The Pignotron-Photo of Prototype
George Orwell
Comments by Larry Sarner, Linda Rosa, Monica Pignotti to follow
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Monica Pignotti
More libel of me. Of course there is no "Pignotron" except for your
photoshopped invention. I'm collecting these libelous ads and now have
professionals working to track you down. You are libeling not only me
but now you are libeling Florida State University who has many more
resources at their disposal than I do.
barbz
Oh, give it up. You're swatting at gnats and getting your stupid
knickers in a knot over....what? Some stupidity you've chosen to squawk
"LIBEL" over? You're wasting a lot of time and bandwidth over nothing.
If you react this nutty to a silly post about a Pignometer, what will
you do if a real, actual problem comes along? Blow up?
--
xenubarb
Chaplain, ARSCCwdne
A walk down the path of history is crunchy with the crispy corpses of
those who pooh-poohed or ignored the clown car of ridicule when it
pulled-up to the curb.
Stephen Jones
Monica Pignotti
If it was one or two silly posts, you'd have a point but this is part
of a long-term 6 month disinformation campaign on the internet against
me and I already tried to ignore it and found that ignoring it does
not make my unrelenting cyberstalker go away, so yes, I am changing my
strategy and standing up to the bully. If you want to support the
bully and blame me, that just shows that you are clueless about the
back story here, which is the fact that I have been exposing abusive
interventions used on children and am being fair gamed, but hey, Barb,
I really didn't expect or need your support so go right ahead and side
with the quacks.
Maureen
It sounds like the story has nothing to do with $cientology. It begins
to sound like Barbara Schwarz .
Isn't there an alt.attachment.therapy to go to, where all the people
'attached to this issue' who need to fight ______ can go attach
themselves with other supporters?
Honestly, you came attacking here over the last year as if the same
Monica we once posted here had gone astray.
To pace words like 'fair game' into posts does not make anyone have to
own your issues, and be christened with an attitude of laziness for
'not fighting attachment therapy.'
Your announcement to 'fight cyberstakers' and usage of words like
'fair game' doesn't equal $cientology nor convinces me that you
continue to choose to treat anyone here with consistent respect. Using
attachment therapy or abused children to come and beat on others with
disrespect doesn't move my empathy meter Sorry. $cientology, that easy
'dub in'
Maureen
Maureen
spell corrections <specs on>:
> Honestly, you came attacking here over the last year as if the same
> Monica who once posted here had gone astray.
> To use words like 'fair game' in posts does not make anyone have to
> own your issues as if they are $cientology-related, and be christened with an attitude of laziness for
Dennis L Erlich
>You are libeling not only me
>> > but now you are libeling Florida State University who has many more
>> > resources at their disposal than I do.
Ooo! Scary bluff.
barbz
>> Oh, give it up. You're swatting at gnats and getting your stupid
>> knickers in a knot over....what? Some stupidity you've chosen to squawk
>> "LIBEL" over? �You're wasting a lot of time and bandwidth over nothing.
>> If you react this nutty to a silly post about a Pignometer, what will
>> you do if a real, actual problem comes along? Blow up?
More attention is what she craves. She'll bask in whatever she can
get.
pignotty
>If it was one or two silly posts, you'd have a point but this is part
>of a long-term 6 month disinformation campaign on the internet against
>me <...>
Oh <sniff> how utterly horrid.
Much like the disinfo she spread about me on the now defunct
FreedomofMind discussion board. I came on to correct her re her
statements that the cult allows people to go up the bridge while
taking drugs.
So for her lame defense, first she threatened the moderator of the
board that if I was allowed to post there, the moderator was going to
get into serious legal trouble because I was under a gag order.
Next she spread lies about my settlement with the cult.
She finished up by denigrating my ministry and religious calling.
I bet she has done the same kind of disinfo campaigns to others who
are less able to defend themselves. Now she complains that it is
being done to her. Boofuckinghoo. If there ever were a use for
scieno-babble, it's pretty obvious she "pulled in" her current
flea-brained tormenters.
She loves seeing her name in the topic, and claiming to be the victim
of bullying. And she just can't resist keeping these threads going.
Just watch.
D
---------------------------------------
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.
Monica Pignotti
Interesting that the Scientology Rev (and yes, Dennis has admitted
that the only formal "Rev" credential he has is from the Church of
Scientology) is not supporting proponents of bogus "attachment"
interventions that I have been speaking out against who are attacking
me. Rev Erlich will make a very nice ally for them to have and I'm
sure will give them added credibility for their cause.
Monica Pignotti
I suggest you get the facts before jumping to unwarranted conclusions,
Maureen. This is a real internet battle against good people who are
criticizing a dangerous, bogus intervention for children that has
already killed several:
http://www.childrenintherapy.org
Or or you too a proponent of these bogus therapies?
Monica
Monica Pignotti
Oh and by the way, Dennis, Steve Hassan and I have worked things out
and resolved our differences and you might be interested in knowing
that Steve apologized to me for YOU. He admitted that inviting you to
come onto the Freedomofmind list serv was a big mistake on his part
because he hadn't realized how nasty you were going to be. Given that
he admitted his mistake, I have forgiven him.
Monica Pignotti
wrote:
Typo correction -- I meant to say that Dennis Erlich is NOW supporting
bogus attachment interventions because that is who is attacking me
with this all out smear campaign. Ever hear of Candace Newmaker,
Dennis? It is my advocacy group that is being attacked here and by
ganging up with the bogus "attachment" therapists, you are siding with
bogus killer therapies. See:
http://www.childrenintherapy.org
And if anyone wants to deny this, I am being attacked by this smear
campaign along with other prominent skeptics who are also activists
such as Linda Rosa, Larry Sarner, Jean Mercer and others. This is not
some paranoid delusion of mine, unless you want to attack these other
prominent skeptics who are on my side as also being delusional. But as
usual, Dennis and others make assumptions without checking out the
facts.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
You had better watch yourself, Dennis, because the moderator there was
Cathleen Mann and she and I have always been, and remain good friends.
I am forwarding this to her, Dennis. I never, ever, threatened
Cathleeen Mann about anything, so stop the lies.
> Next she spread lies about my settlement with the cult.
No I did not, I asked questions.
> She finished up by denigrating my ministry and religious calling.
How would you like to tell everybody here where your "Reverend" title
comes from? On the Freedomofmind list serv, you admitted that it was
from Scientology. Now that the list serv is defunct, Cathleen has
given me permission to post from it and if you keep it up, Dennis, I
will go back to my e-mail files, dig up your posting where you
admitted this, and post it here on ARS for all to see.
> I bet she has done the same kind of disinfo campaigns to others who
> are less able to defend themselves. Now she complains that it is
> being done to her. Boofuckinghoo. If there ever were a use for
> scieno-babble, it's pretty obvious she "pulled in" her current
> flea-brained tormenters.
>
> She loves seeing her name in the topic, and claiming to be the victim
> of bullying. And she just can't resist keeping these threads going.
You don't know me, Dennis, so stop making unmwarranted presumptions. I
hate having my name spattered all over the Internet and I hate seeing
my name connected with falsehoods. What I am doing is being proactive
in refuting the disinformation being spread about Linda Rosa, Larry
Sarner, Jean Mercer and a number of other good people well known in
the skeptical community who work with me as activists against bogus,
abusive therapies that have killed children or tortured them by
putting them in cages. And if you think this is an exaggeration,
Google Candice Newmarker or Gravelle. You need to educate yourself:
http://www.childrenintherapy.org
And yes, Steve Hassan has apologized to me in person for YOUR horrible
behavior on the freedomofmind list serv.
Monica
Maureen
I do not respond to authoratative implication. It's an obvious cult
snare.
Positioning with other notable 'cult experts' in the same thread does
not validate "experience."
This is not the maturity level to engage others into 'fighting against
attachment therapy."
In retrospect, it is the usage of attachment therapy.
No thank you. It sounds like you're caught up in throwing bad dirt and
you are now on the receiving end. Sorry.
>
> Monica- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Monica Pignotti
list serv being confidential but it is not any longer and Cathleen
Mann gave me permission to post it wherever I pleased. Here is the
posting from the Freedomofmind list serv where you admitted your "Rev"
comes from Scientology. You have had no other formal theological
training and a number of the people on that list serv expressed
concerns about that until you finally admitted your Rev is
Scientology. Dennis brags about ministering to hundreds of ex-cult
members when it turns out that his Rev title comes from the Church of
Scientology, the only formal credential he had. He admits "I have
filed my taxes as a minister every year since 1969." -- as a
Scientology minister, yet he left Scientology about 25 years ago.
Quite a stunning admission, Dennis.
From: freedo...@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Rev Dennis L
Erlich (info...@informer.org)
Sent: Mon 1/19/09 2:56 AM
To: freedom of mind (freedo...@yahoogroups.com)
jim martin <jimmartin2005@...> wrote:
>I have to admit that monica has asked you a valid question . Who is te
>sanctioning agency for your title.
I'm sorry, you are confused. I thought it was clear that I was
originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology.
As far as the "sanctioning agency" back in those days ministers were
required to register with the State of California, which I did. After
I walked away I didn't withdrawn my registration, so I am still on
file in Sacramento that way.
Throughout the 80's and 90's I ministered to hundreds of people who
had left cults. I am credited with talking a bunch of recovering
cultists who were seriously contemplating suicide, "down from the
ledge." I ran dozens and dozens of cult recovery focus sessions in
Los Angeles and published inFormer Newsletter for ex-members.
In 1997 I incorporated inFormer Ministry in California as a non profit
religious/educational corporation (#2011733) and it was
awarded Federal 501(c)3 status a year later.
The ministry with the help of its volunteers has produced public
events for the City of Los Angeles Mayors Office and Cultural Affairs
Dept. For a number of years we wrote and helped produce the Hollywood
Christmas Parade on behalf of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce.
I have filed my taxes as a minister every year since 1969.
Since the State of California and Federal Government has "officially
recognized me" as a minister, I have no problem continuing with that
title. I guess those would be the "sanctioning bodies" if there is
one.
InFormer Ministry is now its own "sanctioning body" and
non-denominational religious order. If you have any other questions
about my calling, you might try glancing at the website:
www.informer.org
This obviously rubs Monica the wrong way. It seems she has no problem
denigrating the religious practices of someone who challenges her
views.
>I know when i am asked about my credentials I always provide the
>information .It is a professional thing to do.
Jim, I don't know what gave you the impression I was claiming
"credentials" that required a sanctioning agency. I have made no
claims about my professional status whatsoever. On the ministry
website I say: "With the possible exception of common sense gained by
repeatedly surviving my own life-destructive mistakes, I claim to no
particular qualifications whatsoever."
I am here as an experienced ex-member; not an accredited expert as you
seem to have implied.
I hope this satisfies your curiosity.
Dennis
---------
"Nobody's driving me underground.
Not yet anyway." - Mark Knopfler
Monica Pignotti
Maureen: If you bothered to check the facts out of how this started,
it was the bogus AT proponents who initiated the postings to ARS on
this topic to smear me and try to associate my work with Scientology,
so if you are upset about off topic postings here, I suggest you take
it up with them because I couldn't agree more. I am just responding to
them, which I have every right to do and like it or not, will continue
to do. This is not some paranoid delusion on my part. Ronald Federici
wrote a letter to the Dean at my university telling all kinds of lies
about me. Fortunately, my dean chose to ignore it, but these are very
real attacks on me because I am taking a stand against bogus
therapies.
Eldon
> Okay, Dennis, you were probably counting on the material from the FOM
> list serv being confidential but it is not any longer and Cathleen
> Mann gave me permission to post it wherever I pleased. Here is the
> posting from the Freedomofmind list serv where you admitted your "Rev"
> comes from Scientology. You have had no other formal theological
> training and a number of the people on that list serv expressed
> concerns about that until you finally admitted your Rev is
> Scientology. Dennis brags about ministering to hundreds of ex-cult
> members when it turns out that his Rev title comes from the Church of
> Scientology, the only formal credential he had. He admits "I have
> filed my taxes as a minister every year since 1969." -- as a
> Scientology minister, yet he left Scientology about 25 years ago.
> Quite a stunning admission, Dennis.
Monica,
Do you really think it's productive to be dredging up old stuff like
this fight with Dennis when you could be working to end child abuse?
Just wondered. The troll posts and your answers must take up half the
front page of a.r.s., and are at least 99% off topic for this
newsgroup as far as I can see. Not to mention that your tone is
getting a bit... shrill. Could you try not feeding them for a few days
and see if that does anything?
Monica Pignotti
Eldon, check the earlier postings on the thread. It was Dennis who
dredged this up. I was simply responding with the evidence to set the
record straight and correct his distortions of what happened there. If
Dennis has not brought this up to attack me and side with the
"attachment" quacks against me, I wouldn't have dreamed of bringing it
up but when he did this and misrepresented things, I had to set the
record straight.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
Given your propensity for incomprehensible psychobabble in so many of
your postings, Maureeen, I'm not surprised you would be a sympathetic
apologist towards a dangerous, bogus therapy rather than recognize
what the real situation. Legitimate therapists do not describe what
they do as "attachment therapy" -- even some of the therapists we have
criticized have pointed out it is a pejorative term with a nasty
reputation that they want to distance themselves from, so if you want
to defend "attachment therapy" that shows where you are coming from.
There is objective evidence that other people at the university where
I currently work have been subjected to that shows this is not some
paranoid delusion on my part:
1. Ronald Federici, one of the people the advocacy organization I work
with has criticized, wrote my Dean a letter full of all sorts of lies
about me.
2. An anonymous person sent e-mails to several people on the faculty
where I teach, filled with lies about me. The faculty members of
course did not take the accusations seriously, but they do take the
fact I am being cyberstalked very seriously and have offered me their
condolences and support.
3. The cyberstaker has lately begun posting derogatory comments and
disgusting sexual innuendo about me, using the names of actual full
time faculty members at FSU who are now joining me in trying to
identify the individual(s) responsible. I did not imagine this. These
are real people and your propensity to jump to false conclusions, only
shows propensity to jump to unwarranted conclusions and attack me. The
faculty where I teach know this cyberstalking campaign against me is
very real and take it very seriously so if you think I'm deluded, then
they must all be deluded as well. It's people like you, Maureen, that
make this kind of abuse possible by not taking it seriously and
blaming the target.
Monica
Eldon
I don't see where he sided with the "attachment" quacks. He criticized
your attitude. I can find nothing in his posts that defends Federici
et Cie. Did I miss it? If so, can you point it out to me?
Gregory Hall
news:b7932ae5-afdf-4988...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Monica
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[REPLY]
You really are out of touch with reality, Monica. An anonymous stalker is
only as big a problem as you LET him be. Get a clue, girl.
It's bad enough that you're too feeble-minded to see what you're doing to
yourself and now your associates are being drug into the gutter with you.
Sad.
Here's a hint. The best way to deal with any Pigno-o-meter post is to laugh
at it and maybe ask for royalites on any sold.
--
Gregory Hall
Monica Pignotti
He strongly implies it here, where he blames me and portrays them as
some kind of innocent, helpless victims "unable to defend themselves":
"I bet she has done the same kind of disinfo campaigns to others who
are less able to defend themselves. Now she complains that it is
being done to her. Boofuckinghoo. If there ever were a use for
scieno-babble, it's pretty obvious she "pulled in" her current
flea-brained tormenters. "
Here he is, showing how stuck he is in Scieno beliefs, saying I
"pulled it in". In any case, I never want anything to do with Erlich
again. He is abusive and very much in the personality of a Sea Orger.
I suspect that he had that kind of abusive personality to begin with
and was a natural good fit for the Sea Org. Hassan even has his
number, which is why he apologized to me for Dennis' horrible behavior
on Freedomofmind list serv. Actually, I would say that Dennis is worse
than many of the Scientologists since he has been out for 25+ years
and still acts like one.
Monica
Maureen
(snip)
Contrary to the innuendo, that by not criticizing attachment therapy,
I think it's OK,
those are your words placed in my mouth.
This is a scientology forum.Attachment therapy is off topic They are
following you here, whoever they are.
That's not my problem. For which your comments are less than
respectable. Sorry they are 'after you.'
I would have sympathy for the victims.
Please explain the scientology connection to 'attachment therapy.' If
you are on topic, I may answer you again.
Otherwise, bye.
Monica Pignotti
Again, tell that to the cyberbully who has been spamming ARS with
personal smears against me. Given he has done that, I have every right
to refute him and defend myself, as I see fit to and I will continue
to do so. Your telling the nut to stop will not make him stop, rest
assured. You have come in very late to this ongoing smear campaign and
are making completely unwarranted assumptions. If you don't like it,
don't read the threads but I will post here as I see fit to post
because last I heard, no one died and made you ARS dictator, Maureen.
Monica Pignotti
There, I proved you wrong. In fact, I dislike my name being the topic,
so I changed the topic and put your name in it. Happy now, Scientology
Reverend Erlich who lives in an expensive Palm Springs home you could
never have afforded without Scientology's help? It's all about you and
the source of your title.
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>There, I proved you wrong. In fact, I dislike my name being the topic,
>so I changed the topic and put your name in it. Happy now, Scientology
>Reverend Erlich who lives in an expensive Palm Springs home you could
>never have afforded without Scientology's help? It's all about you and
>the source of your title.
So you've become a cyberstalking nutjob just like the other
thread-renaming whacko. Good job.
Anyway I seem to recall Dennis having had a subG Reverend title since
at least 1995. In fact, he is unique in not having paid $30 for it.
Even Ivan Stang paid for his.
That credential is certainly as valid as a Universal Life Church
ordination, and a couple orders of magnitude more valid than a
Scientology one.
Also go fuck yourself.
Voltaire's Child
Stop it. Just killfile each other.
Yeah, yeah, I know. This, coming from me, is like...(insert analogy
here)...but honest to Xenu...this isn't doing either of you any good.
You both hate the fucking cult. Move on.
Claire
John Dorsay
> On Nov 15, 12:30 pm, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 11:42 am, Dennis L Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
<snip>
>> > I bet she has done the same kind of disinfo campaigns to others who
>> > are less able to defend themselves. Now she complains that it is
>> > being done to her. Boofuckinghoo. If there ever were a use for
>> > scieno-babble, it's pretty obvious she "pulled in" her current
>> > flea-brained tormenters.
<snip>
> Typo correction -- I meant to say that Dennis Erlich is NOW supporting
> bogus attachment interventions because that is who is attacking me
> with this all out smear campaign. Ever hear of Candace Newmaker,
Get a fucking grip, Monica. Criticism of you does not imply support
for your flea-brained tormenters. That you think otherwise shows
how distorted your perspective has become.
> Dennis? It is my advocacy group that is being attacked here and by
> ganging up with the bogus "attachment" therapists, you are siding with
> bogus killer therapies. See:
Trolling asshole Gregory Hall has been baiting you with considerable
success too. Do you seriously think he has anything to do with
Federici et al? If you answered "yes" to the preceding question, I
urge you to step back from ars for a reality check.
John
Android Cat
>
> From: freedo...@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Rev Dennis L
> Erlich (info...@informer.org)
> Sent: Mon 1/19/09 2:56 AM
> To: freedom of mind (freedo...@yahoogroups.com)
> In 1997 I incorporated inFormer Ministry in California as a non profit
> religious/educational corporation (#2011733) and it was
> awarded Federal 501(c)3 status a year later.
So the IRS recognizes him as a religion, entitled to baaaw to the US State
Department if some country is dubious about it.
What? It's only Scientology that gets that deal? Nooooooo!
--
Ron of that ilk.
Voltaire's Child
"Android Cat" <androi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6cc11$4b00f60f$adce61ae$26...@PRIMUS.CA...
Ilky smart!
Claire
Out_Of_The_Dark
> Okay, Dennis, you were probably counting on the material from the FOM
> list serv being confidential but it is not any longer and Cathleen
> Mann gave me permission to post it wherever I pleased. Here is the
> posting from the Freedomofmind list serv where you admitted your "Rev"
> comes from Scientology. You have had no other formal theological
> training and a number of the people on that list serv expressed
> concerns about that until you finally admitted your Rev is
> Scientology. Dennis brags about ministering to hundreds of ex-cult
> members when it turns out that his Rev title comes from the Church of
> Scientology, the only formal credential he had. He admits "I have
> filed my taxes as a minister every year since 1969." -- as a
> Scientology minister, yet he left Scientology about 25 years ago.
> Quite a stunning admission, Dennis.
>
Well, good to see his answer on this longstanding elusive point.
Thank you.
Dennis L Erlich
yhn
>> Much like the disinfo she spread about me on the now defunct
>> FreedomofMind discussion board. �I came on to correct her re her
>> statements that the cult allows people to go up the bridge while
>> taking drugs.
>>
>> So for her lame defense, first she threatened the moderator of the
>> board that if I was allowed to post there, the moderator was going to
>> get into serious legal trouble because I was under a gag order.
pigno
>You had better watch yourself, Dennis,
Oooo! Another empty threat. Vewy Skawy!
>because the moderator there was
>Cathleen Mann and she and I have always been, and remain good friends.
Yah I wondered why she was such a bitch to me while I refuted Monica's
BS.
>I am forwarding this to her, Dennis. I never, ever, threatened
>Cathleeen Mann about anything, so stop the lies.
Monica Pignotti is the liar. Here's the email exchange which proves
it:
-----------------------------------
To: info...@informer.org
Subject: Re: FOM discussion group
From: "Dr. Cathleen A. Mann" <cathle...@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:00:01 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: "Dr. Cathleen A. Mann" <cathle...@comcast.net>
Thanks for your response.
Monica was the one who told me that you had a settlement with
Scientology but she said�it was several years ago.� She did not give
me any details or dates, etc., so I thought I would check it out.
I welcome your input in the list.
Cathleen A. Mann, Ph.D
1880 S. Pierce St. Unit 7
Lakewood, CO 80232
(303) 934-2828
Secure Fax: (303) 934-2892
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis L Erlich" <info...@informer.org>
To: "Dr. Cathleen A. Mann" <cathle...@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 8:30:56 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada
Mountain
Subject: Re: FOM discussion group
you wrote:
>It is my understanding that you entered into a confidential settlement in your claims against Scientology.�
No. �How did you come to that mis-understanding?
>Are you subject to a gag order?�
No.
>If so, please do not violate the terms of that gag order in your comments in the FOM discussion group.� I do not want the group to be in a position of potential liability.� Thanks.
Perhaps it would be easier for you if I withdrew from your group.
Dennis
--------------
This is conclusive proof that Monica Pignotti tried to get me kicked
off a discussion group because I dared refute her assertion that
people can go up the cult's bridge while on drugs.
Then she lied that she never threatened the moderator the she was in
legal liability if the moderator allowed me to post to the group.
She is now subject to the same abusive behavior she engages in against
others who disagree with her.
All the time claiming she is being bullied. Boohoo.
Dennis
Dennis L Erlich
ynh
>> In 1997 I incorporated inFormer Ministry in California as a non profit
>> religious/educational corporation (#2011733) and it was
>> awarded Federal 501(c)3 status a year later.
cat
>So the IRS recognizes him as a religion, entitled to baaaw to the US State
>Department if some country is dubious about it.
That still might not be enuf proof for Monica. Clearly she is
grasping at straws; lying with specious ad-hominem in her lame
attempts to refute what I say. That's all she's got.
>What? It's only Scientology that gets that deal? Nooooooo!
For her the US Govt and the State of Calif are not credible
authorities on who has a right to practice their religion.
She alone is the supreme authority on my religious calling, she
thinks.
Dennis L Erlich
>There, I proved you wrong. In fact, I dislike my name being the topic,
>so I changed the topic and put your name in it.
Oh wow. That stings.
>Happy now, Scientology
>Reverend Erlich who lives in an expensive Palm Springs home you could
>never have afforded without Scientology's help?
Only ad-hominem. WTF does my $275k, modest home or my finances have
to do with anything? She thinks she knows where I got the money to
buy it? Dox or stfu, I say.
>It's all about you and the source of your title.
Wow, big revelation!
There's never been a secret about it. The State of Cal and the IRS
both have known for years. So has anyone who bothered to ask me.
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> yhn
>
> >> Much like the disinfo she spread about me on the now defunct
> >> FreedomofMind discussion board. I came on to correct her re her
> >> statements that the cult allows people to go up the bridge while
> >> taking drugs.
>
> >> So for her lame defense, first she threatened the moderator of the
> >> board that if I was allowed to post there, the moderator was going to
> >> get into serious legal trouble because I was under a gag order.
>
> pigno
>
> >You had better watch yourself, Dennis,
>
> Oooo! Another empty threat. Vewy Skawy!
>
> >because the moderator there was
> >Cathleen Mann and she and I have always been, and remain good friends.
>
> Yah I wondered why she was such a bitch to me while I refuted Monica's
> BS.
>
> >I am forwarding this to her, Dennis. I never, ever, threatened
> >Cathleeen Mann about anything, so stop the lies.
>
> Monica Pignotti is the liar. Here's the email exchange which proves
> it:
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: FOM discussion group
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:00:01 +0000 (UTC)
That proves nothing other than I told her you had a settlement and I
recommended she check out the details and ask you about it. She said
nothing that you accused me of about lawsuits or danger posting at
all. I have no control over the conclusions Cathleen came to based on
that. I only recommended that she ASK, and check out your settlement
and the terms so you are lying and distorting what happened again,
Scientology Rev Erlich. There is nothing there about my trying to get
you kicked off the discussion board. You are the one who came on there
and bullied me and Steve Hassan personally apologized to me for your
behavior. Giving the moderator information is not "threatening"
anyone. It was Cathleen who questioned whether there would be a legal
liability having you there, but all I did was provide her with
information. There is nothing there about any threats. Cathleen in no
way said I ever threatened anything so knock of the lies, bully
Scientology Rev. Dennis. Your own posting refutes your lies as anyone
can see she was ASKING you QUESTIONS, as I did on the list serv, so if
you perceive QUESTIONS as threats that only reveals your own cultic
state of mind.
If you want to see a bully, take a good, long, hard look in the
mirror, Dennis, because YOU are the one who has the abusive
personality. I wouldn't be at all surprised if your Scientologist ex
wife was telling the truth about you because you have all the
indicators of an abuser, at the very least an emotionally abusing
bully, if not more. You are also a phony -- you call yourself a
REVEREND when really you left the only religion you were a "reverend"
of 25 years ago and have not earned the title from any other religious
tradition. And to make it worse, you admitted you file your taxes that
way. That's what really pisses you off, doesn't it. That I exposed you
for the phony you are.
Monica Pignotti
Sure, I believe that. The IRS recognizes Scientology as a religion, so
if Dennis is a Scientology Reverend they presumably would recognize
him, although I wonder what they would do if they found out he left
the Church of Scientology 25 years ago. Whether the IRS recognizes you
or not, I think you are dishonest and wonder if the State of
California really knows what your standing is with the CofS.
Monica Pignotti
Hey, I give as good as I get to bullies such as yourself, Scn Rev D.
Does the IRS know that you left the "religion" you say you are a
reverend of or have you fooled them into thinking you are a genuine
Scn minister? Just asking.
Monica Pignotti
I suggest you go back and reread what he wrote, John. He claims I
"pulled it in" - obviously he still thinks in Scn terms. He implies
that the bogus AT crowd who has been cyberstalking me for months now
as my victims. He completely tries to turn things around on me, which
is typical behavior for an abusive personality. He has been far more
abusive to me than any active Scientologist has ever been.
Monica Pignotti
wrote:
As as I'm concerned, Dennis and the cult are one in the same because
by telling me I'm pulling it in, he's behaving just like a
Scientologist and he still has his Scientology Rev title and last I
checked his website, he doesn't disclose this but rather tries to
claim he is nondenominational. He is a liar and a hypocrite and worse
than an active Scientologist. At least with an active Scientologist a
person would know where they stood, where Dennis claims to be out but
still keeps up his Scientology behavior.
Monica Pignotti
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
Good question, Ron. I wonder if the IRS knows that Dennis has
separated himself from the CofS yet still claims the benefits of being
a Scn Rev.
Dennis L Erlich
>I wouldn't be at all surprised if your Scientologist ex
>wife was telling the truth about you because you have all the
>indicators of an abuser, at the very least an emotionally abusing
>bully, if not more.
Like I said, all she's got is more ad-hominem. And she can't even
invent her own. She's got to dredge up BS from years ago by my
scieno-serving ex.
>You are also a phony -- you call yourself a
>REVEREND when really you left the only religion you were a "reverend"
>of 25 years ago and have not earned the title from any other religious
>tradition. And to make it worse, you admitted you file your taxes that
>way. That's what really pisses you off, doesn't it.
She thinks she's uncovered something. This is old news and anyone who
knows me has know it for years. Still attacking the person and still
not refuting my assertions:
She threatened the moderator to get me thrown off the board. She
attacks my religious calling and calls into question my finances only
to Dead Agent my refutation of her claims that the cult allows people
to advance while on drugs.
>That I exposed you for the phony you are.
Oh, last week it was Steve Hassan who was the phony.
D
Gregory Hall
Fair gaming now, Monica? Can you say hypocrite?
--
Gregory Hall
Dennis L Erlich
>He claims I
>"pulled it in" - obviously he still thinks in Scn terms.
Heh. Perhaps she would have prefered: "What goes around comes
around." But then she would accuse me of being a hippy. Maybe
"karma's a bitch." But then she would call me a hindu. I could have
said "she made her own bed." Then I'd be thinking like a housekeeper.
Oh, I know. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
D
Monica Pignotti
No, it is not "old news". Many people on FOM said it came as news to
them and Mary just posted she's been unclear on it for awhile now.
People close to you might have known about it but that is not the
point. You have not been clear to the public and your website doesn't
state it. That is deceptive and I am calling you out on it.
Why did you snip the part where I pointed out that your posting of
Cathleen's letter proves nothing about what you assert. There was
nothing in there about my threatening anyone about anything, nothing
about you getting thrown off the list or anything like that. I did not
threaten Cathleen and nowhere did she state that I had threatened her
so cut out the lies. I have forwarded your postings to Cathleen, by
the way.
You snip the substance of my post and then accuse me of "ad hominem"
when you are the one who has been flinging "ad hominems" at me, right
and left. One question still remains, though. Does the IRS know you
are a defector from Scientology, still practicing with the Scn Rev
title while not believing in any of it anymore? Just asking. Or does
the IRS and State of California wrongfully assume you are an active,
believing, practicing Scientology Reverend? If so, isn't that
deceptive? That said, your actions still are quite Scientological so
you might be able to make a strong case to them that you deserve to
keep your Scn Rev title through your actions alone, even though your
beliefs may have changed.
Monica Pignotti
Subject header changed for acccuracy. I tell the truth. Dennis is
lying because his posting Cathleen's letter does not prove what he
claims it does because there is nothing whatesoever in there about any
threats he has lied and said I made to Cathleen. I did not threaten
Cathleen or anyone else. I simply passed along some info to her --
which to Dennis, is viewed as a threat.
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> yhn
>
> >> Much like the disinfo she spread about me on the now defunct
> >> FreedomofMind discussion board. I came on to correct her re her
> >> statements that the cult allows people to go up the bridge while
> >> taking drugs.
>
> >> So for her lame defense, first she threatened the moderator of the
> >> board that if I was allowed to post there, the moderator was going to
> >> get into serious legal trouble because I was under a gag order.
>
> pigno
>
> >You had better watch yourself, Dennis,
>
> Oooo! Another empty threat. Vewy Skawy!
>
> >because the moderator there was
> >Cathleen Mann and she and I have always been, and remain good friends.
>
> Yah I wondered why she was such a bitch to me while I refuted Monica's
> BS.
>
> >I am forwarding this to her, Dennis. I never, ever, threatened
> >Cathleeen Mann about anything, so stop the lies.
>
> Monica Pignotti is the liar. Here's the email exchange which proves
> it:
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: FOM discussion group
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:00:01 +0000 (UTC)
tried to post it here herself but was having difficulty and so has
asked me to post it for her. As you'll see she found Dennis "the
perfect bulldog" and "arrongant, vulgar and sexist". Dennis' atrocious
behavior was the "last straw" for the list getting deleted. So that
settles who was perceived as the threatening bully -- not I.
Dr. Mann wrote:
"Dennis's behavior on the FOM list, at the behest and encouragement of
Steve Hassan, was one of the last straws that prompted me, the real
owner of the listserv, to delete the whole listserv, which I did in
January, 2009. Steve Hassan liked to claim it was "his" list, but in
reality he did nothing to contribute to the list other than
occasionally use it as an advertising venue or to appropriate posts
without permission. I no longer associate with or support Steve
Hassan, and this is one of the many reasons. He asked Dennis to come
on the list specifically to attack Monica, and Steve was a coward in
not representing himself. Dennis was the perfect bulldog --
attacking, ad hominen all the time, arrogant, and very vulgar and
sexist. I was glad to be rid of him. I am sorry Steve Hassan has
such a person as a friend, which shows me he has very poor judgment in
this area. Monica attempted to defend herself and Dennis was the
epitome of an angry, hateful person. I am so glad I don't have to
deal with him or Steve Hassan ever again."
Cathleen Mann
For the record, Steve Hassan later told me that he had no idea Dennis
was going to respond to me in such a hateful way and he apologized to
me for bringing Dennis onto the list and I have decided to give Steve
the benefit of the doubt, since he had the decency to apologize.
Monica
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Subject header changed for acccuracy. I tell the truth. Dennis is
>lying because his posting Cathleen's letter does not prove what he
>claims it does because there is nothing whatesoever in there about any
>threats he has lied and said I made to Cathleen. I did not threaten
>Cathleen or anyone else. I simply passed along some info to her --
>which to Dennis, is viewed as a threat.
Funny how *wherever* you go, retarded drama llama bullshit is not far
behind. But it's never *your* fault, no way. It's everyone else, all
the time. What a whining bawwbag.
Andrew Robertson
<snip>
> I wouldn't be at all surprised if your Scientologist ex-wife was telling
> the truth about you .....
Oh Monica, do you really think it a good idea to adopt the techniques of an
organization you subsequently renounced.
Sometimes, if you get really cross with someone it's better to go and make a
cup of tea and then wander off into the garden for a while and tend the
roses and stroke the cat.
Then you can come back and respond, using irony, satire, parody or humour as
your tool.
Make other readers laugh at your attackers, not sympathize with them because
of your intemperate and querulous replies.
Regards
Andrew
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Good question, Ron. I wonder if the IRS knows that Dennis has
>separated himself from the CofS yet still claims the benefits of being
>a Scn Rev.
Quit lying Monica. Where does he claim that?
Monica Pignotti
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:14:54 -0800 (PST), Monica Pignotti
>
I posted his own words that he posted to the Freedom of Mind list serv
that he has not denied posting. He admitted it right here on ARS, so I
suggest you read that.
Monica Pignotti
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:46:48 -0800 (PST), Monica Pignotti
>
> >Good question, Ron. I wonder if the IRS knows that Dennis has
> >separated himself from the CofS yet still claims the benefits of being
> >a Scn Rev.
>
> Quit lying Monica. Where does he claim that?
I'm telling the truth and you owe me an apology. Read this:
From: freedomofm...@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Rev Dennis L
Erlich (infor...@informer.org)
Sent: Mon 1/19/09 2:56 AM
To: freedom of mind (freedomofm...@yahoogroups.com)
jim martin <jimmartin2005@...> wrote:
>I have to admit that monica has asked you a valid question . Who is te
>sanctioning agency for your title.
I'm sorry, you are confused. I thought it was clear that I was
originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology.
As far as the "sanctioning agency" back in those days ministers were
required to register with the State of California, which I did. After
I walked away I didn't withdrawn my registration, so I am still on
file in Sacramento that way.
Throughout the 80's and 90's I ministered to hundreds of people who
had left cults. I am credited with talking a bunch of recovering
cultists who were seriously contemplating suicide, "down from the
ledge." I ran dozens and dozens of cult recovery focus sessions in
Los Angeles and published inFormer Newsletter for ex-members.
In 1997 I incorporated inFormer Ministry in California as a non profit
religious/educational corporation (#2011733) and it was
awarded Federal 501(c)3 status a year later.
The ministry with the help of its volunteers has produced public
Monica Pignotti
>
> <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >There, I proved you wrong. In fact, I dislike my name being the topic,
> >so I changed the topic and put your name in it. Happy now, Scientology
> >Reverend Erlich who lives in an expensive Palm Springs home you could
> >never have afforded without Scientology's help? It's all about you and
> >the source of your title.
>
> So you've become a cyberstalking nutjob just like the other
> thread-renaming whacko. Good job.
No, Dennis initiated this attack on me. I would not have revealed his
posting, had he not first attacked me and lied about me. He did that
so now I have every right to defend myself by revealing what he posted
and the fact that Steve Hassan actually apologized to me for Dennis'
horrible behavior towards me on the freedomofmind list serv.
> Anyway I seem to recall Dennis having had a subG Reverend title since
> at least 1995. In fact, he is unique in not having paid $30 for it.
> Even Ivan Stang paid for his.
Newsflash: Sub Genius is not a valid religion. He has never canceled
his Scientology Reverend registry. He admits that he has been on the
books since 1969 as a Scientology minister and has never had it
removed. If that pisses you off, don't shoot the messenger. Read what
he wrote.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
As far as I am concerned, Dennis is no different from any active SO
member. If anything he's worse because although he has been physically
away from the organization, he has maintained the very worst traits of
Sea Org members -- obvious he was a natural fit for the organization
and will always be, in or out. Dennis has treated me worse than any
active Scientologist ever has and I believe he is an abuser and I
believe his ex-wife was telling the truth about him. That's not
adopting the tactics of Scientology on my part -- it's calling him out
for what he is -- an abuser.
Monica Pignotti
>
> >Good question, Ron. I wonder if the IRS knows that Dennis has
> >separated himself from the CofS yet still claims the benefits of being
> >a Scn Rev.
>
> Quit lying Monica. Where does he claim that?
I suggest you read what I posted that he wrote, in his own words. Or
not, for all I care.
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> So you've become a cyberstalking nutjob just like the other
>> thread-renaming whacko. �Good job.
>No, Dennis initiated this attack on me. I would not have revealed his
>posting, had he not first attacked me and lied about me. He did that
You haven't revealed shit, you lunatic, except your own insanity.
>so now I have every right to defend myself by revealing what he posted
>and the fact that Steve Hassan actually apologized to me for Dennis'
>horrible behavior towards me on the freedomofmind list serv.
BAWWWWWW. If I hadn't seen you act in the same exact way to so many
other people over the last 10+ years I've been watching you, I might
pretend your bullshit passes the giggle test.
But your obsession is nothing new. I'm sure that now I've turned on
you, that like the borderline personality you are, you'll decide that
OSA's right about me, too.
Unlike you, though, I won't decide your cyberstalking sockpuppet buddy
is right about the Pignometer, though, because. . .hey, I'm not a
total fucking moron.
>> Anyway I seem to recall Dennis having had a subG Reverend title since
>> at least 1995. �In fact, he is unique in not having paid $30 for it.
>> Even Ivan Stang paid for his.
>Newsflash: Sub Genius is not a valid religion.
Oh, so now you decide what's a valid religion? FOAD. It's more valid
than Christianity as far as I'm concerned.
>He has never canceled
>his Scientology Reverend registry. He admits that he has been on the
>books since 1969 as a Scientology minister and has never had it
>removed. If that pisses you off, don't shoot the messenger. Read what
>he wrote.
I don't know if you understand this. You're pretty stupid about law
even if you've been in a fairly interesting and probably precedential
case about online defamation. But even the Universal Life Church's
online ordinations are perfectly legally valid, and United States
courts do not inquire into what is a "valid religion." So while you
may place yourself up as some sort of judge of what is and isn't a
"valid religion," it is nothing that flies in the United States, where
such determinations are left to the adherents.
And if inFormer Ministries starts ordaining people themselves, and if
Dennis starts performing marriages, there isn't shit you can do about
it. So FOAD.
You have shown yourself to be a creep who, the moment someone
disagrees with you, you suddenly decide OSA Dead Agent packs about
that person are 100% truth. You showed that in these threads.
You may have gotten a couple degrees since the cult, and found some
P(in)H(ea)Ds to endorse your bullshit, but you're just the same moron
who hung out on the Apollo that you always were, and you can frankly
kiss my ass with your high and mighty bullshit.
It's hilarious that you simultaneously boast about other people acting
like Scientologists, meanwhile you immediately change your tune about
Dennis, and declare the former Rosa Erlich the fount of truth the
moment it becomes convenient for you to do so.
[*ptui*]
Now tell us some more how you totally don't care about what people say
about you. Surely you can tell us that another couple hundred times.
BWAHA.
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>As far as I am concerned, Dennis is no different from any active SO
>member. If anything he's worse because although he has been physically
>away from the organization, he has maintained the very worst traits of
>Sea Org members -- obvious he was a natural fit for the organization
>and will always be, in or out.
That's funny, because Dennis is exactly the same person I've always
known since I met him. He will say whatever he thinks, regardless of
the consequences. That may make him prickly and frankly, I haven't
always agreed with him myself, but I'd rather have a Dennis Erlich,
where I know exactly where I stand with the guy, than a slithering
snake who only suddenly adopts OSA propaganda about me the moment I
disagree with them. You know, like you.
>Dennis has treated me worse than any
>active Scientologist ever has and I believe he is an abuser and I
>believe his ex-wife was telling the truth about him.
Yes, we're already well aware that the moment someone crosses you, you
immediately adopt OSA propaganda about them. That's because you're
still a Scientologist at heart. "Since you disagree with me, I gotta
ask you this. . .when did you stop beating your wife?"
But let's analyze your fucking bullshit about "worse than any active
Scientologist." After all, all Dennis has done is disagree with you
in a public forum. Let's go back into your own book and see what
"active Scientologists" have done to you, at least according to you,
if you weren't just lying and making stuff up, like you seem to do
from time to time.
You were thrown on the RPF. You claim (if you weren't making it up)
that: "It is difficult to describe the pain I felt that day. One
moment, I would feel numb with shock and the next, I would burst into
uncontrollable tears."
So, from day to day, after Dennis Erlich disagreeing with you on a
newsgroup, do you feel "numb with shock" and are you at the next
moment "burst[ing] into uncontrollable tears?"
Does Dennis Erlich force you to spend every waking hour performing
menial tasks? Does Dennis Erlich separate you from your parents, as
Scientology did?
In your story (if you didn't make it up) about Scientology, you claim
that Scientology forced your friend Quentin Hubbard to uphold your
sentencing to the RPF, even though you know he didn't agree with it.
In other words, active Scientologists had one of your best friends,
Quentin, send you back to the RPF.
If you are honestly willing to stand here today and tell us that
Dennis Erlich, by disagreeing with you on a newsgroup, has done WORSE
than that, all I can say is you are either crazier than the nutjob who
is stalking you, or that you are a FUCKING LIAR.
>That's not
>adopting the tactics of Scientology on my part -- it's calling him out
>for what he is -- an abuser.
And I'm calling you out for what you are. A liar or a delusional
idiot. Your choice.
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Nov 16, 6:12�pm, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:46:48 -0800 (PST), Monica Pignotti
>>
>> <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >Good question, Ron. I wonder if the IRS knows that Dennis has
>> >separated himself from the CofS yet still claims the benefits of being
>> >a Scn Rev.
>>
>> Quit lying Monica. �Where does he claim that? �
>
>I'm telling the truth and you owe me an apology. Read this:
No, you're telling utter bullshit. I don't know if Dennis knows this,
but since he runs a 501(c)(3), I assume he knows that he could legally
not only ordain himself, but pretty much anyone else he felt like. You
don't appear to have any kind of grasp of the First Amendment, and
what it means about the ability of anyone to start any kind of
religion they feel like.
Perhaps this is because of your extreme stupidity. But I won't
speculate.
henri
Nothing in what you quoted supported your lie that Dennis Erlich holds
himself out as a Scientology minister. You apparently believe you can
just paste any random text you like to support your lies, claim that
it supports them, and then continue lying. Sorry. Wrong, moron.
John Dorsay
Obviously???? One trivial data point proves that Dennis still
thinks like a brainwashed cultie?
I've been known to use cult jargon from time to time, myself.
Obviously I still think in Scn terms too. FWIW, I've never even
been in the cult. Not that I am questioning your reasoning, of course.
> that the bogus AT crowd who has been cyberstalking me for months now
> as my victims. He completely tries to turn things around on me, which
> is typical behavior for an abusive personality. He has been far more
> abusive to me than any active Scientologist has ever been.
You know, your hysterical overreactions here *will* be used by your
insane cyberstalkers to deflect from your perfectly sound criticisms
of their pseudoscientific justifications for child abuse. I wish I
could do something to prevent that, but I can't. Only you can. The
best thing you can do to not provide them with ammunition is to take
a few days away from ars. Please consider it.
John
realpch
<snip>
> You know, your hysterical overreactions here *will* be used by your
> insane cyberstalkers to deflect from your perfectly sound criticisms
> of their pseudoscientific justifications for child abuse. I wish I
> could do something to prevent that, but I can't. Only you can. The
> best thing you can do to not provide them with ammunition is to take
> a few days away from ars. Please consider it.
>
> John
Seconded. Motzarella or ES wasn't up for me the past couple of days,
mostly, and I was surprised to come back and see all the Monica/Dennis
posts. The anonymous stalker must be chuckling in his beer. I must
mention that it appears that nobody approves of the damn stalker, and
it's a shame to see the fight spreading elsewhere.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Ted Mayett
<info...@informer.org> wrote:
>Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>pigno
>>You had better watch yourself, Dennis,
>
>Oooo! Another empty threat. Vewy Skawy!
>
>>because the moderator there was
>>Cathleen Mann and she and I have always been, and remain good friends.
>
>Yah I wondered why she was such a bitch to me while I refuted Monica's
>BS.
>
Just to help your memory out later... You never called the woman a
bitch, you simply said she was 'hostile' or something like that.
Because your not crudely sexist at all. You did not shorten Monica's
last name from pignotti to 'pigno' because you are too refined and
grand to do something like that.
If someone brings this up a year from now, this 'bitch' and 'pigno'
thing, simply deny that it happened, just change the subject to
something else. Certainly you are not sexist.
--
Ted Mayett
Critical information regarding Scientology
http://www.solitarytrees.net
Monica Pignotti
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:27:22 -0800 (PST), Monica Pignotti
>
No, I am far from "numb with shock" or "bursting into uncontrollable
tears" because I am not in the Sea Org and Dennis has no control over
my life whatsoever. I have not shed one tear over this. Not one.
Mostly, I am disgusted by his behavior, so stop trying to distort
things, Rob. When I said his behavior has been worse towards me than
any active Scientologist, what I meant was his behavior towards me has
been worse towards me as a Scientology critic than active
Scientologist has ever treated me since I have been speaking out
against Scientology, not while I was in it. I thought it was clear
that I was speaking in the context of Scientologists' behavior towards
critics. That's what I meant, not while I was in although that example
you gave of Quentin being forced to be part of putting me back in the
RPF, I do consider Dennis' behavior worse than that because Dennis is
supposedly out of the cult and a free agent. Quentin was not and he
did not do it in a malicious way, as Dennis is in attacking me. People
in the cult have the excuse of being under undue influence. Dennis no
longer has such an excuse after having been out for 25+ years.
The fact I do not have the same response to Dennis that I had in the
Sea Org does not mean his behavior is any different. It is the
situation, not his behavior that has changed. I am talking about his
actual behavior, not the consequences of his behavior, which have
everything to do with the situation and the fact he has no power, and
nothing to do with the behavior itself.
He is behaving like a Sea Org member but because I am not in the Sea
Org and he has no power over me, I am far from being his victim, but
it is outrageously ridiculous that you would accuse me of stalking
him. The fact is that I had no intention whatsoever of bringing up the
topic of the FOM discussion until Dennis brought it up and lied that I
was threatening Cathleen Mann. The letter he posted from Cathleen Mann
said nothing at all about any threats. What really happened is that I
mentioned to Cathleen Mann the Dennis had some sort of court
settlement with the Scientologists, that I didn't know exactly what it
was but that I thought she ought to be aware of this and maybe ASK him
about. Cathleen, who is very knowledgeable about legal matters
expressed concern that this could result in legal liability for the
list so she was asked Dennis about it. That is hardly a threat on my
part.
Even worse was Dennis' timing on bringing up this topic. He did so,
attacking me and hurling false accusations at me on a thread where I
was being attacked by an anonymous person who has been literally
posting hundreds of false postings about me, attacking me because I
have been an activist, fighting for children who have been abused by
the bogus therapy he promotes. Dennis comes onto this thread and
attacks me with lies. This shows his unbelievable cruelty, not to
mention lies and distortions. No, I am not bursting into tears or
upset about it. Like I said, mainly I am appalled and disgusted at his
behavior and how some people will support anyone who is against
Scientology, no matter how horrible their behavior is. That has
repeatedly been the basis for conflict I have had with certain anti-
Scientologists here on ARS, is that some will support any horrible
behavior, as long as the person is against Scientology. I suppose what
that shows is that people who are against something might have very
little, if anything actually in common and that the enemy of my enemy
is not necessarily my friend.
You say Dennis is exactly the same person he has been since you have
known him? I couldn't agree more, Rob. His personality has
consistently been one that is very compatible with the Sea Org
personality and he demonstrates this here, coming on here, bringing up
what should have been a dead issue to lie about me (I did not threaten
Cathleen Mann and she confirmed this in her statement that it is
Dennis, not me, she has a problem with and she states that Dennis was
the main reason the list serv got deleted) and attack me when I am
being attacked by a cultist. This is despicable, shameful behavior on
his part and I will not hesitate to say so just because he is anti-
Scientology while still holding onto his Scientology reverend
registration, by his own admission. Dennis brought up the topic so he
has no right to whine about my posting the truth about him and as
people can see from Cathleen Mann's statements I am far from being
alone in my perception of him as a despicable excuse for a human
being.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
It is not my response that is being used by my cyberstalker. It is
Dennis' and now Rob Clark's attacking me and the irrational feeding
frenzy that has resulted. My cyberstalker's response to this is
inevitable, regardless of how I respond, although my response of
refuting his lies and calling him out for what he is, is hardly
"hysterical" nor am I the only one who has had this response to
Dennis, as Cathleen's statement makes evident. My characterization is
not a "hysterical overreaction". In my experience speaking out against
Scientology as a Scientology critic, no active Scientologist has come
even close to the horrible behavior Dennis has been exhibiting towards
me. Note that I am referring to behavior towards me since I have been
an ex-Scientologist, not while I was in since of course, Dennis does
not have that kind of power over me.
Dennis chose to attack me and bring up what I thought was a dead
issue, lying that I threatened Cathleen Mann when by her own
statement, I did no such thing and it was Dennis who was the last
straw for her and led her to delete the Freedomofmind list serv. In
the discussion on the now defunct FOM list serv, several people tried
to gently and politely ask Dennis about his "Rev" credential, gently
and tactfully pointing out that when a person uses the title "Rev" it
is usually assumed that they had some kind of schooling in a religious
tradition. Not so with Dennis, who's only schooling is in Scientology
and he has no more formal training in any religious tradition than
many lay people do. While it is true that he never claimed to have any
formal training or education, when people see the Rev title in someone
engaged in anti cult work and pastoral counseling, the assumption they
usually make is that the person has some kind of formal seminary
training and Dennis really needs to clarify on his website where his
Rev comes from and he needs to provide informed consent to people that
his 1969 registration as a Scientology minister remains in effect.
That way, people can make an informed choice of whether this is
someone they wish to receive post cult help from.
At any rate, you are right, I will not sit here and be the target of
this irrational feeding frenzy. I have said what I have to say, I have
posted Cathleen's statement correcting Dennis' lies, so I will not
engage in further dialogue with these irrational individuals who it is
obvious are not open to evidence or reason. I have real friends who
respect me and respect my work and much better things to do with my
time than try to reason with the likes of Dennis Erlich and Rob Clark,
an impossible task.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
> "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ynh
>
> >> In 1997 I incorporated inFormer Ministry in California as a non profit
> >> religious/educational corporation (#2011733) and it was
> >> awarded Federal 501(c)3 status a year later.
>
>
> >So the IRS recognizes him as a religion, entitled to baaaw to the US State
> >Department if some country is dubious about it.
>
> grasping at straws; lying with specious ad-hominem in her lame
> attempts to refute what I say. That's all she's got.
>
> >What? It's only Scientology that gets that deal? Nooooooo!
>
> authorities on who has a right to practice their religion.
The US govt also recognizes the Church of Scientology as a religion,
so by your line of reasoning, you must feel that the CofS is also a
legitimate religion.
> She alone is the supreme authority on my religious calling, she
> thinks.
Wrong. Just because I don't bow down to and agree with every
government decision, does not mean that I consider myself a "supreme
authority" on this -- that is a ridiculous distortion of my position
that is typical of you. The "supreme authority" is reason and reality,
nothing more, nothing less. You have done nothing to change your 1969
registration as a Scientology minister. That is a fact you have
admitted to, nothing to do with any kind of assertion of "supreme
authority", only pointing out what you wrote. You are the authority
here and you wrote what you wrote. My posting your own words is hardly
an assertion of authority. You either are still registered as a
Scientology minister since 1969, as you state, or you are not. So
which is it? Were you lying about that?
Monica
> D
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>
>Nothing in what you quoted supported your lie that Dennis Erlich holds
>himself out as a Scientology minister. You apparently believe you can
>just paste any random text you like to support your lies, claim that
>it supports them, and then continue lying. Sorry. Wrong, moron.
It seemed quite clear, Erlich says he was:
"I'm sorry, you are confused. I thought it was clear that I was
originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology.
As far as the "sanctioning agency" back in those days ministers were
required to register with the State of California, which I did. After
I walked away I didn't withdrawn my registration, so I am still on
file in Sacramento that way."
What gets me is that Erlich is one of those "all the tech is junk"
people. Carrying on and on over the years how bad and lousy and
terrible all of it is, the tech, and hubbard and all of it. And yet I
recall no public shedding of this scientology administered Reverend
title as being junk and useless.
OTOH, maybe it was that scientology title that got the tax exempt
status, I don't know. Sure any of us can create a religion out of
thin air. But getting a tax exempt status from the irs is not that
simple, at least I don't think it is simple. And maybe once you have
it you do nothing to rock the boat.
Tell you what gets me though, it is this statement by Erlich:
"I'm sorry, you are confused. I thought it was clear that I was
originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology."
He says, "I was originally ordained...". And this is said by the same
guy who carries on about 'hubbard turds and hubbard droppings' and so
on. Just a constant never ending, never changing, belittlement of the
man (hubbard) and his works. He cannot put this down often enough, he
cannot tell us loud enough, just how weak, bad, pitiful, useless and
everything else this Tech is, and hubbard of course.
And yet, when the moment demands it, suddenly he was ORDAINED. And he
says this, "I was originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by
scientology." Suddenly this is not dreck, not junk, not garbage.
Suddenly it is a title with meaning. Something to present to the IRS
or state agencies or whatever needs to be done. And not only that,
but never denounce this, never shed it, but rather use it when you
think it would be proper.
But excuuuuuussssseee me, I think this is all bogus. Although there
is of course freedom of religion, so it is allowed, even legally.
But spare me please if I'm supposed to assign any weight, significance
or honesty to some scientology "reverend" title. I know those people
are brain dead, full of themselves, and they have no problem telling
small lies, most of them anyway. They lie to each other, they lie to
themselves. A few of them tell another one of them that "you are a
reverend now" and that one gets all excited and happy and tells
everyone "I am a reverend now". Fine, good, freedom of speech and
freedom of religion.
You would expect a fallen priest to either surrender the title or to
stay loyal to the faith. Why not expect the same from a scn minister?
How would you openly mock and belittle god and jesus and still call
yourself a priest? But by some magic you can belittle scn and still
say of yourself that you are an ordained scn minister.
I wonder, in a very idle fashion, very slightly, if Dennis is a
Reverend because Scientology told him he is a Reverend. Because he
met the requirements of the Tech to become a Reverend.
I would hope Dennis is answering to a higher calling than a checksheet
in a courseroom. But if so, then why ever bring up the ordaining by
scn in 1969? For certainly that ordaining is as bogus as *ALL* the
tech is bogus.
Money makes the world go round. That's my take on it all. That
'ordained scn reverend' is as useless as the paper it is printed on.
Except where it can used for financial gain.
How does a person tell others that scn is a fraud and all of it
useless but still use titles earned in scn? Well, the lord does work
in mysterious ways....
Dennis L Erlich
yhn
>>> > I bet she has done the same kind of disinfo campaigns to others who
>>> > are less able to defend themselves. Now she complains that it is
>>> > being done to her. Boofuckinghoo. If there ever were a use for
>>> > scieno-babble, it's pretty obvious she "pulled in" her current
>>> > flea-brained tormenters.
pigno
>>Dennis Erlich is NOW supporting
>> bogus attachment interventions because that is who is attacking me
>> with this all out smear campaign. Ever hear of Candace Newmaker,
john
>Get a fucking grip, Monica. Criticism of you does not imply support
>for your flea-brained tormenters. That you think otherwise shows
>how distorted your perspective has become.
This is exactly the kind of twisting bullshit she did on FOM. Because
I think she's an idiot, I must therefore support some other twit she
managed to drag over to ars who is trolling her.
It makes perfect Ronsesnse.
pigno
>> Dennis? It is my advocacy group that is being attacked here and by
>> ganging up with the bogus "attachment" therapists, you are siding with
>> bogus killer therapies. See:
Twistoid.
>Trolling asshole Gregory Hall has been baiting you with considerable
>success too. Do you seriously think he has anything to do with
>Federici et al? If you answered "yes" to the preceding question, I
>urge you to step back from ars for a reality check.
Good plan. She should step waaay back.
Eldon
You both became waaaay tedious quite awhile back.
Dennis L Erlich
>Maureeen, I'm not surprised you would be a sympathetic
>apologist towards a dangerous, bogus therapy rather than recognize
>what the real situation.
What a fucking wacko. Anyone who criticizes or comments negatively
about her is equal and supporting anyone else who thinks she's FOS.
Dennis L Erlich
>> I don't see where he sided with the "attachment" quacks. He criticized
>> your attitude.
Actually I criticized her lame rhetorical tricks.
>I can find nothing in his posts that defends Federici
>> et Cie. Did I miss it? If so, can you point it out to me?
Nope, she can't. She just pulls this shit outta her ass and posts it
thinking the reader is so stupid we won't notice the smell.
D
Dennis L Erlich
>Contrary to the innuendo, that by not criticizing attachment therapy,
>I think it's OK, those are your words placed in my mouth.
These are the kind of lame rhetorical tricks she thinks fools people
into believing she is being attacked when actually she is the
attacker.
Dennis L Erlich
>Oh and by the way, Dennis, Steve Hassan and I have worked things out
>and resolved our differences and you might be interested in knowing
>that Steve apologized to me for YOU. He admitted that inviting you to
>come onto the Freedomofmind list serv was a big mistake on his part
>because he hadn't realized how nasty you were going to be. Given that
>he admitted his mistake, I have forgiven him.
Hay, that's between Steve and her. If Steve wants to lie down with
pigs, all I can say is he's gonna end up getting dirty.
I have my own bones to pick with Monica.
Dennis L Erlich
>It sounds like you're caught up in throwing bad dirt and
>you are now on the receiving end.
Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein. ~Proverb
henri
<ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:18:05 -0500, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Nothing in what you quoted supported your lie that Dennis Erlich holds
>>himself out as a Scientology minister. You apparently believe you can
>>just paste any random text you like to support your lies, claim that
>>it supports them, and then continue lying. Sorry. Wrong, moron.
>
>It seemed quite clear, Erlich says he was:
>"I'm sorry, you are confused. I thought it was clear that I was
>originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology.
What about "originally" versus "now" confuses you?
Just wondering.
henri
So therefore, really Dennis couldn't POSSIBLY be worse than people who
reduced you to that state. I.e. you were completely full of shit when
you made that hysterical, hyperbolic claim that somehow, someone
disagreeing with you on Usenet was worse than throwing you onto the
RPF.
Because frankly, that just jumped out as being total bullshit.
>I have not shed one tear over this. Not one.
So in other words, it wasn't remotely worse than Scientology. You
were just bullshitting and exaggerating and being a drama llama.
>Mostly, I am disgusted by his behavior, so stop trying to distort
>things, Rob.
Just quoting the dumb shit you said back at you. Sorry you find that
so distressing you feel the need to freak out about it.
>When I said his behavior has been worse towards me than
>any active Scientologist, what I meant was his behavior towards me has
>been worse towards me as a Scientology critic than active
>Scientologist has ever treated me since I have been speaking out
>against Scientology, not while I was in it.
That's basically gibberish to me. So you're basically saying that
disagreeing with you is somehow a vile crime. Get a load of yourself,
nutcase.
>I thought it was clear
>that I was speaking in the context of Scientologists' behavior towards
>critics.
So in other words, we shouldn't take what you said as meaning what you
actually said, but something you want us to think you meant, only
after someone pointed out how ridiculous what you actually said was.
We're supposed to pretend it meant something else instead. Because
even you admit what you *actually* said was pretty fuckin' stupid.
If you'll remember it, what you *actually* said was THIS crock of
bullshit:
"Dennis has treated me worse than any active Scientologist ever has. .
." Then you went on to claim that since Dennis disagreed with you,
you now fully agreed with OSA about him.
Sort of like you did to me.
I should throw in a swear word of some sort here to give you magical
absolution to claim that since I said a cuss word, I'm automatically
wrong. But I won't fucking do that, you cunt.
>That's what I meant, not while I was in although that example
>you gave of Quentin being forced to be part of putting me back in the
>RPF, I do consider Dennis' behavior worse than that because Dennis is
>supposedly out of the cult and a free agent. Quentin was not and he
>did not do it in a malicious way, as Dennis is in attacking me. People
>in the cult have the excuse of being under undue influence. Dennis no
>longer has such an excuse after having been out for 25+ years.
Amazing. You really think bizarre twisto-logic like this somehow gets
you out of a statement like you actually originally made? I guess if
so, I should just say cunt a couple times. That way, nothing you do
in response can possibly be held against you.
>The fact I do not have the same response to Dennis that I had in the
>Sea Org does not mean his behavior is any different.
It certainly does, I mean unless you're a total moron. His behavior
is disagreeing with you on a Usenet newsgroup. I mean, how stupid are
you? How could you possibly get an advanced degree and be stupid
enough to make a patently idiotic statement like this?
Can he throw you onto the RPF? Is he in your face screaming at you?
If you don't want to read his posts, killfile him, you brainless
idiot.
>It is the
>situation, not his behavior that has changed. I am talking about his
>actual behavior, not the consequences of his behavior, which have
>everything to do with the situation and the fact he has no power, and
>nothing to do with the behavior itself.
So in other words, it is the fact you are a hypersensitive nut that
makes his behavior (i.e. disagreeing with you instead of just letting
the bullshit you post about him stand uncorrected) somehow worse than
cultists acting in a completely coercive environment.
Jesus Christ. Get on meds if you're really this fucking insane.
OMG I just said a word starting in "f" so that means you're
automatically right even though you're a twitching, frothing nut. I
forgot that rule that using any profanity in describing bullshit
automatically makes the nutcase who inspired the shout of "BULLSHIT"
right.
Please punish me, Mrs. Grundy.
>He is behaving like a Sea Org member but because I am not in the Sea
>Org and he has no power over me, I am far from being his victim, but
>it is outrageously ridiculous that you would accuse me of stalking
>him.
I was just mocking your own "stalking" accusations. I guess it's only
stalking when you're the "victim."
>The fact is that I had no intention whatsoever of bringing up the
>topic of the FOM discussion until Dennis brought it up and lied that I
>was threatening Cathleen Mann. The letter he posted from Cathleen Mann
>said nothing at all about any threats.
What he cited certainly supported his statements more than yours.
Which is probably why you're still frothing about them.
>What really happened is that I
>mentioned to Cathleen Mann the Dennis had some sort of court
>settlement with the Scientologists, that I didn't know exactly what it
>was but that I thought she ought to be aware of this and maybe ASK him
>about. Cathleen, who is very knowledgeable about legal matters
>expressed concern that this could result in legal liability for the
>list so she was asked Dennis about it. That is hardly a threat on my
>part.
All this shows is that wherever you go, the drama llamas are not far
behind. But it's never, ever, ever your fault. It's all those other
bad people.
>Even worse was Dennis' timing on bringing up this topic. He did so,
>attacking me and hurling false accusations at me on a thread where I
>was being attacked by an anonymous person who has been literally
>posting hundreds of false postings about me, attacking me because I
>have been an activist, fighting for children who have been abused by
>the bogus therapy he promotes. Dennis comes onto this thread and
>attacks me with lies. This shows his unbelievable cruelty, not to
>mention lies and distortions. No, I am not bursting into tears or
>upset about it. Like I said, mainly I am appalled and disgusted at his
>behavior and how some people will support anyone who is against
>Scientology, no matter how horrible their behavior is. That has
>repeatedly been the basis for conflict I have had with certain anti-
>Scientologists here on ARS, is that some will support any horrible
>behavior, as long as the person is against Scientology. I suppose what
>that shows is that people who are against something might have very
>little, if anything actually in common and that the enemy of my enemy
>is not necessarily my friend.
You have yet to identify a single lie, other than your own whining.
>You say Dennis is exactly the same person he has been since you have
>known him? I couldn't agree more, Rob.
Good! Then we're finally agreed on something. Sorry you've become a
bitter, twisted nutjob since then. Consider getting a life.
henri
idiotic subject line that nutjob replaced it with]
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:41:59 -0500, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>It is not my response that is being used by my cyberstalker. It is
>Dennis' and now Rob Clark's attacking me and the irrational feeding
>frenzy that has resulted.
Oh, cry some more. Like you're the only person who has ever been
stalked by some cyber-nutjob. The fact that you are being stalked by
a nutjob (who you frankly probably deserve because of your own idiocy)
does not mean you're magically immune from being critized.
You're frankly only marginally less crazy than the nutjobs you
attract. There's a reason you're a nutjob magnet and that's that
you're a nutjob yourself.
henri
>John Dorsay wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> You know, your hysterical overreactions here *will* be used by your
>> insane cyberstalkers to deflect from your perfectly sound criticisms
>> of their pseudoscientific justifications for child abuse. I wish I
>> could do something to prevent that, but I can't. Only you can. The
>> best thing you can do to not provide them with ammunition is to take
>> a few days away from ars. Please consider it.
>>
>> John
>
>Seconded. Motzarella or ES wasn't up for me the past couple of days,
>mostly, and I was surprised to come back and see all the Monica/Dennis
>posts. The anonymous stalker must be chuckling in his beer. I must
>mention that it appears that nobody approves of the damn stalker, and
>it's a shame to see the fight spreading elsewhere.
What's even more pathetic is that Monica has apparently gone so
batshit crazy that she actually thinks anyone who thinks *she* is
acting like a nut somehow magically agrees with the batshit psychopath
who is stalking her. Even though it's entirely possible to think
Monica is nuts while at the same time thinking her stalker is even
more nuts, and on top of that, a moron.
Jommy Cross
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in msg
<aa59ade1-8e06-4395...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>you are a genuine
>Scn minister?
<snip>
There's a phrase you don't see very often.
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Maureen
> On Nov 16, 11:13 pm, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:27:22 -0800 (PST), Monica Pignotti
> He is behaving like a Sea Org member but because I am not in the Sea
> Org and he has no power over me,
<snip>
There are sometimes ways that the need to heal rears it's ugly head.
The first person Monica should help is herself.
>
> Monica
Ted Mayett
wrote:
You are splitting hairs, and with somebody who doesn't care in the
slightest. I'm just reading along and suddenly I realize what our
favorite potty-mouth reverend on ars is saying:
" I was originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology."
One of the funny things about this is that if a current monkey came
along on the ng, and said he was an ordained minister from the church
of scientology. Well we would all laugh loud and long at that.
It is the year of our Lord, 1969. Hubbard is alive and well, running
things, still cranking out policy letters and tech in general. And
they need that irs recognition as a religion, for both financial and
legal reasons. They NEED this! So some of them put on priest
collars, they call each other Reverends, they have a big laugh because
of this act they are putting on for the benefit of wogs.
For at this time of history scientology is solely and purely a
science. An exact and Standard Tech science which when applied
standardly gives uniform results. No faith, no beliefs, it is purely
an exact science.
Let's not call our potty-mouth reverend an apostle, but he is hand
picked by hubbard himself for some position of power and authority.
Which is interesting. I never met hubbard myself, but if I had, no
way he picks me for anything, I don't have what it takes to be hand
picked. Heck, even in the orgs in vegas the lifers ~knew~ I wouldn't
make it as a long term hard core member. But this is not about me.
I suddenly realize that after all these years of putting down hubbard
and the tech as useless, lies, fraud, and other things like this.
That after all these years of doing this, suddenly Dennis types in
about the ordained scn minister... as though it had meaning.
And I suddenly realize, WTF is this? How can this be? And I think to
myself that this guy is not retarded, he knows good and well that the
title of scn ordained minister is not worth the paper it is printed
on. He knows this. You know this. We all know this. It is an
empty, useless, nothing title. A scam, a lie, a fraud. Today, it
could well be different. But in 1969, well give me a break already,
but in '69 it was purely and totally and 100% a scam that religious
angle.
1966, around that time, this one critic, reputable, says he had been
in three different orgs and each and every time scientology was
presented as a science. Was it about 1999 or maybe a little later
when they switched over, in the orgs, to calling it a religion? Point
being, and to make it again. In 1969 nobody in there was stupid
enough to believe scn was a religion. And if there were members that
dumb, which is possible, it would not have been someone hand picked by
the Master for power and authority.
So I think to myself, Dennis *knows* his 1969 title of Ordained
Scientology Minister was totally, fully, 100% bogus, a scam, a lie.
But wait, let us be gracious here. Let us accept that hubbard changed
the definitions of words and Dennis thought the word 'reverend' had
nothing to do with a belief in god. That's fine for 1969. But 40
years later the guy types in:
"I was originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology."
On a message board or whatever it was they ask him where his title of
'reverend' stems from. His first words are "ordained minister scn".
puhhhlease, that crap isn't worth the paper it is printed on, to
repeat myself. You know this Rob, we all know this.
Hubbard paid lip service to god, the concept of god. But in scn per
hubbard *we* are the gods, the god. We do it all. It was you Rob who
created this universe we are in. Well it was Monica and you. And
Barbara Schwartz. And President Obama and etc. There is no god in
scientology, no heaven, no hell.
Typing now I wonder what Dennis actually believes, case in point, does
he believe in the Whole Track. Can he tell us stories of the
different lives he has had on different planets on the Whole Track.
Well I don't know what he actually believes, but on his web site he
employs the 'god' angle, that I know. Get on his web site, there it
is, the word 'god'. And as Monica points out, no mention of his
having been originally Ordained as a Scientology Minister. And I
guess you can't fault him for not mentioning that, it is kind of a
negative thing, and bogus, a fraud.
Don't split hairs with me young fellow. You are still young. You
will meet potty-mouthed self proclaimed ministers of god as your days
pass. You may never again though meet one of them saying, as though
it has any meaning whatsoever, that they were at one time Ordained as
a Scientology Minister.
And I call you a hypocrite Rob, and again to repeat myself, if
somebody came on this ng today saying they were a scn ordained
minister you would LOL. And rightfully so. Although today the title
might just have a meaning being that things have changed. But in 1969
that entire religion angle was solely and only a fraud.
Here are Dennis's words again, and to me these are exactly the kind of
words I expect from self proclaimed ministers of god:
"I'm sorry, you are confused. I thought it was clear that I was
originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology.
As far as the "sanctioning agency" back in those days ministers were
required to register with the State of California, which I did. After
I walked away I didn't withdrawn my registration, so I am still on
file in Sacramento that way."
And I don't care what days you are talking about, ministers are not
*required* to register with anything or anybody, unless they want the
tax advantages of being a minister. Ex-felons, sex offenders, these
types might be *required* to register. But a servant of god, doing
the lords work, is not required to register for anything.
Dennis is just another predator preying on the weak. He was dishonest
in 1969 when he accepted that title, he is dishonest today. He is
just another self proclaimed potty-mouthed reverend, nothing special
at all. Just run of the mill, a product of our society, of our
freedom of religion society. No qualifications needed, honesty not
required, just call yourself a minster of god and that is enough.
For these words 'reverend' and 'minister' do carry a meaning, a
definition, an accepted standard. But you can do word play and you
are not breaking any laws.
What kind of man spends his time, his years, telling people how bogus,
how useless, and how fraudulent is scientology. And then, when
needed, says:
"I was originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology."
Oh spare me already! And personally I'm not going to do anything
whatsoever about this, not even a free online petition! There are the
weak among us, and there are predators out there searching for them.
Such is the way of things, bummer.
If you are reading Dennis, perhaps tell us, 27 billion years ago, on
the planet Thragg. You know what I mean, back then, before you became
a minister of god, what was going on?
Maureen
> Maureen<lermanet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Contrary to the innuendo, that by not criticizing attachment therapy,
> >I think it's OK, those are your words placed in my mouth.
>
> These are the kind of lame rhetorical tricks she thinks fools people
> into believing she is being attacked when actually she is the
> attacker.
As never have bein 'in" $cientology, I cannot distinguish the
difference between the autonomy of past cult indoctrination, and an
entirely calculated offensive - as it looks entirely calculated. No
one just drops in and starts whacking without it looking entirely
staged. As well - having been in is no excuse, when statements of
awareness of these tactics are being made against others.
Additionally, one doesn't just come and start chopping at other cult
experts at ones own expense. The maturity level fails.
Maureen
Monica
Thank you, Ted, for calling Dennis out. Dennis' admission is
undeniable, when he wrote:
"I'm sorry, you are confused. I thought it was clear that I was
originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology.
As far as the "sanctioning agency" back in those days ministers were
required to register with the State of California, which I did. After
I walked away I didn't withdrawn my registration, so I am still on
file in Sacramento that way."
and that is why I am being attacked. He wrote what he wrote and there
is no way to refute it. He has remained on file in Sacramento as a
Scientology minister, by his own admission. People can draw their own
conclusions as to how honest they think this is, when he has obviously
repudiated all the teachings of Scientology and no longer believes in
it, yet does not bother to tell the State of California about this.
Monica
Monica
You brought this up, Dennis. I would have been more than happy to let
the matter go, which was why until you brought it up, I never raised
the issue here. Now that you have raised it, though, I defend myself
and no one can blame me. Thus, you have brought this on yourself and I
exposure your admission that you are still registered in California as
a Scientology Minister:
"I'm sorry, you are confused. I thought it was clear that I was
originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology.
As far as the "sanctioning agency" back in those days ministers were
required to register with the State of California, which I did. After
I walked away I didn't withdrawn my registration, so I am still on
file in Sacramento that way."
-- Dennis Erlich, January, 2009
So even though you clearly no longer believe in Scientology, you
remain registered with the state of California "that way". In my
opinion, which people are free to agree or disagree with, this is
dishonest and fraudulent.
Monica
henri
<ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:28:49 -0500, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid>
>One of the funny things about this is that if a current monkey came
>along on the ng, and said he was an ordained minister from the church
>of scientology. Well we would all laugh loud and long at that.
Probably at the fact they were a Scientologist. But it wouldn't make
marriages where they officiated any less legal. The legal effect of
them being a minister would be exactly the same.
Anyway, Dennis could ordain people himself based on his own 501(c)(3)
ministry, with the same legal effect as if the Anglican Church
ordained someone.
Why what's this? http://www.informer.org/ordination.html
henri
<freedom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So even though you clearly no longer believe in Scientology, you
>remain registered with the state of California "that way". In my
>opinion, which people are free to agree or disagree with, this is
>dishonest and fraudulent.
Libel. Do you even know what the elements of fraud are? Probably
not. You're a kook. I'll gladly explain them for you.
There must be a representation of fact; it must be material, i.e.
actually of some significance; it must be false; the speaker must be
aware that it is false; as well, must intend that another person rely
on the belief that it is false; the other person must not know that it
is false; the other person must actually rely on the false statement;
they must have been reasonable to rely upon it; and damages must have
been suffered.
If you seriously think that Dennis is representing himself as a
Scientology minister, that people are relying on this and being
deprived of money or anything else as a result of reasonably believing
Dennis to be a Scientology minister, because he's selling them
Scientology services under false pretenses, I'd like your argument for
how these elements are met.
You basically are accusing him of a crime. That's libel per se.
If you seriously think Dennis is committing the crime of fraud, you're
an utter MORON. Your obsession has caused you to suffer a break with
reality.
Jommy Cross
<ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote in msg
<l3eag5tl9b8vsg57j...@4ax.com>:
<snip>
>What kind of man spends his time, his years, telling people how bogus,
>how useless, and how fraudulent is scientology. And then, when
>needed, says:
> "I was originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology."
But who would know better how bogus, useless and fraudulent are Hubbard's
claims?
So what are you saying? He *wasn't* originally ordained as a minister in
1969 by $cientology?
And I guess you checked he wasn't ordained by anyone or anything else
since?
Android Cat
news:a198cbaf-5136-4a9c...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 16, 1:46 am, "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> > From: freedomofm...@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Rev Dennis L
>> > Erlich (infor...@informer.org)
>> > Sent: Mon 1/19/09 2:56 AM
>> > To: freedom of mind (freedomofm...@yahoogroups.com)
>> > In 1997 I incorporated inFormer Ministry in California as a non profit
>> > religious/educational corporation (#2011733) and it was
>> > awarded Federal 501(c)3 status a year later.
>>
>> State
>> Department if some country is dubious about it.
>>
>
> separated himself from the CofS yet still claims the benefits of being
> a Scn Rev.
Suppose Dennis had been a Baptist. Would you object if he'd retained his
501(c)3 status after he left the Southern Baptist Convention?
As I understand (which could be quite wrong) the Roman Catholics can't
completely degrade someone from the priesthood ("Thou are a priest
forever"), which is why a quick auto-de-flamb� for heretic priests was
sometimes on the menu.
And are you coming out and saying that Scientology's One Week Reverends
don't count compared to the otherwise high standards common in many places:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2311026_obtain-ministers-license.html
--
Ron of that ilk.
JR
sole function is to turn the inventor (and/or user) into a batshit
raving lunatic, and forces the user to respond to every Kook and crazy
who makes a post with her name in it... and it seems to be working
100% perfectly...
so when do these puppies hit the market? I might buy several and give
them out as Festivus gifts...
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 11 years!
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:28:49 -0500, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> What kind of man spends his time, his years, telling people how bogus,
> how useless, and how fraudulent is scientology. And then, when
> needed, says:
> "I was originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology."
>
> Oh spare me already! And personally I'm not going to do anything
> whatsoever about this, not even a free online petition! There are the
> weak among us, and there are predators out there searching for them.
> Such is the way of things, bummer.
>
> If you are reading Dennis, perhaps tell us, 27 billion years ago, on
> the planet Thragg. You know what I mean, back then, before you became
> a minister of god, what was going on?
>
> --
> Ted Mayett
> Critical information regarding Scientologyhttp://www.solitarytrees.net
Ted,
The year 1969 jumped out at me..
It was 1969 when auditors were ORDERED to wear clerical collars,
and PC Folder Admin turned into "Confessional Formulary."... and a
cross was dragged in through the front door and placed in the lecture
hall which was now called "The Chapel"
The Religious Cloaking described above was invoked by a Hubbard
Communications Office Policy Letter, issued 12 February 1969 , on page
119 of the 1969 version of Volume 6 of the Hubbard Organization
Executive Course ""All Orgs are now Churches" and "Stationary is to
reflect fact than orgs are churches" and "All public literature must
state that Scn is religious" It also states "This may or may not be
publicly acceptable. This is NOT the point. It is a requisite
defense." http://www.lermanet.com/LRonHubbard2.htm
This was Scientology's strategy to derail the Article or Device case
by the FDA regarding the E-meter...where US Federal Judge Gessell
stated:
"An individual processed with the aid of the E-meter was said to reach
the intended goal of "clear" and was led to believe there was reliable
scientific proof that once cleared many, indeed most illnesses would
automatically be cured. Auditing was guaranteed to be successful. All
this was and is false -- in short, a fraud. " Federal District Judge
Gesell 333 F. Supp. 357;
In another thread I was typing in some of the things scientology
wanted us to sign to settle RTC vs Lerma, BPI vs Factnet and
Wollersheim's collection case for 9-12 million...... one paragraph of
that 51 page agreement (which I burned in the fireplace in disgust and
now wish I had kept it) included this line:
That we Agreed that Scientology was a religion.
Gregory Hall
wrote in message
news:a3551e7c-91a7-4e5a...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Ted,
===========================================
[REPLY]
Good post.
--
Gregory Hall
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 11 years!
> "Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 11 years!" <arniele...@lermanet.com>
> wrote in messagenews:a3551e7c-91a7-4e5a...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 19, 8:37 am, Ted Mayett<ars.to.tedmay...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:28:49 -0500, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
> In another thread I was typing in some of the things scientology
> wanted us to sign to settle RTC vs Lerma, BPI vs Factnet and
> Wollersheim's collection case for 9-12 million...... one paragraph of
> that 51 page agreement (which I burned in the fireplace in disgust and
> now wish I had kept it) included this line:
>
> That we Agreed that Scientology was a religion.
>
> ===========================================
>
> [REPLY]
>
> Good post.
>
> --
> Gregory Hall
thanks,
This is as good a place as any for this terrific quote:
Primo Levi in "The Drowned and the Saved" as quoted in 'Cultural Cold
War, The CIA and the world of Arts and Letters', wrote:
'There are...those who lie consciously, coldly falsifying reality
itself, but more numerous are those who weigh anchor, move off,
momentarily or forever, from genuine memories, and fabricate for
themselves a convenient reality... The silent transition from
falsehood to sly deception is useful: anyone who lies in good faith is
better off, he recites his part better, he is more easily believed'
Ted Mayett
CON for over 11 years!" <arnie...@lermanet.com> wrote:
>On Nov 19, 8:37�am, Ted Mayett
><ars.to.tedmay...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:28:49 -0500, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
><snip>
>
>>
>> What kind of man spends his time, his years, telling people how bogus,
>> how useless, and how fraudulent is scientology. �And then, when
>> needed, says:
>> �"I was originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology."
>
>Ted,
>
> The year 1969 jumped out at me..
>
YES. 1969 jumped up at me also, but I couldn't remember why and
didn't care to search through web pages and google groups. Thank You
for this post!
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:37:45 -0500, Ted Mayett
><ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:28:49 -0500, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid>
>
>>One of the funny things about this is that if a current monkey came
>>along on the ng, and said he was an ordained minister from the church
>>of scientology. Well we would all laugh loud and long at that.
>
>Probably at the fact they were a Scientologist. But it wouldn't make
>marriages where they officiated any less legal. The legal effect of
>them being a minister would be exactly the same.
>
True, and who didn't know this??? Anybody can call themselves a
minister. How to legally perform marriages and things like this, I
don't know, and not really that interested.
By this time next week, if you or I desired, we could legally be
ministers. Perhaps we would not even have to claim a belief in a
supreme being. Freedom of religion is just that of course, freedom.
You probably figured out long ago that I personally go a week at a
time without logging into ars. Then log in and skim 1000+ posts. My
passion and interest in this has long faded. And sometimes I log in
several times a week, whatever. Got you in the Watchfile, and a few
others. And I could care less what Dennis is doing or saying these
days. Except that I caught that thread about, "was originally
ordained as a minister in scientology in 1969."
And I go, "WOW", this guy actually said this! And you want to say,
"well if you were originally ordained in scn in 1969, well then, you
were *never* ordained as a minister, DUH."
The guy is a fraud. A predator preying upon the weak. Saying things
that would not pass the scrutiny of the strong.
Why does he do this, this Ministry thing, why? Well lets see. He
does require those tax advantages of being registered as a non-profit,
so maybe he is in it for the money. Maybe he is atoning for past sins
real or imagined. Maybe he just likes finding the weak and leaving
them off worse than he found them, there are people like this. And
maybe he does it to feed his ego. We don't know why he bothers with
that Ministry business, and asking him would be useless, we won't get
a straight answer. What we do know is that he has no qualifications
whatsoever to delve into the area of the troubled human mind. No
schooling, no training. He says on his web page that he has no
particular qualifications.
The guy is every charlatan that ever walked the streets. A bane to a
true industry of study that treats mental ailments. He is a
pretender, a do-gooder, a wannabe. Personally I have no respect for
the man, and no contempt either. He is just a part of the system is
all. There is prey out there, and there are predators for them, it is
just a big happy system of players. People looking to be abused and
unqualified people willing to "help" them.
Have you look at his Resume on that informer web site, you find this:
Minister 1968-1982
hmm, he was originally ordained, he says, in 1969, hmmm.
Maybe though he was a Minister in 1968 but was not Ordained until
1969. Whatever.
>Anyway, Dennis could ordain people himself based on his own 501(c)(3)
>ministry, with the same legal effect as if the Anglican Church
>ordained someone.
>
>Why what's this? http://www.informer.org/ordination.html
One of the people on this NG can do this also, s/he took the trouble
and small expense needed to become a minister or whatever it was from
some web site or another.
So in 2002 this Singer person was a Minister In Training. LOL, what
kind of training, and who or what does the training, LOL.
In conclusion:
I openly call Dennis Erlich the Minister a fraud. A low-life preying
upon the weak for whatever selfish reasons. He is a self proclaimed
healer that cannot be bothered with education in the field of healing.
A schemer hiding behind a cloak of religion.
And for all you kiddies out here in ars-land, I suggest you do not
follow up to this post of mine. If you've spent any time in the
streets like I have then you have come across potty-mouthed self
proclaimed reverends before. And you know that you better not
challenge them in the slightest because they are usually volatile.
Just placate them, keep them calm, or you might find yourself being
attacked by them, find yourself having to fist fight them. Some of
them are that unstable. They are living a lie on shaky ground, and
they don't want to be told this fact.
And me, I never thought of all of this until a few days ago. It was
always there in my mind, but I never really formulated any of it,
until. Until I read where he wrote that he was originally ordained a
minister by scientology in 1969. And that we know is a total lie,
that they were doing this 'reverend' thing as a ploy and not as a
belief at all.
And not to worry, this will not cost his Ministry any business. ARS
is a backwater channel only read by a few hard cores. Dennis and his
web page soliciting for those in need will continue unabated by these
words of mine.
Good hunting Dennis, maybe you catch a few, wouldn't that be nice.
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>
>If you seriously think that Dennis is representing himself as a
>Scientology minister,
You know good and well this is not the situation.
>
>If you seriously think Dennis is committing the crime of fraud,
Legally he is not committing any fraud. And you know this good and
well.
henri
<ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
>I openly call Dennis Erlich the Minister a fraud. A low-life preying
>upon the weak for whatever selfish reasons. He is a self proclaimed
>healer that cannot be bothered with education in the field of healing.
>A schemer hiding behind a cloak of religion.
Fuck you. Seriously.
Tigger
Ahem, what is being accomplished with this thread? AFAICT....most of
you are just making asses out of yourselves and providing
entertainment for the bullbaiting trolls and any lurking OSA.
What more can you say except more personal attacks on each other?
Why don't ALL of you take Andrew's advice and take a break.....stop
being stupid and drop this ridiculous flame war which none of you is
going to win......the only winner here is Scientology and the
trolls.....there are more important things to fight besides each
other......like SCIENTOLOGY!
Tigger
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:27:24 -0500, Ted Mayett
><ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>
>Fuck you. Seriously.
Oh no. Are you a Reverend also?
Rev J Tesman
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:18:58 -0800 (PST), Monica Pignotti
> <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>> So you've become a cyberstalking nutjob just like the other
>>> thread-renaming whacko. Good job.
>
>> No, Dennis initiated this attack on me. I would not have revealed his
>> posting, had he not first attacked me and lied about me. He did that
>
> You haven't revealed shit, you lunatic, except your own insanity.
>
>> so now I have every right to defend myself by revealing what he posted
>> and the fact that Steve Hassan actually apologized to me for Dennis'
>> horrible behavior towards me on the freedomofmind list serv.
>
> BAWWWWWW. If I hadn't seen you act in the same exact way to so many
> other people over the last 10+ years I've been watching you, I might
> pretend your bullshit passes the giggle test.
>
> But your obsession is nothing new. I'm sure that now I've turned on
> you, that like the borderline personality you are, you'll decide that
> OSA's right about me, too.
>
> Unlike you, though, I won't decide your cyberstalking sockpuppet buddy
> is right about the Pignometer, though, because. . .hey, I'm not a
> total fucking moron.
>
>>> Anyway I seem to recall Dennis having had a subG Reverend title since
>>> at least 1995. In fact, he is unique in not having paid $30 for it.
>>> Even Ivan Stang paid for his.
>
>> Newsflash: Sub Genius is not a valid religion.
>
> Oh, so now you decide what's a valid religion? FOAD. It's more valid
> than Christianity as far as I'm concerned.
You might want to soften this stance in the future when instructing
people to(FOAD) "fuck off and die," Because Reverend Erlich is a
Protestant Missionary.
http://www.taxexemptworld.com/datadownloads/TaxExemptWorld-318505-bca4baaf5.zip
(it stretches in a text window:)
OrganizationName|SecondaryName|EmployerIdentificationNumber|InCareOfName|ReportedAssetAmount|ReportedAssetAmountRange|ReportedIncomeAmount|ReportedIncomeAmountRange|ReportedForm990RevenueAmount|Address|City|State|ZipCode|County|Classification|Affiliation|RulingDate|Deductibility|FoundationCategory|PrincipalActivity1|PrincipalActivity2|PrincipalActivity3|OrganizationType|ExemptStatus|AdvancedRulingExpirationDate|TaxPeriod|FilingRequirement|AccountingEndMonth|TaxonomyCategory
"INFORMER MINISTRY"|"n/r"|"95-4666521"|"REV DENNIS L ERLICH"|"0"|"$0
to $0"|"0"|"$0 to $0"|"0"|"555A S ROXBURY DR"|"PALM
SPRINGS"|"CA"|"92264-8228"|"Riverside"|"Charitable Organization"|"This
organization is an independent organization or an independent
auxiliary (i.e., not affiliated with a National, Regional, or
Geographic grouping of organizations)."|"07/1998"|"Contributions are
deductible"|"Organization which receives a substantial part of its
support from a governmental unit or the general public"|"Described in
section 170(b)1)(a)(vi) of the Code"|"Missionary
activities"|"n/r"|"Corporation"|"Unconditional
Exemption"|"n/r"|"12/2001"|"Form 990 - Not required to file (income
less than $25,000)"|"12"|"Protestant"
It is insulting to Protestant Christians that while he was gaming the
IRS, he masqueraded himself as in league with decent Christian people.
He could have chosen his own upbringing, Jewish, or even Catholic, but
instead he had to put stick on the Lutherans, Methodists, and Baptists!
The only time I heard the Reefer Reverend mention Jesus, he was cursing
at somebody.
>> He has never canceled
>> his Scientology Reverend registry. He admits that he has been on the
>> books since 1969 as a Scientology minister and has never had it
>> removed. If that pisses you off, don't shoot the messenger. Read what
>> he wrote.
>
> I don't know if you understand this. You're pretty stupid about law
> even if you've been in a fairly interesting and probably precedential
> case about online defamation. But even the Universal Life Church's
> online ordinations are perfectly legally valid, and United States
> courts do not inquire into what is a "valid religion." So while you
> may place yourself up as some sort of judge of what is and isn't a
> "valid religion," it is nothing that flies in the United States, where
> such determinations are left to the adherents.
>
> And if inFormer Ministries starts ordaining people themselves, and if
> Dennis starts performing marriages, there isn't shit you can do about
> it. So FOAD.
>
> You have shown yourself to be a creep who, the moment someone
> disagrees with you, you suddenly decide OSA Dead Agent packs about
> that person are 100% truth. You showed that in these threads.
>
> You may have gotten a couple degrees since the cult, and found some
> P(in)H(ea)Ds to endorse your bullshit, but you're just the same moron
> who hung out on the Apollo that you always were, and you can frankly
> kiss my ass with your high and mighty bullshit.
>
> It's hilarious that you simultaneously boast about other people acting
> like Scientologists, meanwhile you immediately change your tune about
> Dennis, and declare the former Rosa Erlich the fount of truth the
> moment it becomes convenient for you to do so.
>
> [*ptui*]
>
> Now tell us some more how you totally don't care about what people say
> about you. Surely you can tell us that another couple hundred times.
>
> BWAHA.