Kim Baker: MY STORY CONTINUES: THE BEAST (Part 2 of 3)
Kim Baker via Ron Newman
THE BEAST (continued from part 1)
"THERE IS NO LOADED MAGNUM IN THE ROOM":
This time, they had been in touch with the people in
the States, and they had a whole lot of questions which they fired
at me, interrogation style. Who was "nob...@replay.com, SCAMIZDAT,
Old Timer, Rogue Agent", and what did I know about "Grady Ward -
was he the one doing SCAMIZDAT, who was behind Wollersheim, and
anything incriminating I could tell them about Steven Fishman,
Lawrence, David Mayo, Homer Wilson Smith, Arnie, RVY, Erlich, Malcolm,
Joe Harrington, Jon Atack, and others. Hours and hours. I wasn't very
helpful, but I did give them minimal answers.
They had some prepared statements, based on the previous
interrogation, that they wanted me to sign. Three, in total, I think.
I said: "No, I don't want to betray my friends". They said: "You
already have! HOW can you be covert about it, you should at least be
overt - you already have". (Meaning that I had already broken down
and said that they were right, and confessed things to them. Button
number three - guilt over my previous disingenuiousness as a
Scientologist on ARS - I *handed* them these damn buttons with each
and every post I made on the Internet, and with the fax. Note to the
jargon-challenged: "covert" means underhand, two-faced, and "overt"
means open and up-front - honest.)
And I thought about the thing I had scrawled last night and felt that
that act had been the act of betrayal, and I *had* already betrayed
everyone. I felt dead, numb, I was tired from no sleep, and again, it
was about 2.30 am, and so I signed the three documents. The one funny
thing about this was that they were as exhausted as I was. At least I
wore them out. If nothing else.
My last bit of resistence, I said: "What happens if I don't
sign them" - and Anne replied: "There is no loaded magnum in the
room." I'll never forget those words. Or stay in a Holiday Inn, for
that matter. "But you KNOW you have already betrayed your friends."
And I signed. These three documents never came to anything, they
were later shredded. But there *was* no loaded magnum in the
room. Some of my friends said to me: "HOW could you have signed
if there was no physical threat to you?" All I know is that these
things now looked like the truth to me, and I thought I was signing
something that was true.I would not have signed something I did not
believe to be true, and I had come to believe that they were true.
That's what my friends could not understand - that I had *believed*
they were true.
I was tired, yes, and confused, and guilty, and frightened, but none
of these excuse what I did. It was *my* signature there. Mine. Not
theirs. They asked me to turn over my e- mail, and I stalled,
initially. They took me home, and I collapsed again. This one was
from about 5.30 pm till about 3.15 am.
THE BOMB THREAT (again):
Up until this stage, there had been no reference to the bomb threat.
The next day, they came for me in the afternoon, and the questioning
continued. Same questions, different order - who was SCAMIZDAT, what
about Malcolm, Gerry Armstrong, Lawrence...and now, they started
taping me. I didn't want to be taped, and I said so, but they just
did - my resistence was virtually non-existant at this stage. So,
they have hours and hours of me on tape, co-operating, friendly. In a
sense, I *had* become an "agent" of theirs, now. Still not fully,
though, there was a line I was not prepared to cross.
They wanted my e-mail, and I agreed. I had several disks
stored elsewhere, which they never got to see - (these are now all
destroyed). I took them to my place of work at night, and copied some
of the e-mail for them. Most of it was stuff I had downloaded from
the net, public stuff. I handed them a package of mostly useless
information, information that they already had. I made sure, as I was
copying it, there there was nothing really confidential in it.
The FACTNet charter was one, but that was a matter of public record,
which they already had, from the non-profit organisation application.
There were a few pieces of FACTNet mail on the disk. But nothing of
real value to them. They *knew* I was only giving them a very small
part, they sensed I was still holding a lot back. They were watching
my "indicators", (a term used in auditing - you watch for indications
on the person's face to see if they're happy with their auditing or
not - if not, you continue on, and keep running the process - here,
they were watching to see if I was doing everything of my own accord -
it was crucial, you see, that I write my own death warrent,
willingly, and that they are not seen to force my hand), and I knew
that. In my numbed state, already regarding myself as a traitor and
the scum of the earth, all I could think of to do was to seem to co-
operate, but give them as little as possible -give the appearance of
yielding. Keep my "indicators" in. In my numbed state, it was already
over, and there was no way back out of it. It was done.
The next day, I got a call from Lt B. Posthumus (yes, that really
*is* his name) who wanted to question me about the bomb threat. I felt
cold fear, and stalled him. From this day on, they started meeting me
every afternoon, and "debriefing" me on anything that happened during
the day. I said to them they could go now, they had what they wanted
but they said it was not finished yet. So, I told them that this guy
had called, and they said oh, it was probably one of Malcolm's
buddies trying to get to me. It didn't occur to me at all that there
was no way Malcolm could know anything of what was going on...by this
stage, they had shown me tons of DA material on Fishman, Erlich, RVY,
Lawrence, Arnie, Joe H, etc. (DA material - Dead Agent material)
My inherent fear of Malcolm's SADF/police connections arose, and I
became terrified. (I have reason to fear the South African Police,
based on an earlier incident in my life). I mean this is so stupid -
here I finally get my very own police officer, but by now, I'm beyond
the point of shouting for help. Now, *I'm* the one who is to be
questioned, I'm the guilty party.
They made a call, and they changed their tune. They said
I should co-operate with the Lt., since it was an Interpol
investigation into violence against the CoS, that there was a
conspiracy of hate against the CoS, and that the bomb threat was
something Interpol wanted investigated.
I agreed to meet with the Lt, on the 24th and he asked me basic
questions. I asked him who had initiated the investigation, and he
said people in Washington, and I asked Interpol? And he said yes.
He asked me all the questions about my posting on the Net, trying to
find out if I was in any way directly involved with it. He also asked
if I thought that this should be taken seriously, and I replied that
to be honest, no. Certainly not overseas, the critics of Scientology
are more intelligent than that. But locally, was another matter.
This is a violent nation of people who solve their problems by
shooting at them. We concluded the interview, and I was very
worried. I kept thinking of Paulette Cooper, and wondered if some
sort of set-up was in progress. But I couldn't see how any of it
could be linked.
Those few days, (between the 17th and 24th of October) I was trying to
cram for my exam - I was determined to write it, no matter what,
because I had spent money on the course and didn't want to waste it,
or lose a whole year. Each day they met me, we went to coffee shops,
or whatever, they debriefed me - and they started photographing me,
photographing David and I together, and going back and taping me - it
was all friendly by this stage. They got personal and asked me about
my ex, and then asked various things about my "case", and my sex
life, and got some weird replies, all on tape. I sound like a goddamn
lunatic.
On 25th October, I wrote my exam in the morning. I really do not know
how I managed. I just don't. At the end of the exam, I was shaking
like a leaf. They pounced on me as soon as I got home from my exam,
and took me to a place at the Waterfront for lunch, and then back to
the hotel (they were staying in a different one now, closer to where
I live), and I said I was tired, and I was shaking, and I just
wanted to sleep, but the Declaration had come down from OSA Int in
the States - this was the one that came out later. It was very,
very long, and it had incredible allegations in it - including a
conspiracy by all the people in the key word list to incite violence
against the Church, Malcolm was the person who had planned the
operation and was going to bomb the Church, and all the other stuff.
The pieces started to fit together, now. I said "I can't sign this,
these are lies - how can you ask me to sign lies?", and they said to
me to just strike out the parts I didn't want to sign, so I did - I
took out the most outrageous lies, but I still didn't want to sign,
and they said "you know it's true FACTNet wants to destroy
Scientology" and by that stage I had come to believe that, and they
worked through the thing, getting me to agree to parts of it. I was
still shaking, I just wanted to go home, but they wanted me to sign
it. So I did. Then they let me go.
The next day, they were back, with a corrected and edited version,
with all the striking out removed, and they went through it again...I
didn't want to go through it all again, and they said I'd already
signed the other one, this was just for neatness, etc, etc, so I
signed, without looking it over too carefully. There was never an
attorney present at any of these sessions, at any time. I did NOT
know I had the right to one. I'm sorry, but to an American that must
sound bizarre, but to a South African, not at all. We didn't have
very many rights, *any* of us, under the apartheid regime. The
government could do what it liked, when it liked, how it liked.
Including murder, conspiracy to murder, etc. And as long as you shut
up and behaved, you wouldn't have any trouble with the government.
But they watched. You never knew if your best friend was a spy for
the government or not. You never knew if your teacher was an agent.
We all grew up like this. Well, not all. Some of the white minority
were *fast* asleep, sipping cocktails in their mansions built on the
blood of black South Africans, and completely switched off from what
was going on around them. They didn't *want* to know.
And so "rights"? - well, call us dumb, but in general, we are 20
years behind the rest of the world on things like this. It just did
NOT occur to me that I had any rights in this situation. Not an
excuse, just a fact.
And then it was over. But they still wouldn't go. They had the final
product, the Declaration which was later to be released on the Net,
and it had taken them nine days to get it.
They continued to be very friendly, taping, taping, all the time, and
I started feeling genuinely friendly back to them. I said they could
go, but they said no, they were instructed to stay for a while
longer. I didn't think of what they would do with the Declaration, I
just blocked it out of my mind.
They knew I still had a ton of "data" which I would not give them,
and they kept trying, trying for it, but I said no, the rest had
nothing to do with them, I had helped them on the copyrights and the
copyrights only (this was how I justified it in my mind) since that
was the only thing I thought they had any right on. I had tried to
deflect everything away from the bomb threat, after seeing what they
were trying to do with the first full declaration, the one they had
prepared before - with the help of the Interpol investigation,
proving that all these people on the list were terrorists,
international criminals plotting violence against the Church.
Again, this is something a critic would have laughed at outright. But
to me, it was a VERY real threat, that they actually *could* succeed
in doing it, and I felt I had to try and prevent it.
And by this stage, I was blocking out things, and trying to see it
more their way. They thought it would be a good idea to post a
"Reasons why I left FACTNet", and some other things when I returned
to work. Those posts (and the whole sordid story) is documented on
Tilmans' web page - including the Declaration, Bob and Lawrence's
responses to the second Declaration (which was still coming), and my
final refutation - the second Declaration is not available on the
Net. In total, I made two Declarations on behalf of Scientology, and
one after that, refuting the first two. Those are the only
Declarations I have ever made to this date.
LAWRENCE's REACTION:
Before I went back to work, Lawrence's attorneys received the
Declaration. He phoned me. He reamed the hell out of me - it is
sufficient to say that our conversation was not pleasant.
I told him they were still here, I didn't know how to get across to
him that I felt totally under their control....I just remember
bleating out "they're still HERE", as though he could do something
about it, and he told me not to "engage" with them, but....at that
point, there just was no point. OSA were here, no-one else was. I was
alone with them. He asked me to take 24 hours to search my soul and
think about what I'd done, and offered to find a lawyer so that I
could say that I had signed the Declaration under duress. He told me
to phone him back after that.
I kept thinking that no lawyer was going to help me , or get me out
of this, because I'd still have to face OSA. When OSA came for me that
night, they saw the state I was in, and broke me down and got me to
tell them what had happened with Lawrence with the greatest of ease -
they were all sympathetic, and said how cruel Lawrence had been, etc,
etc, and then they asked me to phone Lawrence, within the 24 hours
like he had asked, and set him up with questions, try and get him to
incriminate himself on tape and I refused - I was disgusted. I didn't
phone Lawrence because I didn't trust myself anymore. I felt
completely alienated from everyone and everything, and disassociated
from my formerly firm beliefs and convictions about Scientology.
Bob phoned me the following night, and I could barely speak to him I
was just crying and crying and crying and I kept saying how sorry I
was, and someone was there was helping Bob, and I knew what this all
was doing to him, and he asked me to see a lawyer - he was much
gentler than Lawrence, and after speaking to him I felt there was
something I could do - he mentioned a bit in the Declaration about
him being competent, and Scientology's attempts to take away his
disability pension, and I said I'd never let them do that, and I
would try to get to a lawyer the next day.
The lawyer phoned me, I arranged to meet him, but then David, in that
session, picked it up, and he said that he really cared for
me, and asked me to trust him now and take his advice, and not speak
to this lawyer without at least having one of my own, and to stall
the guy - that I couldn't trust lawyers, and that it was a trap for
me, because did I *really* think Lawrence or Bob would want to help
me now? No, they'd be angry, they'd want revenge, they'd want to nail
me. Look at how angry Wollersheim had been, did I *really* think he
would help me now? Wollersheim would be out for my blood, now.
Wollersheim was probably just using Bob, to get me to a lawyer so he
could set me up.
I realised that I've never ever been involved in anything legal,
apart from my divorce, and I am totally inexperienced in something
like this, so maybe he's right. I *should* have my own lawyer.
So I phoned the guy and stalled. And went back to work the next day.
A woman from the lawyer's office came round to my office to say she
had come to pick me up, but I had told them that I wasn't coming, and
so I became terrified, and thought the lawyers *were* trying to kidnap
me - the OSA had used the fact that I was so shaken by Lawrence's
understandable anger to put the fear of God in me, and told me they
were afraid Galen Kelly was going to kidnap me (I only found out who
the hell Galen Kelly was later, in one of their long DA sessions).
And David kept watch for the rest of the day, purportedly to protect
me from being kidnapped. And they compiled a second Declaration,
basically implying that Lawrence was harassing and threatening me,
and so were the lawyers. I didn't feel this was true - I was
terrified, and confused, though, and so I signed and even
re-wrote a part of it - but I was getting very irritated with them,
because while I genuinely was terrified of Lawrence at that stage, I
could see, it was so obvious, how they were exploiting the situation.
Lawrence's anger *was* understandable, but they were virtually
drooling at the prospect of having something to nail on Lawrence -
they couldn't even hide it from me very well. There's no question -
they hate him, and they are totally dedicated to "restraining" him -
they think he is the *most* Suppressive of them all. In the
meantime, I was starting to feel like a whore.
ARS (again):
Then, the news broke on a.r.s. They know I'm reading the
reactions, and people obviously react with outrage. Dennis lays into
me thick and hard, and we've got past baggage (which is documented in
"My story") and everyone tore into me...like a part of me knew I
deserved, but I couldn't believe that they all thought I'd been
working for OSA all along, these were people I had thought were my
friends, I thought they knew me, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. And OSA
waited for me to break. They were hoping the fury of the a.r.s.ers
would jolt me and break me down all the way, into going back, into
turning over all the information I had. Personal stuff. What they
wanted to know about people's private lives. It was obscene.
And they were kind, and sympathetic - how terrible all these people
were, did I see, now that they had never been my friends? Yes, I
*definitely* saw that. These were SPs, vicious entheta people - did I
see now how vicious Dennis is? Yes, but he's HURTING damn you.....did
I see how all these people dubbed in the reality when they had no
access to facts? Look at how they had decided what had happened with
me, but they weren't even in my country - did I see now how many lies
were on ars? Oh yes, I was definitely seeing it. I was seeing more -
how these people who oppose Scientology on the basis of using mind
control were tearing me to shreds - it just didn't make sense with
what I had thought ARS was about, and I was seeing a shattering of
everything, everything I had believed, right before my eyes - a real
life horror movie. A mob on the rampage. I also have a thing about
mobs on the rampage - although this was a character and verbal
assassination, the impulse of hatred that drove it was the same as
when I've seen mobs necklace people, here in South Africa. Maybe OSA
picked that one up from my pc folders, I can't remember if any of
that ever came out when I was in Scientology.
Suddenly David and Anne were the only friends I had in the world,
while all these far-off *e-mail* addresses were stating with
authority what had happened as if they had been here. There were
exceptions. Patrick Jost. Who saw through it *straight* away, for
what it was, and who vigorously defended me, and got torn to pieces
himself, for his troubles. Joe Harrington. Then those who were angry,
or upset, but at least had the brainpower to suggest people
suspend judgement until the true story came out - like Sister
Clara, and Ron Newman. But no, the mob were on a feeding frenzy, and
you can't reason with that. You *certainly* can't appeal to that for
help.
I was ready at that point to say "the hell with the lot of you", turn
round, go back, give them ALL they wanted, and believe me, that would
have been considerable, do Steps A - E, and become a Scientologist
again. Etc, etc, etc. Waiting, waiting for me to break. I didn't
trust anyone enough to tell them OSA were standing *right there*
while they were all laying into me. It felt like I was in this
horrific nightmare, trying to scream for help, but my voice wouldn't
work. Or one of those when you're in a nightmare, and you're trying
to run away from danger, and your legs won't work. Utter, sheer,
powerlessness. Paralysis. I'll never forget that moment of nightmare,
and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. I wouldn't even wish it
back on the mob, although it might give them some clue as to what
this is all about. But I have accepted, now, that most people just do
*not* understand, and it is utterly pointless even trying to explain.
I don't know why I didn't break. I don't know. At that point I could
see they were absolutely right. Why shouldn't I just give up, and go
back to them, and give them all the data on the very people who were
tearing me to pieces.....why not? They were right, about so many
things, what possible reason should I hold out for? Why not go back
to my former religion? I could see, they were utterly right, in that
moment, about suppressives, and critics, and the hatred, and
everything.
And then Joe Harrington said:
"Kim, I love you." He KNEW I had just betrayed him, he knew I wasn't
an OSA agent, but that something had happened, and DESPITE that, he
said that to me. This is the vortex, in a way, around which the rest
of this story evolves. "Kim, I love you!". It was a shout across
miles and miles that was *so* powerful, that when I saw it, it shook
me, and shook me, and actually snapped me out of it, and "OH MY GOD
WHAT HAVE I DONE????"
I clung onto it ...I hung onto it as the one tiny piece of sanity in
this imploding world of sheer madness that I had plunged down into.
And I clung onto the fact that Patrick had seen right through it
instantly. There *were* a few people out there who actually did know
me well enough to know that I wouldn't have done this on my own, or
that I hadn't been an OSA agent all along.
And then I knew I just had to get rid of OSA, and then go and refute
the Declarations, but I couldn't do it while they were still here.
And so I had to make damn sure my indicators were in, and get rid of
them as soon as possible, and continue to be friendly. I didn't know
any other way. I still didn't feel I could ask anyone for help.
But Joe gave me the strength to go on. And Patrick. And others who
shall remain nameless for their own protection.
And then, I got a telephonic death threat, from the States (caller
USA accent) unless I retracted the Declaration. To this day, I don't
know who that was. And they said I was going to need a lawyer, and
that they would provide me with one free of charge, because I had
helped them, even if I didn't go back. I refused. I knew that if I
went into their debt, I was finished, I would never be able to get
out again. I decided to take whatever came myself. They gave me the
name of their lawyer, and made me call him, but I said I didn't want
any service yet, but would call him if I needed it. There was just no
way I was going to be used by them any further.
I never called him. And then, eventually after five weeks in Cape
Town, they left. For two weeks after that I couldn't do much. I was
numb, dead, in agony, and suicidal. I couldn't sleep much, and when I
did, I had such horrific nightmares that I'd wake up screaming my
head off. I just wanted to die. But I couldn't let myself die yet, I
still had something I had to do. I contacted the attorney, and got
the Refutation done. I faxed a copy of it to OSA so they knew, and
the lawyer got it to FACTnet in the States.
And OSA called me, and screamed and threatened, and wanted to know
who had put me up to it, and did "Wollersheim get to you", and I just
wanted to laugh, because I hadn't had any contact with those people,
and I didn't want to, ever again. I just told them to leave me
alone, and never come near me again, or I'd get a restraining order.
After a couple of attempts, they got the message, and left me alone.
Which, to this day, they have continued to do. They don't have to
worry about me anymore, anyway, I'm no longer effective against them,
so in the end, one of their problems *was* solved, and a nuisance was
eliminated.
And then, I collapsed with glandular fever, and was off work for six
weeks. I was very, very ill with a fever wracking my body. And a
desire to just die. But I didn't die. Despite wanting to. And then I
later figured suicide was a cop-out to ease the pain, and an
indulgence, and since I was going to die one day anyway, I might as
well just endure the rest of my life until it was over. Like taking
on a life-sentence.
(Continued in Part 3)
Keith Henson
Grady Ward (gr...@netcom.com) wrote:
: After reading material like this can people still ask why
: I fight the criminal cult of scientology?
No.
Keith Henson
Deirdre
I can't either. I understand and, having watched and supported Kim, have
seen the darkness that Scn can do to people. Kim is one of the neatest and
brightest stars I've met and I love her dearly. Like myself and others,
she has her areas of vulnerability and the cult used them to their own
end.
I hope she has gained a sense of peace by writing this.
_Deirdre
In article <hkhensonD...@netcom.com>, hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith
Henson) wrote:
Michael Reuss
> Grady Ward (gr...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>After reading material like this can people still ask why
>I fight the criminal cult of scientology?
I'm with you in spirit Grady. Kick these bastards' asses (figuratively) in
court for us, for yourself, for those who don't have a clue about what's
happening, for the future.
--
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
David Gerard
This bit looks real important, so I'm quoting it. Re-read.
On 28 Aug 1996 09:18:45 -0400, Kim Baker via Ron Newman (rne...@cybercom.net) wrote:
:ARS (again):
--
Reverend Doctor David Gerard, KoX, SP 4.04, kOh; http://suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
Prestige Elite(tm) Research Church of the SubGenius
Now a CARD-CARRYING SCIENTOLOGIST! No, really. Would I lie to you?
July 5, 1998, 7 AM. Saucers. End of the world. Your US$30 is your trip ticket.
dmo...@cts.com
Kim Baker via Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> wrote:
>"THERE IS NO LOADED MAGNUM IN THE ROOM":
>This time, they had been in touch with the people in
>the States, and they had a whole lot of questions which they fired
>at me, interrogation style. Who was "nob...@replay.com, SCAMIZDAT,
>Old Timer, Rogue Agent", and what did I know about "Grady Ward -
>was he the one doing SCAMIZDAT, who was behind Wollersheim, and
>anything incriminating I could tell them about Steven Fishman,
>Lawrence, David Mayo, Homer Wilson Smith, Arnie, RVY, Erlich, Malcolm,
>Joe Harrington, Jon Atack, and others. Hours and hours. I wasn't very
>helpful, but I did give them minimal answers.
Kim, you say you were not very helpful, but gave them
minimal answers?
When asked about Old Timer, "you offered" to OSA that
Old Timer, posting from the account of dmo...@cts.com,
(take the DM from "dm"organ) was in fact David Mayo! You
had no proof for making such an erroneous statement, but
you stood by your words, didn't you? Your words were wrong
weren't they?
Seems to me, you enjoyed the seat of power you felt you had
during this time. Even though you did not know what you were
talking about, you caused damage. You led OSA on. You let
them think you were in the "know", when in fact "you" knew very
little.
I hope the day comes when you can put this all behind you and
finish your schooling. I feel however that day will not come until
you tell the "actual" truth! Pleeeese....do not use the excuse I
was brainwashed and could not help myself. You knew what you
were doing, each step of the way.
Old Timer
st...@aimnet.com
In article <50cod1$r...@newsfeed.cts.com>, dmo...@cts.com writes:
|> Kim Baker via Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> wrote:
|>
|>
|>
|> Seems to me, you enjoyed the seat of power you felt you had
|> during this time. Even though you did not know what you were
|> talking about, you caused damage. You led OSA on. You let
|> them think you were in the "know", when in fact "you" knew very
|> little.
|>
|> I hope the day comes when you can put this all behind you and
|> finish your schooling. I feel however that day will not come until
|> you tell the "actual" truth! Pleeeese....do not use the excuse I
|> was brainwashed and could not help myself. You knew what you
|> were doing, each step of the way.
Old Timer is suggesting honesty. And although there is no doubt that
the Kim Baker circus is very strange, I've taken the opportunity to use
Old Timer's suggestion as a reminder for myself, you know, in all the
various areas of my life. Heh, honesty is the cure for scientology.
Steve Whitlatch
swhi...@aimnet.com
Honesty cures scientology.
Kim Baker via Ron Newman
Kim asked me to post this reply to Old Timer's message. -- Ron N.
> Forwarded message:
> > From: dmo...@cts.com
> > Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
> > Subject: Re: Kim Baker: MY STORY CONTINUES: THE BEAST (Part 2 of 3)
> > Date: Sun, 01 Sep 1996 19:44:30 GMT
> > Message-ID: <50cod1$r...@newsfeed.cts.com>
Old Timer,
I no longer have Usenet access, and so have not been reading the
responses to this. However, someone forwarded this to me,
and in the public interest, I think it deserves a public
response.
Old Timer wrote:
> > Kim, you say you were not very helpful, but gave them
> > minimal answers?
> >
> > When asked about Old Timer, "you offered" to OSA that
> > Old Timer, posting from the account of dmo...@cts.com,
> > (take the DM from "dm"organ) was in fact David Mayo! You
> > had no proof for making such an erroneous statement, but
> > you stood by your words, didn't you? Your words were wrong
> > weren't they?
It appears your contact inside OSA has their wires a bit
crossed - perhaps you should ask OSA to send you the transcript
of that particular tape? My exact response to that question
was: "I once thought it was David Mayo - I was very certain it
was, but later heard that "Old Timer" is a woman who was
once very close to Hubbard and his third wife." This is public
knowledge, Dennis even once expanded on it, and said "Old Timer"
is in San Diego.
The funny thing is, they weren't terribly interested in knowing
who "Old Timer" was - they were actually quite amused - I think
they already know who you are, and couldn't be bothered, or, you
are a "troll".
> > Seems to me, you enjoyed the seat of power you felt you had
> > during this time. Even though you did not know what you were
> > talking about, you caused damage. You led OSA on. You let
> > them think you were in the "know", when in fact "you" knew very
> > little.
This is very interesting. Knew very little about what?
The Free Zone? I had no wish to know anything about the "Free
Zone", it's a wasteland. What little I did know, I didn't
tell them, I protected them in that what the Free Zone
does is none of their business - but who cares about
the Free Zone? I don't. OSA have them down very low
on their list, and I know of a few deals that have been done
by some in the Free Zone - Walter, Gerbode, etc - perhaps
it is time for some of those deals to be made public?
So we can see just how "ethical" this Free Zone is?
I can tell you this - when they have finished smashing
Wollersheim, and FACTNet, and Atack, and Young, etc,
they'll get to the Free Zone, eventually - make no mistake,
Old Timer, you are dealing with the devil.
But what I'm most interested in here is: why are you so upset
at "damage done" to OSA? Why? Why are you so upset at the
lack of information, or the mostly useless information that
they extracted from me? Why does that upset you?
> > I hope the day comes when you can put this all behind you and
> > finish your schooling. I feel however that day will not come until
> > you tell the "actual" truth! Pleeeese....do not use the excuse I
> > was brainwashed and could not help myself. You knew what you
> > were doing, each step of the way.
Let me put it this way - this whole area is filthy.
Anyone that comes into contact with it gets infected,
it's like a virus that taints people's minds and souls.
I'm getting as far away from it as I can. That much, at
least, should make you happy.
Kim Baker
--
Ron Newman rne...@cybercom.net
Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
dmo...@cts.com
Kim Baker via Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> wrote:
>Kim asked me to post this reply to Old Timer's message. -- Ron N.
>> Forwarded message:
>> > From: dmo...@cts.com
>> > Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
>> > Subject: Re: Kim Baker: MY STORY CONTINUES: THE BEAST (Part 2 of 3)
>> > Date: Sun, 01 Sep 1996 19:44:30 GMT
>> > Message-ID: <50cod1$r...@newsfeed.cts.com>
> Old Timer,
>
> I no longer have Usenet access, and so have not been reading the
> responses to this. However, someone forwarded this to me,
> and in the public interest, I think it deserves a public
> response.
Thank you for the response.
>Old Timer wrote:
>> > Kim, you say you were not very helpful, but gave them
>> > minimal answers?
>> >
>> > When asked about Old Timer, "you offered" to OSA that
>> > Old Timer, posting from the account of dmo...@cts.com,
>> > (take the DM from "dm"organ) was in fact David Mayo! You
>> > had no proof for making such an erroneous statement, but
>> > you stood by your words, didn't you? Your words were wrong
>> > weren't they?
> It appears your contact inside OSA has their wires a bit
> crossed - perhaps you should ask OSA to send you the transcript
> of that particular tape?
I'm not in comm with OSA. I resent the suggestion, I'll chalk it
up to sarcasm.
My exact response to that question
> was: "I once thought it was David Mayo - I was very certain it
> was,
Like I said, when you were asked about Old Timer, you offered the
above data. You gave OSA the idea I was David Mayo.
Like you just said, "I was very certain it was". Thanks for giving up
some of the truth anyway.
but later heard that "Old Timer" is a woman who was
> once very close to Hubbard and his third wife." This is public
> knowledge, Dennis even once expanded on it, and said "Old Timer"
> is in San Diego.
cts.com is in San Diego.
>
> The funny thing is, they weren't terribly interested in knowing
> who "Old Timer" was - they were actually quite amused - I think
> they already know who you are, and couldn't be bothered, or, you
> are a "troll".
Hmm, the above is rather an odd statement. If OSA weren't
terribly interested in knowing who Old Timer was, why then did
you bother to mention Old Timer in part 2 of the beast? Since I am
just a minor player, you could have left me out all together right?
But you didn't.
You said in Part 2 of the beast:
"....and they had a whole lot of questions which they fired at me
interrogation style. Who was "nob...@replay.com, SCAMIZDAT,
Old Timer, Rogue Agent and what did I know about...."
The troll remark I shall chalk up to further sarcasm.
>> > Seems to me, you enjoyed the seat of power you felt you had
>> > during this time. Even though you did not know what you were
>> > talking about, you caused damage. You led OSA on. You let
>> > them think you were in the "know", when in fact "you" knew very
>> > little.
> This is very interesting. Knew very little about what?
> The Free Zone? I had no wish to know anything about the "Free
> Zone", it's a wasteland. What little I did know, I didn't
> tell them, I protected them in that what the Free Zone
> does is none of their business - but who cares about
> the Free Zone? I don't. OSA have them down very low
> on their list, and I know of a few deals that have been done
> by some in the Free Zone - Walter, Gerbode, etc - perhaps
> it is time for some of those deals to be made public?
> So we can see just how "ethical" this Free Zone is?
You say you had no wish to know anything about the
Free Zone? Why then did you get yourself on a few
Free Zone lists? I say a few because you only knew
of a few. You never knew of the Free Zone Association,
thank God.
Walter and Sarge are not members of the FZA. Get your Free Zones
sorted out. You have some kind of cheek IMHO pointing out unethical
behaviour in others. See what you're doing in the above statement
concerning Walter and Sarge? You are doing it again. You are causing
trouble with your mouth. You again are offering data. Why do you feel
the need to do that? You want to post about Walter and Sarge?
Go ahead. Let all see your true colors.
> I can tell you this - when they have finished smashing
> Wollersheim, and FACTNet, and Atack, and Young, etc,
> they'll get to the Free Zone, eventually - make no mistake,
> Old Timer, you are dealing with the devil.
I do know what I am dealing with when it comes to the church.
To bad you didn't before you started running your mouth to
OSA.
>
> But what I'm most interested in here is: why are you so upset
> at "damage done" to OSA? Why? Why are you so upset at the
> lack of information, or the mostly useless information that
> they extracted from me? Why does that upset you?
Maybe you misread what I said? I did not mention damage done
to OSA. I said you caused damage. You led OSA on, by giving
them false data.
What upset me? Your stupid remark about dmo...@cts.com
being David Mayo, had an effect on Doc Morgan. The effect
on Doc Morgan caused an effect on me. So much
for your remark that OSA is not interested in Old Timer.
When you were asked about Old Timer, you could have just
simply said the truth, I have no data on the poster Old Timer.
But no, that thing you have, the "needing importance" thing, got
in the way. You then gave false data, just so you had something
important sounding to say.
>
>
>> > I hope the day comes when you can put this all behind you and
>> > finish your schooling. I feel however that day will not come until
>> > you tell the "actual" truth! Pleeeese....do not use the excuse I
>> > was brainwashed and could not help myself. You knew what you
>> > were doing, each step of the way.
> Let me put it this way - this whole area is filthy.
> Anyone that comes into contact with it gets infected,
> it's like a virus that taints people's minds and souls.
> I'm getting as far away from it as I can. That much, at
> least, should make you happy.
I meant what I said, I hope you can put this all behind you.
I hope you finish school. I hope too, that you have learned
an important lesson in some of this. Do not offer information
you have no information on. Just be honest and say, I have no
data.
I am sure you are sorry for the damage that has been caused
in your various flip flops. You have heard from others concerning
the effects your flip flops have caused. Now you have heard from
me and know your false data to OSA had an adverse effect on me.
Old Timer
Ron Newman
> When asked about Old Timer, "you offered" to OSA that
> Old Timer, posting from the account of dmo...@cts.com,
> (take the DM from "dm"organ) was in fact David Mayo! You
> had no proof for making such an erroneous statement, but
> you stood by your words, didn't you? Your words were wrong
> weren't they?
Old Timer, how would you know something like this?
Kim didn't say this anywhere in her posting.
And isn't it better that she gave an "erroneous" statement
to OSA, rather than a true one ?
> Seems to me, you enjoyed the seat of power you felt you had
> during this time. Even though you did not know what you were
> talking about, you caused damage. You led OSA on. You let
> them think you were in the "know", when in fact "you" knew very
> little.
Leading OSA down the wrong path is surely a virtuous thing
to do (which is why we all love Grady and Keith....)
Ceon Ramon
In article <50h8qp$s...@shell1.cybercom.net>,
Ron Newman <rne...@shell1.cybercom.net> wrote:
>In article <50cod1$r...@newsfeed.cts.com>, <dmo...@cts.com> wrote:
>
>> When asked about Old Timer, "you offered" to OSA that
>> Old Timer, posting from the account of dmo...@cts.com,
>> (take the DM from "dm"organ) was in fact David Mayo! You
>> had no proof for making such an erroneous statement, but
>> you stood by your words, didn't you? Your words were wrong
>> weren't they?
>
>Old Timer, how would you know something like this?
>Kim didn't say this anywhere in her posting.
>
>And isn't it better that she gave an "erroneous" statement
>to OSA, rather than a true one ?
Ron, this isn't aimed at Kim, but I just want to remind you that false
information can create just as much damage as true information if someone
acts on that information.
--Barbara
Diane Richardson
rne...@shell1.cybercom.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>In article <50cod1$r...@newsfeed.cts.com>, <dmo...@cts.com> wrote:
>> When asked about Old Timer, "you offered" to OSA that
>> Old Timer, posting from the account of dmo...@cts.com,
>> (take the DM from "dm"organ) was in fact David Mayo! You
>> had no proof for making such an erroneous statement, but
>> you stood by your words, didn't you? Your words were wrong
>> weren't they?
>Old Timer, how would you know something like this?
>Kim didn't say this anywhere in her posting.
Old TImer has never been reticent about her "sources" within OSA, Ron.
I've heard that she still has both a son and a daughter in the Sea
Org. One has disconnected; the other has not.
>And isn't it better that she gave an "erroneous" statement
>to OSA, rather than a true one ?
The honorable thing for Kim to have done is not to give OSA any
statement at all. But then, I guess we've all stopped expecting
anything honorable to come from Kim Baker, haven't we?
False information can have consequences every bit as serious as
truthful information. All the proof we need of that is to read Steven
Fishman on this newsgroup. Or Arnie Lerma, for that matter.
>> Seems to me, you enjoyed the seat of power you felt you had
>> during this time. Even though you did not know what you were
>> talking about, you caused damage. You led OSA on. You let
>> them think you were in the "know", when in fact "you" knew very
>> little.
>Leading OSA down the wrong path is surely a virtuous thing
>to do (which is why we all love Grady and Keith....)
Do you include Steven Fishman in your list of the virtuous, Ron? I
would say that I'm shocked and surprised at your attitude, but I
realized a few months back that your normal "objectivity" fails you
when it comes to Kim Baker.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Cornelius Krasel
Diane Richardson (ref...@neont.com) wrote:
[manages to slam five persons in one posting]
Seems your research skills have failed you badly recently. It's a pity
that you have to resort to name-calling instead. Not quite impressive.
--Cornelius.
--
/* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
/* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: pha...@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP3 */
/* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */
Rich Burroughs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 03 Sep 1996 18:33:56 GMT, ref...@neont.com (Diane
Richardson) wrote:
[snip]
> The honorable thing for Kim to have done is not to give OSA any
> statement at all. But then, I guess we've all stopped expecting
> anything honorable to come from Kim Baker, haven't we?
Oh, please. Speak for yourself.
[snip]
> Do you include Steven Fishman in your list of the virtuous, Ron? I
> would say that I'm shocked and surprised at your attitude, but I
> realized a few months back that your normal "objectivity" fails you
> when it comes to Kim Baker.
While yours is obviously in tact.
Rich
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBMiznISnhWc34xW2VAQHnTAf+NJAsKL6VNcT9H8zoWqKo3D3J5LdF1DYx
dbvH3uqKnZm55B6nfIpuAWxhinZngZAhf+Q+3lU6R24AMgH9oJmDg67L1aIzSDhl
WVjYjUAlq4J8KkCaYPeZCuwQ2ZjTxjIlf/yRnf72I4wO4zzlV5PkouJXM4ZF20YY
oiEQA9Yj3D2gA/nttRdJ54x4zBH168aRdnqKcH3TaX4VypA+Xo3BAoQTwS8Wp3GD
Rzkcb4vIBuDO6D4weXS+JR25dXS/Wvm/OnNXAsOxCG6B6sjiVVf4XCI5/sf/7rEZ
/iaGdUZDzWcs6PJZlSdwHWnUhnKbwGYpOBG5IlchR/M8zpfpNmv1vg==
=eavA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
______________________________________________________________________
Rich Burroughs ric...@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb
See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon
U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state
New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause
Rod Keller
Diane Richardson (ref...@neont.com) wrote:
: False information can have consequences every bit as serious as
: truthful information. All the proof we need of that is to read Steven
: Fishman on this newsgroup. Or Arnie Lerma, for that matter.
Innuendo can be worse than true or false information. Just read Diane
Richardson. I really can't believe what I just read.
--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club
United Free Zone Alliance / Elron's Inspector / Merchant of Chaos
Kha Khan countdown: 9 to go / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
dmo...@cts.com
rne...@shell1.cybercom.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>In article <50cod1$r...@newsfeed.cts.com>, <dmo...@cts.com> wrote:
>> When asked about Old Timer, "you offered" to OSA that
>> Old Timer, posting from the account of dmo...@cts.com,
>> (take the DM from "dm"organ) was in fact David Mayo! You
>> had no proof for making such an erroneous statement, but
>> you stood by your words, didn't you? Your words were wrong
>> weren't they?
>Old Timer, how would you know something like this?
>Kim didn't say this anywhere in her posting.
Ron,
Re-read her post. She said, "I was very certain it was".
This is most odd since Kim and I exchanged a couple
of e-mails after she joined a Free Zone list. BTW, this was
before you met her.
At that time she told me she thought I might be Mayo, due to
the "dm"in dmorgan. Kim can not deny that because, she and
I know the truth of that conversation. I told her in no uncertain
terms I was not Mayo.
>And isn't it better that she gave an "erroneous" statement
>to OSA, rather than a true one ?
What?? What erroneous statement are you talking about?
It would have been better for Kim to tell the damn truth. And
that truth was...I have no information on the ID of Old Timer.
Do you think it was a good idea to give the false information
she did? Do you think it was a good idea for Kim to say "with
certainty" a lie? Do you believe that her false statements did
not create an adverse effect? I do not know if Kim's stupid
remark caused an effect with Mayo. It sure as hell did with me.
>> Seems to me, you enjoyed the seat of power you felt you had
>> during this time. Even though you did not know what you were
>> talking about, you caused damage. You led OSA on. You let
>> them think you were in the "know", when in fact "you" knew very
>> little.
>Leading OSA down the wrong path is surely a virtuous thing
>to do (which is why we all love Grady and Keith....)
Agreed. However, Kim did not lead OSA down the wrong
path. That child, pointed a finger and wrongly helped create ill
effects on ex-church members by giving false information.
You know Ron, I have much respect for you. It is wonderful
to know Kim has a good friend in you. Hopefully your support
will help her get through this time in her life.
May I suggest we drop this subject? Let Kim do her healing and
growing up.
Old Timer
Baba ROM DOS
dmo...@cts.com writes:
>rne...@shell1.cybercom.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>>In article <50cod1$r...@newsfeed.cts.com>, <dmo...@cts.com> wrote:
>>> When asked about Old Timer, "you offered" to OSA that
>>> Old Timer, posting from the account of dmo...@cts.com,
>>> (take the DM from "dm"organ) was in fact David Mayo! You
>>> had no proof for making such an erroneous statement, but
>>> you stood by your words, didn't you? Your words were wrong
>>> weren't they?
>>Old Timer, how would you know something like this?
>>Kim didn't say this anywhere in her posting.
> Ron,
> Re-read her post. She said, "I was very certain it was".
And that she had revised her opinion before her run-in with OSA.
She did *not* say that she said any such thing to OSA. Indeed,
she claims the contrary. I've found nothing in any statement of Kim's
archived on DejaNews to the effect that she had identified Old Timer
as anyone in particular, only that OSA had asked about Old Timer along
with other a.r.s. personalities.
> At that time she told me she thought I might be Mayo, due to
> the "dm"in dmorgan. Kim can not deny that because, she and
> I know the truth of that conversation. I told her in no uncertain
> terms I was not Mayo.
Why should she deny it? When has she denied it? And why should we allow
the subject to be changed? You have accused Kim Baker, who is not present
on a.r.s. to defend herself, of falsely identifying you to the OSA. As
near as anyone here can tell, whether or not she did so, you could only
have gotten that information from the OSA, in which case the fact that
you would believe them over Kim speaks volumes.
> May I suggest we drop this subject? Let Kim do her healing and
> growing up.
You may suggest it, certainly. Given that you would *appear* to have
inadvertantly blown your cover once and for all, it would seem to be
in your interest to do so. But others are not obligated to take the
suggestion. How do you purport to know what Kim told OSA?
dmo...@cts.com
ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson) wrote:
[text deleted]
>Old TImer has never been reticent about her "sources" within OSA, Ron.
>I've heard that she still has both a son and a daughter in the Sea
>Org. One has disconnected; the other has not.
Please note the correction of incorrect information concerning my
children:
The children that are still within the Sea Org disconnected from me
in 1983. I have no communication with them. Their sibling is
not connected to the church and has had no communication with
them since 1983. If the truth be known, I do not know if those in the
SO are even still in.
Old Timer
Tilman Hausherr
In <50i9i0$c...@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>,
kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:
>Seems your research skills have failed you badly recently. It's a pity
>that you have to resort to name-calling instead. Not quite impressive.
I don't know what happened with her. She was once one of the most
valuable contributors of a.r.s.
Tilman
--- Tilman Hausherr [KoX]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/
You really do expose your true colors with your posts, Tilman.
[mi...@crl.com]
GEMMAMP1
Old Timer wrote:
I hope the day comes when you can put this all behind you and
finish your schooling. I feel however that day will not come until
you tell the "actual" truth! Pleeeese....do not use the excuse I
was brainwashed and could not help myself. You knew what you
were doing, each step of the way.
With all due respect, Old Timer, I think you need to learn a bit about
mind control and how people can be influenced to do things they would
never choose to do. I know that this is very inconsistent with
Scientology's beliefs, but this is what is happening. Kim was under mind
control, which is not the same thing as brainwashing, where physical
coercion is necessary. I think that Kim has done a beautiful job of
describing it in her recent postings. Being under mind control doesn't
mean that you are locked in a room with bright lights and being tortured.
It is much more subtle and powerful than that.
I realize that this is not something that most people want to believe,
that our minds can be controlled but until we do come to grips with this
issue, it will continue to happen to people. If we can learn about these
processes, only then can we prevent such atrocities from happening.
Monica Pignotti
Another Old Timer
Ralph Hilton
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>Old Timer wrote:
Monica - maybe your mind can be controlled - mine can't without a very
considerable amount of duress. And that is a GREAT deal of duress.
Scientology gave me that. If you had studied LRH fully you might have
realized that - but you preferred to be reasonable.
--
Ralph Hilton
"Dianetics is not in any way covered by legislation anywhere,
for no law can prevent one man sitting down and telling
another man his troubles, and if anyone wants a monopoly
on Dianetics, be assured that he wants it for reasons which
have to do not with Dianetics but with profit."
"Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health"
by L. Ron Hubbard
Dan McKinnon
ra...@xenologics.idiscover.co.uk (Ralph Hilton) wrote:
>Monica - maybe your mind can be controlled - mine can't without a very
>considerable amount of duress. And that is a GREAT deal of duress.
>Scientology gave me that. If you had studied LRH fully you might have
>realized that - but you preferred to be reasonable.
Ralph - I can't make hide nor hair of your post.
When you say "Scientology gave me that", are you referring back to
"a GREAT deal of duress", or " a mind that can't be controlled..."?
"You might have realized that" refers to what? I can't tell if you
are using "realize" as in "come to an understanding" or "to make real or
concrete"?
I suppose it depends if you are speaking English or $cientologese
to another ex-member, but us poor wogs can't tell.
And is "you preferred to be reasonable" a slam against Monica, or
yourself, for, I infer, apparently _not_ being reasonable?
Dan
This is _not_ a flame.
Ron Newman
In article <50ir56$h...@ordeal.cts.com>, <dmo...@cts.com> wrote:
>rne...@shell1.cybercom.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>
>>In article <50cod1$r...@newsfeed.cts.com>, <dmo...@cts.com> wrote:
>
>>> When asked about Old Timer, "you offered" to OSA that
>>> Old Timer, posting from the account of dmo...@cts.com,
>>> (take the DM from "dm"organ) was in fact David Mayo! You
>>> had no proof for making such an erroneous statement, but
>>> you stood by your words, didn't you? Your words were wrong
>>> weren't they?
>
>>Old Timer, how would you know something like this?
>>Kim didn't say this anywhere in her posting.
>
> Ron,
>
> Re-read her post. She said, "I was very certain it was".
She did ? Where?
I searched through all 3 parts of "The Beast" with a text editor and
see no such statement. In fact, I see nothing at all in "The Beast"
that mentions either Old Timer or David Mayo, except this:
This time, they had been in touch with the people in
the States, and they had a whole lot of questions which they fired
at me, interrogation style. Who was "nob...@replay.com, SCAMIZDAT,
Old Timer, Rogue Agent", and what did I know about "Grady Ward -
was he the one doing SCAMIZDAT, who was behind Wollersheim, and
anything incriminating I could tell them about Steven Fishman,
Lawrence, David Mayo, Homer Wilson Smith, Arnie, RVY, Erlich, Malcolm,
Joe Harrington, Jon Atack, and others. Hours and hours. I wasn't very
helpful, but I did give them minimal answers.
I don't know where you're getting your information from,
Old Timer, but it sure isn't from Kim's writings.
Baba ROM DOS
rne...@shell1.cybercom.net (Ron Newman) writes:
>In article <50ir56$h...@ordeal.cts.com>, <dmo...@cts.com> wrote:
>>rne...@shell1.cybercom.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <50cod1$r...@newsfeed.cts.com>, <dmo...@cts.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> When asked about Old Timer, "you offered" to OSA that
>>>> Old Timer, posting from the account of dmo...@cts.com,
>>>> (take the DM from "dm"organ) was in fact David Mayo! You
>>>> had no proof for making such an erroneous statement, but
>>>> you stood by your words, didn't you? Your words were wrong
>>>> weren't they?
>>
>>>Old Timer, how would you know something like this?
>>>Kim didn't say this anywhere in her posting.
>>
>> Ron,
>>
>> Re-read her post. She said, "I was very certain it was".
>She did ? Where?
>I searched through all 3 parts of "The Beast" with a text editor and
>see no such statement.
Actually, Ron, it comes from the following, which you posted on Kim's
behalf:
"It appears your contact inside OSA has their wires a bit
crossed - perhaps you should ask OSA to send you the transcript
of that particular tape? My exact response to that question
was: "I once thought it was David Mayo - I was very certain it
was, but later heard that "Old Timer" is a woman who was
once very close to Hubbard and his third wife." This is public
knowledge, Dennis even once expanded on it, and said "Old Timer"
is in San Diego.
"The funny thing is, they weren't terribly interested in knowing
who "Old Timer" was - they were actually quite amused - I think
they already know who you are, and couldn't be bothered, or, you
are a "troll".
Now, what is interesting about this is that the foregoing passage
comes from Kim's September 2 *response* to Old Timer's accusation
of September 1. In other words, Old Timer is claiming to have
based her accusation on material not yet written when she made it.
That might be taken as proof of narly OT cause over MEST, but
as anyone can see, Kim's statement, in context, *contradicts* i
Old Timer's allegation. So it's merely proof of malice and dishonesty.
Ceon Ramon
In article <50mlpt$n...@news.interlog.com>,
Dan McKinnon <da...@interlog.com> wrote:
>ra...@xenologics.idiscover.co.uk (Ralph Hilton) wrote:
>
>>Monica - maybe your mind can be controlled - mine can't without a very
>>considerable amount of duress. And that is a GREAT deal of duress.
>>Scientology gave me that. If you had studied LRH fully you might have
>>realized that - but you preferred to be reasonable.
>
> Ralph - I can't make hide nor hair of your post.
> And is "you preferred to be reasonable" a slam against Monica, or
>yourself, for, I infer, apparently _not_ being reasonable?
I thought it was a jesting reference to the scientology "crime" of
"suppressive reasonableness."
--Barbara
Diane Richardson
Monica Pignoti (gemm...@aol.com) writes:
>Being under mind control doesn't mean that you are locked in
>a room with bright lights and being tortured. It is much more
>subtle and powerful than that.
Could you explain how "mind control" is more powerful than
"brainwashing," Monica? Please don't ask me to read Singer
and Hassan -- I've read them many, many times already, and
I still fail to understand precisely what "mind control" is
and how it's any different than what an aggressive, fast-talking
door-to-door salesman does.
If "mind control" is so powerful, why does it affect so few
people -- even people within cults themselves. It's been
shown in study after study that more than 90 percent of people
lured into a cult leave the cult of their own volition within
2 years of their entry into it. If "mind control" is so
powerful, why does it affect so few people?
Why should "mind control" done by a cult be considered any
more heinous than the "mind control" thrown at millions of
television viewers in the U.S. every night via commercials?
Why is it acceptable when it's done by Coca-Cola? Or should
Coke be forbidden to advertise?
If you object to that comparison, what about the state-run
lotteries? I think you would agree that there are some
people in this world who suffer from an addiction to gambling.
Most people can listen to the state lottery ads without
suffering any harm at all. Yet there are others who can be
led to serious consequences because of them.
Should government-run gambling be prohibited? Should the
state-sponsored lotteries be allowed to continue, but be
forbidden from advertising? How is this any different from
what is done by cults, and why do you believe that cults
deserve special attention?
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
dmo...@cts.com
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>Old Timer wrote:
> I hope the day comes when you can put this all behind you and
> finish your schooling. I feel however that day will not come until
> you tell the "actual" truth! Pleeeese....do not use the excuse I
> was brainwashed and could not help myself. You knew what you
> were doing, each step of the way.
>With all due respect, Old Timer, I think you need to learn a bit about
>mind control and how people can be influenced to do things they would
>never choose to do. I know that this is very inconsistent with
>Scientology's beliefs, but this is what is happening. Kim was under mind
>control, which is not the same thing as brainwashing, where physical
>coercion is necessary. I think that Kim has done a beautiful job of
>describing it in her recent postings. Being under mind control doesn't
>mean that you are locked in a room with bright lights and being tortured.
>It is much more subtle and powerful than that.
Monica,
With all due respect, and I do mean that, please do not allow an
open door to justify Kim's actions. She caused harm. That can not
be justified or excused.
There was no mind control involved with Kim. Kim is an actress.
ARS is her stage. Bright lights, an audience, is what she needs.
She got that, here on ARS. Each time she walked onto the stage,
and did her performance, she got applause.
This last time, she hurt people. I was one of them. I am not
clapping.
Old Timer
Deirdre
Old Timer has been upset about this supposed occurrence for over a year
and harps on it whenever something vaguely approaching the subject comes
up.
It's also clear that Old Timer has no intention of letting it rest, but
will instead hold onto her upsets until her dying day. Her prerogative of
course.
More interesting: How does Old Timer know that Kim told OSA that Old
Timer/Doc Morgan was David Mayo?
Possible scenarios:
1) Kim told Old Timer or told someone on the net who told Old Timer. If
this were true, it would have come out in the prior year.
2) Kim told OSA and Old Timer found out from OSA.
3) Kim didn't say anything of the sort, but Old Timer's OSA contacts
leaked it anyway to cause disharmony.
I think it's obvious that I consider #3 the most likely scenario, but
effectively Old Timer is claiming #2, which is no more flattering to her
case.
_Deirdre
In article <50nesc$3...@murrow.corp.sgi.com>, ba...@jones.neu.sgi.com (Baba
ROM DOS) wrote:
> Now, what is interesting about this is that the foregoing passage
> comes from Kim's September 2 *response* to Old Timer's accusation
> of September 1. In other words, Old Timer is claiming to have
> based her accusation on material not yet written when she made it.
> That might be taken as proof of narly OT cause over MEST, but
> as anyone can see, Kim's statement, in context, *contradicts* i
> Old Timer's allegation. So it's merely proof of malice and dishonesty.
Keith Henson
Diane Richardson (ao...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
: Monica Pignoti (gemm...@aol.com) writes:
: >Being under mind control doesn't mean that you are locked in
: >a room with bright lights and being tortured. It is much more
: >subtle and powerful than that.
: Could you explain how "mind control" is more powerful than
: "brainwashing," Monica? Please don't ask me to read Singer
: and Hassan -- I've read them many, many times already, and
: I still fail to understand precisely what "mind control" is
: and how it's any different than what an aggressive, fast-talking
: door-to-door salesman does.
Matter of degree Diane, and your example of the salesman is
spot on. Mind Control/brainwashing goes on longer. I do think
the cooling off laws--where you can reconsider a salesman's
patter and cancel the order--are a really good idea, as well
as the laws which prevent one of these from coming back later
if you do cancel.
: If "mind control" is so powerful, why does it affect so few
: people -- even people within cults themselves. It's been
: shown in study after study that more than 90 percent of people
: lured into a cult leave the cult of their own volition within
: 2 years of their entry into it. If "mind control" is so
: powerful, why does it affect so few people?
Well, about 900 people formerly in Jim Jones's cult might
disagree with you, but they mostly seem to be dead. You do
have an excellent point about most of the people leaving in
a year or two. I feel I have make a lot of progress recently
in the psychological mechanism (social status) cults tap.
Perhaps the same mechanisms is involved in people leaving.
After a while the reality and bad food might cut through
all the stroking. Singer has some excellent points about
the catastrophy type mental transision people make. It
seems that a lot of people snap out suddenly.
: Why should "mind control" done by a cult be considered any
: more heinous than the "mind control" thrown at millions of
: television viewers in the U.S. every night via commercials?
: Why is it acceptable when it's done by Coca-Cola? Or should
: Coke be forbidden to advertise?
Again, matter of degree. To a considerable extent folks in
our culture have become relatively resistant to advertizing.
: If you object to that comparison, what about the state-run
: lotteries? I think you would agree that there are some
: people in this world who suffer from an addiction to gambling.
: Most people can listen to the state lottery ads without
: suffering any harm at all. Yet there are others who can be
: led to serious consequences because of them.
: Should government-run gambling be prohibited? Should the
: state-sponsored lotteries be allowed to continue, but be
: forbidden from advertising? How is this any different from
: what is done by cults, and why do you believe that cults
: deserve special attention?
Frankly, it make as much sense to outlaw lottery advertizing
as tobacco, maybe more. But as far as I know, few here are
opposed to the cult being able to hawk its memes as long as
they stay inside the rules (meta memes) and don't try to
abuse those who hawk counter memes about the cult.
Keith Henson
Lance S. Buckley
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <50nk8k$2...@news.ysu.edu> ao...@yfn.ysu.edu "Diane Richardson" writes:
Just thought I'd gave the viewpoint of the terminally uninformed
for a while.
n0 flAm3Z pLe3ZE :) <g> *grin* #include <humour.h> IANAPsych IMHO
]
] Monica Pignoti (gemm...@aol.com) writes:
]
] >Being under mind control doesn't mean that you are locked in
] >a room with bright lights and being tortured. It is much more
] >subtle and powerful than that.
Then probably by this very subtlety, the term "Mind Control" is
a little strong? I know what -I- mean by "Brainwashing" and
"Mind Control", and I'm sure a lot of other people have definite
ideas too. I'm just as sure they are all different from mine.
] Could you explain how "mind control" is more powerful than
] "brainwashing," Monica? Please don't ask me to read Singer
] and Hassan -- I've read them many, many times already, and
] I still fail to understand precisely what "mind control" is
] and how it's any different than what an aggressive, fast-talking
] door-to-door salesman does.
I have read neither. My personal definition puts Brainwashing in
a subset of Mind Control. When it comes down to it there is very
little difference between being sold an encyclopaedia you don't
need, and a religion. It's all in the pitch. In my book, mind
control is anything that changes the way you look at the world,
in part or whole. That includes education and religion.
Brainwashing I see as something that is capable of changing your
entire belief system, your perception of reality and your
personality. This can also include education and religion. When
I use these terms, I make the distinction between acceptable
mind control (TV ads, Sunday School, Political Posturing) and
unacceptable mind control (TV ads, Sunday School, Political
Posturing and Scientology).
] If "mind control" is so powerful, why does it affect so few
] people -- even people within cults themselves. It's been
] shown in study after study that more than 90 percent of people
] lured into a cult leave the cult of their own volition within
] 2 years of their entry into it. If "mind control" is so
] powerful, why does it affect so few people?
I'm sure it affects many more people than the study shows. Maybe
their definition of Mind Control is different from mine. When it
comes down to it, I don't see any significant difference between
scientology, amway, and membership of the political party of
your choice. It's what happens under their influence that
determines the "blow factor".
] Why should "mind control" done by a cult be considered any
] more heinous than the "mind control" thrown at millions of
] television viewers in the U.S. every night via commercials?
] Why is it acceptable when it's done by Coca-Cola? Or should
] Coke be forbidden to advertise?
I assume that Coke would soon reap the results of their
misbehaviour if they had the temerity to attack Pepsi as a
squirrel group, or brand the AMA as an SP group for saying Coke
was bad for your teeth.
] If you object to that comparison, what about the state-run
] lotteries? I think you would agree that there are some
] people in this world who suffer from an addiction to gambling.
] Most people can listen to the state lottery ads without
] suffering any harm at all. Yet there are others who can be
] led to serious consequences because of them.
I don't see this as valid a comparison as the TV commercial
analogy. No-one really needs to be sold a lottery ticket. A
person's greed and hope against all odds that they will win,
will to the job quite nicely. TV commercials are by their very
nature warping your perception of their product from the mundane
reality of a carpet cleaner, to the "country fresh meadow in
your house" fantasy.
] Should government-run gambling be prohibited? Should the
] state-sponsored lotteries be allowed to continue, but be
] forbidden from advertising? How is this any different from
] what is done by cults, and why do you believe that cults
] deserve special attention?
As I stated above, I regard this as an inappropriate analogy. I
can see your point, but what has to be borne in mind is the end
result of your involvement. The end result of buying a lottery
ticked is either someone a buck poorer, or several milllions
richer. You go for the "meadow in your house" carpet cleaner and
at least you end up with clean carpets. You buy into scientology
and you can end up broke, psychotic or both.
Lance.
- --
http://www.avalon.demon.co.uk/
"We would only destroy people who attempt to harm Scientology"
Jaques Lederer/Vollet, alledged ex-head of B1(UK)
[ SP4 : GGBC #26 : ARSCC(UK) : J&D : KoX : KbM ]
My Other Hat's A Fedora
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBMjADMijzbaRloMBtAQG8ZAP/YXAya44WEs7uqu95TOYhkva8GVzF/PjG
tRe2mWp7mAOFV5/lOvv6zYkFnL9WdqOpb0wIKWpQOCmuKes6QpLF4aBwQQSGJTFN
agIcuOYfzpYK0um4sKx28u14sQlzY0kgkXgAEiPeolhInS5eVHE9hAtqyATa8nhr
ZxNmGaS951w=
=JDxu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
GEMMAMP1
Old Timer wrote:
> With all due respect, and I do mean that, please do not allow an
> open door to justify Kim's actions. She caused harm. That can not
> be justified or excused.
No, Scientology and its officials caused harm and that, indeed cannot be
justified or excused.
> There was no mind control involved with Kim. Kim is an actress.
> ARS is her stage. Bright lights, an audience, is what she needs.
> She got that, here on ARS. Each time she walked onto the stage,
> and did her performance, she got applause.
I have to emphatically disagree with you. As someone who has spoken with
her at length, I can assure you that Kim is a real person, not an actress
and she was, very much, under mind control. She is not the first person
to have experienced this, nor will she be the last.
This last time, she hurt people. I was one of them. I am not
clapping.
I'm very sorry to hear you were hurt, but please direct your anger where
it belongs -- not at Kim but at the CofS. I am not clapping for what Kim
did, but I am clapping for the fact that she has had the courage to
examine it and to come to an understanding of what occurred.
Monica Pignotti
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
ao...@yfn.ysu.edu (Diane Richardson):
>forbidden from advertising? How is this any different from
>what is done by cults, and why do you believe that cults
>deserve special attention?
This is a troll, right Di?
Even though I agree with most of what you said, your message, if
you are being something more than pointlessly (or even pointedly)
provocative, is incomprehensible.
Any activity which exerts undue and fraudulent influence on
consumers to extort money from them should have activities (ie. false
advertising claims) curtailed.
Neither the Coke Cola Company, nor even Phillip Morris have gotten
their employees to drink poison, burn themselves up, put poison gas in
subways, or kill pregnant women and write 'PIG' on the wall in their
blood.
That's why.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
Old Timer:
> With all due respect, and I do mean that, please do not allow an
> open door to justify Kim's actions. She caused harm. That can not
> be justified or excused.
I'm afraid it's not so cut-and-dried as you make it, O-Timer.
> There was no mind control involved with Kim. Kim is an actress.
> ARS is her stage. Bright lights, an audience, is what she needs.
> She got that, here on ARS. Each time she walked onto the stage,
> and did her performance, she got applause.
This is a bit too far into her head for you to see so clearly. And
it is not in proper perspective to other, more pressing motivations
she may have had.
If Kim is ever to recover, your messing with her head will not
prove to have been helpful. Don't distrub the minimal peace Kim may
be able to eventually accomplish.
> This last time, she hurt people. I was one of them. I am not
> clapping.
I would say your actions were more akin to that of a heckler than
the one remaining silently in her seat during an ovation. That's what
makes coming to this theater fun.
Let it all hang out.
GEMMAMP1
Ralph Hilton wrote:
>>I realize that this is not something that most people want to believe,
>>that our minds can be controlled but until we do come to grips with this
>>issue, it will continue to happen to people. If we can learn about
these
>>processes, only then can we prevent such atrocities from happening.
>Monica - maybe your mind can be controlled - mine can't without a very
>considerable amount of duress. And that is a GREAT deal of duress.
>Scientology gave me that. If you had studied LRH fully you might have
>realized that - but you preferred to be reasonable.
Diane Richardson, please take note -- here's your proof of Dierdre's
statement -- better than any journal article could ever do!
Oh I see, Ralph. I am weak and out-tech and you are strong, in-tech and
totally on-source! Sorry, I don't buy it. From the statement you just
made (chock full of loaded language that I didn't study LRH and preferred
to be reasonable, whatever that means), you are still under the influence
of Elron Flubbard and the tek which is still controlling your mind. At
least I had the strength to confront what was really going on and the BS I
had fallen for and I did it after six years and got the hell out.
Believe, me it took a tremendous amount of strength for me to get up and
walk out and I've never regretted it for a moment. Six years of studying
scienotek was quite enough for me, thank you very much. It isn't that I
didn't study the Scienotek, it's that, after doing nothing but study it
for six years, I chose of my own free will to reject it. On that point,
I am completely reasonable and rational and proud of it. I have found
much better in the 20 years I've been out.
And what would you call being in the Sea Org and the RPF? Isn't that alot
of duress? However, it doesn't take physical torture for a mind to be
controlled, no matter what LRH said. It can be done in a much more
low-key, subtle manner and to some quite intelligent and strong people.
Monica Pignotti
Celebrating 20 years of freedom!
Diane Richardson
Lance wrote:
As I stated above, I regard this as an inappropriate analogy. I
can see your point, but what has to be borne in mind is the end
result of your involvement. The end result of buying a lottery
ticked is either someone a buck poorer, or several milllions
richer. You go for the "meadow in your house" carpet cleaner and
at least you end up with clean carpets. You buy into scientology
and you can end up broke, psychotic or both.
I guess you've never met a compulsive gambler. I've
met a few, including a landlord who became active in
Gamblers Anonymous after he went bankrupt.
There are numerous people who don't just buy *one*
lottery ticket, but who put every penny they have into
purchasing the things -- and they do it over and over
again, to the point of borrowing from others to do it,
neglecting family obligations, etc.
I think compulsive gamblers just might be an
appropriate analogy to those who get sucked into
the cult's vicious scam. These people also beg,
borrow, and steal money to pay for auditing and
courses, just as compulsive gamblers do to buy
all those lottery tickets when the jackpot is high.
The vast majority of Scientologists[tm] that I've
run into on AOL don't take out a second mortgage
on their homes or join the Sea Org when they run
' out of money for pay for "fixed donations," just
as the vast majority of lottery ticket purchasers
don't do these things. There's absolutely no doubt
in my mind that "inactive" Scientologists[tm] --
those who aren't currently "on lines" -- far
outnumber those who are currently being audited.
So what makes the difference? That's all that I'm
wondering about at this point.
And why is it okay for *us* to allow our government
to "control" susceptible people's "minds" with
state-sponsored gambling, but not ok for a "church"
to do the same thing? These are just thoughts -- I
really haven't reached any opinion about this myself.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
GEMMAMP1
Diane Richardson wrote:
: Could you explain how "mind control" is more powerful than
: "brainwashing," Monica? Please don't ask me to read Singer
: and Hassan -- I've read them many, many times already, and
: I still fail to understand precisely what "mind control" is
: and how it's any different than what an aggressive, fast-talking
: door-to-door salesman does.
I'd be happy to. Brainwashing coerces a person physically, but mind
control is aimed at a person's mental and emotional weaknesses, which all
human beings have, whether they like to admit it or not. Cults often get
people who are in times of transition, or going through a period of stress
or loss and this makes them extra-vulnerable. Cults know how to uncover a
person's vulnerabilities, for one thing. Scientology calls it finding a
person's "ruin" and they are very good at this. In physical coercion, it
pretty much only lasts as long as physical force is being applied and
after the physical force ceases, the person usually will quickly revert
back to their normal state. Perhaps this is what you are referring to
when you say there is solid evidence against brainwashing (said in a
different post)?
The effects of mind control are longer-lasting because the person gets
taught to program him/herself. Conway & Siegelman did a very interesting
study that is discussed, at length, in their newest edition (not the first
edition) of *Snapping*, their book that showed the damage done to people
who had been in a variety of cultic groups. Part of the study was also
published in Science Digest, but the book, written later after further
statistical analysis was done, goes into it in more detail. This is a new
field and their study certainly wasn't perfect (I have offered my own
criticisms of it) but it certainly does show that there is something going
on here that warrants further investigation. There are also other studies
currently underway and being written up that show devastating
after-effects of cult mind control that will be coming out soon (Ohio
University and Pepperdine University).
With brainwashing the person knows they are in the presence of the enemy
and a prisoner. With mind control the person believes they are in the
presence of friends who want only the best for them and thus, will
cooperate. A person under mind control believes that they are making
their own decisions. Just look at all the ex-Scientologists who still
fervently believe in the Scieno Tek and insist they are making their own
decision to do so. This is what makes it so insidious and dangerous.
What an agressive, fast-talking salesman does is actually a part of mind
control. Cialdini's book, *Influence* goes into all this in detail. The
main difference, as I see it, is one of degree. The salesman's intention
and purpose is usually only to sell you something, like a vacuum cleaner
or a car, so only that part of your life is targeted. The salesman does
not want to become your guru and take over your whole life. The cult
recruiter does use some of the same techniques as the sales person, but
the intention is to get the person to give up their entire life and become
completely obedient to the cult.
Monica Pignotti
GEMMAMP1
Diane Richardson writes:
: Why should "mind control" done by a cult be considered any
: more heinous than the "mind control" thrown at millions of
: television viewers in the U.S. every night via commercials?
: Why is it acceptable when it's done by Coca-Cola? Or should
: Coke be forbidden to advertise?
The result of the coke ads is a person goes out and buys a coca-cola, at
the very worst, or perhaps cases of it. The result of cults is that
person goes out and buys a "bridge" and gives up their entire life.
That's a big difference.
: If you object to that comparison, what about the state-run
: lotteries? I think you would agree that there are some
: people in this world who suffer from an addiction to gambling.
: Most people can listen to the state lottery ads without
: suffering any harm at all. Yet there are others who can be
: led to serious consequences because of them.
: Should government-run gambling be prohibited? Should the
: state-sponsored lotteries be allowed to continue, but be
: forbidden from advertising? How is this any different from
: what is done by cults, and why do you believe that cults
: deserve special attention?
There are actually alot of interesting parallels between how casinos
operate and cults. I certainly think that people should be educated about
how casinos use these mind control techniques. I had a professor who is
writing about this in a book that he has coming out about how casinos
create compulsions in people by the way they are set up and operate.
BTW, I don't believe that cults should be declared illegal, since there
are, as yet no clear-cut, agreed-upon definitions that experts agree on
and, as a result, innocent people's rights could be infringed upon. I
don't think it is necessary to declare cults illegal. What is needed is
to educate people on how such groups operate and recruit members and it
wouldn't hurt to also educate people on influence techniques used by
salespeople and casinos. Then we would all be much less gullible. That
is all I want. This cannot be legislated, in the case of advertising,
casinos, or cults.
Cults deserve special attention because they take over and can destroy an
individual's entire life and often that of their family, so, again, it is
a matter of degree and context.
Monica Pignotti
Ted Mayett (Xenu)
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>There are actually alot of interesting parallels between how casinos
>operate and cults. I certainly think that people should be educated about
>how casinos use these mind control techniques. I had a professor who is
>writing about this in a book that he has coming out about how casinos
>create compulsions in people by the way they are set up and operate.
>
This kind of stuff makes me smile grandly.
I find that machines and seats, for example, are designed by people
who never do sit in them. The engineering is basically hit and miss
in these casino's. They have some of the basics down, the main one
being that currency is quickly converted to cash at table games.
Other than that, it is trial and error here. One casino is packed
with people and the one next door is almost empty. Sound and lighting
and costumes seem to be a matter of taste.
Although there is one chain out here that does have a successful
formula working. The lighting and spacing of things and the music and
costumes are pretty much the same, much as a fast-food chain might use
the same formula over and over.
They try different things, colors and shapes for example. But, mainly
these casino's stumble about. They do not extract all the money
possible. I've been trying to sell my ideas for a few years now. Not
having any success with it. Some of the casino's are starting to use
them. But not through any plan, but rather through trial and error.
A professor wants to write about what the casino's do... the professor
would do well to talk with someone who makes a living from them. Not
with the people who poorly design them. Stand where I stand, watch
people wriggle and squirm because the equipment is so poorly designed
that one gets psychical pain from standing or sitting for more than 30
minutes at a time. Watch people rub their eyes because the electronic
music being used is too loud or too poorly programmed. Watch people
suddenly jarred from a near hypnotic state because the machine next to
them suddenly plays some horrendous sounds that are supposed to draw
humans to them. Look at lines of people, uncomfortable and nasty,
because the layout of the floor space forces people to constantly
shift and bang about each other. Watch people enter a casino, try in
vain to buy some coins, leave and try the next casino.
What you have here are basically hit and miss operations.
I would consider any professor's study of this poorly designed, ill
run operation to be "busy work". But they do business these casino's,
but they could do more. I guess the same could be said for cults.
Next International Picket of Scientology Sept. 7 and/or 8, 1996: see
http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/demo.htm
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
ted...@ix.netcom.com (Ted Mayett (Xenu)):
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>>There are actually alot of interesting parallels between how casinos
>>operate and cults. [...]
Ted:
>But they do business these casino's,
>but they could do more. I guess the same could be said for cults.
The underlying similarities stem from the fact that both cults and
casinos are specifically designed to separate the sucker from his
will-power and his wallet.
Bernie
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
[snip]
>With brainwashing the person knows they are in the presence of the enemy
>and a prisoner. With mind control the person believes they are in the
>presence of friends who want only the best for them and thus, will
>cooperate.
Agreed: brainwashing involves physical coercion while mind-control
only uses subtle or not so subtle influence. But what I think is the
main point of contention is ~choice~. If physical coercion is used, I
have no choice, I can't walk away and do what I like if I disagree. In
the case of mind-control we face two major interpretations:
1) To use the term, as you do, with a connotation that the cult member
as ~no~ choice, and therefore is not responsible. In this sense, even
if you make the distinction between brainwashing and mind-control in
terms of the means used, you don't actually do it in terms of the
results achieved. So, you could use interchangeably mind-control or
brainwashing, which is what is often done in the anti-cult circles.
2) To use the term in the sense of "strong influence" but in which the
cult member always remains with the ~choice~ to say "no" and to walk
away. In this sense, the cult member or ex-cult member is ~not~
relieved of his responsibilities, nor should he be deprived of the
rights enjoyed by "normal" citizens.
[snip]
>A person under mind control believes that they are making
>their own decisions. Just look at all the ex-Scientologists who still
>fervently believe in the Scieno Tek and insist they are making their own
>decision to do so. This is what makes it so insidious and dangerous.
This is a perfect example of the danger of your line of approach. It
is ~what_you_just_did_right_now~ that is insidious and dangerous. In
essence you say "although the person thinks he is making his own
decision, ~I~ know better than him because he has ~no~ freedom of
choice or independent reasoning ability whatsoever due to
mind-control. Even if ~he~ insists that he is making his own decision,
this is just another proof that he is hopelessly deluded". This
amounts clearly to deny him the rights that should be granted to every
human being.
[snip]
>The cult
>recruiter does use some of the same techniques as the sales person, but
>the intention is to get the person to give up their entire life and become
>completely obedient to the cult.
That's true, but the person is still free to say "no" at any time and
to walk away. In this sense, the type of influence an obsessive
gambler is under is much worse than the one the cult exercises because
the moment you see that the cult is not what you thought it was,
that's it (within time taken to readjust your values). But an
obsessive gambler has it almost in his nerves.
---------
Bernie
*It's only a matter of time
*before the psychiatrists develop a drug
*that will dissolve the craving of cult addiction.
(Hud Nordin)
dmo...@cts.com
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>I'm very sorry to hear you were hurt, but please direct your anger where
>it belongs -- not at Kim but at the CofS. I am not clapping for what Kim
>did, but I am clapping for the fact that she has had the courage to
>examine it and to come to an understanding of what occurred.
Monica, I owe you an apology and therefore extend it. You
wrote me a well intentioned comm concerning this cycle
and I snapped back.
You are correct, Kim does deserve the recognition for examining her
involvemnt with the OSA.
Please forgive the roaring of this old lion in this matter. I have
had a few days to reconsider the postings I have extended in
this tread.
My anger towards Kim was due to giving OSA incorrect information.
This was the second time Kim and I had problems due to comm with
OSA.
Kim is aware of what she said during her time with OSA. She is now
aware of the effects it caused me. I should have taken this situation
to private email with Kim and did not do so. Therefore, I extend an
apology to all of you that read this tread. I extend the apology to
Kim too.
I extend a thank you to Keith Hensen for reminding me I had
a heart.
Monica, please ensure Kim gets a copy of this.
Thank you,
Old Timer
>Monica Pignotti
GEMMAMP1
Old Timer wrote:
Thank you,
Old Timer
I'll see that she gets a copy of it. Glad that you've had a change in
perception.
Monica Pignotti
GEMMAMP1
Bernie wrote:
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
[snip]
>>With brainwashing the person knows they are in the presence of the enemy
>>and a prisoner. With mind control the person believes they are in the
>>presence of friends who want only the best for them and thus, will
>>cooperate.
>Agreed: brainwashing involves physical coercion while mind-control
>only uses subtle or not so subtle influence. But what I think is the
>main point of contention is ~choice~. If physical coercion is used, I
>have no choice, I can't walk away and do what I like if I disagree. In
>the case of mind-control we face two major interpretations:
You missed my point. To say mind control *only* uses subtle influence
trivializes it. My argument is that, yes it is more subtle, but it is
more powerful because the person is conditioned to do it to him/herself
and to believe that he/she is in control. A person who is under mind
control really has less choice than the person being brainwashed who at
least knows he/she is a prisoner.
>1) To use the term, as you do, with a connotation that the cult member
>as ~no~ choice, and therefore is not responsible. In this sense, even
>if you make the distinction between brainwashing and mind-control in
>terms of the means used, you don't actually do it in terms of the
>results achieved. So, you could use interchangeably mind-control or
>brainwashing, which is what is often done in the anti-cult circles.
Nope. I said that the results are different between the two. With mind
control the person INTERNALIZES the programming to a much greater extent
than under mind control. They are not interchangeable.
>2) To use the term in the sense of "strong influence" but in which the
>cult member always remains with the ~choice~ to say "no" and to walk
>away. In this sense, the cult member or ex-cult member is ~not~
>relieved of his responsibilities, nor should he be deprived of the
>rights enjoyed by "normal" citizens.
Sounds like a nice idea that we would all like to believe, that we really
were in control, but that just wasn't the case. The cult member did not
always have the choice to say no.
>>A person under mind control believes that they are making
>>their own decisions. Just look at all the ex-Scientologists who still
>>fervently believe in the Scieno Tek and insist they are making their own
>>decision to do so. This is what makes it so insidious and dangerous.
>This is a perfect example of the danger of your line of approach. It
>is ~what_you_just_did_right_now~ that is insidious and dangerous. In
>essence you say "although the person thinks he is making his own
>decision, ~I~ know better than him because he has ~no~ freedom of
>choice or independent reasoning ability whatsoever due to
>mind-control. Even if ~he~ insists that he is making his own decision,
>this is just another proof that he is hopelessly deluded". This
>amounts clearly to deny him the rights that should be granted to every
>human being.
Of course I am not saying that just because a person insists they are
making their choices that is proof they are under mind control. That
would be absurd. What I am saying is that to evaluate whether or not a
person is under mind control, we have to ask a number of questions and
look at the larger picture. Asking the person won't tell us much. There
are many symptoms of a person being under mind control, such as the person
losing interest in everything they had loved to do in the past, radical
personality changes, suddenly cutting off from people who had once been
meaningful to them, and many others.
>>The cult
>>recruiter does use some of the same techniques as the sales person, but
>>the intention is to get the person to give up their entire life and
become
>>completely obedient to the cult.
>That's true, but the person is still free to say "no" at any time and
>to walk away. In this sense, the type of influence an obsessive
>gambler is under is much worse than the one the cult exercises because
>the moment you see that the cult is not what you thought it was,
>that's it (within time taken to readjust your values). But an
>obsessive gambler has it almost in his nerves.
It's just not that simple that you can *just say no*. Oh Nancy Reagan,
why did you ever invent that phrase? A person in a cult cannot *just say
no* any more than a person addicted to drugs or alcohol can.
Monica Pignotti
GEMMAMP1
Lance Buckley wrote:
>I have read neither. My personal definition puts Brainwashing in
>a subset of Mind Control. When it comes down to it there is very
>little difference between being sold an encyclopaedia you don't
>need, and a religion. It's all in the pitch. In my book, mind
>control is anything that changes the way you look at the world,
>in part or whole. That includes education and religion.
>Brainwashing I see as something that is capable of changing your
>entire belief system, your perception of reality and your
>personality. This can also include education and religion. When
>I use these terms, I make the distinction between acceptable
>mind control (TV ads, Sunday School, Political Posturing) and
>unacceptable mind control (TV ads, Sunday School, Political
>Posturing and Scientology).
Yes, there is a distinction between acceptable (harmless) mind control and
harmful mind control. Not all mind control is bad. It depends on who is
in control. If the person is in practicing mind control on their own
mind, and has the locus of control, I have no problem with that.
As far as your distinction between brainwashing and mind control, this is
not how the experts, such as Singer, Lifton, Hassan distinguish the 2.
Mind control also has the capability of changing a person's entire
personality, but it is done without force (see my other post on this).
Cult mind control is very different from education or religion, since
cults practice deception on recruits, so they enter into a group, not
knowing the beliefs or the agenda. In a religion, even when a person, for
instance, becomes a nun or a priest, they know the belief system going in.
This is not the case with groups such as the CofS, who doesn't tell its
members about OT level beliefs.
Monica Pignotti
Diane Richardson
inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
>ao...@yfn.ysu.edu (Diane Richardson):
>>forbidden from advertising? How is this any different from
>>what is done by cults, and why do you believe that cults
>>deserve special attention?
> This is a troll, right Di?
No, Dennis. I'm just trying to sort out things in my own mind.
> Even though I agree with most of what you said, your message, if
>you are being something more than pointlessly (or even pointedly)
>provocative, is incomprehensible.
> Any activity which exerts undue and fraudulent influence on
>consumers to extort money from them should have activities (ie. false
>advertising claims) curtailed.
The problem with this, of course, is who gets to determine what is
and isn't fraudulent. It's not too difficult to prove that laetrile
doesn't cure cancer. It's a lot more difficult to prove that an
"applied religious philosophy" isn't worth the money.
> Neither the Coke Cola Company, nor even Phillip Morris have gotten
>their employees to drink poison, burn themselves up, put poison gas in
>subways, or kill pregnant women and write 'PIG' on the wall in their
>blood.
Well, since you bring up Phillip Morris. . . . :) They may not get
their employees to drink poison, but there are many people who believe
that tobacco companies are a far more serious problem in society than
are cults. I think you'd agree that many more people die of the
effects of smoking every year than die because of cults.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Diane Richardson
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>Lance Buckley wrote:
>>I have read neither. My personal definition puts Brainwashing in
>>a subset of Mind Control. When it comes down to it there is very
>>little difference between being sold an encyclopaedia you don't
>>need, and a religion. It's all in the pitch. In my book, mind
>>control is anything that changes the way you look at the world,
>>in part or whole. That includes education and religion.
>>Brainwashing I see as something that is capable of changing your
>>entire belief system, your perception of reality and your
>>personality. This can also include education and religion. When
>>I use these terms, I make the distinction between acceptable
>>mind control (TV ads, Sunday School, Political Posturing) and
>>unacceptable mind control (TV ads, Sunday School, Political
>>Posturing and Scientology).
>Yes, there is a distinction between acceptable (harmless) mind control and
>harmful mind control. Not all mind control is bad. It depends on who is
>in control. If the person is in practicing mind control on their own
>mind, and has the locus of control, I have no problem with that.
The problem with this viewpoint is who gets to decide what is and
isn't "harmful"? Which experts are to be believed, when the experts
themselves don't agree?
Is the "mind control" used by advertisers and marketers "harmless" or
"harmful"? Who get to decide? Is a person who fails to provide for
his children because he spends all his money on lottery tickets
"practicing mind control on his own mind," or is his "mind" being
"controlled" by the advertising that he sees urging him to take a
chance on a long-shot?
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Bernie
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>A person who is under mind
>control really has less choice than the person being brainwashed who at
>least knows he/she is a prisoner.
So, a person who is physically restrained have more choice than a
person who is not physically restrained? This is absurd. If I am
physically restrained, I have ~no~ choice, I can't walk out and do
what I want whenever I disagree. If I am not physically restrained, of
course I can be influenced and convinced, but at any time I have the
~basic~ freedom to say "no" and do what I want. This is so basic and
simple that I am really baffled that you can't see it.
Of course if I am a prisoner I know that what I am being told can be
false whereas if someone is cheating me I may not know this. But in
the later case, the ~basic~ decision still remains mine. What you are
saying is that the cult member or ex-cult member is deprived of this
freedom, and therefore deprived of responsibilities and rights,
because of some undefined, unknown, spurious and mystical
"mind-control". This is the point I object to. Not that there aren't
~elements~ of mind-control present, but that, in the absence of
physical restrain, it cancels the responsibilities, rights or identity
of the individual.
>Nope. I said that the results are different between the two. With mind
>control the person INTERNALIZES the programming to a much greater extent
>than under mind control. They are not interchangeable.
This is just a difference in the ~mode~ of programming. In both case,
you, as do the anti-cult clique, equate brainwashing and mind-control
with the same ~end~ result: that the person has ~no~ choice, and bears
no responsibilities in the fact of being involved in the cult. Because
you give such an absolute power to the term "mind-control", they can
be used interchangeably, which is actually what ~is~ being done in the
anti-cult literature.
I can only agree with the term "mind-control" if it is meant to be a
strong and spurious influence but in which the person is still,
basically, responsible of the decisions he takes. I do not agree with
the term "mind-control" used with a connotation of a mystical zombie
state of mind in which the person is deprived of his free will,
responsibilities and rights.
>Sounds like a nice idea that we would all like to believe, that we really
>were in control, but that just wasn't the case. The cult member did not
>always have the choice to say no.
The cult member ~has~ always the choice to say no if no physical
restrain is used. Whether or not he is using this freedom or not is
another question. Maybe he is influenced and pressured in such a way
that it is very difficult for him to do say no, but in the absence of
restrain, he ~does~ have this possibility. This makes ~all~ the
difference.
>Of course I am not saying that just because a person insists they are
>making their choices that is proof they are under mind control. That
>would be absurd.
You said:
>>>A person under mind control believes that they are making
>>>their own decisions. Just look at all the ex-Scientologists who still
>>>fervently believe in the Scieno Tek and insist they are making their own
>>>decision to do so. This is what makes it so insidious and dangerous.
This amounts clearly at saying that if they insist that they are
making their own decision it is because they are under mind-control.
>What I am saying is that to evaluate whether or not a
>person is under mind control, we have to ask a number of questions and
>look at the larger picture.
It is not for you, or for anyone else, to "evaluate whether or not a
person is under mind control". This is an entirely subjective matter
in which your opinion have no more weight than the opinion of the
concerned person. There is no objective state of mind-control. To
affirm something like this is not only arrogant, it is highly
derogatory and dangerous, and really no better or more scientific than
to make ~discrimination~ on the ground that the other is "aberrated".
>Asking the person won't tell us much.
So, when I said it was dangerous. If we have decided that the person
is "under mind-control", whatever he says is not important, since it
is not really him who is speaking. The person doesn't know, but you,
of course, know for the person so much better, and so does the parents
who are fed with alarming rumours and every other persons who have an
axe to grind against the belief system and the values the "victim" is
engaged into. Obviously, all these people know much better than the
person concerned and there is not point in taking into account his own
opinion.
>There
>are many symptoms of a person being under mind control, such as the person
>losing interest in everything they had loved to do in the past, radical
>personality changes, suddenly cutting off from people who had once been
>meaningful to them, and many others.
That's the point made by Diane and independent researchers who have
investigated the fallacies of the absolute mind-control notion. These
symptoms can very easily be interpreted without the notion of
mind-control at all, and would apply to a whole other range than cult
involvement as well. If what you describe above happens, it ~is~ the
right of the person to behave like that, even if we don't approve it,
and even if it is our right as well to inform and enlighten this
person if we object to his behaviour. But what you say is that they
don't have the right to behave the way they do, because their behavior
is only the proof that they are under mind-control.
>It's just not that simple that you can *just say no*. Oh Nancy Reagan,
>why did you ever invent that phrase? A person in a cult cannot *just say
>no* any more than a person addicted to drugs or alcohol can.
A person in cult that is not physically restrained can say no at any
time. That it is not that simple, I agree. And that it is more
difficult for a cult-member to realize his dependence than it is for a
drug-addict, I agree as well. But you cannot say that the person is
deprived, by means of mind-control, of his responsibility, freedom and
right to say no and walk away. This is simply not true, and this is
what you do with your use of the term "mind-control".
As for drugs or alcohol, you have actual chemical substance and body
dependence and reactions that are into play. It is ~much~ more
difficult for them. In the case of cults, once you see through its
fallacies, you just step out and that's it. It's not simple, nor is it
afterwards, but it is considerably more simple than in the case of
drugs or alcohol.
---------
Bernie
"Perhaps at some distant date only the unaberrated person will be
granted civil rights before law. Perhaps the goal will be reached at
some future time when only the unaberrated person can attain to and
benefit from citizenship. These are desirable goals."
(L. Ron Hubbard)
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson):
>No, Dennis. I'm just trying to sort out things in my own mind.
I understand why. It is a very tricky area of cultural morality.
And critical thinking isn't the number one subject on most people's
lips these days.
>The problem with this, of course, is who gets to determine what is
>and isn't fraudulent. It's not too difficult to prove that laetrile
>doesn't cure cancer. It's a lot more difficult to prove that an
>"applied religious philosophy" isn't worth the money.
Truth in advertising would cover it if you had a consumer populace
that was familiar with critical thinking.
>> Neither the Coke Cola Company, nor even Phillip Morris have gotten
>>their employees to drink poison, burn themselves up, put poison gas in
>>subways, or kill pregnant women and write 'PIG' on the wall in their
>>blood.
>
>Well, since you bring up Phillip Morris. . . . :) They may not get
>their employees to drink poison, but there are many people who believe
>that tobacco companies are a far more serious problem in society than
>are cults.
That may well be true. And one cynical perspective is that the
government subsidized our parents' and our generation's brainwashing
by the Marboro Man and all the smoking celebrity endorsements,
'mentions' and placements in movies.
And now the gummint's gonna brainwash us out of smoking by telling
us what they knew all along: that smoking is deadly, but generates
too much money in the economy to be officially discouraged.
Aren't there still subsidies for tobacco farmers?
>I think you'd agree that many more people die of the
>effects of smoking every year than die because of cults.
Advertising reform is long overdue, but it will no doubt be another
century before people realize it. And by then it will probably be too
late (if it isn't already).
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson):
>The problem with this viewpoint is who gets to decide what is and
>isn't "harmful"? Which experts are to be believed, when the experts
>themselves don't agree?
The person himself should decide, after being allowed to become
inFormed.
>Is the "mind control" used by advertisers and marketers "harmless" or
>"harmful"?
If it turns a percentage of the populace into unquestioning
zombie-consumers, then it is harmful.
>Who get to decide?
Each child or citizen, if educated in critical thought and logic
all through school, if taught to question and analyze, will be
perceptive enough to make an inFormed choice.
These subjects are not part of every child's curriculum because a
bunch of questioning, critical consumers is the very last thing
business needs.
>Is a person who fails to provide for
>his children because he spends all his money on lottery tickets
>"practicing mind control on his own mind," or is his "mind" being
>"controlled" by the advertising that he sees urging him to take a
>chance on a long-shot?
These kinds of state-sponsored, economic punishments for the
already-disenfranchised are just another example of the hypocritical
nature our "buyer beware", predatory, commerce-driven society.
But one thing at a time, Di.
For now, let's focus on the distillation of all that is sick about
'Merka; the scienocult, and leave advertising reform til after people
realize they're even capable of having their chain yanked or being
manipulated at all.
Three-card Monty anyone?
kEvin
In article <32331d42...@news.ping.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
>gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>>A person who is under mind
>>control really has less choice than the person being brainwashed who at
>>least knows he/she is a prisoner.
>So, a person who is physically restrained have more choice than a
>person who is not physically restrained? This is absurd.
I'm not Monica, so don't flame her if I get this wrong.
I think Monica meant "less choice in determining who's responsible
for making their decisions."
Someone who is not physically coerced has to assume that they're
making the decisions about what they do. Someone who is physically
restrained can either decide that they're making the decision or
that their captor is.
kEvin
el...@netcom.com
Lance S. Buckley
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <50qfj9$5...@news.ysu.edu> ao...@yfn.ysu.edu "Diane Richardson" writes:
] I guess you've never met a compulsive gambler. I've
] met a few, including a landlord who became active in
] Gamblers Anonymous after he went bankrupt.
I do know a couple of compulsive gamblers.
] There are numerous people who don't just buy *one*
] lottery ticket, but who put every penny they have into
] purchasing the things -- and they do it over and over
] again, to the point of borrowing from others to do it,
] neglecting family obligations, etc.
I feel we all have the potential to be addicted to something. It
might be sex, cigarettes, excersise or any of a zillion things.
Some of these have a physical component of course, and I would
agree that makes a difference. However I know some people who
have given up smoking after years of 40 per day, and hardly felt
a pang. Others have tried repeatedly to kick a 5 per day habit
with no success. I think compulsive gambling is only likely to
affect those who have the seed of that compulsion already in
them. Actually I'd be interested to learn if a person who is
addicted to one particular type of behaviour, is any more likely
to become addicted to another. Would a gambler be more likely to
get involved in other compulsive behaviour? Would a sex addict
be more likely to take up compulsive gambling? Somehow I doubt
it. I feel the compulsion that lies within all of us expresses
itself in ways determined by our social conditioning.
] I think compulsive gamblers just might be an
] appropriate analogy to those who get sucked into
] the cult's vicious scam. These people also beg,
] borrow, and steal money to pay for auditing and
] courses, just as compulsive gamblers do to buy
] all those lottery tickets when the jackpot is high.
I have to disagree. While the end results are similar
financially, I believe the initial drives involved are
different.
] The vast majority of Scientologists[tm] that I've
] run into on AOL don't take out a second mortgage
] on their homes or join the Sea Org when they run
] ' out of money for pay for "fixed donations," just
] as the vast majority of lottery ticket purchasers
] don't do these things. There's absolutely no doubt
] in my mind that "inactive" Scientologists[tm] --
] those who aren't currently "on lines" -- far
] outnumber those who are currently being audited.
]
I agree with you entirely that only a small percentage of cult
members take things to such an extreme. However the reasons
they do so when they do, are diferent.
] So what makes the difference? That's all that I'm
] wondering about at this point.
Hard to say without reliable information. I would imagine that
as far as scientology is concerned, it's due in part to the
malleablility of the member. Especially in the early stages, a
large percentage of scienos have to be coerced out of their
money. I can only assume that after you've been fleeced a few
times other factors kick in. The more you spend, the less likely
you are to admit to yourself that you've wasted all that money.
If you've been bullied into paying up often enough, it could
become a defense against further bullying to pay up without a
fight after a while. I've noticed that while some are in, the
option of simply leaving never occurs to them. It's a bit like
voting Tory in the UK I think, though I will refrain from airing
those particular grievances here :)
] And why is it okay for *us* to allow our government
] to "control" susceptible people's "minds" with
] state-sponsored gambling, but not ok for a "church"
] to do the same thing?
I don't think it is ok, but it happens because we allow it.
Before the population was literate it was a simple matter for
the governing bodies to control them. Feudalism shriveled before
the onslaught of the printed word and an increasingly well
educated populace. The new media we take for granted now is
still in it's infancy. Caxton is still wearm in his grave. The
population are once again illiterate, but they are learning
fast. A mere 50 years ago people took what they heard on the
radio and saw in newsreels as the gospel truth. An Orson Wells'
"War of the Worlds" style broadcast would still panic large
numbers, but not as many as were scared to death when the
original radio play aired. We are again learning to cope with
mind control. The methods of control are more subtle, the
delivery mechanism all pervasive. We have to educate ourselves
to read between the lines, to doubt what we would have
previously taken for granted. For now the politicians and cults
can lie to us almost with impunity, but those very lies will be
their downfall. the more we're exposed to it, the easier it will
be to recognise.
There will always be people who are suceptible to mind control,
just as there will be the fortunate few who can instinctively
cut through the crap and see what's really going on. The
majority of us lie somewhere in the middle and we let our
vigilence slip at our peril.
] These are just thoughts -- I
] really haven't reached any opinion about this myself.
For me it's mainly of academic interest. I have never had to
heal a mind broken on the wheel of scientology. If I had to, I'd
probably do a lousy job. I find the subject facinating for all
that.
Lance.
- --
http://www.avalon.demon.co.uk/
"We would only destroy people who attempt to harm Scientology"
Jaques Vollet, Ex-head of GO-B1(Eu) and currently head of OSA Invest(Eu)
[ SP4 : GGBC #26 : ARSCC(UK) : J&D : KoX : KbM #11 ]
My Other Hat's A Fedora
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBMjMtySjzbaRloMBtAQE86gQAphJA1WisfuuOrE/MNDK7UrnjRrRNIpKS
9A9xBra+0m+8RAmoqfsXVttZiv5NLEtxPa4APUuXBAPVsarF9SK04wGifmtxIq7L
BA4TOhYEVc+bkqWZHYsyen5kzrB+BxZkdxyYbj2xAjXOIwoLqCNPu87O+jg1ZlDe
WYJE2JrahdU=
=tsRB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
"Lance S. Buckley" <la...@avalon.demon.co.uk>:
>For me it's mainly of academic interest. I have never had to
>heal a mind broken on the wheel of scientology.
You betta off.
>If I had to, I'd
>probably do a lousy job. I find the subject facinating for all
>that.
It is a challange to rebuild oneself and one's world-view from
scratch.
kEvin
In article <50ti58$l...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@neont.com> wrote:
>gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>The problem with this viewpoint is who gets to decide what is and
>isn't "harmful"? Which experts are to be believed, when the experts
>themselves don't agree?
If I were making the distinction, I'd go by the terms "truthful"
and "fraudulent" in place of "harmless" and "harmful." It's a
much easier distinction to make.
>Is the "mind control" used by advertisers and marketers "harmless" or
>"harmful"? Who get to decide? Is a person who fails to provide for
>his children because he spends all his money on lottery tickets
>"practicing mind control on his own mind," or is his "mind" being
>"controlled" by the advertising that he sees urging him to take a
>chance on a long-shot?
If advertising is truthful, I don't think the degree of harm is
something that should be of concern. (I'm appalled at the moves
to regulate tobacco advertising in the US outside of the TV spectrum.)
If you look at mind control as being just like a hard sales pitch
that includes elements of fraud, then you can't defend the practices.
That similar behaviours occur in everyday life doesn't imply that
mind control isn't happening, it implies that mind control isn't a
problem unless deception is involved.
kEvin
el...@netcom.com
kEvin
In article <50tg51$k...@clark.zippo.com>,
>>ao...@yfn.ysu.edu (Diane Richardson):
>The problem with this, of course, is who gets to determine what is
>and isn't fraudulent. It's not too difficult to prove that laetrile
>doesn't cure cancer. It's a lot more difficult to prove that an
>"applied religious philosophy" isn't worth the money.
Selling the philosophy is one thing, selling a cure for cancer
is another. Scientology[tm] tries to claim they're the same thing.
People engaging in commerce should be subject to the same standards
of veracity as other businesses. Most religions do not engage in
commerce the way scientology[tm] does. Scientology's "donations" are
really fixed fee-for-service arrangements and should be regulated
as other fee-for-service arrangements. Traditionally, religious
services are valued by the recipients who donate accordingly. Scientology
sets a value and charges that amount unfailingly.
I could go on and on here, but the point I'm trying to make is that
scientology[tm] has left the arena of religious practice and invaded
the arena of commerce. If I preach an applied religious philosophy
and take as donations whatever people choose to give, then there's
no concern about value since the "buyer" is setting the price. In
that case, I'm not making a claim about value that can be tested for
fraudulence. If I set a price and say, "This is what it's worth, you'll
make your 'donation' back if you listen to me," then I am making a
claim that can be tested for fraudulence. In scientology's case, they
make all sorts of claims in the course of commerce and extract money
based on those claims. Holding them responsible for claims made in
the course of commerce violates a religious right?
kEvin
el...@netcom.com
Dan McKinnon
(Thread name changed from "Kim Baker" one)
>"Lance S. Buckley" <la...@avalon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
(responding to >>Diane Richardson)
>I feel we all have the potential to be addicted to something. It
>might be sex, cigarettes, excersise or any of a zillion things.
>] So what makes the difference? That's all that I'm
>] wondering about at this point.
>Hard to say without reliable information. I would imagine that
>as far as scientology is concerned, it's due in part to the
>malleablility of the member. Especially in the early stages, a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>large percentage of scienos have to be coerced out of their
>money. I can only assume that after you've been fleeced a few
>times other factors kick in.
Lance, you've helped me to find and state an important point for
Diane to consider:
Gambling, alcoholism, sex, drugs, etc. the object of the addiction
is not human, therefore _passive_ - a cigarette never talked to a
person, told them how much they would enjoy smoking it, how good for
them it would be, etc.! <G>
$cientology and other cults are _active_ addictions, if we call
them that, I'm not saying it is that simple.
The members of cults come _after you_, seeking you out, keeping
pressure on you, flattering you, some put sexual poressure on you, they
appeal to your better inclinations, tell you that you can help change
the world, improve your mental and physical heaalth, and so on.
_That's_ one _major_ difference! <G>
One, that to me, makes a comparison impossible.
Dan
Martin G. V. Hunt
Ted Mayett Xenu) (ted...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>
>>There are actually alot of interesting parallels between how casinos
> run operation to be "busy work". But they do business these casino's,
> but they could do more. I guess the same could be said for cults.
Yeah; and the ones that more or less randomly shift towards being
more effective over time get the most customers in both cases. It
may be without a plan, but that doesn't mean that what they use
is not effective; the cults or casinos without the best "tech"
die out, and the "best" ones survive in a kind of Darwinian
nightmare for the cult victims and gambling addicts. Can
selection be applied to other things besides species? I don't
see why not; the rules of the open market or the laws of nature -
both systems select for certain features of optimum "reproductive"
success.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. "The RTC receives, directly and indirectly, a great
economical benefit from The Material." - Scn as quoted from a filing in
the Zenon Panoussis case, talking about NOTs.
GEMMAMP1
Bernie wrote:
>gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>>A person who is under mind
>>control really has less choice than the person being brainwashed who at
>>least knows he/she is a prisoner.
>So, a person who is physically restrained have more choice than a
>person who is not physically restrained? This is absurd. If I am
>physically restrained, I have ~no~ choice, I can't walk out and do
>what I want whenever I disagree. If I am not physically restrained, of
>course I can be influenced and convinced, but at any time I have the
>~basic~ freedom to say "no" and do what I want. This is so basic and
>simple that I am really baffled that you can't see it.
If a person is physically restrained, but knows that their captor is an
enemy at least they have the knowledge that they are under someone else's
control and have some hope of being able to think their way out of it. I
guess it depends on what your values are but I think damage to the mind is
the worst of all.
>Of course if I am a prisoner I know that what I am being told can be
>false whereas if someone is cheating me I may not know this.
Yes, this is my point.
>But in
>the later case, the ~basic~ decision still remains mine. What you are
>saying is that the cult member or ex-cult member is deprived of this
>freedom, and therefore deprived of responsibilities and rights,
>because of some undefined, unknown, spurious and mystical
>"mind-control". This is the point I object to. Not that there aren't
>~elements~ of mind-control present, but that, in the absence of
>physical restrain, it cancels the responsibilities, rights or identity
>of the individual.
If you would read the literature on mind control and influence techniques,
perhaps you would see that there is nothing mystical or undefined about
mind control. Have you read any of the literature by Hassan, Singer,
Cialdini or anyone else on this? You don't have to believe in anything
other-worldly or mystical to agree with the principles outlined in these
books. Ever heard of behavior modification techniques? This is hardly
mysticism.
Monica:
>>Nope. I said that the results are different between the two. With mind
>>control the person INTERNALIZES the programming to a much greater extent
>>than under mind control. They are not interchangeable.
Bernie:
>This is just a difference in the ~mode~ of programming. In both case,
>you, as do the anti-cult clique, equate brainwashing and mind-control
>with the same ~end~ result: that the person has ~no~ choice, and bears
>no responsibilities in the fact of being involved in the cult. Because
>you give such an absolute power to the term "mind-control", they can
>be used interchangeably, which is actually what ~is~ being done in the
>anti-cult literature.
Okay, I'll ignore the name calling (anti-cult clique) and address your
point. You are saying that because two concepts or words have the same
result that they can be used interchangeably? I have to challenge you on
that one. To give you an analogy, there are many of modes of
transportation that can get a person from NYC to Boston. You can fly,
take a train or bicycle. All three modes of transportation get you the
same result -- you end up in Boston. Therefore, according to your line of
reasoning, the terms "Bicycle", "Train" and "Plane" can be used
interchangeably. I don't think so.
What literature are the terms being used interchangeably in? Certainly
they are not in Steve Hassan's book. If they are used interchangeably
then the person who is doing so is being sloppy, although some cults do
use brainwashing and mind control. People in the CofS have reported
having been held against their role, although I'll agree with Joe that
these cases are the exception rather than the rule.
And furthermore, if you read what I posted you will see that I made
distinctions between the results of brainwashing and mind control.
>I can only agree with the term "mind-control" if it is meant to be a
>strong and spurious influence but in which the person is still,
>basically, responsible of the decisions he takes. I do not agree with
>the term "mind-control" used with a connotation of a mystical zombie
>state of mind in which the person is deprived of his free will,
>responsibilities and rights.
I will agree that the person makes the decision to take that first step
(i.e., to come to the org and take the personality test, to go to the free
dinner at the Moonie center, to go to the free lecture or whatever).
However, it is very important to realize that that first decision the
person makes is based on receiving incomplete or downright deceptive
information, and so it is not an informed choice. When a person is
invited by the Moonie recruiter to go to a free dinner, they do not know
that it is given by the Moonies, or even that this is a religion, much
less that they believe Moon is the Messiah. The recruit goes to the
dinner believing that they are just a group of students concerned about
world problems (they are not even students). So the initial choice is not
to join the Moonies, but to come to a completely fictitious group. The
same is true for Scientology. A person coming in to take the personality
test has no idea what the real beliefs of the group are or what is
expected of people down the line.
*Mystical Zombie* is your interpretation. This is not what mind control
is.
>>Sounds like a nice idea that we would all like to believe, that we
really
>>were in control, but that just wasn't the case. The cult member did not
>>always have the choice to say no.
>The cult member ~has~ always the choice to say no if no physical
>restrain is used. Whether or not he is using this freedom or not is
>another question. Maybe he is influenced and pressured in such a way
>that it is very difficult for him to do say no, but in the absence of
>restrain, he ~does~ have this possibility. This makes ~all~ the
>difference.
My point is that he/she is not able to use that freedom because of the
mind control techniques.
Monica:
>>Of course I am not saying that just because a person insists they are
>>making their choices that is proof they are under mind control. That
>>would be absurd.
Bernie:
>You said:
>>>A person under mind control believes that they are making
>>>their own decisions. Just look at all the ex-Scientologists who still
>>>fervently believe in the Scieno Tek and insist they are making their
own
>>>decision to do so. This is what makes it so insidious and dangerous.
>This amounts clearly at saying that if they insist that they are
>making their own decision it is because they are under mind-control.
Read it again. Nowhere did I say that this is the sole criteria for
determining if a person is under mind control. I just made an observation
but I did not say that this should be the sole criteria. If you inferred
this than you are jumping to conclusions that are not warranted.
Read the next few sentences I wrote, the put it in context, instead of
quoting me out of context and jumping to unwarranted conclusions:
>>What I am saying is that to evaluate whether or not a
>>person is under mind control, we have to ask a number of questions and
>>look at the larger picture.
>It is not for you, or for anyone else, to "evaluate whether or not a
>person is under mind control". This is an entirely subjective matter
>in which your opinion have no more weight than the opinion of the
>concerned person. There is no objective state of mind-control. To
>affirm something like this is not only arrogant, it is highly
>derogatory and dangerous, and really no better or more scientific than
>to make ~discrimination~ on the ground that the other is "aberrated".
I am never the sole person to make that determination. In the first
place, I don't go out and solicit people to counsel. They call me.
Usually it is a relative or friend who has noticed a change in their loved
one and is concerned and they are the ones who have decided that the
person is under mind control by the changes they have noticed. After I am
contacted, then I have to make the determination if this is true and in
order for me to agree to work with the family I have to be convinced that
this is a mind control situation, rather than just a family who is upset
because their kid has gone against their values. To do this I need to
have evidence, first of all, that the group they are involved in is a
controlling group. Then I have to evaluate how it has affected the
person. I don't make these decisions lightly.
>>Asking the person won't tell us much.
>So, when I said it was dangerous. If we have decided that the person
>is "under mind-control", whatever he says is not important, since it
>is not really him who is speaking. The person doesn't know, but you,
>of course, know for the person so much better, and so does the parents
>who are fed with alarming rumours and every other persons who have an
>axe to grind against the belief system and the values the "victim" is
>engaged into. Obviously, all these people know much better than the
>person concerned and there is not point in taking into account his own
>opinion.
Alarming rumors? This sounds like how the Scienos talk. Is the RPF just
an alarming rumor or is it the truth? How about all the acts of fair game
that have been committed by Scientologists? Ask the people who just had
their computers raided what the cult is capable of. The parents are not
fed with anything, in spite of what the cults tell you. The parents
notice that their loved one has become a zombie who usually won't even
have a discussion about what they are doing and why. When someone has
made a genuine decision to change their belief system they do not shut
people out and refuse to have a reasonable discussion about it.
>>There
>>are many symptoms of a person being under mind control, such as the
person
>>losing interest in everything they had loved to do in the past, radical
>>personality changes, suddenly cutting off from people who had once been
>>meaningful to them, and many others.
>That's the point made by Diane and independent researchers who have
>investigated the fallacies of the absolute mind-control notion. These
>symptoms can very easily be interpreted without the notion of
>mind-control at all, and would apply to a whole other range than cult
>involvement as well. If what you describe above happens, it ~is~ the
>right of the person to behave like that, even if we don't approve it,
>and even if it is our right as well to inform and enlighten this
>person if we object to his behaviour. But what you say is that they
>don't have the right to behave the way they do, because their behavior
>is only the proof that they are under mind-control.
When I asked Diane for a specific reference on an "independent researcher"
she referred me to Galanter's work, with which I am very familiar. See my
critique that I posted on a separate thread. His studies are anything but
conclusive or solid evidence and certainly not against mind control. He
would not even make such a grandiose claim. For specifics, read my
critique, which is rather lengthy.
What are you worried about? That a person will be kidnapped and
deprogrammed against their will? I don't believe in doing that. What
power do you think I have to harm people? All I do is talk to a person in
a cult IF they agree to talk to me. They can take or leave the
information that I give them. Since you don't believe in mind control, if
I'm not holding them by force, they are free to say no to me too, right?
At any rate, I don't use mind control techniques or force on the people I
work with.
Monica:
>>It's just not that simple that you can *just say no*. Oh Nancy Reagan,
>>why did you ever invent that phrase? A person in a cult cannot *just
say
>>no* any more than a person addicted to drugs or alcohol can.
Bernie:
>A person in cult that is not physically restrained can say no at any
>time. That it is not that simple, I agree. And that it is more
>difficult for a cult-member to realize his dependence than it is for a
>drug-addict, I agree as well. But you cannot say that the person is
>deprived, by means of mind-control, of his responsibility, freedom and
>right to say no and walk away. This is simply not true, and this is
>what you do with your use of the term "mind-control".
>As for drugs or alcohol, you have actual chemical substance and body
>dependence and reactions that are into play. It is ~much~ more
>difficult for them. In the case of cults, once you see through its
>fallacies, you just step out and that's it. It's not simple, nor is it
>afterwards, but it is considerably more simple than in the case of
>drugs or alcohol.
Not all drugs are physically addictive. There is also psychological
addiction.
OTOH, there are physical changes that are taking place in a person's brain
when they are subjected to hypnotic techniques for lengthy periods of time
or to extensive abuse.
Monica Pignotti
Bernie
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
>>Of course if I am a prisoner I know that what I am being told can be
>>false whereas if someone is cheating me I may not know this.
>
>Yes, this is my point.
Well ok, then why do you need to resort to some abstruse notion of
mind-control? This is a simple and straightforward phenomenon and no
need to make it esoteric.
>If you would read the literature on mind control and influence techniques,
>perhaps you would see that there is nothing mystical or undefined about
>mind control. Have you read any of the literature by Hassan, Singer,
>Cialdini or anyone else on this?
I read Singer, Hassan and more (like those people writing this fable
of "snapping", and others). There are some things I can agree in what
they write, but the basic assumption they use is false. I use the word
"mystical" in the sense of a belief in some magical state of mind
(mind-control in this case) and some kind of magic influence by which
this is achieved, because that is what, at the end of the day, it
amounts to. Their "scientific" arguments never takes off from the
biased initial assumption of a stringent and inescapable
"mind-control" state.
>What literature are the terms being used interchangeably in? Certainly
>they are not in Steve Hassan's book. If they are used interchangeably
>then the person who is doing so is being sloppy, although some cults do
>use brainwashing and mind control.
I read loads of literature from CAN, AFF, newspapers clips in which no
distinction is made. Didn't you? I agree with you on the basis of this
distinction, not on its outcome.
>I will agree that the person makes the decision to take that first step
>(i.e., to come to the org and take the personality test, to go to the free
>dinner at the Moonie center, to go to the free lecture or whatever).
When the person realizes the fallacies of what he is involved to, he
just steps out. There is nothing, in 99% of the times, that prevents
him of doing so. He ~can~ at anytime take this decision. Whether he
does it or not is another question. I really don't know how to make
that clearer.
When I was in the CO$, and when I decided that I don't want to stay
anymore, there was nothing to prevent me from leaving. It was my
decision, as it was my decision to stay. Maybe I was mislead to belief
that I had to stay, but it never was anything else than ~my~ decision.
>My point is that he/she is not able to use that freedom because of the
>mind control techniques.
I know. That's where we disagree.
>Alarming rumors? This sounds like how the Scienos talk. [snip] The parents are not
>fed with anything, in spite of what the cults tell you.
The cults are not telling me anything, believe me.
Parents are fed with alarming rumors by anti-cults biased approach and
they freak each other out in a fit of near hysteria because their
offspring have joined a "cult". Maybe you do not do that, but I was
witness of plenty of examples of this.
How would you call a sentence such as "your son/daughter is being the
victim of mind-control by an evil cult who is abusing him/her
financially, emotionally, spiritually, maybe even sexually. He/she
became a glassy-eyed robot deprived of free will and of his/her own
mind and ready to do anything at the order of the evil and greedy cult
leader who will use him/her to do his bidding, after which, being of
no use for the cult, he/she will be thrown out and end up as a
vegetable with no job or family"? I call this an alarming rumor and
one that ~often~ is not warranted.
>The parents
>notice that their loved one has become a zombie who usually won't even
>have a discussion about what they are doing and why.
Strange. A few line before you said: "*Mystical Zombie* is your
interpretation. This is not what mind control is."
>When someone has
>made a genuine decision to change their belief system they do not shut
>people out and refuse to have a reasonable discussion about it.
Really? I don't know in what world you live.
>When I asked Diane for a specific reference on an "independent researcher"
>she referred me to Galanter's work, with which I am very familiar. See my
>critique that I posted on a separate thread. His studies are anything but
>conclusive or solid evidence and certainly not against mind control.
YMMV, however the same could be said of the studies conducted by
mind-control proponents. I am personally convinced by studies from
Galanter, but also from Shupe, Bromley, Richardson, Robbins, Anthony,
Ungerleider, Cox, Barker, etc, all of which have strong arguments
against the absolute mind-control notion. Note that I use the word
"absolute" mind-control, because I do think that there are elements of
mind-control that can be argued, and that Hassan and consort, and you
as well, Monica, have things to say that one should not disregard. My
point is only that there are serious pitfalls in the absolute
mind-control theory that should not be disregarded as well.
BTW, I picked up a chapter from my old books on the subject and, for
anyone interested, I will type it and post it in a series. The chapter
I picked up was more or less by random because my boxes aren't really
tidy and, after 10 years I don't really know anymore what is what. The
chapter is "Choice or brainwashing" from the book "The making of a
Moonie" by Eileen Barker (1984). I will call the post series "Choice
or Brainwashing".
>For specifics, read my
>critique, which is rather lengthy.
I may do that sometimes, although I am not interested anymore on
lengthy arguments on the subject.
>What are you worried about? That a person will be kidnapped and
>deprogrammed against their will?
That's one of the thing. It is a "normal" consequence of a theory
saying that the decision made by someone else is not his decision.
State approved psychiatric internment is another. I am also objecting
to the derogatory allegations of such a notion, and of the unnecessary
damages it creates for the person and the person's family.
>I don't believe in doing that. What
>power do you think I have to harm people?
I know that you are not doing that, and that you object to that as
well. I believe that what you do is made out of conviction and a
desire to help. In this respect I don't think that you really harm
people. Nevertheless, I have to disagree with some of your more
radical views.
>All I do is talk to a person in
>a cult IF they agree to talk to me. They can take or leave the
>information that I give them. Since you don't believe in mind control, if
>I'm not holding them by force, they are free to say no to me too, right?
Right. I you are not holding them by force, I have no objection
whatsoever to what you do. Not even to the fact that you are using
deception to get them to initially talk to you and that you don't
disclose all of your purpose in advance for them to be able to make an
informed decision ;-)
---------
Bernie
*He didn't say "comply".
*We were talking in German -
*there is no such word.
(Clear Baby)
GEMMAMP1
I'm going to respond in more detail to your post, but this part couldn't
wait.
Bernie wrote:
>BTW, I picked up a chapter from my old books on the subject and, for
>anyone interested, I will type it and post it in a series. The chapter
>I picked up was more or less by random because my boxes aren't really
>tidy and, after 10 years I don't really know anymore what is what. The
>chapter is "Choice or brainwashing" from the book "The making of a
>Moonie" by Eileen Barker (1984). I will call the post series "Choice
>or Brainwashing".
Do you know who funded Eileen Barker's research? The Moonies. How
independent or objective could such research be? When you post it,
perhaps you should make a note of this.
Monica Pignotti
GEMMAMP1
Here are the details on Eileen Barker's being funded by the Moonies:
In 1993, Barker's organization, INFORM (sorry, Dennis, no relation to you)
lost funding by the U.K. government due to criticism about the Moonies
contributing to her funding for her book. In 1989, a story came out by
the Religious News Service, stating that Barker's book was funded by the
Unification Church (the Moonies) and that Barker "freely admits that the
Unification Church paid all her expenses to attend 18 conferences in
Europe, New York, the Caribbean, Korea and South America." Barker stated
that "MY UNIVERSITY AND THE SSRC (a U.K. government grants council)
REGARDED THIS ATTENDANCE NECESSARY FOR MY RESEARCH." (emphasis added). As
a result of the controversy over this funding, Barker's organization lost
their U.K. government funding.
Sources:
A. Carley, "Government Grant to Clut Watchdog Stirs Flap in Britain",
Religious News Service, Jul. 10, 1989, pp. 6-7.
A. Meale, "INFORM - Cut in Funding by the Home Office," Press Release,
House of Commons, London, Nov. 15, 1993.
I would say that Barker's work is about as credible as a study on the
dangers of cigarette smoking funded by Phillip Morris.
Monica Pignotti
GEMMAMP1
>gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>>Bernie wrote:
>>>Of course if I am a prisoner I know that what I am being told can be
>>>false whereas if someone is cheating me I may not know this.
>>Yes, this is my point.
>Well ok, then why do you need to resort to some abstruse notion of
>mind-control? This is a simple and straightforward phenomenon and no
>need to make it esoteric.
"Esoteric" is your interpretation. To me, it is simply a description of a
phenomenon not requiring any esoteric or mystic beliefs. The deception is
just the start. After a person is deceived in a cult, once the recruiter
has gotten the person's trust and built up a rapport, then the programming
begins which could include any or all of the following: sleep deprivation,
changes in diet, isolation from environment, hypnotic techniques, behavior
modification techniques (rewards and punishments), social influence
techniques, and others too numerous to mention here.
>I read Singer, Hassan and more (like those people writing this fable
>of "snapping", and others). There are some things I can agree in what
>they write, but the basic assumption they use is false. I use the word
>"mystical" in the sense of a belief in some magical state of mind
>(mind-control in this case) and some kind of magic influence by which
>this is achieved, because that is what, at the end of the day, it
>amounts to. Their "scientific" arguments never takes off from the
>biased initial assumption of a stringent and inescapable
>"mind-control" state.
I am still having trouble understanding what in these writings you
consider mystical about the mind control state. Can you give me something
specific from one of their writings that you object to?
>>What literature are the terms being used interchangeably in? Certainly
>>they are not in Steve Hassan's book. If they are used interchangeably
>>then the person who is doing so is being sloppy, although some cults do
>>use brainwashing and mind control.
>I read loads of literature from CAN, AFF, newspapers clips in which no
>distinction is made. Didn't you? I agree with you on the basis of this
>distinction, not on its outcome.
This is true. The people writing their literature are not always the
scholars and so some of their usage got sloppy and the terms mind control
and brainwashing get used interchangeably (and I believe incorrectly), but
not by the people such as Singer and Hassan.
>>I will agree that the person makes the decision to take that first step
>>(i.e., to come to the org and take the personality test, to go to the
free
>>dinner at the Moonie center, to go to the free lecture or whatever).
>When the person realizes the fallacies of what he is involved to, he
>just steps out. There is nothing, in 99% of the times, that prevents
>him of doing so. He ~can~ at anytime take this decision. Whether he
>does it or not is another question. I really don't know how to make
>that clearer.
Actually it is about 90% of the time if you believe Galanter's studies.
But even assuming that these studies are correct, did you know that in a
Billy Graham crusade, only about 2% of the people are converted? So
having 10% converted to the Moonies is quite a difference.
Also, these studies that 90% were not converted to that particular cult
(the Moonies) at that particular point in time. This is important,
because several studies have shown that cults recruit people when they are
at vulnerable periods in their life. Of those 90%, perhaps if they had
been recruited a year or 2 earlier or later, they could have been going
through a crisis and been more vulnerable. It is a matter of timing.
Also, not every cult appeals to every person. You or I might have never
been recruited into the Moonies, but we did get into Scientology, while
many folks in the Moonies might have thought the Scienos were totally
ridiculous.
>When I was in the CO$, and when I decided that I don't want to stay
>anymore, there was nothing to prevent me from leaving. It was my
>decision, as it was my decision to stay. Maybe I was mislead to belief
>that I had to stay, but it never was anything else than ~my~ decision.
There was nothing physically stopping you, true (although some people have
reported being restrained physically). But was it really that easy? Did
you just get up and leave and that was that? I know it wasn't easy for me
to leave. For me, it literally felt like I was breaking out of physical
chains, even though there were no chains present.
Reading the mind control literature helped me to understand why this was.
>Parents are fed with alarming rumors by anti-cults biased approach and
>they freak each other out in a fit of near hysteria because their
>offspring have joined a "cult". Maybe you do not do that, but I was
>witness of plenty of examples of this.
>How would you call a sentence such as "your son/daughter is being the
>victim of mind-control by an evil cult who is abusing him/her
>financially, emotionally, spiritually, maybe even sexually. He/she
>became a glassy-eyed robot deprived of free will and of his/her own
>mind and ready to do anything at the order of the evil and greedy cult
>leader who will use him/her to do his bidding, after which, being of
>no use for the cult, he/she will be thrown out and end up as a
>vegetable with no job or family"?
>I call this an alarming rumor and
>one that ~often~ is not warranted.
Where is that quote from? Certainly not from the writings of any
professional person. It is true that family members become very emotional
and upset and have responded in less than professional manner, but I
wouldn't expect them to be unemotional and professional. They are
parents. I try to calm them down so they can think more rationally and
develop a plan to help their loved one.
>>The parents
>>notice that their loved one has become a zombie who usually won't even
>>have a discussion about what they are doing and why.
>Strange. A few line before you said: "*Mystical Zombie* is your
>interpretation. This is not what mind control is."
It was the *mystical* part I object to. Sometimes when a person is in a
trance state they can appear zombie-like, as anyone who had done any kind
of exit-counselling can attest to.
>>When someone has
>>made a genuine decision to change their belief system they do not shut
>>people out and refuse to have a reasonable discussion about it.
>Really? I don't know in what world you live.
Yes, I would say that's true by my experience. I have spoken to plenty of
people who have been in such a situation who have been more than happy to
discuss it with me.
>>When I asked Diane for a specific reference on an "independent
researcher"
>>she referred me to Galanter's work, with which I am very familiar. See
my
>>critique that I posted on a separate thread. His studies are anything
but
>>conclusive or solid evidence and certainly not against mind control.
>YMMV, however the same could be said of the studies conducted by
>mind-control proponents. I am personally convinced by studies from
>Galanter, but also from Shupe, Bromley, Richardson, Robbins, Anthony,
>Ungerleider, Cox, Barker, etc, all of which have strong arguments
>against the absolute mind-control notion. Note that I use the word
>"absolute" mind-control, because I do think that there are elements of
>mind-control that can be argued, and that Hassan and consort, and you
>as well, Monica, have things to say that one should not disregard. My
>point is only that there are serious pitfalls in the absolute
>mind-control theory that should not be disregarded as well.
I have read Galanter and Bromley & Shupe (the latter 2 are not
researchers, they have just written a few books expressing their opinions,
which I don't find very convincing at all). Bromley & Shupe have taken a
little bit of truth (that sometimes parents object to their children
rejecting their belief systems) and then turned it into a fiction (that
there is nothing at all wrong with cults, it is just the parent's refusal
to accept their child's differences). The most compelling argument
against their position is that more and more, adult children are seeking
help for their parents who have gotten into cults!
>>For specifics, read my
>>critique, which is rather lengthy.
>I may do that sometimes, although I am not interested anymore on
>lengthy arguments on the subject.
It's not nearly as lengthy as what you posted by Barker. What I have
given is specific criticisms of Galanter's work.
Diane Richardson
rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
>Diane Richardson (ref...@neont.com) wrote:
>: False information can have consequences every bit as serious as
>: truthful information. All the proof we need of that is to read Steven
>: Fishman on this newsgroup. Or Arnie Lerma, for that matter.
>Innuendo can be worse than true or false information. Just read Diane
>Richardson. I really can't believe what I just read.
There is no innuendo in my statement, nor was there intended to be
any. You are fully aware that more than a year ago, Arnie Lerma
forwarded my mail to Old Timer without my knowledge or my permission.
Although he has tried to "justify" his action with various excuses,
Arnie Lerma has yet to apologize to me for doing this. It has become
obvious to me that Lerma has one set of rules for the rest of the
world and another set of rules for himself.
Arnie Lerma himself has told the IRC #scientology channel that he
feels no moral obligation to be truthful when it comes to battling the
cult. He stated that he feels he has every right to "battle lies with
lies," On more than one occasion, Lerma's honesty has been questioned
-- not only by me -- and people who accept what he says as the full
and accurate truth often find themselves backpedaling fast.
I could catalog the inaccuracies, obfuscations, and half-truths that
Arnie Lerma has scattered about during this past year and a half or
so, but it would serve no purpose. Those who are willing to look at
self--proclaimed "heroes" for what they are rather than what they
claim to be know the accuracy of my words.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Diane Richardson
ric...@teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>On Tue, 03 Sep 1996 18:33:56 GMT, ref...@neont.com (Diane
>Richardson) wrote:
>[snip]
>> The honorable thing for Kim to have done is not to give OSA any
>> statement at all. But then, I guess we've all stopped expecting
>> anything honorable to come from Kim Baker, haven't we?
>Oh, please. Speak for yourself.
I do speak for myself. I also speak for several others who know the
facts but are unwilling to bear the calumny thrown at anyone who
questions the actions of certain net.heroes on this newsgroup.
>[snip]
>> Do you include Steven Fishman in your list of the virtuous, Ron? I
>> would say that I'm shocked and surprised at your attitude, but I
>> realized a few months back that your normal "objectivity" fails you
>> when it comes to Kim Baker.
>While yours is obviously in tact.
It is a fact that Kim Baker posted malicious lies about me to this
newsgroup. It is a fact that Ron Newman pleaded with me not to refute
those lies in public. It is a fact that Ron Newman assured me he
would "handle the problem with Kim."
It is a fact that Ron Newman "handled the problem" by assisting Kim
Baker in concocting a story to extricate herself from accepting
responsibility for the statements that she posted about me. It is a
fact that Ron Newman then posted to this newsgroup announcing the
concocted story.
Ron Newman and I have gone over this several times, Rich. The facts
are not in question. Whether Kim Baker deserves such "protection,"
however, is a matter of opinion. Obviously, to some people
"protecting" vulnerable women -- no matter their culpability -- is
more important than the truth.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Diane Richardson
el...@netcom.com (kEvin) wrote:
>If advertising is truthful, I don't think the degree of harm is
>something that should be of concern. (I'm appalled at the moves
>to regulate tobacco advertising in the US outside of the TV spectrum.)
>If you look at mind control as being just like a hard sales pitch
>that includes elements of fraud, then you can't defend the practices.
>That similar behaviours occur in everyday life doesn't imply that
>mind control isn't happening, it implies that mind control isn't a
>problem unless deception is involved.
But deception *is* involved in a great deal of advertising -- both
subtle and overt. Does that mean that bikini-clad women should be
forbidden to surround the beer drinkers in the beer commercials?
Or is that too subtle a deception to be noticed by the public?
Are those bikini-clad babes a form of "mind control"? Is it "harmful"
or "harmless" in nature? Who gets to decide? Non-imbibing feminists?
Beer-guzzling football-watching couch potatoes? See my point?
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson):
>But deception *is* involved in a great deal of advertising -
Only every day.
>- both subtle and overt.
It's not subtle when you realize the thousands of hours of
motivational research with test viewers wired to machines that go into
making ads effective in leading consumers around by their cocks.
>Does that mean that bikini-clad women should be
>forbidden to surround the beer drinkers in the beer commercials?
Hell, make them get nekkid or get them off the comercials.
Anything else is hypocrisy.
>Or is that too subtle a deception to be noticed by the public?
It's not too subtle a deception to be formulated by the ad
agencies.
>Are those bikini-clad babes a form of "mind control"?
Aren't they?
>Is it "harmful" or "harmless" in nature?
Harmful, since it creates a society of unquestioning
robo-consumers.
>Who gets to decide?
People of conscience.
>Non-imbibing feminists?
Them too.
>Beer-guzzling football-watching couch potatoes?
Sure, if they care that future generations may not think anything
but pre-programmed thoughts.
>See my point?
Maybe. So you're saying we shouldn't try to do anything to clean
up and reform those practices that manipulate the consuming public?
Ron Newman
In article <513lee$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
GEMMAMP1 <gemm...@aol.com> wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
>>BTW, I picked up a chapter from my old books on the subject and, for
>>anyone interested, I will type it and post it in a series. The chapter
>>I picked up was more or less by random because my boxes aren't really
>>tidy and, after 10 years I don't really know anymore what is what. The
>>chapter is "Choice or brainwashing" from the book "The making of a
>>Moonie" by Eileen Barker (1984). I will call the post series "Choice
>>or Brainwashing".
>
>Do you know who funded Eileen Barker's research? The Moonies. How
>independent or objective could such research be? When you post it,
>perhaps you should make a note of this.
I'm going to straddle the fence on this discussion. Information
about Barker's funding is useful to know, but does not *in itself*
discredit the research. That can be done only by discussing Barker's
research methods.
(Disclaimer: I have not yet read Barker's book.)
--
Ron Newman rne...@cybercom.net
Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
Deirdre
OK, in the hypothetical beer commercial with bikin-clad women....
I can't agree with Dennis' hypothesis that it's harmful because it
(necessarily) creates a society of unquestioning robo-consumers.
How many of you drink those brands of beer? How many don't?
I think it affects beer sales overall, but certainly doesn't make people
robotic about it. After all, *all* the brands of beer have those ads. And
I don't drink beer at all. Ever.
The only area where I'm robotic is about my Pepsi. I used to be a coke
drinker then I took the Pepsi challenge. Drunk the stuff for about 18
years now. I noticed that in the Pepsi points promotion, their t-shirts
are all too small for me. Some ad conspiracy no doubt. I want a 2XL shirt
that says "Body by Pepsi." Truth in advertising and all that. <g>
_Deirdre
In article <3236c4b8...@204.245.3.50>, inF...@primenet.com (Rev.
Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
> >Are those bikini-clad babes a form of "mind control"?
>
> Aren't they?
>
> >Is it "harmful" or "harmless" in nature?
>
> Harmful, since it creates a society of unquestioning
> robo-consumers.
Diane Richardson
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
[massive snip]
>My point is that he/she is not able to use that freedom because of the
>mind control techniques.
If mind control techniques are so potent, why are the vast majority of
people exposed to cult recruiting able to fend them off? That's what
I would like you to address, Monica.
[another massive snip]
>OTOH, there are physical changes that are taking place in a person's brain
>when they are subjected to hypnotic techniques for lengthy periods of time
>or to extensive abuse.
Really? Can you support your statement that physical changes occur in
a person's brain as a result of lengthy hypnosis? I would greatly
appreciate being able to read up on this.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Diane Richardson
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
[massive snip]
>Bernie:
>>This is just a difference in the ~mode~ of programming. In both case,
>>you, as do the anti-cult clique, equate brainwashing and mind-control
>>with the same ~end~ result: that the person has ~no~ choice, and bears
>>no responsibilities in the fact of being involved in the cult. Because
>>you give such an absolute power to the term "mind-control", they can
>>be used interchangeably, which is actually what ~is~ being done in the
>>anti-cult literature.
>Okay, I'll ignore the name calling (anti-cult clique) and address your
>point. You are saying that because two concepts or words have the same
>result that they can be used interchangeably? I have to challenge you on
>that one.
Well, Monica, you might wish to start with Chapter 3 of Margaret
Singer's book, _Cults In Our Midst_. The chapter is titled "The
Process of Brainwashing, Psychological Coercion, and Thought Reform."
Dr. Singer does not use the term "mind control"; rather she uses
"thought reform" and "psychological coercion" as substitutes. If you
read the chapter, you will see that she consistently interchanges all
three of those terms in her discussion -- all dealing with the
activities of cults, NOT involving physical coercion.
>To give you an analogy, there are many of modes of
>transportation that can get a person from NYC to Boston. You can fly,
>take a train or bicycle. All three modes of transportation get you the
>same result -- you end up in Boston. Therefore, according to your line of
>reasoning, the terms "Bicycle", "Train" and "Plane" can be used
>interchangeably. I don't think so.
>What literature are the terms being used interchangeably in? Certainly
>they are not in Steve Hassan's book. If they are used interchangeably
>then the person who is doing so is being sloppy, although some cults do
>use brainwashing and mind control. People in the CofS have reported
>having been held against their role, although I'll agree with Joe that
>these cases are the exception rather than the rule.
Dr. Singer uses the terms interchangeably in her book, and she does
not make any distinction when she uses "brainwashing," "thought
reform," or "psychological coercion."
>And furthermore, if you read what I posted you will see that I made
>distinctions between the results of brainwashing and mind control.
Perhaps you are more scrupulous in your use of terminology than Dr.
Singer. I think Bernie makes a very valid point.
[snip]
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Rod Keller
Diane Richardson (ref...@neont.com) wrote:
: I could catalog the inaccuracies, obfuscations, and half-truths that
: Arnie Lerma has scattered about during this past year and a half or
: so, but it would serve no purpose. Those who are willing to look at
: self--proclaimed "heroes" for what they are rather than what they
: claim to be know the accuracy of my words.
I have yet to see anybody proclaim themselves a hero around here. Perhaps
you're referring to Arnie's post that the FACTNet battle will have a big
impact on future cases against the cult. If you doubt the truth of that
statement, then the accuracy of your words is highly suspect.
If Arnie has withheld any information from you in order to support the
FACTNet cause, I think I support that decision. It's up to the individual
how they decide to keep or distribute information on their case. I don't
really see where keeping a.r.s up-to-date is worth the flame Arnie
receives from a few vocal critics, but that's his decision.
--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club
United Free Zone Alliance / Elron's Inspector / Merchant of Chaos
Kha Khan countdown: 9 to go / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
dei...@sover.net (Deirdre):
>I can't agree with Dennis' hypothesis that it's harmful because it
>(necessarily) creates a society of unquestioning robo-consumers.
I didn't say it creates that. It contributes. Every little bit of
advertising is renting space in our collective heads. It is what
passes for culture in 'merka.
>How many of you drink those brands of beer? How many don't?
It makes us watch their stupid commercials rather than get up and
talk to our wives and children. I call it psychological coersion.
>I think it affects beer sales overall, but certainly doesn't make people
>robotic about it.
The goal is simply to make em not channel-surf. It works. They'll
figure out how to really program us when they get the 'tek' just
right. Meantime they're content to have us sit, transfixed, soaking
up impressions of their logo.
>After all, *all* the brands of beer have those ads. And
>I don't drink beer at all. Ever.
What are you, a snob or a peasant? "Nobody doesn't drink
beer(sm)."
>The only area where I'm robotic is about my Pepsi.
They don't care unless your team gets into the NBA finals.
>I used to be a coke
>drinker then I took the Pepsi challenge.
So you're saying you have free will to chose either? I doubt it.
Pepsi just tastes better. It's a pre-determined conclusion to which
anybody who had tastebuds would come.
>Drunk the stuff for about 18
>years now. I noticed that in the Pepsi points promotion, their t-shirts
>are all too small for me. Some ad conspiracy no doubt. I want a 2XL shirt
>that says "Body by Pepsi." Truth in advertising and all that. <g>
So you're doing product placements for Big Business, too?
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson):
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>>My point is that he/she is not able to use that freedom because of the
>>mind control techniques.
Di:
>If mind control techniques are so potent, why are the vast majority of
>people exposed to cult recruiting able to fend them off? That's what
>I would like you to address, Monica.
I guess you never heard the sales expression, "It's a numbers game,
eh Di?
>>OTOH, there are physical changes that are taking place in a person's brain
>>when they are subjected to hypnotic techniques for lengthy periods of time
>>or to extensive abuse.
>Really? Can you support your statement that physical changes occur in
>a person's brain as a result of lengthy hypnosis? I would greatly
>appreciate being able to read up on this.
Where's a biophysicist when you need him? Christian? Come in
Shaf.
Diane Richardson
inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
> Sure, if they care that future generations may not think anything
>but pre-programmed thoughts.
>>See my point?
> Maybe. So you're saying we shouldn't try to do anything to clean
>up and reform those practices that manipulate the consuming public?
My question is who gets to decide what is and isn't manipulative. It
would all be fine if we could all agree on what is and isn't
acceptable, but people just don't share a common view.
I sure as hell wouldn't want Jerry Falwell making those decisions for
me.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
GEMMAMP1
Ron Newman wrote:
>>Do you know who funded Eileen Barker's research? The Moonies. How
>>independent or objective could such research be? When you post it,
>>perhaps you should make a note of this.
>I'm going to straddle the fence on this discussion. Information
>about Barker's funding is useful to know, but does not *in itself*
>discredit the research. That can be done only by discussing Barker's
>research methods.
I have to disagree with that. It is important to know how researchers,
especially if they are making claims of being *independent* are getting
their funds. The U.K. government agreed with me on this one, because they
withdrew their funding of her when this was discovered. What would you
think of a study that was done on the dangers of cigarette smoking that
was funded by Phillip Morris? How objective could that be?
Monica Pignotti
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson):
>My question is who gets to decide what is and isn't manipulative.
I have answered this.
>It
>would all be fine if we could all agree on what is and isn't
>acceptable, but people just don't share a common view.
Consensus is a precursor of popular culture. If it is exposed for
the manipulation it is, if kids are taught to be critical thinkers
instead of mindless consumers, eventually this type of preying on the
unsuspecting and unaware will go out of style. As it is, most people
in 'merka think that greed is good because it is the force that drives
industry.
>I sure as hell wouldn't want Jerry Falwell making those decisions for
>me.
This is no reason not to expose undue manipulation and educate
consumers.
And, BTW, if I have a clue about who you are, you wouldn't want
~anybody~ making decisions for you.
Bernie
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>I am still having trouble understanding what in these writings you
>consider mystical about the mind control state. Can you give me something
>specific from one of their writings that you object to?
See me quote of Singer Ph.D. here below.
>This is true. The people writing their literature are not always the
>scholars and so some of their usage got sloppy and the terms mind control
>and brainwashing get used interchangeably (and I believe incorrectly), but
>not by the people such as Singer and Hassan.
I quote Margaret Singer Ph.D.:
"Well, it is a very well shaped social and psychological
manipulation of the people coming into the organization without them
being aware they are being manipulated, and that is why what the Moon
organisation does as their induction process fits the definition of
brainwashing ...
Brainwashing is a term that refers to a behavioural change
technology applied to induce the learning of any new information and
behaviour under certain conditions"
(Transcript of the official tape recording of evidence given
in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, before Mr
Justice Comyn in the case of Orme v. Associated Newspapers Group Ltd,
Royal Courts of Justice, 9 March 1981, p. 15)
>You or I might have never
>been recruited into the Moonies, but we did get into Scientology, while
>many folks in the Moonies might have thought the Scienos were totally
>ridiculous.
That's true. I shopped around a long time before I found a cult that
was willing to brainwash me.
Bernie:
>>When I was in the CO$, and when I decided that I don't want to stay
>>anymore, there was nothing to prevent me from leaving. It was my
>>decision, as it was my decision to stay. Maybe I was mislead to belief
>>that I had to stay, but it never was anything else than ~my~ decision.
Monica:
>There was nothing physically stopping you, true (although some people have
>reported being restrained physically). But was it really that easy? Did
>you just get up and leave and that was that? I know it wasn't easy for me
>to leave. For me, it literally felt like I was breaking out of physical
>chains, even though there were no chains present.
>Reading the mind control literature helped me to understand why this was.
You are right (no joke). It wasn't easy, and reading the mind control
literature did help me too. It helped me to recognize some of the
tactics used, like fear inducement, repetition, conformity, etc. This
is something positive that I am willing to concede (have a look at my
unfinished series in Marina's Manor).
The whole dispute I have with you is not that elements of mind-control
are used or not, it's the way this mind-control is defined and used to
relieve people of their responsibilities and rights as a human being.
Every time you declare that someone is "under mind-control" to such a
point that he is ~unable~ to take a decision of his own and that
decisions has to be made for him, you are denying him his humanity.
~You~ turn him into some kind of sub-human entity, and this is not
only objectionable, to put it very mildly, it also is a depiction that
isn't a fair reflection of what happens.
There is a good way to know whether a theory is dangerous or not. It
is to take it to its extreme. That was one of the thing that helped me
to get away from Scn: I envisioned a Scientology world in which there
were no place for quiet meditation but in which you were expected ever
to produce, produce, produce, a world in which any disagreement in the
Church's doctrine is viewed as "abnormal" and in which the most
resistive people end up being "treated" forcibly for their own good.
And what do you get when you take the absolute mind
control/brainwashing theory to its extreme? You get a world in which
some kind of "professional" will decide if what you belief or what you
do is the result of "mind-control", and in which you will accordingly
be forcibly "treated" for your own good. I really don't want such a
world. Do you?
>Where is that quote from? Certainly not from the writings of any
>professional person.
The quote is from me. I made it up in an attempt to portray the way
the anti-cults "information" is often perceived by parents.
>It is true that family members become very emotional
>and upset and have responded in less than professional manner, but I
>wouldn't expect them to be unemotional and professional. They are
>parents. I try to calm them down so they can think more rationally and
>develop a plan to help their loved one.
In general (I am not specifically referring to you here), the parents
would probably be better off without the "help" of the anti-cults
organizations. What anti-cults organizations usually do is to ~add~ to
the situation and dramatize it out of hand. There is a definite need
of ~real~ help in this area but by my experience it is not what the
anti-cults organizations are doing. I am not afraid to go as far as to
state that the Jim Jone's or other Waco's tragedies happened through
the combined efforts of the cults and anti-cults elements. Anti-cults
organizations did nothing to prevent such tragedies, but precipitated
them by increasing the cult's feelings of alienation and injustice.
Don't forget that these happened ~after~ 1971 and the launching by Ted
Felon Patrick of his crusades against "mind-control" and
"brainwashing".
Monica:
>>>When someone has
>>>made a genuine decision to change their belief system they do not shut
>>>people out and refuse to have a reasonable discussion about it.
Bernie:
>>Really? I don't know in what world you live.
Monica:
>Yes, I would say that's true by my experience. I have spoken to plenty of
>people who have been in such a situation who have been more than happy to
>discuss it with me.
And I have spoken to plenty who have been anything but reasonable,
including from groups that CAN would not declare as "cult" (and this
doesn't leave out much organizations). What makes you think that the
way you view this issue is any different than the black and white view
fashionable in the cults?
>I have read Galanter and Bromley & Shupe (the latter 2 are not
>researchers, they have just written a few books expressing their opinions,
>which I don't find very convincing at all). Bromley & Shupe have taken a
>little bit of truth (that sometimes parents object to their children
>rejecting their belief systems) and then turned it into a fiction (that
>there is nothing at all wrong with cults, it is just the parent's refusal
>to accept their child's differences).
I guess I would find myself between these authors position and
Singer's one: I think that there are elements of mind-control used by
cults (and thus don't think there are nothing wrong with them), but
also object to the way this notion is used in a cultic way by
well-meaning anti-cultists to the extend that proponents of the
absolute mind-control theory become ~more~ dangerous for the basic
human rights than the cults themselves.
Mind-control elements are only a part in the cult issue. One should
also take into account that cults address the spiritual aspects of the
youth (a group, a mission, a connection with the divine, an ideal, a
spiritual outlook on the universe, etc), spiritual aspects they often
can't find in today's society or today's churches for that matter. To
narrow it all down to mechanical mind control only is to miss the
whole point.
>It's not nearly as lengthy as what you posted by Barker.
I didn't mean it in that way. I will read it, but I probably won't
endlessly argue into details. I don't think the question is such an
issue today as it was in the years 76-86. Deprogrammers have tried to
justify and extend their activities, and they failed to do so.
Anti-cults organizations have tried to pass laws allowing them to
"legally" seize deluded-zombie-mindless robots in cults and "cure"
them by way of State sanctioned brainwashing. They failed too. I
believe Diane when she says that today's official consensus is that
anti-cults allegations are vast, unwarranted, exaggerations, and that
nowhere does it dispense one of his responsibility. By their blind
persistence into an unquestioning allegiance to an absolute
mind-control/brainwahsing doctrine and their broad "cult" labeling of
about anything that dare to move away from the mainstream of
"accepted" faith, anti-cults organization have lost much of their
credibility and found themselves in a situation which, IMO, they fully
deserve.
---------
Bernie
*The ultimate way to determine if a group is a cult
*is to see how closely they follow the methods of CAN.
*The closer they are to the way CAN acts,
*the more likely they are to be a cult.
(Wizard)
Joe Harrington
(posted/mailed)
ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>
>[massive snip]
>
>>My point is that he/she is not able to use that freedom because of the
>>mind control techniques.
>
>If mind control techniques are so potent, why are the vast majority of
>people exposed to cult recruiting able to fend them off? That's what
>I would like you to address, Monica.
>
>[another massive snip]
>
>>OTOH, there are physical changes that are taking place in a person's brain
>>when they are subjected to hypnotic techniques for lengthy periods of time
>>or to extensive abuse.
>
>Really? Can you support your statement that physical changes occur in
>a person's brain as a result of lengthy hypnosis? I would greatly
>appreciate being able to read up on this.
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@neont.com
>
Certain types of mental activities do bring about changes in brain
wave patterns as well as increased or decreased production of neuro-
chemicals. Blue flashing lights in your rear view mirror certainly
create some neurological changes and emotional reactions.
There is abundance evidence that demonstrates this. And
by operant conditioning, these reactions can become somewhat
permanent in a subject..
What constitutes a "hypnotic" technique has not been clearly
defined however..
Joe
h3
In article <3237474d...@204.245.3.50>, inF...@primenet.com (Rev.
Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
>dei...@sover.net (Deirdre):
>
>>I can't agree with Dennis' hypothesis that it's harmful because it
>>(necessarily) creates a society of unquestioning robo-consumers.
>
> I didn't say it creates that. It contributes. Every little bit of
>advertising is renting space in our collective heads. It is what
>passes for culture in 'merka.
>
>>How many of you drink those brands of beer? How many don't?
>
> It makes us watch their stupid commercials rather than get up and
>talk to our wives and children. I call it psychological coersion.
the commercials are halfway interesting. i find i talk more
to my wife during the programming. my kids are a different
matter. if they're around, they're probably listening to metallica
or something. or they're knee-deep in "friends" gossiping.
that's what late-teens do. i still like them, and i still have
pretty high hopes for what they'll turn out to be.
it doesn't mean we listen to them much. we're actually pretty
hardened in our tastes. we do enjoy taking apart their plugs.
actually, i think TV suffers pretty bad in our household.
>>I think it affects beer sales overall, but certainly doesn't make people
>>robotic about it.
>
> The goal is simply to make em not channel-surf. It works. They'll
>figure out how to really program us when they get the 'tek' just
>right. Meantime they're content to have us sit, transfixed, soaking
>up impressions of their logo.
if you believe there really is a *tek*. the real tech is the
remote control, and who controls it. in my house, it's my wife,
and she surfs more than i ever would. when i have control, i
watch the preview channel to see what's on that i'm not watching.
>
>>After all, *all* the brands of beer have those ads. And
>>I don't drink beer at all. Ever.
>
> What are you, a snob or a peasant? "Nobody doesn't drink
>beer(sm)."
the only good beer came in a bucket. i haven't had it for 30 years.
i like a nice peaty scotch now. LaGavoulan, or LaFrouiagh
>>The only area where I'm robotic is about my Pepsi.
>
> They don't care unless your team gets into the NBA finals.
>
>>I used to be a coke
>>drinker then I took the Pepsi challenge.
>
> So you're saying you have free will to chose either? I doubt it.
>Pepsi just tastes better. It's a pre-determined conclusion to which
>anybody who had tastebuds would come.
>
>>Drunk the stuff for about 18
>>years now. I noticed that in the Pepsi points promotion, their t-shirts
>>are all too small for me. Some ad conspiracy no doubt. I want a 2XL shirt
>>that says "Body by Pepsi." Truth in advertising and all that. <g>
>
> So you're doing product placements for Big Business, too?
>
-- see...@ix.netcom.com (h3)
h3
In article <517ncb$7...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Joe Harrington
<joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>>gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>>
>>[massive snip]
>>
>>a person's brain as a result of lengthy hypnosis? I would greatly
>>appreciate being able to read up on this.
>>>
>wave patterns as well as increased or decreased production of neuro-
>chemicals. Blue flashing lights in your rear view mirror certainly
>create some neurological changes and emotional reactions.
>There is abundance evidence that demonstrates this. And
>by operant conditioning, these reactions can become somewhat
>permanent in a subject..
c'mon, joe. assertion is not evidence. do the blue flashing
lights cause neurological changes, or chemical ones, or none
of the above. emotional reactions are not currently completely
related to brain chemistry or morphology. is adrenalin a brain
chemical, even? and there is even less evidence of the physiological
basis for your proclaimed "permanence"
>What constitutes a "hypnotic" technique has not been clearly
>defined however..
>
yes, this is a struggle, at least for me. all i can identify
is elements, and relative strengths. hypnosis is still a real
phenomenon, however, that eventually crosses nearly all thresholds
of belief.
Rich Burroughs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:47:14 GMT, ref...@neont.com (Diane
Richardson) wrote:
> ric...@teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) wrote:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >On Tue, 03 Sep 1996 18:33:56 GMT, ref...@neont.com (Diane
> >Richardson) wrote:
>
> >[snip]
> >> The honorable thing for Kim to have done is not to give OSA any
> >> statement at all. But then, I guess we've all stopped expecting
> >> anything honorable to come from Kim Baker, haven't we?
>
> >Oh, please. Speak for yourself.
>
> I do speak for myself. I also speak for several others who know the
> facts but are unwilling to bear the calumny thrown at anyone who
> questions the actions of certain net.heroes on this newsgroup.
Then what's this "we all" shit? You don't speak for me.
> >[snip]
> >> Do you include Steven Fishman in your list of the virtuous, Ron? I
> >> would say that I'm shocked and surprised at your attitude, but I
> >> realized a few months back that your normal "objectivity" fails you
> >> when it comes to Kim Baker.
>
> >While yours is obviously in tact.
>
> It is a fact that Kim Baker posted malicious lies about me to this
> newsgroup. It is a fact that Ron Newman pleaded with me not to refute
> those lies in public. It is a fact that Ron Newman assured me he
> would "handle the problem with Kim."
[snip]
It is also a fact that you had berated Kim relentlessly before
her post.
I'm not justifying her actions -- I think her post about you was
disgusting, plain and simple. But don't try to act like you are
objective when it comes to Kim. You were not _before_ her
post, let alone after it.
Accusing Ron of failed objectivity with regards to Kim is simply
pot-kettle-black, IMHO.
Rich
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBMjeWXinhWc34xW2VAQEnRgf+Jc154zoer6b6ncm15JsIEq5q5y/KtJ4L
dns4GdEqf8nMf905NeoI1adw3JX9GzqMgdGI3wlXPS+hikTf3WH6WraCPAE//qlt
+5VqnSzYJ3oHXVPy8mGQm3nZm2brpQsoEq9aEF8/8IfolNsyax6657uAxIwHW6AI
X9zBsvJOaMjK2mbi1Zlk/sp9ndq0NgT9FcG7wDYHcGQlutxp7llX+EsFPjZiCtzG
aIFGCje291ffIoMGvOd+GOP4A2GGUFgBT6E1XNbvG2C9NnYvh6VSUgocJpaPvqvK
EfG3mJuHD1EoyMj17l/TWwPRrmtztflrgHm+dioR8zBctfHuQWv0+A==
=HrN2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
______________________________________________________________________
Rich Burroughs ric...@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb
See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon
U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state
New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause
Deirdre
> dei...@sover.net (Deirdre):
> I didn't say it creates that. It contributes. Every little bit of
> advertising is renting space in our collective heads. It is what
> passes for culture in 'merka.
OK, Dennis, I'll agree with you.
> It makes us watch their stupid commercials rather than get up and
> talk to our wives and children. I call it psychological coersion.
One could say that about television as a whole. "Oh look, this interesting
thing is going on RIGHT NOW!"
> What are you, a snob or a peasant? "Nobody doesn't drink
> beer(sm)."
With two alchoholic parents (one recovered), allow me one foible. I
deliberately never acquired the taste.
> They don't care unless your team gets into the NBA finals.
Don't watch the NBA finals.
> >I used to be a coke
> >drinker then I took the Pepsi challenge.
>
> So you're saying you have free will to chose either? I doubt it.
> Pepsi just tastes better. It's a pre-determined conclusion to which
> anybody who had tastebuds would come.
Didn't like RC either. Decided to try my new cola against all comers. PS -
Pepsi Max, which they don't sell in this country, is much better than the
Diet Pepsi they have here. Less aspartame.
> So you're doing product placements for Big Business, too?
Hey, I already say I'm a Mac person on my home page. I also used to live
in Pepsi land.
_Deirdre
Diane Richardson
rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
>Diane Richardson (ref...@neont.com) wrote:
>: I could catalog the inaccuracies, obfuscations, and half-truths that
>: Arnie Lerma has scattered about during this past year and a half or
>: so, but it would serve no purpose. Those who are willing to look at
>: self--proclaimed "heroes" for what they are rather than what they
>: claim to be know the accuracy of my words.
>I have yet to see anybody proclaim themselves a hero around here. Perhaps
>you're referring to Arnie's post that the FACTNet battle will have a big
>impact on future cases against the cult. If you doubt the truth of that
>statement, then the accuracy of your words is highly suspect.
No, I'm referring to Arnie's numerous statements claiming that he's
the "point man" of this newsgroup and that he's leading us all in
battle against the cult. Anyone who spends more than a few minutes on
#scientology while Arnie Lerma is pontificating can fully vouch for
his overinflated opinion of himself.
>If Arnie has withheld any information from you in order to support the
>FACTNet cause, I think I support that decision. It's up to the individual
>how they decide to keep or distribute information on their case. I don't
>really see where keeping a.r.s up-to-date is worth the flame Arnie
>receives from a few vocal critics, but that's his decision.
It's interesting that you once again cut out the specifics of the post
you are (I guess) answering, Rod. I stated in that message that you
know full well that Arnie Lerma forwarded listmail to Old Timer
without my or anyone else's knowledge or permission. You were a
member of that mailing list at the time. You saw it occur. It had
absolutely *nothing* to do with FACTNet, with OSA, or with anything
other than Arnie Lerma's lack of principle.
As to Arnie keeping the newsgroup "up-to-date," that's about the
biggest hoot I've read here in a long time. The newsgroup has been
kept in the dark regarding the FACTNet case after the first two rounds
of court hearings. No one has had any information at all, and when
asked directly, Lerma has been anything but forthcoming.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Rod Keller
Diane Richardson (ref...@neont.com) wrote:
: rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
: >I have yet to see anybody proclaim themselves a hero around here. Perhaps
: >you're referring to Arnie's post that the FACTNet battle will have a big
: >impact on future cases against the cult. If you doubt the truth of that
: >statement, then the accuracy of your words is highly suspect.
:
: No, I'm referring to Arnie's numerous statements claiming that he's
: the "point man" of this newsgroup and that he's leading us all in
: battle against the cult. Anyone who spends more than a few minutes on
: #scientology while Arnie Lerma is pontificating can fully vouch for
: his overinflated opinion of himself.
I find him fairly humble. You, on the other hand.....
: >If Arnie has withheld any information from you in order to support the
: >FACTNet cause, I think I support that decision. It's up to the individual
: >how they decide to keep or distribute information on their case. I don't
: >really see where keeping a.r.s up-to-date is worth the flame Arnie
: >receives from a few vocal critics, but that's his decision.
:
: It's interesting that you once again cut out the specifics of the post
: you are (I guess) answering, Rod. I stated in that message that you
: know full well that Arnie Lerma forwarded listmail to Old Timer
: without my or anyone else's knowledge or permission. You were a
: member of that mailing list at the time. You saw it occur. It had
: absolutely *nothing* to do with FACTNet, with OSA, or with anything
: other than Arnie Lerma's lack of principle.
I don't know nothing about birthin' no babies. Don't tell me what I know.
What I recall most from that old list was you storming off in a huff over
some bizarre interpretation of one of my messages.
: As to Arnie keeping the newsgroup "up-to-date," that's about the
: biggest hoot I've read here in a long time. The newsgroup has been
: kept in the dark regarding the FACTNet case after the first two rounds
: of court hearings. No one has had any information at all, and when
: asked directly, Lerma has been anything but forthcoming.
Good. You don't deserve it.
Martin G. V. Hunt
Diane Richardson (ref...@neont.com) writes:
> el...@netcom.com (kEvin) wrote:
>
>>If advertising is truthful, I don't think the degree of harm is
>>something that should be of concern. (I'm appalled at the moves
>>to regulate tobacco advertising in the US outside of the TV spectrum.)
>
>>If you look at mind control as being just like a hard sales pitch
>>that includes elements of fraud, then you can't defend the practices.
>>That similar behaviours occur in everyday life doesn't imply that
>>mind control isn't happening, it implies that mind control isn't a
>>problem unless deception is involved.
>
> But deception *is* involved in a great deal of advertising -- both
> subtle and overt. Does that mean that bikini-clad women should be
> forbidden to surround the beer drinkers in the beer commercials?
> Or is that too subtle a deception to be noticed by the public?
>
> Are those bikini-clad babes a form of "mind control"? Is it "harmful"
> or "harmless" in nature? Who gets to decide? Non-imbibing feminists?
> Beer-guzzling football-watching couch potatoes? See my point?
Sure; but where's the hard in telling people what scientology really is?
Isn't it our right to relate our experiences in the cult and warn others
away from involvement? Ads have to conform to certain standards; in the
case of your beer ads, showing someone drinking is not permitted. Also,
ads that contain lies are expressly forbidden. i think scn's ads are a
pack of lies that say nothing about the true nature of the cult. I don't
see the harm in discussing scientology.
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
Art Online oil paintings: http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/homepage.html
Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
Martin G. V. Hunt
Diane Richardson (ref...@neont.com) writes:
> I do speak for myself. I also speak for several others who know the
> facts but are unwilling to bear the calumny thrown at anyone who
> questions the actions of certain net.heroes on this newsgroup.
You don't speak for me.
Who are these innuendous "others", anyway?
I hate generalizations* and characterizations like this.
*not used in the scn sense.
Deirdre
In article <5180g7$8...@clark.zippo.com>, ref...@neont.com (Diane
Richardson) wrote:
> No, I'm referring to Arnie's numerous statements claiming that he's
> the "point man" of this newsgroup and that he's leading us all in
> battle against the cult. Anyone who spends more than a few minutes on
> #scientology while Arnie Lerma is pontificating can fully vouch for
> his overinflated opinion of himself.
I haven't heard Arnie say he was the point man of this newsgroup, but I
agree with Diane that he has an overinflated opinion of himself (and his
abilities to take on the CofS). This latest legal maneuver of attempting
to open up the LRH probate is one example. Imho, it's being tried by a
bunch of attorneys who want to rack up billings, not because there's some
chance of success.
> It's interesting that you once again cut out the specifics of the post
> you are (I guess) answering, Rod. I stated in that message that you
> know full well that Arnie Lerma forwarded listmail to Old Timer
> without my or anyone else's knowledge or permission. You were a
> member of that mailing list at the time. You saw it occur. It had
> absolutely *nothing* to do with FACTNet, with OSA, or with anything
> other than Arnie Lerma's lack of principle.
Yes, this is true.
> As to Arnie keeping the newsgroup "up-to-date," that's about the
> biggest hoot I've read here in a long time. The newsgroup has been
> kept in the dark regarding the FACTNet case after the first two rounds
> of court hearings. No one has had any information at all, and when
> asked directly, Lerma has been anything but forthcoming.
This is a good example of the lack of forthcoming (from 12:30 am EDT to
2:05 EDT on Tuesday the 10th), edited from IRC logs to show the relevant
exchanges. The controversy is about, of course, the controversial BJ
article. Full log (excluding /msgs of course) available on request by
email to moi.
tashback: arnie - so what if she *had* given you a review copy, then
quoted your response? Wouldn't it have been the same "This is rubbish"
non-answer you posted to a.r.s. *after* the article?
alerma: tash - yeah, but my copmments would run next her rubbish
alerma: inbstead of in a pile-o-emails
tashback: "Lerma, when asked about the charges, responded, 'This is
rubbish.'" It's not a convincing rebuttal.
sthomson: alerma: you are calling my article rubbish. what facts do
you dispute?
alerma: by the same token I call the cults filing to get raid on my
home rubbish, and lies in that it misrepresents the facts, and you forward
conclusions based on your coloring of events that are impossibkle to
entertain
alerma: it portrays events that lead one to believe that I or Larry
are mentally capable of conciving of an idea as repugnant as 'FACTNET Will
sue Bob Penny' which was shellys copnclusion, from her painting..
sthomson: alerma: the threat to sue Bob Penny was explictly made by Lawrence.
alerma: YOU shelly said FACTnet would sue Bob Penny..
sthomson: alerma: my speculation was that LW would really do it--not so
much to palm off the liability, but to tie up the insurance money
sthomson: alerma: he made the threat in plain words. do you dispute this?
alerma: In the heat of some argument, you have said things in a rite
of passion have you not? LW , I learned later, may have said something,
but he denies ever entertaining the idea except to try to get whatver
point he was tying to make through to bob penny.
alerma: We could never go after bob, that is madness.
sthomson: alerma: I thought it a credible threat.
alerma: Larry may not be easiest guy to get along with, but tis not
the time to portray facts out of context..
alerma: and to frame the details of the events inquestion
sthomson: alerma: oh, he "may have said something?" --this, after you
called my article "a crock" and alluded to "the paranoid lust of a wannabe
journalist"
alerma: would demand that too many cards be shown ... to the cult who
watchs all this with much glee Im sure
{devil}: i undrestand he made a number of harassing and haranguing
calls... did he threated a lawsuit more than once?
DeirdreVT: Arnie, she didn't ask you that. She asked you if you disputed
that Larry *threatened* to sue Bob Penny.
alerma: I dunno, He only mentioned saying during a fit of anger
trying to get soemthing understood and to impress the importance of
whatever it was, (which I do not know), may have use it as an exclamatyion
mark to try to be understiood, but there was never any intent
DeirdreVT: Arnie, so you did know he'd threatened Bob. Did you know the
specifics of the threat?
sthomson: alerma: it wasn't a fit of anger. it was a deliberate
reasoned statement, made more than once.
DeirdreVT: (It has occurred to Deirdre that LW may have lied to Arnie and
Arnie may have believed LW)
alerma: tashback - I cannot break attorney client privlge I may need
in the unpcoming battle to frame the events in such a way to demonstarte
teffectively
[Deirdre's note: when backed into a corner, note the invocation of
attorney-client privilege]
DeirdreVT: Arnie, we're not attorneys or clients of yours.
alerma: that the allegations are irresponsible and wrong, as portrayed
alerma: well you only compromise that privlege once then its gone
davel_: they were not allegations as it turned out
alerma: and the only ones who truly understand that are either
lawyers, or have been in litigation
tashback: Arnie - How far will you contort to defend Wollersheim's abuse
of Penny?
{devil}: i'm sorry, but if you're already in litigation and someone
threatens you with another lawsuit it has to be taken seriously
alerma: no contortions tashback, just facts, there was never any
intent, plan or willingness to sue bob penny,..
tashback: Arnie - Just threats?
sthomson: devil: it certainly does, especially if the party making the
threats has something to gain from actually filing suit.
sthomson: alerma: 1) LW wanted to offload liability for the actions
that brought on the c of s lawsuit; 2) a lawsuit against Penny depprives
Penny of the services of experienced counsel; 3) could complicate Penny's
ability to get his portion of the
sthomson: alerma: insurance funds for his defense. this whole thing
*could* be looked at as a scuffle over the money. I'm willing to hear
other sides of the story, but I call 'em as I see 'em.
tashback: sthomson - And Wollersheim is pretty well-known as a sniffer
of deep pockets rather than as a crusader for freedom of speech.
DeirdreVT: Tash, he was even in the 70s, though sniffing deep pockets in
and of itself isn't a crime. <G>
alerma: 1) LW wanted to offload liability for the
alerma: actions that brought on the c of s lawsuit;
alerma: He wanted the corporate shell to assume that responsiblty
not to have to personally take it.
alerma: 2) a lawsuit
alerma: against Penny depprives Penny of the services of
alerma: experienced counsel;
alerma: this makes no sense at all... and is not possible by any
means, all directors, preset and past are covered by the indemnity policy,
bob could not be cut off from finaning.. it couldnt happen. neither of of
could live with ourselves, and thinking
alerma: 3) could complicate Penny's ability
alerma: to get his portion of the
alerma: This Anne Webers paranoid machination feeding your own
DeirdreVT: Why are you making out Anne Weber as the SP on the case Arnie?
DeirdreVT: Was this a line fed to you by LW?
davel_: paranoia is unreasoned fear.....is that what you claim this is?
sthomson: alerma: not true. LW forbade Bob Penny to settle unless the
settlement agreement relieved LW & FACTNet of any liability for Penny's
actions. He wanted liability to rest with Penny, whom he blamed for
various things.
sthomson: alerma: re. experienced counsel, no lawyers who had been
previously involved in the case could represent Penny because they had
previously represented LW. Penny has to start fresh with new lawyers.
alerma: cause she is now, by her actions, compromising the ability
of the corporation that already paid to defend me, bob and LW to continue
to raise additinal monies by spreading this flotsom... its as if, a deal
was made to cut out throats with iunnuendo, the cult would like better
than to have us cease to exist... and run our of money, tahts all theyve
tring to do throught this litigation is run up the costs
alerma: there is much more to that story shelly but Im tween a rocjk
and hard place
sthomson: alerma: are you going to sue Ann now?
davel_: are you saying that Anne cut a deal with co$?
alerma: davel_ I dunno, there are millions at stake here.
sthomson: alerma: I dislike your suggestion that I am a tool of other
forces. this is patronizing and untrue.
DeirdreVT: Arnie, I haven't seen Anne Weber post a word, but I have seen
you refute things as hogwash that are verifiably true. YOU LOOK SLIMY.
There. I said it.
alerma: shelly, time will tell. and when it does, I will setlle up with you
andii: Shelley Thomson, officially paid and sponsored Reporter for
the ARSCC.
sthomson: alerma: further, your efforts to be spiteful toward Ann Weber
do not make your story more plausible.
sthomson: alerma: another threat?
alerma: nope, a promise
alerma: when I can go over the whole story I know of, and the rest
that I can only imagine, we'll see whate really happenned. I am hobbled
with what I can say and cant
alerma: Its safer to deride the messenger that destroy attorney
client privlege
sthomson: alerma: time has told. you denied a true story when you
could perfectly well have apologized for the misunderstanding and soothed
troubled waters. I left open the door for you to do that. Your threats
are inappropriate and make you look b
sthomson: bad
sthomson: BAD
DeirdreVT: Shelley, I agree. If Arnie had said, "gosh, I didn't know LW
said THAT! That's shocking" that would be one thing. Or if he said, "I
heard about it and I'm dismayed" that would be better...
DeirdreVT: but to say it didn't happen when it did makes Arnie look,
well, worse than he's trying to portray The Criminal Cult.
davel_: or "I will look into it"?
alerma: in the end all facts will come out, and we'll have to see,
menawhile I will continue to try to kick the livin shit out of the cult,
raide money, pay my mortgage, fight a 2nd counter suit, and bring all the
facts to the table, when I am able to, till then, all I can say is, you
are painting an evil that isnt there
sthomson: deirdrevt: or if he had said 'we were stressed out and said
some stuff, but we would never consider suing Bob Penny', even
alerma: larry lost his temper and said some things to bob he aint
proud of..
alerma: but there was never intent
tashback: Arnie, since it's all coming out, is it true that Wollersheim
suffers from manic depression and refuses to take medication for it?
DeirdreVT: Arnie, thank you.
alerma: dunno bout that..
h3: arnie - thank you. that speaks truer than most than has
been said.
(end excerpt)
It went on from there, but you get the idea.
_Deirdre
Cornelius Krasel
Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) wrote:
> ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson):
> >gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
> >>when they are subjected to hypnotic techniques for lengthy periods of time
> >>or to extensive abuse.
> >a person's brain as a result of lengthy hypnosis? I would greatly
> >appreciate being able to read up on this.
>
> Shaf.
I usually skip the lady's fight, but I cannot let this go unchallenged.
Of course there are physical changes when people are hypnotized. For
example the EEG pattern is changing (as it does when you fall asleep,
dream, close your eyes, ...). However, methinks that Diane is thinking
of something different, albeit I cannot make out what it is. "Physical
changes" is an extremely blurred term.
Just playing with Medline (http://muscat.gdb.org/repos/medl/)
showed the following article:
HJ Crawford, Brain dynamics and hypnosis: attentional and
disattentional processes., Int J Clin Exp Hypn 42: 3, 204-32, Jul,
1994.
which says in the abstract (among many other things):
It is proposed that hypnosis is
a state of enhanced attention that activates an interplay between
cortical and subcortical brain dynamics during hypnotic phenomena,
such as both attentional and disattentional processes, among others,
are important in the experiencing of hypnosis and hypnotic phenomena.
Findings from studies of electrocortical activity, event-related
potentials, and regional cerebral blood flow during waking and
hypnosis are presented to suggest that these attentional differences
are reflected in underlying neurophysiological differences in the far
fronto-limbic attentional system.
Also of interest might be
M Grond, Pawlik G, Walter H, Lesch OM, Heiss WD, Hypnotic
catalepsy-induced changes of regional cerebral glucose metabolism.,
Psychiatry Res 61: 3, 173-9, Sep 29, 1995.
(This does not show that I know anything about hypnotics. But it shows
that any not-too-dumb person can pull something out of Medline if they
only use some fanciful search terms. :-)
--Cornelius.
--
/* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
/* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: pha...@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP3 */
/* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */
Ron Newman
>I have yet to see anybody proclaim themselves a hero around here. Perhaps
>you're referring to Arnie's post that the FACTNet battle will have a big
>impact on future cases against the cult. If you doubt the truth of that
>statement, then the accuracy of your words is highly suspect.
>
>If Arnie has withheld any information from you in order to support the
>FACTNet cause, I think I support that decision. It's up to the individual
>how they decide to keep or distribute information on their case. I don't
>really see where keeping a.r.s up-to-date is worth the flame Arnie
>receives from a few vocal critics, but that's his decision.
If FACTnet threatened to sue the disabled and possibly dying
Bob Penny, this is information that should not have been withheld
from us while trying to raise money from us!
Rod Keller
Ron Newman (rne...@shell1.cybercom.net) wrote:
: In article <516kc9$o...@netaxs.com>, Rod Keller <rke...@netaxs.com> wrote:
: >If Arnie has withheld any information from you in order to support the
: >FACTNet cause, I think I support that decision. It's up to the individual
: >how they decide to keep or distribute information on their case. I don't
: >really see where keeping a.r.s up-to-date is worth the flame Arnie
: >receives from a few vocal critics, but that's his decision.
:
: If FACTnet threatened to sue the disabled and possibly dying
: Bob Penny, this is information that should not have been withheld
: from us while trying to raise money from us!
If.
--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club
United Free Zone Alliance / The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos
Sister Clara
In article <519qeo$7...@netaxs.com>
rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
> Ron Newman (rne...@shell1.cybercom.net) wrote:
> : In article <516kc9$o...@netaxs.com>, Rod Keller <rke...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> : >If Arnie has withheld any information from you in order to support the
> : >FACTNet cause, I think I support that decision. It's up to the individual
> : >how they decide to keep or distribute information on their case. I don't
> : >really see where keeping a.r.s up-to-date is worth the flame Arnie
> : >receives from a few vocal critics, but that's his decision.
> :
> : If FACTnet threatened to sue the disabled and possibly dying
> : Bob Penny, this is information that should not have been withheld
> : from us while trying to raise money from us!
>
> If.
>
No "if", Rod. Arnie confirmed on IRC that LW indeed made the threat.
--
Sister Clara - SP4 - Magpie - LoX - OSA Orchid - potential DA subject
Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy
http://www.magpie.co.uk/
alt.religion.scientology - Open for all the usual business
Deirdre
> Ron Newman (rne...@shell1.cybercom.net) wrote:
> : If FACTnet threatened to sue the disabled and possibly dying
> : Bob Penny, this is information that should not have been withheld
> : from us while trying to raise money from us!
>
> If.
Rod, you're really into denial, aren't you?
Read the message I posted with the IRC log. LW told others that he'd
threatened Bob Penny with a lawsuit. Arnie has now admitted it on IRC.
Others can confirm it from first-hand experience.
You gonna wait for a UFO abduction to prove it to you or what?
_Deirdre
Diane Richardson
ric...@teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:47:14 GMT, ref...@neont.com (Diane
>Richardson) wrote:
>> ric...@teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) wrote:
>>
>> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> >On Tue, 03 Sep 1996 18:33:56 GMT, ref...@neont.com (Diane
>> >Richardson) wrote:
>>
>> >[snip]
>> >> The honorable thing for Kim to have done is not to give OSA any
>> >> statement at all. But then, I guess we've all stopped expecting
>> >> anything honorable to come from Kim Baker, haven't we?
>>
>> >Oh, please. Speak for yourself.
>>
>> I do speak for myself. I also speak for several others who know the
>> facts but are unwilling to bear the calumny thrown at anyone who
>> questions the actions of certain net.heroes on this newsgroup.
>Then what's this "we all" shit? You don't speak for me.
Of course I don't.
>> >[snip]
>> >> Do you include Steven Fishman in your list of the virtuous, Ron? I
>> >> would say that I'm shocked and surprised at your attitude, but I
>> >> realized a few months back that your normal "objectivity" fails you
>> >> when it comes to Kim Baker.
>>
>> >While yours is obviously in tact.
>>
>> It is a fact that Kim Baker posted malicious lies about me to this
>> newsgroup. It is a fact that Ron Newman pleaded with me not to refute
>> those lies in public. It is a fact that Ron Newman assured me he
>> would "handle the problem with Kim."
>[snip]
>It is also a fact that you had berated Kim relentlessly before
>her post.
"Berated"? Perhaps you should go back and re-read the exchange. Kim
Baker was berating others. I called her a hypocrite for lecturing
others on ethics when she herself had never come clean about her own
ethical shortcomings. I asked her to explain the situation regarding
her "flip-flop." Her response to me was a slanderous, scurrilous
attack on me.
Kim has finally come clean with the newsgroup and explained the events
surrounding her latest flip-flop. That is all that I asked her to do.
She has done it.
>I'm not justifying her actions -- I think her post about you was
>disgusting, plain and simple. But don't try to act like you are
>objective when it comes to Kim. You were not _before_ her
>post, let alone after it.
You have no idea what my experience with Kim Baker is. To assume that
you know what has gone on between me, Ron Newman, and Kim Baker is
nothing but speculation on your part.
Unless you'd like to hear a great deal of information that best
deserves to remain private, I'd suggest you stop your line of
speculation.
>Accusing Ron of failed objectivity with regards to Kim is simply
>pot-kettle-black, IMHO.
Perhaps you should as Ron Newman about how *he* views his objectivity
when it comes to Kim Baker. I'm sure that he will readily admit that
he is not objective when it comes to his friend -- he has admitted
that to me on a number of occasions.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Diane Richardson
inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
>ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson):
>gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>>>My point is that he/she is not able to use that freedom because of the
>>>mind control techniques.
>Di:
>>If mind control techniques are so potent, why are the vast majority of
>>people exposed to cult recruiting able to fend them off? That's what
>>I would like you to address, Monica.
> I guess you never heard the sales expression, "It's a numbers game,
>eh Di?
I've heard it, but if Monica's description of what "mind control" does
is accurate, it should work 100 percent of the time. It doesn't. I'm
trying to figure out why.
I suspect that the answer lies somewhere in an individual's
personality type and locus of control. Individuals are, indeed,
individuals. Why does this sort of stuff work so much more
effectively on some people than on others? I don't think it's so much
a matter of lack of information as it is a desire to be fed "pie in
the sky." Saul Levine calls what takes place "auto-hypnosis," to
indicate that it is the individual himself who is willingly suspending
his critical thinking, rather than anything that the cult recruiters
themselves do to individuals.
>>>OTOH, there are physical changes that are taking place in a person's brain
>>>when they are subjected to hypnotic techniques for lengthy periods of time
>>>or to extensive abuse.
>>Really? Can you support your statement that physical changes occur in
>>a person's brain as a result of lengthy hypnosis? I would greatly
>>appreciate being able to read up on this.
> Where's a biophysicist when you need him? Christian? Come in
>Shaf.
I'm still waiting . . . . <grin>
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Diane Richardson
inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
>ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson):
>>My question is who gets to decide what is and isn't manipulative.
> I have answered this.
Guess I missed it. Sorry.
>>It
>>would all be fine if we could all agree on what is and isn't
>>acceptable, but people just don't share a common view.
> Consensus is a precursor of popular culture. If it is exposed for
>the manipulation it is, if kids are taught to be critical thinkers
>instead of mindless consumers, eventually this type of preying on the
>unsuspecting and unaware will go out of style. As it is, most people
>in 'merka think that greed is good because it is the force that drives
>industry.
Actually, I can remember back to the eighth grade when I got my first
lessons in the use of language to manipulate opinion. The final
project was that everyone in the class had to write and perform a
"tv ad" for the rest of the class, using what we had learned.
That was waaaay back in 1959 or 1960, in a small, underfunded
public school. And a point of fact: my sister is an 8th grade
teacher, and she *still* includes a unit like this in her 8th grade
language arts classes. She's been doing this for more than 20 years
now. Is it a matter of students not being taught, or a matter of
students not using what they learn?
My "critical thinking" skills were further honed by a solid course in
(of all things) general semantics as a college freshman. I'm sure
there are many others here who have had similar educational
opportunities. <grin>
But more than either of those formal educational experiences, I was
taught to think critically by my parents -- by watching what they
thought and did and said. I don't know if the government would have
any more success taking on the role of teaching critical thinking than
they have had teaching drug prevention.
>>I sure as hell wouldn't want Jerry Falwell making those decisions for
>>me.
> This is no reason not to expose undue manipulation and educate
>consumers.
Hey, I stopped watching tv more than 2 years ago. It's amazing how
much more I've been able to do in a day since I did that.
> And, BTW, if I have a clue about who you are, you wouldn't want
>~anybody~ making decisions for you.
Nobody *ever* makes decisions for me, Dennis. Never have and
never will. <grin>
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Diane Richardson
av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
>Diane Richardson (ref...@neont.com) writes:
>> el...@netcom.com (kEvin) wrote:
>>
>>>If advertising is truthful, I don't think the degree of harm is
>>>something that should be of concern. (I'm appalled at the moves
>>>to regulate tobacco advertising in the US outside of the TV spectrum.)
>>
>>>If you look at mind control as being just like a hard sales pitch
>>>that includes elements of fraud, then you can't defend the practices.
>>>That similar behaviours occur in everyday life doesn't imply that
>>>mind control isn't happening, it implies that mind control isn't a
>>>problem unless deception is involved.
>>
>> But deception *is* involved in a great deal of advertising -- both
>> subtle and overt. Does that mean that bikini-clad women should be
>> forbidden to surround the beer drinkers in the beer commercials?
>> Or is that too subtle a deception to be noticed by the public?
>>
>> Are those bikini-clad babes a form of "mind control"? Is it "harmful"
>> or "harmless" in nature? Who gets to decide? Non-imbibing feminists?
>> Beer-guzzling football-watching couch potatoes? See my point?
>Sure; but where's the hard in telling people what scientology really is?
No harm at all. I wasn't suggesting that there was.
>Isn't it our right to relate our experiences in the cult and warn others
>away from involvement?
Of course that's your right. I do, however, object just as vehemently
to critics posting made-up stories, unsubstantiated rumors, and other
misleading information here as I do to Scientologists[tm] doing the
same. It appears to me that people here are much more willing to
suspend their critical thinking skills when it's a critic of the
"Church" making spurious claims. Critics can make claims that are
accepted without question which would be ridiculed if made by a CoS
representative.
I believe that inaccurate information, even if provided for a *good*
cause, does nothing but harm in the long run. And I've seen far too
many examples of inaccurate information being swallowed whole here to
feel comfortable. Even worse, when others have the temerity to
question the accuracy of the information, they are deemed "OSA
plants," called by various insulting names, the subject of slanderous
accusations, etc.
>Ads have to conform to certain standards; in the
>case of your beer ads, showing someone drinking is not permitted.
Is a beer ad any less effective because the actor merely holds the
tankard rather than lifting it to his lips? I see that particular
example as nothing more than a pap that was thrown to teetotaling
organizations years ago. It has no effect at all.
The "Church" is required by regulation to place a label on every
e-meter informing the world that this is not a device for the
treatment or prevention of illness. That doesn't keep individual
Scientologists[tm] from making claims about the e-meter's amazing
ability to cure physical problems.
Same thing, different products. They both manage to get around
whatever laws the government may invent to try to keep them honest.
>Also,
>ads that contain lies are expressly forbidden. i think scn's ads are a
>pack of lies that say nothing about the true nature of the cult. I don't
>see the harm in discussing scientology.
Well, just as in the case of the "Church" of Scientology[tm], there
are ways of circumventing the intent of extant regulations regarding
advertising. You can't show a guy guzzling down a case of beer on tv
and then picking up a babe. You *can* show guy next to a case of
beer surrounded by babes. Same difference.
You *won't* see a guy guzzling down a case of beer and then puking up
his guts, anymore than you'll see the CoS running infomercials about
how Dianetics really messes up your life.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
GEMMAMP1
Diane Richardson wrote:
>My question is who gets to decide what is and isn't manipulative. It
>would all be fine if we could all agree on what is and isn't
>acceptable, but people just don't share a common view.
>I sure as hell wouldn't want Jerry Falwell making those decisions for
>me.
This is one thing we agree on and that's precisely why I am against any
kind of government involvement or legislation against cults. Education is
the answer, not legislation. This way, people will be aware of cults and
how they operate and will ge alot less likely to get involved.
Monica Pignotti
GEMMAMP1
Diane Richardson writes:
>I've heard it, but if Monica's description of what "mind control" does
>is accurate, it should work 100 percent of the time. It doesn't. I'm
>trying to figure out why.
No. I never said that it should work 100 percent of the time. I don't
understand. How did you reach that conclusion, based on what my
description is?
>I suspect that the answer lies somewhere in an individual's
>personality type and locus of control. Individuals are, indeed,
>individuals. Why does this sort of stuff work so much more
>effectively on some people than on others? I don't think it's so much
>a matter of lack of information as it is a desire to be fed "pie in
>the sky." Saul Levine calls what takes place "auto-hypnosis," to
>indicate that it is the individual himself who is willingly suspending
>his critical thinking, rather than anything that the cult recruiters
>themselves do to individuals.
Locus of control, yes. Personality type, no. I have met a wide variety
of personality types who have become involved in cults. Just look at the
"sample" of ex-Scientologists in this newsgroup, as an example. Look at
how we all disagree with each other and have very different points of
view. We are hardly conformists. People who got into Scientology did not
do so out of a desire to be fed "pie in the sky". This implies that we
knew what we were getting into. The major beliefs (i.e., OTIII) are not
even known in the beginning.
I don't believe that this can be explained by it working better on some
people than on others. Sure, some people are more vulnerable than others,
but I believe that anyone could be vulnerable if they were going through a
rough time in their lives and were in a (perhaps temporary) state of being
off balance.
With regard to what Levine says, initially, there is a moment when the
individual does willingly suspend critical thinking but this is all too
often because they have been persuaded to do so by the cult recruiter or
representative. The techniques that cults use to suspend critical
thinking (such as, in my opinion, TRs) are presented as techniques that
will make a person more aware and better able to operate effectively.
This is what the new Scientologist willingly does. Makes the decision
that they want to change or to improve something in their lives and has
the hope that Scientology can do it. The effect of the TRs (and I know
I'm going to get flack from this from all the freezoners) is to shut off
critical thinking, IMHO. Did the person willingly engage in TRs? Yes,
but not for the purpose of suspending critical thinking but for the false
purpose presented by the cult.
Come to think of it, I don't know of one person who has been in
Scientology who has said they did TRs because they wanted to suspend their
critical thinking. They did it in order to improve the quality of their
lives, to be more aware, not less aware.
Other cults have different methods of persuading people to shut off
critical thinking. Some groups present the whole idea of critical
thinking as bad and something that impedes "spiritual development" and
this is how the person is persuaded. There are about as many variations
of this as there are cults.
Monica Pignotti
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1):
>This is one thing we agree on and that's precisely why I am against any
>kind of government involvement or legislation against cults. Education is
>the answer, not legislation. This way, people will be aware of cults and
>how they operate and will ge alot less likely to get involved.
It will be enough if the government doesn't subsidize the cult or
permit it to bludgeon its critics into silence using government
machinery.
A free and open exchange of information is enough to take care of
relegating the scienos to the scrap-heap of history.
Rod Keller
Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <519qeo$7...@netaxs.com>
: > : >If Arnie has withheld any information from you in order to support the
: > : >FACTNet cause, I think I support that decision. It's up to the individual
: > : >how they decide to keep or distribute information on their case. I don't
: > : >really see where keeping a.r.s up-to-date is worth the flame Arnie
: > : >receives from a few vocal critics, but that's his decision.
: > : Bob Penny, this is information that should not have been withheld
: > : from us while trying to raise money from us!
: >
: > If.
: No "if", Rod. Arnie confirmed on IRC that LW indeed made the threat.
But did Arnie withhold that information? Did Arnie make the threat? This
thread is about Arnie, you know. I wasn't there on IRC to know what Arnie
confirmed.