Home - News - What's New - Quick Map - Site Map - Search - Contact


Debunking the Myth of Mind-Control

Clark's Defense

Rob Clark, another anticultist and ars regular, claims to have backed up his claims and accuses Diane not to have done so. Of course, the exact contrary is true. At the end of the post, Diane summarizes the situation saying that not only the reference was removed from DSM-IV, but Singer was debarred from being a witness in American courts following the rejection of her report by the APA.


Diane Richardson <referen@bway.net>

14 Apr  97

http://x9.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=234864893

xenu@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:

>referen@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:

>>Whether you agree with my opinion or not, that is my opinion. I believe I have devoted a great deal more time and thought to this issue than you have, and I'm willing to back up my argument with documentation. I have seen no one else on any of the newsgroups to which this thread is posted who is willing to back up their own opinions with anything more substantial than personal opinion and personal invective.

>what? i've backed up my opinions with documentation.

What documentation, Rob? Posting citations to papers you've probably never even read is hardly adequate documentation of anything.

Your "documentation" for your claim that the term "new religious movements" was used as a euphemism for "cult" was genuinely laughable. All you could manage to come up with were short lines taken from websites that contained both the terms. *None* of your "documentation" supported the claim you were making.

Your very own "documentation" proved that sociologists of religion *do not* substitute the phrase "new religious movement" for "cult." If the phrase was being used as a substitute for the term "cult," the word "cult" would not have appeared in any of the examples you posted.

You stated at the time that you would provide additional documentation for your assertion. To date, you have provided none. I assume that you have given up your attempt to support your statement with evidence.

>except when i do it it's a "mindless squeal to authority" and "groupthink" and when

Exactly what "documentation" have you posted that I've described as a "mindless squeal to authority" or "groupthink," Rob?

The only documentation I can remember that you've posted are various vague references to Margaret Singer's book and to Robert Jay Lifton's criteria. These sources do nothing to prove any of your assertions -- that "new religious movements" is a term coined to replace the word "cult"; that your definition of the word "cult" is adequate, or that the "mind control" is generally accepted by psychiatrists, psychologists, and sociologists as a valid theory.

>you do it we're supposed to buy whatever academic crap (like hadden) you try to fob off on us. when you're just appealing to authority yourself, and to imbecilic authorities like hadden, at that.

I've posted a wide variety of source material to support my arguments. I've presented the studies and discussed them -- I haven't merely said the equivalent of "Margaret Singer wrote it, I believe it, and that settles it," as the mind control adherents here have.

>>Rob, if you're so sure my opinion is wrong, go out and dig up evidence from anyone *not* affiliated with the AFF and post it here. If you're either unwilling or incapable of doing this, don't expect me to prove your arguments for you -- especially when I don't agree with them.

>when have i asked you to back up my arguments?

Obviously, you're incapable of backing up your own arguments with valid documentation.

>back up your own damn arguments, that's what i'm asking. and with facts. if you don't like conway and siegelman's regression analysis, not the earlier one you keep digging up because you obviously haven't read the latest findings. hell, i'll type in the thing myself if you insist.

Rob, to what "earlier regression analysis" are you referring? Do you know what you're talking about?

And please, by all means, type the thing in yourself. I insist. I haven't been able to find a copy of the book here.

>then come up with a counterargument, instead of shrieking that monica should "take some more TRs" and the similar lame insults you've been tossing at her.

>and as for your bullshit about having given this more thought than i have, bite me. you rebut the growing presumption that cults use mind-control methods, and that these can cause dissociative disorders and other pathological responses in people subjected to them.

What "growing presumption," Rob? Who is making this presumption? What evidence do you have that supports you claim that any such presumption is growing?

This is the sort of statement you so readily fling out without presenting any evidence to support your claim. If you have material that proves there is a growing presumption that cults use mind-control methods, post it here. Right now.

Among much other evidence, I presented the fact that the DSM has removed any diagnosis for cult-induced dissociative disorder from the official APA diagnostic manual. This strongly indicates that, if anything, the presumption that cults use mind control methods is waning rather than growing.

Additionally, I pointed out that Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe's essay on cult-related disorders has been removed from the Merck Manual, another highly regarded reference used widely by health care personnel.

I can also point to the memorandum opinion of the judge hearing Steven Fishman's criminal case, in which Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe were barred from presenting testimony on "mind control" as expert witnesses. Both the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association testified that the "mind control" theory was not generally accepted as a valid theory by professionals in their disciplines. Because of the judge's ruling in this hearing, neither Margaret Singer nor Richard Ofshe can testify as expert witnesses on "mind control" in American courts.

On the other hand, you have failed to present any evidence whatsoever to support your assertion. I have presented evidence that is quite easy for anyone to substantiate for themselves.

>given quite sufficient reason for my belief in coercive persuasion

"Sufficient reason"? I must have missed that post.

>and now rebut it instead of squealing to authority by citing the vagaries of definition in the DSM-IV as proof that margaret singer's clinical opinions are wrong.

The DSM-IV is not a book of vagaries, Rob. The diagnosis was deliberately removed from the manual after much discussion and review. That decision was agreed to by a vote of APA members. That's not a vagary, that's deliberate, considered action. What a shame they didn't ask your opinion before they made their decision!

>based on people like hadden. diane dismisses that singer as a clinician has had more experience with cult-induced problems than anyone, such as a sociologist like hadden, has had, and hadden and his ilk have no standing to second-guess her diagnosis.

Richard Ofshe is a sociologist. Do you believe that Richard Ofshe is art of that "ilk" which has no standing to second-guess Singer's diagnosis?

What about the majority of members of the American Psychtric Association, Rob? Do they have no standing to second-guess Singer's diagnosis either? What about the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology of the American Psychological Association, Rob? They refused to endorse a report she authored as chair of an APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control. Not only did they refuse to endorse it, they cautioned members not to distribute Singer's report without making it clear that the APA found the report unacceptable. Think whatever you like, Rob. But don't claim that you have proof for your opinions. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that directly refutes your claims.

Diane Richardson
referen@bway.net

 


Defense Introduction - Announcement - William's Sins Bainbridge - Timothy Miller - Hunts Attack - Robert Jay Lifton - Pattern of Defense - Loaded Language - Margaret Singer - DSM -1V - Clark's Defense -Kaplan and Saddock - Sociologist Vs Psychologist - Milieu Control - Hugglung's Reaction  Salibo on Singer - APA Statement - The Rabbits Foot



Random Quote :

Disclaimer :

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.

Quick Map :

About Myths Bigotry Anti-Cultism Criticism Third Way Links
Home
Site map
Search
What's New
Contact

Story
Q&A

 

Overview
2Questions
3Types
What

Doctrine
Xenu
Gays

Control
Kills
McPherson
Bashaw
Manson
RPF

Harrassment
Bomb
Sporgeries
Earthlink
Profit
Legal

 

Logic
Cat
Critic

 

Attacks
Clams
Hate
Christmas
Invasion
Trolling
Harassment
Violence
Award
OSA


Dissenters
Attacks
IRC
Plants
ARS

Tenets
Mind-Control
Subliminal
ACM

Discrimination
Jews
Kids
Germany
France
Trafalgar
Deprogramming

Who's Who
Cooper
Minton
Henson
Hartwig
Who

 

Experiences
Pro&Con
Dream

Questions
What Is?
Works?
Scam?

Testimonies
Sasha
Robin
Unindoctrinated

Cultism
Mirrors
Manhatan

The Tech
Key
Medical
Excalibur

Celebrities
Cruise
Celebrities

 

Scholars
Article
FBI
Papers

Moderates

Critics
Rebecca
Diane
Peter
DeadAgent1
Judy
Newbies

Ex-Members
Wolf
Jack
Claire
David
Kymus
Bernie
Interviews 

Scientologists
Enzo
Freddie
RonsAmigo
Wonderflur
Whippersnapper

Scientologists Speak
Freddie
EJ

 

ACM
Personal
Pathless