>> This responds to a separate p&m
>> from david Mayo, same starting point.

>David Mayo:
>> >> :: | I do not think that I am cultishly inclined but I would
>> >> :: | like to know of any cultish characteristic that you have
>> >> :: | perceived in me so that I can correct it.

>Bernie:
>> >> :I would have been interested if someone answered the questions
>> >> :of DM. Seems that nor ef nor you can satisfy my curiosity
>> >> :here. I thought you guys were specialists in mind control.

>David Mayo:
>> > Yes, I too, would have been interested if either efischer
>> > or Dave Bird would answer the question instead of merely
>> > continuing their unsubstantiated assertion that my beliefs
>> > and/or practices are harmful -- especially when they have
>> > failed to comment on *any* of the beliefs that I have stated
>> > in this newsgroup and have no idea what my practices are!

>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>> If you think I've drifted off track from some original questions,
>> perhaps you could re-state them?  What I have done is take up
>> the challenge and opportunity in your question "well, why SHOULD I
>> abandon Hubbard's tech?"  (What is wrong with it that I should not
>> continue developing it).  I have tried to say what is IMO wrong
>> with Hubbard's tech -- I don't know to what extent you still
>> uphold that tech -- and if you wish me to respond on your current
>> beliefs different from Hubbard's tech then please remind me what
>> they are.  I am not saying "damn you, David Mayo, you definitely
>> believe all the things I find fault in"; merely finding fault
>> in standard tech, and asking whether you agree with those faults.

>No no no Dave. The questions are straight above under your eyes, no need
>of re-statement. We are *not* speaking here about the tech or believes
>here, but about *cultish_behavior*. I would like to know what cultish
>behavior DM displayed (because I never saw any), and DM wants to know
>because he probably would like to improve himself. But you are not
>helping him in this direction, you are making accusation in such a way
>that he can't learn from them. So, did you recover from your illness and
>can now answer the question which is straight above here? Or maybe you
>did already in some other post I didn't see.

>>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> >Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:

>Bernie:
>> >> :I would have been interested if someone answered the questions
>> >> :of DM....

>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine:
>> > I said in my post that I was tired and ill, and not capable
>> > of doing the matter justice in the present article but
>> > would attempt to do so in a later one.

>Bernie:
>> >I will send you oranges, Dave, because you probably are still sick:
>> >you didnt answered any single question of DM here.

>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>> I am doing my best to address the subject of my doubts about
>> the tech bit by bit.

>No! no, no, no and no. The question is *not* about the tech, it's about
>alledged cultish behavior displayed by David Mayo (see above).

>[snipped the whole discussion about the tech, because it's getting a bit
>confused]

>> I'm arguing that the tech is
>> irredemably tainted with the purposes of its original cult and author,
>> the ends are inherent in the means and if you try to separate them
>> you end up with nothing left.

>I kept only the above paragraph of the whole discussion, which I think
>summarize the essence of what you said. Can we agree that you are saying
>that the mind control element of Scn is build within the tech itself,
>while I am saying that the tech and the cultish mindset are two separate
>things (like a knife is not responsible of my killing someone or
>buttering my bread)?

>What can I say more on this that I didn't say yet? All I can say is that
>things are not the way you see them. It's very important to see exactly
>for oneself what the cultic or mind-control element is. That's the only
>way to be free from it. As far as I am concerned, I may be wrong, but
>the phenomenon is very clear for me, and I can see exactly at which
>point the cultic mindset joins in with the tech, but then also at wich
>point it separates from it. If you say "everything is flawed at the
>start by the evil intention of the founder, and so everything is
>mind-control the moment it has the Scn label on it", then I think that,
>if you will ever pardon me, you do not have a correct conception of what
>a cultic mindset really is. I may even go as far as saying that this
>*is* a cultic mindset, a black & white view, a "we are all good/they are
>all bad" attitude.

>That's all that is left to be said. I do hope, for the benefit of
>everyone, that you will nuance your position with time. But maybe you
>have no mean to do that, because maybe (I don't know your background)
>you only have an external view and not an inside one.

>Bernie:
>> >Well, I hope you get soon well enough and, secondarily, address at
>> >least one of his question.

>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>> I can't remember what they were.

>What did DM specifically do that you can qualify as cultic (see on top
>of this p/m)?

>> But I think you will agree I
>> am addressing **the** questions on separability of tech
>> from its authoritarian purposes.

>Yes, kind of, but frankly I am more interested by the first question.

>Cheers,
>------
>Bernie