FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement - alt.religion.scientology

Message from discussion FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement

Peter McDermott

More options Aug 19 1997, 3:00 am

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

From: n...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)

Date: 1997/08/19

Subject: Re: FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

In article <355898be.296862...@snews.zippo.com>,

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.

Reply to author Forward