hateful postings to FOM
Dennis L Erlich
-------------------------------------------------
To: freedom of mind
Subject: Re: CNN Transcript
From: Rev Dennis L Erlich <info...@informer.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:35:30 -0800
Monica is correctly trying to steer people away from jumping to
conclusions. But she is doing so by foisting her own half-truths and
misrepresentations.
"mpignotti2001" <Freedom_Dignity@...> wrote:
> I located the CNN transcript, and I really have to challenge the
> following statement:
>
> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0901/05/ijvm.01.html
>
> "STEVE HASSAN, COUNSELOR/SCIENTOLOGY EXPERT: Well, Scientology
> basically believes that all medical problems whatsoever can be handled
> by their techniques, through their auditing policies and such. So they
> very much dissuade members from seeking out medical attention, getting
> any medication." That is simply not true.
Steve's statement is accurate.
>The second sentence doesn't necessarily
> follow from the first.
True, it doesn't ~necessarily~ follow. But it does ~in reality~
follow.
>Scientology does not dissuade members from
> seeking out medical attention or getting "any medication".
While it is true that they must first stop the bleeding or set the
broken leg in a cast, it should be pointed out that according to the
cult's bogus mental technology, all illness stems directly and only
from connection to a suppressive person
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_Person)
and getting rid of that condition requires only discovering the
suppressive connection and then handling the suppressive person or
disconnecting.
>Mainly what they disallow is psychiatric medication ...
"Mainly" they disallow ALL drugs for people undergoing their bogus
mental therapy.
>and in some cases
> anti-seizure medication because some of those meds are also
> psychiatric drugs (e.g. Depakote) but even that has varied depending
> on different Scientologists and orgs.
Most cult policies vary in enforcement depending on which of the
various cult organizations are mis-applying them.
>It was true in the case of Tory
> Christman but it is not true in all cases.
Monica should name the people she personally witnessed receiving the
cult's bogus therapy (other than emergency assists) while taking ANY
medication. Even aspirin.
I was there when Tory was taken off the drugs. I witnessed her
seizures.
>Jett Travolta took Depakote for years,
She doesn't personally know this to be true. Therefore she shouldn't
be stating it as fact. She only knows that this is what Travolta's
lawyer claimed.
And she should apply her critical standards to her own statements.
>something that would have been impossible if the above
> statement were true, given that the Travoltas have been active, highly
> committed Scientologists for years.
Monica is foisting specious assumptions, just the same as she is
accusing others of doing.
>We may never know what actually
> happened and I find it troubling that people are engaging in so much
> unfounded speculation.
Discussion boards and newsgroups are where concerned people DIGEST the
news. The speculation is not unfounded, is based upon years of
personal experience and logical deduction.
> They do not bar regular medical care at all.
Like I said, they stop the bleeding or set the leg. Then the person
is put on to the bogus mental therapy.
>Even though it is true
> that they believe that most illness is psychosomatic and can be
> eliminated with auditing,
Not most. According to their dogma, anyone who is ill is connected to
a suppressive person. All illnesses stem directly and only from
connection to suppressives. Getting rid of the illness requires
discovering the suppressive. And then handling the connection or
disconnecting.
>they do not ban medical treatment.
This is a strawman argument. No one has said all medical treatment is
banned.
>In fact,
> when I was on the Apollo under L. Ron Hubbard, I was given antibiotics
> when I got sick, and I directly witnessed several others there
> receiving medication and people were even freely given Dramamine if
> they experienced sea sickness, if they asked for it.
These things fall under an emergency medical handling exception to the
general rule ... which is pervasive.
>There is a
> restriction on getting auditing if these drugs are taken, but no one
> gets in trouble for taking them and people are not generally stopped
> from taking medical drugs, other than psychiatric drugs.
Monica is trying to point out that there are exceptions to the general
rule: No spiritual progress while medicated. The exception is only
for emergency assists.
> While it is true that some Scientologists because of their beliefs
> that auditing could cure them of a medical ailment delayed getting
> treatment for conditions such as cancer,
Many people have avoided medical treatment and paid the price,
sometimes with their very lives.
>Scientology does not have any
> policy against getting treatment for cancer or other serious medical
> conditions.
Emergency treatment is allowed, then assists, then they have to find
the suppressive person causing the illness.
>This is a different issue that involves the substandard
> living conditions in the SO. Scientology is not like Christian
> Scientists who explicitly ban medical treatment, but that is the false
> impression that some are giving here.
Again, this strawman argument is a red herring. But the policies and
procedures are explicit enough to dissuade or deprive people from
seeking proper medical care. This often results in similar tragedies.
Monica should tell you about which medical insurance the organization
provides for its staff all over the world. The answer is NONE!
There is a reason that is true.
>This, again, is very easy for
> Scientologists to refute and then critics lose credibility and are not
> taken seriously about anything.
Critics are not taken seriously about anything??? She needs to start
applying her factual standards to her own statements.
> The idea that Scientology bans or even dissuades people from all
> medical care and medication is a myth ...
Carefully worded red herring. "... dissuades people from all medical
care ..." No. Emergency medical care is followed by assists and
suppressive handling.
>that is easily refuted and will
> unfortunately destroy the credibility of people who want to expose
> real concerns about Scientology.
Steve's only other statement on the CNN transcript:
"HASSAN: That's exactly correct. My understanding is that there are
policy letters direct from Hubbard that dissuade members, to make them
believe that any medical problem is a result of an aberration or an
interaction with someone who is a suppressive person or a critic and
that needs to be handled through their auditing process or their sect
checks and such.
And so I know numerous people who have unfortunately had medical
conditions who did the Scientology indoctrination programming and
didn't get medical treatment and died as a result of it."
Minimizing the damage done to people by this practice and its aversion
to medical treatment is irresponsible.
Dennis
---------------
That's what set her off. So she implies to the moderator there is
probably legal liability in having me posting on the board, attacks my
ministry, throws her stink on my finances, etc.
Never bothering to dispute my assertions. Only her Dead Agent tactics
straight out of the cult's playbook. And even using their lies.
I don't think I was being hateful. Only pointed.
D
---------------------------------------
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.
Monica Pignotti
> Here's the first posting that made it to that message board:
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> To: freedom of mind
> Subject: Re: CNN Transcript
You are conveniently leaving out your later hateful postings to the
list. You are inventing things, as you were not privy to my
conversation with Cathleen and are making things up. I see you are now
trying to backpedal off of your earlier hateful accusation against me
that I threatened the moderator, which clearly was not the case. All I
did was mention to her that you had a deal with Scientology, that I
did not know the details, but that she might want to ask you about it,
which she did. It was not a threat or an implication. Dr. Mann has a
great deal of experience in legal matters and drew her own
conclusions. I never told her there was any "legal liability" so stop
the lies and distortions, Dennis. The fact is that you might not see
yourself as being hateful but Cathleen did see you that way, so
apparently you see yourself in a more favorable light than others see
you. You probably aren't even aware of your hateful, vindictive,
vulgar way of coming off to others, you've been that way so long. The
fact is, Cathleen's statement shows that I am not the only one who
sees you this way, Dennis. It seems you have some issues to work on
although in your case I'm not so sure Scientology is to blame as your
natural personality seems to be most compatible with that of a Sea Org
member, which is probably why you did so well in the SO.
Monica Pignotti
Again, here's what Cathleen Mann had to say about Dennis Erlich's
postings to the FOM list, and he did many over a period of a few
weeks:
Dennis's behavior on the FOM list, at the behest and encouragement of
Steve Hassan, was one of the last straws that prompted me, the real
owner of the listserv, to delete the whole listserv, which I did in
January, 2009. Steve Hassan liked to claim it was "his" list, but in
reality he did nothing to contribute to the list other than
occasionally use it as an advertising venue or to appropriate posts
without permission. I no longer associate with or support Steve
Hassan, and this is one of the many reasons. He asked Dennis to come
on the list specifically to attack Monica, and Steve was a coward in
not representing himself. Dennis was the perfect bulldog --
attacking, ad hominen all the time, arrogant, and very vulgar and
sexist. I was glad to be rid of him. I am sorry Steve Hassan has
such a person as a friend, which shows me he has very poor judgment in
this area. Monica attempted to defend herself and Dennis was the
epitome of an angry, hateful person. I am so glad I don't have to
deal with him or Steve Hassan ever again.
Cathleen Mann
xenufrance
"Dennis L Erlich" <info...@informer.org> a �crit dans le message de news:
f5b3g55b3oe0u33up...@4ax.com...
Anyway, Dennis, nobody can be aloways right anywhere. Otherwise the "always
right" would be supergod the hyperallmighty.
r
Eldon
> Here's the first posting that made it to that message board:
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> To: freedom of mind
> Subject: Re: CNN Transcript
Everybody involved in this dispute -- including Steve Hassan -- is
overstating his or her case and generalizing in an attempt to win a
wobbly gray blob of an argument. Steve's pronouncement about his
"understanding" was probably well-meaning, but in the real world, this
has more to do with coercion than policy.
Monica Pignotti
Steve wasn't generalizing. He was only sharing with me his perception
of Dennis' behavior during the FOM discussion and the fact that he
hadn't realized Dennis was going to behave in this manner towards me
and if he had known that, he never would have invited him onto the FOM
discussion. He apologized to me for doing so.
I never "implied" to the moderator there was "legal liability".
Cathleen's specialty is in psychology of the law and she drew her own
conclusions in the matter. All I did was point out to her that Dennis
had a settlement, that I did not know what it was, but that it was
something I thought she ought to be aware of that she could ASK him
about if she chose to, which she did. For Dennis to twist this and say
I threatened Cathleen is a ridiculous distortion of what happened
during a private conversation she and I had that Dennis was not privy
to and now makes false assumptions about, that Cathleen herself has
now corrected. As Cathleen stated, she had problems with Dennis'
behavior on the list towards me, as did Steve Hassan.
Monica
Dennis L Erlich
I made one post (above) to the group, questioning Monica's statements.
It was made Tuesday, 13 January 2009. Then Monica sent the moderator
something implying the group had legal liability by letting me
continue to post.
pigno
>All I did was mention to her ...
Whatever Monica wrote to the moderator, this was the response to me
the very next day, 14 January 2009:
mann
>It is my understanding that you entered into a confidential settlement in your claims against Scientology.� Are you subject to a gag order?�
>If so, please do not violate the terms of that gag order in your comments in the FOM discussion group.� I do not want the group to be in a position of potential liability.� Thanks.
So how could the moderator jump to the delusion that there could
suddenly be some "potential liability" to the group by letting me
continue to post?
Besides, only an idiot would think that even if I was under gag order,
there would be legal liablity for the board.
>that you had a deal with Scientology, that I
>did not know the details, but that she might want to ask you about it,
>which she did. It was not a threat or an implication.
Of course it was just a coincidence that Mann thought there was
"potential liablitiy" and had nothing to do with Monica's attempt to
get me silenced.
>Dr. Mann has a
>great deal of experience in legal matters and drew her own
>conclusions. I never told her there was any "legal liability" so stop
>the lies and distortions, Dennis.
If she didn't say it directly, she certainly implied it. Planting
fear and doubt to get me silenced as her critic.
Nonetheless, Mann's "great deal of experience in legal matters" didn't
give her a clue of how absurd was the idea that someone posting to
yahoo could possibly cause "the group" legal liablity.
That would make Mann is even stupider than I thought she was.
Dennis L Erlich
>You are conveniently leaving out your later hateful postings to the
>list.
Here is Monica's response to my first posting and my response:
-------------------------------------------
To: freedom of mind
Subject: Re: CNN Transcript
From: Rev Dennis L Erlich <info...@informer.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:08:31 -0800
(Monica is using the sad and admittedly questionable testimony of one
lady; someone who had been ordered off meds in the cult and had grand
mal seizures for years while undergoing the mind-control. Tory
literally had to knock her teeth out to get some kind of dispensation
from on high allowing her to take her prescribed medication and
control her seizures. Monica is claiming it was easy to get that
dispensation. On top of this she is calling on OTHERS to engage in
completely factual, non-opinionated data sharing. Oh the irony.)
she wrote:
>Well hello, Dennis.
Heh. Hi Monica. :)
>What a coincidence that you joined this list serv
>just in the nick of time to respond for Steve.
Steve is a longtime, close friend and colleague of mine. I have
enjoyed working with him on occasion and have never found reason to
fault him on any action or statement, whether on CNN or IRL. So I
don't like anyone casting aspersions on him without good cause. And I
don't see why anyone should nitpick his tiny sound bite with specious
criticism.
Besides I thought my input could be helpful to balance any of your
skewed statements; many of which seemed to give the false impression
that the medical needs, particularly of cult staff (along with many
others whose incomes are spent on the bogus therapy) are being
adequately met.
You seem to imply that proper medical means are being used to cure or
control medical conditions like epilepsy, and that staff and public
are not being steered away from proper medical care. Nor are they
relying on vitamins, exercise, bogus therapy, or the so called
purification to deal with their medical conditions.
>However, that is not
>accurate. It is certain ex-members and Scientology critics That are
>telling half-truths and misrepresenting things.
I don't disagree. I am simply suggesting you apply the same high
standards to your own postings.
>No it is not. Scientologists are not dissuaded from getting "any
>medical attention".
Another of your lame rhetorical twistings. Steve didn't say "... any
medical attention."
>You should know better, Dennis. People are, in
>fact, ordered to go to the doctor for medical conditions.
Emergency medical treatment is ordered when unavoidable.
>> >The second sentence doesn't necessarily
>> > follow from the first.
>>
>> True, it doesn't ~necessarily~ follow. But it does ~in reality~
>> follow.
>
>No, it doesn't. Not in the highly generalized way the statement was
>made. There are a few cases where "in reality" it followed for purely
>medical cases but those were the exceptions when it came to
>non-psychiatric medical problems, not the kind of rule that is being
>misportrayed here.
It is a general and pervasive antipathy toward medical or
psychological treatment. I suppose you will deny such an antipathy
even exists in the cult.
>> >Scientology does not dissuade members from
>> > seeking out medical attention or getting "any medication".
>>
>> While it is true that they must first stop the bleeding or set the
>> broken leg in a cast, it should be pointed out that according to the
>> cult's bogus mental technology, all illness stems directly and only
>> from connection to a suppressive person
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_Person)
>
>That is the belief. However, that doesn't mean that it follows that
>they ban medical treatment.
Again with the strawman. No one said it was BANNED.
>They do not. This is the confusion many
>people have. They jump to the conclusion that because Scientology has
>beliefs that most illness is psychosomatic, comes from SPs, etc. that
>this means they discourage people from getting medical treatment. That
>is not so. I don't have the Scientology belief system, but let's just
>assume for the sake of this discussion that it was completely true
>that illness is psychosomatic and comes from SPs. If the illness is
>there, they do not prevent a person from going to the doctor. The
>policy is to have people get immediate medical treatment to deal with
>the immediate condition and then they do whatever Scientology
>"handlings" they do. There have been some tragic exceptions to this,
>but again, I was challenged the unwarranted generalization that was
>being made, not the fact that there have been exceptions.
The exceptions are on the side of encouraging or even allowing medical
treatment rather than the bogus dogma used by the cult to address
illness.
>> and getting rid of that condition requires only discovering the
>> suppressive connection and then handling the suppressive person or
>> disconnecting.
>>
>> >Mainly what they disallow is psychiatric medication ...
>>
>> "Mainly" they disallow ALL drugs for people undergoing their bogus
>> mental therapy.
>
>Actually, that hasn't been true since 1989. You need an update,
>Dennis. If you read Tory's 2003 affidavit,
I wouldn't rely on one questionable instance to prove some rule if I
were you. And don't forget Tory had to knock out her front teeth to
get a dispensation. Who really knows why or by whom the dispensation
was granted. Nor do we know that a similar one would be granted for
staff or less monied public.
>she explains that she was
>allowed, first per LRH himself,
I'm sorry, but you seem to be giving the impression that He himself
actually answered the mail and dispatches sent to him. You don't
really mean to imply that do you?
>and then per two Senior C/S
>Internationals that eventually resulted in a written policy that
>states if a doctor says a person needs to take medication, they can
>take it and still get audited.
The policies were mis-applied depending on which organization was
doing it.
>This was put into effect well before
>Jett Travolta was born. People are watching Tory's video without
>actually taking the trouble to sit down and read her 2003 affidavit,
>which shows that unfortunately the story she tells on the is not the
>whole story and omits the important fact that she actually took her
>epilepsy meds for 30 years while getting audited all the way up to OT
>VII and the problems she encountered were with individuals lower on
>the Scientology ladder. When she appealed them to people in higher
>positions in Scientology, including LRH and two senior C/S
>Internationals, they approved her being on these meds while getting
>audited. Those are the undeniable facts, not what is convenient to
>tell to suit an agenda.
Perhaps the expediency of securing her payments made the general rule
bendable. We've all seen that done. Even in real life.
Maybe you can tell us how many others you know who went "up the
bridge" on drugs.
>> >It was true in the case of Tory
>> > Christman but it is not true in all cases.
>>
>> Monica should name the people she personally witnessed receiving the
>> cult's bogus therapy (other than emergency assists) while taking ANY
>> medication. Even aspirin.
>
>That is irrelevant because I left in 1976 and the policy I refer to
>was written in 1989, well after I left.
What policy is that? Please give us the issue type, date, and author
signature when you quote it. We know in the cult if it isn't written
in His hand, it's not true.
>Nevertheless, in Tory's own
>words in her 2003 affidavit, she stated that LRH gave her the go-ahead
>to take her meds and be audited all the way up. Are you saying that
>she was lying?
From 1978 on, he was non compus mentus. So whoever it was who
answered her request (in his name) to stay on her meds was probably
trying to get her $ into the gross income stat for that week.
>> I was there when Tory was taken off the drugs. I witnessed her
>> seizures.
>
>No one is denying she had the seizures. The point is that the person
>who told her she had to get off all meds was over-ridden by LRH
>himself, according to Tory's affidavit.
Monica, you know that he had others answering his mail. Practicing
his sig. Why do you pretend otherwise?
>> >Jett Travolta took Depakote for years,
>>
>>She doesn't personally know this to be true. Therefore she shouldn't
>> be stating it as fact. She only knows that this is what Travolta's
>> lawyer claimed.
>>
>> And she should apply her critical standards to her own statements.
>
>I see -- so it is okay to assume all kinds of other second-hand
>statements about Jett Travolta which are much less substantiated but
>not okay to believe a statement from her lawyers?
I didn't say or assume anything about Jett. You must be confusing me
for someone else. Otherwise it's your lame strawman trying to
distract again.
No, Monica. The assumptions are yours:
1) that Hubbard actually answered his mail.
2) that the Travoltas didn't stray from the dogma in hopes of handling
their son's "death-like" epileptic seizures.
>I'm seeing a double
>standard here. It it is anti-Scientology, it is uncritically accepted,
>but if it is anything other than that, then and only then should
>people think "critically" about it. The Travolta lawyer is one heck of
>a better source than the conclusions that are being uncritically
>jumped to about Jett's alleged "autism" based on paparazzi videos and
>statements of people with no credentials to diagnose.
I did not bring up Jett, autism, videos or diagnosis. Why are you
putting upon me your argument with someone who did? Or is it just
another of your red herring ploys to drag the subject away?
We are only discussing how the cult dissuades of people from seeking
medical help. You don't deny, do you, that staff are treated as
expendable and suffer from all manner of serious medical conditions as
a direct result of the lack of importance placed upon medical
treatment of any kind?
They prefer to use cult "technology" to cure (or not) the condition.
>>Discussion boards and newsgroups are where concerned people DIGEST
>the
>> news.
>
>"Digest"? That's a nice re-wording but what happens all too often is
>unfounded speculation and mean-spirited gossip, jumping on this
>tragedy as vultures to further a cause.
That's what we are doing here. Digesting the news.
>>The speculation is not unfounded, is based upon years of
>> personal experience and logical deduction.
>
>"Personal experience" is highly variable, which is why I was
>challenging the unwarranted sweeping generalizations that were made on
>the CNN show. For every anecdote told that people were "dissuaded"
>from taking meds, there are anecdotes where people were ordered to go
>to the doctor by a Scientology C/S and not allowed to get further
>services until they saw the doctor. You know this, Dennis, as well as
>I do. I saw this sort of order in PC folders literally hundreds of
>times.
Emergency medical.
>> > They do not bar regular medical care at all.
>>
>> Like I said, they stop the bleeding or set the leg. Then the person
>> is put on to the bogus mental therapy.
>
>Taking anti-seizure medication falls into that category, according to
>LRH himself and his personal response to Tory to take her meds, two
>Senior C/Ses personal responses to Tory to take her meds, and the
>written policy in 1989 and cramming of the Flag Land Base that
>occurred on this policy. All this is in Tory's affidavit. I suggest
>you read it.
You should quote the policy. Or quit making the claim. Elrong was
long dead in 1989.
>So is taking anti-seizure meds according to LRH, two senior C/Ses and
>the written policy that was written in response to Tory's situation in
>1989, well before Jett was born.
Quote the alleged policy. I gotta see this.
>Again, Dennis, you are out of date. In fact, Tory got audited all the
>way to OT VII WHILE ON ANTI-SEIZURE MEDICATIONS with full LRH approval
>and the approval of two senior C/Ses. The people lower on the totem
>pole who told her she couldn't were corrected. That is what her
>affidavit states. Read it.
Perhaps it had something to do with the money she was paying. Without
being able to read Elrong's answer or the policy to which you refer, I
would have to rely on the mountain of cult material I have studied
(which i will not quote here) that says the contrary.
>> > While it is true that some Scientologists because of their beliefs
>> > that auditing could cure them of a medical ailment delayed getting
>> > treatment for conditions such as cancer,
>>
>> Many people have avoided medical treatment and paid the price,
>> sometimes with their very lives.
>
>I have not denied that. What I am challenging are the sweeping
>generalizations and the assertion that people cannot be audited while
>on anti-seizure medication. They can be and have been, as Tory was for
>30 years.
And you can name others? Go ahead. How many such cases are you
claiming; people who went up the bridge on drugs?
>> >Scientology does not have any
>> > policy against getting treatment for cancer or other serious
>medical
>> > conditions.
>>
>> Emergency treatment is allowed, then assists, then they have to find
>> the suppressive person causing the illness.
>
>Anti-seizure meds are considered emergency treatment, even when taken
>for an extended period of time. That is why Tory was allowed to take
>them for 30 years while getting audited all the way to OT VII. She had
>the horrible seizures when people lower in the organization told her
>she had to stop, but LRH himself told her otherwise and she was
>allowed to be audited while on meds. That is the inconvenient truth.
You can therefore give us an estimate how many other instances of
people going up the bridge on prescription drugs you witnessed?
I'd be curious if things have changed so much after the guru died.
Perhaps they did start recognizing the need for rich people undergoing
expensive quack therapy to continue on their heart meds in order to
keep them alive as customers.
But the staff, being closer to source, were more directly influenced
by the dogma against meds, and suffer to this day for lack of proper
medical care. (among other things)
>>But the policies and
>> procedures are explicit enough to dissuade or deprive people from
>> seeking proper medical care. This often results in similar
>>tragedies.
>
>No they are not.
>>
>> Monica should tell you about which medical insurance the
>>organization
>> provides for its staff all over the world. The answer is NONE!
>
>That is a straw man, Dennis.
No, it is precisely on point. It clearly demonstrates the cult's
antipathy to medical treatment.
>The issue here is about people who are
>public, paying for auditing since Jett Travolta was not a staff
>member, nor were his parents. Whether Scientology pays for medical
>benefits for their staff is completely irrelevant
Most people would not agree. Their labor costs are practically zero.
Their income from quackery is not taxed. Their real estate empire
continues to grow. And yet they don't bother to care for the medical
needs of their staff.
You don't think it's because they think proper medical care is not
important? Get real.
>and by the way, many
>medical offices and businesses in the real world also do not provide
>benefits to their employees, which is one reason why we are having
>such a major health care crisis.
There isn't one of the cult's numerous organizations, all over the
world, where health insurance is provided to staff.
>> There is a reason that is true.
It's a pervasive aversion to medical treatment.
>It is true Scientology does not give insurance benefits, but this is
>completely irrelevant to the issue at hand which involves a wealthy
>celebrity family who had plenty of resources and benefits.
It is relevant in that it provides a glimpse of the cult's general
avoidance of medical treatment.
>> Steve's only other statement on the CNN transcript:
>>
>> "HASSAN: That's exactly correct. My understanding is that there are
>> policy letters direct from Hubbard that dissuade members, to make
>them
>> believe that any medical problem is a result of an aberration or an
>> interaction with someone who is a suppressive person or a critic and
>> that needs to be handled through their auditing process or their
>sect
>> checks and such.
>>
>> And so I know numerous people who have unfortunately had medical
>> conditions who did the Scientology indoctrination programming and
>> didn't get medical treatment and died as a result of it."
>
>That is a very different issue from being ordered off meds, which is
>what is being claimed here by Tory, the person Steve refers to.
Tory didn't die. Therefore she was not the person to whom Steve was
referring in the above paragraph.
You are basing your argument on lame rhetorical tricks and one
questionable instance where the poor lady had to knock her teeth out
to get an ok.
It's weak, Monica. Very weak.
Dennis
-------------------------------
I'm not seeing the hatefulness.
Eldon
Er, Monica, I wasn't talking about what Steve said to you. I was
talking about what Steve said to CNN about Scientology's stance
against (or prohibition of) medical care. They certainly discourage
some types; I've seen that myself. I do think he was overly general
about it, and maybe he got that from D.E. But you skipped right over
what I actually said, and I thought the reference to his
"understanding" was pretty clear. That is an exact quote from the
interview, in quotation marks.
Anyway, both you and Dennis are wasting usenet space and equally
making yourselves look idiotic. Just so my viewpoint on that is
clear.
henri
<info...@informer.org> wrote:
>Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> I was there when Tory was taken off the drugs. I witnessed her
>>> seizures.
>>No one is denying she had the seizures. The point is that the person
>>who told her she had to get off all meds was over-ridden by LRH
>>himself, according to Tory's affidavit.
>Monica, you know that he had others answering his mail. Practicing
>his sig. Why do you pretend otherwise?
Because as she has repeatedly demonstrated, she'll lie her ass off the
moment it's convenient.
Dennis L Erlich
>Here's the third posting that made it to that message board:
>
>-------------------------------------------------
To: freedom of mind
Subject: Re: Scientology (was CNN Transcript)
From: Rev Dennis L Erlich <info...@informer.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:49:37 -0800
"mpignotti2001" <Freedom_Dignity@...> wrote:
>Your questions are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
If you say so.
>I do not take orders from you, Dennis.
I have never in my life given you an order, Monica. You have me
confused with someone else again.
>When are you going to get that.
OIC. You think I've been giving you orders for a while? Perhaps you
should wrap the tinfoil a bit tighter around your head. Just a
suggestion. Not an order.
>You and Steve
>were obedient conforming little cultists and I can see that you both
>still behave in highly authoritarian ways.
Wow. I'm giving you AUTHORITARIAN orders? Are others able to hear
them too?
>I don't and never did.
>I didn't get with Scientology's program, nor am I going to get with
>your ridiculous program.
I've got a program? When's it come on? I want to catch it.
>> >It's difficult to have a reasonable discussion with
>> >you ...
>>
>> I can see that she would rather tear down other people than answer
>the
>> points raised.
>
>I addressed the RELEVANT points. My experience in the 70s is not
>relevant to decisions made in the late 80s.
You claim there was a change in policy after Elrong croaked. Fine. I
just said it behooves you to produce evidence of that (a policy,
bulletin, note, whatever) or quit bringing it up based on simply based
on one tragic story ... the true circumstances of her sole
dispensation we will probably never know. So you shouldn't just
assume or come to any unwarranted conclusions about the broader scene.
Tory is just one story. I'm certainly not
familiar enough with her ordeal to defend what she says in some
affidavit.
>> >though, because you argue from authority and rank of the
>> >ex-member and the higher ranking ex-member has THE TRUTH whereas
>> >whatever I say means nothing to you. Thanks for letting me know
>where
>> >you stand. I'll keep that in mind from now on that in your book,
>> >whoever had the highest rank in a cult is the expert, not to be
>> >challenged.
>>
>> OMG! Talk about putting words in someone's mouth.
>
>That is the basis of Steve's argument.
No. He merely pointed out that he thought I was credible.
>Read what he wrote. Because he
>sees you as having such a high position in Scientology (which you and
>I both know is pure bull, BTW)
You don't know what you are talking about. You were long gone.
>he is saying that your word is the
>final word and mine means nothing. Fine with me.
Wow, pull the log out of your own eye, Monica. You just put a load of
strange words into Steve's mouth. Find a mirror. Look in it.
>> steve:
>> >>Based on what Tory has told me personally,
>> >> it ws no easy thing to be able for her to take medication. She
>> >> suffered for a long time.
>> >
>> >I didn't say it was easy,
>>
>> No she said, "... people like Tory had no problem resisting and
>> appealing it ..."
>
>I'll say it again. She had no problem resisting and appealing it. That
>doesn't mean it is easy. I have no problem resisting authority either
>but it isn't always easy. You just don't get it.
Nope. I believe she wrote that she had to endure years of grand mal
seizures, finally knocking out her front teeth out to finally get a
dispensation from whomever. Did I get that wrong too?
>> >Sure, whatever. Maybe you'd like to sign up to attend his services
>as
>> >well, since he's a rev. What church was that again, Dennis?
>>
>> It's spectacular to witness the rhetorical depths to which Monica is
>> willing to sink in order to discredit someone challenging her skewed
>> notions.
>
>What's wrong, Dennis, don't you like getting a taste of your own
>medicine?
I simply criticized your rhetoric, Monica. Not your religion,
professional status, your finances, your breath or your hairstyle.
But it seems like I set off some vicious animal reaction in you, by
simply disagreeing with your style of argumentation.
>Why won't you answer my question? Actually my question is
>more relevant because you portray yourself as a "Reverend" so people
>have the right to know how you got that credential.
I don't portray myself as anything, Monica. I've been a registered
minister in the state of California since 1969. In 1982 I walked away
from the cult and began enlightening people on the subject. This
became my new ministry. In the mid 90s inFormer Ministry incorporated
in California as a non profit religious/educational corporation.
In 1997 we registered with the IRS and received 501c3 non profit
status.
The other ordination I got was a humorous one from the founder of the
mock-cult of SubGenius. That's for-profit humor publishing group. I
proudly display the "Dobbshead" on my site.
I hope this symbol indicates to people, not that I think my ministry
is a joke (as Monica, so thoughtfully tried to imply.) But rather
that I believe laughter can be very therapeutic to recovering
cultists.
One quote on my website is from another of my humorous inspirations,
Lord Buckley. He said "laughter is truly religious."
>Where did you get your Reverend credential, Dennis? It's a simple
>question that you apparently do not want to answer. It is one thing to
>have a religious calling, but quite another to be using the title
>Reverend.
Ok. I'll check with you next time, Monica.
>What we're seeing is how low a true believer such as yourself will go.
I only said I think your need to use lame rhetorical twists; to impugn
my experience and besmirch my ministry while maintaining an inability
to see the your own contradictions must suck.
Don't take it so poisonally, Monica.
Dennis
---------------------
Hateful? I'm not seeing it.
Monica Pignotti
> Dennis L Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
>
> >Here's the third posting that made it to that message board:
>
> >-------------------------------------------------
>
> To: freedom of mind
> Subject: Re: Scientology (was CNN Transcript)
Of course you don't see it, Dennis. You've been on usenet too long and
apparently don't know what civilized, respectful discourse is all
about. Hint: it wouldn't include things like accusing someone who
challenges you of wearing a tinfoil hat, just to give one of many
specific examples. Cathleen Mann saw it as she stated, Steve Hassan
saw it and apologized to me for your behavior on the list serv and
admitted he had made a mistake having you come on, but apparently you
have no insight into why your postings rubbed us the wrong way. I can
give back as good (or as bad) as I get, though, as my responses
clearly indicated.
Monica
Dennis L Erlich
I'm posting this stuff as a reality check, from those whose opinions I
trust. Not to ask for guidance from someone who can't bother to
articulate an argument, but can attempt to shut her critic down by
spreading malicious rumors and insulting his religious practices.
All the while calling for others to engage civily, not jump to
unwarranted conclusions and not lie about her.
>Of course you don't see it, Dennis. You've been on usenet too long and
>apparently don't know what civilized, respectful discourse is all
>about.
Usenet bad. Monica is here to teach respctful discourse. Nevermind
her putting her stink on me.
>Hint: it wouldn't include things like accusing someone who
>challenges you of wearing a tinfoil hat, just to give one of many
>specific examples.
I thot that was humorous, not hateful. I think denigrating my
religion and accusing me of all the things she has ... now THAT is
hateful.
>Cathleen Mann saw it as she stated,
She is a twit and a terrible moderator.
>Steve Hassan
>saw it and apologized to me for your behavior on the list serv and
>admitted he had made a mistake having you come on,
Poor Steve. He told me he invited me to join the group because he
thought my experience might assist in illuminating the subject being
discussed. He certainly knows that I am blunt in my criticisms of
idiots foisting bullshit like Monica was.
I guess he misrepresented to me his reasons for the invitation.
>but apparently you
>have no insight into why your postings rubbed us the wrong way.
I certainly hope I ... as she puts it "rubbed us the wrong way." I
guess such rubbing is consider hateful on that board.
> I can
>give back as good (or as bad) as I get, though, as my responses
>clearly indicated.
Delusion.
Eldon
Yeah, poor Steve. He should never have gotten involved with Monica and
Cathleen in the first place, at least to run a discussion board.
They're like a couple of snitty grade school girls playing nanny-nanny-
boo-boo on the playground. I'm glad I left that board before the train
wreck. Poor Steve. He's a nice guy if gullible.
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Of course you don't see it, Dennis. You've been on usenet too long and
>apparently don't know what civilized, respectful discourse is all
>about. Hint: it wouldn't include things like accusing someone who
>challenges you of wearing a tinfoil hat, just to give one of many
>specific examples.
It doesn't include accusing someone's ministry of being a fraud
either, nutjob. If the tinfoil hat fits, wear it.
John Dorsay
> Of course you don't see it, Dennis. You've been on usenet too long and
> apparently don't know what civilized, respectful discourse is all
> about. Hint: it wouldn't include things like accusing someone who
> challenges you of wearing a tinfoil hat, just to give one of many
> specific examples. Cathleen Mann saw it as she stated, Steve Hassan
> saw it and apologized to me for your behavior on the list serv and
> admitted he had made a mistake having you come on, but apparently you
> have no insight into why your postings rubbed us the wrong way. I can
> give back as good (or as bad) as I get, though, as my responses
> clearly indicated.
Who cares? There is NO CONNECTION whatsoever between one's tone and
the validity of one's arguments and observations.
If you want to prove Dennis said or wrote something that was
incorrect, show us what he said and show us why it is incorrect.
If you don't want to prove Dennis was incorrect, why are you
belaboring this thread?
Ted Mayett
wrote:
You are interesting these days. Legally Dennis is doing nothing
fraudulent. He is not breaking any laws, not even breaking a single
law. Per the letter of the law, in any US court he is doing nothing
wrong, not a thing. He could never be convicted of fraud, because
according to the law, he is not committing any fraud.
If someone like me decided to take Dennis to court because I say he is
a fraud. I would be laughed out of court, drummed out of court,
shooed out of court. And maybe not even make it into a courtroom
because my case has no merit or whatever they call that.
In a legal sense you would have to be quite brain-dead to call Dennis
a fraud. Is this established now???
There is however an honesty and integrity practiced by people of good
will and of good intent. A code of conduct that you live by
voluntarily. We have all heard of 'shady business practices', and
probably been victim to them at some time or another. And they are
called shady because they are not technically illegal.
Scientology uses this guy who calls himself The Rev. Alfreddie
Johnson. I've never met him, have you ever met the guy Rob? And
maybe, just like me, you automatically figure the guy is a fraud and a
schemer because he is tied in with scn. And we know that with
scientology the entire reverend and minister thing is a fraud. Not a
fraud per the letter of the law of course. But they dwell just within
the letter of the law, just as legal as they have to be, to not be
liable for illegalities.
As adults we know that there are people with shady business practices.
And then there are truly honest and open people also. And none of us
with any years behind us are naive enough to blindly accept that
someone calling themselves a Reverend is actually anything resembling
a Reverend. There are pretenders out there, pretending to be 'people
of the cloth' for whatever reasons. This is a fact of life, there are
people who use a cloak of religion in a non-honest fashion.
What you expect from these pretenders are half-truths, but not
outright lies. I have the InFormer Ministry web page open in another
window right now, and I just checked again to be sure...
Dennis was a Minister, per his web page, from 1968-1982. Which seems
to suggest he stopped being a Minister in 1982. And in his resume I
find no other mention to his being a Minister. Yet he has a Ministry
and calls himself a Reverend. His Resume does not say 'scientology
minister', it simply says 'minister'. This is not a lie, but it is a
half truth.
Why doesn't he openly and honestly state that he was a scientology
minister from 1968-1982? Well lets speculate on this a moment shall
we. Well it would be rather dumb to let potential clients know you
were associated with scientology. After all, the cult does have quite
a negative reputation, and a quite strong reputation for lying. At
least to those of us here we are aware of the many many lies that the
organization practices. Another thing I come up with is that Dennis
is not *required* to list his past with scientology. The Law does not
require this, he is doing illegal to not honestly let people know what
they are dealing with if they deal with this man, this ministry.
It is the easiest thing in the world to call yourself a Reverend, a
Minister, whatever. Anybody can do it, and many people in this
country do this, calls themselves a Reverend.
Guessing at his age today I would estimate that Dennis was about
19 years old when he was 'ordained as a scientology minister'. And
because of this, it means nothing, not the slightest thing. He was
still a child then. We were all children until about the age of 25,
especially men! I'm not sitting here faulting some adult about
something they did as a child.
1982 though puts him at about 34 years old, that is not a child
anymore, not at all. And today I figure he is over 50 years old, or
thereabouts. That InFormer Ministry web page was put up by an adult
with no excuses whatsoever about duress or anything like this. An
adult put up that web page. It could be a totally honest web page,
but it is not totally honest. But again there is nothing there that
is illegal per the letter of the law.
We adults know that something like scn calling itself a religion is
not really a religion except by letter of the law. Scn is what it is,
and it doesn't seem to be changing. It is bad news, destructive, and
behaves only as legally as the law requires. But if we want to put on
our best clothes and act really intelligent and progressive then we
say, "scn is a religion." Because it is a religion, per the letter of
the law. And that is that, like it or not.
So too with the Reverends we meet in life. Legally they are
Reverends, per the letter of the law. And maybe you get weary and
feel tainted, so many pretenders hiding behind a cloak of religion.
All of them legal per the letter of the law. You can scream out loud,
and it does no good. There is nothing to be done about this.
As Dennis so loudly and vehemently denounces the Religion of
scientology as Bogus, as a Fraud, we might think he would also
denounce the Ministership it bestowed upon him as bogus, as a fraud.
But he does not do this, he does not denounce this title. In fact he
uses it for credibility, and not even honestly. But rather just
claims that he was a minister for x number of years on his Ministry
website.
Dennis is not required per the letter of the law to be openly honest,
he is just not allowed to be openly dishonest. Half-truths are
legally acceptable.
Is the Rev. Dennis Erlich actually a Minister. Yes he is, and he has
the paperwork to prove it. Is he being fraudulent when he calls
himself a Reverend? No he is not being fraudulent because he has the
paperwork that proves he is a Reverend. He is covered legally and
acting within the letter of the law. The man is not doing anything
wrong as far as legalities are concerned.
In the Court of Reason, the Court of Honesty, Integrity and Fair Play,
in these courtrooms, the man is sorely lacking.
And instead of telling me to go fuck myself Rob, maybe try and instill
a sense of non-required honesty into this gentleman. He is reading
this, my words might change him for the better. Maybe make him into
the kind of person we might call a Reverend even without his
possessing some stamped government document. You on the other hand
are condoning half-truths, maybe to show off your knowledge of Law.
I certainly don't wish any ill upon Dennis. He is what he is. That's
what we all are, what we are. And if he thinks that having the title
of reverend actually makes him a reverend, well that is his business.
He has to use half-truths to be a reverend, again that is his
business. It is all legal, all allowed in this society.
What possesses a person that makes them call themselves a Reverend?
Why do they do this? You sort of know that the more reverend a person
actually is, the less likely they are to call themselves a Reverend.
But the title can be important in that there are definite financial
and legal benefits to having the title.
No way you can advertise to heal the mentally afflicted without being
Licensed... unless you are a religion. What a pity. You want to do
good in the world, and they won't let you unless you call yourself a
religion. What a pity.
But schooling is expensive and intense. And you might even fail! And
not get licensed. Easier to become a Reverend and sell your
snake-oil. Easier and totally legal. And you don't even have to be
fully honest with people as a Reverend, it is not required by law
after all.
I'd like to meet that Rev. Alfreddie Johnson some day, talk to the
guy. Ask him by what right does he peddle scientology and still have
the gall to call himself a Reverend. And I can guess what he might
say. Just smile at me and say, "legal brother, it is totally legal."
--
Ted Mayett
Critical information regarding Scientology
http://www.solitarytrees.net
henri
<ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
*plonk* insane asshole.
Dennis L Erlich
Heh, Aytch. He begs us for what Nicholson called "dignification."
Monica Pignotti
For those who were not privy to the very extensive FOM list serv
discussion on this topic, I already responded extensively to him,
showing how he was incorrect in the FOM discussion. I have neither the
time nor the interest in rehashing the whole thing again. I've already
been through that whole rigmarole with him and all he did was respond
by attacking me and now he wants to bring the whole ugly, unproductive
discussion here on ARS. He was the one who brought it up, not I. I
refuted him and said all I had to say on the FOM list serv and I will
not go over that again. I have much better things to do with my life
than that. I consider the matter finished so if Dennis wants to
blather on and on about it he'll have to do it all by himself. The
upshot of the whole highly unpleasant discussion was that the list got
deleted and later, Steve Hassan personally apologized to me for
Dennis' behavior on the list. Hassan and are both in agreement about
putting this whole ugly matter behind us, letting go of it and moving
on. Dennis wants to bring it onto ARS and resurrect the whole ugly
matter -- fine, he has a right to freedom of speech but count me out.
AS I said, I have much better things to do with my life than to refute
a person who apparently has done nothing with his life other than
mooch off the CofS. Some of us actually have to work for a living.
Someone of that caliber attacking me is a compliment. Enough said.
Monica
Monica
Monica Pignotti
Well said, Ted. I would have never raised this entire mess, had Dennis
not jumped in and attacked and lied about me. At that point I had no
choice but to post Cathleen Mann's rebuttal and exposure of his
misportrayal of the situation.
Dennis L Erlich
Subject: Re: Questions Dennis Erlich will not answerDate: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:04:20 -0800
"mpignotti2001" <Freedom_Dignity@...> wrote:
>> >By the way, there are many questions Dennis Erlich will not answer
>> >that he has been repeatedly asked, such as those concerning his
>> >settlement with the CofS.
>>
>> The settlement is public. I agreed to abide by a Permanent
>Injunction
>> and hostilities ceased.
>
>Is the document accessible to the public?
Sure thing. I assume she doesn't know how to google.
>> >What we do know is that he suddenly went
>> >from being a destitute ex-cult member to purchasing a luxury home
>in
>> >Palm Springs right after his settlement with the CofS.
>>
>> After the suit I purchased a modest home in Palm Springs where my
>> elderly mom lived, and we moved in together.
>
>How nice for you, that you were able to afford a home in Palm Springs
>with CofS money. I doubt there are any available in that area for less
>than $1 million.
Monica clearly knows nothing about the real estate market here. But
don't think that's going to stop her from jumping to unwarranted
conclusions, just as she accuses others of doing.
For those who prefer facts:
http://www.zillow.com/homes/map/555-S-roxbury-dr-palm-springs-ca_rb/
BTW, the real estate market has about doubled since my mom and I
bought the house.
And what does this have to do with the points I've refuted of hers?
God only knows.
>Much more than most ex-Scientologists get when they
>leave. As you probably know, there are people routing out of the SO
>now who were given about $500 so start their new lives with.
I know nothing of the sort.
People have reported having to escape,
with only the clothes on their backs, and were hunted like animals.
Others were "beached" in foreign countries without their passports,
even.
>> >This has led
>> >some people to speculate that he lives off of CofS money but since
>he
>> >won't tell us, we'll never know.
>>
>> Again speaking from all three sides of her mouth, she is willing to
>> add discrediting speculation about how I could possibly afford to go
>> from a small rented home in Glendale to a larger home in Palm
>Springs.
>> But she wants people here not to speculate about the news. I guess
>> it's only okay for her speculate about gossip and rumors against
>> someone who challenges her skewed views.
>
>I wasn't making the statement as if it were a fact. I was asking and
>being honest about the fact it was speculation. That is very, very,
>different from the statements made about Jett Travolta, made as if
>they were certain, foregone conclusions that he is dead because of the
>CofS.
Why is she again confusing me with someone else, I wonder?? I made no
statements about Jett. Nor did I blame anybody for his unfortunate
death. Why does she keep asserting this lie? Your guess is as good
as mine: she wants to have an argument with the person who made those
statements, but her or she is not here to argue with.
And to her, I make a better opponent than that other, missing, person.
>> >What I do know is that he was silent
>> >for years after that settlment,
>>
>> Silent to her, perhaps. But I have been on the internet and
>> maintained a web presence since I got on the net back in 1994.
>
>What I mean by silent is that you said nothing against Scientology for
>years. Nothing wrong with that, but be honest. Was it your choice to
>do and say nothing against Scientology or were you under a gag order
>that got lifted? Note that I'm ASKING not assuming.
I have always said what I have to say on any subject. Especially
cults. There was never a gag order, so none could get lifted.
I suppose Monica is not jumping to unwarranted conclusions by assuming
she knows everything I've said in public and private since 1999. Yah
right.
>> But of course Monica isn't going to let facts dissuade her from
>> putting her stink on me.
>
>You came on here behaving like a Sea Org member.
I came here to add perspective to what appeared to be a skewed
characterization that was being presented by Monica.
>Deny it all you want,
>I see what is happening with you. When I call you out on it, you then
>try to put it back on me and say it is my paranoia and "tin foil hat"
She must be delusional if she thinks I have been giving her orders.
>-- yet another cult-like tactic of trying to "introvert" critics.
She is the expert in cult-like tactics. Discredit the source of any
disagreement. What do they call that again? "Kill The Agent?" Blame
the messenger. What was that cult term again?
>Sorry to disappoint you, Dennis, but that no longer works with me. I
>will not be "handled" by you. Your anti-cult personality is very
>similar to your cult personality. Steve should really be grateful to
>you, not only for coming on here and trying to "handle" me, but also
>for providing anecdotal evidence for the cult personality.
And she is warning people not to make any unwarranted,
non-professional diagnoses.
>> >and only recently has resumed his
>> >activities against Scientology.
>>
>> That's a lie. I have engaged in no activities against scientology.
>
>You have posted to ARS and here making critical statements about
>Scientology. That is an activity against Scientology and you know good
>and well by Scientology's own "ethics" it is a "suppressive act".
>That is what I meant by "activities".
I post to newsgroups and to this group as a part of my ministry to
assist people. I have no activities or statements to make against
anyone or anything.
Monica is trying to drag me into ~her~ conflicts with others, once
again.
>> >People who have asked him questions
>> >about his settlement have gotten nothing but evasive answers and
>yet
>> >he claims he has no gag order.
>>
>> I'm under no gag order.
>
>I can see that when it comes to your present situation. However, my
>question to you is, Dennis, were you ever under a gag order? Many
>people have asked you and all they have gotten is evasive responses
>that haven't directly answered the question, so I'll clarify.
Quite the contrary. I've answered these questions over and over.
>I'm not
>asking if you are now under a gag order. I am asking, were you ever
>under a gag order? If your settlement doesn't allow you to talk about
>that, why not just say so.
There has never been a gag order.
>>If she wants to assert something like this or
>> that there was some policy change that permits a person to ascend in
>> the cult while taking drugs, she should produce the documents that
>> prove it.
>
>Interesting double standard. You take 30-year retrospective reports
>from ex-cult members as the unvarnished truth if it is something
>against Scientology,
I didn't take anything as truth. But I do have my own vast personal
experience to draw upon for information as well as the stories from
hundreds of other exes I to whom I have ministered over the years.
>but one more recent, stated more formally in an
>affidavit is not good enough for you when it goes against your agenda.
>In case you haven't noticed, I am not an active Scientologist and have
>no access to such documents. We have to go by the best evidence
>available, and what we have is Tory's affidavit and also the fact that
>Jett Travolta, a child from a family of active, committed
>Scientologists was on Depakote for years.
These assumptions of hers are full of unwarranted conclusions she
parades around as fact.
>You say that these are
>"exceptions" but there is no evidence for that either.
>>
>> Otherwise she should not engage in malicious speculation herself,
>> which she claims so vehemently to abhor.
>
>You are the malicious one here. You are the one who came on here
>personally attacking me. I have never been the type to roll over, as
>people who were with me in the SO can tell you. You attack me and I
>will give it right back to you.
If disagreeing with her constitutes an attack in her mind, I suggest
she learn how to discuss issues without putting forth strawmen,
contradicting herself, or putting her stink on her "designated"
opponent's experiences, religious beliefs or finances.
>> >Dennis seems to still be in the tough SO persona of someone who has
>> >been sent here to "handle" me.
>>
>> I'm here to keep her from misinforming people.
>
>LOL. You're on a mission. Were you sent here by Steve Hassan? I notice
>you haven't responded to that question.
A Mission, she says? Still using cult-jargon I see.
>> >This is laughable because I see through
>> >his spin and call him on it and give it right back.
>>
>> Yes, her "I'm rubber - you're glue" rhetoric is working very well.
>> Very sophisticated.
>
>I never knew you as Cramming Officer because I was long gone when you
>arrived at the Ft. Harrison, but being very familiar with the Cramming
>Officer role, you act it out very well. There is little difference
>between the behavior and tactics you and Steve are using here and
>those used in cults and this isn't the first time I have experienced
>this from anti-cult activists.
Other people have disagreed with her too? NO! I'm amazed.
>Although of course anti-cult activists
>are not physically abusive,
But clearly those darn people are of the type who ~would~ be
physically abusive ... if they just had the chance. :)
>there is little difference in the verbal tactics.
Wow. Words on a screen are like physical abuse to her?
>And no, I am not saying I am a victim because you do not have
>any power over me to make me one.
Sounds like an often repeated affirmation she uses. I am not a
victim. <whine, whine, whine> Even tho those darn anti-cult bullies
pick on the absurd things I say. I AM NOT A VICTIM.
>Some day I am going to put together
>a collection of statements made by anti-cultists that have attacked me
>for challenging their dogma.
First she wants to document the victimization. Then she will chant, I
am not a victim. Makes perfect Ron-sense.
>I won't use what you have written here
>because that is against this list serv policy, but there has been
>plenty said on public groups like ARS that will illustrate this point
>quite well. I have to say that the kind of verbal abuse and other
>behaviors I have received from anti-cult activists whenever I have
>challenged a sacred cow equals and even exceeds anything I experienced
>in Scientology.
Wow. That must be bad.
>Just look at what happened when I challenged Bob
>Minton and I have more to this story to tell that went on behind the
>scenes. I made a posting critical of Minton and within a few hours of
>the posting, my phone was ringing as I received a call from a certain
>prominent activist telling me I should be keeping my criticisms to
>myself and not posting them.
She is arguing with others who are not here reading this group, once
again . Very strange.
>Now we have the current situation, where
>I commented on something Steve Hassan had said and what happens?
>Dennis Erlich suddenly appears and attempts to twist my words and
>attacks me.
And I make the weaker argument defeat the stronger. Don't forget that
crime.
>And no, I am not a victim. I will not allow that, but if I have
>experienced this, I'll bet there are others who have as well.
Yes. She should stand up for all those others who have been
victimized by anti-cultists. Get everyone repeating the mantra: I am
NOT a victim.
>There
>seem to be more and more people coming forward and talking about the
>very cult-like tactics of anti-cult activists. It almost feels as if I
>am an ex-member of two cults. Steve, Dennis, and anyone else enmeshed
>in this. I don't think you realize how you are coming across to people
>not involved in anti-cult activism. Can you please take a step back
>and try to see how your behaviors are coming across? I have done a
>great deal of soul-searching on this topic as it used to always amaze
>me why people speaking out against cults were not listened to more by
>the general public and by professionals. I think I am beginning to
>understand why. This recent tragedy and the way people have been
>responding and jumping to unwarranted conclusions is a prime example.
>Please, I suggest that you back away from the rationalizations, take a
>step back from this situation and just think about it.
She speaking to the mirror here?
Dennis
----------------
"I was one of those" - Leonard Cohen
Bobb999
> To: freedom of mind <freedomofm...@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Questions Dennis Erlich will not answer
>
> read more »
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[CoS teaches]"all illness stems directly and only
from connection to a suppressive person
and getting rid of that condition requires only discovering the
suppressive connection and then handling the suppressive person or
disconnecting."
-Looking for SPs as causes of illness is reminiscent of the bad, old,
superstitious witch-hunting times of hundreds of years ago:
...Neighbor Farmer Jones' children and cattle have been getting
mysteriously ill in recent weeks.
Some evil witch must be placing hexes on them. We better find out
who's causing the damage, before it gets any worse!
What about that eccentric old crone, "Old Myrtle" over in yonder dell,
who lives alone with that black cat?
It just might be her, in league with her master the Devil! I'm going
to report this to the Priest-Inquisitor tomorrow. He'll get to the
bottom of this wickedness, God willing!
-SP hunting in Scientology is just a modern form of witch hunting, and
about as irrational, superstitious, & persecuting as the Inquisitors
were.
Burning at the stake has been updated to "disconnecting", "fair-
gaming" & "destroying" by means other than fire (although I don't
think OSA is necessarily above using arson as a tactic on occasion,
conceivably).
Ted Mayett
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Well said, Ted. I would have never raised this entire mess, had Dennis
>not jumped in and attacked and lied about me. At that point I had no
>choice but to post Cathleen Mann's rebuttal and exposure of his
>misportrayal of the situation.
I'm so glad I caught that post of yours. I think I have a finale to
this whole Rev. business, an exercise in logic. Which I sometimes
fall short in the logic scene. If you catch the post, and spot some
errors, I wouldn't mind correction.
Ted Mayett
<ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
>Guessing at his age today I would estimate that Dennis was about
>19 years old when he was 'ordained as a scientology minister'.
Actually I may be incorrect here. This is scary stuff now...
In 1969 I was about 19 years old, I'm about 60 years old right now. I
met Dennis and figured at the time that he was about 5 years younger
than myself, maybe more.
Been thinking on this heavy and I figure he was between 9 and 24 years
old when... But more than likely, averages or whatever you want to
call it. More than likely though he was 15 years old when they told
him he was an ordained minister. I figure he was about 14 or 15, and
maybe as old as 19 when they told him, "congratulations you are now a
minister."
15 years old sounds reasonable, we have stories of 15 year old sea org
members. If Dennis is 55 years old today, then he was 15 in 1968 or
1969. These numbers are just approximations. And even for
scientology in 1969 to take a 9 year old and call him a reverend is a
little out of line, somewhat unlikely. I'm guessing he was right
around 15 years when they made him a minister.
What does this mean if it is correct? Well the kid would certainly
believe it all, believe he was a minister because they told him that.
A child has no real sense of what is proper or probable or possible.
So to cut this part short. I think, that Dennis thinks, that he
*really* was a minister as a child. This is a weird thought. They
told this kid in 1968 that he was a minister. And today, almost 42
years later, he is still saying that he was a minister in 1968. This
is weird. This is also insurmountable, for me anyway.
Bad enough to believe you were actually a minister in scientology,
that is a stretch right there. But to not accept the fact that as a
child you could not possibly be a minister. That is really
stretching things out.
BTW I've paid my dues on this Rev. business. Donated $500 to that
Dennis Erlich Defense Fund. Was listed on some web page or something
that was titled, Friends of Dennis Erlich, or something like this.
From the word go, almost from my first post to this ng the guy had
been putting me down, twisting my words. I recall one follow up post
where someone actually said something like, "but that isn't what he
said Dennis." I would read that sig of his with "Rev. Dennis Erlich"
in it, and I've ~always~ wondered about that 'reverend' title, always.
For here was/is a guy that using both feet and all his weight jumps
down the throat of anybody that says anything good whatsoever about
scientology. Me included, don't say anything good or this filthy
mouthed "reverend" would leap all over you.
Where did that title of 'reverend' come from, it has always been
bugging me, a niggling thought that I have always wanted to reconcile.
And now finally, through being lucky enough to open a post here a few
days ago, I think I have the full answer. This won't put gas in my
car or lower the price of gas at the pump, but it is nice to know.
It is almost over, there are still some details I have not thought
through.
For today I'm reconciled that as much as Dennis was a minister in
scientology. That to that same degree he is a minister today. His
title of reverend in 1968 is just as valid as his title of reverend in
2009. They are one and the same from where I sit. That his sense of
duty and obligation to the title of reverend is exactly the same today
as it was in 1968.
Does anybody have any clues? I might in the days to come get down and
dirty in the archives and see if I can find anything. What we need is
something like, "I became the chief cramming officer in 19** when I
was ** years old." From that we could figure out how old he was when
he was Ordained as a Scientology Minister.
I think I might be correct in that he was about 15 years old when they
gave him that title. And if he was about 15, this would be quite
interesting.
There is an expression. It is brand new, I just made it:
"Paperwork doth not a Reverend make."
Dennis L Erlich
David Minger ><davidellem2008@...> wrote:
>Dennis (and anyone else who would like to reply):
Sure thing, David.
>In one post you mentioned working with ex-cult members who felt
>suicidal.
Yes. Suicidal ideation is part of the cult's phobia indoctrination.
It is used to prevent people from leaving. They are told that outside
the cult there is only a dwindling spiral of degradation and death.
Many ex cultists think of suicide as a way to end the pain of leaving,
being abandoned by family and friends, and making their way ALONE in a
world without explicit guidance and support from the group.
>Another person posted a situation where two artists
>committed suicide apparently because they felt hounded by their former
>group.
Not exactly uncommon.
>My question is this -- What are ex-members running into that brings
>them to a state of feeling suicidal?
People who are used to being lead by authority and told exactly what
to think and do, kicked out of their comfortable support group,
shunned by friends and family, will often fall into a depressed state.
If not treated, it can lead to suicidal ideation.
>I can hazard some guesses and I'm curious if these are in the
>ballpark:
>1. Fear of retaliation (but of what specifically short of physical
>harm -- lawsuit, harassment, reputation, improper handling or security
>of confidences and confessionals, etc.?)
Depending on the group, this can be a large or non-existent factor.
But most groups that qualify as cultish have some kind of phobia
indoctrination and seek to recover their "lost sheep" with fear or
intimidation after they leave the group.
>2. Internal confusion about leaving structured (even if false) meaning
>for the broader society seemingly devoid of meaning?
Yes. When all the answers to life, the universe and everything have
been provided for a person, it is hard to switch the locus of control
of one's thoughts back to oneself. The person is thrown back into the
confusions that led him into the cult in the first place, with the
additional burdens of the cult indoc to sort out and undo.
As far as society seeming devoid of meaning; it is true that for a
cultist coming from a closed, regimented social structure, he will
find the vastness of open society confusing. Connecting the person
with the institutions, other ex members and support available (and
there usually is at least some) will help stabilize the ex cultist and
get him (back) on his own path.
>3. Depression over estrangement from friends and loved ones / feeling
>shunned or denigrated by a group?
This really hurts and all in itself can lead to suicidal ideation.
Often children are ripped from parents and vice-versa. There is no
greater pain than this. Take it from a fool who knows.
The shunning and denigration is part of the cult's attempt to make the
outside world seem so hostile, the person folds up and comes back with
his tail between his legs.
>4. Uncertainty that one has maybe chosen the wrong side of the false
>dichotomy? (Person now has a lingering doubt that he/she turned away
>from truth to being doomed?)
I've heard this a lot, even from long term escapees. I believe part
of the cure for this is to quit thinking in cult concepts and
translate all your thoughts back into plain english.
>5. Fear of judgment from the broader society?
Yes. It's hard to put down "I was in a cult between (date & date)" on
a resume. But there are ways around it.
People in general do not understand or appreciate the cult experience
and its effect on individuals. You cannot expect them too. It is a
knowledge that is too foreign to the average person. And usually they
don't have the patience to understand what you went through. That's
why a professional therapist, one with cult experience or expertise,
is the best source of emotional support, if family and friends don't
geddit.
>Like I said, am just hazarding some guesses and there are probably
>other dynamics. It saddens my heart deeply that anyone would consider
>terminating his or her precious life over any of the things that come
>to my mind if those are some of the reasons.
Suicidal thoughts don't always lead to the act. But the act is always
proceeded by them. Best to get professional help if that's what's
going on in someone's head.
>Even for people leaving Scientology, wouldn't Hubbard's statement that
>I've often heard quoted still apply: something like never regret the
>past; life is in you today and you create your own tomorrow?
Like many of His trite sayings, it is easier to mouth than enact.
>I'd appreciate learning a little more about this from anyone who can
>share some general principles without violating anyone's
>confidentiality or boundaries of course.
No problem, David. These are interesting and vital points with which
ex cultist and those dealing with them should be intimately familiar.
Be well,
l.l.lipshitz
<ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote in
<pb6qg5hu9evsir4ua...@4ax.com>:
| On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:27:34 -0500, Ted Mayett
| <ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
|
|
| >Guessing at his age today I would estimate that Dennis was about
| >19 years old when he was 'ordained as a scientology minister'.
|
| Actually I may be incorrect here. This is scary stuff now...
you think it's scary to be wrong?? i think spiders
are scary.
| In 1969 I was about 19 years old, I'm about 60 years old right now. I
| met Dennis and figured at the time that he was about 5 years younger
| than myself, maybe more.
according to a st. petersburg times article,
dennis was 44 in 1991, which makes him 62 now.
| Been thinking on this heavy
you've been thinking on this way too heavy. it's
softened your brain.
|and I figure he was between 9 and 24 years
| old when... But more than likely, averages or whatever you want to
| call it. More than likely though he was 15 years old when they told
| him he was an ordained minister. I figure he was about 14 or 15, and
| maybe as old as 19 when they told him, "congratulations you are now a
| minister."
he was 22 (if the 1991 spt article was correct).
| 15 years old sounds reasonable, we have stories of 15 year old sea org
| members. If Dennis is 55 years old today, then he was 15 in 1968 or
| 1969. These numbers are just approximations. And even for
| scientology in 1969 to take a 9 year old and call him a reverend is a
| little out of line, somewhat unlikely. I'm guessing he was right
| around 15 years when they made him a minister.
|
| What does this mean if it is correct?
that pigs can fly.
|Well the kid would certainly
| believe it all, believe he was a minister because they told him that.
| A child has no real sense of what is proper or probable or possible.
|
| So to cut this part short. I think, that Dennis thinks, that he
| *really* was a minister as a child. This is a weird thought. They
| told this kid in 1968 that he was a minister. And today, almost 42
| years later, he is still saying that he was a minister in 1968. This
| is weird. This is also insurmountable, for me anyway.
they told me in 1968 that i was a clerk-typist. and
today, almost 42 yrs later, i am still saying that i
was a clerk-typist in 1968. funny how that works.
| Bad enough to believe you were actually a minister in scientology,
| that is a stretch right there. But to not accept the fact that as a
| child you could not possibly be a minister. That is really
| stretching things out.
unfounded speculation is a favorite pasttime on ars
and i'd have to say, you're an allstar.
| BTW I've paid my dues on this Rev. business. Donated $500 to that
| Dennis Erlich Defense Fund. Was listed on some web page or something
| that was titled, Friends of Dennis Erlich, or something like this.
|
| From the word go, almost from my first post to this ng the guy had
| been putting me down, twisting my words. I recall one follow up post
| where someone actually said something like, "but that isn't what he
| said Dennis." I would read that sig of his with "Rev. Dennis Erlich"
| in it, and I've ~always~ wondered about that 'reverend' title, always.
| For here was/is a guy that using both feet and all his weight jumps
| down the throat of anybody that says anything good whatsoever about
| scientology. Me included, don't say anything good or this filthy
| mouthed "reverend" would leap all over you.
|
| Where did that title of 'reverend' come from, it has always been
| bugging me, a niggling thought that I have always wanted to reconcile.
| And now finally, through being lucky enough to open a post here a few
| days ago, I think I have the full answer. This won't put gas in my
| car or lower the price of gas at the pump, but it is nice to know.
i always thought he was a reverend the same way that
'pope charles' and 'rev. modemac' were. he does have
j.r. 'bob' dobbs on all his web pages so i just
assumed his ministry was a parody. i must have seen
the same post that you did because now i find out his
ministry real and he's apparently self-ordained.
| It is almost over, there are still some details I have not thought
| through.
google 1st, think later.
| For today I'm reconciled that as much as Dennis was a minister in
| scientology. That to that same degree he is a minister today. His
| title of reverend in 1968 is just as valid as his title of reverend in
| 2009. They are one and the same from where I sit. That his sense of
| duty and obligation to the title of reverend is exactly the same today
| as it was in 1968.
|
| Does anybody have any clues?
good idea. borrow some.
|I might in the days to come get down and
| dirty in the archives and see if I can find anything. What we need is
| something like, "I became the chief cramming officer in 19** when I
| was ** years old." From that we could figure out how old he was when
| he was Ordained as a Scientology Minister.
you should have gotten down and dirty in the
archives before you embarked on this misguided
quest of yours. would have saved you alot of
time and some angry responses.
| I think I might be correct in that he was about 15 years old when they
| gave him that title. And if he was about 15, this would be quite
| interesting.
i think you might be incorrect.
| There is an expression. It is brand new, I just made it:
| "Paperwork doth not a Reverend make."
here's another: fevered imagining doth not an
adequate proof make.
--
-rev.elle, high priestess of the church of oedipal sacrifice
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
usenet disproves the infinite-monkey theorem
Dennis L Erlich
>unfounded speculation is a favorite pasttime on ars
> and i'd have to say, you're an allstar.
What else can he use to discredit me?
Facts don't support his desire to put stink on me. Like others here,
all he can do is make up lies and spread specious, empty allegations.
Dennis L Erlich
Subject: Re: What causes dire emotional stress in ex-cult members?
From: Rev Dennis L Erlich <info...@informer.org>
"swjbc.rainey" <swjbc.rainey@...> wrote:
>For me, though it never has gone to a suicidal degree, much of the
>distress I experience has been confusion.
You are lucky. Many ex cultists at least think about suicide after
leaving. Fewer, thankful, ever commit the act.
>I was in need of several
>kinds of aid and assistance, and some cool, down-to-earth, hopeful,
>helpful folks ran into me and helped me enormously. And everything
>was great. I learned about hope and love in big ways. I learned a
>lot.
This is precisely the kind of help and support recovering cultists
need.
>Somehow it started changing and it was hard to pin down when and
>where it did so. And somehow I felt trapped and had to get out.
There is usually a point where the "dots" will no longer connect
between the cult dogma and the actual practices. This cognitive
dissonance is what generates the impetus to get out.
>And I'm glad I did, yet I miss them.
Sure. And we think sympathetically about the kind of manipulation
they are still experiencing in the cult. It's sad.
>I have trouble remembering how to
>think sometimes, though it's getting much better.
Time with normal, non-cultish people helps. But it can be a long
process.
>I'm afraid of
>hearing from them or running into them because I feel guilty like a
>truant child for being away from them.
This is the kind of indoctrination that wears off in time. Probably
best to stay away from such people until you are more stable.
>I still follow advice and
>philosophies I learned there, and have no way to tell off the top of
>my head which are true and which aren't.
Get a library card. Start reading about other philosophies and
religions. Read about cults and mind control. Gain a broad
perspective on what they taught you. Usually part of the dogma is
black and white thinking. Either you follow us or you are doomed.
This is a false dilemma.
>When I don't run into them,
>I feel bad, too. I feel guilty about things that happened there and
>about leaving too, and angry at them and indebted to them, all at
>once.
Such ambivalence is common. Go back to the things that gave you
pleasure, relaxation, enlightenment and comfort BEFORE you entered the
cult environment. Those things will guide you back to a feeling of
owning your own thoughts.
>It's hard to keep remembering that they don't red my mind, even
>thought hey never said they did, just because we were so close and I
>was so childlike then, it felt as if they could, the way little kids
>think their elders can. I feel their disapproval in my head when
>they're not around.
Sure. And it can be a huge burden. This was part of the
indoctrination. It wears of if you continue the normal, everyday
existence society provides.
>It's almost gone now, for me, but my experience wasn't close to as
>intense as some people go through, either.
Please excuse me for saying so, but it seems from your statements
above that you may be underestimating the depth of your indoctrination
and the necessity for relief from it. Keep working on it and good
luck to you.
Hope I'm not outta line.
Be well,
Dennis
------------------
"There's a world outside
And i know 'cause i've heard talk
In my sweetest dream
I would go out for a walk
But i don't think i'm ready yet
I'm not feeling up to it now
Just not that steady yet
And i don't need you telling me how" - Eels (the band)
Ted Mayett
<ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:27:34 -0500, Ted Mayett
><ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Guessing at his age today I would estimate that Dennis was about
>>19 years old when he was 'ordained as a scientology minister'.
>
>Actually I may be incorrect here. This is scary stuff now...
>
oops, scratch that whole 15 year old thing. Found this:
"I was introduced to the cult in fall 1967. I was a newlywed
21 year old with a 3 month old child, Bethy. "
So he was about 23 years old when he was Ordained as a Minister in the
Church of Scientology. So he was really close to being an adult at
the time of being Ordained.
Dennis L Erlich
"dash" <dash4@...> wrote:
> "To truly recover from an undue influence situation, most people
>> require specialized cult counseling. Traditional psychotherapy
>>almost never works." Quote from Hassen's book.
>
>I think that as former cult members, we have the responsibility to
>claim our own healing. This includes whatever means are available.
Yes. And I believe the person himself, his own interests, provide the
best road-map for recovery.
>I
>believe that in most places in the world, there is a vacuum as far as
>"specialized cult counselors".
I found that therapists without specialized cult training often lead
recovering cultists ~away~ from the cult issues that trouble them.
>I had to train a "regular" counselor
>in the ways of the cult, and in exchange got good "regular counseling"
>that helped me in my recovery.
I think this is what you have to do if you can't find one
knowledgeable in mind control indoctrination.
>However, the real recovery was my
>responsibility as I had to do my own research setting aside all I had
>learned or thought I had learned in the cult.
Setting aside all you had learned or thought you had learned in the
cult and starting over your search for truth from the point you
entered the cult gives you a chance to re-evaluate the dogma in a
fresh light.
>There are few counselors that have any idea at all what a cult is
>about. The past 15-20 years have changed that somewhat, but when I
>came out, I was pretty much alone in the world..... and had to make my
>own way.
As was I. Finally after bumping around various therapies and support
groups I discovered the former Cult Awareness Network. Without their
help and support I wouldn't be able to be here writing this advice
today.
(NB. the ~new~ Cult Awareness Network is a front for a cult)
>Most people are so isolated and poor after the cult journey,
>that any therapist at all is beyond their means in many cases.
Yes. That's why support groups can help.
>I am also aware of a young person raised in the cult, being
>misdiagnosed as schizophrenic by a "regular counselor). I was able to
>convince his mother that the counselor did not know what she was
>talking about. And she didn't. He is now after many years fully
>functional.
Such professionals are hardly infallible. If one doesn't seem to
grasp your predicament, find another who does. Keep searching until
you get a knowledgeable, compassionate therapist.
>Also, many people coming out of the cults are unaware that they were
>under mind control, and then they continue on into another group and
>just continue following a cult....so somewhere along the line, they
>have to come to some awakening.
This is where a library card, reading about mind control and cults,
can be invaluable. http://www.informer.org/booklist.htm
>A good counselor can help if they keep an open mind. I worked with
>two such counselors. The cults mess so much with the mind, that a
>regular counselor has a big job to do just on what they do understand.
Yup.
>In the beginning just having someone listen and give validity to one,
>is a big step in itself.
Yes. This is where friends, family and ministers can help. After
that, referral to a mental health professional who can understand and
recommend meds (if necessary) would be in order.
>The cults destroy the person and the
>counselor can help the victim pick up the pieces and put themselves
>back together even with little or limited "cult" per se
>specialization. Not all counselors are that open to learning,
>however, their egos getting in the way. It is easier for them to
>"blame the victim" and diagnose out of their little books that give
>the recipe. they are not used to cooking from scratch so to speak.
I have noticed and experienced the same exact things, dash.
Be well,
Dennis
----------------
"I'm the fool I never
Fool I never thought I was." - M. Knopfler
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
> To: freedom of mind <freedomofm...@yahoogroups.com>
Thankyou Dennis!
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
> To: freedom of mind <freedomofm...@yahoogroups.com>
Thankyou Dennis!!
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
> To: freedom of mind <freedomofm...@yahoogroups.com>
Thanks, good advice!!
Dennis L Erlich
>Thanks, good advice!!
Yah thanks.
I'll tell you why I'm pist, Chuck. Some of my better postings about
cult recovery were left on that stupid Freedom of Mind yahoo board and
are gone forever thanks to creepy behavior of the moderator shutting
it down without warning.
I get on the board to clarify the cult's position on medical practice.
I get told by the moderator I mustn't get the group in legal trouble.
Get accused by her of being defensive for asking who told her the lie.
I get attacked by Monica with every sliemy innuendo she can muster to
Dead Agent my criticism of her (she is trying to make the point that
it's no problem going up the bridge while on drugs) and suddenly the
moderator shuts down the board without warning or allowing archiving
of the writing.
Maybe its all a big coincidence, but I think not. I have had people
attempt to silence me before. I know what it feels like.
Something's been stolen from me. I want my words back! I may keep at
it until I have them posted safely to ars.
So unfaithful readers should learn now how to use their killfiles and
I will disturb their peaceful slumber no more.
D
----------------
"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet
altogether, I would be all for it." - Professor Monica Pignotti (Nov 2009)
Gregory Hall
news:52v2h5p3ul4lj81ie...@4ax.com...
> "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com" <chuckb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Thanks, good advice!!
>
> Yah thanks.
>
> I'll tell you why I'm pist, Chuck. Some of my better postings about
> cult recovery were left on that stupid Freedom of Mind yahoo board and
> are gone forever thanks to creepy behavior of the moderator shutting
> it down without warning.
>
> I get on the board to clarify the cult's position on medical practice.
> I get told by the moderator I mustn't get the group in legal trouble.
> Get accused by her of being defensive for asking who told her the lie.
> I get attacked by Monica with every sliemy innuendo she can muster to
> Dead Agent my criticism of her (she is trying to make the point that
> it's no problem going up the bridge while on drugs) and suddenly the
> moderator shuts down the board without warning or allowing archiving
> of the writing.
>
> Maybe its all a big coincidence, but I think not. I have had people
> attempt to silence me before. I know what it feels like.
>
> Something's been stolen from me. I want my words back! I may keep at
> it until I have them posted safely to ars.
You should always archive your work locally and then back it up. May I
suggest in the future you compose all your forum items using Notepad or some
other simple text editor and then copy and paste them into the forum. Then
you can set up a folder on your hard drive in which to save all your work.
You can write hundreds of essays and posts daily for fifty years and still
not fill up a 200 gig hard drive.
--
Gregory Hall
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
Well, I agree, this is some of your excellent advice, and it is sad
that people don't have access to it, and it goes unappreciated and
unused.
The best of your writings, and the best thoughts/observations of so
many others who have posted over the last 15 years, is sometimes lost
in all the other valid details in the infighting, and in these defunct
sites, sheesh!
I have to laugh now, I used to get all pist at the infighting, and now
I just surf like I did originally when I found the internet, and it is
sort of potluck.
Since you have been such a huge figure in the whole "critics"
community, I suggest you compile your writings that should be
preserved.
In my opinion, some of your advice, rings the truest of anyone's.
You've done a huge amount of good, thanks Dennis!
Dennis L Erlich
>Since you have been such a huge figure in the whole "critics"
>community, I suggest you compile your writings that should be
>preserved.
I'm pretty sure I have all of my postings to the net since 1994. A
few posts to this FOM board were worth saving. One in particular
where I outlined what I meant by reconnecting with normal society
after leaving a cult I thought would be particularly useful to exes.
So I want my words back.
>In my opinion, some of your advice, rings the truest of anyone's.
Thanks. I've been at recovery as long or longer than anyone I know.
I'll get it right eventually.
>You've done a huge amount of good, thanks Dennis!
Hey, thanks for noticing, Chuck. You keep up your good works too.
D
----------------
"All the people involved were not following the laws. Were not allowing me to have my civil rights." - anonymous ex-scieno
Tom Klemesrud
> Something's been stolen from me. I want my words back! I may keep at
> it until I have them posted safely to ars.
I can see why you are so upset--especially with your "god-given
calling"--that God's words of wisdom, pontificated by you, were stolen
from us all.
What I'm most curious about is this: Does God talk with all those
belittling profanities that were used?
Monica Pignotti
> "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com" <chuckbeatt...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Thanks, good advice!!
>
> Yah thanks.
>
> I'll tell you why I'm pist, Chuck. Some of my better postings about
> cult recovery were left on that stupid Freedom of Mind yahoo board and
> are gone forever thanks to creepy behavior of the moderator shutting
> it down without warning.
>
> I get on the board to clarify the cult's position on medical practice.
> I get told by the moderator I mustn't get the group in legal trouble.
> Get accused by her of being defensive for asking who told her the lie.
> I get attacked by Monica with every sliemy innuendo she can muster to
> Dead Agent my criticism of her (she is trying to make the point that
> it's no problem going up the bridge while on drugs) and suddenly the
> moderator shuts down the board without warning or allowing archiving
> of the writing.
>
> Maybe its all a big coincidence, but I think not. I have had people
> attempt to silence me before. I know what it feels like.
>
> Something's been stolen from me. I want my words back! I may keep at
> it until I have them posted safely to ars.
>
> So unfaithful readers should learn now how to use their killfiles and
> I will disturb their peaceful slumber no more.
>
> D
>
> ----------------
Now who's whining and being a victim? Poor Dennis, his great words of
wisdom were taken from him, yet he seems to have saved all of them and
is posting them here, so what's the problem? Too bad we can't have
audio here on ARS, or I'd put on some violin music go go with this.
Were some of them missing? If so, don't worry, Dennis, I still have
all of the FOM postings of those last weeks of the list serv.
Suffice it to say that Dennis is being very selective of what occurred
here and Cathleen Mann and Steve Hassan, both have very different
perceptions of his behavior on the FOM list, which Steve Hassan
apologized to me for and Cathleen made a statement about her
perceptions of Dennis being very much in agreement with mine. I'm not
going to get into yet another pissing match with Dennis. I have set
the record straight on my own blog and before he whines and cries
victim again, note that I have documented what I wrote, with Dennis'
own precious words and admissions. Some people, including myself,
forgot, until I looked it up, that we don't have to take Rosa's word
for anything. Dennis admitted to being physically violent with her.
http://anticultcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/11/dennis-erlich-and-freedom-of-mind-list.html
Again, contrary to Rob Clark's distortions, I am not saying Rosa is
the "font of truth" but when it came to her allegations that Dennis
was physically violent with her, he himself admitted that he was.
While we know that physical violence is not uncommon within the CofS,
it's usually men being violent with other men. There may have been
other instances of spousal abuse, but it doesn't seem to be as common,
which would lead me to wonder if Dennis did not bring some pre-
existing personality traits into Scientology. Why did he hit her?
Because she dared to say that she wanted to leave the Flag Land base.
He said he was a different person back then, but that's what a lot of
serial killers also say to rationalize their behavior. The fact
remains that most people in Scientology are not violent with their
spouses as Dennis repeatedly was, so he can hardly blame Scientology
for that one.
And to clarify one more thing, I did not say that Scientology always
allowed people to be audited while on medication for medical problems.
What I said is that sometimes this has been the case and it is not
unheard of and so Steve Hassan's generalization was not correct that
they always dissuade people from all medical treatment. This is not
about my not tolerating disagreement -- I have no problem with people
disagreeing with me, although the same obviously can't be said for
Dennis Erlich, when his own dogma is challenged.
Monica
Out_Of_The_Dark
> Dennis L Erlich wrote:
> > Something's been stolen from me. I want my words back! I may keep at
> > it until I have them posted safely to ars.
>
>
> belittling profanities that were used?
ROFLOL!
Out_Of_The_Dark
> On Nov 17, 6:00 am, Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 9:01 pm, Dennis L Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
>
> > > Here's the first posting that made it to that message board:
>
> > > -------------------------------------------------
>
> > > To: freedom of mind
> > > Subject: Re: CNN Transcript> > > Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:35:30 -0800
>
> > > Monica is correctly trying to steer people away from jumping to
> > > conclusions. But she is doing so by foisting her own half-truths and
> > > misrepresentations.
>
> > > "mpignotti2001" <Freedom_Dignity@...> wrote:
> > > > I located the CNN transcript, and I really have to challenge the
> > > > following statement:
>
> > > >http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0901/05/ijvm.01.html
>
> > > > "STEVE HASSAN, COUNSELOR/SCIENTOLOGY EXPERT: Well, Scientology
> > > > basically believes that all medical problems whatsoever can be handled
> > > > by their techniques, through their auditing policies and such. So they
> > > > very much dissuade members from seeking out medical attention, getting
> > > > any medication." That is simply not true.
>
> > > Steve's statement is accurate.
>
> > > >The second sentence doesn't necessarily
> > > > follow from the first.
>
> > > True, it doesn't ~necessarily~ follow. But it does ~in reality~
> > > follow.
>
> > > >Scientology does not dissuade members from
> > > > seeking out medical attention or getting "any medication".
>
> > > While it is true that they must first stop the bleeding or set the
> > > broken leg in a cast, it should be pointed out that according to the
> > > cult's bogus mental technology, all illness stems directly and only
> > > from connection to a suppressive person
> > > and getting rid of that condition requires only discovering the
> > > suppressive connection and then handling the suppressive person or
> > > disconnecting.
>
>
> > > "Mainly" they disallow ALL drugs for people undergoing their bogus
> > > mental therapy.
>
> > > >and in some cases
> > > > anti-seizure medication because some of those meds are also
> > > > psychiatric drugs (e.g. Depakote) but even that has varied depending
> > > > on different Scientologists and orgs.
>
> > > Most cult policies vary in enforcement depending on which of the
> > > various cult organizations are mis-applying them.
>
> > > >It was true in the case of Tory
> > > > Christman but it is not true in all cases.
>
> > > Monica should name the people she personally witnessed receiving the
> > > cult's bogus therapy (other than emergency assists) while taking ANY
> > > medication. Even aspirin.
>
> > > I was there when Tory was taken off the drugs. I witnessed her
> > > seizures.
>
> > > >Jett Travolta took Depakote for years,
>
> > > She doesn't personally know this to be true. Therefore she shouldn't
> > > be stating it as fact. She only knows that this is what Travolta's
> > > lawyer claimed.
>
> > > And she should apply her critical standards to her own statements.
>
> > > >something that would have been impossible if the above
> > > > statement were true, given that the Travoltas have been active, highly
> > > > committed Scientologists for years.
>
> > > Monica is foisting specious assumptions, just the same as she is
> > > accusing others of doing.
>
> > > >We may never know what actually
> > > > happened and I find it troubling that people are engaging in so much
> > > > unfounded speculation.
>
> > > Discussion boards and newsgroups are where concerned people DIGEST the
> > > news. The speculation is not unfounded, is based upon years of
> > > personal experience and logical deduction.
>
> > > > They do not bar regular medical care at all.
>
> > > Like I said, they stop the bleeding or set the leg. Then the person
> > > is put on to the bogus mental therapy.
>
> > > >Even though it is true
> > > > that they believe that most illness is psychosomatic and can be
> > > > eliminated with auditing,
>
> > > Not most. According to their dogma, anyone who is ill is connected to
> > > a suppressive person. All illnesses stem directly and only from
> > > connection to suppressives. Getting rid of the illness requires
> > > discovering the suppressive. And then handling the connection or
> > > disconnecting.
>
> > > >they do not ban medical treatment.
>
> > > This is a strawman argument. No one has said all medical treatment is
> > > banned.
>
> > > >In fact,
> > > > when I was on the Apollo under L. Ron Hubbard, I was given antibiotics
> > > > when I got sick, and I directly witnessed several others there
> > > > receiving medication and people were even freely given Dramamine if
> > > > they experienced sea sickness, if they asked for it.
>
> > > These things fall under an emergency medical handling exception to the
> > > general rule ... which is pervasive.
>
> > > >There is a
> > > > restriction on getting auditing if these drugs are taken, but no one
> > > > gets in trouble for taking them and people are not generally stopped
> > > > from taking medical drugs, other than psychiatric drugs.
>
> > > Monica is trying to point out that there are exceptions to the general
> > > rule: No spiritual progress while medicated. The exception is only
> > > for emergency assists.
>
> > > > While it is true that some Scientologists because of their beliefs
> > > > that auditing could cure them of a medical ailment delayed getting
> > > > treatment for conditions such as cancer,
>
> > > Many people have avoided medical treatment and paid the price,
> > > sometimes with their very lives.
>
> > > >Scientology does not have any
> > > > policy against getting treatment for cancer or other serious medical
> > > > conditions.
>
> > > Emergency treatment is allowed, then assists, then they have to find
> > > the suppressive person causing the illness.
>
> > > >This is a different issue that involves the substandard
> > > > living conditions in the SO. Scientology is not like Christian
> > > > Scientists who explicitly ban medical treatment, but that is the false
> > > > impression that some are giving here.
>
> > > Again, this strawman argument is a red herring. But the policies and
> > > procedures are explicit enough to dissuade or deprive people from
> > > seeking proper medical care. This often results in similar tragedies.
>
> > > Monica should tell you about which medical insurance the organization
> > > provides for its staff all over the world. The answer is NONE!
>
> > > There is a reason that is true.
>
> > > >This, again, is very easy for
> > > > Scientologists to refute and then critics lose credibility and are not
> > > > taken seriously about anything.
>
> > > Critics are not taken seriously about anything??? She needs to start
> > > applying her factual standards to her own statements.
>
> > > > The idea that Scientology bans or even dissuades people from all
> > > > medical care and medication is a myth ...
>
> > > Carefully worded red herring. "... dissuades people from all medical
> > > care ..." No. Emergency medical care is followed by assists and
> > > suppressive handling.
>
> > > >that is easily refuted and will
> > > > unfortunately destroy the credibility of people who want to expose
> > > > real concerns about Scientology.
>
> > > Steve's only other statement on the CNN transcript:
>
> > > "HASSAN: That's exactly correct. My understanding is that there are
> > > policy letters direct from Hubbard that dissuade members, to make them
> > > believe that any medical problem is a result of an aberration or an
> > > interaction with someone who is a suppressive person or a critic and
> > > that needs to be handled through their auditing process or their sect
> > > checks and such.
>
> > > And so I know numerous people who have unfortunately had medical
> > > conditions who did the Scientology indoctrination programming and
> > > didn't get medical treatment and died as a result of it."
>
> > Everybody involved in this dispute -- including Steve Hassan -- is
> > overstating his or her case and generalizing in an attempt to win a
> > wobbly gray blob of an argument. Steve's pronouncement about his
> > "understanding" was probably well-meaning, but in the real world, this
> > has more to do with coercion than policy.
>
> > > Minimizing the damage done to people by this practice and its aversion
> > > to medical treatment is irresponsible.
>
> > > Dennis
>
> > > ---------------
>
> > > That's what set her off. So she implies to the moderator there is
> > > probably legal liability in having me posting on the board, attacks my
> > > ministry, throws her stink on my finances, etc.
>
> > > Never bothering to dispute my assertions. Only her Dead Agent tactics
> > > straight out of the cult's playbook. And even using their lies.
>
> > > I don't think I was being hateful. Only pointed.
>
> > > D
>
> > > ---------------------------------------
>
> > > "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.
>
> of Dennis' behavior during the FOM discussion and the fact that he
> hadn't realized Dennis was going to behave in this manner towards me
> and if he had known that, he never would have invited him onto the FOM
> discussion. He apologized to me for doing so.
>
>
> Monica- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Poor Steve could have saved himself the headache by visiting ARS
first.
realpch
<snip>
And you cut it out too!
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Gregory Hall
news:8a3d7ae7-fbe7-4e09...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
http://anticultcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/11/dennis-erlich-and-freedom-of-mind-list.html
Monica
===========================================
[REPLY]
Welcome back, Monica. I missed you.
--
Gregory Hall
Monica Pignotti
LOL. Good one, Tom! I don't know about God, but the Church of the Sea
Org and Informer Ministries certainly do, with ARS as his pulpit, the
only place where there are enough people gullible enough to hang on
his every word. Enjoy!
Monica
Andrew Robertson
"Monica Pignotti" <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8a3d7ae7-fbe7-4e09...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> but that's what a lot of serial killers also say to rationalize their
> behavior.
One thing I've always liked about a.r.s, Monica, is the lack of serial
killers who post here.
So to mention the subject whilst engaged in a vigorous debate with Dennis
seems inappropriate.
Imputation, though often employed on Usenet, is not a subtle argument and
is, I suspect, rejected by many readers.
Regards
Andrew
>Monica
ho...@lightlink.com
> Something's been stolen from me. I want my words back! I may keep at
> it until I have them posted safely to ars.
This is why moderated groups are a waste of time and dangerous.
Homer
Dennis L Erlich
>"Monica Pignotti" <pign...@worldnet.att.net> of yhn:
>> but that's what a lot of serial killers also say to rationalize their
>> behavior.
andrew
>One thing I've always liked about a.r.s, Monica, is the lack of serial
>killers who post here.
Prof. Pignotti hyperbolize much?
>So to mention the subject whilst engaged in a vigorous debate with Dennis
>seems inappropriate.
No rhetorical trick or ad hominem attack including dredging up 25 year
old DA material from the cult is beneath Monica when she's challenged.
Nothing about the topic. Only dead agent the messenger.
>Imputation, though often employed on Usenet, is not a subtle argument and
>is, I suspect, rejected by many readers.
One would hope so. But if she actually has all these alleged "hateful
postings" I made to FOM archived, why doesn't she post them here as
her proof. The evidentiary burden is on her to prove this bogus
claim.
DOX or STFU!
Dennis L Erlich
>Dennis L Erlich <info...@informer.org> wrote:
>> Something's been stolen from me. I want my words back! I may keep at
>> it until I have them posted safely to ars.
hom
> This is why moderated groups are a waste of time and dangerous.
A lesson I have had to learn over and over, Homer.
Mark Thorson
>
> Monica Pignotti wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2:56 pm, Dennis L Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe its all a big coincidence, but I think not. I have had people
> > > attempt to silence me before. I know what it feels like.
> > >
> > > Something's been stolen from me. I want my words back! I may keep at
> > > it until I have them posted safely to ars.
> >
> > wisdom were taken from him, yet he seems to have saved all of them and
> > is posting them here, so what's the problem? Too bad we can't have
> > audio here on ARS, or I'd put on some violin music go go with this.
> > Were some of them missing? If so, don't worry, Dennis, I still have
> > all of the FOM postings of those last weeks of the list serv.
>
> <snip>
>
> And you cut it out too!
No, no. She's entitled to do her "superior dance".
John Dorsay
> Something's been stolen from me. I want my words back! I may keep at
> it until I have them posted safely to ars.
Stolen? Did you file a police report?
Have you considered just *asking* Monica to check her FOM archive
and to repost any of your articles to ars?
Call me Pollyanna if you want, but it seems to me she is much more
likely to cooperate with you if you knock off the histrionics and
treat her politely.
John
Mirele
> On Nov 28, 2:56 pm, Dennis L Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
<snipt an enormous amount of bullshit>
Monica, just Shut Up--unless you're planning to apologize (read on).
Please. Every time you start to type, you show your biases and
preconceived notions.
Let me just say, for everyone here, that nobody, *nobody*, NOBODY is
perfect. We all do insanely stupid things at times. Like join cults or
cutting off our family when we don't agree with them on anything.
Those are just two things. Everyone has done some really dumb stuff in
our lives. Some of us are still living with the consequences of our
bad choices
However, I have heard that you, Monica Pignotti, are now reposting
"somewhere" Dead Agenting material re: Dennis from the Cult. That is
flat-out beyond the pale. And I can say that as I STILL have a page on
RFW. If you expect anyone to take you seriously after doing something
as insane as THAT, I'd suggest taking it down and getting rid of it.
That's just flat-out evil, to use $cientology's crap against another
person.
You are disgusting and lower than pond scum (and pond scum actually
has a purpose in the ecological cycle). You need a reality check and
it's this: You are not the Almighty High Judge of the Universe.
You're just one human being, acting in a very immoral manner towards
another human being. When you stoop to Scieno behavior, that's it.
And, if you're going to rant at me, here, let me just tell you this
first: You can just kiss my Fat White Heinie.
Deana M. Holmes
mir...@gmail.com
John Dorsay
> Suffice it to say that Dennis is being very selective of what occurred
> here and Cathleen Mann and Steve Hassan, both have very different
> perceptions of his behavior on the FOM list, which Steve Hassan
Monica, if your FOM archives include Dennis's "stolen" posts, PLEASE
just repost them here.
John
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>http://anticultcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/11/dennis-erlich-and-freedom-of-mind-list.html
Monica "logic."
1) Dennis disagrees with me.
2) Therefore, OSA tells the truth and I should mirror their garbage.
We can call it monica ponens.
Thanks for showing you are the scum of the Earth, and nothing is
beneath you.
Interesting, how some people get better after leaving a cult, and some
get even worse. Enjoy your evil.
henri
<restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Call me Pollyanna if you want, but it seems to me she is much more
>likely to cooperate with you if you knock off the histrionics and
>treat her politely.
Yeah, when people mirror OSA dead agent shit about you, you should be
"polite" with them. Right. That always works.
John Dorsay
I don't think I said I thought it would work.
There is no downside to taking the high road. If Monica chooses to
repost Dennis's "stolen" articles, great. Everybody's happy.
If she doesn't, people will draw their own conclusions.
John
Tom Klemesrud
It seems someone had disturbed the hive at the "undernet" (fitting)
#altreligionscientology
Monica Pignotti
No, I did not post "dead agenting" material. What I linked to was a
response that Dennis himself wrote to Rosa's affidavit. Check the
link. Call me names all you like. An abuser is an abuser, whether he
is an anti cult activist or not, although Dennis could hardly be
called that any longer. I expected hate mail from his true believing
followers, though, so I'm really not surprised. Maybe instead of
latching onto rumors, you should actually read what I write before
making unwarranted assumptions, ranting at me and calling me names.
Here's the link:
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/erlich_munsey_032995.reply
Since when is eff run by the CofS? That's news to me if it is. Get
your facts straight.
And no, not everyone is physical violent with their spouse. Not even
most Scientologists.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
Dennis is already posting them. I'm not sure what he means by "stolen
posts". I have what was posted to the FOM list serv before the list
was deleted, but given that he has already been posting the material I
don't see what is missing. If he can give me a date of a posting he
thinks was "stolen" I'll check my files and see if it is there, but I
have what everyone else on the list serv that was getting the postings
as e-mails got.
Monica Pignotti
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:22:47 -0800 (PST), Monica Pignotti
>
> >http://anticultcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/11/dennis-erlich-and-f...
>
> Monica "logic."
>
> 1) Dennis disagrees with me.
> 2) Therefore, OSA tells the truth and I should mirror their garbage.
>
> We can call it monica ponens.
>
> Thanks for showing you are the scum of the Earth, and nothing is
> beneath you.
>
> Interesting, how some people get better after leaving a cult, and some
> get even worse. Enjoy your evil.
No, that was not my "logic". That is your distortion. I was not
posting what OSA said, I was posting what Dennis himself said on an
eff website. Since when is EFF OSA?
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/erlich_munsey_032995.reply
I did it to illustrate what in my opinion is his long standing pattern
of abusive attitudes towards women that he carried on to the FOM list
serv when he came on there, in the words of the moderator/owner
herself, with the purpose of attacking me -- her words, not mine.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
I thought he was speaking metaphorically when he said "stolen" -- he
felt it was "stolen" because the list serv was deleted, but what I
don't understand is that he has been reposting a lot of the stuff
here, so what exactly does he think was "stolen". If he thinks the
moderator didn't allow some of his stuff to go through to the list
serv in the first place, that I don't have.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
He'll need to identify those allegedly stolen articles first. If they
were posted to the list serv, then I have them, but if they weren't, I
don't.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
Yes, it would seem that this is what daring to challenge Dennis Erlich
amounts to for some of his followers. All of a sudden I am OSA, even
though what I linked to was Dennis' own response posted to the EFF
website where he confirmed that Rosa was telling the truth when it
came to his physical violence against her, although, he denied her
allegations of sexual abuse of his children (and I tend to believe him
on both counts). If EFF is OSA, that's news to me.
Monica
henri
<tom...@netscape.delete.net> wrote:
>It seems someone had disturbed the hive at the "undernet" (fitting)
>#altreligionscientology
You are disturbed 100% of the time, psycho.
Sprach Z
Monica, post everything he wrote to FOM.
Mirele
You might remember, Monica, that I once was a lawyer, and frankly,
while I know affidavits are taken under oath, I also know that this
particular affidavit was procured (with all the legal whoring that
entailed) at the behest of Scientology. That being the case, I am
going to say that I would take what Rosa said with not just a grain of
salt, but an entire saltshaker, unless proven otherwise.
Plus, even if it's "sourced" by EFF, the fact of the matter is that
you know it originally was a product of the Church of Scientology's
legal team and was intended to destroy Dennis. Yet you seem to think
it's appropriate here. Let me rent you a clue: It's not. Instead,
what it shows is that you'll stoop to the lowest level to try and get
even with someone who is actually besting you in this whole
contretemps.
I don't know how you can justify to yourself that you should post crap
that came straight out of the bowels of the Cult of $cientology,
intended for Dennis' ruin. But I, for one, am telling you that, at
bottom, you've exposed yourself as one of the lowest of low lifes.
Again, don't like it, there's the Fat White Heinie.
Deana Holmes
mir...@gmail.com
Dennis L Erlich
> If EFF is OSA, that's news to me
She didn't even read the doc for the link she posted.
It clearly says the declaration first appeared on the net on
alt.religion.scientology, days after my raid. It was posted by an OSA
op named Rick.
It was used as a document showing I was a scoff-law and that allowed
the Federal judge to issue the writ of seizure, ex parte (without
serving me or allowing me to respond to the allegations).
OSA paid for Rosa's suit against me in San Diego Family Court. Elliot
Ableson confirmed that to me and my attorney down there on one of my
many court appearances which they scheduled concurrent with court
appearances in San Jose Federal court.
Monica should post all of my FOM postings to ars. There were only
about 2 dozen. I have half. I don't have a complete set because I
posted some on the website instead of from my email address.
She claims my postings were hateful.
The dox should show that. Right?
Dennis
Monica Pignotti
> On Nov 28, 7:31 pm, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> You might remember, Monica, that I once was a lawyer, and frankly,
> while I know affidavits are taken under oath, I also know that this
> particular affidavit was procured (with all the legal whoring that
> entailed) at the behest of Scientology. That being the case, I am
> going to say that I would take what Rosa said with not just a grain of
> salt, but an entire saltshaker, unless proven otherwise.
It is not the affidavit that is the point here, it is Dennis' response
to it. He freely admitted that Rosa was telling the truth about his
physical abuse. He did not deny it, he admitted to it. Please read the
link that I posted. That was Dennis who responded. It was not a
forgery. He denied other things, such as the alleged sexual abuse but
he admitted to the physical abuse. It is not a matter of believing
Rosa because Dennis confirmed the part about the physical abuse being
correct.
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/erlich_munsey_032995.reply
[from Rosa's affidavit]
> 27. There were several instances when Dennis abused me, one
>time in 1977, we were in our bedroom and something made him mad and
>while I was laying on our bed he sat on me and hit me in the face.
>Another time in 1982, I asked him a question and he got very upset at
>me, grabbed me by the hair, he threw me across the room, I flew across
>the room and while I was cowering, he grabbed me by the hair again,
>threw me in the bathroom, I was cornered in the shower, he hit me
>across the face and I felt like he broke my jaw. I was in my first
>trimester of pregnancy with his child at the time and he knew I was
>pregnant. Shortly thereafter we moved to Colorado and he convinced me
>to get an abortion.
[Dennis' response]
Whoa, girl. Yes, I hit you. You were about to blow it and
get sent to the RPF, if you recall. You started talking about
wanting to leave Flag. I was another person back then.
I am truely ashamed of what I did. Not mostly because I hit
you. Certainly that. But mainly because I did it in front
of Holly and Bethy.
I'm sorry. Can't you forgive me?
> Plus, even if it's "sourced" by EFF, the fact of the matter is that
> you know it originally was a product of the Church of Scientology's
> legal team and was intended to destroy Dennis. Yet you seem to think
> it's appropriate here. Let me rent you a clue: It's not. Instead,
> what it shows is that you'll stoop to the lowest level to try and get
> even with someone who is actually besting you in this whole
> contretemps.
I suggest you read the above link. It is clearly Dennis' posted
response to the affidavit.
As for Dennis' "besting" me he clearly is not, at least not with my
real friends. Cathleen Mann and Steve Hassan both agree with me about
his behavior.
>
> I don't know how you can justify to yourself that you should post crap
> that came straight out of the bowels of the Cult of $cientology,
> intended for Dennis' ruin. But I, for one, am telling you that, at
> bottom, you've exposed yourself as one of the lowest of low lifes.
No, what I posted came "straight out of the bowels" of Dennis Erlich,
not the CofS. I linked to his response. Please calm down, if you can,
and read what I actually posted.
> Again, don't like it, there's the Fat White Heinie.
Same here, Deana. In case you haven't already heard, I have acquired
one too.
> Deana Holmes
> mir...@gmail.com
Dennis L Erlich
>No, what I posted came "straight out of the bowels" of Dennis Erlich,
>not the CofS. I linked to his response. Please calm down, if you can,
>and read what I actually posted.
I admitted to striking my wife once in anger in 1981 while I was in
the cult and she threatened to leave with my daughter.
But this is fodder for Pignotti to use to discredit me, simply because
I called her out on her inaccurate data and sliemy rhetoric.
No problem. That's now visible.
Now if we could just get Pignotti to show us all these hateful
postings of mine, she and Mann claim I made to their little pond of a
mutual admiration society, we could put this to rest.
Dox or stfu, Pigno.
John Dorsay
> Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Now if we could just get Pignotti to show us all these hateful
> postings of mine, she and Mann claim I made to their little pond of a
> mutual admiration society, we could put this to rest.
I'd like to see all the unhateful posts too.
You said you have about half the posts you made to the list. If you
list the dates of the articles you have, then maybe Monica would
repost the articles that you are missing.
John
Dennis L Erlich
>I'd like to see all the unhateful posts too.
Yah me too.
>You said you have about half the posts you made to the list. If you
> list the dates of the articles you have, then maybe Monica would
>repost the articles that you are missing.
She should just gather up all my posts and send them to me. I will
post the ones I'm missing to the newsgroup.
But still, to corroborate her accusations of hatefulness on my part,
she should post the hateful ones to ars now.
She made the claim. The burden of proof is on her.
Dox or STFU, Pigno.
John Dorsay
> But still, to corroborate her accusations of hatefulness on my part,
> she should post the hateful ones to ars now.
It doesn't need to be a contest. If you post what you have, and
Monica posts what you don't have, people can read the whole lot and
draw their own conclusions.
You said it was only a couple of dozen posts, so it is neither
difficult nor disruptive to post them all. I'm sure there have been
many many more than a couple of dozen posts devoted to arguing about
this already. Let's just put cards on the table and be done with it.
John
Monica Pignotti
Dennis is continuing to be verbally abusive to me. I will not do
anything for him until he apologizes to me for that and addresses me
respectfully. I do not answer to derogatory name calling and certainly
will not do him any time consuming favors, given his behavior.
He wants dox? The evidence of his verbally abusive behavior is
documented right here on ARS when he barged onto several threads where
people from the psychotherapy cult I have been exposing were attacking
me and he said I "pulled it in" and began dredging up the whole FOM
fiasco. This has been distorted that I said he was agreeing with the
cult -- no, that was not what I was saying. What I am saying is that
his attack on me at that time helped the cult and they are now having
a field day with it. His continual calling me a "victim" and "pitiful
Pignotti" exemplifies the mentality of an abuser. He attempts to
reframe his abusive behavior as me acting like a victim wanting pity,
when that is not what I want and he certainly does not have that kind
of power over me because I will not allow it. What I will do is call
him out on his verbal abuse. It is verbally abusive to tell an
activist who is fighting a dangerous, destructive psychotherapy cult
who is attacking her, that she "pulled it in". He is behaving exactly
like he did when he was Chief Cramming Officer in the SO.
If he had something to say about this, he could have started a thread
to say it on, but instead he chose to do it right at the time when I
was being attacked by a cult, saying I pulled that attack in. That is
verbal abuse and he continues his disrespectful behavior in this
thread. I will not answer to insulting abbreviations of my correct
name or any other hateful behavior from Dennis. If you all cannot see
that his behavior towards me has been very hateful and abusive on ARS,
then you really are not able to spot quite obvious verbal abuse, that
two other mental health professionals, Cathleen Mann and Steve Hassan,
easily identified and Hassan apologized to me when it occurred on his
list. But of course, I expect that Erlich will engage in confirmation
bias and listen to the friends who deny this and dismiss anyone who
challenges it as a kook.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >No, what I posted came "straight out of the bowels" of Dennis Erlich,
> >not the CofS. I linked to his response. Please calm down, if you can,
> >and read what I actually posted.
>
> I admitted to striking my wife once in anger in 1981 while I was in
> the cult and she threatened to leave with my daughter.
>
> But this is fodder for Pignotti to use to discredit me, simply because
> I called her out on her inaccurate data and sliemy rhetoric.
No, that is not why I posted it. I posted it because you jumped in on
several threads where members of a psychotherapy cult I have been
exposing were attacking me and attacked me, saying I "pulled it in".
Nothing to do with "calling her out" on "inaccurate data" and "sliemy
rhetoric" because you did no such thing. It was to call you out on
your verbal abuse of me right here on ARS. If you had grievances to
air about the FOM list, the decent thing to do would have been for you
to have started a thread about the issue, rather than jump in on a
threads where I am being attacked by cultists and say I deserved it.
That is the action of an abuser, Dennis. It doesn't matter how many
people here on ARS are ignorant of the dynamics of abusive behavior. I
am not, and I see your abuser mentality of tromping on people for what
it is. You need to educate yourself on the dynamics of verbal abuse
because that is what you are engaging in when you abuse a person and
then tromp on them for being a "victim". Very Scientological behavior
on your part that has apparently become a part of your personality
even 25+ years after leaving. Get yourself some help for that.
> No problem. That's now visible.
>
> Now if we could just get Pignotti to show us all these hateful
> postings of mine, she and Mann claim I made to their little pond of a
> mutual admiration society, we could put this to rest.
>
> Dox or stfu, Pigno.
It's Pignotti, or Monica. It's highly disrespectful for you to keep
denigrating my name, not to mention juvenile. The "Dox" for your
abusive behavior are right here on ARS, such as the threads you keep
jumping in on and telling me I "pulled it in".
> ----------------
>
> "At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet
> altogether, I would be all for it." - Professor Monica Pignotti (Nov 2009)
You snipped this out of context. I also said that the internet is here
to stay and is not all bad, it has done some good, and I certainly am
not trying to get rid of it because I realize that would be
impossible.
Monica
John Dorsay
> On Nov 28, 10:50 pm, John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dennis L Erlich wrote:
>> > But still, to corroborate her accusations of hatefulness on my part,
>> > she should post the hateful ones to ars now.
>>
>> It doesn't need to be a contest. If you post what you have, and
>> Monica posts what you don't have, people can read the whole lot and
>> draw their own conclusions.
>>
>> You said it was only a couple of dozen posts, so it is neither
>> difficult nor disruptive to post them all. I'm sure there have been
>> many many more than a couple of dozen posts devoted to arguing about
>> this already. Let's just put cards on the table and be done with it.
>>
>> John
>
> Dennis is continuing to be verbally abusive to me. I will not do
> anything for him until he apologizes to me for that and addresses me
> respectfully. I do not answer to derogatory name calling and certainly
> will not do him any time consuming favors, given his behavior.
So it *does* need to be a contest, and you won't play if you can't
make the rules. My mistake.
Since it seems exceedingly unlikely that Dennis will apologize to
you, you are not willing to support your claim that Dennis was
"hateful" on the FOM list. Thanks for clarifying.
John
realpch
I'd like to slap both of them.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
John Dorsay
> I'd like to slap both of them.
You and me both, Peach.
John
efish
John Dorsay <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
i tried that but it didn't do any good.
try upending a pot of tea on both their heads, peach. with sugar in it.
-ef
Monica Pignotti
> In article <hestpp$cg...@arscc.motzarella.org>,
> John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > realpch wrote:
>
> > > I'd like to slap both of them.
>
> > You and me both, Peach.
>
> i tried that but it didn't do any good.
>
> try upending a pot of tea on both their heads, peach. with sugar in it.
>
> -ef
Hey, if Dennis hadn't come barging onto a thread where I was being
attacked and libeled by a cultist, saying I "pulled it in" and then
resurrecting the whole FOM mess, none of this would be happening. Once
he did this, I had every right to defend myself from his outrageous
Scientological abuse, saying that because I am being fair gamed by the
attachment therapy quacks, I "pulled it in" and deserve it because of
what I supposedly did to him on the FOM list serv. This is
Scientological magical thinking and bringing up an issue I would have
been glad to let go of, but instead he lies about what happened on the
FOM list serv, saying I "threatened" the moderator (which she herself
refuted and Hassan apologized me for Dennis' behavior) and repeatedly
misportraying the entire episode. So, if you have a problem with all
this (I do as well), take it up with Dennis.
As I'm sure you are aware, I am going up a very destructive
psychotherapy cult that licensed mental health professionals and some
people in child welfare agencies are involved in. Dennis tries to make
light of this, but it is not paranoia on my part to say that they are
going after me, big time. For him to blame me for "pulling it in" is
abusive and ludicrous. The only way I "pulled it in" was by speaking
out against them. There going after me has nothing whatsoever to do
with what happened on the FOM list, but it seems that Dennis is still
enamored by the overt/motivator sequence Scientologists believe in,
also known as the law of karma, both magical thinking at its worst and
cruelest. Dennis uses my being attacked by these people as an occasion
to trot out all of his misrepresentations of what went on nearly a
year ago on the FOM list serv and he chooses this particular occasion
to so that. That makes him the lowest of the low, in my book.
Dennis then tries to take the fact that I don't like his behavior and
twist it into saying that I am just being a "victim" seeking pity when
what I am doing is calling him out on his dreadful behavior. He is
acting out the Sea Org personality by saying I pulled it in and
mocking me as "pitiful Pignotti" and he really needs to work on that
in his self-admitted ongoing recovery process. By the way, he is
behaving the same way that the Sea Org goons behaved towards me while
I was in the SO and rebelled against them. Unlike Dennis who was a SO
goon and bully, I did not have what it took to be a SO goon and never
got with the program and left long before he did. Maybe that's what is
so upsetting to him, the fact that not all of us fell into lockstep
with the SO as he did.
Monica
Patty Pieniadz
"John Dorsay" <restim...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hestpp$cgd$2...@arscc.motzarella.org...
Sometimes you just have to let these things run their course.
It's either that or plonk them.
Eldon
> "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com" <chuckbeatt...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Thanks, good advice!!
>
> Yah thanks.
>
> I'll tell you why I'm pist, Chuck. Some of my better postings about
> cult recovery were left on that stupid Freedom of Mind yahoo board and
> are gone forever thanks to creepy behavior of the moderator shutting
> it down without warning.
>
> I get on the board to clarify the cult's position on medical practice.
> I get told by the moderator I mustn't get the group in legal trouble.
> Get accused by her of being defensive for asking who told her the lie.
> I get attacked by Monica with every sliemy innuendo she can muster to
> Dead Agent my criticism of her (she is trying to make the point that
> it's no problem going up the bridge while on drugs) and suddenly the
> moderator shuts down the board without warning or allowing archiving
> of the writing
Dennis, I would be the first to agree that Cathleen Mann was behaving
like a snitty, self-serving bitch. I think Steve Hassan is better off
disconnected from her.
As for your valuable lost postings, why don't you just jot down a list
of the topics and begin to recreate them? It'll probably all come back
to you, and the new versions may be better than the originals. That
would be a far more profitable use of your time than continuing to
engage in this dreary little pissing match.
>
> Maybe its all a big coincidence, but I think not. I have had people
> attempt to silence me before. I know what it feels like.
>
> Something's been stolen from me. I want my words back! I may keep at
> it until I have them posted safely to ars.
>
> So unfaithful readers should learn now how to use their killfiles and
> I will disturb their peaceful slumber no more.
>
> D
Monica Pignotti
> MonicaPignottiwrote:
> >> > But still, to corroborate her accusations of hatefulness on my part,
> >> > she should post the hateful ones to ars now.
>
> >> It doesn't need to be a contest. If you post what you have, and
> >> draw their own conclusions.
>
> >> You said it was only a couple of dozen posts, so it is neither
> >> difficult nor disruptive to post them all. I'm sure there have been
> >> many many more than a couple of dozen posts devoted to arguing about
> >> this already. Let's just put cards on the table and be done with it.
>
> >> John
>
> > anything for him until he apologizes to me for that and addresses me
> > respectfully. I do not answer to derogatory name calling and certainly
> > will not do him any time consuming favors, given his behavior.
>
> So it *does* need to be a contest, and you won't play if you can't
> make the rules. My mistake.
>
> you, you are not willing to support your claim thatDenniswas
> "hateful" on the FOM list. Thanks for clarifying.
>
> John
My claim is supported by his hateful behavior to me right here on ARS.
He jumped in on a thread where I was being attacked by a cultist and
said I was "pulling it in" because of what happened on FOM, when in
fact he knew next to nothing about my battle with these quack
therapists. If that doesn't qualify as hateful behavior (and magical
cult think as well), I don't know what would.
Hatefulness, I suppose is a matter of opinion, not a fact. Several
people on that list serv including Steve Hassan and Cathleen Mann,
shared my perception of the tone of his postings including the ones he
already posted here, as being those of an attacking bull dog. I posted
evidence from Cathleen Mann, where she stated that she was told to
bring Dennis Erlich onto the list serv for the specific purpose of
attacking me. This started because I challenged Steve Hassan on some
of the statements he made to CNN and instead of directly responding to
me, Steve chose to bring Dennis onto the list serv to attack me, as
Cathleen Mann attested to. That was the intent and that is what he
did. Perhaps some people on the usenet don't see the tone as hateful,
because usenet is so full of vitriol that people are desensitized to
it and cannot see what people not so caught up with the usenet can
readily see. Dennis' behavior is crude and ugly, and in my opinion he
doesn't appear to be capable of holding a respectful dialogue with
anyone -- he comes off as a crude ex-SO member who still hasn't
learned any kind of social skills. That's how at least some people
outside the circle of usenet denizens see him. Steve later told me he
hadn't realized Dennis would behave in this way or he never would have
invited him on.
Monica
Voltaire's Child
"Tom Klemesrud" <tom...@netscape.delete.net> wrote in message
news:4b11d2b2$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> It seems someone had disturbed the hive at the "undernet" (fitting)
> #altreligionscientology
>
Jesus, Tom. Do you even think of what you're writing?
C
l.l.lipshitz
wrote in <7nfc1jF...@mid.individual.net>:
personally, i find them entertaining, in an 'i'm a
celebrity, get me out of here' sort of way. i just
wish there were slimey bugs involved....
--
-elle
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
usenet disproves the infinite-monkey theorem
henri
<restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Since it seems exceedingly unlikely that Dennis will apologize to
>you, you are not willing to support your claim that Dennis was
>"hateful" on the FOM list. Thanks for clarifying.
Of course, that wasn't the original subject which set off Monica's
apparent nervous breakdown. That was that she was unable to support
her utterly idiotic claim that Steve Hassan was incorrect to state
that: "Well, Scientology basically believes that all medical problems
whatsoever can be handled by their techniques, through their auditing
policies and such. So they very much dissuade members from seeking out
medical attention, getting any medication."
Anyone who either knows or hasn't deliberately forgotten everything
they ever knew about Scientology, and virtually every ex to address
the subject, has described precisely what Steve Hassan described.
Dennis had the gall to ask Monica actually to back up her pig-ignorant
claims with facts.
Monica had a psychotic episode which continues to this day, because
she has been completely unable to back up this idiot cult apologist
statement.
Let's not forget who turned this into a mud-slinging contest and who,
to this day, is utterly unable to back up her ridiculous bullshit.
Eldon
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:33:41 -0500, John Dorsay
>
> >Since it seems exceedingly unlikely that Dennis will apologize to
> >you, you are not willing to support your claim that Dennis was
> >"hateful" on the FOM list. Thanks for clarifying.
>
> Of course, that wasn't the original subject which set off Monica's
> apparent nervous breakdown. That was that she was unable to support
> her utterly idiotic claim that Steve Hassan was incorrect to state
> that: "Well, Scientology basically believes that all medical problems
> whatsoever can be handled by their techniques, through their auditing
> policies and such. So they very much dissuade members from seeking out
> medical attention, getting any medication."
>
> Anyone who either knows or hasn't deliberately forgotten everything
> they ever knew about Scientology, and virtually every ex to address
> the subject, has described precisely what Steve Hassan described.
No, I think Steve did lay it on a bit thick. What he said was
technically inaccurate to a slight degree. He never had any direct
personal involvement with Scientology, after all, so that's to be
expected.
I also think Monica was further off in the other direction, and that
Cathleen Mann's red herring about legal liability was ridiculous. For
Steve's sake, I'm glad she shut down the discussion group. It was a
liability to his work with her in charge.
Monica Pignotti
Correct, Eldon. The statement from Hassan was an unwarranted
generalization. They do not "dissuade" members from "getting any
medication". This happened sometimes but not always. There are plenty
of people who took medication for medical problems while in
Scientology such as antibiotics and on the ship a number of people
took dramamine for motion sickness, myself included. That was my point
that I had challenged Steve on that was distorted by Dennis. Not all
the childish name calling from Rob Clark and ranting and blabbering
about psychotic episodes, which is nothing more than an ad hominem
attack from someone who can ill afford it given his own history of
instability that is documented [in contrast to my squeaky clean
history with no criminal or psychiatric record and demonstrated
ability to consistently hold down jobs], is going to change that fact.
And by the way, Cathleen didn't say she shut down the website because
of any legal liability. She shut it down because Erlich's bad behavior
and the way he was brought onto the list in the first place was the
last straw for her.
I just have to ask people, why the need for all the character
assassination and name calling of me? Obviously I must be seen as some
sort of serious threat for people to need to resort to that, without
issuing one word of substantive rebuttal, instead twisting and
distorting issues. That is why I ended the discussion with Dennis.
Because whatever I say, he twists and distorts it to his own ends. But
no problem, no one takes Rob Clark seriously anyway, given his own
history of mental instability.
And by the way, based on my own recent conversations with Steve, he
does not consider Cathleen to be a liability and he misses her very
much, as she is a respected psychologist with a great deal of
credibility in psychology of the law.
And again, I need to remind people who brought this issue onto ARS.
Not I, so if people have a problem with this, take it up with Dennis.
Monica
realpch
: D
Dennis L Erlich
eldon (from the depths of my bozobin)
>> No, I think Steve did lay it on a bit thick. What he said was
>> technically inaccurate to a slight degree. He never had any direct
>> personal involvement with Scientology, after all, so that's to be
>> expected.
What Steve said was accurate in practice.
>> I also think Monica was further off in the other direction, and that
>> Cathleen Mann's red herring about legal liability was ridiculous.
Yah, that was a sweet touch.
Don't like me calling you out on your misstatements? Warn the
moderator there might me a legal threat if she allows me to continue
posting.
>For
>> Steve's sake, I'm glad she shut down the discussion group. It was a
>> liability to his work with her in charge.
It was very weird!
I come on the board, make one posting questioning Pigno's nitpicking
of Hassan's brief soundbite and challenging her on her position that
people can progress in the cult while on drugs. She was foisting the
preposterous lie that the cult actually ~insists~ people get adequate
medical treatment before they will allow them to have services.
Suddenly the moderator thinks I'm under court order, a threat to the
list legally. The moderator accuses me of being defensive for asking
who told her that lie, but she tells me it was Monica.
In subsequent posts Pigno doesn't answer the issues I addressed but
launches off into an attempt to discredit me with malicious
speculation and outright lies about my finances, my ministry, my
religious practices, my home, and any other ad hominem she can throw
at me.
Then suddenly the board is gone. No warning. Pignotti now says it
was because of my hateful postings but will not produce them to prove
the claim. She dredges up 25 year old material assembled and paid for
by the cult to discredit me in a court action they filed 15 years ago.
Next she throws her bogus ad-hom psucko-analism in my face, to
distract from the two issues I mentioned above.
And you know, she's not actually saying I'm a serial killer. No. Only
that my personality is similar to one.
This crazy bitch is supposed to teach kids about social problems?
Dennis
Dennis L Erlich
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Scientology (was CNN Transcript)
From: Rev Dennis L Erlich <info...@informer.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 06:54:36 -0800
"mpignotti2001" <Freedom_Dignity@...> wrote:
>
>Once again Dennis Erlich attempts to twist my words. I was not "trying
>to implicate". I stated up front that I was asking, not assuming.
It seems to me that even bringing up to possibility and or implying
that Steve, as well as having brought on a "goon," to front for him,
asked his clients and former clients to come and argue against Monica,
is highly unprofessional.
Monica wrote:
>First I want to say that since you were once a client of Steve's I can
>appreciate the fact that you are in a delicate situation.
Putting this kind of situational dilemma on a client seems highly
questionable to me.
>I am
>assuming nothing and would really like to believe that any clients or
>former clients of Steve who are defending him are doing so on their
>own initiative and that he has not asked you to do so, but I don't
>know. Only you know that.
This doesn't bother anyone? This is not intended to introvert the
client?
>To anyone on this list serv who is a current
>or former client, it is not, in my opinion, ethical for a therapist to
>ask someone to defend him/her as it would be a violation of
>professional boundaries. Again, I'm not assuming he did or did not --
>only you know that.
If I was a client or former client of Steve's, this would kinda give
me the creeps. It is certainly intended to introvert and stifle any
criticism of Monica's nit-picking by Steve's clients, IMO.
She went on:
>I realize it must be difficult to hear criticism of someone you feel
>helped you and I can appreciate the situation.
Putting this kind of characterization on another therapist's client
seems despicable to me.
And:
>So I can understand why people
>who feel strongly that Steve helped them would want to defend him.
Placing her implied accusation that what is motivating criticism of
her is some internal feeling people have toward Steve as their
therapist ... it just seems flaky and unethical.
And:
>I won't even ask for you to tell me
>whether he did or did not.
IOW, don't bother denying it.
>Just realize that it is a violation of
>client boundaries for a therapist to ask someone who has been in a
>therapist-client relationship to defend the therapist.
IMO, she's way over the line. Boundaries have been crossed by Monica
here.
>Given that he brought you onto this list serv rather than have a
>dialogue with me himself, and based on other feedback I have received,
>I have good reason to ask that question. I wanted people to understand
>that IF they had been asked, the ethics of asking even a former client
>to come on here and defend him or even asking a former client to
>produce some sort of testimonial, is highly questionable.
Again, the paranoia that must underlie such an accusation is evident.
>I am only giving people more
>information about professional ethics, which precludes soliciting
>testimonials from clients or asking them to defend the therapist,
>regardless of whether a client is a former or current one.
If she had left it at this, no problem. But she is addressing a
particular client who defended Steve with her "non-accusational"
concerns.
>This is not alt.religion.scientology and your usenet tactic of trying
>to put lyrics when I point out something legitimate is pretty lame.
Using "lurkers support me" as backup for her arguments is one of the
oldest and lamest rhetorical tricks on the internet.
>There is good reason for people here not to feel safe in criticizing
>Steve Hassan on this list serv, which is why I invited people to write
>me off list if they had something to say they did not feel safe saying
>here.
People are not safe here to criticize Steve? This is news to me.
>Dennis, you can deny all you want that you were not "brought" here but
>whatever you want to call it, Steve Hassan has already admitted to
>contacting you and in effect, bringing you onto the list serv. Spin it
>any way you want, but that is what happened.
I am not Steve's underling or goon, as Monica has accused me of being.
Steve asked me questions to verify his knowledge. I chose to come and
refute what Monica was asserting on my own. I was not "brought."
>You can try to
>rationalize Steve's unwillingness to have a dialogue with me all you
>want, but the bottom line is that it doesn't take experience with
>internet dialogues to give a straight response. You have shown us all
>that the "experience" you do have that he seems to lack is with
>spinning and twisting my words and trying to turn them around to
>attack. Others, both on and off this list serv have indicated that
>they are onto what you are doing, Dennis.
Yes, the lurkers support Monica. I'm so impressed.
>I've been there myself, bending over backwards to defend Steve Hassan
>at conferences, meetings of colleagues, and many more places where
>numerous people have had big problems with his attitude. That's the
>fact of the matter, not paranoia.
I'm sure Steve didn't "bring Monica on" to defend him in those
circumstances.
I sincerely suggest that Monica cease dragging client's into her
conflicts.
Dennis
----------------
"I was one of those" - Leonard Cohen
Ted Mayett
<elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:05:42 -0500, Ted Mayett
> according to a st. petersburg times article,
> dennis was 44 in 1991, which makes him 62 now.
>
Yeah.
>
> | Been thinking on this heavy
>
> you've been thinking on this way too heavy. it's
> softened your brain.
>
No, am I not entitled to my own special brand of lunacies???
> they told me in 1968 that i was a clerk-typist. and
> today, almost 42 yrs later, i am still saying that i
> was a clerk-typist in 1968. funny how that works.
>
Apples and oranges. I'm talking of a title of Reverend applied as a
scam by a cult that was quite dangerous at the time. Did Education
ever tell you that you were a high school graduate? Is that the same
as a person being told they are an Ordained Minister in 1969 in scn?
> i always thought he was a reverend the same way that
> 'pope charles' and 'rev. modemac' were. he does have
> j.r. 'bob' dobbs on all his web pages so i just
> assumed his ministry was a parody. i must have seen
> the same post that you did because now i find out his
> ministry real and he's apparently self-ordained.
>
I always assumed the ministry was a legal maneuver, and had of course
legality backing up the claim. It truly never occurred to me, except
peripherally, that the guy actually believed he was a minister. He
was arrogant, boastful, vulgar and sexist. I just wouldn't accept,
fully, that he was so sadly deluded to actually believe that he was
anything whatsoever regarding being a minister or reverend.
>
> | It is almost over, there are still some details I have not thought
> | through.
>
> google 1st, think later.
>
Bah, good advice. Who needs it!
>
> | There is an expression. It is brand new, I just made it:
> | "Paperwork doth not a Reverend make."
>
> here's another: fevered imagining doth not an
> adequate proof make.
>
The finale is coming, it is interesting. Nobody has thought of this,
not even Monica. And there will be ~adequate~ proof, a minimal of
speculations.
--
Ted Mayett
Critical information regarding Scientology
http://www.solitarytrees.net
Ted Mayett
<chuckb...@aol.com> wrote:
>Thankyou Dennis!!
Thank you Dennis, thankyou Dennis, over and over, blah blah blah.
Talk is cheap Chuck. What is your God-given religious calling? Are
you an Ordained Minister in the Church of Scientology? Are you in
fact the Rev. Chuck Beatty?
This is ARS, we are used to it, so using whatever foul and repulsive
language that is required, tell us please of your God-given religious
calling.
I'm thinking you might have been, or still are a Scientology Reverend.
Dennis is not the only ex-member here who spent a few hours doing the
Minister Course.
Dennis maybe felt the touch of God when he was Ordained a Minister in
the Church of Scientology. If you were or are a Scientology Ordained
Minister Chuck, please share with us the relationship it gave you with
God.
You applaud and cheer without abate any clown that carries on about
how awful is the cult of scientology. It brings you happiness and joy
that you share with us frequently. How pleased you are that the truth
is being know, that the truth is being made available to all. For you
tell us repeatedly, and with an air of authority, how bad,
destructive, and cruel the cult is. Death, Disconnection, so on and
so forth, on and on, over and over, how bad all of it is.
Oh but not calling yourself an Ordained Minister for the Church of
Scientology, oh no, not that. That is entirely acceptable to you.
You don't feel any falsehoods or misrepresentations are involved with
using that title. This suggests strongly that you are still, or at
one time were an Ordained Minister in the Church of Scientology.
You putz.
Ted Mayett
<info...@informer.org> wrote:
>Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>No, what I posted came "straight out of the bowels" of Dennis Erlich,
>>not the CofS. I linked to his response. Please calm down, if you can,
>>and read what I actually posted.
>
>I admitted to striking my wife once in anger in 1981 while I was in
>the cult and she threatened to leave with my daughter.
>
>But this is fodder for Pignotti to use to discredit me, simply because
>I called her out on her inaccurate data and sliemy rhetoric.
>
But it does not discredit you, at least it shouldn't to anyone with a
half a brain. Cults are bad news, they cause people sometimes to do
bad things. This happened long ago in a land far away. I for one
would not believe you are going around today smacking women, if
someone claimed that I would not accept it as fact, I'd need a LOT of
proof to accept something like that.
Are you such a victim though that you need to accuse Monica of
attempting to discredit you with this? Grow up already. Stop being
such a wonderful suffering victim.
>No problem. That's now visible.
>
>Now if we could just get Pignotti to show us all these hateful
>postings of mine, she and Mann claim I made to their little pond of a
>mutual admiration society, we could put this to rest.
>
>Dox or stfu, Pigno.
>
>----------------
>
>"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet
>altogether, I would be all for it." - Professor Monica Pignotti (Nov 2009)
Ted Mayett
<info...@informer.org> wrote:
>I come on the board, make one posting questioning Pigno's nitpicking
Your good Monica, quite good. He can't let go of insulting you, he
can't stop, he can't help himself. He has to do this repeatedly.
You managed to bring out the real Dennis Erlich. Very good, you are
the best girl, nicely done.
I'm sure your skills are sufficient that you could have had him
speaking quietly and respectfully without using sexist slurs like
'bitch' and 'twit' for women with questions. I'm sure you could have
done that, but this was much more fun and interesting.
He has to call you 'Pigno', he has no choice in the matter anymore.
You walked him down a path, and he is helpless now. If he changes his
posturing's now then the Loyal Readers will think him suspect.
Some may think Monica mean for doing this to Dennis, walking him down
a path as she has done. But I think of her as playful. And fully
cognizant of just how important this ng actually is. Nothing was won
here, nothing was gained, save that we got to witness the true Rev.
Dennis Erlich, in all of his glory. In the year 2009, not 1969.
Ted Mayett
<restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Monica, if your FOM archives include Dennis's "stolen" posts, PLEASE
>just repost them here.
>
>
>John
I"ve got enough time in this, I'd like all the posts also if possible.
Anyone?
Ted Mayett
Dennis L Erlich
"spellrs" <fahlberg_robin_s@...> wrote:
>I am not personally familiar with Scientology. I know only what I
>have read here and on other websites. In reading this I thought that
>perhaps a pertinent question to ask in relation to Scientology's (and
>the general holds true for other cults) medical policies, is:
>
>Although they do not publicly, assertively, and outright ban medical
>treatments such as drugs for physical ailments - do their policies
>and programs effectively do this anyway
In the inner circles of staff, yes.
Public getting their mental re-programming would first need to get
cleared of suppressive connections (parents etc) before they could
continue to progress.
>and should they be held responsible for that?
In individual tragic incidents I know of, lives were lost, endangered
and forever damaged by this lack of faith in medicine.
People who have undergone years of the indoc believe suppressive
people and body demons are making people ill when they get sick.
Ultimately it will be up to the courts to assign responsibility and
judge liability in these matters. But I think it's reasonable for
those of us who have been on staff and have had medical treatment
withheld, put off or refused, because of dogma or some imagined lack
of income to hold the organization responsible, at least in our own
minds, for damages done.
>In other words does not providing medical insurance, not providing
>sufficient funds to purchase medical treatment in many cases,
>pressing the belief that medical problems come from relationships
>with suppressive people, creating an environment where taking drugs
>or seeking medical treatment is looked upon with disapproval, in some
>cases witholding auditing when someone is seeking medical treament
>(while holding out that auditing is necessary for one to reach their
>potential), etc. - do all the things taken together add up to the
>same thing as outright banning medical treatment and drugs?
Exactly so. The antipathy to medical treatment is pervasive.
>I apologize if I got specifics wrong - as I said I am not personally
>familiar with Scientology.
You are familiar enough to deduce observe or deduce the types of
pressures that exist on cult members and staff.
>I think we could take many practices of cults and ask the same type
>question. If a cult does not have an outright policy for something,
>but creates the environment where it is almost certain to happen, and
>knows or should know that this is the logical result, is it the same
>thing?
Effectively, it is.
>There are many areas of law that parallel this. For instance we hold
>someone responsible for intentional injuries and deaths of people
>when they drive drunk. We say that although they did not intend to
>cause the damage, getting drunk without a designated driver and then
>getting into the car drunk and driving amounts to the same thing.
>
>Reckless endangerment is another example. Did the person know that
>his/her actions, or should they have known, could reasonably cause
>the damage done.
I'm sure the legal issues are more subtle in the case of people who
willingly undergo the mind-altering effects of a cult.
>Just some thoughts about questions I think should be asked.
Good points.
Dennis
---------------
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities." - Voltaire.
--------------------------------------------
Note the hatefulness.
D
Dennis L Erlich
"mpignotti2001" <Freedom_Dignity@...> wrote:
>Dennis Erlich has attempted to derail this discussion by focusing the
>attention and attacks on me,
Wait. I thought she wasn't going to ... aw, nevermind.
>asking me irrelevant questions about my
>experience.
I was merely asking her to back up her own unwarranted assumptions.
And to stop using gossip to discredit people who disagree with her.
>I know this tactic very well and recognize where he
>learned it. How sad for Dennis that he still behaves like a Sea Org
>goon.
Oh, so now the name-calling begins.
>Now, let's get back to the topic and issue at hand, which was a
>direct response to the comments Steve Hassan made on the CNN program.
>The first point was that he asserted that Scientology "dissuaded"
>people from taking "any medication".
Lots of people try to dissuade others from taking any drugs. Monica
seems to think it's something to be ashamed of or hidden. We would
all prefer not to take drugs when other proven means of dealing with
our health issues could provide efficient relief.
It's the other ~unproven~ means advocated in cults that lead to
tragedies and deaths.
>This is false and I have
>demonstrated that. Scientologists can and do take medication for
>medical conditions.
For emergency medical conditions when it cannot be avoided due to the
legal jeopardy involved in treating the patient otherwise ... and
money is involved.
>What they ban is drugs prescribed for psychiatric
>conditions. Anti-seizure medications are for seizures, not a
>psychiatric condition.
Wait. Don't they also eschew taking ~any~ drug or "foreign" chemical
into their bodies, thinking, according to their dogma, it will become
"lodged in their fat cells" and require repeated purification?
>It is true that people are often not allowed to
>take drugs and get audited, but that doesn't mean that they are being
>told not to take drugs. That is Dennis' twist.
Ah, I see. Justine and I (and thousands of others ive met) are just
confused about what we actually experienced.
>The way it works in
>Scientology is that if someone has a medical condition they are not
>allowed to get auditing and are ordered to go to a medical doctor and
>deal with it, which means taking medications, as prescribed by the
>doctor, even if that means the person cannot get audited. Note that
>this is not preventing a person from taking meds -- it is just the
>opposite.
To have plausible deniability and limit liability in case someone else
knocks his or her teeth out or dies of dehydration while en route to a
hospital miles away.
>However, in the case of epilepsy, people have been allowed to take
>anti-seizure medications and get auditing at the same time. Tory
>herself took them for years while getting auditing. Dennis doesn't
>seem to want to believe that part of her story, but he has no problem
>swallowing whole, the part of her story that fits with his own
>beliefs. That is called bias.
I honestly haven't bothered to read this affidavit. I am only taking
Monica's word that it contradicts what I and many others know to be
true.
>My other point that seems to be getting lost here by the former Flag
>Cramming Officer is that I am cautioning people against jumping to
>unwarranted conclusions about the death of Jett Travolta. There are
>too many things we do not know and it is highly irresponsible and
>cruel to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
Oh the irony. Highly irresponsible to use tabloid and internet rumors
jumping to unwarranted conclusions which discredit someone, she says.
And then proceeds to do exactly that.
>By the way, the scandal rag article praised by Steve Hassan in the
>Daily Mail did this and now the article has been pulled, another
>gossip rag rumored it was pulled due to the CofS threats. It is a
>horrible, irresponsible article that demeans the Travoltas for having
>a belief that the spirit lives on after death, a belief shared by
>about 90% of American people.
But it's okay for her to demean my religious calling. Heh.
>The Scientology belief system is a
>strange one, but most religious beliefs would be considered strange if
>we weren't so accustomed to them. The Daily Mail story is an example
>of religious bigotry and sensationalism, not legitimate activism. They
>also engaged in unwarranted speculation about autism, when there is no
>evidence that Jett was ever properly assessed for the condition. It
>was a horrible article and I am just astounded that it would be
>praised by certain anti-Scientology activists.
The article still exists on the net. People can find it and judge the
validity themselves if they believe it's worth the effort. I only
scanned it briefly. I'm hardly going to argue on it's behalf, a task
which Monica seems to want to "assign" to me along with reading and
dissecting some affidavit of Tory's.
As she dissembles on about me giving her orders and being
authoritarian.
Dennis
----------------
"I was one of those" - L Cohen
---------------------------------
Where's the hateful part?
Dennis L Erlich
monica wrote:
>It is your (by "your" I refer to you, Dennis) opinions that are
>considered fringe by people in the mainstream, not mine.
I wonder what opinions she is referring to.
My opinions about her needing to pull the log out of her own eye? My
opinion that her rhetorical twisting of words is transparent? My
opinion that she accuses others of what she, herself, is continually
doing? My opinion that she keeps telling others not to jump to
unwarranted conclusions, or spread gossip, while doing exactly those
things to people who disagree with her skewed screeds?
Perhaps she will enlighten us and quote the statements with my
opinions which are fringe. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
My bet is she'll go in for more discrediting my experiences,
denigrating my ministry and cult-jargon name-calling. Then when I
answer, she'll claim she is being ordered around and bullied. Then
run away whining about it with her farewell chant, "I am not a victim!
I'm going to go all over the internet to publicly discredit you and
your fringe ideas."
These are truly pathetic rhetorical gyrations.
Dennis
----------------
"I was one of those" - Leonard Cohen
Dennis L Erlich
Subject: Re: Question re Dennis Erlich's Services Advertised
"mpignotti2001" <Freedom_Dignity@...> wrote:
> ... I have decided to have no more discussions with the
>so-called "Rev" Dennis Erlich. I will not be "handled" by Dennis ...
For someone who doesn't want to discuss things with a "so-called Rev"
like me, Monica is doing an awful lot of postings addressing me.
>On his website http://www.informer.org/ Dennis Erlich describes
>certain services he offers such as "non-sectarian recovery support",
>but there are no specifics, only a link to his e-mail. If Dennis was a
>licensed mental health professional, he would have been required to
>post things such as fees charged, but since he isn't he is under no
>obligation to post these things. However, I think it is a legitimate
>question to ask. Do you charge a fee for these services and
>"confidential consultations"? If so, what is your fee?
We have never charged an ex member for anything. Quite the contrary.
We have actually given grants to assist ex members with professional
counseling. We have never asked for any donations to the ministry.
All of the service offered by the ministry are free. Donations are
voluntary and tax deductible.
>What might a
>person expect to occur such a consultation? Can you publicly describe
>for us how you work with people rather than just ask people to e-mail
>you privately?
Monica thinks that now that she's labeled me a goon, belittled my
ministry work, lied to you about my home and finances, lied about me
ordering her around, denigrated my experience and attempted to silence
me with her "big time credentials" that I am somehow obliged to answer
her questions about my ministry's confidential and privileged
communications. No doubt so that she can put more of her stink on me.
I don't think so.
Feel free to email me at info...@informer.org if you want to know
what help may be offered. Otherwise the information is on my website.
www.informer.org
Dennis
----------------
"I was one of those" - Leonard Cohen
---------------------
I'm still waiting for Pigno to back up her assertion that I made
hateful postings to FOM.
Dox or STFU, Pigno.