From: bob@minton.org (Bob Minton) Subject: Re: Surprise Confession: Monica's response to Bob's Original Post Date: 1998/10/17 Message-ID: <36292755.34740260@news.tiac.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <70akfr$qtd@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <70b1rg$6ig@edrn.newsguy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: ARSCC -- (NHCPQ-BK) Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: bob@minton.org Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology On 17 Oct 1998 14:22:56 -0700, referen@bway.net wrote: The entirety of this post by you Diane is utter bullshit. And, as far as Ron Newman's comment--I would be interested to hear him say this and how he came to this conclusion. Has he too bought into Rinder's bullshit. Just last week I put another $100,000 to this fight against Scientology. I am in constant contact and continue my promised support of Ken Dandar and the McPherson estate. I have said within the last few weeks in an interview to be aired nationally that I am willing to personally put up another $2+ million to expose Scientology. I have not and will not negotiate any legal crap with Scientology except in my position as a Factnet director. If they had wanted to come after me in civil suits or otherwise they have had more than three years to do it. I have no concern about Ofman/Co$, criminal or civil. It seems really easy to sit back and be an armchair quarterback Diane. When the fuck are you going to get off your ass and high-horse and do something other than attack everybody who fights against Scientology. I don't need to impress anyone Diane. I had a private and comfortable life before Co$ came along to attack the things which I thought were sacrosanct. I quickly learned they were not when scientology was involved. Yes, I am getting attention. It's the message stupid. Bob Minton >In article <70akfr$qtd@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, says... >> >>Bob Minton wrote: >> >>>Not long after I started, I was seeing the end of the road for my conflict >>>with Scientology and the end wasn"t a happy one. I had been willing to >>>pursue many paths, and did, some extremely unusual, for someone who >>>really wanted to make a difference. What I could do still wasn"t >>>enough. So perhaps you can imagine my surprise and relief when I >>>received an e-mail message from someone who eventually claimed to >>>have been one of a group of five people who were responsible for >>>birthing the Church and all the materials of Scientology. >> >>Yes, I can well imagine. Con artists are very good at stepping in >>when a person is the most vulnerable. This is a very long post, but >>I want to cut straight to the heart of the matter. Is the bottom line >>that this "Dorian" person has convinced you that it is uselss to >>continue helping people in the way you have been doing? > >You and I are the only people noting Minton's justification for >introducing Ralph Dorian's material. It looks to me as if Minton >is presenting Dorian as his rationale for ending his involvement >financially and personally in the battle against the CoS. > >>The fact is >>that what you have done to help people has been very valuable and >>it concerns me greatly that you seem to now be denying this just >>because you haven't been able to bring down the entire cult (yet). > >I'm sure there are many people who will remain grateful to Minton >for his financial support for years to come. Permit me to speculate >on why I believe Ralph Dorian is a fabrication developed with the >knowing collusion of Bob Minton, Stacy Young, and perhaps others. > >1. When he posted the DA materials passed out at the IMF meeting >in Washington, DC, Minton stated he was receiving pressure from >business partners to drop his efforts against the CoS. The recent >downturn in global markets point to a gloomy picture for those >heavily invested in world financial markets. If Minton depends >upon such investments for his retirement income, he may be worried. >His business partners may be even more worried. > >2. Minton's lawyers will probably have no difficulty getting the >criminal assault charges filed against him dropped. Civil actions >against him for the fracas in front of the Boston Org may be much >more worrisome. Perhaps Minton's lawyers are even now privately >negotiating a settlement which allows both sides to maintain face. >This might involve an agreement by Minton to discontinue his >public financial backing of those fighting against the CoS. > >3. Stacy Brooks Young's reply to those questioning Ralph Dorian's >reliability is nothing more than a perfect example of the PR >skills she learned as a GO/OSA PR op. She effectively discounts >*everything* she claimed she learned during her Wellspring >retreat. Stacy can't have it both ways--either she's learned >to think critically and question those who demand unquestioning >belief or she hasn't. This all looks suspiciously to me like >a plan by Bob Minton and Stacy Brook Young to disengage themselves >from active participation. > >4. Why don't they just say "Well, we've tired of this fight and >we want to get our lives back to normal"? The only answer I have >to that is what Ron Newman once told me when I asked him why Bob >couldn't seem to stay out of trouble. "Bob likes attention," was >Ron's reply. I don't think Minton is willing to go out with a >whimper. Ralph Dorian, I believe, is Minton's going out with a >bang. > >This is, of course, nothing but sheer speculation. My opinion >only. I don't expect others to agree with my suspicions and they >may very well be wrong. I'm just attempting to sow seeds of >doubt among the true believers here. :-) > >[snip] > >>>If you"re finding any of this hard to believe, I have to admit I had a >>>hard time believing it too. I still have some serious doubts. Everything >>>seems to depend on whether Ralph "Dorian" has been telling me the >>>truth. Ralph "Dorian" was Hubbard"s editor, or so he tells me. I put >>>"Dorian" in quotes because he"s told me this name is a pseudonym. >>>He still hasn"t told me his real name and I don"t have any way of >>>checking it out. >> >>Has it occurred to you that maybe he doesn't want you to check him out >>because that would expose him? If someone won't give me their name, >>they won't get my trust or have any credibility with me. > >And Minton, of course, could easily come up with Dorian's true identity >if he chose to do so. This is another claim that I find incredibly >suspicious. Minton didn't make his millions by being this gullible. > >[snip] > >>Yes, please do reserve your judgment and think critically. >>Consider all the possibilities, not just the ones that are attractive >>to believe and remember the principle of Occam's Razor: The simplest >>explanation of something is usually the best. > >Which is why I tend to suspect this hoax is being perpetrated by >Minton and Young against their own supporters. > >[snip] > >>That's utter nonsense, about not trusting ex-Scientologists. >>There are plenty of ex's who have proven themselves to be trustworthy >>and this is obviously just another excuse to escape scrutiny. > >Or, as Jeff Jacobson has pointed out, why not select someone like >Priscilla Coates or Cynthia Kisser, who both spent far more time >and effort, and who both were subjected to far worse harassement, >than Robert Minton. This "explanation" just doesn't hold water. > >>>If Dorian Junior and Senior have gone to the time and trouble to >>>deceive me, I haven"t found the selfish motive. >> >>There are several possibilities. They might ultimately be after your >>money but are holding out until they've reeled you in further. >>Or, they might actually be working for OSA. >>Or, they might just be very disturbed individuals, but who have >>enough knowledge about Scientology to pull the wool over your eyes. > >Or, the whole thing may be a hoax developed for the specific purpose >of extricating Bob Minton from his position as an "opinion leader" >for CoS opposition in a face-saving manner. > >[snip] > >Diane Richardson >referen@bway.net