Sceptic -- RSQUBF discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 04:32:43 01/07/05 Fri
Author: Mike K.
Subject: Sceptic
In reply to: Nick T. 's message, "article written by Mr. Clark" on 09:24:11 01/06/05 Thu

Here is a very good article written by Mr. Clark, discussing himself, his experiences, his findings.

The first thing that struck me was that he was introduced to this field of work by Neil Duddy from SCP.
Duddy isn't an unfamiliar name.
What I have seen from Duddy was a fairly biased approach, pretty much: "That group is a cult, and now I'm gonna create some proof for you..." i.e. generating proof at all costs without understanding the underlying problem.
Duddy quoted literature from one author with "text [...] text" and in reality the only word that stood in the parentheses as "[...]" was a negation, so Duddy took the liberty to invert a sentence's meaning in order to generate proof.
This, of course, was very easy to debunk by the specified author, and it got Duddy before the court on libel charges and he had to file bankruptcy ($13mio lawsuit).
Duddy was too focused on delivering "proof at all costs" rather than on understanding the basic mechanisms of that specific group, and that of course proved to be of little help in order to touch the members of that group. In fact, even up to today, they ridicule Duddy for his feeble attempts (even though Duddy wasn't wrong, but he took a wrong course in making his point)

I just hope that Clark didn't learn that from Duddy, because it can prove to be a tremendous support for "wavering" UBF members if he does the same.

It's more important to focus on the underlying mechanisms than on the doctrine of a group, because doctrine, everyone will say, "is ot a matter of practicality but of opinion".

But facts about coercive, deceptive, manipulative, illegal, irrational, unethical behaviour can't be argued avay just as easily.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]