"

Your inconsistent view points on references for cults and hate groups
In talk:cult you say that the checklists must go because they are unscientific, though they are clearly mentioned as disputed and attributed to the anti-cult movement. The one by Lifton is referenced. I support replacement of the other checklist by the one by Eileen Barker.  12:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In talk:hate group you support a checklist presented as proven fact that is unattributed, but just made up and you oppose my view that the checklist must be referenced.  12:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I may miss something but it seems that you use double standards to support your views. I hope that your can re-consider your opinions about references for checklists on these subjects. Thanks in advance.  12:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good point, Andries. I do not have a problem with these checklists if they are placed in the destructive cults article.  19:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, thanks for you changing your opinion. The problem is, I think, that it is difficult to distinguish between a harmless NRM, a cult and a destructive cult. That is why I think the checklists are important and should stay in the cult article, or at least directly linked to. I mean, my former group has some destructive/exploiting traits, which I only found out after nine years. Besides many scholars, the media and the public do not make the distinction between a cult and a destructive cult.  19:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is exactly the reason: the media and the public do not make that distinction. My hope is that the Wikipedia articles can throw some neutral light into that confusion. That is my hope. With your help and the help of other editors editing those articles, we have a good chance to suceed in doing that. And that would be a wonderful thing.  01:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your complaints about Andries' behavior
May be it is because of my English but I think I was the co-author of the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. So were you. So was Jossi. I admit that Gary D was the main author. May be I am confused because of the subtle language differences between Dutch and Engish. Same for e.g. the word ""study"" that has a slightly different meaning when compared to the Dutch word ""studie"", which was, in hindsight, the reason for one of my many disputes with Jossi.  23:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I only said on talk:past teachings of Prem Rawat that I do not understand you. In fact, I defended you against Jim's accusations.  23:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I checked what I wrote on forum8 about you the last 60 days and I could only find the following post by me in which I defended you. http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/7621.html  23:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I really do not understand why you think that my behavior towards you is inappropriate.  23:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I think we have to concentrate on articles to prevent endless and senseless discussions. I do not think that we will ever agree about your complaints about my behavior.  01:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I clearly see that you do not want to take responsibility for your actions. Fair enough.  05:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I do take responsibility for my words. I write here under my real name and I even clarified my words outside Wikipedia upon your request here in Wikipedia. This is far more than the guidelines in Wikipedia or its spirit demand.  18:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Besides, I did not make a cloaked accusation towards you. I had no other intention than to defend both Jim and you.  What can I do to convince you of that? In that post I explicitly wrote that I believed you to be sincere. It is not my fault that you go far beyond the literal meaning of what I wrote there and suspect that I made a cunning attack on your credibility. It took me even a while before I understood to what extent you had misinterpreted what I wrote.  18:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Zappaz, I appreciate the information from Marc Galanter in the DLM article.  18:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
~
Your views on apostasy
I generally consider apostates' testimony to be reliable. For years I thought that the detractors of SSB had been dirty liars who had been bribed to g