Path: rambo.bobo.net!xs4all!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newshub.bart.net!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!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: 24 Nov 1998 15:25:37 PST Organization: inFormer Ministry [a 501(c)3 non-profit, religious organization] "... in service of cult victims and their families." Lines: 75 Message-ID: <366b400a.29951985@news.concentric.net> References: <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$2ec@enews3.newsguy.com> <365acef6.2671335@news.concentric.net> <73bl5s$m5k@enews4.newsguy.com> <3662226b.10417503@news.concentric.net> <73e74k$f4n@enews4.newsguy.com> <3661d7fd.3310425@news.concentric.net> <73f75s$42r@enews3.newsguy.com> Reply-To: informer@informer.org NNTP-Posting-Host: ts021d07.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:147382 "Rebecca Hartong" : >;-) I think I understand where you're coming from, but, truly I don't know >you well enough to comment upon what might have led you *personally* to join >and remain in Scientology. Speculation on my part could only lead to >further bad feelings between us, I think. There have been bad feelings between us, Rebecca? I hadn't realized. Friends are allowed to hurt each other's feelings under the right circumstances. I wouldn't call that exactly bad, rather part of coming to know each other. Have you had ill feelings about me? Did they prompt your "whining" comment? >I have written in the past about >some of the general characteristics that I think seem common among cult >members (a low level of tolerance for ambiguity, for example) and I'd prefer >to stick with those kinds of general comments. I am neither qualified nor >inclined to do anything beyond that. Very sensible. Perhaps someone else has some ideas. >>>I'm sure circumstances and details vary widely >>>from individual to individual. >> >> Not to put yours in your mouth, but your sentence at the top of the >>thread seemed to indicate that you thought that the few people who had >>actually been harmed by the cult had been in some way flawed or >>defective in reasoning. > >This is, in fact, part of why I dislike the word "shattered." I guess I >should have eliminated it in my original answer to Stacy, but I never dreamt >it would take on a life of its own! I much prefer the phrase >"psychologically vulnernable." I wish I could be more specific about what >the psychological vulnerability might encompass, but I don't have all the >answers either! Damn! And I was hoping for some objective guidance. >(Save this post. You might want to quote me back to myself >at some point... ;-) ) Again, I'd refer you to some of my previous posts >about intolerance for ambiguity. I think that must be one characteristic >that is very common among cult members. A search for answers. >> I was just trying to get some preliminary speculation as to what >>you think makes one person more susceptible than another. So we could >>discuss it. > >There 'ya go! I hope someone else has input on this subject. Lord knows exer's could make use of a wider perspective on their cultic experience. >>>Only a very few people who have >>>any contact with Scientology do that. [..spend a decade or more as >Scientologists] >> >> I know hundreds. > >Yes, but what percentage of all those who have contact with Scientology do >those hundreds represent? If you count anyone who has been on their mailing lists, probably about 5% ever spend more than more than a decade considering themselves to be scienos. Is this insubstantial? De minimis? Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *