Answering Umike's challenge, I'll re-analyze Bernie's website. I'll aim for a post for each page.

SENTENCE # 1 from Bernie's Homepage: QUOTE: While more and more information (and disinformation) about Scientology is available through the internet, the anti-cult movement goes largely unnoticed.END QUOTE from
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/

Bernie may be the first person to critically examined the opponents of Scientology, without calling us SP's. Bernie has a less loaded name for critics: "the anti-cult movement," It's STILL loaded, however, making us sound negative and mob-like.

The clip art is odd. On the right is the Cult Awareness Network. This indeed was an intensely committed organization, and some of its people were zealous enough to advocate de-programming. However, the Cult Awareness Network was destroyed by CoS in 1996, and in fact CoS took over the mailing list and the entire organization.

http://www.rpi.net.au/~marina/cos/can/can96h1.htm
So Bernie's 7 years out of date, here.

On the right side is misty, El-Greco style clip art with with a church, a star, a Christian cross and the word "RELIGION." Bernie chose this ready-made clip art that, to me, trumpets the sanctity of religion as compared to the profane mudfights of alt.religion.scientology.

BERNIE'S DESCRIPTION of ARS:
QUOTE: alt.religion.scientology is a newsgroup dedicated to criticism of Scientology.END QUOTE

This is true only if you think that usenet groups must have only one viewpoint. A.r.s. is open to anyone: trolls, anti-psychiatry posters, AND anti-CoS posters. The founders of a.r.s. wanted to criticize Scientology, sure, but they also wanted open debate and free speech.

NEXT BERNIE SENTENCE: While actual information can sometimes be found, the newsgroup is a lively example of anti-cult bigotry. END QUOTE

Exactly what is Bernie's definition of bigotry?
Using visual clues, it seems to be any criticism of Scientology THE RELIGION, (see above note on sanctified clip art). If that is the case, yes, a.r.s. is crawling with bigotry. But what if CoS is not a sanctified group, but a scam? Then a.r.s. is crawling with whistle-blowers.

Some jerks regularly visit a.r.s. and throw around insults. It's an annoying sideshow on many usenet groups. Does one jerk critic make every critic on a.r.s. a jerk? You might just as well criticize the entire Internet.

I click on "Alt.religion.scientology" and on to Bernie's next web page.

Tsk tsk. Bernie still has heavily biased clip art.
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm

Bernie still has a demon-with-steam-blowing-out-the ears clip art for "bigoted" critics, while he has a knight-in-shining-armor clip art for the "dissenters" (like himself) who are the critics of the critics. "The tech" has a lightbulb clip art, like it's The Guiding Light.

Next I click on the "Introduction" link, and the link to "Neither Cults nor Anti-Cults."

BERNIE QUOTE: While cults can be said to represent a form of danger from minorities to the majority, anti-cults can be said to represent a form of oppression from the majority towards these minorities. In no way is it less dangerous, less ugly.END QUOTE from

http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/neithernor.htm

My comment: What exactly was dangerous and ugly? "The anti-cult movement" could be Operation Clambake, since it is vilified elsewhere by Bernie. Although maybe we are ugly, since INDIVIDUALLY we could use a good haircut and some liposuction, we aren't as dangerous as CoS. We don't defraud, extort, or break up families. ALL WE DO IS WRITE. Can legally using our first amendment rights be so wrong?

MORE BERNIE:
Neither the simplistic "solutions" of cults nor the simplistic "solutions" of anti-cults are acceptable. END QUOTE

What is the simplistic solution that Bernie is talking about? We want everybody to know what CoS is really up to (including the cruel disconnection practice) , and prevent the influx of uninformed "raw meat," and encourage the outflow of dissatisfied Scientologists. We want the US government to enforce the law, punishing them for the fraud and extortion they have already committed, and preventing CoS from committing future fraud and extortion.

This is not a simplistic solution. It involves many thoughtful decisions by potential new recruits, by dissatisfied CoS members, and by government bureaucrats. There will be many case-by-case decisions.

Yes, there are trolls who say "Shut Scientology down." That's simplistic and wrong. Use the media, use the existing justice system, and CoS will crumble by the force of gravity.

Thats about 6 points Don. I will respond to the issue not the minutae. If you bombard me again I can't proceed.
I spend minutes on threads-not hours Don.

Why are you complaining about clip art and loaded language? Most anti-cult sites do precisely that.
Bernies site is biased Don. So is xenu.net. It's an alternative view.

I'm not interested in speculations and analysis about nomenclature. Lets talk about Bernies interpretations of critics case and the meaty issues he addresses.

Bernie may be the first person to critically examined the opponents of Scientology, without calling us SP's. Bernie has a less loaded name for critics: "the anti-cult movement," It's STILL loaded, however, making us sound negative and mob-like.

Two years ago it was very mob like Don. Thats why I dont identify as a mainstream critic any longer.

"We don't defraud, extort, or break up families. ALL WE DO IS WRITE. Can legally using our first amendment rights be so wrong?"

You are sadly mistaken my friend. Of course critics violated civil rights,harrassed,hired investigators,money laundering,
stalked and threatened. Gee, sounds like the happy fun cult ..huh?

Umike




I'll be out for the evening soon. Will resume in the am.

CoS accused Bob Minton of all these charges. Even if these charges were true, he's never (that I know of) come onto Operation Clambake, and I (and many others on OCMB) never had anything to do with him. Furthermore, he's manic-depressive and badly advised,and he's not even a critic anymore - he went over to the Dark Side.

So who else do you accuse of doing these six things?
violated civil rights
harassed
hired investigators
money laundering
stalked
threatened

Gee, this is fascinating....Attaboy, Don Carlo...you're killing UMike with words. logic, evidence and balance.....

While he can only huff and puff and whine......

Tigger

Bernie talks of Scientology critics as if we were of one mind with a centrally controlled message. We are not - we are a bunch of individuals with our own opinions. Our opinions often don't agree and no one can tell another what to say or not say.

Also, some critics exagerate, present information that isn't true and sometimes are not completely balanced. Bernie takes quotes from these critics and uses them to question the credibility of all critics.

He genrally takes Scientology at its word unless proven otherwise, while the credibility of what critics say is question unless proof is supplied.

Mike

Don Carlo,

Very good! Please keep this up as your keen observations are very enlightening.

Mike,

Yours is also an excellent appraisal.

Bernie's site does make a few good points among all the biased stuff, mostly about the more rabid critics and their tendencies to mix lies, exaggerations and misrepresentations in with their criticisms.

It is obviously a biased site, but seeing those points made about certain critics is educational and enlightening. This site helped me to discern between the different approaches and agendas of various critics, and see some critic's agendas I had not been aware of prior to visiting that site.

I can relate to not wanting to be associated with the more extreme critics. IMHO they don't represent what most critics of Scientology think or feel.

Score?
Don Carlo 6
Uberdud 0

Looks to be an interesting game folks. Still only in the first inning and the Uberduds are still on the field, 3 men on the bases, no strikes, no outs and The heavy guns of team Don Carlo have just stepped up to bat. You have to hand it to the Uberduds, they just don't know when to quit. One would think that after last seasons record, 0-0-96 they would have folded the organization and sold off their best players. Then again one has to have 'best' players to sell don't they?

All those predicting the usual "that is too much text for me to read so I will not respond to any of it but instead make a couple of unsupported assertions to the contrary" response, say 'aye'.

Aye.

Don wrote: So who else do you accuse of doing these six things?
violated civil rights
harassed
hired investigators
money laundering
stalked
threatened

If you aren't aware of the money laundering and hiring investigators by Minton I'm surprised Don.

Umike

Galileo,

I have occasionally chided other posters on this board for doing things like exagerating, posting dubious or questionable accounts and documents as fact, or threatening violence. Critics who do these things hurt the cause because their statements can be used by the Bernies of the world to damage the credibility of all of us.

When the church does the first two things I mentioned (although it does not threaten violence), its credibility is damaged, so we don't need to do that for ourselves.

Like I've said a few times before. There is so much wrong with the Church of Scientology that is real to talk about that there is absolutely no need to make anything up.

Mike

Don

Thanks for the analysis so far. Here’s my analysis of your analysis.

You wrote:

“Bernie has a less loaded name for critics: "the anti-cult movement," It's STILL loaded, however, making us sound negative and mob-like.”

- It seems mostly neutral to me with only a slight negative connotation. What would be even more neutral I wonder?

- Glad you mentioned the clip art. I’m not a big fan of clip art and other audio/visual additions to written or spoken communication. The benefits are plain, the drawback is not. There’s actually two messages being sent – the pictures (which have to be interpreted by the viewer - and are seldom discussed) and the words. I prefer one message at a time, but what an ugly website that would be huh? That’s all I have to say about the clipart.

Per A.R.S.:

“The founders of a.r.s. wanted to criticize Scientology, sure, but they also wanted open debate and free speech.”

- I don’t know who founded A.R.S. but Bernie’s concise description “dedicated to criticism of Scientology” seems quite apt to me.

You wrote: “Exactly what is Bernie's definition of bigotry?” – Good question. A definition would have been apt.

Side note: “But what if CoS is not a sanctified group, but a scam?” – Whose to say Don? Sanctity is opinion not fact – same goes for any religion or cult. I'm sure Christianity was once a cult. It's all a matter of opinion and agreement. Tax-exempt and its criteria are debatable - and should be debated. Sanctity is not.

“While cults can be said to represent a form of danger from minorities to the majority, anti-cults can be said to represent a form of oppression from the majority towards these minorities. In no way is it less dangerous, less ugly.”

- “Dangerous and ugly?” Use your imagination Don. If you’re the majority, then minority cults can destroy your families. If you’re a minority cult, the majority can burn you at the stake. And lots in between. I think Bernie does the reader a service by remaining neutral here and pointing to abuses by both sides. The same goes with simplistic solutions – I think he means that neither side is simply right. There are issues worthy of real debate.

“ALL WE DO IS WRITE”

- A lot of it has to do with what critics write: ~L. Ron Hubbard raped me~ Do you think this happened Don? Probably not right? But would you think twice about promoting Corydon’s book to potential new Scientologists? Pens and swords ya know?

- I acknowledge that it’s my opinion that Bernie’s site is pro-Scientology and anti-critic. On a neutrality versus bias scale of 1 to 5 (neutral being 1), Bernie’s site would be a 2.5 and OC would be a 5.

Scorcher,

I agree that the OCMB as a whole is far more biased towards the anti-Scientology view than Bernie's site is biased towards a pro-Scientology view. That is the nature of each beast.

There ARE some very good points made on Bernie's site that could and probably should be debated here. I found many of the points made there to be very accurate observations. However, some of his ideas are very slanted towards allowing any so-called "religion" to be tolerated and even accepted just because someone calls it a religion.

Under that guideline, Branch Davidian illegalities and Heaven's Gate and Jonestown suicides would be accepted as just another legitimate practice of religion. We cannot do that, nor can we accept labels of "hate," "bigotry" or "intolerance" to apply to the criticism of the abusive/bad aspects of any religion.

Mike,

I agree with you 100%. There is more than enough fodder for our critic's mill without making stuff up. Lies, deceptions and exaggerations only hurt the credibility of those trying to expose the truth about the Church of Scientology.

(Now I'm being bombarded by messages. How ironic). Let me stick to Umike's and Scorcher's reply.

Umike, I said who else (besides Minton). What other critic is laudering money, etc.?

Scorcher, true, a majority can theoretical burn minorities at the stake. But everyone is a minority in the US. Either a racial, or religious, or national origin, or political, or disability, or fat, or old... I don't see Scientologists in any physical danger from critics. If the government enforced the law, the inner circle of CoS would be in danger of imprisonment.

The reason I don't like the term "movement" is because it implies a group identity among critics. Some are jerks, some are deranged. I don't wish to be identified with those people.

One fear I have is that if all the facts about CoS abuses reach the general public, you'll have psychopaths attacking orgs, like psychopaths attacked innocent Arabs in the US after the 9-11 attacks. People in CoS may write an editorial opposing Osama bin Ladin, but if those CoS people speak out against random anti-Arab attacks, nobody can blame THEM for random Americans attacking Arabs.

Similarly, I have always spoken against violence. I am not part of any violent "anti-cult movement;" I believe there is no such thing, only individuals, good and (unfortunately) sometimes bad.