The tacit responsibility of a Scientologist is to lie
Astrid
said this:
"The tacit responsibility of a Scientologist is to lie. Because you
are a Homo Novis, because you are an example, and of course you have
problems and issues, but you're not suppose to. Because you're CLEAR.
You are OT."
Doesn't this theme of lying permeate all of Scientology? From
declaring a "win" just so you can advance, hoping you'll really get a
win at the next level, to justifying sucking other people into it,
under the pretext that as an OT, you really have these super powers
and control. It is a lie to oneself. And OTs especially, turn it into
who they are and what Scientology has made them, liars. Liars for the
cause.
At the highest level OT, it is NOT supposed to be about being better,
or happier than you were before, it is supposed to be about having
complete control over MEST. In reality, it is all pretend. It all
comes crashing down the more you think about it, and get away from the
scam.
If Scientology helps in some ways (giving confidence, overcoming
shyness), this does not justify all the outrageous overblown claims
Scientology makes.
Hartley Patterson
> Doesn't this theme of lying permeate all of Scientology?
I have noticed over the years that CoS spokespersons consistently add lies
to media statements and interviews when such lies are not directly relevant
to the issue at hand. For example when asked about the purchase of a new
building by a local newspaper, the spokesperson will mention that
Scientology has millions of members and is the world's fastest growing
religion.
In part this is reading from a script or copypasta from what others say,
but I also think it has a ritual bonding element. To show their loyalty,
everyone must publically salute the flag, sing the company song, resolutely
oppose the splittists, denounce the heretics, whatever. To say 'these
people are liars' can conceal the deeper truth, that they inhabit a culture
where everyone wears masks and no one can admit to seeing them.
--
FREEDOM is a trademark owned by
Religious Technology Center
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/stolgy_0.htm
LaserClam
> Doesn't this theme of lying permeate all of Scientology? From
> declaring a "win" just so you can advance, hoping you'll really get a
> win at the next level, to justifying sucking other people into it,
> under the pretext that as an OT, you really have these super powers
> and control. It is a lie to oneself. And OTs especially, turn it into
> who they are and what Scientology has made them, liars. Liars for the
> cause.
>
> At the highest level OT, it is NOT supposed to be about being better,
> or happier than you were before, it is supposed to be about having
> complete control over MEST. In reality, it is all pretend. It all
> comes crashing down the more you think about it, and get away from the
> scam.
They should get them to do The
Way To Happiness course, eh Astrid?
Astrid
wrote:
>
> In part this is reading from a script or copypasta from what others say,
> but I also think it has a ritual bonding element. To show their loyalty,
> everyone must publically salute the flag, sing the company song, resolutely
> oppose the splittists, denounce the heretics, whatever. To say 'these
> people are liars' can conceal the deeper truth, that they inhabit a culture
> where everyone wears masks and no one can admit to seeing them.
>
it is their training, their actual RESPONSIBLITY to lie. There's a
difference.
A Scilon learns to believe that a lie is the "acceptable truth,"
when:
a) It is necessary to hide or distract from the real truth, to oneself
or others.
b) In an effort to sell more people on Scientology.
They carry it so far, that the difference blurs in their own mind.
That and KSW overriding all else makes it impossible for a Scilon to
take an inner journey in search of their own truth, as would happen in
Buddhism for example. Instead, as you say, they are putting on the
mask of Scientology, proclaiming it as what is true for them, and it
is really only accepting Hubbard's truth, telling any lie necessary to
sell it.
I think there's an element of what Tom Cruise mentions about the
Scilon's ability to "create new and better realities." I don't think
he's talking about just helping people get off drugs. Instead, he
means if you keep repeating "millions and millions of Scientologists
helping around the world, 200,000 VMs, billions being touched by
Scientology", like when a person wanders on their website for a
laugh, it will become a reality.
What can a Scilon say when they are opening a new building, the truth?
"We won't be doing anything in the way of charity work for your
community, except sucking in vulnerable dupes -- the richer the better
-- into our well-appointed brainwashing org for processing. So the
businesses next door will probably not be happy about having a crazy
cult next door...shit happens."
Astrid
> They should get them to do The
> Way To Happiness course, eh Astrid?
Exactly, and cut out the whole super expensive, mind-warping OT Xenu/
dead-space-alien-soul removal insanity.
After all, the Way to Happiness is obviously a rip-off of common sense
morality and basic Christian principles. You do realize Hubbard didn't
come up with a whole lot that is all that original. He ripped it right
out of hypnotism and Satanism (secret levels, each one more powerful
and free) , Freud, PT Barnum and others.
Gregory Hall
news:b992c744-ea98-4573...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
==================================
[REPLY]
Here's an L. Ron Hubbard quote that applies to the situation:
"What is true for you is what you have observed yourself." -- LRH
That being said, Scientology goes about making sure what is observed by a
recruit, no matter how false, is true because the recruit observes it. Lies
easily become truth.
Scientology is a body of known methods of psychological manipulation
relabeled using non-standard terms that make brainwashing out to be
something original and clever.
Scientology = Obfuscation.
--
Gregory Hall
Astrid
>
> If Scientology helps in some ways (giving confidence, overcoming
> shyness), this does not justify all the outrageous overblown claims
> Scientology makes.
I think Jason has said elsewhere that the higher up on the bridge that
Scientology goes, the more f'd up they get. I think that is the way he
felt, for sure, because he started THINKING about too many
contradictions, and he started seeing what was actually happening.
Because he was a celebrity, he got to meet a lot of other
Scientologists and OTVIIIs, and when he met some of those people,
instead of thinking:
"OTVIII, how awesome, you are so super cool."
After talking to them, he thought: "This stupid bumfuck is an OTVIII?
Whaaa?"
All it would take is meeting someone who thinks they have "super
powers" and starts talking about all the "time shifts" they perform,
if they ever do talk about those types of things.
Dennis L Erlich
as Elrong Tek that needed to be implemented on staff. What a laugh.
I read parts of it at a special staff meeting I called. Talking about
implementing those parts regarding care and treatment of self and
others.
Many staff were crying from relief.
And I was on my way out.
Astrid <Astrid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
-----------------
"I was one of those." - Leonard Cohen
Richard Ford
> I was Chief Cramming Officer Flag. And when TWTH came out, I took it
> as Elrong Tek that needed to be implemented on staff. What a laugh.
>
> I read parts of it at a special staff meeting I called. Talking about
> implementing those parts regarding care and treatment of self and
> others.
>
> Many staff were crying from relief.
>
> And I was on my way out.
>
> >On Jan 5, 11:12 am, LaserClam <LaserC...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> They should get them to do The
> >> Way To Happiness course, eh Astrid?
>
> >Exactly, and cut out the whole super expensive, mind-warping OT Xenu/
> >dead-space-alien-soul removal insanity.
>
> >After all, the Way to Happiness is obviously a rip-off of common sense
> >morality and basic
The Scientology Dictionary definition of reality is 'an agreement
between Thetans'. This ultimately means that a lie becomes true if you
can convince others of it. This is hugely destructive of sanity.
Scientologists do not lie as such because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
REALITY.
Maureen
Like, the 'Netherworld'
Maureen
Dennis L Erlich
>The Scientology Dictionary definition of reality is 'an agreement
>between Thetans'. This ultimately means that a lie becomes true if you
>can convince others of it. This is hugely destructive of sanity.
>
>Scientologists do not lie as such because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
>REALITY.
Precisely, Richard!
Reality EQUALS agreement is another of Elrong's big lies. Everything
that proceeds from that is based on a lie ... and therefore will
persist.
Clever and twisted!
D
---------------------------------------
"Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.
Android Cat
news:fr37k5hg0e8ogdblc...@4ax.com...
> I was Chief Cramming Officer Flag. And when TWTH came out, I took it
> as Elrong Tek that needed to be implemented on staff. What a laugh.
>
> I read parts of it at a special staff meeting I called. Talking about
> implementing those parts regarding care and treatment of self and
> others.
>
> Many staff were crying from relief.
>
> And I was on my way out.
The higher inside CoS, the closer it is to a freaky RL version of the
Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment[1] on steroids, with the twist that
everyone takes turns as guards and prisoners, sometimes both at the same
time. (Everyone except Davey-boy, of course.) So long as there are always
more guards than prisoners, the evil mind-fuck machine keeps grinding along.
Zimbardo experiment went off the rails in only six days (with academic
arguments about why it did, granted). The inner structure of Scientology, as
set up by Hubbard, has been running since the mid-sixties. It's a wonder
that it hasn't fallen into an even worse state. (Assuming that the worst is
known.) I believe that Hubbard's organization pattern will insure that the
most ruthless manipulators will rise to the top, and the ethics, RPF,
sec-checks, disconnection, Fair Game, etc, will follow from that, just as it
did when Hubbard was in charge. It wouldn't have mattered if it had been
Mary Sue Hubbard, Pat Broeker, or anyone else who landed on top instead of
Davey--he was just the best player at the dirty game with rules and victory
conditions set by Hubbard.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
--
Ron of that ilk.
Roger Larsson
Ron Hubbard had "survive" as his stable data he built his business
upon,,,,what had happened if "live" had been his bottomstone? Co$
could have lived instead of being a hopelessly doomed business.
Roadrunner
> In a lecture in Germany, former celebrity Scientologist Jason Beghe
> said this:
>
> "The tacit responsibility of a Scientologist is to lie. Because you
> are a Homo Novis, because you are an example, and of course you have
> problems and issues, but you're not suppose to. Because you're CLEAR.
> You are OT."
Who cares what Jason Beghe says, he was the typical follower. Just as
Tory was and a bunch of others...
You talk ecce homo, that is not the subject of Scientology.
RR
Roadrunner
When are you going to think for yourself??? Hmmm?
RR
Astrid
>
> When are you going to think for yourself??? Hmmm?
>
> RR
You mean what is true for me, according to what is written down by
Hubbard?
I've told you, I'm not brainwashed. If it were free, I would not allow
my mind to be bent by Hubbard's brainwashing process. I learn about
Scientology by reading about the experiences, feelings, and thoughts
of ex-Scientologists. Active Scientologists merely play games,
spouting Hubbard slogans, or attacking, avoiding facts or the obvious,
mis-directing. In your world, that's "handling," but to outsiders,
you, Barbara S., Jonathan merely seem insane.
That is what is good about Bare-Faced Messiah. Miller interviewed and
researched hundreds of Scientologists, who knew Hubbard. Russell
Miller is credible because his writing is credible and intelligible.
His documentation is credible and intelligible. Whether insane,
independent Scilon or active believing Scilon, none of them, when they
speak about Scientology or try to make the honest, convincing
argument, are able to do other than spout Hubbard phrases. When they
do try to express what Scientology has done for them, in the way of
improvement or "powerz," it is see-through, sort of laughable. Like
Geir's overcoming his shyness. Even Carmel, an ex who credits
Scientology with enabling her to read. I believe if she'd simply
gotten in a good literacy program for adults, she would have seen
similar results, and for much cheaper.
There's no way the secret Xenu and Hubbard's lecture on the political
history of the universe is credible at all. The only people for whom
any of it makes sense, are people who are either insane, or who have
been brainwashed step-by-step to believe in such insane ramblings. DC8
replicas 75 million years ago. And then the outrage of paying hundreds
of thousands of dollars to read such garbage.
One thing I get from people like Jason, who have learned the hard way,
and who speak before the public, is they distill and simplify the
message. This is very important for critics as a way to make people
understand the essence of how Scientology works.
How does a Scientologist, see for themselves, that the galactic
overlord Xenu, blew space aliens up in volcanoes 75 million years ago?
How does that become true to a Scientologist?
One of two ways:
1. They are brought up from children believing everything about
Scientology is true.
2. They are brainwashed to a point where "seeing if something is true
for you" ends up being ACCEPTING every stupid word and concept of
Hubbard as holy, true and good.
They are trained to lie to themselves. Or as another person put it,
but in a way that is less comprehensible to the average person. They
are taught that REALITY is Scientology. That everyone in the world is
hypnotized, and the only way to be enlightened and see reality is to
do Scientology.
With Buddhism, I understand how that works. It has been refined,
developed, practiced and I think the purpose is enlightenment, more
than control or money-making. With Scientology, Hubbard used these
concepts for the purpose of greed and power over others, MAINLY.
Hubbard's form of Buddhism is mentally and spiritually destructive,
not to all, but to many.
I don't think Satanism is healthy either but at least it isn't cloaked
and disguised as the true light, helping others, done by people who
want to save the planet and help others.
Astrid
>
> The Scientology Dictionary definition of reality is 'an agreement
> between Thetans'. This ultimately means that a lie becomes true if you
> can convince others of it. This is hugely destructive of sanity.
'
I agree. And that entails lying to yourself, and others in order to do
it. Geir Isene lies to himself, that Scientology was the ONLY and BEST
way to overcome what he thought of as his insurmountable shyness. I'm
sure he declared that as a big "WIN" of his to convince others of how
life-transforming Scientology was for him.In Geir's mind, if it could
do that, it could do anything. Not in my mind though. My mind says, he
could have matured out of shyness, or joined Toastmasters or something
where he would learn to speak in public, or communicate with others.
Let's say he never overcame his shyness. He envisions himself as being
a quiet nerd programmer who never would have started a successful
business because he didn't have the people skills. What if instead, as
a quiet nerd, her wrote a new piece of software that made him millions
of dollars?
Einstein wasn't the picture of academic scientific success, working in
a Patent office, pouring over people's plans for various devices. Yet,
that was just the type of quiet, contemplative, mind work that allowed
him the environment, to start thinking about time, space, light. So,
he comes up with some of the most original ideas in the last century.
Tory lied to herself, filling herself with hope that the fantastical
Xenu/BT crapola of OTIII would unlock a key to something that would
help her treat her epilepsy without medication. It gave her the hope,
to keep trying to convince others that Scientology had answers, and
that the critics on ARS were wrong. Then she woke up, because of
something that turned out to be a key, the kindness of Andreas. And
like an avalanche, she started putting things together.
(Incidentally, I credit Tory with being one of the few ex-Scilons who
was able to present an explanation of what Xenu meant to her, and it
made me understand what Xenu must mean to a lot of other Scilons when
they read it. It is essentially more "carrot on a stick." It is a
mystery that Scientologists hope will unfold at higher levels giving
them greater awareness or freedom. Well, it is more about the BTs than
Xenu himself, I don't think it is an accident that some of these OTs
wake up, to some things at least, as they have either completed OT8 or
get stuck on a level as Tory was stuck for a while.)
With Stacey Young it was a little different. The idea of crawling with
clusters of BTs freaked her out a bit, and was one of the things that
made her start thinking more critically, at least in the back of her
mind.
Narconon grads, (RR, Terryeo, Ceocomp, ElizabethB etc.) especially
those who had tried another drug programs before, when they were
helped overcoming something monumental, they decided they would apply
Ron Tech to everything in their lives with similar success, or not,
didn't matter since they had their big success and were ETERNALLY
grateful.
> Scientologists do not lie as such because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
> REALITY.
It is the Buddhist concept also. Then again, explaining Buddhism to
people is very difficult too. I'm no expert on it. The difference
between Buddhism and Scientology for me is that Buddhism, perhaps,
brings a person to an enlightened awareness of self. Scientology
perverts Buddhism and instead of self, people become mini-Hubbards.
They filter through Hubbard's take on Buddhism, which mixed with other
things, is designed for maximal money and labor extraction.
If Scilons sat around mediating on world peace and the meaning of
life, instead of recruiting people into the scam so deceptively, I'd
be okay with it.
It would be honest of Scientology to start defining those things up
front, on their materials or website. I mean the "reality is an
agreement between Thetans."
That would be an honest answer for Tommy Davis to give, when asked,
"what is Scientology?" He could say, "For example, we believe reality
is an..."
That is a more important concept than saying "Man is an immortal
spiritual being" or whatever they say.
Since Hubbard said "I am not from this planet" they could be up front
about that too, along with Xenu.
This is all why Scientology is indefensible.
Roadrunner
> On Jan 6, 3:17 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > When are you going to think for yourself??? Hmmm?
>
> > RR
>
> You mean what is true for me, according to what is written down by
> Hubbard?
YOU say that, I NEVER implied that... I am not in some box, you
apparently are yourself as this is how limited you think, and so you
have to force me into one.
>
> I've told you, I'm not brainwashed. If it were free, I would not allow
> my mind to be bent by Hubbard's brainwashing process. I learn about
> Scientology by reading about the experiences, feelings, and thoughts
> of ex-Scientologists.
Thus others (in particular the complainers and dissatisfied/failed
persons), that tell you. This is NOT your data...
>Active Scientologists merely play games,
> spouting Hubbard slogans, or attacking, avoiding facts or the obvious,
> mis-directing. In your world, that's "handling," but to outsiders,
> you, Barbara S., Jonathan merely seem insane.
For the insane saneness will seem insane.
Further you miserably misrepresent with you opinions. May I remind
that you never respond even to my arguments and queries. Get real...
>
> That is what is good about Bare-Faced Messiah. Miller interviewed and
> researched hundreds of Scientologists, who knew Hubbard. Russell
> Miller is credible because his writing is credible and intelligible.
> His documentation is credible and intelligible.
Quite the contrary, the documentation is rather slim and unsupported.
And foremost he literally glues everything together to one tale. His
book is written with hatred.
>Whether insane,
> independent Scilon or active believing Scilon, none of them, when they
> speak about Scientology or try to make the honest, convincing
> argument, are able to do other than spout Hubbard phrases. When they
> do try to express what Scientology has done for them, in the way of
> improvement or "powerz," it is see-through, sort of laughable. Like
> Geir's overcoming his shyness. Even Carmel, an ex who credits
> Scientology with enabling her to read. I believe if she'd simply
> gotten in a good literacy program for adults, she would have seen
> similar results, and for much cheaper.
I understand, and that is why you run from to query my arguments with
exact data...
>
> There's no way the secret Xenu and Hubbard's lecture on the political
> history of the universe is credible at all. The only people for whom
> any of it makes sense, are people who are either insane, or who have
> been brainwashed step-by-step to believe in such insane ramblings. DC8
> replicas 75 million years ago. And then the outrage of paying hundreds
> of thousands of dollars to read such garbage.
No one ever said that it would be credible, it never was and never
will be the substance. But then you are unable to interpret the data
as it should.
>
> One thing I get from people like Jason, who have learned the hard way,
> and who speak before the public, is they distill and simplify the
> message. This is very important for critics as a way to make people
> understand the essence of how Scientology works.
Jason was a 'follower'...
>
> How does a Scientologist, see for themselves, that the galactic
> overlord Xenu, blew space aliens up in volcanoes 75 million years ago?
> How does that become true to a Scientologist?
It does not have to be true...
>
> One of two ways:
>
> 1. They are brought up from children believing everything about
> Scientology is true.
That is utterly opposed to practicing Scientology...
>
> 2. They are brainwashed to a point where "seeing if something is true
> for you" ends up being ACCEPTING every stupid word and concept of
> Hubbard as holy, true and good.
Actually he never implied that...
>
> They are trained to lie to themselves. Or as another person put it,
> but in a way that is less comprehensible to the average person. They
> are taught that REALITY is Scientology. That everyone in the world is
> hypnotized, and the only way to be enlightened and see reality is to
> do Scientology.
That's ecce homo, not Scientology...
>
> With Buddhism, I understand how that works. It has been refined,
> developed, practiced and I think the purpose is enlightenment, more
> than control or money-making. With Scientology, Hubbard used these
> concepts for the purpose of greed and power over others, MAINLY.
> Hubbard's form of Buddhism is mentally and spiritually destructive,
> not to all, but to many.
>
> I don't think Satanism is healthy either but at least it isn't cloaked
> and disguised as the true light, helping others, done by people who
> want to save the planet and help others.
I wonder if we ever will hear something well thought out from your
lips, and that which finds objective well-researched evaluations...
RR
Peter Schilte
> On 5 Jan, 17:19, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In a lecture in Germany, former celebrity Scientologist Jason Beghe
> > said this:
>
> > "The tacit responsibility of a Scientologist is to lie. Because you
> > are a Homo Novis, because you are an example, and of course you have
> > problems and issues, but you're not suppose to. Because you're CLEAR.
> > You are OT."
>
> Who cares what Jason Beghe says, he was the typical follower. Just as
> Tory was and a bunch of others...
>
> You talk ecce homo, that is not the subject of Scientology.
>
You are a follower of Kevin Hovind, the conspiracy theorist and
creatonist. How can you accuse others and not loose your credibility?
Peter
"If a child or these children are found in Hold 1, or any
hidden compartment of the ship they are to be locked up."
- L. Ron Hubbard, Flag Order 1630, Governess,
3 December 1968
http://www.scamofscientology.nl
Peter Schilte
Ditto.
Astrid
> I wonder if we ever will hear something well thought out from your
> lips, and that which finds objective well-researched evaluations...
>
> RR
"Exact data"...LOL. Scientology can't even keep track of how many
members they have. "Well-researched" ...you've got to be kidding.
l.l.lipshitz
<roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in
<8b76d14a-50fd-440a...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
| On 5 Jan, 17:19, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| > In a lecture in Germany, former celebrity �Scientologist Jason Beghe
| > said this:
| >
| > �"The tacit responsibility of a Scientologist is to lie. Because you
| > are a Homo Novis, because you are an example, and of course you have
| > problems and issues, but you're not suppose to. Because you're CLEAR.
| > You are OT."
|
| Who cares what Jason Beghe says, he was the typical follower. Just as
| Tory was and a bunch of others...
just as roadrunner follows his guru 'dr' kent hovind.
| You talk ecce homo, that is not the subject of Scientology.
she talks like pontius pilate??
--
-elle
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
usenet disproves the infinite-monkey theorem
Hartley Patterson
> When they
> do try to express what Scientology has done for them, in the way of
> improvement or "powerz," it is see-through, sort of laughable.
When anyone thinks they have found the Truth and stops looking for it,
rational thinking and any anomalous data points go out the window.
Scientology is no exception.
It is possible to step off the narrow path, sit down in the field of
certainty and be happy. I don't have any quarrel with those who do, I just
wish they wouldn't try to persuade others to join them and I certainly
don't want them trying to block the path.
Roadrunner
You do it again, you IGNORE and SKIP about everything I queried in
previous post... see, there is obviously NOTHING exact about you
ANYWHERE... who worries about YOU...
RR
Roadrunner
> On 6 jan, 11:16, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5 Jan, 17:19, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In a lecture in Germany, former celebrity Scientologist Jason Beghe
> > > said this:
>
> > > "The tacit responsibility of a Scientologist is to lie. Because you
> > > are a Homo Novis, because you are an example, and of course you have
> > > problems and issues, but you're not suppose to. Because you're CLEAR.
> > > You are OT."
>
> > Who cares what Jason Beghe says, he was the typical follower. Just as
> > Tory was and a bunch of others...
>
> > You talk ecce homo, that is not the subject of Scientology.
>
> You are a follower of Kevin Hovind, the conspiracy theorist and
> creatonist. How can you accuse others and not loose your credibility?
Again this is KENT Hovind, second time wrong, you apparently don't
even know who he was prior to about an hour ago when I first mentioned
him. And here you are, you know ALL about him... You pick and
attack...
Debate him LIVE you coward, your Aaron also ran from me... none of you
have any courage whatsoever as it seems...
BEHAVIOUR towards exposes if one is a follower, NOT the incidence of
making mention of some person... what an amazing silly person you are,
jeez...
RR
Roadrunner
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 02:16:31 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> <8b76d14a-50fd-440a-97a1-4a5eb5ce7...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
> | On 5 Jan, 17:19, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> | > In a lecture in Germany, former celebrity Scientologist Jason Beghe
> | > said this:
> | >
> | > "The tacit responsibility of a Scientologist is to lie. Because you
> | > are a Homo Novis, because you are an example, and of course you have
> | > problems and issues, but you're not suppose to. Because you're CLEAR.
> | > You are OT."
> |
> | Who cares what Jason Beghe says, he was the typical follower. Just as
> | Tory was and a bunch of others...
>
> just as roadrunner follows his guru 'dr' kent hovind.
But you have nothing to support that attack...
RR
Astrid
> You do it again, you IGNORE and SKIP about everything I queried in
> previous post... see, there is obviously NOTHING exact about you
> ANYWHERE... who worries about YOU...
>
> RR
Okay cuckoo bird, I'll let Peter handle you from here on in, as
before.
Why don't you fly up to L. Ron's spaceship and say "hi" for me.
Richard Ford
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you could only be sincere, RR, you could become free.
Unfortunately you cannot remember what sincerity is.
Peter Schilte
> On 6 Jan, 16:42, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6 jan, 11:16, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 5 Jan, 17:19, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In a lecture in Germany, former celebrity Scientologist Jason Beghe
> > > > said this:
>
> > > > "The tacit responsibility of a Scientologist is to lie. Because you
> > > > are a Homo Novis, because you are an example, and of course you have
> > > > problems and issues, but you're not suppose to. Because you're CLEAR.
> > > > You are OT."
>
> > > Who cares what Jason Beghe says, he was the typical follower. Just as
> > > Tory was and a bunch of others...
>
> > > You talk ecce homo, that is not the subject of Scientology.
>
> > You are a follower of Kevin Hovind, the conspiracy theorist and
> > creatonist. How can you accuse others and not loose your credibility?
>
> Again this is KENT Hovind, second time wrong, you apparently don't
> even know who he was prior to about an hour ago when I first mentioned
> him. And here you are, you know ALL about him... You pick and
> attack...
>
Never heard of him before, as I am not really interested in nutcases.
Sorry for using a wrong name. Nevertheless, Someone who makes
preposterous claims without ANY scientific support and claiming that
HIV, Alzheimer, Parkinson etc. are put on this world by a secretive
government cannot be taken seriously, nor can those who follow and
parrot him. That is: People like you.
> Debate him LIVE you coward, your Aaron also ran from me... none of you
> have any courage whatsoever as it seems...
>
Seriously, why should I debate with a nutcase? He claims, so he has to
present evidence supporting his claims.
As he is unable to and only has conspiracy theories to support him I
cannot understand that of all people YOU are his follower.
> BEHAVIOUR towards exposes if one is a follower, NOT the incidence of
> making mention of some person... what an amazing silly person you are,
> jeez...
>
Hovind has NO proof for his claims. Yet you follow him. You parrot his
unproved claims.
You demand supporting evidence from anybody claiming anything. In this
case you follow blindly. Anybody with a little bit of intelligence
sees through his preposterous claims, you don't. Now, who is the silly
one here?
Roadrunner
> On 7 jan, 00:11, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6 Jan, 16:42, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 6 jan, 11:16, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 5 Jan, 17:19, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > In a lecture in Germany, former celebrity Scientologist Jason Beghe
> > > > > said this:
>
> > > > > "The tacit responsibility of a Scientologist is to lie. Because you
> > > > > are a Homo Novis, because you are an example, and of course you have
> > > > > problems and issues, but you're not suppose to. Because you're CLEAR.
> > > > > You are OT."
>
> > > > Who cares what Jason Beghe says, he was the typical follower. Just as
> > > > Tory was and a bunch of others...
>
> > > > You talk ecce homo, that is not the subject of Scientology.
>
> > > You are a follower of Kevin Hovind, the conspiracy theorist and
> > > creatonist. How can you accuse others and not loose your credibility?
>
> > Again this is KENT Hovind, second time wrong, you apparently don't
> > even know who he was prior to about an hour ago when I first mentioned
> > him. And here you are, you know ALL about him... You pick and
> > attack...
>
> Never heard of him before, as I am not really interested in nutcases.
All clear here, you even admit it. Total prejudice, and no checking
out anything. You select with your preconceived and your mind is all
set, and then you attack.
Narconon gets your ex-girlfriend off drugs, and you attack. And you
talk to me about sincerity...
> Sorry for using a wrong name. Nevertheless, Someone who makes
> preposterous claims without ANY scientific support and claiming that
> HIV, Alzheimer, Parkinson etc. are put on this world by a secretive
> government cannot be taken seriously, nor can those who follow and
> parrot him. That is: People like you.
>
> > Debate him LIVE you coward, your Aaron also ran from me... none of you
> > have any courage whatsoever as it seems...
>
> Seriously, why should I debate with a nutcase? He claims, so he has to
> present evidence supporting his claims.
> As he is unable to and only has conspiracy theories to support him I
> cannot understand that of all people YOU are his follower.
>
> > BEHAVIOUR towards exposes if one is a follower, NOT the incidence of
> > making mention of some person... what an amazing silly person you are,
> > jeez...
>
> Hovind has NO proof for his claims. Yet you follow him. You parrot his
> unproved claims.
You can't understand: "BEHAVIOUR towards exposes if one is a follower,
NOT the incidence of making mention of some person"
How in heaven's name can you say these things if you HAVEN'T looked
into it. This by your OWN admission. You are thus a robot...
RR
B
Roadrunner
Ouch..., and you people think that anyone is listening to the likes of
you, NEVER explain, ALWAYS attack and ridicule...
RR
Roger Larsson
On a round planet instead of on a flat Earth can everyone bump on
themselves in their own bottom instead of bumping on others in their
bottom.
Sociopaths having many dogs to attack their enemies with scares many
but not all. Slaves controled by a sociopath in a totalitarian group
don't dare to fuck the skull of Hubbard and ride the dwarf. It's the
reason why they pick wrong targets to make down. They surrender to the
sociopath instead of kicking his ass off the planets surface.
Peter Schilte
Why do you think so few people respond to you? BTW, have you noticed
how you skip and ignore whole parts of responses yourself? Double
standards.
But that is to be expected from a nutcase follower of a convicted
criminal nutcase.
l.l.lipshitz
<roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in
<272a1602-41e8-420e...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
| On 6 Jan, 18:41, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
| > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 02:16:31 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
| > <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in
| > <8b76d14a-50fd-440a-97a1-4a5eb5ce7...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
| > �| �On 5 Jan, 17:19, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| > �| > In a lecture in Germany, former celebrity Scientologist Jason Beghe
| > �| > said this:
| > �| >
| > �| > "The tacit responsibility of a Scientologist is to lie. Because you
| > �| > are a Homo Novis, because you are an example, and of course you have
| > �| > problems and issues, but you're not suppose to. Because you're CLEAR.
| > �| > You are OT."
| > �|
| > �| �Who cares what Jason Beghe says, he was the typical follower. Just as
| > �| �Tory was and a bunch of others...
| >
| > � � � � just as roadrunner follows his guru 'dr' kent hovind.
|
| But you have nothing to support that attack...
in post
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/7cc6178e8d0efcb4>
you said:
'for example kent hovind addressed these matters
rather effectively...'
Peter Schilte
You are jumping to conclusions. I HAVE checked Hovind. Where do you
think I got my info about him? Out of the blue? But what can one
expect from a nutcase follower of another nutcase....
> Narconon gets your ex-girlfriend off drugs, and you attack. And you
> talk to me about sincerity...
I attack Narconon because it is a scam.
I didn't talk about sincerity.
>
>
>
> > Sorry for using a wrong name. Nevertheless, Someone who makes
> > preposterous claims without ANY scientific support and claiming that
> > HIV, Alzheimer, Parkinson etc. are put on this world by a secretive
> > government cannot be taken seriously, nor can those who follow and
> > parrot him. That is: People like you.
>
> > > Debate him LIVE you coward, your Aaron also ran from me... none of you
> > > have any courage whatsoever as it seems...
>
> > Seriously, why should I debate with a nutcase? He claims, so he has to
> > present evidence supporting his claims.
> > As he is unable to and only has conspiracy theories to support him I
> > cannot understand that of all people YOU are his follower.
>
> > > BEHAVIOUR towards exposes if one is a follower, NOT the incidence of
> > > making mention of some person... what an amazing silly person you are,
> > > jeez...
>
> > Hovind has NO proof for his claims. Yet you follow him. You parrot his
> > unproved claims.
>
> You can't understand: "BEHAVIOUR towards exposes if one is a follower,
> NOT the incidence of making mention of some person"
>
It does when a person parrots idiocy, like you do with Hovind. That
makes you a follower.
> How in heaven's name can you say these things if you HAVEN'T looked
> into it.
Wrong assumption and question: I DID look into it.
> This by your OWN admission. You are thus a robot...
Wrong again. You jumped to conclusions based on a single sentence that
you apparently misunderstood. You seem to have missed the word
"before".
And nice how you skip the rest of my response. Must be rather
inconvenient to you. Yet you attack others when they skip parts of
your responses. Double standards again. But that is what is to be
expected from a nutcase follower of a convicted criminal nutcase.
Peter
l.l.lipshitz
<roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in
<b645c10b-d978-4547...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:
| On 6 Jan, 14:43, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| > On Jan 6, 3:17�am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
| > I've told you, I'm not brainwashed. If it were free, I would not allow
| > my mind to be bent by Hubbard's brainwashing process. I learn about
| > Scientology by reading about the experiences, feelings, and thoughts
| > of ex-Scientologists.
|
| Thus others (in particular the complainers and dissatisfied/failed
| persons), that tell you. This is NOT your data...
if i'm not mistaken, you did not discover or invent
or found or originate dn and scn so you're using
someone else's data when you study those subjects,
NOT your own data.
[...]
| > That is what is good about Bare-Faced Messiah. Miller interviewed and
| > researched hundreds of Scientologists, who knew Hubbard. Russell
| > Miller is credible because his writing is credible and intelligible.
| > His documentation is credible and intelligible.
|
| Quite the contrary, the documentation is rather slim and unsupported.
| And foremost he literally glues everything together to one tale. His
| book is written with hatred.
have you even read the book?
'the best-written one is, by common agreement,
'bare-faced messiah', by a veteran british
journalist and biographer. [...] the author (russell
miller) did not have any particular axe to grind
when he wrote it, originally as part of a sunday
times project to find lrh when he was in seclusion
in california. it is awesomely well researched and
documented.
'i'm in an unusual position in that i've been able
to verify what miller wrote; i live only about 30
miles from him, obtained permission to put it on the
web and created the first version of it several
years ago. [...] miller also gave me his original
source documents - several crates worth - so i have
been able to go through his original notes,
tape-recorded interviews and source papers to
corroborate what he says in the book. i was also
academically trained as an historian (i graduated
with honours from oxford university) so i have the
skills to spot when an historical question doesn't
add up. bare-faced messiah checks out in virtually
every regard. it's also very well written and highly
readable.'
-chris owen
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/922ad4c473df3c42>
| >Whether insane,
| > independent Scilon or active believing Scilon, none of them, when they
| > speak about Scientology or try to make the honest, convincing
| > argument, are able to do other than spout Hubbard phrases. When they
| > do try to express what Scientology has done for them, in the way of
| > improvement or "powerz," it is see-through, sort of laughable. Like
| > Geir's overcoming his shyness. Even Carmel, an ex who credits
| > Scientology with enabling her to read. I believe if she'd simply
| > gotten in a good literacy program for adults, she would have seen
| > similar results, and for much cheaper.
|
| I understand, and that is why you run from to query my arguments with
| exact data...
i dunno, roadrunner, your data above about bare-faced
messiah are not very exact. it casts doubt on the
rest of what you say when you make such sloppy and
wrong-headed statements.
| > There's no way the secret Xenu and Hubbard's lecture on the political
| > history of the universe is credible at all. The only people for whom
| > any of it makes sense, are people who are either insane, or who have
| > been brainwashed step-by-step to believe in such insane ramblings. DC8
| > replicas 75 million years ago. And then the outrage of paying hundreds
| > of thousands of dollars to read such garbage.
|
| No one ever said that it would be credible, it never was and never
| will be the substance. But then you are unable to interpret the data
| as it should.
sorry, but l. ron hubbard, the founder of the
subject of scn, said it was true. if not for xenu
slaughtering billions of alien beings, there would
be no thetans here on earth, or body thetans to
cause our problems. we'd just be a bunch of soulless
meat-bodies like all the other animals. it's kind of
hard for the subject of scn to exist without thetans.
but then i guess you know better than hubbard. how
should the data be interpreted if hubbard is wrong?
| > One thing I get from people like Jason, who have learned the hard way,
| > and who speak before the public, is they distill and simplify the
| > message. This is very important for critics as a way to make people
| > understand the essence of how Scientology works.
|
| Jason was a 'follower'...
i studied biblical archeology under one of the
original translators of the dead sea scrolls. i
guess i am a follower, too. i'm so ashamed!
| > How does a Scientologist, see for themselves, that the galactic
| > overlord Xenu, blew space aliens up in volcanoes 75 million years ago?
| > How does that become true to a Scientologist?
|
| It does not have to be true...
yep, hubbard lied.
[...]
| I wonder if we ever will hear something well thought out from your
| lips, and that which finds objective well-researched evaluations...
we wonder the same thing about you.
Jommy Cross
<elk...@seesig.info> wrote in msg
<slrnhkbubj...@01-029.155.popsite.net>:
>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:12:57 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
><roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in
><272a1602-41e8-420e...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
> | On 6 Jan, 18:41, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
> | > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 02:16:31 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> | > <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in
> | > <8b76d14a-50fd-440a-97a1-4a5eb5ce7...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
> | > �| �On 5 Jan, 17:19, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> | > �| > In a lecture in Germany, former celebrity Scientologist Jason Beghe
> | > �| > said this:
> | > �| >
> | > �| > "The tacit responsibility of a Scientologist is to lie. Because you
> | > �| > are a Homo Novis, because you are an example, and of course you have
> | > �| > problems and issues, but you're not suppose to. Because you're CLEAR.
> | > �| > You are OT."
> | > �|
> | > �| �Who cares what Jason Beghe says, he was the typical follower. Just as
> | > �| �Tory was and a bunch of others...
> | >
> | > � � � � just as roadrunner follows his guru 'dr' kent hovind.
> |
> | But you have nothing to support that attack...
>
> in post
><http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/7cc6178e8d0efcb4>
> you said:
>
> 'for example kent hovind addressed these matters
> rather effectively...'
That isn't following a guru, because RR's doing it.
He's carefully evaluated the facts without preconceptions or blinkers and
concluded that world class k00k and convicted tax fraudster Kent Hovind's
arguments have merit.
Lacking the self imposed constraints that lesser being like you and I
share, roadrunner_engrama is able to look beyond the lies, manipulation,
obvious stupidity and convicted criminality of Hovind to the truth far, far
in the distance.
And what is that truth?
That's for we poor primitives to discern from his magisterial
pronouncements.
I don't *think* it's "employment taxes are optional". But I could easily be
wrong.
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Jommy Cross
<peters...@gmail.com> wrote in msg
<e1c5eb41-9dd3-4a6b...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>On 7 jan, 09:25, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7 Jan, 01:58, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 6, 4:06�pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > You do it again, you IGNORE and SKIP about everything I queried in
>> > > previous post... �see, there is obviously NOTHING exact about you
>> > > ANYWHERE... who worries about YOU...
>>
>> > > RR
>>
>> > Okay cuckoo bird, I'll let Peter handle you from here on in, as
>> > before.
>>
>> > Why don't you fly up to L. Ron's spaceship and say "hi" for me.
>>
>> Ouch..., and you people think that anyone is listening to the likes of
>> you, NEVER explain, ALWAYS attack and ridicule...
>>
>> RR
>
>Why do you think so few people respond to you? BTW, have you noticed
>how you skip and ignore whole parts of responses yourself? Double
>standards.
>But that is to be expected from a nutcase follower of a convicted
>criminal nutcase.
Umm, that's *two* criminal convicted nutcases he's a fan of. Hovind and
Hubbard.
Peter Schilte
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 02:31:28 -0800 (PST), Peter Schilte
> <e1c5eb41-9dd3-4a6b-ba1e-e43a88d73...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
> >On 7 jan, 09:25, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7 Jan, 01:58, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> > > You do it again, you IGNORE and SKIP about everything I queried in
> >> > > ANYWHERE... who worries about YOU...
>
> >> > > RR
>
> >> > Okay cuckoo bird, I'll let Peter handle you from here on in, as
> >> > before.
>
> >> > Why don't you fly up to L. Ron's spaceship and say "hi" for me.
>
> >> Ouch..., and you people think that anyone is listening to the likes of
> >> you, NEVER explain, ALWAYS attack and ridicule...
>
> >> RR
>
> >Why do you think so few people respond to you? BTW, have you noticed
> >how you skip and ignore whole parts of responses yourself? Double
> >standards.
> >But that is to be expected from a nutcase follower of a convicted
> >criminal nutcase.
>
> Umm, that's *two* criminal convicted nutcases he's a fan of. Hovind and
> Hubbard.
>
> Ever yours in fandom,
> Jommy Cross
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
> before you hallucinate
> --------------------------------------------------
Aw! You gave a way the clue! ;-)
Roadrunner
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:40:18 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> <b645c10b-d978-4547-be84-f1e1b2d93...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:
> | On 6 Jan, 14:43, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> | > On Jan 6, 3:17 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> | > I've told you, I'm not brainwashed. If it were free, I would not allow
> | > my mind to be bent by Hubbard's brainwashing process. I learn about
> | > Scientology by reading about the experiences, feelings, and thoughts
> | > of ex-Scientologists.
> |
> | Thus others (in particular the complainers and dissatisfied/failed
> | persons), that tell you. This is NOT your data...
>
> if i'm not mistaken, you did not discover or invent
> or found or originate dn and scn so you're using
> someone else's data when you study those subjects,
> NOT your own data.
I EVALUATED and the result of that became MY data... YOU however base
it all on OHTER person's evaluations, this is thus NOT your data...
>
> [...]
>
> | > That is what is good about Bare-Faced Messiah. Miller interviewed and
> | > researched hundreds of Scientologists, who knew Hubbard. Russell
> | > Miller is credible because his writing is credible and intelligible.
> | > His documentation is credible and intelligible.
> |
> | Quite the contrary, the documentation is rather slim and unsupported.
> | And foremost he literally glues everything together to one tale. His
> | book is written with hatred.
>
> have you even read the book?
About one-third straight through, irritated because everything was
associated with basically everything without a VALID reason to do so.
Irritated because of the hatred he put into it.
>
> 'the best-written one is, by common agreement,
> 'bare-faced messiah', by a veteran british
> journalist and biographer. [...] the author (russell
> miller) did not have any particular axe to grind
> when he wrote it, originally as part of a sunday
> times project to find lrh when he was in seclusion
> in california. it is awesomely well researched and
> documented.
Tsk, tsk, first it is not a voting contest, secondly exactly WHAT
sources tell this?, thirdly it is not very well researched at all. It
is extremely opinionated and the documentation is not very well
either.
>
> 'i'm in an unusual position in that i've been able
> to verify what miller wrote; i live only about 30
> miles from him, obtained permission to put it on the
> web and created the first version of it several
> years ago.
And thus you need to defend it.
> [...] miller also gave me his original
> source documents - several crates worth - so i have
> been able to go through his original notes,
> tape-recorded interviews and source papers to
> corroborate what he says in the book. i was also
> academically trained as an historian (i graduated
> with honours from oxford university) so i have the
> skills to spot when an historical question doesn't
> add up. bare-faced messiah checks out in virtually
> every regard. it's also very well written and highly
> readable.'
Not my opinion, I found it rather illegible. We only have your word on
the rest you tell. You will ONLY be judged by your own behaviour and
forwarded argumentation that you forward HERE and NOW...
>
> -chris owen
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/922ad4c47...>
>
> | >Whether insane,
> | > independent Scilon or active believing Scilon, none of them, when they
> | > speak about Scientology or try to make the honest, convincing
> | > argument, are able to do other than spout Hubbard phrases. When they
> | > do try to express what Scientology has done for them, in the way of
> | > improvement or "powerz," it is see-through, sort of laughable. Like
> | > Geir's overcoming his shyness. Even Carmel, an ex who credits
> | > Scientology with enabling her to read. I believe if she'd simply
> | > gotten in a good literacy program for adults, she would have seen
> | > similar results, and for much cheaper.
> |
> | I understand, and that is why you run from to query my arguments with
> | exact data...
>
> i dunno, roadrunner, your data above about bare-faced
> messiah are not very exact. it casts doubt on the
> rest of what you say when you make such sloppy and
> wrong-headed statements.
The documentation is pretty bad... let Miller prove his point first.
>
> | > There's no way the secret Xenu and Hubbard's lecture on the political
> | > history of the universe is credible at all. The only people for whom
> | > any of it makes sense, are people who are either insane, or who have
> | > been brainwashed step-by-step to believe in such insane ramblings. DC8
> | > replicas 75 million years ago. And then the outrage of paying hundreds
> | > of thousands of dollars to read such garbage.
> |
> | No one ever said that it would be credible, it never was and never
> | will be the substance. But then you are unable to interpret the data
> | as it should.
>
> sorry, but l. ron hubbard, the founder of the
> subject of scn, said it was true. if not for xenu
> slaughtering billions of alien beings, there would
> be no thetans here on earth, or body thetans to
> cause our problems. we'd just be a bunch of soulless
> meat-bodies like all the other animals. it's kind of
> hard for the subject of scn to exist without thetans.
Something you don't get about: "But then you are unable to interpret
the data
as it should." ?
>
> but then i guess you know better than hubbard. how
> should the data be interpreted if hubbard is wrong?
Then answer the issue what the subjects of Scientology and Dianetics
are about essentially?
>
> | > One thing I get from people like Jason, who have learned the hard way,
> | > and who speak before the public, is they distill and simplify the
> | > message. This is very important for critics as a way to make people
> | > understand the essence of how Scientology works.
> |
> | Jason was a 'follower'...
>
> i studied biblical archeology under one of the
> original translators of the dead sea scrolls. i
> guess i am a follower, too. i'm so ashamed!
The BEHAVIOUR towards tell if one is a follower or not...
>
> | > How does a Scientologist, see for themselves, that the galactic
> | > overlord Xenu, blew space aliens up in volcanoes 75 million years ago?
> | > How does that become true to a Scientologist?
> |
> | It does not have to be true...
>
> yep, hubbard lied.
Is this how you learned to argue at university, you know you are on a
rather primitive level here...
>
> [...]
>
> | I wonder if we ever will hear something well thought out from your
> | lips, and that which finds objective well-researched evaluations...
>
> we wonder the same thing about you.
It is out there and it is very well acknowledged as such. Either way
if you want to have a case you need to do a lot better than the above.
RR
Roadrunner
Your analysis please... without it, all you tell is worth absolutely
nothing...
RR
Kat
I just find it amusing that a proven liar like RR feels the compulsive
need to post in this thread :P
Peter Schilte
You didn't address my queries. Isn't that what you demand from others?
Then do it yourself!
Nothing, that is what Kovind offers. You are his blind follower,
apparently impressed by his "documentation" and the complete absence
of any scientific evidence.
My analysis? You are a nutcase, as Hovind is.
Roadrunner
Still have no research to forward, now have you. Your CLAIMED
Scientology research... yeah, thought so... and thus you do as you
do... you need to spread opinions and attacks...
RR
Roadrunner
You have nothing to support that, is is JUST your opinion... It took
you 5 minutes or so to have your line of attack ready about Kent
Hovind...
http://drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10
You are an outright coward and defamer... more correctly you are a
plant, that has the compulsory need to do as you do. Why? Partly
because your ex-girlfriend got better and probably became cause over
you. I think we know the deal with you...
Roadrunner
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:12:57 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> <272a1602-41e8-420e-9e22-5f7098c48...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
> | On 6 Jan, 18:41, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
> | > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 02:16:31 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> | > <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in
> | > <8b76d14a-50fd-440a-97a1-4a5eb5ce7...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
> | > | On 5 Jan, 17:19, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> | > | > In a lecture in Germany, former celebrity Scientologist Jason Beghe
> | > | > said this:
> | > | >
> | > | > "The tacit responsibility of a Scientologist is to lie. Because you
> | > | > are a Homo Novis, because you are an example, and of course you have
> | > | > problems and issues, but you're not suppose to. Because you're CLEAR.
> | > | > You are OT."
> | > |
> | > | Who cares what Jason Beghe says, he was the typical follower. Just as
> | > | Tory was and a bunch of others...
> | >
> | > just as roadrunner follows his guru 'dr' kent hovind.
> |
> | But you have nothing to support that attack...
>
> in post
> you said:
>
> 'for example kent hovind addressed these matters
> rather effectively...'
And your university background comes to the conclusion, with this
sentence, that this Kent Hovind then must be my guru? Is that your
logic and your evaluation?
Are you nuts? Jeez.... you're all boxed up.
RR
Roadrunner
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:10:44 +0000 (UTC), "l.l.lipshitz"
> <elk...@seesig.info> wrote in msg
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:12:57 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> ><272a1602-41e8-420e-9e22-5f7098c48...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
> > | On 6 Jan, 18:41, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
> > | > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 02:16:31 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> > | > <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > | > <8b76d14a-50fd-440a-97a1-4a5eb5ce7...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
> > | > | > In a lecture in Germany, former celebrity Scientologist Jason Beghe
> > | > | >
> > | > | > "The tacit responsibility of a Scientologist is to lie. Because you
> > | > |
> > | > | Who cares what Jason Beghe says, he was the typical follower. Just as
> > | >
> > |
> > | But you have nothing to support that attack...
>
> > in post
> > you said:
>
> > 'for example kent hovind addressed these matters
> > rather effectively...'
>
> That isn't following a guru, because RR's doing it.
>
> He's carefully evaluated the facts without preconceptions or blinkers and
> concluded that world class k00k and convicted tax fraudster Kent Hovind's
> arguments have merit.
>
> Lacking the self imposed constraints that lesser being like you and I
> share, roadrunner_engrama is able to look beyond the lies, manipulation,
> obvious stupidity and convicted criminality of Hovind to the truth far, far
> in the distance.
>
> And what is that truth?
>
> That's for we poor primitives to discern from his magisterial
> pronouncements.
>
> I don't *think* it's "employment taxes are optional". But I could easily be
> wrong.
Quite afew do not agree with you...
RR
Mike Thomas
Hash: SHA1
Roadrunner wrote:
> On 8 Jan, 05:15, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8 jan, 01:10, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 7 Jan, 16:37, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 7 jan, 09:24, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 7 Jan, 05:42, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 7 jan, 00:11, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6 Jan, 16:42, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6 jan, 11:16, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5 Jan, 17:19, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In a lecture in Germany, former celebrity Scientologist Jason Beghe
>>>>>>>>>> said this:
>>>>>>>>>> "The tacit responsibility of a Scientologist is to lie.. Because you
In the process of watching those videos, my evaluation so far is:
They're just fancy presentations, they mean nothing because Kent Hovind
is a known liar and a criminal!
But the fact is, at least I'm watching what you're citing as evidence.
You couldn't even do that in other threads where I post links.
I have one comment about the garden of eden seminar - how can Noah and
his wife have enough genetic variety to populate the entire earth after
the flood?
Also, do you consider the bible infallible evidence?
>
> You are an outright coward and defamer... more correctly you are a
> plant, that has the compulsory need to do as you do. Why? Partly
> because your ex-girlfriend got better and probably became cause over
> you. I think we know the deal with you...
>
> RR
>
>> Peter
>>
>> "If a child or these children are found in Hold 1, or any
>> hidden compartment of the ship they are to be locked up."
>> - L. Ron Hubbard, Flag Order 1630, Governess,
>> 3 December 1968
>>
>> http://www.scamofscientology.nl
>>
>>> RR
>>>> Peter
>>>> "If a child or these children are found in Hold 1, or any
>>>> hidden compartment of the ship they are to be locked up."
>>>> - L. Ron Hubbard, Flag Order 1630, Governess,
>>>> 3 December 1968
>>>> http://www.scamofscientology.nl
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.12 (Darwin)
iJwEAQECAAYFAktHHXMACgkQQOyfU0q29nYXcQQAp/Z7AxWR8AaQABa/CObVbmqL
G3V2tIrJvCcHkxnX9aPslwvFzkixg2DRg/wsgYpxwOvbMTm2heji90kkP/cGMrD8
UJiniQKu9oskW7ihsYwQIPE5as9OOJ/cX66wZ/jtfhkBfwS/cvsMFKccaiGKPZJK
dySlpw4miz8mTUFcGsg=
=CYuw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ted Mayett
<elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
> | > One thing I get from people like Jason, who have learned the hard way,
> | > and who speak before the public, is they distill and simplify the
> | > message. This is very important for critics as a way to make people
> | > understand the essence of how Scientology works.
> |
> | Jason was a 'follower'...
>
> i studied biblical archeology under one of the
> original translators of the dead sea scrolls. i
> guess i am a follower, too. i'm so ashamed!
>
>
Wow, that must have been totally interesting!
Peter Schilte
Look at Hovind's website. That is all the support I need and you want,
IF you aren't as much of a lunatic as he is.
> http://drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10
>
> You are an outright coward and defamer...
Nope. I look at things, evaluate them and THEN come to my opinions. In
this case there can be no other conclusion than that you and Hovind
are both nut-cases.
> more correctly you are a
> plant, that has the compulsory need to do as you do. Why? Partly
> because your ex-girlfriend got better and probably became cause over
> you. I think we know the deal with you...
>
More idiocy from you.
And you still have the illusion to be taken seriously by anyone?
Of course, like that other nut-case Hovind.
Peter Schilte
So far all you showed to support your idiotic creationist theories is
Hovind's idiocy.
That makes you his follower and Hovind your guru.
And you haven't shown any explanation as to the inconsistencies
between the OT-III materials and Hovind's theories.
Peter Schilte
Idiots can be found everywhere. Even in Sweden. However, the judge
ruled, and Kent is doing time.
I really hope his butt isn't hurting too much.
Roadrunner
But you make no effort to locate the source of 'known liar and
criminal', of course you don't...
His seminars contain very much verified documentation, but no, you
just ignore.
>
> But the fact is, at least I'm watching what you're citing as evidence.
> You couldn't even do that in other threads where I post links.
>
> I have one comment about the garden of eden seminar - how can Noah and
> his wife have enough genetic variety to populate the entire earth after
> the flood?
Keep on watching his seminars, he addresses that. It is no particular
problem though. A simple calculation in fact makes it appear very
illogical that this planet would have been overcrowded ages ago.You
know about math, may be...
RR
>
> Also, do you consider the bible infallible evidence?
I take matters at face value, and nothing for granted...
Roadrunner
It is just your opinion, no investigation, no analysis... flush...
RR
Roadrunner
So much hatred all contained in this one person... i.e. you...
RR
Peter Schilte
Try being convicted by a judge in court.
> His seminars contain very much verified documentation, but no, you
> just ignore.
>
Verified documentation? Whose documentation? Verified by whom?
So you believe this nut-case Hovind even when is unsupported and
pseudo-scientific revelations are discarded by every expert in the
world on geology, biology, geophysics, and cosmology?
>
>
> > But the fact is, at least I'm watching what you're citing as evidence.
> > You couldn't even do that in other threads where I post links.
>
> > I have one comment about the garden of eden seminar - how can Noah and
> > his wife have enough genetic variety to populate the entire earth after
> > the flood?
>
> Keep on watching his seminars, he addresses that. It is no particular
> problem though. A simple calculation in fact makes it appear very
> illogical that this planet would have been overcrowded ages ago.You
> know about math, may be...
You are referring to the bible. Nice book, good read. Yet only an
idiot will take what's in it literally.
It appears Hovind does. And, as his follower and strong believer, you
do too.
>
>
>
> > Also, do you consider the bible infallible evidence?
>
> I take matters at face value, and nothing for granted...
>
And how you have shown that in relation with Hovind and his
preposterous theories.....
l.l.lipshitz
<ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote in
<7g8ek5phktscdual6...@4ax.com>:
google 'samuel iwry'
he used to call all the females in his classes
'jane' because he joked that all good jewish girls
should be named 'sarah' or 'rachel'. i wasn't, so i
was 'jane'. but at least he called me 'jane #1'. :)
Kat
Blah blah blah, I gave you research, you covered your eyes so you
wouldnt see it. Still doesn't change the fact that you lied,
repeatedly, and your own usenet posts were used to prove that you did
in fact LIE. Something you were unable to do with me, no matter how
much you whined and cried that it was I who was lying. Silly, silly
little man. And here you are, arguing in this thread that more or less
sums up your purpose on usenet. To lie, and to support the lies of
others (so long those lies are told by Scientology!).
Mike Thomas
Do you consider the bible infallible evidence (like Hovind)? Yes or no.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> You are an outright coward and defamer... more correctly you are a
>>>> plant, that has the compulsory need to do as you do. Why? Partly
>>>> because your ex-girlfriend got better and probably became cause over
>>>> you. I think we know the deal with you...
>>>> RR
>>>>> Peter
>>>>> "If a child or these children are found in Hold 1, or any
>>>>> hidden compartment of the ship they are to be locked up."
>>>>> - L. Ron Hubbard, Flag Order 1630, Governess,
>>>>> 3 December 1968
>>>>> http://www.scamofscientology.nl
>>>>>> RR
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>> "If a child or these children are found in Hold 1, or any
>>>>>>> hidden compartment of the ship they are to be locked up."
>>>>>>> - L. Ron Hubbard, Flag Order 1630, Governess,
>>>>>>> 3 December 1968
>>>>>>> http://www.scamofscientology.nl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.12 (Darwin)
iJwEAQECAAYFAktHss0ACgkQQOyfU0q29nbq+wQAs51jbADCnAzgF8kRZf9g5hJ3
VTaRCz3TVNtsUsbdg4PrYb6xOwcyJZeMFrh994pUcIh35jylZKc26/9c37YmljnF
SIhkxzdaJf0iT3oQOW+IymIR0q1sVb4weLecTsV4JsTLcfmfDuW7r7/74ptrKkJ9
X9mprkZYG8W3CAdWZAk=
=1y1P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Andrew Robertson
"Roadrunner" <roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f381fa8d-2e26-4add...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
<snape>
> I think we know the deal with you...
You weren't Queen Victoria in a past life were you Roadrunner?
There's something about you that reminds me of her.
Not that choosing the wrong body is that much of a problem. It's only for
one lifetime. And it's an easy mistake to make. After a long trip back
from the implant station on Mars you forget how hot the Van Allen radiation
belt is and with sweat in your eyes choose the wrong baby and end up
the opposite sex.
In fact there are some advantages in seeing things from a different
perspective, it makes you more able to appreciate and understand others
viewpoints.
The only Queen I would have liked to have been was Queen Margaret of
Denmark,
Norway, and Sweden (1353-1412), a very astute and capable woman and also a
bit of a hottie.
There's no indication that she was a Scientologist though, as in that era,
the Church was not as popular in Scandinavia as it is now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_I_of_Denmark
Actually Queen Victoria was a hottie as well, something the British try to
cover up as they do their piano legs.
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/ls/bl_lsqv_01.htm
Andrew
> RR
Jommy Cross
<roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in msg
<a7e9f131-8182-4f90...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
>On 7 Jan, 18:15, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:10:44 +0000 (UTC), "l.l.lipshitz"
>> <elk...@seesig.info> wrote in msg
>> <slrnhkbubj.ulm.elk...@01-029.155.popsite.net>:
<snip>
>>
>> > � �in post
>> ><http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/7cc6178e8..>
>> > � �you said:
>>
>> > � �'for example kent hovind addressed these matters
>> > � �rather effectively...'
>>
>> That isn't following a guru, because RR's doing it.
>>
>> He's carefully evaluated the facts without preconceptions or blinkers and
>> concluded that world class k00k and convicted tax fraudster Kent Hovind's
>> arguments have merit.
<snip>
>
>Quite afew do not agree with you...
>
>http://freehovind.com/index
>
Argumentum ad populum? You disappoint me, Space. You are acting like
follower. Where is your research, analysis, logic and evaluation?
Oh, I remember... that only applies to other people.
Still, Hubbard, Hovind and Icke. It's an impressive pantheon.
How do you reconcile Hubbard's enthusiasm for a universe at least 73
trillion years old with Hovind's conviction that God whomped it all up some
time last week? Do Icke's draco reptoids help out by swapping you between
parallel worlds when you need to argue both sides of a conflicting point of
view?
Incident zero: Ron, Kent and David trolled you
Roadrunner
Sorry girl, you indeed play out your selfrighteousness to the
utmost... and all that to cover up that you are guilty of the things
you throw at me... you really sound like St. Gerry.
RR
Roadrunner
Without integrity man will be blinded. You are again just in plain
denial. ALL you got is opinion. And never present your analysis.
RR
Roadrunner
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
snip
>
> > Also, do you consider the bible infallible evidence?
>
> >> I take matters at face value, and nothing for granted...
>
> Do you consider the bible infallible evidence (like Hovind)? Yes or no.
Some intelligence please, I have made my answer quite clear and
several times already...
RR
Roadrunner
As ever AVOIDING to respond. Where is your analysis on Kent Hovind???
You have NO foundation to base your opinion on. You REPEAT OTHERS...
RR
Mike Thomas
Hash: SHA1
You could have settled it with a three letter response. You avoid
constantly, it is so blatant.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.12 (Darwin)
iJwEAQECAAYFAktIYz8ACgkQQOyfU0q29nbW2AP/ZR16PUghWMEklCsJxJbqe6IV
Z2LMatuqyLT1SKRmmdoX/a95OTWjkapz9dgYwEhs/GdVi6QYYoLUrcrWhVcjWS3Z
NCLXa971PEQ/2VQKFgJh3ZZfGhXuA2TkD0p39I9D3ThWNFnfq+En91rWWfMiXhpG
WrApGtW29S9WKGVaHkQ=
=z26r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Peter Schilte
All you got is convicted nut-cases with the names Hovind and Hubbard.
They are your masters! Your gurus! No analysis can ever change that
for a fact.
Guess what that makes you....
You make claims, you present the evidence. Your rules. Not mine.
Peter Schilte
You used him as you reference. You value his insane theories. You
claim, you present supporting proof.
Your rules. Not mine.
> You have NO foundation to base your opinion on. You REPEAT OTHERS...
You first. You brought Hovind in without presenting nothing but his
idiotic theories and his website. You used him as a reference, so YOU
present anything that support yours and his claims. Your rules. Not
mine.
So far all you presented was Hovind's reputation, hardly any evidence,
don't you think?
So, by your own rules YOU present your evidence first.
Next I'll present mine.
Roadrunner
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> Roadrunner wrote:
> > On 8 Jan, 23:33, Mike Thomas <active.m3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
>
> >>> On 8 Jan, 12:56, Mike Thomas <active.m3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> >>> Also, do you consider the bible infallible evidence?
> >>>> I take matters at face value, and nothing for granted...
> >> Do you consider the bible infallible evidence (like Hovind)? Yes or no.
>
> > Some intelligence please, I have made my answer quite clear and
> > several times already...
>
> > RR
>
> You could have settled it with a three letter response. You avoid
> constantly, it is so blatant.
I have been several times very clear about it. Period... I am not
interest in your delusion, nor in your opinion...
RR
Roadrunner
You have been directed to it, but you refuse to present your analysis
that would show it contains faults. Now, that is having double
standards.
RR
Roadrunner
You have been directed to all that, but you refuse to respond to it
and offer your analysis. Do you really think, in your delusion, that
people don't see what you're doing... yeah, it must be... but who
cares about what YOU think...
RR
Peter Schilte
And where are your analysis that presents proof of your and Hovind's
claims?
And it is clear who is delusional: The person that believes, and is a
blind follower of a nut-case, seeing conspiracies all around and
refusing to present any substantial evidence that proves he or Hovind
is correct. In stead you demand from me to prove he is wrong. You
claimed first, your rules say you have to present the supporting
evidence.
As long as you are unable to, and you are, you expose yourself to be
the nut-case you are.
People ARE seeing what I do, but you seem to be oblivious to the fact
they also see what YOU do. And what you are.
Peter Schilte
You used him as a reference without presenting YOUR analysis that
shows his credibility. You assume apparently we have to take his
claims for granted. As you do. So, applying your rules, YOU are the
one to present proof of those theories and claims. Not the other way
around.
Astrid
>
> You used him as a reference without presenting YOUR analysis that
> shows his credibility. You assume apparently we have to take his
> claims for granted. As you do. So, applying your rules, YOU are the
> one to present proof of those theories and claims. Not the other way
> around.
>
be a few Scientologists. But it took me a while to grasp that Barbara
S. and RR were Scientologists. I figured Scientologists were going to
be a bit different, but I didn't know how different some of them
were.
I quickly caught on that RR and Barbara had a problem more severe than
just being stuck in the trap of ideas put forth by Hubbard. And it is
bad enough trying to discuss points or make arguments with someone
like Terryeo (who is merely kind of slow and brainwashed, but probably
not insane) or someone like Tory (before she was out of the cult), who
is bright, but was determined back in the earlier days of ARS to
employ all of Hubbard's tactics.
Anyway, as you have told RR, virtually all of your posts when read by
others are logical, cogent, and very intelligently put, and
occasionally this is a pleasure to read. And RR sounds like a
disturbed troll MOST of the time. You can't figure out what the f he's
trying to say.
HOWEVER, I think your insights on various topics, since there aren't
many of us here, would be much more valued if you just dropped
responding to RR. I did, for a great long while. I jump in, but just
for very short periods. Then I don't even read what he writes. I try
to jump in and respond to him, only when I can bring out other points
that aren't about him specifically, or I kind of just attack a bit,
dismissing him as a troll.
My thinking is this. It is difficult enough to have any kind of dialog
with a sane Scientologist. The ex-Scientologists can do that better
than myself, but Scilons don't even respond to reasoning from ex-
Scilons at times. That's where the FZ people might have a little
advantage. So, to Scientologists, the critics like you and myself, who
have never been Scientologists, are at the bottom of the heap.
I guess your preoccupation with responding to RR is that someone has
to do it, and after all, there aren't any regular in-the-cult Scilons
who participate here, or its possible RR is in the OSA and just here
to throw flak, cause confusion. Even then, I think it is best to
ignore him. Why do you think this would be bad. He shows what a
nutcase he is by his posts.
What do you get out of the repeated dialog with him? For me, he's
incapable of coherence. If not he's not OSA deliberately acting
strange, I think he's probably like Barbara anyway, mildly
schizophrenic, and the cult doesn't want him anymore, just like they
don't want Barbara. I know he's meaner than Barbara.
I don't know for sure, but I think Barbara is one of the few people
for whom Scientology might be okay. Having that kind of condition must
be very isolating in her interaction with others, and if Scientology
makes her feel she has control over her life, well, it may help her.
And she's not in the clutches of money-extraction scheme.
The reason I am against the mentally ill getting involved in
Scientology, is that the cult will use them to take all their money,
THEN get rid of them. But once they are out, people like Barbara
actually make rather good examples of what is wrong with Scientology.
RR, on the other hand, it is just one more thing to screw up his f'd
up head, so have you ever considered just ignoring him? What do you
find intriguing about him? I'm just curious. You can continue
responding to all his posts if you want.
Roadrunner
Indeed a very faulty presentation, I did no such thing...
> You assume apparently we have to take his
> claims for granted. As you do. So, applying your rules, YOU are the
> one to present proof of those theories and claims. Not the other way
> around.
Contained on his lectures is an extensive documentation. You
investigated none of these, that's all...
Where is your analysis that shows them being incorrect or invalid...
RR
Roadrunner
> On Jan 9, 9:22 am, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You used him as a reference without presenting YOUR analysis that
> > shows his credibility. You assume apparently we have to take his
> > claims for granted. As you do. So, applying your rules, YOU are the
> > one to present proof of those theories and claims. Not the other way
> > around.
>
> When I first landed on planet ARS a few years ago, I thought there'd
> be a few Scientologists. But it took me a while to grasp that Barbara
> S. and RR were Scientologists. I figured Scientologists were going to
> be a bit different, but I didn't know how different some of them
> were.
>
> I quickly caught on that RR and Barbara had a problem more severe than
> just being stuck in the trap of ideas put forth by Hubbard. And it is
> bad enough trying to discuss points or make arguments with someone
> like Terryeo (who is merely kind of slow and brainwashed, but probably
> not insane) or someone like Tory (before she was out of the cult), who
> is bright, but was determined back in the earlier days of ARS to
> employ all of Hubbard's tactics.
Tory in fact is not that bright, she is outspoken, not the same thing.
The more interesting is that she, while in, just followed, and did
that for 30 years, go figure. Then why assuming she would be better
while out...
>
> Anyway, as you have told RR, virtually all of your posts when read by
> others are logical, cogent, and very intelligently put, and
> occasionally this is a pleasure to read. And RR sounds like a
> disturbed troll MOST of the time. You can't figure out what the f he's
> trying to say.
You select and judge by acknowledgement of your personal opinion,
likes and dislikes. You agree with his outcome and thus you MUST
dislike me, and thus you calculate that that he is logical, cogent,
whatever. You too run from answering to me...
>
> HOWEVER, I think your insights on various topics, since there aren't
> many of us here, would be much more valued if you just dropped
> responding to RR. I did, for a great long while. I jump in, but just
> for very short periods. Then I don't even read what he writes. I try
> to jump in and respond to him, only when I can bring out other points
> that aren't about him specifically, or I kind of just attack a bit,
> dismissing him as a troll.
He is actually chasing me around. It is simply explained why, I
exposed him.
>
> My thinking is this. It is difficult enough to have any kind of dialog
> with a sane Scientologist. The ex-Scientologists can do that better
> than myself, but Scilons don't even respond to reasoning from ex-
> Scilons at times. That's where the FZ people might have a little
> advantage. So, to Scientologists, the critics like you and myself, who
> have never been Scientologists, are at the bottom of the heap.
Indeed you are...
>
> I guess your preoccupation with responding to RR is that someone has
> to do it,
Nonono, it is because I exposed him. It all started with one Emma from
ESMB. He violated his own integrity and thus he must attack me in the
vicious way he has been doing that.
>and after all, there aren't any regular in-the-cult Scilons
> who participate here, or its possible RR is in the OSA and just here
> to throw flak, cause confusion.
Yeah right, I must be OSA... just put'em people in boxes...
>Even then, I think it is best to
> ignore him.
Excuse me? My arguments and documentation ARE already ignored, you're
all RUNNING from them... got to get outta here you're saying... ignore
him...
>Why do you think this would be bad. He shows what a
> nutcase he is by his posts.
Ah, and what exactly confirms that defamation??
>
> What do you get out of the repeated dialog with him? For me, he's
> incapable of coherence. If not he's not OSA deliberately acting
> strange, I think he's probably like Barbara anyway, mildly
> schizophrenic, and the cult doesn't want him anymore, just like they
> don't want Barbara. I know he's meaner than Barbara.
Rather more effective in battling and exposing the incoherency of you
people. Only therefore, I repeat, ONLY therefore I am considered
meaner...
>
> I don't know for sure, but I think Barbara is one of the few people
> for whom Scientology might be okay. Having that kind of condition must
> be very isolating in her interaction with others, and if Scientology
> makes her feel she has control over her life, well, it may help her.
> And she's not in the clutches of money-extraction scheme.
>
> The reason I am against the mentally ill getting involved in
> Scientology, is that the cult will use them to take all their money,
> THEN get rid of them. But once they are out, people like Barbara
> actually make rather good examples of what is wrong with Scientology.
Excuse me? Scientology is for that able, not for the mentally ill, let
be very clear about that. Thus it is not for you and not for Sir
Peter.
>
> RR, on the other hand, it is just one more thing to screw up his f'd
> up head, so have you ever considered just ignoring him? What do you
> find intriguing about him? I'm just curious. You can continue
> responding to all his posts if you want.
This is the obvious way of you and your kind proving (or at least make
it appear so), that you actually have a case. You IGNORE, you DON'T
address valid and verifiable argumentation.
RR
Roadrunner
You ask me to prove a negative. I don't have to present proof as I
referred to the documentation contained on his seminars. If you find
them incorrect it is YOU that has to show that. And so you go round,
and round, and round in the merry-go-round and not establishing
anything.
You adjudicate solely by use of personal opinion, likes and dislikes.
We already know you don't have the merits nor the skills to
investigate anything properly. Well, I have...
RR
Peter Schilte
You did not bring in Hovind to "prove" your creationist claims?
> > You assume apparently we have to take his
> > claims for granted. As you do. So, applying your rules, YOU are the
> > one to present proof of those theories and claims. Not the other way
> > around.
>
> Contained on his lectures is an extensive documentation. You
> investigated none of these, that's all...
>
He can claim anything and everything in his lectures. And he does. You
parrot him, but neither you nor Hovind have so far presented
substantial evidence supporting your and his claims. All you have are
his lectures, and maybe even claims of other Hovind followers or
equally minded. But objective evidence? Nope. Because there isn't, no
matter how you try to overwhelm everybody with your blabbering.
I did some research, and Hovind and alike are classified as being
idiots, charlatans, scam artists, with no other "proof" for their
claims than each others insane unproved theories.
What exactly did you investigate objectively? So faryou just parroted
unsupported claims.
And what about the contradicting claims of Hubbard? How do you explain
that with Hovind's claims you also support?
l.l.lipshitz
<roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in
<376c044c-78e1-4c62...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>:
| On 7 Jan, 17:26, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
| > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:40:18 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
| > <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in
| > <b645c10b-d978-4547-be84-f1e1b2d93...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:
| > �| �On 6 Jan, 14:43, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| > �| > On Jan 6, 3:17�am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > �| > I've told you, I'm not brainwashed. If it were free, I would not allow
| > �| > my mind to be bent by Hubbard's brainwashing process. I learn about
| > �| > Scientology by reading about the experiences, feelings, and thoughts
| > �| > of ex-Scientologists.
| > �|
| > �| �Thus others (in particular the complainers and dissatisfied/failed
| > �| �persons), that tell you. This is NOT your data...
| >
| > � � � � if i'm not mistaken, you did not discover or invent
| > � � � � or found or originate dn and scn so you're using
| > � � � � someone else's data when you study those subjects,
| > � � � � NOT your own data.
|
| I EVALUATED and the result of that became MY data... YOU however base
| it all on OHTER person's evaluations, this is thus NOT your data...
that's EXACTLY what i did when i read _dianetics_:
i analyzed it, evaluated hubbard's logic and
evidence, and concluded it is crap. that's MY data
(it certainly is NOT hubbard's!).
| > �| > That is what is good about Bare-Faced Messiah. Miller interviewed and
| > �| > researched hundreds of Scientologists, who knew Hubbard. Russell
| > �| > Miller is credible because his writing is credible and intelligible.
| > �| > His documentation is credible and intelligible.
| > �|
| > �| �Quite the contrary, the documentation is rather slim and unsupported.
| > �| �And foremost he literally glues everything together to one tale. His
| > �| �book is written with hatred.
| >
| > � � � � have you even read the book?
|
| About one-third straight through, irritated because everything was
| associated with basically everything without a VALID reason to do so.
| Irritated because of the hatred he put into it.
i read _dianetics_ only part-way thru, too,
because it irritated me so. hubbard associated
everything with everything without a valid
reason. he packed alot of hatred in there,
especially for women.
| > � � � � 'the best-written one is, by common agreement,
| > � � � � 'bare-faced messiah', by a veteran british
| > � � � � journalist and biographer. [...] the author (russell
| > � � � � miller) did not have any particular axe to grind
| > � � � � when he wrote it, originally as part of a sunday
| > � � � � times project to find lrh when he was in seclusion
| > � � � � in california. it is awesomely well researched and
| > � � � � documented.
|
| Tsk, tsk, first it is not a voting contest,
who's voting for what?
|secondly exactly WHAT
| sources tell this?,
sources? you mean the people who read the book
(and evaluate it and comment on it)?
|thirdly it is not very well researched at all. It
| is extremely opinionated and the documentation is not very well
| either.
i found _dianetics_ poorly researched. hubbard
was extremely opinionated and never produced his
'research' for inspection or presented any kind of
documentation for the outrageous things he claimed.
| > � � � � 'i'm in an unusual position in that i've been able
| > � � � � to verify what miller wrote; i live only about 30
| > � � � � miles from him, obtained permission to put it on the
| > � � � � web and created the first version of it several
| > � � � � years ago.
|
| And thus you need to defend it.
and thus you need to attack it.
| > [...] miller also gave me his original
| > � � � � source documents - several crates worth - so i have
| > � � � � been able to go through his original notes,
| > � � � � tape-recorded interviews and source papers to
| > � � � � corroborate what he says in the book. i was also
| > � � � � academically trained as an historian (i graduated
| > � � � � with honours from oxford university) so i have the
| > � � � � skills to spot when an historical question doesn't
| > � � � � add up. bare-faced messiah checks out in virtually
| > � � � � every regard. it's also very well written and highly
| > � � � � readable.' �
|
| Not my opinion, I found it rather illegible. We only have your word on
| the rest you tell. You will ONLY be judged by your own behaviour and
| forwarded argumentation that you forward HERE and NOW...
omg, that's EXACTLY what i thought about
_dianetics_! based on my evaluation, it was
absolutely UNINTELLIGIBLE! i know you think it is
sublime but that's only your OPINION. besides, we
only have your word that you've actually read it!!
| > � � � � -chris owen
| > <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/922ad4c47...>
| >
| > �| >Whether insane,
| > �| > independent Scilon or active believing Scilon, none of them, when they
| > �| > speak about Scientology or try to make the honest, convincing
| > �| > argument, are able to do other than spout Hubbard phrases. When they
| > �| > do try to express what Scientology has done for them, in the way of
| > �| > improvement or "powerz," it is see-through, sort of laughable. Like
| > �| > Geir's overcoming his shyness. Even Carmel, an ex who credits
| > �| > Scientology with enabling her to read. I believe if she'd simply
| > �| > gotten in a good literacy program for adults, she would have seen
| > �| > similar results, and for much cheaper.
| > �|
| > �| �I understand, and that is why you run from to query my arguments with
| > �| �exact data...
| >
| > � � � � i dunno, roadrunner, your data above about bare-faced
| > � � � � messiah are not very exact. it casts doubt on the
| > � � � � rest of what you say when you make such sloppy and
| > � � � � wrong-headed statements. �
|
| The documentation is pretty bad... let Miller prove his point first.
i must say, i thought this about _dianetics_, too.
what total and complete lack of documentation! where
is his list of sources? he made some outrageous
claims without a shred of evidence! and _dianetics_
is long! all those words and he never managed to
prove his point, except that he has trouble making
sense.
| > �| > There's no way the secret Xenu and Hubbard's lecture on the political
| > �| > history of the universe is credible at all. The only people for whom
| > �| > any of it makes sense, are people who are either insane, or who have
| > �| > been brainwashed step-by-step to believe in such insane ramblings. DC8
| > �| > replicas 75 million years ago. And then the outrage of paying hundreds
| > �| > of thousands of dollars to read such garbage.
| > �|
| > �| �No one ever said that it would be credible, it never was and never
| > �| �will be the substance. But then you are unable to interpret the data
| > �| �as it should.
| >
| > � � � � sorry, but l. ron hubbard, the founder of the
| > � � � � subject of scn, said it was true. if not for xenu
| > � � � � slaughtering billions of alien beings, there would
| > � � � � be no thetans here on earth, or body thetans to
| > � � � � cause our problems. we'd just be a bunch of soulless
| > � � � � meat-bodies like all the other animals. it's kind of
| > � � � � hard for the subject of scn to exist without thetans.
|
| Something you don't get about: "But then you are unable to interpret
| the data
| as it should." ?
yes, i don't get how it SHOULD be interpreted. i
read it and evaluated it and thought for myself and
i have concluded that hubbard wrote ot3 as a true,
historical occurrence.
| > � � � � but then i guess you know better than hubbard. how
| > � � � � should the data be interpreted if hubbard is wrong?
|
| Then answer the issue what the subjects of Scientology and Dianetics
| are about essentially?
i know what hubbard wrote about the subjects of
scn and dn. what i don't know is how YOU interpret
them...except you interpret them *differently* than
hubbard, the guy who originated them.
| > �| > One thing I get from people like Jason, who have learned the hard way,
| > �| > and who speak before the public, is they distill and simplify the
| > �| > message. This is very important for critics as a way to make people
| > �| > understand the essence of how Scientology works.
| > �|
| > �| �Jason was a 'follower'...
| >
| > � � � � i studied biblical archeology under one of the
| > � � � � original translators of the dead sea scrolls. i
| > � � � � guess i am a follower, too. i'm so ashamed!
|
| The BEHAVIOUR towards tell if one is a follower or not...
what behavior? i admired and respected the guy. i
accepted his professional viewpoint on biblical
archeology because he had, oh, i dunno, a thousand
times more knowledge and experience than i did (and
probably a hundred times more than other hebrew
scholars). i'm currently reading his autobiography
because i think he's fascinating. does that make me
a follower?
| > �| > How does a Scientologist, see for themselves, that the galactic
| > �| > overlord Xenu, blew space aliens up in volcanoes 75 million years ago?
| > �| > How does that become true to a Scientologist?
| > �|
| > �| �It does not have to be true...
| >
| > � � � � yep, hubbard lied.
|
| Is this how you learned to argue at university, you know you are on a
| rather primitive level here...
nope, that is how i learned to argue on ars. the
debating skills that i learned in university are
quite useless with you so i argue like an idiot.
| > �| �I wonder if we ever will hear something well thought out from your
| > �| �lips, and that which finds objective well-researched evaluations...
| >
| > � � � � we wonder the same thing about you.
|
| It is out there and it is very well acknowledged as such.
you're right. your horseshit is out there and very
well acknowledged as such.
|Either way
| if you want to have a case you need to do a lot better than the above.
can't. i'm doing what scnists call 'matching tone'.
i can only do better if you do.
Mike Thomas
Hash: SHA1
Roadrunner wrote:
> On 9 Jan, 12:06, Mike Thomas <active.m3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Roadrunner wrote:
>>>> On 8 Jan, 23:33, Mike Thomas <active.m3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>> On 8 Jan, 12:56, Mike Thomas <active.m3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>>> Also, do you consider the bible infallible evidence?
>>>>>>> I take matters at face value, and nothing for granted...
>>>>> Do you consider the bible infallible evidence (like Hovind)? Yes or no.
>>>> Some intelligence please, I have made my answer quite clear and
>>>> several times already...
>>>> RR
> You could have settled it with a three letter response. You avoid
> constantly, it is so blatant.
>
>> I have been several times very clear about it. Period... I am not
>> interest in your delusion, nor in your opinion...
You have *not* been clear, you have avoided this question like the
plague. At least hint as to where you said it, IF you actually did.
>
>> RR
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.12 (Darwin)
iJwEAQECAAYFAktJCz8ACgkQQOyfU0q29nZVfwQAuyjUSqrvfm7sYqI5i+1GDbaO
mHZzFIz62HM/85ndvC50tAsG1bxmVkZTy8A8H6+VD/5sPWS/qfbKVFr8lSPgx1vS
z5tAWvqAJ3g9uZFqB3Vxsvpu/zGuWssrY6+5TaZQtuX/yxpOqHapZrPgoCem2Gnb
wXc+NOy+ys97sq6wVkc=
=hPCa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Astrid
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:08:21 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> <376c044c-78e1-4c62-a2ca-628edbbd9...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>:
I understand everything you wrote, but RR, no.
I thought the first half of Bare-Face flowed like a river. It was a
riveting story. Hubbard's early life, up through Dianetics was
fascinating. I couldn't understand why it fell out of print so
quickly. However, the second half got to be more complex, all kinds of
details about the path and expansion of Scientology that might not be
much interest to the general reader.
It is interesting that most Scientologists regard Miller's book as a
one- dimensional attack to skewer Hubbard. When in reality, it is such
balanced plethora of details, documentation and testimony. It very
much explains why people got into Scientology at that time, often
partly because of Hubbard, not in spite of him.
One of the big advantages of writing a bio of a person like Hubbard,
is that he was such a larger than life character. He loved being
around people, when he didn't go into seclusion, and told stories
people never forgot.
Plus, so many significant and interesting things happened in the few
years of Dianetics, and the fact is no matter how many decades some
spend in the Sea Org, few of them know any of these basic facts about
what it was like and what happened. They don't know about Hubbard's
life when he was writing pulp. They accept this myth about him being
so successful as a sci fi writer, he funded his research into
Scientology or some such rot, or would have been wildly rich and
successful as a writer, and never needed Scientology to make money.
That is absurd, if you look at the facts.
So, like any writer, there's the Hubbard you can know through the
words, but like Hemingway, there's a whole other person, with hundreds
of stories, and adventures he went on, stories told by his friends and
the people who knew him.
Some writers are introverted (like Kafka and Dickinson) and there's
not a whole lot of colorful stories to tell, but with Hubbard, it was
a roller coaster ride. He was always up to something, doing something
outrageous, unexpected or bizarre.
Even in his college years, leading that great boat expedition. It was
a riot.
But Scientologists will go blind at the first mention that bursts
their bubble of the idealized Hubbard, the version they learned as
cult members. They don't want to know the details of how much Hubbard
admired Freud, but turned on it all and thought of "the evil psychs"
when psychiatrists and doctors shut down his bogus therapy. They will
see the truth, with all the supporting facts and testimony, and shy
away from it as entheta. Hubbard was so terribly imperfect, so out-
tech himself much of the time. They just won't believe it and they
call it bad data.
It is almost like youngsters who worship a Hollywood star and want to
believe they are just like they are in a movie they love. I did that
somewhat and when I read the biographies, I instantly recognized who
these people really were.
After all, when you work for this nutty cult, they are going to throw
you in the RPF just for having bad thoughts about Hubbard. It is no
wonder why cult members, unless they are ready, can't read this
Miller's book. Even out of the cult, Scilons like Geir, Marty, Jim
Logan (Fish Scientist) cannot discuss anything in Bare-Faced. They
can't talk about what is FALSE DATA in it. They can't acknowledge that
in fact, most of it is true.
They are like the Mormon representatives, from a council or an
appointed prof from BYU I forget, who condemned Krakauer's book, Under
the Banner of Heaven, and pointed out four or so facts he had wrong.
They were very minor things like one date off a few months or
something. That's all they could find. The other 500 facts he had in
the book were all accurate. At least they did that much. Scilons like
Marty won't even read Bare-Faced probably, let alone point out where
it is wrong.
Kat
> Sorry girl, you indeed play out your selfrighteousness to the
> utmost... and all that to cover up that you are guilty of the things
> you throw at me... you really sound like St. Gerry.
>
> RR
You still cannot provide a single link to prove where I lied, you
offer only opinion. I however, proved with your own words and posting
history that you do, in fact, lie quite frequently on usenet and
approve of others lying if the lies are told about something which you
do not like (and admit to not researching).... making you not only a
liar but a prejudiced one at that. You can try and put me in a box and
associate me with others all you want, but it still doesn't change the
fact that you are a LIAR picking fights with people in a thread about
lying scientologists. The irony is amusing to me, so I decided to say
something to someone who wasnt you. Your ego couldn't let it go, and
here you are, trying to brush aside (once again) the fact that you are
a lying halfwit. Thank you, RR, for continuing to be a living example
of the very subject of this thread. I believe you have proven everyone
else's point. ^_~
Peter Schilte
I ask you to prove your and Hovind's claims. You call it "to prove a
negative". I wonder why.
> If you find
> them incorrect it is YOU that has to show that.
I refered to Hovind's documentation as contained in his seminars to
show you them incorrect.
> And so you go round,
> and round, and round in the merry-go-round and not establishing
> anything.
>
So far you have nothing else but Hovind's claims to "prove" his and
your claims. How is that for going around and around and around?
> You adjudicate solely by use of personal opinion, likes and dislikes.
And you don't about Hovind's claims?
You have nothing that proves he and you are correct.
> We already know you don't have the merits nor the skills to
> investigate anything properly. Well, I have...
>
You have shown you have neither. Proof? You blindly follow a nut-case
that claims many things without PROPER evidence. Trying to support
claims with other unsupported claims hardly can be seen as having any
skills to investigate properly, don't you think? When asked for
supporting claims you refer to Hovind's unsupported claims. That is
supposed to be skillful and proper investigating?
You are doing a fine job making a fool of yourself.
Peter
"Unfortunately, it is all too often true that suppressors to a
creative action must be removed before construction and creation takes
place. Any person very high on the Tone Scale may level destruction
toward a suppressor."
- L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 159
http://www.scamofscientology.nl
Peter Schilte
> On 9 Jan, 18:33, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 9:22 am, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You used him as a reference without presenting YOUR analysis that
> > > shows his credibility. You assume apparently we have to take his
> > > claims for granted. As you do. So, applying your rules, YOU are the
> > > one to present proof of those theories and claims. Not the other way
> > > around.
>
> > When I first landed on planet ARS a few years ago, I thought there'd
> > be a few Scientologists. But it took me a while to grasp that Barbara
> > S. and RR were Scientologists. I figured Scientologists were going to
> > be a bit different, but I didn't know how different some of them
> > were.
>
> > I quickly caught on that RR and Barbara had a problem more severe than
> > just being stuck in the trap of ideas put forth by Hubbard. And it is
> > bad enough trying to discuss points or make arguments with someone
> > like Terryeo (who is merely kind of slow and brainwashed, but probably
> > not insane) or someone like Tory (before she was out of the cult), who
> > is bright, but was determined back in the earlier days of ARS to
> > employ all of Hubbard's tactics.
>
> Tory in fact is not that bright, she is outspoken, not the same thing.
> The more interesting is that she, while in, just followed, and did
> that for 30 years, go figure. Then why assuming she would be better
> while out...
>
And you are supposed to be bright, being a blind follower of nut-case
Hovind? LOL!
Tory is much brighter than you, Michel Snoeck, as she left. You still
are a Hubbard follower, and the follower of that other nut-case too.
>
>
> > Anyway, as you have told RR, virtually all of your posts when read by
> > others are logical, cogent, and very intelligently put, and
> > occasionally this is a pleasure to read. And RR sounds like a
> > disturbed troll MOST of the time. You can't figure out what the f he's
> > trying to say.
>
> You select and judge by acknowledgement of your personal opinion,
> likes and dislikes. You agree with his outcome and thus you MUST
> dislike me, and thus you calculate that that he is logical, cogent,
> whatever. You too run from answering to me...
>
You select and judge by acknowledgment of your personal opinion, as
you have shown in regard to Hubbard and Hovind. You adopt blindly
unsupported claims from bth of them, applying totally different the
standards you apply to others.
>
>
> > HOWEVER, I think your insights on various topics, since there aren't
> > many of us here, would be much more valued if you just dropped
> > responding to RR. I did, for a great long while. I jump in, but just
> > for very short periods. Then I don't even read what he writes. I try
> > to jump in and respond to him, only when I can bring out other points
> > that aren't about him specifically, or I kind of just attack a bit,
> > dismissing him as a troll.
>
> He is actually chasing me around. It is simply explained why, I
> exposed him.
>
No, Michel, all you succeeded in is to expose yourself.
>
>
> > My thinking is this. It is difficult enough to have any kind of dialog
> > with a sane Scientologist. The ex-Scientologists can do that better
> > than myself, but Scilons don't even respond to reasoning from ex-
> > Scilons at times. That's where the FZ people might have a little
> > advantage. So, to Scientologists, the critics like you and myself, who
> > have never been Scientologists, are at the bottom of the heap.
>
> Indeed you are...
>
To a superior being as you see yourself, it must be. But as you
support and blindly follow idiots like Hubbard and Hovind (and who
else I might add) it is completely irrelevant what you think about us.
>
>
> > I guess your preoccupation with responding to RR is that someone has
> > to do it,
>
> Nonono, it is because I exposed him.
NONONO! You THINK you exposed me, and all you did was expose yourself!
> It all started with one Emma from
> ESMB. He violated his own integrity and thus he must attack me in the
> vicious way he has been doing that.
>
You exposed yourself for being a nut-case then and there. You attacked
me then and there. You were finally banned from ESMB. And you needed
someone to aim your frustration about the banning. Even here and now
you show how frustrated you still are about being banned from ESMB,
and also OCMB and 3 other message boards. And it never was YOUR fault,
it always was blamed on others. And you talk about integrity?
> >and after all, there aren't any regular in-the-cult Scilons
> > who participate here, or its possible RR is in the OSA and just here
> > to throw flak, cause confusion.
>
> Yeah right, I must be OSA... just put'em people in boxes...
>
Even OSA would touch you with a pole, being the nut-case you are. For
them you are in the same league as Barbara Schwarz.
> >Even then, I think it is best to
> > ignore him.
>
> Excuse me? My arguments and documentation ARE already ignored, you're
> all RUNNING from them... got to get outta here you're saying... ignore
> him...
>
Your arguments and documentation can only be ignored when presented.
BUT YOU DIDN'T.
> >Why do you think this would be bad. He shows what a
> > nutcase he is by his posts.
>
> Ah, and what exactly confirms that defamation??
>
Your posts?
>
>
> > What do you get out of the repeated dialog with him? For me, he's
> > incapable of coherence. If not he's not OSA deliberately acting
> > strange, I think he's probably like Barbara anyway, mildly
> > schizophrenic, and the cult doesn't want him anymore, just like they
> > don't want Barbara. I know he's meaner than Barbara.
>
> Rather more effective in battling and exposing the incoherency of you
> people.
Yeah, applying the same "logic" as Hubbard and Hovind. Very effective
indeed!
> Only therefore, I repeat, ONLY therefore I am considered
> meaner...
>
No, because you ARE meaner. You apply Hubbard's insane orders to the
letter: "The defense of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend
anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that, then you will lose
every battle you are ever engaged in, whether it is in terms of
personal conversation, public debate or court of law." (L. Ron Hubbard
HCOPL 30 may 1974 Magazine Article on Level 0 Checksheet)
>
>
> > I don't know for sure, but I think Barbara is one of the few people
> > for whom Scientology might be okay. Having that kind of condition must
> > be very isolating in her interaction with others, and if Scientology
> > makes her feel she has control over her life, well, it may help her.
> > And she's not in the clutches of money-extraction scheme.
>
> > The reason I am against the mentally ill getting involved in
> > Scientology, is that the cult will use them to take all their money,
> > THEN get rid of them. But once they are out, people like Barbara
> > actually make rather good examples of what is wrong with Scientology.
>
> Excuse me? Scientology is for that able, not for the mentally ill, let
> be very clear about that. Thus it is not for you and not for Sir
> Peter.
>
IAW, it is not for nut-cases like you either.
>
>
> > RR, on the other hand, it is just one more thing to screw up his f'd
> > up head, so have you ever considered just ignoring him? What do you
> > find intriguing about him? I'm just curious. You can continue
> > responding to all his posts if you want.
>
> This is the obvious way of you and your kind proving (or at least make
> it appear so), that you actually have a case. You IGNORE, you DON'T
> address valid and verifiable argumentation.
Neither do you.
Peter
"If a child or these children are found in Hold 1 _or_ any
hidden compartment of the ship they are to be locked up."
- L. Ron Hubbard, Flag Order 1630 _Governess_
Peter Schilte
I want to give Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner every opportunity to expose
himself.
He attacked me unprovoked on ESMB, behaving like a "Homo Novis(sic)".
Ever since he follows me around and keeps repeating his insane
blabber, attacking me, and everybody who dares to disagree with him.
He ignores presented evidence, doesn't read or watch offered links and/
or video's, only to claim it was never presented at all.
I like to argue with him because every time he accuses me, or anybody
else, of something it is exactly the other way around. He lies, as is
documented, he ignores, as is documented, he attacks, as is
documented, he invalidates, as is documented, he applies double
standards, as is documented, he is a blind follower, as is documented
by himself of all people.
Michel Snoeck is, IMHO, a socially disabled person. His posts reflect
that time after time after time.
He NEEDS to put others down in a feeble attempt to confirm his
superiority over others, not realizing he is failing to and instead
constantly is exposing himself. Michel Snoeck seems to live in his own
world, oblivious to the real world. He is a sad person. But as he
above all is an arrogant ass wipe, I keep responding to him to give
him every opportunity to show his arrogance.
Peter
"If a child or these children are found in Hold 1 _or_ any
hidden compartment of the ship they are to be locked up."
- L. Ron Hubbard, Flag Order 1630 _Governess_
Peter Schilte
Compare Miller's book with Michel Snoeck's 11,000+ words blabber on
Gerry Armstrong. When you change Miller for Snoeck in his rantings
about Miller, Snoeck hits the nail on the head.
Roadrunner
You claimed research, and you shared nothing of it. Nothing that would
indicate or show that you actually went through the various phases of
investigation. No data, no signes of proper investigation, no adherent
evaluation, no comparison analysis, etc, etc,... and finally you
refusing to address my queries and argumentation that were based on
authentic documentation.
You have performed NO such research, and so you need to attack me and
find wrong by ANY means...
You really are a St. Gerry clone. He also loves the word lying, liar
and all that. When in fact he himself is the pathological liar.
RR
Roadrunner
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:08:21 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> <376c044c-78e1-4c62-a2ca-628edbbd9...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>:
> | On 7 Jan, 17:26, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
> | > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:40:18 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> | > <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in
> | > <b645c10b-d978-4547-be84-f1e1b2d93...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:
> | > | On 6 Jan, 14:43, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> | > | > On Jan 6, 3:17 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> | >
> | > [...]
> | >
> | > | > I've told you, I'm not brainwashed. If it were free, I would not allow
> | > | > my mind to be bent by Hubbard's brainwashing process. I learn about
> | > | > Scientology by reading about the experiences, feelings, and thoughts
> | > | > of ex-Scientologists.
> | > |
> | > | Thus others (in particular the complainers and dissatisfied/failed
> | > | persons), that tell you. This is NOT your data...
> | >
> | > if i'm not mistaken, you did not discover or invent
> | > or found or originate dn and scn so you're using
> | > someone else's data when you study those subjects,
> | > NOT your own data.
> |
> | I EVALUATED and the result of that became MY data... YOU however base
> | it all on OHTER person's evaluations, this is thus NOT your data...
>
> that's EXACTLY what i did when i read _dianetics_:
> i analyzed it, evaluated hubbard's logic and
> evidence, and concluded it is crap. that's MY data
> (it certainly is NOT hubbard's!).
Then you wouldn't mind forwarding how exactly you came to that
conclusion... your opinion and utterances/claims alone will not do.
>
> | > | > That is what is good about Bare-Faced Messiah. Miller interviewed and
> | > | > researched hundreds of Scientologists, who knew Hubbard. Russell
> | > | > Miller is credible because his writing is credible and intelligible.
> | > | > His documentation is credible and intelligible.
> | > |
> | > | Quite the contrary, the documentation is rather slim and unsupported.
> | > | And foremost he literally glues everything together to one tale. His
> | > | book is written with hatred.
> | >
> | > have you even read the book?
> |
> | About one-third straight through, irritated because everything was
> | associated with basically everything without a VALID reason to do so.
> | Irritated because of the hatred he put into it.
>
> i read _dianetics_ only part-way thru, too,
> because it irritated me so. hubbard associated
> everything with everything without a valid
> reason. he packed alot of hatred in there,
> especially for women.
And where exactly did he do that...
This sounds like you projecting... which you do mostly in the
remainder of your claimed defense.
Anyhow I checked on my copy of Miller's book, I find it extremely
opinionated. You see, his referencing is very inexact. It is very
loosely based on documented fact. for the bulk of what he claims, his
attacks, he has no support for that opinion. It is not at all
presented as scientific treatise. Now why did you miss all that????
Mind that the book Dianetics is a handbook for use. It got round so
much BECAUSE people used its technique and found it worthwhile
obviously.
RR
>
> | > 'the best-written one is, by common agreement,
> | > 'bare-faced messiah', by a veteran british
> | > journalist and biographer. [...] the author (russell
> | > miller) did not have any particular axe to grind
> | > when he wrote it, originally as part of a sunday
> | > times project to find lrh when he was in seclusion
> | > in california. it is awesomely well researched and
> | > documented.
> |
> | Tsk, tsk, first it is not a voting contest,
>
> who's voting for what?
>
> |secondly exactly WHAT
> | sources tell this?,
>
> sources? you mean the people who read the book
> (and evaluate it and comment on it)?
>
> |thirdly it is not very well researched at all. It
> | is extremely opinionated and the documentation is not very well
> | either.
>
> i found _dianetics_ poorly researched. hubbard
> was extremely opinionated and never produced his
> 'research' for inspection or presented any kind of
> documentation for the outrageous things he claimed.
Sorry, opinion.
Roadrunner
Your WHOLE case is based on projection, unsupported claims arising
from manipulation, and personal opinion. You have no results of
investigation, analysis of any sort to offer, it is ALL opinion...
On the other hand my research and evaluation is available and very
well acknowledged and confirmed. You don't get it do you? You have,
per the data available, absolutely no background in research or
education. And still you think that people whould value that what you
say.
And where is your friend Aaron? It is all so typical with you people.
He has been vicious attacking and accusing me, and then he RUNS...
Calling me a coward and a chicken when HE is the coward and the
chicken. He explained clarified NOTHING... Therefore he and his sort
are winds that will blow over... and somehow I think you people are
actually aware of that. Judging form the many effort to make sole
claims stick. Just tell a lie forcefully and often enough, people in
the end will believe it. And the bigger the lie, the easier people
will adopt it.
RR
Roadrunner
> On Jan 9, 4:06 pm, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:08:21 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
snip
>
> I understand everything you wrote, but RR, no.
>
> I thought the first half of Bare-Face flowed like a river. It was a
> riveting story. Hubbard's early life, up through Dianetics was
> fascinating. I couldn't understand why it fell out of print so
> quickly. However, the second half got to be more complex, all kinds of
> details about the path and expansion of Scientology that might not be
> much interest to the general reader.
Investigate the documentation and determine if the claims and the
associations that he makes are warranted. 'flowing like a river' does
not say a thing about its credibility and historical correctness.
Again, his evaluations and presentation MUST have a valid base in the
available and provided for documentation.
I doubt you have any scientific background or in education, or
experience with it (judging from how you respond in general), and so
you will simply adopt that what you like.
You also failed to respond to my answer to you att #60, which actually
was to be expected.
RR
Peter Schilte
> On 10 Jan, 04:06, Kat <ladyas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 5:26 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sorry girl, you indeed play out your selfrighteousness to the
> > > utmost... and all that to cover up that you are guilty of the things
> > > you throw at me... you really sound like St. Gerry.
>
> > > RR
>
> > You still cannot provide a single link to prove where I lied, you
> > offer only opinion. I however, proved with your own words and posting
> > history that you do, in fact, lie quite frequently on usenet and
> > approve of others lying if the lies are told about something which you
> > do not like (and admit to not researching).... making you not only a
> > liar but a prejudiced one at that. You can try and put me in a box and
> > associate me with others all you want, but it still doesn't change the
> > fact that you are a LIAR picking fights with people in a thread about
> > lying scientologists. The irony is amusing to me, so I decided to say
> > something to someone who wasnt you. Your ego couldn't let it go, and
> > here you are, trying to brush aside (once again) the fact that you are
> > a lying halfwit. Thank you, RR, for continuing to be a living example
> > of the very subject of this thread. I believe you have proven everyone
> > else's point. ^_~
>
> You claimed research, and you shared nothing of it.
You are either suffering from Alzheimer's disease, or you are again an
ignorant liar. My bet is the latter.
> Nothing that would
> indicate or show that you actually went through the various phases of
> investigation. No data, no signes of proper investigation, no adherent
> evaluation, no comparison analysis, etc, etc,... and finally you
> refusing to address my queries and argumentation that were based on
> authentic documentation.
First: You ignored it first and subsequently say she didn't present
anything. That makes you a manipulative liar.
Second: As Hovind is concerned, you have not presented any data, no
signs of proper investigation, no adherent
evaluation, no comparison analysis, etc, etc,... and finally you
refuse to address my queries about the inconsistencies between
Hubbard's claim of an trillion years old earth and Hovind's claim it
is not.
>
> You have performed NO such research, and so you need to attack me and
> find wrong by ANY means...
>
Whiner! You ignored everything she presented, or dismissed as it
wasn't in agreement with you. YOU attacked HER, and YOU try to find
wrong with HER, not the other way around. You are a whiner and a
manipulative liar. And it is all documented here on ARS.
> You really are a St. Gerry clone. He also loves the word lying, liar
> and all that. When in fact he himself is the pathological liar.
Now that I know that you are a copy of Hovind and Hubbard as far as
research and evaluation are concerned, I now can evaluate your 11,000+
words blabbering about Gerry Armstrong: It is one long whining,
composed of insinuations, assumptions, unsupported accusations and
claims, and personal opinions.
As a blind follower of your gurus Hovind and Hubbard you are a self
declared nut-case.
Peter Schilte
Whatever. It doesn't change the fact that you are a blind follower of
nut-case Hovind and nut-case Hubbard. You have admitted it again and
again and again.
An I should take anything you say seriously?
All the evidence one need can be found in all the posts you made here
on ARS.
Peter Schilte
Why do you apply double standards? One to invalidate Miller, another
to glorify your gurus Hubbard and Hovind.
I challenge to apply the same standards on all three of them.
The standard I applied to Miller resulted in the conclusion that
Hovind and Hubbard are both lunatics, both are in the business of
pseudo-science and lack to support there claims with (scientific)
evidence.
But what else can one expect from a blind follower like you, Michel
Snoeck. As Hubbard taught you: "Never defend, always attack". Only
resulting in making yourself look like a fool more over.
Well done, boy, well done.
Kat
>
> You claimed research, and you shared nothing of it. Nothing that would
> indicate or show that you actually went through the various phases of
> investigation. No data, no signes of proper investigation, no adherent
> evaluation, no comparison analysis, etc, etc,... and finally you
> refusing to address my queries and argumentation that were based on
> authentic documentation.
Aaaah, but I did, which you later tried to dismiss as "copying" and
"hero worship". You never answer this question, RR, because you cannot
do so without looking like a fool. Is it impossible for two people to
independently examine the same set of documentation and come to
similar (or even the same) conclusions? I provided a working knowledge
of dianetics and made other arguments about scientology, arguments
that you then dismissed claiming that I performed no research and
evaluation whatsoever because I did not waste months typing up
documentation and because it was NOT DONE USING SCIENTOLOGY
TECHNIQUES.
When you said that to me, RR, it was very telling. You will only
listen to the opinions of another scientologist, and assume everyone
else is wrong provided it disagrees with your sensibilities. I've done
my research. I've read scientology texts repeatedly. I've talked with
rl scientologists about their faith and opinions. I may not know
everything there is to know about scientology, but I know more than
enough to come up with the informed opinion that it is a bullshit
cult. I also have enough real life experience to know a manipulative
asshole when I see one, and you sir are one of the worst offenders I
have seen in some time.
>
> You have performed NO such research, and so you need to attack me and
> find wrong by ANY means...
This from the man who followed me from thread to thread, attacking me.
I decided to give you a taste of your own medicine and posted here. I
proved conclusively where you lied on multiple occasions, and when you
could no longer defend yourself or weasel your way out of the lies,
you jumped ship and stopped posting in the thread (only to attack me a
few days later in a new one). Fact remains you still have no problem
with lies as long as they are told about something you do not like.
You said it yourself, and I showed the links on a number of occasions
to prove you said it.
You claimed on a number of occasions "I never said that!" and I was
able to provide links to where you said what I claimed you did. You
have often tried to put words in MY mouth, and failed to provide any
evidence to support your accusation. I find it amusing that you demand
research and documentation from others, but never provide it yourself.
Put up or shut up, little man. Hypocrites rarely get any respect.
>
> You really are a St. Gerry clone. He also loves the word lying, liar
> and all that. When in fact he himself is the pathological liar.
>
> RR
Blah blah blah blah, more projecting from the butthurt moron. I find
it amusing that you were kicked off of several message boards. I
remember the first time I saw you posting here in current time,
whining about being kicked off the latest message board. It isn't that
you offered a scientologists point of view. It isn't that you argued.
You got kicked off because you are a lying, manipulative, evil little
man. I almost feel badly for you that you lack the introspective tools
needed to see your behavior clearly.
l.l.lipshitz
<roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in
<8f09071d-f23b-40d2...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:
| On 10 Jan, 00:06, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
| > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:08:21 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
| > <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in
| > <376c044c-78e1-4c62-a2ca-628edbbd9...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>:
| > �| �On 7 Jan, 17:26, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
| > �| > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:40:18 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
| > �| > <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in
| > �| > <b645c10b-d978-4547-be84-f1e1b2d93...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:
| > �| > �| �On 6 Jan, 14:43, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| > �| > �| > On Jan 6, 3:17�am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
| > �| �I EVALUATED and the result of that became MY data... YOU however base
| > �| �it all on OHTER person's evaluations, this is thus NOT your data...
| >
| > � � � � that's EXACTLY what i did when i read _dianetics_:
| > � � � � i analyzed it, evaluated hubbard's logic and
| > � � � � evidence, and concluded it is crap. that's MY data
| > � � � � (it certainly is NOT hubbard's!).
|
| Then you wouldn't mind forwarding how exactly you came to that
| conclusion... your opinion and utterances/claims alone will not do.
i've already written extensively about this. i
should not do your homework for you but i will say
this: i employed the roadrunner method of evaluation.
[...]
| > � � � � i read _dianetics_ only part-way thru, too,
| > � � � � because it irritated me so. hubbard associated
| > � � � � everything with everything without a valid
| > � � � � reason. he packed alot of hatred in there,
| > � � � � especially for women.
|
| And where exactly did he do that...
READ the book! i'm not going to do your research
for you.
| This sounds like you projecting... which you do mostly in the
| remainder of your claimed defense.
i don't hate women! i am one!
| Anyhow I checked on my copy of Miller's book, I find it extremely
| opinionated.
where exactly did he do that?
|You see, his referencing is very inexact.
_dianetics_ had NO references.
|It is very
| loosely based on documented fact.
_dianetics_ is based on nothing more than hubbard's
opinions. he presents no documented facts at all.
|for the bulk of what he claims, his
| attacks, he has no support for that opinion. It is not at all
| presented as scientific treatise. Now why did you miss all that????
roadrunner, now you're just being stupid. _bare-
faced messiah_ is not presented as a scientific
treatise because it isn't one. duh!
i will admit that the bulk of what hubbard writes
about coat-hanger abortions in _dianetics_ is
probably based on historical events on his own
life. it's in all likelihood the one thing in
there that isn't just unsupported opinions. but
it's still pretty hateful.
| Mind that the book Dianetics is a handbook for use. It got round so
| much BECAUSE people used its technique and found it worthwhile
| obviously.
i wonder if that's why co$ tried to frame russell
miller for an axe murder -- to prevent his book from
being published so people would not read it and find
it worthwhile?
[...]
| > � � � � i found _dianetics_ poorly researched. hubbard
| > � � � � was extremely opinionated and never produced his
| > � � � � 'research' for inspection or presented any kind of
| > � � � � documentation for the outrageous things he claimed.
|
| Sorry, opinion.
not opinion. have you ever seen hubbard's 'research'
and documentation for _dianetics_? NO ONE HAS
because it doesn't exist! without that dianetics is
just hubbard's unsupported OPINION. no evidence, no
research, no reports, no documentation, no
verification. just crap from his disturbed mind
being passed off as 'fact' for people who want to
BELIEVE.
[...]
Roadrunner
You can't evaluate anything, you don't have and don't display the
skills needed by any means to perform any such thing... you live by
opinion ALONE...
You are a liar and defamer that will attack and invalidate any that
opposes you or exceeds you in knowledge and or action.
RR
Roadrunner
People may do a search on you and out earliest clashes, that will
suffice indeed...
The hatred and falsities you utter are literally astounding. How, in
heaven's name, do people become like you...
RR
Peter Schilte
That is your opinion, jst that and nothing else.
But the important thing is: Does it change anything I said about you
and your website article on Gerry Armstrong?
Does it change anything about you and your gurus Hubbard and Hovind?
Does it change anything about the lack of supporting evidence for
Hubbard's and Hovind's claims? (Or yours?)
Does it change anything about the fact that you have been proved and
documented to be a manipulative liar?
Does it change anything about the proved fact you are a blind follower
of Hovind?
Does it change anything about YOU?
Nope. It doesn't.
> You are a liar and defamer that will attack and invalidate any that
> opposes you or exceeds you in knowledge and or action.
>
Nope. You never caught me lying. because I didn't.
The remainder of your answer can be categorized as projecting your
flaws on me in a feeble attempt to attack me. You failed.
Peter