[US Media] Nancy Many in radio interview
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
Hi There!
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/15-media/washington-beltway-59319/#post1117270
Best regards
Jens
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mandriva Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 510 708
"His eyes fell on me like a stone-mason's chissel" Cowboy Junkies
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLRFFnimJs3AlyPBIRAr5EAJ0RqK4ktjCOhHgIEZWJJ86KVHgVaACgly1S
+e6KWQxNMxtveGRhBePpzHE=
=Z5b5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Astrid
>
> http://forums.whyweprotest.net/15-media/washington-beltway-59319/#pos...
>
Host asks Nancy a question I like to ask...
Paraphrased: If you knew and read the records of so many famous
celebrities (Nancy ran the Celebrity Center for a time), how come you
just don't cause Scientology to collapse by revealing the stories,
knowing stars would leave in droves if you did so.
Nancy answers that she knew these people, some as friends, and
respects their privacy and does not want to do anything to hurt or
embarrass them.
---------------------------------
Although it is definitely a decision left up to the individual, I
can't help but think if an auditor, or someone with Nancy's access,
started telling stories from a few star's private files, choosing
carefully, something that was silly/embarrassing but good tabloid
fodder, not criminal or too personal, then Scientology would come
crashing down.
By maintaining the confidentiality of client files, an ex-member is
continuing to cooperate with cult principles. Only the cult is allowed
to blackmail people with their files. Members can't use their own
files to defend themselves, so why not spill the beans on a couple of
the more deluded celebrities. Pick someone like Cruise, because he has
500+ million and his career will stand up anyway.
Consider that Hubbard's cult stood up to OPERATIONS SNOW WHITE &
FREAKOUT, and went on scamming, that perhaps something more POPULAR is
in order. Scientology USES the celebrities. So, use the celebrities to
get back at Scientology. It is one of Scientology's vulnerabilities.
Let's say a celebrity like Kristie reveals in a session, that when she
was young, she used to fantasize about having sex with Walter
Cronkite, and Nancy reveals that to a reporter which results in people
from the tabloids going to Kirstie or her agent and asking if that's
true. Even though Kirstie is the type that might just be only too
happy to laugh about it and even say it is true, because this was
something pulled from her auditing files, she would most likely clam
up, refuse to answer, and be mortified that the system she trusted,
the system guarded by super powerz and the tech, had terrible security
leaks.
I understand that someone like Nancy, has already had a lot of trauma,
and this type of thing could create such hoopla, but I wish someone
would do it.
The thing is, so many people in the public don't care what happened to
Nancy, or even what David Miscavige does, because they don't know
these people. But when it involves stars, that is something very
different. People get interested in the dumbest things.
I believe it is almost a certainty that if enough auditors would start
selling, telling, or giving hints of star secrets, that celebrity
scientology would collapse, followed by regular scientology.
Celebrities know their behavior everywhere, including when they walk
around FLAG or Hemet, could end up in a book. But one thing they
trust, or they wouldn't be doing it in the first place, is they trust
the confidentiality of their auditing files, that is kept from the
public. Once that trust is broken, their trust in Scientology would
flounder completely and they might just start looking into the abuses
or at least how Scientology uses them, traps them.
Astrid
>
> I believe it is almost a certainty that if enough auditors would start
> selling, telling, or giving hints of star secrets, that celebrity
> scientology would collapse, followed by regular scientology.
>
like Nancy goes into Scientology, they are doing so with some
integrity. They want to help end crime and drug use and make a better
world. So they abide by Scientology's "sacred" oath to keep celebrity
files confidential, and they do everything they can to keep
Scientology humming and get more people into it.
Yet, when the same person discovers that Scientology is a criminal
enterprise, and treats them in a way that drives them insane or nearly
insane, then it is time to realize this isn't like a priest's
confidentiality or a psychiatrist's confidentiality, because the cult
is scamming and coercing so many people.
For years, the cult has relied on distraught ex-members to kill
themselves or implode, or be really afraid of retribution by the cult,
and just disappear, And they do that only after the cult has put them
through hell with more processing or expensive checks and auditing,
squeezing people of their last dollar or vestige of sanity. Hell, they
tried to drive Paulette Cooper crazy and she wasn't even a cult
member. This is a criminal, insane, organization that would do that to
a person like Paulette Cooper.
So, stop thinking that just because you are an ethical honest person,
that the system of Scientology is worthy of the oaths and ethical
promises you made to guard their secrets, even the ones in auditing
files. The whole thing was set up as a scam, to trap people and take
their money or labor. It isn't about a few bad apples, like Mary Sue,
Marty "the terminator" Rathbun, or even David Miscavige. It is about
the whole rotten system created by Hubbard, and Nancy and thousands of
others got trapped in it, and HELPED it.
Tigger
I disagree that any critic should do as $CN does whatever the motive
may be.
Instead IMO she should document the way $CN uses or has used those
folders to intimidate or blackmail members into staying in $cientology
or shuddering into silence if they do leave. She could
specifically ask celebrities what, if any, methods $CN has used to
keep them in $CN or if they leave, to shudder them into silence.
Doing as $CN does is IMO, a footbullet for
critics.
Tigger
realpch
Aw, come on. I don't want to see people disclosing auditing secrets of
celebrities. I couldn't forgive myself if I did something like that, and
I should hope that most other people couldn't either, though it
undoubtedly does happen within the organization.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Astrid
>
> I disagree that any critic should do as $CN does whatever the motive
> may be.
>
> Instead IMO she should document the way $CN uses or has used those
> folders to intimidate or blackmail members into staying in $cientology
> or shuddering into silence if they do leave. She could
> specifically ask celebrities what, if any, methods $CN has used to
> keep them in $CN or if they leave, to shudder them into silence.
How is she supposed to ask celebrities this? Most celebrities probably
don't even know Miscavige has been accused of beating underlings,
unless they read Freedumb, and skimming that is about as far as they
would go.
Just like Kirstie dismissed Haggis's claims with a tweet. Scientology
loves gays...Scientology very very good to me...
Do you think Marty and Mike Rinder both know this type of information
-- how files are used to silence celebrities -- as I believe this high
level of dealing with celebrity handling is known only by a few, and
they could be two who know? Mike especially, as former head of the
OSA.
I liked Nancy's first long radio interview more than this one. It
depends on how the hosts engage in conversation. It is not that these
hosts were bad, it was just that they didn't keep it flowing like the
other interview. Actually they echoed some of my own incredulity, and
it is one reason a lot of people don't pay any attention to
Scientology or its abuses. I think Anonymous has done the best job of
getting past a little of that, just by drawing some silly attention.
For example, when Nancy describes the time of turmoil, Vietnam, MLK
etc and her stopping by an Org to read that they want to end crime,
end drug use etc. well, most people would think that's a bit of a
stretch, from a group that was started by a pulp science fiction
writer, that is now charging more money she can afford as a college
student. ALARM BELLS
Frankly, ever since Scientology started and I knew little about it,
the cost was an immediate RED FLAG. If they want to change the world,
they aren't going to do it with a jaw dropping reverse pyramid of
escalating fees.
Plus, better known mainstream religions don't exactly condone drug use
or crime....Nancy said she didn't even really like or get Dianetics.
And her friends were trying to dissuade her from it saying they knew
it was a scam.
What percentage of Scientologists do you think, have people in their
lives trying to dissuade them from getting involved, and that plays a
part in them wanting to try it.
This one girl who came out as a critic after only a few years, and got
an article in one of the NY Papers, said she joined up because she was
annoyed by Anonymous making a fuss, and thought if they were being
protested, they must be onto something good.
This type of thinking, is exactly what Scientology preys upon, and
that's why I believe new kind of measures --- always non-violent --
are necessary, including leaks from celebrity auditing files.
Maybe it isn't necessary. Maybe it will collapse anyway. And Anonymous
is trying all kinds of pretty clever approaches, and maybe they'll hit
on something.
Or Scientology can destruct itself by doing things like making OT
level people who get in the news for doing bad things, or suing
Catholic nuns or a person who is just trying to tell the story of how
Scientology ripped them off or ruined their life.
Astrid
>
> Aw, come on. I don't want to see people disclosing auditing secrets of
> celebrities. I couldn't forgive myself if I did something like that, and
> I should hope that most other people couldn't either, though it
> undoubtedly does happen within the organization.
>
> Peach
> --
think the hardest thing would be for Marty Rathbun to cope with the
idea he was THE TERMINATOR in crime cult for decades. Or how about, no
matter how good your intentions were, you sucked over a hundred people
off the street and into Scientology, who wouldn't have gotten there if
they hadn't been in that place, at that time. And later you read that
one of those people suicided and several others became top producers
for the crime cult, as if being a hard worker and devoted to crime
cult is always a virtue. As Nancy put it, you get so you could sell
snow to Eskimos. Eskimos don't need snow. So why not sell a little
celebrity dirt to a tabloid. Celebrities are used to all kinds of
rumors and truths being told about them. It is part of their life,
part of the territory. This piece of dirt, would make them come face
to face with the reality of crime cult. I don't believe it would
negatively effect ALL ex-Scientologists or all critics.
Skipper
I agree that Nancy has taken the correct stance. Although she was nice
enough after she recovered from the cult, make no mistake, she was a
real asshole when running Celebrity Centre, kind of gloating in the
power she thought she had. I think it led directly to her mental
breakdown later - the crashing of the collapsed id (not ego, most
people don't understand the Freudian difference).
So if she did come out with some of that stuff (a) it happened too long
ago to matter much and (b) there's stuff about her they could counter
with.
Astrid
>
> So if she did come out with some of that stuff (a) it happened too long
> ago to matter much and (b) there's stuff about her they could counter
> with.
Okay Skipper, makes sense but what if auditing secrets were published
anonymously. Since more than one person has access to a star's file,
they wouldn't necessarily know which person leaked the story.
And if the cult accused an auditor, it would just make the issue go so
high profile, more people would be interested in the nature of the
leak, thus making it public that celebrity files can get leaky as so
many of those "disgruntled apostates" are leaving the cult.
Let's say I were Tom Cruise's auditor. And I remember some really
dishy things he told in his confessionals. So, I'm a loyal Scilon but
then something goes wrong. I question an injustice and write a KR, and
then get in trouble with a gang intimidating and interrogating me,
telling people I'm an SP and criminal. So, I have no money, no job, no
family, and feel all shaken from what happened.
Rather than kill myself, I'd gladly write to crazy cult, and ask them
to send me a few million or I'd be telling my Tom Cruise stories to
the tabloids. With my life in a shambles, and crazy cult doesn't
comply, I'd just let the stories rip. (Let's say I'm 70, no money, and
ruined already and don't care what they do to me.)
In this way, people would get the impression that Scientology
confessionals are not as private as those in the Catholic church or in
psychiatry. It would make them think twice before they joined crazy
cult and began spilling all their most painful traumas and silly past
life fantasies etc.
I mean, imagine, if Cruise thought he was Napoleon in a former life?
Wouldn't that be funny?
Or how about some of the fantasies of what they did billions of years
ago. Come on, this stuff would be a riot, especially if Cruise was
living variations of the roles he played in films.
Skipper
<ba8b88ee-469a-4910...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Astrid <Astrid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 12:20�pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> >
> > So if she did come out with some of that stuff (a) it happened too long
> > ago to matter much and (b) there's stuff about her they could counter
> > with.
>
> Okay Skipper, makes sense but what if auditing secrets were published
> anonymously. Since more than one person has access to a star's file,
> they wouldn't necessarily know which person leaked the story.
if it's on the Net, so what? If it's a legitimate publication selling
print copies, or even a many hits news site like Glosslip was, they
have to source news and be ready to back it up, legally.
And without actual possession of that file to back it up, it's just
hearsay, and would immediately discredit the informant.
> And if the cult accused an auditor, it would just make the issue go so
> high profile, more people would be interested in the nature of the
> leak, thus making it public that celebrity files can get leaky as so
> many of those "disgruntled apostates" are leaving the cult.
>
> Let's say I were Tom Cruise's auditor. And I remember some really
> dishy things he told in his confessionals. So, I'm a loyal Scilon but
> then something goes wrong. I question an injustice and write a KR, and
> then get in trouble with a gang intimidating and interrogating me,
> telling people I'm an SP and criminal. So, I have no money, no job, no
> family, and feel all shaken from what happened.
>
> Rather than kill myself, I'd gladly write to crazy cult, and ask them
> to send me a few million or I'd be telling my Tom Cruise stories to
> the tabloids. With my life in a shambles, and crazy cult doesn't
> comply, I'd just let the stories rip. (Let's say I'm 70, no money, and
> ruined already and don't care what they do to me.)
>
Still hearsay with regard to confessional material. if you had a
corroborating witness who saw the ACTIVITY in question and would
witness, different.
> In this way, people would get the impression that Scientology
> confessionals are not as private as those in the Catholic church or in
> psychiatry. It would make them think twice before they joined crazy
> cult and began spilling all their most painful traumas and silly past
> life fantasies etc.
>
> I mean, imagine, if Cruise thought he was Napoleon in a former life?
> Wouldn't that be funny?
>
> Or how about some of the fantasies of what they did billions of years
> ago. Come on, this stuff would be a riot, especially if Cruise was
> living variations of the roles he played in films.
>
You'd need the actual papers, which would have handwriting that could
be proven to be a person that audited the celebrity.
Tigger
Astrid asks:
>How is she supposed to ask celebrities this? Most celebrities probably
> don't even know Miscavige has been accused of beating underlings,
> unless they read Freedumb, and skimming that is about as far as they
> would go.
Where there's a will, there's usually a way. In her interviews, she
could bring up the subject of the misuse of confidential member files
and how (and for what purpose) CO$ has misused them and that she
knows, (if she does) that such tactics have been used to control $CN
celebrities, which she could name. Then suggest that the next time a
Cruise, a Travolta, an Alley, etc. are interviewed by anybody that the
"subject" be brought up with them.
> Just like Kirstie dismissed Haggis's claims with a tweet. Scientology
> loves gays...Scientology very very good to me..
So if $CN "has" misued a celebrity's confidential files...i.e.
threatened to leak them to the media or whatever it took/takes to keep
them under $CN's thumb....even if they deny such, they will know it
happened not only to them, but to other people.
> Do you think Marty and Mike Rinder both know this type of information
> -- how files are used to silence celebrities -- as I believe this high
> level of dealing with celebrity handling is known only by a few, and
> they could be two who know? Mike especially, as former head of the
> OSA.
Well they certainly know how $CN has tried to use such or simililar
files to discredit and shudder THEM into silence, don't they? One
could also probably correctly assume that Rinder and Rathbun may have
been parties to such methods of PERSUASION.
Tigger
>
realpch
It's a slippery slope I wouldn't want to start down. I mean, if you get
out of an organization that regularly betrays members, do you really
want to go out and do the same because your "cause" is better? Ok, there
may be situations in life where one would make that decision. I have
never been in a war zone, myself. I haven't lived in one of the classic
totalitarian states under a ruthless dictator. Even though I think the
Church of Scientology IS an organization with a totalitatian world view,
where one can avoid doing wrong, one ought to!
realpch
And now that I come to think of it, isn't it enough just knowing that
the folders exist?
:-D
Skipper
Very good point. Do psychiatrists do that? Not really. Do priests? Not
at all. And $cientologiy tires to make it all legit by calling it
priest-penitent. Ridiculous.
realpch
Well, Skip, psychiatrists DO do that. They keep the records of what
people tell them. In what detail, I don't know. It probably varies. I
also think that they're not as proactive in getting the info as the
Church of Scientology is. Just not as organized, you know. This is a
good thing.
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
Tigger wrote:
I agree. Apart from the moral issues, I'm not sure the practical difference
is that great. Since the criminal organisation known as the "church" <spit>
of $cientology is lead by an incompetent paranoid it will destroy itself
soon enough. David Miscavige really is the best asset the critics have at
this stage.
Another thing is that the media will see the ex-member as the bad person,
giving away private information about the poor celebrity. No-one will pick
up the point that he Co$ tries to smear its ex-members all the time, the
only point that will be made is that an ex-member has breached
priest-penitent confidentiality and what will they stoop to next?!?
(All, IMHO, of course :-) )
Best regards
Jens
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mandriva Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 510 708
"You can see he's talking about money, his lips go all wet"
Lucy, 'Dreamchild'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLRZMqimJs3AlyPBIRAv2eAJoDjBw+2eKpx3QzG7F4EUg8BsRtCQCgozYv
P6C0Lu8b5W+QA1qH4kqdtsA=
=6G7Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Eldon
> Skipper wrote:
Anne Sexton's psychiatrist tape recorded their sessions. After her
death, with the permission of her family, he dug out the recordings
and shared them with her biographer. The APA raised hell, saying it
was unethical, period.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/s/anne_sexton/index.html
Astrid
>
> I agree. Apart from the moral issues, I'm not sure the practical difference
> is that great. Since the criminal organisation known as the "church" <spit>
> of $cientology is lead by an incompetent paranoid it will destroy itself
> soon enough. David Miscavige really is the best asset the critics have at
> this stage.
>
ripping this crap off, making up as he went along, and he did fine for
30+ years, with his lying, cheating, harassing, brainwashing, and
Miscavige has carried it on for another 25, and would have done even
better had it not been for the internet.
> Another thing is that the media will see the ex-member as the bad person,
> giving away private information about the poor celebrity. No-one will pick
> up the point that he Co$ tries to smear its ex-members all the time, the
> only point that will be made is that an ex-member has breached
> priest-penitent confidentiality and what will they stoop to next?!?
>
I would say that less than one in one thousand people on earth could
tell you that Scientology has anything to do with confessionals or a
priest-penitent relationship. If anything, a breach would alert more
members of the public, inform them more of what Scientology is about,
and make them curious about how Scientology operates. That
celebrities are actually going to these certified quack, and telling
their most intimate secrets along with regressing to when they were
warriors on Zarcon-5 a trillion years ago, and giving to ashtrays. And
at the advanced levels, they are removing clusters of dead space alien
souls in levels that can cost $50,000 a crack. And they want everyone
to join in and 2nd mortgage their house, in this "humanitarian" effort
to save mankind, by telling their secrets to COS.
Think of the older woman in Hollywood, who really had to use sex to
help her career, and maybe just for adventure. She writes a tell-all
autobiography, including evaluating the love-making ability of the
various Hollywood stars she's done, right down to their dick size.
People buy the book. For some of the guys, it is flattering and
enhances their reputations. Others are knocked down a peg or two.
After all, in society, and especially Hollywood, men are evaluating
women's bodies and looks constantly, and men are scrutinized and
evaluated more for their power. It is a double standard. A female
leading star's career in a leading role has tended to end ten or
twenty years before her male counterpart.
Or the level of detail of a star's personal life that is revealed
after their death. So, why not with some of this Scilon shills, before
their death?
I'll give you an example of ethical cooperation that backfired. After
laws were enacted restricting the Jews from doing business at certain
times etc., but before the yellow star, the government sent orders for
Rabbis to submit detailed lists of people in their congregation, with
their addresses, birth dates, and names of family members etc. Rabbis
did this partly out of fear of retribution, like having the Synagogue
burnt down, but also out of their sense of ethics, to cooperate with
the government in charge. That it would be respected that they are
cooperative, and law-abiding people.
The Jews expected that someone would notice the government was going
too far with all of this. The Nazi regime used the Rabbi's sense of
ethics, of being a good person, of cooperating. Yet what they were
doing was providing lists that would make it easier for the Gestapo to
keep track of the Jews, make sure they were wearing the yellow star
when that was enacted, account for any missing children, or people who
may have relocated to another residence secretly, hunt them down and
ultimately order them on transports to concentration camps or the
ghetto.
The public simply doesn't regard COS as an established traditional
religious organization like the Catholic church. The first thing they
learn about COS is that it was started by a sci fi writer. Most people
I know, think it is a New Age group.
COS themselves, are the ones who keep comparing themselves to
legitimate, established religions, and of course, they have government
recognition of that in their tax status. They also like to covertly
point to priest molestation as a thing people should still focus on,
rather than slappy Miscavige and a woman who was strapped down in the
basement of their hotel, as well as all the other issues. They play
all angles, particularly that most people don't know much at all about
them so in official contacts, they can appear legitimate just with
glossy presentations.
I'm just going on how much I knew about Scientology three years ago,
before I started reading about it. I had even read part of Dianetics
years ago, and for two years worked near a small Scientology office,
but I didn't even remember it had to do with auditing out past
traumas. In my mind, it was more some kind of EXPENSIVE sci fi
brainwash training/trap to make people unleash their potential,
believe they could do anything, and be successful, a cross between
Tony Robbins and Amway. It was like Amway, I thought, in that it had
something to do with a pyramid, to sell other people on this crap,
more than about the crap itself. I knew Tom Cruise and Travolta were
in it. (My more direct experience was with Amway, laughing about a
relative who got stuck in it and tried to get my family into it, not
me getting in it myself.)
So, I think if Scientology starts yelling about anything, let alone a
breach of the priest/penitent confidentiality, they will just attract
more attention to themselves, and that will make more people read the
wiki on them on the internet, or get interested in the lulz of it,
enough to get the idea of how totalitarian and abusive they are.
COS has been flying under the radar for too many years. All attention,
like the Tom Cruise video, is good attention. (Except for violence or
property destruction.)
If COS had their way, their Trademark secrets would have been
enforced, so that anyone mentioning Xenu or telling the OTIII baloney
could be hauled into court, which they tried to do for many years.
That was challenged successfully right? It was challenged by people
violating it. Violating COS law.
So, I'm not saying this is something that MUST be done. Just for some
of the people who have this information to consider.
What I like about Anonymous, is that they try different approaches, so
many creative things I'd never think of in a million years, like
"pubit man" (LOL). There can be a lot of debate of the effect of
something like that, good and bad, but it was a creative approach,
very attention getting (article in major NYC paper about it). I think
for every person, who characterized Anonymous most from that incident,
there were several who laughed, and looked deeper into the abuses and
scam of Scientology because of it. (I know it involved property
destruction, but COS can easily replace those few lubricated/hairy
books and go on scamming. COS overreacts and makes it sound like
terrorists bombed the building! That's COS. And that's why people will
notice them and laugh at them. Then when COS has to explain to someone
the terrorist act, involved vaseline and pubic hair....comedy ensues.
Then there are the things going on with the internet, just little
things people in Anonymous are doing to wake up some COS members a
little bit. I'm not talking about the denial-of-service attack.
While DM is the primary asset to bringing down COS, inside COS, and
the internet is the primary asset drying up new membership outside
COS, there are other things that can be done too. I'm hoping Haggis
will still be the crack in celebrity Scientology. Jason has done very
well, but he simply doesn't have the name recognition and power in
Hollywood. He was a lone renegade, and now with Haggis, he isn't.
I don't want there to be another Kaja Ballo, not one. That is, another
person who sees a Scientology building, reads their promises, takes a
"personality test" and believes that shit, especially having it drive
them to their suicide, whether fast like Kaja, or slow, like so many
thousands who get trapped.
I don't want there to be another Nancy either, that is a person in
college, who could have found another way to avoid drugs, and learn
business skills, without becoming trapped, and eventually traumatized
by a criminal organization.
Skipper
No they don't, not at all in the same way. I'm not sure if you actually
know any psychiatrists (though you should probably see one or two to
deal with your opposition issues) - I've had several as students. No
psychiatrist keeps a running handwritten tabulation of everything said
like auditors do in an auditing session. It's a very different thing.
realpch
<snip>
> > Well, Skip, psychiatrists DO do that. They keep the records of what
> > people tell them. In what detail, I don't know. It probably varies. I
> > also think that they're not as proactive in getting the info as the
> > Church of Scientology is. Just not as organized, you know. This is a
> > good thing.
>
> Anne Sexton's psychiatrist tape recorded their sessions. After her
> death, with the permission of her family, he dug out the recordings
> and shared them with her biographer. The APA raised hell, saying it
> was unethical, period.
>
> http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/s/anne_sexton/index.html
Aha! Just goes to show, no therapy with tape recorders!
realpch
Astrid, you write a lot of well reasoned, intelligent stuff, but you're
off the mark on this one.
realpch
>
> In article <4B458727...@aol.com>, realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Skipper wrote:
<snip>
> > Well, Skip, psychiatrists DO do that. They keep the records of what
> > people tell them. In what detail, I don't know. It probably varies. I
> > also think that they're not as proactive in getting the info as the
> > Church of Scientology is. Just not as organized, you know. This is a
> > good thing.
> >
> > :-D
> >
> > Peach
>
> No they don't, not at all in the same way. I'm not sure if you actually
> know any psychiatrists (though you should probably see one or two to
> deal with your opposition issues) - I've had several as students. No
> psychiatrist keeps a running handwritten tabulation of everything said
> like auditors do in an auditing session. It's a very different thing.
My opposition issues?!!!!
"Doc, Skip sent me. I say rude things to him on a usenet newsgroup."