Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: QUALIFICATION OF CRIT Message-ID: <9510090933.0DFS700@support.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Mon, 09 Oct 95 09:33:57 -0700 Lines: 79 stevea@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) >Mike_Reuss@HP-Loveland-om10.om.hp.com (Michael Reuss) wrote: >> Laszlo Weress (laszlozw@ix.netcom.com) wrote: >>There is a wealth of scholarly work about NRM. That stands for New >>Religious Movement. Scholars DO reject the world "cult" and coined the >>inclusive non-judgemental NRM. "Cult" is considered archaic and is >>used by people like CAN and Mr. Hassan as well as media hype typos. SO >>suit yourself which one will you use. Steve: >Let me see, "new(1) re(2)-li(3)-gious(4) move(5)-ment(6)" or "cult(1)." >I'll stick with "cult." Faster to say, easier to type. That's the platform I'm going to run for President on: FEWER KEYSTROKES! >Y'know, the thing about this is that the word "cult" for me had no >particularly pejorative impact until I began to discover what these >NRM/cults got up to. I think that if we had, in >alt.religion.scientology have referred to Scientology as an NRM, or >for that matter, as an orange box, those terms would quickly have >acquired a pejorative connotation. You can call a pile of shit a rose, >but it still stinks like shit. My thoughts exactly. The first question when anyone talks about another group as a cult is, "Do they lock people in basements?" That's where I begin finding out, if it's a cult or not. But the scienos love to practice redefinition. It is virtually their most powerful tool in thought cortrol. "We'll just call it this and say it works thus, and the wogs will think of it our way." For example, in a first-hand description of the Kane hearing on the Wollersheim raid, Vaughn Young described a situation where Cooley had jumped up with a loud objection when Larry's lawyer began reading the Oat Tea 3 material into the record. After Vaughn presented irrefutable evidence that the costly levels had been lost as far back as 1967 (in the Ethics order which orders R2-45 on the people who were selling it on the street), Cooley put McShame on the stand and engaged him in questions which went something like: Cooley: Mr. McShame, before when I objected to (Larry's lawyer) reading that material into the record, I wasn't really objecting to that material being trade secret, was I? Shame: No. Cooley: I was really objecting to the fact that the *processes* associated with the text might be read, wasn't I? Shame: Yes, you were. You see, by redefining actions and showing agreement to the new ideas, they expect the wog judge to think, "Duh, err ... Oh I see now. He really wasn't objecting to *those* trade secrets being read when he jumped up and screamed 'Objection!' He was really objecting to some *other* trade secrets. He'll probably tell me later what they really are." Maybe you have to have been in a cult, to know that cult is the exact right word to describe scientology. (actually "dangerous, mind-f*cking, fascist cult" is more accurate) I hope not. 'Cause if so, my job's gonna be virtually impossible. +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"