Hepatitis disease - Coercive Persuasion (was: Ping Lynne)

Author

Coercive Persuasion (was: Ping Lynne)

^reaper^

2005-04-27, 10:53 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

While sipping absinthe, Necco heard a loud sucking noise coming from
sci.psychology.psychotherapy, and hastily inscribed the following
unintelligible Sanskrit in <news:biRbe.312$yz5.253@news02.roc.ny>:

> "Linda" <adinllinda@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1114588770.694684.210510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>
> Ah, Linda, as usual your failure to actually read what you
> circulate makes you look like an idiot. You merely quoted from a
> brad-quality web page by a kook.

Steven Hassan is a k00k? o_O

> The case you cited above did not have the California Supreme Court
> "finding" anything of the sort. In fact, being a US Court case,
> it only referred to a California proceeding in which there had
> been an argument by one of the parties that 'CP' might do damage
> like that. But the claim was laughed out of court.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The original quote cited above was a written
opinion by California Superior Court Justices Pollack & Brown
(excerpts below sig). Furthermore, the incorrectly cited US v Lee
case was a Pennsylvania case occurring well before Molko v UC,
involved questions of the 1st Amendment, and had not a thing to do
with, nor did it even raise, the question of coercive persuasion,
though US v Lee was cited in Molko v UC in relation to conduct that
is not protected under the 1st amendment. And finally, the question
of coercive persuasion, as cited in this case, was not laughed out of
court, and in fact the summary judgment for fraud was reversed and
remanded based upon this very thing.

That aside, coercive persuasion is considered to be an integral
element of some social situations that may (or not) be detrimental in
nature. I would further argue any reader who has blurred the lines
between juicenet (or any other online fora, for that matter) and
reality inasmuch as the individual incorporates those interactions
into their internal schema and who feel others hold power over their
lives may very well believe they are victims of coercive persuasion.
I could name a few who fall into this category, but I won't.

^reaper^

++
Molko v Unification Church
46 Cal. 3d 1092; 762 P.2d 46; 252 Cal. Rptr. 122 (Ca Sup, 1988)

[excerpt]
(5) Brainwashing is "a forcible indoctrination to induce someone
to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and
attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas." (Webster's
Ninth New Collegiate Dict. (1987) p. 175.) The specific methods
of indoctrination vary, but the basic theory is that brainwashing
"is fostered through the creation of a controlled environment
that heightens the susceptibility of a subject to suggestion and
manipulation through sensory deprivation, physiological
depletion, cognitive dissonance, peer pressure, and a clear
assertion of authority and dominion. The aftermath of
indoctrination is a severe impairment of autonomy and [of] the
ability to think independently, which induces a subject's
unyielding compliance and the rupture of past connections,
affiliations, and associations." (Peterson v. Sorlien (Minn.
1981) 299 N.W.2d 123, 126 [11 A.L.R.4th 208].)

[...]

The trial court and Court of Appeal ruled the Singer and Benson
declarations inadmissible on the grounds that (1) the doctors'
testimony conflicted with that of Molko and Leal and (2)
introducing the declarations would raise inquiries forbidden by
the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. We disagree with
both conclusions.

[...]

The courts below also held that the Singer and Benson
declarations raised questions not allowable under the free
exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. We disagree, for reasons we will discuss
momentarily.

[...]

(11a) Our next inquiry, then, is whether the state's interest in
allowing tort liability for the Church's deceptive practices is
important enough to outweigh any burden such liability would
impose on the Church's religious conduct. (Wisconsin v. Yoder,
supra, 406 U.S. at p. 221 [32 L.Ed.2d at pp. 28-29].)

[...]

We must next consider whether a compelling state interest
justifies the marginal burden such liability imposes on the
Church's free exercise rights. We have no difficulty in finding
such an interest in the "substantial threat to [*1118] public
safety, peace or order" the Church's allegedly fraudulent conduct
poses. (Sherbert v. Verner, supra, 374 U.S. at p. 403 [10 L.Ed.2d
at p. 970].) For it is one thing when a person knowingly and
voluntarily submits to a process involving coercive influence, as
a novice does on entering a monastery or a seminary. (See Schein,
Coercive Persuasion (1961) p. 272.) But it is quite another when
a person is subjected to coercive persuasion without his
knowledge or consent. While some individuals who experience
coercive persuasion emerge unscathed, many others develop serious
and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up
to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation, and suicide.
(See generally Delgado, Religious Totalism: Gentle and Ungentle
Persuasion Under the First Amendment, supra, 51 So.Cal.L.Rev. 1,
10-25, and sources cited therein.) The state clearly has a
compelling interest in preventing its citizens from being
deceived into submitting unknowingly to such a potentially
dangerous process.

[...]

We conclude, therefore, that although liability for deceptive
recruitment practices imposes a marginal burden on the Church's
free exercise of religion, the burden is justified by the
compelling state interest in protecting individuals and families
from the substantial threat to public safety, peace and order
posed by the fraudulent induction of unconsenting individuals
into an atmosphere of coercive persuasion.
[end excerpt]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBQnA1kFMeYoHj2dI5EQLlugCfYZtldA+rzYla2guRBmo92hExgSYAn1bQ
vGCA/vfXETLB32gg7EqIMecj
=LLbC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Linda

2005-04-28, 8:53 am

^reaper^ wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> That aside, coercive persuasion is considered to be an integral
> element of some social situations that may (or not) be detrimental in
> nature. I would further argue any reader who has blurred the lines
> between juicenet (or any other online fora, for that matter) and
> reality inasmuch as the individual incorporates those interactions
> into their internal schema and who feel others hold power over their
> lives may very well believe they are victims of coercive persuasion.
> I could name a few who fall into this category, but I won't.

If there is an instance where the lying SPP stalking filth didn't
obliterate the fictitious line they claim exists between juicenet and a
persons real life, then I am not aware of it.

Necco

2005-04-28, 11:52 am

"Linda" <adinllinda@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114667481.843539.81200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> ^reaper^ wrote:
>
>
> If there is an instance where the lying SPP stalking filth didn't
> obliterate the fictitious line they claim exists between juicenet and a
> persons real life, then I am not aware of it.

There is much of reality that is beyond you. HARFUL!!

Necco
Stalking Filth #12

hoofprints

2005-04-28, 5:51 pm

Necco wrote:
>
> "Linda" <adinllinda@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1114667481.843539.81200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> There is much of reality that is beyond you. HARFUL!!

I know your pain and frustration Dan, and I empathize, but must you
take it out on innocent folks by telling them to HARFUL?
hoof

>
> Necco
> Stalking Filth #12

--

{ Disclaimer: Non Existent words contained within this poast
were created in response to the Paperwork Reduction Act.}
{If you have a problem with that,
take it to the Environmentalists Complaint Dept.}

A Free Thinker.

hoofprints

2005-04-28, 5:51 pm

Linda wrote:
>
> ^reaper^ wrote:
>
> If there is an instance where the lying SPP stalking filth didn't
> obliterate the fictitious line they claim exists between juicenet and a
> persons real life, then I am not aware of it.

reaper is so delusional, s/he thinks posts made to usenet, are computer
programs, not 'real' persons.
You are one sick Ph.D. Reaper, really and truly you are!!
hoof

--

{ Disclaimer: Non Existent words contained within this poast
were created in response to the Paperwork Reduction Act.}
{If you have a problem with that,
take it to the Environmentalists Complaint Dept.}

A Free Thinker.

Linda

2005-04-28, 10:53 pm

hoofprints wrote:
> Linda wrote:
detrimental in[vbcol=seagreen]
lines[vbcol=seagreen]
interactions[vbcol=seagreen]
their[vbcol=seagreen]
persuasion.[vbcol=seagreen]
and a[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> reaper is so delusional, s/he thinks posts made to usenet, are
computer
> programs, not 'real' persons.

I have never publicly posted about the damage Pablo and the lying SPP
stalking filth have caused me and mine because my posting about it
would only give the SPP stalkers more information with which to exact
even more vengence against me and mine.

However, I don't need to post what has transpired in my personal life
as a result of the SPP stalking filths criminal harassment of me
because the SPP stalking filth PUBLICLY obliterated the line they claim
exists between "juicenet" and real life where I am concerned, when they
welcomed an estranged relative who been stalking me IRL to join them in
their criminal harassment of me.

It's absurb for Reaper to claim it's just juicenet when the SPP
stalkers criminally harassed me *together* with an estranged relative
who stalked me to each of my ng owing to Pablo's repetitiously posting
my maiden name.

A.Melon

2005-04-29, 8:57 am

In article <1114735200.279230.311600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
"Linda" <adinllinda@aol.com> wrote:

> I have never publicly posted about the damage Pablo and the lying SPP
> stalking filth have caused me and mine because my posting about it
> would only give the SPP stalkers more information with which to exact
> even more vengence against me and mine.
>
> However, I don't need to post what has transpired in my personal life
> as a result of the SPP stalking filths criminal harassment of me
> because the SPP stalking filth PUBLICLY obliterated the line they claim
> exists between "juicenet" and real life where I am concerned, when they
> welcomed an estranged relative who been stalking me IRL to join them in
> their criminal harassment of me.
>
> It's absurb for Reaper to claim it's just juicenet when the SPP
> stalkers criminally harassed me *together* with an estranged relative
> who stalked me to each of my ng owing to Pablo's repetitiously posting
> my maiden name.

I'm so glad you posted this, because Mr Miles Lawlor of 4911 Edgeworth Drive,
whose own wife told him that these *scum* were exactly as you describe, to
which in reply he called her a *liar* and even called me a *liar* too when I
phoned him to remonstrate regarding *his* *abuse* of *her* may realise exactly
what is going to happen as I now post the name of his village, because my in-
box remains empty and my phone doesn't ring. Countdown continues.

Firebird

hoofprints

2005-04-29, 11:52 am

Linda wrote:
>
> hoofprints wrote:
> detrimental in
> lines
> interactions
> their
> persuasion.
> and a
> computer
>
> I have never publicly posted about the damage Pablo and the lying SPP
> stalking filth have caused me and mine because my posting about it
> would only give the SPP stalkers more information with which to exact
> even more vengence against me and mine.
>
> However, I don't need to post what has transpired in my personal life
> as a result of the SPP stalking filths criminal harassment of me
> because the SPP stalking filth PUBLICLY obliterated the line they claim
> exists between "juicenet" and real life where I am concerned, when they
> welcomed an estranged relative who been stalking me IRL to join them in
> their criminal harassment of me.

I know. Another incident involving another NG 'may' have resulted in
vandalism to one woman's car.

>
> It's absurb for Reaper to claim it's just juicenet when the SPP
> stalkers criminally harassed me *together* with an estranged relative
> who stalked me to each of my ng owing to Pablo's repetitiously posting
> my maiden name.

I agree. Reaper certainly has 'mentally lost it' if s/he thinks that
words posted on Usenet are being posted by a machine, rather then a
human being possessing human qualities and emotions.
hoof

--

{ Disclaimer: Non Existent words contained within this poast
were created in response to the Paperwork Reduction Act.}
{If you have a problem with that,
take it to the Environmentalists Complaint Dept.}

A Free Thinker.

Aratzio

2005-04-29, 11:52 am

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:22:50 -0700, hoofprints
<equsphotogophr@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I know. Another incident involving another NG 'may' have resulted in
>vandalism to one woman's car.

In other words you know nothing, as usual.

--

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems,
but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

Linda

2005-04-29, 10:56 pm

hoofprints wrote:
> Linda wrote:
integral[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
over[vbcol=seagreen]
didn't[vbcol=seagreen]
juicenet[vbcol=seagreen]
SPP[vbcol=seagreen]
exact[vbcol=seagreen]
life[vbcol=seagreen]
claim[vbcol=seagreen]
they[vbcol=seagreen]
them in[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I know. Another incident involving another NG 'may' have resulted in
> vandalism to one woman's car.
>
relative[vbcol=seagreen]
posting[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I agree. Reaper certainly has 'mentally lost it' if s/he thinks that
> words posted on Usenet are being posted by a machine, rather then a
> human being possessing human qualities and emotions.

To Reapers credit, she at least tries to check the facts.

Unfortunately, she's still reading stuff into what she is reading that
isn't there, on account of her reading the archives through lenses
already tainted by the tall tales Pablo posted.

And, as a result of her misreading the archives she is still falsely
accusing me of having a proprensity to go real life when I NEVER did.

Her posts of inflaming me more than the other SPP stalkers posts,
because Reaper realizes what Pablo did/does, yet, despite realizing
he's twisting and distorting eeverything, she STILL chooses to
believe some of the lies he's posted to scapegoat me for what he and
bentley did.

I am going to have to stop reading her posts---cause I am frustrated
that at least one of the SPP stalkers has some insight, yet still
doesn't really GET it!

It's inflaming me!