Ted Patrick's Violent Methods
Diane Richardson
This post contains quotes from Ted Patrick's own book, "Let Our
Children Go!" (E. P. Dutton, 1976). In this message, I will include
excerpts from Patrick's accounts of his abductions, which he calls
"snatches." I'd like Pamela Fitzpatrick, in particular, to note that
I'm presenting material written by an "anti-cult activist," NOT by a
"cult apologist." I welcome her to find a drop of compassion or
sensitivity to these "cult victims" in anything Patrick has written.
______________________________________
page 73
"The back door opened. It was now or never. I flung back the blanket
and found myself staring into Pam Collins' very amazed face.
"There was a frozen instant. Then she gasped, 'Kidnap!' and started
to back away. But her mother was behind her and pushed her hard, and
I got my arms around her shoulders and sucked her in on top of us like
a vacuum cleaner--whoosh!--and she vanished inside. Immediately her
boyfriend piled in on top of her, or tried to, and I remember thinking
even in the middle of all the action what a pity it was that his
father had not been interested in rescuing him because I could have
had him too. As it was, I had to get rid of him, so I kicked him in
the stomach and he went reeling back and Mrs. Collins tripped him and
sent him sprawling.
"In the meantime, Danny was mixing it up with three of the other large
dudes, clipping one in the jaw with his feet, and Macing two of the
others. Fortunately the three girls did not get themselves together
in time to do anything. They just stood back and shrieked.
"Collins fought his way around to the driver's seat, and shouted to
Danny to get in. Mrs. Collins had already made it back [p. 74]
inside. Holmes and I were wrestling with Pam who was screaming her
head off. I was sitting up by this time and saw people running from
the house, and one of the dogs sprinting towards us. Danny decked
Pam's boyfriend with his fist, and dove in just as the first of the
German shepherds arrived and lunged at the door, banging against it as
Danny swung it shut, and we went rolling off down the hill, leaving a
scene of great confusion and disruption behind."
[p. 96]
"But Wes was wary, and he balked at getting in the car. 'No,' he
said, 'we can talk right here.'
"Suddenly Lockwood grabbed the boy without warning and hurled him
headfirst into the front seat. It was perfect. 'Come on,' I yelled
to Alan and we went charging out.
"Wes was grappling with his father, and beginning to yell. Alan went
running around to the passenger's side and opened the door. I was
right behind him. Then what I was worried about happened. Alan, who
was shocked to see the awful change in his nephew's appearance,
momentarily froze. He just stood there with the door open and Wes
came bolting out into the street next to the car, shrieking and waving
his arms, yelling at the top of his voice, 'Help! Help! They're
kidnapping me. Call the police! Help me!'
"Alan quickly recovered his wits and began wrestling with Wes, but Wes
was now impossible to handle. Lockwood started the car. Traffic was
piling up, coming to a halt, people gawking. A crowd was collecting
on the sidewalk. A woman was screeching.
"Wes had taken up a position facing the car, with his hands on the
roof and his legs spread-eagled. There was no way to het him inside
while he was braced like that. I had to make a quick decision. I
reached down between Wes's legs, grabbed him by the crotch and
squeezed--hard. He let out a howl, and doubled up, brabbing for his
groin with both hands. Then I hit, shoving him headfirst into the
back seat of the car and piling in on top of him."
More to come . . . .
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
cul...@primenet.com
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>This post contains quotes from Ted Patrick's own book, "Let Our
>Children Go!" (E. P. Dutton, 1976). In this message, I will include
>excerpts from Patrick's accounts of his abductions, which he calls
>"snatches." I'd like Pamela Fitzpatrick, in particular, to note that
>I'm presenting material written by an "anti-cult activist," NOT by a
>"cult apologist." I welcome her to find a drop of compassion or
>sensitivity to these "cult victims" in anything Patrick has written.
>______________________________________
I met 3 people a few days after they were deprogrammed by Ted Patrick
in about 1978 or so. Ted did not do anything but get them out of
their cultish mindset, collect his money, and leave. They were
obviously very confused and fearful about what to do next. This was
just the beginnings of deprogramming, but looking back I think it was
horrible for Patrick to think that these people were ok when he left.
At least one of these deprogrammed people went back to her cult.
I never saw Patrick at a CAN conference except once on the last day
he was there for the group breakfast. Some older women were fawning
over him. Within CAN there were pro-Patrick and also very
anti-Patrick people. Ted Patrick was NOT one of the founders of CAN.
He seemed to be quite a controversial figure within the anti-cult
movement.
I've met other people deprogrammed by Patrick. One was glad to be
out of the cult but mad at Patrick over his methods.
So, I don't think you can use Ted Patrick as an example of the
anti-cult movement. In fact I renounce him and think he has done more
harm than help to the movement. Are you trying to smear the anti-cult
movement by generalizing here?
Jack Craver
On 10 Jan 1998 14:12:01 -0700, inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L
Erlich) wrote:
>>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson):
>
> [bunch of drivel from an asshole about his violent exploits]
>
>>More to come . . . .
>
> And precisely what has this to do with the cult of scientology, or
>in support of ex-cultists?
Try widening your tunnel-vision veiw of cults to include
deprogramming. Seems to me that deprogrammers like Ted Patrick, CAN,
and Scn are related. No?
>
> BTW, I call this "haunting" a newsgroup.
>
So?
jack
Jack Craver
On 10 Jan 1998 21:40:01 -0700, inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L
Erlich) wrote:
>>inm...@bellsouth.net (Jack Craver):
>
>>Try widening your tunnel-vision veiw of cults to include
>>deprogramming.
>
> Why don't you try pulling your head out of your ass, if you still
>can.
>
And look what I found...a dingleberry like you.
>>Seems to me that deprogrammers like Ted Patrick, CAN,
>>and Scn are related. No?
>
> Nope. However discussions about Ted Patrick and his braggadocio
>would be on-topic in alt.recovery.deprogramming.
>
Ted Patrick was a deprogrammer, lamebrain. There are plenty of posts
mentioning him on ars. There are plenty of posts about deprogramming,
and CAN.
Why didn't you complain about any of these other posts?
*I* think that these subjects are *on topic* for this NG, and I don't
give a shit about what some bs local deity decrees.
> You might try over there.
>
I might, but don't bet on it, asshole.
jack
< snip phony reverand bs >
Diane Richardson
No, Jeff, I'm just doing my best to let people see the type of
activity condoned by William O. West, who has admitted he assisted Ted
Patrick in a few of his deprogramming exploits. Perhaps you've missed
West's posts, in which he justifies the use of force in deprogramming
*some* people from *some* cults.
Although Patrick's convictions finally stopped his activities, surely
you realize that some of Patrick's assistants continued on their own,
utilizing his "tough-guy" methods for years after Patrick ceased to be
active.
I do not believe all anticult activists utilized or even approved of
Patrick's methods. CAN's refusal to issue a clearcut denouncement of
such methods, however, certainly assisted in its demise.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Tilman Hausherr
In <34b8468d...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
Richardson) wrote:
>I do not believe all anticult activists utilized or even approved of
>Patrick's methods. CAN's refusal to issue a clearcut denouncement of
>such methods, however, certainly assisted in its demise.
You're the librarian:
--> Treatment Today, June 1993, page 10
"When deprogramming is neccessary"
The article is two pages long with a very small font. If someone
volunteers to type it in, I scan it.
The title is of course misleading, but I believe this was done on
purpose, because many cults have redefined "deprogramming" so that it
means "kidnapping people to get them out of cults". But we know that one
of these cults had a policy "propaganda by redefinition of words".
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Jack Craver
On 10 Jan 1998 23:01:00 -0700, inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L
Erlich) wrote:
>>inm...@bellsouth.net (Jack Craver):
>
>>Ted Patrick was a deprogrammer, lamebrain.
>
> Well, duh.
>
>>There are plenty of posts
>>mentioning him on ars. There are plenty of posts about deprogramming,
>>and CAN.
>>Why didn't you complain about any of these other posts?
>
> I complain about whatever I choose.
No-one is challenging your right to complain, asshole. I only asked
you why you chose a particular post, out of many, to complain about.
>
>>*I* think that these subjects are *on topic* for this NG, and I don't
>>give a shit about what some bs local deity decrees.
>
> I'm a local deity, eh? And who TF are you, little man?
Just a guy trying to pick up something useful on this public NG. You
know, read a lot, maybe learn something? There's probably lots of us
here. And when Diane R. or anyone else, posts something about
deprogramming and CAN, or Scn's takeover of CAN, I want to read it.
Isn't this what public newsgroups are for?
OTOH, I do not want to read some jerk declaring a post off-topic cuz
he doesn't like the post....or perhaps the author.
Does that ring a bell, lamebrain?
< snip ridiculous reverand sig >
jack
Fast
On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 19:21:56 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
>This post contains quotes from Ted Patrick's own book, "Let Our
>Children Go!" (E. P. Dutton, 1976). In this message, I will include
<snip>
Did Ted Patrick ever "deprogram" any $cientlogists?
Just want to know.
- Fast
Jack Craver
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 18:24:08 GMT, in alt.religion.scientology you
wrote:
Hi Fast -
When I was in Scn I heard rumors about Ted Patrick and how he had
kidnapped scientologists, but that was long ago and I don't remember
the details. However.....
A quick search turned up the following -
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.xenu.org/factnet/GEN/FILES/BOOKS/RI6.TXT
Second, is the charge of being involved with deprograrnming.
When I was in Los Angeles, I had been shown a video taken by Ted
Patrick (alias 'Black Lightning') which had been subpoenaed in a
court
action against Patrick. It showed him forcibly restraining two young
cultists, one a Scientologist, who had attempted to leave the room in
which they were being 'deprogrammed' (a euphemism for roughly
interrogated and brain-washed). It was not a pretty sight and Patrick
has served jail sentences for his zealous efforts on behalf of
parents
which have included kidnap and assault. Whatever the shortcomings
of many of the new religious movements, such as the Unification
Church (the Moonies), Hare Krishna or Scientology, the use of such
methods cannot be justified in any way whatsoever. However, the
American Family Foundation do not practise 'deprogramming', as Dr
Clark and the director, Dr Michael Langone, both told me. The
photograph of Dr Clark sitting beside Ted Patrick at an informal
Senate hearing in 1979 sponsored by Senator Robert Dole (which
Scientologists show as proof of a liaison) was possible because Dr
Clark was allocated that seat. He had no other dealings with Patrick.
----------------------------------------------
and also...
----------------------------------------------
http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming7.html
We talked with an ex-member of the Church of Scientology, one the
oldest and cagiest of America's cults, who took steps to preserve his
cult frame of mind during his deprogramming, until Patrick's adept
conversational skills caught his attention and he snapped out.
"I tried to pretend that I was listening," this former Scientologist
told us, "but I also tried to stay spaced out and not really pay
attention. Occasionally, something would go pop and I would suddenly
be listening to him. From his continuously talking like that, he just
snapped me out of the spaced-out state I was in. All of a sudden I
felt a little flushed. I could feel the blood rushing through my
face."
------------------------------------------------
jack
Diane Richardson
Here are some additional quotes from Ted Patrick's book, "Let Our
Children Go!" (E. P. Dutton, 1976). The first is a description of
Patrick's failed "snatch" (Patrick's word for abduction) of Dan Voll.
________________________________________
[p. 165]
"As soon as Dan and Mr. Voll hit the deck I was out of the car and
running, bouncing off bumpers and fenders, trying to keep my balance
on the ice, intent on putting Dan out of commission fast and slamming
him into the car. He was kicking and screaming and a crowd was
beginning to gather. I pounced on top of him and got my arms locked
around his shoulders. Mr. Voll got his legs and we tried to lift him.
But we kept slipping, and then some guy was climbing all over my back,
yelling, 'Let that boy go, let him go, damn it!' I gave him a hell of
a kick in the shin, heard him shriek and felt him fall away off of me.
In the meantime, Mrs. Voll had -- as I'd feared all along -- lost her
head. Instead of bringing the car up to where we were wrestling with
Dan to make things easier for us, she slid out from behind the
steering wheel and began to shout to the bystanders that she was the
boy's mother, and we were trying to give him psychiatric help and the
whole useless bit. By that time I had a woman hacking at me with an
umbrella, and someone else was beating on Mr. Voll. Dan was fighting
like a wildcat and people were pouring out of the apartment
buildings."
Patrick later describes his "snatch" of Ronnie Goski, one of six
members of a family who had joined Brother Julius's cult.
[p. 217]
"To snatch four adults was going to require a small army and a lot of
split-second timing and teamwork. So I called in my 'heavies.' A
great big mean-looking ex-motorcycle, Hell's Angels type named Goose,
Joe Franklin, who'd helped me with Bernie Weber. Joe Goski, who is
built like a linebacker. Tim Goski, a couple of other Goski brothers
who had never been in the cult, and assorted friends and relatives.
Altogether, twenty-two people gathered in the basement of Bob's home
to discuss strategy."
[p. 222-225]
"It was a real skinny damn steep staircase, man, no wider than that.
A bitch. So we go running up this staircase single file. Then at the
top was a kitchen on the right, at the end of a hall, and steps going
down into it and everything. The door to Ronnie's bedroom was at the
top of the stairway. What we didn't know was that in Ronnie's room
there was a sort of little cubbyhole. It wasn't a door, just a skinny
little cubbyhole cut into the wall connected to another bedroom where
there were three or four other guys. That cubbyhole wasn't supposed
to be there and we didn't know about it.
"Well, Joe just smashed, you know, just smashed the door down. What
happened was Ronnie happened to be standing behind the door doing
something, and when he smashed the door down he squashed Ronnie
between the door and this desk. You know, he almost knocked Ronnie
out. If he had knocked him out that would've been sweet, we'd have
had it all sweet. But it didn't quite knock him out and then he began
freaking, you know, yelling in this high-pitched squeal, like
'Eeeeeeeee!' So then Joe grabbed him, and Goose was following him
into the room, and I was behind Goose, because we had to go single
file because everything was tight.
"But when Joe banged the door down and Ronnie started yelling, all
these guys came running from the kitchen this way, and other guys
coming up the stairs that way, and, you know, coming from all over.
"Joe and Goose both had ahold of Ronnie and they were bringing him, so
I started on the other guys, you know, Macing them, hitting, whatever.
The Mace didn't really work. I mean it worked, but they kept
fighting. What it came down to was, we had to fight. I mean, I'd
spray somebody and then they were still kicking and I had to just kick
them back.
"By this time a couple guys had crawled through the damn cubbyhole.
Joe and Goose were both holding Ronnie, and while I was messing with
the dudes on the stairway, Goose was getting hold of Ronnie's feet
when all of a sudden this big dude come through the cubbyhole with a
crutch, like -- you know -- for a broken leg. And he walloped Goose
with this crutch. He hit him on the arm and shoulder. He was after
his head but Goose saw him at the last second and flung his arm up to
protect himself, like this. And there was about three guys that come
crawling in from every damn place. And so Goose had to fight them
off. You see, they had ahold of Ronnie. I was in the hallway with
two other guys so Goose had to fight by himself.
"I came back up the stairs to help Goose. But then those guys from
the kitchen began to come again, and then -- you know, I don't
remember exactly, we was kicking, you know, you get frantic -- and I
went ape-shit with them for a little bit.
"So this one guy come out of the woodwork and clobbered Goose with the
crutch and Goose laid him out. He was a little confused, wondering
where the dude had come from, but he didn't have time to figure it out
and he went for Ronnie's feet again. So then here come *another* one!
Goose is thinking, 'What the hell! Where the hell they all coming
from?' He *knew* they weren't coming from the hall. So he laid that
one out too. And then another one. Hell, he was laying everybody
out.
"So anyway, I just got done with them other guys and Joe was dragging
Ronnie and it looked like everything was coming along, so I went down
the stairs to clear the way and I turned around and the next thing I
know this new guy is standing behind me and he says, 'Hey, what's
going on?' He must have just joined, because he had short hair and no
beard.
"You know, if he hadn't said nothing, he could have clobbered me. I
was getting set to grab Ronnie's hands and when he said 'Hey, what's
going on?' I turned around and blasted him and then hit him with the
Mace.
"The Goose sees me getting into it with this dude, and figures I'm in
trouble. So he took a swan dive from the top of the stairs. Came
flying right over me. He just took a swan dive, didn't touch nothing
all the way down. He just went flying through the air, walloped me,
and I flew up against the wall and he landed right on that guy. They
tumbled a little bit and then ran outside.
"So then I ran back upstairs, where Joe was still with Ronnie, and
there was guys all over, you know -- feet kicking, arms, legs,
everything. Joe couldn't manage him and people we'd laid out were
starting to get up, so finally Joe gave up and said, 'Let's get out of
here,' and went running down the stairs, and I took off behind him.
"In the meantime, Goose was outside beating on that other dude that
didn't have a beard. So we come running out and Joe yells, 'Let's get
out of here!'
"By this time Tim Goski had driven the Buick in front of the house.
The redheaded kid -- I don't know where he was, he never even came in.
So everybody ran to the Buick including Goose. As he was running he
tripped right over a little stone wall in the grass. You know, it was
just a little wall, about this high, and he went skimming across the
street, tearing up his knees. Then he crawled in the car and I ran up
and got in my car and they took off and I took off. Nobody followed
us. Wasn't anybody in no shape to be following us. I whizzed by the
house and I didn't see anybody nowhere."
_________________________________________________
These are a few of Ted Patrick's "compassionate" actions, "rescuing"
adults from cults. I will next post a few of his descriptions of
deprogrammings, again in Patrick's own words.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 18:24:08 GMT, fa...@anywhere.usa (Fast) wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 19:21:56 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>>This post contains quotes from Ted Patrick's own book, "Let Our
>>Children Go!" (E. P. Dutton, 1976). In this message, I will include
><snip>
>
>Did Ted Patrick ever "deprogram" any $cientlogists?
>
>Just want to know.
He attempted to deprogram a woman Scientologist whose name I
don't recall offhand. She resisted all his efforts. The woman was
held a prisoner by Patrick and his assistants for a month. In
desperation, Patrick asked Nan McLean to fly to California to assist
him in the deprogramming.
When Nan McLean got to San Diego and saw what was going on, she
immediately demanded that the woman be released. Nan was appalled by
Patrick's brutal methods. Nan McLean agreed to testify against Ted
Patrick in the subsequent criminal and civil trials ensuing from
Patrick's failed effort at deprogramming a Scientologist.
Paulette Cooper attempted to coerce Nan McLean from testifying in
Patrick's trials by threatening to cut off funding of Nan's anticult
efforts. For this, Cooper was sued for witness-tampering by the
Scientologist. The lawsuit was dropped when Paulette Cooper settled
her lawsuits against the CoS out of court.
Paulette Cooper assisted Ted Patrick on more than one occasion. One
of the taped telephone conversations entered into evidence by the CoS
in Cooper's Boston lawsuit was a phone call from Cooper to Sondra
Sacks, Ted Patrick's secretary and assistant in deprogrammings.
Cooper and Sacks discussed a potential Patrick client, who was
referred to Patrick by Cooper. They spent time discussing just how
much money the desperate father should be charged for their
deprogramming "services," and how important it was to make sure the
father wasn't told about Patrick's criminal indictments and upcoming
trials.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Conner
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 04:18:58 GMT, in message
[clip]
>I do not believe all anticult activists utilized or even approved of
>Patrick's methods. CAN's refusal to issue a clearcut denouncement of
>such methods, however, certainly assisted in its demise.
if you are referring to Scott vs. CAN, you are technically
correct. although i can't think that you believe that the
vicarious liability theory used in the case was correctly
applied.
As to their "refusal", i can only quote from the appeal to
this case, among the uncontested facts of which include
the following:
-------------- quote from CAN appeal ------------
Uncontested evidence on this issue, however,
established (1) CAN's long-standing official policy, preceding the
events in this case, promulgated by its board of directors against
illegal, involuntary deprogrammings (RT 5/11); (2) CAN's efforts to
train its affiliates and volunteers in this policy (RT 5/14-15); and (3)
CAN's enforcement of the policy, which included employee terminations
for involvement in illegal deprogrammings (RT 5/14-15).
-- see...@ix.netcom.com (Conner, nee Number 3)
Note: the header address is wrong!
Friends of Dennis Erlich Club (www.netcom.com/~seekon/friends.html)
Diane Richardson
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 10:16:41 GMT, see...@cyberpromo.com (Conner)
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 04:18:58 GMT, in message
><34b8468d...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>[clip]
>
>>I do not believe all anticult activists utilized or even approved of
>>Patrick's methods. CAN's refusal to issue a clearcut denouncement of
>>such methods, however, certainly assisted in its demise.
>
> if you are referring to Scott vs. CAN, you are technically
> correct. although i can't think that you believe that the
> vicarious liability theory used in the case was correctly
> applied.
I wasn't thinking of Scott v. CAN when I wrote that, although that
case is pretty illustrative. Anyone looking into the history of the
CFF and CAN quickly realizes that the organization has had more than
its share of tempestuous controversies, with members -- and officials
-- resigning in protest over the issue of deprogramming.
As to liability issues, yes I do believe it was applied appropriately.
In the past, I've worked in medical libraries who used volunteer
workers. You'd better believe those volunteers are instructed *not*
to provide personal opinions regarding medical diagnoses, treatment
efficacy, etc., under any circumstances.
Imagine the legal problems involved if a volunteer were to answer a
call from a cancer patient asking about treatment options. Who would
be liable if the volunteer were to recommend that the patient stop all
treatment and run down to a laetrile clinic in Mexico? Lawsuits can
and have been filed against medical libraries over similar issues,
although I'm not aware of any involving volunteers as opposed to paid
library clerks.
> As to their "refusal", i can only quote from the appeal to
> this case, among the uncontested facts of which include
> the following:
>
>-------------- quote from CAN appeal ------------
>
> Uncontested evidence on this issue, however,
>established (1) CAN's long-standing official policy, preceding the
>events in this case, promulgated by its board of directors against
>illegal, involuntary deprogrammings (RT 5/11); (2) CAN's efforts to
>train its affiliates and volunteers in this policy (RT 5/14-15); and (3)
>CAN's enforcement of the policy, which included employee terminations
>for involvement in illegal deprogrammings (RT 5/14-15).
What exactly does RT 5/14-15 say, seekon? When was that
"long-standing" policy adopted? Please post the text of this policy,
and the date of its adoption, here. Thanks.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
wgert
The San Diego Union on 25 May 1995 reported the following under TED
PATRICK FACES COCAINE CHARGES:
quote
Chula Vista cult deprogrammer Ted Patrick, already facing probation
revocation on his 1980 conviction for kidnapping and false
imprisonment, was charged yesterday with possessing cocaine. Deputy
District Attorney Harry M. Elias said one-tenth of a gram of cocaine
was found in a closet at Patrick's home during a search for evidence
that would link him to the alleged probation violation. The purported
violation involved Patrick's alleged persistence in deprogramming
activity. end quote
This was a charge for poessions of cocaine.
But I would think it's only logical to ask if there is any evidence of
Patrick's use of the drug or pushing it on others? And would not the
active use of drugs such as cocaine be one of the causes for the
violent methods he promoted and engaged in.
wgert
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>This post contains quotes from Ted Patrick's own book, "Let Our
>Children Go!" (E. P. Dutton, 1976). In this message, I will include
>excerpts from Patrick's accounts of his abductions, which he calls
>"snatches." I'd like Pamela Fitzpatrick, in particular, to note that
>I'm presenting material written by an "anti-cult activist," NOT by a
>"cult apologist." I welcome her to find a drop of compassion or
>sensitivity to these "cult victims" in anything Patrick has written.
>______________________________________
>page 73
>[p. 96]
>More to come . . . .
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
Tilman Hausherr
>The San Diego Union on 25 May 1995 reported the following under TED
>PATRICK FACES COCAINE CHARGES:
>quote
>Chula Vista cult deprogrammer Ted Patrick, already facing probation
>revocation on his 1980 conviction for kidnapping and false
>imprisonment, was charged yesterday with possessing cocaine. Deputy
This was over two years ago. Obviously, he has not been convicted. I
don't know much about drug but isn't 0.1 grams somewhat low ??? Or did
you simply make it up?
William O. West
wgert wrote:
> The San Diego Union on 25 May 1995 reported the following under TED
> PATRICK FACES COCAINE CHARGES:
> quote
> Chula Vista cult deprogrammer Ted Patrick, already facing probation
> revocation on his 1980 conviction for kidnapping and false
> imprisonment, was charged yesterday with possessing cocaine. Deputy
> District Attorney Harry M. Elias said one-tenth of a gram of cocaine
> was found in a closet at Patrick's home during a search for evidence
> that would link him to the alleged probation violation. The purported
> violation involved Patrick's alleged persistence in deprogramming
> activity. end quote
> This was a charge for poessions of cocaine.
... ^^^^^^^^^
... possession
> But I would think it's only logical to ask if there
> is any evidence of Patrick's use of the drug
None that I know of. How many people live in Ted's
house now? There are at least Ted and his wife. He
had a couple of children, but I don't know how many
are still living at home.
Assuming that the article quoted existed and was
accurate - which seems somewhat reasonable, given
the level of "wgert's" literary talents, Ted is a
sexual, upper-middle-class black male. The normal
use of cocaine among the upper-middle-class is to
enhance sexual experience, the same as with upper
class individuals like Marion Berry. Given all of
the circumstantial evidence, if the article existed
and was accurate, although planting drugs by the
police is not unheard of, there does seem to be
some reason to believe that he might have used it.
> or pushing it on others?
None, whatsoever. How much is a tenth of a gram?
About a teaspoonful, maybe? I'm not convinced
that he was the person in possession, assuming
the drug was actually found in the house without
being planted there, but if I were in Patrick's
shoes, as a (perhaps wrongfully) convicted felon
facing jail anyway, and suspected that one of my
sons was in possession of cocaine, I'd probably
take the rap for him.
> And would not the active use of drugs such as
> cocaine be one of the causes for the violent
> methods he promoted and engaged in.
Of course not. Obviously not. The relatively rare,
but overly-publicized violence was necessitated by
the active isolation of the members by other (sometimes
armed) members of the same cults. In the case of the
Divine Light Mission adherent I helped deprogram, the
girl had been sent home by the cult to talk to her
parents, and there was no violence whatsoever. Ted is
not normally a violent man. He is quite good with words.
There is nothing about Ted Patrick's personality to
suggest that he uses any sort of drugs, but I only
know the man personally, and I have never engaged in
any peer-reviewed controlled experiments to determine
whether he would or would not use cocaine if he thought
he had a chance to get at Kim Basinger or Cheryl Tiegs.
The emphasis on violence in Patrick's book is something
both he and his ghost-writer share some blame for. They
were out to enhance Ted's macho image and, if possible,
to sell a movie. Hollywood proved that you don't need
to pay Ted Patrick anything to make a sympathetic film
about a deprogrammer.
> wgert
-- Bill
john smith
In article <34BA8F...@pacbell.net>, wow...@pacbell.net wrote:
<snip>
>None, whatsoever. How much is a tenth of a gram?
>About a teaspoonful, maybe? I'm not convinced
>that he was the person in possession, assuming
>the drug was actually found in the house without
>being planted there, but if I were in Patrick's
>shoes, as a (perhaps wrongfully) convicted felon
>facing jail anyway, and suspected that one of my
>sons was in possession of cocaine, I'd probably
>take the rap for him.
>
keep in mind that a gram is about the same weight as a large paperclip.
My digital scale (which I use for homebrewing) reads 1/10 gram of priming
sugar (which I assume to be relatively close to the weight of cocaine) to be
FAR less than a "teaspoonful"...you could maybe get a couple of snorts off of
it, if that much.
<snip>
William O. West
[posted/mailed]
[rearranged, slightly]
Tilman Hausherr wrote:
> The 0.1g sounds so low to me, although I don't know
> about cocaine. It just doesn't make sense. And there
> is much that doesn't make sense when "wgert" posts.
> I am not a supporter of Ted Patrick, but I am a supporter
> of truth.
[gag] Even as I as typing this, there was an ad on television
for a book by LaFayette R. Hubbard.
I'm not sure how I feel about the label "supporter of Ted
Patrick," and I have a button around somewhere that reads
"I support Ted Patrick." I disagree with some of his ideas.
I do, however, owe him something. He talked me out of Divine
Light Mission, and for that my mother paid him some $300.00.
True, he didn't abduct me, hold me or anything of the sort,
but he had personal awareness of what had been done to me,
and an effective way to undo that in twenty minutes of talk.
Ted was visibly disappointed with the meagre contribution
my mother made to him, and I was somewhat insulted. It was
as if I were only worth $300 to my mother. "He's making plenty
of money from this," she said. True, it took almost another
year for me to recover from the cult experience, but Ted gave
me the most important part of what I needed - the awareness
that I had been tricked into a self-hypnotic response to a
totalitarian environment.
> (TurquoiseB) wrote:
> >>This was over two years ago. Obviously, he has not been
> >>convicted. I don't know much about drug but isn't 0.1 grams
> >>somewhat low ??? Or did you simply make it up?
> >Isn't it amazing how the cult- and anticult-mentalitites are
> >are so similar?
> >Anti: "Guru Bob sucks dogs." Pro: "You just made that up,
> >but even if it is true, they are small dogs."
> There is a difference. I have observed "wgert" for some time. A missing
> piece of info generally means that he is withholding something from us.
> He does this all the time. Why doesn't he allege that Ted Patrick was
> convicted for having cocaine? If he was convicted, then I am sure he
> would mention it immediately. "wgert" is a propagandist. [snip]
> For scientologists, it doesn't matter whether an allegation is true or
> not. What counts is the result. Their definition of "Honesty" is "a good
> end-product". For them, people who criticize scientology are criminals.
> So who cares *how* they get in jail?
> The 0.1g sounds so low to me, although I don't know about cocaine. It
> just doesn't make sense. And there is much that doesn't make sense when
> "wgert" posts. I am not a supporter of Ted Patrick, but I am a supporter
> of truth.
Conner
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 13:46:11 -0800, in message <34BA8F...@pacbell.net>,
"William O. West" <wow...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> The normal
>use of cocaine among the upper-middle-class is to
>enhance sexual experience,
are you certain of this? it is probably
one use, but there are others.
>the same as with upper
>class individuals like Marion Berry. Given all of
>the circumstantial evidence, if the article existed
>and was accurate, although planting drugs by the
>police is not unheard of, there does seem to be
>some reason to believe that he might have used it.
what reason was that? from what you have
stated, it would seem to be that he was an upper-
middle class black man interested in intense
sexualt experience. that seems like a lot of
rather biased hypothesizing. i think i'd like to hear
some other evidence.
>
>None, whatsoever. How much is a tenth of a gram?
>About a teaspoonful, maybe?
32 grams to an ounce. a tenth of a gram is
a very tiny amount. your average aspirin
table has 3-5 times as much aspirin in a tablet,
and that's diluted.
[clip]
>
>> And would not the active use of drugs such as
>> cocaine be one of the causes for the violent
>> methods he promoted and engaged in.
continued use can cause addicts to become
psychotic, paranoid, and delusional,
and to act violently out of blind rage or
fears of boogeymen. however, there is
no evidence that patrick was in anything
approaching this state.
[clip]
it's also possible that the violence in his book
is as a result of working with a writer, where
the story 'grows'; much as happened with mark
furhman's book.
Tilman Hausherr
In <19980112230...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, turqu...@aol.com
(TurquoiseB) wrote:
>>This was over two years ago. Obviously, he has not been convicted. I
>>don't know much about drug but isn't 0.1 grams somewhat low ??? Or did
>>you simply make it up?
>
>Isn't it amazing how the cult- and anticult-mentalitites are
>so similar?
>
>Anti: "Guru Bob sucks dogs." Pro: "You just made that up,
>but even if it is true, they are small dogs."
There is a difference. I have observed "wgert" for some time. A missing
piece of info generally means that he is withholding something from us.
He does this all the time. Why doesn't he allege that Ted Patrick was
convicted for having cocaine? If he was convicted, then I am sure he
would mention it immediately.
"wgert" is a propagandist. He posts selective information, while
withholding the pieces that would disprove his allegations, and always
hoping that someone would believe him anyway. For example, he mentioned
a depo by one Catherine Lane, claiming that this depo confirmed that
Cynthia Kisser is a topless dancer. What he did not mention is that in
this depo, Ms Lane clearly said that Kisser was not a topless dancer.
He repeated it again and again. When I posted an excerpt of the depo
proving him to be a liar, he never mentioned the topic again. IMO, one
characteristics of propagandists is that they are unable to discuss
their allegations.
For scientologists, it doesn't matter whether an allegation is true or
not. What counts is the result. Their definition of "Honesty" is "a good
end-product". For them, people who criticize scientology are criminals.
So who cares *how* they get in jail? What counts is it is done,
regardless is facts are true or not.
Catherine Hampton
In alt.support.ex-cult cul...@primenet.com wrote:
: So, I don't think you can use Ted Patrick as an example of the
: anti-cult movement. In fact I renounce him and think he has done more
: harm than help to the movement. Are you trying to smear the anti-cult
: movement by generalizing here?
Rhetorical question, I gather. <wry grin> Ted Patrick is a deprogrammer
in the common sense of the word -- someone who participates in clearly
involuntary counseling of cult members who don't want to speak with
him or anyone about their membership.
Perhaps I haven't been hanging out with the right people, but just about
everyone in the countercult field these days (exit counselors or not)
has specifically and clearly renounced involuntary deprogramming. I
don't just mean those who never supported involuntary deprogramming --
people like most of the board members of the AFF. Steve Hassan, after
a couple of early experiences with involuntary deprogramming (including
his own out of the Unification Church) renounced that method, and in
the last few years has spoken forcefully and clearly against it as
being unacceptable.
I don't know a single exit counselor working primarily with former
members of the International Churches of Christ (ICC)/Boston Church
of Christ (the group I was affiliated with) who will even speak with a
cult member if they find out that the member has been tricked into
talking with them. I know of one such case last year -- a couple of
friends of mine were on the team. The member's father told the team
that the member had agreed to speak with them, but when they met the
member, the member told them that the father had forced him/her to
speak to the exit counselors and refused to let him/her leave or
contact anyone until then.
The exit counselor told the father that this was not acceptable and
violated his contract with the father which clearly forbade use of
force or deception agains the member. (This is a standard clause in
the contracts of the exit counselors I know.) He then apologized to the
member, and left with the team.
Fortunately cases like this aren't too common, simply because most
parents have better sense than to put themselves in such legally
and ethically questionable position. But this is how most exit
counselors I know would handle a situation like this. IMHO to do
anything else would be dishonest.
So Diane's post was interesting history, but as far as describing the
current practices of most exit counselors, it's a straw man. That
fits in nicely with most of her posts.... :/
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@ng.reveal.org>
Webmaster, REVEAL <http://www.reveal.org>
wgert
Correction. The clipping is actually from 1985, not 1995. Check the
San Diego Union newspaper yourself, if you do not believe it.
wgert
til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>In <69dvlh$ges$1...@usenet40.supernews.com>, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
>>The San Diego Union on 25 May 1995 reported the following under TED
>>PATRICK FACES COCAINE CHARGES:
>>quote
>>Chula Vista cult deprogrammer Ted Patrick, already facing probation
>>revocation on his 1980 conviction for kidnapping and false
>>imprisonment, was charged yesterday with possessing cocaine. Deputy
>This was over two years ago. Obviously, he has not been convicted. I
>don't know much about drug but isn't 0.1 grams somewhat low ??? Or did
>you simply make it up?
>--
>Tilman Hausherr
wgert
Patrick having been charged with cocaine possession is something you
can't remove from his history. Neither his violent behaviour. It
happened. YOU let me know if he did get convicted or not. My only
point was and is that there can be a direct connection between drug
(ab)use as engaged in by Patrick and violence.
(Next question to ask would be ... nah. I'll reserve that for a new
thread.)
wgert
til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>In <19980112230...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, turqu...@aol.com
>(TurquoiseB) wrote:
>>>This was over two years ago. Obviously, he has not been convicted. I
>>>don't know much about drug but isn't 0.1 grams somewhat low ??? Or did
>>>you simply make it up?
>>
Zane
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 02:54:53 GMT, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
>Patrick having been charged with cocaine possession is something you
>can't remove from his history.
And?
What the fuck does that have to do with the criminal cult of
scientology you clueless dipshit?
Zane
William O. West
wgert wrote:
Pardon me, but you haven't established that Patrick ever used
any drug. You have only established, if the article you quote
exists and is accurate, that a very small amount of cocaine
was found in a closet somewhere his house, presumably by use
of drug-sniffing dogs. Patrick has a wife and two children who,
in 1985, would have been old enough that they might have used
such a drug.
You also haven't established either that the type of occasional
and appropriate-to-the-situation violence Patrick once engaged
in is remotely related to the type of inappropriate violence
one would expect from a chronic drug user.
> Patrick having been charged with cocaine possession is something you
> can't remove from his history. Neither his violent behaviour. It
> happened. YOU let me know if he did get convicted or not. My only
> point was and is that there can be a direct connection between drug
> (ab)use as engaged in by Patrick and violence.
Once again, from the scanty evidence you present, "drug use as
engaged in by Patrick" could be no drug use whatsoever. Patrick
was quite healthy-looking and clear-headed the last time I saw
him.
Exile49
>
>What the fuck does that have to do with the criminal cult of
>scientology you clueless dipshit?
>
>
Nothing at all. The worm wgert is reduced to throwing teaspoons of mud in
hopes that something will stick.
I have never heard of this man Patricks before and don't give a damn what he
may or may not have done.
The Exile
For the hidden story of the Sea Org (including names, dates and places) see:
http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Rebecca Hartong
Conner wrote in message <34ba5986....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 13:46:11 -0800, in message <34BA8F...@pacbell.net>,
>"William O. West" <wow...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> The normal
>>use of cocaine among the upper-middle-class is to
>>enhance sexual experience,
>
> are you certain of this? it is probably
> one use, but there are others.
Back in my own "Crazy Time"(tm) my friends and I snorted coke because it
made us feel incredibly energetic, fabulously witty, wildly sexy AND enabled
us to keep drinking hours after any non-drugged person would have passed
out. My upper-middle-class friends and I quickly recognized, though, that
although cocaine may make you *think* you want to have sex all night, the
reality never lived up to the fantasy.
>>None, whatsoever. How much is a tenth of a gram?
>>About a teaspoonful, maybe?
>
> 32 grams to an ounce. a tenth of a gram is
> a very tiny amount. your average aspirin
> table has 3-5 times as much aspirin in a tablet,
> and that's diluted.
It's been years... but I remember that we'd buy what was called an "8-Ball"
(which, I think, was an eighth of an ounce) and that would be sufficient for
3 or 4 of the people with whom I ran to party all night.
William O. West
Rebecca Hartong wrote:
> Conner wrote:
> >"William O. West" <wow...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> The normal use of cocaine among the upper-middle-class
> >> is to enhance sexual experience,
> > are you certain of this?
Does it really matter? In the Marion Berry entrapment,
the first agent provocateur let the mayor know that
he had cocaine available. The second agent provocateur
indicated that she would sleep with him if he brought
her some cocaine. He was apparently no stranger to drugs,
but that one had something wrong with it.
> it made us feel [adjectives snipped] energetic, witty,
> sexy AND enabled us to keep drinking hours after any
> non-drugged person would have passed out. [snip] although
> cocaine may make you *think* you want to have sex all night,
> the reality never lived up to the fantasy.
> >>None, whatsoever. How much is a tenth of a gram?
> >>About a teaspoonful, maybe?
> > 32 grams to an ounce.
> It's been years... but [snip] I think, was an eighth of
> an ounce) and that would be sufficient for 3 or 4 ...
> people [snip] to party all night.
If there are 32 grams to the ounce, 1/8 oz. is four grams.
Hence one gram should be enough for one person to party all
night. A tenth of a gram might give someone a brief high?
How often did you have to keep snorting it?
What intrigues me is the intrusiveness of the search.
> > your average aspirin table has 3-5 times as
> > much aspirin in a tablet, and that's diluted.
So, what is the size of this amount of some powder?
If it were inside a baggie, on the floor of the
closet, would it be visibile as more than dust inside
the bag? How long could it have been on the floor
of the closet, forgotten? Could the crime have been
committed ten years earlier, with the criminal unaware
that he is committing an ongoing crime by not cleaning
his closet?
Tilman Hausherr
>Patrick having been charged with cocaine possession is something you
>can't remove from his history. Neither his violent behaviour. It
>happened. YOU let me know if he did get convicted or not. My only
>point was and is that there can be a direct connection between drug
>(ab)use as engaged in by Patrick and violence.
I have followed scientology propaganda for a long time. If you say he
was charged but don't mention that he was convicted, then I know for
sure that he was never convicted for it, because if he was, you would
get an orgasm and mention it everywhere.
Saying "he was charged" is an "acceptable truth" for scientology, as you
can say this forever, even if the charges were dropped.
Hey, tell us instead about L. Ron Hubbard's use of recreational and
medical mind-altering drugs, that brought you the OT levels.
In <69eki9$f4m$1...@usenet85.supernews.com>, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
>Correction. The clipping is actually from 1985, not 1995. Check the
>San Diego Union newspaper yourself, if you do not believe it.
Yeah sure. You made an "honest mistake", huh?
I have a better article by the San Diego Union:
=======
San Diego Union
April 15, 1990
front page article
HUBBARD HOT-AUTHOR STATUS CALLED ILLUSION
by Mike McIntyre
In 1981, St. Martin's Press was offered a sure thing.
L. Ron Hubbard, the pulp writer turned religious leader,
had written his first science-fiction novel in more than 30
years. If St. Martin's published it, Hubbard aides promised
the firm, subsidiary organizations of Hubbard's Church of
Scientology would buy at least 15,000 copies.
"Battlefield Earth," priced at $24.95, was released the
next year in hardcover, rare for a science-fiction title.
Despite mixed reviews, the book quickly sold 120,000 copies -
enough to place it on The New York Times best-seller list.
"Five, six, seven people at a time would come in, with
cash in hand, buying the book," said Dave Dutton, of Dutton's
Books, a group of four stores in the Los Angeles area.
"They'd blindly ask for the book. They would buy two or
three copies at a time with $50 bills. I had the suspicion
that there was something not quite right about it."
Dutton only suspected what others claim to know for fact.
The book's sudden success, say dozens of former Scien-
tologists and book dealers, was the result of a church plan
to create the illusion of L. Ron Hubbard as a hot author.
The church, they say, sustains the myth - 15 New York Times
best sellers and counting - through dubious marketing tactics
and the manipulation of an obedient flock of consumers.
The church's orchestration of best sellers, say former
Scientologists, is merely a public relations means to a
larger end. The goal is to establish an identity for Hubbard
other than as the founder of a controversial religious move-
ment. His broadened appeal can then be used to recruit new
members into the Church of Scientology.
The church uses two businesses to peddle its books, Author
Services Inc., a Hollywood literary agency, sells the rights
to publish Hubbard's works to Bridge Publications Inc., a Los
Angeles company.
A Church of Scientology spokeswoman, Leisa Goodman, said
that the church, Author Services and Bridge are seperate and
independent. But former Scientology officials say that
Bridge and Author Services are staffed almost exclusively by
Scientologists and operate within the church hierarchy.
"Author Services used to always think of schemes to make
more money," said Vicki Azneran, the former inspector general
of the Religious Technology Center, an organization that
former church members say runs the entire Scientology empire.
"Bridge gets the money from a totally controlled cult popula-
tion.
"They send people into bookstores. You get a phone call:
'Your job is to go down to the B. Dalton. Take as many
people as you need to buy up all the books so they'll have to
reorder.'"
Numerous calls to Author Services were not returned.
Church and Bridge officials denied that sales of Hubbard's
books have been artificially inflated.
But others dispute that claim, saying the church perfected
its technique through the 1980s. After the success with St.
Martin's, a reputable New York publisher, Bridge took over.
Its 1983 paperback release of "Battlefield Earth" was a best
seller. Around the same time, Bridge's re-issue of
"Dianetics," the scripture of Scientology that Hubbard wrote
in 1950, returned to best seller lists.
Hubbard's death in January 1986 did not break the streak.
From 1985 to 1987, Bridge published Hubbard's 10-volume
science-fiction series, "Mission Earth." All 10 books were
hardcover best sellers. Subsequent paperback releases of the
early volumes also were best sellers. And, if form follows,
the volumes yet to be released in paperback also will be best
sellers.
At the close of the '80s, Bridge claimed Hubbard's books
had generated $90 million in revenues for the publishing in-
dustry. But unlike the cases of Tom Clancy or Danielle
Steele, L. Ron Hubbard's meteoric rise as a best-selling au-
thor may have little to do with readers.
"We were told to go out and buy a bunch of copies of
'Battlefield Earth' so it would become a best seller," said
Dr. Frank Gerbode, the former head of the Scientology mission
in Palo Alto. "The arguement we were given was, if he became
famous again as a science-fiction writer, it would improve
his status."
Aznaran, who defected from the church in 1987, said
Scientologists comply because the church teaches them that
the future of their religion and their souls is linked to the
success of Hubbard's novels.
"Scientologists are told they're supposed to buy lots of
those books," Aznaran said. "They're told they're helping
save the world with Scientology. If they can create a good
image for Hubbard, they will be assured spiritual salvation."
MANUFACTURING A BEST SELLER
There was a time when Hubbard's fiction required no arti-
ficial boosts to succeed. In the 1930's, he was a popular
and enormously prolific pulp adventure writer, publishing
millions of words.
In 1938, Hubbard switched genres. With writers such as
Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov and A.E. Van Vogt, he ushered
in the Golden Age of science fiction. His heroes tended to
be supermen who drew on highly developed mental powers to
save the world. By the late 1940s, nearly 100 of his novels
had been published, including "Final Blackout," an early
classic of the field.
But his voluminous output did not translate into wealth.
"Writing science fiction for about a penny a word is no
way to make a living," Hubbard said to a 1947 gathering of
the Eastern Science Fiction Association. "If you really want
to make a million, the quickest way is to start your own re-
ligion."
The remark proved prophetic. Hubbard founded the Church
of Scientology in 1955 and started amassing his fortune. By
the time of his death in 1986, reported Forbes magazine, his
organization was worth $400 million.
Nearing the end of his life, the cult leader apparently
grew nostalgic for his first vocation. "I'm very proud of
also being known as a science-fiction writer," Hubbard wrote
in his introduction to "Battlefield Earth." The book, he
said, "celebrates my golden wedding with the muse. Fifty
years a professional - 1930-1980."
Harvey Haber, a former Scientologist who served as
Hubbard's literary aide, was dispatched to New York to sell
the manuscript. Hubbard demanded that the book be repre-
sented by a major literary agency and placed with one of the
10 largest publishers. The church and Bridge Publications
were to play no role.
"He wanted to prove to everyone and all that he still had
it," Haber said. "That he was the best in the world."
But 58 New York literary agencies thought otherwise, Haber
said. "Not one of them would touch it." In Haber's opinion,
"The book was a piece of s---."
Church officials didn't dare tell Hubbard his book was
unmarketable, said Haber. "You would've been handed your
head." Thus, he said, was hatched the plan to offer guaran-
teed sales in return for publication.
Even that was not enough for some publishers. David
Hartwell, who in 1981 was director of science fiction at
Simon & Schuster, declined to publish "Battlefield Earth" de-
spite guaranteed sales of 35,000 copies. "I didn't think it
was a terribly good book," Hartwell said.
Hubbard's aides then knocked on St. Martin's door, and the
publisher welcomed them in.
The book was published in August 1982. The church, Haber
said, transferred funds from its international reserves to
buy 25,000 copies of "Battlefield Earth" from St. Martin's.
Bridge Publications and its European affiliate, New Era
Publications,
were then ordered to replace the money. About the
same time, Author Services was created, allegedly to manage
Hubbard's finances and those of the church.
St. Martin's senior editor Michael Denneny confirmed that
a deal was struck. He recalled, however, that Author Services
guaranteed to buy 15,000 to 20,000 copies. But when
"Battlefield Earth" was published, he said, Author Services
bought more copies than originally promised.
"The Author Services people were very rambunctious,"
Denneny said. "They wanted to make it a New York Times best
seller. They were obsessed by that."
When "Battlefield Earth" reached the shelves, the Cult
Awareness Network, a national non-profit clearinghouse for
information on cults, started hearing from book dealers in
the New York area.
"Bookstores were calling us and asking what was
happening," said Priscilla Coates, then director of the
network. "People were calling them up and ordering multiple
copies. The largest (order) was over 100."
Some Scientologists noticed that these tactics had a fa-
miliar ring to them. Hana Whitfield, a personal aide to
Hubbard from 1967 to 1977, said the Scientology leader rou-
tinely issued "project orders" in the 1970s to buy
"Dianetics."
Church members were given lump sums of up to $50,000,
Whitfield said, and sent to book stores.
"Some of them had a quota. For example: 'Buy 50 copies
from this B. Dalton on this street every two weeks.' Or:
'Buy 50 copies from that Waldenbooks on that street every
other week.'
"As they were bought, they would be disposed of, or given
to libraries, or stored in warehouses, or sent back to the
printer and recycled."
A Riverside librarian recalled that throughout the '70s,
the county's 30 branches frequently received donated copies
of "Dianetics." "I remember they used to come in boxes...
about five books per box," said Billie Dancy, head of the
Riverside Central Library. "They'd arrive in the mail."
The church's techniques were a bit more refined when
Hubbard resumed his literary career in the early 1980s.
Vicki Aznaran said each of Scientology's 419 subsidiary
organizations and missions has orders to fund a seperate
checking account called "The Book Account." Bridge Publications,
she said, is a signatory on all of the accounts.
"Bridge holds the checkbooks," Aznaran said. "Bridge just
writes checks to itself.
"All Scientology organizations are required to buy so many
books. They are just shipped the books. They have ware-
houses full of books. Bridge just had books printed. They
have this captive purchasing group that has no choice in buy-
ing them. It would be like Stephen King billing B. Dalton
for books it didn't want."
There are numerous stories of Scientologists being coerced
to buy Hubbard's books. Gerbode, the former head of the Palo
Alto mission, said he was required to stock 100 copies of ev-
ery Hubbard title. "We ended up with a huge storeroom of
books we couldn't get rid of," he said.
Bent Corydon, the former head of the Riverside mission,
said in his unauthorized biography of Hubbard that he was
once ordered to sell his flock 1,000 copies of "Battlefield
Earth" or lose his mission.
In "L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?" (co-authored with
L. Ron Hubbard Jr.), Corydon also recalled a 1982 meeting
where mission holders were given a directive by Wendall
Reynolds, introduced as the International Finance Dictator.
Reynolds, Corydon wrote, said that from then on each mission
would be required to pay 5 percent of its income to a TV ad-
vertising campaign for "Dianetics."
SELLING THE 'DOORSTOP'
At 819 pages, "Battlefield Earth" was thought at the time
to be the longest science-fiction novel ever published. But
it was only a preview of what was to follow.
Readers contemplating the 10-volume "Mission Earth," a
sprawling saga of an alien invasion, were faced with more
than 5,000 pages and 1,354,000 words.
The science-fiction community refers to the series as "a
doorstop," said Bruce Pelz, a UCLA librarian and science-
fiction historian.
The New York Times gave up after the first volume, dis-
missing it as "a paralyzingly slow-moving adventure enlivend
by interludes of kinky sex, sendups of effeminate homosexuals
and a disregard of conventional grammar so global as to sug-
gest a satire on the possibility of communication through
language."
But like "Dianetics" and "Battlefield Earth" before it,
copies of "Mission Earth" almost flew off the shelves.
Once again, former church officials say, a captive audi-
ence of Scientologists was marshaled to move the books
through the checkout stands and onto the best-seller lists.
But by now, the church had also fine-tuned a complex market-
ing apparatus. The tactics employed ranged from innovative
and aggressive advertising to almost giveaway discounts of-
fered to stores reporting to best-seller lists.
The most visible marketing method has been old-fashioned
promotion, where Bridge Publications stands alone in the book
industry.
Bridge advertises nationally on television, a rarity in
publishing. There are national print ads, radio spots, L.
Ron Hubbard billboards. In the current Spring Announcements
issue of Publishers Weekly, the bible of the book industry,
Bridge is the only publisher with a full-color three-page
display. It is also one of the few publishers to pursue the
military market, advertising in Stars and Stripes.
Bridge is perhaps the only publisher involved in sports
marketing, sponsoring Indy 500 and Le Mans race cars. Broad-
casts of California Angels and San Fransisco Giants baseball
games are sponsored in part by Bridge. And Bridge is a major
sponsor of this summer's Goodwill Games in Seattle.
Celebrity Scientologists, including actress Karen Black
and musician Chick Corea, stump for Bridge on radio and TV
shows. There are parades and mall appearances by science-
fiction characters from Hubbard's books. A "Mission Earth"
album by rocker Edgar Winter. Posters, banners, fliers,
bumper stickers, buttons. At book conventions, lavish par-
ties complete with champagne and chocolate-dipped fruit.
When retailers place orders by phone with Ingram Book Co.,
the nation's largest wholesaler, they frequently hear clerks
recite paid ads for Hubbard's books.
Hubbard's books are prominently displayed at B. Dalton and
Waldenbooks outlets - often in the prime floor space near the
door - in flashy cardboard cases provided by the publisher.
Bridge is a frequent advertiser in the chains' catalogs and
newsletters. Bridge also generously funds "co-op" ads, book-
store ads subsidized by a publisher.
All of this costs a great deal of money. Bridge senior
vice president Mark McKinstry declined to reveal the pub-
lisher's operating budget. But former employees said funds
available to market Hubbard's books are virtually without
limit.
"You can't think of Bridge as a normal business or pub-
lisher. They are like the world's largest vanity press,"
said Mary Mason, who worked in promotions for Bridge during
release of the "Mission Earth" series.
"They pour more money into promoting those books than most
major publishers would spend on an entire line of books. The
whole thing is set up to lose money. If Bridge ever wound up
making money, I don't think they'd know what to do."
Bob Erdmann, a publishing consultant for Bridge from 1982
to 1988, said his former client is without comparison in the
industry.
"You weren't limited by resources like other publishing
houses are," he said.
There are also those who contend there are no limits on
the discounts Bridge offers certain customers.
McKinstry said the publisher sells its books to retail
stores at a discount of 50 percent to 52 percent - a rate he
called "standard." But two book dealers once among those
surveyed for The New York Times best-seller lists said Bridge
has been willing to go far higher.
Larry Todd, formerly manager of Hunter's Books in Beverly
Hills, said Bridge offered him discounts as high as 80 per-
cent, a rate he had never been offered by any publisher dur-
ing his 35 years in the book business. "They (Bridge) were
willing to stock the books at next to nothing if we would
display them with the best sellers," said Todd, who declined.
Todd said the offer came in 1986, during release of the
"Mission Earth" series, from Bridge sales representative
Howard Ramer. Todd quoted Ramer as saying: "We want to make
sure that (the new volume of 'Mission Earth') is on the
best-seller list. we're sure it will be and we want your
participation in helping it get there."
Reached for comment, Ramer said: "I really don't remember
that at all. I can't say that it isn't true, but I can't
reacll that. I wouldn't be surprised that that might of hap-
pened."
Dave Dutton, of Dutton's Books, said Bridge has offered
him up to 70 percent discounts - "twice what we would nor-
mally get."
Dutton said he quit stocking Hubbard's books several years
ago after some unpleasant sales pitches by Bridge represen-
tatives, including a request for a window display.
"We said no, and they would not take no for an answer,"
Dutton said. "They were almost intimidating."
Michael Kagay, editor of news surveys at The New York
Times, said the paper has "encountered no evidence" that
Bridge has manipulated the best-seller lists. He said that
its large survey sample - 3,000 stores - would minimize the
effect of "unusual patterns." But he also said: "A change in
sales patterns of the major chains has a larger effect on the
figures."
Spokeswomen for B. Dalton and Waldenbooks, the nation's
two largest book chains, declined to reveal sales figures for
Hubbard's books. Sharon Jonas, of B. Dalton, which has about
1,000 stores, and Dara Tyson, of Waldenbooks, which has about
800 stores, also declined to reveal the discounts the chains
receive from Bridge. Both said that the chains have no data
on who is buying Hubbard's books from their stores.
"Who buys his books?" said Tyson. "We don't know."
A former employee of both chains offered a more detailed
answer.
"What we used to see was the L. Ron Hubbard people coming
into the chains, buying books out so we'd have to reorder
them. Then they'd return them," said Eleanor Lang, a former
manager of a B. Dalton store in the New York City area and an
ex-employee of Waldenbooks.
"Throughout the '80s, B. Dalton had a liberal return
policy," said Lang, now the publicist for the science-fiction
publisher Tor Books. "Once a chain store sells through a
book, it's on their computer as having been sold. Once on
the computer, the computer automatically reorders it."
That might help explain why hardcover copies of the
"Mission Earth" series are a common sight these days on remainder
shelves.
"This month Bridge Publications quietly offered remainder
houses 237,848 'Mission Earth' hardcovers," publisher Lyle
Stuart wrote last July in his newsletter Hot News, under the
heading "That Scientology Scam." "This must be something of
a record in the remainder industry."
Through their spokeswomen, B. Dalton and Waldenbooks also
denied that they sell floor space to Bridge or any publisher.
Two industry sources disputed that claim. Alice Allen,
spokeswoman for the American Booksellers Association, said
retailers maintain that the chains engage in the unpopular,
but not illegal, practice of selling prime display space.
Betty Wright, executive director of the National Asso-
ciation of Independent Publishers, said prime display space
is not only sold, but that Bridge is a major purchaser of it.
"They're buying floor space, there's no question about
that. You can't walk into a bookstore without seeing their
big cardboard displays," said Wright. "One of the most valu-
able things you can do besides advertising is buy floor
space. there are 50,000 books published every year. And
let's face it, they can't all be in bookstores."
'THE BRIDGE TO TOTAL FREEDOM'
Bridge's senior vice president Mark McKinstry denied that
the publisher buys Hubbard's books to inflate sales.
A spokeswoman for the Church of Scientology also denied
that Hubbard's followers are required to purchase his books.
"You can't make anyone buy anything," said Leisa Goodman,
from the L. Ron Hubbard Office of Public Relations in Los
Angeles. "People spend their money because they want to."
Goodman also denied any official link between the church
and Bridge Publications.
"We have a relationship like any client and publisher,"
Goodman said. "It's just probably closer."
Much closer, say former Scientologists.
Vicki Aznaran, the former inspector general of the Reli-
gious Technology Center, said the center controls a
Scientology network of 419 subsidiary groups, including
Bridge Publications. Her claim was echoed by several other
former church officials.
In addition, the Religious Technology Center is listed
prominently in an internal church document, "The Command
Chart of Scientology."
The Religious Technology Center appears at the top of the
chart. One level below, within a body called the Watchdog
Committee, is the office of the executive director of the
Church of Scientology International. And one level below
that is Bridge Publications.
Appearing on the same level of the chart as Bridge is the
church's public relations office.
In a 1989 issue of "Hotline," a Church of Scientology
newsletter for its publicists, a new public relations strat-
egy was announced.
"For the first time in the history of Dianetics and
Scientology the PR (public relations) positioning for L. Ron
Hubbard (LRH) has been established:
"One of The Most Acclaimed and Widely Read Authors of All
Time.
"This is a major breakthrough that will have far-reaching
effects for the future of PR and the expansion of
Scientology...
"There have of course been a number of successful PR cam-
paigns for LRH and his works. The Dianetics Campaign, cam-
paigns for 'Battlefield Earth' and 'Mission Earth,' even lo-
cal campaigns...
"But what we have lacked is the full power of a coordi-
nated push from ALL sectors of Scientology promoting LRH in a
concerted manner and with a single image.
"For it is LRH's image on which all the rest of our expan-
sion depends. To the degree that LRH is made the stable ter-
minal in society, people will reach for his books and ser-
vices and we can get them on the Bridge to Total Freedom."
Diane Richardson
On 13 Jan 1998 02:00:08 GMT, Catherine Hampton
<ar...@shell3.ba.best.com> wrote:
[snip]
>So Diane's post was interesting history, but as far as describing the
>current practices of most exit counselors, it's a straw man. That
>fits in nicely with most of her posts.... :/
I certainly did not intend to imply that most current "exit
counselors" employ Ted Patrick's techniques. The reason for my
posting excerpts from Patrick's autobiography was in response to
William O. West's defense of Ted Patrick and Ted Patrick's modus
operandi (only, however, in cases which receive William O. West's
approval).
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Conner
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 22:38:20 GMT, in message
<34b9476...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 10:16:41 GMT, see...@cyberpromo.com (Conner)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 04:18:58 GMT, in message
>><34b8468d...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
>>wrote:
>>
>>[clip]
>>
>>>I do not believe all anticult activists utilized or even approved of
>>>Patrick's methods. CAN's refusal to issue a clearcut denouncement of
>>>such methods, however, certainly assisted in its demise.
>>
>> if you are referring to Scott vs. CAN, you are technically
>> correct. although i can't think that you believe that the
>> vicarious liability theory used in the case was correctly
>> applied.
>
>I wasn't thinking of Scott v. CAN when I wrote that,
what were you thinking of? why didn't you give us
a hint of what it was? why don't you now?
although that
>case is pretty illustrative. Anyone looking into the history of the
>CFF and CAN quickly realizes that the organization has had more than
>its share of tempestuous controversies, with members -- and officials
>-- resigning in protest over the issue of deprogramming.
well, it's controversial, so it's obviously guilty, i guess.
at least that seems to be your argument. guilt by
association.
>
>As to liability issues, yes I do believe it was applied appropriately.
really? you've stated differently in the past.
for the benefit of readers, let me supply some bare
details of the case.
in 1992, Shirley Landa, working as an unpaid volunteer
at a Seattle Community Services hotline, which was in
turn operated with support from Parent Awareness, referred
Kathy Tomsky to Rick Ross for the deprogramming of
her minor sons, Mathew and Tysen. Neither Parent
Awareness nor Seattle Community Services has any
relationship to CAN. Ms. Tomsky subsequently
and on her own initiative retained Ross to deprogram Rick
Scott, at the time an adult.
Scott escaped from Ross, and subsequently Ross was (i
believe, although i would have to go back and look to be
sure) charged with and possibly convicted for false imprisonment.
other than Ross and CAN, i am not aware than anyone else involved
in the deprogramming of Scott was charged or sued.
The only relationship Landa had with CAN was that she
was a co-founder of CAN's predecessor (AFF) some 15
years prior to 1992, and that she accepted a few CAN
referrals a year.
so here we have a case where a person who is not an
agent of CAN, is not working for CAN in making a referral,
made a referral without any knowledge on CAN's part, and
did not make an illegal referral (the referral for the deprogramming
of Tomsky's minor sons was legal), and yet CAN is responsible
for vicarious libability?
well, please explain how, according to the facts in the case
and applicable law. because i'd really like to understand
how things got so perverted that a jury really did return a
verdict against CAN.
my belief is that CAN was pretty exhausted by previous cases,
and thought the matter would be dismissed on summary
judgement, and was steamrollered by high-priced Scientology
attorneys.
>In the past, I've worked in medical libraries who used volunteer
>workers. You'd better believe those volunteers are instructed *not*
>to provide personal opinions regarding medical diagnoses, treatment
>efficacy, etc., under any circumstances.
so what has this to do with the CAN case?
>
>Imagine the legal problems involved if a volunteer were to answer a
>call from a cancer patient asking about treatment options. Who would
>be liable if the volunteer were to recommend that the patient stop all
>treatment and run down to a laetrile clinic in Mexico? Lawsuits can
>and have been filed against medical libraries over similar issues,
>although I'm not aware of any involving volunteers as opposed to paid
>library clerks.
so what has this to do with the CAN case?
>
>> As to their "refusal", i can only quote from the appeal to
>> this case, among the uncontested facts of which include
>> the following:
>>
>>-------------- quote from CAN appeal ------------
>>
>> Uncontested evidence on this issue, however,
>>established (1) CAN's long-standing official policy, preceding the
>>events in this case, promulgated by its board of directors against
>>illegal, involuntary deprogrammings (RT 5/11); (2) CAN's efforts to
>>train its affiliates and volunteers in this policy (RT 5/14-15); and (3)
>>CAN's enforcement of the policy, which included employee terminations
>>for involvement in illegal deprogrammings (RT 5/14-15).
>
>What exactly does RT 5/14-15 say, seekon? When was that
>"long-standing" policy adopted? Please post the text of this policy,
>and the date of its adoption, here. Thanks.
i'm sorry, i don't have it. however, other passages in the CAN
appeal indicate that the policy was adopted in 1988.
Conner
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:25:11 GMT, in message
<34bb9a2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, see...@cyberpromo.com (Conner) wrote:
[clip]
>
> The only relationship Landa had with CAN was that she
> was a co-founder of CAN's predecessor (AFF) some 15
> years prior to 1992, and that she accepted a few CAN
> referrals a year.
um, make that "CAN's predecessor (CFF)"
wgert
The attention span of the one you called Lamebrain is a bit on the
short side. If you have the time, check it out on
www.dancris.com/~rshaw in more detail. If you don't have the time,
just read on.
Erlich's claim to fame is his contribution towards what will become
the eventual restriction of the use of the net. He has boasted that no
judge or law enforcement officer could ever make him follow the law.
Erlich was part of the Church of Scientology ministry in the 1980's.
He was expelled.
In 1985, Erlich was ordered to pay $200 a month in child support for
a daughter born in 1980. According to a sworn statement from a former
wife, Erlich paid nothing since 1986, and was $25,000 in arrears.
While still in the Church ministry, his wife one day came with her
face swollen and her eyes blackened by his blows. In sworn statement,
she described how he "grabbed me by the hair again, threw me in the
bathroom, I was cornered in the shower, he hit me across the face and
I felt like he broke my jaw. I was in my first trimester of pregnancy
with his child at the time and he knew I was pregnant."
This physical violence also showed up towards his children. A
stepdaughter of his, now an adult, remembers a time when she was
a young child and Erlich tied her pets to a pole, then shot them
to death in her sight in a vindictive act of intimidation. He
then threw their bodies on a walkway where she would have to
pass them. Makes one wonder about the recently heard story of a
dead cat.
Another ARS poster said this:
"Erlich's mouth is way down south and Facing from the Rear
We will suffer him, and all his sin. That is his Cross to bear."
And Erlich's character last year was questioned by another ARS poster
as follows: 'I'm not the self-indulgent president of a fan club for a
man that is so together that he violently abuses his two daughters to
satisfy his psycho-sexual compulsions. So Rev. Erlich: how many times
did you unwelcomingly put your hands & mouth on your daughter?'
Erlich's stellar performance in the use of four letter words makes the
point even better.
inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
> No, you lying sack 'o shit.
> Fucking liar.
inm...@bellsouth.net (Jack Craver) wrote:
>On 10 Jan 1998 23:01:00 -0700, inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L
>Erlich) wrote:
>>>inm...@bellsouth.net (Jack Craver):
>>>Ted Patrick was a deprogrammer, lamebrain.
>> Well, duh.
>>
>>>There are plenty of posts
>>>mentioning him on ars. There are plenty of posts about deprogramming,
>>>and CAN.
>>>Why didn't you complain about any of these other posts?
>> I complain about whatever I choose.
>No-one is challenging your right to complain, asshole. I only asked
>you why you chose a particular post, out of many, to complain about.
>>
>>>*I* think that these subjects are *on topic* for this NG, and I don't
>>>give a shit about what some bs local deity decrees.
>>
>> I'm a local deity, eh? And who TF are you, little man?
>Just a guy trying to pick up something useful on this public NG. You
>know, read a lot, maybe learn something? There's probably lots of us
>here. And when Diane R. or anyone else, posts something about
>deprogramming and CAN, or Scn's takeover of CAN, I want to read it.
>Isn't this what public newsgroups are for?
>OTOH, I do not want to read some jerk declaring a post off-topic cuz
>he doesn't like the post....or perhaps the author.
>Does that ring a bell, lamebrain?
>< snip ridiculous reverand sig >
>jack
Rob Clark
Wed, 14 Jan 1998 03:24:21 GMT, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
>The attention span of the one you called Lamebrain is a bit on the
>short side. If you have the time, check it out on
>www.dancris.com/~rshaw in more detail. If you don't have the time,
>just read on.
spam deleted.
do read that URL he recommends, it is an education in bigotry.
though not in the manner it's intended by the "author" and i use
that word in its loosest sense.
rob
Jack Craver
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 03:24:21 GMT, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
>The attention span of the one you called Lamebrain is a bit on the
>short side. If you have the time, check it out on
>www.dancris.com/~rshaw in more detail. If you don't have the time,
>just read on.
>
Hello Wgert -
On many occasions, I have posted disagreements with critics on this NG
that have, IMO, made wild claims about Scn. or scientologists.
Although I am no longer a member, I do consider my 5 yrs. in CoS to
have been an extraordinary experience with a positive, profound impact
on my life. One positive that I consider to be a result of Scn is an
understanding of, and devotion to, ethics.... and in this sense, I do
not understand and cannot agree on a personal attack based solely on
allegations, such as your post.
I have read erlich deny child molestation and he has said that he is
current with his child-support payments, so where does that leave us?
Until/if the time ever comes when erlich is convicted of anything, I
suggest it leaves us responding to what erlich *writes*, and reading
his responses to others.
On this issue my support is firmly entrenched on the (ugh...) side of
the critics.
jack
wgert
Check out the declaration from his former wife which I posted today.
Erlich is n-o-t a critic. He has a violent background, not as heavy
as Ted Patrick's - but it's there. And he is out to destroy a
religion - on the basis of no matter what; and he and people like him
are ultimately going to destroy the freedom of speech on the net too.
wgert
jbwebb
Rebecca Hartong wrote:
>
> Back in my own "Crazy Time"(tm) my friends and I snorted coke because it
> made us feel incredibly energetic, fabulously witty, wildly sexy AND enabled
> us to keep drinking hours after any non-drugged person would have passed
> out. My upper-middle-class friends and I quickly recognized, though, that
> although cocaine may make you *think* you want to have sex all night, the
> reality never lived up to the fantasy.
snort. How true.
Hey, Rebecca, I didn't know you had the same history as me! When was
your "crazy time?"
Take care
Joni
Rebecca
>
> >>None, whatsoever. How much is a tenth of a gram?
> >>About a teaspoonful, maybe?
> >
Martin Hunt
In article <34bf1493...@NEWS.MIA.BELLSOUTH.NET>,
inm...@bellsouth.net (Jack Craver) wrote:
>Hello Wgert -
>
>On many occasions, I have posted disagreements with critics on this NG
>that have, IMO, made wild claims about Scn. or scientologists.
>
>Although I am no longer a member, I do consider my 5 yrs. in CoS to
>have been an extraordinary experience with a positive, profound impact
>on my life. One positive that I consider to be a result of Scn is an
>understanding of, and devotion to, ethics.... and in this sense, I do
>not understand and cannot agree on a personal attack based solely on
>allegations, such as your post.
>
>I have read erlich deny child molestation and he has said that he is
>current with his child-support payments, so where does that leave us?
>Until/if the time ever comes when erlich is convicted of anything, I
>suggest it leaves us responding to what erlich *writes*, and reading
>his responses to others.
>
>On this issue my support is firmly entrenched on the (ugh...) side of
>the critics.
>
>jack
Wow. Walter, you're actually turning off your own supporters
and sympathizers with this stupid, groundless "DA" (propaganda)
attack on Dennis Erlich. Amazing.
Thanks for being honest enough to step forward and be counted
as opposing this kind of Dead Agenting attack, Jack; it gave
me hope to read your message, hope that Scientology cannot
completely remove the sense of right and wrong from people.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
"But regardless how hard the going is for us critics in the face
of entrenched evil, as Winston Churchill said once that these are
not the dark days, but rather the great days. They are great because
the cult is giving each of us an opportunity to find out the depth
of our love of freedom." - Grady Ward.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
jf0...@navix.net
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:15:36 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
>On 13 Jan 1998 02:00:08 GMT, Catherine Hampton
In other words, she couldn't pass up the chance to bash someone.
Typical.
William O. West
jf0...@navix.net wrote:
Diane Richardson hath written:
> >The reason for my
> >posting excerpts from Patrick's autobiography was in response to
> >William O. West's defense of Ted Patrick and Ted Patrick's modus
> >operandi (only, however, in cases which receive William O. West's
> >approval).
As if Mr. Theodore Roosevelt Patrick GIVES
a Diane's heart about my approval.
> In other words, she couldn't pass up the chance to bash someone.
> Typical.
I shall consider myself bashed.
Jack Craver
On 17 Jan 1998 10:19:01 -0700, inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L
Erlich) wrote:
>>inm...@bellsouth.net (Jack Craver):
>
>>>>Why didn't you complain about any of these other posts?
>
>YHN:
>>> I complain about whatever I choose.
>
>Jack:
>>No-one is challenging your right to complain, asshole.
>
> Perhaps you just want to be able to tell me how to complain
>properly.
>
WTFAYTA???
>>I only asked
>>you why you chose a particular post, out of many, to complain about.
>
> Because it is a red herring the cult flings over and over, to
>divert attention away from itself. And I get tired of hearing it. So
>I comment on their relevance or lack of it, from my perspective.
>
Of course, its all so plain to me now. Deprogramming, CAN and Scn has
nothing to do with alt.religion.scientology. Its all a red herring
designed to divert attention from scientology.
LOL
What a dingleberry!
>>>And who TF are you, little man?
>>
>>Just a guy trying to pick up something useful on this public NG. You
>>know, read a lot, maybe learn something? There's probably lots of us
>>here. And when Diane R. or anyone else, posts something about
>>deprogramming and CAN, or Scn's takeover of CAN, I want to read it.
>
> Well, go on ahead.
>
Thanks a lot, Rev!
>>Isn't this what public newsgroups are for?
>
> See, I get to comment on things if I want, in the way I want. You
>do too. And WHN. That's how it works.
>
Even more vital information from the rev. A true fountain of info.
>>OTOH, I do not want to read some jerk declaring a post off-topic cuz
>>he doesn't like the post....or perhaps the author.
>
> Class, what should Jack do if he doesn't want to read someone's
>post?
>
This applies to you, as well.
>>Does that ring a bell, lamebrain?
>
> Yes, Jack. Now run along to recess, and don't hurt yourself.
>
Thanks again Rev, let me know when you have anything interesting to
say, but this is boring me to tears so I'm outta this thread.
< snip ridiculous sig >
jack
Bloody Viking
Rebecca Hartong (har...@erols.com) wrote:
: Back in my own "Crazy Time"(tm) my friends and I snorted coke because it
: made us feel incredibly energetic, fabulously witty, wildly sexy AND enabled
: us to keep drinking hours after any non-drugged person would have passed
: out. My upper-middle-class friends and I quickly recognized, though, that
: although cocaine may make you *think* you want to have sex all night, the
: reality never lived up to the fantasy.
I think cocaine is overrated, but I feel the same way about other stims
anyways. Why people like stims eludes my comprehension. I hate them!
That's becuse of my oversize adrenaline gland. I once took 30 milligrammes
of a calcium channel blocker and had a HORRIBLE adrenaline trip from Hell.
On that crap, I would be able to compete pretty good in the drinking
situation with no cocaine required.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
"A man's car is his battleship"
1703208 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
Conner
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 03:24:21 GMT, in message
<69hb72$2hp$1...@usenet48.supernews.com>, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
>The attention span of the one you called Lamebrain is a bit on the
>short side. If you have the time, check it out on
>www.dancris.com/~rshaw in more detail. If you don't have the time,
>just read on.
everyone should definitely read this page, to see
blind scientology hate in action. for scientologists,
whats true is what Co$ tells them, and they never
back away from a chance to slander. Mike Rinder,
on 60 minutes, was told by PI Homer Schomer that
Cynthia Kisser was never a topless dancer, said himself
that he doubted she could have been because of her
appearance, and yet continued to throw out the accusation.
you can see the same regard for the truth in all the real Co$
shill posters here.
>
>Erlich's claim to fame is his contribution towards what will become
>the eventual restriction of the use of the net. He has boasted that no
>judge or law enforcement officer could ever make him follow the law.
documentation, please?
>
>Erlich was part of the Church of Scientology ministry in the 1980's.
>He was expelled.
>
>In 1985, Erlich was ordered to pay $200 a month in child support for
>a daughter born in 1980. According to a sworn statement from a former
>wife, Erlich paid nothing since 1986, and was $25,000 in arrears.
the former wife was also ordered to provide visitation. she
violated the agreement when she hid the child from Erlich.
Erlich withheld payments during the period she was in violation
of the agreement.
>
>While still in the Church ministry, his wife one day came with her
>face swollen and her eyes blackened by his blows. In sworn statement,
>she described how he "grabbed me by the hair again, threw me in the
>bathroom, I was cornered in the shower, he hit me across the face and
>I felt like he broke my jaw. I was in my first trimester of pregnancy
>with his child at the time and he knew I was pregnant."
when was this statement obtained, relative to the alleged
incident? perhaps it is no coincidence that it is dated at
a time, following his departure from scientology, that makes
it obvious that it is part of a pattern of subornation designed to
harass and discredit erlich, without much regard for the truth.
>
>This physical violence also showed up towards his children. A
>stepdaughter of his, now an adult, remembers a time when she was
>a young child and Erlich tied her pets to a pole, then shot them
>to death in her sight in a vindictive act of intimidation. He
>then threw their bodies on a walkway where she would have to
>pass them. Makes one wonder about the recently heard story of a
>dead cat.
the substance of the action is significantly less than the
opening sentence would indicate. also, this story seems
to change with time. didn't he drown his daughter's pet
rat, or something?