Peter McDermott was an early ARS poster who
came back after 2 years of absence. He expresses amazement at how
Diane Richardson, who remained the strong and honest debater he knew
her to be, is now attacked by arsers, and how entrapped in their own
cultic mindset they seem to be. For the origin of the cultic anger
of arsers against Diane, check the Mind-Control
thread and the Cooper thread.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Peter:
>>But perhaps you've changed of late, and prefer people to follow some invisible party line?
Dennis Erlich:
> Yea right. If you don't think my advice to Diane to take a break from ars was motivated by a desire for her to regain equilibrium, you didn't know me before any better than you know me now.
Diane
appears to be posting in exactly the same way as she always did -
retaining a critical independence and asking the hard questions.
The only difference is that she seems to
have gone from being Ms. Popularity hereabouts, to Public Enemy
Number One.
I don't see any lost equilibrium. On the evidence before me, she
appears to be posting in exactly the same way as she always did -
retaining a critical independence and asking the hard questions.
The only difference is that she seems to have gone from being Ms. Popularity hereabouts, to Public Enemy Number One.
> I gotcher party line right here.
I wish that I did.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
It
wasn't that long since the clams saw Diane as one of
their most serious PR problems on this newsgroup
As you may or may not know, it wasn't *that* long since the clams saw
Diane as one of their most serious PR problems on this newsgroup and
would have given anything to be able to have people dismiss the hard
questions she asks as being motivated by some sort of personal failing on
her part.
It would seem that they've got their wish.
[snip]
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Peter:
>>What was the deal with Operation Freakout? This is what's led to Diane's status as being an SP hereabouts, I take it?
Dennis Erlich:
> You're doubly clueless here, Peter.
So clue me i.
> First off, you clearly missed Diane's
vindictive jihad against Paulette.
Sadly,
it seems that Rod's Week in Review doesn't contain all of the
really interesting stuff.
Of course I missed it. I haven't read ARS for two years. Sadly,
it seems that Rod's Week in Review doesn't contain all of the
really interesting stuff.
> And "B", on ars they don't have
Espees.
Ah. ARSCC stopped issuing declares then? I don't believe it.
I think this is akin to what the nutkult says about fair game.
"Oh, we don't do that any more. That was just the results of
a few misguided souls, but we've sent them off to ARSCC RPF now,
and besides, they were never really members anyway."
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Bernie:
>Dozens of people were involved in an ugly and nasty flame war that went on for about two months. I think that quite a few posters didn't survived it (virtually speaking of course), and some only started to recover from it around now
I've
been wondering where some of the old regulars disappeared to.
Thanks, Bernie. I'll check it out on DejaNews. I've been
wondering where some of the old regulars disappeared to.
People
can't rebut Diane's allegations, so they are intent on a
hypocritical attempt at dead agenting her instead.
After all, if it's inaccurate info, you can always rebut it and by doing
so, hopefully show that the person who is posting has some sort of
malicious intent. However, it seems pretty clear that what is happening
here is that people *can't* rebut Diane's allegations, so they are intent
on a hypocritical attempt at dead agenting her instead.
news@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter
McDermott)
Fri, 08 Aug 1997 01:10:04 +0100
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: For Dennis: illustrating a generality
Message-ID: <B010226C96683100A0@0.0.0.0>
Dennis, you accused me of 'slinging
generalities' when I talked
about the sort of abusive responses that I was seeing to Diane's
posts and you wanted me to quote an example from the newsgroup.
I use an off-line newsreader though, and delete them after I read
them, so I couldn't cite one of the posts that had shaped my
perceptions of the issue. However, it wasn't very long before I
read another example of the type of posts that I was referring to.
So try this one. The post it's following up takes was of a similar
nature, but only calls her a brainless bitch. This goes a little bit
further, claiming that Diane is evil incarnate and comparing her
with (guess who?) the Nazis.
So
long as it's approved speech, attacking approved targets, we'll
defend it - but if it happens to be raising questions that we
don't want to hear, let's stick our fingers in our ears and scream
abuse as loud as we can.
It appears that the cost of expressing views that differ from those
of the dominant posters can be very high indeed. So much for our
precious defense of free speech, huh? So long as it's approved
speech, attacking approved targets, we'll defend it - but if it
happens to be raising questions that we don't want to hear, let's
stick our fingers in our ears and scream abuse as loud as we can.
After all, it's *so* much easier
I
never even saw the Scienos themselves work this hard to
smear their critics
The odd thing is that I never even saw the Scienos
themselves work *this* hard to smear their critics. At least posters like
Andy Milne would make some attempt to rebut their opponents positions.
This
stuff is simply mindless abuse aimed at discrediting the person
and diverting all attention from the arguments and the issues
being argued over.
This stuff is simply mindless abuse aimed at discrediting the *person*
and diverting all attention from the arguments and the issues being
argued over.
Now where have I seen *that* tactic used before? Hmmm.
It seems to me that the thing that lies at the heart of all this
anger is a difference over tactics. Diane's position seems to be
lets get *everything* out in the open, put the emphasis on accuracy
rather than just relying on the propaganda value of a statement, and
acknowledge it when someone who is fighting the cult happens to be
wrong, because by doing so you can only enhance your credibility
and show that you have precisely the sort of integrity that
Scientology lacks. I have to say that this is also the same position
that I hold (and always have, which is why I'm somewhat bemused by
those who claim that I've 'changed' somehow.)
If you
want to establish your moral and ethical superiority, you really
do have to behave in a morally superior manner.
In contrast, there are those who believe that we should fight
the clams 'by any means necessary' and if that means lying, or
breaking the law, focusing on the propaganda value of data
rather than whether it's true or not. Actually, I do have an
emotional tendency towards this point of view myself. However,
there's a big problem with it, and that is when you get caught
out, your credibility is all shot to shit. And of course, this
is another of the strategies that the cult uses to deal with its
critics, another good reason why I feel critics should explicitly
distance themselves from it. If you want to establish your moral
and ethical superiority, you really do have to behave in a morally
superior manner.
It does highlight all manner of interesting
parallels, and goes some way to illustrating Bernie's thesis that
anti-cult posters are often very similar in their thinking and behavior
to the cultists that they profess to hate.
Mind you, it does highlight all manner of interesting parallels,
and goes some way to illustrating Bernie's thesis that anti-cult
posters are often very similar in their thinking and behaviour to
the cultists that they profess to hate.
Another
way that it does this is by showing that critics reserve their
most intense venom for their apostates in precisely the
same way that the cult does.
Another way that it does this is by showing that critics reserve
their most intense venom for their apostates in *precisely* the
same way that the cult does.
You and Diane may have a bit more in common than either of you
currently recognize. I've heard you go on quite a lot about
persecution. This looks to me like a pretty clear example of
persecution, and if it were happening to anybody else *besides*
Diane I'd be astonished that you weren't speaking out about it.
Maybe it's time that this old bus went in for a service?
Here's the post.
In article <anima.870918229@bermuda.io.com>,
anima@bermuda.io.com (Anima) wrote:
>posted/emailed
>"Alec" <alec@flash.net> writes, perhaps because he
still bothers to pay attention to the irrelevant and distasteful:
>>Thank God Arnie and others have
spilled the church's beans, whether illegal or not. I might have spent the rest of my life
anticipating good things from this abusive church. Arnie and the others have
courageously given me the discriminatory data I need to dispell the church's
possessive lies. From the realm of religion and truth the Law is a Whore! If
the Law opposes my pursuit of salvation, then Fuck the Law! I consider
that anyone who would side with the Law over the rights to the Truth is
a Whore!
>'Da Bump would be proud to be as obstructionist as this woman has
dedicated herself to being. Unable or unwilling to supply useful
material in researching the crimes, history, behavior, or dangers of
Scientology, she focuses exclusively these days in trying to ensure that no one
else does any better. Now, in the <snipped> material you quoted, all
is explained: Her sense of morality, ethics, appropriate behavior, is all subordinate to the One Important Thing-- legality. If something is
legal, it is acceptable to her, obviously, and if it is Not legal, it must be opposed. Since it is not illegal for her to produce off-topic rants
about those who are still trying to discuss the cult, such rants are
obviously moral, ethical, appropriate, etc. And if a judge orders someone to suppress evidence of a deadly crime, such as the "church"
<spit> has been accused or convicted of over and over in the last year or two-- and,
of course, very often before that as well, then no matter how many deaths
may be caused as a result, it is obvious that the law is more important
than life-- or, one supposes, either liberty of the pursuit of happiness.
>In short, if it is illegal, it IS wrong, immoral, unethical, and
inappropriate. But may the god help anyone if she can find something to them that is Not explicitly illegal, because such behavior would obviously be acceptable. Thus, no matter how many lives Arnie's brave
(and it seems to me, Unintentionally illegal) posting may have saved, she
gets to sit around on her high horse and condemn him. People who have their ethics dictated by the law, and not from some better source, are
indeed victims whose acts are controlled by others and must waver with the wandering wind rather than act as a beacon to others, an example of conscience in the face of, say, Jim Crow laws, Apartheid, political arrests, book banning (What if the courts condemned Huck Finn? What
would a librarian do-- defy *gasp* the law?), the mandatory wearing of a
Star of David or a pink triangle. Yes, there are those who would defy those
laws. And there are the quislings who would file Knowledge Reports on them, berate them in public long after they had confessed, and shove others aside to be first in line at the stoning.
>Is there any possible doubt which of these two classes the
hatemongering pseudo rationalist falls into? And in that case, why bother to attempt
to engage someone whose agenda has no credibility, whose morality is secondary to wriggling within the law and smiling as sweetly as ever
Sid smiled when he went running to tell Ma that Tom did not whitewash the whole fence himself, and who has such a powerfully, repeatedly demonstrated ability to tear at people's lives at any cost with all
the tenacious bile of a rabid Hubbardite going upstat on a church-ordered mission to destroy and leave behind some kind of warning message, "something witchy," to be remembered by. The difference
between Di and Chuck's followers is that she doesn't need to be ordered into action
by some Manson type; she boldly strikes out all on her own.
>>What fucking interest can you possibly have in Scientology
issues?, you brainless fucking Bitch!
>Now, now. Obviously her interest in Scientology issues is to impose
her views on those who are discussing those issues and attempting to
destroy those who dare to cross her OR who are demonstrating their
effectiveness in bringing to justice the international criminal conspiracy disguised
as a church. Other than her bloody savaging of Factnet, Arnie, Rob,
Paulette Cooper, and others, she has contributed nothing of value for a couple
of years now. Just do what almost everyone else has done-- killfile her.
It may astonish you how much more useful and productive this newsgroup becomes when you eliminate her hatespew and focus on the issues, keep
up with the news, and join in the camaraderie that helps people hold on
in the face of Evil-- the face seen in the mirror each morning by the
woman who, when she touches pitch, defiles it.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Diane:
>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.
The
same tired posters reciting the same tired flames.
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.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Bernie:
>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.
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'.
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.
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.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Bernie:
>Seems like you don't gain much by trying to speak sense to those who obviously can't make any. Somehow, they will always try to turn it against you at the end of the day. A good lesson, methink. Better ignore them.
>>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'.
>I am surprised Ron has chosen to heat up a
flamefest, he who usually try to cool things up. I wonder why.
I must say that it surprised me as well.
>>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.
>Yes. I think that this is the point when you
start to realize that some "critics" aren't better than what they criticize, sometimes they are even much worse. But I think that we just have to live with that. They populate the newsgroup and they probably have the right to make a fool of themselves just as well. The best is probably to ignore them most of the time. They do serve a purpose also, as a negative illustration.
A few
years ago, ARS was a credible source of information on Scientology
that an objective reader could turn to for discussion. I just
don't see that it could fulfil that function anymore, and that has
to be a very sad loss to the world indeed.
I hate to agree with you on this. A few years ago, ARS was a
credible source of information on Scientology that an
objective reader could turn to for discussion. I just don't
see that it could fulfil that function anymore, and that
has to be a very sad loss to the world indeed.
>Luckily, there are enough other posters as well,
or it wouldn't be worth staying at all.
>>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.
>I think Damon Cheston share your opinion on that
point, as do I.
The
dominant response was that it was enough for it to be consistent
with allegations of past Scientology behavior for people to
accept that it happened.
What puzzles me is how so few people
seem to realize that their apparent gullibility on these issues
destroys any credibility as objective over the issue.
It's true. I'd forgotten just how staunch Damon was on the issue.
There were a couple of others as well, but I believe that the
dominant response was that it was enough for it to be consistent
with allegations of past Scientology behaviour for people to
accept that it happened.
What puzzles me is how so few people seem to realize that their
apparent gullibility on these issues destroys any credibility as
objective over the issue.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Sister Clara:
>> >Of course the poster has not noticed the tiny 1 watt bulb
light up within what passes as a brain, warning hier that the post above has
both wasted further "ink" and granted more "air
time".
Dennis Erlich:
>> 4 is a guest celeb on ars, Sis.
Sister Clara:
>I could not give a toss who he is. Being a guest celeb does not
prevent the posting of tripe. We've all done it at one time or another Dennis and
it is not unreasonable for it to be called.
It was
a post of a session where fauxskin was chatting to a scieno on IRC
titled 'ClamSex' that clued me in to the
fact that the behaviour of some of the critics here had dropped
*way*, *way* below the standards of most of any of the active
scienos that I'd seen posting.
It was the first time I'd *ever*
felt instinctive sympathy for the scieno and revulsion at the
critic's tactics. Sadly, it was far from the last.
Curiously enough, it was a post of a session where fauxskin was
chatting to a scieno on IRC titled 'ClamSex'
posted here a few
weeks ago that clued me in to the fact that the behaviour of
some of the critics here had dropped *way*, *way* below the
standards of most of any of the active scienos that I'd seen
posting.
It was the first time I'd *ever* felt instinctive sympathy for
the scieno and revulsion at the critic's tactics. Sadly, it was
far from the last.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Peter:
>>argue and debate. If Diane's arguments are weak, there's no shortage of people here to jump all over her and point that out. In fact, even when they aren't weak, there are enough people here who lack the insight into the difference between a 'good' (ie, logical and coherent) argument and a poor one to take a shot at it anyway. It hardly seems reasonable to whine about 'semantic pummelling' because she tends to decisively defeat such people in argument.
drink@yourown.risk.com (bc):
>Whine? Would you care to clarify that little statement, Peter? I
You're right. I erroneously assumed that your 'semantic
pummelling' reference referred to Diane, largely because I've
seen her arguments dismissed as 'semantic trickery' before.
Have an apology for my error,
>have yet to concede defeat to Diane, Bernie, or
anyone else. As a
You don't need to concede it. It's there for anyone to see
on the threads on mind control.
>matter of fact, I don't see my presence here as
a competition with anyone. I'm not out to "defeat" anyone, or be
"defeated" by anyone.
That's funny, because you really don't strike me as someone
who is interested synthesizing the useful stuff in opposing
viewpoints and moving forward.
In light of that, why else would you argue with an
opponent?
> I'm not even sure why I'm responding to this.
But if you insist on taking this to a personal, third-grade level and throwing out an accusation of "whining", rather than discussing the issues
involved in a rational fashion, I'd have to invite you to FOAD. Politely, of course.
Um, Pot-Kettle-Black
>>Anyway, my point is that what BC calls
'semantic pummelling' is really the best tool that we have. ie the ability to ask
questions, to challenge basic assumptions, to point up the flaws in each other's logic. If we don't subject *all* claims to the same rigorous testing, then we have to accept $cientology's argument that critics are biased, bigoted and operate a double standard.
>If you read the entire newsgroup,
Not
enough of interest here anymore, I'm afraid.
To be quite honest, I only popped in
because I saw a brief reference to Ginger Breggin's wife being a
Scientologist in "Week in Review". I hadn't really
intended to stick around, but I found myself intrigued by Diane's
transformation from ARSCC Kha Khan to OSA plant. It's still
relatively new and interesting to me, whereas most of the other
stuff being discussed here hasn't changed at all in the last two
or three years.
Perhaps I'll go back to reading
Week-in-Review once a week.
Maybe if I didn't have a life, I'd have the time. But actually, I don't
have the inclination any more. Not enough of interest here anymore, I'm
afraid.
To be quite honest, I only popped in because
I saw a brief reference to Ginger Breggin's wife being a Scientologist in
"Week in Review". I hadn't really intended to stick around, but I found
myself intrigued by Diane's transformation from ARSCC Kha Khan to OSA
plant. I know that the regulars here profess to be bored with it (despite
continuing to perpetuate the threads on the topic) but it's still
relatively new and interesting to me, whereas most of the other stuff
being discussed here hasn't changed at all in the last two or three
years.
Perhaps I'll go back to reading Week-in-Review
once a week.
This web site is
NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER
who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical
of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a
Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.
