Degree of pathology among ex-members
n...@user.name
Here's something to make you stop and think about what kind of damage
you're doing to yourself, and others, by spreading your vicious
anti-cult movement propaganda:
Excerpt from "Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory"
by Dr. Gordon Melton
...Then, spurred by Conway and Siegelman's rather blatant assertions
James R. Lewis and David G. Bromley took the research one step further
and tested the claim of harm done to members by cults in their study of
ex-members, "The Cult Withdrawal Syndrome: A Case of Misattribution of
Cause" (1987), (35) reprinted below. This study largely laid to rest the
continuing issue of pathology among former members of new religions.
Using a more representative sample of former members, Lewis and Bromley
measured the presence of the various pathological symptoms that Conway
and Siegelman had discovered in their sample of former members (an
extension of the symptoms discussed elsewhere by Singer). While
disconfirming many of Conway and Siegelman's assertions, such as that
people who had been in groups longer would show more symptoms, Lewis and
Bromley were able to pinpoint the major source of dysfunctional symptoms
among ex-members, the process of leaving the group.
Lewis and Bromley considered the presence of symptoms relative to the
type of exit from the group. They divided the sample into those who left
voluntarily and received no counseling by individuals associated with
the anti-cult movement, those who left and then received some form of
voluntary deprogramming (usually termed exit counseling), and those who
were involuntarily deprogrammed. While the entire sample showed
significantly lower levels of dysfunctional symptoms than the one
reported upon by Conway and Siegelman, it did show a dramatic
relationship between the method of leave-taking and the presence of
symptoms. Those associated with the anti-cult movement had measurably
higher levels of symptoms, but those who had been deprogrammed had a
radically higher number of symptoms than the general sample.
The Lewis and Bromley study became a landmark study in shifting the onus
of pathology experienced by former members of new religions from the
religions to the coercive activity of the anti-cult movement. In the
wake of this study (and other works that confirmed its findings),
treating former members as people in need of psychological help has
largely ceased. The lack of any widespread expressed need for
psychological help by the tens of thousands of former members of new
religions in the succeeding decade has itself become the strongest
evidence refuting the early sweeping condemnation of new religions as
causes of psychological trauma.
Full article at http://www.cesnur.org/testi/melton.htm.
---------------------------
Key point: "Those associated with the anti-cult movement had measurably
higher levels of symptoms, but those who had been deprogrammed had a
radically higher number of symptoms than the general sample."
So Maxim and Taylor, you're both confused ex-members (putting it
politely) not because of what Rev. Moon did to you, but because of what
Steve Hassan and the anti-cult movement did to you! Think about it. Or
has the anti-cult movement taken away your ability to think critically?
Quick! Get out of the anti-cult movement before it's too late!! You guys
are time-bombs waiting to explode!!! See a real therapist!!!! Phoney
therapists like Hassan will only make you sicker!!!!
Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock...
tynet2k
>Quick! Get out of the anti-cult movement before it's too late!!
You guys
>are time-bombs waiting to explode!!! See a real therapist!!!!
Phoney
>therapists like Hassan will only make you sicker!!!!
>
>Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock...
Its no use n...@user.This people never thought for themselfs in
the first place.It all began when they joined the unification
church reading the principle hearing rev moons speaches,ect,ect.
verry aware of what they were doing.Infact if you go back in
time they would laugh at the sugestion that they were posessed
by some sort of mind control.then enters the steve hassans with
their suggestions,books,therapy and twisted info about the
unification church
They enbrace it just as fervently reading their books saying
to themselfs yes thats true its so clear.Just like the first
time they heard the principle.They goble it all up not seeing
the hatred and verry clear flaw the ACM carries.So now they are
possesed by the same hatred and pain that steve hassan has.They
are in deep and cant get out.So they seek more therapy and try
to let out their fustrations in newsgroups and life sinking
deeper and deeper to the point that they want rev moon dead.Even
though he is not in their lives anymore.
They become delusional and all of a sudden anythings possible
with the church.Mass suicide,molestation,brainwashed zombies ect
ect.So they live in a fantacy of how the unification church
robed them of their lives. Not willing to take responsobility
anymore.That somehow subconciously they were unwilling
participants and conciously they were brainwashed.
To tell you the truth no@user they been in hassans hellhole so
long I dont think is posible to get them out in this lifetime.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
n...@user.name
> are time-bombs waiting to explode!!! See a real therapist!!!! Phoney
> therapists like Hassan will only make you sicker!!!!
>
> Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock...
Kind of quiet on this thread, Craig and Bill. Hope you're letting this
one sink in.
We're talking scientific research here, not opinion; unlike you guys.
Pamela Fitzpatrick
<n...@user.name> wrote in message news:390A4D...@user.name...
Just exactly what type of *scientific* research are we talking about here?
The credentials are what exactly?
I'm rather familiar with some of the work that Lewis has put out...most
recently regarding an article that was poorly written because *none* of the
facts could be verified. But CAN was more then willing to post it anyway.
I find the same issue with what is posted above. I seem to be expected to
take what is written based on face value instead of my ability to think for
myself.
Melton doesn't really hold a lot of respect in my studies of new religions.
He seems to have a rather skewed agenda...money.
-pam
n...@user.name
Now that's a good example of the pot calling the kettle black!
n...@user.name
Lewis, James R. & David G. Bromley (1987)
The cult withdrawal syndrome: a case of misattribution of cause?
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 26(4), 508-522.
n...@user.name
Tilman Hausherr
<390BB0...@user.name>:
>Dr. Bromley's homepage:
d) David G. Bromley <dbro...@saturn.vcu.edu>
http://saturn.vcu.edu/~dbromley/
Professor of Sociology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond
and Shupe's academic twin. He and Shupe regularly publish books together
about the nastiness of "apostates".
Participated in the filing of an amicus brief in the Molko case "for"
the APA/ASA (American Psychological Association / American Sociological
Association). Both the APA and the ASA later withdrew their names.
David Bromley is on the referral list of the scientology-run Cult
Awareness Network
http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/referral/
and of "The Family"
http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/referrals/experts.htm
He supports scientology misrepresenting its beliefs in this "Expertise
on Confidential Religious Writings":
http://www.theta.com/copyright/bromley.htm
The following is a book excerpt quoted by scientology, from his book
"The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the
Transformation of Religious Movements":
"...One critical result of external intervention is
that dispute and non-dispute precipitated exits are converted
into the former as external opponents actively recruit
exiting members into the oppositional coalition, provide
social networks through which exiting members can reinterpret
personal troubles as organizational problems, and control
role transition on favorable terms. There is likely to be a
price for re-entry. Former members have to confess to
disloyal conduct or plead loss of free will as a result of
subversive influence. The burden of proof is on the
organization to refute claims by exiting members, and there
may be little opportunity to do so."
Here an article excerpt from "Linking social structure and the exit
process in religious organizations: Defectors, whistle-blowers, and
apostates", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, March 1998:
"Protracted conflict between the organization and oppositional
coalition creates possibilities for extended apostate careers.
Apostates may pursue a variety of strategies to solidify their
careers: acquiring various credentials that support a more
permanent social niche; inflating prior organizational status to
enhance the value of their testimony to control agencies;
modifying the narrative content to appeal to specific interests
within the oppositional coalition; and embellishing the
narrative so as to heighten audience interest."
Here is one of his theories why mind control does not exist:
http://saturn.vcu.edu/~dbromley/paper-satanismandanticultism.htm
"There is no plausible explanation for how such a diverse array
of groups from different parts of the world and with no
connection to one another -- the Hare Krishnas from India, the
Unificationists from Korea, The Family in the United States --
all discovered and implemented this psycho-technology at
precisely the same moment."
The "technology" for mind control is well explained (Lifton, see
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b07.html). It is Prof. Bromley's problem
that he hasn't found out why all these different groups use the same
methods. I guess Prof. Bromley also doubts that e.g. children manipulate
their parents at the cash register waiting line; after all, millions of
children cannot all have discovered and implemented this "technology".
David Bromley admiring the moonies:
"Some new religions seek to nurture strong autonomous
individuals. The Unification Church, however, takes the
approach of creating a better family, or church, in the
expectation the group will shape and improve the character of
individual members. The idea is that a stronger family, or
group, will expand outward in concentric circles to influence
people, churches and organizations outside the Unification
Church."
(Insight, 6.7.1998)
--
Tilman Hausherr ** Inventor of the "Driving Principle" **
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/faq-you/moonies.txt
"I do not know about outside world"
(wife of Washington Times president to a reporter)
n...@user.name
Nice bit of pseudo-facts. Shows you know there's a great body of
academia and researchers out there with credentials that go far beyond
your "hobby" credentials, and you know it. But what does your
pseudo-facts really reveal? Content-wise? That Bromley is "guilty" of
being affiliated with Scientology and The Family because someone listed
him on their website? Come on, you know the issue runs deeper than that.
Here are the facts. The anti-cult movement, (which you're "guilty by
association" by having such groups listed on your homepage -- hey,
what's good for the goose is good for the gander), does not have any
credibility other than the support it gets from the public and media by
means of inciting prejudices and ignorance through misinformation. The
anti-cult movements' pseudo-science hasn't gotten accepted in the courts
for over a decade, once everybody wised up to your scam. The Christian
churches dropped you people long ago after the ACMs began to go after
them with the same "brainwashing" allegations. You people haven't got a
leg to stand and you know it. The only reason you're still here trying
to spread your disinformatin on ARU is the public hasn't been allowed to
know the facts yet because of the complicity of the anti-religious media
and journalists -- and you've convinced a few nutcase apostates with
your pseudo-scientific "evidence."
Tilman, you're tireless in your putting the ACM spin on things. Even if
the Pope were to come out and tell you you're wrong and are possessed by
Satan, you'd still keep up the "cause." But that's the nature of
possession. (Ephesian 6:12)
Here, let me leave you with a quote from other experts who have
credentials that you'll discredit with your usual ad hominem:
There appear to be major disciplinary differences on the issue of cult
brainwashing. Most sociologists and psychologists of religion reject
brainwashing theories, whereas many clinical psychologists and
psychiatrists apparently give them some credence (Richardson, 1997). The
views of the latter are also much more widely accepted among the general
public and among journalists and organs of mass media, as well, a
circumstance with important implications for admissibility (Gatowski et
al., 1997).
Thus, journals in the field of psychiatry may publish brainwashing based
articles with no suggestion of the problematic nature of the evidence
for such theories. Also, more popular "anti-cult" publications and the
popular media disseminate brainwashing theories quite readily. Many
fewer people are aware of the vast literature from sociology and
psychology of religion, the results of which refute brainwashing
theories, and which depend on much more mundane theories to explain
participation in such groups and movements.
A CRITIQUE OF "BRAINWASHING" EVIDENCE IN LIGHT OF DAUBERT:
SCIENCE AND UNPOPULAR RELIGIONS
By James T. Richardson and Gerald Ginsburg (University of Nevada, Reno);
from: Helen Reece (ed.) (1998), Law and Science: Current Legal Issues,
Vol. 1. Oxford University Press,
pp. 265-288.
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/daubert.htm
---------------
Yes, "many fewer people are aware of the vast literature from sociology
and psychology of religion, the results of which refute brainwashing
theories." That's the real issue here! But you'd rather not talk about
such evidence, would you? Easier just to pretend you're the expert. And,
hey, you've managed to convince Bill Taylor and Craig Maxim, so you must
be right? Right? NOT!!
Pamela Fitzpatrick
<n...@user.name> wrote in message news:390B98...@user.name...
> > recently regarding an article that was poorly written because *none* of
the
> > facts could be verified. But CAN was more then willing to post it
anyway.
> >
> > I find the same issue with what is posted above. I seem to be expected
to
> > take what is written based on face value instead of my ability to think
for
> > myself.
> >
> > Melton doesn't really hold a lot of respect in my studies of new
religions.
> > He seems to have a rather skewed agenda...money.
> >
> > -pam
>
> Now that's a good example of the pot calling the kettle black!
Ah, the typical *non answer*...
Guess we can only expect that from you here on out?
Or do you not want me to put forth what I did find out about Lewis and all
those folk?
How about what I found out about Angela808 even?
-pam
Pamela Fitzpatrick
<n...@user.name> wrote in message news:390B9A...@user.name...
> The cult withdrawal syndrome: a case of misattribution of cause?
Who is on the "board" of this magazine...????
What are the publishing credentials?
-pam
Pamela Fitzpatrick
<n...@user.name> wrote in message news:390C46...@user.name...
Brainwashing?
How about something a little more subtle...like undue influence and
coercion?
Manipulation of facts and information?
Withholding of critical information so that a person can make a sound
decision regarding their choices...
Brainwashing is something that the NRM likes to wave around as something
that is "current"...when the NRMs have learned their lesson...
Blame the victim is another tactic that is popular with the "scholar's" of
NRMs too....why would that be?
-pam
n...@user.name
Is that what I said? Jumping to conclusions, I see. You got me all
typecasted and all. How nice of you to define who I am for me.
> How about what I found out about Angela808 even?
>
> -pam
Stereotypically equipped with cocky attitude and all set to shoot? I
like that in a woman. Now am I supposed to actually believe I can have
an honest discussion with you about the facts?
Pamela Fitzpatrick
<n...@user.name> wrote in message news:390C6B...@user.name...
> typecasted and all. How nice of you to define who I am for me.
>
> >
> > -pam
>
> like that in a woman. Now am I supposed to actually believe I can have
> an honest discussion with you about the facts?
You will believe what you wish...
But I don't think that you have done a great job of laying any foundation
for an honest discussion...remember, I'm replying to *your* assertions...in
case it escapes you...
So, what "honest" discussion were you wishing to have?
Obviously not one involving Lewis and his sloppy "research" methods.
Nor one about Menton either....
What exactly does that leave for you to discuss?
-pam
n...@user.name
>
> > Stereotypically equipped with cocky attitude and all set to shoot? I
> > like that in a woman. Now am I supposed to actually believe I can have
> > an honest discussion with you about the facts?
>
> You will believe what you wish...
You mean you aren't cocky and ready for stereotyping me into your idea
of a brainwashed "Moonie-bot?" Remember, I'm responding in kind to
*your* attitude!!
> But I don't think that you have done a great job of laying any foundation
> for an honest discussion...remember, I'm replying to *your* assertions...in
> case it escapes you...
>
> So, what "honest" discussion were you wishing to have?
>
> Obviously not one involving Lewis and his sloppy "research" methods.
>
> Nor one about Menton either....
>
> What exactly does that leave for you to discuss?
>
> -pam
Is THAT what you established? Lewis and his sloppy "research" methods?
Did I miss a step here? (Who's Menton?) Maybe we should start over...
First I posted this for Bill Taylor and Craig Maxim:
====================
Maxim and Taylor,
---------------------------
Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock...
=========================
Then Tilman replies with his usual attempt to undermine the credibility
of the post.
Meanwhile, Maxim and Taylor are mum, having called you and Tilman out
for assistance in matters too challenging to them.
You show up with a Tilman repeat.
Meanwhile, you never established any proof exposing "sloppy" research
methods of Lewis and Bromley, but claim you did. (Shouldn't you first
read their research first before making such a claim, anyway?)
Honestly. Such dishonesty on your part.
Oh yeah, and YOU have some kind of "credentials" that allow you to
criticize Bromley and Lewis' research? (You're so cocky. I don't believe
you're a woman.)
The Lewis and Bromley research on ex-members has existed for over 12
years. Why weren't you aware of it? You are the expert in the field,
aren't you? (It's why Tilman called you out, right?) Or have you and
your colleagues deliberately censored such reports in an effort not to
allow your fraudulent positions to be exposed.
Your opinions do not change the validity of the issue, despite your
self-illusions. The original post stands. Craig and Bill should do some
serious soul-searching.
Bill Taylor
> n...@user.name wrote:
> >
> > Maxim and Taylor,
> >
> > Here's something to make you stop and think about what kind of damage
> > you're doing to yourself, and others, by spreading your vicious
> > anti-cult movement propaganda:
I'm not going to read this. Sorry I didn't catch it when it was
originally posted. If authentic speech is "vicious anti-cult movement
propaganda" then I suppose I can see how you pigeonhole me that way.
You'll have to speak for yourself if I'm going to read it.
--
Bi...@innocent.com
Live a life that you love.
Bill Taylor
Sorry, I still have only quickly passed over the quoted material.
> > Key point: "Those associated with the anti-cult movement had measurably
> > higher levels of symptoms, but those who had been deprogrammed had a
> > radically higher number of symptoms than the general sample."
> > So Maxim and Taylor, you're both confused ex-members (putting it
> > politely) not because of what Rev. Moon did to you, but because of what
> > Steve Hassan and the anti-cult movement did to you! Think about it. Or
> > has the anti-cult movement taken away your ability to think critically?
What the hell is your point? Have you decided who I am and then
attacked that? I don't give a shit about the anti-cult movement. I do
care about water conservation. Where do you think I got that idea? You
are welcome to attack me for that. I am also interested in reducing
deaths by handguns. Attack that. I also like parrots. Attack that. I
also think that Bill Clinton has pioneered a powerful foreign policy
that will be emulated by whoever gets elected next. Attack that. I
really have no interest whatsoever in the anti-cult movement.
> > Quick! Get out of the anti-cult movement before it's too late!! You guys
> > are time-bombs waiting to explode!!! See a real therapist!!!! Phoney
> > therapists like Hassan will only make you sicker!!!!
> > Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock...
What kind of nut would you have to be to make this kind of assumption
about me?
> Kind of quiet on this thread, Craig and Bill. Hope you're letting this
> one sink in.
I read very few of the threads here these days. As they say in
Brasilian-portugese, you guys ja era (have already missed it) or a nice
Korean expression would fit, gabul-ji-ma (loosely, quit the senseless
horseshit).
> We're talking scientific research here, not opinion; unlike you guys.
I'm not the research guy. I am only here to express my opinions. You
seem to have a problem with that? There are others who have research
that they like to present.
Bill Taylor
"Pamela Fitzpatrick" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> <n...@user.name> wrote in message news:390C6B...@user.name...
> > Pamela Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > >
> > > <n...@user.name> wrote in message news:390B98...@user.name...
> > > > Pamela Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <n...@user.name> wrote in message news:390A4D...@user.name...
> > > > > > n...@user.name wrote:
> > Stereotypically equipped with cocky attitude and all set to shoot? I
> > like that in a woman. Now am I supposed to actually believe I can have
> > an honest discussion with you about the facts?
> You will believe what you wish...
> But I don't think that you have done a great job of laying any foundation
> for an honest discussion...remember, I'm replying to *your*
> assertions...in
> case it escapes you...
> So, what "honest" discussion were you wishing to have?
> Obviously not one involving Lewis and his sloppy "research" methods.
> Nor one about Menton either....
> What exactly does that leave for you to discuss?
Let's be even handed here. (What's this person's name? Why do they
always feel the need to hide? Like Adam?) Anyway, 'no' apparently has
some facts in hand. We should oblige him and discuss these "facts", not
bring into question whether the facts have any veracity or not. That's
how he found the messiah. How do you expect to find your own salvation
if you insist on verifying what is true?
Bill Taylor
> Then Tilman replies with his usual attempt to undermine the credibility
> of the post.
As for me, I haven't received Tilman's posts for a couple of years. He
has something to say but I have nothing to add.
> Meanwhile, Maxim and Taylor are mum, having called you and Tilman out
> for assistance in matters too challenging to them.
Apparently, there is some kind of anti-cult movement and it serves your
purpose to know about this and to assume that I have some kind of
interest in defending it. Actually, I don't know about it and I can't
say if I would support them or not; probably not.
> You show up with a Tilman repeat.
> Meanwhile, you never established any proof exposing "sloppy" research
> methods of Lewis and Bromley, but claim you did. (Shouldn't you first
> read their research first before making such a claim, anyway?)
Typically, you guys get a printout of some kind of information and then
proceed to bandy it about not really knowing anything about it. Sounds
like Pamela is at least worth listening to if you really had any
interest in the subject.
> Honestly. Such dishonesty on your part.
(At last a Unificationist compliment.)
> Oh yeah, and YOU have some kind of "credentials" that allow you to
> criticize Bromley and Lewis' research? (You're so cocky. I don't believe
> you're a woman.)
She hasn't called you on this sexist talk yet? If I were a woman I
would have been quite offended by your entire sub-culture of misogyny.
> The Lewis and Bromley research on ex-members has existed for over 12
> years. Why weren't you aware of it?
Were you aware of a TV sit-com called "Doctor, Doctor" which was airing
about 12 years ago? Sometimes trivia is trivial from its inception.
> You are the expert in the field,
> aren't you? (It's why Tilman called you out, right?)
A little bit paraniod, aren't we. Conspiracy theories and all.
Besides, anyone who contradicts the U movement must have something wrong
with them; they aren't worth actually listening to. You see, that is
actually the death knell of the movement; you can't listen to or accept
anyone outside a very narrow framework. The world that God created is
much more expansive than you can imagine.
However, it is always nice to be bad-mouthed for God. I appreciate your
efforts. Sometimes we get deluded into thinking that God is about love.
Your movement is a cure for this.
> Or have you and
> your colleagues deliberately censored such reports in an effort not to
> allow your fraudulent positions to be exposed.
> Your opinions do not change the validity of the issue, despite your
> self-illusions. The original post stands. Craig and Bill should do some
> serious soul-searching.
What for? At least speak straight. What for? Am I going to hell?
Does hell exist? Is anyone going to heaven? Does heaven exist, I mean
before it is established on earth, as in now?
Bill Taylor
> Yes, "many fewer people are aware of the vast literature from sociology
> and psychology of religion, the results of which refute brainwashing
> theories." That's the real issue here! But you'd rather not talk about
> such evidence, would you? Easier just to pretend you're the expert. And,
> hey, you've managed to convince Bill Taylor and Craig Maxim, so you must
> be right? Right? NOT!!
Well, he pretends. No person who is well read in this kind of
literature would speak like this idiot does. If he had any pride, he
would at least use a name. He's a nobody even inside the church.
Bill Taylor
"Pamela Fitzpatrick" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Who is on the "board" of this magazine...????
>
> What are the publishing credentials?
Asking questions again? How like a woman. How will you ever find
salvations if you continue to use honesty?
He was speaking science here. That was a stretch for him already. His
science is not about verification. Someone told him that this was a
good article. He did not further reading on the subject. He doesn't
care who said it as long as he can use it to anonymously attack someone
else.
When will Damian be posting the "heavenly" Hitler quotes?
Pamela Fitzpatrick
Bill Taylor <Bi...@innocent.com> wrote in message
news:Bill-53A4A8.2...@news.earthlink.net...
> In article <t8ZO4.41909$WF.21...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Pamela Fitzpatrick" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Who is on the "board" of this magazine...????
> >
> > What are the publishing credentials?
>
> Asking questions again? How like a woman. How will you ever find
> salvations if you continue to use honesty?
Depends on what religion I am :-)
> He was speaking science here. That was a stretch for him already. His
> science is not about verification. Someone told him that this was a
> good article. He did not further reading on the subject. He doesn't
> care who said it as long as he can use it to anonymously attack someone
> else.
I actually find that pretty typical of most of the population even outside
of the Unificationists. If the research matches to the mentality...then it
is "good" and used to further "the cause".
What I found sad is that I get "attacked" instead of actually discussing
what merits are associated with that article...
> When will Damian be posting the "heavenly" Hitler quotes?
Not familar with them... :-)
-pam
Dan Fefferman
>Let's be even handed here. (What's this person's name? Why do they
>always feel the need to hide?
I'm no fan of using pseudonyms. But if we're going to be even handed, Bill, I
think you have to admit that there are just as many if not more pseudomyms
being used on the anticult side of this debate as on the pro NRM side.
dan fefferman
Hammond
Fitzpatrick" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> Now that's a good example of the pot calling the kettle black!
>
>Ah, the typical *non answer*...
>
>Guess we can only expect that from you here on out?
>
>Or do you not want me to put forth what I did find out about Lewis and all
>those folk?
>
>How about what I found out about Angela808 even?
>
>-pam
>
Pam,
You've got me hooked. What do you know about Angela808?
JHammR
"Truly loving Extra-Terrestrials is the final step in creating the Cosmic
Family of God centered on the Heavenly Kingdom of Earth"
Bill Taylor
> Bill Taylor wrote...
> > Pamela Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > > Who is on the "board" of this magazine...????
> > > What are the publishing credentials?
> > Asking questions again? How like a woman. How will you ever find
> > salvations if you continue to use honesty?
> Depends on what religion I am :-)
> > He was speaking science here. That was a stretch for him already. His
> > science is not about verification. Someone told him that this was a
> > good article. He did not further reading on the subject. He doesn't
> > care who said it as long as he can use it to anonymously attack someone
> > else.
> I actually find that pretty typical of most of the population even outside
> of the Unificationists. If the research matches to the mentality...then it
> is "good" and used to further "the cause".
It is unfortunate that you are branded as stupid for knowing more about
it.
> What I found sad is that I get "attacked" instead of actually discussing
> what merits are associated with that article...
You'll get him to reveal his name before you get him to discuss
substance. He's a hit and run kind of guy.
> > When will Damian be posting the "heavenly" Hitler quotes?
> Not familar with them... :-)
As you probably know, SMM has blessed Hitler in marriage. There was
probably a deeply spiritual side of Hitler that the public never knew
about. I'm sure that if some industrious member were to look through
the archives, they would be able to come up with some providential
quotes from Hitler.
Of course, they know that the 'Hitler being blessed' story is fiction
and they are always wary of knowing too much. They also know that image
is more important than substance. The assertion that Hitler was blessed
will have some impact on a feeble few. Looking for substantiating facts
would only look bad, publically. Public image always takes precidence
over substance in this movement. Hey, it works to a certain degree.
Besides, then you don't have to really serve others and expand yourself.
n...@user.name
>
> Bill Taylor <Bi...@innocent.com> wrote in message
> news:Bill-53A4A8.2...@news.earthlink.net...
> > In article <t8ZO4.41909$WF.21...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> >
> > > Who is on the "board" of this magazine...????
> > >
> > > What are the publishing credentials?
> >
> > Asking questions again? How like a woman. How will you ever find
> > salvations if you continue to use honesty?
>
> Depends on what religion I am :-)
>
> > He was speaking science here. That was a stretch for him already. His
> > science is not about verification. Someone told him that this was a
> > good article. He did not further reading on the subject. He doesn't
> > care who said it as long as he can use it to anonymously attack someone
> > else.
I can do my own research. I read everything I post or link to. Do you
really believe I can post on the internet but I can't do a search on the
internet.
Bill, when you were a member, did you fit your stereotypical view of a
Unificationist that you hold today? You couldn't think for yourself? I'm
sorry for you. We had different experiences.
But think about it. Step back from your resentment. Isn't it ironic that
it's people like you who accepted Ted Patrick's credentials and shoddy
theories that got us into this mess in the first place. What were his
credentials? Tenth grade drop-out?
But you won't even read the entire article. You both claim to "know it
all." Yeah, like you know the study even existed before I posted it.
What a show you to put on.
> I actually find that pretty typical of most of the population even outside
> of the Unificationists. If the research matches to the mentality...then it
> is "good" and used to further "the cause".
This is funny. Again, what are your credentials that are more believable
than those of Melton, Lewis or Bromley?
I think the evidence in the paper is overwhelmingly against your
position "pam." You two just refuse to even read it. So who do you think
you're fooling, besides yourself?
Of course there's deeper stuff going on here. For Bill, it's for the
sake of easing your conscience for abandoning True Parents. For "pam,"
it's an attempt to work out your problems resulting from your ex-husband
and the anti-cult indoctrination received from your doctors.
There's so much psychic pain and mental confusion in the world today.
Bill and Pam, you're perfect examples of this. I'm sorry you need to
vent your problems through attacking Unificationists. It's all such a
vicious cycle. We really do all need the Messiah to heal a sick mankind.
I hope that one day you can recognize that and get healed, instead of
just multiplying your pain.
For your sakes, I'll kindly back away from your hurtful situation and
pray that God will work it all out for you through time. I see no amount
of logic or evidence will help you otherwise. I'll direct my posts to
others.
Peace.
Pamela Fitzpatrick
<n...@user.name> wrote in message news:390E71...@user.name...
> Pamela Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >
> > Bill Taylor <Bi...@innocent.com> wrote in message
> > news:Bill-53A4A8.2...@news.earthlink.net...
> > > In article
<t8ZO4.41909$WF.21...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > "Pamela Fitzpatrick" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Who is on the "board" of this magazine...????
> > > >
> > > > What are the publishing credentials?
> > >
> > > Asking questions again? How like a woman. How will you ever find
> > > salvations if you continue to use honesty?
> >
> > Depends on what religion I am :-)
> >
> > > He was speaking science here. That was a stretch for him already.
His
> > > science is not about verification. Someone told him that this was a
> > > good article. He did not further reading on the subject. He doesn't
> > > care who said it as long as he can use it to anonymously attack
someone
> > > else.
>
> I can do my own research. I read everything I post or link to. Do you
> really believe I can post on the internet but I can't do a search on the
> internet.
Do you read other information though...stuff that just might challenge your
way of thinking?
And reading doesn't equate to comprehension either. And I have gotten it
that you can research on the internet when it suits your needs, not
necessarily to learn anything.
> Bill, when you were a member, did you fit your stereotypical view of a
> Unificationist that you hold today? You couldn't think for yourself? I'm
> sorry for you. We had different experiences.
>
> But think about it. Step back from your resentment. Isn't it ironic that
> it's people like you who accepted Ted Patrick's credentials and shoddy
> theories that got us into this mess in the first place. What were his
> credentials? Tenth grade drop-out?
>
> But you won't even read the entire article. You both claim to "know it
> all." Yeah, like you know the study even existed before I posted it.
> What a show you to put on.
I don't claim to know it all...that is your conclusion.
I just know what I have read before and have noticed a pattern of behavior
that is rather consistant...and especially when I go in and do the
research...the information tends to fall apart. Kinda like they expect their
name alone to be enough.
> > I actually find that pretty typical of most of the population even
outside
> > of the Unificationists. If the research matches to the mentality...then
it
> > is "good" and used to further "the cause".
>
> This is funny. Again, what are your credentials that are more believable
> than those of Melton, Lewis or Bromley?
You are misdirecting my statement. I was directing it towards how research
can be used by people that wish that their beliefs are true...and will not
look any further then that.
You would be such a person unless you can actually come forth with the
inconsistances that you have found in the research too? You were quick with
what you perceive to be inconsistances in researchers that you disagree
with...I expect that you can do the same for Melton, Lewis and Bromley.
> I think the evidence in the paper is overwhelmingly against your
> position "pam." You two just refuse to even read it. So who do you think
> you're fooling, besides yourself?
I read the "paper" and given what I know about research in general...taken
with the required grain of salt.
> Of course there's deeper stuff going on here. For Bill, it's for the
> sake of easing your conscience for abandoning True Parents. For "pam,"
> it's an attempt to work out your problems resulting from your ex-husband
> and the anti-cult indoctrination received from your doctors.
What you "believe" about me and wish to spin off into propraganda has
nothing to do with someone actually being able to discuss the findings of
faulty research.
You have been called to task on the matter by me <and others> and you have
chosen to go the route of "attacking" me instead of dealing with the issues
as brought up.
You are making the claims about me...so, what is your purpose in doing so?
To discredit me? To make me out to be someone that I'm not? To silence me?
To cause others to not "trust" me? I have discovered that the type of
behavior that you are exhibiting tends to backfire. You may want to go to
meditation and reflect upon what you really are wishing to accomplish
here...
Is this something that your Messiah approves of? Such hate-filled behavior
on your part?
> There's so much psychic pain and mental confusion in the world today.
> Bill and Pam, you're perfect examples of this. I'm sorry you need to
> vent your problems through attacking Unificationists. It's all such a
> vicious cycle. We really do all need the Messiah to heal a sick mankind.
> I hope that one day you can recognize that and get healed, instead of
> just multiplying your pain.
Exactly *how* am I this "perfect example"? Exactly *how* am I venting my
problems against Unificationists? You mean that by asking questions and
wanting a *thoughtful* conversation with respect and such is attacking
Unificationists? How are you making *that* connnection? Seems pretty
illogical to me...but you have labeled me in such a way that I guess you are
justified by your Messaih to treat me as however you wish.
At least my religious beliefs has me acting with much more compassion
towards you then you show towards others that are not of *your*
mindset/belief.
> For your sakes, I'll kindly back away from your hurtful situation and
> pray that God will work it all out for you through time. I see no amount
> of logic or evidence will help you otherwise. I'll direct my posts to
> others.
So, you do the personal attacks, don't answer the questions and then "back
away"?
Mighty thoughty of you.
-pam
n...@user.name
So whatever I say, you're covered.
I read all the negative stuff BEFORE joining the church. I read Lifton's
book, Patrick's book, Wood's book, all the periodical articles of that
time (Psychology, Christianity Today) while reading the entire Divine
Principle BEFORE joining. (A 7-month investigation period.) My
conclusion was, and still is, Divine Principle is true and Satan is just
using any ploy he can to defeat God's providence.
Have you read all of the Divine Principle? Have you read all the pro and
con material? Did you comprehend it? Or do you just assume your
anti-cult propaganda is correct. It works both ways, Pam. :)
> > Bill, when you were a member, did you fit your stereotypical view of a
> > Unificationist that you hold today? You couldn't think for yourself? I'm
> > sorry for you. We had different experiences.
> >
> > But think about it. Step back from your resentment. Isn't it ironic that
> > it's people like you who accepted Ted Patrick's credentials and shoddy
> > theories that got us into this mess in the first place. What were his
> > credentials? Tenth grade drop-out?
> >
> > But you won't even read the entire article. You both claim to "know it
> > all." Yeah, like you know the study even existed before I posted it.
> > What a show you to put on.
>
> I don't claim to know it all...that is your conclusion.
You behave as if you do. But about Ted Patrick. What were his
credentials?
> I just know what I have read before and have noticed a pattern of behavior
> that is rather consistant...and especially when I go in and do the
> research...the information tends to fall apart. Kinda like they expect their
> name alone to be enough.
The ruling of the APA, ASA and courts just "tend to fall apart." Such
arrogance. And you don't even have any credentials. What a farce. Why am
I even responding to you? Anyone can play your game. But it's in the
academic reviews that matter, and the courts. Show me some
university-level research that backs your position. That would be true
dialogue and debate.
> > > I actually find that pretty typical of most of the population even
> outside
> > > of the Unificationists. If the research matches to the mentality...then
> it
> > > is "good" and used to further "the cause".
> >
> > This is funny. Again, what are your credentials that are more believable
> > than those of Melton, Lewis or Bromley?
>
> You are misdirecting my statement. I was directing it towards how research
> can be used by people that wish that their beliefs are true...and will not
> look any further then that.
And you never even read the material I referenced. So who's
misdirecting? I say these people (Melton, Lewis and Bromley) have
credentials and the people you use don't. (Ted Patrick, Hassan)
> You would be such a person unless you can actually come forth with the
> inconsistances that you have found in the research too? You were quick with
> what you perceive to be inconsistances in researchers that you disagree
> with...I expect that you can do the same for Melton, Lewis and Bromley.
You're working based on derogatory stereotypes that the anti-cult
networks have invented and propagated against Unificationists for 25
years.
What researchers have you presented? I'm not the "bots" you think I am.
I keep missing steps in your logic.
> > I think the evidence in the paper is overwhelmingly against your
> > position "pam." You two just refuse to even read it. So who do you think
> > you're fooling, besides yourself?
>
> I read the "paper" and given what I know about research in general...taken
> with the required grain of salt.
And in the court of law, who's position did they believe? Yours or the
university-backed researchers?
> > Of course there's deeper stuff going on here. For Bill, it's for the
> > sake of easing your conscience for abandoning True Parents. For "pam,"
> > it's an attempt to work out your problems resulting from your ex-husband
> > and the anti-cult indoctrination received from your doctors.
>
> What you "believe" about me and wish to spin off into propraganda has
> nothing to do with someone actually being able to discuss the findings of
> faulty research.
Your opinion. Not the courts or APA, etc.
> You have been called to task on the matter by me <and others> and you have
> chosen to go the route of "attacking" me instead of dealing with the issues
> as brought up.
Really? I thought it was you who avoided the issues by simply saying it
was "shoddy" research. Don't you play this game all the time with us? So
you don't think ex-members that have associated with deprogramming
propaganda (or who have been deprogrammed) have greater pathological
problems than those who simply leave the church? The evidence just
represented here on this newsgroup shows that all the opponents against
Rev. Moon are affiliated with the Hassans and their psuedo-science in
one way or another. You people are really such a small fringe, crackpot
minority. But you don't want to talk about THAT issue, do you? That is
the issue I've presented here, and you won't even acknowledge the issue.
Again, what are YOUR credentials that merits my respecting your
criticisms?
> You are making the claims about me...so, what is your purpose in doing so?
> To discredit me? To make me out to be someone that I'm not? To silence me?
> To cause others to not "trust" me? I have discovered that the type of
> behavior that you are exhibiting tends to backfire. You may want to go to
> meditation and reflect upon what you really are wishing to accomplish
> here...
I'm doing exactly what you're doing to me. You can dish it out but you
can't take it? You're view is that I'm a "bot," accuse me of not
thinking for myself, mock my religious beliefs, ignore the majority view
and academic view of the matter, and then say I'm ignoring the issues by
resorting to "attacking" YOU? How ironic. I'm here defending my
religion. It's YOU who is attacking!! It's you who is spreading false
claims. The claims I make, I back up with evidence. You just "share"
your prejudice.
> Is this something that your Messiah approves of? Such hate-filled behavior
> on your part?
Nice ploy: Provoke, slander, taunt, then when you get any response, no
matter what kind, bring out the clichés and readymade labels and paint
me as an evil person. I'd call THAT hate-filled behavior.
I'm defending my First Admendment Rights which you are trying to take
away from me. Your phoney self-righteousness is really just one of your
ploys. It's you who is being hat-filled. You have no other purpose being
here. Check out any of your posts from here on dejanews. Your
personality reeks of abuse and hate.
Meanwhile, the world is sinking into a moral collapse because people
like you didn't recognize the truth inherent in Rev. Moon's teachings.
So you mock us and spit in our faces (literally and figuratively), then
laugh and accuse us of being "hate-filled" when we meet your allegations
head-on and defend ourselves. How pathetic. How sad for all of us.
> > There's so much psychic pain and mental confusion in the world today.
> > Bill and Pam, you're perfect examples of this. I'm sorry you need to
> > vent your problems through attacking Unificationists. It's all such a
> > vicious cycle. We really do all need the Messiah to heal a sick mankind.
> > I hope that one day you can recognize that and get healed, instead of
> > just multiplying your pain.
>
> Exactly *how* am I this "perfect example"? Exactly *how* am I venting my
> problems against Unificationists? You mean that by asking questions and
> wanting a *thoughtful* conversation with respect and such is attacking
> Unificationists? How are you making *that* connnection? Seems pretty
> illogical to me...but you have labeled me in such a way that I guess you are
> justified by your Messaih to treat me as however you wish.
The first thing you did was to mock my evidence saying, "Oh, the Angela
'bot' is back. How fun. Let's toy with the 'chickenshit' and show how
she has no common sense." Is that a sign of "wanting a thoughtful
conversation?" Or was that another one of your multiple personalities
and "not" you?
How respectful do you expect me to be in the face of such abuse? Isn't
that just your procedure anyways? Attack and then cry that you're the
victim when you're met in like? Remember, I'm the Unificationist whose
rights are being trampled upon here.
What a phoney ploy: "Oh, I'm just 'asking' questions." No, you're just
here insulting every Unificationist you come in contact with. And you
don't call that venting and being abusive?
> At least my religious beliefs has me acting with much more compassion
> towards you then you show towards others that are not of *your*
> mindset/belief.
Really? Is that why you're here? To be a living example of compassion?
While calling me names and typecasting me as a robot? Remember, this is
ARU. You're the intruder disrespecting my religion. I'm not at
alt.ex-member.support, am I? I'm not trying to stop you from doing that,
am I? Make your case there. By being here, YOU are the one who's the
attacker.
You truly are being disingenuous.
> > For your sakes, I'll kindly back away from your hurtful situation and
> > pray that God will work it all out for you through time. I see no amount
> > of logic or evidence will help you otherwise. I'll direct my posts to
> > others.
>
> So, you do the personal attacks, don't answer the questions and then "back
> away"?
Well, if the copy of the post from Dejanews is true (see below), then
you're suffering from a mental problem that shouldn't be toyed with. But
you apparently insinuate that it's false.
I don't know what to think about this. You haven't directly replied to
the post. What am I to believe? The post says you had a hard time even
admitting you have the problem. Consequently, you can't help being an
abusive person. So, if this is true, then why would I want to put myself
in proximity to such abuse? I can simply state my position without
responding to your outrageous slander and spinning efforts. Isn't that
compassion?
> Mighty thoughty of you.
>
> -pam
Again, I don't know your motives for being here. You won't answer my
questions. But if it's simply to harass, why should I play your game,
especially if you're doing it because you're a sick person?
In any event, if you can speak to me with respect, I can speak to you on
that level. If you want to paint me as a "bot" and mock my "lack of
commonsense" before even looking to see what evidence I have, you can
count on not getting any respect from me.
So you tell me what I should do? Treat you with respect because you're a
mental case? Or treat you with respect because you're a respectful
person who respects me as a person?
Bye.
Your Dejanews post:
===============
> Forum: dejanews.comm.support_dv_recovery
>> Thread: Borderline Personality Disorder
>> Message 14 of 14
Subject: Re: Borderline Personality Disorder
Date: 05/10/1999
Author: Pamela Fitzpatrick <p.f...@worldnet.att.net>
<< previous in search · next >>
MPD = Multiple Personality Disorder
I have to also "jump in" and let you know that this particular thread
has been incredibly disturbing for me. I know most of the discussion has
been from the angle of an abuser having these issues/concerns.
See, I had a multitude of disorders assigned to *me* about two years
ago. All as a direct result of the abusive ex-husband. I'm really not
sure what I was like, I just know that I was falling apart on the
insides.
I know that dealing with me must have been horrible. My husband had to
wonder just what the hell he had signed up for with me. And then we have
two kids. I'm not sure if it is the kids that kept him in the marriage
or his love of me. I'll never know because I won't ask.
I did hit bottom though. Big time. I committed myself to an institution
that specializes in cultic abuse and domestic violence. They were the
beginning for my turn around...well, actually *I* was because I finally
reached out. That was incredibly difficult for me to do I might add.
I know that no one should put up with any type of abuse. I just know
that I had to be abusive...I was wounded inside. I could not have been
what my husband wanted. Took me 5 years to finally start working on
getting well...so this was an incredibly long time IMO for my husband to
"wait".
Maybe my saving grace (if you can call it that) is he knew me before I
was ever involved with the ex-husband. He was not around during that
relationship...but I believe that he knew enough of what I was like,
knew that I could be that way again...I have no idea how long my husband
would have "put up" with what was going on for me.
-pam
----------
> From: ntu...@my-dejanews.com
> To: dejanews.comm.su...@list.deja.com
> Subject: Re: Borderline Personality Disorder
> Date: Monday, May 10, 1999 12:54 AM
>
> I When
> > someone has one (like MPD or BPD) they are almost impossible to
deal
> with and
> > it seems to me that by labeling them as being "sick" they can get
> "well" and
> > their 'condition' takes priority over the person(s) that they
abuse.
>
>
> What's MPD?
>
> Nancy
>
>
> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
>
>
==================================
So this isn't your post? You don't have an ex-husband? You don't have
two children?
Which "-pam" are we to believe?
>
> But you will see that I actually answered your questions...
Well, I'd say it has the appearance of having answered the questions.
But you didn't really answer the ones that would you know would be most
revealing.
>
> > Good day!
>
> I am...but I don't need direction from you to do so...
Yikes. I know when to back off from a person with MPD...
>
> -pam
=====================
So is this you speaking or not? If not, you should file a report to
Dejanews that your identity has been stolen. This is a serious matter
that you shouldn't ignore.
See for yourself:
http://x34.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=476180589&CONTEXT=957319780.705036314&hitnum=1
Craig Maxim
-
The Moonies Exposed - www.xmoonies.com
Craig Maxim - craig...@email.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
<n...@user.name> wrote in message news:3908F6...@user.name...
> Maxim and Taylor,
>
> Here's something to make you stop and think about what kind of damage
> you're doing to yourself, and others, by spreading your vicious
> anti-cult movement propaganda:
Well, considering that you mentioned by name, a few of the critics on ARU
and compared that to a cult apologists claims, then I would hope you had
some proof as to the validity of those claims. Let's test your theory and
see, shall we?
Here is a list of the main critics posting regularly on ARU:
- Gordon Neufeld
- Bill Taylor
- Danny Harth
- Graham Lester
- No. 6
- Craig Maxim
- Tilman H.
None of the persons above, were ever deprogrammed to my knowledge. Ok. Your
turn.....?
Don't worry. I don't expect facts and reality to ever cloud your thinking.
Your response is welcomed,
but not expected to offer anything of substance.
> symptoms. Those associated with the anti-cult movement had measurably
> higher levels of symptoms, but those who had been deprogrammed had a
> radically higher number of symptoms than the general sample.
>
> The Lewis and Bromley study became a landmark study in shifting the onus
> of pathology experienced by former members of new religions from the
> religions to the coercive activity of the anti-cult movement. In the
> wake of this study (and other works that confirmed its findings),
> treating former members as people in need of psychological help has
> largely ceased. The lack of any widespread expressed need for
> psychological help by the tens of thousands of former members of new
> religions in the succeeding decade has itself become the strongest
> evidence refuting the early sweeping condemnation of new religions as
> causes of psychological trauma.
>
> Full article at http://www.cesnur.org/testi/melton.htm.
>
> ---------------------------
>
> Key point: "Those associated with the anti-cult movement had measurably
> higher levels of symptoms, but those who had been deprogrammed had a
> radically higher number of symptoms than the general sample."
>
> So Maxim and Taylor, you're both confused ex-members (putting it
> politely) not because of what Rev. Moon did to you, but because of what
> Steve Hassan and the anti-cult movement did to you! Think about it. Or
> has the anti-cult movement taken away your ability to think critically?
>
Craig Maxim
-
The Moonies Exposed - www.xmoonies.com
Craig Maxim - craig...@email.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Gotcha. Hello, Ed Poor.
What happened? Couldn't use your real name anymore?
<n...@user.name> wrote in message news:390F9F...@user.name...
n...@user.name
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> The Moonies Exposed - www.xmoonies.com
> Craig Maxim - craig...@email.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>
>
> > Maxim and Taylor,
> >
> > Here's something to make you stop and think about what kind of damage
> > you're doing to yourself, and others, by spreading your vicious
> > anti-cult movement propaganda:
>
> Well, considering that you mentioned by name, a few of the critics on ARU
> and compared that to a cult apologists claims, then I would hope you had
> some proof as to the validity of those claims. Let's test your theory and
> see, shall we?
>
> Here is a list of the main critics posting regularly on ARU:
>
> - Gordon Neufeld
> - Bill Taylor
> - Danny Harth
> - Graham Lester
> - No. 6
> - Craig Maxim
> - Tilman H.
>
> None of the persons above, were ever deprogrammed to my knowledge. Ok. Your
> turn.....?
> Don't worry. I don't expect facts and reality to ever cloud your thinking.
> Your response is welcomed,
> but not expected to offer anything of substance.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> The Moonies Exposed - www.xmoonies.com
> Craig Maxim - craig...@email.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>
>
> > Maxim and Taylor,
> >
> > Here's something to make you stop and think about what kind of damage
> > you're doing to yourself, and others, by spreading your vicious
> > anti-cult movement propaganda:
>
> Well, considering that you mentioned by name, a few of the critics on ARU
> and compared that to a cult apologists claims, then I would hope you had
> some proof as to the validity of those claims. Let's test your theory and
> see, shall we?
>
> Here is a list of the main critics posting regularly on ARU:
>
> - Gordon Neufeld
> - Bill Taylor
> - Danny Harth
> - Graham Lester
> - No. 6
> - Craig Maxim
> - Tilman H.
>
> None of the persons above, were ever deprogrammed to my knowledge. Ok. Your
> turn.....?
> Don't worry. I don't expect facts and reality to ever cloud your thinking.
> Your response is welcomed,
> but not expected to offer anything of substance.
This was the key point of the quote:
"While the entire sample showed significantly lower levels of
dysfunctional symptoms than the one reported upon by Conway and
Siegelman, it did show a dramatic relationship between the method of
leave-taking and the presence of
symptoms. Those associated with the anti-cult movement had measurably
higher levels of symptoms, but those who had been deprogrammed had a
radically higher number of symptoms than the general sample."
There were three categories studied. Those ex-member who left on their
own. Those ex-members who left after being influenced by the anti-cult
movement's propaganda. And those who were deprogrammed.
The conclusion of the study is that those ex-members who left on their
own, and never became associated with the anti-cult movement, were the
most free of dysfunctional symptoms. Those who were deprogrammed were
the most dysfunctional.
As for your mention of Tilman, I don't recall the study mentioning
deprogrammers as a category investigated for dysfuntional symptoms. I
can only guess they would have the highest level of symptoms. Something
to consider. Someone should do a study on them. All that negative
energy, imagining the worst, having give and take with bad vitality,
hating your enemies, attracting low-level spirits...
Hey wait a minute! What am I doing associating with associates of the
anti-cult movement?
I outa here!!!