InFormer Ministry - Pictures and Cartoons
Ted Mayett
Since I first saw this picture over ten years ago I cannot understand
the message of this picture.
on this page:
http://www.informer.org/
this:
http://www.informer.org/cultsleep.jpg
I figure an adult took the picture because of the angle, I figure that
Dennis took the picture. And Dennis certainly did web and does allow
the picture.
The way I see this is somebody telling those young girls to "pull up
your dress, pull it higher..." Those girls are posing for the
picture, doing what they are told to do. It is clearly a staged
photograph. Staged for what purpose though is what I wonder.
All these years I've wondered about this picture, what it means, what
is it supposed to mean. More knowledgeable today about this Rev.
here, personally I find the picture to be 'expected'. For it
matches Erlich's attitude towards females. I find this photograph to
be degrading, debasing.
Granted no more of their legs are showing than if they were in bathing
suits on a beach. But still. I don't understand. I would never
photograph daughters, or any young girls in poses such as these. And
if such a picture were taken, NEVER would I web it for the world to
view. Something seems wrong with this, not illegally wrong, just
wrong in the sense of common decency.
Is it me though? Am I all hung up and stuff, and reading more into
this picture than is there?
I find nothing in the text above or below the picture, to explain the
picture. It just seems out of place, out of context. Suddenly a
picture of two young girls with their dresses pulled up high.
This though, this 4 line poem here:
"Once there was a little girl
Used to wonder what she'd be
Went out into the big wide world
Now she's just a memory"
- Mark Knopfler
Seems to be a warning that young girls should 'stay in their place' or
harm/death will come to them. Is this just more demeaning of females?
I think it is a dark personality to web things like this, and even a
perverse personality. That picture of those two girls just makes no
sense to me whatsoever. I find it too revealing, too demeaning.
Maybe I'm just missing the message though. Can anyone explain this?
A. Prickwork Erlich
I think you are right, for this picture says it all.
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/publiceye/bryan005d.jpg
A. Prickwork Erlich
Anonymous
You missed this one...
http://steelcloset.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/comedians-0904-pp02.jpg
I don't know which is scarier: Erlich inventing words like
"whoro-frying" for use against women, or Erlich doing "whoro-frying."
John Dorsay
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:26:16 -0600, "A. Prickwork Erlich"
<snip Klemsock replying to Klemsock>
Do you think you appear sane when you reply to yourself, Tom?
John
"Rev" Norle Enturbulata DTS, PLC, OD, SPG
"John Dorsay" <restim...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hnbtt0$osa$1...@arscc.eternal-september.org...
The Alien Krlll
Why exactly do you support Erlich's taxpayer subsidized charlatanism,
3rd partying and fair gaming--when you wouldn't support L. Ron Hubbard's?
John, why do you support this hatred of women, and defend spousal abuse?
Do you want to "whoro-fry"? Why can't you criticize wrong when you see it?
Why is the biggest issue for you, is people posting anonymously? Like
the issues go away, without a poster's identity?
John Dorsay you are all about keeping scientology working, because
scientology--3rd partying and fair gaming--cannot be conducted without
indentifying a target for it! Not being able to use scientology on
people, really bugs you doesn't it?
You are SO transparent, Dorsay. You are so scientologist.
--
"The giving aspect of Erlich and his InFormer Ministry seem confined to
his graciousness in letting us know who among us are cocksuckers, lying
sacks of shit, and assholes. He gives us this knowledge freely, but
seems to donate nothing else. " --Ted Mayett on Rev. Dennis L Erlich
henri
<restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Do you think you appear sane when you reply to yourself, Tom?
It reminds me of when the CCHR shill from the cult sits around on
Thursday afternoon pretending to have conversations with itself. And
it's as successful.
John Dorsay
> On 3/11/2010 5:21 PM, John Dorsay wrote:
>> On 3/11/2010 5:47 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:26:16 -0600, "A. Prickwork Erlich"
>>
>> <snip Klemsock replying to Klemsock>
>>
>> Do you think you appear sane when you reply to yourself, Tom?
>>
>>
>> John
>
> Why exactly do you support Erlich's taxpayer subsidized charlatanism,
> 3rd partying and fair gaming--when you wouldn't support L. Ron Hubbard's?
>
> John, why do you support this hatred of women, and defend spousal abuse?
> Do you want to "whoro-fry"? Why can't you criticize wrong when you see it?
Tom, do you think you appear rational when you twist my question
about your behavior into an unsupported claim that I am defending
someone else?
> Why is the biggest issue for you, is people posting anonymously? Like
> the issues go away, without a poster's identity?
Why do you think you gain credibility when your idea of discussion
consists of you replying to yourself, with pathetic attempts to
conceal this lame charade by playing musical sockpuppets?
> John Dorsay you are all about keeping scientology working, because
> scientology--3rd partying and fair gaming--cannot be conducted without
> indentifying a target for it! Not being able to use scientology on
> people, really bugs you doesn't it?
I'm not the one targeting my imagined enemies with a sockpuppet
army, Tom.
> You are SO transparent, Dorsay. You are so scientologist.
Maybe if a few of your other sockpuppets agree with this statement,
you might convince somebody that I am as horrible as you say.
Or not.
John
The Alien Krlll
I think you wanna be in the in-crowd John, and will administer the full
voltage on any perceived enemy of the granfalloon, to be so.
Your junior-college-dropout aura defines you in everything you post.
--
"Dr [Monica] Pigno [Pignotti] and her gang of idioTed-socks have me in a
corner. And whoro-fryingly enough they are using the only tactic that
could possibly work against me. They are employing my own words to show
what a bad person I am. I'm light-headed with trepidations!" -Rev.
Dennis L Erlich, inFormer Ministry (IRS approved).
John Dorsay
> I think you wanna be in the in-crowd John, and will administer the full
> voltage on any perceived enemy of the granfalloon, to be so.
>
> Your junior-college-dropout aura defines you in everything you post.
Tom, I can't tell you how devastated I am to know that a master of
sockpuppets like you could think such thoughts about me. If your
other sockpuppets agree with this one, I just might be so crushed
that I could never ridicule your pathetic sockpuppetry again.
John
The Alien Krlll
I didn't want to devastate, or insult you John. I wanted to jolt you
back into considering the content of the messages...and if you can't,
shut the fuck up. (Nobody is interested in your who's-a-sock-puppet
obsession.)
John Dorsay
> On 3/11/2010 10:20 PM, John Dorsay wrote:
>> On 3/11/2010 10:45 PM, The Alien Krlll wrote:
>>
>>> I think you wanna be in the in-crowd John, and will administer the full
>>> voltage on any perceived enemy of the granfalloon, to be so.
>>>
>>> Your junior-college-dropout aura defines you in everything you post.
>>
>> Tom, I can't tell you how devastated I am to know that a master of
>> sockpuppets like you could think such thoughts about me. If your
>> other sockpuppets agree with this one, I just might be so crushed
>> that I could never ridicule your pathetic sockpuppetry again.
>>
>> John
>
> I didn't want to devastate, or insult you John.
That's nice, Tom, because you didn't.
I wanted to jolt you
> back into considering the content of the messages...and if you can't,
> shut the fuck up.
Ooooh, a master of sockpuppets and internet tough guy ordered me to
shut the fuck up!
I guess I better do that. And I will, I'm sure. Because only a
fool could ignore a direct order from a a master of sockpuppets and
internet tough guy.
But not today.
(Nobody is interested in your who's-a-sock-puppet
> obsession.)
They aren't my sockpuppets, Tom. They are yours. If you are that
sensitive about people laughing at them, maybe you should put them away.
If not, BRING ON YOUR SOCKPUPPETS! I can take it!
John
The Alien Krlll
Quit derailing threads with this idiocy.
John, what do you think about the inFormer Ministry pictures of the
little girls, and what is the possible quasi-"whoro-frying" meaning they
might have been meant to convey?
What was the power they had, that commanded you to derail this thread?
Explain in detail please John.
John Dorsay
Wow! More orders! Maybe you would just make a list of all of your
orders for me and I can mock them in a single post? It would save
bandwidth in the long run, I think.
> John, what do you think about the inFormer Ministry pictures of the
> little girls, and what is the possible quasi-"whoro-frying" meaning they
> might have been meant to convey?
I'm not interested in discussing them, nor am I interested in your
kook speculation about them. I had hoped you could infer that from
my silence on the matter, but apparently I overestimated your
intelligence. Please forgive me.
> What was the power they had, that commanded you to derail this thread?
That's your first problem, Tom. I DID NOT derail this thread.
In <hnbqmb$2ci$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, you replied to Ted's
original post, agreeing with Ted's bizarre suggestion that a couple
of pictures of children playing indicated something sinister about
Dennis.
In <iesip592bmsh6td4n...@4ax.com>, you changed
sockpuppets and posted a followup to your first post in the thread,
again agreeing with Ted.
At that point, I commented on the sockpuppetry that YOU introduced
to the thread. If you think comments about sockpuppetry derail
threads, then maybe you should stop playing sockpuppet master.
> Explain in detail please John.
OK. This is usenet. usenet has kooks who do things like play
usenet kook games with sockpuppets. One of the joys of usenet is
making fun of usenet kooks and their usenet kook games.
I trust that provides sufficient detail.
John
The Alien Krlll
yhn (using "john Dorsay")
> Wow! More orders! Maybe you would just make a list of all of your
> orders for me and I can mock them in a single post? It would save
> bandwidth in the long run, I think.
>
accused anonymous identity
>> John, what do you think about the inFormer Ministry pictures of the
>> little girls, and what is the possible quasi-"whoro-frying" meaning they
>> might have been meant to convey?
>
> I'm not interested in discussing them, nor am I interested in your
> kook speculation about them. I had hoped you could infer that from
> my silence on the matter, but apparently I overestimated your
> intelligence. Please forgive me.
>
My god, John Dorsay, you're a sockpuppet of Denis Erlich, Bwhahaha!
efish
The Alien Krlll <E...@Teegeack.con> wrote:
> On 3/11/2010 10:20 PM, John Dorsay wrote:
> > On 3/11/2010 10:45 PM, The Alien Krlll wrote:
> >
> >> I think you wanna be in the in-crowd John, and will administer the full
> >> voltage on any perceived enemy of the granfalloon, to be so.
> >>
> >> Your junior-college-dropout aura defines you in everything you post.
> >
> > Tom, I can't tell you how devastated I am to know that a master of
> > sockpuppets like you could think such thoughts about me. If your
> > other sockpuppets agree with this one, I just might be so crushed
> > that I could never ridicule your pathetic sockpuppetry again.
> >
> > John
>
> I didn't want to devastate, or insult you John. I wanted to jolt you
> back into considering the content of the messages...and if you can't,
> shut the fuck up. (Nobody is interested in your who's-a-sock-puppet
> obsession.)
me! me! *i* am interested in the latest sock-puppetry faq! and i know i
am not the only one.
in our quest for the finer pleasures of ennui, we strive to the beat of
the toms, tom.
johndorsay give giggles and it is good.
-ef
J Dorsay Anonefeller III
Are you some kind of a whoro-drug addict?
John Dorsay
> Are you some kind of a whoro-drug addict?
Are you drunk, Tom? Maybe you should call it a night....
John
Anonymous
John Dorsay
That's great, Tom! Keep those sockpuppets coming!
John
realpch
He could go out and pick somebody up in a bar, maybe? Just frisk her to
make sure she doesn't have a little bladder of pig's blood on her person.
Oooooh! That was mean!
:-D
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Ted Mayett
<restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In <hnbqmb$2ci$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, you replied to Ted's
>original post, agreeing with Ted's bizarre suggestion that a couple
>of pictures of children playing indicated something sinister about
>Dennis.
>
No, not playing. To me it looks like a staged photo, somebody telling
them to lift their dresses up higher for the picture. And the
filename given to this picture, does not suggest playing.
http://www.informer.org/cultsleep.jpg
Look at the pictures and cartoons Erlich uses, he gives them
descriptive file names. What does 'cultsleep' mean? And why
photograph young girls with their dresses pulled almost up to their
waists to suggest 'cultsleep'? I just don't understand the picture.
And I find nothing proper, useful, educational or flattering about the
picture.
ah well, maybe it is just me???
Out_Of_The_Dark
Although I understood that the purpose was to demonstrate the effect
of the TRs, I have always been uncomfortable looking at that photo and
think it inappropriate but I'm one of the last people Dennis would
listen to. I never considered it as sexist because of his overall
distain for people seems bigger than that, but your post got me
thinking. I sure hope they aren't his daughters.
Mary McConnell
John Dorsay
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:06:23 -0500, John Dorsay
> <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In <hnbqmb$2ci$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, you replied to Ted's
>>original post, agreeing with Ted's bizarre suggestion that a couple
>>of pictures of children playing indicated something sinister about
>>Dennis.
>>
>
> No, not playing. To me it looks like a staged photo, somebody telling
> them to lift their dresses up higher for the picture.
Well Ted, I glanced at the pictures and I saw something innocent,
kids playing. You saw something else, something sinister, but either
can't or won't describe it.
Maybe the pictures are Dennis's version of the Rorshach test.
And the
> filename given to this picture, does not suggest playing.
> http://www.informer.org/cultsleep.jpg
>
> Look at the pictures and cartoons Erlich uses, he gives them
> descriptive file names. What does 'cultsleep' mean? And why
> photograph young girls with their dresses pulled almost up to their
> waists to suggest 'cultsleep'? I just don't understand the picture.
> And I find nothing proper, useful, educational or flattering about the
> picture.
>
> ah well, maybe it is just me???
Maybe.
John
Monica Pignotti
I agree, Mary. To me, it looks like it's a picture of two girls who
fell asleep doing OT TR-0, hence the title, cult sleep. That's how I
always interpreted it, but in my opinion, it does seem to be in poor
taste and inappropriate to present these girls in such an undignified
manner. What the cult presumably did to them was bad enough. This
seems to me, to have the potential to be revictimizing, in my opinion.
I had assumed they were his daughters, but whoever they are, they
didn't deserve this.
Monica
Gregory Hall
news:33d12de1-f468-43df...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
==================[REPLY]======================
You'd rather they 'endure' a lifetime of shame about their bodies that
adults instill in children at an early age when they aren't the least bit
ashamed?
Adults should try letting children be children. If this is how you view
children then I feel sorry for any child exposed to your so-called therapy
which probably disorientates them up even more.
--
Gregory Hall
Monica Pignotti
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@att.net> wrote in message
You keep repeating the implication that I have invented some sort of
therapy. I have not invented any sort of therapy and I don't know
where you get that idea. I am being slammed, not because I invented a
therapy or even for practicing any particular therapy but rather,
because I have criticized and opposed certain therapies that in my
opinion are abusive, such as the ones criticized on this website:
http://www.childrenintherapy.org
Monica
Gregory Hall
http://www.childrenintherapy.org
Monica
====================[REPLY]=====================
I stand corrected. Tell me, then, what makes you so against somebody else's
methods if you have none of your own?
--
Gregory Hall
Monica Pignotti
someone else's methods. That is a ridiculous notion. Abuse in the name
of therapy is abuse and one doesn't have to have invented a therapy to
be against it. No therapy at all is better than a therapy where
children have died. Are you saying that anyone who has no therapy "of
their own" should just keep their mouth shut about abuse? That is
absurd and the same form of bogus argument being used by the
Scientologist who keeps posting here that he will give an award to
anyone who can cure schizophrenia. In other words, the Scientologists
are saying that unless psychiatry has a cure for schizophrenia (which
they do not) they should keep their mouths shut about criticizing
Scientology. Again, that is ridiculous.
Note that I am not saying that there are no good therapies. There are
some good therapies for children and I have referred to a website that
evaluates them in another posting. My point is that one is not
obligated to have a replacement in order to criticize a therapy that
is harming people or a therapy that is exploiting people for large
sums of money and making claims not based on actual evidence that it
helps. To demand that someone come up with something "positive" is a
fallacious argument that allows harm, exploitation and abuse in the
name of so-called "therapy" to continue.
Monica
Gregory Hall
Monica
====================[REPLY]=========================
First off I never claimed you 'invented' any therapy but I DID assume you
must advocate some therapy that you at least agreed with in lieu of these
destructive therapies you fight to expose. If that were not the case then
you would be against ALL therapies and that does not seem sane considering
your field.
Secondly, What constitutes abuse? If you subscribe to some other therapy,
what makes you competent to judge another and call it abusive? In other
words you apparently have set some therapy, not invented by yourself, as the
absolute by which all others are judged. If this were not the case then you
are not standing upon firm ground with any of your arguments.
Is this not so?
--
Gregory Hall
Anonymous
I believe the younger one was Holly, and the older Bethy. Looks like
they might have fallen asleep from a grueling bullbaiting session
imposed on them by their father.
I found this on the net:
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/mystory/dennis14.txt
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.support.ex-cult
Subject: Blackmail Threat
From: inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich)
Date: 21 Jun 1997 11:46:00 -0700
--------
Faithful Reader,
I have been told, through a reliable source with verified connections
inside the cult, that the scienos intend to get my youngest daughter,
Holly, when she turns 18 in January, to write (and I suppose, file) a
declaration detailing how I molested her.
The threat of this is suppose to displease me. Quite the contrary.
I would really like to see in detail what she has come to accuse me of
doing to her. I told the source of the threat precisely that.
-----------
To Holly's captors:
Go ahead and trot my daughter out into public like a trained poodle in
your dog-and-pony, Dead-Agent extravaganza.
She BELONGS to you now, doesn't she? Use her as you see fit.
But don't forget to rot forever in hell, you vile sliem.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<inF...@super.zippo.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
[Much more at the link]
John Dorsay
How touching, Tom. If imitation is truly the sincerest form of
flattery, you must worship the ground I walk on. You haven't got my
injection info right yet, though. My posts come from
arscc.eternal-september.org, but yours are from boring old
news.motzarella.org.
Your organization string doesn't match mine, either.
Still, using my name and user-agent string is a commendable start.
Hope you got some sleep.
John
Ted Mayett
<restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Well Ted, I glanced at the pictures and I saw something innocent,
>kids playing. You saw something else, something sinister, but either
>can't or won't describe it.
>
>Maybe the pictures are Dennis's version of the Rorshach test.
>
Anybody that makes a personal web page, that's me, you if you have
one, any of us. We use pictures, colors, and etc. to make statements,
we all do this with personal web pages.
You might say that our personalities are revealed to some extent when
you view our web pages. Are we sloppy, playful, boring, and so on.
Now that's web pages. If you came up to me and said, "look at this
picture of my daughters." I wouldn't trust you, I wouldn't want to
know you. And if I had daughters of my own there is no way in the
world I would want you around my daughters.
http://www.informer.org/cultsleep.jpg
How am I doing as far as this Rorschach test goes?
realpch
Teddy, there are gazillions of web sites up with pictures of peoples'
families, kids included. And then there's all those damn social
networking sites where kids get into trouble daily. It's been said again
and again, that this stuff is inadvisable, but nevertheless people do it.
As for bad taste, well I think you may not have been getting out enough!
I do agree that web sites are uncommonly revealing about the people who
make them.
Patty Pieniadz
"John Dorsay" <restim...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hndium$qpr$1...@arscc.eternal-september.org...
> On 3/12/2010 7:16 AM, Ted Mayett wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:06:23 -0500, John Dorsay
>> <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In <hnbqmb$2ci$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, you replied to Ted's
>>>original post, agreeing with Ted's bizarre suggestion that a couple
>>>of pictures of children playing indicated something sinister about
>>>Dennis.
>>>
>>
>> No, not playing. To me it looks like a staged photo, somebody
>> telling
>> them to lift their dresses up higher for the picture.
>
> Well Ted, I glanced at the pictures and I saw something innocent,
> kids playing. You saw something else, something sinister, but either
> can't or won't describe it.
>
Same here. It looked like a picture of two little girls falling asleep
while
doing TR 0.
I don't get why people are reading all this evil into that picture.
Sick minds
I guess.
cultxpt
Is this really what you do with your spare time?
Anonymous
>Ted Mayett wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:26:27 -0500, John Dorsay
>> <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Well Ted, I glanced at the pictures and I saw something innocent,
>> >kids playing. You saw something else, something sinister, but either
>> >can't or won't describe it.
>> >
>> >Maybe the pictures are Dennis's version of the Rorshach test.
>> >
>>
>> Anybody that makes a personal web page, that's me, you if you have
>> one, any of us. We use pictures, colors, and etc. to make statements,
>> we all do this with personal web pages.
>>
>> You might say that our personalities are revealed to some extent when
>> you view our web pages. Are we sloppy, playful, boring, and so on.
>>
>> Now that's web pages. If you came up to me and said, "look at this
>> picture of my daughters." I wouldn't trust you, I wouldn't want to
>> know you. And if I had daughters of my own there is no way in the
>> world I would want you around my daughters.
>>
>> http://www.informer.org/cultsleep.jpg
>>
>> How am I doing as far as this Rorschach test goes?
>
>Teddy, there are gazillions of web sites up with pictures of peoples'
>families, kids included. And then there's all those damn social
>networking sites where kids get into trouble daily. It's been said again
>and again, that this stuff is inadvisable, but nevertheless people do it.
I agree Peach, websites of run-of-the-mill people are pretty
unremarkable, and mundane.
>
>As for bad taste, well I think you may not have been getting out enough!
>
>I do agree that web sites are uncommonly revealing about the people who
>make them.
What makes this particular website stand out from the others, is that
there is a story about the website and its pictures that are archived
on the Internet, as it relates to the Internet.
It is becoming obvious exactly why there was a puny settlement out of
court for chump changein RTC V. Erlich.
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/munsey_021795.declaration
13. I was dreadfully concerned about my daughter. My concern
was that since leaving the Church, Dennis had found a new to
"counsel" people which included smoking pot, taking a walk and then
talking. He tried to get me to do it several times when visited in
October, November and December 1983. I did not anticipate and he
continued to consider using this "process" to clear his mind.
14. Before I sent Holly to Nebraska, Dennis swore to me that
he was not doing drugs, otherwise I never would have sent Holly to
visit him. He also said that he would put Holly in day care
because she was in day care in California but he never once did,
15. On June 28, 1984 I filed for divorce and obtained an
order from the California court granting me immediate custody of
Holly and ordering Dennis to turn her over to me.
16. On June 29, 1984 Dennis and Holly called me from Nebraska
and my answering machine was on and the machine recorded the
conversation. I heard Dennis prompt Holly and she said to me that
I was sick and she said "Why did you make me do it?" I asked her
what, and she said "Why did you make me do those sexy things?" I
told her I didn't know what she was talking about and that I love
her more than anything in the world and would do anything to help
her. Then I said, "Tell me Holly, is your Daddy making you say
these things?" Holly said "yes." I asked her, "Has your Daddy
given you anything to smoke?" Holly said "Yes." During this
conversation, I could hear Dennis in the background saying, "Say
it, say it."
17. On July 5, 1984, I filed an application for enforcement
of a foreign court order in the District Court in Nebraska to get
custody of Holly. My father and I flew out to Nebraska and the
judge granted me custody of Holly on July 12, 1984 and I took her
home immediately thereafter.
18. Before I flew to Nebraska I called the San Diego County
Sheriff's Department Detective unit and told them about the false
testation charges that Dennis was making against me. The detective
I spoke to, Detective Wayne Simmons, told me to call immediately
upon my return with Holly.
19. When Holly and I got back to California, I called
Detective Simmons, and asked him what to do and he said she needs
to be seen at Children's hospital and in liaison with Child
Protective Services, he made an appointment for her to be seen at
the hospital.
20. Holly was then examined by a doctor and it was verified
that she had been sexually molested, but it was unknown who had
molested her.
...
>
>Peach
Jerola
news:ulonp5l3qom29t60i...@4ax.com...
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/erlich_munsey_032995.reply
Holly was sent to me on the premise that Rosa would be
getting her life back together. I could tell she was running
in a wrong circle, cops, firemen ... party-girl stuff. Her
friend had been murdered and she wanted to unload Holly for a
while.
Holly and I were basically supported by my fiance.
Sweetheart that she was ... I still love her so. What
follows blew us apart.
About two weeks before Holly was to be sent back, and one
week after I had a written piece on cults published, she began
telling me about "sexy stuff" that she had been engaging in
at her mother's. Knowing Rosa, and I won't go into her
history of promiscuity, I thought it possible that Holly had been
exposed to, participated in, or seen, some sort of sexual
activity that she shouldn't have been. (don't get me wrong ...
I was - and am - no saint.)
I questioned Holly, albeit clumsily, and consulted a former
police detective friend of mine for advice. We decided that
the allegations required the consideration of law enforcement
notification. I played a tape, without identifying myself,
of Holly's statements, to the Omaha police. I had them
record the call. They advised that they would like to send a
couple of officers immediately over. From there on I
followed the instructions of the agencies involved in the
case. The FBI flew two agents from Florida to interview
Holly. They transcribed the tapes of the interviews with
Holly, I assume, since I had alleged scientology might be
involved with the "sexy stuff". Also that it might have been
for the purpose of child pornography.
During this period I sent Rosa no money.
In the midst of Holly's excellent treatment by one of the
state's leading child abuse experts, Rosa got a San Diego
judge to order the child back to California. Some statute
about ownership of children or jurisdiction by a state. What
consitutes residency and what rights you give up over your
child in that state.
The law enforcement officers, case workers, etc. involved
could not believe it, but there was nothing they could do
except pass their information over to their San Diego county
counterparts. Who were all saying, "case? what case? you
want us to open a child molest case?"
Because I felt Holly was in grave danger, being put back into
the hands of the person she said had molested her (or allowed
her to be molested), I sent several threatening telegrams to
the San Diego County judges, saying that I was holding him
personally responsible for the safety of my child.
I could get no one in the Sandiego County child protective
services to do anything about anything. They refused to even
open a file on the case. I had no money. I borrowed some
money from my fiance (which I still owe her) and drove out to
San Diego.
The SD judge left Holly in Rosa's custody pending
reconcilliation counselling for Rosa and I. He also advised
the Juvenile Courts regarding the alleged molestation. I
cooperated with the juvenile court regarding their wish to
put Holly in foster care till the allegations were sorted
out. I went along with it because I felt it would be safer
than having Holly with her mother. I was living with my
parent's in their small apartment. It was 2 months after
Holly had been jerked back to California that these events
commenced.
I was not working nor sending money to Rosa. I was attending
to my court requirements.
The Juvenile Court case dragged out for several months. I
moved to Los Angeles, found a job and drove back and forth
between LA and SD several times as month for various court
ordered appearance. Rosa and I agreed on joint custody and
liberal visitation. I agreed to $200/month support. I could
not go to the final court appearance, too many days off, so I
told Rosa that I'd just go along with what the conciliation
court agreement. Rosa brought in San Diego county cops and
went for sole custody and supervised visitation 8 hrs, once a
month, in San Diego.
I was being tortured. I was sending Rosa money regularly. I
was seeing my daughter under the most degrading conditions
... it nearly drove me to violence.
Several years later Rosa had convinced Holly that it was I
who had done the "sexy stuff" with her. Holly refused to
talk to me or see me. My calls were hung up on. My letters
were returned - refused. Rosa had remarried and taken Holly,
without my permission, and moved to Colorado.
I stopped sending money. That was 6-7 years ago.
I'm not sure I would ever allow myself to be forced to give
Rosa a penny again. She has not asked since Holly was 7, the
last time I saw my daughter.
Next thing I hear, Rosa's declaration is published on
internet by the OSA agent, Rick. It's just what I've been
expecting.
That's the long answer.
The short: when I've been employed and have had *any* rights
*at all* with my daughter, I have always sent the required
support.
Does that satisfy your curiosity, Ron?
+---------------------------------------+
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
that person (tm)
realpch
<snip>
I thought I'd killfiled this sockpuppet of yours, Tom. Here's another
post where you are replying to yourself. I take accounts of who did
what, offered by both parties in a hostile divorce, with a grain of
salt, and make my own judgements. Dennis is not spending his time here
currently talking about his divorce, so why would I be interested in
talking about it? What are we gonna talk about next? the pile of dirty
dishes in my sink? the lack of pruning in my yard? my taste in movies?
the upkeep of my car?
You know, Tom, one of the more important things we learn as we mature is
to pick our battles. So far as I know, this newsgroup is supposed to be
about the Church of Scientology.
Anonymous
> Jerola wrote:
>
> <sni
<snip>
p
>
> I thoug
<snip>
ht I'd kill
<snip>
> Peach
way to ignore
Ted Mayett
>WHAT DOES THIS PICTURE MEAN?
>
>Since I first saw this picture over ten years ago I cannot understand
>the message of this picture.
>on this page:
> http://www.informer.org/
>this:
> http://www.informer.org/cultsleep.jpg
>
Well this is ARS, certainly some people would think of this picture as
simply a non-issue.
I like how some of you say it is "children playing".
I could photograph and web pictures of children playing that would
make you smile and feel warm. Pictures that would capture the
innocent and carefree essence of children. Pictures you would want to
come back to at times because they are so fun and pleasing.
What I personally could not do, is to web a picture such as this one.
Because it is a dirty picture, it is ugly. It invites debate, it
would have people questioning my motives.
Why does somebody web a picture such as this? What does the picture
mean? What is the message that I, the reader, am supposed to realize?
Two young girls with their legs spread and dresses pulled up, and
pretending to be asleep. "Asleep" is not children playing, duh.
Anyway, there are people in this world like the Rev. Dennis Erlich
that web a debasing picture like this for the world to view. This guy
is a slimeball as much as a slimeball can be.
If you had any friends Erlich, they would have beseeched you long ago,
as much as needed, to have that picture taken down. The picture is
creepy, it makes you look like a creep. It lacks beauty, a message, a
meaning, there is just nothing there, other than it being creepy.
Ted Mayett
for this InFormer Ministry.
Unlike many of you, maybe all of you, I have actually read this
website. Clicked on every link, looked at every page and every
picture. And being me, I looked at the code and the filenames because
our personality is also to be found in those things.
There is "preyingmen.jpg" Notice it is not "praying" but rather
"preying". And we could view religion as preying upon...sheep?
http://www.informer.org/preyingmen.jpg
And oh my, we have 'sheep'. "humansheep.jpg"
This is in keeping with a disdain for those who grovel to some Lord or
God, some refer to these grovelers as sheep.
http://www.informer.org/HumanSheep.jpg
I submit that the Rev. Dennis Erlich is honest where the subject of
God is concerned, it we only take the trouble to really "listen" to
what Erlich says. And while some people may be fooled with his
god-bleatings, certainly nobody here is that naive.
realpch
> >
Teddy thinks nobody ever bothered to read Dennis' site, and if they DID
they didn't think about it.
:-D
Ted Mayett
>
>Teddy thinks nobody ever bothered to read Dennis' site, and if they DID
>they didn't think about it.
>
>:-D
>
>Peach
Would it be upsetting if I comment on the scientology.org web site?
Or should I be grand and gracious and just assume that everybody read
that site? <smile>
Ted Mayett
>> http://www.informer.org/cultsleep.jpg
>
>Teddy, there are gazillions of web sites up with pictures of peoples'
>families, kids included. And then there's all those damn social
>networking sites where kids get into trouble daily. It's been said again
>and again, that this stuff is inadvisable, but nevertheless people do it.
>
>As for bad taste, well I think you may not have been getting out enough!
Lame.
realpch
I didn't say everybody, I said nobody. Stands to reason that somebody
would have.
Dennis L Erlich
idioTed
>> > Maybe I'm just missing the message though. Can anyone explain this?
I can see the idioTed sitting in front of his screen with his
magnifying glass, peering for hours at the tiny picture of the tots
... feeling slightly disturbed and even somewhat titillated.
Busy reading into the picture all his ugly little fantasies.
mary ooher mind
>> Although I understood that the purpose was to demonstrate the effect
>> of the TRs, I have always been uncomfortable looking at that photo and
>> think it inappropriate but I'm one of the last people Dennis would
>> listen to. I never considered it as sexist because of his overall
>> distain for people seems bigger than that, but your post got me
>> thinking. I sure hope they aren't his daughters.
MaryOutofherGourd, the devout Christian, feels uncomfortable looking
at the picture. Gee, how surprising. And reassuring that the picture
is causing appropriate internal responses in the various kinds of
people who view it.
pigno
>I agree, Mary. To me, it looks like it's a picture of two girls who
>fell asleep doing OT TR-0, hence the title, cult sleep. That's how I
>always interpreted it, but in my opinion, it does seem to be in poor
>taste and inappropriate to present these girls in such an undignified
>manner. What the cult presumably did to them was bad enough. This
>seems to me, to have the potential to be revictimizing, in my opinion.
>I had assumed they were his daughters, but whoever they are, they
>didn't deserve this.
Dr. Pigno who chides others for making "unwarranted assumptions" and
"unwarranted conclusions" has no problem reading her own sick
interpretation into the picture.
---------------------------------------------------------
To Maureen: You have come in very late to this ongoing smear
campaign and are making completely unwarranted assumptions.
These are real people and your propensity to jump to false
conclusions, only shows propensity to jump to unwarranted conclusions
and attack me.
To MaryOOHM: You are making false and completely unwarranted
assumptions.
About Jesse Prince: I doubt very much that Prince knows anything at
all about him (Gerbode), although he might be making a lot of
unwarranted assumptions.
About Anonymous: You are the one who needs a reality check, for
making completely unwarranted assumptions that they will be
successful.
To Roan: You sure do make a lot of unwarranted assumptions and jump
to unwarranted conclusions, don't you?
That is so utterly false, it shows your utter sloppiness in
leaping to unwarranted conclusions when the facts are available on the
web.
You jump to completely unwarranted conclusions.
To Skippy: Another crude, sexist remark that makes unwarranted
assumptions.
You obviously never bothered to inform yourself of the facts
of my involvement in the SO. As usual, you jump to unwarranted
conclusions about someone you have never even met.
To Barz: Although there are a vocal group of people here who are
making unwarranted assumptions ...
To Eldon: You've never even met me. No comment on the dope, which I
will neither deny nor confirm, but you're making unwarranted
assumptions here.
To Mirele: Maybe instead of latching onto rumors, you should actually
read what I write before making unwarranted assumptions, ranting at me
and calling me names.
About Jett Travolta's uncle claiming the boy was autistic: "Lots of
personal time" (spent with the boy) does not mean he is qualified to
jump to unwarranted conclusions, honey.
About Jett's death: Instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions,
why not have just a wee bit of humility and admit that we do not know
the facts surrounding the case and that these facts are none of our
business.
First of all, you and Barb are jumping to very premature,
unwarranted conclusions about Jett's death being due to medical
neglect.
To Hartley: Sheesh. You sure do jump to unwarranted conclusions.
To Arnie: You made a completely senseless posting where you jumped
to completely unwarranted conclusions about me because I didn't call
you when you ordered me to ...
To Diane Richardson: You'd better get the facts before you make the
same mistake Rebecca made by jumping to unwarranted conclusions on the
Scientology & NLP thread.
To random person on ars: First you jump to unwarranted conclusions
(either that or deliberately lie) about Ilena Rosenthal.
To Greg: I am not usually that "florid" and your jumping to
unwarranted conclusions about someone you have never even met only
show your sloppy thought process.
---------------
I could go on quoting but it's obvious that this is one of Dr Pigno's
favorite rhetorical devices! Accusing others of what she herself is
doing.
The very definition of hypocrisy.
D
----------------
"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet
altogether, I would be all for it." - Dr. Monica Pignotti (Nov 2009)
Gregory Hall
news:pehvp59r3j66fnagr...@4ax.com...
What Scientology brainwashes members to believe, these members and former
members rarely manage to disassociate themselves from. The brainwashing runs
deep, very deep. Deeper than they know.
--
Gregory Hall
Ted Mayett
<info...@informer.org> wrote:
>idioTed
>>> > Maybe I'm just missing the message though. Can anyone explain this?
>
>I can see the idioTed sitting in front of his screen with his
>magnifying glass, peering for hours at the tiny picture of the tots
>... feeling slightly disturbed and even somewhat titillated.
>
>Busy reading into the picture all his ugly little fantasies.
>
It is about time this came up, my "fixation" with the picture. About
time I was accused of being ugly because I look at a picture you put
up on your web page.
BTW, I believe I understand the message now, and I cannot type it in,
just can't do that. And I wonder if you even understand your message
at a conscious level. You say things and don't seem to realize you
have said those things, as though you were divorced from yourself at
times or regarding some subjects.
Two pictures with young girls in them. The first picture is two girls
doing (unmistakably) TR's. But the second picture contains two
different girls. And if they are the same two children, well the
clothes they are wearing are different between the photo's.
Different clothes, and in different chairs. Why the second picture,
the ugly picture, is 'falling asleep from doing TR 0' does not seem
apparent at all. Are they even the same two girls?
There is nothing whatsoever to suggest TR's in that second picture.
Again, different clothes, different chairs, maybe even different
girls. Why are they sitting there with their legs spread and their
dresses pulled up. What is the message?
Erlich has pet obscenities he uses over the years, that's the only
clue I'll give to what I feel is the message of that picture.
The picture is wrong Erlich, simply wrong. Calling me an idiot does
not make it right. You or any of your apologists print that picture
out and show it around innocently IRL, and people will look at you
like you are strange, like you are perverted.
Show it on a supermarket line, "here is a picture of my daughters,
here is a picture of my friends daughters". Do that and you will be
stared at, and some might wonder if they should call the police or
not. Because it looks like child porn at a quick glance. Young
girls, legs spread, dresses pulled up.
But on the irc chat channel, and here on ars, you have apologists
Dennis, supporters. People without backbones, unable to speak any
other way than politically. They can't say anything, can't express
outrage, can't request that you show better manners.
The antique mall where I work now, two internet connected computers at
the register. If I put this picture on a monitor and say, "a friend
of mine webbed a picture of his daughters, take a look." If I did
that I'd be drummed out, they would fire me for some reason. They
wouldn't trust me, they wouldn't like me.
So here in my apartment, all alone with no witnesses, I bring the
picture up on the monitor. I have to be alone to view this picture
for if anyone saw me doing this they might think I was a pervert.
I'm not calling you a pervert Dennis, not at all. Best case scenario
is that you are simply too stupid to realize this picture in not
proper in any sense of the word. Worst case scenario is that you are
truly a sicko, and just don't realize what you are doing. I'm typing
now as though you do realize that it was you who webbed this.
Some of you want to carry on about "sick minds" reading things into
this. How about it is a sick mind to web it in the first place.
And oh my, good thing a current member does not have a picture similar
to this webbed. Your apologists would be all over it, all over the
person. "This is your mind on a cult" and so. But this is ARS, with
"honorable" and on-topic worthwhile and important critics. People
above being concerned about something like this picture, UNLESS, a
current member were to web the thing.
Off to work soon, and I cannot mention any of this in any fashion IRL,
not in the world I live in. There are sick people in the world, that
is a fact. Why am I in an environment where something like this
picture is tolerated and explained as nothing sinister or degrading?
How did we get this way? What happened to some of you? Why are we
here and what victories do we win when we allow something this where
we dwell? sigh.
And if you can stop with the name calling Erlich, maybe tell us, what
does the picture mean?
Dennis L Erlich
perverTed
>>> No, not playing. To me it looks like a staged photo, somebody
>>> telling them to lift their dresses up higher for the picture.
Ted intently studies two pictures of tots made to do a cult training
drill for bad behavior and reads his own sick back-story into it. It's
probably what he would to do in that situation. Lift their dresses up
higher. Shows how twisted his perverted mind is.
jdorsey
>> Well Ted, I glanced at the pictures and I saw something innocent,
>> kids playing. You saw something else, something sinister, but either
>> can't or won't describe it.
Their mother used to make them do this if they misbehaved or didn't
get along with each other. She took the pictures.
patty
>Same here. It looked like a picture of two little girls falling asleep
>while doing TR 0.
Yes, and it shows how the cult breaks down normal social barriers,
even in children.
>I don't get why people are reading all this evil into that picture.
>Sick minds I guess.
Exactly, Pooks. Those two pix were given to me by the girls for use
in the website. Both of them and their mother are aware of this
educational use.
It's supposed to be disturbing.
The Alien Krlll
> "Patty Pieniadz"<ppie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> perverTed
>>>> No, not playing. To me it looks like a staged photo, somebody
>>>> telling them to lift their dresses up higher for the picture.
>
> Ted intently studies two pictures of tots made to do a cult training
> drill for bad behavior and reads his own sick back-story into it. It's
> probably what he would to do in that situation. Lift their dresses up
> higher. Shows how twisted his perverted mind is.
Interesting that you decide to respond to a message that is eight days
old, exactly on the day when Ted said he would be packing up his
computer and be off-line for a couple weeks.
It's interesting Rev. that you used this time to change your description
of Ted from idiot to pervert, Dennis, at the exact time when he is not
here to defend himself. You will use every means available to you to try
to character-assassinate your opponents. This is one of the many
tactics that you use that disgust people. Like Dr. Catherine Mann said,
"you will do anything to win."
...
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/mystory/dennis14.txt
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.support.ex-cult
Subject: Blackmail Threat
From: inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich)
Date: 21 Jun 1997 11:46:00 -0700
--------
Faithful Reader,
I have been told, through a reliable source with verified connections
inside the cult, that the scienos intend to get my youngest daughter,
Holly, when she turns 18 in January, to write (and I suppose, file) a
declaration detailing how I molested her.
The threat of this is suppose to displease me. Quite the contrary.
I would really like to see in detail what she has come to accuse me of
doing to her. I told the source of the threat precisely that.
-----------
To Holly's captors:
Go ahead and trot my daughter out into public like a trained poodle in
your dog-and-pony, Dead-Agent extravaganza.
She BELONGS to you now, doesn't she? Use her as you see fit.
But don't forget to rot forever in hell, you vile sliem.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<inF...@super.zippo.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
[Much more at the link]
With that sword of Damocles hanging over your head, I'm sure it made it
a whole lot easier for you to betray all of the victims of Scientology,
and strike a secret deal with Scientology, for money -- a small pittance
of an amount of money -- chump change for them -- but probably more than
you deserved.
--
"Settlement money isn't taxed. Money won in a judgment is." -- Rev.
Dennis L Erlich, (Mar 19, 2010)