Meet Robert Vaughn Young
Towards A New Model Of ''Cult Control''
February 22, 2000
(Originally posted to the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology)
--by Robert Vaughn Young
To those who don't know me, I was in Scientology for about 21 years. Until
Jesse Prince stepped forward, I was the highest-ranking Scientology executive
to speak about the organization without its approval. I served in and saw
virtually every echelon of the organization, from a franchise where I started
in 1969 to working directly with David Miscavige. About 18 of those years was
spent in or senior to Dept. 20 (now called the Office the Special Affairs or
OSA), the section that deals with the ''enemies'' of the organization, which
comes to mean anyone who disagrees with or criticizes any aspect of
Scientology, Hubbard or ''management.'' Thus it is Dept. 20 (and now also RTC)
that deals with the media, the courts, government agencies, critics and ARS
Hello & Goodbye from Robert Vaughn Young
(Preface: I am making this long post to ARS because I am stepping away from
this work and I want to get it into the hands of people who study or are
concerned with this issue. I do not know who has taken this view. It is merely
my perspective and opinion and can certainly prompt debate, not to mention
screams of horror from any cult. I just want it to be seriously considered by
the professionals who deal with this. Others should be interviewed on it and
the model developed and tested. Nor do I think it is the only model. I merely
think it might help some who could not be helped before. I only ask that
someone provide a copy of this to whoever might be interested in the issue of
After I left Scientology in 1989 with 21 years in the cult, the hardest
question people posed to me was why I stayed in it so long if I knew it was
such an abusive system. I didn't have an answer that satisfied me, let alone
anyone else. I think I've come up with a reply and a model. It at least
satisfies me today.
My own background and basic interests also demanded an answer to that question.
I had a pursued and obtained a BA in philosophy (from what was then known as
San Francisco State College) because of a strong interest in what we called
philosophy of behavior/mind/psychology. (The choice often depended on the
school, as well as the emphasis within the field.)
I was then accepted into the PhD program at the University of California at
Davis. I picked them because they had a strong program in this new, growing
field of study. (Twenty years later I discovered that the field of ''cognitive
science'' had emerged with entire departments devoted to it and PhDs being
granted at some universities. Cognitive Science is a blend of philosophy,
psychology and some computer science, namely in the area of AI or artificial
intelligence, which was exactly what I was looking for. AI was posing new
philosophical problems but back in the late 1960s, departments had yet to
integrate them as full subjects.)
It was this interest of mine that prompted me to read Hubbard. I was intrigued
with elements of his philosophy, namely some of the epistemological and
cosmological presentations. Scientology's Dept 20/RTC and their attorneys
(especially in my last deposition in Tampa a couple of weeks ago) can't grasp
this. When they ask why I got into Scientology, they make all sorts of
assumptions, from ''personal improvement'' to my wanting to join a religion.
No, I say, trying to explain, but it never sticks. For an ''applied religious
philosophy'' they haven't a clue what ''philosophy'' even means, let alone
''religious philosophy.'' (They think that a ''religious philosophy'' is a
religion. Get a clue!) But then, Hubbard didn't understand it either, as I
finally came to learn.
Which brings it back to the issue of why I stayed. There was one incident that
happened in 1988 that I kept as my litmus test. I knew if I could understand
it, I could understand it all.
I was on the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) at ''Golden Era Studios'' at
Gilman Hot Springs CA. (For the sake of brevity, let's skip why I was there and
the way it works and the like and just cut to the chase. Besides, it's
irrelevant to the point I'm making and I think I've written about it before.)
My situation had deteriorated to the point that I was afraid I was either going
to go crazy on the RPF or die so I escaped one night. They found me at a motel
in nearby Hemet and wanted to talk. I said okay and the next thing I knew, I
agreed to return to the ''program'' and to finish the RPF. I did and was on it
another 5-6 months (total 16 months) before ''graduating.''
Here is my litmus test. More than why did I stay in here, why did I return if I
felt it was so abusive that I escaped? And here's the kicker: they TALKED me
back in. They didn't lay a hand on me. By just talking with me, they convinced
me to give up what I had planned for weeks and executed. They convinced me to
go back to the very condition that I feared would kill me. Why did I do it?
And this must be remembered: I can look back (11 years after fleeing) and see
that I was right to escape the RPF and wrong to return. So why did I return and
Here's where the ''mind control'' advocates might argue their point. After all,
isn't this what ''mind control'' is all about where I was ''controlled'' to do
something that was inherently against my will?
Or the ''brainwashing'' school might give their explanation from that
perspective. After 21 years in the cult, they might say, I was ''conditioned''
and like some ''Manchurian Candidate'' or Pavlovian dog, someone merely rang
some bell or pushed a button and I complied.
I never bought either model. As I tried to understand, I read some articles by
''experts'' on the subject of ''cult control'' but they just didn't fit. It was
like putting on an expensive but oversized coat that hung off the fingertips
and draped across me like a double-breasted. Yeah, it was a ''coat'' and the
''label'' was impressive but�
I wondered if it was me. Maybe I resented the idea that I had been
''brainwashed'' or there was ''mind control'' and so that was why I didn't like
the theories. I found myself in an amusing situation where I was agreeing with
the cult that the models didn't work but there was still SOMEthing, some point
of control. Why was I talked back into a situation that I detested and that I
could look back on years later and agree, yes, something else was at work.
There WAS some sort of ''control'' but ''mind control''? It didn't work.
It wasn't until my first trip to Wellspring that I found the model that worked
for me. It had nothing to do with them. It was some books that were on their
shelves that I was reading in my spare time that let me realize the model that
worked for me: the battered or abused woman. The idea didn't take hold fully
then. It took further reading (including some on the Web) some months later to
bring it together.
Various ''experts'' can (and do) argue if ''mind control'' or ''brainwashing''
really exists or if we are just talking about various forms of ''influence''
that is found in everything from advertising to conversations. But they can't
argue with the fact that there are battered/abused women who stay in abusive
situations and there are women who flee and when found by the husband are
talked BACK into the very relationship they tried to escape and then it
Until a very few years ago, our society didn't even ADMIT to these women, let
alone try to help them or try to understand the phenomenon. Being the
male-dominated society we are, it was even legal in many states for a husband
to hit his wife, and may still be. If a woman went to the police, they simply
called the husband. But now women are stepping forward and it isn't easy. It is
like being a rape victim and speaking out. It takes courage and it took some
women to force this issue on our (American) male-dominated society and MAKE it
an issue. That is why it is a new issue. It is not that it hasn't existed. It
has undoubtedly existed for as long as there have been men and women but - like
civil rights and other issues - it took some ''victims'' FORCING the issue
before anyone even admitted that it existed.
The first time I saw the parallel between my own experiences in the cult of
Scientology and battered women was when I was reading ''Captive Hearts, Captive
Minds,'' which is an excellent book. It was in the Intro or maybe the first
chapter that they cited and quoted the singer Tina Turner who had been in an
abusive relationship for something like 10 or 15 years. She remarked how being
with Ike Turner was like being in a small cult. The remark jumped off the page
at me. Given the success of Tina Turner as an entertainer, one is not prone to
say she is a stupid woman but there she was in a marriage where she was beaten
constantly and yet she stayed. When she finally escaped, as she tells her
story, it was after a beating that left her head so swollen that she couldn't
put on a wig. She wrapped her head in a scarf and fled, taking no money or
anything and finally got away from Ike Turner.
One wonders how often she has been asked since, ''Tina, you're such a talented
woman, so intelligent, how could you stay with a man for 10/15 years who was
beating you?'' Maybe she has an answer in her autobiography. I don't know. It
is on my to-read list. But I know she was asked that question. Every woman who
escapes a man who has been beating them must get that question and it is
probably the hardest one in the world to answer. After all, it's not that you
don't KNOW you're getting beaten. And it didn't happen just once. Nor twice. It
happens week after week, month after month, year after year.
Nor are these women locked up. The husband goes off to work, for example, and
she has a car. She gets in the car and she goes to the store, buys food, and
brings it home, to the very place where she is being beaten and she makes
dinner. She doesn't keep driving. SHE COMES BACK. To what? More abuse.
There are also plenty of cases where the women DID escape, where they finally
got up their courage and maybe grabbing the kids, they fled and the man managed
to find them. Then, with no physical abuse, he TALKED HER BACK. And then when
the abuse started again, she stayed. Some leave, but some stay.
When I began to see the parallel between my own experience and these women, I
went back and re-read Lifton's 10 or however many points that he makes for his
model and I realized that it was based on studying prisoners of war! That was
hardly a secret but when he and others were making their models of ''mind
control'' or ''brainwashing'' or however you call it, battered women weren't
even a subject which, for me, was a telling difference. After all, what
repatriated prisoner of war says he wants to go back? What prisoner of war was
let out of their cell and allowed to go into the city to relax and then went
back to the prison where they were abused and tortured? THAT, for me, is where
the model breaks down and where the model of the abused or battered woman takes
Even before I realized how the plight of the abused woman paralleled my
situation, I used to wonder how people from East Germany were able to cross
into Berlin to shop and then would return. If conditions in East Berlin were as
bad as we were being told in the West, how could they step into the West, see
the difference, buy the things they didn't have back home and then return? I
don't cite this as an exact parallel, but there is a similarity. Why would a
person go BACK to a condition that is worse? I don't think ''mind control'' or
''brainwashing'' fits that situation any more than it fits the abused woman or
that it fit mine.
One day talking with someone about this new idea that I had, I mentioned the
East German parallel and the person made an excellent point. ''East Germany was
their home,'' she said. ''People don't easily leave their homes unless they
have someplace better to go.''
And that nearly tied the two together for me, as well as back into my
situation. Where can the abused woman go? Can she just take off for nowhere? I
don't know. I do know that when I escaped the RPF, I didn't have anywhere to
GO, which was why I went to a motel. (There was another reason but it is
somewhat immaterial for this point.) When Stacy and I successfully fled in
1989, we were in the same bind. We didn't have anyplace to GO. We knew that the
cult had the names and addresses and phone numbers of every single family
member and friend. If nothing else, our mail had been monitored and read for
years and there is no doubt in my mind that the already-existing list was
expanded from that monitoring. (Their excuse for opening and reading all mail
that comes to staff at the org is to watch for billings to the org. It is a
Hubbard policy. Staff are then pulled in and interrogated about mail considered
Knowing that they had such a list, we knew we could not go to any of those
people so we just hit the road and drove. I had already been talked back in
once. And there was one other time when I tried to escape and got as far as the
gate and was talked back. So that was one thing I knew I had to avoid. I had to
get enough space and time to get my own wits about me to fend off another
attempt, if they could find us.
That is also why I believe cult members have to escape in secret: they are
afraid they will be talked back in or convinced to stay. I know what that feels
After I began to apply the abused or battered woman model (for want of better
words) to my own situation, I had an inadvertent and unintentional opportunity
to test it and I will never forget the experience. I was back on Vashon Island,
sometime in 1999, where I had been living. (For those who don't know, Vashon is
an island in Puget Sound.) Vashon is an incredibly unique community. When you
live there, you are an ''islander'' and it grants you a number of unstated
privileges. It took me a long time to realize what it reminded me of. It is
what the Old West (in the US) used to be like. A person was accepted for who
they said they were until they proved otherwise. You answered to the locals,
not outsiders. That was how Vashon islanders lived.
There were two bars on the island, across the street from each other. One of
them was where the ''kids'' and off-islanders hung out. It had a pool table and
a big screen TV for watching games. The other was quiet, sedate and for the
''old timers'' who knew each other and everything that was happening on the
island. Even if you were new on the island, by the time you visited, they knew
you and more than you imagined. It was the sort of place where you could sit
down, have a beer and catch up on the local gossip. Any visitors to the island
looking for a place to hang out would stick their heads in and then leave and
choose the one across the street, leaving us to our own rhythm. It was also a
place where you could just sit and if you wanted to be alone, you were left
alone. It was that sort of place.
One night I went in, getting the usual hi's and nods and maybe a slap on the
back or giving one in return. 'Hey, where ya been!'' someone asked. ''Oh,
hanging around,'' I answered. Such a reply would be enough. If I wanted to say
more, I would. No one would pry. I pulled up a bar stool, ordered a beer and
sat watching ESPN. It was the only acceptable station because one could watch
it with no sound, and it was kept at no sound so people could play the juke box
if they wanted.
I was there relaxing for about 15 minutes when a woman sat down next to me.
More out of reflex than anything else, I turned and looked and nodded and she
nodded back. Then I went back to the TV to watch how the Mariners were doing.
The barkeep said hi to her in a way that meant she was a local.
After a couple of minutes she spoke up. ''You're the one they've been
picketing, aren't you?''
I turned to her. She was sipping on her beer. She was maybe 45 and dressed as
islanders dress. (Nine times out of ten, you can spot an off-islander by their
attire.) She was clearly a local, although I didn't recognize her. That was
easy enough on this island. ''Yeah,'' I said.
''How's it going? They still doing it?''
No, I said, it's been quiet lately. She told me how she thought it was
terrible, how they come onto the island like that. It's not how islanders
behave, she said. Yeah, I replied with a shrug. They just don't get it.
''I saw you on the 'Dateline' show,'' she said. I nodded as she remarked some
more about it. Finally she asked the question. ''So how long were you in
''About 21 years,'' I said.
''Wow,'' she said actually surprised. ''If it really is as bad as I hear, how
could you stay in it that long?''
There it was, that same question. Well, this time I had a new answer.
''I guess that's like asking an abused women why she stayed in that
relationship for so long when�''
She suddenly turned to me and raised her hands in front of her, one of those
''halt'' motions and said, ''Say no more! I just ended an abusive marriage of
12 years. I know exactly what you are talking about.''
And right there, we became friends. We had something in common.
We exchanged a few more words on the subject of coming to one's senses and then
the entire subject was dropped. Neither of us were interested in it. We each
understood the other fully and spent the next hour talking about the island,
the Mariners and other pleasantries of life until she finally paid her bill and
got off the stool, shook my hand, wished me well and said she'd tell her
friends about us.
After she left and in the year since, I've thought about that conversation many
times, how there was an instant connection by her, an immediate recognition.
She never said how long it had been since she ended the marriage but it had
probably been long enough to be asked the same question that she found herself
asking me. But it was by an incredibly stroke of luck that the first person I
said that to happened to be a women who escaped from an abusive relationship.
It could have been someone who would have let me finish my statement and said,
''You know, I've never understood that either,'' but it wasn't. It was a woman
who said, say no more, I know exactly what you're talking about. And she did.
Our situations were entirely different but they were the same.
After that I realized that for the first time I had a model that I could use in
the most difficult situations and the understanding would be based on that
person's grasp of the situation of the abused woman. With this model/analogy, I
could go on the ''Oprah'' show and with that response she would get it, as
would millions of women watching the show. Nothing else would be needed. There
wouldn't have to be arguments about ''mind control'' or ''brainwashing'' and if
it really exists. Abused women exist and whatever keeps them there or brings
them back, it happens. That fact cannot be denied.
Now that I've made my point, let me expand it. In my opinion, this
model/analogy extends much further than the control of a cult. I think it can
be found in jobs where the person feels trapped and wants to leave but can't.
There might be a difference that the ''boss'' may not try to talk them back,
but I think this model/analogy goes farther than merely cults and abused women.
That would be up to others to pursue. My point is that I'm not targeting
Scientology. The model worked for me in my situation and I think it would help
others who have had difficulty understanding the ''control'' they felt. It
helped me because it lifted out of the subjects of ''mind control'' and
''brainwashing'' and told me that it was not exclusive to the cult. In turn, I
understood - or at least sympathized - with the plight of the abused woman. I
no longer wondered why they stayed or returned. I didn't have an answer, but I
was no longer puzzled.
At my last deposition in Tampa, there was a point where this came up. I don't
recall what it was but I was asked something that prompted me to say that I
thought the abused woman syndrome was a good model for what I had experienced.
Of course, there were the guffaws and laughs of severe denial from their part.
It is to be expected from the abusers, isn't it? No abusive husband admits to
it and no abusive cult will either and for the same reasons.
Before closing, let me make a couple more points of parallel.
No abusive relationship starts that way. In fact, the chances are that if the
guy had slapped her on the first date, there wouldn't be a second one. No, the
abusive relationship starts with sweetness. When I was reading about abusive
relationships, that came up constantly, how the guy was so nice and sweet. No,
the abuse is gradual. It starts with some criticism and when the woman accepts
it, then there is a little bit more. When she accepts that, the man does more
as he introduces CONTROL. If she protests, he backs off until he can
reestablish the control. It is called a GRADIENT. (Ironically, Scientologists
will be familiar with that word.) The woman comes to accept more and more and
becomes convinced that it is something SHE is doing wrong. As it is increased,
the sweetness tapers off until it is finally dangled in front of her like a
carrot. Somewhere along the line, the physical abuse starts. If she breaks too
hard, he is sweet and comforting and maybe even apologetic, bringing her back
under control. That is the key. CONTROL. (Another word Scientologists know
well. Hubbard even had his own definition for it and processing addressing
control.) Then one day the beatings are regular and she loses her self-respect
Let me draw another parallel to my own situation. I mentioned in one of my
other posts to ARS that I am making with this one about the woman who asked me
if there was anything anyone could have said to me to change my mind while I
was in Scientology. No one had asked me that and I realized - and told her -
that no, there was nothing anyone could have said.
That happens with the abused woman too. I read how they would later recount the
advice of friends who kept telling them that their husband/lover was abusing
them and that they should leave. I don't recall any who said, you know, you're
right! I'm going to leave him! No, they explained the abuse! They would say -
actually believing it, until they finally escaped - that he was really a nice
guy, that he was misunderstood, that he was trying, that they would work things
out, etc., etc., etc.
You know who usually changes the woman's mind? The abuser. Those who flee -
like Tina Turner - simply say one day, I've had enough, and escape. Some do it
sooner. Some later. Until that moment, they rationalize their situation.
Friends or family might be able to intervene but not in the hard core cases. In
those instances, the abuser is the only one who can change the person's mind.
Until then money and resources are also a factor. People stay in abusive
situations because they have no money or anywhere else to go. Maybe if the
abused woman had $100,000 in the bank she would have given him the finger and
taken off long before. But what abuser would allow the woman to keep that money
for herself? (I have yet to learn of a Sea Organization member who escaped with
ample personal resources. The amount of money one has on joining - if any - is
quickly discovered and one is convinced to spend it on the cult, thus
effectively wiping out any resources.) These are the points that have to be
researched to understand this phenomenon and to offer help.
Meanwhile you might ask, how can a person rationalize a beating? Good question
indeed. If the plight of the abused women had been known longer than it has,
maybe we would have a better understanding. Each woman will have her own answer
but until we get a grasp of it the fact remains that it exists and there are
some disturbing parallels between them and cult members. I wasn't ''abused''
when I joined. It was like the ''love bombing'' found in another cult.
Everything is wonderful and the future is bright and this is the place to be.
Then one day, there is a little ''correction.'' If one balks, one is talked
through it gently until it is grasped and one is willing to accept it. The next
one is attached to that one. (''Remember how well we did last time when you
were able to understand it and you had a win?'') And the next until one day you
find yourself working 12 hours a day at hard labor, under guard, seven days a
week, unable to talk to friends and family, your body racked in pain and
undergoing constant interrogation to give up your ''crimes'' and you accept it
as necessary for your own ''rehabilitation.'' And if you try to escape and they
catch you, you can be talked back to the very same situation and you convince
yourself that this is right as you haul the next load of rocks out in 110
degree heat and a blazing sun for $5 a week. It is all part of your
No, when people asked me how I could stay for so long when I knew it was
abusive, that's a loaded question. I didn't know it any more than the abused
woman knew it. I kept telling myself that they really are okay, that it must be
my fault, that it is being done to help me and things really will get better. I
carried that attitude right into the RPF until one day I broke and decided to
escape. Then they talked me back and I was convinced that it would get better.
All they did was back up the gradient to where I would accept the control.
That is another place where I find that the ''mind control/brainwashing''
models break down. It is crucial in cult control that the person feel in
control and in fact IS ''in control.'' One is always making the decision to
stay. To that degree, it is ''consensual.'' But how ''consensual'' is the
abused woman? Just because she has the freedom to drive to the store and back
and no one is keeping her in chains, does that mean she is ''consenting'' to
her situation? Can the husband argue that he isn't ''controlling'' her because
she has that freedom? Then what IS ''consent''? That may be a legal quandary as
much as a psychological one but I don't think we are ready to walk away from
the woman being beaten, saying she is ''consenting to it,'' are we?
Thanks to video cameras, we can watch shows like ''Cops'' where the police are
called out to a real life ''domestic disturbance.'' If you have watched that
show enough, you finally saw the all-to-familiar scene of the woman with a
bloody nose who has clearly been beaten (the cops were called by neighbors
hearing the fight) and is standing there explaining it all away, insisting that
the police take no action. No, she's fine, she says. No, it's nothing. To the
questions from the police about the bloody nose or the swelling around the
eyes, she'll say anything but the facts, that he was beating her. Do we need
more evidence? There are the very people - the police - who can take him off to
jail and end the abuse if she will simply speak up and she refuses while wiping
the blood from her nose or pulling the torn clothing up around her shoulder and
telling them that everything is okay. Of course, the police cannot legally
intervene unless she complains and she will not.
Now let me make a harrowing admission. If the police had shown up that day when
I was at the motel trying to escape, when the security guards were parked
outside to make sure I didn't disappear on them, and if the police had asked me
if everything was okay or if I needed any help, do you know what I would have
said and done? The same thing as that woman. No, it's fine, I would have said.
I'll handle it. It stuns me to think it, let alone say it right now, but that
is the truth. That is exactly what I would have done. And do you know why?
Because I didn't want to be in trouble with the cult. If you can figure that
one out, give it to the experts.
That is why people who flee the cult - even into the arms of the authorities -
can be talked back. They can no more say ''help me'' than the woman standing
there with a bloody nose can tell the police. Give them a few days rest and
time to get their wits about them and maybe they can. That is why those first
few hours or days are crucial. The more time the person gets away from the
person suppressing them, the more they recover their own sense of self. That,
of course, infuriates the abuser, until he/they finally give up and look for
their next victim. Meanwhile, some degree of control remains until the person
finally sheds it.
And don't think that all abused women are abused physically. The abuse might be
merely verbal, with other controls like control of money, sleep, clothing,
friends, beliefs, free time etc. (Gee, sound familiar?)
Now if one were interested in studying the ''abused woman'' syndrome, who would
one study? This may sound like a ridiculous question but it goes to a point the
cult is making.
First of all, one has to decide if such women exist. (This may sound like I'm
contradicting myself but hang on.) How does one decide? The obvious answer
would seem to be the stories of women themselves. But can we believe them?
Maybe they are making it up. So let's ignore them for the moment and go to
marriages/relationships and ask the women, are you abused? Let's ask the men,
are you abusing this woman? What sort of answer will we get? Done in this way,
we can conclusively ''prove'' that there are no abused women because all of the
women - including the ones with the bloody noses - will deny it as will the
men. Case closed. No woman is abused.
That is exactly what the cult is doing. They are saying that those who have
left and claim abuse are ''apostates'' (one who has abandoned one's belief or
cause) and can't be believed. (They even paid some ''experts'' to ''conclude''
this.) Meanwhile, they will suggest, all you have to do is ask Scientologists
if they feel abused. In fact, you can even go into the RPF and ask and chances
are (unless there is one rocky one who will be quickly stashed somewhere else)
they will respond to the man and woman that they are not being abused. Case
closed. No one is abused.
In other words, as long as we listen to someone who has abandoned a belief or a
cause (from a marriage to a ''religion'') cannot be believed.
And that is one of the reasons why abused women were not believed until just a
few years ago. Think on that. Women have been abused for thousands of years and
it wasn't until a few years ago that it was even admitted that it happened and
that something should be done about it. How many women went to the police and
were turned away or were killed or destroyed before someone believed them? How
many have simply fled and disappeared and are still too ashamed to talk,
preferring to just live quiet lives where they can choose their own friends,
have their own bank accounts, pick their own meals, select their own clothes,
keep private diaries and not have to answer or explain themselves again? Can
anyone imagine what a joy that is to a person whose life was controlled down to
the point of what it was they could say or believe, where their very thoughts
and opinions were monitored, that they can now forget it? How many women are
out there? Compare that to how many go to the authorities or champion the cause
of abused women and take it to the media and the courts. How many of THOSE are
there? Three? Five? Ten? Should these ''apostates'' be believed?
How many ex-cult members are there? How many have of them have spoken out?
Three? Five? Ten? Should these ''apostates'' be believed?
I think there are many, many reasons to draw a parallel between the two groups
not only in their situation but in those who speak out and I hope that this
might spark some interest within some professional circle. I'm no more an
''expert'' on sociological parallels than that woman with the bloody nose is an
expert but we do have a level of understanding.
Robert Vaughn Young
copyright (c) Robert Vaughn Young
all rights reserved