Cult-like Critic Behavior: Part II
Monica Pignotti
"Alert" has just exhibited yet another example of cult-like behavior
in critics:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/08f268e017173dc6#
Just a few points of clarification before I continue. I am not saying
that all critics behave that way, just some, just so this doesn't get
misconstrued as a generalization. I am not directing this at Anonymous
because this kind of behavior was going on long before Anonymous came
on the scene. Anonymous seems to have triggered this kind of cult-like
behavior in certain critics, but I do not blame Anonymous for that.
Someone who calls himself "Alert" has taken him upon himself to abuse
the DSM (the psychiatric manual for mental health diagnosis) and label
me as meeting the criteria for "Narcissistic Personality
Disorder" (see above link) and has attempted to do this on OCMB as
well. Although I certainly have no need to defend myself against his
psychobabble, I choose to do this posting in order to help others to
better understand why it is not a good idea to abuse the DSM in this
manner. This is on-topic for ARS because it is about how certain
critics of Scientology are behaving, something that has been
frequently discussed here for years.
First, the most important point here is that Alert and others have
chosen to label as "narcissism" (or in the other people's words self-
importance and other similar adjectives), my behavior of expressing
strong opinions, being very persistent in the face of collective
opposition, and refusing to go away even after getting personally
attacked, along with sharing things I have learned (which has been
reframed as "arrogance"). This is rather ironic because anyone who has
really studied narcissism would know that narcissists have a very hard
time dealing with anything less than continuous praise and a true
narcissist would have flounced off after a few exchanges. Above all,
narcissists want to be liked by others and they would not be engaging
in long drawn arguments where they get continuously attacked. What
Alert and others are doing is an attempt at a reframe and
mischaracterization of my expression of strong opinions and
persistence as "narcissism", or other similar terms. "It's all about
you" has been another repetitive statement. What this does is deflect
from the issues at hand and put attention onto the person who has
deviated from the collective.
Second, even if someone were behaving in an online discussion in a way
that precisely fit DSM criteria for NPD or any other personality
disorder, that would not be grounds to say that the person fits the
criteria for a PD. The first thing mental health professionals learn
in basic psychopathology courses is that the behaviors described in
the DSM for personality disorders are behaviors that every human being
has. If you look for those behaviors, you'll probably find some of
them in just about every person. What makes them personality disorders
is that they are long, enduring patterns that had to have been
documented to have begun by early adulthood and manifest themselves,
not just in one area but in most or all areas of a person's life. See
the problem? No one can get labeled as having a PD by behavior in an
online discussion or in any one situation. Internet behavior is just
one area of a person's life. The only way to legitimately tell if
someone has a personality disorder is to do a full assessment of the
person's history and that isn't done by Googling a person. It is done
by a mental health professional, someone who has no preconceived
agenda or bias, sitting down with the person and examining them very
carefully.
That said, there is a third point I need to make and that is that even
in the hands of the best mental health professionals, the personality
disorders are highly controversial and some psychologists and other
mental health professionals have argued quite convincingly that they
ought to be deleted from the DSM altogether because PDs are mostly
just behaviors that the majority of the people in society don't like.
These are not Scientologists. These are psychologists and social
workers I am referring to. In some cases such as Antisocial
Personality disorder, there can be good reason for not liking the
behaviors but for other PDs such as Schizotypal Personality Disorder a
person can get that label just for being different and holding
unconventional ideas and other eccentric behaviors or people who are
content to be alone and don't have the need for close relationships
most people do can get labelled as Schizoid Personality Disorder
(these are just two examples). NPD can also be interpreted very losely
and easily applied to people who's behavior one doesn't like. It has
been a common "diagnosis" pulled up in internet discussions when
people run out of rebuttals but there is also concern about misuse,
even by mental health professionals. Robyn Dawes' book, House of Cards
has a very interesting discussion on this controversy and whether
mental health diagnoses arise from nature or are socially constructed.
k
"because". Little more than a child's argument. Your experience means squat.
While you may call them a group they have no certain religious belief, so
why call them "cult-like"? I think you are just throwing the C word into the
mix to create drama. You cover it up with this "Cult-like" term, you know
what kinds of people like to create drama? Trolls do.
You must know calling them "cult-like" would hurt and offend them, yet thats
the wording you use. What does that say about you? That you enjoy hurting
people? No i don't think so, i just think you are not thinking about the
feelings of the other persons, while you have an agenda to put forth.
"Monica Pignotti" <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:15e92d56-b26b-4f21...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>This is a continuation, from a discussion from another thread where
>"Alert" has just exhibited yet another example of cult-like behavior
>in critics:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/08f268e017173dc6#
>
>Just a few points of clarification before I continue. I am not saying
>that all critics behave that way, just some, just so this doesn't get
>misconstrued as a generalization. I am not directing this at Anonymous
>because this kind of behavior was going on long before Anonymous came
>on the scene. Anonymous seems to have triggered this kind of cult-like
>behavior in certain critics, but I do not blame Anonymous for that.
>
>Someone who calls himself "Alert" has taken him upon himself to abuse
>the DSM (the psychiatric manual for mental health diagnosis) and label
>me as meeting the criteria for "Narcissistic Personality
>Disorder" (see above link) and has attempted to do this on OCMB as
>well. Although I certainly have no need to defend myself against his
>psychobabble, I choose to do this posting in order to help others to
>better understand why it is not a good idea to abuse the DSM in this
>manner. This is on-topic for ARS because it is about how certain
>critics of Scientology are behaving, something that has been
>frequently discussed here for years.
The practice of Internet morons pretending to be psychiatrists and
using the DSM to "diagnose" people based on their posts is nothing
new. It was considered ancient history when I got onto Usenet in
1987.
On top of that, "Alert" is maybe the biggest idiot ever to criticize
Scientology. As bad as critics are these days, he's not
representative of anyone but his own loathesome, imbecilic self.
Nec_V20
> Without citations your opinions are useless. "This is cult behaviour" why?
> "because". Little more than a child's argument. Your experience means squat.
> While you may call them a group they have no certain religious belief, so
> why call them "cult-like"? I think you are just throwing the C word into the
> mix to create drama. You cover it up with this "Cult-like" term, you know
> what kinds of people like to create drama? Trolls do.
>
> You must know calling them "cult-like" would hurt and offend them, yet thats
> the wording you use. What does that say about you? That you enjoy hurting
> people? No i don't think so, i just think you are not thinking about the
> feelings of the other persons, while you have an agenda to put forth.
>
>
> news:15e92d56-b26b-4f21...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > This is a continuation, from a discussion from another thread where
> > "Alert" has just exhibited yet another example of cult-like behavior
> > in critics:
See Monica?
I said to you in the last post of the previous thread that a more
accurate measure of how cult-like a group has become is by the
incidence of the use of the word "troll".
It is the net version of the F2F equivalent of "Apostate", "Heretic",
"Infidel". or the like.
Another way of describing it would be the degree of cognitive lethargy
and how far the phenomena of incestuous amplification has progressed.
k
> See Monica?
>
> I said to you in the last post of the previous thread that a more
> accurate measure of how cult-like a group has become is by the
> incidence of the use of the word "troll".
>
> It is the net version of the F2F equivalent of "Apostate", "Heretic",
> "Infidel". or the like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Again what belief system are we with on this?
Nec_V20
k,
QUOTE
Again what belief system are we with on this?
UNQUOTE
Does it matter?
As Robert A. Heinlein once wrote, "One man's religion is another man's
belly-laugh".
k
> k,
>
> QUOTE
> Again what belief system are we with on this?
> UNQUOTE
>
> Does it matter?
I am debating the facts, so yes. Why else would i ask?
Nec_V20
k,
my answer was also in the post you quoted.
Now what further qualification do you need?
k
for me, if you wish for me or others to understand.
Scientology is a cu*t
4f21-98d8-4...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> This is a cont
Yes you are quite the cont.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Nec_V20
> Sorry, i failed to see the relevance. Please enlighten me. Connect the dots
> for me, if you wish for me or others to understand.
k,
I am assuming that you are that you are being serious. I'm going to
try to put this as generically as possible, because I know nothing of
your background and do not wish to unknowingly intrude upon your
sensibilities from the outset - Fair?
I'll put it to you this way, if I were to state to you my guiding
principles you would probably find them strange - perhaps even
laughable. The same would probably be true if you stated your guiding
principles to me.
The differences in our individual ethos (that which guides each of us
individually) and our ethics (the principles of our formative
environment to which we adhere) can make traits which make sense to me
appear silly to you and vice versa - presupposing of course that we
are not both products of the same environment.
So are we OK so far?
k
"Nec_V20" <ARC_Tr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:54b11840-1e0e-4556...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 12, 6:44 pm, "k" <admin...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, i failed to see the relevance. Please enlighten me. Connect the
>> dots
>> for me, if you wish for me or others to understand.
>
> k,
>
> I am assuming that you are that you are being serious. I'm going to
> try to put this as generically as possible, because I know nothing of
> your background and do not wish to unknowingly intrude upon your
> sensibilities from the outset - Fair?
You are correct i am being serious. Not trying to goad an irrational
argument i just want to understand your side.
> I'll put it to you this way, if I were to state to you my guiding
> principles you would probably find them strange - perhaps even
> laughable.
I understand if you don't wish to, however you don't know till you try.
>The same would probably be true if you stated your guiding
> principles to me.
Ask as many questions of the persons present at the event. If people
disagree on the events nothing can be presented as fact. That's basically
all. Childish? Probably. All i really want is evidence.
> The differences in our individual ethos (that which guides each of us
> individually) and our ethics (the principles of our formative
> environment to which we adhere) can make traits which make sense to me
> appear silly to you and vice versa - presupposing of course that we
> are not both products of the same environment.
>
> So are we OK so far?
Yes i understand fiction can be fact to some and vice versa. This doesn't
explain the use of the word "cult-like". Yes a person defended a group that
has a less the perfect history. However this person didn't bring their
personal religious beliefs into account. You could definitely argue they had
a agenda, but "cult-like". I cant see it.
Nec_V20
<downs...@cult.is.downstat> wrote:
> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in news:15e92d56-b26b-
> 4f21-98d8-4231d6a6c...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
oh great post. Take you a long time to come up with that masterpiece
did it?
Nec_V20
> "Nec_V20" <ARC_Trian...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
We'll have to work up to that, because let's say I started off with
"What is cult-like" we'd spend the next 100 or so posts trying to
agree what constitutes a cult.
By working up to it however we might both approach the point where a
gathering of people change from being just a group to being a cult.
The reason why I would like to avoid talking about specific beliefs is
because we'd get bogged down again. believe me, I have played this
game before.
BRB need some munchies.
Quaoar
> This is a continuation, from a discussion from another thread where
> "Alert" has just exhibited yet another example of cult-like behavior
> in critics:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/08f268e017173dc6#
>
For the love of humanity, Monica, you participated in (trolled) the OCMB
discussion, then posted your viewpoint and diagnoses on your blog, and
now you are posting the results of your OCMB fishing expedition back her
on ARS?
As a self-pronounced professional in psychology, I suggest you return to
your existence in the MEST universe and see just how obsessive you have
become.
Find a mental health professional, Monica, you need at least some talk
therapy with someone not already in your target list of SPs.
OTOH, you might have Irish Alzheimer's disease: the only memory you have
left is of those people you hate.
Q
Alexia Death
Monica, remember what we talked about the fact that you cult
definition seems to include any form of interest groups that create
discussion environments for them? The word cult is resrved for
religious groups. You may be a cult expert but then you are guilty of
the most common fallacy of any expert - trying to explain life in the
terms of your profession. It does not work. You have been told it does
not work politely and that you ignored. You have been told it does not
work impolitely and you ignored that too. Now you have been told to
take your off-topic pointless drivel and GTFO and you almost made it.
You got out of that particular thread. Well, its not good enough. It
is correct, this is like a public sidewalk, I cant stop you from
spilling your shit here. I can point and ridicule tho just like with a
person taking a crap on a public sidewalk. Really, Monica, you claim
you give lectures. Aren't you ashamed of behaving like a instant
retard on the net? Don't you worry that somebody some day will point
your retarded attention and validation whoring here out to you in your
lectures?
Nec_V20
Alexia,
there is the revolutionary concept called "If you personally do not
like a topic or an area of discussion DON'T READ IT". If you disagree,
"Contribute stating why you disagree with as much civility as your
temper can muster".
OCMB used to be a marketplace of ideas, where people contributed
generously according to their talents.
You morons, and I use that word advisedly, have turned it, as Merlin
and I said to Andreas that you would, into what can only be charitably
described as a car boot sale.
So don't come on here preaching OCMB values - you've been out of stock
for quite some time now in that department. You're all too busy
fighting each other rather than fighting FOR anything.
And junior, I know what I am talking about.
Any questions?
henri
<alexi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Monica - ever the drama whoring troll.
>Monica, remember what we talked about the fact that you cult
>definition seems to include any form of interest groups that create
>discussion environments for them? The word cult is resrved for
>religious groups.
No it isn't. Many groups qualify as cults which are not religious.
One of the more obvious of them is Lyndon Larouche's cult. A cult is
defined by its structure, controlling nature, and dysfunctional
relationship with society at large, not by the beliefs of its members.
The use of cult as solely religious is one preferred by cult
apologists in order to frame opposition to cults as religious bigotry.
Alexia Death
> Alexia,
>
> there is the revolutionary concept called "If you personally do not
> like a topic or an area of discussion DON'T READ IT".
> If you disagree,
> "Contribute stating why you disagree with as much civility as your
> temper can muster".
I have.
> OCMB used to be a marketplace of ideas, where people contributed
> generously according to their talents.
I would not know. Ive never been there.
> You morons, and I use that word advisedly, have turned it, as Merlin
> and I said to Andreas that you would, into what can only be charitably
> described as a car boot sale.
Again, I have never been there. On the other hand looking at Monica's
track record here Id say thats where your "cancer thats killing OCMB"
is.
> So don't come on here preaching OCMB values - you've been out of stock
> for quite some time now in that department. You're all too busy
> fighting each other rather than fighting FOR anything.
That the old guard does a lot. They all need "STAY THE FUCK ON TARGET"
reminders now and then. But Monica is not helping, quite the opposite
actually. Neither are you.
> And junior, I know what I am talking about.
Perhaps. Life will tell.
> Any questions?
No, but if I had Id look for the answers myself rather that trust you
to give them to me.
Quaoar
Go to Monica's blog and post your viewpoints. She can use a friend just
about now.
Q
Monica Pignotti
> Without citations your opinions are useless. "This is cult behaviour" why?
> "because".
That has to be a deliberate mischarcterization on your part because I
have explained in detail why I think that is. As for citations, this
is usenet. Do you want to go after everyone here for not putting
citations on their postings or are you just singling me out?
>Little more than a child's argument. Your experience means squat.
> While you may call them a group they have no certain religious belief, so
> why call them "cult-like"?
You really don't know much about cults. Not all cults are religious --
read Margaret Singer, Steve Hassan and a number of other experts'
writings on cults who make that crystal clear. A cult is about group
dynamics, not religion.
>I think you are just throwing the C word into the
> mix to create drama. You cover it up with this "Cult-like" term, you know
> what kinds of people like to create drama? Trolls do.
> You must know calling them "cult-like" would hurt and offend them, yet thats
> the wording you use. What does that say about you? That you enjoy hurting
> people? No i don't think so, i just think you are not thinking about the
> feelings of the other persons, while you have an agenda to put forth.
I have explained my views and the reasons for them at great length and
you have given me no rebuttal except name-calling. This is not about
feelings. If it were, perhaps you and the others who are smearing me
would be more sensitive. Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:15e92d56-b26b-4f21...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > This is a continuation, from a discussion from another thread where
> > "Alert" has just exhibited yet another example of cult-like behavior
> > in critics:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/th...
> > mental health diagnoses arise from nature or are socially constructed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Monica Pignotti
That's funny because I sure didn't see any in your postings. All I saw
was more childish name-calling
Monica Pignotti
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:58:09 -0700 (PDT), Monica Pignotti
>
>
>
>
>
> <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >This is a continuation, from a discussion from another thread where
> >"Alert" has just exhibited yet another example of cult-like behavior
> >in critics:
>
> >Just a few points of clarification before I continue. I am not saying
> >that all critics behave that way, just some, just so this doesn't get
> >misconstrued as a generalization. I am not directing this at Anonymous
> >because this kind of behavior was going on long before Anonymous came
> >on the scene. Anonymous seems to have triggered this kind of cult-like
> >behavior in certain critics, but I do not blame Anonymous for that.
>
> >Someone who calls himself "Alert" has taken him upon himself to abuse
> >the DSM (the psychiatric manual for mental health diagnosis) and label
> >me as meeting the criteria for "Narcissistic Personality
> >Disorder" (see above link) and has attempted to do this on OCMB as
> >well. Although I certainly have no need to defend myself against his
> >psychobabble, I choose to do this posting in order to help others to
> >better understand why it is not a good idea to abuse the DSM in this
> >manner. This is on-topic for ARS because it is about how certain
> >critics of Scientology are behaving, something that has been
> >frequently discussed here for years.
>
> The practice of Internet morons pretending to be psychiatrists and
> using the DSM to "diagnose" people based on their posts is nothing
> new. It was considered ancient history when I got onto Usenet in
> 1987.
Very true, it's nothing new. It's just new as OCMB, at least as far as
I know.
> On top of that, "Alert" is maybe the biggest idiot ever to criticize
> Scientology. As bad as critics are these days, he's not
> representative of anyone but his own loathesome, imbecilic self.
Perhaps, but no one at OCMB called him out on his behavior.
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti wrote:
> > This is a continuation, from a discussion from another thread where
> > "Alert" has just exhibited yet another example of cult-like behavior
> > in critics:
>
> For the love of humanity, Monica, you participated in (trolled) the OCMB
> discussion, then posted your viewpoint and diagnoses on your blog, and
> now you are posting the results of your OCMB fishing expedition back her
> on ARS?
To you, it seems that anyone who disagrees and challenges the status
quo on OCMB is a "troll". I explained on another thread the reason I
posted this to ARS. When insiders are behaving in a fanatical manner
as is happening on OCMB, it is healthy to go outside the particular
group where that is occurring and see what kind of feedback is
obtained. It's been a very interesting exercise for me to do this and
see all the varied responses people here on ARS have had to all this,
in contrast to the almost uniform groupthink lynch mob mentality
displayed on OCMB towards Os, Smitty and myself.
Nec_V20
That's what the archives are for. As Claire would say, "All you need
to do is use the little search thingie".
Monica Pignotti
> Monica - ever the drama whoring troll.
>
> Monica, remember what we talked about the fact that you cult
> definition seems to include any form of interest groups that create
> discussion environments for them? The word cult is resrved for
> religious groups.
That is absolutely false. Read books by the well-known cult experts
such as Steve Hassan and you will see that cults do not have to be
religious. There can be many different types of non-religious cults.
>You may be a cult expert but then you are guilty of
> the most common fallacy of any expert - trying to explain life in the
> terms of your profession. It does not work. You have been told it does
> not work politely and that you ignored.
Your opinions are not facts and you are obviously igorant about the
definition of a cult. Not all cults are religious in nature. That's
just basic cults 101 type of material that you don't seem to know.
http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/faq/#3
FAQ
3. Are all destructive cults religious?
No. In addition to religious cults, there are psychotherapy cults,
political cults and commercial cults. There are also personality
cults, particularly if one person absolutely controls another (or a
small group of people, such as in a family).
>You have been told it does not
> work impolitely and you ignored that too.
LOL, I have been "told"?
>Now you have been told to
> take your off-topic pointless drivel and GTFO
I don't always do as I'm told and you are in no position to tell me to
do anything. Who died and made you the ARS police?
> and you almost made it.
> You got out of that particular thread. Well, its not good enough. It
> is correct, this is like a public sidewalk, I cant stop you from
> spilling your shit here.
I can see that you're really bent out of shape that I continue to post
here. Too bad. You'll just have to continue your tantrum because I
don't take orders from you and will continue to post here as I see
fit.
>I can point and ridicule tho just like with a
> person taking a crap on a public sidewalk.
Go right ahead. What seems to be frustrating you is that your pointing
and ridiculing of me is not driving me off.
Why does that bother you so much?
>Really, Monica, you claim
> you give lectures. Aren't you ashamed of behaving like a instant
> retard on the net? Don't you worry that somebody some day will point
> your retarded attention and validation whoring here out to you in your
> lectures?
That's your opinion. Others who's opinions I hold in higher esteem
don't share it. No, you can forget ever shaming me off ARS or anywhere
else. I will post here as I see fit and if you don't like it, too bad.
I will come and go as I see fit.
k
No i didn't post any facts i asked questions. Could you answer my questions?
"Monica Pignotti" <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:bfbd5028-1955-48d2...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> On top of that, "Alert" is maybe the biggest idiot ever to criticize
>> Scientology. As bad as critics are these days, he's not
>> representative of anyone but his own loathesome, imbecilic self.
>Perhaps, but no one at OCMB called him out on his behavior.
For the past few years, I have called OCMB the Jonestown Message Board
because of the general tenor of the Hallelujah Chorus there. I try to
avoid reading it because of the inevitable rise in blood pressure
occasioned by doing so.
Nec_V20
I'll post what and where I want to. If you don't like it then don't
read it - otherwise tough. There's no-one here that you can run and
snitch to like a sniveling schoolgirl.
kennethno...@gmail.com
>
> On top of that, "Alert" is maybe the biggest idiot ever to criticize
> Scientology. As bad as critics are these days, he's not
> representative of anyone but his own loathesome, imbecilic self.
Off topic, but is there any critics that you actually approve of?
I've only heard you talk negatively of pretty much everyone here.
Just an observation.
--
Scientology: Chilling Propaganda Tape for Parents
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYdpNpPDWMc
A Truthful Infomercial by Scientology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnUbdAw9V4Y
k
without evidence. You admit that. I am singling you out because you and the
opinions you put forth are interesting. You may have noticed but 99% of
everything on this NG is the same old same old.
While no a cult doesn't have to be a religious movement. However if you are
using cults alternative meanings then please say so. The only other meaning
i could begin to guess you mean is a cultural movement. This seems very
overboard. Do you mean cult as in religious movement of cultural movement?
I am not other people and i have not resorted to name calling. Possibly i
maybe have stated your argument was childish, i hope you understand you are
not your argument.
I believe you may be somewhat angry from your writing, please calm down i am
just asking questions. With the occasional guess, always stated as such
though. I am not out to smear or insult you, just debate a little if you can
calm a bit.
If you don't think talking to me is worthwhile thats fine. I hope for a
reasoned response.
"Monica Pignotti" <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:e91d5a57-1ebf-4cab...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Monica Pignotti
Alexia, I just looked at your website and noticed that you shared some
quite painful experiences of being shamed by bullies.
http://alexia.death.pri.ee/about/
I'm truly sorry for you that this happened. Kids can be very cruel,
especially in groups. I'm just wondering why you seem to have the need
to behave like a bully yourself toward me and attempt to shame me off
ARS. It doesn't work and I will come and go as I see fit, but it does
have me feeling rather sorry for you that you need to do this. I'm
just giving you some feedback as another human being who knows
something about being bullied on a personal level -- this is not
intended as any kind of professional comment. I'm just wondering as a
fellow human being who has also had to endure bullying in Scientology
and earlier, in school similar to what you describe, why you seem to
feel the need to "kill" someone such as myself who refuses to be
"killed" by shaming and ridicule.
Does it bother you that I can stand up to shaming, harrassment and
ridicule and still be here, alive and very well because I don't allow
myself to be "trampled down" by anyone? I just don't really
understand your behavior towards me.
Monica Pignotti
> On Jun 12, 9:45 am, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On top of that, "Alert" is maybe the biggest idiot ever to criticize
> > Scientology. As bad as critics are these days, he's not
> > representative of anyone but his own loathesome, imbecilic self.
>
> Off topic, but is there any critics that you actually approve of?
> I've only heard you talk negatively of pretty much everyone here.
> Just an observation.
Of course there are. There are several I respect. David Touretsky and
his webite, the OCMB website which I'll still refer people to
(although not the board as it is right now), Margery Wakefield,
Paulette Cooper, Stephen Kent, many people from ICSA -- there's a long
list.
Skipper
<2389ab29-da20-4fa8...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Does it bother you that I can stand up to shaming, harrassment and
> ridicule and still be here, alive and very well because I don't allow
> myself to be "trampled down" by anyone? I just don't really
> understand your behavior towards me.
Monica, you strike me as the biggest kind of bullshit artist because
you're bullshitting yourself.
Write a friggin book about the critics. Bridge Publications will jump
all over it.
Alert
> This is a continuation, from a discussion from another thread where
> "Alert" has just exhibited yet another example of cult-like behavior
You mean where I finally called you a bore, said you could have the
final word then you repeticiously responded to me and I didnt even
bother to read your replies there until now, and now youre having the
"final word" by starting this thread?
LMAO!
> in critics:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/th...
>
> Just a few points of clarification before I continue. I am not saying
> that all critics behave that way, just some, just so this doesn't get
> misconstrued as a generalization. I am not directing this at Anonymous
> because this kind of behavior was going on long before Anonymous came
> on the scene. Anonymous seems to have triggered this kind of cult-like
> behavior in certain critics, but I do not blame Anonymous for that.
> Someone who calls himself "Alert" has taken him upon himself to abuse
> the DSM (the psychiatric manual for mental health diagnosis) and label
> me as meeting the criteria for "Narcissistic Personality
> Disorder" (see above link)
You mean do YOU fit the following criteria?
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
SYMPTOMS
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for
admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and
present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of
the following:
(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates
achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without
commensurate achievements)
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power,
brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be
understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status
people (or institutions)
(4) requires excessive admiration
(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of
especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her
expectations
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others
to achieve his or her own ends
(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the
feelings and needs of others
(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of
him or her
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
> and has attempted to do this on OCMB as
> well.
You wombat, I posted the above without even mentioning you intitially,
and you dropped your bundle. Just like an NPD sufferer.
Thanks for making next weeks consultation being something special
> Although I certainly have no need to defend myself against his
> psychobabble,
Of course not, its why you wouldnt *ever* feel the need to try dispell
the idea you suffer a mental iillness yourself or personality disorder
yourself. *eyes roll
Denial:
"a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a
personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence
of the problem or reality"
> I choose to do this posting in order to help others to
> better understand why it is not a good idea to abuse the DSM in this
> manner.
Cool,
I chose to post the NPD criteria here for people to see that someone
suffering the disorder, would most likely go to great lengths to try
hide the fact.
> This is on-topic for ARS because it is about how certain
> critics of Scientology are behaving, something that has been
> frequently discussed here for years.
Yes, its on topic because I decided to finally ignore you in the
original castigation of Dorothy thread you started?
<snipped the rest of the self justification>
Have at it with your last word compulsion, Monica.
Youve got *much* moar to lose than me, by being seen in another light
by your peers.
Oh, and in case you missed it.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
SYMPTOMS
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for
admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and
present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of
the following:
(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates
achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without
commensurate achievements)
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power,
brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be
understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status
people (or institutions)
(4) requires excessive admiration
(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of
especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her
expectations
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others
to achieve his or her own ends
(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the
feelings and needs of others
(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of
him or her
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Continue your "last word", Monica.
*snort
Monica Pignotti
Thanks for your highly predictable response that demonstrates exactly
the point I was making about you, Alert. You've done exactly what I
predicted: snipped out my argument that exposes the misconceptions you
have about personality disorders and replaced it with more
psychobabble and amateur diagnosing. You proved my point.
Monica Pignotti
Oh -- and just to correct your misinformation. You didn't mention me
initially in your OCMB posting, but you did in a posting right after
that where you directly named me, BEFORE I had responded to you.
Monica Pignotti
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:33:10 -0700 (PDT), Monica Pignotti
>
> >> On top of that, "Alert" is maybe the biggest idiot ever to criticize
> >> Scientology. As bad as critics are these days, he's not
> >> representative of anyone but his own loathesome, imbecilic self.
> >Perhaps, but no one at OCMB called him out on his behavior.
>
> For the past few years, I have called OCMB the Jonestown Message Board
> because of the general tenor of the Hallelujah Chorus there. I try to
> avoid reading it because of the inevitable rise in blood pressure
> occasioned by doing so.
I now see that they're getting quite a reputation and a well deserved
one at that.
Monica Pignotti
>
I think that's what's so frustrating for some of these folks. I'm just
amazed that some are stupid enough to think that ordering us to GTFO
repeatedly is going to produce any different result than it did the
first time. Who was it who said that insanity is doing the same thing
over and over and expecting to get a different result?
Hartley Patterson
> No it isn't. Many groups qualify as cults which are not religious.
That might be convenient, but it isn't true. The meanings of words are
determined by their users, not experts or committees, and to the general
public 'cults' nowadays are small religious groups gone bad. We have
enough trouble with Scientology in this regard, which is perceived as
being not small and *therefore* not a cult. 'Small', fortunately, we can
prove.
So I'd rather say there are non-religious groups that in many ways behave
like cults, just as the CoS is a cult that in many way behaves like a
financial scam.
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/index.htm
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
Monica Pignotti
> I didn't mean to insult you, i apologize.
>
> No i didn't post any facts i asked questions. Could you answer my questions?
Attacking critics is cult-like behavior, not all that different from
what Scientologists do with their doctrine to never defend themselves,
but to always go after the critic in a highly personal way. There are
plenty of psychotherapy cults that use "diagnosis" as a weapon in the
way it was attempted on me by this individual. The idea is to upset
the critic by trying to put the critic's attention on self, deflecting
from the actual issue the critic raises. There are books on cult
dynamics I can recommend. Crazy Therapies is a book by Margaret Singer
on psychotherapy cults and other bogus therapies. SHAM by Steven
Salerno is another book about the cult-like "self-help and
actualization movement". One of the dynamics criticized that is common
in these movements is to label people and then claim that any attempt
to deny it means that it is true and that the person is "in denial" as
we can observe "Alert" doing here to me.
Of course, there's the other aspect to all this that it is becoming
very common on a number of list servs to post the criteria for NPD
when someone they posts says something they don't like or as a way to
personally attack when they have no substantive rebuttal. Just a few
weeks ago someone tried to diagnose a dead woman he had never even
met, in this manner. The NPD online "diagnosis" is becoming almost a
cliche.
Monica
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
Monica Pignotti
>
> No i didn't post any facts i asked questions. Could you answer my questions?
>
>
> news:bfbd5028-1955-48d2...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 12, 1:14 pm, "k" <admin...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > > k,
>
> > > QUOTE
> > > Again what belief system are we with on this?
> > > UNQUOTE
>
> > > Does it matter?
>
> > I am debating the facts, so yes. Why else would i ask?
>
> That's funny because I sure didn't see any in your postings. All I saw
> was more childish name-calling
One other thing, you seem to have the same misconception Alexia does
that a cult must be a relgion. This is not true. See the link I
referred her to for accurate information that not all cults have to be
religious.
Tom Newton
Quaoar <qua...@marcabfleet.net> wrote:
> Monica Pignotti wrote:
>
>> This is a continuation, from a discussion from
>> another thread where "Alert" has just exhibited yet
>> another example of cult-like behavior in critics:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse
>> _frm/thread/08f268e017173dc6#
>
>
> For the love of humanity, Monica, you participated in (trolled)
"Trolled" meaning "posted views contrary to those of the
anti-Scientology fanatics, whom are all pathological liars and
vicious bigots.
> the OCMB discussion, then posted your viewpoint and diagnoses
> on your blog, and now you are posting the results of your OCMB
> fishing expedition back her on ARS?
That's exactly the sort of thing 'Anonymous' members do all the
time, except they change their names for each forum, being
deceptive and dishonest.
> As a self-pronounced professional in psychology, I suggest you
> return to your existence in the MEST universe and see just how
> obsessive you have become.
And I suggest that you take your advice and stick it up the
orofice you post from.
>
> Find a mental health professional, Monica, you need at least
> some talk therapy with someone not already in your target list
> of SPs.
More bitch-mouthed character assasination from a lying bigot.
What a pathetic punk he is.
>
> OTOH, you might have Irish Alzheimer's disease: the only memory
> you have left is of those people you hate.
>
> Q
Says a member of a hate group.
'Anonymous' is peopled by assholes like this.
Your critics are here and you can't silence us just
by running your lying bitch mouth.
Tom
--
The Truth will set you free:
http://www.sethcenter.com
henri
<hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> No it isn't. Many groups qualify as cults which are not religious.
>That might be convenient, but it isn't true. The meanings of words are
>determined by their users, not experts or committees, and to the general
>public 'cults' nowadays are small religious groups gone bad. We have
>enough trouble with Scientology in this regard, which is perceived as
>being not small and *therefore* not a cult. 'Small', fortunately, we can
>prove.
>So I'd rather say there are non-religious groups that in many ways behave
>like cults, just as the CoS is a cult that in many way behaves like a
>financial scam.
That's an extraordinarily useless and silly way of defining it, but of
course, you're free to do that and to claim erroneously that it's
actually supported by usage.
Monica Pignotti
wrote:
> he...@nowhere.com:
>
> > No it isn't. Many groups qualify as cults which are not religious.
>
> That might be convenient, but it isn't true. The meanings of words are
> determined by their users, not experts or committees, and to the general
> public 'cults' nowadays are small religious groups gone bad. We have
> enough trouble with Scientology in this regard, which is perceived as
> being not small and *therefore* not a cult. 'Small', fortunately, we can
> prove.
>
> So I'd rather say there are non-religious groups that in many ways behave
> like cults, just as the CoS is a cult that in many way behaves like a
> financial scam.
You are misinformed, Hartley. It is very well known that cults are do
not have to be religious cults. Just have a look at the presentations
being offered at the International Cultic Studies Association
conference to be held later this month and you'll see many different
types of groups being represented as cults, not all of them religious.
There are even cult apologists affiliated with ICSA who have gotten
past that limitation -- ICSA has a wide variety of different types of
experts. Your statement about the "general public" is meaningless.
Just because you have had to deal with ignorant people doesn't mean
that they're right. What needs to happen is that these people need to
be educated, not conceded to because they're misinformed. See ICSA's
website:
http://icsahome.com/infoserv_conferences/conference_session.asp
You'll see a number of political and psychotherapy cults are the
topics of these sessions.
And if you want something written more by the "general public" have a
look at the Wikipedia article on cults, which fully acknowledges the
psychological definition of a cult, which has the different types of
cults:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Psychological_definition
[edit] Psychological definition
Studies of the psychological aspects of cults focus on the individual
person, and factors relating to the choice to become involved as well
as the subsequent effects on individuals. Under one view, an important
factor is coercive persuasion which suppresses the ability of people
to reason, think critically, and make choices in their own best
interest.
"Studies of religious, political, and other cults have identified a
number of key steps in this type of coercive persuasion"
"People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;
Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is
repeatedly emphasized;
They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a
charismatic leader;
They get a new identity based on the group;
They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives, and
the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely
controlled"
******************
That said, note that the title of this thread is CULT-LIKE behavior
not CULT behavior so people here are arguing against something I never
even wrote. I said that some critics have cult-like behavior, not that
the are in cults.
Quaoar
Your defensive attitude, for no apparent reason, speaks volumes. You
should consult a good physician, psychiatrist, or psychological
counselor, and talk out your problems, and take the damned drugs!
Q
Quaoar
Hey, Monica! Snap! Snap!
YOU continue to post the same, exact, identical ideation over and over
again, expecting that your last posting will convince all of us with
decent mental health that we are in the wrong and that we should
genuflect in your general direction.
Q
Tom Newton
Typical stinking troll: Attacks someone then accuses them of being
'defensive' when they respond to that attack.
What a stupid punk this dicless troll is.
Tom Newton
Little bitchy dickless troll continues to attack someone who
dares to post opinions he disagrees with.
Poor little stinking punk troll.
Free speech drives him crazy.
Isn't that just too bad?
t_shuffle
> snip
> This is on-topic for ARS because it is about how
> certain critics of Scientology are behaving, something
> that has been frequently discussed here for years.
There are over 9000 people that have all decided to do something about
Scientology. They're here, they're doing their homework, and they have
proven to be effective.
Instead of embracing this incredible new dynamic, and maybe offering a few
words of wisdom and guidance, you've chosen to shit on it from the very
beginning.
And now, here you are, whining about all the new enemies you've made, and
how unfairly you've been treated. Nobody cares.
Your hurt feelings and need to be respected are meaningless here. Lead,
follow, or get the fuck out of the way.
Monica Pignotti
You continue to demonstrate exactly the sort of behavior I am
referring to. Thanks for providing us with such an appropriate example
and proving my points.
Scientology is a cu*t
79c64e...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> On Jun 12, 7:15 pm, "Scientology is a cu*t"
> <downs...@cult.is.downstat> wrote:
>> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in news:15e92d56-b26b-
>> 4f21-98d8-4231d6a6c...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > This is a cont
>>
>> Yes you are quite the cont.
>> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
>
> oh great post. Take you a long time to come up with that masterpiece
> did it?
No, it happened on the spot.
Am I supposed to be put off by this cutting comment? Because it didn't
work.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
alanzo...@gmail.com
> In article
> <2389ab29-da20-4fa8-a9e7-cc52381c2...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Does it bother you that I can stand up to shaming, harrassment and
> > ridicule and still be here, alive and very well because I don't allow
> > myself to be "trampled down" by anyone? I just don't really
> > understand your behavior towards me.
>
> Monica, you strike me as the biggest kind of bullshit artist because
> you're bullshitting yourself.
>
> Write a friggin book about the critics. Bridge Publications will jump
> all over it.
Skippy, Skippy, Skippy.
Just because "the enemy" may jump all over an idea does not mean that
the idea must belong in either the "us" or "them" camp.
Now listen up Skip, because this post is going to completely handle
you and make you a whole different person. You are going to read what
I have to say here and totally do a 180 on your whole character on
ARS.
Ready?
Monica P has contributed much to the ideas and direction of the critic
scene over the decades, just as you have. Monica, if I am not
mistaken, has even appeared on TV talk shows and been a very high-
profile critic of the Church of Scientology when that involved huge
risk to life and limb. And so Monica deserves the respect at least
shown to a feral cat that has wandered into your garage, don't you
think?
OK then.
Your needle is floating.
You have been dispatched to the next terminal on your routing form.
Thank me later.
Now. Monica.
I very much agree with you because the atmosphere and artificial
society created in a cult is actually rooted in human nature itself.
It's an Elephant Man caricature of human nature, but it is rooted in
the social nature of humans. And any group must be on the watch for
coercion and abuse, critics of Scientology included. Just look at the
abuse and the coercive attempts at getting you and your ideas to
conform to the "norm" which exist on this thread alone, and you can
see that your point has been proven, over and over.
All right.
My work is done here.
With all this adolescent bullshit and turd-flinging, ARS has,
unfortunately, become a suck-ass place again.
Toodles.
Hartley Patterson
> You are misinformed, Hartley. It is very well known that cults are do
> not have to be religious cults. Just have a look at the presentations
> being offered at the International Cultic Studies Association
> conference to be held later this month
Isn't that agreeing with what I said? Experts can redefine words all they
want for their own purposes, but that doesn't put the redefinition into
general usage.
> And if you want something written more by the "general public" have a
> look at the Wikipedia article on cults
And so is that. The general public doesn't write Wikipedia articles!
Hartley Patterson
> That's an extraordinarily useless and silly way of defining it, but of
> course, you're free to do that and to claim erroneously that it's
> actually supported by usage.
My mistake, I didn't notice who I was replying to!
Patrick Volk
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>This is a continuation, from a discussion from another thread where
{snip}
>frequently discussed here for years.
>
>First, the most important point here is that Alert and others have
>chosen to label as "narcissism" (or in the other people's words self-
>importance and other similar adjectives), my behavior of expressing
>strong opinions, being very persistent in the face of collective
>opposition, and refusing to go away even after getting personally
>attacked, along with sharing things I have learned (which has been
>reframed as "arrogance"). This is rather ironic because anyone who has
>really studied narcissism would know that narcissists have a very hard
>time dealing with anything less than continuous praise and a true
>narcissist would have flounced off after a few exchanges. Above all,
>narcissists want to be liked by others and they would not be engaging
>in long drawn arguments where they get continuously attacked. What
>Alert and others are doing is an attempt at a reframe and
>mischaracterization of my expression of strong opinions and
>persistence as "narcissism", or other similar terms. "It's all about
>you" has been another repetitive statement. What this does is deflect
>from the issues at hand and put attention onto the person who has
>deviated from the collective.
Fact is, many people like labels. Labels are used to discount what
somebody says, or believes in. I believe that yes, conditions defined
in the DSM can be used in a fashion similar to other derogatory
labels.
That is not the fault of the label. A good way for a Scientologist to
try and end a discussion is to use lables like "religious bigot",
"criminal", and so on. In a similar fashion, a critic can use lables
like "cultie", "clam", and so on.
>
>Second, even if someone were behaving in an online discussion in a way
>that precisely fit DSM criteria for NPD or any other personality
>disorder, that would not be grounds to say that the person fits the
>criteria for a PD. The first thing mental health professionals learn
>in basic psychopathology courses is that the behaviors described in
>the DSM for personality disorders are behaviors that every human being
>has.
> If you look for those behaviors, you'll probably find some of
>them in just about every person. What makes them personality disorders
>is that they are long, enduring patterns that had to have been
>documented to have begun by early adulthood and manifest themselves,
>not just in one area but in most or all areas of a person's life. See
>the problem? No one can get labeled as having a PD by behavior in an
>online discussion or in any one situation. Internet behavior is just
>one area of a person's life. The only way to legitimately tell if
>someone has a personality disorder is to do a full assessment of the
>person's history and that isn't done by Googling a person. It is done
>by a mental health professional, someone who has no preconceived
>agenda or bias, sitting down with the person and examining them very
>carefully.
I think you might misunderstand what the DSM is for (or those that
"quote" from it). The DSM is a list of recognized disorders. Its'
intent is more to categorize disorders, than to define them.
The example in my textbook (which deals with the DSM-III) is if a
psychiatrist diagnoses someone with 'catatonic schizophrenic disorder'
that another psychiatrist would produce the same diagnosis.
The conditions listed in the DSM (now IV, and V is in the works) are
generally expanded on in questionnaires and questions, which are then
used as specific issues for treatment.
>
>That said, there is a third point I need to make and that is that even
>in the hands of the best mental health professionals, the personality
>disorders are highly controversial and some psychologists and other
>mental health professionals have argued quite convincingly that they
>ought to be deleted from the DSM altogether because PDs are mostly
>just behaviors that the majority of the people in society don't like.
Let me give you the definition for personality disorder:
Personality disorder - Psychological disorders characterized by
enduring, maladaptive traits.
The operative word is maladaptive.
Probably the most common 'disorder' is depression. Just about
everybody has a bout of it, but in the context of loss, it's normal,
and resolves itself. Not maladaptive.
There are cases however where depression doesn't resolve itself
(generally several months), or intensifies to the point of disabling
the person.
When someone is withdrawn, are they antisocial, or depressed? That is
what the DSM helps determine.
>These are not Scientologists. These are psychologists and social
>workers I am referring to. In some cases such as Antisocial
>Personality disorder, there can be good reason for not liking the
>behaviors but for other PDs such as Schizotypal Personality Disorder a
>person can get that label just for being different and holding
>unconventional ideas and other eccentric behaviors or people who are
>content to be alone and don't have the need for close relationships
>most people do can get labelled as Schizoid Personality Disorder
>(these are just two examples).
Psychologists aren't the only one with labels ready to hang them on
things. Religions like to call people sinners, and have them confess.
Radio talk show hosts like to categorize people as liberals, or
conservatives.
Schizoid isn't being eccentric really. JK Rowling has a very detailed
imagination, and she's been able to write several thousand pages on
it. Eccentric? Could very well be. But she's functional.
Someone who is able to contruct something as vivid, but isn't able to
distinguish 'get out of their head' enough to say, hold a coversation
or a job, would be a job.
Most localities don't consider a mental condition to be a problem that
needs to be referred to MH folks unless the person is considered a
danger to others, or themselves. Parents, and patients have different
criteria.
> NPD can also be interpreted very losely
>and easily applied to people who's behavior one doesn't like. It has
>been a common "diagnosis" pulled up in internet discussions when
>people run out of rebuttals but there is also concern about misuse,
>even by mental health professionals. Robyn Dawes' book, House of Cards
>has a very interesting discussion on this controversy and whether
>mental health diagnoses arise from nature or are socially constructed.
NPD is a label like bigot, or cultie. Don't make it any more than
that. I doubt the person making the accusation really knows what
they're talking about.
Hope you understand the context. If someone said you have NPD, it's
not a diagnosis, but an epithet.
henri
<hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> You are misinformed, Hartley. It is very well known that cults are do
>> not have to be religious cults. Just have a look at the presentations
>> being offered at the International Cultic Studies Association
>> conference to be held later this month
>Isn't that agreeing with what I said? Experts can redefine words all they
>want for their own purposes, but that doesn't put the redefinition into
>general usage.
>> And if you want something written more by the "general public" have a
>> look at the Wikipedia article on cults
>And so is that. The general public doesn't write Wikipedia articles!
No, but if a heavily edited Wiki article is not reflective of the
standard view, it generally rapidly comes into line with it. Most
rational people, if confronted with a description of Larouche's group
and a labeling of it as a "cult" would have absolutely no difficulty
grasping the concept.
If one is attempting to explain to people how to avoid cults,
including political cults, as a type of exploitive group that is best
avoided, there is absolutely no reason to avoid using the word which
is most directly tailored to describe the type of group in question.
That word is cult.
Your formalist definition of the word is like claiming a DeLorean
isn't a car because the doors open differently than any other car's.
On doing a Nexis search of news articles concerning LaRouche's cult
and other similar cults, in conjunction with the word cult, it is
evident that the mass media often describes nonreligious groups as
cults. They certainly would not do this if, as you erroneously claim,
it is not common usage.
Even giving undue credence to your baseless claim that common usage is
the only valid definition of a term, even a term of art in sociology,
psychology, etc., the usage in the news media and elsewhere, which is
expected to be read by the public, is quite clearly on the side of the
secular anticult usage which includes nonreligious groups.
If you actually have a basis for your claim, I invite you to present
it.
Fredric L. Rice
>This is a continuation of the same insane cuntspew that
>we have all seen before endlessly
Yep.
---
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=71238
Scientology smacked down for trying to stop free speech
Eldon
> This is a continuation, from a discussion from another thread where
>
> Just a few points of clarification before I continue. I am not saying
> that all critics behave that way, just some, just so this doesn't get
> misconstrued as a generalization. I am not directing this at Anonymous
> because this kind of behavior was going on long before Anonymous came
> on the scene. Anonymous seems to have triggered this kind of cult-like
> behavior in certain critics, but I do not blame Anonymous for that.
>
> Someone who calls himself "Alert" has taken him upon himself to abuse
> the DSM (the psychiatric manual for mental health diagnosis) and label
> me as meeting the criteria for "Narcissistic Personality
> well. Although I certainly have no need to defend myself against his
> psychobabble, I choose to do this posting in order to help others to
> better understand why it is not a good idea to abuse the DSM in this
> critics of Scientology are behaving, something that has been
>
> First, the most important point here is that Alert and others have
> chosen to label as "narcissism" (or in the other people's words self-
> importance and other similar adjectives), my behavior of expressing
> strong opinions, being very persistent in the face of collective
> opposition, and refusing to go away even after getting personally
> attacked, along with sharing things I have learned (which has been
> reframed as "arrogance"). This is rather ironic because anyone who has
> really studied narcissism would know that narcissists have a very hard
> time dealing with anything less than continuous praise and a true
> narcissist would have flounced off after a few exchanges. Above all,
> narcissists want to be liked by others and they would not be engaging
> in long drawn arguments where they get continuously attacked. What
> Alert and others are doing is an attempt at a reframe and
> mischaracterization of my expression of strong opinions and
> persistence as "narcissism", or other similar terms. "It's all about
> you" has been another repetitive statement. What this does is deflect
> from the issues at hand and put attention onto the person who has
> deviated from the collective.
>
> that precisely fit DSM criteria for NPD or any other personality
> disorder, that would not be grounds to say that the person fits the
> criteria for a PD. The first thing mental health professionals learn
> in basic psychopathology courses is that the behaviors described in
> the DSM for personality disorders are behaviors that every human being
> has. If you look for those behaviors, you'll probably find some of
> them in just about every person. What makes them personality disorders
> is that they are long, enduring patterns that had to have been
> documented to have begun by early adulthood and manifest themselves,
> not just in one area but in most or all areas of a person's life. See
> the problem? No one can get labeled as having a PD by behavior in an
> online discussion or in any one situation. Internet behavior is just
> one area of a person's life. The only way to legitimately tell if
> someone has a personality disorder is to do a full assessment of the
> person's history and that isn't done by Googling a person. It is done
> by a mental health professional, someone who has no preconceived
> agenda or bias, sitting down with the person and examining them very
> carefully.
This certainly correct, though I think it's a safe bet to say that
cult leaders by definition have personality disorders somewhere in the
vicinity of NPD, or they would have surely chosen another
vocation. ;-)
>
> That said, there is a third point I need to make and that is that even
> in the hands of the best mental health professionals, the personality
> disorders are highly controversial and some psychologists and other
> mental health professionals have argued quite convincingly that they
> ought to be deleted from the DSM altogether because PDs are mostly
> just behaviors that the majority of the people in society don't like.
> These are not Scientologists. These are psychologists and social
> workers I am referring to. In some cases such as Antisocial
> Personality disorder, there can be good reason for not liking the
> behaviors but for other PDs such as Schizotypal Personality Disorder a
> person can get that label just for being different and holding
> unconventional ideas and other eccentric behaviors or people who are
> content to be alone and don't have the need for close relationships
> most people do can get labelled as Schizoid Personality Disorder
> (these are just two examples). NPD can also be interpreted very losely
feministe
news:MqydnV-qrJoQHMzV...@comcast.com...
> Monica Pignotti wrote:
>> This is a continuation, from a discussion from another thread where
>> "Alert" has just exhibited yet another example of cult-like behavior
>> in critics:
>>
>
> For the love of humanity, Monica, you participated in (trolled) the OCMB
> you are posting the results of your OCMB fishing expedition back her on
> ARS?
>
> your existence in the MEST universe and see just how obsessive you have
> become.
>
> therapy with someone not already in your target list of SPs.
>
> left is of those people you hate.
>
> Q
Monica does not realize that her methods are no better than cultists' ones
(I apologize for using against a anticultist a... cultic argument that that
anticultist has herself used!
Indeed, accusing anticultists of being cultic is a cultic argument.Just a
demo of the fact that we anticultists should discuss privately when we have
big disagreements , rather than putting publicly some insulting
roger gonnet
FTSOH
In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
With the Message-ID: <48523146$0$5456$426a...@news.free.fr>
And the Organization Header: Guest of ProXad - France.
The famous author: "feministe" <femi...@free.fr>.
Wrote on the subject: Re: Cult-like Critic Behavior: Part II:
Let's blow some charge on the "CULT" wor here, shall we? How about a
whole shitload of lines only containing the word CULT?:
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
WolfyRik
like it?
You and vec have used the phrase if you don't like it, don't read it
and yet you remain here staunchly attacking Anonymous and the fourms,
whilst contributing nothing at all to the debate of scientology.
Surely you are in the wrong place? What you are looking for is a group
discussing Anonymous? It wouldn't be so bad if you were contributing
to the larger debate, but you're not. Instead you're filling the
forums with what is essentially off-topic spam.
You returned here (if this is infact Monica P and not another clam
stolen identity) after a year of almost total silence and instead of
returning to discuss the sudden rise of attention on scientology, you
only wished to slag-off people on the boards. Why?
I mean if you just wanted to say your piece, that you're worried about
Anonymous, fine, you've said it. At the start of this year most
critics would have agreed with you. There was even a post by an
Australian critic to youtube which outright condemned Anon, as well as
Mark Bunkers posts which questioned their actions.
However, Anonymous listened. Their attitude, goals and behavior
changed. Yours has not. If anything your posts have become more
frequent and less relevant. Can't you see why this behavior has
garnered you the title of Troll?
What's worse is that instead of learning from experience, both on and
off these forums, instead of choosing to listen or contribute to the
forums while agreeing to disagree on the subject of Anonymous, you
have turned almost entirely to attacking them and critics who defend
them. Posting about cult-like behavior in regards to anyone who
doesn't agree with you.
Now, we can debate til the sun goes down and hell freezes over about
who has the more cult-like behavior, but two things remain fact; you
are not here contributing to to the discussion of scientology, you're
here attacking people who are.
Why is that?
Monica Pignotti
> I'd just like to know one thing, Monica why are you here if you don't
> like it?
Here? This is ARS, not OCMB.
> You and vec have used the phrase if you don't like it, don't read it
I used that phrase in the context of people who have ordered me to
GTFO, stop posting or some other variation on that kind of order.
People have the right to criticize and comment on things things.
That's completely different from ordering someone to GTFO.
> and yet you remain here staunchly attacking Anonymous and the fourms,
> whilst contributing nothing at all to the debate of scientology.
This thread is not an attack on Anonymous. It is a criticism of the
behavior of a certain person on OCMB. I don't even know if he's part
of Anonymous or not and it doesn't matter because I am not criticizing
all of Anonymous based on only his behavior.
> Surely you are in the wrong place? What you are looking for is a group
> discussing Anonymous?
ARS isn't that limited, so stop the "off topic" policing. ARS
discusses anything related to Scientology and its critics.
>It wouldn't be so bad if you were contributing
> to the larger debate, but you're not. Instead you're filling the
> forums with what is essentially off-topic spam.
There is nothing off-topic about discussing critics of Scientology.
>
> You returned here (if this is infact Monica P and not another clam
> stolen identity) after a year of almost total silence and instead of
> returning to discuss the sudden rise of attention on scientology, you
> only wished to slag-off people on the boards. Why?
First of all, I'm a person, not an "artifact". I realize it's unusual
here but I actually do use my own name. Second, its not for you to
dictate what and when I should post here. I post when and what I see
fit to post.
> I mean if you just wanted to say your piece, that you're worried about
> Anonymous, fine, you've said it.
This was not a posting about Anonymous. I put a statement to that
effect right at the beginning because I anticipated people might
misunderstand. It looks to me like you're just reacting without even
bothering to read what I write.
>At the start of this year most
> critics would have agreed with you. There was even a post by an
> Australian critic to youtube which outright condemned Anon, as well as
> Mark Bunkers posts which questioned their actions.
Straw man. This posting is not about Anonymous.
>
> However, Anonymous listened. Their attitude, goals and behavior
> changed. Yours has not. If anything your posts have become more
> frequent and less relevant. Can't you see why this behavior has
> garnered you the title of Troll?
Straw man, this posting is not about Anonymous.
> What's worse is that instead of learning from experience, both on and
> off these forums, instead of choosing to listen or contribute to the
> forums while agreeing to disagree on the subject of Anonymous, you
> have turned almost entirely to attacking them and critics who defend
> them. Posting about cult-like behavior in regards to anyone who
> doesn't agree with you.
No, I'm posting about cult-like behavior of people who behave as
cultists do because that is the important issue here -- to identify
cultic behavior no matter where it occurs. When people become what
they're fighting that is a real problem, IMO and I have every right to
point it out.
> Now, we can debate til the sun goes down and hell freezes over about
> who has the more cult-like behavior, but two things remain fact; you
> are not here contributing to to the discussion of scientology, you're
> here attacking people who are.
>
> Why is that?
Why is it that you're trying to silence me?
Monica Pignotti
To WolfyRik: Here's what you failed to read that I explicitly wrote at
the beginning of my first posting to this thread because I anticipated
some people might jump to the false conclusion that this was a
critique directed at Anonymous when it is not:
"Just a few points of clarification before I continue. I am not
saying
that all critics behave that way, just some, just so this doesn't get
misconstrued as a generalization. I am not directing this at
Anonymous
because this kind of behavior was going on long before Anonymous came
on the scene. Anonymous seems to have triggered this kind of cult-
like
behavior in certain critics, but I do not blame Anonymous for that. "
Sounds to me like you're just knee-jerk responding to me without even
bothering to read what I wrote.
Monica Pignotti
wrote:
> pigno...@worldnet.att.net:
>
> > You are misinformed, Hartley. It is very well known that cults are do
> > not have to be religious cults. Just have a look at the presentations
> > being offered at the International Cultic Studies Association
> > conference to be held later this month
>
> Isn't that agreeing with what I said? Experts can redefine words all they
> want for their own purposes, but that doesn't put the redefinition into
> general usage.
My point is that there's not way to know what "general usage" is. It's
just coming from whatever experiences people have had discussing
things and that varies. If we defined every subject by public
misconceptions we'd still be back in the dark ages on a number of
different topics that historically have had public misconceptions. The
"general public" used to believe at one time that women were not
suited for an education and that it was perfectly fine to have slaves.
If people at that time had taken the approach you had, no change would
have happened. Instead, I choose to have the goal of educating the
public, rather than reinforcing misconceptions. This is important
because when cults are defined by religion, the result is religious
bigotry. When cults are defined by specified behaviors and group
dynamics, though, that takes the bigotry out of it because it is about
practices, not beliefs.
> > And if you want something written more by the "general public" have a
> > look at the Wikipedia article on cults
>
> And so is that. The general public doesn't write Wikipedia articles!
They're not mostly written by scholars either. "General public" is a
vague sort of concept that could mean just about anything but my guess
would be that the average person doesn't care one way or the other
about cults and hasn't given the topic a lot of thought. If one is
serious about actually building knowledge on a topic, the way to do
that is to gather evidence, as the people at ICSA are doing, not cater
to people's ignorance.
Monica Pignotti
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:31:09 +0100, Hartley Patterson
>
> >pigno...@worldnet.att.net:
Exactly. Even Eileen Barker is coming around to defining cults in a
way that includes groups other than religious ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_checklist
"A checklist, made by professor Eileen Barker, in which traits of
groups that can evolve to be dangerous are described. Barker stated
that her list was based on empirical research. The traits named
include:
"A movement that separates itself from society, either geographically
or socially;
Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their
view on reality;
Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others;
Making sharp distinctions between us and them, divine and Satanic,
good and evil, etc. that are not open for discussion;
Leaders who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their
orders to their followers;
Leaders and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a
certain goal. "
While there is a reference to "divine authority", that'[s just for one
of the traits.
People do disagree a lot over definitions of "cult" but the argument I
am making that a religious definition of a cult leads to focus on
beliefs and can lead to bigotry, whereas a behavioral psychological
definition does not. By the psychological definition of a cult, a
group can have very unconventional beliefs and yet not be a cult if
they don't display the behaviors.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
> "Quaoar" <qua...@marcabfleet.net> a écrit dans le message denews:MqydnV-qrJoQHMzV...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Monica Pignotti wrote:
> >> This is a continuation, from a discussion from another thread where
> >> "Alert" has just exhibited yet another example of cult-like behavior
> >> in critics:
>
> > For the love of humanity, Monica, you participated in (trolled) the OCMB
> > discussion, then posted your viewpoint and diagnoses on your blog, and now
> > you are posting the results of your OCMB fishing expedition back her on
> > ARS?
>
> > As a self-pronounced professional in psychology, I suggest you return to
> > your existence in the MEST universe and see just how obsessive you have
> > become.
>
> > Find a mental health professional, Monica, you need at least some talk
> > therapy with someone not already in your target list of SPs.
>
> > OTOH, you might have Irish Alzheimer's disease: the only memory you have
> > left is of those people you hate.
>
> > Q
>
> Monica does not realize that her methods are no better than cultists' ones
> (I apologize for using against a anticultist a... cultic argument that that
> anticultist has herself used!
>
> Indeed, accusing anticultists of being cultic is a cultic argument.Just a
> demo of the fact that we anticultists should discuss privately when we have
> big disagreements , rather than putting publicly some insulting
>
as is happening on OCMB, shutting out criticism by attempts at DAing
critics with amateur "diagnosing" and other personal smears and
posting spam pictures on threads written by people who have criticized
(note here that there is a big difference between criticism of tactics
and behaviors and the kind of personal smear campaign that has been
directed at me on OCMB that the believers completely fail to
comprehend). Saying that disagreements should only be discussed
privately creates a very unhealthy, closed system that can become very
cult-like. As cult experts have pointed out, it is healthy to look
outside a group for criticism and discussion because it can give
people a different perspective and help them get away from the biases
that exist within groups. Don't you get it, Roger? The kind of closed
system where disagreements are only dealt with from within is very
unhealthy. Anti-cultists who take that attitude of encouraging a
closed system are no better than cultists, IMO. This isn't the first
time people have tried to shut me up, though. It happened with Minton
as well. When I posted something here on ARS criticizing him, Stacy
when right over to Steve Hassan and tattled and within a few hours of
my posting, I got a phone call that I should be keeping my criticism
private. I strongly disagree and refuse to blindly support and refrain
from criticizing someone just because they say they're against cults.
Alert
wrote:
> On Jun 13, 7:37 am, WolfyRik <Wolfy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd just like to know one thing, Monica why are you here if you don't
> > like it?
>
> Here? This is ARS, not OCMB.
>
> > You and vec have used the phrase if you don't like it, don't read it
>
> I used that phrase in the context of people who have ordered me to
> GTFO, stop posting or some other variation on that kind of order.
> People have the right to criticize and comment on things things.
> That's completely different from ordering someone to GTFO.
>
> > and yet you remain here staunchly attacking Anonymous and the fourms,
> > whilst contributing nothing at all to the debate of scientology.
> This thread is not an attack on Anonymous. It is a criticism of the
> behavior of a certain person on OCMB.
No shit Sherlock *snort
You couldnt get me to keeop responding in your original thread you
started to castigate Dorothy, so you started a fresh one for me.
How intellectual of you.
<chuckle>
> I don't even know if he's part
> of Anonymous or not and it doesn't matter because I am not criticizing
> all of Anonymous based on only his behavior.
Get bent you stupid old woman. You ONLY care about YOU and how YOU
look in the eyes of others.
Good onya!
What number in the criteria for NPD is that again?
>
> > Surely you are in the wrong place? What you are looking for is a group
> > discussing Anonymous?
>
> ARS isn't that limited, so stop the "off topic" policing. ARS
> discusses anything related to Scientology and its critics.
>
> >It wouldn't be so bad if you were contributing
> > to the larger debate, but you're not. Instead you're filling the
> > forums with what is essentially off-topic spam.
>
> There is nothing off-topic about discussing critics of Scientology.
>
>
>
> > You returned here (if this is infact Monica P and not another clam
> > stolen identity) after a year of almost total silence and instead of
> > returning to discuss the sudden rise of attention on scientology, you
> > only wished to slag-off people on the boards. Why?
> First of all, I'm a person, not an "artifact".
Moar like antiquated
> I realize it's unusual
> here but I actually do use my own name.
Thank fuck for that. At least people can read whether they want
someone of your "experience" to offer advice.
> Second, its not for you to
> dictate what and when I should post here. I post when and what I see
> fit to post.
Gee, as long as it *only* applies to YOU.
>
> > I mean if you just wanted to say your piece, that you're worried about
> > Anonymous, fine, you've said it.
>
> This was not a posting about Anonymous. I put a statement to that
> effect right at the beginning because I anticipated people might
> misunderstand. It looks to me like you're just reacting without even
> bothering to read what I write.
>
> >At the start of this year most
> > critics would have agreed with you. There was even a post by an
> > Australian critic to youtube which outright condemned Anon, as well as
> > Mark Bunkers posts which questioned their actions.
> Straw man. This posting is not about Anonymous.
Fuck me dead, YOU know all about straw man arguments...you handbag is
full of straw.
>
>
>
> > However, Anonymous listened. Their attitude, goals and behavior
> > changed. Yours has not. If anything your posts have become more
> > frequent and less relevant. Can't you see why this behavior has
> > garnered you the title of Troll?
> Straw man, this posting is not about Anonymous.
Nah, this thread is about you being a gutless wonder that cannot face
your own demons. Keep at it!
> > What's worse is that instead of learning from experience, both on and
> > off these forums, instead of choosing to listen or contribute to the
> > forums while agreeing to disagree on the subject of Anonymous, you
> > have turned almost entirely to attacking them and critics who defend
> > them. Posting about cult-like behavior in regards to anyone who
> > doesn't agree with you.
> No, I'm posting about cult-like behavior of people who behave as
> cultists do because that is the important issue here -- to identify
> cultic behavior no matter where it occurs. When people become what
> they're fighting that is a real problem, IMO and I have every right to
> point it out.
As long as nobody dares to point out that of which you are guilty of
yourself.
>
> > Now, we can debate til the sun goes down and hell freezes over about
> > who has the more cult-like behavior, but two things remain fact; you
> > are not here contributing to to the discussion of scientology, you're
> > here attacking people who are.
>
> > Why is that?
> Why is it that you're trying to silence me?
Youre paranoid.
It is YOU that is trying to shudder your critics into silence, with
you fucking hoity toity bullshit that you actually believe.
Fuckin hell!
No wonder your threads get fuck all responses from people in general.
You talk so much shit, that is dressed up as intellectual input.
Ya know, mutton dressed up as lamb?
Thanks again for starting this thread about moi, I enjoy the knowledge
that youve proved just how much of a narssicist you really are.
Now, be sure to carry on and feed the beast within you, that is
driving you like a bus into a wall.
Alert
> The practice of Internet morons pretending to be psychiatrists and
> using the DSM to "diagnose" people based on their posts is nothing
> new. It was considered ancient history when I got onto Usenet in
> 1987.
Bully for you! Youve been dwelling on the internet for 2 decades, WOW,
What a fucking mammoth achievement you have in life.
If id spent as much time as you on the Internet., and what you
apparently do with YOUR time, Id gas myself.
Ya lonely cunt
> On top of that, "Alert" is maybe the biggest idiot ever to criticize
> Scientology. As bad as critics are these days, he's not
> representative of anyone but his own loathesome, imbecilic self.
Go stick ya head up a dead bears bum, ya maggot infested shitbag.
Your insults are lame.
Emma
_____________________________________________________
Hey Monica, do yourself a favour and go buy a calendar. If you look closely
you'll see that it's 2008.
Minton and Brooks are irrelevant and have been for some time. Bob's gone,
and so is Stacy. No one cares anymore except a few people on an IRC channel
(which by the sounds of it you are well aware of).
If people are trying to "shut you up" it's because you have become a huge
bore. I gave you my best shot in an earlier post that you have ignored. This
proves to me that you don't really care for honest & open debate. You just
want to be noticed and heard, over and over and over.
Monica Pignotti
No, I do not misunderstand that. Nothing I said conradicts this. I'm
not talking about "defining". I'm talking about how one is
professionally assessed for a personality disorder. My point was a
completely different one, that diagnoses of personality disorders
cannot be made by observation of a person in a limited context. That
is just a really basic principle that has nothing to do with the point
you make above. The point of my posting is how some amateurs are using
the DSM as a tool for verbal abuse.
> The conditions listed in the DSM (now IV, and V is in the works) are
> generally expanded on in questionnaires and questions, which are then
> used as specific issues for treatment.
Of course. That in no way conflicts with what I wrote, which is that
personality disorders are not diagnosed on behavior in a limited
context as internet amateurs do. That they are "expanded on" doesn't
mean that anything goes and that any amateur can legitimately label
people. It is a very well known principle that a personality disorder
is something that is pervasive in a person's life, not limited to just
one context and that takes a careful assessment.
>
> >That said, there is a third point I need to make and that is that even
> >in the hands of the best mental health professionals, the personality
> >disorders are highly controversial and some psychologists and other
> >mental health professionals have argued quite convincingly that they
> >ought to be deleted from the DSM altogether because PDs are mostly
> >just behaviors that the majority of the people in society don't like.
>
> Let me give you the definition for personality disorder:
>
> Personality disorder - Psychological disorders characterized by
> enduring, maladaptive traits.
>
> The operative word is maladaptive.
That is an incomplete definition. There are many DSM disorders not
categorized as PDs that are also maladaptive. I think what you are
misunderstanding that PDs are on a seperate axis in the DSM from other
disorders such as depression. What makes something a PD is that it is
an enduring, pervasive pattern that has to have dated back to early
adulthood. That's spelled out clearly in the DSM. Here are the DSM
criteria for diagnosing any PD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder#General_diagnostic_criteria
"General diagnostic criteria
Diagnosis of a personality disorder must satisfy the following general
criteria in addition to the specific criteria listed under the
specific personality disorder under consideration.
"A. Experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the
expectations of the individual's culture. This pattern is manifested
in two (or more) of the following areas:
"cognition (perception and interpretation of self, others and events)
affect (the range, intensity, lability, and appropriateness of
emotional response)
interpersonal functioning
impulse control
"B. The enduring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a broad
range of personal and social situations.
C. The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or
impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of
functioning.
D. The pattern is stable and of long duration and its onset can be
traced back at least to adolescence or early adulthood.
E. The enduring pattern is not better accounted for as a manifestation
or consequence of another mental disorder.
F. The enduring pattern is not due to the direct physiological effects
of a substance or a general medical condition such as head injury.
People under 18 years old who fit the criteria of a personality
disorder are usually not diagnosed with such a disorder, although they
may be diagnosed with a related disorder. In order to diagnose an
individual under the age of 18 with a personality disorder, symptoms
must be present for at least one year. Antisocial personality
disorder, by definition, cannot be diagnosed at all in persons under
18."
I hope this clarifies any misconceptions you might have had.
Depression is not a personality disorder.
>
> Probably the most common 'disorder' is depression.
No, Depression is not a Personality Disorder. I am referring
specifically to what in the DSM is classified as Axis 1 personality
disorders. I don't thin you are understanding what a PD is. >Just
about
> everybody has a bout of it, but in the context of loss, it's normal,
> and resolves itself. Not maladaptive.
> There are cases however where depression doesn't resolve itself
> (generally several months), or intensifies to the point of disabling
> the person.
> When someone is withdrawn, are they antisocial, or depressed? That is
> what the DSM helps determine.
No, you fail to understand how PDs are on a different axis in the DSM
than diagnoses such as depression.
>
> >These are not Scientologists. These are psychologists and social
> >workers I am referring to. In some cases such as Antisocial
> >Personality disorder, there can be good reason for not liking the
> >behaviors but for other PDs such as Schizotypal Personality Disorder a
> >person can get that label just for being different and holding
> >unconventional ideas and other eccentric behaviors or people who are
> >content to be alone and don't have the need for close relationships
> >most people do can get labelled as Schizoid Personality Disorder
> >(these are just two examples).
>
> Psychologists aren't the only one with labels ready to hang them on
> things. Religions like to call people sinners, and have them confess.
> Radio talk show hosts like to categorize people as liberals, or
> conservatives.
Well yes, that's the point. If the labels have no basis other than a
social one, then the claim that psychiatry is a science is called into
question.
> Schizoid isn't being eccentric really.
Right I was talking about two different PDs: Schizotypal and Schizoid.
Schizotypal is about being eccentric.
>JK Rowling has a very detailed
> imagination, and she's been able to write several thousand pages on
> it. Eccentric? Could very well be. But she's functional.
Of course, but with PDs it is other people who get to decide what
constitutes "functional" and sometimes non-functional is just behavior
that deviates from the norm in certain ways that are unacceptable to
society. Rowling's behavior is not socially unacceptable. The point of
the criticizm of DSM is that the judgment calls are based on social
construction rather than hard evidence that they arose from nature.
> Someone who is able to contruct something as vivid, but isn't able to
> distinguish 'get out of their head' enough to say, hold a coversation
> or a job, would be a job.
People holding jobs can still get Dxed with a PD.
> Most localities don't consider a mental condition to be a problem that
> needs to be referred to MH folks unless the person is considered a
> danger to others, or themselves. Parents, and patients have different
> criteria.
>
> > NPD can also be interpreted very losely
> >and easily applied to people who's behavior one doesn't like. It has
> >been a common "diagnosis" pulled up in internet discussions when
> >people run out of rebuttals but there is also concern about misuse,
> >even by mental health professionals. Robyn Dawes' book, House of Cards
> >has a very interesting discussion on this controversy and whether
> >mental health diagnoses arise from nature or are socially constructed.
>
> NPD is a label like bigot, or cultie. Don't make it any more than
> that. I doubt the person making the accusation really knows what
> they're talking about.
>
> Hope you understand the context. If someone said you have NPD, it's
> not a diagnosis, but an epithet.-
Yes, I do understand the context and I am calling Alert out on using
the DSM as a tool for verbal abuse of people who's ideas he doesn't
like. That's the bottom line here.
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Monica Pignotti
There are other PDs or explanations that could apply. A cult leader
doesn't necessarily have to be motivated for narcissistic reasons and
I think it is a mistake to make that assumption and for people to
diagnose someone they haven't examined. For example, a cult leader
could have anti-social personality disorder, or paranoid personality
disorder, or be on a completely different DSM Axis and have paranoid
schizophrenia. There are many possibilities. Some cult leaders don't
seem to have any kind of personality disorder and just got swept up in
a social situation where they had power and let themselves be carried
away. There are actually cult leaders that have come to this
awareness, stepped down, admitted they had done wrong, and disbanded
their cults. The thing about PDs is that all human beings have those
tendencies, just in varying degrees and there are some situations that
could bring those out in people who might not have acted in that way,
had the context and the situation been different.
>
>
>
>
> > That said, there is a third point I need to make and that is that even
> > in the hands of the best mental health professionals, the personality
> > disorders are highly controversial and some psychologists and other
> > mental health professionals have argued quite convincingly that they
> > ought to be deleted from the DSM altogether because PDs are mostly
> > just behaviors that the majority of the people in society don't like.
> > These are not Scientologists. These are psychologists and social
> > workers I am referring to. In some cases such as Antisocial
> > Personality disorder, there can be good reason for not liking the
> > behaviors but for other PDs such as Schizotypal Personality Disorder a
> > person can get that label just for being different and holding
> > unconventional ideas and other eccentric behaviors or people who are
> > content to be alone and don't have the need for close relationships
> > most people do can get labelled as Schizoid Personality Disorder
> > (these are just two examples). NPD can also be interpreted very losely
> > and easily applied to people who's behavior one doesn't like. It has
> > been a common "diagnosis" pulled up in internet discussions when
> > people run out of rebuttals but there is also concern about misuse,
> > even by mental health professionals. Robyn Dawes' book, House of Cards
> > has a very interesting discussion on this controversy and whether
> > mental health diagnoses arise from nature or are socially constructed.- Hide quoted text -
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >This is a continuation of the same insane cuntspew that
> >we have all seen before endlessly
>
> Yep.
>
attributions.
Hartley Patterson
> My point is that there's not way to know what "general usage" is. It's
> just coming from whatever experiences people have had discussing
> things and that varies. If we defined every subject by public
> misconceptions we'd still be back in the dark ages on a number of
> different topics that historically have had public misconceptions.
Hm. OK, I'm all in favour of that, however this is not such as case in
semantic terms.
The original meanings of 'cult' were all religious. It is only very
recently in historical terms that it has come to be used for non-religious
groups in two senses - for groups of eccentric but harmless fans of
something such as 'the cult of Star Trek' and for unpleasant non-religious
groups that behave like the modern religious cults.
So this is an ongoing attempt to change the meaning of a word to something
that, in the opinion of the experts, better fits the 21st Century
situation. My point is though that the meanings of words aren't controlled
by experts except in small communities.
> Instead, I choose to have the goal of educating the
> public, rather than reinforcing misconceptions. This is important
> because when cults are defined by religion, the result is religious
> bigotry. When cults are defined by specified behaviors and group
> dynamics, though, that takes the bigotry out of it because it is about
> practices, not beliefs.
Now I'm understanding you better, thanks! Defining the word and then
testing that definition against reality is the way to go, and with the CoS
in particular something they will refuse to even consider.
My caveat remains, that you have to be sure you're not getting ahead of
public perception and rather than helping merely confusing. My own hobby
horse on ARS is to oppose the misconception that 'Scientology' and 'CoS'
are the same thing and that attacking the cult is an attack on religious
belief. This is illogical, since attacking the Catholic Church is not
necessarily an attack on Christianity, but since this is a preconception
people are unaware they have they get upset when it is contradicted.
The real taboo in my view is not "what is a cult?", it is that there is no
big divide between 'cult' and 'religion' but rather a sliding scale. Most
religious groups are not 100% religion or 100% cult but somewhere in
between, and shifting along the scale with time.
Eldon
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> messagenews:15e92d56-b26b-4f21...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com
>
> > snip
> > This is on-topic for ARS because it is about how
> > certain critics of Scientology are behaving, something
> > that has been frequently discussed here for years.
>
> Scientology. They're here, they're doing their homework, and they have
> proven to be effective.
Well said. As an old fart not too much younger than Ancient Philsie
the Terrible, I must say that the Anonymous phenomenon gives me hope
for the future. These kiddos caught on really fast, mastered a complex
subject, and have so far behaved in an exemplary manner.
I can understand (with some effort) how Monica might infer some
parallels to the Sea Org as it appeared to her back when she joined
the Hubbard Youth Movement. But the Anonymous "members" are part of an
Internet 2.0 phenomenon.
They aren't signing billion year contracts and flying off to live on a
slave ship under the command of an insane international criminal. They
are college students and young geeks from around the world, most of
whom have not even met each other except on the Internet.
Just as one mode of comparison.
>
> Instead of embracing this incredible new dynamic, and maybe offering a few
> words of wisdom and guidance, you've chosen to shit on it from the very
> beginning.
>
> And now, here you are, whining about all the new enemies you've made, and
> how unfairly you've been treated. Nobody cares.
>
> Your hurt feelings and need to be respected are meaningless here. Lead,
> follow, or get the fuck out of the way.
Skipper
<36768e41-bc97-4eb0...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> This thread is not an attack on Anonymous. It is a criticism of the
> behavior of a certain person on OCMB. I don't even know if he's part
> of Anonymous or not and it doesn't matter because I am not criticizing
> all of Anonymous based on only his behavior.
File a civil complaint if you don't like it.
A while back you were attacking Anonymous. You write such long
diatribes it's hard for the casual observer to keep up with who you're
bitching about at the moment.
The larger point is why the bitch, bitch, bitch about people who are
effectively bitching about the cult. The cult, remember?
Fredric L. Rice
>This is a continuation of the same insane cuntspew that
>we have all seen before endlessly
Yep.
---
Alert
>
> Can we pleas let herjust fade away? Monica's always been an attention
> crawing person, so if nobody replies to her ravings, she'll go away.
> Please, pretty please eh?
Your logic and words fit nicely with my Grange Hermitage.
*complies
Emma
"Sten-Arne" <ze...@zerpe.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:6857ad87-dd3a-4e25...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -
Can we pleas let herjust fade away? Monica's always been an attention
crawing person, so if nobody replies to her ravings, she'll go away.
Please, pretty please eh?
-----------------------
For once we may actually agree on something.
I'm not replying to any of her threads again. It's a waste of time.
Monica Pignotti
> In article
> <36768e41-bc97-4eb0-a130-8d4fe997a...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > This thread is not an attack on Anonymous. It is a criticism of the
> > behavior of a certain person on OCMB. I don't even know if he's part
> > of Anonymous or not and it doesn't matter because I am not criticizing
> > all of Anonymous based on only his behavior.
>
> File a civil complaint if you don't like it.
That is not for you to dictate to me. I wouldn't waste money that I
don't have to begin with, on a civil complaint.
> A while back you were attacking Anonymous. You write such long
> diatribes it's hard for the casual observer to keep up with who you're
> bitching about at the moment.
I made it very clear that I was not referring to Anonymous.
> The larger point is why the bitch, bitch, bitch about people who are
> effectively bitching about the cult. The cult, remember?
I've already answered that. I expose cultic behavior, whether it is by
cultists or people who claim to be fighting cults. Alert is trying a
tactic that has been used by totalitarian dictatorships such as the
former Soviet Union against dissidents -- label of mental illness and
I am calling him out on it. I won't be silenced by your petty name
calling.
Monica Pignotti
given that here, I do have supporters who see right through you and
the other people behaving as cultists do. I have to say in all honesty
the OCMB posters have completely outdone the Scientologists, who in
spite of the way I have been challenging them for the past 20 years,
have never smeared me in the way you all have. This says something
about just how nasty and desperate some people who claim to be critics
of Scientology have gotten and yes, I will speak out about that and
expose it.
Eldon
Oh bullshit, Monica. They people who post here and on OCMB are not
stuck on a goddamn slave ship, trying to sneak some peanut butter to
share with Quentin Hubbard.
Come up to present time.
"Rev" Norle Enturbulata, DTS, OD
"Emma" <emm...@bonbon.net> wrote in message
news:6bfaa1F...@mid.individual.net...
The cult hates Operation Clambake, and any other public forum for the free
discussion of Scientology - that is, free discussion about Scientology
that's not undermined by static-generators with nothing on their semblance
of minds besides Attack, Attack, Attack - but somehow the rest of the world
is wise to these tactics, and prefer to killfile said operatives, once
encountered.
PLONK.
--
SP Goodman
The Usually Right "Reverend" Norle Enturbulata DDT, DTS
*
http://www.flickr.com/photos/enturbulata
http://www.youtube.com/user/Enturbulata
http://tinyurl.com/yre7c6
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.xenutv.com
http://www.scientology-lies.com
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
http://www.scientology-kills.org
*
* " You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way
you can control anybody is to lie to them."
* -- L. Ron Hubbard, "Technique 88"
*
* "...Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her
crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes
exist...."
* - L. Ron Hubbard, "Critics of Scientology", November 5, 1967
*
* "Rather than give psychotics such treatment it would be far kinder to kill
them immediately and completely..."
* - L. Ron Hubbard, "Science of Survival", p117
dharm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, Monica, you'd know cultic behavior, wouldn't you? How many have
you joined? Two? Three? More?
You assume people will "look up to you" for some reason, all the while
failing to realize many of us are just laughing at you. You've become
a joke, Monica. You're *such* an *intellectual* and skeptic that you
keep getting suckered in by cults. Yeah. Real smart. *snicker*
The harder you try to convince everyone of your "side", the crazier
you appear to be.
I, for one, welcome your insanity. It's a wonderful example of what
cults can do to a person.
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>No, I'm posting about cult-like behavior of people who behave as
>cultists do because that is the important issue here -- to identify
>cultic behavior no matter where it occurs.
I toadly agree!
>When people become what
>they're fighting that is a real problem, IMO and I have every right to
>point it out.
You and I would no doubt also agree that every human group has some
degree of self-protective, defense behavior built into it which could
adequately describe what you experienced on the (privately-owned)
message board. They like the people on "their side" of their battle
better than those on the other side, spectators or hecklers. It's a
natural, animal instinct they should perhaps try to rise above.
But the people you are pointing to have not "become" a cult. And
especially not the cult they seek to expose. They are merely overly
fanatical cheerleaders within what has become a social reform
movement.
That's no excuse though, for displaying the same kinds of behaviors we
came to know and despise in the cult.
Dennis
-------------
"Hope I'm not outta line." - L Bruce
Skipper
<d3253b73-a5a0-4b3a...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
You're a regular fucking superhero, Monica.
Damn, like an Oatee, even.
zo...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Jun 12, 10:34 pm, Quaoar <qua...@marcabfleet.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Monica Pignotti wrote:
> > > On Jun 12, 6:47 pm, Nec_V20 <ARC_Trian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 12, 10:34 pm, Quaoar <qua...@marcabfleet.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> Nec_V20 wrote:
> > >>>> On Jun 12, 9:24 pm, Alexia Death <alexiade...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> Monica - ever the drama whoring troll.
> > >>>>> Monica, remember what we talked about the fact that you cult
> > >>>>> definition seems to include any form of interest groups that create
> > >>>>> discussion environments for them? The word cult is resrved for
> > >>>>> religious groups. You may be a cult expert but then you are guilty of
> > >>>>> the most common fallacy of any expert - trying to explain life in the
> > >>>>> terms of your profession. It does not work. You have been told it does
> > >>>>> not work politely and that you ignored. You have been told it does not
> > >>>>> work impolitely and you ignored that too. Now you have been told to
> > >>>>> take your off-topic pointless drivel and GTFO and you almost made it.
> > >>>>> You got out of that particular thread. Well, its not good enough. It
> > >>>>> is correct, this is like a public sidewalk, I cant stop you from
> > >>>>> spilling your shit here. I can point and ridicule tho just like with a
> > >>>>> person taking a crap on a public sidewalk. Really, Monica, you claim
> > >>>>> you give lectures. Aren't you ashamed of behaving like a instant
> > >>>>> retard on the net? Don't you worry that somebody some day will point
> > >>>>> your retarded attention and validation whoring here out to you in your
> > >>>>> lectures?
> > >>>> Alexia,
> > >>>> there is the revolutionary concept called "If you personally do not
> > >>>> like a topic or an area of discussion DON'T READ IT". If you disagree,
> > >>>> "Contribute stating why you disagree with as much civility as your
> > >>>> temper can muster".
> > >>>> OCMB used to be a marketplace of ideas, where people contributed
> > >>>> generously according to their talents.
> > >>>> You morons, and I use that word advisedly, have turned it, as Merlin
> > >>>> and I said to Andreas that you would, into what can only be charitably
> > >>>> described as a car boot sale.
> > >>>> So don't come on here preaching OCMB values - you've been out of stock
> > >>>> for quite some time now in that department. You're all too busy
> > >>>> fighting each other rather than fighting FOR anything.
> > >>>> And junior, I know what I am talking about.
> > >>>> Any questions?
> > >>> Go to Monica's blog and post your viewpoints. She can use a friend just
> > >>> about now.
> > >>> Q
> > >> I'll post what and where I want to. If you don't like it then don't
> > >> read it - otherwise tough. There's no-one here that you can run and
> > >> snitch to like a sniveling schoolgirl.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > I think that's what's so frustrating for some of these folks. I'm just
> > > amazed that some are stupid enough to think that ordering us to GTFO
> > > repeatedly is going to produce any different result than it did the
> > > first time. Who was it who said that insanity is doing the same thing
> > > over and over and expecting to get a different result?
>
> > Hey, Monica! Snap! Snap!
>
> > YOU continue to post the same, exact, identical ideation over and over
> > again, expecting that your last posting will convince all of us with
> > decent mental health that we are in the wrong and that we should
> > genuflect in your general direction.
>
> You continue to demonstrate exactly the sort of behavior I am
> referring to. Thanks for providing us with such an appropriate example
> and proving my points.
Did you copy and paste that from one of your earlier posts?
Seriously, there's no fresh material here. I think most people get
it, that want to. People exhibit "cultic-behavior" on the internet.
It's not exactly a news flash.
What you point out goes on everywhere. Construction workers
exhibiting group-think misogynistic behavior, totaliarian bosses
bullying workers into working harder, politicos trying to silence
opposition, whatever; it's everywhere. Especially on the internet
where we have the great gift of anonymity.
The bottom line is calling it cult-like behavior doesn't bring much
insight. There are more specific and appropriate terms out there.
Emma
___________________________________
Ok just one more post........
I haven't posted to OCMB in several months and certainly not on any thread
you have posted to.
You are wrong again.
And I have never objected to your right to make an argument. Just your
delivery.
You are not as smart as you think you are Monica.
Emma
"Monica Pignotti" <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8191355a-79b5-4cea...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I do have supporters who see right through you and
the other people behaving as cultists do.
__________________________________
I should point out, your "support" comes from not two (Os Wilkes & Smitty)
but from ONE troll (they are not seperate people) who has been trolling OCMB
for many months.
If you actually did the research you pride yourself on, you'd already know
this.
Eldon
Now, that isn't a very courteous tone of voice, is it?
Why are you assailing Monica with such obscenities? I think she's off
base with some of her huffy comments, but I'm not going to call her
silly names. This is not a kindergarten playground in case you hadn't
noticed.
Monica Pignotti
wrote:
in all honestly the venom I have experienced and the insane behavior
tops anything I have experienced from Scientologists since leaving
Scientology. It's more comparable to what I experienced when I was in
the C-org and complained about the abuse there. So no, they aren't a
cult but their behavior on OCMB is just as nasty. For example:
Monica Pignotti
Just one. The others were fringe therapies similar to what many
freezoners are involved in, not cults. I carried on with my life while
I was involved with them.
> You assume people will "look up to you" for some reason, all the while
> failing to realize many of us are just laughing at you.
I make no such assumption. I simply express my views and then get
personally attacked because my views are things many people don't want
to hear. Being laughed at is a compliment, considering the source.
>You've become
> a joke, Monica. You're *such* an *intellectual* and skeptic that you
> keep getting suckered in by cults. Yeah. Real smart. *snicker*
I'm not a joke with the people in my life so count.
> The harder you try to convince everyone of your "side", the crazier
> you appear to be.
When sane people go into insane places and try to reason with people,
the sane person appears "crazy". That's what is happening here.
> I, for one, welcome your insanity. It's a wonderful example of what
> cults can do to a person.
You and your lynch mob mentality friends are a great example of how
the anti-cult behaves in a very cult like way something that has not
escaped the attention of a number of scholars who study cults, by the
way.
Eldon
Monica, I assume you are "Nine Lives" on OCMB. Am I correct?
Did you post this?
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
On Being Sane in an Insane Place
If I were really as mentally ill as some of you are attempting to
portray me I wouldn't have a very long 30+ year history of well
documented excellent functioning in my work history and relationships
with others. What is really going on here is that I am a sane person
trying to reason with people caught up in an insane group. The only
insanity I own up to is that it was insane of me to attempt to reason
with you all. I'm crazy in the same way that the women were "crazy"
who were accused of witchcraft and burned at the stake by the mob of
hysterical true believers at the Salem witchcraft trials. Here's what
is really going on here: A sane person within an insane system looks
insane when really it is the system and the people who are caught up
in it that are insane. The same thing happened to me when I was in the
SO and the only one speaking up about not liking the abuses going on
there. I was considered crazy and sent to the RPF when really I was
the only one who was willing to point out that the emperor has no
clothes. Sorry you all can't see the elephant in the living room but I
can see now that it was a mistake to even hope to be able to reason
with the insanity here. Gee whiz, I haven't had this much fun since I
was in the SO!z"
-----
I think you need to visit your shrink and sort out this shit, just in
case. It is not very cogent.
Tom Newton
<50e12b08-f3b8-4c5b...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
> Eldon <Eldo...@aol.com> wrote:
A kindergarten playground would be a considerable step up for this
forum.
It is currently a cesspool of mindless bigotry and hate speech
populated by serious mental cases and loser trolls parroting
hate propaganda.
Tom
--
The Truth will set you free:
http://www.sethcenter.com
Monica Pignotti
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Jun 13, 10:24 am, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <36768e41-bc97-4eb0-a130-8d4fe997a...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
freezoners are involved in, not cults and since 2004 I have been
debunking fringe therapies and have publications in peer reviewed
journals (I'm not saying this to brag, I'm saying this to counter your
trashing of me). I carried on with my life while I was involved with
them, though -- they were not cults.
> You assume people will "look up to you" for some reason, all the while
> failing to realize many of us are just laughing at you.
I make no such assumption. I simply express my views and then get
personally attacked because my views are what many people don't want
to hear. Being laughed at is a compliment, considering the source.
>You've become
> a joke, Monica. You're *such* an *intellectual* and skeptic that you
> keep getting suckered in by cults. Yeah. Real smart. *snicker*
I'm not a joke with the people in my life who count. The true
believing anti-cult fanatic lynch mob doesn't count as far as I'm
concerned.
> The harder you try to convince everyone of your "side", the crazier
> you appear to be.
When sane people go into insane places and try to reason with people,
the sane person appears "crazy". That's what is happening here.
> I, for one, welcome your insanity. It's a wonderful example of what
> cults can do to a person.
You and your lynch mob mentality friends are a great example of how
the anti-cult behaves in a very cult like way. This is something that
has not
escaped the attention of a number of scholars who study cults, by the
way and this kind of fanatical attitude is why the anti-cult movement
has such a terrible reputation.
zo...@yahoo.com
Did they exhibit some cult-like qualities? None at all? Where is the
line exactly?
>
> > You assume people will "look up to you" for some reason, all the while
> > failing to realize many of us are just laughing at you.
>
> I make no such assumption. I simply express my views and then get
> personally attacked because my views are what many people don't want
> to hear. Being laughed at is a compliment, considering the source.
That's not the only reason you get attacked, hopefully you realize
that.
>
> >You've become
> > a joke, Monica. You're *such* an *intellectual* and skeptic that you
> > keep getting suckered in by cults. Yeah. Real smart. *snicker*
>
> I'm not a joke with the people in my life who count. The true
> believing anti-cult fanatic lynch mob doesn't count as far as I'm
> concerned.
>
> > The harder you try to convince everyone of your "side", the crazier
> > you appear to be.
>
> When sane people go into insane places and try to reason with people,
> the sane person appears "crazy". That's what is happening here.
Most of your points are made in thin air with no evidence. When you
need evidence, you post quotes from people who are clearly a little
unbalanced. So easy to find on the internet, and in a group as large
as scientology critics.
>
> > I, for one, welcome your insanity. It's a wonderful example of what
> > cults can do to a person.
>
> You and your lynch mob mentality friends are a great example of how
> the anti-cult behaves in a very cult like way. This is something that
> has not
> escaped the attention of a number of scholars who study cults, by the
> way and this kind of fanatical attitude is why the anti-cult movement
> has such a terrible reputation.
Humans exhibit cult-like behavior all the time, and when a charismatic
leader is added to the mix, you sometimes get what can be called a
cult. The dynamics of a cult are interesting. The dynamics of people
that post to the internet, that have some unresolved issues, and are
easily angered, are not as interesting. I'm talking about your so
called "critics that exhibit cult-like behavior".
samvaknin
Narcissism and Religion
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal45.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq47.html
The Cult of the Narcissist
http://samvak.tripod.com/journal79.html
For a more detailed view of pathological narcissism and the
Narcissistic
Personality Disorder (NPD) - click on these links:
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/npdglance.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/narcissismglance.html
Other Personality Disorders
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faqpd.html
Pathological Narcissism and Other Mental Health Disorders
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq82.html
NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) and AsPD (Antisocial
Personality
Disorder, Psychopathy, or Sociopathy)
http://samvak.tripod.com/personalitydisorders16.html
http://samvak.tripod.com/personalitydisorders15.html
Cyber Narcissist
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal67.html
Female Narcissists
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq34.html
Serial and mass killers
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/serialkillers.html
School shootings
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/9.html
Narcissism and Evil
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal65.html
Is the Narcissist Legally Insane?
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/personalitydisorders49.html
Take care.
Sam
Skipper
<409870c1-e3e1-49db...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> You and your lynch mob mentality friends are a great example of how
> the anti-cult behaves in a very cult like way something that has not
> escaped the attention of a number of scholars who study cults, by the
> way.
No Monica, just like when you were a sooper-dooper auditor, you're a
pain in the ass.