Judy, since you did enlighten me to the fact that I hadn't quite followed the conversation correctly, I think I may volunteer to be the first of your mind *less* followers. But, I reserve the right to abdicate at any time the mind *ful* part of my being and brain take over. In the meantime, I throw flower petals at your pinky toe.
________________________________ From: Emily Reyn <emilymae.r...@yahoo.com> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? Judy, "O Supreme True Believer"...who are your mindless followers on this forum? I need help with this. ________________________________ From: authfriend <jst...@panix.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote: > > What is this continued focus on Judy and "brainwashing?" > Brainwashing and > cult mentality, maybe. "Brainwashing" by Judy? > You are affording her an > unbelievable amount of power, with > this accusation. And, of course, you are assuming the rest of > us to be dumb clucks, unable to think for themselves or stay > *at all* objective. Emily, to be fair, "brainwashing" was the term *I* used to describe Curtis's theory that I influenced others to see Vaj as untrustworthy. Curtis objected to my use of the term, saying it was an "absurdly false" characterization of what he had said. And now he's using it to describe my characterization of his arguments as deceptive and sophistical to get back at me. But what he said originally *did* imply what you say--that the folks who agree with me about Vaj weren't thinking for themselves but following my lead because of my "forceful personality." When one argues with Curtis, things tend to get very convoluted. In any case, the term "brainwashing" is commonly used as I did, to refer simply to persuasion rather than coercive mind control per se. Curtis appears to believe that all I have to do is accuse Vaj of untruthfulness, and all my "followers" are instantly persuaded to step smartly into line. > > I will say, that having read all of the recent exchanges, if I put on my > irony glasses, they are a real hoot.  Sorry for laughing....it really is > pretty humorous.  > > From Wikipedia: > > Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind > abuse, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a > group or individual "systematically uses unethically manipulative methods > to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to > the detriment of the person being manipulated".[1] > > The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which > can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their > own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making. InPropaganda: The > Formation of Men's Attitudes, Jacques Ellul sustains that the "principal > aims of these psychological methods is to destroy a man's habitual patterns, > space, hours, milieu, and so on."[2] > > > Theories of brainwashing and of mind control were originally developed to > explain how totalitarian regimes appeared to succeed in systematically > indoctrinating prisoners of war through > propaganda and torture techniques. These theories were later expanded and > modified to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions > to new religious movements(NRMs). > > > ________________________________ > From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltablues@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:42 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > If you require instruction in how to do this properly, > > > Raunchy, you need look no further than Judy's most recent > > > reply to Curtis. It took her 4,564 words (including Curtis' > > > quotes, of course) > > > > Actually Curtis and I split it roughly in half. There > > were somewhat more words of mine than of Curtis's, but > > it *takes* more words to unravel the kind of deception > > and sophistry Curtis uses than the deception and > > sophistry themselves take. > > Up to your brainwashing again, eh? > > > > > >  >
