|
Martin:
>He's saying the mind cannot be influenced by environment?
Bizarre. But then, the world is made up of all types, and a Phd doesn't mean
the person's not a looney. Diane:
That's not at all what he's saying. I'm not sure how you've reached
that conclusion from what has been written -- unless, of course, you
have a different definition of "brainwashing" than that
stated by
Monica and others here. Dr. Galanter is an M.D., not a PhD. His primary area of research has
been the study of large therapeutic groups (particularly Alcoholics
Anonymous and other 12-step programs). He began studying cults when
he noticed that they had a similarly high level of success in
keeping
their members off alcohol and drugs, and he wanted to find out why
this occurred. Martin:
>>" Hey, what are we doing here? Scientology is a
legitimate religion of choice. :-) " Diane:
>> I don't
know what you're doing here, Martin. >You
should by now. But then, what do I know; I've only been there and
done that. We should listen to you tell us what we experieced; you're
a smart peson. You should do nothing of the sort, and I certainly haven't said any
such thing. Putting such words in my mouth isn't really fair,
Martin.
It's not at all what I've been trying to say; if that's what you
conclude after reading what I write, then I've not been doing well
in
expressing my opinion. >>
I'm here
>>because the
cult has threatened intellectual freedom on the net by
abusing intellectual property law. Whether Scientology[tm] is
considered a "legitimate" religion or not has
nothing to do with why I follow this newsgroup; it's their
threat of abridging *my* freedom of speech to which I
object. >Understandable. >With
some of us, it goes a bit deeper. >Is this were you tell me what an idiot I was for
"joining" a cult? :-) No. I have never told anyone he was an idiot for joining a cult. I'm
not about to begin doing so now. >> It isn't safe to
assume that all critics share common goals. >Who
does? I doubt many here understand me or my complaint; those who do do, and those who don't have their own path to take, which is
fine. >I sometimes wish they would *take* that
path, though, instead of throwing sticks and stones all over my path. >Your goal has something to do with free speech and the cult; how
can you best achieve that goal? >Slamming Paulette? Ranting and railing against Monica? Or going
after the fucking cult? I find it amusing that so many people feel they have the right to
tell
me what I should and shouldn't be writing here. For a group
supposedly intent on preserving freedom of speech, I've come across
a
remarkable number of people who believe they know better than I what
I
should be saying. I reply to what I see posted to this newsgroup. When I see
inaccurate
statements made, or claims that I don't necessarily agree with, I
will
reply to them, regardless of who makes them. Paulette
Cooper
was being presented to the readers as some sort of
painted angel. I knew for a fact that her story was far more complex
than the story she was presenting to a.r.s. Someday, when I have the
time, I will provide more details of her story -- straight from the
court records and her own sworn statements. I don't believe that what I am doing is "ranting and
railing" against
Monica, and I'm surprised that you characterize our discussion with
that phrase. I am trying to engage in a serious discussion of a
question quite relevant to this newsgroup. As to the "fucking cult" -- outside of spam, they're not
much of a
presence here anymore. Since I believe it's thoroughly
counter-productive to reply to spam, that doesn't leave me much of
an
opportunity. As I have told you in email, my "real" life
is quite
hectic right now. Perhaps sometime in the future I will be able to
do
some research, analyze the material, write substantive messages and
post them. I do not have the time to do that now, as you well know. >Just
a thot, sort of a novel idea; focus on your goal and aim straight for it...don't bother with the side issues of blaming the
victims, etc. :-) I am not blaming any victims. Perhaps you may wish to read such
intentions into my posts, but I don't think you can support your
statement with my own words. >>
I realize that many people have been hurt by the CoS and
many other destructive cults. But I don't see it as my
job to protect people from themselves--otherwise, I'd be
spending my life trying to convince people that they're
making foolish decisions. >So,
would you consider fighting for free speech and the fact the cult is trying to limit it? Or would that only be protecting people
from themselves as well? I will fight for free speech. I will not fight for Arnie Lerma's
right to deliberately infringe copyrights just to make himself a
"hero" in his own eyes and then watch him parade hround on
this newsgroup as a martyr. From the outset I have stated that I
could not support Arnie Lerma's actions. I have seen very little discourse on free speech take place here.
People seem much more eager to come up with "blood sex
crimes" that
they can blame on the cult -- and show very little regard with
whether
these stories are fact or fiction. I want no part of such
"yellow
journalism" on the net and I won't participate in furthering
it. I believe that the cult's actions against the net are enough to
deserve the censure of all advocates of intellectual freedom. This
newsgroup seems to have lost sight of this and instead have focused
on
any tabloid-style headline anyone cares to conjure up instead. |
