Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award

Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award Fair Game

Rick,

As I have stated before, aside from the fact that we're busy enough with other things, Janet and I do not wish to get involved in your private issues with cult experts like Steve Hassan and the folks at AFF. That includes your disagreements regarding fees and/or dialogue with cult apologists.

You don't like the fact that we don't answer questions on demand, but we owe you no accountability.

You proceeded to read your own interpretations into our refusal to answer your questions, and that worries us.

I have for many years promoted and even defended your work. But your behavior in this issue gave me second thoughts, and caused Janet - who is licensed mental health professional - and I to rethink our referral policy.

We stand behind our decision to refer people to AFF, Steve Hassan, and other recommended professionals: http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling.html#counseling

As for cult apologists, everyone concerned knows my views regarding them: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html

It's not for nothing that cult apologists and their groupies continue to denounce me. Hah! We even jokingly refer to Douglas Cowan as our 'marketing director' because many of the folks who visit our site after reading his stuff on us are puzzled as to why he sees fit to misrepresent our views, as in his

Cult Apology: A (Modest) Typological Proposal http://c.faculty.umkc.edu/cowande/sssr-2002.pdf

Our entry on AFF includes a segment on the dialogue issue: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/a38.html

We conclude: :===Begin Quote=== The publishers of Apologetics Index do believe dialogue among those who are involved in the study of religious movements in general, and cults and sects in particular, can be helpful. But given the agenda and track record of cult apologists, we also believe that it is necessary and prudent to draw clear lines of demarkation. As long as academic cult defenders remain controversial (due to, for example, their attrocious 'research,' their hateful attacks on apostates, their PR-like defense of cults, and their penchant toward bearing false witness), they should not be included as featured speakers at professional conferences. :===End Quote===

Matter of fact, Janet and I have met and talked with cult apologists ourselves. We also reguarly meet with members of groups and religions that we consider to be cults - religious or otherwise - just like we also meet with members of a wide variety of religions. These people know that we operate from a Christian and countercult point of view. We also make sure they understand our approach to interreligious dialogue (option 3): http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i06.html

Regarding professional fees we have the following statement online: http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling02.html#fees

Yes, that statement was posted our our email exchange, but we work on our own schedule and according to our own priorities.

Like I said, we do not necessarily agree with everything the recommended organizations teach or practice. The same is true for thousands of links posted at Apologetics Index. Our disclaimer is very clear: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/disclaimer.html

The feedback we receive is positive and indicates people are quite able to make informed decisions for themselves.

That said, we wish you continued success in your own efforts to liberate people out of cults. But as I have repeatedly indicated, Janet and I have no time or interest to pursue other people's private battles...

Anton -- Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects, and related issues ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects, and related issues

On 11 Dec 2004 10:07:30 -0800, rickross@rickross.com wrote:

>Anton Hein's posted response here actually does not address and/or put
>in correct context the simple questions he was asked.
>
>Anton has chosen to endorse and promote certain professionals and
>organizations through his Web site, which is certainly his prerogative.
>
>Some questions Anton was asked specifically related to the fees charged
>by one of those professionals Steve Hassan, which were reported at
>$5,000 per day and $500.00 per hour.
>
>Steve has never disputed this, but later published a reduced fee
>schedule after a disclaimer was made public at the Ross Institute
>database.
>
>Anton was asked how he felt about these high fees, which have caused
>some families to mortgage their homes.
>
>Anton never answered.
>
>Other questions had to do specifically with recent policy changes
>within the American Family Foundation that apparently allow for the
>inclusion of well-known cult apologists such as Dick Anthony, Eileen
>Barker and Massimo Introvigne to be speakers/presenters at its
>conferences without meaningful historical qualification or
>introduction.
>
>Also Anton was asked how he felt about Krishna spokespersons being
>included in a panel titled "Can Cults Change" that did not include that
>group's victims or their designated spokesperson for meaningful
>balance.
>
>Anton never answered.
>
>It is important to note that Anton has previously been critical of cult
>apologists, including those named and the Krishna movement.
>
>These questions were reasonable given that history and meaningful
>answers would provide a clarification and/or better understanding of
>Anton's position regarding these controversial issues, which directly
>relate to the content of his Web site and the professional and
>organization endorsements.
>
>Anton chose instead to at first ignore the questions, and then he
>attempted to obfuscate the issue by characterizing such questions as
>somehow a personal and/or professional attack.
>
>To date Anton refuses to make his position on any of these issues
>clear.
>
>Rick A. Ross
>www.rickross.com
>
>
>
>Michael Greenberg wrote:
>> spamtrap@apologeticsindex.org wrote in message
>news:<7k7150dbps6l6k78n8rdhsqi9llvia7bcv@4ax.com>...
>> > Hah! Just received:
>> >
>> > :===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
>> > Congratulations! You won a "Flaming Website" award. See
>> > http://www.rickross.com/flamingwebsites.html
>> > :===End Quote===
>> >
>> > This is in response to our web entry on The Ross Institute, whose
>services Janet
>> > and I do not recommend:
>> > http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r24.html
>> >
>> > Ross' email exchange with us was manipulative and otherwise
>unprofessional. It
>> > shows Ross jumping to conclusions - because we were (and are)
>unwilling to
>> > answer his questions regarding our views on Steve Hassan and AFF.
>> >
>> > For one thing, we already indicated to him that we were very busy.
>For another,
>> > the Book of Proverbs says, " Like one who seizes a dog by the ears
>is a
>> > passer-by who meddles in a quarrel not his own." (Proverbs 26:17
>NIV)
>> >
>> > Too, our recommendations are clearly labeled:
>> > http://aishort.com/recommended
>> >
>> > Incidentally, Apologetics Index is one of only a few
>Christian-operated sites
>> > that recommend both Christian and secular organizations. They are
>clearly
>> > labeled as such, and our disclaimer speaks for itself. Besides,
>though Janet
>> > and I operate from an evangelical Christian perspective, we support
>freedom of
>> > religion in thought and expression. This and other issues are
>addressed here:
>> >
>> > How To Use Apologetics Index
>> > http://www.apologeticsindex.org/howto.html
>> >
>> > When two of Rick's messages went unanswered - having been
>misdirected and marked
>> > as "read" by a filter in our email program - his next message,
>titled, "No
>> > response leads to some conclusions," included the following:
>> >
>> > :===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
>> > As they say, "Silence is assent." And your silence is rather
>deafening.
>> > :===End Quote===
>> >
>> > Ross concluded that message with:
>> >
>> > :===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
>> > Thanks for making your position on all this somewhat clearer. I
>wasn't really
>> > sure where you stood on all this. But now understand that your
>position is
>> > apparently predicated on politics and not principle.
>> > :===End Quote===
>> >
>> > Needless to say, Janet and I were not impressed. By the way, while
>I merely
>> > have 29+ years of experience in lay counseling, my wife, Janet, is
>a licensed,
>> > professional counselor and social worker. Like me, she considered
>Ross'
>> > behavior in his emails to us to be manipulative and unprofessional.
>The
>> > inclusion of baseless accusations and the apparent willingness to
>jump to
>> > conclusions didn't help either, and only added to our reasons for
>not
>> > recommending The Ross Institute.
>> >
>> > Alas, Ross' behavior got even more stranger when he wrote:
>> >
>> > :===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
>> > Why do I feel I emailing with cult member deliberately being
>evasive and
>> > refusing to give clear answers to easy questions?
>> >
>> > I guess this is your version of "heavenly deception."
>> > :===End Quote===
>> >
>> > In my response I wrote, among other things:
>> >
>> > What foolish, unprofessional, and unethical remarks!
>> >
>> > :===Begin Quote: Anton Hein===
>> > Your communication with me has become increasingly bizarre. It is
>filled with
>> > baseless and incorrect conclusions, marked with unprofessional
>behavior, and now
>> > includes thinly-veiled suggestions of "deception."
>> >
>> > You accuse me of "unethical and unprofessional behavior," and claim
>to be
>> > "disappointed" by what you label my "lack of professionalism,
>integrity and
>> > political pettiness."
>> >
>> > All that because I do not have the time, energy or interest to be
>drawn into
>> > your disagreements with the professionals you gossip about.
>> >
>> > If you truly get the feeling that you are emailing with a "cult
>member," I feel
>> > sorry for you. Like I said before:
>> >
>> > ====
>> > That said, if the manner at which you arrive at your conclusions -
>as displayed
>> > in the message copied below - is reflective of your usual approach,
>Janet and I
>> > have one more reason to stand behind our current recommendations
>for ex-cult
>> > counseling and support resources as listed here:
>> > http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c09c.html#counselorg
>> > ====
>> > :===End Quote===
>> >
>> > Our response to Rick Ross remains the same as before: if he has a
>problem with
>> > an organization and/or an individual, he will need to hash it out
>with them.
>> > Janet and I do not respond to the email-equivalent of arm-twisting.
>
>> >
>> > We will say this: though - as indicated at our site - we do not
>necessarily
>> > agree with everything the recommended organizations teach or
>practice, our
>> > interaction with AFF and Steve Hassan has always been courteous,
>professional,
>> > and pleasant. Janet and I stand behind our referrals. What Rick
>Ross wants to
>> > make of that is his own responsibility. We wish him all the best
>in his
>> > efforts, but will not recommend his services to anyone.
>>
>>
>> Consider that a compliment Anton. Your post was quite gracious.
>>
>> Rick Ross does not posses any academic credentials or qualifications
>> whatsoever to practce any form of psychological
>> counseling in any state. Call it "exit counseling" or whatever you
>> like.
>> Get a license Rick.
>>
>> Michael Greenberg

<hr> From: rickross@rickross.com
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Date: 3 Jan 2005 08:07:21 -0800
Message-ID: <1104768441.564030.161230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<d9e32222.0403111744.7565b6c9@posting.google.com> <1102788450.511930.292440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <85ait0p94f3o1kv2uidpirsvrnihb86uh7@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <85ait0p94f3o1kv2uidpirsvrnihb86uh7@4ax.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.3.107.122; posting-account=_QZcrA0AAACJM7xoxO2xarSYaMwc41BE

To whom it may concern:

In response to Anton Hein's recent post on this thread--

"Apologetics Index" is a Web site run by Anton Hein and his wife Janet. It is promoted as a public resource about cults, religions, controversial groups and movements and solicits donations from the general public.

Mr. Hein has chosen to publicly promote and/or endorse through his Web site specific professionals and organizations, which is certainly his right.

But promoting such resources through an easily accessible Internet Web site database is not a "private issue."

When a Web site supposedly devoted to the public interest specifically endorses certain resources it is fair to ask questions regarding the criteria/process for such selections. And meaningful answers to such questions help to better inform the public, which might rely upon the judgements made by that Webmaster/owner.

Mr. Hein's attempt to categorize such reasonable questions about his public policies as "private issues" in not a meaningful response, nor is it objectively applicable.

It is reasonable and meaningful to hold Mr. and Mrs. Hein accountable for their publicly stated endorsements and promotional efforts.

Mr. Hein says that "cult apologists...should not be included as featured speakers at professional conferences."

However, he continues "to refer people to AFF" and by extension its conferences without qualification.

AFF has featured the very same "cult apologists" Anton Hein denoucnes for "their attrocious 'research,' their hateful attacks on apostates, their PR-like defense of cults."

Mr. Hein has chosen not to specifically address this glaring contradiction.

Anton Hein says he wants the public to carefully consider the fees charged for cult intervention work and he has a section about this process at his Web site.

However, he refuses to explain why he has endorsed and continues to preferentially promote one private professional (Steve Hassan), despite the fact that he has charged fees as high as $5,000 per day.

Mr. Hassan recently reduced his fee schedule to $2,500 per day, but only after a public disclaimer was posted at the Ross Institute Web site regarding his previous fee schedule.

Steve Hassan, subsequently described discussion about his fees as a "personal attack."

Anton Hein certainly may endorse whomever or whatever he wishes to. But since these endorsements are made publicly and not privately and may influence those who visit his Web site, it is reasonable to ask questions about the criteria, due process and policies concerning those endorsements.

However, Anton refuses to answer such questions plainly and directly.

A plausible conclusion given Mr. Hein's responses and the seeming contradictions they pose, is that his chosen endorsements and selective promotion of certain private professionals at "Apologetics Index" is largely idiosyncratic and/or somehow politically motivated. And apparently they do not reflect any consistent professional and/or ethical criteria or guidelines.

Rick A. Ross www.rickross.com

ApologeticsIndex.org wrote: > Rick,
>
> As I have stated before, aside from the fact that we're busy enough
> with other things, Janet and I do not wish to get involved in your
> private issues with cult experts like Steve Hassan and the folks at
> AFF. That includes your disagreements regarding fees and/or dialogue
> with cult apologists.
>
> You don't like the fact that we don't answer questions on demand, but
> we owe you no accountability.
>
> You proceeded to read your own interpretations into our refusal to
> answer your questions, and that worries us.
>
> I have for many years promoted and even defended your work. But your
> behavior in this issue gave me second thoughts, and caused Janet -
who > is licensed mental health professional - and I to rethink our
referral > policy.
>
> We stand behind our decision to refer people to AFF, Steve Hassan,
and > other recommended professionals:
> http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling.html#counseling
>
> As for cult apologists, everyone concerned knows my views regarding
> them:
> http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html
>
> It's not for nothing that cult apologists and their groupies continue
> to denounce me. Hah! We even jokingly refer to Douglas Cowan as our
> 'marketing director' because many of the folks who visit our site
> after reading his stuff on us are puzzled as to why he sees fit to
> misrepresent our views, as in his
>
> Cult Apology: A (Modest) Typological Proposal
> http://c.faculty.umkc.edu/cowande/sssr-2002.pdf
>
> Our entry on AFF includes a segment on the dialogue issue:
> http://www.apologeticsindex.org/a38.html
>
> We conclude:
> :===Begin Quote===
> The publishers of Apologetics Index do believe dialogue among those
> who are involved in the study of religious movements in general, and
> cults and sects in particular, can be helpful. But given the agenda
> and track record of cult apologists, we also believe that it is
> necessary and prudent to draw clear lines of demarkation. As long as
> academic cult defenders remain controversial (due to, for example,
> their attrocious 'research,' their hateful attacks on apostates,
their > PR-like defense of cults, and their penchant toward bearing false
> witness), they should not be included as featured speakers at
> professional conferences.
> :===End Quote===
>
> Matter of fact, Janet and I have met and talked with cult apologists
> ourselves. We also reguarly meet with members of groups and
religions > that we consider to be cults - religious or otherwise - just like we
> also meet with members of a wide variety of religions. These people
> know that we operate from a Christian and countercult point of view.
> We also make sure they understand our approach to interreligious
> dialogue (option 3):
> http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i06.html
>
> Regarding professional fees we have the following statement online:
> http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling02.html#fees
>
> Yes, that statement was posted our our email exchange, but we work on
> our own schedule and according to our own priorities.
>
> Like I said, we do not necessarily agree with everything the
> recommended organizations teach or practice. The same is true for
> thousands of links posted at Apologetics Index. Our disclaimer is
> very clear: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/disclaimer.html
>
> The feedback we receive is positive and indicates people are quite
> able to make informed decisions for themselves.
>
> That said, we wish you continued success in your own efforts to
> liberate people out of cults. But as I have repeatedly indicated,
> Janet and I have no time or interest to pursue other people's private
> battles...
>
> Anton
> --
> Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
> ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects,
> and related issues
> ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects,
> and related issues
>
>
> On 11 Dec 2004 10:07:30 -0800, rickross@rickross.com wrote:
>
> >Anton Hein's posted response here actually does not address and/or
put > >in correct context the simple questions he was asked.
> >
> >Anton has chosen to endorse and promote certain professionals and
> >organizations through his Web site, which is certainly his
prerogative. > >
> >Some questions Anton was asked specifically related to the fees
charged > >by one of those professionals Steve Hassan, which were reported at
> >$5,000 per day and $500.00 per hour.
> >
> >Steve has never disputed this, but later published a reduced fee
> >schedule after a disclaimer was made public at the Ross Institute
> >database.
> >
> >Anton was asked how he felt about these high fees, which have caused
> >some families to mortgage their homes.
> >
> >Anton never answered.
> >
> >Other questions had to do specifically with recent policy changes
> >within the American Family Foundation that apparently allow for the
> >inclusion of well-known cult apologists such as Dick Anthony, Eileen
> >Barker and Massimo Introvigne to be speakers/presenters at its
> >conferences without meaningful historical qualification or
> >introduction.
> >
> >Also Anton was asked how he felt about Krishna spokespersons being
> >included in a panel titled "Can Cults Change" that did not include
that > >group's victims or their designated spokesperson for meaningful
> >balance.
> >
> >Anton never answered.
> >
> >It is important to note that Anton has previously been critical of
cult > >apologists, including those named and the Krishna movement.
> >
> >These questions were reasonable given that history and meaningful
> >answers would provide a clarification and/or better understanding of
> >Anton's position regarding these controversial issues, which
directly > >relate to the content of his Web site and the professional and
> >organization endorsements.
> >
> >Anton chose instead to at first ignore the questions, and then he
> >attempted to obfuscate the issue by characterizing such questions as
> >somehow a personal and/or professional attack.
> >
> >To date Anton refuses to make his position on any of these issues
> >clear.
> >
> >Rick A. Ross
> >www.rickross.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Michael Greenberg wrote:
> >> spamtrap@apologeticsindex.org wrote in message
> >news:<7k7150dbps6l6k78n8rdhsqi9llvia7bcv@4ax.com>...
> >> > Hah! Just received:
> >> >
> >> > :===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
> >> > Congratulations! You won a "Flaming Website" award. See
> >> > http://www.rickross.com/flamingwebsites.html
> >> > :===End Quote===
> >> >
> >> > This is in response to our web entry on The Ross Institute,
whose > >services Janet
> >> > and I do not recommend:
> >> > http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r24.html
> >> >
> >> > Ross' email exchange with us was manipulative and otherwise
> >unprofessional. It
> >> > shows Ross jumping to conclusions - because we were (and are)
> >unwilling to
> >> > answer his questions regarding our views on Steve Hassan and
AFF. > >> >
> >> > For one thing, we already indicated to him that we were very
busy. > >For another,
> >> > the Book of Proverbs says, " Like one who seizes a dog by the
ears > >is a
> >> > passer-by who meddles in a quarrel not his own." (Proverbs 26:17
> >NIV)
> >> >
> >> > Too, our recommendations are clearly labeled:
> >> > http://aishort.com/recommended
> >> >
> >> > Incidentally, Apologetics Index is one of only a few
> >Christian-operated sites
> >> > that recommend both Christian and secular organizations. They
are > >clearly
> >> > labeled as such, and our disclaimer speaks for itself. Besides,
> >though Janet
> >> > and I operate from an evangelical Christian perspective, we
support > >freedom of
> >> > religion in thought and expression. This and other issues are
> >addressed here:
> >> >
> >> > How To Use Apologetics Index
> >> > http://www.apologeticsindex.org/howto.html
> >> >
> >> > When two of Rick's messages went unanswered - having been
> >misdirected and marked
> >> > as "read" by a filter in our email program - his next message,
> >titled, "No
> >> > response leads to some conclusions," included the following:
> >> >
> >> > :===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
> >> > As they say, "Silence is assent." And your silence is rather
> >deafening.
> >> > :===End Quote===
> >> >
> >> > Ross concluded that message with:
> >> >
> >> > :===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
> >> > Thanks for making your position on all this somewhat clearer. I
> >wasn't really
> >> > sure where you stood on all this. But now understand that your
> >position is
> >> > apparently predicated on politics and not principle.
> >> > :===End Quote===
> >> >
> >> > Needless to say, Janet and I were not impressed. By the way,
while > >I merely
> >> > have 29+ years of experience in lay counseling, my wife, Janet,
is > >a licensed,
> >> > professional counselor and social worker. Like me, she
considered > >Ross'
> >> > behavior in his emails to us to be manipulative and
unprofessional. > >The
> >> > inclusion of baseless accusations and the apparent willingness
to > >jump to
> >> > conclusions didn't help either, and only added to our reasons
for > >not
> >> > recommending The Ross Institute.
> >> >
> >> > Alas, Ross' behavior got even more stranger when he wrote:
> >> >
> >> > :===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
> >> > Why do I feel I emailing with cult member deliberately being
> >evasive and
> >> > refusing to give clear answers to easy questions?
> >> >
> >> > I guess this is your version of "heavenly deception."
> >> > :===End Quote===
> >> >
> >> > In my response I wrote, among other things:
> >> >
> >> > What foolish, unprofessional, and unethical remarks!
> >> >
> >> > :===Begin Quote: Anton Hein===
> >> > Your communication with me has become increasingly bizarre. It
is > >filled with
> >> > baseless and incorrect conclusions, marked with unprofessional
> >behavior, and now
> >> > includes thinly-veiled suggestions of "deception."
> >> >
> >> > You accuse me of "unethical and unprofessional behavior," and
claim > >to be
> >> > "disappointed" by what you label my "lack of professionalism,
> >integrity and
> >> > political pettiness."
> >> >
> >> > All that because I do not have the time, energy or interest to
be > >drawn into
> >> > your disagreements with the professionals you gossip about.
> >> >
> >> > If you truly get the feeling that you are emailing with a "cult
> >member," I feel
> >> > sorry for you. Like I said before:
> >> >
> >> > ====
> >> > That said, if the manner at which you arrive at your conclusions
- > >as displayed
> >> > in the message copied below - is reflective of your usual
approach, > >Janet and I
> >> > have one more reason to stand behind our current recommendations
> >for ex-cult
> >> > counseling and support resources as listed here:
> >> > http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c09c.html#counselorg
> >> > ====
> >> > :===End Quote===
> >> >
> >> > Our response to Rick Ross remains the same as before: if he has
a > >problem with
> >> > an organization and/or an individual, he will need to hash it
out > >with them.
> >> > Janet and I do not respond to the email-equivalent of
arm-twisting. > >
> >> >
> >> > We will say this: though - as indicated at our site - we do not
> >necessarily
> >> > agree with everything the recommended organizations teach or
> >practice, our
> >> > interaction with AFF and Steve Hassan has always been courteous,
> >professional,
> >> > and pleasant. Janet and I stand behind our referrals. What
Rick > >Ross wants to
> >> > make of that is his own responsibility. We wish him all the
best > >in his
> >> > efforts, but will not recommend his services to anyone.
> >>
> >>
> >> Consider that a compliment Anton. Your post was quite gracious.
> >>
> >> Rick Ross does not posses any academic credentials or
qualifications > >> whatsoever to practce any form of psychological
> >> counseling in any state. Call it "exit counseling" or whatever you
> >> like.
> >> Get a license Rick.
> >>
> >> Michael Greenberg

<hr> From: ApologeticsIndex.org <spamtrap@apologeticsindex.org>
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Organization: ApologeticsIndex.org - ReligionNewsBlog.com
Message-ID: <6qtit09p4hsun7cg0tuaihpl9dh45p5b2p@4ax.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:16:28 GMT

Mr. Ross may demand accountability from whomever he chooses to demand it, but that does not mean anybody owes him either an answer or accountability. (Who died and left him in charge?)

He is welcome to read anything and everything into this that he wishes to, but his continued protests and insinuations won't make any difference at all in the way we operate our ministry.

Our website makes it overwhelmingly clear that we operate from an evangelical Christian point of view, that we are opinionated, and that unlike most Christian apologetics and countercult sites we link to resources from a variety of perspectives. This includes cult experts and/or organizations and ministries.

If someone wishes to explain that as "iosyncratic and/or somehow politically motivated" that's their right - and is our right not to take that kind of nonsense seriously.

The Apologetics Index approach works well for us, and is appreciated by our visitors. Feedback received shows that our interlinked information provides people with information that will help them make informed decisions.

While we freely share our opinions, we don't make decisions for people, and won't allow others to manipulate us into accepting their agendas either.

Incidentally, we do not charge anything at all for our services. Yes, we solicit donations, but in any given year more has been paid and donated by us than comes in.

Mr. Ross is welcome to complain about the fees charged by others, or about the way others operate. But as we have consistently stated, we refuse to be pulled into his fights with others.

On 3 Jan 2005 08:07:21 -0800, rickross@rickross.com wrote:

>To whom it may concern:
>
>In response to Anton Hein's recent post on this thread--
>
>"Apologetics Index" is a Web site run by Anton Hein and his wife Janet.
>It is promoted as a public resource about cults, religions,
>controversial groups and movements and solicits donations from the
>general public.
>
>Mr. Hein has chosen to publicly promote and/or endorse through his Web
>site specific professionals and organizations, which is certainly his
>right.
>
>But promoting such resources through an easily accessible Internet Web
>site database is not a "private issue."
>
>When a Web site supposedly devoted to the public interest specifically
>endorses certain resources it is fair to ask questions regarding the
>criteria/process for such selections. And meaningful answers to such
>questions help to better inform the public, which might rely upon the
>judgements made by that Webmaster/owner.
>
>Mr. Hein's attempt to categorize such reasonable questions about his
>public policies as "private issues" in not a meaningful response, nor
>is it objectively applicable.
>
>It is reasonable and meaningful to hold Mr. and Mrs. Hein accountable
>for their publicly stated endorsements and promotional efforts.
>
>Mr. Hein says that "cult apologists...should not be included as
>featured speakers at professional conferences."
>
>However, he continues "to refer people to AFF" and by extension its
>conferences without qualification.
>
>AFF has featured the very same "cult apologists" Anton Hein denoucnes
>for "their attrocious 'research,' their hateful attacks on apostates,
>their PR-like defense of cults."
>
>Mr. Hein has chosen not to specifically address this glaring
>contradiction.
>
>Anton Hein says he wants the public to carefully consider the fees
>charged for cult intervention work and he has a section about this
>process at his Web site.
>
>However, he refuses to explain why he has endorsed and continues to
>preferentially promote one private professional (Steve Hassan), despite
>the fact that he has charged fees as high as $5,000 per day.
>
>Mr. Hassan recently reduced his fee schedule to $2,500 per day, but
>only after a public disclaimer was posted at the Ross Institute Web
>site regarding his previous fee schedule.
>
>Steve Hassan, subsequently described discussion about his fees as a
>"personal attack."
>
>Anton Hein certainly may endorse whomever or whatever he wishes to. But
>since these endorsements are made publicly and not privately and may
>influence those who visit his Web site, it is reasonable to ask
>questions about the criteria, due process and policies concerning those
>endorsements.
>
>However, Anton refuses to answer such questions plainly and directly.
>
>A plausible conclusion given Mr. Hein's responses and the seeming
>contradictions they pose, is that his chosen endorsements and selective
>promotion of certain private professionals at "Apologetics Index" is
>largely idiosyncratic and/or somehow politically motivated. And
>apparently they do not reflect any consistent professional and/or
>ethical criteria or guidelines.
>
>Rick A. Ross
>www.rickross.com
>
>
>ApologeticsIndex.org wrote:
>> Rick,
>>
>> As I have stated before, aside from the fact that we're busy enough
>> with other things, Janet and I do not wish to get involved in your
>> private issues with cult experts like Steve Hassan and the folks at
>> AFF. That includes your disagreements regarding fees and/or dialogue
>> with cult apologists.
>>
>> You don't like the fact that we don't answer questions on demand, but
>> we owe you no accountability.
>>
>> You proceeded to read your own interpretations into our refusal to
>> answer your questions, and that worries us.
>>
>> I have for many years promoted and even defended your work. But your
>> behavior in this issue gave me second thoughts, and caused Janet -
>who
>> is licensed mental health professional - and I to rethink our
>referral
>> policy.
>>
>> We stand behind our decision to refer people to AFF, Steve Hassan,
>and
>> other recommended professionals:
>> http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling.html#counseling
>>
>> As for cult apologists, everyone concerned knows my views regarding
>> them:
>> http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html
>>
>> It's not for nothing that cult apologists and their groupies continue
>> to denounce me. Hah! We even jokingly refer to Douglas Cowan as our
>> 'marketing director' because many of the folks who visit our site
>> after reading his stuff on us are puzzled as to why he sees fit to
>> misrepresent our views, as in his
>>
>> Cult Apology: A (Modest) Typological Proposal
>> http://c.faculty.umkc.edu/cowande/sssr-2002.pdf
>>
>> Our entry on AFF includes a segment on the dialogue issue:
>> http://www.apologeticsindex.org/a38.html
>>
>> We conclude:
>> :===Begin Quote===
>> The publishers of Apologetics Index do believe dialogue among those
>> who are involved in the study of religious movements in general, and
>> cults and sects in particular, can be helpful. But given the agenda
>> and track record of cult apologists, we also believe that it is
>> necessary and prudent to draw clear lines of demarkation. As long as
>> academic cult defenders remain controversial (due to, for example,
>> their attrocious 'research,' their hateful attacks on apostates,
>their
>> PR-like defense of cults, and their penchant toward bearing false
>> witness), they should not be included as featured speakers at
>> professional conferences.
>> :===End Quote===
>>
>> Matter of fact, Janet and I have met and talked with cult apologists
>> ourselves. We also reguarly meet with members of groups and
>religions
>> that we consider to be cults - religious or otherwise - just like we
>> also meet with members of a wide variety of religions. These people
>> know that we operate from a Christian and countercult point of view.
>> We also make sure they understand our approach to interreligious
>> dialogue (option 3):
>> http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i06.html
>>
>> Regarding professional fees we have the following statement online:
>> http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling02.html#fees
>>
>> Yes, that statement was posted our our email exchange, but we work on
>> our own schedule and according to our own priorities.
>>
>> Like I said, we do not necessarily agree with everything the
>> recommended organizations teach or practice. The same is true for
>> thousands of links posted at Apologetics Index. Our disclaimer is
>> very clear: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/disclaimer.html
>>
>> The feedback we receive is positive and indicates people are quite
>> able to make informed decisions for themselves.
>>
>> That said, we wish you continued success in your own efforts to
>> liberate people out of cults. But as I have repeatedly indicated,
>> Janet and I have no time or interest to pursue other people's private
>> battles...
>>
>> Anton
>> --
>> Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
>> ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects,
>> and related issues
>> ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects,
>> and related issues
>>
>>
>> On 11 Dec 2004 10:07:30 -0800, rickross@rickross.com wrote:
>>
>> >Anton Hein's posted response here actually does not address and/or
>put
>> >in correct context the simple questions he was asked.
>> >
>> >Anton has chosen to endorse and promote certain professionals and
>> >organizations through his Web site, which is certainly his
>prerogative.
>> >
>> >Some questions Anton was asked specifically related to the fees
>charged
>> >by one of those professionals Steve Hassan, which were reported at
>> >$5,000 per day and $500.00 per hour.
>> >
>> >Steve has never disputed this, but later published a reduced fee
>> >schedule after a disclaimer was made public at the Ross Institute
>> >database.
>> >
>> >Anton was asked how he felt about these high fees, which have caused
>> >some families to mortgage their homes.
>> >
>> >Anton never answered.
>> >
>> >Other questions had to do specifically with recent policy changes
>> >within the American Family Foundation that apparently allow for the
>> >inclusion of well-known cult apologists such as Dick Anthony, Eileen
>> >Barker and Massimo Introvigne to be speakers/presenters at its
>> >conferences without meaningful historical qualification or
>> >introduction.
>> >
>> >Also Anton was asked how he felt about Krishna spokespersons being
>> >included in a panel titled "Can Cults Change" that did not include
>that
>> >group's victims or their designated spokesperson for meaningful
>> >balance.
>> >
>> >Anton never answered.
>> >
>> >It is important to note that Anton has previously been critical of
>cult
>> >apologists, including those named and the Krishna movement.
>> >
>> >These questions were reasonable given that history and meaningful
>> >answers would provide a clarification and/or better understanding of
>> >Anton's position regarding these controversial issues, which
>directly
>> >relate to the content of his Web site and the professional and
>> >organization endorsements.
>> >
>> >Anton chose instead to at first ignore the questions, and then he
>> >attempted to obfuscate the issue by characterizing such questions as
>> >somehow a personal and/or professional attack.
>> >
>> >To date Anton refuses to make his position on any of these issues
>> >clear.
>> >
>> >Rick A. Ross
>> >www.rickross.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Michael Greenberg wrote:
>> >> spamtrap@apologeticsindex.org wrote in message
>> >news:<7k7150dbps6l6k78n8rdhsqi9llvia7bcv@4ax.com>...
>> >> > Hah! Just received:
>> >> >
>> >> > :===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
>> >> > Congratulations! You won a "Flaming Website" award. See
>> >> > http://www.rickross.com/flamingwebsites.html
>> >> > :===End Quote===
>> >> >
>> >> > This is in response to our web entry on The Ross Institute,
>whose
>> >services Janet
>> >> > and I do not recommend:
>> >> > http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r24.html
>> >> >
>> >> > Ross' email exchange with us was manipulative and otherwise
>> >unprofessional. It
>> >> > shows Ross jumping to conclusions - because we were (and are)
>> >unwilling to
>> >> > answer his questions regarding our views on Steve Hassan and
>AFF.
>> >> >
>> >> > For one thing, we already indicated to him that we were very
>busy.
>> >For another,
>> >> > the Book of Proverbs says, " Like one who seizes a dog by the
>ears
>> >is a
>> >> > passer-by who meddles in a quarrel not his own." (Proverbs 26:17
>> >NIV)
>> >> >
>> >> > Too, our recommendations are clearly labeled:
>> >> > http://aishort.com/recommended
>> >> >
>> >> > Incidentally, Apologetics Index is one of only a few
>> >Christian-operated sites
>> >> > that recommend both Christian and secular organizations. They
>are
>> >clearly
>> >> > labeled as such, and our disclaimer speaks for itself. Besides,
>> >though Janet
>> >> > and I operate from an evangelical Christian perspective, we
>support
>> >freedom of
>> >> > religion in thought and expression. This and other issues are
>> >addressed here:
>> >> >
>> >> > How To Use Apologetics Index
>> >> > http://www.apologeticsindex.org/howto.html
>> >> >
>> >> > When two of Rick's messages went unanswered - having been
>> >misdirected and marked
>> >> > as "read" by a filter in our email program - his next message,
>> >titled, "No
>> >> > response leads to some conclusions," included the following:
>> >> >
>> >> > :===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
>> >> > As they say, "Silence is assent." And your silence is rather
>> >deafening.
>> >> > :===End Quote===
>> >> >
>> >> > Ross concluded that message with:
>> >> >
>> >> > :===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
>> >> > Thanks for making your position on all this somewhat clearer. I
>> >wasn't really
>> >> > sure where you stood on all this. But now understand that your
>> >position is
>> >> > apparently predicated on politics and not principle.
>> >> > :===End Quote===
>> >> >
>> >> > Needless to say, Janet and I were not impressed. By the way,
>while
>> >I merely
>> >> > have 29+ years of experience in lay counseling, my wife, Janet,
>is
>> >a licensed,
>> >> > professional counselor and social worker. Like me, she
>considered
>> >Ross'
>> >> > behavior in his emails to us to be manipulative and
>unprofessional.
>> >The
>> >> > inclusion of baseless accusations and the apparent willingness
>to
>> >jump to
>> >> > conclusions didn't help either, and only added to our reasons
>for
>> >not
>> >> > recommending The Ross Institute.
>> >> >
>> >> > Alas, Ross' behavior got even more stranger when he wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > :===Begin Quote: Rick Ross===
>> >> > Why do I feel I emailing with cult member deliberately being
>> >evasive and
>> >> > refusing to give clear answers to easy questions?
>> >> >
>> >> > I guess this is your version of "heavenly deception."
>> >> > :===End Quote===
>> >> >
>> >> > In my response I wrote, among other things:
>> >> >
>> >> > What foolish, unprofessional, and unethical remarks!
>> >> >
>> >> > :===Begin Quote: Anton Hein===
>> >> > Your communication with me has become increasingly bizarre. It
>is
>> >filled with
>> >> > baseless and incorrect conclusions, marked with unprofessional
>> >behavior, and now
>> >> > includes thinly-veiled suggestions of "deception."
>> >> >
>> >> > You accuse me of "unethical and unprofessional behavior," and
>claim
>> >to be
>> >> > "disappointed" by what you label my "lack of professionalism,
>> >integrity and
>> >> > political pettiness."
>> >> >
>> >> > All that because I do not have the time, energy or interest to
>be
>> >drawn into
>> >> > your disagreements with the professionals you gossip about.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you truly get the feeling that you are emailing with a "cult
>> >member," I feel
>> >> > sorry for you. Like I said before:
>> >> >
>> >> > ====
>> >> > That said, if the manner at which you arrive at your conclusions
>-
>> >as displayed
>> >> > in the message copied below - is reflective of your usual
>approach,
>> >Janet and I
>> >> > have one more reason to stand behind our current recommendations
>> >for ex-cult
>> >> > counseling and support resources as listed here:
>> >> > http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c09c.html#counselorg
>> >> > ====
>> >> > :===End Quote===
>> >> >
>> >> > Our response to Rick Ross remains the same as before: if he has
>a
>> >problem with
>> >> > an organization and/or an individual, he will need to hash it
>out
>> >with them.
>> >> > Janet and I do not respond to the email-equivalent of
>arm-twisting.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > We will say this: though - as indicated at our site - we do not
>> >necessarily
>> >> > agree with everything the recommended organizations teach or
>> >practice, our
>> >> > interaction with AFF and Steve Hassan has always been courteous,
>> >professional,
>> >> > and pleasant. Janet and I stand behind our referrals. What
>Rick
>> >Ross wants to
>> >> > make of that is his own responsibility. We wish him all the
>best
>> >in his
>> >> > efforts, but will not recommend his services to anyone.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Consider that a compliment Anton. Your post was quite gracious.
>> >>
>> >> Rick Ross does not posses any academic credentials or
>qualifications
>> >> whatsoever to practce any form of psychological
>> >> counseling in any state. Call it "exit counseling" or whatever you
>> >> like.
>> >> Get a license Rick.
>> >>
>> >> Michael Greenberg

<hr> From: rickross@rickross.com
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Date: 3 Jan 2005 10:20:06 -0800
Message-ID: <1104776406.127060.141330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<d9e32222.0403111744.7565b6c9@posting.google.com> <1102788450.511930.292440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <85ait0p94f3o1kv2uidpirsvrnihb86uh7@4ax.com> <1104768441.564030.161230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <6qtit09p4hsun7cg0tuaihpl9dh45p5b2p@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <6qtit09p4hsun7cg0tuaihpl9dh45p5b2p@4ax.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.3.107.122; posting-account=_QZcrA0AAACJM7xoxO2xarSYaMwc41BE

To whom it may concern:

Note that Anton Hein neither answers any specific questions raised regarding his policies, nor does he cite his criteria or guidelines regarding recommended resources at his "Apologetics Index" Web site.

Instead, Mr. Hein is evasive and attempts to obfuscate the actual issue as best he can.

As outlined before, the issue of "accountability" concerning this matter is public not private, since Mr. Hein apparently wishes that his Web site be regarded as a public resource and not a private one.

Despite attempting to label questioniong his actions as somehow a "private issue" this remains a public issue, since the Internet is a public resource.

"What can be "appreciated by visitors" to Mr. Hein's Web site is that whatever process constitutes the "Apologetics Index approach" remains largely unknown, or at best may be summed up with Mr. Hein's response--"We don't answer questions."

But by making his recommendations public Anton Hein and his wife are attempting "to manipulate [others] into accepting [their] agendas," whatever they may be and however inconsistent.

Again, the most plausible conclusion seems to be, based upon Mr. Hein's posted responses here, that his recommendations are based on his own idiosyncratic prefences and personal agenda--despite his attempt to label such a conclusion as "nonsense." Rick A. Ross www.rickross.com

<hr> From: ApologeticsIndex.org <spamtrap@apologeticsindex.org>
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Organization: ApologeticsIndex.org - ReligionNewsBlog.com
Message-ID: <mo3jt0dukajnmttvnl45lduj52ke8ubev0@4ax.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:34:57 GMT

Mr. Ross continues to miss the point. We will not get involved in his private fights with Steve Hassan and the cult experts at AFF. Whatever his beef with them is, he will have to solve these issues himself.

His continued innuendos, thinly-veiled accusations and conspiracy theories don't deserve any further answers or comments.

While he may have enough time and energy to spare for these type of pursuits, we've got serious work to do.

On 3 Jan 2005 10:20:06 -0800, rickross@rickross.com wrote:

>To whom it may concern:
>
>Note that Anton Hein neither answers any specific questions raised
>regarding his policies, nor does he cite his criteria or guidelines
>regarding recommended resources at his "Apologetics Index" Web site.
>
>Instead, Mr. Hein is evasive and attempts to obfuscate the actual issue
>as best he can.
>
>As outlined before, the issue of "accountability" concerning this
>matter is public not private, since Mr. Hein apparently wishes that his
>Web site be regarded as a public resource and not a private one.
>
>Despite attempting to label questioniong his actions as somehow a
>"private issue" this remains a public issue, since the Internet is a
>public resource.
>
>"What can be "appreciated by visitors" to Mr. Hein's Web site is that
>whatever process constitutes the "Apologetics Index approach" remains
>largely unknown, or at best may be summed up with Mr. Hein's
>response--"We don't answer questions."
>
>But by making his recommendations public Anton Hein and his wife are
>attempting "to manipulate [others] into accepting [their] agendas,"
>whatever they may be and however inconsistent.
>
>Again, the most plausible conclusion seems to be, based upon Mr. Hein's
>posted responses here, that his recommendations are based on his own
>idiosyncratic prefences and personal agenda--despite his attempt to
>label such a conclusion as "nonsense."
>Rick A. Ross
>www.rickross.com

<hr> From: rickross@rickross.com
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Date: 3 Jan 2005 11:24:28 -0800
Message-ID: <1104780268.269679.91610@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<d9e32222.0403111744.7565b6c9@posting.google.com> <1102788450.511930.292440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <85ait0p94f3o1kv2uidpirsvrnihb86uh7@4ax.com> <1104768441.564030.161230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <6qtit09p4hsun7cg0tuaihpl9dh45p5b2p@4ax.com> <1104776406.127060.141330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <mo3jt0dukajnmttvnl45lduj52ke8ubev0@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <mo3jt0dukajnmttvnl45lduj52ke8ubev0@4ax.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.3.107.122; posting-account=_QZcrA0AAACJM7xoxO2xarSYaMwc41BE

Again, Anton Hein won't address questions about his Web site public policy.

Instead, such questions about Mr. Hein's behavior are dismissed as a "private fight" or a "thinly veiled...conspiracy theory."

This type of ad-hominem attack as a response to questions about behavior and ethics is rather like what might be expected from an OSA representitive, when asked about the inconsistencies between what Scientology says and what it does. Interesting.

Rick Ross www.rickross.com

<hr> From: rickross@rickross.com
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Date: 3 Jan 2005 12:36:04 -0800
Message-ID: <1104784564.786214.101060@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<d9e32222.0403111744.7565b6c9@posting.google.com> <1102788450.511930.292440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <85ait0p94f3o1kv2uidpirsvrnihb86uh7@4ax.com> <1104768441.564030.161230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <6qtit09p4hsun7cg0tuaihpl9dh45p5b2p@4ax.com> <1104776406.127060.141330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <mo3jt0dukajnmttvnl45lduj52ke8ubev0@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <mo3jt0dukajnmttvnl45lduj52ke8ubev0@4ax.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.3.107.138; posting-account=_QZcrA0AAACJM7xoxO2xarSYaMwc41BE

In response to Anton Hein's last post--

The point is--does Anton Hein have any consistent guidelines regarding recommended resources/professionals at his Web site?

It doesn't seem so.

On one hand Anton condemns "cult apologists" and then he recommends as a resource an organization that features such apologists as speakers at its conferences.

On one hand Anton cautions visitors to be careful about fees for cult intervention work, but then he recommends a professional (Steve Hassan) who charges extraordinary fees, reportedly historically as high as $5,000 per day.

Given an opportunity to clarify his position, Anton Hein repeatedly refuses to do so and instead is evasive and attempts to divert attention from the point.

Rick A. Ross www.rickross.com

Rick Ross www.rickross.com

ApologeticsIndex.org wrote: > Mr. Ross continues to miss the point. We will not get involved in
his > private fights with Steve Hassan and the cult experts at AFF.
> Whatever his beef with them is, he will have to solve these issues
> himself.
>
> His continued innuendos, thinly-veiled accusations and conspiracy
> theories don't deserve any further answers or comments.
>
> While he may have enough time and energy to spare for these type of
> pursuits, we've got serious work to do.
>
> Anton
> --
> Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
> ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects,
> and related issues
> ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects,
> and related issues
>
> On 3 Jan 2005 10:20:06 -0800, rickross@rickross.com wrote:
>
> >To whom it may concern:
> >
> >Note that Anton Hein neither answers any specific questions raised
> >regarding his policies, nor does he cite his criteria or guidelines
> >regarding recommended resources at his "Apologetics Index" Web site.
> >
> >Instead, Mr. Hein is evasive and attempts to obfuscate the actual
issue > >as best he can.
> >
> >As outlined before, the issue of "accountability" concerning this
> >matter is public not private, since Mr. Hein apparently wishes that
his > >Web site be regarded as a public resource and not a private one.
> >
> >Despite attempting to label questioniong his actions as somehow a
> >"private issue" this remains a public issue, since the Internet is
a > >public resource.
> >
> >"What can be "appreciated by visitors" to Mr. Hein's Web site is
that > >whatever process constitutes the "Apologetics Index approach"
remains > >largely unknown, or at best may be summed up with Mr. Hein's
> >response--"We don't answer questions."
> >
> >But by making his recommendations public Anton Hein and his wife are
> >attempting "to manipulate [others] into accepting [their] agendas,"
> >whatever they may be and however inconsistent.
> >
> >Again, the most plausible conclusion seems to be, based upon Mr.
Hein's > >posted responses here, that his recommendations are based on his own
> >idiosyncratic prefences and personal agenda--despite his attempt to
> >label such a conclusion as "nonsense."
> >Rick A. Ross
> >www.rickross.com

<hr> From: desertphile@cchr.ws (The Last Liberal)
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:22:23 GMT
Message-ID: <33u5u1F43tn4eU1@individual.net>

Please pardon the "top posting."

Is this a private fight, or may anyone join in?

Mr. Ross has two excellent points, regardless of anyone appointing not him some kind of counter-cult guardian:

1) ApologeticsIndex.org admits that "cult apologists" are, to paraphrase, dangerous and damaging to society: "cult apologists" actively (out of ignorance, malice, or greed) work to oppose education about dangerous organizations generally called "cults." Therefore, if ApologeticsIndex.org uses "cult apologists" as experts or authorities in a supportive, aproving manner, that means ApologeticsIndex.org is being counter productive.

2) Steve Hassan's behavior is getting more and more cult-like, and that should distress anyone who has set oneself up as an educational source about dangerous cults such as ApologeticsIndex.org has. What doesn't Mr. Hassan's behavior been more soundly castigated by ApologeticsIndex.org?

However, ApologeticsIndex.org also has one excellent point that Mr. Ross seems to be dismissing as invalid:

1) Anton _et_all_ at ApologeticsIndex.org does not need to answer any questions put to them that they do not wish to answer. Mr. Ross would perhaps be better served to merely express his critcism to the human rights community at large instead of ApologeticsIndex.org

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:16:28 GMT, ApologeticsIndex.org <spamtrap@apologeticsindex.org> wrote:

> Mr. Ross may demand accountability from whomever he chooses to demand
> it, but that does not mean anybody owes him either an answer or
> accountability. (Who died and left him in charge?)
>
> He is welcome to read anything and everything into this that he wishes
> to, but his continued protests and insinuations won't make any
> difference at all in the way we operate our ministry.
>
> Our website makes it overwhelmingly clear that we operate from an
> evangelical Christian point of view, that we are opinionated, and that
> unlike most Christian apologetics and countercult sites we link to
> resources from a variety of perspectives. This includes cult experts
> and/or organizations and ministries.
>
> If someone wishes to explain that as "iosyncratic and/or somehow
> politically motivated" that's their right - and is our right not to
> take that kind of nonsense seriously.
>
> The Apologetics Index approach works well for us, and is appreciated
> by our visitors. Feedback received shows that our interlinked
> information provides people with information that will help them make
> informed decisions.
>
> While we freely share our opinions, we don't make decisions for
> people, and won't allow others to manipulate us into accepting their
> agendas either.
>
> Incidentally, we do not charge anything at all for our services. Yes,
> we solicit donations, but in any given year more has been paid and
> donated by us than comes in.
>
> Mr. Ross is welcome to complain about the fees charged by others, or
> about the way others operate. But as we have consistently stated, we
> refuse to be pulled into his fights with others.
>
> Anton
> --
> Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
> ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects,
> and related issues
> ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects,
> and related issues

--- http://lastliberal.org

'There was a time when religion ruled the world. It was known as the Dark Ages.' --- Ruth Hurmence Green

This signature was made by SigChanger. You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

<hr> From: desertphile@cchr.ws (The Last Liberal)
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:29:35 GMT
Message-ID: <33u6bhF45j74qU1@individual.net>

On 3 Jan 2005 10:20:06 -0800, rickross@rickross.com wrote:

Yes, we all can see that. Your point is what, exactly? That he does not have the right to refuse to answer questions? His behavior is certainly suspect, and if he does indeed resort to "using" biased, ignorant, and injurous "cult apologists" for his own goals and agendas, then yes certainly he ought to be criticized. Critics should not expect their objections to be answered by those who are being criticized.

> As outlined before, the issue of "accountability" concerning this
> matter is public not private, since Mr. Hein apparently wishes that his
> Web site be regarded as a public resource and not a private one.
>
> Despite attempting to label questioniong his actions as somehow a
> "private issue" this remains a public issue, since the Internet is a
> public resource.

Yes, of course.

> "What can be "appreciated by visitors" to Mr. Hein's Web site is that
> whatever process constitutes the "Apologetics Index approach" remains
> largely unknown, or at best may be summed up with Mr. Hein's
> response--"We don't answer questions."
>
> But by making his recommendations public Anton Hein and his wife are
> attempting "to manipulate [others] into accepting [their] agendas,"
> whatever they may be and however inconsistent.
>
> Again, the most plausible conclusion seems to be, based upon Mr. Hein's
> posted responses here, that his recommendations are based on his own
> idiosyncratic prefences and personal agenda--despite his attempt to
> label such a conclusion as "nonsense."

He has clearly stated his biases: he approaches counter-cult education from an occult, biased, Christian perspective. That means he will likely accept "questionable" sources due to his occult biases. Though atheists are in far better position to educate people about dangerous cults (and indeed religion and superstition in general), nearly 100% of atheists do not feel the need to try--- that means theists are left to fill the need.

> Rick A. Ross
> www.rickross.com

--- http://lastliberal.org

"Men in the pro-choice movement are either men trapped in women's bodies...or younger guys who are like camp followers looking for easy sex." --Rep. Bob Dornan (R-CA)

<hr> From: desertphile@cchr.ws (The Last Liberal)
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:34:37 GMT
Message-ID: <33u6kvF45j74qU2@individual.net>

On 3 Jan 2005 12:36:04 -0800, rickross@rickross.com wrote:

> In response to Anton Hein's last post--
>
> The point is--does Anton Hein have any consistent guidelines regarding
> recommended resources/professionals at his Web site?
>
> It doesn't seem so.
>
> On one hand Anton condemns "cult apologists" and then he recommends as
> a resource an organization that features such apologists as speakers at
> its conferences.

If true, then yes, that is an issue that human rights activists ought to discuss. Such behavior is injurous to the goal of educating victims, family members of victims, and potential victims about dangerous "cults."

Yet surely you concede that Mr. Hein need not answer your criticism (nor anyone else's) if he chooses not to, yes?

> On one hand Anton cautions visitors to be careful about fees for cult
> intervention work, but then he recommends a professional (Steve Hassan)
> who charges extraordinary fees, reportedly historically as high as
> $5,000 per day.

Does he have a choice? How many "experts" out there can do the job that Mr. Hassan does and can do?

> Given an opportunity to clarify his position, Anton Hein repeatedly
> refuses to do so and instead is evasive and attempts to divert
> attention from the point.

Likening Mr. Hein to the Scientology crime syndicate's OSA was certainly over-the-top, and not worthy of you (or anyone). What purpose did such an accusation serve?

> Rick A. Ross
> www.rickross.com
--- http://lastliberal.org

The damn quote of yours has had more second comings here than a hooker at a Baptist convention. - Marty Leipzig

<hr> From: ApologeticsIndex.org <spamtrap@apologeticsindex.org>
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Organization: ApologeticsIndex.org - ReligionNewsBlog.com
Message-ID: <onsjt05bmqbsjpgqj94q9n35t5brso6vcl@4ax.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 02:16:35 GMT

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:22:23 GMT, desertphile@cchr.ws (The Last Liberal) wrote:

>Please pardon the "top posting."
>
>Is this a private fight, or may anyone join in?
>
>Mr. Ross has two excellent points, regardless of anyone appointing
>not him some kind of counter-cult guardian:
>
>1) ApologeticsIndex.org admits that "cult apologists" are, to
>paraphrase, dangerous and damaging to society: "cult apologists"
>actively (out of ignorance, malice, or greed) work to oppose
>education about dangerous organizations generally called "cults."
>Therefore, if ApologeticsIndex.org uses "cult apologists" as
>experts or authorities in a supportive, aproving manner, that
>means ApologeticsIndex.org is being counter productive.

Ah, the "if" in your last sentence is important. The record shows that our position on cult apologists is consistent - and that we do not use cult apologist "as experts or authorities in a supportive, approving manner."

I sure hope that you have not bought into the notion that the folks at AFF somehow are 'cult apologists...'. Fact is that countless people today are free of cultic involvement due to the professional help provided by the AFF.

That said, our listing of AFF as a recommended counseling organization http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling.html#organizations links directly to the Apologetics Index entry on the AFF: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/a38.html

That entry includes a section with the following title:

AFF, cult members and cult apologists http://www.apologeticsindex.org/a38.html#apologists

In that section, we clearly state our opinion on the issue, and we provide a plethora of links to additional information that help people make informed decisions.

That is our approach on all issues. Throughout the site you'll find our stated opinions, along with links to pro-, contra-, and 'neutral' resources (from Christian, non-Christian and secular points of view).

That is how Apologetics Index operates, and that is how it will continue to operate.

Aside from this, fact is that dialogue _is_ taking place between cult experts, religion professionals, sociologists (including cult apologists), and sometimes even cult members. As anyone familiar with such meetings and their outcomes will readily state, dialogue does not equal approval. More often than not, it is not all that productive either, although researchers appreciate the fact that they can hear statements and opinion from the horses' mouths. And in the process, one _can_ learn valuable information.

But it is easy for some outsiders to offhand dismiss such opportunities for dialogue, to misinterpret those meetings, and to mischaracterize the participants involved.

Janet and I don't like that kind of head-in-the-sand-because-the-sky-is-falling behavior, and we eschew sensationalism.

Matter of fact, as I said before, we ourselves have met and dialogued with cult apologists. And though we are followers of Jesus Christ, we also regularly meet with members of various cults (and I realize that some people may consider Christianity as a cult as well), and adherents of other religions. In the process, we have not only learned a lot, but also seen a number of people leave cults.

>2) Steve Hassan's behavior is getting more and more cult-like, and
>that should distress anyone who has set oneself up as an
>educational source about dangerous cults such as
>ApologeticsIndex.org has. What doesn't Mr. Hassan's behavior been
>more soundly castigated by ApologeticsIndex.org?

We have personally not received any complaints about Steve Hassan, and in his interactions with us he has always been friendly, courteous and professional.

Also, though we have Steve Hassan's profile at Apologetics Index, as well as reviews of his two books, we do not yet have a proper Apologetics Index entry on him and his organization. Such an entry is on our lengthy to-do list - a list that shares priority with lots of other must-do things, including our offline activities.

That said, we are familiar with the issue regarding his fees. We simply don't get it. When Janet and I need someone's professional services we shop around for the best value at the best price. We tend to favor those professionals who provide us with a written, itemized quote. We steer clear of those who badmouth their competitors, and of those who charge way too much in comparison with the value provided.

As far as we're concerned, professionals can charge whichever fees they can legally ask for. Potential customers can easily shop around and make their own decisions on whom to use, what fees they can afford, and how they are going to pay for it.

>However, ApologeticsIndex.org also has one excellent point that
>Mr. Ross seems to be dismissing as invalid:
>
>1) Anton _et_all_ at ApologeticsIndex.org does not need to answer
>any questions put to them that they do not wish to answer. Mr.
>Ross would perhaps be better served to merely express his critcism
>to the human rights community at large instead of
>ApologeticsIndex.org

Precisely.

The bottom line for us is this: we refuse to get drawn into other people's private fights with various cult experts, and we certainly won't allow anyone to manipulate us.

<hr> From: ApologeticsIndex.org <spamtrap@apologeticsindex.org>
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Organization: ApologeticsIndex.org - ReligionNewsBlog.com
Message-ID: <7qukt0p5c7o0lmphqsi1dkkljo7otedfsb@4ax.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:05:26 GMT

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 05:09:10 GMT, desertphile@cchr.ws (The Last Liberal) wrote:

>On 3 Jan 2005 18:26:02 -0800, rickross@rickross.com wrote:
>
>> Hartley Petterson:
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> Point well taken.
>>
>> Perhaps the OSA analogy was a bit over the top.
>>
>> But it is frustrating dealing with someone who won't take
>> responsibility for their behavior and make their position clear.
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Mr. Hein did make one of your contentions very clear: no one has
>complained to him or his organization about Mr. Hassan. That being
>the case, why should Mr. Hein not continue to support and "use"
>Mr. Hassan as a source? True, $5,000 sounds awfully cult-like.

For the record, here is our list of organizations, ministries and individual counselors recommended by Apologetics Index - along for guidelines for selecting a counselor/cult expert: http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling.html#counseling

Among the information provided is the following:

:===Begin Quote=== A Word About Professional Fees

Professional intervention and counseling services do not come cheap.

Discuss fees as soon as possible and get everything in writing. Do not make hasty decisions, but compare rates and check your options.

If you can not afford the fees, here are some options:

* See if the individual or organization is willing to work on a sliding scale (i.e. adjust their fees according to your ability to pay).

* Contact an organization that provides ex-cult counseling services free of charge (or that will put you in touch with trusted counselors who can do so).

* See if friends, family members or others are willing to 'sponsor' you.

* Consider obtaining help from countercult organizations and ministries

- http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling02.html#fees :===End Quote===

That said, does a reported $5,000 fee indeed sound "cult-like"? Why? By what criteria? And who came up with those criteria? And if an alleged $5,000 per day is "cult-like" what about $5,000 per case?

:===Begin Quote=== Beyond belief Sunday December 12, 2004 The Observer http://tinyurl.com/6wvln

With the likes of Madonna and Guy Ritchie giving celeb cred to Kabbalah, cults have never been more fashionable, nor more contentious. Nick Johnstone meets US cultbuster Rick Ross who, for a fee of $5,000, offers to deprogramme 'victims' and return them to their families [...]

But then, taking into account his claimed 75 per cent success rate for interventions (he has worked on more than 350 cases, at a typical cost of $5,000, everywhere from the US to the UK, Israel to Italy), he has rescued many people from harmful situations and has worked as an expert court witness in cases relating to controversial groups. :===End Quote===

In an earlier message, Rick Ross write:

:===Begin Quote=== However, he refuses to explain why he has endorsed and continues to preferentially promote one private professional (Steve Hassan), despite the fact that he has charged fees as high as $5,000 per day. :===End Quote===

So the issue for him is what? That Steve Hassan's fees - as a licensed Mental Health Counselor, with a Master�s degree in counseling psychology from Cambridge College, along with additional professional qualifications - are higher than the ones he charges?

Ah, but it can't be about the alleged $5,000/day, because Rick Ross also writes:

:===Begin Quote=== Mr. Hassan recently reduced his fee schedule to $2,500 per day, but only after a public disclaimer was posted at the Ross Institute Web site regarding his previous fee schedule. :===End Quote===

A public disclaimer? What's next? We're not responsible for the fees charged by the plumber around the corner, nor for the way he dresses?

In some random checks of internet sites, I find that hourly rates charged by licensed mental health professionals range from $150 - $500. Some work on a sliding scale. Me, I couldn't afford $150 in a month(!), and many of the people Janet and I work with can't afford the price of a bus ride across town.

So if it isn't about fees, what is the complaint about then? Methods and viewpoints? Fair enough. In our section of guidelines, referred to above, we ourselves say:

:===Begin Quote=== Keep in mind that a listing here does not necessary mean that the publishers of Apologetics Index agree with everything these organizations and ministries teach or practice. :===End Quote===

We also say the list is not exhaustive, and link to a disclaimer.

Furthermore, our own approach and viewpoints are made very clear: http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-counseling02.html#counseling

Apologetics Index went online in September, 1996. I have personally been involved in apologetics and countercult work for some 30 years. Janet is a licensed, professional counselor and social worker. We have to this date not received any complaints about the people, ministries or organizations we recommend. Instead, we have had good reports.

In addition, we frequently receive feedback from people who appreciate the fact that though we ourselves are Christians - and operate from an evangelical Christian point of view - we nevertheless list both Christian, secular and non-Christian resources.

That said, we will not get involved in someone else's private fights. Nor do we see any reason whatsoever to make ourselves accountable to just anyone who demands accountability.

<hr> From: rickross@rickross.com
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Date: 4 Jan 2005 05:53:13 -0800
Message-ID: <1104846793.481169.252860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
<1104768441.564030.161230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <6qtit09p4hsun7cg0tuaihpl9dh45p5b2p@4ax.com> <1104776406.127060.141330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <mo3jt0dukajnmttvnl45lduj52ke8ubev0@4ax.com> <1104780268.269679.91610@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <MPG.1c43e8954145c794989b1e@news.freeserve.net> <1104805562.654082.40480@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <33umnoF45kno6U1@individual.net> <7qukt0p5c7o0lmphqsi1dkkljo7otedfsb@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <7qukt0p5c7o0lmphqsi1dkkljo7otedfsb@4ax.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.3.107.138; posting-account=_QZcrA0AAACJM7xoxO2xarSYaMwc41BE

Anton Hein has a selective memory.

When I contacted him many months ago with specific questions about his public endorsements the following was disclosed:

Steve Hassan charged $5,000 per day and $500.00 per hour.

That a number of complaints had come in about the amount of his fees from families.

That at least one family had paid Mr. Hassan a total of $100,000.00, and he never even met their cult-involved child for an intervention.

That just "preparation" done by Steve Hassan before an intervention could easily cost a family $25,000.00.

That families had mortgaged their homes to pay Steve Hassan. Mr.Hassan has acknowledged this at his Web site, though he says no one has yet lost their house.

Mr. Hassan may charge whatever he wants and Anton Hein may promote his services through his Web site, but the fees charged seem questionable.

Anton Hein admits that he could find no higher hourly rate and that only the average fees reported by the London Observer for an entire case intervention could be compared to the rate charged for a single day by Mr. Hassan.

Despite Steve Hassan's educational/professional credentials no peer-reviewed research paper about his approach has ever been published in any professional journal--e.g. American Counseling Association, American Psychological Association, American Family Foundation.

Is it a "private fight" to question the ethics and conduct of purported "cults" who take advantage of people by exploiting them financially?

Perhaps no one should raise questions about them either, based upon Mr. Hein's logic?

It should be noted that Anton Hein does seem to care enough to insulate himself through a disclaimer, which was expanded after he became aware of the complaints concerning Mr. Hassan.

Rick A. Ross www.rickross.com

<hr> Message-ID: <41DAB90C.9000700@rochester.rr.com>
From: Tanya Durni <tdurni@rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 15:40:59 GMT
Organization: Road Runner

<snip>

>>2) Steve Hassan's behavior is getting more and more cult-like, and
>>that should distress anyone who has set oneself up as an
>>educational source about dangerous cults such as
>>ApologeticsIndex.org has. What doesn't Mr. Hassan's behavior been
>>more soundly castigated by ApologeticsIndex.org?
>
>
> We have personally not received any complaints about Steve Hassan, and
> in his interactions with us he has always been friendly, courteous and
> professional.

Well I can't speak for everyone, but I have always had friendly, courteous and professional experiences with Steve. I am sure the rest of my family would agree. A family member's cousin was helped by Steve years ago. The cousin was a body guard for Rev. Moon. Steve was a part of this man escaping the mind control he was under. My brother and his wife were living in Boston with this man after his physical escape. My brother said Steve would stop by the house and call frequently, on his own time, to check on the recent defected member and help him with recovery issues. I have known Steve for several years now and find this description much more fitting of his character than what is being discussed on this thread.

The charges being thrown around on this thread seem high, but maybe they aren't to the perspective buyer. I wouldn't pay such rates for anyone, but maybe some people would. I work with people that charge much higher rates than are being discussed here, for a day's work in their perspective professions.

I personally have had no contact with Rick Ross, but find his website useful for it's article archives and information. If these individuals that Rick is referring to have a problem with Steve Hassan's rates, then maybe they should be expressing these concerns to Steve.

Personally, I have found Steve Hassan to be much more gracious of his time and expertise, than this thread portrays.

<snip>

>
> The bottom line for us is this: we refuse to get drawn into other
> people's private fights with various cult experts, and we certainly
> won't allow anyone to manipulate us.
>
> Anton

THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters.

L. Ron Hubbard Technique 88

http://xenu.net/ http://www.scientology-lies.com/ http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII/

<hr> From: ApologeticsIndex.org <spamtrap@apologeticsindex.org>
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Organization: ApologeticsIndex.org - ReligionNewsBlog.com
Message-ID: <dhdmt097iqnmto99p6vk9r9gisna3cam45@4ax.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 00:53:32 GMT

The issues are as follows:

- We will not be drawn into your fights and disagreements with others. That includes your demands for answers regarding issues concerning the licensed professionals whose approach you have problems with.

- We operate, add to, and update Apologetics Index on our own schedule and our own timeline, and according to our own insights and viewpoints.

- Our feedback shows that users of Apologetics Index understand how the site works, and appreciate its approach - particularly the fact that we encourage independent research.

Those who need a little help discovering how the site works, will find their questions answered here: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/howto.html

Your messages make clear that you are among a tiny minority of people who fail to understand how the site works. We can't help you there.

That said, we do object to your efforts to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding certain entries - as evidenced in your stated concern over alleged 'impressions.' It is a false and misleading suggestion not supported by fact.

- As far as we are concerned, no one owes you any accountability regarding professional fees or any other aspect of their work.

If you are concerned that some people might be paying more to a licensed mental health counselor, than they would if they hired you, perhaps you should do spend your time and energy marketing your services.

Wasting it on trying to browbeat people into dropping your competitors' listings, so to speak, is self-defeating.

- If you fail to see the potential value of dialogue with certain individuals, groups or movements, you are free to not engage in it. Dialogue does not equal approval. Even the recently-murdered Dutchman Theo van Gogh - know for, among other things, his rabid anti-Islam views - actively engaged in dialogue with Muslims. At the very least, such dialogue can result in a better understanding of eachother's position on issues.

Janet and I engage in dialogue for two reasons: 1) we do not dismiss anyone simply because we do not agree with them. 2) we like to get information from primary sources.

If that is not your cup of tea, of you would rather not be caught dead in the same room as, say, Dick Anthony, I suggest you remember the TV ad that says "You can learn a lot from a dummy."

You are of course free to criticise such an approach. But trying to force others into accepting your criticism as the gospel-truth is a waste of time and energy.

That said, Janet is a licensed professional counselor and social worker. I have been involved in lay apologetics and countercult ministry for 30 years. We help people out cults, out of prostitution slavery, and out of other abusive relationships. Yet we charge nothing whatsoever.

We meet, dialogue and dine with cult members, adherents of a wide variety of religions, and people involved in various alternative lifestyles. We have met and dialogued with cult apologists, dined at Krishna temples, and visit places most people are afraid to enter.

While we are Christians ourselves, we help people regardless of whether or not they show an interest in Christianity. Our home often resembles Grand Central Station, and you'd frequently find more cultures gathered here than in any given National Geographic publication. Our guest rooms are just as likely to be shared with asylum seekers as with other visitors passing through Amsterdam.

We do not spend even a moment of time wondering whether you or anyone else approves of our approach. For the same reason your continued efforts to influence what we do or do not post at Apologetics Index is a waste of time and energy on your part. We also think that your attempts at scaremongering regarding the possible effects of our entries on people's impression are, well, misguided to say the least.

On 4 Jan 2005 14:10:22 -0800, rickross@rickross.com wrote:

>Mr. Hein:
>
>Your impression is wrong. I have no interest in operating "Apologetics
>Index."
>
>This is just another attempt to divert attention from the issue.
>
>Staying on track--It seems that you have no problem with the AFF
>Krishna presentation and likewise no objections to Dick Anthony and
>other "cult apologists" speaking on AFF panels.
>
>And whatever Steve Hassan charges families doesn't bother you and
>despite those fees you endorse and recommend him to visitors at your
>Web site.
>
>Fine.
>
>This all appears rather fuzzy and inconsistent, but OK.
>
>There is no "crusade," just some questions, which seems to bother you.
>
>I note that you did not dispute the time line previously stated about
>your posts regarding "dialog" with "cult apologists." That is, that you
>posted that clarification after our email exchange on the subject.
>
>Thank you.
>
>FYI--I am all for dialog, but does meaningful dialog actually occur
>with "cult apologists" like Mr. Anthony?
>
>I don't think so.
>
>But if you wish to think so it's your choice.
>Rick A. Ross
>www.rickross.com

<hr> From: rickross@rickross.com
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Date: 4 Jan 2005 18:38:22 -0800
Message-ID: <1104892702.481453.32500@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<85ait0p94f3o1kv2uidpirsvrnihb86uh7@4ax.com> <1104768441.564030.161230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <6qtit09p4hsun7cg0tuaihpl9dh45p5b2p@4ax.com> <33u5u1F43tn4eU1@individual.net> <onsjt05bmqbsjpgqj94q9n35t5brso6vcl@4ax.com> <1104851218.390807.217240@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <e4dlt0l25aflur7c787mvqvgja19cav1fq@4ax.com> <1104876622.827778.235940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <dhdmt097iqnmto99p6vk9r9gisna3cam45@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <dhdmt097iqnmto99p6vk9r9gisna3cam45@4ax.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.3.107.138; posting-account=_QZcrA0AAACJM7xoxO2xarSYaMwc41BE

Anton Hein:

Despite your attempt to redefine the issues they remain the same.

This consists of simple questions regarding your endorsements and the promotion of certain professionals through your website.

Your personal endorsements at your site are certainly your choice, but subject to questions.

You seem to say as much when you encourage "independent research."

Again, sorry you don't like being questioned, but at least you seemingly acknowledge that people are "free" to do so, though you apparently label this process "browbeat[ing]" "scaremongering" and somehow "trying to force others into accepting...criticism."

No one is trying to force you to do anything and that reaction frankly seems a bit over the top.

Your posts here have clarified somewhat your relative apathy concerning fees charged to families by professionals you have chosen to promote and that you have a rather flexible ongoing and evolving position regarding "cult apologists."

Fair enough.

FYI--I have met Dick Anthony and dealt directly with him in a court proceeding. He assisted Jehovah's Witnesses in their attempt to defeat a wrongful death claim.

See http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000043.html

To better understand Mr. Anthony's role in that case--

See http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000664.html

The facts speak for themselves.

If you feel dialog with Dick Anthony is worthwhile to "learn" something I suggest you have your checkbook ready as his brand of "dialog" can be quite expensive.

FYI--regarding meaningful dialog. After serving for about a decade on the Interreligious Affaris National Committee for the Union of Amrican Hebrew Congregations I appreciate the difference between meaningful dialog with different faiths and what Mr. Anthony does.

Thanks for making your positions somewhat less ambiguous. It seems within this format, as opposed to our previous private email exchange, you found the time and inclination to make yourself a bit more clearly understood.

Again, let's keep in mind that you began this thread and I just responded to a post with my name in the title. It seemed like a little extra input might supply some historical context and not allow you to mislead anyone.

Please understand that you are certainly not accontable to me, nor for that matter it would appear anyone else regarding the running of your Web site. And I have never said otherwise.

BTW--when people disagree with you, it does not mean they "fail to understand," it simply means that they don't agree with you.

And that's the "gospel-truth."

Rick A. Ross www.rickross.com

ApologeticsIndex.org wrote: > The issues are as follows:
>
> - We will not be drawn into your fights and disagreements with
others. > That includes your demands for answers regarding issues concerning
the > licensed professionals whose approach you have problems with.
>
>
> - We operate, add to, and update Apologetics Index on our own
schedule > and our own timeline, and according to our own insights and
> viewpoints.
>
>
> - Our feedback shows that users of Apologetics Index understand how
> the site works, and appreciate its approach - particularly the fact
> that we encourage independent research.
>
> Those who need a little help discovering how the site works, will
find > their questions answered here:
> http://www.apologeticsindex.org/howto.html
>
> Your messages make clear that you are among a tiny minority of people
> who fail to understand how the site works. We can't help you there.

>
> That said, we do object to your efforts to sow fear, uncertainty and
> doubt regarding certain entries - as evidenced in your stated concern
> over alleged 'impressions.' It is a false and misleading suggestion
> not supported by fact.
>
>
> - As far as we are concerned, no one owes you any accountability
> regarding professional fees or any other aspect of their work.
>
> If you are concerned that some people might be paying more to a
> licensed mental health counselor, than they would if they hired you,
> perhaps you should do spend your time and energy marketing your
> services.
>
> Wasting it on trying to browbeat people into dropping your
> competitors' listings, so to speak, is self-defeating.
>
>
> - If you fail to see the potential value of dialogue with certain
> individuals, groups or movements, you are free to not engage in it.
> Dialogue does not equal approval. Even the recently-murdered
Dutchman > Theo van Gogh - know for, among other things, his rabid anti-Islam
> views - actively engaged in dialogue with Muslims. At the very
least, > such dialogue can result in a better understanding of eachother's
> position on issues.
>
> Janet and I engage in dialogue for two reasons:
> 1) we do not dismiss anyone simply because we do not agree with them.
> 2) we like to get information from primary sources.
>
> If that is not your cup of tea, of you would rather not be caught
dead > in the same room as, say, Dick Anthony, I suggest you remember the TV
> ad that says "You can learn a lot from a dummy."
>
> You are of course free to criticise such an approach. But trying to
> force others into accepting your criticism as the gospel-truth is a
> waste of time and energy.
>
>
> That said, Janet is a licensed professional counselor and social
> worker. I have been involved in lay apologetics and countercult
> ministry for 30 years. We help people out cults, out of prostitution
> slavery, and out of other abusive relationships. Yet we charge
> nothing whatsoever.
>
> We meet, dialogue and dine with cult members, adherents of a wide
> variety of religions, and people involved in various alternative
> lifestyles. We have met and dialogued with cult apologists, dined at
> Krishna temples, and visit places most people are afraid to enter.
>
> While we are Christians ourselves, we help people regardless of
> whether or not they show an interest in Christianity. Our home often
> resembles Grand Central Station, and you'd frequently find more
> cultures gathered here than in any given National Geographic
> publication. Our guest rooms are just as likely to be shared with
> asylum seekers as with other visitors passing through Amsterdam.
>
> We do not spend even a moment of time wondering whether you or anyone
> else approves of our approach. For the same reason your continued
> efforts to influence what we do or do not post at Apologetics Index
is > a waste of time and energy on your part. We also think that your
> attempts at scaremongering regarding the possible effects of our
> entries on people's impression are, well, misguided to say the least.
>
> Anton
> --
> Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
> ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects,
> and related issues
> ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects,
> and related issues
>
> On 4 Jan 2005 14:10:22 -0800, rickross@rickross.com wrote:
>
> >Mr. Hein:
> >
> >Your impression is wrong. I have no interest in operating
"Apologetics > >Index."
> >
> >This is just another attempt to divert attention from the issue.
> >
> >Staying on track--It seems that you have no problem with the AFF
> >Krishna presentation and likewise no objections to Dick Anthony and
> >other "cult apologists" speaking on AFF panels.
> >
> >And whatever Steve Hassan charges families doesn't bother you and
> >despite those fees you endorse and recommend him to visitors at your
> >Web site.
> >
> >Fine.
> >
> >This all appears rather fuzzy and inconsistent, but OK.
> >
> >There is no "crusade," just some questions, which seems to bother
you. > >
> >I note that you did not dispute the time line previously stated
about > >your posts regarding "dialog" with "cult apologists." That is, that
you > >posted that clarification after our email exchange on the subject.
> >
> >Thank you.
> >
> >FYI--I am all for dialog, but does meaningful dialog actually occur
> >with "cult apologists" like Mr. Anthony?
> >
> >I don't think so.
> >
> >But if you wish to think so it's your choice.
> >Rick A. Ross
> >www.rickross.com

<hr> From: ApologeticsIndex.org <spamtrap@apologeticsindex.org>
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Organization: ApologeticsIndex.org - ReligionNewsBlog.com
Message-ID: <1p7nt0l5gbhom9us87s3cblhtg7lod00g9@4ax.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:34:45 GMT

Rick,

You're free to continue to misrepresent the issues, us, Apologetics Index, our viewpoints, or whatever else. We, however, do not have the time and energy to spend on these type of things.

The record shows that we have no problem being questioned by anyone.

It also shows that we have no intention to get involved in *any* of you fights with whomever you choose to pick a fight with. That includes answering your questions which just happen to be regarding the very same folks you have problems with.

You asked us why you were not listed in our section on recommended counselors/cult experts. We answered that question. In response you addressed two of our listings: Steve Hassan and AFF. We know about your disagreements with them, and - again - we will not get involved in your fights with anyone. We have made that abundantly clear, and ever since you have failed to get that message - going as far as suggesting that I am a 'cult member' engaged in 'heavenly deception,' merely because I will not answer you questions regarding the licensed professionals whose work, approach or even fees you disagree with.

If you keep misreprenting our decision not to get involved in your fights as attempts to redefine the issues, that's _your_ problem.

That said if, as you claim, this exchange has finally cleared some things up for you, that would be encouraging. We're not holding our breath, though. However, your suggestion that we mislead people is pathetic. As the saying goes, he who throws mud loses ground.

Now, while it appears you have lots of time on your hands, we've got a full day of offline countercult-related work ahead of us.

On 4 Jan 2005 18:38:22 -0800, rickross@rickross.com wrote:

>Anton Hein:
>
>Despite your attempt to redefine the issues they remain the same.
>
>This consists of simple questions regarding your endorsements and the
>promotion of certain professionals through your website.
>
>Your personal endorsements at your site are certainly your choice, but
>subject to questions.
>
>You seem to say as much when you encourage "independent research."
>
>Again, sorry you don't like being questioned, but at least you
>seemingly acknowledge that people are "free" to do so, though you
>apparently label this process "browbeat[ing]" "scaremongering" and
>somehow "trying to force others into accepting...criticism."
>
>No one is trying to force you to do anything and that reaction frankly
>seems a bit over the top.
>
>Your posts here have clarified somewhat your relative apathy concerning
>fees charged to families by professionals you have chosen to promote
>and that you have a rather flexible ongoing and evolving position
>regarding "cult apologists."
>
>Fair enough.
>
>FYI--I have met Dick Anthony and dealt directly with him in a court
>proceeding. He assisted Jehovah's Witnesses in their attempt to defeat
>a wrongful death claim.
>
>See http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000043.html
>
>To better understand Mr. Anthony's role in that case--
>
>See http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000664.html
>
>The facts speak for themselves.
>
>If you feel dialog with Dick Anthony is worthwhile to "learn" something
>I suggest you have your checkbook ready as his brand of "dialog" can be
>quite expensive.
>
>FYI--regarding meaningful dialog. After serving for about a decade on
>the Interreligious Affaris National Committee for the Union of Amrican
>Hebrew Congregations I appreciate the difference between meaningful
>dialog with different faiths and what Mr. Anthony does.
>
>Thanks for making your positions somewhat less ambiguous. It seems
>within this format, as opposed to our previous private email exchange,
>you found the time and inclination to make yourself a bit more clearly
>understood.
>
>Again, let's keep in mind that you began this thread and I just
>responded to a post with my name in the title. It seemed like a little
>extra input might supply some historical context and not allow you to
>mislead anyone.
>
>Please understand that you are certainly not accontable to me, nor for
>that matter it would appear anyone else regarding the running of your
>Web site. And I have never said otherwise.
>
>BTW--when people disagree with you, it does not mean they "fail to
>understand," it simply means that they don't agree with you.
>
>And that's the "gospel-truth."
>
>Rick A. Ross
>www.rickross.com

<hr> From: rickross@rickross.com
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Date: 5 Jan 2005 03:00:14 -0800
Message-ID: <1104922814.687098.38680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<1104768441.564030.161230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <6qtit09p4hsun7cg0tuaihpl9dh45p5b2p@4ax.com> <33u5u1F43tn4eU1@individual.net> <onsjt05bmqbsjpgqj94q9n35t5brso6vcl@4ax.com> <1104851218.390807.217240@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <e4dlt0l25aflur7c787mvqvgja19cav1fq@4ax.com> <1104876622.827778.235940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <dhdmt097iqnmto99p6vk9r9gisna3cam45@4ax.com> <1104892702.481453.32500@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1p7nt0l5gbhom9us87s3cblhtg7lod00g9@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <1p7nt0l5gbhom9us87s3cblhtg7lod00g9@4ax.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.3.107.138; posting-account=_QZcrA0AAACJM7xoxO2xarSYaMwc41BE

Anton:

Your comment about time constraints and your busy schedule rings a bit false and at best is rather humorous/ironic.

You had the time to begin this thread, continue posting and some effort went into your long rant about the Ross Institute and your subsequent "Flaming Website" award.

See http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r24.html

There is no "fight" or "crusade" as you keep claiming. And making the same false statements repeatedly doesn't change that.

I simply asked you questions about your positions regarding "cult apologists" speaking at AFF conferences and your views on professional fees charged by people you have chosen to promote.

After all, if you have chosen to endorse certain organizations specifically and recommend them to the public, it seems reasonable to ask questions regarding those endorsements.

At long last you have largely answered those queries, though you were quite evasive for some time.

My understanding based upon your posts is that 1) You don't care how much families are charged by professionals you endorse and 2) That your position about "cult apologists" apparently is an evolving one that is changing on an ongoing basis.

Attempting to obscure or ignore the questions directed to you about your positions by labeling them as an outside "fight" with others is a disingenous tactic.

Your claim that I suggested you are a "cult member" engaged in "heavenly deception" takes my comment completely out of context. It was a sarcastic quip used to describe your evasive manner.

This is just another example of how you attempt to mislead people, through misreprentation and/or twisting the meaning of comments by ignoring their actual context.

Please understand that I will make the time to respond to your false statements and/or misleading information posted on the Internet.

It seems to me that critical thinking and dialog about conduct, ethics, policy and behavior is healthy, even when this is applied to "counter-cult," "anti-cult" professionals, activists and organizations.

Sorry you see that as a "fight."

Rick A. Ross www.rickross.com

ApologeticsIndex.org wrote: > Rick,
>
> You're free to continue to misrepresent the issues, us, Apologetics
> Index, our viewpoints, or whatever else. We, however, do not have
the > time and energy to spend on these type of things.
>
> The record shows that we have no problem being questioned by anyone.

>
> It also shows that we have no intention to get involved in *any* of
> you fights with whomever you choose to pick a fight with. That
> includes answering your questions which just happen to be regarding
> the very same folks you have problems with.
>
> You asked us why you were not listed in our section on recommended
> counselors/cult experts. We answered that question. In response you
> addressed two of our listings: Steve Hassan and AFF. We know about
> your disagreements with them, and - again - we will not get involved
> in your fights with anyone. We have made that abundantly clear, and
> ever since you have failed to get that message - going as far as
> suggesting that I am a 'cult member' engaged in 'heavenly deception,'
> merely because I will not answer you questions regarding the licensed
> professionals whose work, approach or even fees you disagree with.
>
> If you keep misreprenting our decision not to get involved in your
> fights as attempts to redefine the issues, that's _your_ problem.
>
> That said if, as you claim, this exchange has finally cleared some
> things up for you, that would be encouraging. We're not holding our
> breath, though. However, your suggestion that we mislead people is
> pathetic. As the saying goes, he who throws mud loses ground.
>
> Now, while it appears you have lots of time on your hands, we've got
a > full day of offline countercult-related work ahead of us.
>
> Anton
> --
> Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
> ApologeticsIndex.org: Research resources on religions, cults, sects,
> and related issues
> ReligionNewsBlog.com: News & news archive on religions, cults, sects,
> and related issues
>
>
> On 4 Jan 2005 18:38:22 -0800, rickross@rickross.com wrote:
>
> >Anton Hein:
> >
> >Despite your attempt to redefine the issues they remain the same.
> >
> >This consists of simple questions regarding your endorsements and
the > >promotion of certain professionals through your website.
> >
> >Your personal endorsements at your site are certainly your choice,
but > >subject to questions.
> >
> >You seem to say as much when you encourage "independent research."
> >
> >Again, sorry you don't like being questioned, but at least you
> >seemingly acknowledge that people are "free" to do so, though you
> >apparently label this process "browbeat[ing]" "scaremongering" and
> >somehow "trying to force others into accepting...criticism."
> >
> >No one is trying to force you to do anything and that reaction
frankly > >seems a bit over the top.
> >
> >Your posts here have clarified somewhat your relative apathy
concerning > >fees charged to families by professionals you have chosen to promote
> >and that you have a rather flexible ongoing and evolving position
> >regarding "cult apologists."
> >
> >Fair enough.
> >
> >FYI--I have met Dick Anthony and dealt directly with him in a court
> >proceeding. He assisted Jehovah's Witnesses in their attempt to
defeat > >a wrongful death claim.
> >
> >See http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000043.html
> >
> >To better understand Mr. Anthony's role in that case--
> >
> >See http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000664.html
> >
> >The facts speak for themselves.
> >
> >If you feel dialog with Dick Anthony is worthwhile to "learn"
something > >I suggest you have your checkbook ready as his brand of "dialog" can
be > >quite expensive.
> >
> >FYI--regarding meaningful dialog. After serving for about a decade
on > >the Interreligious Affaris National Committee for the Union of
Amrican > >Hebrew Congregations I appreciate the difference between meaningful
> >dialog with different faiths and what Mr. Anthony does.
> >
> >Thanks for making your positions somewhat less ambiguous. It seems
> >within this format, as opposed to our previous private email
exchange, > >you found the time and inclination to make yourself a bit more
clearly > >understood.
> >
> >Again, let's keep in mind that you began this thread and I just
> >responded to a post with my name in the title. It seemed like a
little > >extra input might supply some historical context and not allow you
to > >mislead anyone.
> >
> >Please understand that you are certainly not accontable to me, nor
for > >that matter it would appear anyone else regarding the running of
your > >Web site. And I have never said otherwise.
> >
> >BTW--when people disagree with you, it does not mean they "fail to
> >understand," it simply means that they don't agree with you.
> >
> >And that's the "gospel-truth."
> >
> >Rick A. Ross
> >www.rickross.com

<hr> From: ApologeticsIndex.org <spamtrap@apologeticsindex.org>
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Organization: ApologeticsIndex.org - ReligionNewsBlog.com
Message-ID: <893ot0t1vusfg1kqjb10irjt1em1uqum38@4ax.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:55:20 GMT

Rick,

The bottom line remains that we refuse to get drawn into your fights with others, and that includes answering any and all demands for answers from you regarding issues that just happen to involve the licensed professionals you have problems with.

We owe you no answers, and none are forthcoming. If we choose to be held accountable to people other than those we already have relationships of mutual accountability with, we would not select you.

We stand behind our list of recommended counselors/cult experts which, incidentally, will soon be expanded.

Again, the bottom line is that we will not answer your questions regarding anything to do with any of the people that you have problems with. No matter how you try and present or misrepresent the issues, that's the only answer you will get from us.

We have no doubt that in response you will continue to draw wrong conclusions, to misrepresent us, and to try your best to tar-and-feather us. As we mentioned before in our email exchange, that only serves to further underline the reason why we do not - and will not - list you as one of our recommended counselors/cult experts.

As for us taking the time to respond to your misrepresentation of these issues, we will always take the time to defend ourselves against lies, misrepresentation, and insinuations. That said, having done so, we gladly give you the last word. We trust people will continue to think for themselves and to check the facts.

We thank others for their positive and constructive feedback regarding Apologetics Index, CultFAQ.org, ReligionNewsBlog.com and related sites.

May many people be set free from cults and abusive relationships this year.

Anton and Janet -- Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson http:www.ApologeticsIndex.org : Research resources on religions, cults, sects, and related issues http:/www/ReligionNewsBlog.com : News & news archive on religions, cults, sects, and related issues http://www.CultFAQ.org :

<hr> From: rickross@rickross.com
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Date: 5 Jan 2005 08:20:55 -0800
Message-ID: <1104942055.278535.326610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<29249-41DAA96C-27@storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net> In-Reply-To: <29249-41DAA96C-27@storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.3.107.138; posting-account=_QZcrA0AAACJM7xoxO2xarSYaMwc41BE

Let's put this in perspective and context a bit.

First I emailed Anton Hein with a few questions, just to understand his policies and format.

He was evasive and became rather nasty.

Later he began to publicly archive at his site and post elsewhere false and/or misleading statements regarding our email exchange and now he has quite a long rant about the Ross Institute within his database.

He was eventually recognized for this effort with a "Flaming Website" award, upgraded from two to three flames award level as his rant expanded.

See http://www.rickross.com/flamingwebsites.html

Then Anton chose to launch this thread.

Let's put a little perspective on the whole Steve Hassan thing too.

Steve and I have worked together and I have known him since the early 1980s. I have historically promoted his books, carried links to his website etc. Having said that Steve has a history of attacking others in the anti-cult field, often publicly.

The prevailing wisdom amongst "cult experts" and professionals has been not to respond to Steve's attacks, or at least not publicly.

Steve seems to see this as almost encouragement to continue his attacks, which often include false and/or misleading statements.

For the record he has two "Flaming Website" awards, one for his "Response to Rick Ross' Personal Attack on Me" (regarding the previously mentioned disclaimer) and another for his remarks at a lecture transcribed on his Web site concerning Waco, which is quite telling.

Other than the Waco award my only public response to Steve's attacks, before the disclaimer about his fees, was made on a Internet news groups after he lied in a email sent out about his level of involvement with the film "Holy Smoke."

For many years people in the cult field have known about the extraordinary fees Steve has charged families for his services and complaints have been received about this by a number of people. This is not new, it just hasn't been discussed publicly.

When such complaints began to flow to the Ross Institute, which is a tax-exempted nonprofit educational charity, some response was necessary.

First, I contacted Steve directly and repeatedly about the substance of those complaints for comment and/or correction. He refused to respond to the substance of the complaints.

Much like Anton, and as his posted responses here appear to me, Steve seems to see questioning his behavior/conduct as some sort of "personal attack" rather than a necessary process when dealing with complaints.

After several opportunities passed for Steve to set the record straight, something had to be done.

Why?

Because there are many articles archived within the Ross Institute database (perhaps 80 or more) that mention Steve Hassan or somehow cite his work. His books were on the Books page and a link to his Web site at the Links page.

So what to do?

Thus came the disclaimer, which was brief, but linked throughout the Web site wherever his name appeared. His books and links were also deleted.

This was done so that there would be no confusion about seeming support or endorsements.

Only after that action was taken did Steve offer a meaningful response to the complaints, which was to post his new reduced rates publicly.

Fine.

Subsequently, the disclaimer was removed, though Steve has chosen to keep up his response to it.

I felt that it would be worng to ignore the complaints.

If Anton wants to ignore such things that is certainly his choice to make. But trying to mislead people that this is a "private fight" and create false arguments around that premise is not honest, nor is it professional.

Bottom Line--It seems to me that this situation does not fit the "sleeping dog" analogy.

IMO--letting this dog lie would not be ethical or responsible.

Ethics and professional responsibility cut both ways.

CultNews, which is a Weblog attached to the Ross Institute, often breaks stories related to cults, controversial groups and leaders. For example reports have been run about author "Dr." John Gray's lack of accreditted advanced degrees as well as a "cult deprogrammer" being sued by a client.

And I have tried to be frank and forthcoming regarding any questions about my own personal and professional history, guidelines, etc. through numerous archived articles.

Please understand that this does not mean Anton or Steve must adhere to my rules, guidelines etc. They can do whatever they like.

But it is necessary at times to respond to their actions, statements etc., especially when they make misleading and/or false statements with my name or the Ross Insitute attached.

Sorry that this all had to come out, but frankly Steve and Anton have forced the issue through their behavior. And it's not healthy to let things like this slide or remain secret.

Having said that, I recognize that both Steve and Anton have helped people. And that their Web sites can be helpful.

Rick A. Ross www.rickross.com

S. J. Wilson wrote: > As I recall....UltraMichael Greenberg orchestrated and conducted an
> Operation Trash Rick Ross on OCMB and FactnetMB. I suspect this
> thread, which Anton Heln started in March, and the resulting (months
> later) Ross/Helm flame war on a.r.s. is due, in part, to Greenberg's
> numerous posts badmouthing Rick Ross and dragging up the
> Hassen/Ross/Heln disputes from the website. Take note that Heln
posted > this in March and the only response was from Michael Greenberg
>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/a9d6697910ef5368

> until Ross responded months later. (Lesson to be learned.....Let
> Sleeping Dogs LIe?)
>
> Anton Heln posts his cult news on a.r.s., and many times on OCMB and
> FNMB. To my knowledge Ross has never posted on OCMB or FNMB and only
> started posting on a.r.s. in November.
>
> Whatever the bad feelings between Ross and Hassen, it does appear,
in > spite of Heln's denials, he and his wife have chosen sides in this
> "private fight" by listing only one person, Hassan, on their website.
> Why don't the Heln's list the names and websites of *all* and let
the > visitors to their site *KNOW* how many choices there are. Listing
only > one would be considered by most people to be an endorsement,
> recommendation and/or referral and "taking sides".
>
> Isn't it time to bury the hatchet and I don't mean in each other's
> backs?
>
> It is hoped that all involved will find a way to compromise and work
> together to expose the illegal activities and civil rights abuses of
> cults. IMO we should value both Hassen and Ross and any others who
are > releasing cult victims from the strangle holds that "cults" have on
> them.
>
> Work together. Disagree but don't disconnect.
>
> Tigger

<hr> From: desertphile@cchr.ws (The Last Liberal)
Subject: Re: Apologetics Index wins Rick Ross's "Flaming Website" award
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:49:12 GMT
Message-ID: <343g88F45khbhU1@individual.net>

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 11:00:22 -0800, realpch <realpch@aol.com> wrote:

> rickross@rickross.com wrote:

> > Anton:
> >
> > Reciting this absurd mantra about "fights with others" won't make it
> > real.

> > Is that some sort of cult chanting self-realization technique?
> > Just joking again.

> <snip>
>
> Oh brother. In these fights, someone always drags in OSA, and there is
> the obligatory reference to "you've just joined another cult." Do people
> exercise no restraint at all anymore?

Yeah. At the moment I feel silly for trying to "help" by adding my $1 to the pointless fray. A CURSE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES! Who the hell needs either of you? *IF* Mr. Hassen charged $5,000 a day for "intervention," that's his business (though the proce seems awfully high to me). *IF* Mr. Hein uses "cult apologists" that he knows damn well are ignorant and biased, that's also his business. Mr. Ross is free to castigate that behavior (and I am very glad that he has done so and is doing so), but he should not expect anyone to answer to him.

The problem is basic: dangerous cults (such as Scientology) injure people, but the solution to that problem is itself in contention. There will always be little agreement among mental health care professionals about how to help the victims.

One think I applaud Mr. Ross for pointing out: *IF* Mr. Hein is knowlingly using liars and frauds as "experts" and "resources," then Mr. Hein should indeed be castigated for that behavior. One does not help victim by lying to them.

> Peach

--- http://lastliberal.org

"[W]e need a legal strategy which protects the rights of those of us who hold Christian convictions which will afford us the opportunity to contend once again for the mind of this culture." -- Keith A. Fournier, ACLJ brochure "Religious Cleansing"

Go Back