Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
alt.religion.scientology
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Smear Campaign against Whistleblower Monica Pignotti Continues
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Monica Pignotti  
View profile  
 More options Jun 9 2011, 7:47 am
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 04:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Jun 9 2011 7:47 am
Subject: Re: Smear Campaign against Whistleblower Monica Pignotti Continues
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Jun 9, 12:24 am, Dennis Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:

> Gee, an actual cohesive post on the off-topic subject Professor
> Pignotti keeps spamming here.  Thanks for the simple elucidation John.
> I agree with all the salient points you made except about Monica.

> I'm not bothered at all by her challenging a dangerous practice.  I'm
> bothered by the fact that she thinks so little of usenet and ars in
> general, and yet continues posting off-topic rebuttals here to stuff
> no one reads anyway.  She says she's looked at the on-topic newsgroups
> and found them lacking in substance.  So why TF doesn't she put her
> important content into them and make them a useful source of info. She
> thinks ars was an important source of information on the cult before I
> arrived?  No.  She needs to do the effing work and quit putting down
> the newgroup, while continuing to spam it with off-topic posts.  No,
> John.  She chose to spam up ars with her crusade.  Let her take her
> good works (if any) to the appropriate newsgroup and stick to the
> subject of scientology here.

> Besides, she's a raging hypocrite and I intend to point out her
> obvious hypocrisy which she displays generally in every post.

> John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 6/8/2011 6:32 PM, Dennis Erlich wrote:
> >> No.  No axe to grind.  I am simply amusing myself by pointing out her
> >> self promotional hypocrisy.

> >You know, I try really hard not to take sides in the quarrel between
> >you and Monica. FWIW, you are right at the top of "ars participants
> >that I would like to have a beer with" (aptiwlthabw for those who
> >enjoy acronyms). But I think you are naive about the health care
> >system, and and I think that naivete contributes to your animosity
> >towards Monica.

> John, I'm sure that more children are killed or injured by not wearing
> their seatbelts than by prone restraint.  But that doesn't mean I want
> to see bunches of seat-belt post in ars either.

Repeatedly calling me a "hypocrite" is about the only form of rebuttal
Dennis knows. It's called the Tu Quoque fallacy which is a form of ad
hominem. I am actually consistently practicing what I preach. No one,
in my view, is above valid criticism, whether it be Steven Hassan or
Ronald Federici or any other so-called "expert". You seem to think I
am a hypocrite because I object to the extremely virulent personal
attacks that have been leveled against me, many of them containing
complete fabrications. That is very different from my asking you very
valid questions about your ministerial credentials. The fact you
cannot seem to see the difference speaks volumes. I am not a therapy
guru and I openly invite anyone to challenge me on my actual ideas and
if they want proof of my credentials, I will gladly provide it. If you
want to discuss with me the best arguments in favor of not banning
prone restraint, I will be glad to discuss these with you. I have
carefully examined them.

Of course, I don't put Steve Hassan in the same category Federici as
far as my depth of concern over practices, but what they do have in
common is that both seem to feel that they are above challenge and
actually having discussions with critics and both are claiming that
their approaches are effective and superior to other approaches when
there is no published research comparing their approaches to other
existing approaches, to support that. For example, there is no
evidence that Steve Hassan is any more successful as an exit counselor
than Rick Ross, Carol Giambalvo or the others, nor is there any
evidence that his post-cult therapy is any more successful than that
of other therapists. In fact, there is no evidence that people who go
to a "cult expert" therapist are any better off than those who do not.
Steve Hassan's claims are based on his "experience" and I challenge
that.

Talk about hypocrisy for a cult expert and the self-proclaimed
America's Leading Exit Counselor who couldn't seem to deal with my
simple questions and challenges, but had to bring in Dennis Erlich to
attack me (this is according to the list serv moderator).


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google