>Cynthia, do you understand what I am saying here? It does not appears that you do, from your reply. -Sanford

There's an article being written on Wikipedia about Prem Rawat and ex-premies. In that article ex-premies are called a hate-group, apostates, and cyber-terrorists, among other derogatory things. -Cynthia

>I guess that means that Wikipedia is being run by some assholes who are part of the dominant social order which dictates how to view ex-cult members. And you are trying to change their minds? That's like pissing in the wind, or as Jesus would say, casting your pearls before swine, because no matter how much sense you might make, there is a better than 99% chance that they will turn on you and rip and tear on you even if what you say is true and correct. Just like swine who don't know the value of pearls, they will trample your attempts into the ground. Welcome to the club. Maybe now you can appreciate how I feel when I say something that I know is true and applicable, but I get busted and my words and thoughts get deleted because it is too 'spiritual'. I see no division between the physical and the spiritual, it's all one thing. So now you know how it feels to be dissed by people whose mindset is totally on a different planet that where you are. Frustrating, ain't it? -Sanford

Gordon Melton considers any former member of a NRM (cult) to be untruthful by definition of being an apostate and unreliable in their testimony about any cult they (we) were in. -Cynthia

Anyone who listens to Gordon Melton and blindly believes and follows his ideas about ex-cult members deserves the narrow mind they end up with. Gordon Melton is a jerk, and I can know this just from the one soundbite of his you just gave me. And I don't care how many degrees he has or how many people kiss his intellectual ass. He's an idiot. Maybe he will change his mind if one of his kids or a loved one gets tricked into a cult and comes out the other side. That usually opens a person like him up. To me, he is just more noise, more dogs barking outside, to be filtered out.
-Sanford

The only sources being used as references in that Wiki article are writings by Gordon Melton and Massimo Introvigne among other sociologists of NRMs.

This Massimo guy is regarded as an expert of what? Isn't he the president of a Dracula Society or something? Why in the world, out of all the websites that address these sorts of things, would you single out such a weird bunch to go head to head with? Anyone who is sincerely looking for answers will usually have a heightened sense of what is bullshit and what is not, and those real seekers of truth will not stop with some bullshit from Wikipedia or accept that all ex-cult members are not reliable sources of accurate information. That is like saying an eye witness to a crime is not reliable because they are all distraught and cannot be trusted. That is just plain stupid. -Sanford

Oh, yeah, Dr. Ron Geaves is also referenced. Sanford, it's against the rules to even use the word "cult" on Wiki. -Cynthia

Sounds like a strange place, why go there?
That is Wiki's problem, not ours. I am sure there are many places where the truth of our story is not being told and is being twisted and perverted to make us out to be the bad guys. If you spend your time running around crusading for the Forum and ex-premies that everyone get the story straight, you will be spinning you wheels forever. -Sanford

The point of my post, which I suppose I didn't make clear enough, is that my interest is to find out why these sociologists have been given so much more credibility, not only on Wikipedia, but by our own Federal government in the U.S. (more on that later) than people like say, Margaret Singer, Steve Hassan, and other cult experts who have actually worked with former cult members to help them out of destructive cults. The sociologists have used the APA's old writings/assessments (which I found out are inconclusive) as a basis for their premise that mind-control or thought-reform does not exist. -Cynthia

I think your efforts are commendable, but should be off-F8 and maybe you can bring brief summaries of your results, but all the volumes of stuff that are your personal pursuit are cumbersome here imho and you're fighting windmills like Don Quixote. -Sanford

This has nothing to do with my particular interest in psychology except as it relates to how the psychologist folks (who are on our side, btw) have been trashed by the sociologists. And when I say trashed, I really mean trashed. -Cynthia

This is what I am talking about....your interest in psychology is accepted as on-topic here, and you are allowed to run with it in the name of 'justice on wikipedia!' but my interest in spirit is regarded as a distraction and a nuisance. I see that as a result of what is and is not in vogue to talk about and that is it. It's all about polticial correctness, and I am not into that at all. PC blocks the truth, whether it be here or there. Before you respond, just please think about it. -Sanford

I've been researching the issue of the two camps: the sociologists of NRMs versus the psychologists (or cult experts). The reason I've become interested about it is close to home -- here and EPO. Just about everything I've posted about Prem Rawat and premies/PWKs/students on the Wiki article discussion page has been dismissed as unreliable and untrue. Why? Because I'm considered a digruntled apostate and disgruntled former employee of DLM (DECA) therefore, a hateful liar. It's not about any preoccupation of mine with psychology or intellectualism or atheism. This is about digging to get to the truth about why you, me, and other ex-premies are called liars by definition (of the sociologists).
-Cynthia

It's easier for them to do it that way. Then they don't have to think or take sides or do the hard work of digging for the truth. Feels crappy when you are on the receiving end of it, eh? -Sanford

I'm very surprised by your reaction, Sanford. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how I've offended you personally by making this post. -Cynthia