I take it you are being on such good behavior in your posts because of all the
/. newcomers.

If you are trying to get me to credit the testimony of the case you cited to
evidence the activities complained of, you may have an uphill battle.  Most of
the punitive damages in that case can be probably be attributed to nonRPF
events to the extent they were legitimate punitive damages.  The plaintiff was
no angel, either.

Only expression constitutes expression, of course, but the amount of slack you
get on that has a lot to do with how favorably society regards your religion.

If you are claiming there was a finding of "brainwashing" in the case you cite,
I wish you'd to point it out.

And anyway, I just *love* the way people around here cite judges as if judges
are fantastic experts on matters psychological.  Apparently they get some kind
of condensed course in psychological diagnosis in judge school that allows them
to toss around loaded language of diagnosis and intuit which are true
psychological theories, etc. Hey, here's an idea: shitcan all the psychology
departments of universities because judges have it figured out which of the
psychobabble theories are true.

The way I see it, when a judge foams at the mouth using loaded psychobabble
language to condemn some activity or person it indicates bias on the part of
the judge and lack of a solid case that can be put in plain language.  These
are deficits in flaming bigots of the bench a.r.s. critics love to cite, not
virtues.

What did that case you cite have to do with brainwashing?  Brainwashing, being
a specious psychobabble theory method of labelling education of people that you
disapprove of the contents or results of, may or may not exist, but what did
that case have to do with it???

=  The a.r.s. prime directive: Make Jokes About Scientologist's Deaths=

Example, regarding Attorney Moxon and his UNFORTUNATE loss:   "Maybe he
believes there are no underground transformer vaults in Europe."  (JB
Lingerman)