|
martinh@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt)
wrote: [snip] >I have a request for Diane with her rather
sordid collection of shady cult "experts". Could we see any relevant material
from: [snip] Sure, Martin. I'm working right now on a critique of Lifton's
"Thought Reform." I just finished reading the book last night.
What
did you think of it -- if you've read it? >(and so on) >? I'm wondering where you comments on the excerpts I've already posted
are, Martin. I thought you'd agreed to comment on them, but I haven't
seen any lately. Perhaps zippo isn't picking up all your posts again?
>Or will all her "experts" be of a
feather?
>
>Also, to address her rather ignorant expression of opinion that Singer is "just a clinician", I'd point out she is also a
researcher and a professor. Oh, and she has published in many places besides the one cult journal Diane cited. Maybe Diane should research the people she intends to attack a bit better...and looking into the nature of her sources wouldn't hurt, either. Actually, I did a search on Margaret Singer's publications, dug them
up and read them well over a year ago, Martin. Yep, I've read them
all. Have you? >They seem to all come from Scientology's webpages. Are there no other sources of information, Diane? You may think that's where I got my sources, but if so, you are once
again terribly mistaken. Actually, Ron Newman and I shared copies of Bainbridge's papers on the
CoS long ago. It was because of his interest in Bainbridge's work
that I first started reading his stuff. To tell you the truth,
Martin, I've never even looked at Scientology's webpages. Oh, that's
wrong. . . once I looked at them over Rob Clark's shoulder when he was
checking them out at a cybercafe. That was over a year ago, though,
and I've never bothered looking at them again.
My sources of information right now are all taken from the shelves of
Bobst Library, New York University's main library. I could probably
post excerpts from 200 paper debunking the "mind control" theory
for
every one paper supporting it. Even that ratio is wrong . . . perhaps
it's more like 2000 debunks for every supporting paper. I'm not purposely slanting this information, Martin, although I can
understand why you'd dearly love to believe I am. I'm taking a
representative sample of the literature and posting appropriate
excerpts. If you don't believe that, go to a major academic library
and check the shelves for yourself. Diane Richardson
referen@bway.net |
