The "Dr." name does seem like it could be Hogan, since there was a lot of recent discussion of his "degrees".

Or, "Dr. Logic" could be connected to Byron Katie, since they used buzzwords like "suffering" and "inquiry", as well as the terms "spiritual teacher" and "Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy".... all of which are quite connected to the Byron Katie threads, which have just heated up again.

At any rate, I think we can agree there's been another troll in the 'hood.

(Stoic - LOL)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2010 09:28PM by helpme2times.

Members of the forum:

Have you ever noticed how you feel compelled to gang up on anyone who questions or challenges the pet ideologies of the group? You might want to ask yourself why that is. Individuals who are secure in their own rightness don't behave that way.

Have I said anything sarcastic or rude to any of you? Then please grant me the same courtesy. Instead of interjecting flippant comments about ginger peach tea or trying to belittle me with labels like "troll," why don't you let me have an undisrupted conversation with The Anticult? I'm sure he's quite capable of handling himself.

yasmin:

Thank you for being the only person to actually engage with one of my questions in a straightforward, non-sneering manner. I may respond at some point if I'm not prematurely silenced by the ban hammer.

rrmoderator:

Can you please point me to an instance on this forum where someone has been able to express a substantive disagreement regarding a core ideology of this group without being labeled a "troll," a "cult apologist," or some other derogatory term?

As I recall, even Stoic was subjected to this kind of bullying in his earlier, outspoken days on the forum. I notice he doesn't stray too far from group dogma anymore. Why is that?

It's fascinating how you labeled me a troll before I even had a chance to express an opinion. All I did was ask some questions. What you appear to be doing, perhaps unconsciously, is using a propaganda technique known as name-calling.

The purpose of name-calling is to arouse fear and aversion in readers so that they will prejudicially dismiss what the speaker is saying before he's even had a chance to say it. It may also deflect attention from the fact that the speaker's questions have been artfully avoided.

Another benefit of name-calling is that it's a convenient way to dispose of anyone who disagrees with you, because it tends to provoke them into losing their temper, at which point you can ban them from the forum for making personal attacks.

Never mind the fact that they were called a troll or a cult apologist or worse, which is itself a personal attack, even when cleverly disguised as impartial "forum moderation."

By the way, when a forum's definition of a "troll" seems to be "anyone who questions or disagrees with the dogma of the group," that's a pretty clear warning sign that the group may have some cultish tendencies.

The Anticult:

I want to point out, if I may, that you didn't answer my questions. You evaded them.

The reason I asked about your thoughts on spirituality is because I sometimes wonder if your religious beliefs might be influencing your analyses of various groups.

It might be helpful for readers if you were more transparent about your own spiritual and/or religious biases. As you yourself have said in the past, it's best to be up front about a potential conflict of interest rather than feign impartiality.

As I'm sure you know, the anticult field consists largely of believers from mainstream religions who sometimes use fear-laden words like "cult" (another example of name-calling) to disparage those who believe differently than they do. Christian and Jewish believers are particularly prone to feeling threatened by new religious movements and New Age ideas.

Clearly, you disagree with certain philosophical or spiritual worldviews, but instead of confronting them directly, you target the teachers who espouse them. Perhaps that's because it's far easier to tear apart a person than it is to successfully argue against an idea. And perhaps that's why you're avoiding my questions and trying to lead me into a discussion about specific teachers.

As a side note, I notice something interesting about the way you interact with those who question or challenge you. Instead of speaking to them directly, you refer to them in the third person. For instance, you'll say, "Dr. Logic is incorrect" rather than saying straight to my face, "You are incorrect."

Is this the online equivalent of being unable to look me in the eyes? Or is it some kind of rhetorical device intended to put me in my place, as if I'm not worthy of being addressed by you in a personal manner? I'm just curious because it's a peculiar habit that I've noticed on several occasions.

One last thought. If I said I wasn't a member of any group or a follower of any teacher, would you believe me? You seem to find it unfathomable that someone can have a philosophical difference with you and not be a brainwashed cult member.

Dr. Logic:

You came here for an argument not dialog.

By definition you are a "troll."

As your posts prove.

It's not "name calling," but rather a factual observation.

Tee-hee. These frauds can't give up their fake "Dr." honorifics even when they're choosing a nickname for an anonymous forum. Losers.

My vote is one of our new "secret hypnosis" friends. We've been whaling on Katie and her ilk for years; why would they suddenly try this lame tactic? Besides, Katie's trolls are (usually) less directly questioning, more placating and more cerebral. (Hi, Stephen Mitchell!)

I am, once again, amazed that someone has decided to take on The Anticult, of all people. It's like the LA Lakers playing a team from the Sunbeam Retirement Village. I know where the smart money would be on that one.

Also, as an aside, who the hell cares about TAC's religious beliefs? Rick, can we nominate people for stupidest statement ever made on this message board? 'Cause I've got a nominee someone in mind.

Okay, enough posting in a troll thread. Especially when the troll's not even trying. Fail on, "Dr." Logic.

rrmoderator:

I give you credit for approving my post. I wasn't sure you would.

You are correct about me being here for an argument. The word argument means:

*a discussion involving differing points of view; debate
*a process of reasoning
*a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point
*an address or composition intended to convince or persuade

A troll, by definition, is not interested in making an argument. A troll is primarily interested in causing a disruption or making inflammatory remarks, neither of which is my intention. In fact, I specifically started this thread so as not to disrupt an existing one, and I've been careful to avoid incendiary language. For example, I have not referred to anyone here as being "lame" or a "loser." Nor have I nominated them for a "stupidest statement" award. That would be a good example of trollish behavior.

Christa:

<i>Also, as an aside, who the hell cares about TAC's religious beliefs?</i>

If one of the Internet's most vocal anticult experts is on a religious crusade against competing ideologies, then that's a relevant detail, don't you think? I've seen members of this forum get upset over much, much smaller issues of transparency (e.g. when a website doesn't explicitly state its Amazon affiliation).

I don't think it's "lame" or "stupid" to ask members of this forum to hold themselves to the same stringent standards they demand from the rest of the world.

Troll

I do not care what Anticult personally believes. I am more interested in what Anticult has to say about his/her former group. I try to glean useful information from this forum, for myself and for others who need help. I am not a professional, just someone who was in a cult for sixteen years.

Mary Struggler

There is no "pet idelogy" in forums like this, its just people posting their experiences and factual analyses. There are all kinds of diverse opinions all over the place.

The "Anti Cult cult" is another fraud idea put forward by cult apologists, who are trying to distract people from looking at the actual facts and evidence. [forum.culteducation.com]
But the subject is about cults, sects, LGAT Gurus, and the analyses of them. Most people understand that, so they don't try and shove their own philosophical or religious beliefs down other peoples throats. What a concept.

The answer to the question about personal beliefs...its none of your business, and its not relevant, as its not about religious beliefs, or even weird beliefs.
Its another attempt to distract with a straw-man, by trying to shift focus away from the facts being revealed about the Gurus and their systems.


These threads have been crawling with members of certain groups/cults who would love to disrupt all sane discussion with internet trolling. Troll (Internet) [en.wikipedia.org])
They have been caught in endless bald faced lies, and trying to reframe how their sect is perceived, and cover up the facts.


I did NOT ignore the baited question from Dr. Logic about cognition/emotion. I answered it.
But to compare the deceptions and lies of cult/sect/LGAT leaders, to "traffic road rage" is a totally misleading and deceptive analogy, which was being done on purpose. This is not a Byron Katie LGAT seminar where a vulnerable person answers trick questions meant to mislead them.

Many sects/cults use that exact technique, to ask vague leading questions, to try and preframe where they are trying to lead the person.
If Dr. Logic has something to say, why not just say it? Why the attempts at mind-games?

If you want to worry about ignored questions, ask Dave Lakhani [forum.culteducation.com] who certified him as an NLP Master Practitioner. Then you will hear crickets and the sound of silence, as it never happened.

The reason for using the name Dr. Logic is its generally a good idea to use the name of someone being addressed when posting online so people know what the subject is! More distraction, why not get to the point?


Gurus are NOT targeted based on spiritual beliefs, that is bullshit, and is actually the opposite to the truth. They are targeted due to their outrageous hypocrisy and deception.
The targeting is based on the deception, lies, criminal behavior, money-laundering, bankrupticies, deaths...coming from the alleged spiritual guru, who is using a bait and switch to dupe people. Their so-called spiritual salespitch is mainly a fig-leaf they are hiding behind, as have been PROVEN time and again.

They pre-frame a prospect to step into their GREASED CHUTE...they lead the prospect by the hand into their sales-system... which can't look like a sales system [forum.culteducation.com]


Dr. Logic, if you have something to say, then say it.
Leading questions, or vague generalities are useless.
If there is a specific New Age Guru who you believed has been wrongly critiqued, then say who it is. Who is it? Byron Katie?
Dr. David Baxter is promoting Byron Katie on his website, and shows an interest in CBT. [forum.culteducation.com] Either David Baxter is dangerously naive about the real world outside his office doors where mega-saleswomen like Byron Katie run amok and make millions, or perhaps he secretly supports Byron Katie, but doesn't want to come out and say it.
That is then being naive, or dishonest, not very good options.


But vague generalities are useless. That is why these threads focus on specific Gurus and sects, and FACTS, evidence, proof, research.
There is literally 1000x more proof in these threads about Byron Katie, than in all of her marketing materials put together. Name 1 actual provable fact put forward by Byron Katie, there is nothing by her design, its just Stories...hypno-Stories.

The idea that this is about differing philosophies is a lie, its a fraud, its deception. Its actually NOT about that, very clearly. Its about the deception being used, and the wolf hiding behind the sheepish sounding philosophy in the advertising material.
Most of the self-promoting New Wage entrepreneurs rise to the top of the comercial heap, due to their intense greed, ambition and aggressive persuasion tactics. That is called factual reality.
The only way to figure it out, is to analyze specific Gurus and their systems.

So they try to defend against that analysis by going into vague randomness, which is called misdirection.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2010 07:57PM by The Anticult.

also, of course...

Warren Whitlock, Ben Mack callmedr.com [forum.culteducation.com]

'As I recall, even Stoic was subjected to this kind of bullying in his earlier, outspoken days on the forum. I notice he doesn't stray too far from group dogma anymore. Why is that?'

I think your interpretation is slightly off. I didn't experience bullying, (unfortunately I have ineradicable memories of bullying so know it when I experience it again) I experienced some grilling from people suspicious of a sudden new voice. I had read the thread with its periodic troll attacks and did not expect an open-armed welcome.....why?.....having also experienced being so severely manipulated I have the same suspicions and can empathise with the wariness it becomes necessary to practice.

I am also not interested in Anticults personal spiritual/religious beliefs if any, he provides a lot of sensible information that is relevant to living in this commercial world. It requires no particular dogma to see this relevance. I previously mentioned my experience in zen training to disclose formative influences on my current worldview. I feel no need to defend any beliefs I might hold to anybody, I have no interest in proselytising to anyone.

My interest on this forum is in raising awareness of the murkier motives and machinations of those who proclaim themselves 'experts,' 'spiritual leaders,' 'god's annointed mouthpiece,' or whatever the latest powermongering title is.

If you want to call that 'group dogma,' include me in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2010 09:30PM by Stoic.

The more "Dr. Logic" posts, the more I'm reminded of a certain individual who joined this forum back in '08 and ended up being banned.

Interesting that this "Dr. Logic" is concerned about a "ban hammer".

Below are some post excerpts by "Dr. Logic" and by former member "RandomStu". Of course I could be mistaken, but it does seem uncanny that these two seeming individuals speak very similarly about certain ideas -- e.g., "victims", alleged cultishness of an anti-cult group, dogma, name-calling.

Note: bold emphasis is mine.

Quoting Dr. Logic:

As I recall, even Stoic was subjected to this kind of bullying in his earlier, outspoken days on the forum. I notice he doesn't stray too far from group dogma anymore. Why is that?

It's fascinating how you labeled me a troll before I even had a chance to express an opinion. All I did was ask some questions. What you appear to be doing, perhaps unconsciously, is using a propaganda technique known as name-calling.


Quoting Dr. Logic:

By the way, when a forum's definition of a "troll" seems to be "anyone who questions or disagrees with the dogma of the group," that's a pretty clear warning sign that the group may have some cultish tendencies.


Quoting Dr. Logic:

As I'm sure you know, the anticult field consists largely of believers from mainstream religions who sometimes use fear-laden words like "cult" (another example of name-calling) to disparage those who believe differently than they do. Christian and Jewish believers are particularly prone to feeling threatened by new religious movements and New Age ideas.

Quoting Dr. Logic:

What I wanted to know is whether The Anticult agrees with the NACBT on this point, or whether he feels that they're promoting a philosophy that blames the victim.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Quoting RandomStu:

You're using typical cultish techniques here, rrmoderator... by personally attacking those who don't share your dogma, rather than encouraging intelligent discussion and examination. "Perhaps you should read and learn more before commenting." What could be a more obvious attempt to shut out any ideas that might challenge your cherished beliefs?

And good job with the name-calling... clearly, anyone who doesn't accept your pronouncements must be "ignorant." If you keep that up, attacking and insulting anyone with alternate views, then maybe you'll be able to limit this discussion to sheep-like followers.

[[url=http://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?4,9147,58318#msg-58318]forum.culteducation.com[/url]]


Quoting RandomStu:

ONE method of responding to regrets about following Katie (or similar groups/teachers) is to consider oneself a helpless victim, with no responsibility for the experience. I believe that this viewpoint is well-represented in this discussion.

An alternate method is to examine one own thinking and decisions... the very things that led to the original problem, and the very things that are capable of helping one avoid bad decisions in the future. Responsibility for ones own decisions is often COMPLETELY absent from these discussions, and introducing this alternate method is the MOST meaningful response to the suffering that forum members are experiencing.

[[url=http://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?12,12906,58303#msg-58303]forum.culteducation.com[/url]]


~ ~ ~ ~ ~


The various people connected with the Dave Lakhani thread have asserted that they are pro cult tactics and "propaganda" (as long as your "intent" is "good"!) , whereas "Dr. Logic" seems quite against them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2010 10:49PM by helpme2times.