refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote: >I have left a.r.s. in disgust more than once. I have also left a.r.s. >more than once because of the press of other obligations. Sometimes >I've left a.r.s. out of both disgust and because of other obligations.
I'd add *boredom* to that list. The same tired posters reciting the same tired flames and actually *objecting* to people coming up with new and verifiable information doesn't make for the most interesting group in the world.
b...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote: >On top of that, Diane is hard to counter, either with rhetoric >or with facts and references. As a matter of fact, they may find >it almost impossible. The only thing that therefore remains for >them, is to make out of her some kind of monster by pure >unsubstantiated ad hominem.
Yup, that's my take on it as well. The more sensible among them take her on and she fucks them up in public. All they are left with is demonizing her on some imaginary grounds.
Witness Zane's recent example. He takes a shot at her, but as he finds nothing he can beat her up over in her argument, he starts whining about her remarks - despite the fact that she'd passed over remarks of a similar tone that he'd made several times in the course of the thread.
>So that's another of the reasons that may explain the virulence >that is sometimes displayed against Diane, simply because she is >successful, and often have many interesting things to say. If >this wasn't the case, and if indeed she had all the faults they >attribute to her, then they would simply ignore her, like they >mostly do with Scarff and Koos.
Yup. Even those who claim to have plonked her don't seem able to ignore her. She's one of L. Ron Newman's 'obnoxious three' so she's 'fair game'.
>BTW, Is there actually any chance for a real change to be >brought about in the group? I am somewhat sceptical about that. >It seems that dissidents, those who can think away from the >largely accepted thought pattern within the group, and who have >the strength of character to sustain the social pressure their >attitude would inevitably engender (and the stronger the cultic >aspect, the stronger the reaction), are few. The majority prefer >to indulge in the easy and ready made general agreement >prevalent within the group. They tend to follow opinion leaders >who exemplify for them this thought pattern.
I doubt it. When I stopped reading ARS around two years ago, it was for precisely this reason. I was the first person to express my doubts about Arnie Lerma's toothbrush, and I found the responses to my posts to be extremely disturbing. The consensus seemed to be 'Shut up and say nothing. You don't criticize the critics' but I resent being fed bullshit and expected to swallow it with a smile *whoever* might be holding the spoon.
Since then, the situation seems to have gotten even worse. It appears as though OSA have dehatted those people who were charged with posting here to counter the arguments, my guess is because the critics themselves are doing a far better job of making themselves look like crazy people than they ever could.
Which has to be the first *real* Big Win I've seen Scientology take with regard to the internet.
Diane Richardson <refe...@bway.net> writes: > When I began coming across records that placed significant details of >her story in doubt, I began asking questions. The item that troubled >me most was the affidavit Paulette Cooper signed for the CoS after she >had settled with them for the second time.
>The veritable jihad that was waged against me when I dared to ask >questions made me even more determined to find out what the real >Paulette Cooper story was all about. The reaction against me, which >was a direct result of Paulette Cooper's behind-the-scenes >manipulation of her friends, was far more hysterical than anything >that could be reasonably justified.
Like all stories, this one has two sides to it. I respect her for what she has done and suffered, but I never expected that she would be perfect or without failings or not capable of getting angry and losing it if harassed. I don't know why Diane started her (noisy) investigation / dead-agenting of Paulette Cooper. She trumpeted laudly that it would show serious wrongs by Paulette Cooper, and it was a put up or shut up situation. Well, I didn't see then before I killfiled her -- or now in summaries by her or others -- anything that justifies that view. They show weakness, they show willingness to wish harm on the crime syndicate persecuting her when (unknown to her) an agent of that syndicate is egging her on to frmae them as she has framed others. I see nothing like a deliberate and realistic plan to carry out criminal acts, having already carried out other such crimes. My reaction, and that of a lot of other people, was that Diane had nothing worthwhile and must be motivated by personal malice. Of course, like Bernie can't see why his conduct over Jonestown is so offensive, she can't see why people are so disgusted with her. But pretty much everyone else can.
>In spite of what others may have learned from the ordeal, I did learn >quite a lot.
IYO.
>Among the lessons I learned was that the story did, >indeed, contain a figure worthy of admiration and respect. >That person's name is Nan McLean. Her honesty and strength of >character are second to none.
Until she turns up posting on the newsgroup as a rival to you, I suppose.
/; ;\ -- Regards, __ \\____// XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner <d...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <u...@sunyit.edu>) _____________________________/ :--' ____________________ http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ] \___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___] `====' "So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
Diane Richardson <refe...@bway.net> writes: >The CoS forged two notes on Paulette Cooper's stationery in their >attempt to have her framed for making bomb threats against the New >York org in 1972.
>>Also, it doesn't sound like that part of the program was written >>years after the US government reached an agreement with PC.
>The agreement between Paulette Cooper and the U.S. Assistant District >Attorney prosecuting her case was made in 1973. The case remained >on the docket until she completed her agreed upon one year of >psychotherapy, which happened in 1975. Cooper did not begin therapy >immediately after reaching agreement with the prosecutor, which caused >the delay.
>The agreement did not stipulate guilt or innocence. It was merely an >agreement to no longer prosecute her on the bomb threat charges.
>These are all matters of public record, Mike. I'd encourage you to >locate the records and verify what I've written.
Nevertheless, Diane, would you not agree that it is a reasonable inference from an agreement that a person was not prosecuted on an undertaking they get psychiatric treatment means they are being treated by the authorities as "guilty but insane". If the view at that stage was that she was innocent because she had been framed, they would have dropped the prosecution unconditionally. A reasonable interpretation is that they felt "this idea of bomb threats being forged, especially by a 'church', is just not credible."
Would it also be reasonable to say there was a general acceptance in public debate that she HAD been framed only when written plans to forge further bombthreats were captured? And you have already agreed that the earlier bombthreats were forged, so you are not alleging she carried them out herself while insane.
MARGARETH1 <margare...@aol.com> writes: >> >I am quite capable of stating that Paulette Cooper was arraigned >> >because a false bomb threat had been forged on a letterhead stolen >> >from her, and that the FBI adamantly refused to accept her denials >[snip]
>> Your statement is inaccurate. The criminal proceedings against >> Paulette Cooper were halted *years* before the FBI raid on CoS >> headquarters occurred. The Operation Freakout document was not even >> written when the government reached an agreement with Paulette Cooper >> not to pursue the criminal charges.
>While your facts are accurate, Diane, that does not mean that Dave's >statement is *in*accurate (at least as far as I can judge from the portion >of his statement included here). Halting criminal proceedings against >someone does not necessarily equal belief in that person's innocence.
Yes, and I have covered this in an earlier post. Halting proceedings on condition the person get psychiatric treatment clearly menas you believe them to be guilty but insane. Which is why I say here denials were not accepted (as establishing her innocence) until much later after the threatment was completed, when written plans for further forged bombthreats were discovered.
>In fact, as Maureen Garde pointed out during a previous discussion of this >topic, the conditions of the agreement between the government and >Paulette (i.e. mandatory psychiatric treatment) exclude the possibility >that the government's decision not to press charges was owing to a belief >in her innocence. According to Maureen, if they had truly believed >Paulette innocent they would have had to release her *without* conditions.
/; ;\ -- Regards, __ \\____// XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner <d...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <u...@sunyit.edu>) _____________________________/ :--' ____________________ http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ] \___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___] `====' "So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
ef <e...@address.at.bottom> writes: >> Me2. (Though it took a while to notice, I just kept her >> 100% killfiled through her last tantrum).
><sigh> ... <sighsighsighsighsigh>
>you know, you guys... as much as i am inclined to do battle with diane >over points of interest (hers vs mine), i am most definitely *not* into >the "slink off and shut up" kinda persuasions. this for william b.
> if you do profess killfiling someone, then also make the effort to no >longer discuss that person. especially in insulting terms.
I'm not quite sure this makes sense. Am I allowed to react in different ways according to the severity and duration of Diane's obnoxiousness (well, allowed or not, I'm going to).
Someone thought it worth reporting that they felt immense relief --- "after weeks of suffering, the relief is enormous" --- when Diane left after the BASTard Operator From Hell threads. Well, since I'd K/Fed Diane, and each of the threads like weeds as they sprung up, I didn't much notice Diane had gone until a while after the threads ceased. Killfiles are, after all, a sort of "cooling off period" in which you hope someone will become less obnoxious if you stay out of each others hair for a while.
The next lot of tantrums, while refusing to read anything in her name, I urged averone else to K/F and occasionally responded to people quoting her crap with that same request.
Now I'm not so sure. I think she needs to be responded to.
Sorry to bang on about my rationale for doing things--which is less interesting than the issues & arguments themselves-- but that seems to be what your post wanted explained in public.
seaorg <sea...@super.zippo.com> writes: >Gee, a rational post in this thread, how did that happen? You mean it is >not all total black and white? You couldn't possibly be suggesting shades of >grey??? What will be next, people taking about "middle ground"
You mean, say, Lisa MacPherson is half alive and half dead (sorta like Shroedinger's cat?). Or killing her by medical neglect was part good part bad? Hmm. Maybe some things ARE black and white after all....
/; ;\ -- Regards, __ \\____// XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner <d...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <u...@sunyit.edu>) _____________________________/ :--' ____________________ http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ] \___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___] `====' "So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
llyw...@no.spam.agora.rdrop.com (Geoffrey Burling) wrote: >Bernie, I suspect it's not Dennis who is falling - much as Milton's >Satan fell after his vain rebellion against the PTB. It's you.
Do you really believe this, Geoffrey? Check out his post titled 'Summary of Diane's lies'.
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 19:10:21 GMT, in message <33f89b88.23396...@snews.zippo.com>, refe...@bway.net (Diane
Richardson) wrote: >On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 16:39:17 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis >Erlich) wrote:
[clip]
>No, indeed, Dennis. That wasn't the reason at all. You were engaging >then -- as you still are -- in thoroughly disgusting behavior towards >others with whom you do not agree. Rather than discuss the issues on >which you disagree with others, you choose to throw insults at them.
>I've been around this newsgroup far too long to think that's just a >one-time anomaly, Dennis. You do this regularly. It's your normal >behavior when you're faced with dissent. It demonstrates your >intolerance of opinions not in agreement with your own.
>You're doing an excellent job of letting the world see the very worst >aspects of your character, Dennis. I saw them myself long ago. Now >you're letting everyone who reads this newsgroup see what I once saw >and kept to myself.
i think a martian wandering into this thread might see two people holding up a mirror to the other, with each confused about whether the behavior they see is the other, or themselves.
somehow i feel remote from it this evening, as if i am looking at it from afar, and i tell you both this as a friend, for whatever stock you put in it. i won't feel bad if either or both of you thinks i'm fos, either.
n...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote: >For what it's worth, I hate Scientology with a vengeance. I think >it's a corrupt and totalitarian organization that preys on the >weak and innocent.
>However, I have to say that I've not seen many 'thoughtful, comprehensive >or intelligent' rebuttals of Bernie's posts yet. I've seen people putting >different viewpoints forward, but that doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
>>Another point that I find really stubborn about you is how you are always >>on the side of the cult and the anticultists are "worse" than the cults.
>I'm not sure that Bernie *is* on the side of the cult or not, as yet. >My readings of his posts so far, suggest that he's attempting to be >even-handed. It seems to me that he's one of what must be thousands >of Scientologists who left the cult and who *don't* feel damaged by >the experience, and while that's not a point of view that's represented >very often here, it's certainly one that I find of interest.
>My feeling is that many people dislike Bernie because he highlights >contradictions and hypocracy that people would prefer to ignore.
Then I suggest you read more. Without a doubt Bernie goes out of his way to defend cults, while taking every opportunity to run down this mythical "anti-cult" cult.
Let me give you an example. Bernie has, more than once, accused this "anti cult" cult of using the death of Lisa McPherson to paint the Co$ in a false and bad light. Now ask Bernie if he has read ANY of the information on her death on the Lisa web page. Ask him if he read the autopsy. Hell ask him if he even reads the threads that involve Lisa McPherson. He has already admitted that he has not and does not. I would not be surprised to find he has not read the logs that were written by the people that were observing her while she was in the care of the Co$. Yet Bernie feels very free in saying that Dennis is using emotional language when describing Lisa's death. How does he know? Is he even sure what she died of?
I don't see how this can be called "even handed". IF Bernie had gotten EVERY SCRAP OF INFO on the death of Lisa McPherson, then came to his conclusion, I would still disagree, but I could at least admire him from not trying to hide from the truth. As it stands Bernie hides from the truth. He even avoids just regular critical pages. Ask him. Ask him why and he will tell you that he just does not have the time. Excuse me if I believe that if you have the time to post, you have the time to make sure your basic information is correct.
Bernie has claimed that the "anti-cult" cult (and just WHAT the hell is that anyway? As far as I can tell it is anyone that agrees with Dennis, or is critical of the Co$) is just as dangerous as the cults are. Do you believe that Peter? Do you think that Dennis is as dangerous as the Co$? Do you think that *I* am as dangerous as the Co$? Do you even think that (in spite of the flame war that is raging now) such a comparison is "even handed"?
Bernie is a cult apologist. It is as simple as that. He uses this "anti-cult" cult term to do the same thing that Hubbard did when dealing with critical thought about himself. Boomerang it back to the target that originated the critical thought. It is a most excellent piece of misdirection. "Lisa was killed while in the care of the Co$". "You are just using loaded language to describe something you don't know about. You were not there. You don't know if the Co$ was REALLY caring for her. You are part of that nasty "anti-cult" cult. If you had your way you would be kidnapping innocent cultist violently deprogramming them". Lord give me a break. Please feel free to go to Déjà News and read some of the threads that Bernie has been involved in. I think that you will find it an eye opener.
Since you seem to think that there are not many 'thoughtful, comprehensive or intelligent' post that rebut him, I have tried to use examples from his own mouth. All I can suggest is that you just keep reading him.
