Path: rambo.bobo.net!xs4all!xs4all!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newspeer1.nac.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: "Shattered" minds Date: 22 Nov 1998 20:30:09 PST Organization: inFormer Ministry [a 501(c)3 non-profit, religious organization] "... in service of cult victims and their families." Lines: 112 Message-ID: <365acef6.2671335@news.concentric.net> References: <36434818.32145259@news.tiac.net> <36526d02.43779474@news.tiac.net> <71ur44$n4n@enews2.newsguy.com> <3654234e.33527137@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <3655d896.2083312@news.concentric.net> <3657e2bc.106602719@news.wwa.com> <736jt9$7g9$1@camel19.mindspring.com> <3659fe0c.5278720@news.concentric.net> <73714v$8ea@enews2.newsguy.com> <365f20cd.14176661@news.concentric.net> <7390cv$2ec@enews3.newsguy.com> Reply-To: informer@informer.org NNTP-Posting-Host: ts038d21.lax-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Xref: rambo.bobo.net alt.religion.scientology:146899 "Rebecca Hartong" : yhn >> If an organization has a predatory, fraudulent, fascist goal to >>attract "shattered" people and exploit them, rebecca >As I wrote previously, I don't think it's as calculated as all that. Scn tek and admin policy is as calculated as one can get. You must not have read much of it. There's volumes. How to wash a car. How to set up a graph. Policies and policies on it. Not calculated? Your ignorance is showing, Rebecca. Be embarrassed. >>do you think that >>organization should be prevented from such activity by the consumer >>protection provisions of current and future law? >Since I don't believe that attracting "shattered" people is the goal of >Scientology, I don't think special laws ought to apply. Geeze, give this girl a clue gang. Shattered people are exactly the goal of the cult! There's plenty of policy on that subject. >The fact that >psychologically unstable people (I like that phrase better than >"shattered"-- "shattered" was never my word to begin with) are sometimes >attracted to Scientology is secondary. It was your word: >rebecca >>>If there are only a few--and I suspect that's the case--you might give some >>>consideration to the very likely possibility that their minds were >>>"shattered" before they got into Scientology in the first place. '' Maybe you just forgot. >Maybe you meant "smarter" >as just sort of a catch-all term for "psychologically better prepared." Precisely. >I >think your warnings are very valuable, Dennis, and I support the idea of >picketing as well. What I don't support--based on what I know of >Scientology now--is any sort of legal prohibitions against the practice of >Scientology. See what I mean? Nor do I. Enforcement of existing laws should be sufficient. But I neither enforce nor write law, and so abuses may continue until new law is written, defining undue influence in some broader way. >> Perhaps you think it's just social selection working to thin the >>herd, and after all, what's wrong with that, eh? > >Just when you're going along fine, you come up with whine-y crap like >this... sigh... I just wondered if you thought weeding the vulnerable and idealistic from society by subjecting them to cultic activity, might be beneficial to society's advancement in some strange way. I dint necessarily think you did, but I just wanted to point it out as another strange perspective. I don't get the whine-y reference. >If Scientology is supposed to "thin the herd" it's not >doing a very good job of it. It's very important, I think, to keep in mind >a few crucial facts: >1. Most people who ever learn anything about Scientology do not choose to >become involved. >2. Of those who do become involved, most quit within a short time a bit >wiser for the experience. >3. Of those who don't quit, the great majority are not apparently injured >by their practice of Scientology or their association with Scientology. I love it when people make lists like that. Elrong used to do that all the time. A-J, a-e, Laws of Listing and Nulling, etc. >Yes, yes, yes.... even one person being killed or hurt is a very bad thing >and I'm not trying to imply that it isn't. But it's only reasonable to >consider the possibility--the likelihood, really--that >those very few people >who are actually harmed in some way apparently as a result of their >association with Scientology Those very few, eh? Yea, I suppose ars is still backwater. Very few people have really had their lives touch by the cult. That's why so few people are interested. Very few people harmed by the cult. I gotta laugh. Heh. >may have been influenced by factors other than >Scientology itself or, at least, by Scientology alone. Like what? Their own prior pathology? Wtf are you getting at here, Rebecca? You saw the Milgrim experiment. Were those inflicters influenced by factors other than the circumstances created for them? Wasn't authority enough to get them to harm others? Hubbard was the greatest one for experimenting on humans. Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *