" conferences. ICSA
conference speakers in recent years have included Nancy Ammerman, Dick
Anthony, Massimo Introvigne, Phil Lucas, Gordon Melton, Burke Rochford, and,
of course, Eileen Barker. These exchanges have, I hope, caused at least
some of us to revise our thinking about contentious issues.
I think this is a very good trend as I believe that each side have much to
learn from each other, but this still needs to be translated more concretely
on the web site itself.
Interestingly it seems that cult apologists are now called "cult
sympathizers", a somewhat less pejorative term.
Android Cat
> I agree with Henri, though,
Ahhh, groupthink!
--
Ro of that ilk.
henri
I frankly am not persuaded that the bulk of these people have much to
contribute, at least the class of people like Massimo Introvigne or
Gordon Melton, who have no professional qualifications whatsoever
(Introvigne is an intellectual property lawyer and Melton a
librarian), and whose pronouncements and opinions have been flatly
absurd.
For example, Melton went to Japan on Aum Shinrikyo's dime after they
committed one of the worst acts of terrorism in Japanese history, in
order to proclaim loudly that they couldn't possibly have done it
(they were convicted based on overwhelming and irrefutable evidence).
Similarly, he described the Jonestown cultists as a "mainstream
Christian denomination."
How can people like this even be taken seriously much less given yet
another platform? I'm not necessarily lumping all these names in with
Melton and Introvigne, but I've read absolutely abject nonsense from
Nancy Ammerman, for example, and Eileen Barker, whatever her
qualifications, has at least in the past had genuinely glaring
conflicts of interest.
Of the lot, the only one I can take remotely seriously is Eileen
Barker, and even then, only when the Moonies aren't the issue, though
I am not familiar with a few of the other names.
I know I'm not exactly coming at this from the same perspective with
which I started the thread, but I wonder if there is some point at
which a purported scholar has effectively rendered themselves
completely irrelevant when, like Melton, they are prepared to utter
purely counterfactual nonsense for money. (This is a gripe I have
with academics in other fields as well: for example, John Yoo's
willingness to lie about Constitutional law in a memo justifying
torture, medical academics' willingness to tell lies for tobacco
companies, academics with huge conflicts of interest due to their work
on pharmaceuticals serving on FDA advisory committees, etc.)
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>This has nothing whatsoever to do with "academically inclined anti-
>cult circles". Straw man. No, what I did initially was express some
>concerns, attacking no one personally and what I got back were the
>rudest flames and insults and outrageous personal smear campaign I
>have ever in my life been subjected to and that's saying something --
>you anti cultists you've even outdone anything the Scientologists have
>said about me.
I seriously doubt Peach has done anything of the sort. You will find
fewer milder or more polite people on Usenet.
realpch
Kindly don't step all over my fortudinous turns of phrase. But of course
I plan to step all over the odious "cultish behavior". Hey, let's raise
that up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes! Are you sittin in the
catbird seat? Everybody locked and loaded?
: D
> >What a freaking waste of time. It
> > would be better to describe the behavior one objects to specifically.
> > And then object to it.
>
> That's what I have been doing for the past several weeks. I have been
> over and over this but attention keeps getting refocused on the
> personal smear campaign against me, deflecting from the issues I
> raise.
You raised the issues, all right, and received the expected response.
What *did* you expect to find here? About par for the course would be
some reasoned responses, and some not. And you kept raising the ante too.
> >One wouldn't be hard pressed to find all these
> > behaviors in any group. The PTA. The Girl Scouts. The City Council. Any
> > City Council. The Ladies' Quilting Society.
> The Podunk Cat Fanciers. So
> > what's the point? Monica has managed to insult and inflame any number of
> > people, and for what?
> >To dine out on in academically inclined anti-cult circles?
>
> Oh come on now. I think you are deliberately evading and missing the
> point here by making this about me when what this is about is the
> personal smear campaign against me. You might be able to get the true
> believers here to buy into this, but outsiders who have a more
> objective perspective that I have shown these threads to immediately
> can see the kind of outrageous cult-like smear campaign I am being
> subjected to here. It is obvious to anyone not so caught up in the
> groupthink they can't see it.
One of the finer points of life consists of evading superfluous issues.
> This has nothing whatsoever to do with "academically inclined anti-
> cult circles". Straw man. No, what I did initially was express some
> concerns, attacking no one personally and what I got back were the
> rudest flames and insults and outrageous personal smear campaign I
> have ever in my life been subjected to and that's saying something --
> you anti cultists you've even outdone anything the Scientologists have
> said about me. I haven't come even close to that kind of insult. Don't
> try to reverse things because what you're ignoring is the personal
> insults and flaming I have been subjected to. That was initiated
> against me only because I disagreed and criticized some things about
> Anonymous. After I was viciously attacked, only then did I defend
> myself and have normal human responses to the insults I have been
> subjected to and then the personal smears against me were ignored.
> This is very cult-like and no, this kind of nastiness does not take
> place in ordinary organiations -- not with this kind of intensity on
> this level.
You have *got* to be kidding! Well, maybe it's just that one never gets
to see it all laid out in posts. Thank god we don't.
realpch
But sneaky! I'm really sneaky!
Jonnie Tyler
news:ulv064tb4bq9q5sin...@4ax.com...
If you sit at a peace talk table of sort then you have to allow for at least
a modicum of possibility that the other has something positive to bring. You
can't take your baggage with you or it would never lead anywhere. You need
to leave your past resentment and anger at the cloakroom and focus on what
you can agree instead.
Currently the two sides are very polarized and the overall consensus in the
academic community is mostly that of cult sympathizers. If they want to
bridge over and listen to what critics have to say without being on the
defensive, that's a positive development. They can also help critics phrase
their case in a manner that would not be felt as threatening and so maybe
gain a wider acceptance in the community. It seems that this is what is
happening, with each side taking a milder stance on their respective
position and seeking a middle ground.
Of course that would not be easy because so many things have been said on
each side in so many carefully chosen scholarly words, but the fact that
they seem to be trying is interesting and encouraging.
Monica Pignotti
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:59:53 +0800, "Jonnie Tyler"
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:2eb25aa1-21aa-4d70...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >On Jun 23, 8:58 pm, "Jonnie Tyler" <BarryPep...@invalid.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >> "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:48ce7$48603b4d$d8fea521$12...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
> >> > Jonnie Tyler wrote:
>
> >> >> What is this ICSA? Do they have a web site?
>
> >> >http://www.icsahome.com/
>
> >> Thanks.
>
> >> Looks good technically and some interesting stuff. I particularly like
> >> that
> >> onehttp://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_new/icsanewdocview.asp?Subject=A+His...
>
> >> Unfortunately I don't see much traces of what Monica talks about when she
> >> says cult apologists are invited to conferences.
>
> >Eileen Barker is a very famous one who has been labeled that way and
> >is a speaker at the current conference. She has also spoken at
> >previous conferences, as have others.
>
> >===========
>
> >Her name does indeed bring a lot of hits on that web site (though very
> >little of her own writing), and no wonder since it seems she was the one to
> >initiate the dialogue:
>
> >In the late 1990s a dialogue began between a handful of critics and
> >sympathizers (much credit goes to Dr. Eileen Barker for initiating this
> >dialogue). This dialogue has resulted in many private conversations
> >(personal and e-mail) and talks at the "other camp's" conferences. ICSA
> >conference speakers in recent years have included Nancy Ammerman, Dick
> >Anthony, Massimo Introvigne, Phil Lucas, Gordon Melton, Burke Rochford, and,
> >of course, Eileen Barker. These exchanges have, I hope, caused at least
> >some of us to revise our thinking about contentious issues.
> >I think this is a very good trend as I believe that each side have much to
> >learn from each other, but this still needs to be translated more concretely
> >on the web site itself.
> >Interestingly it seems that cult apologists are now called "cult
> >sympathizers", a somewhat less pejorative term.
>
> I frankly am not persuaded that the bulk of these people have much to
> contribute, at least the class of people like Massimo Introvigne or
> Gordon Melton, who have no professional qualifications whatsoever
> (Introvigne is an intellectual property lawyer and Melton a
> librarian), and whose pronouncements and opinions have been flatly
> absurd.
In terms of academic credentials (although library science is a
recognized credential), the same can be said from people on the other
side of the fence. There are people with no formal credentials and
people who do have formal credentials on both sides. These conferences
have never restricted people who do not have credentials from
speaking, especially if they have demonstrated knowledge and/or
experience with cults and have published something. This has also been
true with other widely-recognized professions, by the way. One year
the American Psychological Association had Arlo Guthrie as a keynote
speaker.
> For example, Melton went to Japan on Aum Shinrikyo's dime after they
> committed one of the worst acts of terrorism in Japanese history, in
> order to proclaim loudly that they couldn't possibly have done it
> (they were convicted based on overwhelming and irrefutable evidence).
> Similarly, he described the Jonestown cultists as a "mainstream
> Christian denomination."
Right, that's why he has been called a cult apologist.
>
> How can people like this even be taken seriously much less given yet
> another platform?
Because he has publications and is recognized as a scholar and it is
healthy to have people come who hold a minority opinion. Again, many
more widely recognized professional associations do this. Just last
month the Association for Psychological Science (formerly known as the
American Psychological Society) had some people who believed in the
validity of UFO abductions speak on a panel with other scholars who
were skeptical.
>I'm not necessarily lumping all these names in with
> Melton and Introvigne, but I've read absolutely abject nonsense from
> Nancy Ammerman, for example, and Eileen Barker, whatever her
> qualifications, has at least in the past had genuinely glaring
> conflicts of interest.
Eileen Barker is a well-known Sociologist.
>
> Of the lot, the only one I can take remotely seriously is Eileen
> Barker, and even then, only when the Moonies aren't the issue, though
> I am not familiar with a few of the other names.
She is a published sociologist. When organizations allow only people
they agree with to speak, they can become closed and extreme. There
are actually studies that show this - when like minded people get
together and exclude people from the opposing side, they become more
extreme and there are plenty of examples of the anti-cult community
becoming quite extreme and making assertions that have no basis in
science. What having these people involved has done, based on what I
have observed, is encouraged people to do more scholarly work. Janja
Lalich's work is an example of this. She is a former cult member who
earned a PhD in Sociology and became a full professor and is now
producing scholarly writing on cults and undue influence that is much
more credible than some of the more extreme claims that have been
made. She is definitely not a cult apologist and is speaking a number
of times at this conference, at times on panels with people she may
not agree with. It is healthy to sit down and discuss things in this
manner.
>
> I know I'm not exactly coming at this from the same perspective with
> which I started the thread, but I wonder if there is some point at
> which a purported scholar has effectively rendered themselves
> completely irrelevant when, like Melton, they are prepared to utter
> purely counterfactual nonsense for money.
No research is completely unbiased. The so-called "cult apologists"
have their biases but so do the people from the other side. The issue
is to fully disclose funding sources and other possible sources of
bias (e.g. being a former cult member or family member of one).
>(This is a gripe I have
> with academics in other fields as well: for example, John Yoo's
> willingness to lie about Constitutional law in a memo justifying
> torture, medical academics' willingness to tell lies for tobacco
> companies, academics with huge conflicts of interest due to their work
> on pharmaceuticals serving on FDA advisory committees, etc.)
This is why most of the top journals are now requiring people to
reveal their funding sources. If they do that, they can still be
published and the studies can be read with that in mind. What it still
really comes down to, though, is whether the methodology and
conclusions were valid. The fact that a study is funded by a biased
source doesn't necessarily mean it is invalid. The issue here is that
people are up front and honest about it.
Monica Pignotti
wrote:
> "henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ulv064tb4bq9q5sin...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:59:53 +0800, "Jonnie Tyler"
>
> >>"Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >>news:2eb25aa1-21aa-4d70...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >>On Jun 23, 8:58 pm, "Jonnie Tyler" <BarryPep...@invalid.invalid>
> >>wrote:
> >>> "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:48ce7$48603b4d$d8fea521$12...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
> >>> > Jonnie Tyler wrote:
>
> >>> >> What is this ICSA? Do they have a web site?
>
> >>> >http://www.icsahome.com/
>
> >>> Thanks.
>
> >>> Looks good technically and some interesting stuff. I particularly like
> >>> that
> >>> onehttp://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_new/icsanewdocview.asp?Subject=A+His...
>
> >>> Unfortunately I don't see much traces of what Monica talks about when
> >>> she
> >>> says cult apologists are invited to conferences.
>
> >>Eileen Barker is a very famous one who has been labeled that way and
> >>is a speaker at the current conference. She has also spoken at
> >>previous conferences, as have others.
>
> >>===========
>
> >>Her name does indeed bring a lot of hits on that web site (though very
> >>little of her own writing), and no wonder since it seems she was the one
> >>to
> >>initiate the dialogue:
>
Good point. Some people from what would be considered the OG in the
anti-cult world are upset about this recent influx of people who have
a different point of view, but ultimately I think it is having a
healthy influence and challenging people to do more scholarly work,
rather than the kind of highly emotionalized pieces we've seen from
some people in the past and also the unsupported claims that have been
made in the past. This is good for people who want to raise awareness
about cults because this challenge is improving the quality of the
work.
> Currently the two sides are very polarized and the overall consensus in the
> academic community is mostly that of cult sympathizers.
I'm not so sure that is true anymore. I've run into some sociologists
at the university where I am and elsewhere who are pretty neutral on
the topic and just study social movements, certain cults being
considered among those they have studied. They don't seem to be in any
camp and surprisingly don't seem to hold strong opinions one way or
the other. And then there are some sociologists such as Stephen Kent
who is well established and now Janja Lalich who is doing highly
credible scholarly work, who in no way could be considered "cult
apologists". I put scare quotes around that term because although I
too have been guilty of using it in the past as well as having some
very strong words for such people, I have changed my mind don't think
it is really a very helpful term anymore.
>If they want to
> bridge over and listen to what critics have to say without being on the
> defensive, that's a positive development. They can also help critics phrase
> their case in a manner that would not be felt as threatening and so maybe
> gain a wider acceptance in the community. It seems that this is what is
> happening, with each side taking a milder stance on their respective
> position and seeking a middle ground.
Yes, exactly. That's been my observation. There are still major
disagreements but the extreme, unsupported claims are being toned down
-- on both sides, really. Eileen Barker seems to have changed too.
> Of course that would not be easy because so many things have been said on
> each side in so many carefully chosen scholarly words, but the fact that
> they seem to be trying is interesting and encouraging.
Right, it has not been easy and there are still hard core people on
both sides who are upset with ICSA (e.g. Rick Ross) and now will have
nothing to do with them but overall I think it is healthy.
Monica Pignotti
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:2eb25aa1-21aa-4d70...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >On Jun 23, 8:58 pm, "Jonnie Tyler" <BarryPep...@invalid.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >> "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:48ce7$48603b4d$d8fea521$12...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
> >> > Jonnie Tyler wrote:
>
> >> >> What is this ICSA? Do they have a web site?
>
> >> >http://www.icsahome.com/
>
> >> Thanks.
>
> >> Looks good technically and some interesting stuff. I particularly like
> >> that
> >> onehttp://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_new/icsanewdocview.asp?Subject=A+His...
>
> >> Unfortunately I don't see much traces of what Monica talks about when she
> >> says cult apologists are invited to conferences.
>
> >Eileen Barker is a very famous one who has been labeled that way and
> >is a speaker at the current conference. She has also spoken at
> >previous conferences, as have others.
>
> >===========
>
> >Her name does indeed bring a lot of hits on that web site (though very
> >little of her own writing), and no wonder since it seems she was the one to
> >initiate the dialogue:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
One other thing I wanted to add -- I don't think people ought to be
excluded because of lack of holding formal academic degrees. Most peer
reviewed journals don't exclude people who don't have degrees -- in
most cases the articles are blindly reviewed, and if they have merit,
they are published regardless of author credentials. A notable example
of this is a 10 year old who was first author of a JAMA article who
did a controlled experiment on therapeutic touch originally as part of
her fourth grade science project, showing it was not as it was
claimed. Yes, she had co-authors who did have degrees but she was the
first author and rightfully so since it was her project and she
conceived of the design and carried out the experiment herself.
Monica Pignotti
If the "expected response" is flames, what does that say about the
cultish true-believer nature of people involved in all this? I
attempted reasonable responses but got mostly flames and personal
attacks.
Eldon
Er, what if I called him A SLEAZY BOUGHT-OFF WHORE WHO SHOULD BE
JAILED for (future) ATTEMPTED MURDER? He will cause some, and you know
that very well. But you don't give a shit about that, do you?
You won't answer that, will you Monica? So what does that make you?
Well, I'd say an accomplice of Melton and Introvigne -- who are a
couple of sellout whores pretending to be intellectual.
Too bad the Unabomber is in prison; otherwise, maybe he could send
them some scholarly papers.
Fredric L. Rice
>Examples: the way in which Garry Scarff was embraced with open arms
>with his bullshit lies about being a Jonestown survivor, when he was
>really working for OSA.
Oh my gods! Fuck, we really are a cult!
LOL.
---
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=71238
Scientology smacked down for trying to stop free speech
realpch
>
> On Jun 24, 5:51 am, realpch <real...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Monica Pignotti wrote:
> > You raised the issues, all right, and received the expected response.
> > What *did* you expect to find here? About par for the course would be
> > some reasoned responses, and some not. And you kept raising the ante too.
>
> If the "expected response" is flames, what does that say about the
> cultish true-believer nature of people involved in all this? I
> attempted reasonable responses but got mostly flames and personal
> attacks.
<snip>
How long have you been reading here?!!! Are you lumping everybody
together and labeling based on the area on which you are focusing? Fess
up now!
Monica Pignotti
You're leaping to unwarranted conclusions with abandon here, Eldon.
No, I don't agree with what Melton did, but I think you're SHOUTING IN
ALL CAPS that he ought to be "JAILED FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER" is an
emotion-laden response that gives anti-cult people the image of wild-
eyed fanatics and gets no credibility at all. Its a free country and
Melton has the right to believe whatever he wants to about these cults
-- people don't get jailed for beliefs, no matter how outrageous they
are and yes, I do find his opinions about this outrageous. A calm,
well-reasoned response, however, would have more impact than ranting
that he should be jailed for expressing his opinions. The unabomber
actually committed a crime. Expressing a controversial opinion is not
a crime and in Melton's case his outrageous statements on this topic
are pretty much self-refuting.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti wrote:
>
> > On Jun 24, 5:51 am, realpch <real...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Monica Pignotti wrote:
> <snip>
> > > You raised the issues, all right, and received the expected response.
> > > What *did* you expect to find here? About par for the course would be
> > > some reasoned responses, and some not. And you kept raising the ante too.
>
> > If the "expected response" is flames, what does that say about the
> > cultish true-believer nature of people involved in all this? I
> > attempted reasonable responses but got mostly flames and personal
> > attacks.
>
> <snip>
>
> How long have you been reading here?!!! Are you lumping everybody
> together and labeling based on the area on which you are focusing? Fess
> up now!
No, I am not "lumping everybody together", although based on some of
the responses I have gotten to this whole fiasco on other forums I'm
on, there are others who are doing just that when it comes to ARS and
with all the flame wars and personal smearing that goes on here, I
can't say I blame them. That said, I never said it was everyone. I
said that I got "mostly" flames and personal attacks.
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>One other thing I wanted to add -- I don't think people ought to be
>excluded because of lack of holding formal academic degrees. Most peer
>reviewed journals don't exclude people who don't have degrees -- in
>most cases the articles are blindly reviewed, and if they have merit,
>they are published regardless of author credentials. A notable example
>of this is a 10 year old who was first author of a JAMA article who
>did a controlled experiment on therapeutic touch originally as part of
>her fourth grade science project, showing it was not as it was
>claimed. Yes, she had co-authors who did have degrees but she was the
>first author and rightfully so since it was her project and she
>conceived of the design and carried out the experiment herself.
I'd agree on that in general, but in some cases, it seems some
self-appointed experts hold themselves out as having academic
qualifications. The smell of it is different when it's fairly obvious
what someone's qualifications are, and when they have some unrelated
qualification but hold themselves out as an expert in a particular
field. There's rather a lot of that on both sides of the aisle, truth
be told.
realpch
Oh, well then, let's get down to brass tacks. Are you prepared to list
by name the "cultish" ones? We could probably do an estimate of total
posters, and get a nice percentage, so we can analyze it all accurately.
Or not! Let's not and say we did. We'll get Ted to not do it and say he did.
: D
Other forums are calling all the ars people culties? Oh no! Care to
reconsider that dining out comment of mine?
: D
And the conga line snakes on into the night. Fireworks! Taffy pulls!
Clowns and jugglers! Big noises and sparklers! No draining membership to
create Ideal Orgs!
Ted Mayett
>I suppose my point is pretty oblique. It's that ascribing cultic
>behavior to Anonymous in isolation without reference to the cultic
>behavior of previous anti-Scientology activism is futile. If
>Anonymous is cultic then so are the rest of us.
>
Amen brother. But we don't need no stinkin Anons to be cultists.
bwaaaaaaaaaaaa
BTW, this is a play on an OT claim/story. One old movie, I think
Pancho Via, they are told they cannot do (something) without badges,
and they say, "we don't need no stinkin badges". And by extrapolation
one can be OT without going OT, because being OT means you don't need
a stinkin badge.
--
Ted Mayett
Critical information regarding Scientology:
http://www.solitarytrees.net
Ted Mayett
>Yes, so it's pretty damn silly raising the whole "you're all in a cult"
>business here in the first place. What a freaking waste of time. It
>would be better to describe the behavior one objects to specifically.
>And then object to it. One wouldn't be hard pressed to find all these
>behaviors in any group. The PTA. The Girl Scouts. The City Council. Any
>City Council. The Ladies' Quilting Society. The Podunk Cat Fanciers. So
>what's the point? Monica has managed to insult and inflame any number of
>people, and for what? To dine out on in academically inclined anti-cult circles?
>
>: D
>
>Peach
Maybe what is silly is responding to people who say "you're all in a
cult." But they do respond to Monica, there is no denying that.
realpch
Ted, I've always felt that a certain amount of inspired silliness was a
very good thing.
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>There are numerous examples of frauds whose stories
>were never even remotely credible who were embraced by the anti-cult
>community, paraded about as poster children, and only finally
>grudgingly abandoned after the evidence of their frauds became
>overwhelming; and this has usually been after defending the fraud to
>the death and viciously attacking the original critics of their wild
>tales.
The same ilk that embraced the bs-artists you referenced now sliem
anyone who points out their lies, exaggerations, hair-brained theories
and distortions. They operate on the basis that "as long as it hurts
the cult, who cares if it's true."
So does Monica think why would they stick to the truth when they try
to browbeat and intimidate a critic's critic into silence? Naw,
they'll use the same rhetorical tactics the cult uses. But for a
"better purpose:" to shut her up.
Call me crazy, but I can't justify holding the cult to a higher
standard than I do its critics. Without that flaw, I'd be the perfect
brain-dead lerming here.
Dennis
-------------
"All critics good!" - a brain-dead nony
efish
Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> If the "expected response" is flames, what does that say about the
> cultish true-believer nature of people involved in all this? I
> attempted reasonable responses but got mostly flames and personal
> attacks.
oh bullshit
you had plenty of reasoned responses as well. at least, in the beginning you
did. none of which you listened to... but instead kept proving over and over...
and over and over...
that you understand absolutely nothing about the nature of the net.
never have, and obviously, never will. and because of that, it has become too
boring for reasonable persons to keep trying to reason with you.
so now you are stuck with the posturings of the various silly performers. enjoy.
regards
-ef
Jommy Cross
in msg <269e5f77-f5f6-48b4...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>Er, what if I called him A SLEAZY BOUGHT-OFF WHORE WHO SHOULD BE
>JAILED for (future) ATTEMPTED MURDER? He will cause some, and you know
>that very well. But you don't give a shit about that, do you?
>
>You won't answer that, will you Monica? So what does that make you?
>Well, I'd say an accomplice of Melton and Introvigne -- who are a
>couple of sellout whores pretending to be intellectual.
Sweet Elvis, try and get a grip, Eldon. I can see you're upset, but these
are ridiculous accusations.
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Jommy Cross
<info...@informer.org> wrote in msg
<eb3364p2bq17qukrd...@4ax.com>:
>henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>There are numerous examples of frauds whose stories
>>were never even remotely credible who were embraced by the anti-cult
>>community, paraded about as poster children, and only finally
>>grudgingly abandoned after the evidence of their frauds became
>>overwhelming; and this has usually been after defending the fraud to
>>the death and viciously attacking the original critics of their wild
>>tales.
>
>The same ilk that embraced the bs-artists you referenced now sliem
>anyone who points out their lies, exaggerations, hair-brained theories
>and distortions. They operate on the basis that "as long as it hurts
>the cult, who cares if it's true."
>
>So does Monica think why would they stick to the truth when they try
>to browbeat and intimidate a critic's critic into silence? Naw,
>they'll use the same rhetorical tactics the cult uses. But for a
>"better purpose:" to shut her up.
Possibly Monica's adventures were intensified by arriving as the latest in
a long procession of "critic's critics"?
But yeah, some accusations have been ridiculous. Why does she bother taking
them seriously? I have no clue.
>
>Call me crazy, but I can't justify holding the cult to a higher
>standard than I do its critics. Without that flaw, I'd be the perfect
>brain-dead lerming here.
<snip>
Heh. The critics of Co$ are many and varied. About how to bring that
criticism home, some of them I agree with and some not. They're not
responsible for my behavior, and that cuts both ways.
>
>"All critics good!" - a brain-dead nony
"All critics amusing!" - a long term nony
Jommy Cross
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in msg
<ed00cc37-aa16-4b7a...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>If the "expected response" is flames, what does that say about the
>cultish true-believer nature of people involved in all this? I
>attempted reasonable responses but got mostly flames and personal
>attacks.
You could consider the possibility that your attempts at reasonable
responses were unsuccessful.
Maybe where you hang out describing your correspondents as "ignorant
savages", "thugs" and "pathetic", then accusing them of "cult like
behavior" for not agreeing with you is considered acceptable behavior.
My observation is it's considered a little rude on the ars page of teh
internets.
Ted Mayett
>Ted, I've always felt that a certain amount of inspired silliness was a
>very good thing.
>
>Peach
But you never do it, not that I've seen anyway. Have I missed you
being silly on ars?
Ted Mayett
>Oh, well then, let's get down to brass tacks. Are you prepared to list
>by name the "cultish" ones? We could probably do an estimate of total
>posters, and get a nice percentage, so we can analyze it all accurately.
>Or not! Let's not and say we did. We'll get Ted to not do it and say he did.
>
>: D
>
OK I'll say it, I did not do it.
>Other forums are calling all the ars people culties? Oh no! Care to
>reconsider that dining out comment of mine?
>
>: D
>
>And the conga line snakes on into the night. Fireworks! Taffy pulls!
>Clowns and jugglers! Big noises and sparklers! No draining membership to
>create Ideal Orgs!
>
>Peach
funny :)
realpch
Why yes, Ted, I'm often very silly. You never noticed? If you prefer, we
could substitute "lighthearted".
realpch
Teddy, sometimes that's what you gotta do, just laugh at all this stuff.
I find that as I get older, I'm laughing more and more. Life is a parade
of really ridiculous stuff. The joke is on me all the time!
: D
Ted Mayett
>
>Teddy, sometimes that's what you gotta do, just laugh at all this stuff.
>I find that as I get older, I'm laughing more and more. Life is a parade
>of really ridiculous stuff. The joke is on me all the time!
>
Sounds like you might be getting depressed there old girl.
You've been around a while, you ever think of summing it all up, maybe
something History might like one day. You've done pickets, you have
received pickets. And maybe you received more home pickets than
anybody else at any time anywhere in the world. I think so anyway, I
could look that up on my pages.
Yet my impression is that you seem to think that humble is noble.
Like maybe you read that on a hallmark greeting card as a kid and you
still believe it.
Yet as I recall on your pickets, the ones you did and the ones they
did to you, you never threatened hollered screamed, or even used
mildly abusive language. Maybe you could sum all of that up one day,
a view from your perspective, which would be a view from a woman's
perspective. Laughing is fine, but so is being informative and
instructive fine. You were never one of the xenu-people, I don't
recall you ever chanting gandhi-tech or anything at all. Have you
more than anyone else, or as much as anyone else, been your own
person all these years? If so, does that embarrass you? :-)
realpch
>
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:26:04 -0700, realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Teddy, sometimes that's what you gotta do, just laugh at all this stuff.
> >I find that as I get older, I'm laughing more and more. Life is a parade
> >of really ridiculous stuff. The joke is on me all the time!
> >
>
> Sounds like you might be getting depressed there old girl.
No, I'm fine, though I was thinking that YOU have been sounding
depressed lately.
: D
> You've been around a while, you ever think of summing it all up, maybe
> something History might like one day. You've done pickets, you have
> received pickets. And maybe you received more home pickets than
> anybody else at any time anywhere in the world. I think so anyway, I
> could look that up on my pages.
I think that would be Kristie. She got more home pickets than I did.
They had to travel to get over here.
> Yet my impression is that you seem to think that humble is noble.
> Like maybe you read that on a hallmark greeting card as a kid and you
> still believe it.
That's funny. Though my youth was replete with literature which
emphasized the value of humility, and I think a measure of humility is
great and certainly in line with reality, at least for me, what you see
here is my general taste in potatoes. I like small potatoes. Large
potatoes don't particularly suit me.
> Yet as I recall on your pickets, the ones you did and the ones they
> did to you, you never threatened hollered screamed, or even used
> mildly abusive language. Maybe you could sum all of that up one day,
> a view from your perspective, which would be a view from a woman's
> perspective. Laughing is fine, but so is being informative and
> instructive fine. You were never one of the xenu-people, I don't
> recall you ever chanting gandhi-tech or anything at all. Have you
> more than anyone else, or as much as anyone else, been your own
> person all these years? If so, does that embarrass you? :-)
>
> --
> Ted Mayett
> Critical information regarding Scientology:
> http://www.solitarytrees.net
I'm sure other people have a similar picketing style to mine. Now I
wasn't always successful, but I tried to be conservative in picketing.
Keep it as simple as possible. That was just easier for me, and more in
line with my character. Plus the very act of picketing puts you into
somebody else's space, literally or metaphorically. The most
conservative people would never picket. The next step up is to picket,
but to do it very carefully and cautiously. Thoughtfully, as it were.
But you know I got a kick out of Dave Bird with his microphone and his
boom box, and Duke the Dog on Wheels. That was him. It just didn't
happen to be me. I can't do what other people can do, I can only do what
I can do.
Ted Mayett
>Ted Mayett wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:26:04 -0700, realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Teddy, sometimes that's what you gotta do, just laugh at all this stuff.
>> >I find that as I get older, I'm laughing more and more. Life is a parade
>> >of really ridiculous stuff. The joke is on me all the time!
>> >
>>
>> Sounds like you might be getting depressed there old girl.
>
>No, I'm fine, though I was thinking that YOU have been sounding
>depressed lately.
>
>: D
>
So you lied for my benefit?
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
>
> Er, what if I called him A SLEAZY BOUGHT-OFF WHORE WHO SHOULD BE
> JAILED for (future) ATTEMPTED MURDER? He will cause some, and you know
> that very well. But you don't give a shit about that, do you?
>
I liked that line...
Re pseudo-intellectual purveyors and panderers of rubbish..
Melton sent a letter asking for money, years ago to the Citizens
freedom Foundation. which evolved into the cult awareness network,
whose assets were in the end purchased by scientology..
Like all real anti cult outfits. they were broke..
If he sent the same letter to scientology, what do you think would
happen??
I ran into Introvegne at a cmte hearing of OSCE at the US Capitol, I
found that turkey sitting at high hearing bench as part of the
committee... they asked if anyone wanted to comment... and I stood up
and asked the chairmain two questions.
1) Addressed to introvene, I asked him to clarify his financial
relationship if any with scientology or any entity acting as their
agent...
and
2) Addressed to the chairmain of the committee, i asked, Congress as
given theatre to scientology repeatedly, to hear their fictitious
greivances about Germany seeing through them for what they are... I
ask you Mr Chairman, When will those who have been damaged by
scientology be heard???
The chairmain said " see my aid after the meeting" and then turned to
Massimo.. he struck me like a slimy con man selling cheap pots and pan
at the crossroads..Im sure there is a colorful italian word for it but
I could not think of it...
Massimo launched into the most incomprehensible rant... If I had known
about the CONFUSION TECHNIQUE I would have realized what was going on
at the time..but I did not learn that technique until a few years ago.
After his non answer, they closed the hearing, I went to the aid and
was brushed off...never heard from them again.
When the transcript was finally made available and it sure seemed that
it took a very long time for it to come out, my questions were not in
the record, and massimo's rant had been edited into something that
actually made sense, but did not address the question that was
actually asked..
The bastards edited the transcript.
I lost all respect for CSCE at that instant..
Cmte for Security and Cooperation in Europe
It wasn't a transcript is was orwellian rubbish that they published..
realpch
What on earth are you talking about, Ted?
Eldon
Fuckin' A, Arnie.
Just consider what somebody (in fact, a few parties) had to go through
to spin all that and cover it up.
It's genuine and utter bullshit. That's why I call both Melton and
Introvigne a couple of fucking whores, and believe I can do it with
impunity.
>
> I lost all respect for CSCE at that instant..
> Cmte for Security and Cooperation in Europe
> It wasn't a transcript is was orwellian rubbish that they published..
Yeah, they're full of shit. Not every officially recognized body is,
but that one sure was.
Jonnie Tyler
news:4cd42d4a-9fe8-4014...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
***I ran into Introvegne at a cmte hearing of OSCE at the US Capitol, I
found that turkey sitting at high hearing bench as part of the
committee... they asked if anyone wanted to comment... and I stood up
and asked the chairmain two questions.
1) Addressed to introvene, I asked him to clarify his financial
relationship if any with scientology or any entity acting as their
agent..."***
So what was his answer?
<snip>
***Massimo launched into the most incomprehensible rant... If I had known
about the CONFUSION TECHNIQUE I would have realized what was going on
at the time..but I did not learn that technique until a few years ago.***
What was the content of his rant?
<snip>
***When the transcript was finally made available and it sure seemed that
it took a very long time for it to come out, ***
Is this transcript to be found on the net?
***my questions were not in
the record, and massimo's rant had been edited into something that
actually made sense, but did not address the question that was
actually asked..***
So what was the content of that what was written?
***The bastards edited the transcript.***
Unless these are literal recorded transcripts, they are always edited. I
participated in high level inter-government meetings and you would be
surprised at how these transcripts "from memory" are made. Sometimes they
just cut and paste from other speeches that have nothing to do with what was
actually said.
Still - you shared with us the fact that he made a confusing non-answer but
it still would be interesting to know what the content of it was.
Ted Mayett
>Ted Mayett wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:14:56 -0700, realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ted Mayett wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:26:04 -0700, realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Teddy, sometimes that's what you gotta do, just laugh at all this stuff.
>> >> >I find that as I get older, I'm laughing more and more. Life is a parade
>> >> >of really ridiculous stuff. The joke is on me all the time!
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Sounds like you might be getting depressed there old girl.
>> >
>> >No, I'm fine, though I was thinking that YOU have been sounding
>> >depressed lately.
>> >
>> >: D
>> >
>>
>> So you lied for my benefit?
>>
>> --
>> Ted Mayett
>> Critical information regarding Scientology:
>> http://www.solitarytrees.net
>
>What on earth are you talking about, Ted?
>
>
>Peach
Do you really act like this?:
>> >> >I find that as I get older, I'm laughing more and more. Life is a parade
>> >> >of really ridiculous stuff. The joke is on me all the time!
--
realpch
Well, yes. Not all day, of course. However, on reviewing ridiculous
events, it's a common pastime of mine.
Not today. I have a cold, my head hurts. After the TheraFlu arrives, I
expect to be in better form.
realpch
>
> Not today. I have a cold, my head hurts. After the TheraFlu arrives, I
> expect to be in better form.
>
> Peach
By the way, I still think that YOU have been sounding depressed. Had a
medical checkup lately?
Mark Thorson
>
> Not today. I have a cold, my head hurts. After the TheraFlu arrives, I
> expect to be in better form.
Maybe it's the smoke from the fires. My niece's boyfriend,
an athletic young man, recently ex-Navy, has been laid low
for the past few weeks due to the smoke.
Either that, or maybe you read some of the OT materials
which sometimes get posted to this newsgroup. You know
you're not supposed to do that. :-)
realpch
Yeah, I'm doomed. Oh wait! I got a pneumonia shot. Bring on the OT 3 materials!
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
wrote:
> "Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!" <ale...@verizon.net>
> wrote in messagenews:4cd42d4a-9fe8-4014...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Still - you shared with us the fact that he made a confusing non-answer but
> it still would be interesting to know what the content of it was.
yeah, so would I...
I was there, and I was marveling at his mastery of orweillian-
doublespeak, also known as bafflegab...
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
well, the US congress is nothing more than a theatrical, most of them
go through the motions, fighting turf wars for your tax dollars and
influence... skirmishes and an occassional drama are staged like in a
shakespearian play, reliable don't shake the boat testimony is
choreographed in a politically correct manner. if anyone actually
tells the simple truth, long enough, he is gotten rid of, like
Representative John Traficant from Ohio, who will be released from a
Federal penitentiary in Montana! next year.
Traficant had the notoriety of being the representative with the
largest popular vote percentage of any sitting congressman at the time
or since. He was an independent... he was not politically correct...
-spit-
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
what he was using was THE CONFUSION TECHNIQUE
as described in the Kubark interrogation manual section titled:
Alice in Wonderland
The aim of the Alice in Wonderland or confusion technique is to
confound the expectations and conditioned reactions of the
interrogatee. He is accustomed to a world that makes some sense, at
least to him: a world of continuity and logic, a predictable world. He
clings to this world to reinforce his identity and powers of
resistance.
The confusion technique is designed not only to obliterate the
familiar but to replace it with the weird. Although this method can be
employed by a single interrogator, it is better adapted to use by two
or three. When the subject enters the room, the first interrogator
asks a doubletalk question -- one which seems straightforward but is
essentially nonsensical. Whether the interrogatee tries to answer or
not, the second interrogator follows up (interrupting any attempted
response) with a wholly unrelated and equally illogical query.
Sometimes two or more questions are asked simultaneously. Pitch, tone,
and volume of the interrogators' voices are unrelated to the import of
the questions. No pattern of questions and answers is permitted to
develop, nor do the questions themselves relate logically to each
other. In this strange atmosphere the subject finds that the pattern
of speech and thought which he has learned to consider normal have
been replaced by an eerie meaninglessness. The interrogatee may start
laughing or refuse to take the situation seriously. But as the process
continues, day after day if necessary, the subject begins to try to
make sense of the situation, which becomes mentally intolerable. Now
he is likely to make significant admissions, or even to pour out his
story, just to stop the flow of babble which assails him. This
technique may be especially effective with the orderly, obstinate
type.
http://judgegeorgegreer.com/kubark.html
and
Confusion technique documented at lermanet.com:
http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/confusion-technique2.htm
---------------------
would you describe me as obstinate?
Maureen Drueck
wrote:
> "henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ulv064tb4bq9q5sin...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:59:53 +0800, "Jonnie Tyler"
> > <BarryPep...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>"Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >>news:2eb25aa1-21aa-4d70...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >>On Jun 23, 8:58 pm, "Jonnie Tyler" <BarryPep...@invalid.invalid>
> >>wrote:
> >>> "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:48ce7$48603b4d$d8fea521$12...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
> >>> > Jonnie Tyler wrote:
>
> >>> >> What is this ICSA? Do they have a web site?
>
> >>> >http://www.icsahome.com/
>
> >>> Thanks.
>
> >>> Looks good technically and some interesting stuff. I particularly like
> >>> that
> >>> onehttp://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_new/icsanewdocview.asp?Subject=A+His...
>
> >>> Unfortunately I don't see much traces of what Monica talks about when
> >>> she
> >>> says cult apologists are invited to conferences.
>
> >>Eileen Barker is a very famous one who has been labeled that way and
> >>is a speaker at the current conference. She has also spoken at
> >>previous conferences, as have others.
>
> >>===========
>
> >>Her name does indeed bring a lot of hits on that web site (though very
> >>little of her own writing), and no wonder since it seems she was the one
> >>to
> >>initiate the dialogue:
>
> >>http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_cagsandnrms...
> >>In the late 1990s a dialogue began between a handful of critics and
> >>sympathizers (much credit goes to Dr. Eileen Barker for initiating this
> >>dialogue). This dialogue has resulted in many private conversations
> >>(personal and e-mail) and talks at the "other camp's" conferences. ICSA
> >>conference speakers in recent years have included Nancy Ammerman, Dick
> >>Anthony, Massimo Introvigne, Phil Lucas, Gordon Melton, Burke Rochford,
> >>and,
> >>of course, Eileen Barker. These exchanges have, I hope, caused at least
> >>some of us to revise our thinking about contentious issues.
>
> >>I think this is a very good trend as I believe that each side have much to
> >>learn from each other, but this still needs to be translated more
> >>concretely
> >>on the web site itself.
>
> >>Interestingly it seems that cult apologists are now called "cult
> >>sympathizers", a somewhat less pejorative term.
>
> > I frankly am not persuaded that the bulk of these people have much to
> > contribute, at least the class of people like Massimo Introvigne or
> > Gordon Melton, who have no professional qualifications whatsoever
> > (Introvigne is an intellectual property lawyer and Melton a
> > librarian), and whose pronouncements and opinions have been flatly
> > absurd.
>
> > For example, Melton went to Japan on Aum Shinrikyo's dime after they
> > committed one of the worst acts of terrorism in Japanese history, in
> > order to proclaim loudly that they couldn't possibly have done it
> > (they were convicted based on overwhelming and irrefutable evidence).
> > Similarly, he described the Jonestown cultists as a "mainstream
> > Christian denomination."
>
> > How can people like this even be taken seriously much less given yet
> > another platform? I'm not necessarily lumping all these names in with
> > Melton and Introvigne, but I've read absolutely abject nonsense from
> > Nancy Ammerman, for example, and Eileen Barker, whatever her
> > qualifications, has at least in the past had genuinely glaring
> > conflicts of interest.
>
> > Of the lot, the only one I can take remotely seriously is Eileen
> > Barker, and even then, only when the Moonies aren't the issue, though
> > I am not familiar with a few of the other names.
>
> > I know I'm not exactly coming at this from the same perspective with
> > which I started the thread, but I wonder if there is some point at
> > which a purported scholar has effectively rendered themselves
> > completely irrelevant when, like Melton, they are prepared to utter
> > purely counterfactual nonsense for money. (This is a gripe I have
> > with academics in other fields as well: for example, John Yoo's
> > willingness to lie about Constitutional law in a memo justifying
> > torture, medical academics' willingness to tell lies for tobacco
> > companies, academics with huge conflicts of interest due to their work
> > on pharmaceuticals serving on FDA advisory committees, etc.)
>
> If you sit at a peace talk table of sort then you have to allow for at least
> a modicum of possibility that the other has something positive to bring. You
> can't take your baggage with you or it would never lead anywhere. You need
> to leave your past resentment and anger at the cloakroom and focus on what
> you can agree instead.
<insert excluded middle>
>
> Currently the two sides are very polarized and the overall consensus
Good observation
in the
> academic community is mostly that of cult sympathizers.
Inbetween two sides is a place for growth. You have just labeled one
side, in a fallacious manner, with generalization.
Let's say that there was a reason why the Hegelian dialectic process
was used in a way that used the consensus model by the way a cult like
$cientology would. If ICSA had a stealthy cult trying to get in, as is
common in every group that I've seen become 'infiltrated' with cult
plants. The driven argument calls for the two-sided method to gather
the consensus that a group is right or wrong. $cientology uses
computers to make more votes in Parade Mag polls to influence
behavior, or start letter writing campaigns to have an audience
perceive a staged view.
But in Parade Mag the topic was an individual, Tom Cruise. A letter
writing campaign is focused on one subject as helping to gain an
advantage or favor as the rule of KSW teaches them.
But that is not our model. That can be used to find where the model
exists. Not prefitting others into a mold that says 'they are a cult'
It's not that we have to have everyone defend themself.
Monica came along and said in reference to one of my comments that I
was smearing her. That's fine when you ae working within a fixed model
of that consensus 'driving model'
And I warn others to be wary of how that is what the cult teaches
secularly, and a very close way to stable datum.
Plucking a line from Henri''s post above, that some entity named
'Mellon Scaife' is (in some way) influential to ICSA is another
addition to the two-sided format of answering.
If they want to
> bridge over and listen to what critics have to say without being on the
> defensive, that's a positive development. They can also help critics phrase
> their case in a manner that would not be felt as threatening and so maybe
> gain a wider acceptance in the community. It seems that this is what is
> happening, with each side taking a milder stance on their respective
> position and seeking a middle ground.
Middle ground, Acceptance. community threats. Nice layout. Artistic.
>
> Of course that would not be easy because so many things have been said on
> each side in so many carefully chosen scholarly words, but the fact that
> they seem to be trying is interesting and encouraging.
Each side. you have assigned two sides again.
This is called triangulation. Managing facts into either of the two
sides.
My comment would be that a whole organization cannot be generalized
this way. Creating a middle is not to begin behavior modification.
If I find a group that seems a threat to ICSA, I would do so to help
them. Because there is reciprocity between this group and those who
are not professionals. They have helped to bridge and do not try to
manage or separate their focus from ours. IMO.
They have actually reported on some groups that operate very loosely
without being bothered so much and work with professionals and others
who integrate rather than having to define everything. Everything that
cults use to do the point by point divide and conquer.
I have read about Bowen and systems theory. John Bradshaw used the
term triangulation. It's fitting a third that helps, but like that
corrupt Hegelian consensus, the hammering down of certain points works
to reduce the meaning into ways that seem all too familiar.
Maureen
Jonnie Tyler
news:06088df7-a891-442e...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
well, the US congress is nothing more than a theatrical, most of them
go through the motions, fighting turf wars for your tax dollars and
influence... skirmishes and an occassional drama are staged like in a
shakespearian play, reliable don't shake the boat testimony is
choreographed in a politically correct manner. if anyone actually
tells the simple truth, long enough, he is gotten rid of, like
Representative John Traficant from Ohio, who will be released from a
Federal penitentiary in Montana! next year.
Traficant had the notoriety of being the representative with the
largest popular vote percentage of any sitting congressman at the time
or since. He was an independent... he was not politically correct...
-spit-
==========
What puzzles me is that he is alternatively called John, James, Jim...
Is his real first name simply "J." and nobody knows what it is exactly?
Jonnie Tyler
news:916a36b1-6bbd-460c...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> If they want to
>> bridge over and listen to what critics have to say without being on the
>> defensive, that's a positive development. They can also help critics
>> phrase
>> their case in a manner that would not be felt as threatening and so maybe
>> gain a wider acceptance in the community. It seems that this is what is
>> happening, with each side taking a milder stance on their respective
>> position and seeking a middle ground.
>
> Middle ground, Acceptance. community threats. Nice layout. Artistic.
>>
>> Of course that would not be easy because so many things have been said on
>> each side in so many carefully chosen scholarly words, but the fact that
>> they seem to be trying is interesting and encouraging.
>
> Each side. you have assigned two sides again.
>
> This is called triangulation. Managing facts into either of the two
> sides.
>
> My comment would be that a whole organization cannot be generalized
> this way. Creating a middle is not to begin behavior modification.
I have some difficulty following up the details of your reasoning (sorry
snipped for clarity but the post should still be in the thread) but that
last idea is interesting. In a way, assigning two sides is reductionist, but
then that's what we often do: the pro- and the con-. In some issues that
have become very polarized that's kind of what happens, with the pro- and
the con- gathering into groups, often called political parties.
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
> "Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!" <ale...@verizon.net>
> wrote in messagenews:06088df7-a891-442e...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> What puzzles me is that he is alternatively called John, James, Jim...
>
that would
Ted Mayett
>realpch wrote:
>>
>> Ted Mayett wrote:
>> >
>> > Do you really act like this?:
>> > >> >> >I find that as I get older, I'm laughing more and more. Life is a parade
>> > >> >> >of really ridiculous stuff. The joke is on me all the time!
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ted Mayett
>> > Critical information regarding Scientology:
>> > http://www.solitarytrees.net
>>
>> Well, yes. Not all day, of course. However, on reviewing ridiculous
>> events, it's a common pastime of mine. Beats crying in your beer all to hell.
>>
>> Not today. I have a cold, my head hurts. After the TheraFlu arrives, I
>> expect to be in better form.
>>
>> Peach
>
OK. <smile>
>By the way, I still think that YOU have been sounding depressed. Had a
>medical checkup lately?
>
>Peach
Hah, maybe you are correct, have to think on this...
l.l.lipshitz
wrote in <QQwak.219695$Tj3....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>:
[...]
| What puzzles me is that he is alternatively called John, James, Jim...
|
| Is his real first name simply "J." and nobody knows what it is exactly?
the man's name is james anthony traficant, jr. and
he's in prison in minnesota, serving an 8-yr sentence
for 10 felony counts of bribery, tax evasion, and
racketeering.
--
-elle
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
those are my principles and if you don't
like them...well, i have others. -gm
l.l.lipshitz
wrote in <QQwak.219695$Tj3....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>:
[...]
| What puzzles me is that he is alternatively called John, James, Jim...
|
| Is his real first name simply "J." and nobody knows what it is exactly?
the man's name is james anthony traficant, jr. and
henri
I've read some of the information in Korczak's legal cases against the
government, and while it's true that the corrupt and criminally
convicted Jim Traficant vouched for him, so did Senator Chuck
Grassley, who has no such questions about his integrity.
Even Traficant's subsequent criminal convictions aren't really
relevant to Boris' credibility, since his vouching for Boris appears
to have nothing to do with his corrupt behavior.
So far as I can tell, Boris Korczak's story about having worked for
the CIA appears credible. He did not lose his case based upon a
denial by the government that he worked for them in the manner he
claimed. In fact, they never did deny it. They relied on a doctrine
established in a Civil War era case that says the government cannot be
compelled by a court to honor a contract for the performance of covert
services such as Boris claimed. That case is Totten v. United States,
92 U.S. 105 (1875)
http://buttersquash.net/archives/boris-appellant-brief.pdf
(Senator Chuck Grassley's letter is at 22 in the PDF)
http://buttersquash.net/archives/boris-appellee-brief.pdf
(Government's argument which notably includes no denial of
the plaintiff's factual allegations.)
The Government won, though I think that whatever the legal niceties,
if Boris' claims about his service are accurate, their actions are
morally reprehensible and endanger our nation's ability to recruit
covert operatives in the future.
realpch
Tuneups essential in the second half of life. Check under the hood, oil,
water, sensors, and especially for men, the exhaust pipe!
: D
Tom Newton
henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Examples: the way in which Garry Scarff was embraced with open
> arms with his bullshit lies about being a Jonestown survivor,
> when he was really working for OSA.
>
> More recently: notorious lunatic Pamela Lichtenwalner a
> scheduled speaker at a mainstream counter-cult conference
> http://www.fair-cult-concern.co.uk/conferenceaudiofiles2006.htm
>
> This is despite having been exposed on this newsgroup by Dave
> Touretzky and attorney Ford Greene: http://tinyurl.com/42w4hh
> Even a simple Google search would have uncovered that this
> person should not be considered an authority on anything.
>
> (No, this is not the only time Pamela Lichtenwalner has been
> given a speaking engagement somewhere, even recently. I just
> have a URL for this one.)
>
> One could almost say that cultic studies in general have
> been pervaded by gullibility. There are numerous examples of
> frauds whose stories were never even remotely credible who
> were embraced by the anti-cult community, paraded about as
> poster children, and only finally grudgingly abandoned after
> the evidence of their frauds became overwhelming; and this
> has usually been after defending the fraud to the death and
> viciously attacking the original critics of their wild tales.
If you look at the definitions of "cult" used by 'Anonymous', it
quickly becomes obvious that almost every church in the world
fits that definition.
Some, much more so than the Church of Scientology.
Take the Christian Catholic Church with its Pope, whom they consider
to be infallible and to speak for God.
No Scientologist believes that David Miscavige, the current leader of
the Church of Scientology is infallible or speaks for God.
And talk about bizarre rituals: The Church of Scientology has nothing
that compares to Christian Communion, where Christians pretend to
be drinking the blood of Jesus Christ (vampirism) and eating his
flesh (cannibalism).
Tom
--
The Truth will set you free:
http://www.sethcenter.com
Roger Larsson
> Examples: the way in which Garry Scarff was embraced with open arms
> with his bullshit lies about being a Jonestown survivor, when he was
> really working for OSA.
>
> More recently: notorious lunatic Pamela Lichtenwalner a scheduled
>
> This is despite having been exposed on this newsgroup by Dave
> Touretzky and attorney Ford Greene: http://tinyurl.com/42w4hh
> Even a simple Google search would have uncovered that this person
> should not be considered an authority on anything.
>
> (No, this is not the only time Pamela Lichtenwalner has been given a
> speaking engagement somewhere, even recently. I just have a URL for
> this one.)
>
> One could almost say that cultic studies in general have been pervaded
> by gullibility. There are numerous examples of frauds whose stories
> were never even remotely credible who were embraced by the anti-cult
> community, paraded about as poster children, and only finally
> grudgingly abandoned after the evidence of their frauds became
> overwhelming; and this has usually been after defending the fraud to
> the death and viciously attacking the original critics of their wild
> tales.
To make the alive more dead and the dead more alive is a goal worth to
make to an ex-goal.
Why waste time on losers without any future?
Why waste time on criminal cults taking their last breath?
Ball of Fluff
"Tom Newton" <t...@server.invalid> wrote in message
news:qo5uj5x...@treeoflife.3v8l2x.net...
Uhhh...yeah, they kinda do. They act like he's infallible. One is NOT
allowed to criticize him, not even at the low level Orgs and missions. He's
spoken of with awe.
If there was a coup tomorrow and the new guys in charge said how wrong and
bad DM was, the members would all sagely nod their heads, yeah, yeah, I knew
it. Then if the following month, DM retook the reins of power, those SAME
PEOPLE would say, yeah, those other guys were BAD, thank god DM's back.
C
rick...@rickross.com
I am a member of ICSA and many people I know and respect attend ICSA
conferences and/or are otherwise active within ICSA.
If Eileen Barker has actually changed that's good, but she has a sorry
track record, which includes accepting funding for her book about the
Unification Church from Rev. Moon.
And let's not forget her involvement with cult apologist Jeffrey
Hadden and his notorious memo about undermining AFF, now known as
ICSA.
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist19.html
Barker also has a history of working closely with Scientology and
other groups called "cults." She once boasted about having Heber
Jentzsch's unlisted home phone number.
I remain deeply skeptical about Barker changing her spots.
Monica Pignotti
> Monica:
>
> I am a member of ICSA and many people I know and respect attend ICSA
> conferences and/or are otherwise active within ICSA.
You may be a member on paper, but when was the last time you actually
attended a conference? I know you weren't at the most recent one. Your
statement that you know people who are active in ICSA is irrelevant.
>
> If Eileen Barker has actually changed that's good, but she has a sorry
> track record, which includes accepting funding for her book about the
> Unification Church from Rev. Moon.
The anti-cult movement also has a sorry track record, richly deserving
of criticism. Both sides made serious errors, which is to be expected
with any newly explored subject. The problem is when people refuse to
admit when they're wrong which is what has happened with some people
in the anti-cult movement. The early ACM that Barker was criticizing
was full of pseudoscientific notions and myths about cults and the
treatment in the form of forcible deprogramming sometimes did more
harm than good. The cult apologists have, of course, made serious
errors in downplaying the harm done by cults, but the early anti-cult
advocates also made very serious errors (for example, assuming that it
was rare for someone to leave a cult on their own, leading families to
resort to harmful forcible deprogrammings). What has been learned
since that time is that while people do get harmed by cults and suffer
from harmful aftereffects, that is not the case for everyone who is
involved in a cult.
>
> And let's not forget her involvement with cult apologist Jeffrey
> Hadden and his notorious memo about undermining AFF, now known as
> ICSA.
> Seehttp://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist19.html
That "notorious" memo is highly misleading because as Hadden stated in
the memo, he wrote this without even giving Eileen Barker the chance
to read or approve of it. We really don't know exactly what her
response actually was to the memo or what her involvement was with
Hadden and in any case it was nearly 20 years ago.
>
> Barker also has a history of working closely with Scientology and
> other groups called "cults." She once boasted about having Heber
> Jentzsch's unlisted home phone number.
>
> I remain deeply skeptical about Barker changing her spots.
Skepticism is healthy and it needs to be applied to assumptions made
by both sides. ICSA, fortunately, has serious scholars who are
interested in learning about cults on a more scientific basis than has
been done in the past. That means having people with differing
perspectives involved rather than having extremists who shut down
valid criticism. Debate and dissent is healthy, something that ICSA
encourages, that was not permitted in certain earlier organizations.
Here's a talk that was given at the conference Rick just missed, not
by Eileen Barker, but by a very long-term supporter of the the ACM:
http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_conferences/conference_docview.asp?Subject=The+Anti-Cult+Cult
Monica
Monica Pignotti
>
> I am a member of ICSA and many people I know and respect attend ICSA
> conferences and/or are otherwise active within ICSA.
>
> If Eileen Barker has actually changed that's good, but she has a sorry
> track record, which includes accepting funding for her book about the
> Unification Church from Rev. Moon.
>
> And let's not forget her involvement with cult apologist Jeffrey
> Hadden and his notorious memo about undermining AFF, now known as
> ICSA.
>
>
> Barker also has a history of working closely with Scientology and
> other groups called "cults." She once boasted about having Heber
> Jentzsch's unlisted home phone number.
>
> I remain deeply skeptical about Barker changing her spots.
Skepticism is healthy -- for both sides. The anti-cult movement (ACM)
Barker was criticized in the past was richly deserving of criticism
and contained much myth and pseudoscience (e.g. the idea that no one
ever left cults on their own and therefore people in cults were in
need of forcible deprogramming). Errors were made on both sides. The
cult apologists made the error of assuming that cults were benign and
ignored the evidence of damage and the ACM made the error that cults
were always harmful and that everyone in cults is damaged and under
mind control. Now we're finding out that things are not that simple.
Some people clearly have been damaged and harmed by cults and are/were
under undue influence but that is not the case for everyone. As for
the "memo" Rick Ross claims is evidence against Eileen Barker, in the
memo it is stated by Hadden that he had not first sent it to Barker to
approve or comment on, so whether she would have agreed with what he
wrote is unknown.
Here is a presentation that was done at the ICSA conference Rick
missed:
http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_conferences/conference_docview.asp?Subject=The+Anti-Cult+Cult
Monica Pignotti
henri wrote:
> Examples: the way in which Garry Scarff was embraced with open arms
> with his bullshit lies about being a Jonestown survivor, when he was
> really working for OSA.
>
> More recently: notorious lunatic Pamela Lichtenwalner a scheduled
> speaker at a mainstream counter-cult conference
> http://www.fair-cult-concern.co.uk/conferenceaudiofiles2006.htm
>
> This is despite having been exposed on this newsgroup by Dave
> Touretzky and attorney Ford Greene: http://tinyurl.com/42w4hh
> Even a simple Google search would have uncovered that this person
> should not be considered an authority on anything.
>
> (No, this is not the only time Pamela Lichtenwalner has been given a
> speaking engagement somewhere, even recently. I just have a URL for
> this one.)
>
> One could almost say that cultic studies in general have been pervaded
> by gullibility. There are numerous examples of frauds whose stories
> were never even remotely credible who were embraced by the anti-cult
> community, paraded about as poster children, and only finally
> grudgingly abandoned after the evidence of their frauds became
> overwhelming; and this has usually been after defending the fraud to
> the death and viciously attacking the original critics of their wild
> tales.
Pam was at the most recent ICSA conference, but she was not a speaker.
She is a huge fan of Anonymous and barged in very late to Steve
Hassan's presentation with three Anons in tow and sat them down in the
third row, center, interrupting the session to introduce them -- very
inappropriate and obnoxious behavior on her part that was not
appreciated by the moderator of the session. I hadn't ever met or
heard of her before. I can't say that I blame the Anons for this,
since it was Pam that led them in as her guests.
Speaking of gullibility, I have to wonder about the person known as
"blownforgood" that many ex-Scientologists are oohing and aahing over
and uncritically accepting every story he tells. Given what I know
about DM, these stories are possible, but some are so over the top, it
has raised my skepticism, especially since he seems to be the only one
telling about some of the events, such as the "musical chairs" at int
base story. If so many have defected who were a part of this, why has
no one else come forward? Have these stories he tells been
corroborated by anyone? Has anyone ever actually met this person?
While I can understand if he chooses not to give his real name, surely
it would be possible for someone known to have been in the SO to meet
him and check him out to see if he is genuine. Has this happened or is
this yet another example of tales being uncritically embraced?
Android Cat
> On Jul 8, 1:18 pm, rickr...@rickross.com wrote:
>> Monica:
>>
>> I am a member of ICSA and many people I know and respect attend ICSA
>> conferences and/or are otherwise active within ICSA.
>
> You may be a member on paper, but when was the last time you actually
> attended a conference? I know you weren't at the most recent one. Your
> statement that you know people who are active in ICSA is irrelevant.
That looks a lot like the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy. If he had
attended the most recent conference, would you further tighten the
qualifications to be considered a *true* member of your group?
>> If Eileen Barker has actually changed that's good, but she has a
>> sorry track record, which includes accepting funding for her book
>> about the Unification Church from Rev. Moon.
>
> The anti-cult movement also has a sorry track record, richly deserving
> of criticism. Both sides made serious errors, which is to be expected
> with any newly explored subject. The problem is when people refuse to
> admit when they're wrong
Has Eileen Barker admitted that it was wrong to accept funding for her book
from the subject of that book?
--
Ron of that ilk.
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 1:18 pm, rickr...@rickross.com wrote:
> >> Monica:
>
> >> I am a member of ICSA and many people I know and respect attend ICSA
> >> conferences and/or are otherwise active within ICSA.
>
> > You may be a member on paper, but when was the last time you actually
> > attended a conference? I know you weren't at the most recent one. Your
> > statement that you know people who are active in ICSA is irrelevant.
>
> That looks a lot like the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy. If he had
> attended the most recent conference, would you further tighten the
> qualifications to be considered a *true* member of your group?
No, not at all. That is a complete distortion. I didn't say that meant
he had a bad argument -- I was simply correcting the impression he was
giving that he was supportive of ICSA when his blog indicates that he
has a number of big problems with ICSA. In fact, I responded to the
substance of his argument below, which you seem to be ignoring.
>
> >> If Eileen Barker has actually changed that's good, but she has a
> >> sorry track record, which includes accepting funding for her book
> >> about the Unification Church from Rev. Moon.
>
> > The anti-cult movement also has a sorry track record, richly deserving
> > of criticism. Both sides made serious errors, which is to be expected
> > with any newly explored subject. The problem is when people refuse to
> > admit when they're wrong
>
> Has Eileen Barker admitted that it was wrong to accept funding for her book
> from the subject of that book?
I don't know. Have any of the deprogrammers who used sex on their
clients to "deprogram" them from cults admitted they were wrong? Has
anyone who made blanket statements that people would never leave cults
and therefore had to be forcibly removed, ever apologized to the
adults who were the victims? Mistakes were clearly made on both sides
and I don't see much admission of wrongdoing from either side.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
Sorry for responding twice to this. My first posting wasn't showing up
and so I attempted to reconstruct what I had written with this
posting. Now I see both have shown up.
"Rev" Norle Enturbulata, DTS, OD
"Android Cat" <androi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b357e$4874b5c9$cf705bb2$29...@PRIMUS.CA...
No, actually "Monica" was trying to say that she refuses to admit she's
wrong.
butterflygrrrl
Are you ever going to criticize the cult instead of critics?
Just askin'...
Monica Pignotti
earthligh...@nor-hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I've gone on record a number of times admitting I was wrong on a
number of topics. However, I was never involved in the deprogramming
of the 70s and 80s, nor have I ever accepted funding from a cult for
research, so there's nothing for me to admit to where that is
concerned. As usual, you're attempting to deflect from the topic at
hand by attacking me with ignorant assumptions and attacks for raising
issues the anti cult cult would like to have buried. When are you
going to learn that your personal attacks on me aren't going to shut
me up.
Monica Pignotti
Again, you display either your ignorance or your willful disregard. I
have a number of writings available on the internet that are critical
of Scientology. What have you written? The real problem you have with
me is that you just can't stand the fact that I am questioning
unsubstantiated claims, regardless of who makes them. These are the
kinds of claims that have greatly damaged the credibility of people
who oppose cults, who are turning out to be just as gullible as people
in cults, if not moreso.
Jonnie Tyler
news:fb4461d6-c981-453d...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> I don't know. Have any of the deprogrammers who used sex on their
> clients to "deprogram" them from cults admitted they were wrong?
You seem to write this as if that was a common occurrence, or at least
something that happened several times. That I know, there was only one such
case.
Monica Pignotti
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
No, Ginger's was not the only case. Not by a long shot. The person who
deprogrammed Ginger did literally hundreds of deprogrammings. There
have been reports of sexual misconduct along with illicit drug use in
a number of deprogrammings, and this can no longer be written off as
cult propoganda. Its just been swept under the carpet and now its
coming out. A number of women have reported being abused in this
manner and besides, its highly unlikely that a sexually abusive
deprogrammer would have sex with just one 33 year old woman with all
the other opportunities that were available. Besides the sexual abuse,
there was the abduction itself and extremely demeaning and humiliating
behavior on the part of the deprogrammers. Its time for people who
were involved in this to own up to what was going on, rather than
protect these highly abusive people. Not all deprogrammers were
abusive, but there were some who worked quite a lot who definitely
were.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
Here is yet another well-documented account of sexual and other abuse
that occurred during a deprogramming of a woman by the same person who
had deprogrammed Ginger but for this particular woman it was not for
being in a cult, but for being a lesbian:
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/acm/rieth1.htm
Again, it is clear that the mother had bought into pseudoscientific
hogwash to justify her daughter's abduction and abuse when it sounds
like the real issue here was that she just could not deal with the
fact her daughter was a lesbian.
And here's one about other deprogrammers:
http://www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN.htm
I predict some people will have a knee-jerk reaction and dismiss these
because they come from websites of people who have been labeled as
"cult apologists" but some quite solid evidence has been presented.
This was very difficult material for me to read and accept as well. I
had no idea that any of this had gone on. For a long time I wrote-off
such reports as being from cultists and cult apologists -- my bad. I
was wrong to brush off and deny the evidence, but eventually I had to
face up to the overwhelming evidence that mistakes and downright
unethical and despicable behavior was involved. Again, not all
deprogrammers behaved in this way and I don't believe everything that
is in this document, but it was not as uncommon as some would want
people to believe. This is what happens when people are in the
position of holding others prisoner, as we learned from Philip
Zimbardo's Prison Experiment and later Abu Ghraib. I suspect something
similar was going on in these cases, but it doesn't excuse the
behavior. I have to say that I am very thankful that my parents did
not fall for the pseudoscientific scare tactics and chose ~not~ to
have me deprogrammed and instead, waited and allowed me to walk out of
Scientology on my own free will (in the 1970s those were pretty much
the only options available), thus sparing me the added trauma of
abduction and abuse.
JT
Is that Ginger Brown? I never heard of such allegations in that case. I was
thinking of Reithmiller
(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,953455,00.html)
Android Cat
>
> Here is yet another well-documented account of sexual and other abuse
> that occurred during a deprogramming of a woman by the same person who
> had deprogrammed Ginger but for this particular woman it was not for
> being in a cult, but for being a lesbian:
>
> http://bernie.cncfamily.com/acm/rieth1.htm
>
> Again, it is clear that the mother had bought into pseudoscientific
> hogwash to justify her daughter's abduction and abuse when it sounds
> like the real issue here was that she just could not deal with the
> fact her daughter was a lesbian.
>
> And here's one about other deprogrammers:
>
> http://www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN.htm
>
> I predict some people will have a knee-jerk reaction and dismiss these
> because they come from websites of people who have been labeled as
> "cult apologists" but some quite solid evidence has been presented.
But they are such *appalling* sites... (I did enjoy the ad for Front Sight
at the bottom of Bernie's page. My view is that Bernie isn't an apologist
*for* Scientology, but a facade *by* Scientology in attempt to control the
"neutral ground". i.e. people read Scientology's sites, read critic sites,
then find the neutral sites in hopes of the truth between.)
- The article on Bernie's site is useless as a reference since pieces have
been chopped out, leading me to distrust the whole page. How hard would it
have been to locate an intact primary copy of an article about this?
Love with an Improper Stranger, May 3, 1982, TIME Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,953455,00.html
As for CESNUR, they've put up some really sloppy pages and papers, but even
they distance themselves from that one. (See CESNUR's NOTE)
A few quck questions about the Shupe/Darnell paper (which reads more like a
Usenet flame than anything scholarly):
1. Why was there no mention of the involvement of Scientology in CAN's
demise? There are a couple mentions of Scientology but no mention of
Scientology's enormous campaign against CAN. There's a frankly dishonest
bit refering to the CAN papers being aquired by a "private individual" (it
must be in one of the footnotes, can't locate it right now). That would be
long-time Church of Scientology attorney Steven Hayes... (And that Moxon
guy? He's a CoS lawyer too.)
2. Completely ignores the results of the Scott criminal case, and ignores
the events post-civil case. A tiny slice of scope and time.
3. A post-mortem examination of CAN's accounting papers *after* they've been
passed through Scientology's hands? What were the terms of agreement for
access to those papers?
4. This is supposed to be the precursor to a full paper. What happened to
it?
My news article links, indexed for CAN references:
http://home.primus.ca/~ronsharp/FrontCiteTW.html#tag:[[Cult%20Awareness%20Network]]
(I declare a built-in bias to my list since the focus is Scientology rather
than CAN.)
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I predict some people will have a knee-jerk reaction and dismiss these
>because they come from websites of people who have been labeled as
>"cult apologists" but some quite solid evidence has been presented.
>This was very difficult material for me to read and accept as well. I
>had no idea that any of this had gone on. For a long time I wrote-off
>such reports as being from cultists and cult apologists -- my bad. I
>was wrong to brush off and deny the evidence, but eventually I had to
>face up to the overwhelming evidence that mistakes and downright
>unethical and despicable behavior was involved. Again, not all
>deprogrammers behaved in this way and I don't believe everything that
>is in this document, but it was not as uncommon as some would want
>people to believe. This is what happens when people are in the
>position of holding others prisoner, as we learned from Philip
>Zimbardo's Prison Experiment and later Abu Ghraib. I suspect something
>similar was going on in these cases, but it doesn't excuse the
>behavior. I have to say that I am very thankful that my parents did
>not fall for the pseudoscientific scare tactics and chose ~not~ to
>have me deprogrammed and instead, waited and allowed me to walk out of
>Scientology on my own free will (in the 1970s those were pretty much
>the only options available), thus sparing me the added trauma of
>abduction and abuse.
Suppose the cult were Jim Jones' People's Temple, AUM Shinrikyo,
the Solar Temple, David Koresh's part of the Branch Davidians,
or Heaven's Gate?
Would it be pseudoscientific scare tactics to think getting someone
out of such a cult was imperative?
Monica Pignotti
Using the most extreme examples is not a compelling argument. The real
question is whether those examples can be generalized applied to all
or most cults and if that is then used to justify forcible removal in
that way. The overwhelming consensus of the mental health community,
is no, it cannot.
In the extreme cases you named, the cults were breaking the law and
that would justify the government intervening against the leaders, not
needing to illegally kidnap the members, although the way the
government dealt with some of these situations was not effective and
actually in some cases brought on the disasterous consequences. Some
of the extreme reactions of those groups were brought about by
reactions from outside organizations that backed the leaders into the
corner, such as the actions the FBI took with the Branch Davidians.
Unfortunately, they wouldn't listen to cult experts such as Steve
Hassan who tried to warn them and tried to suggest a less invasive
approach.
The fact that groups can be led into very extreme destructive
behaviors is not evidence that the "brainwashing" theory is true.
These dynamics, even extreme situations, can be more simply explained
by social influence processes that are well-established in social
psychology experiments (see Phil Zimbardo's work for details). In
science, there is a principle called Occam's Razor, that the most
parsimonious (simplest) explanation that fits the facts is usually the
best one. It just isn't necessary to concoct elaborate, exotic
theories of brainwashing when other explanations exist.
Many of the assumptions held by proponents of brainwashing, the way it
was presented by the deprogrammers of the 1970s have been directly
refuted. For example, the idea that people are under the complete
control of the cult leader and rarely, if ever, leave cults on their
own (used by deprogrammers to justify the use of force) has been
directly refuted by much research that has shown the vast majority of
people who leave cults, walk away on their own and that cults have a
very high turnover rate. Yes, there is social influence that
intensifies in closed situations and that is what we need to learn
more about and take very seriously, but it isn't the same as the kinds
of pseudoscientific brainwashing theories that were being promoted to
argue in favor of forcible deprogrammings. Thankfully, this is a dead
issue, thoroughly debunked, that never got scientific acceptance, that
is now being replaced with more credible theories, explanations, and
solutions that do not include forcible kidnapping.
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti wrote:
>
> > Here is yet another well-documented account of sexual and other abuse
> > that occurred during a deprogramming of a woman by the same person who
> > had deprogrammed Ginger but for this particular woman it was not for
> > being in a cult, but for being a lesbian:
>
> >http://bernie.cncfamily.com/acm/rieth1.htm
>
> > Again, it is clear that the mother had bought into pseudoscientific
> > hogwash to justify her daughter's abduction and abuse when it sounds
> > like the real issue here was that she just could not deal with the
> > fact her daughter was a lesbian.
>
> > And here's one about other deprogrammers:
>
> >http://www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN.htm
>
> > I predict some people will have a knee-jerk reaction and dismiss these
> > because they come from websites of people who have been labeled as
> > "cult apologists" but some quite solid evidence has been presented.
>
> But they are such *appalling* sites... (I did enjoy the ad for Front Sight
> at the bottom of Bernie's page. My view is that Bernie isn't an apologist
> *for* Scientology, but a facade *by* Scientology in attempt to control the
> "neutral ground". i.e. people read Scientology's sites, read critic sites,
> then find the neutral sites in hopes of the truth between.)
>
> - The article on Bernie's site is useless as a reference since pieces have
> been chopped out, leading me to distrust the whole page. How hard would it
> have been to locate an intact primary copy of an article about this?
>
>
> As for CESNUR, they've put up some really sloppy pages and papers, but even
> they distance themselves from that one. (See CESNUR's NOTE)
>
> A few quck questions about the Shupe/Darnell paper (which reads more like a
> Usenet flame than anything scholarly):
>
> 1. Why was there no mention of the involvement of Scientology in CAN's
> demise? There are a couple mentions of Scientology but no mention of
> Scientology's enormous campaign against CAN. There's a frankly dishonest
> bit refering to the CAN papers being aquired by a "private individual" (it
> must be in one of the footnotes, can't locate it right now). That would be
> long-time Church of Scientology attorney Steven Hayes... (And that Moxon
> guy? He's a CoS lawyer too.)
>
> 2. Completely ignores the results of the Scott criminal case, and ignores
> the events post-civil case. A tiny slice of scope and time.
>
> 3. A post-mortem examination of CAN's accounting papers *after* they've been
> passed through Scientology's hands? What were the terms of agreement for
> access to those papers?
>
> 4. This is supposed to be the precursor to a full paper. What happened to
> it?
>
> My news article links, indexed for CAN references:http://home.primus.ca/~ronsharp/FrontCiteTW.html#tag:[[Cult%20Awareness%20Network]]
> (I declare a built-in bias to my list since the focus is Scientology rather
> than CAN.)
Of course there were glaring omissions and things were left out on
those websites, but does any of that justify what was fully documented
to have been done to people who were kidnapped by deprogrammers? Does
Scientology's involvement in the demise of CAN change what has now
been independently documented to have occurred? No, I don't think so.
I made contributions to CAN without knowing what had been going on
behind the scenes. I had no idea that forcible deprogrammings were
still being done and had I known, I never would have contributed to or
supported the organization, but now that I look at the evidence, it is
undeniable.
I really feel I was deceived, but I also have to take responsibility
for dismissing criticism earlier about CAN, on the grounds that some
of it came from the cults. I am now admitting that I was wrong to do
that. The fact that someone is in a cult, doesn't mean that every word
out of that person's mouth is a lie. This kind of wholesale dismissal
of anything cults have to say is not unlike dismissing anything a
mental patient has to say. What happens if there actually is abuse?
Dismissing the reports of cultists (or mental patients) is the perfect
set-up for people to get away with abuse. The way people got away with
this was by espousing "brainwashing" theories that proposed that
people in cults are completely delusional so there is no way to
respond to actual abuse. The psychologist Robyn Dawes has written
about this same type of problem in his book House of Cards, regarding
the mental health field, where mental patients were subjected to
bogus, abusive practices (note Dawes is a highly respected
psychologist, not a Scientologist).
None of the omissions on those websites changes the facts of what
happened to the victims of the deprogrammings and how some later
report that even though they are now out of the cults they were in (if
they were even in cults to begin with), they feel they have been
traumatized for life by the experience. That is what Ginger Z reported
in the talk she gave at ICSA. We're not talking here about documents
that could have been altered.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
No, its Ginger Zyskowski. She hasn't spoken to the media about her
experiences, AFAIK. The ICSA conference was the first time she came
forward and told the full story, as she was one of the alleged
"successes". She tried to tell part of her story at a CAN conference
20 years ago, but she was dismissed and ignored at the time, even
though there were others present at the conference who also felt they
were traumatized from forcible deprogrammings. Another problem was
that she was never in a cult in the first place -- she was only
dabbling, but that didn't stop her parents from buying into the
pseudoscience, having her abducted, and traumatizing her for years.
See:
http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_conferences/conference_docview.asp?Subject=The+Anti-Cult+Cult
Ginger reported in her speech that she was a 33-year old wife and
mother of three children and had a faculty position in a music
department of a college at the time of her abduction who had been
dabbling in a guru cult but had not become deeply involved. That
didn't stop her mom from buying into the brainwashing theories,
though, and having her abducted.
JT
> None of the omissions on those websites changes the facts of what
> happened to the victims of the deprogrammings and how some later
> report that even though they are now out of the cults they were in (if
> they were even in cults to begin with), they feel they have been
> traumatized for life by the experience. That is what Ginger Z reported
> in the talk she gave at ICSA. We're not talking here about documents
> that could have been altered.
I think that traumatism aspect, even if it "worked", was the contention of
Steve Hassan at the time, even though initially he was engaged in forcible
deprogramming himself. It helped move away from forcible deprogramming
together with other factors. Dennis Erlich also wrote about it but somewhat
later.
JT
That link say Ginger was deprogrammed by Ted Patrick. That I know Patrick
did not engage in sex with "patients" nor did he condone it.
rick...@rickross.com
You made a misleading statement about me, which has been corrected. A
little courtesy on your part would be to simply admit your mistake and
that you were wrong.
I have attended an ICSA conference, but not for some time.
Though I disagree with certain policies and people within ICSA, I
nevertheless became a member recently and respect many of the people
associated with ICSA. I deeply respect the work of John Clark who
founded AFF/ICSA. He was a great man.
Margaret Singer was prominent at AFF/ICSA and she was also an Advisory
Board member of the Ross Institute until her death.
Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman have been speakers at an AFF/ICSA
conference and are also Advisory Board members of the Ross Institute.
I have frequently worked with Wellspring, which is headed by Paul
Martin, another prominent participant at ICSA.
There are many other examples, but these are a few.
I disagree strongly with the program Carol Giambalvo recently
presented and wrote an article about this.at www.cultnews.com
I have disagreed with some ICSA programs and also some of its internal
politics and policies, which likewise is recorded within the archives
of www.cultnews.com (e.g. Patrick Ryan).
If you wish to defend Eileen Barker that's your choice.
But Eileen Barker does have a long history of defending cults and she
has accepted funding from Rev. Moon, which you do not refute. She has
also worked closely with Scientology leaders, which you should know.
I am not the only person critical of Barker that considers her a "cult
apologist." Stephen Kent has been quite critical of academics like
Barker that he feels have have compromised their academic integrity.
Professor Kent is closely associated with ICSA.
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist28.html
We have never had a serious conversation and I barely know you. I
recall saying "hi" to you once in a television studio "green room"
during 1997. You were with Steve Hassan who was there to appear on a
program on which I also was asked to appear.
Perhaps you should do a better job checking the facts before posting
statements about me here.
Rick Ross
www.rickross.com
Rev. Erlich
Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Speaking of gullibility, I have to wonder about the person known as
>"blownforgood" that many ex-Scientologists are oohing and aahing over
>and uncritically accepting every story he tells. Given what I know
>about DM, these stories are possible, but some are so over the top, it
>has raised my skepticism, especially since he seems to be the only one
>telling about some of the events, such as the "musical chairs" at int
>base story. If so many have defected who were a part of this, why has
>no one else come forward? Have these stories he tells been
>corroborated by anyone? Has anyone ever actually met this person?
>While I can understand if he chooses not to give his real name, surely
>it would be possible for someone known to have been in the SO to meet
>him and check him out to see if he is genuine. Has this happened or is
>this yet another example of tales being uncritically embraced?
I wondered about the same thing, Monica. That "musical chairs" story
sounded bogus. But I think I remember someone else confirming it.
Anyone have the link?
D
Monica Pignotti
>
> > Ginger reported in her speech that she was a 33-year old wife and
> > mother of three children and had a faculty position in a music
> > department of a college at the time of her abduction who had been
> > dabbling in a guru cult but had not become deeply involved. That
> > didn't stop her mom from buying into the brainwashing theories,
> > though, and having her abducted.
>
> That link say Ginger was deprogrammed by Ted Patrick. That I know Patrick
> did not engage in sex with "patients" nor did he condone it.
Ginger said in her talk she was deprogrammed by Patrick, so what you
think you may "know" is being challenged, and also by the woman who
was deprogrammed by him for being a lesbian.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
> Monica:
>
> You made a misleading statement about me, which has been corrected. A
> little courtesy on your part would be to simply admit your mistake and
> that you were wrong.
No, I did not. You were highly critical of ICSA and I stand by that
statement. Whether you are a member on paper is irrelevant.
> I have attended an ICSA conference, but not for some time.
> Though I disagree with certain policies and people within ICSA, I
> nevertheless became a member recently and respect many of the people
> associated with ICSA. I deeply respect the work of John Clark who
> founded AFF/ICSA. He was a great man.
>
> Margaret Singer was prominent at AFF/ICSA and she was also an Advisory
> Board member of the Ross Institute until her death.
>
> Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman have been speakers at an AFF/ICSA
> conference and are also Advisory Board members of the Ross Institute.
>
> I have frequently worked with Wellspring, which is headed by Paul
> Martin, another prominent participant at ICSA.
>
> There are many other examples, but these are a few.
>
> I disagree strongly with the program Carol Giambalvo recently
> presented and wrote an article about this.atwww.cultnews.com
That's what I was referring to.
> I have disagreed with some ICSA programs and also some of its internal
> politics and policies, which likewise is recorded within the archives
> ofwww.cultnews.com(e.g. Patrick Ryan).
>
> If you wish to defend Eileen Barker that's your choice.
>
> But Eileen Barker does have a long history of defending cults and she
> has accepted funding from Rev. Moon, which you do not refute. She has
> also worked closely with Scientology leaders, which you should know.
Again, please look at what I wrote. I did not say I defend everything
she's done and have never denied she was at one time funded by Moon
and I have no need or wish to "refute" that because I do not dispute
it. That is beside the point that I am making, which is about the
damage done by forcible deprogrammers.
> I am not the only person critical of Barker that considers her a "cult
> apologist." Stephen Kent has been quite critical of academics like
> Barker that he feels have have compromised their academic integrity.
> Professor Kent is closely associated with ICSA.
I am aware of that.
> Seehttp://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist28.html
>
> We have never had a serious conversation and I barely know you. I
> recall saying "hi" to you once in a television studio "green room"
> during 1997. You were with Steve Hassan who was there to appear on a
> program on which I also was asked to appear.
>
> Perhaps you should do a better job checking the facts before posting
> statements about me here.
I was only commenting on what you wrote on your blog.
Monica Pignotti
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
It is not only Steve Hassan who has contended that. People who have
actually been forcibly deprogrammed who have never had anything to do
with Hassan, such as Ginger Z, contend that as well. To put your
statement in perspective, Steve worked for a year assisting in
forcible deprogrammings, 32 years ago (he says that most of those were
legal conservatorships which were being done at the time), but has
since repudiated forcible deprogrammings. Isn't it rather obvious that
being forcibly abducted in and of itself would be traumatic, let alone
being subjected the sort of abuse and humiliation many who were
deprogrammed were subjected to?
Monica Pignotti
I'd be interested in seeing that. If you find it, please do let me
know, also if anyone has confirmed the identity of this person.
Jommy Cross
<tafb74ppc69tsggqk...@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Monica Pignotti
><pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>I have to say that I am very thankful that my parents did
>>not fall for the pseudoscientific scare tactics and chose ~not~ to
>>have me deprogrammed and instead, waited and allowed me to walk out of
>>Scientology on my own free will (in the 1970s those were pretty much
>>the only options available), thus sparing me the added trauma of
>>abduction and abuse.
>
>Suppose the cult were Jim Jones' People's Temple, AUM Shinrikyo,
>the Solar Temple, David Koresh's part of the Branch Davidians,
>or Heaven's Gate?
>
>Would it be pseudoscientific scare tactics to think getting someone
>out of such a cult was imperative?
Certainly. You can't know a cult is about to become majorly destructive,
even if their apocalyptic literature, frenzied arms stockpiling or
production of nerve gas indicates they might.
If you're J Gordon Melton, you can't know that even *after* they've become
majorly destructive by releasing their nerve gas on the subway.
Kidnapping people because you think something bad *might* happen is simply
unacceptable for me. It's regrettable this may have unfortunate
consequences for some people. If society needs to deal with this issue,
then it needs to deal with it at a corporate level, imho. Sending bounty
hunters in to pick off culties is a horrible approach.
It's not as easy as saying anonymous protesters dressed as pirates are a
cult, or people who disagree with you are a cult, you know.
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Jommy Cross
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in msg
<b6c5eed1-90b2-4ed5...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>Using the most extreme examples is not a compelling argument.
Ever wonder why your anti anonymous arguments (they're disinhibited
ignorant savages who will burn down the store) got laughed at?