And my point is that we live in the United states. And if you don't like what someone writes about you and you feel that it was untrue you sue them for defamation. And if you're wronged like Carol Burnett was with the National Enquirer then you win. That's what the law is for.
You all keep trying to find crafty ways to blame Paulette. But she didn't start a war, she wrote a book. And no matter whether you thought it was badly or well-written, she didn't deserve what she got.
For you to write "If somebody would write a book attacking my life's work, and insulting and disparaging what I do and it could have consequences like driving me out of business, then it's gloves off" is basically the Fair Game policly in different words. What's the difference between "fair game" and "gloves off." Why don't you just admit that you feel what Hubbard did was right?
That's right! Ron wrote a book and he said it was war right away with all out attacks from the APA and the AMA and commies and nazis and interpol and media and international bankers and merchants of chaos and the middle class...
...so, if we follow this logic, Ron started all this Fair Gaming with a heinous attack writing his book and the whole world, apparently, was merely minding its own business when Ron launched his vicious attack wherein virtually every single sentence transpires contempt and is an offense to any psychiatrist/psychologist/medical doctor/parent.
Ron is not whistle blowing. That is not the same. This was a heinous attack towards a group of people minding their own business.
Ron meticulously planned and carried out his odious attack in a very unfair manner to say the least. His mind was made up in advance. He was going to find what he wanted to find. Maybe he thought, that it wasn't going to sell well. After all, who would care about this psychology cult being one of many back in those days?
While we don't know what was going through his mind, it stands to reason to suspect that his motivations were money driven.
I have nothing against whistle blowing journalism like John Sweeney from BBC. It must be obvious even to the most hateful of psychology that John Sweeney adheres to a significant different style. In no way you could call him under handed. Jon Sweeney is fair and what he is doing is fair journalism.
Tony Ortega from Huffington post comes also to mind. He is even better and must be regarded as a benchmark of objective and critical journalism.
Ron's journalism doesn't even come close to anything we hear from Sweeney or Ortega. Ron has heinously attacked psychology and psychiatry in the first place. Ron was not a "nice" person. Ron's motives were based on greed and hate. Ron, while he later became a "victim", was the initial aggressor.
