Monica Pignotti - liar and hypocrite
Dennis L Erlich
> ... I have decided to have no more discussions with the
>so-called "Rev" Dennis Erlich. I will not be "handled" by Dennis ...
I won't go back and find all the many times Monica has said she
wouldn't bother to respond to me or others.
Too busy, won't engage, won't stoop to answer ... right.
For someone who doesn't want to discuss things with a "so-called Rev"
like me, Monica is doing an awful lot of postings addressing me.
Liar and hypocrite: Monica Pignotti.
D
----------------
"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet
altogether, I would be all for it." - Professor Monica Pignotti (Nov 2009)
Monica Pignotti
> Back in January 2009 "mpignotti2001" <Freedom_Dignity@...> wrote:
>
> > ... I have decided to have no more discussions with the
> >so-called "Rev" Dennis Erlich. I will not be "handled" by Dennis ...
>
> I won't go back and find all the many times Monica has said she
> wouldn't bother to respond to me or others.
>
> Too busy, won't engage, won't stoop to answer ... right.
>
> For someone who doesn't want to discuss things with a "so-called Rev"
> like me, Monica is doing an awful lot of postings addressing me.
>
> Liar and hypocrite: Monica Pignotti.
>
are also calling me is name. Calling me "liar and hypocrite" does not
make it so. It only shows your own true colors, that of a SO goon. The
reason I can't discuss things with you, Dennis, is because the only
responses I get from you are inane name calling and snipping things I
wrote out of context.
Just because I said in the past I wouldn't respond and then actually
do respond at some future date does not make me a liar and hypocrite.
I didn't say that I would never, ever, respond. I simply stated I
would not be responding at the time I made the statement. But of
course you would love nothing better than to silence me by trying to
make it seem as if I am a liar and hypocrite if I ever decide to
respond. I respond when and as I see fit to respond. I can stop
responding at any time and I can resume responding and no, Dennis, you
do not get to control that. Being the control freak you are, I realize
that drives you crazy but that's just the way it is. Your opinion of
me does not matter because the many people I respect consider me a
person of great integrity. I take your chants at me the same way I
take the chants of cultists who have used those exact same words -- I
consider it a compliment because it means I must be doing something
effective to be considered such a threat.
It's looking like I'm not the only one here who is seeing your true,
ugly colors, Scn-since69-Rev Dennis.
Monica Pignotti
>
> > ... I have decided to have no more discussions with the
> >so-called "Rev" Dennis Erlich. I will not be "handled" by Dennis ...
>
> I won't go back and find all the many times Monica has said she
> wouldn't bother to respond to me or others.
>
> Too busy, won't engage, won't stoop to answer ... right.
>
> For someone who doesn't want to discuss things with a "so-called Rev"
> like me, Monica is doing an awful lot of postings addressing me.
>
> Liar and hypocrite: Monica Pignotti.
>
> D
>
a liar and hypocrite. You make yourself out to be anti-Scientology,
yet you stay on file with the State of California as a Scientology
Reverend and have been registered "that way" since 1969. I can't even
begin to come close to that level of hypocrisy. I wouldn't even try to
compete with that. If there were some kind of award available for
Hypocrite of the Year, I would definitely nominate you for remaining
registered as a minister of a church you left more than 25 years ago.
And to top it all off you list that you were a minister on your resume
for the years you were a Scientologist, yet you fail to disclose that
you were a "minister" in Scientology. In reality, you were a SO goon
for most of those years and IMHO, still are. Too bad you didn't hang
in there for the DM regime. You would have been a perfect fit.
Dennis L Erlich
>you stay on file with the State of California as a Scientology
>Reverend and have been registered "that way" since 1969. I can't even
>begin to come close to that level of hypocrisy. I wouldn't even try to
>compete with that. If there were some kind of award available for
>Hypocrite of the Year, I would definitely nominate you for remaining
>registered as a minister of a church you left more than 25 years ago.
>And to top it all off you list that you were a minister on your resume
>for the years you were a Scientologist, yet you fail to disclose that
>you were a "minister" in Scientology
One more lie from Pigno.
If she bothered to read it she'd know it was a lie. But instead only
jumped to unwarranted conclusions based on slanderous assumptions in
her quest to discredit me, my ministry, my religion and my work.
Like I said, liar and hypocrite.
Anonymous
Even DM knew Reverend Erlich was trouble. It was him, according to
Dennis that locked him in a cage in the basement of Ft. Harrison Hotel.
The true is he doesn't fit in anywhere except in that witches coven that
meets on undernet #altreligionscientology where people treat him as a
cult leader with respect, or they are attacked, then kicked and banned
by attorney Robert W. Clark aka "henri."
Anonymous
>
Very much more so than Reverend D. Lance Erlich. Face it. Miscavige
beat the Reverend. All he had to do was find his greed and fear to get
his church of the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in liability
and lost copyrights, for a small sum less that $2.5 million. What a
LOSER! What a coward for secretly settling.
Why is he online? He should be hiding his name in shame, instead of
maligning other decent people with his vulgarity and belittlement--on
people expressing themselves on the internet, exercising the right to
public discourse. They get targeted by the holy reverend for his brand
of extreme profanity and cynicism that wickedness can be a tax-exempt
"awarded" religion by the US Internal Revenue Service.
-Anonymous
Andrew Robertson
"Monica Pignotti" <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:b96077f8-d219-48fa...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Just because I said in the past I wouldn't respond and then actually
> do respond at some future date does not make me a liar and hypocrite.
Quite right Monica. The absurd notion held by a few posters that logical
thought processes and critical reasoning skills, though perhaps useful in
determining when to cross a busy road, play any part in the cut and thrust
of spirited Usenet discourse are either footpads or ruffians and can be
safely ignored.
Andrew
"Put your Pignotron on the ground in front of you and raise your hands
slowly in the air. We are armed police officers."
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >you stay on file with the State of California as a Scientology
> >Reverend and have been registered "that way" since 1969. I can't even
> >begin to come close to that level of hypocrisy. I wouldn't even try to
> >compete with that. If there were some kind of award available for
> >Hypocrite of the Year, I would definitely nominate you for remaining
> >registered as a minister of a church you left more than 25 years ago.
> >And to top it all off you list that you were a minister on your resume
> >for the years you were a Scientologist, yet you fail to disclose that
> >you were a "minister" in Scientology
>
> One more lie from Pigno.
I don't know anyone by that name so I do not know who you are calling
a liar here. Maybe an imaginary friend or enemy.
> www.informer.org/public.htm
>
> If she bothered to read it she'd know it was a lie. But instead only
> jumped to unwarranted conclusions based on slanderous assumptions in
> her quest to discredit me, my ministry, my religion and my work.
So sue me. But first, you have not provided me with any information
different from what I already have.
Are you or are you not still registered as a Scientology minister with
the State of California, as you clearly stated in your FOM posting of
January 2009? If you have unregistered yourself since then, it doesn't
make me a "liar" because I am going on the information I have had
available to me and the fact still remains that you were registered at
least until Jan 2009 as a Scientology minister. Whether your
"ministry" is registered with the IRS is irrelevant to my question of
whether you are still registered with the State of California as a
Scientology minister, as you stated you were as of January 2009 in a
post to the FOM list serv that you yourself posted here.
The last time I viewed your resume, you did, in fact state that you
were a minister during your years in Scientology but did not specify
Scientology. Others here have noted this as well. Again, you may have
changed it, but that is the information I saw with my own eyes so I am
not "lying". This is no different from the cultist I was just dealing
with who called us a "liar" for saying he made claims of things in the
past and then took his website down.
And don't flatter yourself. I am not on any "quest" to discredit you.
I simply report what you stated in your own words. You are too
insignificant and not worth the bother. You discredit yourself and I
have seen the results of your footbullets from other people's
responses to you here who are definitely not unquestioning devotees of
you as some people are. The only reason I stand up to you is that I
cannot stand to see a bully such as yourself go unchallenged so I will
pop in here from time to time and challenge you, coming and going as I
see fit. That really drives you crazy, doesn't it.
> Like I said, liar and hypocrite.
>
The link you provided is your IRS records and does not change the
statement you made on the FOM list, unless you finally withdrew your
Scientology minister registration - if you did, that's news to me
because by your own statements in January 2009 you say you were
registered "that way" since 1969. If you are telling me you have added
material to your webpage, then that doesn't make me a "liar". You can
name call me all you want, Dennis. People with any modicum of common
sense can see where you are coming from and it's not very pretty. The
thing is, Dennis, you have no power to bully me with your inane
chanting "liar" "hypocrite" -- no more than any of the other cult
members who do it to me. That's the company you are in when you behave
in that manner. Thankfully, not being in your presence, I do not have
to worry about physical assaults from you either.
As for responding to you or not, I will respond whenever I see fit to
respond. I have every right to end discussions with you and I have
every right to change my mind and resume them. That's another classic
tactic of a cult leader, to demand people never change their mind
about anything. Well that doesn't fly with me. I have every right to
change my mind as situations change and I will come and go from here
as I see fit and there is not one darn thing you can do about it,
which is probably why all you are left with is childish name calling.
Again, if you want to see "liar" and a "hypocrite" take a good, long,
hard look in the mirror, Mr. Erlich.
Monica Pignotti
True, good point!
Monica Pignotti
> Jeff wrote:
The main difference between DM and Erlich is that Erlich hit his wife
for saying she wanted to leave the FH (by his own admission) whereas
based on what Marty has reported and as far as I know, DM only beat up
other men. That is not, of course, meant to defend what DM did but at
least he picks on people his own size (actually probably larger than
him). As for shame, Erlich does not appear to have any.
Monica Pignotti
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
LOL. Now that really is funny!
Anonymous
> Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> you stay on file with the State of California as a Scientology
>> Reverend and have been registered "that way" since 1969. I can't even
>> begin to come close to that level of hypocrisy. I wouldn't even try to
>> compete with that. If there were some kind of award available for
>> Hypocrite of the Year, I would definitely nominate you for remaining
>> registered as a minister of a church you left more than 25 years ago.
>> And to top it all off you list that you were a minister on your resume
>> for the years you were a Scientologist, yet you fail to disclose that
>> you were a "minister" in Scientology
>
> One more lie from Pigno.
>
> www.informer.org/public.htm
>
> If she bothered to read it she'd know it was a lie. But instead only
> jumped to unwarranted conclusions based on slanderous assumptions in
> her quest to discredit me, my ministry, my religion and my work.
You long ago discredited yourself with your boorishness. There is no
evidence of a "ministry," nor is there evidence of "work."--unless the
work is the wicked character attacks you conduct day and night on the
internet against others you perceive as deserving your vicious wrath.
You would think that after helping "hundreds" as you claim, there would
be one or two willing to sing your praise about you program of ministry
and counseling online after all these years. But we haven't heard from ONE!
-Anonymous
Out_Of_The_Dark
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree.
Eldon
Your argument doesn't really hold. It's true that DM apparently only
picks on men. But that's within a milieu where they are intimidated
from fighting back. And you have no idea whether he hit his wife in
private before banishing her to wherever.
Monica Pignotti
> Dennis L Erlich wrote:
Indeed, but Erlich's argument appears similar to that made by
Scientologists. He's a real Reverend because the government says so!
And he also uses the same method of evidence that he helps as
Scientology does -- testimonials. If testimonials were valid proof of
helping people, then Scientology would have outdone him many times
over, but of course, they're not evidence for anything other than the
fact that an individual or "church" was influential enough to talk
people into giving testimonials. Since data were not systematically
collected, we have no way of knowing how many people felt they were
not helped and just politely walked away, never to be heard from
again. Now I predict the ignorant Erlich will ask me to prove that.
Just watch. If he does, he would be committing an additional error of
reversing the burden of proof. He has the burden of proof to support
his claims that he helps people and all we see from him are
testimonials.
Monica Pignotti
Yes of course that situation existed but it also existed when Dennis
hit his then-wife when they were both in the SO. So again, the
difference here is that he picked on someone who was not only
physically smaller, but also pregnant. Dennis, in his own words
admitted he hit her for wanting to leave the Flag Landbase [see his
own admission in a statement he made designed to rebut Rosa's
affidavit) -- however he denied nothing about her statement of his
physical violence and admitted he did in fact hit her]. So what we
have is Erlich, as a SO member, hitting a woman because she wanted to
leave Flag. How damning is that? The readers can decide. See:
http://anticultcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/11/dennis-erlich-and-freedom-of-mind-list.html
for direct quotes and note this is not a recycling of some Scientology
affidavit. It is a link to Dennis' response and rebuttal to it.
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/erlich_munsey_032995.reply
Rosa [and again, before people want to shoot me as the messenger, note
that I quote this to show what Dennis was responded to, as he included
this in the response he himself posted, so I am not recycling OSA
material here]:
"27. There were several instances when Dennis abused me, one time in
1977, we were in our bedroom and something made him mad and while I
was laying on our bed he sat on me and hit me in the face. Another
time in 1982, I asked him a question and he got very upset at me,
grabbed me by the hair, he threw me across the room, I flew across the
room and while I was cowering, he grabbed me by the hair again, threw
me in the bathroom, I was cornered in the shower, he hit me across the
face and I felt like he broke my jaw. I was in my first trimester of
pregnancy with his child at the time and he knew I was pregnant.
Shortly thereafter we moved to Colorado and he convinced me to get an
abortion."
Dennis' Response:
"Whoa, girl. Yes, I hit you. You were about to blow it and get sent to
the RPF, if you recall. You started talking about wanting to leave
Flag. I was another person back then. I am truely ashamed of what I
did. Not mostly because I hit you. Certainly that. But mainly because
I did it in front of Holly and Bethy. I'm sorry. Can you forgive me?"
Now Dennis backpedals and says he hit her "once" but I find it
interesting that in a document he had intended to be a full response
and rebuttal to Rosa, he did not deny anything she wrote in #27 above.
He only confirmed. Elsewhere in the affidavit he denied other
allegations such as those of child abuse, but there was no denial on
his part of Rosa's statement about his physical violence. Very
telling, IMHO.
Maybe I should give Dennis a taste of his own medicine and put the
first three sentences in my sig. The difference between Dennis and I
is that when I get frustrated sometimes I make statements I didn't
fully mean, such as what I said about the internet in a moment when I
was being attacked by cultists spreading disinformation about me, but
even then I qualified it by saying the internet had also done good for
people. Dennis, OTOH, when he gets frustrated, he hits women [ducks].
Monica
"Whoa, girl. Yes, I hit you. You were about to blow it and get sent to
the RPF, if you recall. You started talking about wanting to leave
Flag." -- the Reverend Dennis Erlich
l.l.lipshitz
wrote in <73k2i5559i530sjr0...@4ax.com>:
| Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
|
| >you stay on file with the State of California as a Scientology
| >Reverend and have been registered "that way" since 1969. I can't even
| >begin to come close to that level of hypocrisy. I wouldn't even try to
| >compete with that. If there were some kind of award available for
| >Hypocrite of the Year, I would definitely nominate you for remaining
| >registered as a minister of a church you left more than 25 years ago.
| >And to top it all off you list that you were a minister on your resume
| >for the years you were a Scientologist, yet you fail to disclose that
| >you were a "minister" in Scientology
|
| One more lie from Pigno.
what lie? i see monica asserting 3 things:
(a) you are a hypocrite for remaining a minister of
a 'church' you left;
(b) you include 'minister' on your resume but don't
mention co$.
(c) you were registered in california as a scn
minister in 1969 and remain so, even tho you
left the co$;
| www.informer.org/public.htm
|
| If she bothered to read it she'd know it was a lie.
sorry, i bothered to read it and don't see the lie.
perhaps you can show me where i've gone wrong.
(a) is an opinion, not a lie.
(b) is true but not in your irs paperwork. your
resume does appear elsewhere on your site and does
not mention scn (personally i think that's a good
idea; apparently monica takes issue with that).
(c) is true afaict but not completely addressed in
your paperwork. the forms include statements that
you were ordained as a scn minister in 1969 (see
pt ii, item 1, pg 2 and sched a, item 1, pg 11) but
say nothing of california registration.
however, in post <6f9lg5dc116q82hcp...@4ax.com>:
'i've been a registered minister in the state of
califorinia since 1969. in 1982 i walked away from
the cult and began enlightening people on the
subject. this became my new ministry.'
|But instead only
| jumped to unwarranted conclusions based on slanderous assumptions in
| her quest to discredit me, my ministry, my religion and my work.
no doubt.
| Like I said, liar and hypocrite.
hypocrite is an opinion, just like monica's. liar?
perhaps, but not in this particular instance that i
can see.
--
-elle
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
usenet disproves the infinite-monkey theorem
l.l.lipshitz
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<a640193a-680b-4dc8...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
oh, monica, you are such a gasbag. the correct
response to dennis is
no, you!
Dennis L Erlich
yhn
> | One more lie from Pigno.
ll
> what lie? i see monica asserting 3 things:
>
> (a) you are a hypocrite for remaining a minister of
> a 'church' you left;
Ridiculous. When I registered my ministry with the state, it was
clear in the paperwork that the ministry was my new religious calling.
Since I walked away from the cult in 1982 I have worked tirelessly to
enlighten people about the dangers of cults. Long before any of these
people were ever active in alerting the public about the dangers.
> (b) you include 'minister' on your resume but don't
> mention co$.
Why TF would I on a work resume? When looking for work, having been a
minister of a cult is the kiss of death. However, rest assured, no
potential employer was ever kept in the dark about my history in the
cult.
> (c) you were registered in california as a scn
> minister in 1969 and remain so, even tho you
> left the co$;
There is no avenue, form or requirement to re-register if one changes
religious calling.
> | www.informer.org/public.htm
> |
> | If she bothered to read it she'd know it was a lie.
>
> sorry, i bothered to read it and don't see the lie.
> perhaps you can show me where i've gone wrong.
>
> (a) is an opinion, not a lie.
An opinion based on other lies.
> (b) is true but not in your irs paperwork. your
> resume does appear elsewhere on your site and does
> not mention scn (personally i think that's a good
> idea; apparently monica takes issue with that).
I have placed this search url prominently at the beginning of the
website to make my identity clear.
http://www.google.com/custom?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22dennis%2Berlich%22
> (c) is true afaict but not completely addressed in
> your paperwork. the forms include statements that
> you were ordained as a scn minister in 1969 (see
> pt ii, item 1, pg 2 and sched a, item 1, pg 11) but
> say nothing of california registration.
So what? It's obvious from the filing that I'm a break-away,
dissident minister who has started his own reform-oriented ministry.
This is probably why the ministry is listed as "protestant" on some
website. I am protestant, but in the wider sense of the word.
> however, in post <6f9lg5dc116q82hcp...@4ax.com>:
>
> 'i've been a registered minister in the state of
> califorinia since 1969. in 1982 i walked away from
> the cult and began enlightening people on the
> subject. this became my new ministry.'
That was when I was first registered. I registered the ministry with
the state in 1997. I assume this covered my new religious status.
> |But instead only
> | jumped to unwarranted conclusions based on slanderous assumptions in
> | her quest to discredit me, my ministry, my religion and my work.
>
> no doubt.
Certainly no doubt in my mind.
CTCC Greenberg
http://rct.doj.ca.gov/MyLicenseVerification/Search.aspx?facility=Y
Reverend Dennis why does it say on your 1023 public disclosure that
"Informer Ministry" was formed in 05/191997; when it was formed in 1990
issue date from California 12/31/1990? Look also what it says above
your signature on the 1023.
Did you get confused about the years, or was it an untruth for a
specific reason?
http://rct.doj.ca.gov/MyLicenseVerification/Details.aspx?agency_id=1&license_id=1275346&
Full Name: INFORMER MINISTRY FEIN:
Type: Religious Corporate or Organization Number: 2011733
RCT Registraton No: EX594575
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 12/31/1990 <------------ Expiration Date: 5/15/1991
Registration Status: Exempt - Active Date This Status:
Date of Last Renewal:
Address Information
Address Line 1: 555 A SO ROXBURY DR Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: PALM SPRINGS CA 92264
-CTCC
I-stardust
> http://www.informer.org/public.htm
Moreover, Reverend Erlich said:
[The ministry has had two requests to view public scrutiny documents in
the 11 years of its existence. One was from the cult, who sent a PI
to examine them during the copyright case in 1996, and the other was
from Tom Klemesrud the other day.]
Reverend how could a Private Investigator come and "examine them during
the copyright case in 1996" if the ministry didn't exist until May 19,
1997?
Seel form 1023 "Date incorporated, or formed"
http://www.informer.org/public.htm
I-stardust
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/erlich_munsey_032995.reply
[This is a response to
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Legal/Cases/CoS_v_the_Net/munsey_021795.declaration
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Legal/Cases/CoS_v_the_Net/munsey_021795.declaration]
From: dennis....@support.com
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 23:26:54 -0800
Subject: Rosa v Dennis Erlich 1
To: rne...@media.mit.edu
* posted on ars and mailed (to last known address) *
+---------------------------------+
27. There were several instances when Dennis abused me, one
>time in 1977, we were in our bedroom and something made him mad and
>while I was laying on our bed he sat on me and hit me in the face.
>Another time in 1982, I asked him a question and he got very upset at
>me, grabbed me by the hair, he threw me across the room, I flew across
>the room and while I was cowering, he grabbed me by the hair again,
>threw me in the bathroom, I was cornered in the shower, he hit me
>across the face and I felt like he broke my jaw. I was in my first
>trimester of pregnancy with his child at the time and he knew I was
>pregnant. Shortly thereafter we moved to Colorado and he convinced me
>to get an abortion.
Whoa, girl. Yes, I hit you. You were about to blow it and
get sent to the RPF, if you recall. You started talking about
wanting to leave Flag. I was another person back then.
I am truely ashamed of what I did. Not mostly because I hit
you. Certainly that. But mainly because I did it in front
of Holly and Bethy.
I'm sorry. Can't you forgive me?
I-stardust
>
> I have a dear family member who was about to marry. The husband to be
> one day slapped her around and kicked her several times in the
> stomach, while she was 3 month pregnant, just because she served her 8
> years old child dinner first.
>
> The next day, she had a spontaneous abortion, the second day she hired
> a well known gang to beat him into hospital, where he stayed for nine
> month. To this day he is still damaged goods. Does she ever forgive he
> killed her baby? Not in a billion years.
>
Is your name Corleone? ;)
Shortly after this the gang Rosa (and Dennis) were in, Scientology,
kicked him out of Scientology for this episode, and drug use, the church
has said.
But, he got no beating, except legally years later, after his copyright
infringement.
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> [This is a response to
>
> From: dennis.l.erl...@support.com
> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 23:26:54 -0800
> Subject: Rosa v Dennis Erlich 1
> To: rnew...@media.mit.edu
>
> * posted on ars and mailed (to last known address) *
>
> +---------------------------------+
>
> 27. There were several instances when Dennis abused me, one
> >time in 1977, we were in our bedroom and something made him mad and
> >while I was laying on our bed he sat on me and hit me in the face.
> >Another time in 1982, I asked him a question and he got very upset at
> >me, grabbed me by the hair, he threw me across the room, I flew across
> >the room and while I was cowering, he grabbed me by the hair again,
> >threw me in the bathroom, I was cornered in the shower, he hit me
> >across the face and I felt like he broke my jaw. I was in my first
> >trimester of pregnancy with his child at the time and he knew I was
> >pregnant. Shortly thereafter we moved to Colorado and he convinced me
> >to get an abortion.
>
> Whoa, girl. Yes, I hit you. You were about to blow it and
> get sent to the RPF, if you recall. You started talking about
> wanting to leave Flag. I was another person back then.
>
> I am truely ashamed of what I did. Not mostly because I hit
> you. Certainly that. But mainly because I did it in front
> of Holly and Bethy.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
beings, I think the scenario was more along these lines:
' Whoa, girl. Sure I hit you. Big F**king deal! You were about to blow
and get sent to the RPF, if you recall. You started talking about
wanting to leave Flag. You recall that, right? Good. Because I
probably wouldn't have gotten so pissed at you but you just had to
question my authority on my plan out. You just couldn't shut the f**k
up and just comply. You know how that pisses me off but you did it
anyway and you deserved to be grabbed by the hair to shake some sense
in to your stupid head. So threw you across the room. Big fu**ing
deal. You flew across the room because I flung you, stupid bi**h. Then
you cowered like the drama queen you are and that really pissed me off
even more so; so yes I did grab you by the hair again, and I threw you
in the bathroom into the shower because that way you couldn't wiggle
your way out of your stupid Q&A on leaving. I admit, yes, that I gave
you a direct hit to your ugly face but I did it to shut you the f**k
up once and for all on this. I had no choice. Purpose was senior to
policy. We had to leave and do it right and do it without all your
HE&R messsing things up.
Now, don't go crying about how it hurt; if I really wanted to break
your jaw, don't you think I would done the job to make sure it was
severed in two? You should be thankful that you got off easy!
Of course I knew you were pregnant but how could you expect me to
remember that when we were on the verge of escape!? I was so pissed at
how you could be so stupid & not just do what I said to do without
questioning it!
I admit that I wasn't my usual self that day. Matter of fact, I was
pretty upset with you, more than usual. Can you blame me? You were so
paranoid and I had no choice but to slap some sense into you. So when
we finally did follow the rest of my plan and get out of the cult and
move to Colorado, it occurred to me that the baby went through alot of
secondaries and since it was your first trimester of pregnancy, I told
you that getting an abortion while we still had that window of
opportunity was the best way to go and you had your opportunity to say
"No" but you never said a word in opposition.
Ah, don't go suggesting that I didn't want a new baby around that
would remind me of what I'd done to you - don't even go there! We both
know that you were still an emotional wreck and in no position to
carry a pregnancy and get your case cleaned up at the same time. I
didn't have to convince you. You went along with everything because
you knew that I knew best.'
Forgiveness must come from the heart and I have never seen anything
from Dennis that actually demonstrates that he has a heart.
henri
What are you? Just wondering.
l.l.lipshitz
wrote in <cur4i5ljl56nfnncv...@4ax.com>:
| "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
|
| yhn
| > | One more lie from Pigno.
|
| ll
| > what lie? i see monica asserting 3 things:
| >
| > (a) you are a hypocrite for remaining a minister of
| > a 'church' you left;
|
| Ridiculous. When I registered my ministry with the state, it was
| clear in the paperwork that the ministry was my new religious calling.
| Since I walked away from the cult in 1982 I have worked tirelessly to
| enlighten people about the dangers of cults. Long before any of these
| people were ever active in alerting the public about the dangers.
your argument is with monica, not me. i'm not
questioning your dedication to your ministry. you
pointed to your irs paperwork on your website as a
rebuttal to monica's assertions and evidence that
she is a liar. it is not. that's all i'm saying.
| > (b) you include 'minister' on your resume but don't
| > mention co$.
|
| Why TF would I on a work resume? When looking for work, having been a
| minister of a cult is the kiss of death.
exactly, as i mentioned further on in my post. that
is monica's issue, not mine.
|However, rest assured, no
| potential employer was ever kept in the dark about my history in the
| cult.
|
| > (c) you were registered in california as a scn
| > minister in 1969 and remain so, even tho you
| > left the co$;
|
| There is no avenue, form or requirement to re-register if one changes
| religious calling.
ok, i was unaware that the state registration does
not ask what denomination of minister you are. maybe
monica is also unaware of this point.
| > | www.informer.org/public.htm
| > |
| > | If she bothered to read it she'd know it was a lie.
| >
| > sorry, i bothered to read it and don't see the lie.
| > perhaps you can show me where i've gone wrong.
| >
| > (a) is an opinion, not a lie.
|
| An opinion based on other lies.
and that's your opinion. i understand why you would
think so; i also understand the why of monica's
opinion.
read carefully! i said i understand *why*, not that
i agree with either of you.
| > (b) is true but not in your irs paperwork. your
| > resume does appear elsewhere on your site and does
| > not mention scn (personally i think that's a good
| > idea; apparently monica takes issue with that).
|
| I have placed this search url prominently at the beginning of the
| website to make my identity clear.
that's great, but you sent monica to another page to
rebut her assertions, not to this url.
| http://www.google.com/custom?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22dennis%2Berlich%22
which one of those 26,000 results is relevant to
'you include 'minister' on your resume but don't
mention co$'?
if i may make a suggestion: a short direct answer is
more favorably received than a very broad google
search, most of which is probably irrelevant to the
question at hand, and may be seen as a deflection.
| > (c) is true afaict but not completely addressed in
| > your paperwork. the forms include statements that
| > you were ordained as a scn minister in 1969 (see
| > pt ii, item 1, pg 2 and sched a, item 1, pg 11) but
| > say nothing of california registration.
|
| So what? It's obvious from the filing that I'm a break-away,
| dissident minister who has started his own reform-oriented ministry.
yes, it is obvious. it just doesn't address monica's
issue nor is it 'one more lie' as you claimed in
your previous post.
| This is probably why the ministry is listed as "protestant" on some
| website. I am protestant, but in the wider sense of the word.
|
| > however, in post <6f9lg5dc116q82hcp...@4ax.com>:
| >
| > 'i've been a registered minister in the state of
| > califorinia since 1969. in 1982 i walked away from
| > the cult and began enlightening people on the
| > subject. this became my new ministry.'
|
| That was when I was first registered. I registered the ministry with
| the state in 1997. I assume this covered my new religious status.
|
| > |But instead only
| > | jumped to unwarranted conclusions based on slanderous assumptions in
| > | her quest to discredit me, my ministry, my religion and my work.
| >
| > no doubt.
|
| Certainly no doubt in my mind.
even monica would agree with that.
Anonymous
http://www.informer.org/public.htm
I find further obfuscation from the reverend in that the supposed
disclosure is not complete. The 1023 is not fully disclosed, and the
most recent three 990's are not provided.
Dennis L Erlich
> you
> pointed to your irs paperwork on your website as a
> rebuttal to monica's assertions and evidence that
> she is a liar. it is not. that's all i'm saying.
No she (and her ilk) claimed that I had hidden the fact that I was
originally ordained in the cult. That document shows that she didn't
bother to verify her facts before posting the lie.
> ok, i was unaware that the state registration does
> not ask what denomination of minister you are. maybe
> monica is also unaware of this point.
As I said she (and her ilk) lied making the claim I am still a
minister of the cult.
> if i may make a suggestion: a short direct answer is
> more favorably received than a very broad google
> search, most of which is probably irrelevant to the
> question at hand, and may be seen as a deflection.
Answer to what question by whom?
If someone wants services from the ministry, any questions they have
would be answered.
I don't bother answering "questions" of the 'do you still beat your
wife?' type when I only said I had ~once~ struck my wife with an open
hand over 27 years ago while in the cult.
> yes, it is obvious. it just doesn't address monica's
> issue nor is it 'one more lie' as you claimed in
> your previous post.
Perhaps when the lies are told about you personally, you would have a
different view of what is true and what is a lie.
l.l.lipshitz
<formerl...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<b957872d-83d4-423c...@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>:
[...]
| Given his admissions, temperment and overall contempt for decent human
| beings, I think the scenario was more along these lines:
this is utterly reprehensible, regardless of what
you may think about dennis. his own words are there
for anyone to read, you don't have to make up
disgusting shit.
aren't you xian?? what happened to 'you shall not
bear false witness against your neighbor'?
[...]
| Forgiveness must come from the heart and I have never seen anything
| from Dennis that actually demonstrates that he has a heart.
'but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither
will your father forgive your trespasses.'
see you in hell, fool.
--
-elle
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
human beings can always be relied upon to exert,
with vigor, their god-given right to be stupid. dk
Dennis L Erlich
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:34:34 -0800 (PST), Out_Of_The_Dark
><formerl...@yahoo.com> wrote in
><b957872d-83d4-423c...@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>:
>
>[...]
>
> | Given his admissions, temperment and overall contempt for decent human
> | beings, I think the scenario was more along these lines:
>
> this is utterly reprehensible, regardless of what
> you may think about dennis. his own words are there
> for anyone to read, you don't have to make up
> disgusting shit.
There's plenty I've already admitted.
Speaking of which, striking my wife when she was preggers ... this was
her big secret from me at the time. She had stopped taking birth
control and gotten pregnant against my explicit wishes. I certainly
didn't know at the time. But she was displaying serious <spit>
"mistwithold" manifestations, "dramatizing heavily" and a bunch of
other phenomena confirming our mutual, and exclusive insanities at
that time.
> aren't you xian?? what happened to 'you shall not
> bear false witness against your neighbor'?
But what does it say to do to heretics and naysayers?
> | Forgiveness must come from the heart and I have never seen anything
> | from Dennis that actually demonstrates that he has a heart.
>
> 'but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither
> will your father forgive your trespasses.'
>
> see you in hell, fool.
Heh. I see you've met Her Judgeship for the Almighty presiding here
on Teegeeack.
D
-----------------
"I was one of those." - Leonard Cohen
Anonymous
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:34:34 -0800 (PST), Out_Of_The_Dark
> <formerl...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <b957872d-83d4-423c...@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>:
>
> [...]
>
> | Given his admissions, temperment and overall contempt for decent human
> | beings, I think the scenario was more along these lines:
>
> this is utterly reprehensible, regardless of what
> you may think about dennis. his own words are there
> for anyone to read, you don't have to make up
> disgusting shit.
I don't know, I think it was a pretty accurate and funny attempt at
channeling a charlatan man of God, based on the gestalt of his posting
and history.
-Anonymous
Jommy Cross
msg <7ofidoF...@mid.individual.net>:
>CTCC Greenberg <an...@anon.anon> wrote:
<snip>
Attack of the morphing k00ks!
A sleepy usenet town is taken over by synthetic identiies from Dimension X.
Can Brad and Jane save them?
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Jommy Cross
<7oi8dfF...@mid.individual.net>:
Gestalt?
Here's a nickel, kid. Buy yourself some real anonymity.
henri
>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:14:59 -0600, Anonymous <an...@anon.anon> wrote in msg
><7oi8dfF...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>l.l.lipshitz wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:34:34 -0800 (PST), Out_Of_The_Dark
>>> <formerl...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> <b957872d-83d4-423c...@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> | Given his admissions, temperment and overall contempt for decent human
>>> | beings, I think the scenario was more along these lines:
>>>
>>> this is utterly reprehensible, regardless of what
>>> you may think about dennis. his own words are there
>>> for anyone to read, you don't have to make up
>>> disgusting shit.
>>
>>I don't know, I think it was a pretty accurate and funny attempt at
>>channeling a charlatan man of God, based on the gestalt of his posting
>>and history.
>
>Gestalt?
>
>Here's a nickel, kid. Buy yourself some real anonymity.
He could be behind over 9,000 proxies and the stench of brain-charred
insanity would still stink through it.
Ted Mayett
<info...@informer.org> wrote:
>"l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
>
>> you
>> pointed to your irs paperwork on your website as a
>> rebuttal to monica's assertions and evidence that
>> she is a liar. it is not. that's all i'm saying.
>
>No she (and her ilk) claimed that I had hidden the fact that I was
>originally ordained in the cult. That document shows that she didn't
>bother to verify her facts before posting the lie.
>
For me anyway, it was words THAT YOU YOURSELF TYPED that woke me up.
It was something *you* said.
Monica Pignotti
> "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
> > you
> > pointed to your irs paperwork on your website as a
> > rebuttal to monica's assertions and evidence that
> > she is a liar. it is not. that's all i'm saying.
>
> No she (and her ilk) claimed that I had hidden the fact that I was
> originally ordained in the cult. That document shows that she didn't
> bother to verify her facts before posting the lie.
>
> > ok, i was unaware that the state registration does
> > not ask what denomination of minister you are. maybe
> > monica is also unaware of this point.
>
> As I said she (and her ilk) lied making the claim I am still a
> minister of the cult.
Are you or are you not, as you stated in January, 2009, still
"registered that way" with the State of California?
> > if i may make a suggestion: a short direct answer is
> > more favorably received than a very broad google
> > search, most of which is probably irrelevant to the
> > question at hand, and may be seen as a deflection.
>
> Answer to what question by whom?
>
> If someone wants services from the ministry, any questions they have
> would be answered.
>
> I don't bother answering "questions" of the 'do you still beat your
> wife?' type when I only said I had ~once~ struck my wife with an open
> hand over 27 years ago while in the cult.
In a lengthy detailed point by point response to your ex-wife's
affidavit, you denied a number of her charges but you made no denial
about any of her statements about your physical violence towards her.
Your present backpedaling is unconvincing, given that the purpose of
that response was to refute her and you challenged nothing at all
about her allegations of your physical violence. Your efforts to
minimize this are not very credible, IMHO, but people can decide for
themselves.
Monica
"Whoa, girl. Yes, I hit you. You were about to blow it and get sent to
the RPF, if you recall. You started talking about wanting to leave
Monica Pignotti
> > you
> > pointed to your irs paperwork on your website as a
> > rebuttal to monica's assertions and evidence that
> > she is a liar. it is not. that's all i'm saying.
>
> No she (and her ilk) claimed that I had hidden the fact that I was
> originally ordained in the cult. That document shows that she didn't
> bother to verify her facts before posting the lie.
Wrong. I claimed that you hid it on your resume, which was very
misleading. I didn't say you hid it everywhere, I was specifically
referring to your resume. A resume is a document that ought to stand
on its own and the way you portrayed yourself was dishonest, IMO. A
resume should accurately represent your background because often that
is all people read about a person. Again, you attempt to twist,
distort, and put words in my mouth. My claim is specifically about the
half truth you told on your resume where you listed yourself as a
minister, neglecting to state what your affiliation was. The fact that
you have it in your government documents is irrelevant to my point,
which is that your resume, a document that ought to stand on its own,
contained this half truth.
Monica Pignotti
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:57:15 +0100, Jeff <J...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >>[This is a response to
> >>ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Legal/Cases/CoS_v_the_Net/munsey_021795.declaration
>
> >I have a dear family member who was about to marry. The husband to be
> >one day slapped her around and kicked her several times in the
> >stomach, while she was 3 month pregnant, just because she served her 8
> >years old child dinner first.
>
> >The next day, she had a spontaneous abortion, the second day she hired
> >a well known gang to beat him into hospital, where he stayed for nine
> >month. To this day he is still damaged goods. Does she ever forgive he
> >killed her baby? Not in a billion years.
>
> east). She told me that our family member also could't have any more
> children after this incident. Her womb was too damaged and it had to
> be removed.
>
> And Dennis wants forgiveness for totally beating up his pregnant wife
> all over the apartment? No way in hell according to my sis, and me
> btw.
I agree. The "rev" had no right to even ask for forgiveness for
something like this and his attempt to blame Scientology for this and
being "a different person" is rather lame, considering the fact that
the vast majority of Scientologists, for all their other sins, have
never struck a woman. Talk is cheap. To be forgiven for something like
this (although I can't blame his wife if she never wants to forgiven
him) at the very least he would have to show actual evidence he had
changed, and given his propensity for continuing verbal abuse, I am
highly skeptical of that.
The question "Do you still beat your wife" is usually used as a
classic example of asking a question with false premises (in other
words, if the person had never beaten his wife, there is no way to
answer it). However, in Dennis' case, the question "do you still beat
your wife?" is a valid one because the premise it contains, that he
did commit violence in the past against his wife, is true, by his own
admission and his pleas for forgiveness appear disingenuous, given the
disrespectful way he continues to refer to her.
Monica
"Whoa, girl. Yes, I hit you. You were about to blow it and get sent to
the RPF, if you recall. You started talking about wanting to leave
Monica Pignotti
> "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
> >On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:34:34 -0800 (PST), Out_Of_The_Dark
> ><b957872d-83d4-423c-832e-876a3641d...@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >[...]
>
> > | Given his admissions, temperment and overall contempt for decent human
> > | beings, I think the scenario was more along these lines:
>
> > this is utterly reprehensible, regardless of what
> > you may think about dennis. his own words are there
> > for anyone to read, you don't have to make up
> > disgusting shit.
>
> There's plenty I've already admitted.
>
> Speaking of which, striking my wife when she was preggers ... this was
> her big secret from me at the time. She had stopped taking birth
> control and gotten pregnant against my explicit wishes. I certainly
> didn't know at the time. But she was displaying serious <spit>
> "mistwithold" manifestations, "dramatizing heavily" and a bunch of
> other phenomena confirming our mutual, and exclusive insanities at
> that time.
Wow, I can't believe I'm reading this. Even if she did lie to you, do
you really think that gives you the right to hit her? This is classic
abusive batterer thinking and rationalization. And there you go again
with the Scientology jargon that she has a "mistwithold" and
"dramatizing heavily". Wow, rev, you are discrediting yourself even
further by statements like that. Not only are you still stuck in cult
think, you are also demonstrating no genuine remorse for what you did,
IMO. Whatever you imagine she did to wrong you, nothing, and I mean
nothing, can justify your physical violence towards her and give this
statement, your apologies are disingenuous and I really don't see any
genuine remorse on your part at all for what you did. You and Rosa may
have had serious marital issues, but when you hit her, you lost any
right to claim this was "mutual". That's like saying she asked for it,
again, typical pathological batterer mentality.
Monica
"Whoa, girl. Yes, I hit you. You were about to blow it and get sent to
the RPF, if you recall. You started talking about wanting to leave
Anonymous
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:14:59 -0600, Anonymous <an...@anon.anon> wrote in msg
> <7oi8dfF...@mid.individual.net>:
>> I don't know, I think it was a pretty accurate and funny attempt at
>> channeling a charlatan man of God, based on the gestalt of his posting
>> and history.
>
> Gestalt?
>
> Here's a nickel, kid. Buy yourself some real anonymity.
>
> Ever yours in fandom,
> Jommy Cross
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
> before you hallucinate
> --------------------------------------------------
Anonymity on the Internet is here to stay, because of its ability to
rein-in the Internet Bully. The Bully can only respond to a anonymous
message in three ways.
1) Respond to the content of the message in a respectable manner.
2) Respond to the message with profanity, for shock value, denigrating
the message, and belittling the messenger in a slash-and-burn attempt to
deny the messenger's right to public participation. This response
however betrays the Bully as being a profane ne'er-do-well with a
penchant for cruelty or sadism.
3) Respond by assigning a phantom identity to the messenger, (usually a
perceived enemy, or group of enemies), and attack the phantom identity
using ad hominem character attacks. This response betrays the Bully as
being deluded and paranoid, with a penchant for persecuting others.
Of course, the Internet Bully may choose not to respond at all.
All of these are acceptable to Anonymous
-Anonymous
For criticism of Scientology go to http://www.whyweprotest.net
Jerry Ladd
If everybody lies on their resume, then shouldn't Reverend Dennis L.
Erlich tell the truth on his?
-Jerry Ladd
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> - Show quoted text -
Batters never 'get it'.
Out_Of_The_Dark
> l.l.lipshitz wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:34:34 -0800 (PST), Out_Of_The_Dark
> > <b957872d-83d4-423c-832e-876a3641d...@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > [...]
>
> > | Given his admissions, temperment and overall contempt for decent human
> > | beings, I think the scenario was more along these lines:
>
> > this is utterly reprehensible, regardless of what
> > you may think about dennis. his own words are there
> > for anyone to read, you don't have to make up
> > disgusting shit.
>
> I don't know, I think it was a pretty accurate and funny attempt at
> channeling a charlatan man of God, based on the gestalt of his posting
> and history.
>
> -Anonymous
well, I wasn't trying to be funny, just a tab sarcastic, but you got
the rest of it right, thanks.
Ted Mayett
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Monica
>"Whoa, girl. Yes, I hit you. You were about to blow it and get sent to
>the RPF, if you recall. You started talking about wanting to leave
>Flag." -- the Reverend Dennis Erlich
Put a stop to this. You made your point.
l.l.lipshitz
wrote in <obk7i5d6gie9j5kog...@4ax.com>:
| "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
|
| > you
| > pointed to your irs paperwork on your website as a
| > rebuttal to monica's assertions and evidence that
| > she is a liar. it is not. that's all i'm saying.
|
| No she (and her ilk) claimed that I had hidden the fact that I was
| originally ordained in the cult. That document shows that she didn't
| bother to verify her facts before posting the lie.
no, lrn2read. she claimed you included 'minister'
on your resume but didn't mention scn. your irs
paperwork has nothing to do with your resume.
| > ok, i was unaware that the state registration does
| > not ask what denomination of minister you are. maybe
| > monica is also unaware of this point.
|
| As I said she (and her ilk) lied making the claim I am still a
| minister of the cult.
i owe you an apology. rereading the portion of
monica's post that you quoted, i see that she
did, in fact, make this claim so that could be
considered 'one more lie'.
it's obvious you are not still a scn minister and
in fact hate scn. however, why do you use your scn
credentials to fill out your irs form 1023 which is
only concerned with your *current* ministry? pg 12,
item 11: 'were the current deacons, minister, and/or
pastor formally ordained after a prescribed course
of study?' 'yes' is technically truthful but it
doesn't apply to your *current* ministry.
| > if i may make a suggestion: a short direct answer is
| > more favorably received than a very broad google
| > search, most of which is probably irrelevant to the
| > question at hand, and may be seen as a deflection.
|
| Answer to what question by whom?
lrn2read more and snip less. it was my *implied*
question, so i'll be more direct: why did you point
to 26,000 google-search results to respond to
monica's assertion that you include 'minister' on
your resume but don't mention scn?
i didn't read any of those 26,000 hits but i bet
next-to-none had anything to do with your resume.
pointing to your irs paperwork, as you did before,
also does not address the resume issue.
a simple 'yeah, so what?' would have been
sufficient. or if you felt the need to elaborate,
you could have explained that standard resume
practice is to minimize one's weaknesses and
highlight one's strengths.
i'm trying not to assume anything but your fondness
for posting urls --that are irrelevant or force a
reader to mine a pile of turds to find a single
raisin-- rather than responding directly can appear
'deflective'. i offered what i hoped was a
constructive suggestion because i thought perhaps
you didn't realize what it looked like from a
reader's pov. take it or leave it, i don't care.
| If someone wants services from the ministry, any questions they have
| would be answered.
|
| I don't bother answering "questions" of the 'do you still beat your
| wife?' type when I only said I had ~once~ struck my wife with an open
| hand over 27 years ago while in the cult.
lrn2read. i was not talking about any of this, at
all. you've launched yourself off on another angry
rant because of some perceived threat. i have not
attacked your ministry or your dedication to your
calling or your character. i have only commented on
your posting/argument style, which i'm sure you
will agree is fair criticism, as you've said the
same about monica.
| > yes, it is obvious. it just doesn't address monica's
| > issue nor is it 'one more lie' as you claimed in
| > your previous post.
|
| Perhaps when the lies are told about you personally, you would have a
| different view of what is true and what is a lie.
another constructive suggestion: lrn2read.
Dennis L Erlich
> | No she (and her ilk) claimed that I had hidden the fact that I was
> | originally ordained in the cult. That document shows that she didn't
> | bother to verify her facts before posting the lie.
>
> no, lrn2read. she claimed you included 'minister'
> on your resume but didn't mention scn. your irs
> paperwork has nothing to do with your resume.
Her assertion was that I was hiding the fact and that I am STILL
holding that affiliation. Those are pretty ugly lies.
> | > ok, i was unaware that the state registration does
> | > not ask what denomination of minister you are. maybe
> | > monica is also unaware of this point.
> |
> | As I said she (and her ilk) lied making the claim I am still a
> | minister of the cult.
>
> i owe you an apology. rereading the portion of
> monica's post that you quoted, i see that she
> did, in fact, make this claim so that could be
> considered 'one more lie'.
Thx for noticing.
> it's obvious you are not still a scn minister and
> in fact hate scn.
As I said before, I don't hate anybody.
>however, why do you use your scn
> credentials to fill out your irs form 1023 which is
> only concerned with your *current* ministry? pg 12,
> item 11: 'were the current deacons, minister, and/or
> pastor formally ordained after a prescribed course
> of study?' 'yes' is technically truthful but it
> doesn't apply to your *current* ministry.
You question asserts a false premise. I do not USE the credentials. I
have no use whatsoever for them. I simply answered the question on
the application form truthfully.
> | > if i may make a suggestion: a short direct answer is
> | > more favorably received than a very broad google
> | > search, most of which is probably irrelevant to the
> | > question at hand, and may be seen as a deflection.
> |
> | Answer to what question by whom?
>
> lrn2read more and snip less. it was my *implied*
> question, so i'll be more direct: why did you point
> to 26,000 google-search results to respond to
> monica's assertion that you include 'minister' on
> your resume but don't mention scn?
Like I said before, why would I? I thought it would be helpful to
show that url as an example of how I didn't hide my history. But if
you think I was being deceptive or deflective, so be it.
> i didn't read any of those 26,000 hits but i bet
> next-to-none had anything to do with your resume.
> pointing to your irs paperwork, as you did before,
> also does not address the resume issue.
>
> a simple 'yeah, so what?' would have been
> sufficient. or if you felt the need to elaborate,
> you could have explained that standard resume
> practice is to minimize one's weaknesses and
> highlight one's strengths.
Next time I'll do my best to answer the way you suggest.
> i'm trying not to assume anything but your fondness
> for posting urls --that are irrelevant or force a
> reader to mine a pile of turds to find a single
> raisin-- rather than responding directly can appear
> 'deflective'. i offered what i hoped was a
> constructive suggestion because i thought perhaps
> you didn't realize what it looked like from a
> reader's pov. take it or leave it, i don't care.
Thanks.
> | If someone wants services from the ministry, any questions they have
> | would be answered.
> |
> | I don't bother answering "questions" of the 'do you still beat your
> | wife?' type when I only said I had ~once~ struck my wife with an open
> | hand over 27 years ago while in the cult.
>
> lrn2read. i was not talking about any of this, at
> all. you've launched yourself off on another angry
> rant because of some perceived threat.
I'm not angry and I don't think the above is a rant. Simply an
explanation of how and why I answer hostile questions. I wasn't
implying that your questions were hostile.
> i have not
> attacked your ministry or your dedication to your
> calling or your character. i have only commented on
> your posting/argument style, which i'm sure you
> will agree is fair criticism, as you've said the
> same about monica.
Which is why I have tried to answer or respond to your criticisms
without rancor.
> | > yes, it is obvious. it just doesn't address monica's
> | > issue nor is it 'one more lie' as you claimed in
> | > your previous post.
> |
> | Perhaps when the lies are told about you personally, you would have a
> | different view of what is true and what is a lie.
>
> another constructive suggestion: lrn2read.
I still think you'd have a different perspective when people are
spreading sliem about you personally.
I hope you never have to find out I'm right.
D
---------------------------------------
"Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.
efish
"l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
> i have only commented on
> your posting/argument style, which i'm sure you
> will agree is fair criticism, as you've said the
> same about monica.
you did it well. i tried to do the same, but you did it better.
kudos, elle
-ef
Dennis L Erlich
But I took a bit of offense at the characterization of moral
equivalence between my criticisms of her rhetoric and her finding and
manufacturing old OSA dox and malicious rumors to DA me.
I realize you don't want WHN coming after you like she did with Hassan
and now me. It's a hassle you don't need.
But still I took it as a low blow and may have sent you a distempered
response. Sorry.
Be well,
D
efish <efi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
---------------------
"I'm the fool I never
fool I never thought I was." - M Knopfler
efish
Dennis L Erlich <info...@informer.org> wrote:
> But still I took it as a low blow and may have sent you a distempered
> response. Sorry.
apology accepted.
and please realize that there was no "moral equivalence" intended, only
equivalence in the quality of response. and that it would serve you well
to avoid falling into those particular traps.
-ef
Anonymous
Then it is not the sadism of his charlatan ministry that causes you and
Claire to get on board with it?
-Anonymous
Dennis L Erlich
> it would serve you well
>to avoid falling into those particular traps.
You're probably right, ef. But I didn't stumble in blind. I was
aware of the response I was going to get by commenting on her
rhetorical tricks.
That was exactly the point I was making. And I believe it's been
made.
D
--------------------
"When there's too much nothing,
it just makes a fella mean" - B. Dylan
Voltaire's
> efish wrote:
> > In article <omjfi5558idhemga3144obd5i6gn3d0...@4ax.com>,
> > Dennis L Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
>
> >> But still I took it as a low blow and may have sent you a distempered
> >> response. Sorry.
>
> > apology accepted.
>
> > and please realize that there was no "moral equivalence" intended, only
> > equivalence in the quality of response. and that it would serve you well
> > to avoid falling into those particular traps.
>
> > -ef
>
I don't consider it to be sadistic. But then again, I'm neither on
board nor against the ministry. It's just flat out none of anyone's
fucking business as it has nothing to do with ARS and is nothing but a
witch hunt. I abhor witch hunts.
Claire