Don't forget the likelihood, though, Andries
Re: Systematic deception justifies the word "victim" & reliable witness? -- Andries	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: Jim ® 01/16/2005, 14:16:10 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

I admit that former follower can and sometimes feel betrayed, which may have a bad influence on their testimonies, if they they do not excercise restraint. Believers should be aware that their love to the leader and their affiliation with the organization may result in a (far) too positive picture and even cloud their common sense and understanding. I don't disagree with what you're saying.  But I think it must be said that, whereas all cult members can be expected to paint an overly-positive picture of their leader, former followers, who have no similar resraints on their ability to reason and speak frankly, can generally be trusted to be truthful and accurate.  After all, what incentive would they have to lie?  Modified by Jim at Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 14:16:52

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

Reasons --- yadot1 ( Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 18:43:42 ) ( 1292 bytes ) +3 Re: Reasons --- Dermot M ( Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 18:57:10 ) ( 226 bytes ) No, you've got that backwards --- Jim ( Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 20:01:30 ) ( 222 bytes ) +1 Now hold on a darned minute Jim --- jonx ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 17:36:43 ) ( 190 bytes ) Re: Reasons for --- Andries ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 11:11:45 ) ( 1337 bytes ) +2 Re: Reasons for --- yadot1 ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 11:20:38 ) ( 4336 bytes ) +4 And the reference is - --- NikW ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 12:01:59 ) ( 404 bytes ) link Re: Reasons for --- Toby ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 12:13:54 ) ( 919 bytes ) Comments to Bryan Ronald Wilson's article --- Andries ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 13:18:14 ) ( 5956 bytes ) +1 Your comments --- yadot1 ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 14:34:56 ) ( 2088 bytes ) +3 Re: Premie divorce --- Paddy ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 14:53:33 ) ( 499 bytes ) Re: Your comments --- Andries ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 15:08:50 ) ( 1772 bytes ) Hey Ya.one --- Pat W ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 16:33:27 ) ( 3275 bytes ) Re: Failures of Bryanism --- Paddy ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 14:38:15 ) ( 2947 bytes ) +1 Re: Failures of Bryanism --- yadot1 ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 15:04:34 ) ( 1181 bytes ) +2 The fingers of three hands, you say? --- cq ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 16:34:41 ) ( 146 bytes ) +1 Re: The fingers of three hands, you say? --- yadot1 ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 17:09:51 ) ( 8 bytes ) +1 You waiting for two fingers of one hand then? (no text) --- cq ( Tue, Jan 18, 2005, 16:14:21 ) ( 0 bytes ) Re: Failures of Bryanism --- Pat W ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 17:25:52 ) ( 2719 bytes ) +1 if you don't help them, you are an accomplice to their dysfunction. --- yadot1 ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 18:10:18 ) ( 1543 bytes ) +2 Re: if you don't help them, you are an accomplice to their dysfunction. --- Pat W ( Tue, Jan 18, 2005, 05:44:34 ) ( 5343 bytes ) +1 Re: if you don't help them, you are an accomplice to their dysfunction. --- gerry ( Wed, Jan 19, 2005, 10:40:20 ) ( 639 bytes ) Re: freedom to love, freedom to feel. --- creativejani ( Tue, Jan 18, 2005, 19:29:25 ) ( 1044 bytes ) Bryan Ronald Wilson --- Dermot M ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 12:27:45 ) ( 1665 bytes ) +1 Re: Bryan Ronald Wilson, very true what you wrote, I believe (NT) (no text) --- Andries ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 13:25:58 ) ( 0 bytes ) +1 Very true in one way --- Dermot M ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 14:00:46 ) ( 746 bytes ) +1 Re: I feel very upset by such general statements --- Andries ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 14:15:36 ) ( 1186 bytes ) +3 Re: I feel very upset by such general statements --- yadot1 ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 14:35:59 ) ( 25 bytes ) +1 Re: I feel very upset by such general statements --- Toby ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 14:55:05 ) ( 65 bytes ) Re: Andries - have another think --- Paddy ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 14:49:22 ) ( 1028 bytes ) +2 Paddy, Please read private message (NT) (no text) --- Andries ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 15:52:20 ) ( 0 bytes ) NRMs and cults: potentially harmful combinations of intensity and unpredictab... --- Andries ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 16:13:19 ) ( 380 bytes ) If we are all liars then Ya One is a Cult Apologist too-Read this and don't w... --- Pat W ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 14:54:14 ) ( 9773 bytes ) link +1 check your sources LOL! --- yadot1 ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 17:06:45 ) ( 1269 bytes ) link +2 What's even funnier --- Dermot M ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 17:53:18 ) ( 781 bytes ) So your source was a Scientology site? Also LOL --- Pat W ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 18:03:14 ) ( 273 bytes ) +1 Re: So your source was a Scientology site? Also LOL --- yadot1 ( Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 18:19:19 ) ( 474 bytes )