On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 21:49:28 GMT, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote: >I did some checking on one of Dennis' other famous statements - that >he observed a woman by the name of Lynn Froyland chained up in the >basement of the Fort Harrison. This is false. It never happened >according to Lynn. It is a figment of Dennis' imagination. In my >opinion it is a clear example of Dennis trying to manipulate the >opinions of people on the newsgroup who were not present. They have >to believe him as an "eye witness".
What's your name? Your phone number? Why do you hide?
Me, I go with what Erlich says, he says it happened, it happened!
How does that make you feel wgert? And why did you ever stop writing to me honey?
On 04 Aug 1997 19:00:01 -0400, Nico Garcia <ra...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>A more interesting question is *why* is Diane picking on FACTnet and >some other ctitics of $cientology lately. Does anyone else detect a >whiff of "hell hath no wrath like a woman scorned"?
Perhaps a basic textbook on semantic BS should be a prerequisite to posting on the net.
(Much as I hate to say it some Hubbardian Word Clearing might help).
Respond to her logic. She's a damn sight brighter than most who post here. The only positive response you can get with such emotional appeals is from the intellectually challenged. ( A euphemism recently introduced in England for stupid people).
In article <33e73d62.29277...@snews.zippo.com>, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) airs my dirty laundry:
>>You have told me >>privately that your former wives and your daughters have all accused >>you of being a manipulative bastard. I can understand why.
> More and more ugliness, Diane. Pile it up high.
Amazing. As little faith as I've had in her, I would never have guessed she would explode all over my computer screen in a fetid, vile, festering pimple eruption like this. It's like watching an old, venerable building being dynamited and collapsing into a heap of rubble right in front of my eyes.
Hey, Diane, do you think maybe it's time for another break from ars? I think maybe you're overdue for a little run-away retreat from the newsgroup here. It's been a few weeks now since your last one. Heck, I think it might do you some good. Take a breather. Go walk on the beach somewhere with bivalve (he still with you?) or something.
Take it from your official groupie; you need a break from it, if anyone ever did. It makes me wince to read your posts these days, and I almost feel embarrassed for you. (not that you'd care, I know, I know).
Diane to Dennis:
>I see. So you never told me that your ex-wives and daughters called >you a "manipulative bastard." Then I obviously haven't betrayed any >confidences. That should certainly ease efish's mind some.
Why did efish's name get dragged into your cesspool? Diane, while you're at it, could you please tell me the length of Dennis's penis? I mean, while you're at it anyway...
Diane to Dennis:
>No, I didn't spend years as the quality control manager >in a cult. You did. I'd say you were well-suited to your job. >Whatever you did to "deprogram" youself in the ensuing years obviously >hasn't been enough.
>If you're incapable of seeing how you've manipulated me and others, >you're every bit as blind to yourself now as you were while you were >in the cult.
Amazing. A case study in something, I'm sure.
Take a rest, D. You've earned it. martin.
-- Cogito, ergo sum. ARS & Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282 Warning: strong spamblocking software in effect; include "xenu" or "arscc" in From:, To:, or Subject: headers, or your email will not get through.
inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote in article <33e88d81.11514...@snews.zippo.com>:
>n...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote: > I asked her sources for the bilious comment about all the trouble >Larry had caused CAN. I assumed she had other sources for these >statements than Priscilla or myself.
Then you could have asked her through e-mail, without putting your own friends at risk.
>It's best to know early what to expect from people you've trusted.
You have already decided, since she challenged your fad theory of mind-control and pointed out to your support of cult involuntary conservatorship that she has "transmutated into a malevolent misanthrope?", so what that's "early" in this sentence?
> I chose to point out that Diane does exactly what she castigates >others for doing regarding vague and undefined accusations.
No, you asked her direct questions. "In what way, and by whom? Like what, specifically? And just where did you get such data?".
>In order to divert this, she chose to express
She answered your question, Dennis, she didn't "divert" from something else. Manipulation, misrepresentation, positioning. You do it again.
>her twisted interpretation of the opinions of 2 other people
How is that "twisted"? It seems pretty straightforward to me. Coates had to fix the damage done by Larry to LA law firms, he more or less demanded one million dollars in a meeting of anti-cult groups and many left the meeting with the impression he was deranged, CAN grew weary of his constant appeals for money, etc. How is this "twisted" interpretation, and in which way?
>so she could "press on" with her character assassination of Larry and Arnie.
Arnie for one posts enough in the newsgroup and to not even need character assassination. He demonstrates his character himself just as Fishman, or Scarff. You are more devious but after a while, those you can't fool can see through yourself as well.
> Then she attempts to blame me for it,
No. You asked specific questions to Diane, she answered, then blame her for answering. At the end, you again try to put the blame on her.
>calling me manipulative and misquotes something
How is that a misquote? Do you dispute the wording "manipulative bastard?" Was it an other wording?
>I told her in a moment of intimacy about certain >problems I had had with my most immediate family;
Certain constant and recurring problems.
>and all in order to steamroll her perceived enemy.
No, in order to expose what you did for what it is.
>>despite the fact that on many of the other issues I tend to >>side with Diane. > As opposed to the people that think whether she's right or wrong, >she's transmutated into a malevolent misanthrope?
Still making character assassination instead of addressing the issue, eh? "She may be right but she is a malevolent misanthrope anyway". How is she a malevolent misanthrope? Because she doesn't agree with a fallacious theory and successfully demonstrate that contrary to the claims of its proponents it has been rejected by the APA? Because she points out to the failings of anti-cult proponents and objects to abuses and unethical actions done in the all encompassing name of "fight against the evil cult"? That's certainly enough for you to prove that she is a "malevolent misanthrope", no doubt. You have long gone abandoned the idea of an objective, truthful, and ethical approach.
>>But if you believe that the ugliness is all >>coming from one side here, there's a serious mote in your eye, D. > My act of reciprocity is merely pointing out her behavior. I'm >sorry your find it so ugly.
"Merely pointing", that's what you call your manipulation, and are surprised people find it ugly.
>Snot so easy when she aims her malevolence at you.
She expressed her feeling for what you did. Still in positioning game, eh? "She is malevolent, I am just pointing out".
Bernie -- Dianedroids. Invisible party line buster. Anti-anti-cultist. ARS critic's critic. Skripted scienobot. Cult rah-rah.
refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote: >Then why did you ask if you expected an answer you didn't want to see? >Dennis, you are playing games of the worst sort here. If you fail to >see what you're doing, I can assure you many others can.
BWAHAHAHAHA! What "others", Diane? :-)
Speak for yourself; you don't represent me, you don't represent anyone but yourself in this new level of vileness.
One true sign of desperation approaching utter loss in a debate is to haul in nebulous "others" to back up your collapsing position. But then, you know that as well as I do, Diane.
>By Priscilla Coates and by Cynthia Kisser's husband, to be specific. >I would not have revealed the names of these sources, Dennis, if you >it that were so unwilling to sign over your defense fund to Larry when >you had been able to transfer the funds to Larry, you made it quite >plain to me that you would never consider such an option because you >don't trust the guy. >As I have stated above. Priscilla Coates told me how she personally >Priscilla also told me about a meeting of anti-cult groups Wollersheim >Bill told me that the last correspondence Wollersheim had with CAN >I could go on. I think you get the picture.
Oh, loud and clear. Does anyone need a translation? If so, here it is:
"I am willing to backstab anyone and everyone and betray every confidence from Dennis Erlich to Rob Clark to all my erstwhile friends in pursuit of vengeance against anyone I ever get angry at."
"Do not ever trust me again, or you may regret it one day."
- Signed, Diane Richardson.
Thanks for letting me know, not that I ever did trust you, particularly. It's funny; some people I just quickly trust and they never seem to let me down, even when mightily tested in hot and angry exchanges. You know, as ugly as it once got between some critics and I in the past, certain lines were still never crossed. Certain lines you have just jumped clear over.
-- Cogito, ergo sum. ARS & Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282 Warning: strong spamblocking software in effect; include "xenu" or "arscc" in From:, To:, or Subject: headers, or your email will not get through.
e...@address.at.bottom (ef) wrote: >> I'm really *not* seeking to criticise or take sides in this - >> despite the fact that on many of the other issues I tend to >> side with Diane. But if you believe that the ugliness is all >> coming from one side here, there's a serious mote in your eye, D.
>no peter. you should not jump to conclusions. you see, you haven't been >around for a while.
I'm not jumping to anything. I'm responding to what I see here before me. That's the way usenet works. You deal with what's on the page. They might well have some history, but nevertheless, they are both capable of responding to or ignoring each others posts.
>some of us have been watching this sad debacle for a few months. not of >dennis' making.
I don't understand how you can say that. Since I've been back I've seen Dennis follow up a number of Diane's posts in a childish and insulting fashion, quite clearly seeking to engage her in this sort of personal slanging match.
Readers might believe that my response to this is shaped in some way by my personal relationships with those involved. The fact is, it isn't. I don't have a relationship with either of them. I've exchanged the odd e-mail with both in the past, but never for any extended period. If anything, my affections tended to lie more towards Dennis than Diane, but I've always respected her consistency in argument and her ability to back up her claims with data. Dennis's posts usually tended to be more about his experience and his feelings, which I feel is a different style but just as valid.
So my response isn't about my relationships with either of them, it's about how the whole thing looks to someone who just walks in here off the street. And it looks like Diane is doing what she always did, ie, asking hard questions of everybody, and Dennis looks like the person who can't let go. If he doesn't like the way Diane posts, or what she has to say, he doesn't *have* to read them - or follow them up so as to produce more of the same. Personally, I don't see anything at all in her posts that justify the sort of reactions that I've seen here in the last week or so - either from Dennis *or* from a whole bunch of other people, many of which seem completely unexpected and out-of-character.
And given the fact that the Scieno's are currently trying to get at Dennis via his past relationships, I also have to wonder how *wise* his behaviour over this matter is as well. At the very least, it has to be a cause for gloating on their part, but I also suspect that it's giving them the sort of insights into his personality that I really wouldn't want them to have if *I* was going up against them in family court.
b...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote: >wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote in article ><5s5hdu$a9...@usenet76.supernews.com>:
>>I did some checking on one of Dennis' other famous statements - that >>he observed a woman by the name of Lynn Froyland chained up in the >>basement of the Fort Harrison. This is false.
>Even if it wasn't false, the way he presents the CofS as >"locking people in basements and torturing them in RPFs" is a >clear manipulation, since it isn't representative at all of the >CofS as a whole.
That may be so, but I don't believe it's intended to be. In my view, it's intended as an indictment of the Sea Org, OSA and the sickness at the very heart of the organization itself.
What's more, we don't have to just take Dennis's word for this. There's more than enough corroboration from a wide range of sources to show that these practices have always existed, and the Lisa McPherson incident shows that there has been no real change in attitude or practice.
>It is meant to play on the audience's emotion >and bring about an hysterical reaction.
It's surely meant to play on the audiences emotion, but I don't see anything wrong with that. After all, there'd be something seriously wrong with you if you *didn't* see these practices as seriously abusive, and a logical conclusion to the totalitarian psychosis that runs through the cult at all levels.
Sadly, there *does* seem to be a hysteria that is characteristic of many of the critics here on ARS, but I think that's got a good deal to do with the personalities of the people concerned than the presentation of the information itself. It's a shame the way that their emotional involvement seems to be clouding their judgement but I'm sure it makes things a whole lot easier when you divide the world up into black and white, good and evil, right and wrong, friend and enemy.
At the moment, Scientology don't actually need anyone to try and make the critics look like liars or fools. The responses that I've seen to Diane's posts of late make it all too clear that they are more than capable of doing that for themselves.
>>>He wasn't highly regarded by the people running the old CAN, either.
>> In what way, and by whom?
>By Priscilla Coates and by Cynthia Kisser's husband, to be specific. >They told me, on different occasions, that
<sigh>
Why are humans built so that they are capable of deriving pleasure from hurting others?
>I would not have revealed the names of these sources, Dennis, if you >had not confronted me about my sources. No doubt you and others will >now castigate me for revealing confidences. So be it.
I think anyone who would desecrate confidences just to appear "right" on a Usenet newsgroup or an IRC channel has an extremely skewed set of values.
Diane, you are trading gold and diamonds for cheap, glittery tin-foil. You are actually the loser here. I hope someday you will be able to realize what a bad trade you have made.
I also hope that anyone who has taken the risk of intimating confidences to Diane is watching closely at the manner in which she cherishes and reveres them.
>As I have stated above. Priscilla Coates told me how she personally
>Priscilla also told me about
>Bill told me that
>I could go on. I think you get the picture.
I'm afraid I do.
And I hope people are looking as closely as you looked at the FACTNet database to see what kind of coin you use to repay those who have vouchsafed you their trust.
>>And in another post to Dave, Diane said: >>>What lies have I told to serve the OSA interest, Dave?d Or would you >>>prefer to leave your accusations vague and undefined?
>> Do these dots connect?
>Are you claiming that I am serving OSA interests by making such a >statement, Dennis?
I'm not Dennis, but...
You might get a short-lived thrill out of it yourself, Diane, but it is difficult for me to see how anyone but OSA will benefit over the long term from this latest dido of yours.
So, yes, I would say outright that I believe your latest actions serve the goals of OSA.
>If so, please stop with the cute innuendo and make >your accusations against me directly and honestly.
I'm not accusing you of being an OSA plant. But it is impossible for me to see how they will not be the reapers of the benefits from your current hi-jinx.
>You *do* still pride yourself on your honesty, don't you?
I pride myself on my honesty.
But I would never use "honesty" as an excuse to hurt people in a sadistic manner. And I would never dream of hurting someone IRL with whom I had a disagreement on Usenet or IRC.
There's a vast difference in scale. The punishment in no way fits the "crime."
Diane, you have really broken my heart with this post. I hope knowing this affords you a short-term thrill as well.
At least that way, maybe some good will have come of it.
In article <tomklemEEEFB1...@netcom.com>, tomk...@netcom.com (Tom Klemesrud) wrote:
>: >Diane, you remind me of a James Bond movie minx, who kisses, tells, >: >then betrays. Do you have any intelligence community background? >: >Be truthful.
>: I confess! I confess! I *knew* you'd force the truth from me, Tom!
>: You must have put your secret IRS agents on my tail. I don't have a >: chance. First you reveal Miss Bloodybutt and now me.
>: Yes, Tom, I was a member of the Dick Tracey Detective Club.
>I did some checking on one of Dennis' other famous statements - that >he observed a woman by the name of Lynn Froyland chained up in the >basement of the Fort Harrison. This is false. It never happened >according to Lynn.
If you have access to Lynn Froyland, I can only assume your vicious and morally bankrupt Church has blackmailed her into making a false statement to protect its image and calm a "PR flap." There's one problem with a Church which lies all the time: people who know it tend not to believe it when it issues a press release.
When did Lynn Froyland make this statement? Before or after Leisa Goodman told TV reporters on-camera that "there is no basement in the Ft. Harrison Hotel" ?
>It is a figment of Dennis' imagination. In my >opinion it is a clear example of Dennis trying to manipulate the >opinions of people on the newsgroup who were not present. They have >to believe him as an "eye witness".
I see no reason not to believe Dennis's eyewitness accounts.
When I first came to alt.religion.scientology, I didn't like Dennis very much. I found him gruff, sarcastic and somewhat non-responsive. Over the next year, I observed him in action here on a.r.s. He won my respect, not by trying, but just by being who he is. He didn't set out to win my friendship, but he got it anyway.
I saw him learn, grow, and go through personal and painful experiences in a public spotlight. I saw him make mistakes, and I saw him sincerely apologize for those mistakes when he realized them. Instead of lying about the accusations your morally vacuous Church made against him in their DA packs, he brought out all the information into the public eye. Stuff he might have even benefitted from hiding, he dragged through the public's view.
While Dennis and I do not see eye to eye on every subject (witness the "cult mind control" threads), I have never known him to lie or state anything other than his honest opinion about something. He has demonstrated a forthrightness, an honesty and a personal integrity that is the complete antithesis of any $cientologist I have ever seen on Usenet, and is even rare in the $cientologists I have known personally. He is certainly no saint, but he is the kind of human being that I can respect.
What have you demonstrated, wgert? Evasiveness, lying, sniping, lying, dead-agenting, lying, wriggling, lying, weaseling, lying, worming, ly
