Character assassination of Rick Ross as
written by NCCG's leader, Christopher C. Warren
[The phrase
"character assassination" is still a favourite. By reading this post,
I understood what nccg_concern really means about
character assassination. As you're about to see, it takes only to disagree to effectively character assassinate someone.]
Background:
Rick Ross runs a prominent cult education and awareness web site, http://www.rickross.com . Around January, 2006, Rick included a link to this "nccg_concern" web site in a list of similar sites on
his web page. There is also a message board on his web site where I
occasionally post NCCG-related information. [Nccg_concern joined the
Rick Ross message board hosted by that website in the beginning of December
practically advertising himself and the nccg_concern
website. It comes to me as little surprise that this website was included about
a month later in Rick Ross's list (in which, among other funny links, Wikipedia appears as a cult, so I suppose Rick Ross doesn't
apply much "face-control" to what he includes there). Looks like this
is why he went into such trouble to record the supposed "character
assassinations" for Rick Ross's benefit. He wouldn't want his mentor
discredited.]
Christopher C. Warren fantasized that Rick Ross is in some way
cooperating directly with me in the creation of this "nccg_concern"
web site, and at times insinuated that this site author (nccg_concern)
is actually Rick Ross himself. [The first thing
nccg_concern did was go to Rick Ross's website and
find the criteria that supposedly characterise a cult and try to apply them in
this ministry. It's pretty obvious who he looks up to and who he consults. The
funny thing is that Rick Ross is not exactly the role-model you'd like to have
(he has made MANY blunders in his career, some of which have cost lives), but nccg_concern didn't seem to care or he simply didn't do
enough research to find out. That creates a particularly weak spot all along
his website. He can't afford to say that Rick Ross is a criminal (which he is),
and the only thing he can do is sing praises to him, which are quite
laughable.]
The conclusions made within the Scientology articles used by Christopher
Warren in this character assassination were addressed by Rick Ross in the
article Rick Ross Responds to his Critics. It was easy for this web site author (nccg_concern) to locate this discussion, I just emailed Rick
Ross at the email address prominently displayed on http://www.rickross.com and
asked him for feedback regarding the Scientology character assassinations.
This character assassination
was originally published on the groups.msn.com/nccgcybercommunity
web site, in the message board "NCCG
Critics", in an article named "Updates on www.oocities.org/nccg_concern:
they keep sneaking in". The thread also contains comments made by a very
involved group member about the subject. [The "very involved group member" is the guy mentioned so
often around this website and the one who has written the theology-related
articles as a contribution: no other than Derek Rumpler. Now why does nccg_concern keep this member's identity secret is an
interesting discussion. Elsewhere in this website, D.
Rumpler is directly accused through an e-mail sent by a former member of the NCCG groups. Nccg_concern didn't
bother to erase his name there. Also, nccg_concern
has sent unsolicited e-mail to D. Rumpler and has written about 45% of his
website "inspired by D. Rumpler. What becomes obvious is that nccg_concern is as "kind" as to remove D. Rumpler's name when he is labelling him as a character
assassin. That isn't particularly honest, but I'm moving on to my main point.]
[Directly below, nccg_concern
had a larger list of "character assassinations" which included
newspaper and internet articles. I do not believe that reproducing someone
ELSE'S supposed "character assassination" makes one a character
assassin so I omitted them. For reference's sake, I'm pasting here the
definition of "character assassination" so you know what you're
looking for:
character assassination (n.): A vicious personal verbal attack, especially one intended to destroy or
damage a public figure's reputation. (The American
Heritage Dictionaries).
Just to keep things balanced, every adult person is
responsible for their activities. If recorded criminal activities are
published, then the public knows of them and the public is absolutely free to
discuss it. Not to mention that all that follows was posted in a NON-PUBLIC
message board, meaning that even if someone was accused "viciously",
it was definitely not in public and could hardly destroy reputations. Oh,
unless people in private forums don't have the right to express their
opinion??? And last but not least: Character assassination does NOT equal
negative opinion, because it requires viciousness.]
Character Assassination(s):
An article of which he apparently
approves of (giving its availability on his site) likewise chronicles how
some cult deprogrammers kidnapped a couple to get them out of a cult: http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming/deprogramming28.html The question remains is following:
If cult deprogrammers are free to kidnap people (Rick Ross only seemed to
stop not because he deemed it immoral, but to keep from being sued), why
can't we snatch atheists off the street and 'deprogram' them from atheism?
What is it about these actions that makes cult
deprogrammers 'moral' while making us 'immoral' if we do the same things? Now
maybe NCCG_Concern does not do these things,
but nonetheless I would love to hear his opinion on the matter. So you
know, I joined NCCG of my
own free will. Likewise, I am free to leave. Freedom of choice is never
restricted in NCCG. However, while involved in this
group, people are expected to follow a set code of rules, just like they
would in a school or the workplace. Those who don't follow our rules are
forcibly removed. Do you then apply this criteria to
these social institutions? Bottom line: anything can be a cult if you want it
to be. As Ross himself said, Cults can be a four-letter filth word to
discredit anything you disagree with. |
[OK, where is the "vicious personal attack"?
D. Rumpler pasted two links from Rick Ross's own website, not even a
Scientology website. He then argued that people have the right to choose their
belief system and finally quoted Rick Ross. How does
the above intend to destroy or damage Rick Ross's reputation since Rick Ross
himself has said/published most of it? All D. Rumpler did, as I see it, was
disagree. Does disagreeing equal character assassination? Obviously,
to nccg_concern's eyes.]
|
[The only part of this last post which could classify
as character assassination is the following: "We know their dishonest methods, their paranoia and the vaccuousness of their belief system. […] We see through
their pretences, their false humility and beneficence to the world." This is an opinion mentioned in private. Is it
vicious? No, it's just a negative opinion – this might be news to nccg_concern, but people are entitled to voice negative
opinions too. Does it destroy Rick Ross's reputation? No more than Scientology
does.]
For reference's sake, compare the above with the
following quote:
"This web site
author has observed Christopher C. Warren to apparently be a skilled, creative
manipulator of facts and situations." – nccg_concern
This is not opinion, this is allegedly the result of
observation, therefore it has different weight.
Moreover, the quote above was published for the whole world to see and directly
aimed at another person's reputation. Therefore, that last quote is much more
of a character assassination than what C.C. Warren wrote.]
|
[Here there are no names named, only "cult
deprogrammers" and anonymous ones at that. By the definition of character
assassination, it's impossible to character assassinate someone who is
anonymous because then there is no personal attack and no reputation to
destroy.]
|
[No comments here, there isn't even a personal attack
to be found in it. I wonder under what pretext nccg_concern
included this.]
Exerpt from: groups.msn.com/nccgcybercommunity,
"NCCG Critics" message board, "NCCG Response to a Swedish Newspaper" thread
dated 6/6/2006
9. To begin with, though he denies
it, Mr.Concern belongs to an
financially opportunistic 'profession', without any kind of credentials,
which has been thoroughly discredited in the |
[I personally doubt that nccg_concern
would ever be bothered to deprogram anybody. The statement "His agenda, far from being altruistic, is
anti-Christian and especially anti-minority religious groups" is expressing opinion and the rest is known and
documented facts. I don't see the character assassination here either. Unless nccg_concern was deeply offended by being told that his
agenda is not altruistic, the rest is common-knowledge, at least among those
that care to do a bit of research.]
[I expected to find some dirty laundry here, but
unfortunately, I found nothing, except 2-3 statements of negative opinion,
which, I suspect, WOULD be considered character assassinations had they been
expanded with more emotionally engaging language and were they available to the
public. Neither is the case however.]