In article <34223ab5.9282...@news.concentric.net>,

I don't have a view, largely because I don't believe I've ever
had the data from a representative sample. My own view of the cult
*is* shaped by those people who have had negative experiences.
However, that's tempered by a feeling that many of those who
remain in still feel they get something positive from the cult
(I find it hard to comprehend why, but there you are) and a growing
suspicion that many people leave feeling that they've been overcharged
perhaps, but still feeling broadly positive about the tech and
the people they met there. Again, I don't understand this either.

My point is that the reality of the experience of cult membership
is far more complex than this group is prepared to concede. I
really wish I could get a better handle on this complexity, but
whenever anyone *does* appear here who is prepared to talk about
their positive experiences, they are immediately leapt upon by
a huge string of fuckwits, ranting OSA, clam, etc. You've talked
about how *you* believe Bernie's posts invalidates other people's
experiences, but given that he's a single individual posting from
a different viewpoint, I find it hard to grasp just how much of a
problem that can be, given the overwhelming support that ex-clams
get on this group. It seems to me that it must be far harder for
someone whose experience is completely contrary to the bulk of the
views expressed here to post. If you want to talk about the
invalidation of experience, it seems to me that you should take an
objective look at *that* process - although I can quite understand
that someone who *has* had a particularly negative experience
with the cult might not want to. But my own feeling is that being
able to do so would indicate that somebody had moved on from their
bitterness, and was trying to get a wider perspective on the whole
issue, and in that sense I *do* agree with Bernie when he says
that many ex-cultists are still stuck in the cultist mindset.

If you hang around with critics, you really shouldn't be surprised
that all of their views are critical, but we really have no way
of knowing how typical or how representative those views are. As
I said, anyone trying to express a contrary view in these parts
is rapidly set about by a mob insistant on proving the folly of
their position.

You've implied Bernie's invalidation is upsetting to you, or angers
you. How do you suppose you would feel if you were posting in a
group where poster after poster did precisely that? Do you really
think you'd stick around very long to try and explain yourself?
particularly when it became clear that you weren't going to be
allowed any latitude in your account - and so were going to have
to define precisely every single ambiguous word you posted, because
your opponents weren't prepared to engage in discussion on the sort
of terms that most people take for granted when they are attempting
to genuinely understand what the other person is saying?

My guess is that you wouldn't stick around very long either.

With regard to Scientology as an organization, I'd agree completely.
However, I'm not at all convinced that the same thing is true of
people's experience of the cult. Or rather, I'm pretty sure that
most of those who stay in for any length of time do so because
they have a positive experience. I don't buy the mind control
theory - I think that's an excuse that people use to explain
behaviour that they aren't very proud of. I believe they stay in
because they get something positive, and they leave when the
experience turns negative. And I think that the better grasp we
have of what it is that people find positive about the cult, the
better able we are to point out the flaws. But you really can't
get at that unless you actually listen to what those people have
to say.

Indeed, but it's hardly an uncommon one in these parts. I take
your point about his tendency to preach, but I think it's hard
to put forward an unpopular point of view in this newsgroup.
Take a look around sometime, and see what happens to those who
does.

Personally, I believe that without exposure to a broad diversity
of opinion, one really isn't going to get very far in understanding
much, and when you've got people regularly abusing and vilifying
people for holding different views, you can't expect them to
stick around for long. What we've *all* got to ask ourselves is
are we going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution?

I'm not asking you to. I'm just asking that you think about
according the same sort of respect to someone who expresses that
point of view as you'd expect others to accord to you.

That's all.