[i:32ea2c5708][b:32ea2c5708]shakti- To repeat my previous post-[/b:32ea2c5708][/i:32ea2c5708][/size:32ea2c5708]

Quote

I am [i:32ea2c5708][b:32ea2c5708]not [/b:32ea2c5708][/i:32ea2c5708]a follower of Rudolf Steiner or Anthroposophy, but [b:32ea2c5708]appreciate many of the ideas on art, agriculture and education[/b:32ea2c5708]. I also appreciate Henry Ford's innovations, yet he was a virulent anti-Semite and Hitler apologist! That would not stop me from buying a Ford if I liked the car. Waldorf schools appeal to some and not to others. Choice and diversity is a great thing. Public schools have been failing and opening many educational experiments in the form of magnate schools. Waldorf is only one of them. Waldorf has had over eighty years of success without going through all the pendulum swings that public education has suffered (regarding language arts and mathematics instruction).

Teachers in public schools are allowed to follow any religion as long as they don’t teach it. The same is true in Waldorf schools. Teachers in Waldorf schools are required to study Steiner just as education majors at public universities are required to study Piaget and Skinner. Skinner is no party. No educational system is perfect, nor are all of its teachers.

[b:32ea2c5708]Steiner had some strange ideas that don’t fit my world view[/b:32ea2c5708], so no, my interest in Waldorf education has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. [i:32ea2c5708][b:32ea2c5708]I am actually a very secular Jew [/b:32ea2c5708][/i:32ea2c5708]who likes to argue with my friend, a reform Rabbi. In my professional and personal life, due to proximity, [i:32ea2c5708][b:32ea2c5708]I have had a lot of contact with Waldorf schools, teachers, and students. I have worked with many Waldorf graduates and have found them to excel in several areas compared to the publicly educated.[/b:32ea2c5708][/i:32ea2c5708] I could write a whole essay on this. Or perhaps I am deluded due to milieu control!

I'm not here to continue the discussion about Waldorf education or Anthroposophy. If you feel that Waldorf schools are a cult that churns out little "Manchurian Candidates" then you won't send your children there. You are welcome to join DD's lawsuit. Your freedom to choose.

I have many years of direct observation of Waldorf schools and their graduates. In my opinion, based on observations, DD is not correct in characterizing Waldorf [b:32ea2c5708][i:32ea2c5708]schools[/i:32ea2c5708][/b:32ea2c5708] as a cult and I [b:32ea2c5708][i:32ea2c5708]don't agree [/i:32ea2c5708][/b:32ea2c5708]that their [b:32ea2c5708]methods and practices[/b:32ea2c5708] in the [i:32ea2c5708][b:32ea2c5708]public [/b:32ea2c5708][/i:32ea2c5708]classroom are inappropriate. Students are free from religious indoctrination. You can do your own research and decide for yourself.

[i:32ea2c5708][b:32ea2c5708]My opinions are based solely on observing "best practices" in education[/b:32ea2c5708][/i:32ea2c5708] and have nothing to do with the beliefs of this secular Jew. Steiner's belief in reincarnation or whatever nonsensical Akashic record has no influence on my assessments.

As far as racism, as well as anti-Semitism, Steiner's writings are clearly not viable and repugnant. In [i:32ea2c5708][b:32ea2c5708]practice[/b:32ea2c5708][/i:32ea2c5708], I have not witnessed racism or anti-Semitism in Waldorf graduates or in their teachers. 80% of the students in the New York City Waldorf schools are Jewish. Probably a similar percentage of the Milwaukee public Waldorf School is African American, including the teachers. I also had the great privilege of meeting a group of black South African teachers who were using Waldorf methods in war torn townships. Their stories were incredibly moving and their success was great.

I would no more waste my time defending some of Steiner's or Skinner's wacko [i:32ea2c5708][b:32ea2c5708]ideas[/b:32ea2c5708][/i:32ea2c5708] than I would Hitler's. I deplore many or most of their thinking. Skinner is the father of the system of operant conditioning. Cults draw heavily on his discoveries. Does that mean that I not teach a course on Skinner because of this? Does it mean that I don't drive a Volkswagen on the autobahn (both product's of Hitler's imagination)?

Many of Steiner's and Skinner's ideas on pedagogy and education are excellent. Along with Piaget, I also like the more recent writings of Bruno Bettelheim, David Elkind and Herb Kohl, among [u:32ea2c5708][i:32ea2c5708]many[/i:32ea2c5708][/u:32ea2c5708] others. Surprisingly, these gentlemen (all masters in the fields of education and psychology) support many of Steiner's ideas. Each has ideas that I find abhorrent along with ideas that I can take to the bank. Skinner was involved in some very cruel and manipulative psychological experiments, but his work in behavioral analysis was revolutionary. Bettelheim felt that "refrigerator moms", mothers who were cold and failed to bond, created children with autism. This was patently untrue and caused great pain to many mothers. But his writings on language development and parenting are unsurpassed. Herb Kohl started the "free school" and "open classroom" movement, but his work with inner city children, his book on how students learn and his book, "A Call to Character" are tremendous. I could go on, but the point is that I don't burn books or throw out good ideas because the author is a nut or flawed human being.

I judge by actions and results. I suggest that it is a good practice to take up. Another good practice is to look at every issue from many sides. This is difficult to do if you subscribe to any form of stringent orthodoxy.

maui:

Quote

While some people may be referred to as "experts" on "cult psychology" maybe we should see that when dealing with religious motivations and the human mind that "experts" on these topics are not all they are cracked up to be.

Dr. Margaret Singer and the other experts cited are consistently objective and base their assesment on behavior not belief. The issue is "brainwashing," which is about the "human mind," and the focus of the experts cited (training, expertise and research) is also the "human mind"

What experts would you cite, other than mental health professionals, that study the "human mind"?

Singer worked with thousands of former cult members as a clinical psychologist and wrote many papers and books that are widely quoted and cited on this subject within and without academia. She was perhaps the preeminent cult expert of the 20th Century.

What "authority" do you think should be cited regarding "brainwashing" more qualified than a clinical psychologist that has treated cult casualities and directly observed their destructive tendencies?

Quote

there are other sociologists and psychologists who have opposing views and are supported and refered to as "experts" by a cadre of believers.

What "other sociologists and psychologists"?

Do you mean "cult apologists" frequently paid by groups called "cults"?

See [www.culteducation.com]

There is something of a scandal in academia about this.

Quote

no reliable psychoanalytic template that will suffice to cover all people in all religions and in all circumstances.

On what basis do you come to this conclusion?

What research would you cite specifically?

Are you qualified to comment on what is or is not a "reliable psychoanalytic template" in this area?

Are you a mental health professional?

Singer, Lifon, Schein, Ofshe are experts and they have a "reliable...template," which has been studied and widely accepted and incorporates essentially the same features. That "template" is based upon observed behavior and group dynamics, not beliefs.

Your response to Singer seems subjective and relies upon anecdotal experience and belief, not objective research.

Singer has no personal "bias" based upon group involvement, she is rather a doctor commenting through her work experience.

Quote

If a person goes to shul or catholic school or a any other mainstream religious school they are taught to conform to the religious behavior and attitude of the religion. All mainstream religion try to "suppress much of the person's old behavior and attitudes" to conform to their religious dogma or the religious leader's ideology.

Here you are blurring distinctions.

Go back on this thread and read the posts about this in response to "initiate."

Note the differences in Singer's chart concerning persuasion between the various levels of persuasion including education, advertising, propaganda, indoctrination and thought reform.

Cult "brainwashing" would be "thought reform."

Read Lifton's criteria about thought reform and Ofshe's paper on coercive persuasion to further illustrate these distinctions.

Quote

shows a bias against non mainstream religions

Singer is basing her conclusions upon objectively observable group behavior and dynamics not her personal beliefs. Again, she was a clinical psychologist that professionally treated former cult members.

Perhaps your response is based upon your own "bias"?

Quote

I'll show the difference between his Hare Krishna group and the largest Hare Krishna group iskcon. In iskcon you will find plenty of criticism all of the time by members, it is a very contentious group theologically speaking. But they have to prove their philosophical and theological differences with each other by reference to the scriptures and previous highly regarded gurus and saints. In fact that is the tradition in most all hindu sects. They argue theology using the same scriptures but with opposing interpretations. And even if something cannot be explicitly found to be corroborated in a scripture, you can still claim your point is authentic because the traditions themselves teach that the scriptures come from God revealing truth to humans. So you can claim God revealed this truth to you and still be in accord somewhat with the hindu traditions. This happens all of the time. In iskcon anyone can voice an opinion on the theological direction of any decision and he won't be shut down, he or she may not be taken seriously, but that depends on the situation e.g. how cogent is their argument, how long they have been in the sect, how respected they are by their peers, etc. They are not against arguing or debating a point, in fact it seems like that is what they do all of the time.

This seems to reflect your concern or bias.

That is, your opinions regarding ISKCON.

Once again, you have chosen to rely upon anecdotal information and subjective experience rather than facts as established by research, reports or court records.

ISKCON is a very controverisal group with a deeply troubled history. It has been criticized by both Hindus and non-Hindus and called a "cult."

See [www.culteducation.com]

This is an archive of articles and court documents about ISKCON.

See [www.culteducation.com]

This is an analysis of ISKCON by a former long-term member and author/researcher Nori Muster.

Muster says, "Throughout its history ISKCON has used irresponsible recruitment methods. The most 'cult-like' aspect is that they encouraged interested people to move in and dedicate their whole lives to the organization, often giving up careers, and cutting ties with former friends and family. Legitimate religions promote living and working in the world, maintaining strong family ties and friendships. Many parents feel they lost their children to ISKCON.

In order for things to change for the better, ISKCON needs to stop such extreme control over their members’ lives.For a long time, ISKCON has had leaders who beat their wives and advocate wife-beating among the other married men. Also, ISKCON arranged marriages between minor-aged girls and often abusive men. The girls’ complaints were generally ignored.

In order for ISKCON to really change for the better, they must come out in the open about their spousal abuse problem, remove abusers from official positions, and compensate the victims.

Over the years, many innocent people were beaten or kicked out of temples because they sided with the wrong political interests. The temple leaders keep their enemies away by threatening them, but this creates a sick environment throughout the organization.

In order for ISKCON to really change all these attitudes must change and then it could really become a better organization."

Since this statement was made in 1999, ISKCON has declared bankruptcy.

Eventually, ISKCON would agree to pay its victims millions of dollars through a court proceeding.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Quote

[Singer's] attempt to make a template for deciding if some group is a "cult" is really showing her religious bias and ignorance, and not much else.

The template you dispute and have chosen to diregard has been widely studied and accepted and there is a growing consensus amongst relevant and respected researchers/experts on this subject.

You may not appreciate this, but there it is.

".... at Dharma Farms. The people at the house are so into it, almost to the point where they cannot mesh with the "real world" anymore and they have no desire to do so. Two of the youngest people (25 and 31) who are here seem the most devoted and I found out that neither one of them has a close relationship with their families and they don't have any other ties outside of this community. Whenever we go to kirtan, I am asked about my beliefs and I am encouraged to listen to Guruda's talks and watch Jagad Guru's lectures on video and basically get into it. "



from: mindy's journal www.angelfire.com/md3/aloha/

Read entire journal entries for a view on what an unsuspecting volunteer farm worker is confronted with. And this bright young woman's responses are worth noting as a healthy reaction to B.S.

initiate:

Quote

I'm not here to continue the discussion about Waldorf education or Anthroposophy.

Then you do exactly that, demonstrating that you have strong feelings about the Waldorf Schools.

Quote

I would no more waste my time defending some of Steiner's or Skinner's wacko ideas than I would Hitler's.

Thank you for admitting the ideas are "wacko," but then you go on to defend the Waldorf Schools, which is based upon Steiner's ideas.

Quote

Steiner's]racism, as well as anti-Semitism, Steiner's writings are clearly not viable and repugnant

Agreed.

Quote

In practice, I have not witnessed racism or anti-Semitism in Waldorf graduates or in their teachers.

Again, the theme is your subjective experience and opinion being weighed against the facts as previously posted, which you have notably not disputed specifically from the PLANS site.

You say PLANS and the lawsuit against Waldorf is wrong, but you have largely confirmed their criticism.

That's it.
Thanks, Regina, for the link. It's nice to have a first hand description of life on the Noni Farm.

More on the Noni Farm, and Gabbard, here:
[hawaiiislandjournal.com]

Quote

Dr. Margaret Singer and the other experts cited are consistently objective and base their assesment on behavior not belief. The issue is "brainwashing," which is about the "human mind," and the focus of the experts cited (training, expertise and research) is also the "human mind"

What experts would you cite, other than mental health professionals, that study the "human mind"?

Singer worked with thousands of former cult members as a clinical psychologist and wrote many papers and books that are widely quoted and cited on this subject within and without academia. She was perhaps the preeminent cult expert of the 20th Century.

What "authority" do you think should be cited regarding "brainwashing" more qualified than a clinical psychologist that has treated cult casualities and directly observed their destructive tendencies?

First off I would like to say that I hope you aren't taking what I write personally. I simply have an opinion on a topic, it's not meant to ne a judgement on your belief system. As far as understanding the human mind there is no single theory or set ideology which is universally accepted by the academic "experts". Freud used to be seen as an expert by many other experts yet today he is widely rejected by experts, still he has many experts who believe in the Freudian method. Study of the human mind and "mind control" or "brainwashing" is a very controversial topic amongst the academic and professinal community involved in these areas. See [en.wikipedia.org]

Quote

there are other sociologists and psychologists who have opposing views and are supported and refered to as "experts" by a cadre of believers.

Quote

Quote

no reliable psychoanalytic template that will suffice to cover all people in all religions and in all circumstances.

On what basis do you come to this conclusion?

I showed how Singers 6 conditions apply universally to mainstream religions. It should be obvious that amongst cults there is a wide diversity in organization, structure, theology, etc. Therefore trying to make a simple universal template is going to be impossible. If we use Singers template then we would have to come to the conclusion that most all mainstream religions are cults because they satisfy all of her conditions. What value does her template have is every religious organization in the world can be labled a cult?

Quote

Singer has no personal "bias" based upon group involvement, she is rather a doctor commenting through her work experience.

There is no way that you can know if Singer had personal bias or not. My point was in showing that in making her template that she is biased because it applies eqaully to mainstream religions yet she doesn't accuse them of brainwashing.

Quote

Quote

If a person goes to shul or catholic school or a any other mainstream religious school they are taught to conform to the religious behavior and attitude of the religion. All mainstream religion try to "suppress much of the person's old behavior and attitudes" to conform to their religious dogma or the religious leader's ideology.

Here you are blurring distinctions.

I am telling the simple truth. The point I was making is that all religions fit into her template.

Quote

Go back on this thread and read the posts about this in response to "initiate."

Note the differences in Singer's chart concerning persuasion between the various levels of persuasion including education, advertising, propaganda, indoctrination and thought reform.

Cult "brainwashing" would be "thought reform."

Read Lifton's criteria about thought reform and Ofshe's paper on coercive persuasion to further illustrate these distinctions.

The same can be said of mainstream religions.

Quote

Singer is basing her conclusions upon objectively observable group behavior and dynamics not her personal beliefs. Again, she was a clinical psychologist that professionally treated former cult members.

You don't know if she was biased or not. I refuse to deify "experts" as infallible and all knowing.

Quote

Perhaps your response is based upon your own "bias"?

What bias? I simply showed how Singers template applies to mainstream religions as well as to cults. Yet she doesn't claim that mainstream religious are brainwashing people. I have nothing to gain nor lose from my point of view. I didn't say that she was a fraud or an incompetent, I made sure to make that point upfront. I don't like using the "argument from authority" when it comes to the human mind and religious belief because it is all very subjective. If someone is an expert carpenter or mechanic I would have no problem with the "argument from authority". But I don't turn off my thought process because some "expert" on the human mind has an opinion. I refuse to bow down and worship the "mental health professionals" as being experts. The mind and how it works is not something which "experts" in the field agree on, and this is to be expected. What also should be expected is that people shouldn't feel they have to accept one point of view as pure and perfect and without any possibility of error which everyone has to bow to or else be considered a heretic. It's not rocket science.

Quote

Quote

I'll show the difference between his Hare Krishna group and the largest Hare Krishna group iskcon. In iskcon you will find plenty of criticism all of the time by members, it is a very contentious group theologically speaking. But they have to prove their philosophical and theological differences with each other by reference to the scriptures and previous highly regarded gurus and saints. In fact that is the tradition in most all hindu sects. They argue theology using the same scriptures but with opposing interpretations. And even if something cannot be explicitly found to be corroborated in a scripture, you can still claim your point is authentic because the traditions themselves teach that the scriptures come from God revealing truth to humans. So you can claim God revealed this truth to you and still be in accord somewhat with the hindu traditions. This happens all of the time. In iskcon anyone can voice an opinion on the theological direction of any decision and he won't be shut down, he or she may not be taken seriously, but that depends on the situation e.g. how cogent is their argument, how long they have been in the sect, how respected they are by their peers, etc. They are not against arguing or debating a point, in fact it seems like that is what they do all of the time.

This seems to reflect your concern or bias.

That is, your opinions regarding ISKCON.

It's not my opinion, nor is it showing any bias, it is an objective analysis on how iskcon operates. An opinion would be if I said "the whole thing stinks". I was simply showing the difference in styles of cult management.

Quote

Once again, you have chosen to rely upon anecdotal information and subjective experience rather than facts as established by research, reports or court records.

I disagree. My point of view is from 30 years of experience studying iskcon and my thorough knowledge on how iskcon operates, and from what I have learned here on how Chris Butler's group operates. I am not biased for or against iskcon, what I wrote is how it runs today.

Quote

ISKCON is a very controverisal group with a deeply troubled history. It has been criticized by both Hindus and non-Hindus and called a "cult."

I never said it wasn't.

Quote

This is an analysis of ISKCON by a former long-term member and author/researcher Nori Muster.

Muster says, "Throughout its history ISKCON has used irresponsible recruitment methods. The most 'cult-like' aspect is that they encouraged interested people to move in and dedicate their whole lives to the organization, often giving up careers, and cutting ties with former friends and family. Legitimate religions promote living and working in the world, maintaining strong family ties and friendships. Many parents feel they lost their children to ISKCON.

Iskcon is a monastic (ashrama) society. She says "Legitimate religions promote living and working in the world". In point of fact all mainstream religions have a monastic side which encourages people to devote themselves full time to the religion. There are millions of catholic priests, orthodox priests, orthodox jewish rabbis and their following, imams, mullahs, hindu gurus and their following, etc who all give up secular careers, become celibate, and devote their entire life to their religious cause. Iskcon is an evangelical hindu monastic cult. That is what they do, that is what their religion teaches them to do.

Quote

In order for things to change for the better, ISKCON needs to stop such extreme control over their members’ lives.For a long time, ISKCON has had leaders who beat their wives and advocate wife-beating among the other married men. Also, ISKCON arranged marriages between minor-aged girls and often abusive men. The girls’ complaints were generally ignored.

Nori Muster had a very limited exposure to iskcon, she lived in one temple for a limited period of time. While she may have experienced what she claims, she has not shown any research to validate that it is a common practice and belief in iskcon. From my experience with iskcon (4 years in iskcon, 25 years studying iskcon in various parts of the world) what she said is not something which I have seen as common practice or belief amongst iskcon members. Women more often then not act the same way that women do outside of iskcon in the culture or country where the iskcon ashrama is i.e they tend to run things behind the scenes because often times in marriages women run the marriage. Iskcon was no different in this regard. In fact Nori was in a particularly notorious place and time.

As far as underaged girls being married to older men, that was very rare, it was not the norm, and it is a thing of the past. It wasn't like iskcon was full of 13 and 14 year old brides. Not that there were not some, but they were very small in actual numbers. That is no longer allowed. Also the age of consent in most states was different back when that was going on, in recent years states have almost all raised the age of consent. I am not saying that Nori is wrong, it's just that she tends to paint a picture of iskcon as a whole from her experience in one place. From my own experience I can tell you that every temple ashrama is very different, each has it's own character and characters. Especially when you leave the united states. The L.A temple where Nori lived was famous throughout iskcon for scandals of the sort Nori mentions. The rest of iskcon was always warning people not to go to the L.A temple because of that. Again this is not bias, it is history.

Quote

In order for ISKCON to really change for the better, they must come out in the open about their spousal abuse problem, remove abusers from official positions, and compensate the victims.

I know lots of couples who were in iskcon and they seemed to be about on par with society at large when it comes to spousal abuse. Most couples I have known from iskcon, as in society at large, the women were dominant in the relationship, I also saw some abusive relationships where the men where violent and had problems. Nori makes it seem like there was or is a large number of forced marriages which led to abuse, iskcon should compensate women who were forced into marriage by their parents and then abused. That may have happened a handful of times in the past, but it certainly wasn't the norm. And it no longer goes on, iskcon has strict rules now in place. Anyways isn't that what the lawsuit settled?

Most marriages that took and take place today in iskcon is due to women asking men to marry them. It was and is still common for women to instigate the relationship and propose. This is because there is prestige for celibate monks in iskcon, and advancement to management positions are made quicker in a monastic society that values celibacy, like iskcon, for a monastic monk. That leads to many men wanting to remain unmarried and celibate. Of course the women are then left the business of trying to change the men's minds, more often then not they are successful. You can call it what you like, but this is actually how iskcon operates. In my 4 years in iskcon I was approached by women 6 different times with marriage proposals, I didn't even know 5 of them. That is the norm in iskcon for single people.

Quote

Over the years, many innocent people were beaten or kicked out of temples because they sided with the wrong political interests. The temple leaders keep their enemies away by threatening them , but this creates a sick environment throughout the organization.

She makes a claim of "many" when I doubt she could name more then 3. Where is her proof of "many"? And it wasn't about "siding with wrong political interests". I know all of the stories and histories. There were and still are ex members of iskcon who are enemies of iskcon's leadership and management style. By enemies I mean they want to oust the leaders of iskcon and they want to replace iskcon's management system with their own. They have numerous websites, books, pamphlets etc. This is one of the numerous groups who want to take iskcon over and remake it into their own vision [www.iskconirm.com]

They go to iskcon temples and try to recruit the members to their cause. They go to iskcon religious festivals and try to disrupt them and pass out pamhlets and gain converts to their cause. This has been going on since the late 1970's. When they do gain a convert who lives in an ashrama then often times that convert will try to recruit others in the ashrama to their point of view. When they are found out they are thrown out if they refuse to stop. Sometimes, rarely, violence ensues when the person is found out and refuses to stop and doesn't want to leave. Usually they know it is a matter of time before they are asked to leave so they are ready to leave and there is no incident, but some are belligerent and get violent. What Nori does is make it seem like it is a regular occurence for people to be randomly thrown out of temples for "political" reasons. That is simply not the case.

There are essentially two main reasons to get asked to leave iskcon. The most common way is if you do not follow the monastic daily program. Unless you are bringing in lots of money, if you don't follow the strict monastic program, you are asked to leave. This happens a lot. All of the time people are asked to leave because they don't follow strictly the monastic lifestyle. In fact that is the number one cause for people leaving iskcon by far, they either leave voluntarily or are asked to leave because they are not monastic enough. The second most commen way to get asked to leave is if you attempt to use your time in iskcon as a way to change the iskcon system of management. You can debate it openly if you want, but you cannot stealthily try to convince others that the leadership should all be kicked out and that the entire organization needs to be changed to another vision of management. The leadership doesn't tolerate that. Violence only occurs rarely and it's only if the person doesn't want to leave and gets violent.

Look at the contradiction in Nori's claim:

"Over the years, many innocent people were beaten or kicked out of temples because they sided with the wrong political interests. The temple leaders keep their enemies away by threatening them"

If they were "innocent" then why were they seen as enemies? They were stealthily subversive and disruptive in a monastic ashrama setting where people join because they want to learn bhakti yoga. Why should the leadership of ashramas allow a person to try to convince everyone there and who comes to the ashrama that the leaders, and iskcon, are all doing everything wrong. It's not that those people were not given a forum for their greivances, they were, everyone is, it's that they demand change. If change isn't immediately forth coming then they revert to stealth subversion and the whole situation turns into a political fight for power. The losers are always those that demand immediate change and who then try to convince everyone at the ashrama and the congregation that they are right and that iskcon and the leadership is wrong. I'm not taking sides here, But what do you expect a religious organization do with people who are trying to take it over? They expel them. Nori doesn't get into the details because she is trying to create an impression of iskcon rather then tell the actual history.

Not that there wasn't some criminal behavior by some members and leaders of iskcon, but that wasn't institutionally sanctioned, those people were thrown out of iskcon and some went to prison. Nori makes it seems like criminal behavior was sanctioned and normal, which it wasn't and isn't.

I'm not saying iskcon isn't a cult, in fact they call themselves the "Cult of Lord Chaitanya". I'm not saying iskcon didn't and doesn't have problems that need to be resolved. But as is often the case in cult research, objectivity often loses out to emotional and religious bias. In order to remain objective it is necessary to hear and learn from all sides of the story and not just from disgruntled former members. They all have a point of view which may or may not be biased. For the outsider to be taken seriously he or she has to prove that they are not simply repeating the claims of disgruntled members without researching those claims in depth. Simply relying on "experts" who also rely only on disgruntled ex members of cults as authoritative, is not sufficient. This is why there is a big difference of opinon between professionals who study religions and psychologists who interview disgruntled ex members. The religious studies academics go into these cults and study them first hand. The psychologists do not.

maui:

Quote

mind and "mind control" or "brainwashing" is a very controversial topic amongst the academic and professinal community involved in these areas. See [en.wikipedia.org]

Wikipedia is supposedly an online encyclopedia, but its format allows anyone to contribute. And per its disclaimer information there has not "necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information." Wikipedia therefore makes "no guarantee of validity." Wikipedia began as a good idea, but at times this would-be high concept place can become a bit confusing. For example cult members and cult apologists may make any entry they want. There is a site concerning this called Wikipedia Watch.

See the following links:

[www.culteducation.com]
(Slate article about Wikipedia).

Also see [www.wikipedia-watch.org]

As in many Wikipedia entries whoever has the most energy or obsessive commitment to keep editing may triumph in editing the entry the way they want. In the "mind control" and "brainwashing" entries there is ample evidence of this.

Note and follow the discussions and a reader will quickly realize that cult members and apologists are at work.

Bottom line. Wikipedia is not always reliable and that is why it is not a definitive source for research.

Quote

I showed how Singers 6 conditions apply universally to mainstream religions.

On what basis?

You are neither a recognized expert or a mental health professional and your analysis is biased based upon your history with ISKCON. You offered nothing to support your opinion other than subjective experience and anecdotal stories.

Quote

There is no way that you can know if Singer had personal bias or not.

Margaret Singer received repeated recognition for the quality of her work and was once nominated for the Nobel Prize. I worked with Dr. Singer and often spoke with her. Margaret Singer never expressed any "bias." She did her job as a psychologist and reported the facts obtained through her research.

Quote

My point of view is from 30 years of experience studying iskcon and my thorough knowledge on how iskcon operates, and from what I have learned here on how Chris Butler's group operates.

Thank you for establishing your bias concerning ISKCON based upon a 30-year history of involvement.

Quote

Not that there wasn't some criminal behavior by some members and leaders of iskcon

Thank you for acknowledging that. In fact, there was a murder, brutal beatings, child sexual abuse, rape, and at least one leader went to prison for racketeering.

Of course ISKCON has attempted to distance themselves from all this, but Nori Muster points out the inherent problems with much of these apologies.

Quote

I'm not saying iskcon didn't and doesn't have problems that need to be resolved. But as is often the case in cult research, objectivity often loses out to emotional and religious bias.

For the record, ISKCON is one of the worst cults that came out of the 1970s. It was a mess and anyone doing objective historical research can easily discover this for themselves.

The "emotional and religious bias" here is yours, which was developed over a period of 30 years.

Quote

there is a big difference of opinon between professionals who study religions and psychologists who interview disgruntled ex members. The religious studies academics go into these cults and study them first hand. The psychologists do not.

Thank you again for running up the flag for a salute.

There is a scandal within academia about the "religious studies academics" like J. Gordon Melton who are paid by cults to study and write about them. They are not objective, but rather professional apologists.

For example Melton was once flown to Japan all expenses paid by the cult Aum that gassed Tokyo subways injuring more than 5,000 and killing 12. 2,500 were immediately hospitalized.

Melton's response was to defend the cult against "persecution."

See [www.culteducation.com]

The leaders responsible were convicted for murder. Asahara, the guru, is now awaiting execution for his crimes.

The "academics" you have chosen to believe because they confirm your opinion don't rely on meaningful research.

See [www.culteducation.com]

This article "When Scholars Know Sin" was written to discuss the academics paid by cults, who ignore former members and the objective evidence, but listen to their cult funding sources.

See [www.culteducation.com]

This is an archive about such academics and their history of cult apology.

Wikipedia has one page that is rather interesting, it's about "trolls" and what they attempt to do on message boards.

See [en.wikipedia.org]

[b:9db11c6a2b]Trolls[/color:9db11c6a2b][/b:9db11c6a2b][/size:9db11c6a2b]

[b:9db11c6a2b]Note: [/b:9db11c6a2b] Several Wiktionary system operators have been accused of "trolling" the Wiktionary looking for edits and user pages they do not like and then deleting the edits and user pages and indefinitely blocking the users access. Surprisingly enough the record more often than not backs these accusations up.

[b:9db11c6a2b]Etymology[/b:9db11c6a2b]

The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the late 1980s. It is widely thought to be a contraction of the phrase "trolling for suckers," itself derived from the sport fishing technique of trolling. The latter can be compared with trawling.

The word likely gained currency because of its apt second meaning, drawn from the "trolls", which are portrayed in Scandinavian folklore, and children's tales, as often ugly, obnoxious creatures that are bent on wickedness and mischief. The image of the troll under the bridge in the "Three Billy Goats Gruff" emphasizes the troll's negative reaction to outsiders intruding on its physical environment, particularly those who intend to graze in its domain without permission.

[b:9db11c6a2b]Vicious Circles[/b:9db11c6a2b]

For many people, the characterising feature of trolling is the perception of intent to disrupt a community in some way. Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation. The greater the reaction from the community the more likely the user is to troll again, as the person develops beliefs that certain actions achieve his/her goal to cause chaos. This gives rise to the often repeated protocol in Internet culture: "Do not feed the trolls."

Often, a person will post a sincere message about which he is emotionally sensitive. Skillful trolls know that an easy way to upset him is to falsely claim that he is a "troll." In forums where most users are similar to each other, outsiders may be perceived as trolls simply because they do not fit into the social norms of that group. It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between a user who merely has different values, views, or ideas, and a user who is intentionally trolling. This can lead to genuinely hostile behavior, including flame wars.

[b:9db11c6a2b]Troll culture[/b:9db11c6a2b]

The long history of trolling, and the strong support for anonymous and pseudonymous discourse on the Internet, suggests that the story of the "anonymous troll" is only beginning, and is expected to continue developing in subtlety and sophistication [citation needed]. Whether there can be a "culture" consisting of people who do not know each other, except through a common experience of being bounced from Internet forums, is questionable, but some do claim it is possible and already occurring.

There is strong evidence for this in the existence of forums that claim to exist specifically to support trolls and trolling, to exchange troll tips, and to identify targets that other trolls might fruitfully bait or debate.

Trolling culture is best observed in trolls, who do not know each other, working together. Because the common methods of creating inflammatory posts are well known, and a subject of jokes in many places on the Internet, it is sometimes possible for a troll to identify another troll in action. A troll, trolling another troll, often creates massive amounts of pretend drama between them that are taken seriously by non-troll observers (especially if they take sides). The end result is that the two trolls can work together to force a conversation to go off topic, or center a forum's discussion around themselves, more effectively than on their own.

[b:9db11c6a2b]Trolling as identity deception[/b:9db11c6a2b]

A common tactic that many trolls resort to is the strategy of using multiple usernames or pseudonyms that are ready to use just in case a debate or argument emerges. By using multiple usernames (called "sock puppets" in this context) and a variety of artificial personalities the troll would have the ability to protect his image in a community. A troll would then also be able to increase his or her influence in an entire online community by simply using those other self serving nicks to increase the attention towards his or her most favored account. However, many users with more than one computer such as hardware buffs (Colloquial), computer repair shops and thrift stores often give each computer a unique name and use that name as the e-mail or newsgroup account username to identify the computer being used versus the user. Contrary to the purpose of deception this practice is followed with the intent of creating a verification record for the computer that was repaired or tested rather than to promote malice, ill will or evil intent. Sometimes the email reply address or other changeable header line is used for this purpose rather than the username line.

[b:9db11c6a2b]Identity[/b:9db11c6a2b]

In serious literature, the practice was first documented by Judith Donath (1999), who used several anecdotal examples from various Usenet newsgroups in her discussion. Donath's paper outlines the ambiguity of identity in a disembodied "virtual community"

"In the physical world there is an inherent unity to the self, for the body provides a compelling and convenient definition of identity. The norm is: one body, one identity. ... The virtual world is different. It is composed of information rather than matter."

Donath provides a concise overview of identity deception games which trade on the confusion between physical and epistemic community:

"Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.

Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling — where the rate of deception is high — many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation." (Donath, 1999, p. 45)

There is a quote on IMDb which says that the common troll does not understand the words 'opinion' and 'leave', meaning that it feels it has superior opinions and will not quit until reaching its own trolling satisfaction.[citation needed] Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts to that forum — hence the often-seen warning "Please do not feed the troll", for which PDNFTT is a common initialism. Posting this warning publicly, in reply to a troll's behavior to discourage further replies, may discourage the troll. However, it can also have the reverse effect, becoming itself food for the troll. Therefore, when a forum participant sees an apparently innocent answer to a troll as potential troll food, it may be more prudent to deliver the "Please do not feed the troll" warning in a private message to the answerer (e.g., by email, or to the answerer's wiki Talk page).

Trolling in different Internet media

Trolling takes distinct forms in different media; it started on newsgroups, and as the Internet has evolved, so has trolling.

Usenet — hierarchies of newsgroups limit trolls' exposure, but cross-posting can overcome this. Some Internet service providers limit the number of newsgroups to which a message can be cross-posted. In a notable example, alt.net instituted a cross-post limit after the trolls on the system had become so notorious that a campaign was waged for other systems to cease exchanging news with alt.net until they did something about the problem.

Mailing lists are usually controlled by moderators, so unwanted contributors can quickly be banned.

SlashCode-based forums use a rating system so that readers can moderate a post up or down from its initial rating. Readers can then choose to ignore posts that others have "modded down." Timing of trolls is particularly important, since earlier posts are more likely to be read than later posts. An ideal troll would generate much heated discussion and posting without further intervention from the troll.

Wikis — the flat, asynchronous and open model allows anyone to post anything; users work to undo negative changes using the built-in reversion tools, but this requires hundreds of volunteers to monitor large popular sites. Trolls tend to be more subtle than in discussion groups, often posting material that could be legitimate, but will cause controversy by challenging the current power structure. Difficulty is compounded by the impossibility of discerning whether a user is simply espousing a controversial opinion, or trolling.

Weblogs — in their most common form as a personal soapbox with the ability for anybody to leave comments, popular weblogs often make effective springboards for trolls, either as inflammatory comments or provocative entries. The ease with which weblogs can be linked encourages troll propagation.

IRC — the open nature of most IRC channels on popular networks enables a troll to enter and utilise any of a range of techniques, ranging from simple crapflooding to subtly irritating remarks which trigger angry responses. The ease of evading bans from channels and servers and the volatile nature of many IRC users can allow trolls to perpetuate indefinitely.

Multiplayer first person shooters — online gaming attracts a large number of trolls, who take advantage of the combative atmosphere and their general anonymity to disparage other players. See pwn or noob for more information. Team killing and griefing -- breaking the social rules of the game to harass other players -- can also be considered similar.
Online Fantasy Sports — A troll will infiltrate a free, online league with multiple teams from different identity accounts and then attempt to make lopsided trades of players to improve one team. The troll will leave numerous messages on the league bulletin board from different identities to give the appearance of legitimacy to otherwise illicit behavior. Players that object to the obvious charade may be showered with insults and other attempts at evasion.

Web forums — Forums of all kinds attract trolls, whose behavior differs little from the above examples. Few forums are free of trolls, except for very small sites and those with very strict policies on trolling.

[b:9db11c6a2b]Defensive and recreational trolls[/b:9db11c6a2b]

In some Internet subcultures, notably Kibology, the words "troll" and "trolling" have taken on a different meaning. Instead of the aggressive invader and his (sic) loud, often abusive posts, the terms refer to someone more subtle, seeking to create a loud, indeed furious response, to a post that may be moderate and even reasonable in its tone, while pushing the victim's hot buttons. This treatment may be applied to invaders, especially cranks such as Archimedes Plutonium or George Hammond (Scientific Proof of God, not the TV character) and the loud, obnoxious, self-centered kind of invader called trolls elsewhere.

Trolling may also be done as a kind of practical joke among group members. Those who can see through such trolls quickly, and respond in kind, are held in high esteem, while those who fall for the trick may eventually be informed "YHBT"--You Have Been Trolled. The admiring response to a particularly subtle troll is "IHBT"--I Have Been Trolled.

Examples

One-shot trolls

One-shot troll messages are intended to be disruptive, and tend to be very obvious to ensure that they will receive annoyed replies.

[b:9db11c6a2b]Disruptive trolls[/b:9db11c6a2b]

Off topic messages: Those that are irrelevant to the focus of the forum. This can also be done in the middle of an existing thread to attempt to hijack the thread, or otherwise change the topic at hand. Off topic messages usually occur when a member has been completely disproved in a serious debate thus, causing that member to use his or her other multiple pseudonyms for the purposes of changing the subject matter. These disruptions may result in the degeneration of a well informed thread into a heated juvenile exchange consisting of insults and childish accusations between multiple parties. Such an incident may have been the case in Flyordie.com [4] when it decided to censor all freedoms of speech relating to 9/11 evidence disclosure topics [5]

Page breaking: Filling up fields with large pictures or characters to make previous posts unreadable. A skilled troll will use an extremely wide and narrow picture that blends into the forum background to make it harder to catch.

Offensive media: Annoying sound files or disturbing pictures in a message, or linking to shock sites that contain such media. Often these links are disguised as legitimate links.

Inflammatory messages, including racist, sexist, classist or otherwise needlessly hateful comments.

Opinionated statements: Posting messages expressing their own opinions as generally accepted facts without offering any proof or analysis.
Spoiling: Deliberately revealing the ending or an important part of movie, book, game etc.

Bumping an old discussion, or rehashing a highly controversial past topic, particularly in smaller online communities.

Deliberate and repeated misspelling of other people's nicks in order to disturb or irritate them in a conversation.

[b:9db11c6a2b]Attention-seeking trolls[/b:9db11c6a2b]

This class of trolls seeks to incite as many responses as possible and to absorb a disproportionate share of the collective attention span.

Advertising another forum, especially a rival or a hated forum.
Claiming to be someone they cannot possibly be: "As an actual, real-life samurai, I have some problems with (the film) The Seven Samurai."
No longer having affiliation to or current knowledge of the subject at hand, yet continually posting opinions and commentary as "experts".
Messages containing a deliberate flaw or error: "I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is Roman Polanski's best film."

Asking for help with an implausible task or problem: "How do I season my Crock Pot? I don't want everything I cook in it to taste the same."
Intentionally naive questions: "Can I cook pasta in Evian instead of water?"

Intentional typos: "Does anyone have a copy of Super Maria Bras. for the Nintendo?"

Messages containing a self-referential appeal to status. "Pepsi is for white trash. I prefer a real soft drink like Coke."

Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted, and may continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll.

A subclass of the above is the flawed proof of an important unsolved mathematical problem or impossibility (e.g. 1 = 2); however, these may not always be troll-posts, and are sometimes at least mathematically interesting.

Politically contentious messages: "Everyone knows that all Republicans/Democrats are evil."

Posting politically sensitive images in inappropriate places.
Feigning innocence, after a flamewar ensues.

Off-topic complaints about personal life, even threats of suicide: sometimes, this is the "cry for help" troll. In other instances, this type of trolling may be for amusement. If the motive is amusement, the troll may post ridiculous comments seemingly out of the blue. "I want to marry a hyena."

Plural or paranoid answers to personal opinions expressed by individuals: "I don't think that all of you really believe that -— you're just ganging up on me!"

Paramour trolls get a thrill from establishing serial online affairs with females of a group. This incites public rivalry among the women who once thought the nicknames, poetry, and declarations of affection were exclusive to them. Since the online love affair is developed separately in chat programs, it takes a long time for the online cat-fight to be detected.
Combinations of the above. For example, a troll combines inflammatory statements with poor grammar and Internet slang (aka 'netspeak' or 'chatspeak'): "lmfao! d00d, ur so week minded an predictable i thought i wan iggied i play ya like a card... pwned j00 n00b f00! l4m3r! w00t!""

[b:9db11c6a2b]Other examples[/b:9db11c6a2b]

Some trolls may denounce a particular religion in a religion newsgroup, though historically, this would have been called "flamebait". Like those who engage in flaming, self-proclaimed or alleged Internet trolls sometimes resort to innuendo or misdirection in the pursuit of their objective. It is possible to distinguish between comments that are flamebait and as a result of trolling: flames have the intent of being anti-social and offensive, while trolling comments are intended to provoke a reaction, though trolling comments may also be perceived as being anti-social, although that may not have been the intent of the author.

A variant of the second variety (inflammatory messages) involves posting content obviously at odds with the (stated or unstated) focus of the group or forum; for example, posting cat-meat recipes on a pet lovers forum, posting evolutionary theory on a creationist forum (or vice versa), or posting messages about how all dragons are boring in the USENET group alt.fan.dragons. Other examples include fans of TV shows, movies, music artists or videogames going onto forums of rival shows/movies/artists/games and flaming them; for example, Halo vs. other first-person shooters in videogame forums, and flame wars between The Simpsons, South Park, and/or Family Guy forums, three popular and similar-themed adult cartoons that occasionally take pot shots at each other in real life.

The "sock-puppet" troll enters a forum using several different identities. As provocative postings from one identity draw increasingly critical comment from other forum members, the troll enters the discussion under a second identity in support of the first. Alternatively, the troll may under the second identity criticise the first in order to develop credibility or esteem on the forum. (However, use of alternate IDs to identify a particular computer or the changing of a user ID after system crashes and other legitimate reasons for using more than one ID by the same person may not be intended as a deception.)

Cross-posting is a popular method of Usenet trolls: a cross-posted article can be discussed simultaneously in several unrelated and/or opposing newsgroups; this is likely to result in a flame war. For instance, an anti-fast food flame bait might be cross-posted to healthy eating groups, environmentalist groups, animal rights groups, as well as a totally off-topic artificial intelligence newsgroup.

[b:9db11c6a2b]Motivation[/b:9db11c6a2b]

Self-proclaimed "trolls" may style themselves as devil's advocates, gadflies or culture jammers, challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of forum discussions in an attempt to break the status quo of groupthink — the belief system that prevails in their absence.

Some critics claim that genuine "devil's advocates" generally identify themselves as such, out of respect for etiquette and courtesy, while trolls may dismiss etiquette and courtesy altogether. Most discussion of what motivates Internet trolls comes from other Internet users who claim to have observed trolling behavior. There is little scholarly literature to describe either the term or the phenomenon. The comments of accused trolls might be unreliable, since they may, in fact, be intending to stir controversy, rather than to advance understanding of the phenomenon. Likewise, accusers are often motivated by a desire to defend a particular Internet project, and references to an Internet user as a troll might not be based on the actual goals of the person so named. As a result, identifying the goals of Internet trolls is most often speculative. Still, several basic goals have been attributed to Internet trolls, according to the type of disruption they are believed to be provoking.

Further complicating the issue, many accusatory labelers fail to first question whether the alleged "troll" material actually is disruptive (a requisite component of trolling behavior) before being declared as such. Thus, many "trolls" are born of a second party's hasty inference of supposed intent, accurate or not.

Proposed motivations for trolling:

Trolling can be described as a breaching experiment, originally conceived of by sociologist Harold Garfinkel, which, because of the use of an alternate persona, allows for normal social boundaries and rules of etiquette to be tested or otherwise broken, without serious consequences. This may be part of an attempt to test the limits of some discourse, or to identify reactive personalities. By removing identities and histories from the situation, leaving only the discourse, some scientists believe that it is possible to run social engineering experiments using troll methods.

However, few believe that troll organizations are engaged in science, and a few scattered individuals, with no particular method or thesis, cannot be described as scientists. They might however be engaged in research.
Anonymous attention-seeking: The troll seeks to dominate the thread by inciting anger, and effectively hijacking the topic at hand.

Amusement: To some people, the thought of a person getting angry over statements from total strangers is entertaining. This could be categorized as a form of schadenfreude - trolls with amusement motives deriving pleasure from the actual frustration/anger/pain (or what they may perceive in their own minds as such) from their targets. This type of trolling is common on Internet forums.

Anger: Some people use trolling to express their hostility to a group or point of view.

Cry for help: Many so-called trolls, in their postings, indicate disturbing situations regarding family, relationships, substances, and school — although it is generally impossible to know whether this is just simply part of the troll. Some believe that trolling is an aggressive, confrontational way by which trolls seek a sort of tough love guidance in an anonymous forum.

Self-proclaimed trolls, and their defenders, suggest that trolling is a clever way of improving discussion, or an alternative method of viewing power-relations.

Setting oneself a challenge, simply to see if one can do it, and be successful: One member of an online forum, for example, joins under an unrecognizable identifying name to see if the other members of the forum can be fooled and, if so, for how long.

Wasting others' time: One of the greatest themes in trolling is the idea that a troll can spend one minute of time posting a troll, causing multiple other people to waste several minutes of their time, catalytically affecting others. Most trolls enjoy the idea that they can waste others' time at comparatively little effort on their behalf.

Domino effect: Related to amusement, but in a more specific fashion, it starts large chain reactions in response to one's initial post. Achieving a disproportionately large response to a small action is the general theme. This is similar to how a young child that goes "missing" (but is actually hiding) may act with glee, seeing a large number of people conducting a massive search in response to the supposed disappearance.

Suppression of information: A particularly nihilistic troll often aims to curb the sharing of helpful information between forum participants. For example, the skilled troll can turn an informative discussion about tips and techniques on coping with disease X... into a completely useless flame fest. This can keep essential information out of the hands of those who need it most, thus proliferating human suffering. A slightly less hostile variant is the supression of a discussion the troll does not like or finds offensive. A troll trolling a thread of sexist jokes would fit into this category.

Affect change in user opinions: A troll may state extreme positions to make his or her actual beliefs seem moderate (this often involves sock puppeteering or duals, where the bad cop is a sock-puppet troll) or, alternatively, play the role of the devil's advocate to strengthen the opposing convictions (with which he or she actually agrees).
Test the integrity of a system against social attacks or other forms of misbehavior: For example, blatantly violating terms-of-use in order to see whether any action is taken by the site administrators.

Overcome feelings of inferiority or powerlessness by getting the experience of controlling an environment. This type of trolling is sometimes used by forum moderators and list owners to stamp out other trolls or demonstrate control. Trolling of this kind can backfire when perpetrated by someone with authority over the use of a forum. If a moderator or list owner demonstrates that they are easily irritated or angered on their forum, especially in response to a troll, trolls may see the forum as an easy target.
Self-promotion.

Fight "groupthink": Many trolls defend their actions as shocking people out of entrenched conformism.

Satisfaction gained from personal attacks.

Harassment: following a person — who has been targeted for harassment in one forum, but who has chosen to escape being victimized by moving on — and trolling the forum as a means of making that new "home" an uncomfortable place for that person to be online.

Lowering signal to noise ratio: On Slashdot, moderation points, that could be used to moderate up alternative posts, are wasted on moderating down things like ASCII pictures of the goatse man. At certain thresholds, this lowers the quality of comments.

Anonymously testing an alternate persona.

Emptying a forum: this is usually only feasible if the forum is small.

However, trolls can change the amount of use even large forums receive. Trolling to empty a forum often involves baiting forum users, moderators and even owners into becoming so angry that they post responses that make themselves appear as or even more annoying than the troll(s). The troll may post seemly innocent comments to illicit rude responses from prominent members of a forum, thus making the responding member or members appear as trolls and flamers to bystanders. As a result, forum users in general may become disgusted and leave the forum. In some instances, long-time web patrons may tire of trolls and leave if the trolling significantly disrupts the forum. The trolling may also discourage potential users from joining the forum.

Attempting to discredit a group by posing as a member of that group, and posting inflammatory messages to give the appearance that the group espouses such opinions. This type of troll usually gives him or herself away fairly quickly.

It is difficult to gauge the motivations of trolls, since most of the justifications offered by alleged trolls for their behavior are nothing more than ruses concocted to continue whatever mischief they imagine themselves to have started. This is unfortunate because, as the above list supposes, there are legitimate reasons for engaging in the sort of actions for which trolling is known. Still, etiquette is simple and straightforward enough that most people can advance the aims professed by self-exculpatory trolls, without actually resorting to these methods. Since there is a wide spectrum of possible motivations for trolls, some of these functions being benevolent and others, clearly malevolent, to typecast users as trolls in the negative sense is often rash.

Some users of Internet forums are considered to be "trollhunters", or "trollbaiters". They willingly enter into conflicts when trolls emerge. Often, trollhunters are as disruptive as trolls. A single troll-post may be ignored, but if ten trollhunters "pounce", following a troll, they will drive the thread off-topic.

[b:9db11c6a2b]Resolutions and alternatives[/b:9db11c6a2b]

In general, conventional wisdom advises users to avoid feeding trolls, and to ignore temptations to respond. Responding to a troll inevitably drives discussion off-topic, to the dismay of bystanders, and supplies the troll with the craved attention. When trollhunters pounce on the trolls, ignorers reply with: "YHBT. YHL. HAND.," or "You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day." However, since trollbaiters (like trolls) are often conflict-seekers themselves, the loss usually is not on the part of the trollhunter; rather, the losers are the other forum-users who would have preferred that the conflict does not emerge at all.

Literature on conflict resolution suggests that labeling participants in Internet discussions as "trolls" can perpetuate the unwanted behaviors. A person rejected by a social group, both online and offline, may assume an antagonistic role toward it, and seek to further annoy or anger members of the group. The "troll" label, often a sign of social rejection, may therefore perpetuate trolling.

Better results normally ensue when users take the moderator role and describe more constructive behaviors in a non-judgmental, non-confrontational way. Trolls are excited by trollhunters, and frustrated by "ignorers," and neither of these emotions produce positive results for the forum. Engaging trolls results in "flame wars." Trolls frustrated by the "ignore strategy" may leave the forum (and either troll elsewhere, or become constructive users) or may become progressively more inflammatory until they get a response.

Novice trolls may experience serious "troll's remorse," a feeling of great regret after losing their account (whether it be from an Internet service provider or from a website) as a consequence of their reckless trolling.

There are those who argue that a lack of response to trolling can also inspire trolling, a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" result. Particularly fanatical or irrational commentators will respond to a forum that irks them largely independent of responses. Trolls also often continue to post, taking umbrage with peripheral arguments or arguments that were less well-founded, until their positions become untenable, then turning either to insults or moving to another topic. By this logic, relentless confrontation through argument of trolls (when such argument is to be found) can be vital.


[b:9db11c6a2b]Usefulness of trolling[/b:9db11c6a2b]

A major debate on the Internet is whether or not trolls perform any useful function. Because troll is such a broadly-applied term, if all definitions thereof are to be accepted, the answer must definitively be "yes and no".

Users performing many useful, but controversial, functions are often decried as trolls, and in these cases, so-called trolling may actually benefit the forum in which it occurs. For example, the presence of a radical right-winger, described as a troll, may allow a conservative lurker to feel more comfortable expressing his or her viewpoints, which seem very moderate in contrast. On the other hand, if trollhunters mount a flame war against this right-wing troll, the conservative bystander may feel less comfortable in expressing her views, to the detriment of the forum. As much as trolls claim to fight groupthink, they may actually encourage it by solidifying opinion against them.

Trolls can also, in some circumstances, be a source of genuine humour, which depends entirely upon whether the troll is a good or a bad troll. It is usually fairly easy to spot the difference between such actions: a bad troll resorts only to weak uncreative arguments, whereas a good troll will create a subtle set of arguments which draw people in, with cunning twists to provide a thread of non sequitur humour.

Trolls may also provide a valuable service by making people question the validity of what is read both on the Internet, and from other sources. Trolls show that expressing any opinion is as easy as expressing an informed and considered opinion, and may get as much visibility. It has also been argued that shock jocks, and newspaper columnists, often track public opinions by trolling. John C. Dvorak, and Slashdot, have often been cited as examples.

Even though useful content and productive users are sometimes decried as trolls, the consensus is that pure "trolling" benefits only the troll and trollhunters, and has no place in any forum. Most forums reject the claim that pure and intentional trolling serves any useful purpose. Some trolls have been known to try to troll threads into deletion, serving as a form of negative reinforcement to "newbies", but also helping at the same time to reduce the clutter of spam threads on a large message board. In many cases, trolling can lead a forum administrator or moderator into implementing features to the site to prevent trolling. Although this could be regarded as improving the website itself, it remains that the features would not have been needed, had the trolls not been there.

[b:9db11c6a2b]Behavioral issues[/b:9db11c6a2b]

Precise definitions of "troll" have been difficult because such definitions rely on assumptions about internal motivation, which have been difficult to conclusively prove. Some behaviors, such as "name-calling" are not candidates for a "troll" classification unless their intent is to provoke a reaction, as "name-calling" could be considered more anti-social, perhaps falling under the classification of "flamer" instead.

Some have suggested that instead of calling somebody a "troll", they should focus on specific behaviors that a group finds uncomfortable, and enforce behavioral rules to consistently and fairly prevent such behaviors. The idea is to focus on the undesirable behavior itself, rather than on the motivation for the behavior. If such behaviors cannot be identified, then perhaps the alleged troll should be tolerated out of fairness. Some call this, the "If you cannot identify it, then tolerate it" plan.

A general consensus could be that a post intended to be upsetting or offensive is a flame while a post attempting to incite these is trolling.

:wink: Thanks, Regina, for posting the link to Mindy's Journal. At last we hear about what is happening on the Big Island! A very well written and description of life on the Noni Farm!... Thanks!

Quote

I disagree. My point of view is from 30 years of experience studying iskcon and my thorough knowledge on how iskcon operates, and from what I have learned here on how Chris Butler's group operates. I am not biased for or against iskcon, what I wrote is how it runs today.

My association with ISKCOn began in 68 and my study of it continues to this day. Our "facts" do not match up. I would agree with you that Srila Prabhupada and Chris Butler's names should not be spoken in the same breath, if that was what you were asserting, but it isn't Srila Prabhupada that you seem interested in defending.

Interesting that you would claim "thorough knowledge of how ISKCON operates" without being an insider and a priveledged one at that.

Anyway, from the position that I consider to be more thorough in knowledge than your own, and much, much more priveledged, I disagree with your presentation of ISKCON. It is my consideration that ISKCON is a Cult still today in the sense of the term that gives it the most unfavored connotation. It is still a Betrayal of the Spirit, of my masters spirit and of his children.

Quote

I disagree. My point of view is from 30 years of experience studying iskcon and my thorough knowledge on how iskcon operates, and from what I have learned here on how Chris Butler's group operates. I am not biased for or against iskcon, what I wrote is how it runs today.

My association with ISKCOn began in 68 and my study of it continues to this day. Our "facts" do not match up. I would agree with you that Srila Prabhupada and Chris Butler's names should not be spoken in the same breath, if that was what you were asserting, but it isn't Srila Prabhupada that you seem interested in defending.

Interesting that you would claim "thorough knowledge of how ISKCON operates" without being an insider and a priveledged one at that.

Anyway, from the position that I consider to be more thorough in knowledge than your own, and much, much more priveledged, I disagree with your presentation of ISKCON. It is my consideration that ISKCON is a Cult still today in the sense of the term that gives it the most unfavored connotation. It is still a Betrayal of the Spirit, of my masters spirit and of his children.[/quote]