Knowledge?
SpinTheCa
>Ok, Mike, I have the knowledge through first-hand experience. So
>does Bev. Martin. Dennis. Roland. Warrior. Monica. Joe.
>Perry. Many others. All these folks (most of them much more
>experienced than I) have posted their worthy opinions (worthy, in
>your terms, since they have first-hand experience). These opinions
>have been invariably negative toward Co$.
This is a worthy point, but there is more to be said. If you rely only on
"first hand experience" then you end up in a situation with all the ex's
on one side and all the current clams on the other, shouting "It's true
for me." Then, your only recourse would be to either take a vote, or
declare all the experiences claimed by one side to be invalid (Cf.
earlier post about "medicalizing" others' beliefs). Knowledge does not
stem only from experience. I do NOT mean the usual distinction of
knowledge through experience versus knowledge by report; I mean that
experience itself has to be interpreted through a language of practices
and recognitions in order to be linguistically communicable and
epistemically viable. Even your own "first hand experience" will be
understood by you through such an interpretive code, and as our
interpretive codes alter, what we think we have experienced alters too.
Example: When you realize that you are an alcoholic, you go back and
re-name all your experiences, seeing them anew and deriving different
"knowledges" than before. Ex-cultists and critics have an interpretive
community and standards by which we recognize and name experiences;
cultists do too. The best argument for the ex-clams' interpretive codes
being better, as far as I can see, is that so few critics become clams,
and so many clams become critics. Those with no first hand experience can
come to understand and use the practices of recognition common in cult
recovery circles and thus "see" and "know" some of the things those with
first hand experience know. But experience alone does not deliver
knowledge; experience thought about, judged, interpreted, and especially
*discussed* with others brings knowledge.
judith
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
spin...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) brewed up the following, and served it
to the group:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>*discussed* with others brings knowledge.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>judith
>
Excellent point--I believe that is the essence of this ng, as well
as alt.support.ex-cult. The reference in your quote of mine above
was from (apparently) a current $cientologist, who claimed basically
that nobody around here has a valid opinion, since they don't have
direct experience. My point was, the list of people I named, along
with so many others, do have direct personal experience of the cult.
Through all our various roads, all the myriad ways of getting here,
we all have come together with our experiences and our knowledge.
The $cn poster was choosing to ignore that fact.
All the posters here, exes or not, have something to give. It is
that sharing of knowledge, experience, and understanding that kept
me here when I started lurking, and gave me so much when I chose to
delurk and start posting.
Even amongst all the damnable flame wars (in which I have admittedly
participated...), there is good information here. There is much to
be learned. If one lurker can be informed enough to avoid the cult--
or to share with a friend or loved one the knowledge to help them
avoid the cult--then this ng will be serving its purpose (IMHO).
Ok, I'll jump back down off the soapbox now. Next?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNAIM3Kn8flYc1m/ZAQFW9wf9FjMlZOeIYPCvKFNiSgKeM239/5sm9ME7
KTyWa+n13+uTCaJ9M8rUngS/Y8Ib5ahiAXkXvmwmQR7y/a+nE3Xn4As1LeYSxJNX
kwZvGZjf6RHcO7VuDcU4ALl/w3eIe6d+CiAcZ4z71JwM8hlT2uAs5BUew+/DVhKk
f12qgYWOHdXz5qwz1+2oimvrSmwikc6sT3dpAY2WvRJHblu+DdSODhjg7ypngXTi
2gDFFjoRM4geAEzMILVWlRbXMJMApEtDivmCQSXm2AHjkpCHgc7Oo0gzrYLsoDt0
EqpZWMRYSiKdODXNbKj8DqLkNrZDgRRIjZOffwGGDcxAhKhtwHG99A==
=QnSB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----------
"Only an object can be objective."
--bc
the above e-mail address remains fictional...
the real one is bc9...@concentric.net
*SP2*
...bc...
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <19970825204...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>>Ok, Mike, I have the knowledge through first-hand experience. So
>>does Bev. Martin. Dennis. Roland. Warrior. Monica. Joe.
>>Perry. Many others. All these folks (most of them much more
>>experienced than I) have posted their worthy opinions (worthy, in
>>your terms, since they have first-hand experience). These opinions
>>have been invariably negative toward Co$.
>
>This is a worthy point, but there is more to be said. If you rely only on
>"first hand experience" then you end up in a situation with all the ex's
>on one side and all the current clams on the other, shouting "It's true
>for me." Then, your only recourse would be to either take a vote, or
>declare all the experiences claimed by one side to be invalid (Cf.
>earlier post about "medicalizing" others' beliefs). Knowledge does not
>stem only from experience. I do NOT mean the usual distinction of
>knowledge through experience versus knowledge by report; I mean that
>experience itself has to be interpreted through a language of practices
>and recognitions in order to be linguistically communicable and
>epistemically viable. Even your own "first hand experience" will be
>understood by you through such an interpretive code, and as our
>interpretive codes alter, what we think we have experienced alters too.
This is a bit high falutin' for me. It depends what the experience
consists of. Some things are just plain fact and I would expect the
person with direct experience, if truthful, to get it right (is RPF
policy? do RPFers wear dirty rags? Is there a cellar at the Fort
Harrison). Others require both factual knowledge and interpretation
and, so long as the person has a fairly sane grasp of the world, we
might expect the one who has the material in their experience to have
an advantage over the one guessing or following descriptions: "are the
TRs used for behaviour modification", for example. One possible source
of error is just simply not having an accurate experience or observation
of the TRs to work from, although one could laso have that info and make
a wrong interpretation. And others are just plain opinion (is RPF goood
for you?).
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)
SpinTheCa
>From: dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc)
>Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 15:03:02 GMT
>Message-id: <3404e26c...@news.concentric.net>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> brewed up
>
"Plain facts" reported in a language are one subset of the competent use
of a practice: recognizing things and knowing the names for them. Just a
bit more complexity (bear with?) The things that are "plain facts" are
those things that an entire linguistic community would recognize and name.
Thus, if you have been in the right place in Fort Harrison, and know the
use of the word "cellar", you can tell whether it has one or not. You can
imagine, for instance, borderline cases or judgment calls on such a plain
fact: one might say either "I didn't see a cellar but there might have
been one" or, "I saw something, more like a closet really, I'm not sure if
you'd call it a cellar or not." Even seeing "cellars" can be a matter of
interpretation, trained recognition, and competent linguistic usage. So,
I'm claiming that even empirical evidence is subject to the "tripartate"
structure of experience, interpretive scheme, and subject.
> Others require both factual knowledge and
>interpretation
>>and, so long as the person has a fairly sane grasp of the world, we
>>might expect the one who has the material in their experience to
>have
>>an advantage over the one guessing or following descriptions: "are
>the
>>TRs used for behaviour modification", for example.
But the experience how construed? What I mean is that not everyone who
has had the experience would agree to either "yes" or "no" on the question
"Are TR's used for behavior modification?" Some divergences may be due to
different usages or meanings of the terms (i don't use it the way you do,
or think it means the same thing). Others, though, depend on how the
experiencer interprets their actual experience; does the phenomenon of TR's
fit the concept "behavior modification" in their experience, even if the
meaning of the term is precisely stipulated? Many in the cult have been
taught to say "no" to that question, thus, not to *interpret* what happens
to them as modification but rather as "spiritual growth" or some such
claptrap. See, I call it claptrap, because it fits my criteria for
claptrap... but that's not what they think is happening. In such cases,
some *others* may have some better interpretation of whether TR's are
behavior modification: they will deploy criteria for the concept and see
whether the shoe fits. In thise cases we've moved over into the epistemic
community of, say, research psychology, where the subjective reports of
subjects count among the phenomena to be studied, and are not taken as
determinative of the real nature of the situation.
> One possible
>source
>>of error is just simply not having an accurate experience or
>observation
>>of the TRs to work from, although one could laso have that info and
>make
>>a wrong interpretation. And others are just plain opinion (is RPF
>goood
>>for you?).
"Accurate experience"? Do you mean, someone told someone else, who had
never done the routines, a lie about TR's? Or do you mean someone who
actually did them but did not experience them accurately? See, it's the
interpretation, I think, that can be in error; you'd say someone
"experienced wrongly" if their accounts of that experience were, on your
view, faulty? I'm not sure there's a category of "plain opinion" that's
really apart from all this other stuff about belief formation... They get
taught to say and believe that it's "good for you", and then, define
whatever happens as a result as "good". (The best book I know about this
process is Stanley Cavell's _The Claim of Reason_ where he makes similar
points about the teaching of language and concepts to children).
>I think that what Judith is getting at is a need for balance.
>(Heaven knows, I don't want Diane to think I'm speaking for Judith,
>so bear in mind that this is all _*IMHO*_...YMMV...HTH...etc...)
isn't it all, amigo...
>The way I see it, knowledge comes from that balance--our personal
>experiences, observations, reflections, all come together. We look
>at our experiences and what we observe now through the filter of our
>experiences. This is what I mean when I say that only an object can
>be objective. As soon as "I" see something, experience something,
>write something, it is going through the filter of everything that
>makes "I" a unique being. And that will invariably influence what
>"I" is saying. On a larger scale, in a situation such as this
>newsgroup, the knowledge and experience of many are shared and
>"digested" as it were.
Yes. But I'm making an antiindividualistic point; it's the community that
gives each "i" the resources and the forum to name and recognize
experiences, thus, shapes the "I" and the language the "I" can use. When
you learn a new conceptual scheme, you learn its use from others, and can
use it to reshape one's views of one's experiences. A very common point
about, say, recovery progams and the need for talking a lot with others who
have had similar experiences and recoveries. They teach you to "see"
(experience, name, recognize things) as a recovering person rather than as
an addict or a cultist.
>What I guess I'm trying to get at, is that this is a natural,
>unconscious process. We come to terms with our experiences, and
>view them through the filter of who and what we are. This does not
>mean editing of memories, like some would have us believe. This
>means that we can look back at what we have experienced and
>understand it. We can hear the experiences of others, and
>understand them. We can hear things that may not necessarily ring
>true for us, and ask for clarification. We can accept or reject
>stories based on our own knowledge, and the knowledge we gain from
>sharing with others. First-hand experiences of many, observations
>of many, feelings of many, logic of many, bullshit from some, all of
>these come together. At the end of it all, though, it all has to
>live between one single set of ears. Those of the person who says
>"I" at any given time.
Yes, and the "I" is found usually among some epistemic community, some set
of others trusted to share standards of interpretation (even if it is only
a common language).
>Ok, I'm jumping off the soapbox. Gosh, it's just so nice to
>actually be on-topic again. Dave, thanks. Judith, thanks. Now,
>back to our regularly scheduled flamewar, which is already in
>progress B-{)}
aww, change the channel...
judith
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: 2.6.2
>
>iQEVAwUBNALwAKn8flYc1m/ZAQEMgAf7B3O2LyujEOKu3LqQUlMiFGWZao9GzKjI
>+Pqav3jDjCxm22UUR7c1gai+mL1plSeJAy8oDXSCRAOcBOhP8bvv42xnCDEfMYuw
>IjeyNQSapu+N/l8ArRUkK3cMXOfga1SsKX7pSZo5SWnYFIlLvFQNzoMVzCpbpblQ
>IQy7US3SIJeIschTf3nRqLco31jpE3GySo+quW7ieKydwxlFKgUZME8SfHUjjjQG
>et+tB5SyVMT2Ezz0Xsc9LCMSoWC+tkDaTRW/Z4WQ2SPS0Ofj5NE1kgt3/r1wgda6
>Y3m+rmTiRDHyp+onl8lEbOy6aMR3zwWZawoxzFp64F8FH/OdNktmwA==
>=+mRL
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>-----------
>"Only an object can be objective."
> --bc
>
>the above e-mail address remains fictional...
>the real one is bc9...@concentric.net
> *SP2*
> ...bc...
>
>
>
>
>
>
></PRE></HTML>
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <19970826222...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>
>> One possible
>>source
>>>of error is just simply not having an accurate experience or
>>observation
>>>of the TRs to work from, although one could laso have that info and
>>make
>>>a wrong interpretation. And others are just plain opinion (is RPF
>>goood
>>>for you?).
>
>"Accurate experience"? Do you mean, someone told someone else, who had
>never done the routines, a lie about TR's?
I meant "an accurate knowledge by experience or observation." Without
which error is quite probable.
--
^-^-^-@@-^-;-^ http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
(..)__u news:alt.smoking.mooses
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>spin...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) brewed up the following, and served
it to the group:
<snipped for brevity>
>>bc wrote:
>>I think that what Judith is getting at is a need for balance.
>>(Heaven knows, I don't want Diane to think I'm speaking for
Judith,
>>so bear in mind that this is all _*IMHO*_...YMMV...HTH...etc...)
>
>isn't it all, amigo...
I'll try not to get too offended by that...B-{)}
>>bc again:
The community gives "I" the context for the concept. But each "I"
still exists solely between a set of ears, into which area no other
"I" can ever go. The experiences "I" have had will look totally
different to "I" than to another "I" who may have shared them with
"I". (Once again, IMHO.)
>>What I guess I'm trying to get at, is that this is a natural,
>>unconscious process. We come to terms with our experiences, and
>>view them through the filter of who and what we are. This does
not
>>mean editing of memories, like some would have us believe. This
>>means that we can look back at what we have experienced and
>>understand it. We can hear the experiences of others, and
>>understand them. We can hear things that may not necessarily ring
>>true for us, and ask for clarification. We can accept or reject
>>stories based on our own knowledge, and the knowledge we gain from
>>sharing with others. First-hand experiences of many, observations
>>of many, feelings of many, logic of many, bullshit from some, all
of
>>these come together. At the end of it all, though, it all has to
>>live between one single set of ears. Those of the person who says
>>"I" at any given time.
>
>Yes, and the "I" is found usually among some epistemic community,
some set
>of others trusted to share standards of interpretation (even if it
is only
>a common language).
Agreed.
>>Ok, I'm jumping off the soapbox. Gosh, it's just so nice to
>>actually be on-topic again. Dave, thanks. Judith, thanks. Now,
>>back to our regularly scheduled flamewar, which is already in
>>progress B-{)}
>
>aww, change the channel...
I would, but my damn remote's broke...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNATEIqn8flYc1m/ZAQEB3wf/QVSkJ9xGNgDZ3mg6/NmMjXO6reX4JIi3
T1doxoL+w/+yGaoAKDjCPfC8klLqxPwzG2uqYpLtSMjQm6Rmo2RmBgSJ0e8VhX9E
k0cDo83kYLNmyyoqm7Gp6ZlTmEYsBQfPSDUpN2rlKimEmROt3bZ9erAssY73WNMq
dOcxgu4Vy0fR4K/P1hvYtMOqnj6akbT3lP6WkeuM42Ay9oTJnfuljiGtVZ/DyKAs
aqK/2QtFRgwBcwpARZOzx7yxfDqq2HMmY8Ru7d2XdPziqTHzMS7BvghUuEihxlEK
ePOeE0ixGjzAddQjqNRUrgyrSSIg/AlfBOMLS84PB5Y5wbXSguVy7A==
=TMjL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----------
"There's a lone soldier on the course, smoke pouring out of a boxcar door
You didn't know it, you didn't think it could be done, in the final end he won the war
After losing every battle..."
-Bob Dylan
the above e-mail address remains fictional...the real one remains
bc9...@concentric.net
*SP2*
...bc...
Bernie
spin...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) wrote in article
<19970828044...@ladder01.news.aol.com>:
>>From: dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc)
>>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 00:12:47 GMT
>>Message-id: <3404c077...@news.concentric.net>
>>>be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) brewed up the following, and served it to
>>the group:
>>>dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote in article
>>><340e0a69...@news.concentric.net>:
>that kind of was the point. Or, one of the points. If "direct
>experience" alone, outside of interpretations and proceeses of
>identificatin, epistemic communities, etc, then *everyone* who had
>experience with a cult would say the same things about it.
There are many varying interpretations, but mostly two "schools
of thoughts": those who believe they have been under some kind
of mind-control, and those who view their experience more like a
kind of step in their overall search for spiritual values.
I am of this later category, and I personally know quite a few
others who view it the same, none of whom are posting to ars,
for good reasons.
One of the thing I feel about Scientology is a complete freedom
from it. I would not call it "objective", because there is no
such thing, but I do not feel hurt, or anger, nor any need for
any kind of justifications. I therefore don't feel like,
consciously or unconsciously, presenting it as under one or the
other light.
I find the psychological mechanisms at work on both sides (to be
seen in this newsgroup), as considerably more interesting than
Scientology itself. This is the reason why I almost never
comment on legal or other "objective" issues. I leave that to
others who are more qualified than I.
>Bernie points
>out the fact that not all agree about what the experiences "in a cult" are,
>even people who have had "direct experiences."
bc often brings forth the arguments that since so many
ex-members in this newsgroup agree on the anti-cult mind-control
view, it represents some kind of "proof" that it reflects an
objective reality. This is to dismiss many other factors that
need to enter into the equation to understand it.
>>At no point in my post did I claim to be speaking for anyone other
>>than myself, or putting forth any philosophy other than my own. And
>>I don't appreciate some cult-apologist asshole attempting to put
>>words in my mouth. Especially in one of the FEW *on-topic* threads
>>on this ng at the moment. Or do you just want to turn this one into
>>a flamewar too, Bernie? (Of course, what was I thinking?)
>
>um? I didn't think he put words into your mouth. He was making a point,
>a minor point that actually follows normally out of the discussion, and one
>that illustrates it?
Oh, I am used to this kind of reaction, Judith. Because they
have something to "defend", they feel attacked anytime someone
rises a counter-argument. This just proves my point further. I
wish people could argue rationally on these issues, but this is
not something I am expecting from most ex-members posting in
this newsgroup. Many ex-members posting here have a personal
agenda or feel engaged in yet another holy crusade. It is, for
many, the reason they post in here. It makes it hard to have a
rational discussion under such conditions.
>bc? could we just talk for a while about how knowledge gets made? You
>could just take Bernie's point for what it is, refrain from yelling at him?
> It's factually true, as Bernie says, that not all say or think the same
>about cult experiences. There is, evidently, disagreement even among ex
>members (laugh). Just take that fact as a phenomenon, and then we can get
>on to talking about how and why. I think part of it is different
>*experiences*-- not everyone saw the same things, had the same things
>happen to them and part may be different cognitive schemes and languages
>into which to place and name their experiences. This thought leads, on my
>view, to the crucial importance of creating and maintaining "recovery
>communities" (or call them what you will) where people can learn new ways
>of seeing things and see if those new conceptual vocabularies "fit" what
>they have experienced.
It's very important, IMO. But it would require an environment in
which the ex-member could express himself freely, without fear
of retribution, either on the part of the cult, or on the part
of anti-cult proponents. I don't know what kind of conditions it
would take to bring that about. We would clearly need an
independent middle field who could guarantee that no undue
interference from one or the other party would enter in the
arena. I am afraid that such an independent party doesn't exist.
It's a shame, though.
>I'd like to examine those conceptual schemes-- can anyone give me a good
>example of some experience that was named, seen, and felt one way while in
>a cult, and then re-named and seen as something else in the process of
>leaving or reevaluating cult experiences?
I think that you will find plenty of that with the mind-control
proponents, who now view the TRs, auditing, etc, as some form of
hypnosis, while before they viewed it as training routine and
counseling.
I didn't reevaluated the experience itself, only it's
perspective. Training routines are still training routines for
me, but I am also aware of their limits. I put them in
perspective, that's all. I can see both sides of the coin: the
potential positive aspects of such training routines, but also
their potentially negative ones.
My reevaluation is kind of another type. For example take the
"invalidation" notion of Scientology. Scn, quite rightly,
asserts that invalidation "introverts" a person and makes him
lose his abilities. The drawback of this valid but limited point
of view is that they try to stop or prevent others to indulge in
such invalidation: disconnection, "PTS handling", attacking the
attackers, indoctrination and propaganda, stifling down
criticism, etc. Most stem from this notion. They are basically
afraid of invalidation and therefore become the "effect" of it,
trying to control it from the exterior rather than within
themselves.
My reevaluation of this notion included questioning of its very
basis. When we are thus insulted or invalidated, we react to a
picture of ourself that we reject. The ego (the picture of
ourselves) gets in the way. We fail to pay full attention to
what is being said because of this reaction. If the ego wasn't
there, we would simply consider whether what is said is true or
not. Maybe this person is right, after all. Maybe he has a good
reason to complain. So I can use that to see whether he is
pointing to something that I don't see myself, or if it's just a
gratuitous assertion. I therefore do not resist the picture
created and the invalidation has no impact upon myself, or is
even turned into something positive.
That's why I say that there is always an active participation of
the person himself in any such process. I feel that both the
cultic and the anti-cultic approaches fail to take this aspect
into account.They each represent a partial approach, and are
unwilling to consider alternative aspects. The psychological
process of justification that their respective members go
through is basically the same. Neither group see the whole
picture, even if they each detain a tiny part of truth, to which
they cling to desperately. This very clinging to is what holds
them prisoner. Nobody else binds them than themselves.
Bernie
SpinTheCa
Zane wrote:
>Oh, I see, you're Mister Objectivity this week eh? Don't make me
>laugh bernie. You persist in repeating the most vile slanders against
>Dennis in countless messages and then you pretend to be a cool,
>dispassionate sort of observer and commentator. What a load of crap.
I don't see any contradiction about being mad enough to insult a person
and still being able to carry on a reasonable conversation about a topic of
general interest. Even one which engenders heated debate and frequent
insult-slinging from all directions. I think it more likely that Bernie
thinks what he thinks about mind control, etc, and deal with that, rather
than interpreting everything he thinks as disguised insults at some
individual, say, Dennis.
Giggle. Maybe everything I post, even my sig files, and every
conversation about epistemology, is really an insult to someone. Or a
defense of Diane! No, wait. I write epistemology off the net too. Maybe
*everything* I have ever said or written is a disguised defense of Diane,
even the things I wrote before I met her (since they are so similar to the
things I write now!). Since I feel strongly about that issue and that
person, naturally I can't also have beliefs about various topics and
discuss them with calm people... (grin)
I'm not ragging you, Zane, I'm just being silly. Joking. Been a long day
in the graves of academe.
judith
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>spin...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) brewed up the following, and served
it to the group:
<snip>
>>>>My point was, the list of people I named, along
>>>>with so many others, do have direct personal experience of the
>>cult.
>>>
>>>You forgot to say that there are others who had first hand
>>>experience and do not share the anti-cult view about
>>>mind-control and the "evil cult".
>>>
>>>Bernie
>>
>>Uh, no, Bernie, I forgot nothing. I said PRECISELY what I
intended
>>to say. The "value" judgements you choose to put on my words are
>>your spin, not my intention. Why don't you just shut the fuck up
>>and read my post, for once? Read and understand what I'm saying?
>>
>
>hey.. bc...
>
>that kind of was the point. Or, one of the points. If "direct
>experience" alone, outside of interpretations and proceeses of
>identificatin, epistemic communities, etc, then *everyone* who had
>experience with a cult would say the same things about it. Bernie
points
>out the fact that not all agree about what the experiences "in a
cult" are,
>even people who have had "direct experiences." So, these
experiences
>aren't simply empirical; they're complex judgements, made and
revised over
>time, and related to what communities we enter or leave and what
>vocabularies of description are available to us.
Well, the point I got was Bernie's usual spin on my words--that
since I found my experience to be negative, that my account of that
experience is somehow suspect. Obviously everyone has different
perceptions of their experiences--I thought that WAS the point.
What I see from Bernie (repeatedly) is that anyone who has anything
negative to say about the cult is not to be believed because they
are only seeing the bad. That I am somehow a member of some non-
existent "anti-cult cult" because I believe Co$ to be an evil
entity.
I don't believe that our ~experiences~ are "revised" over time, per
se. I do believe that our ~judgements~ about our experiences are
inevitably revised with time and the addition of information. I
think there is a distinction here. I am sitting in front of my
computer typing--this is a concrete experience. I may look back a
few hours later and reflect that this was time spent doing something
positive, or negative, or neither--but that doesn't alter the fact
that I was sitting in front of my computer typing. My ~judgement~
of the experience may change--but the experience itself does not.
>>At no point in my post did I claim to be speaking for anyone other
>>than myself, or putting forth any philosophy other than my own.
And
>>I don't appreciate some cult-apologist asshole attempting to put
>>words in my mouth. Especially in one of the FEW *on-topic*
threads
>>on this ng at the moment. Or do you just want to turn this one
into
>>a flamewar too, Bernie? (Of course, what was I thinking?)
>
>um? I didn't think he put words into your mouth. He was making a
point,
>a minor point that actually follows normally out of the discussion,
and one
>that illustrates it?
That's not how I read it. Sorry. What I got out of it was his
usual attack on me for having the gall to say something negative
about the cult of $cientology.
Our experiences are all going to be different. Bernie has a habit
of invalidating others who found their experiences to be negative.
This seems to me to be tangential to the point--how we process our
personal experiences, positive OR negative.
>>Sorry. That dog don't hunt. Go find someone else to annoy,
Bernie.
>
>bc? could we just talk for a while about how knowledge gets made?
You
>could just take Bernie's point for what it is, refrain from yelling
at him?
> It's factually true, as Bernie says, that not all say or think the
same
>about cult experiences. There is, evidently, disagreement even
among ex
>members (laugh). Just take that fact as a phenomenon, and then we
can get
>on to talking about how and why. I think part of it is different
>*experiences*-- not everyone saw the same things, had the same
things
>happen to them. and part may be different cognitive schemes and
languages
>into which to place and name their experiences. This thought
leads, on my
>view, to the crucial importance of creating and maintaining
"recovery
>communities" (or call them what you will) where people can learn
new ways
>of seeing things and see if those new conceptual vocabularies "fit"
what
>they have experienced.
I hereby apologize to Bernie, and everyone else on this thread, for
the flame. I will (really!) attempt to refrain from continuing the
flamewars. My problem with Bernie, as I stated above, is his
insistence that accounts of negative experiences are basically not
valid. I think ALL experiences, positive and negative, are valid.
All interpretations thereof will occur between the ears of the
interpreter, and nowhere else. My *PERSONAL* opinion of those who
have positive experience with the cult, is just that--my personal
opinion. I've always tried to keep that clear in my posts--that
everyone is *ABSOLUTELY* entitled to their own opinion--but that
means that I am entitled to mine, too, Bernie.
>I'd like to examine those conceptual schemes-- can anyone give me a
good
>example of some experience that was named, seen, and felt one way
while in
>a cult, and then re-named and seen as something else in the process
of
>leaving or reevaluating cult experiences?
>
>judith
Well, my thought on this, from my personal experience, would be the
basic TR's. These are named and experienced in the cult as "self-
improvement" and "training". After I left the cult and reflected on
the experience, I reached the conclusion that it was mind-control.
This was corroborated all these years later when I got on the net--
but the conclusion I reached was on my own.
And this is the essence of the issue--YMMV. We share our
experiences, and we often learn new ways to look at an experience,
but in the end, all we have is what lives betwixt our ears. I am
not about to change your mind, Bernie's mind, or David Miscavige's
mind. There are times that we'd LIKE to, of course--but this is
usually futile. Because what happens inside our heads is our basic,
most fundamental identity, and reality.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNAWcr6n8flYc1m/ZAQHSxgf+PSlmqupCF9xf+ZCUbvSRbZ2aw6/npt2W
4ebupicKiT3z51I+m2+6r7aDAntqe1kkK0hdY8i+wWMuYlTrwPF3Jr4aY174doEw
yugTtPUR+8UQT7EgBpU0TyTNUe8fEAqT6a8oyzge2KLirLrTeRCENMNn3r8WbMki
SXYYL/RkZnPr/uZNqU9KDRcGknQbu4E5MWYfmgOhwcAIZi8H4UhpY0w8IETqbeeT
r38ELIhjFijJwnUlLiksIoyKEUHe3AWJVthpAR42BYPaT3xR67kuo4imG7AJdFjD
WKHjIu+Q2IeVXhKGn4CGMYWL4Qq/7bvZEL9uC7OkShWOWEx3z7U4JQ==
=5Xxd
Zane Thomas
On 28 Aug 1997 23:49:59 GMT, spin...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) wrote:
>Zane wrote:
>
>>Oh, I see, you're Mister Objectivity this week eh? Don't make me
>>laugh bernie. You persist in repeating the most vile slanders against
>>Dennis in countless messages and then you pretend to be a cool,
>>dispassionate sort of observer and commentator. What a load of crap.
>
>I don't see any contradiction about being mad enough to insult a person
>and still being able to carry on a reasonable conversation about a topic of
>general interest.
I'm sorry Spin, but it appears that the irony of bernie writing about
objectivity was lost on you.
Obey little, resist much.
And for you automated email spammers out there,
here's the email addresses of the current board of
the Federal Communications Commission:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner James Quello: jqu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
And let's help you send some spam to the US Postal Service, too:
Christer Lindström
Bernie wrote:
>
> ..(lot's snipped)...
> That's why I say that there is always an active participation of
> the person himself in any such process. I feel that both the
> cultic and the anti-cultic approaches fail to take this aspect
> into account.They each represent a partial approach, and are
> unwilling to consider alternative aspects. The psychological
> process of justification that their respective members go
> through is basically the same. Neither group see the whole
> picture, even if they each detain a tiny part of truth, to which
> they cling to desperately. This very clinging to is what holds
> them prisoner. Nobody else binds them than themselves.
>
> Bernie
A good example of the art of saying nothing with a lot of words.
Basic: Scientology recruits people into their techings under
false pretentions. Many people gets hurt, emotionally and
financially.
You attempt above to place a burden of guilt on the individual
instead of the brains behind the scientology scam, nothing else.
There is no "partial approach", "process of justification", "whole
picture" or whatever you call it. There is only people getting
hurt, again and again and again, deliberately, by an organisation
that the world defintely can be without. The a.r.s gives a forum
for people worldwide to share their experiences, each individual
with their own words.
I understand & respect that you have a lack of basic compassion, and
are trying to keep a distance due to your emotional handicap.
This also explains why you never got really involved in scientology.
It takes a much more sensitive, creative and non-analytic person
than yourself to fall for the scientology scam - and you should
be happy about it.
It would be nice if you could talk much more detailed about your
time in scientology - where you were, who you met, your auditors,
which classes you took, how much you paid, when & why you decided
to leave etc. This would be very valuable to all of us to better
understand _your_ story, and maybe get better respect for you and
your postings. Until then, you are nothing else but a clown without
an act.
Regards,
/CL
Peter McDermott
In article <34059359...@news.concentric.net>,
dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>I hereby apologize to Bernie, and everyone else on this thread, for
>the flame. I will (really!) attempt to refrain from continuing the
>flamewars. My problem with Bernie, as I stated above, is his
>insistence that accounts of negative experiences are basically not
>valid. I think ALL experiences, positive and negative, are valid.
>All interpretations thereof will occur between the ears of the
>interpreter, and nowhere else. My *PERSONAL* opinion of those who
>have positive experience with the cult, is just that--my personal
>opinion. I've always tried to keep that clear in my posts--that
>everyone is *ABSOLUTELY* entitled to their own opinion--but that
>means that I am entitled to mine, too, Bernie.
I appreciate that that's how you respond to Bernie's posts, but
I don't think that's his intention - or at least, it isn't how
I read him.
While he does have a tendency to challenge other people's
experiences by claiming his own are different, ultimately
he's making the same argument as Judith, ie, that knowledge
and the experience of *any* single individual are very
different things. If one of the goals of people posting
here is to try to reach some sort of secure knowledge (which
will only ever be provisional) then you really do have to
take both into account.
What seems to make Bernie so furious is that there is a
real resistance to people posting experiences that *aren't*
as negative as yours - even when the person posting is no
longer under the sway of the cult. And there's a tendency
to completely dismiss one side, without making any attempt
to evaluate the data critically, while any claim that is
critical of the cult will be embraced, no matter how
ludicrous.
A final point: while people *are* entitled to present their
experience and have that respected, by offering it up here,
they *should* expect that it be subjected to critical
scrutiny. This isn't a closed support group for ex-cultists,
but a forum for discussing Scientology, and as such, any
information should be evaluated carefully, regardless of the
source.
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>spin...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) brewed up the following, and served
it to the group:
bernie wrote:
>>bc often brings forth the arguments that since so many
>>ex-members in this newsgroup agree on the anti-cult mind-control
>>view, it represents some kind of "proof" that it reflects an
>>objective reality. This is to dismiss many other factors that
>>need to enter into the equation to understand it.
judith:
>well, if it's true that bc claims this, I would think it a faulty
claim.
>That a great many people interpret something one way does not make
that
>interpretation exhaustive, or necessarily epistemically privileged.
Well, to be somewhat nit-picky here, I haven't claimed this. I have
claimed quite openly, specifically, and repeatedly, that this was MY
interpretation and understanding of what happened to ME. It has
been *corroborated* by many here. This is purely *subjective*--like
everything else.
That doesn't make it an exhaustive interpretation--but it does make
a strong argument for the plausibility of the concept. I don't
claim to be an expert in the field. But to flatly dismiss the
entire concept out of hand, as Bernie does, is a rather simplistic
view (IMHO) which fails to take into account the similar experiences
of a number of ex-$cientologists, and ex-members of other cults.
<snip>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNAbiNKn8flYc1m/ZAQFgowf8DO0C6/zSyzkbcBtn/OhP9zKNuNGlWIF5
9QX7QFDJOgxEcdXeHzaf/t+kKHK02KZxGHk8bvwyKB8YmwBe19Nk5GyT3yGLGRkL
bO5QAYK/11LZlD/X/Ji5YfTJ4bDvTigX4Q27BPjAgC60H2nIXnENAmvPqUn4qlT1
Pyn6sPZdOadZqCQhC3GKfJtyTWsWP43c7r0Tg/PG2iAIh7vYaV4Io1G8Zvan/bv1
R+YNvM1Qhvpwx2JcZe2DoSTAS9niq1Nd5i/bgZYvMsoRw7nb/1G1P5NjsaeqZPjf
xfALMXzmk07nnd8BdknUh5WdBXpcCY8c9HjtB+4ocb67egv7/QJIfg==
=wimd
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In a<3408e0fe...@snews.zippo.com>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>>that kind of was the point. Or, one of the points. If "direct
>>experience" alone, outside of interpretations and proceeses of
>>identificatin, epistemic communities, etc, then *everyone* who had
>>experience with a cult would say the same things about it.
>
>There are many varying interpretations, but mostly two "schools
>of thoughts": those who believe they have been under some kind
>of mind-control, and those who view their experience more like a
>kind of step in their overall search for spiritual values.
Hey, Spoons --- which class would you put people in who simply
believe they'd been lied to, paid money under false pretenses,
and would like a refund please?
/; ;\
-- Regards, __ \\____//
XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <up...@sunyit.edu>)
_____________________________/ :--' ____________________
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ]
\___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___]
`===='
"So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
Diane Richardson
On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 20:22:27 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
[snip]
>The problem I had is what I stated--that of vilification of the
>person for having the gall to make negative statements. Negative is
>a part of life, as well as positive. All the experiences of all the
> people go together to make up that to which we laughably refer as
>"reality". His posts have left me with the distinct impression that
>
>his intention is to flame the living daylights out of anyone who
>can't come up with something *nice* to say about the cult.
That may be what you read into most of Bernie's messages. That isn't
what I see when I read them at all.
>>What seems to make Bernie so furious is that there is a
>>real resistance to people posting experiences that *aren't*
>>as negative as yours - even when the person posting is no
>>longer under the sway of the cult. And there's a tendency
>>to completely dismiss one side, without making any attempt
>>to evaluate the data critically, while any claim that is
>>critical of the cult will be embraced, no matter how
>>ludicrous.
>
>I think that is a somewhat broad statement. I know I tend to speak
>of the negative, since that was my experience. My experience,
>though, was nowhere near as negative as oh, say, Quentin Hubbard's.
>
>Or Lisa McPherson's. When we see the "big win" posts, I for one
>have to restrain myself from laughing. I wrote a few of those
>"success stories" myself, way back when. (Fortunately, I never did
>it on Usenet.) Looking back, I can only shake my head and sigh.
>
>But the overwhelming majority of posters I have read here, who have
>had direct experience with the cult, have characterized that
>experience as negative. A couple of notable exceptions come to mind-
>- -Jack Craver and Bernie. And neither of them can accomplish
>anything more than lame misdirection when asked about the more
>nefarious activities of the cult. At least this has been my
>observation.
There have been a number of posters in the past whose experience with
the CoS hasn't been all bad. Unfortunately, they tire of the constant
barrage of "clam" and "OSA plant" insults that are thrown at them.
They give up and go away. Can't say that I blame them.
Even some ex-Scientologists[tm] who posted only negative comments
about the CoS on the newsgroup readily admitted in private that they
also had a number of good memories from their experience. It was not
"diplomatic" to make such comments in public, what with the rabid
reaction to anything positive that anyone might say about the CoS.
>Seems to me that everyone is welcome to post anything they want.
>Positive OR negative. And as you state below, they should damn well
>expect it to be subjected to critical scrutiny. Once again, though,
>that knife cuts both ways. If you come here stating miracles of the
>tech (bs), you should be prepared to discuss it. Not just blurt out
>Hubbardspew (bs) and disappear. The negative experiences of so many
>have been explored at great length on this ng. Those who post
>"positive" experiences, when pressed for further discussion, have
>generally tended to vanish without a trace, occasionally after
>throwing out a few Elrongisms (bs) for good measure. Bernie, OTOH,
>seems to prefer flaming the "anti-cult cultists" who have the
>audacity to believe in mind control and call Co$ a cult. This does
>not speak well for "positive" experience with the cult, IMHO.
That hasn't been my entire experience here. There *have* been some
ex-Scientologists[tm] who still found good things to say about the
CoS. It's just that when anyone makes any positive comments, it is
automatically assumed that they are OSA, sent to the newsgroup on a
mission. They're hounded off the newsgroup, just as surely as if they
were driven from a speaker's platform with a hail of rotten tomatoes.
>>A final point: while people *are* entitled to present their
>>experience and have that respected, by offering it up here,
>>they *should* expect that it be subjected to critical
>>scrutiny. This isn't a closed support group for ex-cultists,
>>but a forum for discussing Scientology, and as such, any
>>information should be evaluated carefully, regardless of the
>>source.
>
>Agreed. I believe that this is what happens--on a regular basis.
>On all sides. I have observed that the negative accounts are
>generally accepted more easily; mainly, I believe, due to the
>regularity with which we see them. And the regularity with which
>they are reinforced by experienced posters, third parties, news
>media reports, obituaries, coroner's reports, etc.
Experienced posters who reply to their messages with such gems as
"You're a lying sack o' shit," "FOAD, asshole," etc. With responses
like that, can you really believe that moderate ex-Scientologists[tm]
would have any desire to hang around here to relate their experiences?
You can find "plenty" of ex-Scientologists[tm] with positive memories
of their cult experience hanging around the AOL message board -- at
least you could back when I was reading the board. A number of them
were more than willing to complain about specific CoS practices
(particularly pricing), but still felt they had gained something of
some value from their experience with the cult.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Zane Thomas
On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 22:30:59 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>And many of the things I point out about Dennis are part of the
>psychological process I mean to show as well.
Bernie, you sure all full of yourself eh? Now you're conducting
usenet psychoanalysis, next you'll be doing the Koos-Koos. What a
hoot!
Bernie
>I don't see any contradiction about being mad enough to insult a person
>and still being able to carry on a reasonable conversation about a topic of
>general interest. Even one which engenders heated debate and frequent
>insult-slinging from all directions. I think it more likely that Bernie
>thinks what he thinks about mind control, etc, and deal with that, rather
>than interpreting everything he thinks as disguised insults at some
>individual, say, Dennis.
And many of the things I point out about Dennis are part of the
psychological process I mean to show as well. If one mostly
fails to address the issue but rather deals with a disguised
primitive positioning of people, engages in all kinds of
pressures to bring them to conform, indulges himself in the same
sort of actions he criticize from the cult, positions himself as
a victim and calling for an emotional/hysterical reaction from
its reader who fail to see his shortcomings in favor of the
pursuit of an holy goal against evil, then I would say that
these are rather illustrative of a certain frame of mind that is
very relevant to the issue of cults, critical thinking, and the
search of real values.
What one fails to realize is that within a group, the common
consensus can be sometimes so strong that, unwittingly, its
members become blind to certain aspects. They cannot have
anymore an outside viewpoint about their own behavior and
beliefs. This can degenerate into a spin of like-minded spiral
in which the group becomes sterile or even destructive.
Bernie
Bernie
>Bernie wrote:
>>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:35:15 GMT
>>Message-id: <3408e0fe...@snews.zippo.com>
>>There are many varying interpretations, but mostly two "schools
>>of thoughts": those who believe they have been under some kind
>>of mind-control, and those who view their experience more like a
>>kind of step in their overall search for spiritual values.
>
>Two general schools of interpretation among ex-members, you mean? not
>necessarily everybody? because I can think of views that do not endorse
>versions of mind control yet also do not incorporate the 'spiritual
>journey" vocabulary.
Yes. Mine was a rather simplified division and maybe not quite a
well expressed one. If I remove the word "spiritual", does it
make it better? I think it does. Lets make that "real values"
instead :-)
>You have to
>learn *willingly* how to live as a recovering person, and no one will ever
>try to make you do it; there are strict rules in AA about that kind of
>thing. It's the closest thing I can think of to a free epistemic
>community, in some senses, because they explicitly acknowledge the dangers
>posed by thinking under pressure, and try actively not to pressure people
>to think as they do.
And, furthermore, alcoholism is something more or less
"objective", different than the highly potentially controversial
issue of subjective opinions and values.
>hmm. I am curious if anyone would give an account here. When you came
>out, did you see those things differently?
If the question is addressed to me (which I don't think, it
seems like a general question), the answer is that I don't
remember having seen things differently (it's 17 years ago now).
>did you re-evaluate sensations,
>for instance, in light of new concepts and come to name sensations or
>phenomena you might not have before?
In my case, no. I had very good "wins" through the process of
Scn, and still view them as such. That's why I think that there
are some positive aspects in the tech, even if I reject its
totalitarian context and even (contrary to most freezoners) its
usefulness and necessity.
>This happens a lot with, for
>instance, victims of sexual abuse in childhood. When they get a *name*
>for what happened, memories re-organize themselves, take on different
>significance. They don't forget things and then recover the memories, at
>least not the ones I know; they always have the memories, but never *saw*
>them under the name "abuse" before. When the concept is mastered, it's
>kind of like using a new magnet on a pile of metal pins. The magnet pulls
>out some of the pins (the ones that are attracted to magnets) and leave the
>rest behind; you get a new way of sorting out your memories and experiences.
That's one of my criticism against the mind-control theory. It's
a too convenient way to explain away their experience, and
basically a pretexte to continue in a mindset that is strikingly
similar as the one they were in while in the cult.
The best proof of that is the violence of the reaction you get
when you question their basic precepts. If they weren't in the
same cultic mindset, they would just say, "well, maybe, let's
have a look at it". That's not what I see happening, though. I
even think that Dennis' current emotional and obviously biased
reaction against Diane is due mainly to the fact that she was so
successful in debunking the mind-control theory. Without the
basic precept on mind-control, their whole universe crumbles
down.
>>I didn't reevaluated the experience itself, only it's
>>perspective. Training routines are still training routines for
>>me, but I am also aware of their limits. I put them in
>>perspective, that's all. I can see both sides of the coin: the
>>potential positive aspects of such training routines, but also
>>their potentially negative ones.
>
>So, you used to see the training routines one way, but "perspective"
>changed?
Yes. I have a multiplicity of viewpoints about it now, whereas I
had just one before. These different viewpoints provide a
perspective, not only by itself, but also within the general
frame of things.
>meaning, that you now see them as training you to do less than
>they promised,
Not exactly, but I can see their purpose and value, and also how
they can be misconstrued, misapplied, used as crutch or tainted
lenses to see the world. It hasn't so much to do with what was
"promised", but much more with the way they are being used,
interpreted, by the individual.
>or different things than you thought at the time,
Not really different than what I thought at the time, only
*more* things than what I thought at the time.
>or even pernicious things?
They can become pernicious in a pernicious context, or through a
pernicious person. I think that the context and the level of
awareness of the person himself are considerably more important
than the practices themselves.
While I don't really see much perniciousness in the training
routine or auditing, more the contrary, I *do* see many
objectionable, and maybe even pernicious, things in Hubbard
*rhetoric*. My assertion is that words, ideas, and pictures are
the real indoctrination, not really the practice. On the
contrary, I would say that the practices are more like the
"bait", to make the person accept the perniciousness,
fallaciousness, and limitedness of ideas, views, and emotions.
>> The drawback of this valid but limited point
>>of view is that they try to stop or prevent others to indulge in
>>such invalidation: disconnection, "PTS handling", attacking the
>>attackers, indoctrination and propaganda, stifling down
>>criticism, etc. Most stem from this notion. They are basically
>>afraid of invalidation and therefore become the "effect" of it,
>>trying to control it from the exterior rather than within
>>themselves.
>
>So, instead of working on self-validation, they try to control whether
>others give them validation or discouragement?
Yes. The fear of invalidation is very present in Scn. They think
that the mere questioning of someone of their abilities or
question the validity of a concept will make them "lose" their
wins (and all the $$$, tears and strain behind), or will
threaten the holy mission of Scn. That's the reason they will
either try to "handle" the person or disconnect from him as
individual. Same for the group. Of course they can't disconnect
from society, but if a planet was available somewhere, no doubt
they would make it their holy place.
>The first sentence here is a
>little unclear but I think I take your meaning. Given the phenomenon of
>the relationship of validation, belief, and performance, they try to
>control what comes from outside the self rather than learning to validate
>the self even against the invalidations of others.
Not so much validate the self. To validate the self is a
defensive approach, something you do based on an pre-accepted
notion. It should more relate to the no-self. The self only
exists because I have an idea of it. If you are genuinely
interested in something, there is no "self". You pay your full,
undivided attention to it. An invalidation works by focussing
your attention on a negative picture of yourself. To counter-act
it with a positive picture is not a real solution. Better not to
build up or accumulate pictures.
>>My reevaluation of this notion included questioning of its very
>>basis. When we are thus insulted or invalidated, we react to a
>>picture of ourself that we reject. The ego (the picture of
>>ourselves) gets in the way. We fail to pay full attention to
>>what is being said because of this reaction.
>
>Our picture of ourselves, then, you are saying, is allowed to depend too
>much on what others think and say about us.
Yes, but even better not to have a picture at all. Direct
perception is always superior than perception through pictures.
Of course, you can't have a really direct perception into
reality, because reality is ever changing, but you can endeavor
to approach it. This demands that you yourself constantly
destroy the pictures you create about it. It is a bit like
objectivity. It doesn't really exist by itself, but one can
endeavor to approach it, and to constantly question one's own
accepted ideas. Or like with words, we have to use them to
express ourselves, but there are certain things that can't be
expressed adequately other than using the words in a dialectic
and contradictory fashion to emphasis what is left unspoken.
>> If the ego wasn't
>>there, we would simply consider whether what is said is true or
>>not. Maybe this person is right, after all. Maybe he has a good
>>reason to complain. So I can use that to see whether he is
>>pointing to something that I don't see myself, or if it's just a
>>gratuitous assertion. I therefore do not resist the picture
>>created and the invalidation has no impact upon myself, or is
>>even turned into something positive.
>
>So, a self validating person neither outright rejects others' opinions nor
>panics at them. A person over-dependent on external validation will learn
>either modes of deflecting *any* criticism or invalidation (and thus cannot
>learn anything about himself he did not know before, or take the "goods" of
>criticism) or overestimate the criticism/invalidation and believe that they
>*are* what others say, without a constant or secure set of beliefs about
>the self that could stand against invalidation from others, no matter how
>weird or uninformed the invalidating opinion may be.
A faith in truth would involve the "belief" that if there is to
be anything worth to be called truth, it should be open to any
challenge, or it wouldn't be much of a truth to start with. The
resulting self-confidence you gain out of it is something that
emerges naturally, not something that is artificially being
maintained. Vulnerability is strength. This sounds like a Zen
paradox. It is.
>>They each represent a partial approach, and are
>>unwilling to consider alternative aspects. The psychological
>>process of justification that their respective members go
>>through is basically the same. Neither group see the whole
>>picture, even if they each detain a tiny part of truth, to which
>>they cling to desperately. This very clinging to is what holds
>>them prisoner. Nobody else binds them than themselves.
>
>well, Bernie, I'm not too sure about that. The last two sentences, that
>is. That's too simple; that's close to "it won't be so bad if you just
>quit caring about it." I think there are a lot of other things in play
>about the insistence on both sides, some admirable, some, perhaps, fueled
>by fear or the simple habit of clinging to simple explanations for complex
>phenomena. Plus, of course, the communal pressures we've mentioned, and
>the clunkiness of the concepts.
You are right. It needs to be viewed in a global,
multidimensional context, and not just from a navelistic point
of view. OTOH, it has no sense to build castles in the sand if
we ourselves remain ignorant of our true nature or our own
motivations.
And this is the last installment of Bernie for quite a while.
Thanks Judith. See you all maybe later, wiser I hope :-)
Bernie
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <340b4c26...@snews.zippo.com>,
>
>>I don't see any contradiction about being mad enough to insult a person
>>and still being able to carry on a reasonable conversation about a topic of
>>general interest. Even one which engenders heated debate and frequent
>>insult-slinging from all directions. I think it more likely that Bernie
>>thinks what he thinks about mind control, etc, and deal with that, rather
>>than interpreting everything he thinks as disguised insults at some
>>individual, say, Dennis.
>
>And many of the things I point out about Dennis are part of the
>psychological process I mean to show as well. If one mostly
>fails to address the issue but rather deals with a disguised
>primitive positioning of people, engages in all kinds of
>pressures to bring them to conform, indulges himself in the same
>sort of actions he criticize from the cult, positions himself as
>a victim and calling for an emotional/hysterical reaction from
>its reader who fail to see his shortcomings in favor of the
>pursuit of an holy goal against evil, then I would say that
>these are rather illustrative of a certain frame of mind that is
>very relevant to the issue of cults, critical thinking, and the
>search of real values.
OK, Spoons, what about YOUR state of mind? Your token answer
on Lisa MacPherson is pathetic, and when we consider you are
an apologist for manslaughter, fucking disgusting. What goes
on in YOUR tiny mind? What did you do when you were in GO/OSA??
Dennis has, after all, been quite open with us about his actions
while he was cramming officer at flag,
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <34074b22...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName writes:
>Q:
>>The problem I had is what I stated--that of vilification of the
>>person for having the gall to make negative statements. Negative is
>>a part of life, as well as positive. All the experiences of all the
>> people go together to make up that to which we laughably refer as
>>"reality". His posts have left me with the distinct impression that
>>his intention is to flame the living daylights out of anyone who
>>can't come up with something *nice* to say about the cult.
>
>That may be what you read into most of Bernie's messages. That isn't
>what I see when I read them at all.
Get some spectacles, then, WhatsHerName, because Barnie's intentions
are pretty damn obvious.
Peter McDermott
In article <340d2843...@news.concentric.net>,
dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>>While he does have a tendency to challenge other people's
>>experiences by claiming his own are different, ultimately
>>he's making the same argument as Judith, ie, that knowledge
>>and the experience of *any* single individual are very
>>different things. If one of the goals of people posting
>>here is to try to reach some sort of secure knowledge (which
>>will only ever be provisional) then you really do have to
>>take both into account.
>
>The problem I had is what I stated--that of vilification of the
>person for having the gall to make negative statements. Negative is
>a part of life, as well as positive. All the experiences of all the
> people go together to make up that to which we laughably refer as
>"reality". His posts have left me with the distinct impression that
>his intention is to flame the living daylights out of anyone who
>can't come up with something *nice* to say about the cult.
I don't know, I've never said anything nice about the cult.
I regard it as a pernicious scam, I say so frequently, and he's
never flamed me.
Mind you, I've not noticed him doing much vilification
either - aside from a handful of people who seem to be
giving out at least as much as they are getting. I tend
to skip that stuff, as it seems a bit lame.
>>What seems to make Bernie so furious is that there is a
>>real resistance to people posting experiences that *aren't*
>>as negative as yours - even when the person posting is no
>>longer under the sway of the cult. And there's a tendency
>>to completely dismiss one side, without making any attempt
>>to evaluate the data critically, while any claim that is
>>critical of the cult will be embraced, no matter how
>>ludicrous.
>
>I think that is a somewhat broad statement. I know I tend to speak
>of the negative, since that was my experience. My experience,
>though, was nowhere near as negative as oh, say, Quentin Hubbard's.
Actually, I seem to have misphrased that. What I meant to
say is that he seems to get furious about the idea that
only the negative aspects of the cult experience are
encouraged, and any positive experiences are at best
ignored, and more likely written off as being those of
dupes.
Personally, it doesn't bother me to see people slamming
the cult, but I'd be a fool if I didn't recognize that
the more extreme examples that are posted are unlikely
to be *representative* samples of most members experience.
>Or Lisa McPherson's. When we see the "big win" posts, I for one
>have to restrain myself from laughing. I wrote a few of those
>"success stories" myself, way back when. (Fortunately, I never did
>it on Usenet.) Looking back, I can only shake my head and sigh.
>
>But the overwhelming majority of posters I have read here, who have
>had direct experience with the cult, have characterized that
>experience as negative. A couple of notable exceptions come to mind-
>- -Jack Craver and Bernie. And neither of them can accomplish
>anything more than lame misdirection when asked about the more
>nefarious activities of the cult. At least this has been my
>observation.
>
>Seems to me that everyone is welcome to post anything they want.
>Positive OR negative. And as you state below, they should damn well
>expect it to be subjected to critical scrutiny. Once again, though,
>that knife cuts both ways. If you come here stating miracles of the
>tech (bs), you should be prepared to discuss it. Not just blurt out
>Hubbardspew (bs) and disappear. The negative experiences of so many
>have been explored at great length on this ng. Those who post
>"positive" experiences, when pressed for further discussion, have
>generally tended to vanish without a trace, occasionally after
>throwing out a few Elrongisms (bs) for good measure.
Well, I can remember quite a few who didn't from the past,
but it's hardly surprising that they do disappear as you
say. After all, it's one thing to hold a discussion in
front of a huge audience that shares your views. Something
else entirely to do it when you know the vast majority
disagree with you, but see you as representing a vile,
reprehensible organization. And I think its sad that so
many people who post here *can't* make the distinction
between the organization and the individuals who are
suckered by it.
>Bernie, OTOH,
>seems to prefer flaming the "anti-cult cultists" who have the
>audacity to believe in mind control and call Co$ a cult. This does
>not speak well for "positive" experience with the cult, IMHO.
But I've seen him call Scientology a cult many times. Sure,
he doesn't buy the mind control stuff, but neither do I. He
doesn't buy it because the arguments for it are extremely
weak. You might also note that the US medical establishment
doesn't but it either. Seems to me that your *real* complaint
is that Bernie flames back?
>>A final point: while people *are* entitled to present their
>>experience and have that respected, by offering it up here,
>>they *should* expect that it be subjected to critical
>>scrutiny. This isn't a closed support group for ex-cultists,
>>but a forum for discussing Scientology, and as such, any
>>information should be evaluated carefully, regardless of the
>>source.
>
>Agreed. I believe that this is what happens--on a regular basis.
>On all sides. I have observed that the negative accounts are
>generally accepted more easily; mainly, I believe, due to the
>regularity with which we see them. And the regularity with which
>they are reinforced by experienced posters, third parties, news
>media reports, obituaries, coroner's reports, etc.
I'm not seeking to deny *any* of these, but Bernies point, and
the one that I find myself arguing here, is that while these
*have* happened, they *aren't* representative of the general
experience that most members have of Scientology.
How many coroners reports have you seen? How many members of
the cult do you suppose there are? In light of the disparity
between these two things, why is his argument so difficult
for so many to accept?
Number 3
On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:16:34 GMT, in message
<340d4dba...@snews.zippo.com>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>spin...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) wrote in article
><19970828234...@ladder02.news.aol.com>:
>
[clip]
>
>>This happens a lot with, for
>>instance, victims of sexual abuse in childhood. When they get a *name*
>>for what happened, memories re-organize themselves, take on different
>>significance. They don't forget things and then recover the memories, at
>>least not the ones I know; they always have the memories, but never *saw*
>>them under the name "abuse" before. When the concept is mastered, it's
>>kind of like using a new magnet on a pile of metal pins. The magnet pulls
>>out some of the pins (the ones that are attracted to magnets) and leave the
>>rest behind; you get a new way of sorting out your memories and experiences.
>
>That's one of my criticism against the mind-control theory. It's
>a too convenient way to explain away their experience, and
>basically a pretexte to continue in a mindset that is strikingly
>similar as the one they were in while in the cult.
you seem to have gotten spin's comments backwards,
bernie. what many former cult members have described
is that when they were told about the mind control theory, they
could then understand some of what had happened to them.
the mind control theory gave them a concept that
helped them sort out their memories and experiences
in the cult, and recognize how they got to their situation,
and why they felt how they did. that is in no way a pretext
to continue in a similar mindset.
people don't experience things all the same way, of course.
you believe yourself unaffected by the influences. others
have had different experiences, and interacted with them
differently.
or maybe it's just that you have not realized that you
are being controlled now. :-)
>
>The best proof of that is the violence of the reaction you get
>when you question their basic precepts. If they weren't in the
>same cultic mindset, they would just say, "well, maybe, let's
>have a look at it". That's not what I see happening, though. I
>even think that Dennis' current emotional and obviously biased
>reaction against Diane is due mainly to the fact that she was so
>successful in debunking the mind-control theory. Without the
>basic precept on mind-control, their whole universe crumbles
>down.
a ridiculous concept, that betrays bernie's facade
that he bases his beliefs on something more than
fancy.
[clip]
>
>While I don't really see much perniciousness in the training
>routine or auditing, more the contrary, I *do* see many
>objectionable, and maybe even pernicious, things in Hubbard
>*rhetoric*. My assertion is that words, ideas, and pictures are
>the real indoctrination, not really the practice. On the
>contrary, I would say that the practices are more like the
>"bait", to make the person accept the perniciousness,
>fallaciousness, and limitedness of ideas, views, and emotions.
well, yes, maybe the practices could be described
as the needle that injects the poison of scientology
into the hapless spirit. does that make the practice
of scientology as a whole somehow better?
and some practices, like the introspection rundown,
or the purification routine, or disconnection, are themselves
pernicious.
[clip - i almost missed the following.]
>And this is the last installment of Bernie for quite a while.
>Thanks Judith. See you all maybe later, wiser I hope :-)
-- see...@ix.netcom.com (Number 3)
Friends of Dennis Erlich Club (www.netcom.com/~seekon/friends.html)
Diane Richardson
On Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:28:37 +0100, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <34074b22...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName writes:
>>Q:
>>>The problem I had is what I stated--that of vilification of the
>>>person for having the gall to make negative statements. Negative is
>>>a part of life, as well as positive. All the experiences of all the
>>> people go together to make up that to which we laughably refer as
>>>"reality". His posts have left me with the distinct impression that
>>>his intention is to flame the living daylights out of anyone who
>>>can't come up with something *nice* to say about the cult.
>>
>>That may be what you read into most of Bernie's messages. That isn't
>>what I see when I read them at all.
>
>Get some spectacles, then, WhatsHerName, because Barnie's intentions
>are pretty damn obvious.
Coming from someone who can't decide whether he wants to accuse me of
being an OSA plant or not, Dave, I'd say that your observations aren't
about to be taken seriously by many readers.
You once served as the newsgroup clown, Dave Bird. Your recent posts
aren't even rational. You're just filling the newsgroup with
incoherent babbling. I'm not sure what you think this accomplishes,
outside of driving readers away.
If that's your goal, you're the one doing OSA's work for them, Davie
boy.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 01:17:17 GMT, see...@ix.netcom.com (Number 3)
wrote:
[snip]
>>That's a complete misrepresentation of what Bernie wrote, seekon.
>>Bernie remarked, and has continued to remark, upon the use of social
>>influence to enforce conformity among anticultists. That is NOT the
>>same as claiming that anticult elements engage in "mind control."
>
> there was a time, diane, when he made very nearly exactly
> those statements. he may have intended them as an ironical
> statement that came across badly, but he did make them.
You failed to note the irony, Seekon. That doesn't mean it was not
present, merely that you chose not to see it.
>>> or how he
>>> argued for dozens of posts (according to
>>> his own words) to try to convince us that
>>> jonestown was somehow precipitated by
>>> some sort of mutual envenoming caused
>>> by the anti-cult. and the reason that he
>>> couldn't make his point was that i was
>>> distorting things. shame. you might have
>>> a bit different picture of bernie.
>>
>>Sorry, Seekon, but I was involved in that exchange, too, and I
>>certainly would not describe it the way you describe it. You are
>>seriously deluding yourself if you believe you're presenting an
>>objective analysis of Bernie's messages.
>
> how can you describe it differently? those are
> words he used. and where was the the anti-cult, or
> the mutual envenoming in his theory that he was
> propounding, and that he claimed jonestown to be
> an example of? and i don't remember you being
> at all part of that exchange save for condescending
> to drop in for a post or two, when you hadn't even
> been following the thread.
I stated my opinion on the matter, Seekon. If my opinions disturbs
you, you have the option of replying or ignoring it.
>>I myself commented that Rep. Leo Ryan helped to precipitate the crisis
>>that resulted in the suicides/murders at Jonestown by ignoring the
>>advice of government representatives not to turn the trip into a media
>>event. Ryan refused to follow that advice because he was eager to
>>create publicity for himself in his upcoming bid for re-election.
>>Ryan had a long record of grandstanding for the media.
>
> nobody denied that ryan's visit might have served as some sort
> of trigger event for jones.
Dennis Erlich certainly objected to my statement, Seekon. In fact, I
believe I can trace his current animosity towards me back to that
particular post.
> however, you yourself said that
> ryan was not responsible for jonestown. and i'm still waiting
> to see who the anti-cult in this case is, and how they were
> somehow involved in this mutual envenoming process which
> i also haven't seen.
Ryan was approached by several people who were quite antagonistic to
Jim Jones. One of them was, I believe, that kook Gunderson, who more
recently has been active in the "satanic ritual abuse" scare.
Gunderson's the one who claimed he found tunnels beneath the McMartin
PreSchool building used to secretly transport the children to other
places for ritualistic purposes.
If I'm not mistaken, Gunderson was hired by family members of several
People's Temple members to snatch them from Jonestown. He came back
empty-handed, but covered his own failure by making outrageous claims
about what was occurring there. He's the source of all the CIA
conspiracy stories about Jonestown. He's a true nutcase, Seekon, and
he was one of "experts" feeding advice to families, who educated Ryan.
There were plenty of others, too. The whole situation was full of
just about every kook and nutcase around back then, involved in the
matter as much for what they could get out of it as for any higher
motive.
> and whether ryan had a record of grandstanding or not doesn't
> seem terribly relevant to what actually took place at jonestown.
Ryan's insistence on taking along a film crew and network reporters
was what set Jim Jones off on his ultimate course. The feds pleaded
with Ryan to make his visit to Jonestown a private affair, without the
media. Ryan refused to comply with the State Department's
instructions.
>>> yes, bernie calls scientology a cult. but
>>> he never can find anything actually, specifically
>>> wrong with it.
>>
>>He most certainly has criticized the cult, Seekon. For you to claim
>>otherwise indicates nothing more than your own inability to read what
>>Bernie writes dispassionately.
>
> doing a little projection, diane?
No.
> i find his personal accounts
> of his experiences in the cult to be honest and interesting, but
> even in them he does not really say anything specifically bad
> about scientology. indeed, nothing really bad happened to him
> in scientology, by his own statement.
Do you think he's lying about his own experience, Seekon? If so, what
makes you think that?
>>> and he tries to invalidate the
>>> the bad experiences of other. which misses
>>> the point that there's enough of those to matter,
>>> even if they are not altogether representative.
>>> at one point he claimed, in essence, that he
>>> had been in the GO long enough to know that
>>> scientology didn't do the things that Dennis and
>>> Monica and others have described.
>>>
>>> i don't know what bernie's story is, but he
>>> sure has come across as having more than
>>> a casual interest in something related to
>>> scientology. and a willingness to stir
>>> hard with a limp stick.
>>
>>That's your interpretation, Seekon, and you certainly have nothing
>>more than an active imagination with which to back up your baseless
>>conclusions.
>
> another really stupid statement by ms. richardson.
You may consider it a stupid statement, although you don't explain
what you find stupid about it. You haven't offered any evidence to
support your suspicions of Bernie. You don't even have the guts to
make direct accusations against him; rather, you suggest Bernie's
more than he presents himself to be, without offering anything to
support your suggestion.
> you really ought to take a rest, diane.
I'm not in need of a rest, Seekon. If you find this discussion
tiresome, perhaps you should follow your own advice. I'm not going
anywhere.
> what's your
> explanation for thousands of posts - nearly as many
> as you - many of them either criticizing critics or pushing
> some vague anti-cult which has no specific identification
> and for which he produced no evidence? a casual
> interest in something related to scientology?
Bernie has quite clearly expressed his dislike of what he considers
anticult activists. He's described his own research and investigation
into the subject, as well as his own efforts to keep them from
infringing on others' rights in the U.S.
Do you find his statements unconvincing? If so, why? Do you believe
Bernie has some hidden agenda for posting here other than what he's
stated? If that's your belief, what hidden agenda do you think Bernie
has?
>>You can hold any opinion you like about Bernie, but you should also
>>expect to have your opinion challenged by others who aren't quite so
>>blinded as you've been lately.
>
> blinded? you are projecting, diane.
No, I am not.
> you are making the same kind
> of stupid and unsupportable statements that bernie likes to.
> not that i mind, since i kind of enjoy pointing it out.
What stupid and unsupportable statements have I made here, Seekon?
Cite them, please.
>>>>I'm not seeking to deny *any* of these, but Bernies point, and
>>>>the one that Ifind myself arguing here, is that while these
>>>>*have* happened, they *aren't* representative of the general
>>>>experience that most members have of Scientology.
>>>>
>>>>How many coroners reports have you seen? How many members of
>>>>the cult do you suppose there are? In light of the disparity
>>>>between these two things, why is his argument so difficult
>>>>for so many to accept?
>>>
>>> we for the most part *have* accepted that.
>>> the argument is elsewhere.
>>
>>I wish you'd explain what you mean by this response. It doesn't say
>>anything, at least not that I can understand.
>>
> we have for the most part accepted that some aspects
> of the scientology experience are not representative
> of what most members encounter. that point is not
> a primary basis of discussion.
So you admit that the picture presented by those who would emphasize
Lisa McPherson's death, Dennis Erlich's "imprisonment," etc., is not
an accurate portrayal of the CoS experience for most members?
Perhaps we're actually getting somewhere here!
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Peter McDermott
In article <eafc1c147%cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>,
Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>So what nicknames should we come up for you, Dave (as this is one of your
>more mature tactics)?
>
>Suggestions welcome.
Too Absurd.
Peter McDermott
In article <34085cff...@nntp.netcom.com>,
see...@ix.netcom.com (Number 3) wrote:
>you weren't here when bernie was telling us
> both that the anti-cult used mind control and
> that mind control didn't exist. or how he
> argued for dozens of posts (according to
> his own words) to try to convince us that
> jonestown was somehow precipitated by
> some sort of mutual envenoming caused
> by the anti-cult. and the reason that he
> couldn't make his point was that i was
> distorting things. shame. you might have
> a bit different picture of bernie.
It's true, I wasn't here for any of that. And
because of that, I'm not particularly inclined
to accept a characterization of his claims from
someone who was on the other side of the argument.
I've witnessed far too much distortion of statements
that I've read here myself to set much store in
things that I haven't seen. As a result, I'm
commenting only on what I've seen here over the
past few weeks.
> yes, bernie calls scientology a cult. but
> he never can find anything actually, specifically
> wrong with it.
I disagree. I've often seen him post about the
detrimental impact that cult membership has on both
the personalities of many members, and also on their
ability to think critically. That seems pretty
specific to me.
> and he tries to invalidate the
> the bad experiences of other. which misses
Invalidate them how? In what sense?
> the point that there's enough of those to matter,
> even if they are not altogether representative.
> at one point he claimed, in essence, that he
> had been in the GO long enough to know that
> scientology didn't do the things that Dennis and
> Monica and others have described.
Yeah, again I don't set much store by people who
tell me what their opponents claim "in essence". I'd
rather know what it was that they *actually said* and
make my decisions on that basis. The statements that I've
seen from him on these issues usually just implied that
they may or may not have happened, but they weren't
the whole story. Though I may have seen a couple of
statements that he's said he didn't believe related
to Dennis's experience in the cellar at the RPF's
RPF.
> i don't know what bernie's story is, but he
> sure has come across as having more than
> a casual interest in something related to
> scientology. and a willingness to stir
> hard with a limp stick.
I don't know what his story is either, but I'd be very
interested in hearing it. As for a "casual interest", I'd
have thought an ex-member's who had been in GO or OSA would
have more than interest in the subject than most of the
non-members who post here.
As for his stirring, I'm all for anyone who stirs up
complacency and certainty - whatever their perspective
happens to be.
Rob Clark
Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>It was being claimed that making the "trigger" statement was intended to
>absolve Jones from responsibility for the massacre. Those two propositions
>were tied together deliberately by some whose aim appears to have been to
>"get at" another poster with differing views on some key emotive issues.
tell me, were you paying any attention to that argument at all, at the
time.
this is the original.
Subject: Re: Hey Bernie stop defending CoS, they have the money
to do it themselves!
From: be...@arcadis.be (Bernie)
Date: 1997/05/23
Message-Id: <343afcb9....@news.Belgium.EU.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
kew...@teleport.com (Keith) wrote:
Hiya Keith, welcome back to ARS.
>Hey Bernie,
>They have an army of lawyers defending them they sure don't need me or
>you.
The real cult apologists are those who do not hesitate to resort
to the same tactics as the cults to achieve their means.
Tell me Keith, if the COS is so obviously off the marks (and I
believe they are), why is it necessary for some critics to paint
a darker picture than the reality to bring about a reaction? Why
is it necessary to portray them as is if they are locking people
in basements and torturing them in RPFs, which is an obvious
misrepresentation of the COS at large? Why is it necessary to
bring in hateful generalizations and distortions instead of
rational discussion and factual information?
[I'll note many cults and Scn specifically do, indeed, do things of
this nature.]
This has been the behavior of the anticult and resulted in
serious violation of human and civil rights as well as to the
mutual envenoming that precipitated the Johnstown and Wacos.
[2. To urge or press on with eager haste or violence; to cause to
happen, or come to a crisis, suddenly or too soon; as, precipitate a
journey, or a conflict. --webster's 1913, entire definition follows]
[and no, later responses indicate that bernie didn't intend to
absolve jones of his crimes, but this post certainly seems at
least to imply that.]
I am not interested to get rid of the cults dictatory only to
have it replaced by the anticults one. Criticism against the COS
isn't going to be efficient as long as opponents are
undistinguishable from what they attack.
[a good point, when it is so.]
Bernie
-----
Definition for Precipitate from database web1913
(web1913)
Precipitate \Pre*cip"i*tate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Precipitated; p. pr.
& vb. n. Precipitating.] 1. To
throw headlong; to cast down from a precipice or height.
She and her horse had been precipitated to the pebbled region of the
river. --W. Irving.
2. To urge or press on with eager haste or violence; to cause to
happen, or come to a crisis, suddenly or too soon; as, precipitate a
journey, or a conflict.
Back to his sight precipitates her steps. --Glover.
If they be daring, it may precipitate their designs, and prove
dangerous. --Bacon.
-
rob
Number 3
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 03:32:28 GMT, in message
<3408dfb4...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 01:17:17 GMT, see...@ix.netcom.com (Number 3)
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
[clip, down to re Gunderson]
>
>There were plenty of others, too. The whole situation was full of
>just about every kook and nutcase around back then, involved in the
>matter as much for what they could get out of it as for any higher
>motive.
there's always people around who through ignorance or
greed can distort a situation. that's part of life, sadly. but
it is not a demonstration that some undefined anticult
participated in envenoming that resulted in jonestown
>
>> and whether ryan had a record of grandstanding or not doesn't
>> seem terribly relevant to what actually took place at jonestown.
>
>Ryan's insistence on taking along a film crew and network reporters
>was what set Jim Jones off on his ultimate course. The feds pleaded
>with Ryan to make his visit to Jonestown a private affair, without the
>media. Ryan refused to comply with the State Department's
>instructions.
1. ryan's *record* of grandstanding is not terribly relevant.
what is relevant is what actually transpired.
2. you *know* what set jones off on his ultimate course? how?
3. from what i have seen, it appears to me that ryan's visit might
have turned out beneficially, had one of jone's guards not
have gone basically bonkers. it appears to me that it was
that guard's action that was the actual trigger. with jones
now dead, of course, it's unlikely we'll ever know the actual
reason.
4. obviously the State Department was not in a position to
give Ryan instuctions.
[clip]
>
>> i find his personal accounts
>> of his experiences in the cult to be honest and interesting, but
>> even in them he does not really say anything specifically bad
>> about scientology. indeed, nothing really bad happened to him
>> in scientology, by his own statement.
>
>Do you think he's lying about his own experience, Seekon? If so, what
>makes you think that?
cute, diane. i say i find his personal accounts honest, and
you try to make it appear i don't. you do that kind of thing
often. are you really that careless and/or dishonest?
and in direct answer to the question i perceive you have
made, i think bernie believes nothing really bad happened
to him in scientology. on the whole, he found it positive.
[clip]
>>>> i don't know what bernie's story is, but he
>>>> sure has come across as having more than
>>>> a casual interest in something related to
>>>> scientology. and a willingness to stir
>>>> hard with a limp stick.
>>>
>>>That's your interpretation, Seekon, and you certainly have nothing
>>>more than an active imagination with which to back up your baseless
>>>conclusions.
>>
>> another really stupid statement by ms. richardson.
>
>You may consider it a stupid statement, although you don't explain
>what you find stupid about it. You haven't offered any evidence to
>support your suspicions of Bernie. You don't even have the guts to
>make direct accusations against him; rather, you suggest Bernie's
>more than he presents himself to be, without offering anything to
>support your suggestion.
i said he has come across as having more than a
casual interest. do you think he has seemed to
have only a casual interest? the rest of your
comment exhibits your ability to read more into
statements than are there, and to follow those
imaginations with perjorations. stupidity is, however,
perhaps the wrong word ...
[clip - who *really* gives a shit]
>> we have for the most part accepted that some aspects
>> of the scientology experience are not representative
>> of what most members encounter. that point is not
>> a primary basis of discussion.
>
>So you admit that the picture presented by those who would emphasize
>Lisa McPherson's death, Dennis Erlich's "imprisonment," etc., is not
>an accurate portrayal of the CoS experience for most members?
>
"so i admit". another cute diane trick. find where i have said
otherwise. a get a clue about why so many find you so
objectionable.
Number 3
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 15:33:34 +0100, in message
<B02F3F4E...@petermc.demon.co.uk>, ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter
McDermott) wrote:
>> yes, bernie calls scientology a cult. but
>> he never can find anything actually, specifically
>> wrong with it.
>
>I disagree. I've often seen him post about the
>detrimental impact that cult membership has on both
>the personalities of many members, and also on their
>ability to think critically. That seems pretty
>specific to me.
yes, he has recently said that it impacts
their ability to think critically. it's about as
specific a criticism as i have seen him make.
i was going to ask if he actually said that about
scientology, but i recall that he made comments
to that effect while describing his own experiences.
and as i remarked elsewhere, i find his accounts
of his own experiences honest and interesting.
if he has talked about what specific and detrimental
impacts on personality cult membership leads to, i have perhaps
missed those posts. i no longer read everything on the newsgroup.
>> and he tries to invalidate the
>> the bad experiences of other. which misses
>
>Invalidate them how? In what sense?
as described at the end of the paragraph
>
>> the point that there's enough of those to matter,
>> even if they are not altogether representative.
>> at one point he claimed, in essence, that he
>> had been in the GO long enough to know that
>> scientology didn't do the things that Dennis and
>> Monica and others have described.
>
>Yeah, again I don't set much store by people who
>tell me what their opponents claim "in essence".
i have to describe the essence, or quote
bernie's words. there's an awful lot of bernie's
words, which i have no particular inclination
to try to dig out at the moment.
[clip]
>
>I don't know what his story is either, but I'd be very
>interested in hearing it.
actually, so would i.
>As for a "casual interest", I'd
>have thought an ex-member's who had been in GO or OSA would
>have more than interest in the subject than most of the
>non-members who post here.
i agree. but i am curious what drives a person to thousands of
posts, nearly entirely contrary to prevailing opinion. that has
to be stressing and exhausting. it requires more than just a
casual, or even a not so casual dedication. what keeps someone
going at it that hard? we have a clue or two in diane's case, we
don't in bernie's.
>
>As for his stirring, I'm all for anyone who stirs up
>complacency and certainty - whatever their perspective
>happens to be.
>
-- see...@ix.netcom.com (Number 3)
SpinTheCa
Dammit, I go away for a day or two and the thread stops being about
knowledge and starts being about Bernie.
Well, I'll just have to go on from here. What I'm reading here is
actually an *example* of the "norming practices" of epistemic communities,
especially with regard to the admission or lack of sam accorded to
subjects' claims. See, in every epistemic community there are certain
axiomatic statements that define what "we" believe to be true. It is not
only statements, however, but *attitudes* by which we judge whether someone
is a trustworthy or competent "knower." Thus the argument about Bernie.
Bernie either does not accept, or does not find necessary to say
repeatedly, that "he knows the cult is bad." He will say some things he
thinks are bad about it, but he does not find those bad things to be *as
significant*, or significant of the same things, as some do. ANd they
don't make him froth at the mouth, which may be the real problem. Thus he
is branded a cult apologist, and his statements re-interpreted as symptoms,
or expressions of some view that he is thought to hold because he will not
say the required statements.
In AA, for instance, the axiomatic statement is "Alcoholism is a disease."
You can't get far in the epistemic community of AA unless you're willing
and able to assert that proposition, with some frequency, and also to
participate in the naming practice by which you call yourself an alcoholic
and therefore a victim of a disease. Whether that it true or not its NOT
my point; my point is that you have to say it to be a player.
Bernie does not assent to or regularly assert a few of the central axioms
of ARS as an epistemic community, and thus gets "read" as an enemy, or a
cult apologist. I've read his posts myself and I don't think he is a cult
apologist; he's simply failing to produce the" right" axiomatic statements
and attitudes without the reiteration of which some people will not accept
him as an interlocutor. If Bernie changed his sig file to something
henry-like, that is, a vociferous and obscene (also funny) demand that all
Scientologists pay for the deaths of Susan Meister and Lisa McPherson, he'd
have less trouble on theis NG.
judith
Rob Clark
ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote:
>>[2. To urge or press on with eager haste or violence; to cause to
>>happen, or come to a crisis, suddenly or too soon; as, precipitate a
>>journey, or a conflict. --webster's 1913, entire definition follows]
>>[and no, later responses indicate that bernie didn't intend to
>>absolve jones of his crimes, but this post certainly seems at
>>least to imply that.]
>I don't see how you read this as either differing from Clara's
>statement *or* implying that Jones wasn't responsible.
bernie also described leo ryan's visit as a "brutal invasion" despite
the fact that jones maintained the appearance of cooperation before
the violence broke out. to precipitate also means "to cause to
happen," and the ambiguity of the word resulted in people believing
he meant the word in its stronger form, of causing by abrupt,
violent action.
>It simply points to the role that anti-cultists played in the timing
>of the actual incident, ie, precipitate being used in the sense
>of 'brought to a crisis suddenly'. It doesn't make any statement
>at all about Jones' lack of responsibility that I can see.
bernie, i believe, meant the word in its milder form, but the
implication of his anti-cult rhetoric, when he hasn't even proven
the existence of his anticult, is to minimize the responsibility
of cults while making villains of people like leo ryan.
jonestown would have blown up without ryan, and there were
already shocking and brutal crimes against human rights going
on long before ryan entered the picture.
spending dozens upon dozens of posts in statements like this,
bernie did some "mutual envenoming" of his own, and it is hardly
surprising his statement was interpreted in this way.
rob
Peter McDermott
In article <340994a1...@news.mindspring.com>,
xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>This has been the behavior of the anticult and resulted in
>serious violation of human and civil rights as well as to the
>mutual envenoming that precipitated the Johnstown and Wacos.
>
>[2. To urge or press on with eager haste or violence; to cause to
>happen, or come to a crisis, suddenly or too soon; as, precipitate a
>journey, or a conflict. --webster's 1913, entire definition follows]
>
>[and no, later responses indicate that bernie didn't intend to
>absolve jones of his crimes, but this post certainly seems at
>least to imply that.]
I don't see how you read this as either differing from Clara's
statement *or* implying that Jones wasn't responsible.
It simply points to the role that anti-cultists played in the timing
Number 3
On Mon, 01 Sep 1997 11:29:15 +0100, in message <B030578B...@0.0.0.0>,
ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote:
>In article <3409d485....@nntp.netcom.com>,
>see...@ix.netcom.com (Number 3) wrote:
>
>
>>>As for a "casual interest", I'd
>>>have thought an ex-member's who had been in GO or OSA would
>>>have more than interest in the subject than most of the
>>>non-members who post here.
>>
>> i agree. but i am curious what drives a person to thousands of
>> posts, nearly entirely contrary to prevailing opinion. that has
>> to be stressing and exhausting. it requires more than just a
>> casual, or even a not so casual dedication. what keeps someone
>> going at it that hard? we have a clue or two in diane's case, we
>> don't in bernie's.
>
>Again, I disagree. I've always been a prolific poster to any
>newsgroup that I take. I do it out of a passing interest in
>the subject, and because writing and thinking is something
>that comes quickly and easily to me. I've never found it
>either stressing or exhausting because it's something I do
>to amuse myself - pass my spare time. I think it would only
>be stressful or exhausting if you had a deep emotional
>involvement with the group, and you didn't enjoy writing.
>Neither of these things strike me as being true of Bernie,
>though I'd guess the first *has* been true of Diane in the
>past and may still be true today, I don't know.
>
like i said earlier, it's a shame you weren't here
to see it for yourself. maybe you could have
even helped straighten it out.
Number 3
On 31 Aug 1997 22:07:58 GMT, in message
<19970831220...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, spin...@aol.com
(SpinTheCa) wrote:
>Dammit, I go away for a day or two and the thread stops being about
>knowledge and starts being about Bernie.
>
>Well, I'll just have to go on from here. What I'm reading here is
>actually an *example* of the "norming practices" of epistemic communities,
[clip]
>
>Bernie does not assent to or regularly assert a few of the central axioms
>of ARS as an epistemic community, and thus gets "read" as an enemy, or a
>cult apologist. I've read his posts myself and I don't think he is a cult
>apologist; he's simply failing to produce the" right" axiomatic statements
>and attitudes without the reiteration of which some people will not accept
>him as an interlocutor. If Bernie changed his sig file to something
>henry-like, that is, a vociferous and obscene (also funny) demand that all
>Scientologists pay for the deaths of Susan Meister and Lisa McPherson, he'd
>have less trouble on theis NG.
i doubt that he would have to go that far, and i agree that he gets
some reaction that he would not necessarily get if he made the
"right" axiomatic statements. but unless you've gone back in
dejanews to review the month after month of posting activity that
took place, i also think you are also in danger of trivializing a
rather more complex situation by covering them with a rather
scanty sociological phenomenon.
i don't know where that leads on your topic of knowledge.
maybe you need to jumpstart it with a description of another
element of knowledge.
if we want to continue to use the jonestown thread as an
example, perhaps we could discuss what happens when
ideations get formed and propagated without much evidential
support.
fwiw, i doubt that bernie's a scientology apologist, either.
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
NOTE: The following post is a response to a Diane flame. This
really has nothing to do with the thread, so if you are looking for
on-topic posts, go on to the next one. I apologize for my
responding to this, but I am not going to sit by and swallow more of
Diane's shit. Many apologies, and I hope to get back to the thread
in progress. Thank you.
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
<snip>
bc, ref. bernie:
>>...impression that his intention is to flame the living daylights
out of anyone who
>>can't come up with something *nice* to say about the cult.
diane:
>That may be what you read into most of Bernie's messages. That
isn't
>what I see when I read them at all.
No, that's just what I have gotten out of every one of his posts to
me. Of course, I am not omniscient like you are, Diane. How could
I possibly have a clue as to how to understand what I read?
What do YOU see when you read his responses to my posts, Diane? I
suppose that none of what's been going on in this thread has had any
impact on your immense intellect at all, eh? Or are you just
looking for another excuse to flame folks?
What I see is someone who is so desperate to justify the time and
money he wasted in Co$ that he is unwilling to listen to anyone else
relate their negative experiences without semantically pummeling
them for it. And that's MY opinion. Flame away.
<snip>
>There have been a number of posters in the past whose experience
with
>the CoS hasn't been all bad. Unfortunately, they tire of the
constant
>barrage of "clam" and "OSA plant" insults that are thrown at them.
>They give up and go away. Can't say that I blame them.
>
>Even some ex-Scientologists[tm] who posted only negative comments
>about the CoS on the newsgroup readily admitted in private that
they
>also had a number of good memories from their experience. It was
not
>"diplomatic" to make such comments in public, what with the rabid
>reaction to anything positive that anyone might say about the CoS.
Ah, once again trotting out the "private" conversation. Quite
convenient how this can be thrown into a thread, but never verified,
since it is privileged information. How many imaginary friends to
you have, Diane?
<snip>
>That hasn't been my entire experience here. There *have* been some
>ex-Scientologists[tm] who still found good things to say about the
>CoS. It's just that when anyone makes any positive comments, it is
>automatically assumed that they are OSA, sent to the newsgroup on a
>mission. They're hounded off the newsgroup, just as surely as if
they
>were driven from a speaker's platform with a hail of rotten
tomatoes.
Odd...I see a lot of real intense generalization in these comments,
Diane. I don't recall accusing anyone of OSA complicity in any post
I have ever made. I do recall accusing Garry Scarff of trolling
once or twice, but no OSA stuff. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm
mistaken.
<snip>
>Experienced posters who reply to their messages with such gems as
>"You're a lying sack o' shit," "FOAD, asshole," etc. With
responses
>like that, can you really believe that moderate ex-
Scientologists[tm]
>would have any desire to hang around here to relate their
experiences?
Seems to me that those love-notes have been directed primarily at
you recently, Diane. Why do you suppose that is? (No, don't answer
that. It's what's known as a "rhetorical question".)
I suppose I shouldn't have used the term "experienced posters"
without more clarification--I was referring to "experienced" with
$cientology. As a matter of fact, I recall using the "FOAD" one
myself. On you, Diane. In reference to your accusation of a lack
of courage on the part of Warrior for not posting under his own
name. Quite frankly, I still feel that way. Warrior, in posting
his articles, displays more raw guts than I have ever seen in any of
your posts, Diane.
"He's BEEN there--and you probably don't even know where you are."
--Dr. "Happy" Harry Cox, "Everything You Know is Wrong!"
>You can find "plenty" of ex-Scientologists[tm] with positive
memories
>of their cult experience hanging around the AOL message board -- at
>least you could back when I was reading the board. A number of
them
>were more than willing to complain about specific CoS practices
>(particularly pricing), but still felt they had gained something of
>some value from their experience with the cult.
Gosh, THAT's what I've been doing wrong. I should be on AOL! Damn,
I knew I screwed up when I dumped AOL a couple of years ago...no,
wait--AOL still sucks. Never mind.
I really didn't want to get back into the flamewar. Seems like
that's all Diane wants to do, anymore. Perhaps we can get back to
discussing the nature of knowledge, and information?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNAw5Wan8flYc1m/ZAQEt5wf/RWmPjr1EgM7hdDhx1YfM6ZimchyBLP4F
3jdQ5bnDIhUl3nZKi3f/dFef6RW+AvXD0kffOD+hsEhtVwyN1IVWVEvLCvMAxNjy
1g4LhrL4SbNU8i5sACr+YU9vjlBBoic08Ncpx4bt2L0CWFLBq5V3xVH796WvrVEK
DBG67lf6hVKwt1G0FNGezrs/MAbFyeL0aKyZoy0qrAAi51T3H9EW3zGxej3NEjzu
dzTx2Br8Mlmkkw33jlmHNXp5+WwL0Irp+tn9mUq9br2dVvPmZSTrYnFFcJ0uV9tm
2iCJ0deMbx/ociltOq75Gfy82KTYZNw4xQQYB6SpjRo1x3cuc5Lf8g==
=E3XE
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) brewed up the following,
and served it to the group:
<snip>
>Personally, it doesn't bother me to see people slamming
>the cult, but I'd be a fool if I didn't recognize that
>the more extreme examples that are posted are unlikely
>to be *representative* samples of most members experience.
Agreed. But do you consider the *representative* sample of most
members' experience to be positive, or negative? (Assuming a
"representative sample" exists, that is.) My short experience with
the cult was negative. Most of the ones I have seen here are
negative. Most of the ones I've seen in e-mail exchanges, web
pages, books, and personal (IRL) discussions have been negative.
I'm not claiming to have done a scientific survey; I've just talked
to people and read things. I'm not saying everyone ends up dead in
the basement of the Ft. Harrison--I'm just saying that I firmly
believe that the negative FAR outweighs any positive that *may*
exist. IMHO.
<snip>
bc:
>>...Agreed. I believe that this is what happens--on a regular
basis.
>>On all sides. I have observed that the negative accounts are
>>generally accepted more easily; mainly, I believe, due to the
>>regularity with which we see them. And the regularity with which
>>they are reinforced by experienced posters, third parties, news
>>media reports, obituaries, coroner's reports, etc.
peter:
>I'm not seeking to deny *any* of these, but Bernies point, and
>the one that I find myself arguing here, is that while these
>*have* happened, they *aren't* representative of the general
>experience that most members have of Scientology.
>
>How many coroners reports have you seen? How many members of
>the cult do you suppose there are? In light of the disparity
>between these two things, why is his argument so difficult
>for so many to accept?
I've seen one coroner's report. That's one too many. His argument
is difficult to accept because it is delivered in the guise of a
sermon, rather than a discussion. I suppose I am probably guilty of
the same offense. Sorry 'bout that--I never really thought I was
preaching to the choir. I just want the truth to be known. If
Bernie feels he is delivering the other side of that truth, more
power to him. That's not going to make me stop speaking my mind.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNAw9Vqn8flYc1m/ZAQFiGwf9EeeMFziisGqQt+lqwyo32gPncvbFZPhU
DCb/LgWEyC2i3kloHWWdCMfLIOH6u70ksUx8q7Rpg3T3mig3ZQPATpw9HHWR/P2E
qUMmowH6WNqT3mtULODqEPnuySzWBuMSEdn3WlRvjhuxNEV21ZwoKuFkVsIVUWB/
24FYMt+jzA2DjeRSEVLhUPp78WXRZ285rLX2ID+3oXP8Yv+OjbVu/WXKryogoAm6
gYpBg7W1xOTEC07+PyaDJcVhpeRNQzwja2ffM6VMFf4jvyM4qP5ZlzYHEDLinANj
8W2029eLZQwvPO1Y7UliAQbbWgxO/tvhDE5aonbNzvLTG8sbS1QFvw==
=Xg7h
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>spin...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) brewed up the following, and served
it to the group:
>Dammit, I go away for a day or two and the thread stops being about
>knowledge and starts being about Bernie.
<snip>
>Bernie does not assent to or regularly assert a few of the central
axioms
>of ARS as an epistemic community, and thus gets "read" as an enemy,
or a
>cult apologist. I've read his posts myself and I don't think he is
a cult
>apologist; he's simply failing to produce the" right" axiomatic
statements
>and attitudes without the reiteration of which some people will not
accept
>him as an interlocutor. If Bernie changed his sig file to
something
>henry-like, that is, a vociferous and obscene (also funny) demand
that all
>Scientologists pay for the deaths of Susan Meister and Lisa
McPherson, he'd
>have less trouble on theis NG.
Hi, Judith. Just when I thought this thread was going to be
retitled "Diane, Bernie, and Peter--The Supergroup for the
Nineties!", along you come and get it back on topic. What a
bummer...B-{)}
If ars is an epistemic community as you put forth above, it is
surely one of the loosest ones around. Seems to me the only thing
accepted as axiomatic in *most* of the posters is that Co$ is bad.
Other than that, axioms be hanged. (IMHO)
Can an epistemic community truly be said to exist where there is so
little common ground?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNAw/tan8flYc1m/ZAQFQSAf+OaLpb6mbC3YfuvHhKANkRr5Xpiw5Nqcx
L3V1dawxF/wtu2OMlUp2w7nPz9HnxL4YwvYPdjfZwc7bPvihbdFld/aSUg0qEuNC
1GsXKHmOEiDJCkTQngVE2tvJA9QvcIYZ6CT1tGJ0Pl4qvlfuHlWK5AA62uJllvDv
8891BWzLBEwKDXabt1SKnxkRfg3zouCiLT0lF9N3GJGEZQ46VwCa/Oh60XMYNx/D
bMMmzSNqV5HpQ5gOhBk7L5VLbRABqq+D2jbqSkiapmE6G/s8+WocWWUsG9xEY9jM
sEh9H3zav9MZrF6tHv/9Rx5c0AZ9ZjHSqtXFiLHqO2HoqGGNeGDUEg==
=2OZG
Diane Richardson
On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 16:06:04 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>bc, ref. bernie:
>>>...impression that his intention is to flame the living daylights
>out of anyone who
>>>can't come up with something *nice* to say about the cult.
>diane:
>>That may be what you read into most of Bernie's messages. That
>isn't
>>what I see when I read them at all.
>
>No, that's just what I have gotten out of every one of his posts to
>me. Of course, I am not omniscient like you are, Diane. How could
>I possibly have a clue as to how to understand what I read?
I don't know, bc.
>What do YOU see when you read his responses to my posts, Diane?
I see someone who has thought a great deal about his experience
in the cult. Someone who has learned to grow from such an experience
by examining the experience closely and thinking about it deeply.
>I
>suppose that none of what's been going on in this thread has had any
>impact on your immense intellect at all, eh? Or are you just
>looking for another excuse to flame folks?
No. And no.
>What I see is someone who is so desperate to justify the time and
>money he wasted in Co$ that he is unwilling to listen to anyone else
>relate their negative experiences without semantically pummeling
>them for it. And that's MY opinion. Flame away.
What makes you think he didn't listen to you? I'd suggest that he
listened to what you had to say, considered it, and still chose to
disagree with your opinion. Isn't that really what you're angry
about?
><snip>
>
>>There have been a number of posters in the past whose experience
>with
>>the CoS hasn't been all bad. Unfortunately, they tire of the
>constant
>>barrage of "clam" and "OSA plant" insults that are thrown at them.
>>They give up and go away. Can't say that I blame them.
>>
>>Even some ex-Scientologists[tm] who posted only negative comments
>>about the CoS on the newsgroup readily admitted in private that
>they
>>also had a number of good memories from their experience. It was
>not
>>"diplomatic" to make such comments in public, what with the rabid
>>reaction to anything positive that anyone might say about the CoS.
>
>Ah, once again trotting out the "private" conversation. Quite
>convenient how this can be thrown into a thread, but never verified,
>since it is privileged information. How many imaginary friends to
>you have, Diane?
If you'd care to ask some of the old IRC regulars about jstew, you'll
find that he is not imaginary. Nor were any of the others.
><snip>
>
>>That hasn't been my entire experience here. There *have* been some
>>ex-Scientologists[tm] who still found good things to say about the
>>CoS. It's just that when anyone makes any positive comments, it is
>>automatically assumed that they are OSA, sent to the newsgroup on a
>>mission. They're hounded off the newsgroup, just as surely as if
>they
>>were driven from a speaker's platform with a hail of rotten
>tomatoes.
>
>Odd...I see a lot of real intense generalization in these comments,
>Diane. I don't recall accusing anyone of OSA complicity in any post
>I have ever made. I do recall accusing Garry Scarff of trolling
>once or twice, but no OSA stuff. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm
>mistaken.
I was not referring to you specifically.
><snip>
>
>>Experienced posters who reply to their messages with such gems as
>>"You're a lying sack o' shit," "FOAD, asshole," etc. With
>responses
>>like that, can you really believe that moderate ex-
>Scientologists[tm]
>>would have any desire to hang around here to relate their
>experiences?
>
>Seems to me that those love-notes have been directed primarily at
>you recently, Diane. Why do you suppose that is? (No, don't answer
>that. It's what's known as a "rhetorical question".)
>
>I suppose I shouldn't have used the term "experienced posters"
>without more clarification--I was referring to "experienced" with
>$cientology. As a matter of fact, I recall using the "FOAD" one
>myself. On you, Diane. In reference to your accusation of a lack
>of courage on the part of Warrior for not posting under his own
>name. Quite frankly, I still feel that way. Warrior, in posting
>his articles, displays more raw guts than I have ever seen in any of
>your posts, Diane.
>
>"He's BEEN there--and you probably don't even know where you are."
> --Dr. "Happy" Harry Cox, "Everything You Know is Wrong!"
With that comment, you've just ignored the entire jist of the
conversation you were having with Judith. Remember the topic of this
thread? Remember that experienced knowledge is only one form of
knowledge and not automatically superior to other forms? No, I
didn't think you remembered that.
>>You can find "plenty" of ex-Scientologists[tm] with positive
>memories
>>of their cult experience hanging around the AOL message board -- at
>>least you could back when I was reading the board. A number of
>them
>>were more than willing to complain about specific CoS practices
>>(particularly pricing), but still felt they had gained something of
>>some value from their experience with the cult.
>
>Gosh, THAT's what I've been doing wrong. I should be on AOL! Damn,
>I knew I screwed up when I dumped AOL a couple of years ago...no,
>wait--AOL still sucks. Never mind.
>
>I really didn't want to get back into the flamewar. Seems like
>that's all Diane wants to do, anymore. Perhaps we can get back to
>discussing the nature of knowledge, and information?
Sure. Let's bring up the point Judith made some time ago, the one I
thought you had agreed upon. There's more than one form of knowledge
that is valid. Ex-Scientologists[tm] have one sort of knowledge.
Those without any experience in the CoS have another sort of
knowledge. Both types of knowledge can be complimentary, but only if
the validity and importance of all kinds of knowledge are recognized.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Peter McDermott
In article <3416f42e...@snews.zippo.com>,
inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>
>>spending dozens upon dozens of posts in statements like this,
>>bernie did some "mutual envenoming" of his own, and it is hardly
>>surprising his statement was interpreted in this way.
>
> It could not have been meant any other way, Aytch.
Of course not. Dennis has got sooper-dooper OT powers that
allow him to read the minds of people who post here.
What's the matter, D? Are the troops starting to slip out
of line?
Zane Thomas
>Of course not. Dennis has got sooper-dooper OT powers that
>allow him to read the minds of people who post here.
Must be the same kind of super powerz Diane uses to ascertain that we
are all mindless inFormed zombies eh Pete?
Peter McDermott
In article <34233e18...@news.concentric.net>,
dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>Hi, Judith. Just when I thought this thread was going to be
>retitled "Diane, Bernie, and Peter--The Supergroup for the
>Nineties!", along you come and get it back on topic. What a
>bummer...B-{)}
>
>If ars is an epistemic community as you put forth above, it is
>surely one of the loosest ones around. Seems to me the only thing
>accepted as axiomatic in *most* of the posters is that Co$ is bad.
>Other than that, axioms be hanged. (IMHO)
Actually, your first paragraph illustrates Judith's point perfectly.
The only thing that I have in common with Diane and Bernie, is that
I've insisted that their arguments deserve a fairer hearing than
they've been getting in the two or three weeks since I've been
back here, and that their vilification seems to me to be completely
unnecessary and unwarranted.
By doing so, I seem to have placed myself in the same 'set' as
Bernie and Diane, the set of 'not-ARS', regardless of whether or
not I share any of their views or not.
From this, we can infer that there actually *are* more axioms
than the simple one that you put forward, in particular, those
who *do* question the mores of the epistimic community are to
be regarded as 'other' or 'not-us'.
Which I think is Judith's point.
>Can an epistemic community truly be said to exist where there is so
>little common ground?
I really don't accept that there's as little common ground as
you're trying to present, though there are obviously those who
*don't* hold that common ground, those people (I'm thinking here
of Gunbunny, Scarff and Fishman) are also regarded as being
beyond the pale as well.
Peter McDermott
In article <34223ab5...@news.concentric.net>,
dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>>Personally, it doesn't bother me to see people slamming
>>the cult, but I'd be a fool if I didn't recognize that
>>the more extreme examples that are posted are unlikely
>>to be *representative* samples of most members experience.
>
>Agreed. But do you consider the *representative* sample of most
>members' experience to be positive, or negative? (Assuming a
>"representative sample" exists, that is.)
I don't have a view, largely because I don't believe I've ever
had the data from a representative sample. My own view of the cult
*is* shaped by those people who have had negative experiences.
However, that's tempered by a feeling that many of those who
remain in still feel they get something positive from the cult
(I find it hard to comprehend why, but there you are) and a growing
suspicion that many people leave feeling that they've been overcharged
perhaps, but still feeling broadly positive about the tech and
the people they met there. Again, I don't understand this either.
My point is that the reality of the experience of cult membership
is far more complex than this group is prepared to concede. I
really wish I could get a better handle on this complexity, but
whenever anyone *does* appear here who is prepared to talk about
their positive experiences, they are immediately leapt upon by
a huge string of fuckwits, ranting OSA, clam, etc. You've talked
about how *you* believe Bernie's posts invalidates other people's
experiences, but given that he's a single individual posting from
a different viewpoint, I find it hard to grasp just how much of a
problem that can be, given the overwhelming support that ex-clams
get on this group. It seems to me that it must be far harder for
someone whose experience is completely contrary to the bulk of the
views expressed here to post. If you want to talk about the
invalidation of experience, it seems to me that you should take an
objective look at *that* process - although I can quite understand
that someone who *has* had a particularly negative experience
with the cult might not want to. But my own feeling is that being
able to do so would indicate that somebody had moved on from their
bitterness, and was trying to get a wider perspective on the whole
issue, and in that sense I *do* agree with Bernie when he says
that many ex-cultists are still stuck in the cultist mindset.
>My short experience with
>the cult was negative. Most of the ones I have seen here are
>negative. Most of the ones I've seen in e-mail exchanges, web
>pages, books, and personal (IRL) discussions have been negative.
If you hang around with critics, you really shouldn't be surprised
that all of their views are critical, but we really have no way
of knowing how typical or how representative those views are. As
I said, anyone trying to express a contrary view in these parts
is rapidly set about by a mob insistant on proving the folly of
their position.
You've implied Bernie's invalidation is upsetting to you, or angers
you. How do you suppose you would feel if you were posting in a
group where poster after poster did precisely that? Do you really
think you'd stick around very long to try and explain yourself?
particularly when it became clear that you weren't going to be
allowed any latitude in your account - and so were going to have
to define precisely every single ambiguous word you posted, because
your opponents weren't prepared to engage in discussion on the sort
of terms that most people take for granted when they are attempting
to genuinely understand what the other person is saying?
My guess is that you wouldn't stick around very long either.
>I'm not claiming to have done a scientific survey; I've just talked
>to people and read things. I'm not saying everyone ends up dead in
>the basement of the Ft. Harrison--I'm just saying that I firmly
>believe that the negative FAR outweighs any positive that *may*
>exist. IMHO.
With regard to Scientology as an organization, I'd agree completely.
However, I'm not at all convinced that the same thing is true of
people's experience of the cult. Or rather, I'm pretty sure that
most of those who stay in for any length of time do so because
they have a positive experience. I don't buy the mind control
theory - I think that's an excuse that people use to explain
behaviour that they aren't very proud of. I believe they stay in
because they get something positive, and they leave when the
experience turns negative. And I think that the better grasp we
have of what it is that people find positive about the cult, the
better able we are to point out the flaws. But you really can't
get at that unless you actually listen to what those people have
to say.
><snip>
>
>bc:
>>>...Agreed. I believe that this is what happens--on a regular
>basis.
>>>On all sides. I have observed that the negative accounts are
>>>generally accepted more easily; mainly, I believe, due to the
>>>regularity with which we see them. And the regularity with which
>>>they are reinforced by experienced posters, third parties, news
>>>media reports, obituaries, coroner's reports, etc.
>peter:
>>I'm not seeking to deny *any* of these, but Bernies point, and
>>the one that I find myself arguing here, is that while these
>>*have* happened, they *aren't* representative of the general
>>experience that most members have of Scientology.
>>
>>How many coroners reports have you seen? How many members of
>>the cult do you suppose there are? In light of the disparity
>>between these two things, why is his argument so difficult
>>for so many to accept?
>
>I've seen one coroner's report. That's one too many. His argument
>is difficult to accept because it is delivered in the guise of a
>sermon, rather than a discussion. I suppose I am probably guilty of
>the same offense.
Indeed, but it's hardly an uncommon one in these parts. I take
your point about his tendency to preach, but I think it's hard
to put forward an unpopular point of view in this newsgroup.
Take a look around sometime, and see what happens to those who
does.
Personally, I believe that without exposure to a broad diversity
of opinion, one really isn't going to get very far in understanding
much, and when you've got people regularly abusing and vilifying
people for holding different views, you can't expect them to
stick around for long. What we've *all* got to ask ourselves is
are we going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution?
>Sorry 'bout that--I never really thought I was
>preaching to the choir. I just want the truth to be known. If
>Bernie feels he is delivering the other side of that truth, more
>power to him. That's not going to make me stop speaking my mind.
I'm not asking you to. I'm just asking that you think about
according the same sort of respect to someone who expresses that
point of view as you'd expect others to accord to you.
That's all.
Peter McDermott
In article <340cc4a...@nntp.netcom.com>,
see...@ix.netcom.com (Number 3) wrote:
>>My point is that the reality of the experience of cult membership
>>is far more complex than this group is prepared to concede.
>
> that's a claim that i don't believe is true, and i challenge
> you to demonstrate it. to be clear, the challenge concerns
> what the group is prepared to concede.
The above is my opinion based on my impressions of reading the
group over a period of several years. I couldn't demonstrate it
conclusively, without going to the trouble of doing a huge
content analysis of a representative sample of posts, and I
dont have either the time or the inclination for that. What I
will say, is that I've certainly been guilty of it myself in
the past and I don't think that I was at all untypical.
>> I really wish I could get a better handle on this complexity, but
>>whenever anyone *does* appear here who is prepared to talk about
>>their positive experiences, they are immediately leapt upon by
>>a huge string of fuckwits, ranting OSA, clam, etc.
>
> that also is not true. the people who politely come in to
> talk are met with a polite and generally moderate response. there
> have been a number who have done so, although not so
> many recently. that's not to say that they aren't substantially
> outnumbered, and that the critics don't provide a significant
> challenge to their belief structure. even new posters, unless
> they are particularly clueless, are heard for several posts before
> what you characterize as the ravening pack assembles.
I'll concede that this may be a more accurate characterization.
Nevertheless, you concede yourself that it isn't long before
the ravening pack *does* assemble. When that does happen, I
doubt many people will be prepared to stick around for very
long and engage in meaningful discussion. I can count the
number that I've seen in the past on one hand.
>>If you want to talk about the
>>invalidation of experience, it seems to me that you should take an
>>objective look at *that* process - although I can quite understand
>>that someone who *has* had a particularly negative experience
>>with the cult might not want to. But my own feeling is that being
>>able to do so would indicate that somebody had moved on from their
>>bitterness, and was trying to get a wider perspective on the whole
>>issue, and in that sense I *do* agree with Bernie when he says
>>that many ex-cultists are still stuck in the cultist mindset.
>
> what exactly is the 'cultic mindset' that they are stuck with?
> characterize how it operates, so that i can see it to.
A tendency to divide the world into 'friend' and 'enemy',
a tendency towards paranoia and conspiracy theory, a refusal
to consider information that doesn't fit in with the
group's paradigm, a tendency to elevate particular individuals
above the rest of the group, a belief that the ends justify
the means.
All these tendencies are currently observable among critics
here on ARS.
>>If you hang around with critics, you really shouldn't be surprised
>>that all of their views are critical, but we really have no way
>>of knowing how typical or how representative those views are. As
>>I said, anyone trying to express a contrary view in these parts
>>is rapidly set about by a mob insistant on proving the folly of
>>their position.
>
> i think that is way too simplistic. have you been set
> about by a mob insistant on proving your folly?
My position isn't *that* contrary to the dominant set of ideas
here on ARS. *I'm* not saying that the experience of Scientology can
be good for you.
>>You've implied Bernie's invalidation is upsetting to you, or angers
>>you. How do you suppose you would feel if you were posting in a
>>group where poster after poster did precisely that? Do you really
>>think you'd stick around very long to try and explain yourself?
>
> i am reminded about my curiousity about why bernie
> would do that, which you poo-poohed.
Did I? I don't believe I did. But I believe I can provide you
with an answer to your question - or at least, I can tell you
what I've how Bernie respond to that here on the group. He
says that he's got a particular interest into the cultic
mindset. What is it that makes people want to join such groups?
He believes (much more strongly than I do, perhaps) that he
can see that mindset at work here on ARS among people who had
been members in the past and have left, but still retain
features of the mindset.
>>particularly when it became clear that you weren't going to be
>>allowed any latitude in your account - and so were going to have
>>to define precisely every single ambiguous word you posted, because
>>your opponents weren't prepared to engage in discussion on the sort
>>of terms that most people take for granted when they are attempting
>>to genuinely understand what the other person is saying?
>
> whether you like it or not, if you are going to present new,
> different, contrary views, you are going to have to make
> them clear in people's minds to have an effect. you are
> going to have to address the ambiguities that arise from
> the new view being presented. you have to be very
> careful about being misunderstood.
That's not my point though. My point is that it goes *way*
beyond that reasonable request for clarification to a pedantic
nitpicking that actually stifles the possibility of meaningful
discourse, because some posters here just aren't that skilled at
argument, and so they believe that picking them up on every
word with a possible ambiguity of meaning somehow shows their
opponent up as having a weak position. In fact, it doesn't,
they are the people with the weak argument, but they never get
to learn that because they are surrounded by people who will
never concede anything good about those who they see as the
opposition.
And at the same time, the thread becomes unreadable because it
gets bogged down in all this boring nitpicking, and the *real*
argument that is in there somewhere never even gets touched.
I'm not saying this happens all the time, but it happens
frequently enough to be a major irritation to me.
>>Personally, I believe that without exposure to a broad diversity
>>of opinion, one really isn't going to get very far in understanding
>>much, and when you've got people regularly abusing and vilifying
>>people for holding different views, you can't expect them to
>>stick around for long. What we've *all* got to ask ourselves is
>>are we going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution?
>
> returning to judith's epistemology topic, you need
> more than exposure to opinion. you need exposure
> to data - you need a way to acquire other people's
> experiences, you need a way to structure those
> experiences in a way that accomodates your own,
> and you need a way to assimilate or internalize them.
> exposure to opinion may provide ways of structuring
> data, but if that's all you get, and if it is too much at
> variance with your own structuring and experience, it
> looks empty or in error, and it gets rejected. this is
> not even bad, from an evolutionary perspective.
Indeed, but I've been studying the cult for twenty years,
off and on, so I'm familiar with the data, I know all about
the negative experiences, etc. More recently I've started to
wonder about the credibility of some of the claims that I've
taken for granted, and that's one of the reasons that I may
seem to have been siding with Diane. She's the only
person here who *isn't* a scientologist, who is prepared to
do basic research on these issues and post her findings. And
I agree with Bernie when he points out that the vilification
she's undergoing as a result of this process *is* indicative
of a cultic mindset.
Yes, I know that there are personal differences between Diane
and some posters, but that isn't how the criticisms are couched.
The implication is that anybody who posts information that
undermines the credibility of a critic is an OSA plant. There
seems to me to be an exact parallel here, with the argument that
anyone who publishes objective but positive data about Prozac
is in the employ of Psychiatry. Both sides are opposed to full
disclosure of the data, and to an honest evaluation of all the
evidence.
>>I'm not asking you to. I'm just asking that you think about
>>according the same sort of respect to someone who expresses that
>>point of view as you'd expect others to accord to you.
>>
> i think we've found a replacement for peter nathan hass,
> lo these many months :-)
Don't be too sure. I'm probably just being contrary. Next week, I'll
probably be assaulting clams and dissing Diane and Bernie along
with the rest of you.
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Please note: this post continues response to the Diane Flamefest on
this thread. It also continues to be basically off-topic for this
thread. If you are looking for on-topic posts on the subject of
"Knowledge?", skip on down to the next header. Of course, that one
may be off-topic too. YMMV.
[editor's note: this post actually ends up somewhat on-topic.
believe it or not. would I bullshit you?]
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
<snip>
>>What do YOU see when you read his responses to my posts, Diane?
>
>I see someone who has thought a great deal about his experience
>in the cult. Someone who has learned to grow from such an
experience
>by examining the experience closely and thinking about it deeply.
As I have thought a great deal about MY experience in the cult.
Reached my own conclusions. Grown older and wiser. Became more
aware of the nature of people, the nature of lies, the nature of
fraud. And, incidentally, more aware of my own nature. In spite of
$cientology.
But then, since my conclusions don't agree with yours and Bernie's,
they must not be valid. *Now* I understand. Nice to know that
there's always someone out there willing to try to do my thinking
for me.
Thanks, but no thanks. I wouldn't let Elrong do it for me, and I
won't let you.
>>I
>>suppose that none of what's been going on in this thread has had
any
>>impact on your immense intellect at all, eh? Or are you just
>>looking for another excuse to flame folks?
>
>No. And no.
On the first "No", I'm really not surprised. The second, I find a
bit hard to believe. But perhaps I wax cynical.
>>What I see is someone who is so desperate to justify the time and
>>money he wasted in Co$ that he is unwilling to listen to anyone
else
>>relate their negative experiences without semantically pummeling
>>them for it. And that's MY opinion. Flame away.
>
>What makes you think he didn't listen to you? I'd suggest that he
>listened to what you had to say, considered it, and still chose to
>disagree with your opinion. Isn't that really what you're angry
>about?
I'd suggest you back up a paragraph and read what I wrote. I said
"...unwilling to listen to anyone else relate their negative
experiences *WITHOUT SEMANTICALLY PUMMELING THEM FOR IT*" (emphasis
added for the reality-impaired).
Suppose you stop assuming emotions on my part and drop the latrine
psychoanalysis for a moment. The fact that Bernie disagrees with
me, I accept without problems. I'm used to having people disagree
with me--I'm a bass player.
What I don't accept is that my interpretation of my experiences is
invalid because it doesn't agree with Bernie's, or your's. This is
not an expression of anger. This is an expression of my viewpoint.
Are you going to start trying to drive me away now, too, like you
did to Anima? Since I just happen to think you're FOS? Sorry, all
my posts should be readily available on DejaNews. Anyone so far
gone into the depths of despondency and psychosis that they would
want to fish up any of my old posts will probably have the
questionable joy of finding them. So you'll have to find some other
reason to flame me, Diane. Although, I guess just disagreeing with
you seems to be good enough...
<snip>
>>Ah, once again trotting out the "private" conversation. Quite
>>convenient how this can be thrown into a thread, but never
verified,
>>since it is privileged information. How many imaginary friends to
>>you have, Diane?
>
>If you'd care to ask some of the old IRC regulars about jstew,
you'll
>find that he is not imaginary. Nor were any of the others.
Thanks, I got that. Too bad you didn't.
<snip>
>>I suppose I shouldn't have used the term "experienced posters"
>>without more clarification--I was referring to "experienced" with
>>$cientology. As a matter of fact, I recall using the "FOAD" one
>>myself. On you, Diane. In reference to your accusation of a lack
>>of courage on the part of Warrior for not posting under his own
>>name. Quite frankly, I still feel that way. Warrior, in posting
>>his articles, displays more raw guts than I have ever seen in any
of
>>your posts, Diane.
>>
>>"He's BEEN there--and you probably don't even know where you are."
>> --Dr. "Happy" Harry Cox, "Everything You Know is Wrong!"
>
>With that comment, you've just ignored the entire jist of the
>conversation you were having with Judith. Remember the topic of
this
>thread? Remember that experienced knowledge is only one form of
>knowledge and not automatically superior to other forms? No, I
>didn't think you remembered that.
No, with that comment, I was making a joke. You know what that is,
don't you, Diane? The comment was a quote from an old Firesign
Theatre album, which I felt was particularly apt at the moment.
Ever listen to the Firesign Theatre, Diane? They'd enlighten you in
a lot of ways, if you'd give them a chance.
I realize you don't quite grok my sense of humor. That's ok, I
don't grok your's either. Do you have one?
I am quite well aware of the topic of this thread--which is why I
prefaced the post you responded to, and this post, with a disclaimer
that it was basically off-topic for the thread, and that I was
responding to more Diane malice. I suppose you didn't notice that,
either.
Experience versus consensus has nothing to do with the comment you
directed at Warrior, or the one I directed at you. As a matter of
fact, I wasn't commenting on the superiority of one "form" of
knowledge over another. I was commenting on what I perceive to be
your lack of courage for sitting and sniping at others who have
experienced Co$ firsthand--for instance, your sniping at Warrior for
an alleged lack of courage on his part. Not on your lack of
experience with the cult itself, nor on my perception of the
relative value of your experiences versus those of Warrior, Dennis,
Martin, Roland, Monica, all the others I'm not covering. Are we
"clear" now?
[Note for the humor-impaired: The "clear" crack in the preceding
paragraph was a Co$-inspired joke. It wasn't really intended to be
terribly funny. Sorry, Diane.]
In the epistemic community known as "ars", there appears to be very
little consensus beyond a general acceptance of Co$ as a "bad
thing". I realize I'm going out on a limb here. YMMV. IMHO. HTH.
<snip>
>>I really didn't want to get back into the flamewar. Seems like
>>that's all Diane wants to do, anymore. Perhaps we can get back to
>>discussing the nature of knowledge, and information?
>
>Sure. Let's bring up the point Judith made some time ago, the one
I
>thought you had agreed upon. There's more than one form of
knowledge
>that is valid. Ex-Scientologists[tm] have one sort of knowledge.
>Those without any experience in the CoS have another sort of
>knowledge. Both types of knowledge can be complimentary, but only
if
>the validity and importance of all kinds of knowledge are
recognized.
Well, I haven't noticed too many compliments being traded between
the bearers of the mentioned two types of knowledge. If you meant
"complementary" though, perhaps you're on to something.
It's sort of what I was referring to, when I mentioned the old Woody
Allen (I think) line about reality being a "collective hunch".
Gross oversimplification, obviously, but there's a grain of truth to
it.
Diane, I think you need to carefully analyze your last sentence, in
light of your recent vendetta against Anima. IMHO. YMMV. HTH.
etc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNA2IVan8flYc1m/ZAQHrwgf8C/bv45Ndd6hgCQX1lxZ9Hyr8dRRAuv7U
9lofzjHc8W8+RBFdrBggLYU7CCOp9f/Lf3ALqqiX99ZxU/RqarUgusczn4GkZrue
07mhPyna5DDLRdQgHyhtauGZrPEEtj/CgaVP+EYo0t0JJtbjMyddPWmRjsCY1fbt
WhJAoeL7bgwl9zI9nvnpiRceV5vJXLpaOIGNe+PHt1SJeJCQbiaXIR05rDQhI5ak
yOiGPn+DA2/1HLXy54fUw6phNAl98FK/aCiMjIwzusWe6G66h9FE4O1+QUnjIWpQ
s3YH8ruwmMFdOg3e7IezHuXuT/1FaW33uz8gFDXlMAsJllsNENv6Pw==
=YK67
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) brewed up the following,
and served it to the group:
>In article <34233e18...@news.concentric.net>,
>dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>
>>Hi, Judith. Just when I thought this thread was going to be
>>retitled "Diane, Bernie, and Peter--The Supergroup for the
>>Nineties!", along you come and get it back on topic. What a
>>bummer...B-{)}
>>
>>If ars is an epistemic community as you put forth above, it is
>>surely one of the loosest ones around. Seems to me the only thing
>>accepted as axiomatic in *most* of the posters is that Co$ is bad.
>>Other than that, axioms be hanged. (IMHO)
>
>Actually, your first paragraph illustrates Judith's point
perfectly.
>
>The only thing that I have in common with Diane and Bernie, is that
>I've insisted that their arguments deserve a fairer hearing than
>they've been getting in the two or three weeks since I've been
>back here, and that their vilification seems to me to be completely
>unnecessary and unwarranted.
Geez! You try to inject a little levity into a thread...
Unfortunately, Peter, you've missed a good bit of the ongoing
incineration-fest over the past couple of months. I wasn't trying
to pigeonhole you--I was just mentioning the names of some people
who were all of a sudden posting a whole bunch on this thread. It
was a joke. Admittedly, a lame one. I seem to be doing a lot of
that recently.
I'll try again: This porkchop walks into a bar. The bartender
says, "Get the hell outta here! We don't serve food!"
Better? No? How about: A priest, a nun, a Baptist missionary,
Hillary Clinton, and a horse walk into a bar. The bartender says,
"What is this--a joke?"
No? Ok, I'll stop now. Can I have some more of the little blue
ones with the yellow stripe? I REALLY like those...they make me
feel soooooo niiice...
>By doing so, I seem to have placed myself in the same 'set' as
>Bernie and Diane, the set of 'not-ARS', regardless of whether or
>not I share any of their views or not.
>
>From this, we can infer that there actually *are* more axioms
>than the simple one that you put forward, in particular, those
>who *do* question the mores of the epistimic community are to
>be regarded as 'other' or 'not-us'.
>
>Which I think is Judith's point.
Well, no, I don't really think you are in the set of 'not-ars'--
you're here and posting, aren't you? My point was that beyond the
basic axiom that I mentioned (and this is all IMO), that the axiom
supply gets pretty thin. That's where the discussion comes from.
We have as many different viewpoints as we have posters. Even among
those that agree on several different points. Because regardless of
the epistemic community, it is comprised of *individual* viewpoints.
>>Can an epistemic community truly be said to exist where there is
so
>>little common ground?
>
>I really don't accept that there's as little common ground as
>you're trying to present, though there are obviously those who
>*don't* hold that common ground, those people (I'm thinking here
>of Gunbunny, Scarff and Fishman) are also regarded as being
>beyond the pale as well.
Ok, I'll bite. Where is the common ground? It isn't mind control,
it isn't picketing approaches, it isn't whether or not we should
make our posts available for archive, it MIGHT be on posting IRC
logs, but the jury's still out, it isn't who's going to win the Nice
Person of the Month award...
We have a huge set of different viewpoints. I guess that there
really is quite a bit of common ground--but I don't think that is
the same as accepting concepts as *axiomatic*, i.e., self-evident
and taken for granted. We can agree on a point, without taking the
underlying assumptions for granted. The underlying assumption of
the existence or non-existence of mind control, *for example*. This
has been vociferously debated. I do not believe for a second that
either side on that discussion is generally accepted as an axiom.
Am I just babbling again? Damn, I hate when I do that...WHERE'S THE
DAMN PROZAC SHIPMENT?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNA2O0qn8flYc1m/ZAQGgeAf+KLF6cUOyHRY0RkuE3+yfnDfLvspCVz6p
q7yNt92Uaacx7I9T/fGOK6F7FM4EyiQJ25wi+EKko+k/0CuBwR5xyubXvmuhSqmr
31tDvQNkLw/W75AjUD7THo2KXim3FUcU0rrz+B0YoK4Z6sIaW8ZvNMx55LxQHn2H
YF8PaEQQdGtConyzjIBOiyALAd2BRlSsYte3KcRkSUgdckKWv4w4VaOV91ra2f9v
F0CFIHmHt6W11vfDHbZLj9L4kRe/QBEarSBokDP7YzIufZyiqhNEpOlvJ66bXCdT
5Z8BuVX4G58+vBvVxnzpS5CSVZt6gI/mvbwDJFLkNBg/wqKa1VF0qg==
=wQem
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <340d72ef...@news.concentric.net>,
>Suppose you stop assuming emotions on my part and drop the latrine
>psychoanalysis for a moment. The fact that Bernie disagrees with
>me, I accept without problems. I'm used to having people disagree
>with me--I'm a bass player.
I hope you don't disagree with the drummer as to nature.
--
^-^-^-@@-^-;-^ http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
(..)__u news:alt.smoking.mooses
"There is no black and white....only varying shades of gray"
Diane Richardson
On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 15:58:40 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>
>>>What do YOU see when you read his responses to my posts, Diane?
>>
>>I see someone who has thought a great deal about his experience
>>in the cult. Someone who has learned to grow from such an
>experience
>>by examining the experience closely and thinking about it deeply.
>
>As I have thought a great deal about MY experience in the cult.
>Reached my own conclusions. Grown older and wiser. Became more
>aware of the nature of people, the nature of lies, the nature of
>fraud. And, incidentally, more aware of my own nature. In spite of
>$cientology.
>
>But then, since my conclusions don't agree with yours and Bernie's,
>they must not be valid. *Now* I understand. Nice to know that
>there's always someone out there willing to try to do my thinking
>for me.
I disagree with your conclusions about "cult mind control" and the use
of hypnosis to implant otherwise unacceptable ideas into members'
heads.
You've engaged in addressing a lot of heated words at me because I
don't agree with your conclusions about "cult mind control" and the
use of hypnosis. But I'm not sure I understand why my disagreement
with you over these subjects invalidates your own experience.
>Thanks, but no thanks. I wouldn't let Elrong do it for me, and I
>won't let you.
Do you really believe that debating issues constitutes thinking for
another person? That doesn't make sense to me. It's my understanding
that the CoS doesn't not permit questioning or even discussion of
basic premises. That's the exact opposite of what we've been doing,
isn't it?
>>>I
>>>suppose that none of what's been going on in this thread has had
>any
>>>impact on your immense intellect at all, eh? Or are you just
>>>looking for another excuse to flame folks?
>>
>>No. And no.
>
>On the first "No", I'm really not surprised. The second, I find a
>bit hard to believe. But perhaps I wax cynical.
I'm trying hard not to be sarcastic or snide with you. It doesn't
seem as though my efforts have had any effect, though.
>>>What I see is someone who is so desperate to justify the time and
>>>money he wasted in Co$ that he is unwilling to listen to anyone
>else
>>>relate their negative experiences without semantically pummeling
>>>them for it. And that's MY opinion. Flame away.
>>
>>What makes you think he didn't listen to you? I'd suggest that he
>>listened to what you had to say, considered it, and still chose to
>>disagree with your opinion. Isn't that really what you're angry
>>about?
>
>I'd suggest you back up a paragraph and read what I wrote. I said
>"...unwilling to listen to anyone else relate their negative
>experiences *WITHOUT SEMANTICALLY PUMMELING THEM FOR IT*" (emphasis
>added for the reality-impaired).
What do you mean by "semantically pummeling"? Do you really think
that anyone who questions your assertions is doing that to hurt you --
invalidate you? I see things differently.
The opportunity to analyze long-held opinions, defend those opinions
in debate, and ultimately alter those opinions, reassess those
opinions, or reaffirm them, is a great learning experience for me.
It's one of the things that has kept me from wallowing in the same rut
for a lifetime. It's my opportunity to learn and grow wiser.
YMMV, of course. Perhaps that's why we've butted heads so often.
>Suppose you stop assuming emotions on my part and drop the latrine
>psychoanalysis for a moment. The fact that Bernie disagrees with
>me, I accept without problems. I'm used to having people disagree
>with me--I'm a bass player.
I'm not sure what you consider my "latrine psychoanalysis." No one
has to do any great thinking to realize that the tone of your messages
to Bernie is very angry.
>What I don't accept is that my interpretation of my experiences is
>invalid because it doesn't agree with Bernie's, or your's. This is
>not an expression of anger. This is an expression of my viewpoint.
Who said your interpretation of your experience is invalid? I guess
II don't understand what you mean by that term, and it's obviously
important to you because you've used it so often in this discussion.
Just because I disagree with your opinion of "cult mind control" and
the use of hypnosis doesn't mean I don't believe you had very negative
experiences with the cult. I'm not sure why accepting or rejecting
your assertions about those concepts means I don't believe you're
telling the truth about your own experiences.
I hope what I've written above isn't a confusing mess. What I'm
trying to say is that I readily accept the fact that you had a very
bad experience with the CoS. I disagree with your statements that
your bad experience was a result of mind control and/or hypnosis.
That's all I meant.
>Are you going to start trying to drive me away now, too, like you
>did to Anima? Since I just happen to think you're FOS?
No. I don't believe I drove Anima away. I didn't do anything to him
because he thinks I'm full of shit. I archived his posts (how many --
three?) because he was taunting others to prove what he'd written
by challenging them to find them on Dejanews -- all the while knowing
that he'd insured they would not appear on Dejanews.
I thought that was deceitful and despicable behavior. I still do.
>Sorry, all
>my posts should be readily available on DejaNews. Anyone so far
>gone into the depths of despondency and psychosis that they would
>want to fish up any of my old posts will probably have the
>questionable joy of finding them. So you'll have to find some other
>reason to flame me, Diane. Although, I guess just disagreeing with
>you seems to be good enough...
Nope.
[snip]
>>>I suppose I shouldn't have used the term "experienced posters"
>>>without more clarification--I was referring to "experienced" with
>>>$cientology. As a matter of fact, I recall using the "FOAD" one
>>>myself. On you, Diane. In reference to your accusation of a lack
>>>of courage on the part of Warrior for not posting under his own
>>>name. Quite frankly, I still feel that way. Warrior, in posting
>>>his articles, displays more raw guts than I have ever seen in any
>of
>>>your posts, Diane.
>>>
>>>"He's BEEN there--and you probably don't even know where you are."
>>> --Dr. "Happy" Harry Cox, "Everything You Know is Wrong!"
>>
>>With that comment, you've just ignored the entire jist of the
>>conversation you were having with Judith. Remember the topic of
>this
>>thread? Remember that experienced knowledge is only one form of
>>knowledge and not automatically superior to other forms? No, I
>>didn't think you remembered that.
>
>No, with that comment, I was making a joke. You know what that is,
>don't you, Diane? The comment was a quote from an old Firesign
>Theatre album, which I felt was particularly apt at the moment.
>Ever listen to the Firesign Theatre, Diane? They'd enlighten you in
>a lot of ways, if you'd give them a chance.
Yep. I remember "Domini, domini, you're all Catholics" from the
*early* 1970s -- probably 1971. And since I've lived here, they did a
special public radio performance at the Knitting Factory, just a few
blocks from my place. I don't think they're quite as good as they
used to be, but they're still great.
>I realize you don't quite grok my sense of humor. That's ok, I
>don't grok your's either. Do you have one?
Yep. It's just that you seem to pull out your sense of humor every
time someone remarks on a comment you don't want to justify, that's
all.
>I am quite well aware of the topic of this thread--which is why I
>prefaced the post you responded to, and this post, with a disclaimer
>that it was basically off-topic for the thread, and that I was
>responding to more Diane malice. I suppose you didn't notice that,
>either.
Sure I did. So?
>Experience versus consensus has nothing to do with the comment you
>directed at Warrior, or the one I directed at you. As a matter of
>fact, I wasn't commenting on the superiority of one "form" of
>knowledge over another. I was commenting on what I perceive to be
>your lack of courage for sitting and sniping at others who have
>experienced Co$ firsthand--for instance, your sniping at Warrior for
>an alleged lack of courage on his part. Not on your lack of
>experience with the cult itself, nor on my perception of the
>relative value of your experiences versus those of Warrior, Dennis,
>Martin, Roland, Monica, all the others I'm not covering. Are we
>"clear" now?
Yep. I made that undeserved snipe at Warrior because he was hounding
me to reveal personal information about myself to this newsgroup.
Since I post under my real name and it's very easy to obtain my
address, phone number, etc., on the 'net, it's far more costly for me
to disclose personal information here than it is for a pseudonymous
poster to do so. That's all I meant by the wisecrack I made at
Warrior's expense.
>[Note for the humor-impaired: The "clear" crack in the preceding
>paragraph was a Co$-inspired joke. It wasn't really intended to be
>terribly funny. Sorry, Diane.]
>
>In the epistemic community known as "ars", there appears to be very
>little consensus beyond a general acceptance of Co$ as a "bad
>thing". I realize I'm going out on a limb here. YMMV. IMHO. HTH.
My mileage varies. In my *not* so humble opinion. [Note for the
humor-impaired. That was a joke. HTH.]
>
><snip>
>
>>>I really didn't want to get back into the flamewar. Seems like
>>>that's all Diane wants to do, anymore. Perhaps we can get back to
>>>discussing the nature of knowledge, and information?
>>
>>Sure. Let's bring up the point Judith made some time ago, the one
>I
>>thought you had agreed upon. There's more than one form of
>knowledge
>>that is valid. Ex-Scientologists[tm] have one sort of knowledge.
>>Those without any experience in the CoS have another sort of
>>knowledge. Both types of knowledge can be complimentary, but only
>if
>>the validity and importance of all kinds of knowledge are
>recognized.
>
>Well, I haven't noticed too many compliments being traded between
>the bearers of the mentioned two types of knowledge. If you meant
>"complementary" though, perhaps you're on to something.
Yep. That's what I meant.
>It's sort of what I was referring to, when I mentioned the old Woody
>Allen (I think) line about reality being a "collective hunch".
>Gross oversimplification, obviously, but there's a grain of truth to
>it.
>
>Diane, I think you need to carefully analyze your last sentence, in
>light of your recent vendetta against Anima. IMHO. YMMV. HTH.
>etc.
I don't understand the point you're making with this. Or are you just
trying to fan the flames I'm trying so hard to extinguish in this
thread?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Number 3
On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 00:02:32 +0100, in message <B0325998...@0.0.0.0>,
ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote:
>In article <34223ab5...@news.concentric.net>,
>dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>
>I don't have a view, largely because I don't believe I've ever
>had the data from a representative sample. My own view of the cult
>*is* shaped by those people who have had negative experiences.
i think it is probably also shaped by the books and reports
you may have read, which go beyond the particular experiences
of people here on the newsgroup.
>However, that's tempered by a feeling that many of those who
>remain in still feel they get something positive from the cult
if they, don't they probably leave. how many feel positive
about it after they're out, though? why would they leave
if they felt positive about it? from that perspective, and
given the high turnover of scientologists, one would expect
to see a significant differential of people who felt negative
to those to felt positive or neutral.
>(I find it hard to comprehend why, but there you are) and a growing
>suspicion that many people leave feeling that they've been overcharged
>perhaps, but still feeling broadly positive about the tech and
>the people they met there. Again, I don't understand this either.
i don't think there's a surprise about the people. people make
friends, and they appreciate people who are doing their best
to make something work. and without doubt, people in scientology
do their best, no matter how ludicrous it appears on the outside.
and some do feel positive about the tech, too, as the free zone
bears witness to. but even these are likely to be on the balance
negative about scientology the cult, otherwise, again, why would
they leave.
>
>My point is that the reality of the experience of cult membership
>is far more complex than this group is prepared to concede.
that's a claim that i don't believe is true, and i challenge
you to demonstrate it. to be clear, the challenge concerns
what the group is prepared to concede.
> I really wish I could get a better handle on this complexity, but
>whenever anyone *does* appear here who is prepared to talk about
>their positive experiences, they are immediately leapt upon by
>a huge string of fuckwits, ranting OSA, clam, etc.
that also is not true. the people who politely come in to
talk are met with a polite and generally moderate response. there
have been a number who have done so, although not so
many recently. that's not to say that they aren't substantially
outnumbered, and that the critics don't provide a significant
challenge to their belief structure. even new posters, unless
they are particularly clueless, are heard for several posts before
what you characterize as the ravening pack assembles. however,
when a scientologists view of the outside world is approximately
what is described by Freedom, then they do run into difficulties
rather quickly. they also run into difficulties when they attack
people in the group, or when it is obvious that the communication
is one-way.
i will, however, grant you that the 'no verbal tech' philosophy of
scientology predisposes them to difficulties in a forum like
a.r.s. but i claim it is less based on the fact that they *are*
scientologists than on the fact that they *act like*
scientologists.
>You've talked
>about how *you* believe Bernie's posts invalidates other people's
>experiences,
the invalidation does not come from bernie's statement that
he had a positive experience in scientology. i find that bernie
is at his best when he's talking about his actual experiences
in scientology, and why he feels how he does. the invalidation
comes when bernie tries to put down other posters because
they may appear to believe dennis, for example, more than he.
although you came along close enough to the time he was
phasing out of that to probably not observe it.
>but given that he's a single individual posting from
>a different viewpoint, I find it hard to grasp just how much of a
>problem that can be, given the overwhelming support that ex-clams
>get on this group. It seems to me that it must be far harder for
>someone whose experience is completely contrary to the bulk of the
>views expressed here to post.
again, for me at least, he is at his best when he talks
about his experience. i wish he would do more. bernie
runs into difficulties when he operates from a perspective
the he knows better than anyone on the newsgroup what
is true, and rages and fumes at our stupidity (which is maybe
our cult-like behavior), but doesn't really give anyone very
much basis for believing that we should accept bernie's
perspective.
>If you want to talk about the
>invalidation of experience, it seems to me that you should take an
>objective look at *that* process - although I can quite understand
>that someone who *has* had a particularly negative experience
>with the cult might not want to. But my own feeling is that being
>able to do so would indicate that somebody had moved on from their
>bitterness, and was trying to get a wider perspective on the whole
>issue, and in that sense I *do* agree with Bernie when he says
>that many ex-cultists are still stuck in the cultist mindset.
what exactly is the 'cultic mindset' that they are stuck with?
characterize how it operates, so that i can see it to. another
one of bernie's problems is that he could use terms like that
a lot, but never describe them in a way that i could see
matched my reality of the situation. but maybe you can
do better?
>
>>My short experience with
>>the cult was negative. Most of the ones I have seen here are
>>negative. Most of the ones I've seen in e-mail exchanges, web
>>pages, books, and personal (IRL) discussions have been negative.
>
>If you hang around with critics, you really shouldn't be surprised
>that all of their views are critical, but we really have no way
>of knowing how typical or how representative those views are. As
>I said, anyone trying to express a contrary view in these parts
>is rapidly set about by a mob insistant on proving the folly of
>their position.
i think that is way too simplistic. have you been set
about by a mob insistant on proving your folly?
>
>You've implied Bernie's invalidation is upsetting to you, or angers
>you. How do you suppose you would feel if you were posting in a
>group where poster after poster did precisely that? Do you really
>think you'd stick around very long to try and explain yourself?
i am reminded about my curiousity about why bernie
would do that, which you poo-poohed.
>particularly when it became clear that you weren't going to be
>allowed any latitude in your account - and so were going to have
>to define precisely every single ambiguous word you posted, because
>your opponents weren't prepared to engage in discussion on the sort
>of terms that most people take for granted when they are attempting
>to genuinely understand what the other person is saying?
whether you like it or not, if you are going to present new,
different, contrary views, you are going to have to make
them clear in people's minds to have an effect. you are
going to have to address the ambiguities that arise from
the new view being presented. you have to be very
careful about being misunderstood.
>
>My guess is that you wouldn't stick around very long either.
>
[clip]
>
>Personally, I believe that without exposure to a broad diversity
>of opinion, one really isn't going to get very far in understanding
>much, and when you've got people regularly abusing and vilifying
>people for holding different views, you can't expect them to
>stick around for long. What we've *all* got to ask ourselves is
>are we going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution?
returning to judith's epistemology topic, you need
more than exposure to opinion. you need exposure
to data - you need a way to acquire other people's
experiences, you need a way to structure those
experiences in a way that accomodates your own,
and you need a way to assimilate or internalize them.
exposure to opinion may provide ways of structuring
data, but if that's all you get, and if it is too much at
variance with your own structuring and experience, it
looks empty or in error, and it gets rejected. this is
not even bad, from an evolutionary perspective.
>
>I'm not asking you to. I'm just asking that you think about
>according the same sort of respect to someone who expresses that
>point of view as you'd expect others to accord to you.
>
i think we've found a replacement for peter nathan hass,
lo these many months :-)
John Ritson
In article <B0325998...@0.0.0.0>, Peter McDermott
<ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk> writes
[snip]
> But my own feeling is that being
>able to do so would indicate that somebody had moved on from their
>bitterness, and was trying to get a wider perspective on the whole
>issue, and in that sense I *do* agree with Bernie when he says
>that many ex-cultists are still stuck in the cultist mindset.
There is a Catch-22 here. If a person gives 'bitter' testimony that is
liable to be discounted because they are still stuck in the cultist
mindset. If they say that some things were good, some were bad, and it
is not too important to them these days, then this is evidence that they
have achieved the necessary wider perspective, but can also be taken as
evidence that whatever it is that the 'bitter' people are protesting
about is not really too bad.
John *** "A Scientologist is a first cousin to the Buddhist, a distant relative
to the Taoist, a feudal enemy of the enslaving priest and a bitter foe of the
German, Viennese and Russian defamers of Man." ***
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <340dee9d...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName:
>On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 15:58:40 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>What do YOU see when you read his responses to my posts, Diane?
>> >
>> >I see someone who has thought a great deal about his experience
>> >in the cult. Someone who has learned to grow from such an
>> >experience by examining the experience closely and thinking
>> >about it deeply.
This refers to Bernie Spoons? I see an asseesment so wide of
the reality that I begin to think it is a deliberate troll
>>
>>As I have thought a great deal about MY experience in the cult.
>>Reached my own conclusions. Grown older and wiser. Became more
>>aware of the nature of people, the nature of lies, the nature of
>>fraud. And, incidentally, more aware of my own nature. In spite of
>>$cientology.
>>
>>But then, since my conclusions don't agree with yours and Bernie's,
>>they must not be valid. *Now* I understand. Nice to know that
>>there's always someone out there willing to try to do my thinking
>>for me.
>
>I disagree with your conclusions about "cult mind control" and the use
>of hypnosis to implant otherwise unacceptable ideas into members'
>heads.
>You've engaged in addressing a lot of heated words at me because I
>don't agree with your conclusions about "cult mind control" and the
>use of hypnosis. But I'm not sure I understand why my disagreement
>with you over these subjects invalidates your own experience.
There are two questions as regards to the mindocontrol debate. The
one is, of course, assessing the experience of the witnesses here
and the various background research which can assist us.
The second, certainly when we see the OSA people frenziedly fall
upon it, is the *MANNER* and *MOTIVE* of their debating.
we seem to be getting honest and fairly objective reports from
people who now view things from the normal consensus.....yet
their experience is treated as nothing and insults are shouuted
at them. We get dishonesty, evasiveness, and every kind of thuggery.
We get a mad view of the world in which Leo Ryan is blamed for
provoking his angelic murderers.
And, seeing this, we begin to ask about motive. Which is not hard
to see. The cult have evry motivation to launch an all-out, frenzied,
deceitful attack on that which threatens their corporate profits:
any organisation such as CAN which offers voluntary exit counselling
to get relatives out of their clutches, anything which offers help
to the ex-member community, any analysis which helps for such opurposes
to understand and counter what they are up to. This is particularly
evident in barnie's thug attacks on alt.support.ex-cult to try and
disrupt any on-topic support being conducted there.
This is why it is such a heated debate....
/; ;\
-- Regards, __ \\____//
XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <up...@sunyit.edu>)
_____________________________/ :--' ____________________
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ]
\___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___]
`===='
"So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
Diane Richardson
On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 18:12:10 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
[snip]
>Well, blessed be my illustrious newsfeed, I haven't seen Diane's
>post yet, but I'll respond to this. The point I was making (which
>you conveniently snipped, Diane)
I did not snip it, bc. Since you haven't seen my post, I guess you're
just assuming the worst of me.
>was that I never said I didn't
>believe Bernie listened to me. I just don't believe it mattered one
>damn bit what I said. I fully well expect my assertions to be
>questioned and discussed if they are worthy of such treatment (or
>any treatment at all, for that matter)--but I don't expect to be
>told repeatedly that I basically did not experience what I know damn
>good and well I experienced.
In my reply which you have not seen, I asked you to describe what it
is you experienced that Bernie insisted you hadn't experienced.
If you see this reply, would you please address this?
>That's a completely different
>ballgame. The "semantic pummeling" I referred to was that of
>telling me, in essence, that I did not experience what I
>experienced. That I didn't know what I was talking about. Excuse
>me, but I tend to take offense when someone who doesn't know me from
>Adam tells me what I do and don't know.
What did Bernie claim you didn't know? That's my question to you.
>Once again, I have obviously failed to make my point clear. Looks
>like I'm gonna have to go back to monosyllables again. Let's
>see..._I_don't_like_being_lied_to_. How's that? (Sorry, one word
>in there had two syllables. Best I could do.)
What did Bernie lie about to you?
>>>The opportunity to analyze long-held opinions, defend those
>opinions
>>>in debate, and ultimately alter those opinions, reassess those
>>>opinions, or reaffirm them, is a great learning experience for me.
>>>It's one of the things that has kept me from wallowing in the same
>rut
>>>for a lifetime. It's my opportunity to learn and grow wiser.
>
>Absolutely! I firmly believe that that is one of the prime
>functions of Usenet (not to mention language in general). But do
>you analyze your opinions when you are flat-out told that they are
>non-existent? Or do you respond in a somewhat different fashion?
>- From what I've seen recently, Diane, I'd really be hard-pressed to
>cite any evidence of calm, cool, rational analysis of opinions on
>your part.
Well, you haven't seen my last reply to you. :-)
I think I've engaged in plenty of cool, rational analysis. I also
admit that I get irritated enough to flame those who attack me
personally. Does the fact that I've reacted like a normal human being
on occasion somehow erase the more even-toned messages I've written?
I find this odd since one of the ongoing complaints about me is that
I write like an unemotional robot, don't express emotions on the
newsgroup, etc. When I *do* express emotions, I'm criticized; when I
*don't* express emotions I'm criticized. Isn't that odd?
>If someone were to present you here and now with hard scientific
>proof that mind control exists and is used by $cientology, would you
>alter your opinion on it? [editor's note: this is a PURELY
>HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. godz forbid that this idiot should imply
>the existence of the dreaded, maligned *mind*control*] I find that
>rather hard to imagine. But that's just my opinion. That and 50
>cents will get you a cup of coffee (if you're not too picky about
>your coffee, that is).
Sure I would. Why wouldn't I? I'm a little perplexed at your
assumption that I wouldn't. The issue of "cult mind control" isn't
any sort of deeply held, religiously observed matter of faith to me.
I just posted what I had read about the subject.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 16:37:58 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis
Erlich) wrote:
[snip]
> Only fools would make such an argument as those above against her.
>Those are not my assertions. No, she does it for a less obvious, and
>perhaps more sinister reason than simple malice or chemical imbalance.
What less obvious and perhaps more sinister reason do you attribute
to me, Dennis?
Or, to use your language,
C'mon, Den. Spit it out. Whaddya tryin to get at here? You can say
it.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
<snip>
>>Diane, your "disagreement" with me took the form of denying the
>>possibility of my having experienced what I experienced basically
>>because you claim to have a stack of books refuting it.
>
>What experience of yours did I deny you experienced? I don't
>understand.
Cult mind control.
>>You
>>yourself have never been through it. I HAVE. You can sit in your
>>ivory tower and rant all you want. I know where I have been, and
I
>>know where I am today. I don't need a consensus from you, or this
>>newsgroup, to tell me what I know.
>
>This is where we should go back to Judith's discussion of
knowledge
>and the different types of knowledge, isn't it? I thought you had
>agreed that various forms of knowledge could complement one another
>rather than contradict each other. That's how I see things, at
least.
Precisely. Various forms of knowledge COMPLEMENT each other--they
do not rule each other out.
>>I really don't give a rat's ass what the courts and the APA have
to
>>say about it. Several hundred years ago, *EVERYBODY* knew that
the
>>Earth was the center of the universe. And it was by god a
>>SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT. And it held up IN COURT. And if you
>>didn't agree with it, OFF WITH YOUR HEAD (or pick another
punishment
>>for heresy).
>>
>>I do not acknowledge the APA or the US Court system (hah!) as the
>>final authority on the mind, any more than I acknowledge Elrong as
>>the final authority (on anything).
>
>That's fine with me, bc. I'm not demanding that you accept either
the
>courts or the APA as the final authority on anything. You are
>certainly free to hold whatever opinions you like.
Why, thank you. I feel so privileged! B-{)}
>I began posting psychological, sociological, and judicial opinions
>when I was challenged to prove that Margaret Singer's "cult mind
>control" theory was not accepted by her peers. I didn't post this
>material to invalidate your own subjective experience or the
>experiences of others. I just presented another viewpoint that was
>not being represented here by anyone, although there's certainly a
>large body of material on the subject.
Perhaps we're down to personal interpretations of words, again.
What I recall most from that whole extravaganza was that your
(basic, oversimplified on my part, IMHO, YMMV, etc.) opinion was
that cult mind control, as a phenomenon, does not exist. You
presented as "proof" the aforementioned psychological, sociological,
and judicial opinions.
The point I am trying to make is that if you go back just a few
hundred years, the debate over the relative positions of Sol and
Earth was carried on in precisely the same manner--with the
centrality of Earth absolutely proven by judicial and scientific
experts.
So I don't believe that just because the "experts" have passed
judgement, that it is so. OJ Simpson was found innocent in one
court, and then found guilty in another court. Is the US Court
system somewhat flawed? Or is it just me? (Or is the man both
guilty AND innocent? Or in the immortal words of Chico, "Vy a
duck?")
I know that my *subjective* experience was shared by many people who
post here. The numbers may not be statistically significant, but
they *are* significant in light of the issue at hand--that of cult
mind control. IMNSHO.
<snip>
>>>We get a mad view of the world in which Leo Ryan is blamed for
>>>provoking his angelic murderers.
>>
>>Precisely! While I don't for a moment believe that Diane or
Bernie
>>are on OSA's payroll, I do believe that by consistently attacking
>>critics, they tend to serve the purposes of the cult.
>
>What do you consider the purposes of the cult, bc?
WRT ars, to disrupt and impede criticism of the cult. It isn't
exactly nuclear science to figure THAT out.
>>People will try to come back and tell me that I'm "whining" over
>>Diane's impeccable logic and well-versed debating techniques.
Well,
>>once again, I say bullshit. Seems to me that Diane is on a
personal
>>vendetta--and to hell with anyone who happens to disagree with
her.
>>I would dearly love to be proven wrong.
>
><sigh> I've been trying very hard not to reply to your jibes, bc.
>Why do you think I'm on a personal vendetta? Who am I after? Why?
>I've heard this charge made against me quite often, but I still
don't
>understand what it's supposed to mean.
Jibes? I don't see how I'm shifting suddenly and forcibly from one
side to another here. As a matter of fact, I thought I was being
fairly consistent in my postings. And I'm certainly not being in
accord or agreeing with you. (as "jibe" is defined in Webster's
Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary--in case you were wondering...) Not
jibes. No, just observations. If you aren't aware of how you come
across around here, it's certainly not my place to enlighten you.
But hey, what the hell, here goes: Dennis Erlich. Dave Bird.
Roland. Pope Charles. Warrior. Once again, these are my personal
observations.
What more is there to understand? Why not ask the others who are
making the "charge"? You've got my two cent's worth now. (And if
coffee is $.52, well...) If you'd communicate instead of sniping,
maybe you'd get better results. It could happen...
>Do you think I'm on a personal vendetta against you? Why would I
do
>that? I just don't understand.
No, I think I'm just one of the stupid schmucks who made the mistake
of disagreeing with you. You don't know me well enough to show the
level of venom and malice toward me that you do toward Dennis (for
instance). At least not yet...
<snip>
>>Yes. But this begs the question--what motive could Bernie and
Diane
>>(among others) have for doing this? I am not as active on ase-c
as
>>I am on ars, but I have observed this in both ng's. OSA & RTC's
>>motive is obvious. The motive of supposed "critics" in this is
>>practically unfathomable. IMO.
>
>That's because I have no motive. I'm not on a personal vendetta,
>against you or anyone else. I'm just trying to discuss issues.
For
>some unknown reason, rational discussion of certain issues seems
>to anger some people something fierce. I don't understand why
If it was *rational* discussion of issues that was occurring here, I
don't think the ng would have been embroiled in the flamewar from
hell over the last couple of months. I'm not pointing fingers--I
think this is a wide-spread phenomenon, not just limited to one or
two posters. (Myself included--I've shot more than a couple of
flames out recently.)
Just as an example, I don't believe that accusing anonymous or semi-
anonymous posters of cowardice simply for posting anonymously is
even remotely related to a "rational discussion" of issues. It's
just fucking rude and childish. IMNSHO.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBBLKan8flYc1m/ZAQEaiQf+P6J41kkzdfdx55GK6sOt7aTi/GZZKVrN
Fg6PtM5qYVzZmnlJ5h1eX2gd42A0+SysfCsQwFROothbhjNIASosmLhsljgDd3fB
ImnX9KEn6qFA0VrzDtoioxNGrqhteV9ZgjrkH7IzZfeKB6pCQg1ApTrbA4WwTI1J
TfHDWOGjAzaTRZCRv2laRhFiDmKjiFl4D4ktus65KdUr1rAu7rCGb5gG8csrQ2jR
MS+3Ep3ZmFRiX3NvBYFza5uWjN9FdDHrUah3PkD5puHTUQ/Q8AjFB7V0Znu+oYtv
oyBag0jV2E6hZUTpeMVQA4r0eAPdqTWxIGEzQ01C+lkuIUKYVm+fUw==
=nCCw
Fast
On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 00:02:36 +0100, ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter
McDermott) wrote:
> The only thing that I have in common with Diane and Bernie, is that
> I've insisted that their arguments deserve a fairer hearing than
> they've been getting in the two or three weeks since I've been
> back here, and that their vilification seems to me to be completely
> unnecessary and unwarranted.
Unnecessary maybe, unwarranted definitely not.
- Fast
"There is no black and white - the gray I'm not sure about."
Rebecca Hartong
>That's because I have no motive. I'm not on a personal vendetta,
>against you or anyone else. I'm just trying to discuss issues. For
>some unknown reason, rational discussion of certain issues seems
>to anger some people something fierce. I don't understand why
I think it's because rational discussion--discussion that is open to
various interpretations of experience--may prove threatening to some
people's Weltanschauung.
Many people don't want to give true consideration to alternative
explanations for their experiences. It's just too frightening.
You, Diane, are one of those (seemingly) rare people who can generally
discuss the various interpretations of an experience without bringing
her emotional preference for one interpretation or another into the
mix. I think most people have a lot of difficulty doing that--
particularly if they've been comfortably living with one pet
interpretation for a long time without having had it questioned.
You intend to only question the concept, but to the person being
questioned (who has a strong emotional attachment to their personal
interpretation) it feels like an attack.
Rebecca Hartong
************************************************************
"One unerring mark of the love of truth is not entertaining
any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is
built upon will warrant." --John Locke
Peter McDermott
In article <3411e982....@news.concentric.net>,
dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>>argue and debate. If Diane's arguments are weak, there's no
>>shortage of people here to jump all over her and point that
>>out. In fact, even when they aren't weak, there are enough people
>>here who lack the insight into the difference between a 'good'
>>(ie, logical and coherent) argument and a poor one to take a
>>shot at it anyway. It hardly seems reasonable to whine about
>>'semantic pummelling' because she tends to decisively defeat
>>such people in argument.
>
>Whine? Would you care to clarify that little statement, Peter? I
You're right. I erroneously assumed that your 'semantic
pummelling' reference referred to Diane, largely because I've
seen her arguments dismissed as 'semantic trickery' before.
Have an apology for my error,
>have yet to concede defeat to Diane, Bernie, or anyone else. As a
You don't need to concede it. It's there for anyone to see
on the threads on mind control.
>matter of fact, I don't see my presence here as a competition with
>anyone. I'm not out to "defeat" anyone, or be "defeated" by anyone.
That's funny, because you really don't strike me as someone
who is interested synthesizing the useful stuff in opposing
viewpoints and moving forward.
In light of that, why else would you argue with an
opponent?
> I'm not even sure why I'm responding to this. But if you insist on
>taking this to a personal, third-grade level and throwing out an
>accusation of "whining", rather than discussing the issues involved
>in a rational fashion, I'd have to invite you to FOAD. Politely, of
>course.
Um, Pot-Kettle-Black
><snip>
>
>>Anyway, my point is that what BC calls 'semantic pummelling' is
>>really the best tool that we have. ie the ability to ask questions,
>>to challenge basic assumptions, to point up the flaws in each
>>other's logic. If we don't subject *all* claims to the same
>>rigorous testing, then we have to accept $cientology's argument
>>that critics are biased, bigoted and operate a double standard.
>
>If you read the entire newsgroup,
Maybe if I didn't have a life, I'd have the time. But actually,
I don't have the inclination any more. Not enough of interest
here anymore, I'm afraid.
To be quite honest, I only popped in because I saw a brief
reference to Ginger Breggin's wife being a Scientologist in
"Week in Review". I hadn't really intended to stick around,
but I found myself intrigued by Diane's transformation from
ARSCC Kha Khan to OSA plant. I know that the regulars here
profess to be bored with it (despite continuing to perpetuate
the threads on the topic) but it's still relatively new and
interesting to me, whereas most of the other stuff being
discussed here hasn't changed at all in the last two or
three years.
Perhaps I'll go back to reading Week-in-Review once a week.
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
bc:
>>Well, blessed be my illustrious newsfeed, I haven't seen Diane's
>>post yet, but I'll respond to this. The point I was making (which
>>you conveniently snipped, Diane)
diane:
>I did not snip it, bc. Since you haven't seen my post, I guess
you're
>just assuming the worst of me.
Mea culpa, and sincere apologies. Concentric's newsfeed (our motto:
"computing in ever-decreasing circles!") is creating an enormous
vacuum these days. I saw only what Peter included in his response.
If your original doesn't show up soon, I'll go over to Deja News and
find it.
>>was that I never said I didn't
>>believe Bernie listened to me. I just don't believe it mattered
one
>>damn bit what I said. I fully well expect my assertions to be
>>questioned and discussed if they are worthy of such treatment (or
>>any treatment at all, for that matter)--but I don't expect to be
>>told repeatedly that I basically did not experience what I know
damn
>>good and well I experienced.
>
>In my reply which you have not seen, I asked you to describe what
it
>is you experienced that Bernie insisted you hadn't experienced.
>If you see this reply, would you please address this?
I have addressed this in a different post on the thread "Diane-Mind
Control", but in essence, the experience was cult mind control.
>>That's a completely different
>>ballgame. The "semantic pummeling" I referred to was that of
>>telling me, in essence, that I did not experience what I
>>experienced. That I didn't know what I was talking about. Excuse
>>me, but I tend to take offense when someone who doesn't know me
from
>>Adam tells me what I do and don't know.
>
>What did Bernie claim you didn't know? That's my question to you.
What Bernie claimed was that I didn't experience mind control. I
claimed that I did. Bernie then informs me that I am a "member" of
the "anti-cult cult". In beautiful Midwest America, we have a word
for this. We call it "bullshit."
>>Once again, I have obviously failed to make my point clear. Looks
>>like I'm gonna have to go back to monosyllables again. Let's
>>see..._I_don't_like_being_lied_to_. How's that? (Sorry, one word
>>in there had two syllables. Best I could do.)
>
>What did Bernie lie about to you?
See above.
>>>>The opportunity to analyze long-held opinions, defend those
>>opinions
>>>>in debate, and ultimately alter those opinions, reassess those
>>>>opinions, or reaffirm them, is a great learning experience for
me.
>>>>It's one of the things that has kept me from wallowing in the
same
>>rut
>>>>for a lifetime. It's my opportunity to learn and grow wiser.
>>
>>Absolutely! I firmly believe that that is one of the prime
>>functions of Usenet (not to mention language in general). But do
>>you analyze your opinions when you are flat-out told that they are
>>non-existent? Or do you respond in a somewhat different fashion?
>>- From what I've seen recently, Diane, I'd really be hard-pressed
to
>>cite any evidence of calm, cool, rational analysis of opinions on
>>your part.
>
>Well, you haven't seen my last reply to you. :-)
*bc bashes his head against the keyboard and apologizes profusely to
the world
<bc>n,opkl;jqfwgv4
<bc>ouch...
[editor's note: the preceding is NOT a log of an actual IRC
session. it's just this asshole bc screwing around again. dress
him up, we can't take him anywhere...]
>I think I've engaged in plenty of cool, rational analysis. I also
>admit that I get irritated enough to flame those who attack me
>personally. Does the fact that I've reacted like a normal human
being
>on occasion somehow erase the more even-toned messages I've
written?
Hell, no! I personally find cool, rational analysis, while
immensely important, to get rather boring after a while. That's why
I like to throw the occasional joke in a post--to lighten things up
a bit. We don't always have to be so goddamn sepulchral around
here. IMHO, a little Joking and Degrading is a good thing (tm)!
We're all "normal" human beings (I think that the term "normal"
almost always belongs in quotes--sorry, nasty habit of mine).
"Prick us, do we not bleed?"
>I find this odd since one of the ongoing complaints about me is
that
>I write like an unemotional robot, don't express emotions on the
>newsgroup, etc. When I *do* express emotions, I'm criticized; when
I
>*don't* express emotions I'm criticized. Isn't that odd?
Diane, when did I ever accuse you of writing like "an unemotional
robot"? We're not doing the Comm Course now. Nobody's gonna say
"FLUNK for having a good time. Begin!" in their best tone 40. At
least I'm not going to.
Expressing emotions is one of the main reasons language was
developed. (At least it seems logical to me.) And it seems to me
that just about everyone around here gets criticized for one thing
or another. This is usenet.
>>If someone were to present you here and now with hard scientific
>>proof that mind control exists and is used by $cientology, would
you
>>alter your opinion on it? [editor's note: this is a PURELY
>>HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. godz forbid that this idiot should imply
>>the existence of the dreaded, maligned *mind*control*] I find
that
>>rather hard to imagine. But that's just my opinion. That and 50
>>cents will get you a cup of coffee (if you're not too picky about
>>your coffee, that is).
>
>Sure I would. Why wouldn't I? I'm a little perplexed at your
>assumption that I wouldn't. The issue of "cult mind control" isn't
>any sort of deeply held, religiously observed matter of faith to
me.
>I just posted what I had read about the subject.
I'm not going to trot out statistics--but there was a SHITLOAD of
posts from you for something that is such a minor concern of yours.
I've read on the subject, too. I've experienced the subject. I
believe it exists. Several other folks do, too. We have jointly
and severally been accused of being "anti-cult cultists", attempting
to "cop-out" because mind control is "an excuse to not take
responsibility for our actions", and of believing anything Margaret
Singer has to say, just because she and that damn Lofton (or
whatever TF his name is) said it. Among other various and sundry
nasty things. (This is not all directed at you, Diane--the subject
is a wide one.) And hey, that's what happens on Usenet. Like I
said before, I'm used to people disagreeing with me--I'm a bass
player.
It's just that in all the time I have been posting here, and in all
the time I lurked before I started posting, I have never seen such a
level of pure malice as I've seen recently. I firmly believe that
this serves the purposes of the cult of $cientology--the purpose of
preventing effective criticism of the cult.
*bc jumps off the soapbox, spraining his ankle on the way down
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBCGo6n8flYc1m/ZAQFFcgf7BJVdTdUPbpDTXSWgV7ujdqMvXRnWnr84
kBYQifilTV1DBPyUKKq8pYTY2Uteobe4/1qOIRufq7W/LJ9mneeQRR6916kCIDky
Kj2cA+0Z7cu2tnAlCQAXAkxip1Fsf6x15qOiGiTXAHuwVrHs8eQKF/XN/K6qTRjR
CiQNBWpEP42hS+9/c9B+cPebGQ6lHh5ObP+O9jzXVXa3YUEEKua1Ei7W52WxdZMx
o1Dby53yO8zLHvIkxJhcZDYqlOTed3h0ZyYvXkVtfaDOe+V6fgkgLe8eAE73MLX0
sJ8ay4lwQ8Dk8vOj9LjAc5+ur+3HpW0hPa8pBeX1QXdYujvpDsi/1Q==
=nSZ2
Peter McDermott
In article <Q$$KOLAWh...@jritson.demon.co.uk>,
John Ritson <jo...@jritson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> But my own feeling is that being
>>able to do so would indicate that somebody had moved on from their
>>bitterness, and was trying to get a wider perspective on the whole
>>issue, and in that sense I *do* agree with Bernie when he says
>>that many ex-cultists are still stuck in the cultist mindset.
>[snip]
>There is a Catch-22 here. If a person gives 'bitter' testimony that is
>liable to be discounted because they are still stuck in the cultist
>mindset. If they say that some things were good, some were bad, and it
>is not too important to them these days, then this is evidence that they
>have achieved the necessary wider perspective, but can also be taken as
>evidence that whatever it is that the 'bitter' people are protesting
>about is not really too bad.
I don't think that's quite what I was getting at. I don't have
any problem with people telling us about their horrendous
experiences with Scientology, *nor* do I think that that alone
is indicative of a cultic mindset.
My problem is when somebody else comes along and says 'well,
my experience was different', and that person isn't able to
acknowledge the possibility that it *might* be different for
other people. This says nothing at all about the overall goodness
or badness of the cult itself, or the fact that it has engaged
in evil actions, it simply reflects an ability to take all the
data into account rather than automatically dividing the world
up into pure good and pure evil.
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) brewed up the following,
and served it to the group:
<snip>
>>Whine? Would you care to clarify that little statement, Peter? I
>
>You're right. I erroneously assumed that your 'semantic
>pummelling' reference referred to Diane, largely because I've
>seen her arguments dismissed as 'semantic trickery' before.
>
>Have an apology for my error,
Thank you. I'm touched.
>>have yet to concede defeat to Diane, Bernie, or anyone else. As a
>
>You don't need to concede it. It's there for anyone to see
>on the threads on mind control.
Indeed...I thought you hadn't been reading all that, Peter. Make up
your mind. Did you actually read the posts?
>>matter of fact, I don't see my presence here as a competition with
>>anyone. I'm not out to "defeat" anyone, or be "defeated" by
anyone.
>
>That's funny, because you really don't strike me as someone
>who is interested synthesizing the useful stuff in opposing
>viewpoints and moving forward.
Once again. If you haven't been reading all the posts, I'd have to
venture a guess that you just don't know WTF you're talking about.
The last seventeen years of my life have been an exercise in moving
forward from my time in the cult of $cientology, Peter. If you
actually had a clue about me, you might have known that.
Opposing viewpoints that are presented as viewpoints, and not as
gospel to be crammed down my throat, can be quite illuminating. If
you haven't read the threads between Bernie and myself, and all the
others, I'd have to say once again that it appears you just don't
know what the fuck you're talking about.
>In light of that, why else would you argue with an
>opponent?
I suppose the concept of discussing things on Usenet is foreign to
you, Peter? Obviously the concept of having a clue before you start
attacking someone is.
>> I'm not even sure why I'm responding to this. But if you insist
on
>>taking this to a personal, third-grade level and throwing out an
>>accusation of "whining", rather than discussing the issues
involved
>>in a rational fashion, I'd have to invite you to FOAD. Politely,
of
>>course.
>
>Um, Pot-Kettle-Black
Excuse me, I didn't call you anything. I just politely invited you
to FOAD.
The invitation remains open.
<snip>
>>If you read the entire newsgroup,
>
>Maybe if I didn't have a life, I'd have the time. But actually,
>I don't have the inclination any more. Not enough of interest
>here anymore, I'm afraid.
Such a shame that you don't have the inclination to actually get a
clue. There's lots of good posts going on around here, among the
flames. You just have to look for them.
Rather than just jumping in the middle of a thread, flaming someone,
then posting a lame response like this one.
I fail to be impressed.
Have a REALLY nice day. Somewhere else.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBCPJ6n8flYc1m/ZAQEWUwf/SUzv8c4LRSOAAjt+UVGrgrhjKqY7H/M1
3o8j//RizDlWr+NPtAYVw9bxRaKa/8uhcdkf4oH0LPn9fSEcS8z8apadY3TFNCkc
wRkNCcS3TtSGl7VzGXZKTazhn2PTkmE2Nxxz5S5flZ6U4+UFThhsGdSBsXs3qeoS
8fYBtsubJv5UekliyEbmtXTu02tzTCXB5cm5q0ZT/zZAq4rX5a3YIFaFwkqkbUs5
dbuy45yr2Vnw7pTPJSLq26RG1+r+dt5yqJIvFj2zfqu1yKvErOOxFg+Z1nyrD2RV
56xJpolsDexKgJbfpBnrLY93FePfup9pdO0GLS6xuKliRN9BxieEQQ==
=6Djc
Peter McDermott
In article <3411e982....@news.concentric.net>,
dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>If you read the entire newsgroup, and not just Diane's threads, you
>might be amazed at some of what is happening. GO papers being
>posted and discussed, more $cientologists posting (and believe it or
>not, not getting immediately flamed--at least the one that I saw who
>was speaking somewhat with his own voice, and not Elrong's).
>The ability to ask questions and challenge basic assumptions is
>vital to all human activity, Peter. It does not necessarily follow
>that one must do so in a violent fashion. The $cientologists' posts
>are subjected to that rigorous testing, and come up wanting (IMHO).
>The critics' posts undergo the same--and most, IMO, stand on their
>own. They are borne out by common observations and experiences.
>There is a difference between discussing the information, and
>attacking the poster. I freely admit, though, that this attacking
>goes on a lot--on BOTH sides of the fence.
>
>But what this comes down to, in this instance, is that you have
>extrapolated from a comment I made specifically about Bernie, to
>"whining" on my part about Diane and the rest of the world. That's
>bullshit, Peter. Please try to get your facts straight before you
>start making accusations and sarcastic comments.
Diane Richardson
On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 18:14:38 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
>served it to the group:
>
><snip>
>
>>>Diane, your "disagreement" with me took the form of denying the
>>>possibility of my having experienced what I experienced basically
>>>because you claim to have a stack of books refuting it.
>>
>>What experience of yours did I deny you experienced? I don't
>>understand.
>
>Cult mind control.
Do you mean "cult mind control" as defined by Steve Hassan, Margaret
Singer, et al? Or do you have your own interpretation of what that
term means?
>>>You
>>>yourself have never been through it. I HAVE. You can sit in your
>
>>>ivory tower and rant all you want. I know where I have been, and
>I
>>>know where I am today. I don't need a consensus from you, or this
>
>>>newsgroup, to tell me what I know.
>>
>>This is where we should go back to Judith's discussion of
>knowledge
>>and the different types of knowledge, isn't it? I thought you had
>>agreed that various forms of knowledge could complement one another
>>rather than contradict each other. That's how I see things, at
>least.
>
>Precisely. Various forms of knowledge COMPLEMENT each other--they
>do not rule each other out.
They only rule each other out if the people on either side of the
issue refuse to discuss their opinions. Are you willing to discuss
"cult mind control"? Or will you just indulge yourself in another
shouting match, refusing to discuss the issue?
I reported on what I had read. What I read was essentially a
refutation of Singer, Hassan, et al.'s "cult mind control" theory.
I tend to agree, in large part, with what the negative analysis of
the "cult mind control" theory.
I did not see you or anyone else debate the points presented in these
refutations of the "cult mind control" theory. What I saw instead was
a blanket condemnation of anyone who did not accept the Singer/
Hassan theory as valid. What I saw was a lot of shouting about
*knowing* through personal experience, which sounded a hell of a lot
like Hubbard's "what's true for you" rationalization.
I'll be glad to discuss various points of the "cult mind control"
theory refutations with you. What I don't enjoy is hearing endlessly
repeated screeches about how you *know* something exists because you
*experienced* it. That's what fundamentalist Christians do when they
argue the existence of God. It's an argument from faith, not reason.
>The point I am trying to make is that if you go back just a few
>hundred years, the debate over the relative positions of Sol and
>Earth was carried on in precisely the same manner--with the
>centrality of Earth absolutely proven by judicial and scientific
>experts.
This isn't a debate over whether the earth orbits the sun or the sun
orbits the earth, bc. And this isn't the Middle Ages anymore.
One would think that you could offer up something more substantial
than faith to argue for the existence of "cult mind control." If you
have anything more substantial than that, present it. Please.
>So I don't believe that just because the "experts" have passed
>judgement, that it is so. OJ Simpson was found innocent in one
>court, and then found guilty in another court. Is the US Court
>system somewhat flawed? Or is it just me? (Or is the man both
>guilty AND innocent? Or in the immortal words of Chico, "Vy a
>duck?")
No, the US Court system in the OJ Simpson case depended upon the
opinions of members of a jury made up of human beings. Sometimes
humans make appropriate decisions and sometimes they don't.
We're humans here, too. We can base our opinions on faulty logic and
flawed analyses just as surely as a jury can. Fortunately, our
opinions don't have quite the same consequences as those of a jury in
a criminal trial. And we're under no obligation to reach a unanimous
decisions, either.
What's wrong with discussing our different perceptions, bc? Why take
such a rigid stance that someone is directly attacking you personally
when they disagree with your opinion?
>I know that my *subjective* experience was shared by many people who
>post here. The numbers may not be statistically significant, but
>they *are* significant in light of the issue at hand--that of cult
>mind control. IMNSHO.
All I'm saying is that your subjective experience was not universally
held. There are others who went through the same experience you did
but arrived at a different opinion. Why do you think that is a direct
attack upon you?
><snip>
>
>>>>We get a mad view of the world in which Leo Ryan is blamed for
>>>>provoking his angelic murderers.
>>>
>>>Precisely! While I don't for a moment believe that Diane or
>Bernie
>>>are on OSA's payroll, I do believe that by consistently attacking
>>>critics, they tend to serve the purposes of the cult.
>>
>>What do you consider the purposes of the cult, bc?
>
>WRT ars, to disrupt and impede criticism of the cult. It isn't
>exactly nuclear science to figure THAT out.
Do you believe that ONLY cultists might want to question criticism of
the cult? Obviously, I don't agree with that assessment. I believe
that a rational, balanced view of the CoS threat is a much more
effective approach than the wild, unsubstantiated claims that have
been made here.
>>>People will try to come back and tell me that I'm "whining" over
>>>Diane's impeccable logic and well-versed debating techniques.
>Well,
>>>once again, I say bullshit. Seems to me that Diane is on a
>personal
>>>vendetta--and to hell with anyone who happens to disagree with
>her.
>>>I would dearly love to be proven wrong.
>>
>><sigh> I've been trying very hard not to reply to your jibes, bc.
>>Why do you think I'm on a personal vendetta? Who am I after? Why?
>>I've heard this charge made against me quite often, but I still
>don't
>>understand what it's supposed to mean.
>
>Jibes? I don't see how I'm shifting suddenly and forcibly from one
>side to another here.
I consider your statement that I'm engaged in a personal vendetta a
jibe, bc. YMMV, but I'm not sure how.
>As a matter of fact, I thought I was being
>fairly consistent in my postings. And I'm certainly not being in
>accord or agreeing with you. (as "jibe" is defined in Webster's
>Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary--in case you were wondering...) Not
>jibes. No, just observations. If you aren't aware of how you come
>across around here, it's certainly not my place to enlighten you.
>
>But hey, what the hell, here goes: Dennis Erlich. Dave Bird.
>Roland. Pope Charles. Warrior. Once again, these are my personal
>observations.
So you think I'm on a personal vendetta against all these people?
Why?
>What more is there to understand? Why not ask the others who are
>making the "charge"? You've got my two cent's worth now. (And if
>coffee is $.52, well...) If you'd communicate instead of sniping,
>maybe you'd get better results. It could happen...
Let's take a look at that sniping a little more closely, bc. Who
started the sniping -- Barwell or me? Is Barwell blameless in this?
Is it all my fault? Should I sit in silence while Barwell blasts me
for things that exist only in his own confused mind?
I doubt if you would be willing to sit in silence if you received the
same treatment, bc. Why do you expect that from me?
>>Do you think I'm on a personal vendetta against you? Why would I
>do
>>that? I just don't understand.
>
>No, I think I'm just one of the stupid schmucks who made the mistake
>of disagreeing with you. You don't know me well enough to show the
>level of venom and malice toward me that you do toward Dennis (for
>instance). At least not yet...
Nor will you see it, bc. I'm not sure why you're so eager to jump
into the victim role. Perhaps it's because it gives you a certain
status on the newsgroup or something?
><snip>
>
>>>Yes. But this begs the question--what motive could Bernie and
>Diane
>>>(among others) have for doing this? I am not as active on ase-c
>as
>>>I am on ars, but I have observed this in both ng's. OSA & RTC's
>>>motive is obvious. The motive of supposed "critics" in this is
>>>practically unfathomable. IMO.
>>
>>That's because I have no motive. I'm not on a personal vendetta,
>>against you or anyone else. I'm just trying to discuss issues.
>For
>>some unknown reason, rational discussion of certain issues seems
>>to anger some people something fierce. I don't understand why
>
>If it was *rational* discussion of issues that was occurring here, I
>don't think the ng would have been embroiled in the flamewar from
>hell over the last couple of months. I'm not pointing fingers--I
>think this is a wide-spread phenomenon, not just limited to one or
>two posters. (Myself included--I've shot more than a couple of
>flames out recently.)
>
>Just as an example, I don't believe that accusing anonymous or semi-
>anonymous posters of cowardice simply for posting anonymously is
>even remotely related to a "rational discussion" of issues. It's
>just fucking rude and childish. IMNSHO.
That anonymous poster insisted that I reveal personal information
about myself, bc. I made that comment to make him realize that
revelations of such a personal nature are far easier for someone
posting under a pseudonym to make than for someone posting under
her real name.
If another person wants to demand that I make such personal
information public, he's going to have to exhibit a similar
willingness to make himself just as vulnerable as he wishes to make
others.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Rebecca Hartong
In article <34113650....@news.concentric.net>, great.question.life.universe@everything wrote:
>The point I am trying to make is that if you go back just a few
>hundred years, the debate over the relative positions of Sol and
>Earth was carried on in precisely the same manner--with the
>centrality of Earth absolutely proven by judicial and scientific
>experts.
The relative positions of sun and earth were understood a few hundred
years ago based almost entirely upon how things appeared to the naked
eye. It *looks like* the sun revolves around the earth, it *feels
like* the earth is not moving, so it didn't seem unreasonable to
conclude that that's exactly what was happening. This is an excellent
example, though, of how unreliable subjective experience is in
determining what is "true."
>So I don't believe that just because the "experts" have passed
>judgement, that it is so. OJ Simpson was found innocent in one
>court, and then found guilty in another court. Is the US Court
>system somewhat flawed? Or is it just me? (Or is the man both
>guilty AND innocent? Or in the immortal words of Chico, "Vy a
>duck?")
Actually, you are mistaken about this. OJ was not found innocent.
There was insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. Big difference. The requirements for liability (not guilt) in
civil court (where he was found responsible for the deaths) are more
lenient than the requirements of criminal court.
>I know that my *subjective* experience was shared by many people who
>post here. The numbers may not be statistically significant, but
>they *are* significant in light of the issue at hand--that of cult
>mind control. IMNSHO.
As with your example of sun and earth, though, many people can have a
similar experience of a thing and ALL still be wrong.
Diane Richardson
Hey, until a year ago, I called the Heartland my home, too. I don't
consider Bernie's statements "bullshit," though. Don't blame your
attitude on geography, bc. [that, btw, was a joke]
>>>Once again, I have obviously failed to make my point clear. Looks
>
>>>like I'm gonna have to go back to monosyllables again. Let's
>>>see..._I_don't_like_being_lied_to_. How's that? (Sorry, one word
>
>>>in there had two syllables. Best I could do.)
>>
>>What did Bernie lie about to you?
>
>See above.
What was Bernie's lie? That "cult mind control" doesn't exist or that
you are a member of the "anti-cult cult"? Do you really think that
either of those qualifies as a lie, rather than just a difference of
opinion? That's how I see it, at least.
The humorless librarian laughed at this one.
>>I think I've engaged in plenty of cool, rational analysis. I also
>>admit that I get irritated enough to flame those who attack me
>>personally. Does the fact that I've reacted like a normal human
>being
>>on occasion somehow erase the more even-toned messages I've
>written?
>
>Hell, no! I personally find cool, rational analysis, while
>immensely important, to get rather boring after a while. That's why
>I like to throw the occasional joke in a post--to lighten things up
>a bit. We don't always have to be so goddamn sepulchral around
>here. IMHO, a little Joking and Degrading is a good thing (tm)!
>
>We're all "normal" human beings (I think that the term "normal"
>almost always belongs in quotes--sorry, nasty habit of mine).
>"Prick us, do we not bleed?"
The problem I see with Joking and Degrading[tm] is that the joking is
frequently done at someone else's expense and the degrading is a
deliberate personal attack on another individual.
I admit that I'm offering pot-kettle-black here. I just wonder if we
should all be required to identity genuine Joking and Degrading[tm]
posts to distinguish them from Personal Attack[tm] posts. Sometimes a
post-post disclaimer that something was all meant in fun sounds more
like a convenient excuse for flaming than anything more profound.
>>I find this odd since one of the ongoing complaints about me is
>that
>>I write like an unemotional robot, don't express emotions on the
>>newsgroup, etc. When I *do* express emotions, I'm criticized; when
>I
>>*don't* express emotions I'm criticized. Isn't that odd?
>
>Diane, when did I ever accuse you of writing like "an unemotional
>robot"? We're not doing the Comm Course now. Nobody's gonna say
>"FLUNK for having a good time. Begin!" in their best tone 40. At
>least I'm not going to.
I dunno. I guess I could spend a half-hour or so searching through
dejanews, but it's Friday night and I'm just not into doing that right
now.
You *have* accused me of engaging in a "personal vendetta" against any
number of regulars here, including Dennis Erlich, Barwell, et al.
Somehow you see my messages to them as some sort of dire threat to the
newsgroup or to the newsgroup's "purpose."
I think if you'll examine what occurred between both Dennis and me and
Barwell and me, you'll see that both of them came on the newsgroup
gunning for me. I sure as hell didn't start either of those
flamewars. But somehow, nevertheless, I'm blamed for them. I'm not
whining about this -- I've grown used to the accusation by now. It's
just that such an accusation is neither accurate nor fair.
>Expressing emotions is one of the main reasons language was
>developed. (At least it seems logical to me.) And it seems to me
>that just about everyone around here gets criticized for one thing
>or another. This is usenet.
Yep. But when rational discussion gives way to emotional attacks upon
people rather than debate over issues, there's not much of a reason to
read a newsgroup, is there? Unless, of course, the reader gets off on
eavesdropping on neighbors' personal spats.
>>>If someone were to present you here and now with hard scientific
>>>proof that mind control exists and is used by $cientology, would
>you
>>>alter your opinion on it? [editor's note: this is a PURELY
>>>HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. godz forbid that this idiot should imply
>>>the existence of the dreaded, maligned *mind*control*] I find
>that
>>>rather hard to imagine. But that's just my opinion. That and 50
>>>cents will get you a cup of coffee (if you're not too picky about
>>>your coffee, that is).
>>
>>Sure I would. Why wouldn't I? I'm a little perplexed at your
>>assumption that I wouldn't. The issue of "cult mind control" isn't
>>any sort of deeply held, religiously observed matter of faith to
>me.
>>I just posted what I had read about the subject.
>
>I'm not going to trot out statistics--but there was a SHITLOAD of
>posts from you for something that is such a minor concern of yours.
It *is* a minor concern of mine, bc. I trotted out that shitload
because Martin Hunt kept demanding that I prove my statement that the
"cult mind control" theory had been largely debunked. Martin managed
to keep finding reasons to reject each and every piece I posted, so I
just kept giving him more. The typical responses: "Yeah, but that
was just the statement of one kook cult apologist," "Yeah, but that
was just the statement of some crazy sociologist -- what about
psychologists?" This went on and on, and I kept presenting what
Martin demanded. And believe me, I had a long way to go to exhaust
the overwhelming evidence I had to support my claim that the Singer/
Hassan "cult mind control" theory had been thoroughly debunked.
>I've read on the subject, too. I've experienced the subject. I
>believe it exists. Several other folks do, too. We have jointly
>and severally been accused of being "anti-cult cultists", attempting
>to "cop-out" because mind control is "an excuse to not take
>responsibility for our actions", and of believing anything Margaret
>Singer has to say, just because she and that damn Lofton (or
>whatever TF his name is) said it. Among other various and sundry
>nasty things. (This is not all directed at you, Diane--the subject
>is a wide one.) And hey, that's what happens on Usenet. Like I
>said before, I'm used to people disagreeing with me--I'm a bass
>player.
>
>It's just that in all the time I have been posting here, and in all
>the time I lurked before I started posting, I have never seen such a
>level of pure malice as I've seen recently. I firmly believe that
>this serves the purposes of the cult of $cientology--the purpose of
>preventing effective criticism of the cult.
But is all the malice one-sided, bc? Is it only one side that changes
the debate from a discussion of issues to personal attacks. I think
we may disagree over this.
>*bc jumps off the soapbox, spraining his ankle on the way down
As long as you didn't sprain your wrist. That would keep you from
your keyboard. :-)
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <5uosbp$g...@snews1.zippo.com>,
>In article <340f4f07...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>
>>against you or anyone else. I'm just trying to discuss issues. For
>>some unknown reason, rational discussion of certain issues seems
>>to anger some people something fierce. I don't understand why
>
>various interpretations of experience--may prove threatening to some
>people's Weltanschauung.
It's even simpler than that. There is a good case for mindcontrol
methods exoisting; and such idea threaten, not just the worldview
of particuler persons, but the profits of a criminal corporation.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)
Peter McDermott
In article <5uq7d8$7...@snews1.zippo.com>,
har...@erols.com (Rebecca Hartong) wrote:
>As with your example of sun and earth, though, many people can have a
>similar experience of a thing and ALL still be wrong.
Which is also a perfect example of how different forms of
knowledge sometimes *don't* complement each other, but one
of them is just plain wrong.
Peter McDermott
In article <34158d00....@news.concentric.net>,
dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>>You don't need to concede it. It's there for anyone to see
>>on the threads on mind control.
>
>Indeed...I thought you hadn't been reading all that, Peter.
Why? What made you think that?
>Make up your mind. Did you actually read the posts?
Yup. The fact that I didn't post there much (and if
you go back and check Deja-News you'll find that I did)
doesn't mean I wasn't reading.
>>That's funny, because you really don't strike me as someone
>>who is interested synthesizing the useful stuff in opposing
>>viewpoints and moving forward.
>
>Once again. If you haven't been reading all the posts, I'd have to
>venture a guess that you just don't know WTF you're talking about.
Well, you *do* read all the posts, but it doesn't seem to
have advanced your thinking much. I, on the other hand,
don't feel I need to read the complete works of Hubbard
to recognize it as bullshit. Nor do I need to read all
of *your* posts to recognize you for what you are.
>The last seventeen years of my life have been an exercise in moving
>forward from my time in the cult of $cientology, Peter. If you
>actually had a clue about me, you might have known that.
Wow, seventeen years and this is as far as you've got?
Tragic.
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
<snip>
>>What Bernie claimed was that I didn't experience mind control. I
>>claimed that I did. Bernie then informs me that I am a "member"
of
>>the "anti-cult cult". In beautiful Midwest America, we have a
word
>>for this. We call it "bullshit."
>
>Hey, until a year ago, I called the Heartland my home, too. I
don't
>consider Bernie's statements "bullshit," though. Don't blame your
>attitude on geography, bc. [that, btw, was a joke]
Thanks, I got that. I consider Bernie's statements to be bullshit.
Why? Because there is no such thing as Bernie's much-vaunted "anti-
cult cult." It is a flimsy rationalization intended to disparage
those of us who are opposed to Co$ and other destructive cults. My
good Hoosier upbringing tells me that this is bullshit, in no
uncertain terms.
<snip>
>What was Bernie's lie? That "cult mind control" doesn't exist or
that
>you are a member of the "anti-cult cult"? Do you really think that
>either of those qualifies as a lie, rather than just a difference
of
>opinion? That's how I see it, at least.
Both are lies, in my opinion. By categorically denying the
existence of one, and single-handedly assigning membership in the
latter, Bernie assigns himself the role of arbiter. I do not desire
any membership in any "cult" Bernie happens to be running (or any
other cult, for that matter). The "anti-cult cult" remains
bullshit, IMHO. I believe that constitutes a lie (sorry, I was
attempting monosyllables. "Lie" was not the best choice of words.
It was, however, monosyllabic.).
The "anti-cult cult" rhetoric is an invention of Bernie's that he
uses to categorize and demean us poor idiots who are deranged enough
to believe that Co$ uses mind control. This "cult" does not exist.
I believe that constitutes a lie.
<snip>
>>>Well, you haven't seen my last reply to you. :-)
>>
>>*bc bashes his head against the keyboard and apologizes profusely
to
>>the world
>>
>><bc>n,opkl;jqfwgv4
>>
>><bc>ouch...
>>
>>[editor's note: the preceding is NOT a log of an actual IRC
>>session. it's just this asshole bc screwing around again. dress
>>him up, we can't take him anywhere...]
>
>The humorless librarian laughed at this one.
Thanks! You really like me!
Hey folks, we're here all week, please tip your waitresses and
bartenders, and remember the Buffet! It's only $5.99. Longnecks
are $1.25, rednecks are free...[sound of a rotten tomato splatting
on the stage]
These ARE the good jokes, folks...thanks, and welcome to the ars
lounge...[splat!]
<snip>
>>here. IMHO, a little Joking and Degrading is a good thing (tm)!
>>
>>We're all "normal" human beings (I think that the term "normal"
>>almost always belongs in quotes--sorry, nasty habit of mine).
>>"Prick us, do we not bleed?"
>
>The problem I see with Joking and Degrading[tm] is that the joking
is
>frequently done at someone else's expense and the degrading is a
>deliberate personal attack on another individual.
>
>I admit that I'm offering pot-kettle-black here. I just wonder if
we
>should all be required to identity genuine Joking and Degrading[tm]
>posts to distinguish them from Personal Attack[tm] posts.
Sometimes a
>post-post disclaimer that something was all meant in fun sounds
more
>like a convenient excuse for flaming than anything more profound.
Well, I can certainly see your point there. My joking and degrading
generally tends to take the form of self-deprecation. (Hey, it made
Rodney Dangerfield a rich man! Ok, it ain't working for me too well
yet...)
I see Joking & Degrading (tm) as a tool for lightening things up a
bit. This is very serious business we're discussing here, but we
don't need to always be so dark and dreary. Sometimes, even at the
worst of times, a quick joke is just what is needed--it allows us to
stop, take a deep breath, and laugh instead of scream. At least,
this is my take on it. A joke doesn't have to be a flame.
My wife is a geriatrics nurse. You might be shocked at some of the
gallows humor I've heard from her and her associates. But I
understand perfectly WHY they do it--if you couldn't laugh, you'd
lose your fucking mind. (the ones who do this in front of family
members are the ones who generate all those horrible letters to Dear
Abby...)
<snip>
>I dunno. I guess I could spend a half-hour or so searching through
>dejanews, but it's Friday night and I'm just not into doing that
right
>now.
Don't waste your time.
>You *have* accused me of engaging in a "personal vendetta" against
any
>number of regulars here, including Dennis Erlich, Barwell, et al.
>Somehow you see my messages to them as some sort of dire threat to
the
>
>newsgroup or to the newsgroup's "purpose."
Yes, I have. No, I don't see your messages as any "dire threat" to
the ng's "purpose." I just see what appears to me to be a vendetta.
And I've said before, it seems to be going in all directions. And
I think that every time (*) sees another post slagging the critics,
instead of the "church," he comes in his pants.
Obviously, this is not to say that we will never disagree with
anyone else. Disagreement, discussion, debate, even flames, serve
their purpose. It's just starting to resemble an armed camp around
here.
>I think if you'll examine what occurred between both Dennis and me
and
>Barwell and me, you'll see that both of them came on the newsgroup
>gunning for me. I sure as hell didn't start either of those
>flamewars. But somehow, nevertheless, I'm blamed for them. I'm
not
>whining about this -- I've grown used to the accusation by now.
It's
>just that such an accusation is neither accurate nor fair.
Well, in all the time I've been here (lurking and posting), I have
watched Dennis, Pope Charles, and you, posting merrily away. I
never noticed anyone "gunning" for you specifically--until just
recently. And like I said before, I think it is all going in all
directions.
I've always followed all the above posters closely. Even you,
Diane. Because I used to find some really fascinating information
in your posts. Any more, I seem to see sniping. And I was
commenting on that fact. The flames are flying in all directions,
from all people. And it sorta sucks. But I'm not killfiling
anyone.
Dennis is on the front lines of the battle against Co$. He has a
wealth of inside information on the cult, and I always read his
posts with great interest. Pope Charles is witty, incisive, and
real. (Not to mention funny as hell.) You are a crack researcher.
Amongst all the flames, there is some really good stuff going on
around here.
Somehow, we are remaining relatively civil in this exchange, though.
Isn't that nice?
[editors note: "Asshole!" "Bitch!" "Mind-control-theory
advocate!" "Librarian!!" Ok, Ob.Flames out of the way. Please
carry on.]
>>Expressing emotions is one of the main reasons language was
>>developed. (At least it seems logical to me.) And it seems to me
>>that just about everyone around here gets criticized for one thing
>>or another. This is usenet.
>
>Yep. But when rational discussion gives way to emotional attacks
upon
>people rather than debate over issues, there's not much of a reason
to
>read a newsgroup, is there? Unless, of course, the reader gets off
on
>eavesdropping on neighbors' personal spats.
Or the reader is finding the gems hidden amongst the flames. And
there are a lot of those going down here, recently. I'm not ready
to give up on ars just yet. There's too much good information going
down here.
<snip>
>>I'm not going to trot out statistics--but there was a SHITLOAD of
>>posts from you for something that is such a minor concern of
yours.
>
>It *is* a minor concern of mine, bc. I trotted out that shitload
>because Martin Hunt kept demanding that I prove my statement that
the
>"cult mind control" theory had been largely debunked. Martin
managed
>to keep finding reasons to reject each and every piece I posted, so
I
>just kept giving him more. The typical responses: "Yeah, but that
>was just the statement of one kook cult apologist," "Yeah, but that
>was just the statement of some crazy sociologist -- what about
>psychologists?" This went on and on, and I kept presenting what
>Martin demanded. And believe me, I had a long way to go to exhaust
>the overwhelming evidence I had to support my claim that the Singer/
>Hassan "cult mind control" theory had been thoroughly debunked.
Thoroughly debunked, perhaps, by *some* authorities. I don't
believe that that puts the subject completely to rest. But once
again, that's just my opinion. And I'll have that cup of coffee,
thank you.
<snip>
>>whatever TF his name is) said it. Among other various and sundry
>>nasty things. (This is not all directed at you, Diane--the
subject
>>is a wide one.) And hey, that's what happens on Usenet. Like I
>>said before, I'm used to people disagreeing with me--I'm a bass
>>player.
>>
>>It's just that in all the time I have been posting here, and in
all
>>the time I lurked before I started posting, I have never seen such
a
>>level of pure malice as I've seen recently. I firmly believe that
>>this serves the purposes of the cult of $cientology--the purpose
of
>>preventing effective criticism of the cult.
>
>But is all the malice one-sided, bc? Is it only one side that
changes
>the debate from a discussion of issues to personal attacks. I
think
>we may disagree over this.
Hell, no--see my comments 2 paragraphs back. I said the subject is
a wide one. I didn't say anything about one-sided malice. I just
think (*) is jerking off at his desk, reading some of this stuff.
But then maybe he scrolls on, and reads the RonIsXenu posts. Watch
that bad boy wilt...
[editor's note: the preceding was pure fiction. the author tends
to doubt the existence of (*)'s appendage. or at least the size
thereof...]
>>*bc jumps off the soapbox, spraining his ankle on the way down
>
>As long as you didn't sprain your wrist. That would keep you from
>your keyboard. :-)
Hell, I'll type with my nose. (Ok, it's harder to hit the shift key-
- -it's just something we'll have to live with...) (and the glasses
tend to be a bit of a problem...OUCH...oh, hell, never mind...)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBQTMan8flYc1m/ZAQFahgf5AXJSbJF52+d3OBSC1uvKU6yJ+kOzLr1H
GkqkotxmjCuAL5HXWGnSLWkYP8f03nwu3McbkDvMGiSRHhgVK75F+mL+WU8VKe9D
XP6aZVRNXvr9f3/WBdONZemVUAz9pSLp2HarOVg+YmxHLDp0qZIbiwJrm0yxdWLK
lJr+W+UNM2oOUpXR66v+XuvhAdlFgJjDFPlpNQrcSm+ouhLbHIxh01NgYUvdq+ez
7JIHng5Ie5fGMPpfiZlObLLW+j9HqqGfWGFg/C/Sgauw+HMIMGYz5+1FpyHvI9SS
QBvXEn3UMKVPZC3U2y8flQBss6hPPJ51hKmqWYDbLUdbi2EfFk/Cdw==
=TW38
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) brewed up the following,
and served it to the group:
>
>In article <34158d00....@news.concentric.net>,
>dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>
>>>You don't need to concede it. It's there for anyone to see
>>>on the threads on mind control.
>>
>>Indeed...I thought you hadn't been reading all that, Peter.
>
>Why? What made you think that?
Your comments that you hadn't been reading the newsgroup, just the
ARS Week in Review. Silly me...
>>Make up your mind. Did you actually read the posts?
>
>Yup. The fact that I didn't post there much (and if
>you go back and check Deja-News you'll find that I did)
>doesn't mean I wasn't reading.
Thanks. I got that.
>>>That's funny, because you really don't strike me as someone
>>>who is interested synthesizing the useful stuff in opposing
>>>viewpoints and moving forward.
>>
>>Once again. If you haven't been reading all the posts, I'd have
to
>>venture a guess that you just don't know WTF you're talking about.
>
>Well, you *do* read all the posts, but it doesn't seem to
>have advanced your thinking much. I, on the other hand,
>don't feel I need to read the complete works of Hubbard
>to recognize it as bullshit. Nor do I need to read all
>of *your* posts to recognize you for what you are.
No, I don't read *all* the posts. Just the ones that seem to be
worth reading. Reading *all* the posts on ars would be somewhere in
the neighborhood of 24/7. I even read Koos on the rare occasion.
But I'm getting to the point where I won't be reading your posts.
An appalling lack of substance. IMHO.
"Synthesizing the useful stuff" in opposing viewpoints is all well
and good, Peter, if there IS anything useful in said viewpoints. I
have not as yet seen anything useful in the viewpoints of the
$cientologists, or of Bernie. What, pray tell, would you have me
see that I am so obviously missing?
I haven't read all the Hubbardspew (bs) either, Peter. I have read
a good bit of your spew recently, though. If you plan on compiling
some sort of psychological profile of me based on your reading of
just a few of my recent posts, I'd have to venture a guess that you
will miss the boat entirely.
>>The last seventeen years of my life have been an exercise in
moving
>>forward from my time in the cult of $cientology, Peter. If you
>>actually had a clue about me, you might have known that.
>
>Wow, seventeen years and this is as far as you've got?
>
>Tragic.
You know, if you had a clue, you might be dangerous. But I'm not
terribly worried. I don't think you'd recognize a clue if it walked
up and bit you on the ass. Next slide, please.
I'm quite comfortable with myself and my world, Peter. What about
you? Or can you just not find anything better to do than jump in
here and start trolling?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBQWean8flYc1m/ZAQGQ8Qf/SbisqMdLHpnxQ/IuqJFhYhPkavU8eUOO
6NwNR6nPh/pbyQIB4+NUJ//L6zAVBY9IIh0rvQS+dJ89dZW7nB0BnopoVDVOqhvr
7tk95Z/YU9d6Mnrk5Bt0bAiLIbtgr1agFBShEx9qz90MM7pOr9kYbDXpTrv4E+Ij
h9l3oYuvz3ZRJIP56OvFLhc5mxUF7rkNUwqFp+dWE969pbjGbBZZOhoJoY36p+0t
H0ntLAUSdmoY3VJV6ECgWqyYPg9V9HdN9Tiek6lkkLXrzGDZNbAsMchiMh5zvrbi
TK1lGE1+jGLvCEMEcZ7QNM/UIwjbJA4mDmw0y6YcOPEYu3Keyc742A==
=/P0l
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>har...@erols.com (Rebecca Hartong) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
>In article <34113650....@news.concentric.net>,
great.question.life.universe@everything wrote:
>
>>The point I am trying to make is that if you go back just a few
>>hundred years, the debate over the relative positions of Sol and
>>Earth was carried on in precisely the same manner--with the
>>centrality of Earth absolutely proven by judicial and scientific
>>experts.
>
>The relative positions of sun and earth were understood a few
hundred
>years ago based almost entirely upon how things appeared to the
naked
>eye. It *looks like* the sun revolves around the earth, it *feels
>like* the earth is not moving, so it didn't seem unreasonable to
>conclude that that's exactly what was happening. This is an
excellent
>example, though, of how unreliable subjective experience is in
>determining what is "true."
You choose to ignore the point I am making. What was "subjectively"
true was what was also accepted as "objectively" true.
"Objectively" obtained evidence disproved that theory.
What is now "subjectively" accepted as true by the aforementioned
"authorities"--the non-existence of mind control--is not
"objective". The facts are not all in. There is no final authority
on the human mind--most especially not the US Courts or the APA.
The "facts" regarding the relative position of Earth and Sol are
pretty much established.
>>So I don't believe that just because the "experts" have passed
>>judgement, that it is so. OJ Simpson was found innocent in one
>>court, and then found guilty in another court. Is the US Court
>>system somewhat flawed? Or is it just me? (Or is the man both
>>guilty AND innocent? Or in the immortal words of Chico, "Vy a
>>duck?")
>
>Actually, you are mistaken about this. OJ was not found innocent.
>There was insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a
reasonable
>doubt. Big difference. The requirements for liability (not guilt)
in
>civil court (where he was found responsible for the deaths) are
more
>lenient than the requirements of criminal court.
No, I'm not mistaken. OJ was acquitted. This means that he is not
guilty of the crime with which he was charged. This was determined
by unanimous vote of the jury. (I'm not saying I agree with the
verdict--I'm just saying that that's what it was.)
If there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty in criminal
court, there should never have been a civil trial. IMHO. The
different levels of proof required are ridiculous. Once again,
IMHO.
If the man is guilty, evidence should be provided to prove the fact.
(And not fabricated.) If the man is innocent, he should not be
tried twice. Being tried twice for the same offense is double
jeopardy. No matter what legal sophistry is thrown about.
>>I know that my *subjective* experience was shared by many people
who
>>post here. The numbers may not be statistically significant, but
>>they *are* significant in light of the issue at hand--that of cult
>>mind control. IMNSHO.
>
>As with your example of sun and earth, though, many people can have
a
>similar experience of a thing and ALL still be wrong.
Or people can have a similar experience and still be right. It can
happen, you know. As I've said before, I don't accept the APA or
the US "Justice" system as final authority on the workings of the
human mind.
Just as "everybody knows" that mind control doesn't exist, because
the APA and the Courts say they don't, "everybody" once knew that
the Earth was the center of the universe, because the religious and
"scientific" experts of the time said it was. I realize that it is
convenient to twist my analogy to serve your purpose, but this was
its original purpose. Perhaps I chose a poor analogy--but I stand
by my statements.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBQ0Vqn8flYc1m/ZAQHFzwf7B0ikjVzb08nqMIJDCfwJkO4T6j70jinv
gPemAPs1ILcBA9GnYdkpIaLQmE6rG/feKvst0OaMJoJdG13tvGL0oyPMPmuL+g19
T1RyCeeuSKr+tJ5IL4wTi83Rlh1x9/q7GxSO0uZ1F3DGGI0lTVyw/9sPTgeyEryf
sOzDXIXm+OHZSzJxTx6ATCB4Sc5AH+cED7Q0Yu2/kn2vh3vxmExFjaBR1Y5bE1hu
idWYTO6WcZEOjUZIE+3JWBG1+EH7opYeIV2co5/Vtk9NyAtE3hTbEYXg3Ijpc3uL
zYtRGr8FWePmOA+Gif3P3ME65zKsmDk43bT3nIAr+5CWHK6rLn1+LA==
=YcTb
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) brewed up the following,
and served it to the group:
>In article <5uq7d8$7...@snews1.zippo.com>,
>har...@erols.com (Rebecca Hartong) wrote:
>
>>As with your example of sun and earth, though, many people can
have a
>>similar experience of a thing and ALL still be wrong.
>
>Which is also a perfect example of how different forms of
>knowledge sometimes *don't* complement each other, but one
>of them is just plain wrong.
When different forms of knowledge categorically deny each other,
they obviously cannot complement each other.
In the case of mind control, it is only your assumption that one of
them is "just plain wrong." Or are you wearing the omniscient hat
today, Peter?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBQ1OKn8flYc1m/ZAQHT2Qf7BnrLZLFLAKSYB3/PtdbVqL8Lxkv394Pq
IKWNjoolHpkoc82AVGmVKrYj51KmjXANzGCKgg9/Mul+L10bfgFcDLKlh3i1Es1K
YfTfhhF8GANupKj+cqwDI6rleFghHE/El/6aPQATFsw1dxZwkPbASmRZcbckRwel
6NIcXiPWq1gVQMgOqHTCwBaTqIadvks+ugBPNZAE1c5AjWAAi7haNNncSLuSjmwF
58X7+W9FsXjCgRgzD8HIiYdUmKmxlOc6KUbTAeHkYX4iXDE67RaJ1wuLXqQlujUj
0P3pp/541msS91A6hMTkQzjBBEnnqfIGoxLgAwgVgnE4ngrWJZ3cRQ==
=vsO5
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
<snip>
>>Cult mind control.
>
>Do you mean "cult mind control" as defined by Steve Hassan,
Margaret
>Singer, et al? Or do you have your own interpretation of what that
>term means?
I am not going to get into a word-clearing festival here, Diane. I
have not read Hassan. I *have* read Margaret Singer. I find that
Singer's reports resonate chillingly with my own personal
experience.
Have you ever read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,"
Diane? Define "quality" please.
<snip>
>>Precisely. Various forms of knowledge COMPLEMENT each other--they
>>do not rule each other out.
>
>They only rule each other out if the people on either side of the
>issue refuse to discuss their opinions. Are you willing to discuss
>"cult mind control"? Or will you just indulge yourself in another
>shouting match, refusing to discuss the issue?
I have discussed the issue at length, Diane. With lots of different
people. On and off the newsgroup. Nothing that has been posted
here, or written in any other medium, has changed my mind, or
altered my interpretation of my experience. I am perfectly willing
to discuss opinions--but I am not willing to be preached at and
informed that I am an "anti-cult cultist" because I happen to hold
an opinion that does not agree with others.
I haven't been shouting--I simply grow weary of being preached at.
I didn't like it growing up in the baptist church, I didn't like it
in $cientology, and I sure as hell won't stand for it now.
<snip>
>I did not see you or anyone else debate the points presented in
these
>refutations of the "cult mind control" theory. What I saw instead
was
>a blanket condemnation of anyone who did not accept the Singer/
>Hassan theory as valid. What I saw was a lot of shouting about
>*knowing* through personal experience, which sounded a hell of a
lot
>like Hubbard's "what's true for you" rationalization.
What *I* saw was precisely the same, from the opposite direction: a
blanket condemnation of anyone who believed in the existence of cult
mind control, regardless of the theory espoused. Accusations of
membership in some ridiculous "anti-cult cult" from Bernie.
Why should personal experience be invalidated? We are supposed to
accept Bernie's personal experiences and not speak ill of them,
since his experience with $cientology was more or less positive
according to him. Why must you discount my personal experience, and
that of so many others?
If you go back to my comments on the "Knowledge?" thread, I posted
the following:
_________
bc quote:
>... I have
>claimed quite openly, specifically, and repeatedly, that this was
MY
>interpretation and understanding of what happened to ME. It has
>been *corroborated* by many here. This is purely *subjective*--
like
>everything else.
>
>That doesn't make it an exhaustive interpretation--but it does make
>a strong argument for the plausibility of the concept. I don't
>claim to be an expert in the field. But to flatly dismiss the
>entire concept out of hand, as Bernie does, is a rather simplistic
>view (IMHO) which fails to take into account the similar
experiences
>of a number of ex-$cientologists, and ex-members of other cults.
end bc quote
_________
Subjective. Whenever "I" say something, it is coming from "I"'s
point of view. No matter if "I" is bc, or the head of the APA. Or
the person who writes the reports "debunking" the theory of mind
control. In the case of the APA and the courts, "I" believe that it
could possibly be worthwhile to imagine political pressures being
involved. But that's just me.
>I'll be glad to discuss various points of the "cult mind control"
>theory refutations with you. What I don't enjoy is hearing
endlessly
>repeated screeches about how you *know* something exists because
you
>*experienced* it. That's what fundamentalist Christians do when
they
>argue the existence of God. It's an argument from faith, not
reason.
Walk into a "christian" church. Any "christian" church. Can you
point at someone and say, "Look! There is god talking to that guy
over there!" Do you see "god" anywhere? That person may THINK that
god is talking to him, but there is really no outside evidence of
the "fact".
Now walk into any Co$ org. Go into the courseroom. I can point out
a whole bunch of people, and say, "Look! They're doing TR0
Bullbaited. They are being mindfucked. They are having their
emotions and responses manipulated to the ends of Co$." There is
something happening there which, IMO, is more than in the minds of
the participants.
This is not an argument from faith--it is an argument from
experience, and observation.
The problem appears to be that I am arguing from experience without
authority, whereas you are arguing from authority without
experience.
In this case, I don't believe the authority you cite knows what it
is talking about. But that's just my subjective opinion, which has
been repeated by a bunch of other people. It's not likely to change-
- -unless someone can come up with a better interpretation of what
happened to me than I have come up with on my own. I haven't seen
that happen as of yet. I'm still not holding my breath, either.
>>The point I am trying to make is that if you go back just a few
>>hundred years, the debate over the relative positions of Sol and
>>Earth was carried on in precisely the same manner--with the
>>centrality of Earth absolutely proven by judicial and scientific
>>experts.
>
>This isn't a debate over whether the earth orbits the sun or the
sun
>orbits the earth, bc. And this isn't the Middle Ages anymore.
>One would think that you could offer up something more substantial
>than faith to argue for the existence of "cult mind control." If
you
>have anything more substantial than that, present it. Please.
See above. "Faith" and "experience" are two totally different
concepts.
>>So I don't believe that just because the "experts" have passed
>>judgement, that it is so. OJ Simpson was found innocent in one
>>court, and then found guilty in another court. Is the US Court
>>system somewhat flawed? Or is it just me? (Or is the man both
>>guilty AND innocent? Or in the immortal words of Chico, "Vy a
>>duck?")
>
>No, the US Court system in the OJ Simpson case depended upon the
>opinions of members of a jury made up of human beings. Sometimes
>humans make appropriate decisions and sometimes they don't.
Precisely my point. Who was the "expert" in this situation? What
did they say? And why is it that no two people you talk to in the
street agree with the verdict?
But then, who is to say what the "appropriate" decision is? Once
again, it's all subjective. ALL subjective.
>We're humans here, too. We can base our opinions on faulty logic
and
>flawed analyses just as surely as a jury can. Fortunately, our
>opinions don't have quite the same consequences as those of a jury
in
>a criminal trial. And we're under no obligation to reach a
unanimous
>decisions, either.
>
>What's wrong with discussing our different perceptions, bc? Why
take
>such a rigid stance that someone is directly attacking you
personally
>when they disagree with your opinion?
Because that's what Bernie was doing. I have no problem with
discussing different perceptions. Like I said above, I just don't
like being preached at. That tends to get me in a rather nasty
mode. As you may have noticed...B-{)}
>>I know that my *subjective* experience was shared by many people
who
>>post here. The numbers may not be statistically significant, but
>>they *are* significant in light of the issue at hand--that of cult
>>mind control. IMNSHO.
>
>All I'm saying is that your subjective experience was not
universally
>held. There are others who went through the same experience you
did
>but arrived at a different opinion. Why do you think that is a
direct
>attack upon you?
I don't say that all of it is a direct attack on me. I just said
Bernie's attacks were. That's all.
I realize full well that my subjective experience is not universally
held as valid. That doesn't mean it should be dismissed out of
hand.
<snip>
>>>What do you consider the purposes of the cult, bc?
>>
>>WRT ars, to disrupt and impede criticism of the cult. It isn't
>>exactly nuclear science to figure THAT out.
>
>Do you believe that ONLY cultists might want to question criticism
of
>the cult? Obviously, I don't agree with that assessment. I
believe
Hell, no. Did I say that? I said that the aim of the *cult* is to
disrupt & impede criticism.
>that a rational, balanced view of the CoS threat is a much more
>effective approach than the wild, unsubstantiated claims that have
>been made here.
A lot of pretty wild claims have been pretty well substantiated, it
seems to me. Wild claims like the introspection rundown.
Overboarding. The contents of OTIII. TR0 Bullbaited. These all
sound pretty wild. They are also all true.
<snip>
>>Jibes? I don't see how I'm shifting suddenly and forcibly from
one
>>side to another here.
>
>I consider your statement that I'm engaged in a personal vendetta a
>jibe, bc. YMMV, but I'm not sure how.
I was referring to the definition of "jibe" in Websters Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary, which I stated above.
>>As a matter of fact, I thought I was being
>>fairly consistent in my postings. And I'm certainly not being in
>>accord or agreeing with you. (as "jibe" is defined in Webster's
>>Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary--in case you were wondering...)
Not
>>jibes. No, just observations. If you aren't aware of how you
come
>>across around here, it's certainly not my place to enlighten you.
>>
>>But hey, what the hell, here goes: Dennis Erlich. Dave Bird.
>>Roland. Pope Charles. Warrior. Once again, these are my
personal
>>observations.
>
>So you think I'm on a personal vendetta against all these people?
>Why?
- From reading your posts. There's been so much shit slung (in all
directions, by all involved) that it is amazing.
>>What more is there to understand? Why not ask the others who are
>>making the "charge"? You've got my two cent's worth now. (And if
>>coffee is $.52, well...) If you'd communicate instead of sniping,
>>maybe you'd get better results. It could happen...
>
>Let's take a look at that sniping a little more closely, bc. Who
>started the sniping -- Barwell or me? Is Barwell blameless in
this?
>Is it all my fault? Should I sit in silence while Barwell blasts
me
>for things that exist only in his own confused mind?
>
>I doubt if you would be willing to sit in silence if you received
the
>same treatment, bc. Why do you expect that from me?
I never blamed anyone singly. I just see a common thread. That all
exists in my mind, also--it's purely subjective.
No, I don't expect you to sit in silence. I just was making the
observation that sniping back doesn't seem to improve the situation.
The last couple of posts I have made in response to your posts to
me have been fairly reasonable (at least I thought so) because the
overall tone of your posts has been more reasonable toward me. Is
that coincidence?
>>>Do you think I'm on a personal vendetta against you? Why would I
>>do
>>>that? I just don't understand.
>>
>>No, I think I'm just one of the stupid schmucks who made the
mistake
>>of disagreeing with you. You don't know me well enough to show
the
>>level of venom and malice toward me that you do toward Dennis (for
>>instance). At least not yet...
>
>Nor will you see it, bc. I'm not sure why you're so eager to jump
>into the victim role. Perhaps it's because it gives you a certain
>status on the newsgroup or something?
Status? Oh, please. Does everything have to have an ulterior
motive around here?
I don't do victim roles very well. I just posts 'em as I sees 'em.
And I see a level of malice directed toward Dennis that is amazing
(except, that is, for Fishman's recent posts--geez...this jerk makes
the KKK look like a love-in...).
<snip>
>>Just as an example, I don't believe that accusing anonymous or
semi-
>>anonymous posters of cowardice simply for posting anonymously is
>>even remotely related to a "rational discussion" of issues. It's
>>just fucking rude and childish. IMNSHO.
>
>That anonymous poster insisted that I reveal personal information
>about myself, bc. I made that comment to make him realize that
>revelations of such a personal nature are far easier for someone
>posting under a pseudonym to make than for someone posting under
>her real name.
That anonymous poster asked a question that did not *require* the
revelation of personal information--or of anything, for that matter.
Accusing Warrior of a lack of courage for posting anonymously was
just flat-out wrong, and your defense of it smacks of cheap
rationalization. IMHO.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBRFQKn8flYc1m/ZAQF31gf+PnmmY0Z6I9SjWXrfbtEe2FZz0JygB/4n
zuipyg+kT7crpKloPMNTqmTyRLv4VSaVa1WAABDRA2s0HNyw1cbfiPrIbzpp+m0w
xWnagieTJFwoMSSJKbLJHx2cO0l+9Oj/PpdI2MxgyaMYo1W5bfTbTnz3G44hbXb/
Jm3hLGd9CkKGS/MyaYbRavfURSAxXmNAWQwcQo1TUsoXqUmw4AMFqL8XQoNfVuis
6v3FLKDu32RhT3dyo06VByq1o6wu7H1959DRw6juFzzaTECC0j8TDGo7YyEfiVLI
ywQ2UYqWTe2t9XmsIkaT/rOJepmAcStiWCuuiZGNzlO/jkJnLYOl3g==
=+VSc
Warrior
In article <3414c01b...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net says...
>
>I think anyone who *has* bothered reading these recent threads will
>have to admit that I reacted to the taunts of the Erlichs, Birds, and
>Barwells.
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
Diane: Would you please explain why you use the plural when referring to
individuals? I mean, just who exactly are "the Erlichs"? Wouldn't it
be odd to refer to others as "the Richardsons"? So why do you do this?
(Just curious.)
Warrior
Diane Richardson
On Mon, 08 Sep 1997 15:01:25 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
>served it to the group:
>
><snip>
>
>>>What Bernie claimed was that I didn't experience mind control. I
>>>claimed that I did. Bernie then informs me that I am a "member"
>of
>>>the "anti-cult cult". In beautiful Midwest America, we have a
>word
>>>for this. We call it "bullshit."
>>
>>Hey, until a year ago, I called the Heartland my home, too. I
>don't
>>consider Bernie's statements "bullshit," though. Don't blame your
>>attitude on geography, bc. [that, btw, was a joke]
>
>Thanks, I got that. I consider Bernie's statements to be bullshit.
>Why? Because there is no such thing as Bernie's much-vaunted "anti-
>cult cult." It is a flimsy rationalization intended to disparage
>those of us who are opposed to Co$ and other destructive cults. My
>good Hoosier upbringing tells me that this is bullshit, in no
>uncertain terms.
Why do you think there is not such thing as an "anti-cult cult"?
What is it about your Hoosier upbringing that tells you it's bullshit?
I think that there's plenty of evidence to indicate that there is,
indeed, a fairly close-knit group who have worked together for years
to present cults as a "social problem" worthy of serious public
attention. Do you disagree?
><snip>
>
>>What was Bernie's lie? That "cult mind control" doesn't exist or
>that
>>you are a member of the "anti-cult cult"? Do you really think that
>>either of those qualifies as a lie, rather than just a difference
>of
>>opinion? That's how I see it, at least.
>
>Both are lies, in my opinion.
Again, unless you're defining "lie" as something besides a deliberate
untruth, I don't think the word applies to Bernie's opinion.
>By categorically denying the
>existence of one, and single-handedly assigning membership in the
>latter, Bernie assigns himself the role of arbiter.
Are you saying that Bernie denied the existence of cults or the
existence of "cult mind control"? I've never seen him deny the
existence of cults. As for the existence of "cult mind control," one
can accept the existence of cults without accepting the existence of
"cult mind control." I'm not sure what you're saying here.
> I do not desire
>any membership in any "cult" Bernie happens to be running (or any
>other cult, for that matter). The "anti-cult cult" remains
>bullshit, IMHO. I believe that constitutes a lie (sorry, I was
>attempting monosyllables. "Lie" was not the best choice of words.
>It was, however, monosyllabic.).
>
>The "anti-cult cult" rhetoric is an invention of Bernie's that he
>uses to categorize and demean us poor idiots who are deranged enough
>to believe that Co$ uses mind control. This "cult" does not exist.
>I believe that constitutes a lie.
I still think that the word "lie" is not appropriate when you're
talking about someone's opinion. You can call someone's opinion
"wrong," but calling it a "lie" implies that Bernie is deliberately
forwarding an untruth. Do you really believe that's what he's done --
express an opinion that he doesn't believe himself?
Believe me, bc, one of my good friends has been an ER physician for
decades. If you *really* want to hear some gallows humor, hang around
a bunch of emergency room folks for awhile.
><snip>
>
>>I dunno. I guess I could spend a half-hour or so searching through
>>dejanews, but it's Friday night and I'm just not into doing that
>right
>>now.
>
>Don't waste your time.
>
>>You *have* accused me of engaging in a "personal vendetta" against
>any
>>number of regulars here, including Dennis Erlich, Barwell, et al.
>>Somehow you see my messages to them as some sort of dire threat to
>the
>>
>>newsgroup or to the newsgroup's "purpose."
>
>Yes, I have. No, I don't see your messages as any "dire threat" to
>the ng's "purpose." I just see what appears to me to be a vendetta.
> And I've said before, it seems to be going in all directions. And
>I think that every time (*) sees another post slagging the critics,
>instead of the "church," he comes in his pants.
To be honest with you, I really don't give a shit what David
Miscavige's reaction might be to what I write. I don't post to this
newsgroup to provide him with entertainment. Has it occurred to you
that allowing Miscavige's reaction to influence what you post here,
you're granting him a great deal of control over expression of your
own thoughts?
I don't give *anyone* that sort of control over my intellectual
freedom, bc, least of all David Miscaviage.
>Obviously, this is not to say that we will never disagree with
>anyone else. Disagreement, discussion, debate, even flames, serve
>their purpose. It's just starting to resemble an armed camp around
>here.
But why? That's what I'd like to know. Why does disagreement descend
so rapidly into all-out war?
>>I think if you'll examine what occurred between both Dennis and me
>and
>>Barwell and me, you'll see that both of them came on the newsgroup
>>gunning for me. I sure as hell didn't start either of those
>>flamewars. But somehow, nevertheless, I'm blamed for them. I'm
>not
>>whining about this -- I've grown used to the accusation by now.
>It's
>>just that such an accusation is neither accurate nor fair.
>
>Well, in all the time I've been here (lurking and posting), I have
>watched Dennis, Pope Charles, and you, posting merrily away. I
>never noticed anyone "gunning" for you specifically--until just
>recently. And like I said before, I think it is all going in all
>directions.
I think anyone who *has* bothered reading these recent threads will
have to admit that I reacted to the taunts of the Erlichs, Birds, and
Barwells. That doesn't excuse me, I admit. But I think we should be
capable of assigning credit (or blame) where credit is due.
>I've always followed all the above posters closely. Even you,
>Diane. Because I used to find some really fascinating information
>in your posts. Any more, I seem to see sniping. And I was
>commenting on that fact. The flames are flying in all directions,
>from all people. And it sorta sucks. But I'm not killfiling
>anyone.
>
>Dennis is on the front lines of the battle against Co$. He has a
>wealth of inside information on the cult, and I always read his
>posts with great interest. Pope Charles is witty, incisive, and
>real. (Not to mention funny as hell.) You are a crack researcher.
>Amongst all the flames, there is some really good stuff going on
>around here.
>
>Somehow, we are remaining relatively civil in this exchange, though.
> Isn't that nice?
No, it's not nice, it's normal. I'd like to see more of it.
>[editors note: "Asshole!" "Bitch!" "Mind-control-theory
>advocate!" "Librarian!!" Ok, Ob.Flames out of the way. Please
>carry on.]
>
>>>Expressing emotions is one of the main reasons language was
>>>developed. (At least it seems logical to me.) And it seems to me
>
>>>that just about everyone around here gets criticized for one thing
>
>>>or another. This is usenet.
>>
>>Yep. But when rational discussion gives way to emotional attacks
>upon
>>people rather than debate over issues, there's not much of a reason
>to
>>read a newsgroup, is there? Unless, of course, the reader gets off
>on
>>eavesdropping on neighbors' personal spats.
>
>Or the reader is finding the gems hidden amongst the flames. And
>there are a lot of those going down here, recently. I'm not ready
>to give up on ars just yet. There's too much good information going
>down here.
Well, I'm going to *have* to give up sooner or later. Going back to
school after 16 years' absence, along with a full-time job, really
cuts into my posting time. <grin>
Keep those wrists in shape, bc.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Rebecca Hartong
In article <341b3033...@news.concentric.net>, great.question.life.universe@everything wrote:
>>It *looks like* the sun revolves around the earth, it *feels
>>like* the earth is not moving, so it didn't seem unreasonable to
>>conclude that that's exactly what was happening. This is an
>>excellent
>>example, though, of how unreliable subjective experience is in
>>determining what is "true."
>
>You choose to ignore the point I am making. What was "subjectively"
>true was what was also accepted as "objectively" true.
>"Objectively" obtained evidence disproved that theory.
No, I understand your point. Do you see *my* point, though? While
it's true that common subjective experience of a given phenomenon is
often considered to be objective proof of what is "true," at the same
time common subject experience can be completely wrong about what's
actually happening.
If that's been the case with something which was as universally
accepted as true like the notion that the sun revolves around the
earth, imagine how much greater is the possibility that it's also the
case with something not as universally experienced--like the notion of
cult mind control.
>What is now "subjectively" accepted as true by the aforementioned
>"authorities"--the non-existence of mind control--is not
>"objective". The facts are not all in. There is no final authority
>on the human mind--most especially not the US Courts or the APA.
Absolutely. I'm not prepared to proclaim that one explanation or
another for what you've experienced is the One True Explanation.
(snip)
>No, I'm not mistaken. OJ was acquitted. This means that he is not
>guilty of the crime with which he was charged. This was determined
>by unanimous vote of the jury. (I'm not saying I agree with the
>verdict--I'm just saying that that's what it was.)
But what you originally said was that he was "found innocent." You
wrote:
>>>So I don't believe that just because the "experts" have passed
>>>judgement, that it is so. OJ Simpson was found innocent in one
>>>court, and then found guilty in another court.
That was what I was disputing. He was not "found innocent." He was
just not found *guilty.* Whatever. It's a common error and not worth
making any more out of it.
(snip)
>Or people can have a similar experience and still be right. It can
>happen, you know. As I've said before, I don't accept the APA or
>the US "Justice" system as final authority on the workings of the
>human mind.
Neither do I, for that matter.
>Just as "everybody knows" that mind control doesn't exist, because
>the APA and the Courts say they don't,
Well, I certainly wouldn't say "everybody knows" since, obviously, you
and more than a couple of other people *don't* "know" this.
>"everybody" once knew that
>the Earth was the center of the universe, because the religious and
>"scientific" experts of the time said it was.
I'd argue that "everybody" knew that the earth was the center of the
universe because that's what normal human perception suggests. I
don't think the average person needed religious and scientific experts
to tell them this. It wasn't until telescopes were developed that
Copernicus' vision of our solar system started to gain popular
acceptance.
> I realize that it is
>convenient to twist my analogy to serve your purpose, but this was
>its original purpose. Perhaps I chose a poor analogy--but I stand
>by my statements.
Of course, you're welcome to stand by your statements. I certainly
don't expect you to recant just because of what *I* write! I think
your analogy is a good one, though, because it shows the dual nature
of subjective experience.
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>har...@erols.com (Rebecca Hartong) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
<snip>
>>You choose to ignore the point I am making. What was
"subjectively"
>>true was what was also accepted as "objectively" true.
>>"Objectively" obtained evidence disproved that theory.
>
>No, I understand your point. Do you see *my* point, though? While
>it's true that common subjective experience of a given phenomenon
is
>often considered to be objective proof of what is "true," at the
same
>time common subject experience can be completely wrong about what's
>actually happening.
Yes, agreed. Please pardon my bristly approach. I'm really trying
to lighten up here. (Ask Diane.)
>If that's been the case with something which was as universally
>accepted as true like the notion that the sun revolves around the
>earth, imagine how much greater is the possibility that it's also
the
>case with something not as universally experienced--like the notion
of
>cult mind control.
And something that is a completely different *subjective* experience
for each person who (may/may not) experience it.
>>What is now "subjectively" accepted as true by the aforementioned
>>"authorities"--the non-existence of mind control--is not
>>"objective". The facts are not all in. There is no final
authority
>>on the human mind--most especially not the US Courts or the APA.
>
>Absolutely. I'm not prepared to proclaim that one explanation or
>another for what you've experienced is the One True Explanation.
I think that's the essence of what I've been trying to get at--that
there ISN'T *One True Explanation* for something of this nature.
>(snip)
>>No, I'm not mistaken. OJ was acquitted. This means that he is
not
>>guilty of the crime with which he was charged. This was
determined
>>by unanimous vote of the jury. (I'm not saying I agree with the
>>verdict--I'm just saying that that's what it was.)
>
>But what you originally said was that he was "found innocent." You
>wrote:
>
>>>>So I don't believe that just because the "experts" have passed
>>>>judgement, that it is so. OJ Simpson was found innocent in one
>>>>court, and then found guilty in another court.
>
> That was what I was disputing. He was not "found innocent." He
was
>just not found *guilty.* Whatever. It's a common error and not
worth
>making any more out of it.
I was just trying to make a point about something I find really
ridiculous with the US "Justice" system. IANAL. Poor choice of
words. Etc. I just think that relying on the courts to provide us
with "truth" is a *big* mistake.
>
>(snip)
>>Or people can have a similar experience and still be right. It
can
>>happen, you know. As I've said before, I don't accept the APA or
>>the US "Justice" system as final authority on the workings of the
>>human mind.
>
>Neither do I, for that matter.
>
>>Just as "everybody knows" that mind control doesn't exist, because
>>the APA and the Courts say they don't,
>
>Well, I certainly wouldn't say "everybody knows" since, obviously,
you
>and more than a couple of other people *don't* "know" this.
Well, whaddya "know?" "I know that you believe you understand what
you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard
is not what I meant." Or something like that...Geez, I wish I could
find that original quote...
[editor's note: the last stupid joke was brought to you by the
letter R, and the numbers 3, 9, and 14. HTH.]
>>"everybody" once knew that
>>the Earth was the center of the universe, because the religious
and
>>"scientific" experts of the time said it was.
>
>I'd argue that "everybody" knew that the earth was the center of
the
>universe because that's what normal human perception suggests. I
>don't think the average person needed religious and scientific
experts
>to tell them this. It wasn't until telescopes were developed that
>Copernicus' vision of our solar system started to gain popular
>acceptance.
Yes. But my point is, if you DIDN'T accept that view, you were
considered a heretic, and subject to really nasty things. And these
were enforceable with the power of law.
>> I realize that it is
>>convenient to twist my analogy to serve your purpose, but this was
>>its original purpose. Perhaps I chose a poor analogy--but I stand
>>by my statements.
>
>Of course, you're welcome to stand by your statements. I certainly
>don't expect you to recant just because of what *I* write! I think
>your analogy is a good one, though, because it shows the dual
nature
>of subjective experience.
Once again, I apologize for my rather pointed and nasty approach.
I'm really trying, here...
Once again, it's ALL subjective. (IMHO). Only an object can be
objective.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBVtOan8flYc1m/ZAQFw5Qf/RTnANKyZuOTRggShuhW/pPvmNugcG0du
XQ2t5qyz1hn1oHBOHTmI/FqKvQR2iktML8k5eeeAbZ9yZjfyHqPw8zDCfeQ6RCcb
xTbs2B+3BvQtAdScH0nPHW/9oAjNkKPNymRwu3uHs4c7RFhYtvdUqXef0HbEIezw
ZKGM8v7TaVgQ2UeyOa/NDhTz4Im+WNdVt9c1jhRdG+Zpmim7aEgbsJl8Yi0QaDBX
Il2hlLSiDxodZ0dHEZjMIu0mb57drTwfxfyIRSGSZWFQamIUctrwV/lrDnXXc1QJ
0Z7z+U0KxoRZLR+sCBiGeNzt6AeTaaIQUPiCrHUIZwkPcWq++eanzQ==
=V/Tj
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
<snip>
>>Thanks, I got that. I consider Bernie's statements to be
bullshit.
>>Why? Because there is no such thing as Bernie's much-vaunted
"anti-
>>cult cult." It is a flimsy rationalization intended to disparage
>>those of us who are opposed to Co$ and other destructive cults.
My
>>good Hoosier upbringing tells me that this is bullshit, in no
>>uncertain terms.
>
>Why do you think there is not such thing as an "anti-cult cult"?
>What is it about your Hoosier upbringing that tells you it's
bullshit?
Pardon my quaint colloquialisms. I was simply trying to point out
that it's bullshit. IMHO.
>I think that there's plenty of evidence to indicate that there is,
>indeed, a fairly close-knit group who have worked together for
years
>to present cults as a "social problem" worthy of serious public
>attention. Do you disagree?
I agree that there is (or may be) a "fairly close-knit group" as you
describe. I do not agree for one second that this constitutes a
cult. My family is a close-knit group that has worked together for
years. Does this make it a cult? My band is a close-knit group
that has worked together for years. Does this make it a cult? (If
so, whereinthehell are my damn groupies?) The Chicago Bears are a
close-knit group that has worked together for years (well, they were
when Ditka was coach...). Does that make them a cult?
Do you see what I am getting at here? By labeling those who oppose
cults (and more specifically, those who believe that certain cults
practice mind-control) as "anti-cult cultists", Bernie was (IMO)
attempting to deflect rational discussion, and simply point fingers
and denigrate his opposition. By inventing a "cult" where none
exists, he (IMO) detracts attention and discussion from the real
cults which are causing real harm.
>><snip>
>>
>>>What was Bernie's lie? That "cult mind control" doesn't exist or
>>that
>>>you are a member of the "anti-cult cult"? Do you really think
that
>>>either of those qualifies as a lie, rather than just a difference
>>of
>>>opinion? That's how I see it, at least.
>>
>>Both are lies, in my opinion.
>
>Again, unless you're defining "lie" as something besides a
deliberate
>untruth, I don't think the word applies to Bernie's opinion.
I believe that Bernie's accusing me of "membership" in an
organization which exists solely in his mind, simply to put me down,
constitutes a deliberate untruth.
>>By categorically denying the
>>existence of one, and single-handedly assigning membership in the
>>latter, Bernie assigns himself the role of arbiter.
>
>Are you saying that Bernie denied the existence of cults or the
>existence of "cult mind control"? I've never seen him deny the
>existence of cults. As for the existence of "cult mind control,"
one
>can accept the existence of cults without accepting the existence
of
>"cult mind control." I'm not sure what you're saying here.
I'm saying what I've said many times before. Bernie never denied
the existence of cults. He vehemently denied the existence of mind
control, and accused anyone who believed it exists of being a member
of the "anti-cult cult".
<snip>
>>The "anti-cult cult" rhetoric is an invention of Bernie's that he
>>uses to categorize and demean us poor idiots who are deranged
enough
>>to believe that Co$ uses mind control. This "cult" does not
exist.
>>I believe that constitutes a lie.
>
>I still think that the word "lie" is not appropriate when you're
>talking about someone's opinion. You can call someone's opinion
>"wrong," but calling it a "lie" implies that Bernie is deliberately
>forwarding an untruth. Do you really believe that's what he's done
- --
>express an opinion that he doesn't believe himself?
Yes. See above. Where does this "cult" exist, outside of Bernie's
imagination? Does even Bernie actually *believe* such a thing
exists? Or is it just a cheap rationalization? Sorry, but as far
as I'm concerned, it still smells like a lie.
<snip>
>>My wife is a geriatrics nurse. You might be shocked at some of
the
>>gallows humor I've heard from her and her associates. But I
>>understand perfectly WHY they do it--if you couldn't laugh, you'd
>>lose your fucking mind. (the ones who do this in front of family
>>members are the ones who generate all those horrible letters to
Dear
>>Abby...)
>
>Believe me, bc, one of my good friends has been an ER physician for
>decades. If you *really* want to hear some gallows humor, hang
around
>a bunch of emergency room folks for awhile.
I did--my wife did a stint in er during nursing school. (What
really scares me is those people whose eyes light up when they go to
the morgue...but that's another story entirely...)
But do you see what I am getting at? Joking and Degrading (tm) as a
way to release tension? Even around here? I believe it is an
important part of our day. (Along with all those essential vitamins
and minerals--caffeine, sugar, starch, beer, etc...)
<snip>
>>Yes, I have. No, I don't see your messages as any "dire threat"
to
>>the ng's "purpose." I just see what appears to me to be a
vendetta.
>> And I've said before, it seems to be going in all directions.
And
>>I think that every time (*) sees another post slagging the
critics,
>>instead of the "church," he comes in his pants.
>
>To be honest with you, I really don't give a shit what David
>Miscavige's reaction might be to what I write. I don't post to
this
>newsgroup to provide him with entertainment. Has it occurred to
you
>that allowing Miscavige's reaction to influence what you post here,
>you're granting him a great deal of control over expression of your
>own thoughts?
Well, if you haven't noticed, I don't really give too much thought
as to what (*) or anyone else thinks about my posts, either. If
anything, I hope I can raise the little prick's blood pressure just
a few points here and there. That would make me feel soooooo good.
You just mentioned that "dire threat" thing. I see the infighting
as something that serves the purposes of the cult, more than those
of the ng. Just an observation.
>I don't give *anyone* that sort of control over my intellectual
>freedom, bc, least of all David Miscaviage.
>
>>Obviously, this is not to say that we will never disagree with
>>anyone else. Disagreement, discussion, debate, even flames, serve
>>their purpose. It's just starting to resemble an armed camp
around
>>here.
>
>But why? That's what I'd like to know. Why does disagreement
descend
>so rapidly into all-out war?
Good question. I certainly don't have an answer. Anyone? Take the
floor? Maybe a new thread here?
<snip>
>>Hell, I'll type with my nose. (Ok, it's harder to hit the shift
key-
>>- -it's just something we'll have to live with...) (and the
glasses
>>tend to be a bit of a problem...OUCH...oh, hell, never mind...)
>
>Keep those wrists in shape, bc.
Wouldn't have it any other way, Diane.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBVg4Kn8flYc1m/ZAQFjbAf+NLRT4WYR+qKNYc7/XKPyw9eQ8v4iyxMS
/mWgHj3Glvau14C+NAqjqyKbAhDG2NIuFLo6ppmmYYVUZ5sufx0vdlfhdmPB5XGg
0s9d/aMH3O0M/vtcDV865xzQF2ZsrFhMdWrCL34F8RBSiKLEpI4ZPwhXJ30pxWSQ
TEFjZOTuVZ1EaUqfr+0gvDZj+Smd6x+96wg5SgqATM9aAcenlkvUoikXtpdwhDB5
CKaP0tNzPo/q7UJ8fnHq6G1PAhx1cS7kHNw3KCBeGskEfWWsHXfSihtMUCZ26zeh
4GG2a4bqzQgwqhSRBD2dyfIJ0LV/AwsDyTzj8wp8SOQnPch8dGCutA==
=xmc3
Peter McDermott
In article <341c34a9...@news.concentric.net>,
dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>>ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) brewed up the following,
>
>and served it to the group:
>
>>In article <5uq7d8$7...@snews1.zippo.com>,
>>har...@erols.com (Rebecca Hartong) wrote:
>>
>>>As with your example of sun and earth, though, many people can
>have a
>>>similar experience of a thing and ALL still be wrong.
>>
>>Which is also a perfect example of how different forms of
>>knowledge sometimes *don't* complement each other, but one
>>of them is just plain wrong.
>
>When different forms of knowledge categorically deny each other,
>they obviously cannot complement each other.
When you have different forms of knowledge that categorically
deny the other, then one of them *isn't* knowledge - at least,
in the sense that I understand knowledge. Subjective experience,
perhaps, but I believe there is a profound difference between
the two things. (Unless you're a scientologist and still cleave
to the notion of 'what's true for you', etc.)
>In the case of mind control, it is only your assumption that one of
>them is "just plain wrong."
Not at all. In the case of mind control, you've got a number
of alternative theories competing for acceptance. While there
are obviously aspects of all of these theories that have
some merit - particularly in the way that they resonate with
people's experience of cult membership, there are usually
flawed to a greater or lesser degree as well.
The problem is how we determine which explanation has greater
value, and it seems to me that when you choose subjective
experience *over* scientific method as the method of determination,
you're really arguing for superstition over rationality, for
the methods of the cult rather than the methods of the
real world.
jbwebb
Diane Richardson wrote:
>
> >>>What Bernie claimed was that I didn't experience mind control. I
> >>>claimed that I did. Bernie then informs me that I am a "member"
> >of
> >>>the "anti-cult cult". In beautiful Midwest America, we have a
> >word
> >>>for this. We call it "bullshit."
> >Thanks, I got that. I consider Bernie's statements to be bullshit.
> >Why? Because there is no such thing as Bernie's much-vaunted "anti-
> >cult cult." It is a flimsy rationalization intended to disparage
> >those of us who are opposed to Co$ and other destructive cults. My
> >good Hoosier upbringing tells me that this is bullshit, in no
> >uncertain terms.
>
> Why do you think there is not such thing as an "anti-cult cult"?
> What is it about your Hoosier upbringing that tells you it's bullshit?
> I think that there's plenty of evidence to indicate that there is,
> indeed, a fairly close-knit group who have worked together for years
> to present cults as a "social problem" worthy of serious public
> attention. Do you disagree?
Well, I think this point was one of the reasons that people got so
aggravated with Bernie. He is always talking about the anti-cult cult,
but only as a label, never engaging in a serious discussion about why
anti-cultists should be called a cult.
Do you agree that this "fairly close knit" group of people are a "cult?"
Do these people fit the description of a cult? Bernie has called a lot
of people here on ARS anti-cult cultists. Do you think the term
"cult" accurately applies to the disparate group of critics here?
I am sure one could make a case for calling the old CAN a cult. I
probably wouldn't agree with that premise, but I would like to listen to
the argument. As far as I remember, Bernie never would put forth his
argument, only the charge. There was a lot of discussion of whether the
anti-cult cult was as dangerous as a cult, but the issue of whether there
is actually an anti-cult cult was never solved.
In what ways do you think CAN (or whatever group you refer to above) fit
the description of a cult? I suppose one would have to word clear
"cult" first.
Take care
Joni
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) brewed up the following,
and served it to the group:
<snip>
>>When different forms of knowledge categorically deny each other,
>>they obviously cannot complement each other.
>
>When you have different forms of knowledge that categorically
>deny the other, then one of them *isn't* knowledge - at least,
>in the sense that I understand knowledge. Subjective experience,
>perhaps, but I believe there is a profound difference between
>the two things. (Unless you're a scientologist and still cleave
>to the notion of 'what's true for you', etc.)
Or perhaps your horizons need to be broadened. Something about the
answer is 42--but WTF is the question?
Have you considered the possibility that you aren't asking the right
question? What you are implying is that there are only two possible
states in which knowledge exists--it either agrees with you, or it
doesn't. The world doesn't work that way, Peter.
There is a helluva lot of gray between black and white.
>>In the case of mind control, it is only your assumption that one
of
>>them is "just plain wrong."
>
>Not at all. In the case of mind control, you've got a number
>of alternative theories competing for acceptance. While there
>are obviously aspects of all of these theories that have
>some merit - particularly in the way that they resonate with
>people's experience of cult membership, there are usually
>flawed to a greater or lesser degree as well.
What precisely is "flawed" in these "alternative" theories, Peter?
>The problem is how we determine which explanation has greater
>value, and it seems to me that when you choose subjective
>experience *over* scientific method as the method of determination,
>you're really arguing for superstition over rationality, for
>the methods of the cult rather than the methods of the
>real world.
We've discussed at rather great length recently the possibility of
actually performing controlled experiments in mind control.
(Perhaps you missed those.) I believe the Milgrim (IIRC)
experiments are rather interesting, myself--from what I have read.
But I don't think you're going to find a whole lot of people who
will willingly submit themselves to such experimentation.
Which explanation has greater value to you, Peter? Why?
Why is an explanation which doesn't agree with your view is
immediately relegated to the realm of superstition and cultism?
Have you ever been in $cientology, Peter? I ask merely for
information.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBXCOKn8flYc1m/ZAQFZfgf9Eep9mEqifyzuJ873vLlRBU6tyuLpiMrS
htY+oP81lL7AdEBhAke93Y7s1B/hWFJJmRrBwY1N1Yf3/8kW3BZ9nSYMBirJnMHx
6Kn/VnQuAhTZtwl00g8vhj22B9r2MFRlJkopSe2l0LigOoFvgcXi4qj1MPIx7XEC
Irm0+yeLmHupJXDp0s3KSBByMW1Z4zBz/fJaeZ+rthjiNFXdPgGX3sGrf1KvIFt3
IsyN2a13gjVCCnQcyoygMQMaPlssYIYEhMtZab3Xg0fS+bdpYo2WV+pzGObT+dQr
1Gkyr01eQDnWR25zkDCvGzAahlXn0Vpd85wi9zsZ0PgzKKCXHkgSqQ==
=FIak
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) brewed up the following,
and served it to the group:
<snip>
>>You choose to ignore the point I am making. What was
"subjectively"
>>true was what was also accepted as "objectively" true.
>>"Objectively" obtained evidence disproved that theory.
>
>She ignores it because you're making the same *type* of argument as
>those who argued for the belief that the sun rotates around the
>earth. You're basing your argument on the subjective experience of
>yourself and others, and choosing to ignore evidence based on the
>scientific method.
Obviously you didn't read the post, or my response to Rebecca.
>>What is now "subjectively" accepted as true by the aforementioned
>>"authorities"--the non-existence of mind control--is not
>>"objective". The facts are not all in.
>
>You don't accept the APA as authorities on matters concerning
>the human psyche? Is this a left-over from your days as a clam,
>or did you have these concerns before you joined in the first
>place?
I said I don't accept the APA as the *final* authority. Geez,
Peter, I don't even know why I bother responding to you. Other than
the fact that I don't like to see your bullshit left unrebutted.
But even that is beginning to wear rather thin.
>The facts are not all in on *anything*. That's the nature of
>science. At any given point, we work on the basis of the best
>available explanation. Is it coherent? Is it consistent? Does it
>fit the available data.
Uh, Peter, that was the point that *I* was trying to make. Thank
you.
>The US courts and the APA reject the arguments in favour of
>mind-control by reviewing the available evidence and finding
>that the holes in the mind control theory are just too large
>to accept. While there *is* a measure of subjectivity about that
>process, it's beauty is that it isn't usually carried out by a
>lone individual but represents a consensus view of the evidence.
>You'll always have some individuals who, for various reasons,
>refuse to accept that, but more often than not, those reasons
>will be subjective rather than objective, ie, they tend to be
>wedded to a theory of their own.
Like the one that says mind control doesn't exist, for instance.
The US Courts and the APA are made up of people just like you and
me, Peter. All of them making *subjective* decisions based on *
subjective* interpretations of *subjective* data.
BTW, the US Courts and the APA also have political motivations,
Peter.
I believe I have already made my point elsewhere as to why I don't
accept the US Court system as an arbiter of any reliability. The
APA is in the same boat. In my *subjective* opinion.
>You choose to disagree with their findings on the basis that
>your subjective experience (and the subjective experience of
>others) leads you to believe something different, yet as you've
>pointed out with your sun/earth example, subjective experience
>is *not* the best test of a theory in such matters.
I don't believe that the court or the APA is the *best* test of the
theory either, Peter.
I don't believe politically motivated organizations are really
reliable for scientific study.
>Yet when people point out to you that there your beliefs are
>at odds with the dominant scientific opinion, you accuse them
>of 'preaching at' or 'invalidating' you. which is precisely
>*why* people draw parallels between your response and that
>of the cult. They respond in exactly the same way when faced
>with scientific refutation of their beliefs.
Perhaps if you'd read the threads between Bernie and myself, you'd
have a vague idea of what the fuck you're talking about, Peter. Go
back and hit Deja News. Look up some of the threads between myself
and Bernie. Please. I'm anxious to see what your response might be
after you have actually availed yourself of a clue.
>>There is no final authority on the human mind--most especially
>>not the US Courts or the APA.
>
>There doesn't need to be a "final authority". That isn't how
>science works. It works on the basis of the best available
>explanation at any given moment, and it appears that those
>scientists who have studied *this* particular issue have found
>that the mind control explanation has been found seriously
>wanting.
You know, Peter, that IS the beauty of it. I think *all* the
theories are at least somewhat wanting. And eventually, there will
be one or two or three hundred put forth that come a little closer
to the "truth" (whatever THAT is). And until someone can come up
with a better explanation of what I experienced, I'm sticking with
mine--which has been corroborated by lots of different people.
Including *professionals*. Sorry if you don't choose to accept
them. That's really not my problem
And in the meantime, maybe you can go dig up a clue before you
accuse me of "cultic behavior" again. Or maybe you could just go
back and crawl back under whatever rock you've been hiding under.
Sorry, folks. I'm not being "nice" in this post. Peter's used up
his quota of "nice" from me.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBXGr6n8flYc1m/ZAQGaQgf+LyfLxqViLea1HEx5/2MUc1A282/zIA2Z
hnpl02ukaUEheu3G/JeJb+XvGL9xVqMfpZ4PKBMjqRrGNAgtikyZPdITLLPWgdEc
MOhSrROGnaQpi6EsqslFISN7YnDTosOf5wuwEq4uuuMcy2uvDfKkwA+r2BJlmtyc
4KGNIy4P7bGZFGIaVPn+2YhjQGlQGBMrdmPEGDD3k8F4r4DjrSUNzoqveYqZUz8S
AyAe233dqEQXqbwpayYhcaGvZTz6dmAnSFKut6c+BYLeykVTQSJACQUb2wZKAL3O
SLRfjWATYV/HdORimiPh+ZyXtbCVqnhrTLoDgXUVvAgNf3BO3dcN+Q==
=TkFv
Perry Scott
bc (dr...@yourown.risk.com) wrote:
: Diane, I didn't say
: anything about the use of hypnosis. I did say, somewhere, that
: techniques used in hypnosis are included in the mind control
: practices of Co$. There is a bit of difference there.
While I try to stay out of these threads, I fully concur with you, bc.
I see bc as the voice crying in the wilderness. Keep crying out, bc.
Maybe someone will eventually hear you.
Hubbard's study of Sex Majick under Crowley, Parsons, and the OTO gave
him all the basics for developing the mindf*ck otherwise known as
Dyin-etics. While Sex Majick is NOT hypnosis, the bits and pieces are
there. While the TRs are NOT hypnosis, the TRs are full of bits and
pieces of "progressive thought shaping", with the absurd progression
eventually getting the Novitiate to shout at ashtrays with delusions of
Godhood. I am amazed that two of the arscc's Scholars SubCommittee
(Rebecca and Diane) don't "cog" on this bit, but I guess it isn't true
for them (yet).
The strawman/red herring of Copernicus serves as a good warning: do not
to accept a widely-held belief without verifying it. However, one
begins to wonder which side of the issue Rebecca, Diane, et.al. fall
onto. Are they the ones arguing that the Sun revolves around the Earth?
(BIG :-) to Rebecca and Diane; I've read enough to understand and
respect where you stand.)
The so-called "mind control" angle has been verified by a numerous
ex-members on a.r.s. I can think of, in cronological order: Wakefield,
Erlich, Lerma, Hunt, Pignotti, myself, Ex-CMO, bc, Warrior, and a few I
have likely forgotten. I don't mean to drop names or put words in other
ex-Scns' mouths, I am simply remembering posts made by them about TRs,
auditing, etc. You can ask them and correlate what you get back.
"Bare-Faced Messiah" as well as other sources point to Hubbard's
dabbling in the Occult, which has its own form of "mind control". I
find it extremely significant that Hubbard wrote Dyin-etics and the
Philadelphia Doctorate Course concurrent with his studies of Crowley.
Hubbard even wrote HCOBs about hypnosis and auditing. (He coyly denies
that auditing is hypnosis, then turns around and claims that you can put
someone in a hypnotic trance by having them close their eyes.) Did
anyone say that OT-TR0 is done with the eyes closed? Has anyone yet
said that Dianetic auditing (D:MSMH) is done on someone in "reverie",
i.e. with their eyes closed? Hubbard *knew* what the hell he was
doing - the mind-control elements in the TRs, in auditing, in the
HCOPLs, etc., are no coincidence.
Anyway, bc, keep tilting at this windmill. Posts from virtually every
ex-scn (including me) agree with you. If anyone is interested in my
evaluation of the TRs, there's a link on http://ezlink.com/~perry/CoS.
It's also on Touretzky's Secrets page as well. (grain of salt warning:
I use the "mind control" word - if it's offensive to you, exchange it
with "progressive thought shaping resulting in anti-social behavior".)
If anyone wants to learn more about Book One Auditing without helping
out the CoS's stats, buy a used copy of D:MSMH at your favorite
second-hand bookstore. It's an excellent study in what happens if you
DON'T follow the scientific method.
Perry Scott
Co$ Escapee
Peter McDermott
In article <3415596a...@news.concentric.net>,
dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>>I still think that the word "lie" is not appropriate when you're
>>talking about someone's opinion. You can call someone's opinion
>>"wrong," but calling it a "lie" implies that Bernie is deliberately
>>forwarding an untruth. Do you really believe that's what he's done
>- --
>>express an opinion that he doesn't believe himself?
>
>Yes. See above. Where does this "cult" exist, outside of Bernie's
>imagination? Does even Bernie actually *believe* such a thing
>exists? Or is it just a cheap rationalization? Sorry, but as far
>as I'm concerned, it still smells like a lie.
I don't believe Bernie *does* believe it exists as a cult
in the literal sense (though I'm just guessing here.)
I think he's using the term 'cult' as an analogy to make what *I*
believe is a very reasonable point about the similarities in
thinking between some members of the 'close knit group' that you
acknowledge, and cults themselves.
I've already outlined what these parallels are earlier on in
the thread, in response to a request from number 3 to do so,
so I won't go into them all again.
Diane Richardson
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 16:01:49 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
[snip]
>>I think that there's plenty of evidence to indicate that there is,
>>indeed, a fairly close-knit group who have worked together for
>years
>>to present cults as a "social problem" worthy of serious public
>>attention. Do you disagree?
>
>I agree that there is (or may be) a "fairly close-knit group" as you
>describe. I do not agree for one second that this constitutes a
>cult. My family is a close-knit group that has worked together for
>years. Does this make it a cult? My band is a close-knit group
>that has worked together for years. Does this make it a cult? (If
>so, whereinthehell are my damn groupies?) The Chicago Bears are a
>close-knit group that has worked together for years (well, they were
>when Ditka was coach...). Does that make them a cult?
Well, it depends upon whose definition of "cult" you choose to use.
:-)
>Do you see what I am getting at here? By labeling those who oppose
>cults (and more specifically, those who believe that certain cults
>practice mind-control) as "anti-cult cultists", Bernie was (IMO)
>attempting to deflect rational discussion, and simply point fingers
>and denigrate his opposition. By inventing a "cult" where none
>exists, he (IMO) detracts attention and discussion from the real
>cults which are causing real harm.
<sigh!> I guess we have to get into definitions at this point. The
American Heritage Dictionary gives as definition 5.a. of cult,
"Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing."
I'm sure you recognize the use of the word using that meaning in "cult
film," etc. I think (although I can't speak for Bernie) that he was
referring to the excessive insistence on the "cult mind control"
theory and the near-hyterical warnings about the destructive influence
of cults on society when he referred to the "anti-cult cult."
>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>What was Bernie's lie? That "cult mind control" doesn't exist or
>
>>>that
>>>>you are a member of the "anti-cult cult"? Do you really think
>that
>>>>either of those qualifies as a lie, rather than just a difference
>
>>>of
>>>>opinion? That's how I see it, at least.
>>>
>>>Both are lies, in my opinion.
>>
>>Again, unless you're defining "lie" as something besides a
>deliberate
>>untruth, I don't think the word applies to Bernie's opinion.
>
>I believe that Bernie's accusing me of "membership" in an
>organization which exists solely in his mind, simply to put me down,
>constitutes a deliberate untruth.
I think you're being a trifle thin-skinned over this, bc. Lordy, what
would you be doing if Bernie had begun calling you names like
Bird, Barwell, Fishman, or Scarff shout at me?!?
Or do you think I deserve the abuse while you don't? :-)
>>>By categorically denying the
>>>existence of one, and single-handedly assigning membership in the
>>>latter, Bernie assigns himself the role of arbiter.
>>
>>Are you saying that Bernie denied the existence of cults or the
>>existence of "cult mind control"? I've never seen him deny the
>>existence of cults. As for the existence of "cult mind control,"
>one
>>can accept the existence of cults without accepting the existence
>of
>>"cult mind control." I'm not sure what you're saying here.
>
>I'm saying what I've said many times before. Bernie never denied
>the existence of cults. He vehemently denied the existence of mind
>control, and accused anyone who believed it exists of being a member
>of the "anti-cult cult".
So? I don't get your point. Hey, if I counted up the number of
people who've accused me of being an OSA plant, I'd be counting all
night. Are you really just angry because Bernie called you a member
of "the anti-cult cult"?
><snip>
>
>>>The "anti-cult cult" rhetoric is an invention of Bernie's that he
>>>uses to categorize and demean us poor idiots who are deranged
>enough
>>>to believe that Co$ uses mind control. This "cult" does not
>exist.
>>>I believe that constitutes a lie.
>>
>>I still think that the word "lie" is not appropriate when you're
>>talking about someone's opinion. You can call someone's opinion
>>"wrong," but calling it a "lie" implies that Bernie is deliberately
>>forwarding an untruth. Do you really believe that's what he's done
>- --
>>express an opinion that he doesn't believe himself?
>
>Yes. See above. Where does this "cult" exist, outside of Bernie's
>imagination? Does even Bernie actually *believe* such a thing
>exists? Or is it just a cheap rationalization? Sorry, but as far
>as I'm concerned, it still smells like a lie.
Where does the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" cult exist, outside of
certain film reviewers' minds? What's the big deal? Is calling you a
cultist -- of any stripe -- really such an insult to you?
><snip>
Why do you think it's so important that critics show some sort of
united front, bc? Is disagreement a sign of weakness? Personally, I
consider it more a sign of strength. After all, we are free to
disagree -- and disagree vociferously. Those in the CoS have given
up that freedom, probably without even realizing what they've done to
themselves.
>>I don't give *anyone* that sort of control over my intellectual
>>freedom, bc, least of all David Miscaviage.
>>
>>>Obviously, this is not to say that we will never disagree with
>>>anyone else. Disagreement, discussion, debate, even flames, serve
>>>their purpose. It's just starting to resemble an armed camp
>around
>>>here.
>>
>>But why? That's what I'd like to know. Why does disagreement
>descend
>>so rapidly into all-out war?
>
>Good question. I certainly don't have an answer. Anyone? Take the
>floor? Maybe a new thread here?
Well, I think that's what Judith was getting at during her brief
appearance here. Sadly, I think she's too occupied with real life
right now to continue her contribution to this newsgroup.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 21:40:25 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
[snip]
>We've discussed at rather great length recently the possibility of
>actually performing controlled experiments in mind control.
>(Perhaps you missed those.) I believe the Milgrim (IIRC)
>experiments are rather interesting, myself--from what I have read.
>But I don't think you're going to find a whole lot of people who
>will willingly submit themselves to such experimentation.
The only problem is that Milgram's experiments had nothing whatever to
do with "cult mind control." They involved study of obedience to
authority figures. That's not "cult mind control."
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Zane Thomas
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 01:37:34 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis
Erlich) wrote:
> Nothing ~whatsoever~ to do with cult mind control, she pronounces.
>Obedience to authority has nothing to do with cult mind control, according
>to her.
>
> What an amazing pronouncement.
I was thinking them same thoughts. Seems that Diane is overlooking
the dashing uniforms of the authoritarian sea ogres, not to mention
the obvious effect of the snake-oil salesmen's "spiritual
authority"<spit>.
I got this sneaking suspicion that Diane wouldn't have any problem
recognizing the obedience to authority inherent in the catholic
church, fer instance.
Zane
Peter McDermott
In article <341fbeb0...@news.concentric.net>,
dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>>>When different forms of knowledge categorically deny each other,
>>>they obviously cannot complement each other.
>>
>>When you have different forms of knowledge that categorically
>>deny the other, then one of them *isn't* knowledge - at least,
>>in the sense that I understand knowledge. Subjective experience,
>>perhaps, but I believe there is a profound difference between
>>the two things. (Unless you're a scientologist and still cleave
>>to the notion of 'what's true for you', etc.)
>
>Or perhaps your horizons need to be broadened. Something about the
>answer is 42--but WTF is the question?
>
>Have you considered the possibility that you aren't asking the right
>question?
I'm not asking a question at all. Questions end in a question mark.
I'm making a statement.
Which part of it do you believe is inaccurate?
>What you are implying is that there are only two possible
>states in which knowledge exists--it either agrees with you, or it
>doesn't. The world doesn't work that way, Peter.
>
>There is a helluva lot of gray between black and white.
I'm not saying anything of the sort. However, I *am* arguing
for rationalism rather than relativism. Not all knowledge is
equal, and just because something happens to be "true for
you" that doesn't make it true. *Unless* you're prepared to
accept that some things do more closely approximate reality
than others, there's no reason at all to disagree with the
claims that Scientology makes, is there? That can all be
true as well?
>>>In the case of mind control, it is only your assumption that one
>of
>>>them is "just plain wrong."
>>
>>Not at all. In the case of mind control, you've got a number
>>of alternative theories competing for acceptance. While there
>>are obviously aspects of all of these theories that have
>>some merit - particularly in the way that they resonate with
>>people's experience of cult membership, there are usually
>>flawed to a greater or lesser degree as well.
>
>What precisely is "flawed" in these "alternative" theories, Peter?
How does one distinguish between a person who is under
the influence of "cult mind control" and a person who simply
holds a set of freely chosen religious beliefs, for starters?
>>The problem is how we determine which explanation has greater
>>value, and it seems to me that when you choose subjective
>>experience *over* scientific method as the method of determination,
>>you're really arguing for superstition over rationality, for
>>the methods of the cult rather than the methods of the
>>real world.
>
>We've discussed at rather great length recently the possibility of
>actually performing controlled experiments in mind control.
>(Perhaps you missed those.) I believe the Milgrim (IIRC)
>experiments are rather interesting, myself--from what I have read.
>But I don't think you're going to find a whole lot of people who
>will willingly submit themselves to such experimentation.
No, I didn't miss them, nor am I unfamiliar with the research,
but Milgrim's work says nothing about cult mind control. It was
an attempt to look at how humans respond to authority. If you
are asking me whether I believe that a proportion of the population
will do as they are told, under certain conditions, I wouldn't
disagree with you. But that's a long way from proving that
cult mind control exists.
>Which explanation has greater value to you, Peter? Why?
As always, the explanation that is simplest and has the best
fit with *all* of the available data, rather than the one
that some participants have chosen as the easiest way to make
sense of their experience.
>Why is an explanation which doesn't agree with your view is
>immediately relegated to the realm of superstition and cultism?
It doesn't have anything to do with my view. I don't have a
particular view. It's the *style* of explanation that I'm
objecting to. A tendency to prioritize experience at the
expense of objective research. An anti-scientific tendency.
Such a style is relegated to the realm of superstition and
cultism because this is *precisely* what defines cults and
superstitions.
>Have you ever been in $cientology, Peter?
No.
Diane Richardson
>On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 01:37:34 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis
>Erlich) wrote:
>
>> Nothing ~whatsoever~ to do with cult mind control, she pronounces.
>>Obedience to authority has nothing to do with cult mind control, according
>>to her.
>>
>> What an amazing pronouncement.
>
>I was thinking them same thoughts. Seems that Diane is overlooking
>the dashing uniforms of the authoritarian sea ogres, not to mention
>the obvious effect of the snake-oil salesmen's "spiritual
>authority"<spit>.
Does this mean you believe snake-oil salesmen engage in "cult mind
control"?
>I got this sneaking suspicion that Diane wouldn't have any problem
>recognizing the obedience to authority inherent in the catholic
>church, fer instance.
Does this mean that you believe the Roman Catholic Church engages
in "cult mind control"?
Looks to me like you've got a lifetime's worth of re-educating the
public ahead of you if you believe unprincipled salesmen and the Roman
Catholic Church hold millions of innocent victims in the grip of "cult
mind control," Zane.
Of course, if you're actually talking about "obedience to authority"
and not "cult mind control," then you wouldn't have to assert that
salesmen and the Pope are cult leaders. That might be the more
rational approach, although it would destroy your argument.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
>
>Zane
>
Peter McDermott
In article <3420c261...@news.concentric.net>,
dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>>She ignores it because you're making the same *type* of argument as
>>those who argued for the belief that the sun rotates around the
>>earth. You're basing your argument on the subjective experience of
>>yourself and others, and choosing to ignore evidence based on the
>>scientific method.
>
>Obviously you didn't read the post, or my response to Rebecca.
I read your response after I posted this, but I don't see how
that invalidates my point.
>>>What is now "subjectively" accepted as true by the aforementioned
>>>"authorities"--the non-existence of mind control--is not
>>>"objective". The facts are not all in.
>>
>>You don't accept the APA as authorities on matters concerning
>>the human psyche? Is this a left-over from your days as a clam,
>>or did you have these concerns before you joined in the first
>>place?
>
>I said I don't accept the APA as the *final* authority. Geez,
>Peter, I don't even know why I bother responding to you. Other than
>the fact that I don't like to see your bullshit left unrebutted.
I'm still waiting for your rebuttal to start. Whining about
the odd choice of word here or there does not constitute a
rebuttal (though I wouldn't expect you to appreciate that
given the quality of your argument.)
>>The facts are not all in on *anything*. That's the nature of
>>science. At any given point, we work on the basis of the best
>>available explanation. Is it coherent? Is it consistent? Does it
>>fit the available data.
>
>Uh, Peter, that was the point that *I* was trying to make. Thank
>you.
So why didn't you make it?
>>The US courts and the APA reject the arguments in favour of
>>mind-control by reviewing the available evidence and finding
>>that the holes in the mind control theory are just too large
>>to accept. While there *is* a measure of subjectivity about that
>>process, it's beauty is that it isn't usually carried out by a
>>lone individual but represents a consensus view of the evidence.
>>You'll always have some individuals who, for various reasons,
>>refuse to accept that, but more often than not, those reasons
>>will be subjective rather than objective, ie, they tend to be
>>wedded to a theory of their own.
>
>Like the one that says mind control doesn't exist, for instance.
>The US Courts and the APA are made up of people just like you and
>me, Peter. All of them making *subjective* decisions based on *
>subjective* interpretations of *subjective* data.
Sure, but that's the thing about science. It works on consensus.
The more people you have, the more likely they are to pick up
on the flaws in the arguments or the data, and the more likely
they are to point that out.
As a consequence, they aren't likely to suffer from the same
sort of prejudices as those whose agenda is shaped by either
their experience of cults, or their goals as anti-cult activists.
Of course, they'll suffer other prejudices, but I'm at something
of a loss to understand what they could be with regard to an
issue like this.
>BTW, the US Courts and the APA also have political motivations,
>Peter.
So what do you suggest their political motivations are for
denying the reality of cult mind control?
>I believe I have already made my point elsewhere as to why I don't
>accept the US Court system as an arbiter of any reliability. The
>APA is in the same boat. In my *subjective* opinion.
Your choice, of course. However, I don't think you can compare
the findings of a jury, with the process of scholarship and
peer review. You obviously choose to regard all information as
subjective. I'd suggest to you that it's *precisely* that sort
of thinking that led you to be suckered by a nut-cult in the
first place. Just *my* opinion, of course.
>>You choose to disagree with their findings on the basis that
>>your subjective experience (and the subjective experience of
>>others) leads you to believe something different, yet as you've
>>pointed out with your sun/earth example, subjective experience
>>is *not* the best test of a theory in such matters.
>
>I don't believe that the court or the APA is the *best* test of the
>theory either, Peter.
Forget about the court for a moment. You're saying that despite
the fact that the APA have based their findings on the aggregate
of all of the available research, as published in the scientific
journals of a range of disciplines and so scrutinized by many
people in the field, you don't believe that that's the best test?
What exactly *do* you believe the best test is then?
>I don't believe politically motivated organizations are really
>reliable for scientific study.
The APA don't actually *do* the study. They are simply basing
their findings on the available evidence *from* the scientific
studies.
Is your antipathy towards psyches a leftover from your days in
the cult? What do you believe is the basis of their political
agenda in this area?
Or is it that you simply choose to ignore any and all
evidence that doesn't fit in with your world-view? Again,
that's a tendency that *I* see as typifying cult membership,
though I'd accept that it isn't just limited to them.
>>Yet when people point out to you that there your beliefs are
>>at odds with the dominant scientific opinion, you accuse them
>>of 'preaching at' or 'invalidating' you. which is precisely
>>*why* people draw parallels between your response and that
>>of the cult. They respond in exactly the same way when faced
>>with scientific refutation of their beliefs.
>
>Perhaps if you'd read the threads between Bernie and myself, you'd
>have a vague idea of what the fuck you're talking about, Peter. Go
>back and hit Deja News. Look up some of the threads between myself
>and Bernie. Please. I'm anxious to see what your response might be
>after you have actually availed yourself of a clue.
But you're doing exactly the same thing to me, here. I present
you with arguments that you don't seem to feel comfortable with,
and you start whining about how your patience is wearing thin,
and you're only doing it to rebut my bullshit.
>>>There is no final authority on the human mind--most especially
>>>not the US Courts or the APA.
>>
>>There doesn't need to be a "final authority". That isn't how
>>science works. It works on the basis of the best available
>>explanation at any given moment, and it appears that those
>>scientists who have studied *this* particular issue have found
>>that the mind control explanation has been found seriously
>>wanting.
>
>You know, Peter, that IS the beauty of it. I think *all* the
>theories are at least somewhat wanting. And eventually, there will
>be one or two or three hundred put forth that come a little closer
>to the "truth" (whatever THAT is). And until someone can come up
>with a better explanation of what I experienced, I'm sticking with
>mine--which has been corroborated by lots of different people.
>Including *professionals*. Sorry if you don't choose to accept
>them. That's really not my problem
Says it all, really. If it's true for you, and you can get a
bunch of other people to agree with you, then it *must* be
true, mustn't it?
Sorry, but that just isn't how science works, and your anger
in the face of people questioning your beliefs *does* seem to
me to typify cultic behaviour whether you like it or not.
Some of this is my opinion. The rest is fact. Those with a
clue will know which is which.
Peter McDermott
In article <5v4iuo$6...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
pe...@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) wrote:
>The so-called "mind control" angle has been verified by a numerous
>ex-members on a.r.s. I can think of, in cronological order: Wakefield,
>Erlich, Lerma, Hunt, Pignotti, myself, Ex-CMO, bc, Warrior, and a few I
>have likely forgotten.
Verified in what sense? The only sense I can see that they choose
to label what happened to them as 'mind control'.
This is not to argue that the tech doesn't play an important
part in shaping and validating the scientologist's belief system,
but that's very different from how what I understand by the
term 'cult mind control'.
I suppose my main problem is with the term itself. I'll happily
concede that membership of Scientology changes one's belief
systems and thought processes to a greater or lesser extent,
depending on the person.
What I have a problem with, is the idea that it makes people
do things against their will, and that the individuals concerned
aren't active, willing participants in that process.
Too often, I believe that people use the explanation that they
were under the influence of 'mind control' to avoid responsibility
for their own part in the things that they did when they were
members of the cult. Saying that they were under the control
(rather than using a softer but more accurate term like influence)
prevents them having to look at or take responsibility for their
part in that. Lets them avoid recognizing that when they are
talking about the evil pernicious cult of scientology, to some
extent they are talking about *themselves*.
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
<snip>
>>Do you see what I am getting at here? By labeling those who
oppose
>>cults (and more specifically, those who believe that certain cults
>>practice mind-control) as "anti-cult cultists", Bernie was (IMO)
>>attempting to deflect rational discussion, and simply point
fingers
>>and denigrate his opposition. By inventing a "cult" where none
>>exists, he (IMO) detracts attention and discussion from the real
>>cults which are causing real harm.
>
><sigh!> I guess we have to get into definitions at this point. The
>American Heritage Dictionary gives as definition 5.a. of cult,
>"Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
>person, principle, or thing."
>
>I'm sure you recognize the use of the word using that meaning in
"cult
>film," etc. I think (although I can't speak for Bernie) that he
was
>referring to the excessive insistence on the "cult mind control"
>theory and the near-hyterical warnings about the destructive
influence
>of cults on society when he referred to the "anti-cult cult."
I recognize the usage in reference to "cult films". I think we are
still dealing in apples and oranges here. There is a big difference
in the Rocky Horror Picture Show "cult" and the cult of $cientology.
<snip>
>>I believe that Bernie's accusing me of "membership" in an
>>organization which exists solely in his mind, simply to put me
down,
>>constitutes a deliberate untruth.
>
>I think you're being a trifle thin-skinned over this, bc. Lordy,
what
>would you be doing if Bernie had begun calling you names like
>Bird, Barwell, Fishman, or Scarff shout at me?!?
>
>Or do you think I deserve the abuse while you don't? :-)
If it was just me, I'd put it down to assholery on Bernie's part.
It's *everyone* who disagreed with Bernie, Diane. *Everyone* who
believes Co$ and other cults practice mind control. *Everyone* who
was unable (or unwilling, in Bernie's apparent view) to find
something positive in their cult experience. I don't think I'm
being thin-skinned--I think I'm pointing out what I observed Bernie
to be doing.
And anyway, I came here looking for an argument, I'm not just going
to...
"Oh, I'm sorry, but this is abuse!"
Oh, I see. Well, that explains it then.
"Ah, yes, you want room 12A, just along the corridor."
Thank you.
"Not at all."
"Stupid git."
<snip>
>>I'm saying what I've said many times before. Bernie never denied
>>the existence of cults. He vehemently denied the existence of
mind
>>control, and accused anyone who believed it exists of being a
member
>>of the "anti-cult cult".
>
>So? I don't get your point. Hey, if I counted up the number of
>people who've accused me of being an OSA plant, I'd be counting all
>night. Are you really just angry because Bernie called you a
member
>of "the anti-cult cult"?
No--I'm concerned (and annoyed) because Bernie invented a category
of "anti-cult cult" and assigned membership therein based solely on
his opinion of a poster's (or writer's--or whomever's) beliefs.
That seems rather pot-kettle-black-ish to me.
<snip>
>>Yes. See above. Where does this "cult" exist, outside of
Bernie's
>>imagination? Does even Bernie actually *believe* such a thing
>>exists? Or is it just a cheap rationalization? Sorry, but as
far
>>as I'm concerned, it still smells like a lie.
>
>Where does the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" cult exist, outside of
>certain film reviewers' minds? What's the big deal? Is calling
you a
>cultist -- of any stripe -- really such an insult to you?
Any midnight movie house in town. You're in New York, right? There
MUST be one around there somewhere--there's one in Indianapolis, for
pete's sake. Ya got guys in fishnet stockings carrying rice,
dancing in front of the screen, knowing every last line of the
movie...Yeah, I think that qualifies as a "cult" as you defined
above. And I still think that that "cult" and the cult of
$cientology are light-years apart.
And yes, I find the appellation "cultist" more than mildly
insulting. Especially so, knowing that it was intended that way.
The threads between Bernie and myself got rather nasty--on both
sides.
The simple fact of the matter is, I'm out of the cult of
$cientology. I don't do cults any more. I am concerned when I see
the negative effects of cults in our world, especially on the young.
This doesn't make me a cultist--it makes me a concerned human
being, and a concerned parent.
<snip>
>>You just mentioned that "dire threat" thing. I see the infighting
>>as something that serves the purposes of the cult, more than those
>>of the ng. Just an observation.
>
>Why do you think it's so important that critics show some sort of
>united front, bc? Is disagreement a sign of weakness? Personally,
I
>consider it more a sign of strength. After all, we are free to
>disagree -- and disagree vociferously. Those in the CoS have given
>up that freedom, probably without even realizing what they've done
to
>themselves.
Agreed. And "without even realizing what they've done to
themselves"--surely you don't think there could be "undue influence"
involved, do you? B-{)}
No, I don't think critics must show a "united front" as it were. I
just think that when it gets to the level of schoolyard name-
calling, that it really muddies the water WRT criticism.
Is childish name-calling effective criticism? I think not.
Disagreement? Absolutely! Flames? Sure. Shit happens. Joking
and Degrading (tm)? Wouldn't let a day go by without it. But just
getting down and wallowing in the mud? Nah, I don't see it. (And
I've done it myself. It goes all around the table here...)
<snip>
>>>But why? That's what I'd like to know. Why does disagreement
>>descend
>>>so rapidly into all-out war?
>>
>>Good question. I certainly don't have an answer. Anyone? Take
the
>>floor? Maybe a new thread here?
>
>Well, I think that's what Judith was getting at during her brief
>appearance here. Sadly, I think she's too occupied with real life
>right now to continue her contribution to this newsgroup.
What? Real life? Well, we'll just see about that. We'll just have
to send the ARSCC Posting Patrol out around to her place and *
suggest* that she get her stats back up. Can't have no downstat
folks around her, no no no. Hmph. "Real life" indeed.
[editor's note: the ARSCC, and the ARSCC Posting Patrol, do not
exist. As usual, the existence of a reader is cheerfully assumed.
If a reader does not in fact exist, we're getting into a level of
metaphysics the editor would really rather avoid.]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBaxBKn8flYc1m/ZAQHImgf/TrrsL3COOi6kOMLb1v+0HyOkUCIOE/SU
x1geujG0IKt5erGqPl108CTzjki2MRU6nm7CiauGW3kM9T3Xb7iLEUQR8G7YpjgW
zlvBv1zkRrC4t4lAEGLkARd7VzMVE506VeuMdkunYKhIfn3z0bBjynip4bMheJtR
OUTiLppy+CnASRsrb0ORp+JPb9c7dk320DoXBfncsHRfK1OtlbhV3aptqjHGDJ2z
5VJ7WzmOvSfl4Ug9XBsHAFxwbkC91Ugh8dzwbW5fRg+EjQl0M8vmcBbhW5bsXu72
uTctXYingYOTA4Aou8G6fvfEwmpb9TgmsqbicRW1RpoLnPaj5qr9+w==
=Tqb3
Roland
Peter McDermott wrote:
>
> In article <5v4iuo$6...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
> pe...@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) wrote:
>
> >The so-called "mind control" angle has been verified by a numerous
> >ex-members on a.r.s. I can think of, in cronological order: Wakefield,
> >Erlich, Lerma, Hunt, Pignotti, myself, Ex-CMO, bc, Warrior, and a few I
> >have likely forgotten.
>
> Verified in what sense? The only sense I can see that they choose
> to label what happened to them as 'mind control'.
>
> This is not to argue that the tech doesn't play an important
> part in shaping and validating the scientologist's belief system,
> but that's very different from how what I understand by the
> term 'cult mind control'.
What I do is consider the end result and ask myself "is that the results
of mind control?". I'm not bothered about the mechanisms. It is possible
that "mind control" is being used even though it is unintentional and is
the furthest thing from the minds of those delivering it. Yet it could
still be mind control as judged by the end result.
Just taking the term "mind control" rather than "cult mind control" then
I am sure you would recognise that there is a stage at which you
yourself would assume mind control was indeed applied. What would you
look for in this regard?
IMO it is a lot more fruitful from a discussion point of view to
approach it from this angle.
A good example was on the CJVI (or whatever) radio show in Victoria,
Canada. Howie Siegel did a simple test. He asked the Scientologists who
had phoned in to tell him something bad about Scientology. They could
not (except for one guy when pushed who said the pay wasn't very good).
That they could not say something bad about Scientology when there must
be any number of even trivial things to choose from indicates, at least
to me, that mind-control was used.
Simple 'innit?
Roland
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>pe...@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) brewed up the following, and served
it to the group:
>bc (dr...@yourown.risk.com) wrote:
>
>: Diane, I didn't say
>: anything about the use of hypnosis. I did say, somewhere, that
>: techniques used in hypnosis are included in the mind control
>: practices of Co$. There is a bit of difference there.
>
>While I try to stay out of these threads, I fully concur with you,
bc.
>I see bc as the voice crying in the wilderness. Keep crying out,
bc.
>Maybe someone will eventually hear you.
Thanks, Perry. It's nice to know I'm not just typing into
oblivion...
>Hubbard's study of Sex Majick under Crowley, Parsons, and the OTO
gave
>him all the basics for developing the mindf*ck otherwise known as
>Dyin-etics. While Sex Majick is NOT hypnosis, the bits and pieces
are
>there. While the TRs are NOT hypnosis, the TRs are full of bits
and
>pieces of "progressive thought shaping", with the absurd
progression
>eventually getting the Novitiate to shout at ashtrays with
delusions of
>Godhood. I am amazed that two of the arscc's Scholars SubCommittee
>(Rebecca and Diane) don't "cog" on this bit, but I guess it isn't
true
>for them (yet).
Exactly! Elrong just took bits and pieces of whatever he came upon,
and called it his own. (I think the concept of plagiarism might be
in there somewhere--or as Tom Lehrer put it, "always remembering to
call it please--research!").
He may have been a drunken con-man, but Elrong had a good strong
grasp on what it took to mess with people's minds. That's exactly
what he designed the TR's to do--mess with people's minds. And to
that extent, they work.
>The strawman/red herring of Copernicus serves as a good warning:
do not
>to accept a widely-held belief without verifying it. However, one
>begins to wonder which side of the issue Rebecca, Diane, et.al.
fall
>onto. Are they the ones arguing that the Sun revolves around the
Earth?
>(BIG :-) to Rebecca and Diane; I've read enough to understand and
>respect where you stand.)
What--you mean it doesn't? What about that big turtle under the
Earth? Does this mean that if I fall off the edge of the Earth,
that I WON'T really be eaten by dragons? Damn! I'm gonna have to
seriously rethink this flat-Earth thingie...
>The so-called "mind control" angle has been verified by a numerous
>ex-members on a.r.s. I can think of, in cronological order:
Wakefield,
>Erlich, Lerma, Hunt, Pignotti, myself, Ex-CMO, bc, Warrior, and a
few I
>have likely forgotten. I don't mean to drop names or put words in
other
>ex-Scns' mouths, I am simply remembering posts made by them about
TRs,
>auditing, etc. You can ask them and correlate what you get back.
A big 10-4 here, Perry.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Perry. I've seen your page--
great stuff. I'll keep my pool cue chalked, and keep going after
that damn windmill. Eventually, we'll knock that bastard down.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBbHRqn8flYc1m/ZAQHqAwf+LCwsXFP1hZyUIcN4n4K0DPJ0LFIgQpis
207z7WHDLf76R8WAnN2rzRJ00ia1cKhwv/9UvJeW3xc37Xdu4xNqmJix6Saevh9t
8BXqo2NWtViRZwCbJxFLJNuIJnHtrWMDyevHc4721XsqkNGQinyOr5Lq9p0nNfdT
jZh3gu2rIwPkK21o5nfGvR2m2BdNK+0fz1w/zKTE14HZY49jQqAwHjPeba3cbj3x
V9zOMw9l0unvfZVx4OnISLmiwA6n6MrD9h2v8RSGcivlHu59IE+OmR41TO67QNv2
fllgmgapmXk5RPupzzVa0KD++8fhlWV8Ak7Hlh2AQc2pb6SBkJndpA==
=1rW7
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <3415f04b...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName writes:
>>We've discussed at rather great length recently the possibility of
>>actually performing controlled experiments in mind control.
>>(Perhaps you missed those.) I believe the Milgrim (IIRC)
>>experiments are rather interesting, myself--from what I have read.
>>But I don't think you're going to find a whole lot of people who
>>will willingly submit themselves to such experimentation.
>
>do with "cult mind control." They involved study of obedience to
>authority figures. That's not "cult mind control."
Half truth, WhatsHerName. This mind control or reprogramming comprises:
(1) Placing the chump in a controlled milieu and presenting the material
not as persuausion which [under whatever duress] you say as such and can
take or leave] but as unquestioned instruction, which appeasl strongly
to the need to conform to the other chumps and obey authorities figures
especially when cai=ught off-balance by unfamiliar surroundings;
*** AND ***
(2) Using physical measures such as working to exhaustion and fixed
staring or endless rhythmic repetition of the same few words or phyical
movements, as means to iincrease suggestibility.
Milgrim simply asks if people can be made to do unusual things under
a short period of (1), and finds that they can.
No doubt *some* instances, such as boot-camp or a monstaery might
allow their methoids to be studied in more detail....
In art<3416f980...@snews.zippo.com>, "Rev. Dennis Erlich" writes:
> Nothing ~whatsoever~ to do with cult mind control, she pronounces.
>Obedience to authority has nothing to do with cult mind control, according
>to her.
>
> What an amazing pronouncement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In a<5v4ngp$6...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Perry Scott <pe...@fc.hp.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: The Scn/1984 Parallel - Doublethink (RVY)
>Message-ID: <5v4ngp$6...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>
>Robert Vaughn Young (wri...@eskimo.com) wrote:
>: Let's try "1984" as the example. Would the apologists call what happened
>: to Winston to be "mind control" that he comes to love Big Brother? What do
>: THEY call "doublethink"?
>
>: Move it away from Hassan, me , Singer, whoever. Put it on Orwell. Is there
>: "mind control" in that novel for THAT is the world that one can find in
>: Scientology's Sea Org.
>
>
>As one of the "mind control apologists", I would concur that 1984 is a
>closer, more understandable model for what happens in Scientology. From
>day 1, the words are redefined, new thought structures overlay the older
>more familiar ones, behavior shifts to The Party. I'd have to read 1984
>again; my perceptions of a book read over two decades ago is somewhat
>foggy.
>
>Heh, I remember that doubleplusgood groupspeak sounds like a duck
>quacking - reminds me of what it sounds like listening to Hubbard
>spouting Hubbardese. I mean, listen to this snippet from the
>Introspection Rundown: ".. an auditor .. corrected the last severe
>point of wrong indication. Subsequent times of wrong indication in his
>life were cleared up, the person came out of the psychotic break and
>into present time." Quack! Quack! Quack!
>It's strange that I never put the two together; I joined Scientology
>about four years after reading 1984. OTOH, I only stayed in a couple
>years, so maybe I was immunized.
/; ;\
-- Regards, __ \\____//
XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <up...@sunyit.edu>)
_____________________________/ :--' ____________________
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ]
\___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___]
`===='
"So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <34156B...@gramercy.ios.com>, jbwebb writes:
>Well, I think this point was one of the reasons that people got so
>aggravated with Bernie. He is always talking about the anti-cult cult,
>but only as a label, never engaging in a serious discussion about why
>anti-cultists should be called a cult.
>Do you agree that this "fairly close knit" group of people are a "cult?"
> Do these people fit the description of a cult? Bernie has called a lot
>of people here on ARS anti-cult cultists. Do you think the term
> "cult" accurately applies to the disparate group of critics here?
>
>I am sure one could make a case for calling the old CAN a cult. I
>probably wouldn't agree with that premise, but I would like to listen to
>the argument. As far as I remember, Bernie never would put forth his
>argument, only the charge.
That's putting it mildly -- he's nutty as a kooscake.
In a<3415de3c...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName writes:
>>>I think that there's plenty of evidence to indicate that there is,
>>>indeed, a fairly close-knit group who have worked together for
>>>years
>>>to present cults as a "social problem" worthy of serious public
>>>attention. Do you disagree?
>>
>>I agree that there is (or may be) a "fairly close-knit group" as you
>>describe. I do not agree for one second that this constitutes a
>>cult. My family is a close-knit group that has worked together for
>>years. Does this make it a cult? My band is a close-knit group
>>that has worked together for years. Does this make it a cult? (If
>>so, whereinthehell are my damn groupies?) The Chicago Bears are a
>>close-knit group that has worked together for years (well, they were
>>when Ditka was coach...). Does that make them a cult?
>
>Well, it depends upon whose definition of "cult" you choose to use.
Let's try using CAN's definition, which I'm sure you can reproduce
if you wish to. What Barmie Barnie is trying to say is that "You
say groups like CoS fit this definition of authoritarian leadership
and discipline, mandatory beliefs, and recruitemt by mindcontrol.
In fact my favourite cult of extortion and manslaughter is wonderful
and it's you lot who fit that definition." By implication it's
"you lot" who have starved women to death, drowned dogs, driven people
to suicide, and extrorted every penny from their victims. Now when we
hear the propaganda like this of how the Jews have been beating
up poor innocent Nazis, we tend to get outraged at the sheer
effrontery of such a gogshite apologist for destructive thugs.
>>Do you see what I am getting at here? By labeling those who oppose
>>cults (and more specifically, those who believe that certain cults
>>practice mind-control) as "anti-cult cultists", Bernie was (IMO)
>>attempting to deflect rational discussion, and simply point fingers
>>and denigrate his opposition. By inventing a "cult" where none
>>exists, he (IMO) detracts attention and discussion from the real
>>cults which are causing real harm.
Read the declaration of Ann Rosenblum, and thimk what scum
they were that treated her this way.....
In article <3416f56e...@snews.zippo.com>,
"Rev. Dennis Erlich" <inF...@super.zippo.com> writes:
> Emotionally and mentally, I went through quite a trauma
>adjusting to the outside world. I experienced a culture shock. My
>parents helped me. They left me alone the first few months and I
>slept and rested most of the time. Occasionally, my parents took me
>for drives in the mountains. My mother was very understanding and
>she never made me talk about my experiences. But if I wanted to
>talk, she was there. They didn't make me feel like a fool for what I
>had done, though I certainly felt like one. I started to come out of
>the "daze" I was in, within 2 months, with a lot of "TLC."
>
> I was 23 years old, and I didn't know anything about opening
>a personal checking account, taxes, investments, buying a car,
>shopping, social security (that was a word I heard that had something
>to do with retirement). Watergate was something that I remembered
>hearing about, but I only had a vague impression that the President
>was impeached or resigned because of something he did to the
>Democratic party.
>
> I also experienced something that I believe most ex-cult
>members go through - a sort of "void" where everything you believe in
>all of a sudden vanished, and it leaves you with nothing to hold on to.
>It is a very strange feeling. I went through a long period where I
>simply didn't believe anything, T. V., books, newspapers, etc. I didn't
>believe because if I had been so wrong before, how could I trust
>myself again to believe anything was right?
>
> I eventually researched and studied mind control and the effect
>of it. I began to understand what had happened to me.
....and what scum they are who would deny and block her recovery
to protect the corporate profits of $tupidology.
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
>On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 21:40:25 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>We've discussed at rather great length recently the possibility of
>>actually performing controlled experiments in mind control.
>>(Perhaps you missed those.) I believe the Milgrim (IIRC)
>>experiments are rather interesting, myself--from what I have read.
>>But I don't think you're going to find a whole lot of people who
>>will willingly submit themselves to such experimentation.
>
>The only problem is that Milgram's experiments had nothing whatever
to
>do with "cult mind control." They involved study of obedience to
>authority figures. That's not "cult mind control."
Where does mind control start, Diane? Is there no authority figure
involved? What was Elrong? Chopped liver?
What is (*)? Authority! What is the Sea Org? Authority! What is
Source? Authority! Whaddo they got that I ain't got? Authority!
[What is the answer to the great question of Life, the Universe, and
Everything? 42!]
The definition of a cult generally includes devotion to and
adoration of an authority figure. In the case of Co$, that would be
Mr. Hubbard. Who set down all those TR's and all that other
delightful mindfuckery. Which I consider mind control. And I think
that the Milgram experiments, which showed the lengths to which one
would submit oneself to an authority figure, are quite relevant to
this discussion.
I still don't think you're likely to find too many people who would
willingly submit themselves to a double-blind, scientific study of
the effects of cult mind control. It's too much like offering a
free lobotomy, just to see if people would give it a shot.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBbC+an8flYc1m/ZAQGVdgf9GuCKXcAcewo1bNtWb0bSXVhkzgTwIH0C
nyvAWiDxovml3Jxpt3ZIDTdjSf40MOzioNGYx5HbWmt2tb4rN+R5pywV3nRU7Hva
2DPEr3pRQUZVEyDN6MPCtgcmG0N1bfl+AievYE3n0Epmw9nYKafUAi6U0u3IO7W3
bFyZRAGDt5PnjlBeRKsBjNspuyx10vVShmLtsrmkigmGqggoa53BD2jrbPZpw8U5
F8cjJgZvbQ+RJJC3jl4sWv52+BiuFRB60dL5xtKq4Og94c70ULUDtyHFrnQ003eE
kSze3b2jbVL1SXksMOYCOFxWXF/t7l5dILXSaqP4OUAtbvt6AKf3gw==
=iKkI
Diane Richardson
Yes, but is there that much of a difference between the Rocky Horror
Picture Show cult and the anti-cult cult? :-) I believe that's what
we were talking about.
What's wrong with pot-kettle-black? I do it all the time, myself.
:-)
><snip>
>
>>>Yes. See above. Where does this "cult" exist, outside of
>Bernie's
>>>imagination? Does even Bernie actually *believe* such a thing
>>>exists? Or is it just a cheap rationalization? Sorry, but as
>far
>>>as I'm concerned, it still smells like a lie.
>>
>>Where does the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" cult exist, outside of
>>certain film reviewers' minds? What's the big deal? Is calling
>you a
>>cultist -- of any stripe -- really such an insult to you?
>
>Any midnight movie house in town. You're in New York, right? There
>MUST be one around there somewhere--there's one in Indianapolis, for
>pete's sake.
Yep, one right up the street from us on 2nd Ave., as a matter of fact.
>Ya got guys in fishnet stockings carrying rice,
>dancing in front of the screen, knowing every last line of the
>movie...Yeah, I think that qualifies as a "cult" as you defined
>above. And I still think that that "cult" and the cult of
>$cientology are light-years apart.
I doubt if those guys in fishnet stockings disappear from the face of
the earth after the end of the midnight show, bc. I doubt if the
ex-CAN/AFF guys disappear from the face of the earth after the end of
the conference, too.
As to comparing The Rocky Horror Picture Show to anything, I think
you're missing my point. I certainly wasn't comparing it to the CoS,
I was comparing it to Bernie's use of the term cult in anti-cult cult.
I hope you can see the distinction.
>And yes, I find the appellation "cultist" more than mildly
>insulting. Especially so, knowing that it was intended that way.
>The threads between Bernie and myself got rather nasty--on both
>sides.
Yep. Pot-kettle-black again.
>The simple fact of the matter is, I'm out of the cult of
>$cientology. I don't do cults any more. I am concerned when I see
>the negative effects of cults in our world, especially on the young.
> This doesn't make me a cultist--it makes me a concerned human
>being, and a concerned parent.
That's fine with me. I just don't understand why you believe it's so
important to accept the existence of "cult mind control" to justify
opposition to the CoS or any other cult. Isn't it possible to be just
as opposed to the negative influences of cults without accepting the
"cult mind control" theory? I think so.
><snip>
>
>>>You just mentioned that "dire threat" thing. I see the infighting
>
>>>as something that serves the purposes of the cult, more than those
>
>>>of the ng. Just an observation.
>>
>>Why do you think it's so important that critics show some sort of
>>united front, bc? Is disagreement a sign of weakness? Personally,
>I
>>consider it more a sign of strength. After all, we are free to
>>disagree -- and disagree vociferously. Those in the CoS have given
>>up that freedom, probably without even realizing what they've done
>to
>>themselves.
>
>Agreed. And "without even realizing what they've done to
>themselves"--surely you don't think there could be "undue influence"
>involved, do you? B-{)}
But undue influence is not "cult mind control," bc. And I've never
been exactly sure of where one draws the line at "undue" influence, as
opposed to perfectly acceptable social influence.
>No, I don't think critics must show a "united front" as it were. I
>just think that when it gets to the level of schoolyard name-
>calling, that it really muddies the water WRT criticism.
Muddies what waters? I don't understand.
>Is childish name-calling effective criticism? I think not.
>Disagreement? Absolutely! Flames? Sure. Shit happens. Joking
>and Degrading (tm)? Wouldn't let a day go by without it. But just
>getting down and wallowing in the mud? Nah, I don't see it. (And
>I've done it myself. It goes all around the table here...)
It sure does.
><snip>
>
>>>>But why? That's what I'd like to know. Why does disagreement
>>>descend
>>>>so rapidly into all-out war?
>>>
>>>Good question. I certainly don't have an answer. Anyone? Take
>the
>>>floor? Maybe a new thread here?
>>
>>Well, I think that's what Judith was getting at during her brief
>>appearance here. Sadly, I think she's too occupied with real life
>>right now to continue her contribution to this newsgroup.
>
>What? Real life? Well, we'll just see about that. We'll just have
>to send the ARSCC Posting Patrol out around to her place and *
>suggest* that she get her stats back up. Can't have no downstat
>folks around her, no no no. Hmph. "Real life" indeed.
>
>[editor's note: the ARSCC, and the ARSCC Posting Patrol, do not
>exist. As usual, the existence of a reader is cheerfully assumed.
>If a reader does not in fact exist, we're getting into a level of
>metaphysics the editor would really rather avoid.]
I think Judith's got an ARSCC-proof protective shield erected between
herself and a.r.s., bc. Won't do a bit of good to send out the posse.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Garry Scarff
Rev. Dennis Erlich <inF...@super.zippo.com> wrote in article
<3417bf86...@snews.zippo.com>...
> ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote:
>
> >Too often, I believe that people use the explanation that they
> >were under the influence of 'mind control' to avoid responsibility
> >for their own part in the things that they did when they were
> >members of the cult.
>
> provide some actual examples, besides Fishman, of people using this
> explanation to avoid responsibility, right?
>
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <inF...@super.zippo.com>
> <inF...@primenet.com>
>
>>Choke, gag, spit...did I read this right? Erlich assumes to know what
personal responsibility is?? I'm surprised with most everything he blames
on Scientology whether wiping his ass after every flush is something he CAN
assume responsibility for!!
Rebecca Hartong
>Hubbard's study of Sex Majick under Crowley, Parsons, and the OTO gave
>him all the basics for developing the mindf*ck otherwise known as
>Dyin-etics. While Sex Majick is NOT hypnosis, the bits and pieces are
>there. While the TRs are NOT hypnosis, the TRs are full of bits and
>pieces of "progressive thought shaping", with the absurd progression
>eventually getting the Novitiate to shout at ashtrays with delusions of
>Godhood. I am amazed that two of the arscc's Scholars SubCommittee
>(Rebecca and Diane) don't "cog" on this bit, but I guess it isn't true
>for them (yet).
Hey! I'm on the Scholars SubCommittee?? Cool!
You might have missed it, Perry, but a month or so ago I wrote a
little bit about hypnosis and TRs and I said something to the effect
that it wouldn't surprise me at all if doing the TRs produces a light
hypnotic state BUT that I didn't think the state persists after the
drill is completed or that the state would create in a person a
willingness to do anything that they wouldn't have otherwise been
willing to do.
>The strawman/red herring of Copernicus serves as a good warning: do not
>to accept a widely-held belief without verifying it. However, one
>begins to wonder which side of the issue Rebecca, Diane, et.al. fall
>onto. Are they the ones arguing that the Sun revolves around the Earth?
>(BIG :-) to Rebecca and Diane; I've read enough to understand and
>respect where you stand.)
Hmm... you keep referring to "Rebecca and Diane." While I certainly
don't mind the company, I'm afraid that it might be a little
reminiscent of "Heckle and Jeckle!" ;-)
(snip)
>Anyway, bc, keep tilting at this windmill. Posts from virtually every
>ex-scn (including me) agree with you. If anyone is interested in my
>evaluation of the TRs, there's a link on http://ezlink.com/~perry/CoS.
>It's also on Touretzky's Secrets page as well. (grain of salt warning:
>I use the "mind control" word - if it's offensive to you, exchange it
>with "progressive thought shaping resulting in anti-social behavior".)
>If anyone wants to learn more about Book One Auditing without helping
>out the CoS's stats, buy a used copy of D:MSMH at your favorite
>second-hand bookstore. It's an excellent study in what happens if you
>DON'T follow the scientific method.
I've enjoyed reading bc's recent posts in this thread, even though I
don't agree very often. I hope bc doesn't take it too personally.
It's my nature to question anyone's beliefs when they seem to be
strongly held. (Even my own.)
Diane Richardson
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:55:56 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
>served it to the group:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 21:40:25 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>We've discussed at rather great length recently the possibility of
>
>>>actually performing controlled experiments in mind control.
>>>(Perhaps you missed those.) I believe the Milgrim (IIRC)
>>>experiments are rather interesting, myself--from what I have read.
>
>>>But I don't think you're going to find a whole lot of people who
>>>will willingly submit themselves to such experimentation.
>>
>>The only problem is that Milgram's experiments had nothing whatever
>to
>>do with "cult mind control." They involved study of obedience to
>>authority figures. That's not "cult mind control."
>
>Where does mind control start, Diane? Is there no authority figure
>involved? What was Elrong? Chopped liver?
Ummm . . . bc, you seem to forget that I don't accept the "cult mind
control" theory. If you're asking me where mind control starts, my
answer is that it doesn't start.
>What is (*)? Authority! What is the Sea Org? Authority! What is
>Source? Authority! Whaddo they got that I ain't got? Authority!
What does that have to do with "cult mind control." I certainly agree
that the Sea Org is an authoritarian organization. What does that
have to do with proving the existence of "cult mind control"?
>[What is the answer to the great question of Life, the Universe, and
>Everything? 42!]
>
>The definition of a cult generally includes devotion to and
>adoration of an authority figure. In the case of Co$, that would be
>Mr. Hubbard. Who set down all those TR's and all that other
>delightful mindfuckery. Which I consider mind control. And I think
>that the Milgram experiments, which showed the lengths to which one
>would submit oneself to an authority figure, are quite relevant to
>this discussion.
But Milgram's experiments don't demonstrate the existence of "cult
mind control." They demonstrate the existence of a tendency among
humans to obey authority figures. Cults certainly aren't the only or
even the major authoritarian organizations in society. Or are you
claiming that *all* authoritarian organizations are cults?
>I still don't think you're likely to find too many people who would
>willingly submit themselves to a double-blind, scientific study of
>the effects of cult mind control. It's too much like offering a
>free lobotomy, just to see if people would give it a shot.
Let's try this one more time. How do you define "cult mind control"?
What exactly do you believe were the effects of this "mind control" on
your own mind? Did you lose your ability to think and act
independently? Were you forced to do things against your will that
you would not have done if you weren't subjected to this "cult mind
control"? If so, what did you do that you wouldn't ordinarily have
done if you'd had control of your own mind?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:26:20 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis
Erlich) wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>YHN:
>>>> Nothing ~whatsoever~ to do with cult mind control, she pronounces.
>>>>Obedience to authority has nothing to do with cult mind control, according
>>>>to her.
>>>> What an amazing pronouncement.
>
>Zane:
>>>I was thinking them same thoughts. Seems that Diane is overlooking
>>>the dashing uniforms of the authoritarian sea ogres, not to mention
>>>the obvious effect of the snake-oil salesmen's "spiritual
>>>authority"<spit>.
>
>WHN:
>>Does this mean you believe snake-oil salesmen engage in "cult mind
>>control"?
>
> She uses a two-tiered fallacy. It has a convenient fall-back position.
>Authority has nothing to do with mind control, ~and~ mind control doesn't
>exist anyway.
>
> Very weak.
What's weak, Dennis, is your refusal to answer my question.
Do you believe snake-oil salesmen engage in "cult mind control"?
Or would you prefer to ignore my simple question by accusing me of
"two-tiered fallacies"? Who's playing word games here and who's
engaging in direct dialogue?
What I'm asking is how you distinguish "cult mind control" from
various forms of persuasion and social influence which are used by
many groups and individuals in society. Is the same thing "cult mind
control" when engaged in by the CoS and acceptable social influence
when used by a conventional religion? Is the determining factor not
*what* is being done but *who* is doing it?
That appears to be the major flaw in the arguments for "cult mind
control" that I see here. If it's done by an organization or an
individual we don't like, then it's eeeevil "cult mind control." If
it's done by an organization or individual endorsed by society, then
there's nothing wrong with it.
To me, *that's* the fallacy.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net