No moral crisis here
Emma
I never promised anyone I wouldn't write it.
I can't say what harm has been done because of the existance of the
situation I am about to post about. I'll leave that up to others to judge.
What I am doing is posting only what I know to be true and only what
involves me.
A lot of people wonder about the influence of Patricia Greenway on this
newsgroup and in the infighting amongst critics. Is is the "elephant in the
loungeroom" that people have tried to get Patty P and others to talk about.
I am only going to talk about one incident because it is the only one I can
prove.
Take a look at this thread from Oct 06.
Take notice of my replies, especially #46 and also Patty's reply #62. They
are the same post essentially, written by PG. I altered the formatting on
mine slightly but they are the same post. PG had originallty sent the post
to Patty to post but got hold of me as well and convinced me to post it. I
emailed Patty to warn her that I'd posted it but she didn't see the email
from me & posted it anyway. In fact that whole thread was initiated by PG
emailing me and asking me to post about it, and every one of my replies was
written by PG.
I freaked out when I realised our mistake and was sure that Zinj would pick
up on it but he didn't.
That was the last time I ever posted anything on behalf of Patricia
Greenway.
This goes on, it just does, and I'm sick of hiding it. I'm also sick of
Patricia Greenway using Patty P to do her dirty work for her. She uses Patty
as her sacrificial lamb and I think it's doing her harm.
I asked PG once why she doesn't post to ars herself and her reply was that
she was "too busy" and that it makes her "too angry", yet she finds the time
to write things for others to post. I don't understand why she allows Patty
to take enormous amounts of flack for doing it, yet never actually comes to
her friend's defence when she needs it.
IMO she is a coward.
- Emma
--
Ex Scientologist Message Board
http://www.forum.exscn.net
Quaoar
> This is not the most difficult post I've ever had to write.
> I never promised anyone I wouldn't write it.
> I can't say what harm has been done because of the existance of the
> situation I am about to post about. I'll leave that up to others to judge.
>
Hummm.... Patricia Greenway... attempting to control thought on the
forums....
One wonders if the balance of the Buttersquash cabal is taking cues from
Ms. Greenway and her Scientology handlers?
Cues? Perhaps it's part of that $2.5MM that was wrested from Minton?
In any event, the PG/Buttersquash cabal is being revealed for what many
of us thought it was.
Q
Emma
"Quaoar" <qua...@marcabfleet.net> wrote in message
news:I8SdnQAf3fRSEBTa...@comcast.com...
If you look at who the "Buttersquashers" actually are (the 4 elves) I have
absolutely no proof, nor do I think that they have ever done what Patty and
I have done with regards to posting on behalf of PG.
In Patty's "Moral crisis" thread I alluded to some "buttersquash"
conspiracy. Well a lot of that was hot air. I was angry. I believe that PG
has her hooks into PP in a big way but that PG is too smart to try to
manipulate the others.
Think what you like about Rob, Kady, Tikk, Mirele etc. but my post has
nothing to do with them. Most of them don't even read ars anymore and are
hardly even active on the IRC channel.
- Emma
Out_Of_The_Dark
> This is not the most difficult post I've ever had to write.
> I never promised anyone I wouldn't write it.
> I can't say what harm has been done because of the existance of the
> situation I am about to post about. I'll leave that up to others to judge.
>
> What I am doing is posting only what I know to be true and only what
> involves me.
>
> A lot of people wonder about the influence of Patricia Greenway on this
> newsgroup and in the infighting amongst critics. Is is the "elephant in the
> loungeroom" that people have tried to get Patty P and others to talk about.
>
> I am only going to talk about one incident because it is the only one I can
> prove.
>
> Take a look at this thread from Oct 06.
>
>
> Take notice of my replies, especially #46 and also Patty's reply #62. They
> are the same post essentially, written by PG. I altered the formatting on
> mine slightly but they are the same post. PG had originallty sent the post
> to Patty to post but got hold of me as well and convinced me to post it. I
> emailed Patty to warn her that I'd posted it but she didn't see the email
> from me & posted it anyway. In fact that whole thread was initiated by PG
> emailing me and asking me to post about it, and every one of my replies was
> written by PG.
>
> I freaked out when I realised our mistake and was sure that Zinj would pick
> up on it but he didn't.
>
> That was the last time I ever posted anything on behalf of Patricia
> Greenway.
>
> This goes on, it just does, and I'm sick of hiding it. I'm also sick of
> Patricia Greenway using Patty P to do her dirty work for her. She uses Patty
> as her sacrificial lamb and I think it's doing her harm.
>
> I asked PG once why she doesn't post to ars herself and her reply was that
> she was "too busy" and that it makes her "too angry", yet she finds the time
> to write things for others to post. I don't understand why she allows Patty
> to take enormous amounts of flack for doing it, yet never actually comes to
> her friend's defence when she needs it.
>
> IMO she is a coward.
>
> - Emma
> --
> Ex Scientologist Message Boardhttp://www.forum.exscn.net
Thanks for your honesty on this Emma. What you've written here
confirms for me what I've always suspected Patty was doing but
As I posted in the past, when it comes to Patty, I sometimes feel that
I am reading and replying to 2 different people, but it depends on the
topic of the thread. Certainly when I've mentioned Minton, The Profit
or Peter Alexander.
How could Patty let this go one? I'm glad you stopped doing it.
Arnie wrote something on the subject :
"Manipulators strive to divorce us from the facts. Rather than
encouraging us to examine the evidence and reasoning of people who
appear to disagree with us, they block communications and openly or
indirectly try to persuade us that people who disagree with their
views are dishonest, not trustworthy, incompetent, biased, racist,
only concerned with money, insulting our intelligence, corrupt,
betrayers of the American dream, and so on.
Do what we tell you, without realizing that we are controlling you."
Like cult leaders, manipulators encourage us to close ranks and form
an in-group suspicious of those who question the party line."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/1341e155728d57ae/f292b8221c703c90?#f292b8221c703c90
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Manipulation
In general, manipulation is a human activity dealing with physical
states of objects, or mental states of persons. Typically the word
manipulation is used with a negative connotation. When used with a
negative connotation, the goal of the manipulative activity can be
either not clear, or incomprehensible or morally/legally unacceptable.
The end result of this kind of activity is typically to leave the
system or person being manipulated in a less coherent, worse of state
to facilitate the petty and whimsical gains or desires of the person
or entity attempting the manipulative activity.
In particular, the word manipulation can refer to:
Manipulation(of public opinion)
Joint manipulation
Social influence
Sleight of hand tricks in magic.
-------------------------
Thanks for telling us, Emma.
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> - Show quoted text -
What about Tigger? There once was a Tigger post that had Patricia's
name as the signature...I can't recall off hand which post but I'll
find it when I have time this week. Do you know of Tigger posting
Greenway posts?
Emma
"Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a22b9d1e-0f01-4e7e...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------
I believe that was happening but I can't prove it. Tigger was a lot more
"educated" in the Minton stuff and also The Profit than I, and so posted an
awful lot of stuff herself.
Tigger & PG were in regular communication and I always presumed that PG was
feeding Tigger but I again can't prove it.
All I would say is - do the math.
Ball of Fluff
news:5utiufF...@mid.individual.net...
Thanks for saying that, Emma. I have always loathed the buttersquash
conspiracy talk because it's so silly. All it was, was a label on a webpage
that had some depositions or something that weren't ready to be "broad
public issue".
I'll take Tikk, Rob, Kady, Mirele- and, yes, Patty P- over pondscum who
jokingly (supposedly) threaten women on the internet (while, elsewhere,
boohooing and slobbering about predatory Freezone behavior- how
hypocritical!) anytime.
Your post about the PG post was interesting. I don't know that story on it,
but I do know that a number of people- including myself, including Arnie and
others- have been asked over the years to forward posts on to a.r.s. on
behalf of a number of peope. Further, one or two or even a dozen posts over
a year ago doth not a Greenway gypsy queen conspiracy make.
All this nonsense about the evil gypsy queen is about on a par with the
Buttersquash stuff.
I believe Patty P's mistakes and the things she does that are constructive
are her own. She has a mind of her own and is sometimes right and sometimes
wrong just like any of us.
I think this stuff about Patricia Greenway is counterproductive.
As I said, many of us have forwarded communications to other people on the
forums and to the forums themselves. Just the ones I know about are
numerous. It's pretty common.
Regards,
Claire
Emma
"Ball of Fluff" <getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote in message
news:47899c66$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
I respect your viewpoint Fluff but you don't know the half of it.
It's not "just a few posts" and they are always signed by Patty, who then
has to take the brunt of it.
You have no idea of the influence she has or the vitriol she instills in
those who listen to her.
She isn't a "gyspy queen" but she isn't the "tooth fairy" either. She's
real, she's manipulative and she is gutless. You don't know this because
you've never been caught up in her web. I have.
I have no problem posting on behalf of someone else, so long as it is
acknowleged. This is not the case here.
Warrior
Thanks for your post, Emma.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
"Scientology: it's about deception."
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Warrior
>
>I respect your viewpoint Fluff but you don't know the half of it.
>
>It's not "just a few posts" and they are always signed by Patty, who
>then has to take the brunt of it.
>
>You have no idea of the influence she has or the vitriol she instills in
>those who listen to her.
>
>She isn't a "gyspy queen" but she isn't the "tooth fairy" either. She's
>real, she's manipulative and she is gutless. You don't know this because
>you've never been caught up in her web. I have.
I've seen it, too. It only took me a couple of days of being the target
of her twisted communications to know I'd seen more than enough
to know I wanted nothing more to do with it. She had the time to
log on to irc # altreligionscientology and tell me all about what she
thinks about someone. When I asked her why she doesn't tell the
person herself, her screaming reply was, "I DID NOT TELL YOU what
I think of [him.] DO NOT twist my words". Earlier I had asked her
whether she had told the person herself, and she replied, "nope, I'm
not around much" and that she "only pop[s] onto irc once in a while"
and has "no time to talk to anybody".
What a crock.
Magoo
"Warrior" <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in message
news:210203967.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
Yes....great post, Emma. Thanks SO much for clarifying what
actually has gone down, with you, and PG. It's got to be a relief
to just spit this out, finally.
I'm proud of you, girl :)
Tory/Magoo~~
>
Hartley Patterson
> A lot of people wonder about the influence of Patricia Greenway on this
> newsgroup and in the infighting amongst critics.
You guys are doing an excellent job in reassuring me that deciding not to
use IRC was a wise choice. I measure critics by the effect they have on
the cult, not on each other!
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
Hartley Patterson wrote:
> emm...@bonbon.net:
>
>> A lot of people wonder about the influence of Patricia Greenway on this
>> newsgroup and in the infighting amongst critics.
>
> You guys are doing an excellent job in reassuring me that deciding not to
> use IRC was a wise choice. I measure critics by the effect they have on
> the cult, not on each other!
>
Hang on, that was my line!
Seconded.
Best regards
Jens
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mandriva Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 829 985
"Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects" 'Casablanca'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHideUimJs3AlyPBIRAtndAJ4uu3IvK/w4zgy3gcSybpNrCXM5BwCdExOE
Jwd8PP9pur+CEeSmv9gv5sA=
=RR4K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Magoo
"Jens Tingleff" <jens...@tingleff.org> wrote in message
news:fmcl3...@news3.newsguy.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hartley Patterson wrote:
>
>> emm...@bonbon.net:
>>
>>> A lot of people wonder about the influence of Patricia Greenway on this
>>> newsgroup and in the infighting amongst critics.
>>
>> You guys are doing an excellent job in reassuring me that deciding not to
>> use IRC was a wise choice. I measure critics by the effect they have on
>> the cult, not on each other!
>>
>
> Hang on, that was my line!
>
> Seconded.
"I measure critics by the effect they have on
the cult, not on each other!"
Me three :)
Best regards to all~~
Tory/Magoo~~
Emma
-------------------------
_________________________________
No problem. I'm sure there will be repercussions. I'm just not sure what
other skeletons I have left in the closet.
It's likely I'm about to find out though.
Patty P has already informed me in one of several abusive emails that's
she's been digging up the dirt. She says that she is not going to "throw
more shit on you that I know and have recently found out." I don't believe
it though, especially as she ended her last email with " Keep spinning your
lies and sucking the dick's of the Lerma Loons, they'll love you for it."
I no longer fear OSA. They are pussycats compared to her and her friend.
Isn't it a bizare turn of events when you are more concerned about being
violated by a former friend and fellow critic of scientology, than of OSA.
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
> I never promised anyone I wouldn't write it.
> I can't say what harm has been done because of the existance of the
> situation I am about to post about. I'll leave that up to others to judge.
>
> What I am doing is posting only what I know to be true and only what
> involves me.
>
> A lot of people wonder about the influence of Patricia Greenway on this
> newsgroup and in the infighting amongst critics. Is is the "elephant in the
> loungeroom" that people have tried to get Patty P and others to talk about.
>
> I am only going to talk about one incident because it is the only one I can
> prove.
>
> Take a look at this thread from Oct 06.
>
>
> Take notice of my replies, especially #46 and also Patty's reply #62. They
> are the same post essentially, written by PG. I altered the formatting on
> mine slightly but they are the same post. PG had originallty sent the post
> to Patty to post but got hold of me as well and convinced me to post it. I
> emailed Patty to warn her that I'd posted it but she didn't see the email
> from me & posted it anyway. In fact that whole thread was initiated by PG
> emailing me and asking me to post about it, and every one of my replies was
> written by PG.
>
> I freaked out when I realised our mistake and was sure that Zinj would pick
> up on it but he didn't.
>
> That was the last time I ever posted anything on behalf of Patricia
> Greenway.
>
> This goes on, it just does, and I'm sick of hiding it. I'm also sick of
> Patricia Greenway using Patty P to do her dirty work for her. She uses Patty
> as her sacrificial lamb and I think it's doing her harm.
>
> I asked PG once why she doesn't post to ars herself and her reply was that
> she was "too busy" and that it makes her "too angry", yet she finds the time
> to write things for others to post. I don't understand why she allows Patty
> to take enormous amounts of flack for doing it, yet never actually comes to
> her friend's defence when she needs it.
>
> IMO she is a coward.
>
> - Emma
> --
> Ex Scientologist Message Boardhttp://www.forum.exscn.net
dear emma
thank you for your candor,
telling the truth takes guts,
warmest regards
Arnie Lerma
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=381
http://www.Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
WE COME BACK
for our friends and family
to get them out of scientology
before they end up here:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
Hey kids, LAUGH at Scientology today!
http://www.lermanet.us/SPEpisode912TrappedintheCloset.rm
Out_Of_The_Dark
wrote:
> "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Claire, who is this poster who is harassing you? You've mentioned
several times that none of this could be compared to what this unnamed
person is putting you through, with PM's and emails. Hinting at who it
may be and being upfront aboutt the harassment are two different
things. I think if you are going to compare her or him to what is
going on here, that we should at least know who this other person is
and why you believe the harassment is going on. Otherwise it's not a
fair comparison. It comes across as a generality.
There are some posts of Patty P 's to me that are clearly Greenway's
efforts to harass and out me. Patty has posted here for nearly 7 years
before revealing who her real name. I have been here since spring of
2006. I am anonymous for good reasons and none of them are for the
purposes of being deceptive to ex-scientologists. I was fortunate to
have been anon when a couple of off-balanced individuals here harassed
me because they would have made trouble for my valid reasons for being
anon.
Some of Patty P 's posts to me were more than harassment. She was
trying to get me to call Luke Lirot, or calling me names for being
anon in order to dare me to out myself. Thos posts were different and
deceptive; so much that I could distinguish the separate personalities
of Patty P the former Narconon ED and Patty P the seeming pawn for
Patricia Greenway who obviously hated me for noticing how Patty would
posts immediately, agressively and often without all the facts,
whenever ANYONE posted anything on the subject of The Profit and Bob
Minton.
That Emma has admitted to being a pawn of Patricia Greenway up until
that final October 29, 2006 post ( "That was the last time I ever
posted anything on behalf of Patricia Greenway." ) and that Patty P
has and still is doing the same posting for Greenway ( "This goes on,
it just does, and I'm sick of hiding it. I'm also sick of Patricia
Greenway using Patty P to do her dirty work for her. She uses Patty as
her sacrificial lamb and I think it's doing her harm. "), is all the
more proof that my suspicions were correct.
Credibility is important, whether one is anon or not. It's the
intentions behind what people do here. Whoever is harassing you is
doing it for a reason. If you are going to compare what the person is
doing to you against what Emma has written of here, consider being
fair in naming the ID for the benefit of those who have not figured it
out based upon your hints. You may find yourself less the effect of
the person's attacks.
Mary
Out_Of_The_Dark
> "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
You did the right thing, Emma. A person can take themselves out of
OSA but it's getting the OSA out of the person that is hardest.
Gee, that email quote of Patty's you posted sounds like something
Greenway would say. I've read some of the logs that were posted on
ARS .... I wonder if Patty and Patricia were friends when she was
Cerridwen. It might explain things better. You are right that it's a
bizarre turn of events... and let's not forget that it all began when
Erlich came over here and posted about you and ESMB. Who would have
ever thought........
You did a good thing. I hope ESMB is running stronger than ever. Keep
up the good work.
Mary
barb
> In article <5uueshF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Emma" <emm...@bonbon.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>> I no longer fear OSA. They are pussycats compared to her and her friend.
>> Isn't it a bizare turn of events when you are more concerned about being
>> violated by a former friend and fellow critic of scientology, than of OSA.
>
>
> When a person encounters and becomes connected to others who have
> purposes that are in some way harmful to their own, they become the
> victim of it, to the degree that they either stay connected or do not
> see the source of the harm, and accept data from them that creates
> confusion.
>
> This it the core of the Church's PTS/SP teaching.
>
> But is it not also true in life, disregarding the whole notion of "toxic
> spirituality"?
>
> Imagine the PTS/SP mechanisms as value neutral. That is that it matters
> not the moral or ethical rightness or wrongness, but is simply a
> mechanism of people at different purposes, some overwhelming and
> victimizing the others.
>
> The dominating party, the "SP", and those affected "PTS".
>
> The characterizing feature of the "PTS" person is dispersed attention,
> and lessoned ability to see cause and effect.
>
> The cure is of course looking, and understanding, getting all the facts
> and reversing the dynamic.
>
> PG is a person connected to and to some extent the effect of her
> relationship with an organization that has purposes other than hers who
> has means of overwhelming her and creating the situation where she acts
> in their interest. Unknown influence by the mechanism described.
>
> And that situation of dispersal of attention and confusion of facts
> pass's on to others connected with her.
>
> Basically its not a question of who is right or wrong, but a mechanism
> that even the "right" can participate in, creating effect on others in
> contravention to their own purposes.
>
> But then one is not the effect of things fully investigated and
> understood.
>
> Labels confuse the issue. Seeing a mechanism clears it up.
>
> ?
>
> alex
Bah. This is the kind of "thinking" that leads to family disconnection.
The group becomes more important than family.
--
barb
Chaplain, ARSCCwdne
buy my book!
http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1198812
read my page! (thanks, R. Hill!)
http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/graham1.html
visit my store!
http://www.cafepress.com/birdville
Deo Morto
HI Emma,
some old familiar names on that list there.
I think every person has his or her own way out of the cult and I was
interested more in WHY you were posting someone else's messages rather
than just the fact that you did it. I am not asking just to pile on or
anything but I am kind of fascinated. I knew PG back in the AOL days
and she was very effective at combatting the cults little games on
there.
anothers...@hotmail.com
> In article <V8tij.33154$Ft5.26...@newsfe15.lga>,
>
>
>
>
>
> barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > a...@null.edu wrote:
> > > In article <5uueshF1jt5e...@mid.individual.net>,
> simply shot off your one liner in response to the subject line. Which in
> retrospect I will now change back.
>
> I assert that people fall into the trap of accepting information from
> others, whos hidden counter purposes, pass on harm.
>
> Examining those connections is the solution.
>
> The mechanism is value neutral.
>
> You would be wise to examine the influences in your life.
>
> You ironically have been one in mine.
>
> alex- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree that people can find themselves in the position of accepting
information from another and then are manipulated into furthering that
person's hidden agenda. It happens to pretty much everyone at one
point or another during their lives. When it's happened to me, I've
analyzed the situation, recognized the hidden agenda and quickly
stopped being manipulated by the other person.
At any rate, when in doubt, I try to look for corroborating
information or information that refutes what I've been told and make
an informed decision.
I can't really comment on the rest of this (the situation with Emma
and Patty, et. al.) except to say that I believe you were sincere in
your analysis and I agree that changing the subject line may have led
to the dismissal of it.
I'm interested to note your statement about Barb having been
(ironically) an influence in your life :)
Mark Bunker
Thank you, Emma. I have long thought that Patty P's posts were virtually
identical to Deanna Holmes posts of years ago. I always assumed it was
because they were being fed the same angry vitriol from Patricia and just
fell in lockstep. Now, it seems they may have come from the very same hand.
barb
> In article <V8tij.33154$Ft5....@newsfe15.lga>,
> simply shot off your one liner in response to the subject line. Which in
> retrospect I will now change back.
No, I read what you wrote.
>
> I assert that people fall into the trap of accepting information from
> others, whos hidden counter purposes, pass on harm.
>
> Examining those connections is the solution.
Examining this process will reveal that this type of attitude lays the
groundwork for convincing people their families and friends are the enemy.
>
> The mechanism is value neutral.
>
> You would be wise to examine the influences in your life.
>
> You ironically have been one in mine.
Well, you pulled it in.
>
>
>
> alex
Out_Of_The_Dark
> In article <V8tij.33154$Ft5.26...@newsfe15.lga>,
>
>
>
>
>
> barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > a...@null.edu wrote:
> > > In article <5uueshF1jt5e...@mid.individual.net>,
> simply shot off your one liner in response to the subject line. Which in
> retrospect I will now change back.
>
> others, whos hidden counter purposes, pass on harm.
>
> Examining those connections is the solution.
>
>
> You would be wise to examine the influences in your life.
>
> You ironically have been one in mine.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
" I assert that people fall into the trap of accepting information
from
others, whos hidden counter purposes, pass on harm."
Are you saying that someone is passing on information to Patricia
Greenway who then passes on the hidden counter purpose?
Gee, I thought SHE was the one with the hidden counter purpose. Who
is her puppet, alex? Since you seem to know so much.....
Out_Of_The_Dark
> a...@null.edu wrote:
> > In article <V8tij.33154$Ft5.26...@newsfe15.lga>,
> > barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> a...@null.edu wrote:
> >>> In article <5uueshF1jt5e...@mid.individual.net>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Zinj
markb...@cox.net says...
<snip>
> Thank you, Emma. I have long thought that Patty P's posts were virtually
> identical to Deanna Holmes posts of years ago. I always assumed it was
> because they were being fed the same angry vitriol from Patricia and just
> fell in lockstep. Now, it seems they may have come from the very same hand.
I have to admit to being a little at a loss here, despite the fact that
I've known most of the people involved for better than a decade now,
and, I assume it's even worse for people who've joined the fray (the
scientology fray; I doubt anybody joined for the bonus
buttersquash/IRC/ARS/MintonWars byzantine Soap Operas) more recently.
For no better reason than to offer a less lurid storyline than the whole
'OSA Plot!!' one (being a bit of a party-pooper) here's my take:
Patty G showed up on Efnet #scientology somewhere around '98 when she
was the secretary/assistant/whatever to Peter Alexander from Totally Fun
Company, which, up till then had been a WISE company, and, Peter had
been an OT VIII who was the rich owner of that company. Peter himself
was pretty computer handicapped, so, he never spoke for himself on IRC,
but, Patty did.
All well and good so far. Patty apparently got Peter *out* of
Scientology by pointing out 'out-points', although she had never been a
Scientologist herself, and the rest is history.
Patty was an (to say the least) enegetic woman who threw herself into
the fray from her AOL account, including activating against the AOL
Scientology groups (which few old-time critics were involved in) and she
was variously appreciated or not, depending on taste. Some liked her
more than others. There were other soap operas going on with Efnet
#scientology at the time, which led to at least one schism, when Arnie
(and Rod Keller and others) left to begin their own channel
#scientologylies. At the time, Bob Minton was himself still an IRC
participant, and himself a polarizing element, since there were
resentments against him from the outset as a 'new kid on the block' but,
also because his 'style' of criticism seemed arrogant and intemperate to
many. Myself included; although, considering the usual arrogance and
intemperance common to people willing to take on a billion dollar rabid
UFO Cult; it was only notable because Bob had *money* :)
Anyway; there was a lot of soap-opera going on at the time and, Patty,
despite her no doubt impressive energy in whatever corporate world she
was functioning in, wasn't a particularly influential player.
She did seem to form friendships with Arnie (who had led the schism on
IRC) and Bob (who was himself a deliberately schismatic entity,) but,
the transition to what's currently going on, with Patty G the Patron
Saint and muse for Buttersquash (the remants of the defunct Efnet 'OPs
Cabal) is incomprehensible to me. :)
Anyway, skipping seasons 2 and 3 of the torrid tale of byzantine
intrigue, Patty moves on from being Arnie's employer and Bob Minton's
contact with Peter Alexander, during his venture into Movie
ProducerLand, to being (one) of the core elements of the dispute betwen
Bob and the rest of the 'anti-Mintonista', who had been anti-Mintonista
since probably '97 at least, and, anti-Patty G since she showed up.
There's plenty of known insanity and unknown backchanneling and
weirdness that fits in here, but, it goes beyond the scope of this post.
How Patty G ended up in bed with Buttersquash (before they were
Buttersquash) is beyond me, since, one of the 'core' Buttersquashers had
such a low opinion of Patty G (who seemed aligned with Arnie and Bob)
that she referred to her as 'Patti Pom Pom' fairly openly.
Go figure.
However, realizing the dark and dank corners of this torrid cinderella
pumpkin, what happened is this:
Patty somehow ended up as a worker in Ken Dandar's office while he was
running the Lisa McPherson civil case and fed her *new* friends (she had
stopped being friends with Arnie or Bob in the meantime) transcripts of
the case which they used to market their new IRC channel,
#altreligionscientology, which they started after chafing under the
contact with Arnie's 'independent' IRC server where they had moved until
such time.
The new channel was a hit and Arnie's server collapsed because the guy
actually running it went into fundie-xtian paroxysms.
Apparently one of the selling points was the supposed 'insider' view on
#altreligionscientology, which was being marketed due to the transcripts
being offered to 'opinion leaders' and offered to 'friends' from a
'secret' index website that Rob apparently named buttersquash.html
Voila! the 'Elves' were born :)
Coming up to current time; the Lisa Case settled and gagged; further
court records are securely hidden and all that's left is Mike Gormez
mirror of documents at:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/
which is a duplicate of Rob's originally publicly offered posting of
transcripts of Lisa Case documents that were originally posted to ARS
(probably by OSA) but, were only 4 documents and the inadvertently
revealed 'buttersquash' documents, which were used by Patty and the
'elves' to promote their IRC channel.
And, some few others.
Still; it's a great site, and I recommend that anyone interested in
Scientology read it completely. If I have any resentment against the
'Elves' or 'Buttersquash', it's that they attempted to hide them from
public view for what seems, even now, to have been purely self-
aggrandizing reasons.
So; what's this have to do with anything goin on now?
The 'elves' (not just the people Emma knows about) and Patty G had tied
their star to the movie 'The Profit' and the now defunct 'Lisa Case' and
now both are *nothing*.
"The Profit' is a practically worthless 'expose' of Scientology that
will probably never be publicly seen, because, as far as I can tell,
nobody involved wants it to be. Not the 'Church'; not Bob Minton; and,
apparently, not even Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway, because, as
far as I can tell, an invisible fiasko is more powerful than one exposed
to view :)
The 'Lisa Case' was settled and gagged (althoug, according to 'elf'
tales) the settlement has never been paid. Tch. Who woulda tunk it?
Scientology not *paying*???
The 'Elves/buttersquash' have in the meantime, for the most part,
announced themselves as 'no longer Scientology Critics' but do still run
an IRC channel where they will explain to you how horrible ARS is and
talk about how stupid you are behind your back and pat each other on the
back for being so clever......
And, apparently, Patty G will still try to find some importance by
manipulating her 'friends' and attacking her 'enemirs' despite the fact
that her only importance in this torrid tale of turbulent tumult is her
connectioon to 'The Profit' and the 'Lisa Case'.
Oh; and never to forget; don't forget to say 'Bob is a Cocksucker'
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
t_shuffle
<al...@null.edu> wrote in message
news:alex-73F2E7.1...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net
Setting aside the fact that you're an opportunist (could be shortened to op,
heh) who's obviously returned to help stir up the shit, let's take a look at
what you've posted above.
Couldn't that whole dianeticly unreadable spiel be summarized by saying
something like: 'People who have been bullshited and don't quite see it can
inadvertently spread bullshit to others.'?
Zinj
thorazin...@gmail.com says...
That's a bit unfair to 'friend' Alex. In fact, 'he's' one of the most
sophisticated attacks on 'critics' that the 'Church' has managed.
Because, the actual 'attack' isn't what he posts at all. In fact, what
keeps screwing up the game is that they keep pulling him in to do more
'direct' attacks; which are diametrically opposed to his generally
*successful* brief.
I like Alex, because I like Marshal McLuhan. In Alex' case, the *medium
Is The Message'; not what it says.
The 'medium' of Alex' message is 'I am an independent Scientologist,
operating within the 'Church' which is aware of my posting activity,
and, despite that, allows me to continue and to continue taking courses
and practicing within the 'Church. I have not been threatened or even
ordered to Disconnect and, while the 'Church' objects to my
participation on ARS (and ESMB) and doesn't like me saying that 'Current
Management' is bad, accepts my 'self-determinism' and this disproves any
Critic stories about Totalitarian control or 'enforced Disconnection' or
'heavy ethics' and reveals most of the complaints about Scientology
abuse as deliberate horror stories.'
Heh.
Unfortunately for Alex, there are sometimes 'All Hands Cycles' where he
is forced to abandon such enlightened (if spurious) positions and
'strike a blow' against a specific 'enemy'; whether it be Keith Henson
or Tory Christman; Gerry Armstrong or even Phil Scott.
Hard to play 'enlightened' when you're drooling...
Ed
background/history post.
Ed
Out_Of_The_Dark
> In article <k2yij.3658$ro6.3...@fe182.usenetserver.com>,
> markbun...@cox.net says...
So you think that the lack of attention is why Patty G persists in the
posts and minds of certain others? ( Why do I think she's gonna be
pissed that you initiated the calling of her as Patty G instead of
Patricia? ;)
Frankly, from my experience in being a target of this cabalaaa of
hers, and looking into why I might be a target of hers, I come up
with a different conclusion but that is not for today. Still, most of
your summary of events is apreciated and your take on all this is
always interesting. You do, however, "admit to being a little at a
loss here" on all that has happened lately between Emma, Patty G et
al. Some of what might not be outwardly evident is being posted in
different threads by the parties including Erlich. Perhaps it's best
to just read all the posts. I see a mystery unravelling. My hope is
that all the truthwill come out into the open. Loyalty is not as
important as standing up for the truth, despite loyalties.
Many people come here looking for the truth about Scientology after
having lived within the mindset of it's lies. At times it's like
trying to find a diamond in a mud puddle, between the spam and posts
effected by the behind-the-scenes game playing from whatever source.
It's bad enough many ex-members have to beware of OSA on ARS, but more
so to decipher who is on what side of the game here.
It would be more fruitful if exmember critic posters kept in mind that
lurkers and newbies to ARS kind of depend on those posters whom they
feel are honest. I know I sure did. It was very hard to decide who was
truthworthy here and who wasn't. Remember that leaving scientology and
doing anything against scientology, including speaking up ( even if
anonymous) is an offense scientologists take very seriously and that
mindset is definately in place until the newbie arrives here. It's the
content of the posts, the links to helpful and valuable information,
the potential to reconnect with old friends or find out who is
where..... etc.- that is what ex-members come here for.CoS knows this
and does not want it's members coming here, hence instigated or
blatant conflicts. That is how OSA works. Not all scientologists know
this. So for those who do know, it's all the more reason why one
should try to be above gossip or beware. Your best friend could wind
up stabbing you in the back if you're not alert to the possibilites.
t_shuffle
<al...@null.edu> wrote in message
news:alex-7BD583.2...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net
> In article
> <MPG.21f49262c...@news-server.woh.rr.com>,
> Zinj,
>
> My friend, the myth of me is in your hands.
>
> Heard from phil lately. Can he put together a coherent
> sentence?
>
> While my path towards enlightenment does take a strange
> path, you miss the message.
>
> alex
This Alexi sucks. I reckon the one or two good ones are still doing amends.
Zinj
al...@null.edu says...
<snip>
> While my path towards enlightenment does take a strange path, you miss
> the message.
>
> alex
Alex, ole buddy; I'd hesitate to dispute your 'path to enlightenment'.
I can well conceive of even a 'Sonderkommando' being such a path.
I admit that, personally, I find Scientology to be not only vicious and
simplistic and even best described as 'The Chuck-E-Cheeze of
Spirituality', but, I know for a fact that some people have actually
arrived at some kind of enlightenment over that path.
Go figure :)
However, the person you're selling as 'you' is no more likely than a
Girls Scout claiming that offering strip-tease door-to-door was accepted
by the national committee because it 'sold cookies'
Out_Of_The_Dark
> potential source of trouble to others.
>
> If it helps you understand, please consider my statement about sp
> technology being value neutral, a rationalization.
>
> alex- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
How about I consider it a generalization and let it go at that? lol!
Listen, in the real world, the PTS SP tech destroys families because
it instigates disconnection. Families like yours would be effected by
it, you claim, and that it why you are here anonymously.. or at least
that was what I last heard from you on the subject. I am fortunate I
have been able to repair some family relations that were severed by
my agreeement with PTS tech & disconnection policy, which was
instructed by the church to apply to those epeople in my life when I
was a member. What took a minor amount of time to cause a major amount
of damage the caused me to invest a major amount of time trying to
repair those relationships. The damage was mainly because, as a
scientologist, love could be severed so quickly. PTS tech instigates
conflicts between scientologists and love dones, not the other way
around. Of course, you are too much of a coward to take the risk with
your family to find that out, so you stay in and play the roll you'tr
playing, whatever it is here these days.
As for me, I seek to live with the truth. Not Hubard's truth and me
conforming to it. No. No more and not for a long time. Try it, you may
like it.
Regarding Patricia Greenway. She is like the gossip discussed in the
bible. She does not need any " I am PTS " type help, education or
protection from you. Please.
Words for the wise........
PRO 6:19 a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up
dissension among brothers.
10:18 He who conceals his hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads
slander is a fool.
11:9 With his mouth the godless destroys his neighbor, but through
knowledge the righteous escape.
13 A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy man keeps a
secret.
16:28 A perverse man stirs up dissension, and a gossip separates
close friends.
17:9 He who covers over an offense promotes love, but whoever repeats
the
matter separates close friends.
18:8 The words of a gossip are like choice morsels; they go down to a
man's inmost parts.
Taken from the HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (C) 1978 by the
New York Bible Society, used by permission of Zondervan Bible
Publishers.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/tniv/GOSSIP.TXT
Feisty
"Mark Bunker" <markb...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:k2yij.3658$ro6....@fe182.usenetserver.com...
There was a post I read on OCMB maybe last year, when Tigger made a post
that was identical to Patricia Greenways. And I'm not sure if it was posted
there, or brought from somewhere else. I'll try to remember and search a
bit.
Anyone remember this? There were * or something in a list, and it was
identical in both posts.
Ladybird may have posted it.
Thanks Emma for your work and toil to have the ESMB board. And all who help
in their own way. I don't visit there much but I read the info that others
find as valuable to post here.
Maureen
>
>
>
Out_Of_The_Dark
wrote:
> to happen since you don't seem to have any moral to begin with.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh boy, propitiating your way back into the fold by posting to please
with Ms Greenway. How desperate
Emma
"Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1200d0f3-0c9c-4a2d...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 13, 10:42 pm, TruthSetsYouFree <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host>
wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:16:55 +1100.
> "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> Wrote:
>
>
>
> >This is not the most difficult post I've ever had to write.
> >I never promised anyone I wouldn't write it.
> >I can't say what harm has been done because of the existance of the
> >situation I am about to post about. I'll leave that up to others to
> >judge.
>
> >What I am doing is posting only what I know to be true and only what
> >involves me.
>
> >A lot of people wonder about the influence of Patricia Greenway on this
> >newsgroup and in the infighting amongst critics. Is is the "elephant in
> >the
> >loungeroom" that people have tried to get Patty P and others to talk
> >about.
>
> >I am only going to talk about one incident because it is the only one I
> >can
> >prove.
>
> >Take a look at this thread from Oct 06.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/
>
_____________________________________
Hey Sten, seeing we are all about truthiness these days, maybe you could
tell us all what you did to get your RFW page removed?
Just askin'.
Magoo
<al...@null.edu> wrote in message
news:alex-7BD583.2...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net...
>
> My friend, the myth of me is in your hands.
>
> Heard from phil lately. Can he put together a coherent sentence?
>
> the message.
>
> alex
*I* Don't miss the message---I remember it quite well:
It's the exact same message ALL the OSA floormats had:
"We can talk, there's no suppression, it's all Ok, Scientology
is great, blah blah blah".
First off, it you weren't lying, you could call me as we know
each other, don't we, "Alex"?
Secondly, your little Black PR routine about Phil Scott shows
what a floormat you really are. You're not spiritual, that's your dream,
your delusion, your hype, while in truth, you're trying to stab
a knife into one more critic's BACK_--while he's not here, I might add.
Sure, I can forgive you, but don't count on *me* to buy your
endless hose job.
Yes, I spoke to Phil Scott last night as a matter of fact, and he spoke
quite well, and asked that I tell everyone "hi". So "hi"
Alex, and shame on you. Is this honestly what you got into
Scientology to do? This is IT?
All my best,
Tory/Magoo~~
Burbank, CA
(818) 588-3044
Not in Hiding, I might add.
PS: You say: " and this disproves any
>> Critic stories about Totalitarian control or 'enforced Disconnection' or
>> 'heavy ethics' and reveals most of the complaints about Scientology
>> abuse as deliberate horror stories.'
Ok pal, then give me a call, and have a few of my old friends
do so, too, and while you're at it, ask Harold Bezazian, OT 8, to call me,
too. Oh that's right: NONE of them have, in 7 years of my being out. What do
you call that? Their Choice? Yeah...right.
Where *that* breaks down is ALL the people who have left Scientology and AS
SOON as they did, they re-connected with ALL the people who were "Declared
SP" who they were NOT allowed to speak to.
As I said, "Alex"----*I* am not missing your real message, at all.
T
Magoo
"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.21f4ae324...@news-server.woh.rr.com...
Good one, Zinj! I like that analogy---and quite correct~~
Tory/Magoo~~
Android Cat
> My friend, the myth of me is in your hands.
How can we myth you if you're still here?
--
Ron of that ilk.
Zinj
@hotmail.com says...
> al...@null.edu wrote:
>
> > My friend, the myth of me is in your hands.
>
> How can we myth you if you're still here?
How very Dan Hicks
How can we myth you if you won't go away?
Hephaestus
>
> Arnie wrote something on the subject :
> "Manipulators strive to divorce us from the facts. Rather than
> encouraging us to examine the evidence and reasoning of people who
> appear to disagree with us, they block communications and openly or
> indirectly try to persuade us that people who disagree with their
> views are dishonest, not trustworthy, incompetent, biased, racist,
> only concerned with money, insulting our intelligence, corrupt,
> betrayers of the American dream, and so on.
>
> Do what we tell you, without realizing that we are controlling you."
> Like cult leaders, manipulators encourage us to close ranks and form
> an in-group suspicious of those who question the party line."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/th...
>
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Manipulation
>
> In general, manipulation is a human activity dealing with physical
> states of objects, or mental states of persons. Typically the word
> manipulation is used with a negative connotation. When used with a
> negative connotation, the goal of the manipulative activity can be
> either not clear, or incomprehensible or morally/legally unacceptable.
> The end result of this kind of activity is typically to leave the
> system or person being manipulated in a less coherent, worse of state
> to facilitate the petty and whimsical gains or desires of the person
> or entity attempting the manipulative activity.
>
> In particular, the word manipulation can refer to:
> Manipulation(of public opinion)
> Joint manipulation
> Social influence
> Sleight of hand tricks in magic.
A manipulative person believes they can control all the situations
around them, they do this by creating conflicts, by preemptive attacks
against those they feel are slipping away from their control, they
control the outflow and better the morale of those under them, since
those that leave willingly and freely can entice others to do the
same.
You don't even have to do anything wrong to earn this treatment, but
odds are if PG is as much of a spider as you claim, then she was
keeping tabs on you through others, that you probably don't know are
her little satellites.
Again, I can't tell what Patty is, I can only tell of situations I've
observed in my life, and manipulators, especially the good ones work
their best when no one believes they do what they do, or at least they
can't prove it. Really, Emma, you're the first to say these things,
so I'm inclined to believe you over others, but, have you considered
this wellspring of rage that seems to have ushered forth might not be
Patty P?
This seems to be very personal for her, very. She's seems to be very
angry over something, of which I can't discover.
I don't know how much PG is involved, but she'd have to have Patty P
wrapped around her finger in order to get her to deliver this kind of
vitriol for her. The real question we have to ask is,
WTF crawled up her ass?
I'm dumbfounded, I don't see a personal betrayal to her directly from
you for this kind of treatment.
> -------------------------
>
> Thanks for telling us, Emma.
>
> _________________________________
>
> No problem. I'm sure there will be repercussions. I'm just not sure what
> other skeletons I have left in the closet.
>
> It's likely I'm about to find out though.
In their eyes you've picked the opposite side in the war for who will
lead the army.
The belief is utterly foolish, in my opinion.
> Patty P has already informed me in one of several abusive emails that's
> she's been digging up the dirt. She says that she is not going to "throw
> more shit on you that I know and have recently found out." I don't believe
> it though, especially as she ended her last email with " Keep spinning your
> lies and sucking the dick's of the Lerma Loons, they'll love you for it."
That girl has anger issues.
> I no longer fear OSA. They are pussycats compared to her and her friend.
> Isn't it a bizare turn of events when you are more concerned about being
> violated by a former friend and fellow critic of scientology, than of OSA.
No, I've always felt that betrayal is the worst act. If you don't
trust them, they can't personally injure you, therefore you can guard
against them, but if you do, you share your thoughts and fears, you
open yourself, which makes the impact all that more hard.
RolandRB
> "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1200d0f3-0c9c-4a2d...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 13, 10:42 pm, TruthSetsYouFree <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:16:55 +1100.
> > "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> Wrote:
>
> > >This is not the most difficult post I've ever had to write.
> > >I never promised anyone I wouldn't write it.
> > >I can't say what harm has been done because of the existance of the
> > >situation I am about to post about. I'll leave that up to others to
> > >judge.
>
> > >What I am doing is posting only what I know to be true and only what
> > >involves me.
>
> > >A lot of people wonder about the influence of Patricia Greenway on this
> > >newsgroup and in the infighting amongst critics. Is is the "elephant in
> > >the
> > >loungeroom" that people have tried to get Patty P and others to talk
> > >about.
>
> > >I am only going to talk about one incident because it is the only one I
> > >can
> > >prove.
>
> > >Take a look at this thread from Oct 06.
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/
>
I'm askin' too. Is this somebody else who has cut a deal with the
Devil?
Hephaestus
> In article <V8tij.33154$Ft5.26...@newsfe15.lga>,
>
>
>
> barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > a...@null.edu wrote:
> > > In article <5uueshF1jt5e...@mid.individual.net>,
> > > "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> wrote:
>
> > > snip
>
> > >> Isn't it a bizare turn of events when you are more concerned about being
> > >> violated by a former friend and fellow critic of scientology, than of OSA.
>
> > The group becomes more important than family.
>
> You seem to have failed to even read what I wrote and have probably
> simply shot off your one liner in response to the subject line. Which in
> retrospect I will now change back.
>
> I assert that people fall into the trap of accepting information from
> others, whos hidden counter purposes, pass on harm.
>
> Examining those connections is the solution.
>
> The mechanism is value neutral.
>
> You would be wise to examine the influences in your life.
>
> You ironically have been one in mine.
>
> alex
In other words, examine who's telling you what, and whether or not
they are trustworthy.
That's psychology transmuted into goobly-gook.
The problem is when you put the wrong people above suspicion, and when
you automatically suspect the wrong people as well.
It couldn't be the tech that's bad, but look at the connection, the
delivery system, examine the effects, Ron, drunk, fake medal wearing
jackass, scientology, changes it's books every six years so that you
have to keep paying thousands for minute changes, and the tech,
glorified placebo pills.
Emma
"RolandRB" <rolan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:497bac98-5518-43ed...@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 14, 6:37 am, "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> wrote:
> "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1200d0f3-0c9c-4a2d...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 13, 10:42 pm, TruthSetsYouFree <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:16:55 +1100.
> > "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> Wrote:
>
> > >This is not the most difficult post I've ever had to write.
> > >I never promised anyone I wouldn't write it.
> > >I can't say what harm has been done because of the existance of the
> > >situation I am about to post about. I'll leave that up to others to
> > >judge.
>
> > >What I am doing is posting only what I know to be true and only what
> > >involves me.
>
> > >A lot of people wonder about the influence of Patricia Greenway on this
> > >newsgroup and in the infighting amongst critics. Is is the "elephant in
> > >the
> > >loungeroom" that people have tried to get Patty P and others to talk
> > >about.
>
> > >I am only going to talk about one incident because it is the only one I
> > >can
> > >prove.
>
> > >Take a look at this thread from Oct 06.
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/
>
-------------------------------------------
We know that Minton & Brooks came to some "agreement" to have theirs
removed. No secret there.
We know that the "Reverend" also cut a deal that included the removal of
his.
But what did Sten Arne Zerpe do?
Feisty
There is such a thing called "groupthink" that often (by human nature)
rushes to judgement as soon as you can say "immediate gratification."
And I agree that Patty P has done great work to post and help Kristi Wachter
where the media finds her website useful. And that is what people do when
they have information.
When people hold secrets and isolate others with information for whatever
reason, I would consider that suspect and a form of manipulation. People are
ignorant to jump on any bandwagon, as many have without knowing details.
They heed to the character assassination cluelessly. It's not just a $cn
thing, it exists in the world all the way to the heirarchy of the taxman
laughing at his peasants. To colonialism.
Like any confidence game, people are fooled with lack of information that is
given to them. And as most con games, they play on isolation and emotion.
Many were quick to join in to bash Bob Minton eg, with more emotive issues,
than the lack of certain information. So in the end you have a few people
unknowing of how much psychological damage this does to other people.
I think some are more suggestible and swayed by emotion to "believe
information" as easy as $cientology knows that so much a population are
suggestible or hypnotizable.
You can see this easily where emotion drives little fact or detail.
Maureen
Thus to suggest means to induce, more or less ideas, feelings, emotions, and
other
psycho-physical states into the psychic domain of another person, to
influence it
insuch a way as to leave no room for criticism of judgement.
Considering the concept of a suggestion in broader sense, and keeping in
mind the
possibility of unintentional suggestion through example and imitation, it is
not
difficult to be convinced that these concepts, suggestions and psychic
contagion,
interweave so closely with one another that it is difficult to separate
them.
So it is obvious that while verbal persuasion usually effects another person
by the
strength of its reasoning and indisputable arguments, suggestion as
imitation, works
through the direct induction of psychic states, i.e., ideas feelings and
sensations
without requiring any proof at all, and without the need for reasoning.
Suggestion
directly and spontaneously affects the psychic sphere of another person by
directive
of argument, through compelling and agitated speech, through gestures,
mimicry
movement and signs and other symbols.
Suggestion and its role in social life
Vladimir Bechterev, book transcribed from 1897 lecture
Maureen
Emma
"Deo Morto" <deom...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:c6a93d68-c45c-4fbd...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 12, 9:38 pm, "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> wrote:
>> "Quaoar" <qua...@marcabfleet.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:I8SdnQAf3fRSEBTa...@comcast.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Emma wrote:
>> >> This is not the most difficult post I've ever had to write.
>> >> I never promised anyone I wouldn't write it.
>> >> I can't say what harm has been done because of the existance of the
>> >> situation I am about to post about. I'll leave that up to others to
>> >> judge.
>>
>>
>> > Hummm.... Patricia Greenway... attempting to control thought on the
>> > forums....
>>
>> > One wonders if the balance of the Buttersquash cabal is taking cues
>> > from
>> > Ms. Greenway and her Scientology handlers?
>>
>> > Cues? Perhaps it's part of that $2.5MM that was wrested from Minton?
>>
>> > In any event, the PG/Buttersquash cabal is being revealed for what many
>> > of
>> > us thought it was.
>>
>> > Q
>>
>> If you look at who the "Buttersquashers" actually are (the 4 elves) I
>> have
>> absolutely no proof, nor do I think that they have ever done what Patty
>> and
>> I have done with regards to posting on behalf of PG.
>>
>> In Patty's "Moral crisis" thread I alluded to some "buttersquash"
>> conspiracy. Well a lot of that was hot air. I was angry. I believe that
>> PG
>> has her hooks into PP in a big way but that PG is too smart to try to
>> manipulate the others.
>>
>> Think what you like about Rob, Kady, Tikk, Mirele etc. but my post has
>> nothing to do with them. Most of them don't even read ars anymore and are
>> hardly even active on the IRC channel.
>>
>> - Emma
>
> HI Emma,
>
> some old familiar names on that list there.
>
> I think every person has his or her own way out of the cult and I was
> interested more in WHY you were posting someone else's messages rather
> than just the fact that you did it. I am not asking just to pile on or
> anything but I am kind of fascinated. I knew PG back in the AOL days
> and she was very effective at combatting the cults little games on
> there.
Hi Deo,
That's a hard question to answer. But I'll do my best.
When I got out of the cult I was alone - completely. You may have read my
story recently. If not it's in the thread called "About those logs - the
true story".
Patty P and I became close and through her I was introduced to Patricia
Greenway. I'd come across her on IRC previously but had never spoken to her
because quite frankly she scared the shit out of me. I can't remember the
cicumstances that got us talking initially but because Patty P thought very
highly of her I agreed to talk to her.
From the first conversation she fascinated me. She told me all sorts of
stories about "the old days" of the Minton wars, the Lisa case, the LMT etc.
Stuff I'd sorta read about and heard about before but couldn't really make
head nor tail out of because I wasn't around at the time. I left Scn just at
the time the LMT was collapsing and wasn't able to take it all in as I had
too many other problems to deal with.
So over time we talked and I guess became quite friendly.
She was very anti Arnie Lerma and told me all sorts of nasty stories about
him and lots of others as well. She didn't have much good to say about
anyone really except those on the IRC channel whom she liked. I admit I fell
for it. Hook line & sinker. Her version of events and her take on people
became mine.
I began to fight her battles for her. There is one incident that played out
on OCMB that will be very fresh in certain people's minds concerning Shawn
Lonsdale and *that* deposition. She told me a load of bullshit about it
designed to make Arnie Lerma look bad. I took it and ran with it and made a
complete asshole of myself on OCMB. Arnie didn't actually do anything wrong
and I looked like a complete fruitcake. Tigger was my partner in crime in
this one. I'm embarrassed to even bring this up but here is it in all it's
glory.
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=21457
This occured after the posting debarcle to ars that this thread is about. If
that thread cured me of posting on behalf of Patricia, the Shawn Lonsdale
deposition debarcle cured me of fighting her battles for her. I realised
that she has an agenda and really doesn't care what sort of effect it has on
others, or what damage it does to those who fight her battles for her.
How does it happen? I'm not sure how it happens that one person seems to be
able to control another and make them do stupid shit. If I knew the answer
to that I'd never have stayed in Scientology for so long.
I have no doubt that Patricia has has certain victories in fighting
Scientology. She has my admiration for that. But if she could just arrive in
2008 and do it without using other people to fight her *age old* battles for
her I think things would be a lot better.
- Emma
Deo Morto
> "Deo Morto" <deomo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
I really appreciate the whole background Emma, it does help to
understand how such things come about. If I could be a tad intrusive
here and just ask - how did Patricia Greenaway ask you to do this sort
of thing? Did she send you the email saying when and where it was to
be posted? Were you briefed in on an overall plan of some kind?
Out_Of_The_Dark
> "RolandRB" <rolandbe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I had no idea Sten even had one up there. How long ago did it go up?
I don't visit that site unless something comes up where I need to know
what other posters are talking about in reference to something on it.
Even then I just try to use the cache links because I don't like
adding to the hits stat of a cult web page.
I can tell you one thing: Sten Arne Zerpe is someone I don't trust at
all anymore.
Mary
Pts 2
suspicions of so many. Both Arnie Lerma and Mark Bunker deserve for
more credit then they were given when these concerns were voiced several
years ago.
Even before PattyP appeared as a mouthpiece for Ms. Greenway, Tigger
(aka Shirley Wilson,)
and U-Mike (aka Michael Greenberg) held that job on ARS, OCMB, and
FACTnet MB. Where are they now?
Lastly, in a final connecting-of-the-dots effort, the Cerridwen poster
was a big fan of Diane Richardson.....which also points to Keith
Spurgeon -- the two who tried to destroy the
character of Paulette Cooper, and others, including myself !
<<<>>>
Tom
----------------------------
www.thebridgemovie.net
Patty Pieniadz
"Deo Morto" <deom...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:c6a93d68-c45c-4fbd...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I think every person has his or her own way out of the cult and I was
> interested more in WHY you were posting someone else's messages rather
> than just the fact that you did it. I am not asking just to pile on or
> anything but I am kind of fascinated.
Hi Deo,
Both Emma and I posted things for PG because we wanted to.
Anyone who knows Patricia knows that she rarely reads ars
and back when Patricia and Emma and I were all on speaking
terms, Emma or I would write to Patricia and link the post url
to her and ask her opinion about it.
Emma failed to mention that many times she and I would
ask Patricia to comment not the other way around.
Patricia knew information about the LMT that we didn't know
and we would ask her to comment on it. Both Emma
and I did that and both of us would usually post Patricia's
response as our own, sometimes changing it, sometimes
leaving it as is.
It was not as if Patricia was passing out orders to Emma
and I and telling us what to post.
Emma paints the picture as if I was some kind of Pavlov's dog
panting anxiously and awaiting Patricia's next command.
That's bullshit and she knows it. Many of the posts were
because we ASKED HER TO COMMENT.
I did it more than Emma did, but Emma participated
in it fully until Patricia started telling Emma what a
complete scum bag Roan was and then all of a sudden,
Emma didn't like Patricia and started saying she was
manipulative. I knew Emma and Patricia were on the
outs but I figured it was between them and they could
work it out or not.
So no matter how Emma spins it or tries to blame
Patricia and me for it, the truth of the matter is that
we did it because we wanted to get and use her
information in our posts.
It may come as a surprise to the fanatical fringe
that I am acutely aware of how easy it is to
manipulate ex cultists. I've read enough books
and seen enough evidence with my own eyes to
see how we as ex's are easy prey to manipulative
people who want to forward their own agenda.
Patricia Greenway is a very strong woman. She
tends to be very blunt in her dealings with others,
but then so am I. It's probably why we get along
so well.
Weak and fearful people generally do not like
strong people that will stand up to their schemes
and tell them off.
You're right about each person has his or her
way of getting out of the cult.
I'm one of those that was in for almost 30 years
and in complete Mindfuck mode most of the time.
It's sometimes rather hellish dealing with it.
Apparently, it's really not important to many
people here but it was important to me to
tell about what I knew about Emma and Roan
what I felt was their betrayal of people who
are scared and worried about their identity.
The whole thing really hit me as something
horrible and inexcusable. To others it was
not important at all and no big deal.
I knew PG back in the AOL days
> and she was very effective at combatting the cults little games on
> there.
She still is very effective in combating the cult. But she doesn't come
to ars and report and brag about. There are a lot of people who do
things behind the scenes and never report on it. But you already
knew that. :-)
Patty
Deo Morto
> "Deo Morto" <deomo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
Patty,
Thanks for clearing that up, it did have me puzzled.
Deo
Out_Of_The_Dark
> "Deo Morto" <deomo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey Emma, what was / is your screen name at OCMB?
Are you aware that Shawn's landlord NEVER sold the house that Shawn
was living in back then?
I taked to him several times back then and he was not upset that Arnie
got the depo up. He just never knew that that was the attention whore
named Beckyboo's plan. As far as I know, Arnie never knew about it
until Beckyboo gave it to him. All that baloney about giving him back
the only copy... I believe Lirot gave Becky the copy with Sean's
permission, if I recall correctly.
I think Shawn was set up. To get rid of him, he was set up to take
that $100 and be dragged into court and be pressured by his landlord
to leave because CoS was on the landlord's butt... It was a time of
desperation for Shawn because NO ONE would hire him as they feared CoS
harassment if they did. With the threat of court and indication of
having violated the injunction hanging over his head,and with the
additional threat of his landlord selling the house and having to move
to another place belonging to the landlord, I think they cornered him
into settling so they could get him off the street. He was TOO
effective a critic but he had personal issue that made him so
vulnerable.The perfect scenerio
Out_Of_The_Dark
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, why is your page down? What deal did you make, Clam?
Out_Of_The_Dark
wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:36:51 +1100.
> "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> Wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"RolandRB" <rolandbe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why are YOU hiding, Sten? Answer the question.
Magoo
"Patty Pieniadz" <ppie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5v1vedF...@mid.individual.net...
It always amazes me how people who trash others, basically set them up, then
piss on them and return to say, "oh--they were just weak people". FU. You
lied to people, as did (and does) PG---
You lied
You lied for PG
You lied to others
You've lied for a long time, haven't you?
Get it?
It isn't "weak people"---It's people who can SEE a con for a con,
name it, and not get suckered into it by some more BS.
I'm sorry you've bought her game hook, line and sinker--
but I am happy to know you've admitted you lied to people---
For years.
Always nice to know who you're talking to, Really.
As I said before, I hope you get some *real* help, and I truly
mean that.
PG *isn't* it.
Tory/Magoo~~~
>
>
>
>
>
Emma
> news:c6a93d68-c45c-4fbd...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>
>>
>> I think every person has his or her own way out of the cult and I was
>> interested more in WHY you were posting someone else's messages rather
>> than just the fact that you did it. I am not asking just to pile on or
>> anything but I am kind of fascinated.
>
> Hi Deo,
>
> Both Emma and I posted things for PG because we wanted to.
>
> Anyone who knows Patricia knows that she rarely reads ars
> and back when Patricia and Emma and I were all on speaking
> terms, Emma or I would write to Patricia and link the post url
> to her and ask her opinion about it.
>
> Emma failed to mention that many times she and I would
> ask Patricia to comment not the other way around.
That might have been the case for you. I know you sent her URLs of ars and
OCMB all the time to get her opinion and to have her compose your posts for
you. I think I did it once in all that time. Mainly Patricia would ask me to
do stuff for her. I didn't do very much of it. I've highlighted already the
two main incidents that involved me.
You and I are not the same Patty.
> Patricia knew information about the LMT that we didn't know
> and we would ask her to comment on it. Both Emma
> and I did that and both of us would usually post Patricia's
> response as our own, sometimes changing it, sometimes
> leaving it as is.
As I said, I did it very few times and it left a very bad taste in my mouth.
You were doing it regularly. It was fairly easy to tell what you'd written &
what Patricia had written. I know you are about as clueless as I am
regarding The Profit and HAD to get Patricia to write any posts defending
The Profit.
> It was not as if Patricia was passing out orders to Emma
> and I and telling us what to post.
Uummm....yes she was. I still have the emails.
> Emma paints the picture as if I was some kind of Pavlov's dog
> panting anxiously and awaiting Patricia's next command.
>
> That's bullshit and she knows it. Many of the posts were
> because we ASKED HER TO COMMENT.
>
> I did it more than Emma did, but Emma participated
> in it fully until Patricia started telling Emma what a
> complete scum bag Roan was and then all of a sudden,
> Emma didn't like Patricia and started saying she was
> manipulative. I knew Emma and Patricia were on the
> outs but I figured it was between them and they could
> work it out or not.
You raise and interesting point. Why would Patricia start telling me what a
"scumbag" Roan was when she didn't know him? But you are right. She despised
him. We had a big fight over it and that was pretty much the last time I
spoke to her. You told me that you'd kept my confidence regarding him to her
but I knew back then that you'd lied. But why did she despise him? The only
thing I can think of is that he asked her some uncomfortable questions on
her message board and she flipped out. Believe me, she flipped out!
Here is the thread where Roan asked his questions and you can see the
responses. They speak for themselves. It's typical Greenway class.
http://z6.invisionfree.com/theprofit/index.php?showtopic=8
Oh and for the record, she is "The Profit". Even on her OWN message board
she refused to put her own name to her posts, rather she preferred to hide
behind a moniker so as to deny liability.
Another interesting thread is one Mark Bunker started. Maybe Mary will
recognise the language in these posts as the same voice that speaks as Patty
Pieniadz whenever The Profit is mentioned.
http://z6.invisionfree.com/theprofit/index.php?showtopic=7
> So no matter how Emma spins it or tries to blame
> Patricia and me for it, the truth of the matter is that
> we did it because we wanted to get and use her
> information in our posts.
>
> It may come as a surprise to the fanatical fringe
> that I am acutely aware of how easy it is to
> manipulate ex cultists. I've read enough books
> and seen enough evidence with my own eyes to
> see how we as ex's are easy prey to manipulative
> people who want to forward their own agenda.
>
>
> Patricia Greenway is a very strong woman. She
> tends to be very blunt in her dealings with others,
> but then so am I. It's probably why we get along
> so well.
>
> Weak and fearful people generally do not like
> strong people that will stand up to their schemes
> and tell them off.
>
>
Who are these "weak & fearful people"? What schemes? What noble quest are
you and Patricia on?
> You're right about each person has his or her
> way of getting out of the cult.
>
> I'm one of those that was in for almost 30 years
> and in complete Mindfuck mode most of the time.
>
> It's sometimes rather hellish dealing with it.
> Apparently, it's really not important to many
> people here but it was important to me to
> tell about what I knew about Emma and Roan
> what I felt was their betrayal of people who
> are scared and worried about their identity.
No. You told everyone what you "thought" was going on. You were wrong and in
doing this you've exposed yourself as an untrustworthy woman who has a long
history of fucking people over.
> The whole thing really hit me as something
> horrible and inexcusable. To others it was
> not important at all and no big deal.
I don't think anyone thinks it "no big deal".
>
>
> I knew PG back in the AOL days
>> and she was very effective at combatting the cults little games on
>> there.
>
> She still is very effective in combating the cult. But she doesn't come
> to ars and report and brag about. There are a lot of people who do
> things behind the scenes and never report on it. But you already
> knew that. :-)
>
>
> Patty
>
She is very effective. This is true.
- Emma
Out_Of_The_Dark
(snipped for brevity. See http://tinyurl.com/2omnq2 )
Well, Emma, it's clear to me that Patty P is a willing pawn for
Patricia Greedway
( That's to subvert the activation of a google alert ;) I wonder how
long she's been doing this for her? Time is the thing. Omitted and
altered time. Something is not right and it involves time and truth
about events in time.
You see, here we read Patty P stating, once again, her standard claim
of being in scientology for 30 years, but this time it's in the year
2008 and it's "almost 30 years" . Patty Pieniadz wrote: "I'm one of
those that was in for almost 30 years and in complete Mindfuck mode
most of the time."
Well, it's impossible for her to have been in Scientology for " 30
years" during all the years she's posted that she's been in for 30
years!
This is important. I will post my evidence of this lie again, and add
the complete text of a post she wrote Sat, Apr 28 2001 as Cerridwen.
In that post, note that she she states the name Gavino Idda and what
his stat is. Do you think you or anyone in their right mind would be
posting that content on the day of announcing having left CoS ? Patty
said she was an OSA volunteer at the time she left. That would be all
the more reason to lay low and NOT mention OSA and it's stats,
So, was Patty P working for OSA while posting as Cerridwen and
Morrigan?
Again, here is the evidence on all the quotes about having been in CoS
for "30 years", :
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Out_Of_The_Dark <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A moral crisis
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:14:20 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
On Jan 8, 4:54 pm, "Patty Pieniadz" <ppieni...@gmail.com> wrote:
snipxx
[..]
Patty Pieniadz, your declare is dated 6 June 2004
It states that "In September 2003 it was discovered that Patricia was
assisting......."
You didn't reveal herself openly on ARS until Mar 2006. You said
you'f been lurking for a while....... Oh. so you were an anonymous
twit yourself, heh. Patty?
You introduced yourself as a former 30 yr member Hello, My name is
Patty Pieniadz (1 Mar 2006 )
http://tinyurl.com/3a4945
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/905931ff90d971e6
She was posting on ARS 5-6 or more years previously under these id's
and stating these stories:
Another Scientologist leaves
28 Apr 2001 Cerridwen wrote:
"I have decided to walk away from the C of S, but not quietly. I have
instead, decided to speak out. I have also decided to post
anonymously. Some day, I may be in a position to post my name but as
it stands now, I would prefer not to.
When the day finally arrives that I out myself or I am outed by OSA, I
will
tell you my complete story. In the meantime, I would like to
contribute to ARS
in ways that will help others see the truth about the C of S. "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/57dc03526...
I'm taking an LOA ( Leave of Absence) 7 Oct 2001
From: cerrid...@freedom.net
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: I'm taking an LOA ( Leave of Absence)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 12:02:40 -0400
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/c91146090...
When you were Morrigan in 2000, you were also in Scientology for "30
years"
Morrigan posts start: Jun 27 2000
From: MORRIGAN <MORRIGAN_mem...@newsguy.com>
Date: 2000/06/27
Subject: Re: another delurker
"I have been "lurking" here for a couple of months, with the intention
of finding out what ARS was all about.
I am posting my observations, as it is my understanding that this is
supposed to be an open forum on the discussion of Scientology. I
expect to be attacked for my views as it seems that any Scientologist
that posts here gets their communication twisted to suit certain
people's needs.
OK so here goes.
I have been in Scientology for almost 30 years........ "
http://tinyurl.com/27ntzk
[..]
http://tinyurl.com/2mt3lm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/964aec1c3f603b62
And let's really look at this 2001 post by Patty Pieniadz aka:
cerridwen View profile
More options Apr 28 2001, 2:22 pm
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: cerrid...@freedom.net
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:16:35 -0400
Local: Sat, Apr 28 2001 2:16 pm
Subject: Another Scientologist leaves
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author
I have decided to walk away from the C of S, but not quietly. I have
instead,
decided to speak out.
I have also decided to post anonymously. Some day, I may be in a
position
to post my name but as it stands now, I would prefer not to.
When the day finally arrives that I out myself or I am outed by OSA,
I will tell
you my complete story. In the meantime, I would like to contribute to
ARS in
ways that will help others see the truth about the C of S.
I would like to give you my opinion about the OSA posters here. Many
of you
already know this data, but it may be new to others.
The OSA posters are working off of evals, programs and orders on what
to say
and write.
I can tell by the recent OSA posting that a new "eval" was done and a
new
program issued.
The OSA posters in the past few weeks are very antagonistic. Much
worse that
usual. It appears that Davey may have issued an order for everyone to
star rate and clay demo the policy on Fair Game and handling attacks
and then let the OSA posters go to town. This may also be the result
of some of the OSA posters
going a bit "PTS" and it was "evalled" that if the OSA bots got more
"at cause" then this would handle their PTSness.
We've all seen the OSA posters "stat push" with posts on Wednesday
night/Thursday before 2:00 LA time.
Well here, imho, is why. The OSA posters each have a Stat. The stats
work
something like this.
5 point for a an anti psych post
5 points for a post that slams the critics
5 points for a post that gets the C of S " line" in. Definition of
line is something
that the C of S is pushing i.e. Minton is a criminal, Minton is a
psych case, psychs are criminals etc.
10 points for a response. ( I noticed one OSA bot bragging that he got
over
100 responses to his thread)
Bonus Points
100 points for outing a critic
100 points for getting the critics fighting among themselves
500 points for getting a critic to stop posting
Minus points
-5 for degrading posts about LRH
-10 for degrading posts about DM ( Davey is now more important than
LRH)
- 5 for degrading posts about the OT levels or mentioning the word
Xenu.
-25 for a newly posting critic
Now I am sure there are more points for different things but you can
see how
the game works. I am also quite sure that some of the critics can
have lots of
fun with these stats and dream up some really good ones.
If you are a Scientologist and working for OSA, you can bet your last
dime that
you have a stat. Gavino Idda's stats are a combination of all the OSA
posters stats put together because he is the I/C (in charge). If
stats are down and they
want to get them up, they just post a ton of a spam with their
"lines".
Of course, stats have to be UP so by Wednesday afternoon they figure
how
many posts have to be made to get the stats up.
Many of you oblige or assist them by answering the antipsych posts.
I am not suggesting the OSA bots be completely ignored. I think it is
very
important that their lies and deceit be made known to people lurking
here.
I think that one good slam deserves another and I intend on answering
a few of their posts myself. But I also want you to know what kind
of game they are playing with some of these posts.
Based on OSA posting lately, I'd say they are applying affluence,
which in
Scientology speak is very good.
Since I am now an SP for speaking out against the church, I say we
crash their stats!
Cerridwen
http://tinyurl.com/36xydc
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/57dc03526518c0d3
__________________________
And what doesher apparently being Patricia Greedway's pawn have to do
with all this?
Mary
OldRookie
>This is not the most difficult post I've ever had to write.
>
>What I am doing is posting only what I know to be true and only what
>involves me.
Nothing I have to say is relevant to this post of Emma's, it's only
something to hang this post of mine on.
I don't understand why there is so much hatred, and I'm not using that
term loosely, between 'critics'.
Scientology, in all of its manifestations, is odious and repugnant,
and I'll play along with Roland's dopey criteria and state -
'Miscaviage is a short-arse, sawn-off, Broke-Back Mountain wannabe
extra who didn't make the cut because of appendage-insuffiiciency'.
Will that do, as far as bona-fides go ?
That said then, why is it that there is so much division and acrimony
here ?
I'm familiar with the 'herd of cats' analogy with respect to ars and
critcism of the CoS in general, and I understand that everyone is
differently motivated, but the schisms seem to be deeper than that.
Yours faithfuly,
in enquiry..
Out_Of_The_Dark
here who are dedicated to criticising good people in order to deflect
from the valid criticism they post about scientology
This is really about matters of trust, honesty and integrity. People
who post here can and have been deceived by others posing as critics.
It's about the motivation behind what people post. Attacking another
exmember who is also an active critic of scientology, by minimizing
what they have to say, by belittling them, by calling them loons, by
squashing their valid comments and sometimes doing it via others so
that the culprit's identity won't be detected.. these are what this
and the other threads on the subject are about. These are the concerns
that have come to the surface and they are concerns that need to be
addressed because people who come here need to know who is worthy of
trust and who has been playing the devil's advocate.
Lurkers need to know who to trust because OSA operates here
deceptively and persistently. This particular thread is the unveiling
of an older mystery that has been swaddled in deceit for a long time.
It's like a wife finding out her husband has been cheating on her and
there is a possibility that even the babysitter may hav been one of
his lovers.
The irony of having been attacked for posting anonymously for the
protection of my family by someone who it is now revealed to have
beeen posting anonymously for 7 years ( and attacking good people here
while being anon) has not gone unnoticed. This is why I, personally,
will not stop looking for and pulling the strings to this charade
until I know exactly who my enemies really are and why they are
attacking me in the first place. What motivates supposed critics of
scientology, to try and stop me ( and others) from trying to help
others understand who is truthworthy here so they can access helpful
information while trying to get out of scientology and get out of the
mental mindset of scientology.
Not just me, but many good and oftentimes courageous people who have
helped others escape the mindset of scientology by providing facts and
documentation.
I hope this explains things better.
Mary McConnell
http://free-from-scientology.blogspot.com
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
wrote:
"The most reliable sign, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous
people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It
is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy."
Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door, Chapter 6, 'How to Recognize
the Remorseless'
RolandRB
wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:54:38 -0800 (PST).
I'm guessing that the clams paid for your hip replacement plus
removing your RFW page in return for your teaming up with the potty-
mouthed "Reverend" to do his dirty work.
Quaoar
> On Jan 12, 9:38 pm, "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> wrote:
>> "Quaoar" <qua...@marcabfleet.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:I8SdnQAf3fRSEBTa...@comcast.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Emma wrote:
>>>> I never promised anyone I wouldn't write it.
>>>> I can't say what harm has been done because of the existance of the
>>>> situation I am about to post about. I'll leave that up to others to
>>>> judge.
>>> Hummm.... Patricia Greenway... attempting to control thought on the
>>> forums....
>>> One wonders if the balance of the Buttersquash cabal is taking cues from
>>> Ms. Greenway and her Scientology handlers?
>>> Cues? Perhaps it's part of that $2.5MM that was wrested from Minton?
>>> In any event, the PG/Buttersquash cabal is being revealed for what many of
>>> us thought it was.
>>> Q
>> If you look at who the "Buttersquashers" actually are (the 4 elves) I have
>> absolutely no proof, nor do I think that they have ever done what Patty and
>> I have done with regards to posting on behalf of PG.
>>
>> In Patty's "Moral crisis" thread I alluded to some "buttersquash"
>> conspiracy. Well a lot of that was hot air. I was angry. I believe that PG
>> has her hooks into PP in a big way but that PG is too smart to try to
>> manipulate the others.
>>
>> Think what you like about Rob, Kady, Tikk, Mirele etc. but my post has
>> nothing to do with them. Most of them don't even read ars anymore and are
>> hardly even active on the IRC channel.
>>
>> - Emma
>
> HI Emma,
>
> some old familiar names on that list there.
>
> interested more in WHY you were posting someone else's messages rather
> than just the fact that you did it. I am not asking just to pile on or
> and she was very effective at combatting the cults little games on
> there.
That was before PG was provided with $2.5MM by Bob Minton to produce
"The Profit". PG, the Totally Fun Company, used the funding to produce
a $200K movie. One wonders where the balance of the initial investment
by Bob Minton exists.
Note that PG, in the estimation of Touretsky, et al, has done more than
anyone on the planet to destroy Scientology. My belief is that PG was
instrumental in providing quantitative information about Bob Minton's
finances to Scientology in order to destroy Bob Minton and preserve the
balance of the $2.5MM that Bob invested in "The Profit" for PG's
personal use.
I also believe that the principals in managing IRC
#altreligionscientology were minor beneficiaries of PG's $2.5MM treasure
chest. That is why those who communicate via #altreligionscientology no
longer are contributing critics to ARS: they were bought off by PG.
Q
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> - Show quoted text -
Roland, that is similar to what I was suspecting. All Sten-Arne Zerpe
has been doing since is the clam cakewalk
Mary
Friendly Xenu
>A lot of people wonder about the influence of Patricia Greenway on this
>newsgroup and in the infighting amongst critics. Is is the "elephant in the
>loungeroom" that people have tried to get Patty P and others to talk about.
--smile-- No. What you're talking about is known as "Drama Queen."
Only a few members of the ARSCC(wdne) are still stuck on Pat and the
rest of the one-time human rights activists who have gone on to other
things. The rest of us have moved on -- and actually have lives and
more healthy interests and don't get obscessed about things.
---
The party of fiscal responsibility has just run up the largest
national debt in the country’s history.
Out_Of_The_Dark
healthy interests and don't get obscessed about things." ?
What do you call your posting 2,296 messages in 1.5 months? Normal?
I think not. Perhaps you just shifted you attention to other
obsessions?
x...@aol.com
This person has not created a profile.
Name:
Location:
Title:
Industry:
Email address: x...@aol.com
Website or Blog:
Quote:
About me:
Average Rating: (109 ratings)
Recent Activity:
Activity in All 68 Groups -- 2352 messages alt.impeach.bush (466)
alt.politics.republicans (287) alt.politics.bush (275)
alt.politics.usa.republican (251) alt.rush-limbaugh (140)
alt.politics.greens (128) alt.religion.scientology (79) alt.fan.rush-
limbaugh (73) alt.politics.usa (68) alt.society.liberalism (62)
alt.politics (53) alt.california (48) can.politics (45)
alt.politics.uk (44) alt.politics.democrats (41) alt.conspiracy (25)
alt.politics.democrats.d (22) houston.politics (22) austin.politics
(19) nyc.politics (19) alt.politics.liberalism (16)
alt.politics.usa.republicans (16) talk.politics.misc (14) soc.veterans
(13) az.politics (11) co.politics (11) or.politics (9)
alt.politics.immigration (7) tx.politics (6) alt.global-warming (6)
ca.politics (5) misc.survivalism (5) soc.culture.iraq (5)
alt.society.conservatism (3) alt.politics.usa.constitution (3)
alt.revenge (3) alt.politics.gw-bush (3) news.admin.net-abuse.email
(3) alt.politics.economics (3) wash.politics (3) alt.radio.talk.dr-
laura (3) alt.religion.christian (2) alt.politics.conservative (2)
alt.christnet (2) alt.sport.wrestling.amateur (2) comp.soft-sys.spss
(2) alt.journalism.gonzo (2) us.military.army (2) alt.aol-sucks (2)
alt.military (2) alt.royalty (2) alt.politics.democrat (1) comp.fonts
(1) alt.news-media (1) alt.conspiracy.new-world-order (1) aus.politics
(1) alt.politics.british (1) rec.arts.tv (1) alt.fan.howard-stern (1)
nz.politics (1) alt.religion.christian.baptist (1) sci.chem (1)
alt.gossip.celebrities (1) alt.politics.republican (1)
alt.conspiracy.america-at-war (1) alt.politics.usa.con...n.gun-rights
(1) sci.physics (1) alt.stupidity (1)
Spotted at OCMB alt.religion.scientology 93 minutes ago
More Threats alt.religion.scientology 108 minutes ago
Here's how Tom Cruise has sex -- with men alt.impeach.bush
116 minutes ago
Daily Pilot (January 11, 2008): "Body found on beach had <b>...</
b> alt.religion.scientology 2 hours ago
Andrew Morton on eBay alt.religion.scientology 2 hours ago
Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography banned in Australia
alt.religion.scientology 2 hours ago
Saudis tell Georgie Bush to shove his oil and gas prices <b>...</
b> alt.politics.usa 2 hours ago
Who in hell are these 32%?. alt.politics.usa 2 hours ago
Megachurch Leader Charged With Perjury alt.impeach.bush 2 hours
ago
I saw the Tom Kook Cruise Video alt.religion.scientology 3 hours
ago
Show all
Post Activity
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1995 1
1996 2 3 4 8 10 8 1 3 2 8
1997 1 1
1998 1 2
1999 1
2007
1121
2008 1175
RolandRB
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wonder if Sten-Arne is allowed to state that DAVID MISCAVIGE IS A
DWARF ?
Hephaestus
> "Deo Morto" <deomo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c6a93d68-c45c-4fbd...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I think every person has his or her own way out of the cult and I was
> > interested more in WHY you were posting someone else's messages rather
> > than just the fact that you did it. I am not asking just to pile on or
> > anything but I am kind of fascinated.
>
> Hi Deo,
>
> Both Emma and I posted things for PG because we wanted to.
But it was anon?
> Anyone who knows Patricia knows that she rarely reads ars
> and back when Patricia and Emma and I were all on speaking
> terms, Emma or I would write to Patricia and link the post url
> to her and ask her opinion about it.
You're asking how she would approach situations, why? If she doesn't
have the time to do this, then aren't you wasting her time writing her
about it. If I refused to write here anymore I would find it in bad
taste if other people were emailing me about it.
> Emma failed to mention that many times she and I would
> ask Patricia to comment not the other way around.
That's still some backwards crazy ass logic. If she doesn't have time
for this, or it irritates her, then she doesn't have time for it.
Either she has time or doesn't.
> Patricia knew information about the LMT that we didn't know
> and we would ask her to comment on it. Both Emma
> and I did that and both of us would usually post Patricia's
> response as our own, sometimes changing it, sometimes
> leaving it as is.
I'm guessing
A:) with her full permission.
B:) without naming your source.
All this time with the accusations going back and forth, why not say
so sooner.
You're supposedly the one all for truth and honesty, so why don't you
tell me why we don't already know this information.
It's not like it would have erupted into a flame war with Lerma, he
already believed that, and all on that side did as well.
So what's the deal?
> It was not as if Patricia was passing out orders to Emma
> and I and telling us what to post.
Manipulation usually doesn't work that way, it's better if the
manipulated is willing, what you say disproves nothing.
In fact in the way of facts, you've actually provided nothing.
Whereas it is your responsibility to do so as the accuser.
> Emma paints the picture as if I was some kind of Pavlov's dog
> panting anxiously and awaiting Patricia's next command.
Proof unsubstantiated either way, I will say your responses have been
the more illogical of the two.
Concrete evidence hasn't really been provided. Except for maybe
Emma's most recent post, wherein she says she accused Lerma of posting
things he never asked if he could. Shawn never seemed to really care
either way, so I always did wonder what the hell happened. It didn't
make any sense, now, it makes more sense, although not as much,
although with goals like PG's ever constant pursuit of Lerma and pals,
one can't really ask for a whole lotta sense to be applied.
Concrete, not really, but a hell of a lot more than you got going.
> That's bullshit and she knows it. Many of the posts were
> because we ASKED HER TO COMMENT.
It still doesn't cover the actual issue of this supposed great
reservoir of information that you found and yet for some reason
decided to leave out of the picture, as far as I know you never
acknowledged her as your source for your several of your posts, I
would love to hear if you had though.
The main problem here is that many distrust you, we don't know who's
responding, because at this point your admitting to posting her stuff
as your own, albeit with her permission. We don't know if something
is your opinion or hers.
> I did it more than Emma did, but Emma participated
> in it fully until Patricia started telling Emma what a
> complete scum bag Roan was and then all of a sudden,
> Emma didn't like Patricia and started saying she was
> manipulative. I knew Emma and Patricia were on the
> outs but I figured it was between them and they could
> work it out or not.
interesting, rings partially true. Doubts fester until they are
prodded into blowing like a giant zit. If PG is as manipulative as I
hear, then this when she started plucking the spiderweb.
> So no matter how Emma spins it or tries to blame
> Patricia and me for it, the truth of the matter is that
> we did it because we wanted to get and use her
> information in our posts.
It's still posting her stuff as your own without naming your source.
It's still deception. It would be different if she were anon, or
still in. Which is one of the reasons I never asked where you got it
from, because I assumed it could have been either.
However she's not, she on RFW, they're already out to get her, so why
not post the name of your source?
> It may come as a surprise to the fanatical fringe
> that I am acutely aware of how easy it is to
> manipulate ex cultists. I've read enough books
> and seen enough evidence with my own eyes to
> see how we as ex's are easy prey to manipulative
> people who want to forward their own agenda.
>
> Patricia Greenway is a very strong woman. She
> tends to be very blunt in her dealings with others,
> but then so am I. It's probably why we get along
> so well.
>
> Weak and fearful people generally do not like
> strong people that will stand up to their schemes
> and tell them off.
That's right, go for the Tom Cruise speech. That'll win me over.
> You're right about each person has his or her
> way of getting out of the cult.
This thread is strangely not about that. It's more about you, emma,
lerma, and pg.
> I'm one of those that was in for almost 30 years
> and in complete Mindfuck mode most of the time.
>
> It's sometimes rather hellish dealing with it.
> Apparently, it's really not important to many
> people here but it was important to me to
> tell about what I knew about Emma and Roan
> what I felt was their betrayal of people who
> are scared and worried about their identity.
I don't know what the first sentence has to do with the rest of that
paragraph, and maybe I'm more comfortable with my identity in their
hands than many others.
Then again, maybe it's just because I'm not in any real danger as of
yet, and maybe I can protect myself if problems arise, be the
physical, legal, or financial.
> The whole thing really hit me as something
> horrible and inexcusable. To others it was
> not important at all and no big deal.
>
> I knew PG back in the AOL days
Why would you knowing her since the AOL days mean anything?
> > and she was very effective at combatting the cults little games on
> > there.
>
> She still is very effective in combating the cult. But she doesn't come
> to ars and report and brag about. There are a lot of people who do
> things behind the scenes and never report on it. But you already
> knew that. :-)
>
> Patty
IS that all it is?
realpch
Ohhhhhh! Life is too short. You'll never get to the bottom of it all, so
geeze, don't carry that shovel around all the time.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Opinions, News & Views
"realpch" <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:478F2448...@aol.com...
Many people just stop in to this newsgroup to see Scientology getting bashed
and then wonder what it's all about.
Dianetics and Scientology were apparently developed in the 1960s
specifically because the American psychology field had problems that were
not being fixed. The main problem with this field is that it actually causes
problems when it uses the schizophrenia diagnosis on people. Doing so almost
always worsens any depression that person had to begin with. Also, there is
no clearly defined criteria for schizophrenia. What one psychiatrist says is
"schizophrenia" a different psychiatrist will say is manic depression or
Attention Deficit Disorder or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Anyone who studies Scientology can see it advises against namecalling or
using confusing psychology terms like "schizophrenia". Hence, Scientology
seems to be attractive to people involved in doing business, acting or
whatever. Anyone who does business will avoid people who namecall because
they know it's bad for business. It interferes with people's money. Any
person who is consistently called "a schizophrenic" in a derogatory manner
will lose business and income. It is irrelevant whether the person actually
was ever in a rehab facility and was ever diagnosed with schizophrenia, just
being called this term a lot will harm a person's business. Because anyone
can be called "a schizophrenic" and there is no criteria for it, people are
now staying away from the people who say it, not the people who it is being
said about.
The American media companies basically promote the term "schizophrenia" and
"schizophrenic" to mean the person is crazy and may be untrustworthy or
associated with violence and crime, and also that the person is
multicultural or is "of several cultures and is confused".
That is the American media's explanations and basic "teachings" regarding
what schizophrenia is, which it broadcasts to the American public. In
reality, the medical use of the psychiatric diagnosis of "schizophrenia"
means the person has gone many many says straight with no sleep and little
food, is extremely over-exhausted and undernourished, and really needs to be
in the safe environment of a hospital to sleep it off and recover. The
standard treatment is medication to help the person sleep and get good bed
rest for several weeks, in addition to healthy foods and lithium carbonate
medication to help the body heal and recover from the exhaustion faster.
Once in the hospital and the person is resting, the diagnosis is most always
downgraded to manic depression or depression, to Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorder, and then usually to mild depression.
The American media, instead of rightfully explaining this when the subject
of psychiatry comes up, gives all kinds of different explanations, often
using the term "schizophrenic" within a movie to allude to a dangerous
criminal. Or within other movies, use the term "schizophrenic" to claim
someone is two people instead of one, or is multicultural. All of these
incorrect explanations cause confusion and tend to get people to dislike the
psychology field. It causes people to avoid going into counseling when they
have problems such as when a close relative dies or when abusing drugs or
alcohol. This may be one reason the singer Britney Spears is avoiding rehab
and psychology counseling as well. She likely doesn't want to get involved
with confusing diagnoses like "schizophrenia".
So, until both the American psychology field and the American media clean up
their acts, groups like Scientology will continue to attract new members.
Apparently Hubbard saw way back in the early 1960s that the psychology
field's new use of the schizophrenia diagnosis could cause problems. And,
that the term surely would be used by the American government to harass
antiwar activists and political dissidents with, and it was.
Beth
sure others here will. Just a couple of points right now....
On Jan 17, 5:32 am, "Opinions, News & Views"
<fgkjfjkfjkf...@dhgfdhfghdghdfghfg.com> wrote:
> "realpch" <real...@aol.com> wrote in message
They were developed in the 1950s, actually (the motivation is
arguable).
What do you base these statements on? Any studies, reports? Do you
have clinical experience?
>
> Once in the hospital and the person is resting, the diagnosis is most always
> downgraded to manic depression or depression, to Post Traumatic Stress
> Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorder, and then usually to mild depression.
Same question: where do you get this "most always" quantity? Do you
have a source for this claim?
Thanks,
Beth
Jommy Cross
<fgkjfjk...@dhgfdhfghdghdfghfg.com> wrote in msg
<L8Gjj.17822$Y63.12300@trnddc03>:
<snip>
>
>Anyone who studies Scientology can see it advises against namecalling or
>using confusing psychology terms like "schizophrenia".
On the contrary, $cientology has a whole classification system for nutjobs.
Various bogus categories of the state Potential Trouble Source exist, all
with more or less psychiatric descriptions. Millions of people world wide
are labelled as Suppessive Persons.
These terms are just as confusing as "schizophrenia", imho.
There's a bunch of other Hubbard weirdness I could tell you about, but I
think that just about wraps it up for your "no namecalling" argument.
>Hence, Scientology
>seems to be attractive to people involved in doing business, acting or
>whatever. Anyone who does business will avoid people who namecall because
>they know it's bad for business. It interferes with people's money. Any
>person who is consistently called "a schizophrenic" in a derogatory manner
>will lose business and income.
Anyone who consistently acts like a nutjob will lose business and income.
> In
>reality, the medical use of the psychiatric diagnosis of "schizophrenia"
>means the person has gone many many says straight with no sleep and little
>food, is extremely over-exhausted and undernourished, and really needs to be
>in the safe environment of a hospital to sleep it off and recover.
<snip>
Hey, it's University Studies back again. It's opinions and views but no
news.
People who go many days straight without sleep and little food will lose
business and income, though you do save on food some.
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
OldRookie
>
>Ohhhhhh! Life is too short. You'll never get to the bottom of it all, so
>geeze, don't carry that shovel around all the time.
>
>Peach
I don't know if I'm the one you're referring to as 'carrying the
shovel', but I was just idly curious that's all. :)
OldRookie
>
>Many people just stop in to this newsgroup to see Scientology getting bashed
>and then wonder what it's all about.
That's exactly why I made the post I did.
Because of all the recent attention, a friend of mine asked me 'about
it all', and I gave him few pointers about what and where to read,
including ars. I warned him about ars being spam heaven and all that,
but when we next got in touch and I asked him how he'd got on, his
first reply was..
"Gee, a lot of those critics sure hate each other don't they ? Why is
that ?"
I mumbled a few justifications about their being in the battle for so
long, disagreeing on tactics, getting impatient and gnarly with each
other, etc. All of which are true, but I didn't convince either of us,
really.
So, I asked. I'm still none the wiser :(
Not that it really matters to me. Until someone does some sort of
psycho/sociological research about just why this is,
I remain,
yours still in mystery...
>
>Dianetics and Scientology were apparently developed in the 1960s
>specifically because the American psychology field had problems that were
>not being fixed...........................................
Yeah !! That really helps, NOT.
<snipt>
Opinions, News & Views
It might be good to ask the US government if it has any morals or any moral
manuals.
"Emma" <emm...@bonbon.net> wrote in message
news:5ute58F...@mid.individual.net...
> This is not the most difficult post I've ever had to write.
> I never promised anyone I wouldn't write it.
> I can't say what harm has been done because of the existance of the
> situation I am about to post about. I'll leave that up to others to
> judge.
>
> What I am doing is posting only what I know to be true and only what
> involves me.
>
> A lot of people wonder about the influence of Patricia Greenway on this
> newsgroup and in the infighting amongst critics. Is is the "elephant in
> the loungeroom" that people have tried to get Patty P and others to talk
> about.
>
> I am only going to talk about one incident because it is the only one I
> can prove.
>
> Take a look at this thread from Oct 06.
>
>
> Take notice of my replies, especially #46 and also Patty's reply #62. They
> are the same post essentially, written by PG. I altered the formatting on
> mine slightly but they are the same post. PG had originallty sent the post
> to Patty to post but got hold of me as well and convinced me to post it. I
> emailed Patty to warn her that I'd posted it but she didn't see the email
> from me & posted it anyway. In fact that whole thread was initiated by PG
> emailing me and asking me to post about it, and every one of my replies
> was written by PG.
>
> I freaked out when I realised our mistake and was sure that Zinj would
> pick up on it but he didn't.
>
> That was the last time I ever posted anything on behalf of Patricia
> Greenway.
>
> This goes on, it just does, and I'm sick of hiding it. I'm also sick of
> Patricia Greenway using Patty P to do her dirty work for her. She uses
> Patty as her sacrificial lamb and I think it's doing her harm.
>
> I asked PG once why she doesn't post to ars herself and her reply was that
> she was "too busy" and that it makes her "too angry", yet she finds the
> time to write things for others to post. I don't understand why she allows
> Patty to take enormous amounts of flack for doing it, yet never actually
> comes to her friend's defence when she needs it.
>
> IMO she is a coward.
>
> - Emma
> --
> Ex Scientologist Message Board
> http://www.forum.exscn.net
>
Muldoon
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:32:11 GMT, "Opinions, News & Views"
>
You left out the category of agent provocateur.
Scientology's passion is being sneaky and manipulative - it has an
entire "tech' for it, or several.
Since this special "tech" is not as amusing as Tom Cruise, or as goofy
as Xenu, much of this is overlooked, or neglected - plus it's the most
secretive part of Scientology, other than its finances - but
Scientology doesn't neglect it. It's mainly what they do: being sneaky
and manipulative.
woggle...@yahoo.com
online as a critic since 2000, under various nyms.
But all this infighting among critics is rather distracting.
Emma, since I muddied up your excellent ESMB with assorted rants, I
voluntarily withdrew. You have very acceptable guidelines, but I have
difficulty colouring within the lines.
Zinj, I still owe you DMM simplified Excel file, as promised earlier.
All, not that it means much from an anon, but I suspect this internal
quarrel is not the purpose of ars.
Attack me at your leisure if you wish, I have said my piece and will
refrain from further comments regarding affairs I know very little
about.
OldRookie
<bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>On Jan 21, 2:44 am, OldRookie <OldRoo...@not.here> wrote:
>> I mumbled a few justifications about their being in the battle for so
>> long, disagreeing on tactics, getting impatient and gnarly with each
>> other, etc. All of which are true, but I didn't convince either of us,
>> really.
>>
>> So, I asked. I'm still none the wiser :(
>>
>You left out the category of agent provocateur.
>
<sigh>. Yet another piece of the 'tech' as though it was some sort of
meaningful answer.
>Scientology's passion is being sneaky and manipulative - it has an
>entire "tech' for it, or several.
And utterly worthless tech, may I suggest ?
To me, this 'Agent Provocateur' bit of yours, which only seems to be a
minor variation of the dreaded 'Third Part Tech', is something that
gets trotted out from time to time as some sort of magickal
explanation of everything to do with conflict here. Or anywhere for
that matter ??
Give us all a clue here, apart from vague references to an impotent
and hopelessly incompetent philosophy and organisation, and answer
this :
"Just who is/are the Agent Provocateur(s) who are so successfully
manipulating all the critic-groups to fight each other ?"
LRH tek-type answers will be given the shrift they deserve.
Muldoon
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:05:33 -0800 (PST), Muldoon
>
Scientology applies its various "techs." Consult Paulette Cooper, the
former mayor of Clearwater, Florida, or the American Internal Revenue
Service, and others, about what that "tech" is.
The information is on the Net, if you wish to search for it.
But, you'll have to "get a clue" on your own. I'm not interested in
bottle feeding you.
barb
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:32:11 GMT, "Opinions, News & Views"
> <fgkjfjk...@dhgfdhfghdghdfghfg.com> wrote:
>
>> Many people just stop in to this newsgroup to see Scientology getting bashed
>> and then wonder what it's all about.
>
> That's exactly why I made the post I did.
>
> Because of all the recent attention, a friend of mine asked me 'about
> it all', and I gave him few pointers about what and where to read,
> including ars. I warned him about ars being spam heaven and all that,
> but when we next got in touch and I asked him how he'd got on, his
> first reply was..
>
> "Gee, a lot of those critics sure hate each other don't they ? Why is
> that ?"
>
> I mumbled a few justifications about their being in the battle for so
> long, disagreeing on tactics, getting impatient and gnarly with each
> other, etc. All of which are true, but I didn't convince either of us,
> really.
>
> So, I asked. I'm still none the wiser :(
You have to understand something here. This is not a cohesive group by
any means. Some are techie types from teh internets. Some are techs of a
different sort, ex-Scientologists. Some came in just because Scientology
deserves whacking.
Some people are in it for the most righteous reasons. But, even they can
form factions, it's human nature. Some get all bent out of shape because
they feel excluded. Others are into self-promotion, which puts other
people off. And then of course, there are the few people that others
gravitate towards and support. Those who do not support those people
might argue their point into the ground and beyond, while the supporters
wave the banner of their champion.
The thing is, you have to look beyond all this and see what's getting
done. Some people tend to forget that results are all that matters in
the long run. We're not going to bring down this cult by throwing poo at
each other.
>
> Not that it really matters to me. Until someone does some sort of
> psycho/sociological research about just why this is,
>
> I remain,
> yours still in mystery...
>
>> Dianetics and Scientology were apparently developed in the 1960s
>> specifically because the American psychology field had problems that were
>> not being fixed...........................................
>
> Yeah !! That really helps, NOT.
>
> <snipt>
>
>
--
barb
Chaplain, ARSCCwdne
buy my book!
http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1198812
read my page! (thanks, R. Hill!)
http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/graham1.html
visit my store!
http://www.cafepress.com/birdville
barb
including this one. Dirty tricks work, not because they're part of
Scientology, but because human nature is what it is. People are
sometimes all too willing to climb into the sand box and start throwing
poo. Sometimes the rifts cannot be repaired. But that's okay. There's
plenty of Scientology to go around! :)
Warrior
>
>>You left out the category of agent provocateur.
>>
>>it has an entire "tech' for it, or several.
In <5ra9p3h48tm23i82r...@4ax.com>, OldRookie says...
>
><sigh>. Yet another piece of the 'tech' as though it was
>some sort of meaningful answer.
>
>And utterly worthless tech, may I suggest ?
I disagree. Do I need to point out the application of Hubbard's
"3rd party tech" was successfully used against Bob Minton to cause
his son Rob to be estranged from his dad? Or that "3rd party tech"
was used against Paulette Cooper? Or that "3rd party tech" was
used against Gabe Cazares? There are many more examples. I myself
have been the target of "3rd party" when an OSA staff member made
false reports about me to the local police.
You remind me of Rebecca Hartong, who wrote, "Hubbard's 'third
party law' doesn't exist (and I really don't recall the discussion,
but it sounds like something I'd say) it is because the 'third
party law' has no objective reality. That's not stupid--that's
just factual. Hubbard's 'third party law' is like most of his
other ideas-- goofy pop psychologizing that he just plain got
wrong. It doesn't work."
Rob Clark wrote, "An "application" of it would be deliberately
attempting to stir up conflicts between two others for your own
gain. Diane [Richardson] does, in fact, do this."
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
"Scientology: it's about deception."
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Warrior
>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:05:33 -0800 (PST), Muldoon wrote:
>>
>>>You left out the category of agent provocateur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
>>>Scientology's passion is being sneaky and manipulative -
>>>it has an entire "tech' for it, or several.
>In <5ra9p3h48tm23i82r...@4ax.com>, OldRookie says...
>>
>><sigh>. Yet another piece of the 'tech' as though it was
>>some sort of meaningful answer.
>>
>>And utterly worthless tech, may I suggest ?
OldRookie
wrote:
>OldRookie wrote:
>> "Gee, a lot of those critics sure hate each other don't they ? Why is
>> that ?"
>>
>> I mumbled a few justifications about their being in the battle for so
>> long, disagreeing on tactics, getting impatient and gnarly with each
>> other, etc. All of which are true, but I didn't convince either of us,
>> really.
>>
>> So, I asked. I'm still none the wiser :(
>
>You have to understand something here. This is not a cohesive group by
>any means. Some are techie types from teh internets. Some are techs of a
>different sort, ex-Scientologists. Some came in just because Scientology
>deserves whacking.
I understand all that.
>Some people are in it for the most righteous reasons. But, even they can
>form factions, it's human nature. Some get all bent out of shape because
>they feel excluded. Others are into self-promotion, which puts other
>people off. And then of course, there are the few people that others
>gravitate towards and support. Those who do not support those people
>might argue their point into the ground and beyond, while the supporters
>wave the banner of their champion.
And I understand all that too.
>The thing is, you have to look beyond all this and see what's getting
>done.
I have 'looked beyond all this' and seen what has been done, and is
still getting done.
My hat's off to all critics that have made a difference (and that's
not a hat as in the
http://purinton.blogspot.com/2007/12/pink-munky-whats-matter-with-you-hat.html
awesome video)
>Some people tend to forget that results are all that matters in
>the long run. We're not going to bring down this cult by throwing poo at
>each other.
And I totally agree with that.
But I *still* don't understand why there is so much *hatred* between
critics.
For example, just why is that henri/Rob is so foul mouthed and obscene
about other critics ? Why have Erlich and Fuzzy and Fishy all joined
in the bully-chorus ?
Is there some positive point to all this that I'm missing ?