================================================================
     MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 66
================================================================
     V E R I C O M M / MindNet         "Quid veritas est?"
================================================================

The views and opinions expressed below are not necessarily the
views and opinions of VERICOMM, MindNet, or the editors unless
otherwise noted.

The following is reproduced here with the express permission of
the author.

Permission is given to reproduce and redistribute, for
non-commercial purposes only, provided this information and the
copy remain intact and unedited.

Editor: Mike Coyle 

Assistant Editor: Rick Lawler

Research: Darrell Bross

Editor's Note:

Jeffrey A. Schaler is a psychotherapist and adjunct professor at
American University's School of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C.
He lives in Silver Spring, MD and is the listowner/coordinator
of NUVUPSY@sjuvm.stjohns.edu. 

================================================================

CULT-BUSTING

By Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D.

June 1995

----------------------------------------------------------------

ABSTRACT

   Psychological characteristics of cult membership are
discussed. The cult nature of Alcoholics Anonymous and disease
model of addiction ideology is examined. Patterns of response by
individuals who believe strongly in the disease model of
addiction when their ideology is challenged are analyzed.
   Cults serve diverse purposes for individuals, the foremost of
which can be a positive sense of community where values are
focused, affirmed, and reinforced. The relationship among
individuals in a cult is also hypnotic (Freud 1959; Becker 1973).
People disagreeing with an ideology binding individuals together
in a group are likely to be criticized, punished, and eventually
excluded or shunned by the group. This rule reads "thou shalt not
disagree," for affiliation and membership in the cult rests on
ideological consensus. In order for the cult to maintain its
singular identity, the rule must be obeyed. Break the rule and
break the spell. In order for a singular group identity to exist,
individual identities must be minimized.
   The flip-side of this phenomenon concerns the impact of
individual autonomy on the cult experience -- a kind of
"psychological capitalism" in a psychologically-socialist world.
The stronger an individual's confidence in self, the less likely
an individual will succumb to demands for cult conformity.
   At least three dimensions to those ideas are worth considering
here: (a) Individuals with a strong sense of personal autonomy
are less likely to become involved in cults. (b) If they do
become involved in a cult, they are more likely to recover from
the cult experience in a way that preserves a strong sense of
self (compared to those whose self-concept was considerably
weaker prior to the cult experience). (c) What is also likely to
be true is that individuals with a strong sense of self are less
likely to feel threatened when cult members attack them.
Moreover, individuals eschewing cult affiliation may elicit
resentment from true believers (Kaufmann 1973). (1)
   Individuals with backgrounds involving chronic identity
confusion, excessive guilt, and "totalistic" or dichotomous
thinking, appear to experience more difficulty in re-establishing
themselves in their post-cult life, compared to those individuals
with a clearer sense of identity, less guilt, and more accurate
sense of psychological perspective. Individuals exhibiting a
strong sense of personal autonomy appear more resistant to
criticism directed at them by a group of individuals at odds with
their particular ideology. (2)
   In clinical hypnosis, the will of the subject becomes
confluent with the will of the hypnotist. The subject does not
have a say in the process. The sense of ego separateness between
the two is purposely obscured by the hypnotist. In psychotherapy
this experience is called "transference." As long as the client
in either hypnosis or psychotherapy maintains an acute awareness
of self, that is, he or she persists in appreciating the
difference between self and environment, a point referred to as
the "ego boundary" by Perls (1947), the hypnosis will fail. Some
schools of psychotherapy may view this as an obstruction to good
therapy, others view it as a means to achieving success (Szasz
1965).
   Good contact and a hypnotic trance are opposing states of
consciousness. Thus, good contact antidotes hypnosis. Moreover,
good contact between therapist and client is not contingent upon
cultivating transference. (3) Therapy fails when the client
chooses to see the therapist as someone other than he or she
really is, and when therapists encourage clients to see them as
someone other than who they really are.
   An extreme example of this ability to resist hypnosis and
brainwashing is seen in the movie of a few years ago entitled The
Ipcress File. By deliberately pressing a metal nail into his hand
actor Michael Caine used his experience of pain to force an
awareness of self. He avoided listening to the hypnotic voice of
an "other," an "other" seeking to make Caine's will confluent
with his own -- against Caine's will. Caine's character found a
way to maintain autonomy in the face of that psychological
coercion. He was able to fight the psychological influence of an
other intent on dictating a particular self concept. The point
intended here is that by focusing on himself in such a way, he
was able to resist the attempt by the other to force a
psychological merge -- a merge that is coerced by one onto
another. (4)
   There are ways of applying this idea to individuals under the
"spell cast by others" (Becker 1973). One way of testing the cult
nature of a group is by challenging the ideology binding the
group together. We can discover something about the nature of a
group by how well its members tolerate opposition to the ideology
that holds the group together. How well do members tolerate
difference of opinion, opinion that challenges the very
ideological heart of the group?
   Members of the cult are like a colony of insects when
disturbed. A frenzy of activity and protective measures are
executed when core ideologies are challenged. The stronger the
evidence challenging the truthfulness of the group ideology, the
more likely members of the cult are to either lash out in a more
or less predictable fashion, fall apart, or disband into separate
cult colonies.
   The purpose of this brief essay is to present certain
characteristic responses to "cult busting," or, the challenging
of ideology that assists in binding members of a particular cult
together. That cult is Alcoholics Anonymous, (AA), (Kurtz 1988;
Antze 1987; Leach and Norris 1977).
   Over the years the writer has been involved in investigating
claims made by politicians, drug users, people in "recovery,"
members of the addiction-treatment industry, and
addiction-research field regarding the disease model of
addiction, particularly the alleged role of involuntariness in
explaining addiction. Extensive research supports the idea that
addiction is a voluntary process, a behavior that is better
explained by individual psychological and environmental factors,
than physiology and the chemical properties of drugs, (Alexander
1987, 1990).
   Presenting those findings to people holding opposing points of
view, i.e., addiction is a disease characterized by "loss of
control" (Jellinek 1960), often elicits a vituperative response.
That response aroused the writer's curiosity as to the cult-like
nature certain groups within the addiction field hold dearly. The
bolder the presentation of ideas in opposition to the prevailing
disease-model ideology, the clearer the characterizations of
criticism directed back in return. Patterns of response are
clear.
   The writer has had many such encounters over the years and
will not elaborate on their details (e.g., Madsen et al., 1990;
Goodwin and Gordis 1988). Those exchanges occurred on the
editorial pages of large and small newspapers, live radio-talk
shows, scientific journals, local political settings, and most
recently on Internet.
   Conceding a confrontational style, it is a mistake to
attribute the nature of critical response solely to a personal
way of delivering the bad news. Colleagues present their ideas
regarding similar issues in what are perhaps at times more
sensitive and tactful ways, and they have met with similar forms
of denunciation and character assassination, the typical form of
rebuttal. Ad hominem rebuttals are the standard, (Fingarette
1989; Peele 1992; Searles 1993; Madsen 1989; Wallace 1993a,
1993b).
   Is AA a cult? There's plenty of evidence supporting the idea
that it is. Greil and Rudy (1983) studied conversion to the world
view of AA and reported that:

[t]he process by which individuals affiliate with A.A. entails a
radical transformation of personal identity in that A.A. provides
the prospective affiliate not merely with a solution to problems
related to drinking, but also with an overarching world view with
which the convert can and must reinterpret his or her past
experience....Our analysis suggests that the central dynamic in
the conversion process is coming to accept the opinions of
reference others, (p. 6). [I]t appears...that contact with A.A.
is more likely to be accompanied by a greater degree of coercion
than...most cases of religious conversion (Greil and Rudy 1983,
p. 23).

   Alexander and Rollins (1984) described how Lifton's (1961)
eight brainwashing techniques used by the Communist Chinese
operate in AA. "[T]he authors contend that AA uses all the
methods of brain washing, which are also the methods employed by
cults," (Alexander & Rollins,1984, p. 45).
   Galanter (1989) has written:

As in the Unification Church workshops, most of those attending
AA chapter meetings are deeply involved in the group ethos, and
the expression of views opposed to the group's model of treatment
is subtly or expressly discouraged. A good example is the
fellowship's response to the concept of controlled drinking, an
approach to alcoholism treatment based on limiting alcohol intake
rather than totally abstaining. Some investigators and clinicians
have reported success with this alternative to treatment. The
approach, however, is unacceptable within the AA tradition, and
the option is therefore anathema to active members. It is rarely
brought up by speakers at meetings and suppressed when it is
raised. As an inductee becomes involved in the group, the sponsor
monitors the person's views carefully, assuring that the recruit
adheres to the perspective into which the sponsor was drawn;  any
hint of an interest in controlled drinking is discouraged.
Similar constraints would be applied if a recruit questioned the
importance of any of the Steps or the need to attend meetings
regularly. The issue here is not the relative merit of controlled
drinking...it is the way communications are managed in AA. As a
charismatic group, AA is able to suppress attitudes that could
undermine its traditions," (Galanter 1989, p. 185). (5).

Sadler (1977) writes to that effect when she stated that "AAers
seek a relationship with the supernatural in order to cease
managing their own lives....The AA concept of control differs
significantly from the concept of control presented to drunkards
by the rest of society....AA...tells the newcomer that his life
is unmanageable and that it is ridiculous for him to try to
manage it....By deliberately denying the ability to control their
lives, AAers' former drunken situations are brought under
control....Most importantly, abstinence is not considered a kind
of control. The individual who comes to AA in order to control
his drinking will be disappointed. AAers insist that abstinence
is possible only when powerlessness is conceded. AA offers
supportive interaction in which powerlessness comes to be
positively valued," (Sadler 1977, p.208).

   When ideas regarding voluntariness, responsibility, and
addiction are introduced to members of AA and devout adherents to
the disease concept of addiction, people who are usually involved
with AA in some way, the following responses are likely to occur
(in no particular order):

NAME-CALLING

   The person introducing the taboo ideas (the heretic) is
belittled and laughed at. Mocking occurs. Derogatory comments are
leveled. Name calling often ensues, e.g., the writer was recently
called a "thoughtless dweeb," told "you are your own worst
enemy," that the writer was a "crackpot psychologist, the kind
that can't get tenure because they are always bullying peers and
students," a "fascist," "doctor baby," an "arrogant son of a
bitch," "contemptible," "immature for a guy with a Dr. before his
name," and a person engaging in "highly unscientific behavior,"
who has embarked on a "personal vendetta."

ACCUSATIONS OF MURDER

   After the initial mocking and belittling, the criticism
appears to take a more serious turn. The ideas presented by the
heretic are considered potentially dangerous. People who do not
know better will misuse them and kill themselves or others. Thus,
the heretic should be held accountable for murder, or the death
of another.
   The accusation of heretic-as-murderer or potential murderer
can be leveled as an unintended result of the ideas presented by
the heretic, in which case forgiveness by some cult members is
still possible; or it can evolve into rhetoric in which the
heretic is described, or alluded to, as someone who has a
deliberate interest in endangering the lives of cult members in
this way. The heretic then personifies evil in the eyes of cult
members. It is at this point that the exchange could become
physically dangerous. (6)

YOU'RE ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY

   The heretic may also be accused at this point of having an
economic investment in his particular point of view. For example,
the writer has been accused of trying to pirate potential
psychotherapy clients away from AA on more than one occasion in
order to make money off of them.

DIAGNOSIS OF MENTAL ILLNESS

   Another tangent the cult members often take is to accuse the
heretic of being "mentally ill." The taboo ideas are alleged to
stem from personal trauma the heretic has not dealt with, and his
or her statements in opposition to the group ideology are
considered "projections," the function of "denial," an
"unconscious" process that is said to be a "symptom" of his or
her mental illness. The heretic may be accused of expressing an
emotional need to receive negative attention in order to feel
good about himself or herself.
   Here, the heretic may be confronted on a paternalistic basis:
"He is sick. He needs help." At times, cultists may yield and
take a more compassionate posture in relation to the heretic at
this point, trying to convince the heretic that he/she is sick,
and that he/she needs to come to his/her senses.

IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE

   There is often an attack on the validity of the heretic's
ideas. The heretic's ideas are termed invalid because he or she
is not a drug addict. Frequently, the heretic is asked, "have you
ever had a drug problem?" Whereas in the DIAGNOSIS OF MENTAL
ILLNESS case the motive driving apparent concern is that the
heretic's inappropriate behavior is likely to stem from a mental
illness, in this case, if the heretic has not had a drug problem
or shared in the problems-of-living experienced by cult members,
he or she is said to be incapable of speaking from legitimate
experience, as it is only by this experience that someone can
"know" what the truth is regarding their cult ideology. (7)

INVOKING AUTHORITY

   A demand for scientific evidence to support the heretical
ideas always emerges. In AA, members often cite scientific
findings to support their claims regarding involuntariness. That
certain medical organizations have endorsed their ideology is
brought forth as evidence of the veracity of their ideas. When
scientific evidence to the contrary is presented by the heretic,
the research is said to be too old to be valid, not extensive
enough, subject to diverse interpretations, and ultimately no
match for personal experience. At times, when scientific
information is brought into the discussion by the heretic, other
scientists will accuse the heretic of unethical use of knowledge
and influence, and threaten to report him or her to some
professional association in hopes that he or she may become
professionally censored.
   When the demand for scientific evidence is met by the heretic,
a retreat to IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE may occur. One person wrote
recently: "You sight [sic] science. I sight experience, strength,
hope." A favorite demand is "don't criticize what is unless you
can propose a better way." Another is "your sources are not
scientific enough," and "your understanding of science is not
sophisticated enough."

SHAMING

   The assault on the heretic is based on the idea that facts are
cruel and insensitive to people who have done him or her no harm.
"Is this the way you treat your friends, (or patients)?"

REDUCTIONISM, TAUTOLOGY, CONTRADICTION, AND NON SEQUITUR

   The counter-argument to the heretic involves scientific and
philosophical reductionism to the point that few, if any,
conclusions regarding the issues at hand can ever be reached.
Circuitous arguments evolve. Blatant contradictions emerge, e.g.,
"the alcoholic cannot willfully control his drinking, therefore,
he must be abstinent." Yet, people choose to abstain from
drinking alcoholic beverage. The alcoholic allegedly cannot
choose to control his drinking, therefore, he should choose to
control his drinking. (8)
   Using analogies that don't work is a favorite tactic of
cultists. The analogies are often not reciprocal. For example,
the alcoholic is seen as like a diabetic. Yet diabetics are not
like alcoholics.
   Here is a particularly graphic account of the illogical
analogy, often employed as non sequitur, by a psychotherapist
attempting to "counter resistance to acceptance of the disease
concept in alcoholic families," (Henderson, 1984):

Counselor: We are dealing here with an illness. We know it is an
illness because it is predictable (it follows a course which we
can describe in advance), it is progressive (it gets worse unless
it can be brought into remission), and, if untreated, alcoholism
is 100% fatal.

Family: All he has to do to straighten up is to want to do it.
He just doesn't want to stop drinking. I don't buy that he has
a disease.

Counselor: So you see him as just weak-willed. And when he
chooses the bottle instead of his family, you feel he doesn't
care about you.

Family: Yeah,[t]hat's right. He'll step all over you. He makes
promises he doesn't keep, and I don't believe he means to keep
them when he makes them.

[Illogical transition occurs here.]
Counselor: Have you ever had diarrhea?

Family: (Laughing a little and looking at the counselor rather
strangely), of course.

Counselor: Did you ever try to control it with willpower?

Family: No. I mean...you can't (still chuckling).

Counselor: Why not?

Family: Well, its a bacteria or something. There's nothing you
can do about it...Oh...

Counselor: You have the idea. Your Dad has an illness he can't
fix with willpower because that doesn't stop it. There are
things you can do to get diarrhea to stop, just as there are
things you can do to stop the active part of alcoholism. But
all you can do for both is to set up the conditions under
which getting well is possible. It depends on what disease you
have. There is a specific treatment for alcoholism...[.]
(Henderson, 1984, pp. 118-119)

   Something is not an illness simply because it is predictable,
nor because it is progressive, nor necessarily fatal if
untreated. Not wanting to stop drinking is a sign of an "iron
will," not a weak will. The counselor contradicts herself by
saying he "chooses" the bottle instead of his family, for on the
one hand she asserts the drinker does not have a choice regarding
his drinking, and then on the other hand she says he chooses the
bottle over his family. Diarrhea is a physical illness. Drinking
is a behavior. The two are not the same. People with diarrhea are
not like heavy drinkers. The fact that this psychotherapist is
unwilling to acknowledge the difference here is a sign of her own
problems, problems that masquerade as treatment for the
"psycho-pathology" of the family. (9)
   For some, those confrontations are enough to shake them out of
their hypnotic daze, arouse their curiosity, and assist in
getting them to leave the group. Occasionally, a member of the
cult may yield suddenly to the heretic, attempting to practice a
"turn the other cheek" portion of the ideological doctrine. If a
personal dialogue can be achieved and continued between a cult
member and the heretic an emotional catharsis may occur for the
cultist and this can become a major event in breaking the
hypnotic spell.
   Humor is useful in further diffusing volatile contacts, along
with divulging of personal information on the part of the
heretic. Those intent on preserving the cult will often go
underground and avoid any contact with the heretic whatsoever.
(10)

CONCLUSION

   These patterns of response may be useful in analyzing and
interpreting exchanges involving vituperation directed at one or
several individuals who have either intentionally or not stepped
into a nest of vipers, i.e., the cult, a volatile experience, to
say the very least.
   Many psychologists regard AA as no more cult-like than
numerous other organizations. They consider that it does more
good than harm. The purpose of this analysis is not to gather
evidence that AA serves a destructive rather than constructive
purpose in the lives of its adherents, but rather that as a cult,
good or bad, there are certain characteristics of its members
that may be drawn out when they are confronted with incompatible
ideology.
   This essay is a commentary based principally on the writer's
personal (rather than clinical) experiences. It has not
considered the individual's need for cult conformity, an issue
that may be explored further. The defensiveness of cult members
should also be considered in light of these needs, (see also
Berger, 1991).

NOTES

1. Some members are definitely split in their involvement with
the cult. They may value the ideology and not the affiliation, or
vice versa. In the former case they hold fast to the ideology,
yet do not attend cult functions. In the latter case they hold
fast to the affiliation and know very little about the ideology,
nor do they seem to care to.

2. These ideas are from Lifton's (1961) study of "brainwashing"
in Communist China.

3. Clearly, psychoanalysts have established a cult around the
ideas of transference and the mythical "unconscious."

4. That idea was suggested to me by Amos M. Gunsberg, as was the
idea of "iron will."

5. The idea of controlled drinking is anathema to members of AA
because it completely undermines the role of involuntariness, the
cornerstone upon which the disease model of addiction rests.

6. One particularly irate male, over 2000 miles away,
persistently "fingered" the writer on Internet, a computer
process whereby the login identity of the bulletin-board poster
may be ascertained along with a brief biography. Each time it is
conducted, the person being "fingered" is alerted, and his or her
work is interrupted while on-line.

7. The research on vicarious or observational learning shows that
people learn through the experience of others. As one
psychotherapist describes this: "Have you ever put your hand in a
rattlesnake pit? Why not?" The point here being that people don't
have to put their hands in a rattlesnake pit to know there is a
good chance they will be bitten should they choose to do so, (A.
Gunsberg, personal communication, July 1993).

8. The idea here is similar to Lifton's (1961) discussion
regarding the "thought-terminating cliche."

9. This is a projection of the therapist's.

10. On computer bulletin boards this may involve a group
consensus to establish a "kill file." A kill file automatically
keeps their computers from printing anything by the heretic on
screen. Thus, they are protected from anxiety.

11. I am grateful to several anonymous reviewers at the Bulletin
of the Menninger Clinic for their comments regarding an earlier
draft of this essay.

REFERENCES

Alexander, B. K. (1990). The empirical and theoretical bases
  for an adaptive model of addiction. _Journal_of_Drug_Issues_,
  20, 37-65.

Alexander, B. K. (1987)  The disease and adaptive models of
  addiction: A framework evaluation. _Journal_of_Drug_Issues_,
  17, 47-66.

Alexander, F., & Rollins, M. (1984). Alcoholics Anonymous:
  The unseen cult. _California_Sociologist:_A_Journal_of_
  Sociology_and_Social_Work_, Winter, 33-48.

Antze, P. (1987). Symbolic action in Alcoholics Anonymous. In
  M. Douglas, (Ed.), _Constructive_drinking:_Perspectives_on_
  drink_from_anthropology_ (149-181). New York: Cambridge
  University Press.

Becker, E. (1973). _The_denial_of_death_. New York: Free Press.

Berger, L. (1991). _Substance_abuse_as_symptom_: A
  psychoanalytic critique of treatment approaches and the
  cultural beliefs that sustain them. Hillsdale, N.J.: The
  Analytic Press.

Fingarette, H. (1989). A rejoinder to Madsen_. _The_Public_
  Interest_, 95, 118-121.

Freud, S. (1959). _Group_psychology_and_analysis_of_the_ego_.
  New York: Norton.

Galanter, M. (1989). _Cults:_Faith,_healing,_and_coercion_.
  New York: Oxford University Press.

Goodwin, F. K., Gordis, E., Hardison, D. L., & Hennigan, L. P.
  (1988, November 5). Alcoholism most certainly is a disease
  [Letters to the editor]. The Washington Post, A21.

Greil, A. L., & Rudy, D. R. (1983). _Conversion_to_the_world_
  view_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous_: A refinement of conversion
  theory. Qualitative Sociology, 6, 5-28.

Henderson, C. D. (1985). _Countering_resistance_to_acceptance_
  of_denial_and_the_disease_concept_in_alcoholic_families_:
  Two examples of experiential teaching. Alcoholism Treatment
  Quarterly, 1, 117-121.

Kaufmann, W. (1973). _From_decidophobia_to_autonomy_without_
  guilt_and_justice_. New York: Delta.

Kurtz, E. (1988). _AA:_The_story_ (A revised edition of
  Not-God: A history of Alcoholics Anonymous). New York:
  Harper & Row.

Leach, B., & Norris, J. L. (1977). Factors in the
  development of Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) . In B. Kissin
  and H. Begleiter (Eds.), _Treatment_and_rehabilitation_of_
  the_chronic_alcoholic_: The biology of alcoholism, (Volume
  5, pp. 441-543). New York: Plenum Press.

Lifton, R. J. (1961). _Thought_reform_and_the_psychology_of_
  totalism:_A study of "brainwashing" in China. New York:
  Norton.

Madsen, W. (1989). Thin thinking about heavy drinking. _The_
  Public_Interest_, 95, 112-118.

Madsen, W., Berger, D., Bremy, F.R., & Mook, D. G. (1990).
  Alcoholism a myth? _Skeptical_Inquirer_: Journal of the
  Committee for the Scientific Investigations of the
  Paranormal 14 , (Summer), 440-442.

Peele, S. (1992). _Alcoholism,_politics,_and_bureaucracy_:
  The consensus against controlled-drinking therapy in
  America. Addictive Behaviors, 17, 49-62.

Perls, F. S. (1947). _Ego,_hunger_and_aggression_: A
  revision of Freud's theory and method. London: Allen &
  Unwin.

Sadler, P. O. (1977). _The_'crisis cult'_as_a_voluntary_
  association_: An interactional approach to Alcoholics
  Anonymous. Human Organization, 36, 207-210.

Searles, J. S. (1993). _Science_and_fascism_: Confronting
  unpopular ideas. Addictive Behaviors, 18, 5-8.

Szasz, T.S. (1965). _The_ethics_of_psychoanalysis_: The
  theory and method of autonomous psychotherapy. New York:
  Basic Books.

Wallace, J. (1993a). _Fascism_and_the_eye_of_the_beholder_:
  A reply to J.S. Searles on the controlled intoxication
  issue. Addictive Behaviors, 18, 239-251.

Wallace, J. (1993b). [Letters to the editors]. Addictive
  Behaviors, 18,1-4.

----------------------------------------------------------------
MindNet Journal Archive Filename: [mn166.txt]
================================================================

To receive the MindNet Journal via email:

Send message: [subscribe mindnet] to: .

To unsubscribe:

Send message: [unsubscribe mindnet] to: .

Back issues of the MindNet Journal are available at our
FTP Archive site:

 [/pub/users/vericomm/mindnet/]

MindNet Journal Publication Index: [mnindex.txt]

Submission of articles for publication within the MindNet
Journal on the subjects of mind control, directed-energy
weapons, non-lethal weapons, ritual abuse, UFO abductions,
bioelectromagnetics, hypnosis, and other related topics
will be accepted with the author's statement of permission
to publish. The editor reserves the right to accept or
reject for publication. The publisher disclaims all
responsibility to return unsolicited matter. Send articles
for submission to:

, or VERICOMM BBS 510.891.0303, or VERICOMM,
POB 32314, Oakland, CA 94604-2314 USA.

VERICOMM / MindNet and its agents disclaim any and all
responsibility or liability for any and all claims and/or
guarantees, express or implied, and delivery of products,
merchandise, and/or services offered for sale by
advertisers and/or authors within the MindNet Journal.

The MindNet mailing list is owned and maintained by Mike Coyle,
, VERICOMM / MindNet, POB 32314 Oakland, CA
94604-2314 USA.

The MindNet Journal is published by VERICOMM / MindNet in
cooperation with the Freedom Of Thought Foundation, POB 35072,
Tucson, AZ 85740-5072 USA.

================================================================

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||  ||||  |      |       |  |      |      |   |   |   |   ||||
|||||  ||  ||  |||||  |||  |  |  |||||  ||  |  | |  |  | |  ||||
||||||    |||  ,,,,|      ||  |  |||||  ||  |  |||  |  |||  ||||
|||||||  ||||      |  |||  |  |      |      |  |||  |  |||  sm||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||  VERICOMM / MindNet : MindNet@c2.org  |||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||