Ooops...Former DUI for Paul/Fred.... MUST HAVE BEEN OSA!!!!!
Teegiakerer
http://www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/search.asp
and plug in the following
Horner, Paul (in the search fields)
Look for the 3 files on "Paul S Horner" (S as in Stephen)
Visit following thread:
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?p=136969#136969
So, it would appear that Paul has had this kind of trouble
with Scientology OSA agents in the past too!
pt...@webtv.net
Quaoar wrote:
> I've worked with AA for a number of years, and the first thing one
> learns with us alcoholics is that we cannot be trusted to have any
> rational understanding of our behavior, drunk or sober. Denial is
> breakfast for an alcoholic.
Denial is lunch, dinner, dessert, and a midnight snack for $cienos,
their management and the operatives at large.
>
> Q
Tom
---------------------
www.suppressiveperson.org
barb
> On 2 Nov 2005, "Eldonbraun" <Eldo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Teegiakerer wrote:
>>
>>>If you visit
>>>
>>>http://www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/search.asp
>>>
>>>and plug in the following
>>>
>>>Horner, Paul (in the search fields)
>>
>>These are records for someone born in 1956, who would be 49 years old.
>>Fred (his real name) is 26 years old. Flunk.
>
>
>
> You're looking at the wrong Paul S. Horner
>
>
> Party Name: PAUL STEPHEN HORNER
> Party Type: D 1 - DEFNDT/RESPNDT Date of Birth: 11/05/1978
>
> He's got 3 prior DUI for christ's sakes.
>
>
> Cerridwen
>
> http://www.truthaboutscientology.com
>
> Paranoia is part of the ambiance here.-- Keith Henson
>
> He's got 3 prior DUI for christ's sakes.
>
>
>
>
>
That sure suggests he has a drinking problem! At what point does the
state take the T-Bird away?
--
--barb
Chaplain,ARSCC
xenu...@netscape.net
"Imagine a church so dangerous, you must sign a release
form before you can receive its "spiritual assistance."
This assistance might involve holding you against your
will for an indefinite period, isolating you from
friends and family, and denying you access to
appropriate medical care. You will of course be billed
for this treatment - assuming you survive it. If not,
the release form absolves your caretakers of all
responsibility for your suffering and death.
Welcome to the Church of Scientology."
--Dr. Dave Touretzky
Peter Alexander
roger gonnet
Dept, because one of its scam "pastors" was sent back to Austria or so.
Later, the cult dismissed the complaint.
One more trial that they lost.
Playing games before courts is a no-no for criminal groups, but since these
people don't realize how much their chiefs are dangerous criminal, they obey and
keep on their inept attacks.
r
"Teegiakerer" <cl...@clam.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
MPG.1dd2d3e51...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
SirLagsALot
"squeaky" <squea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1130973283.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> You're right -- paranoia is definitely part (if not all) of the
> ambiance! Why not spend your time being useful -- getting rid of the
> psychs!
How would you recommend getting rid of them?
Drop them in volcanoes then toss in a few H-Bombs?
>
> -Squeaky
>
> Cerridwen wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Nov 2005, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:30:50 -0800, barb <bwa...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Cerridwen wrote:
> > >
> > >>> He's got 3 prior DUI for christ's sakes.
> > >
> > >>That sure suggests he has a drinking problem! At what point does the
> > >>state take the T-Bird away?
> > >
> > >It appears only one of them is definitely a DUI.
> >
> > Your're right, it appears to be only one.
> >
> >
> > Cerridwen
> >
> > http://www.truthaboutscientology.com
> >
> > Paranoia is part of the ambiance here.-- Keith Henson
> >
> >
> >
> > The other two may be
> > >something else. Additionally, note that the DUI was dismissed. This
may
> > >very well have been pursuant to a diversion agreement.
> > >
> > >I'm not sure that this would qualify as a prior for the "extreme DUI"
charge
> > >being a felony, though.
>
mail.com
wrote:
> Party Name: PAUL STEPHEN HORNER
> Party Type: D 1 - DEFNDT/RESPNDT Date of Birth: 11/05/1978
>
> He's got 3 prior DUI for christ's sakes.
Good gods. I cannot imagine having even one DUI, let alone three.
What kind of person has *THREE* DUIs?! As they say down south "The
boy jhust hain't right." And apparently he owns a portion of a
business that sells items to conceal alcohol (including while
driving).
---
http://lastliberal.org / I support privatization of religion.
Free random & sequential signature changer http://holysmoke.org/sig
"Waiter, can you help? This man has a soup in his fly." -- Mike Hammer
mail.com
> Cerridwen wrote:
> > He's got 3 prior DUI for christ's sakes.
> That sure suggests he has a drinking problem! At what point does the
> state take the T-Bird away?
Three ought to have done it: four and one would expect the driver
to also be put away.
> --
> --barb
> Chaplain,ARSCC
> xenu...@netscape.net
>
> "Imagine a church so dangerous, you must sign a release
> form before you can receive its "spiritual assistance."
> This assistance might involve holding you against your
> will for an indefinite period, isolating you from
> friends and family, and denying you access to
> appropriate medical care. You will of course be billed
> for this treatment - assuming you survive it. If not,
> the release form absolves your caretakers of all
> responsibility for your suffering and death.
>
> Welcome to the Church of Scientology."
>
> --Dr. Dave Touretzky
> Peter Alexander
>
---
Piltdown Man
Quaoar <qua...@tenthplanet.net> wrote...
> I've worked with AA for a number of years, and the first thing one
> learns with us alcoholics is that we cannot be trusted to have any
> rational understanding of our behavior,
The Twelve Step religion is indeed profoundly anti-rationalist and
anti-intellectual. Just like the vast majority of its beliefs, it inherited
this aspect from the oddball evangelical sect of Buchmanism from which it
emerged in the 1930's.
> drunk or sober. Denial is breakfast for an alcoholic.
I hadn't heard that last one yet. I assume it's another one of A.A.'s many
thought-stopping one-line mantras. ("One drink, one drunk". "Utilise, don't
analyse". There are dozens if not hundreds of them.)
You do point out one of the many curious doctrinal points preached by A.A.
Alcoholics are claimed to be incapable of rational thought, whether they're
drunk or sober (which doesn't really matter in the A.A. definition of
"alcoholic" anyway, alcoholism is a lifelong, progressive, incurable
"spiritual disease", whether someones drinks alcohol or not). Alcoholics
are also all "in denial", i.e. habitual liars. How do we know these things
are true? Well, because it says so in the holy scripure of A.A., largely
written by an alcoholic, William Wilson, who founded an organisation
consisting entirely of other alcoholics. Have you ever stopped to think
there's a slight logical flaw here? It's one known since antiquity, and
usually referred to as the "liar's paradox", sometimes the "Cretan paradox"
(because all people from Crete always lie, as any Cretan will tell you).
I've probably pointed this out before, but when a few years ago I started
reading about William Wilson and how he created A.A., I was struck by the
number of similarities to Hubbard. Even down to such things as Wilson's
idea, during his later years, that megadoses of vitamin B would be useful
to treat alcoholism (by that time, A.A. dogma had already been set in
stone, so this dangerous nonsense luckily never made it to the canon,
unlike in Narconon). Even though they created quite different religions,
the personal similarities are astounding.
BTW, just on what information do you base the assumption that this Fred
Durks person is one of "we alcoholics"?
Lisa Ruby
>These are records for someone born in >1956, who would be 49 years old.
>Fred (his real name) is 26 years old. >Flunk.
I posted this before it didn't make it.
Flunk is a Scientology Training Routines
trigger word. Why do you choose to use
this trigger word on ARS?
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Lisa Ruby
>
> These are records for someone born in 1956, who would be 49 years old.
> Fred (his real name) is 26 years old. Flunk.
The word, "flunk" is used in Scientology Training Routines. So why
do you choose this term while posting on ARS?
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Lisa Ruby
about why you others choose to use
this word on ARS.
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Quaoar
I've respect most of what you have posted in the past. As an alcoholic,
you have apparently not even remotely addressed your addiction.
AA has no entry requirements, no financial obligations, and no tests for
membership. You can stay or leave at your choice. No one will remember
your name if you leave, if you even proffer it. Alcoholics don't give
a shit about someone who can't raise the first effort to try to 'not
drink'.
Your obvious aggressive attitute speaks volumes about refusal to
acknowledge an addiction. God help you, if you believe there is one..
No one else can help if you do not; no one else will care either.
Q
Muldoon
You may be making too much of a minor thing. It is mainly just a word,
not really a "trigger word."
It's also - to some extent - as used here, an inside joke.
There are far more important matters re. the criminal syndicate and
people-exploiting machine of the cult of Scientology.
IMHO.
Fredric L. Rice
>On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:30:50 -0800, barb <bwa...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Cerridwen wrote:
>>> He's got 3 prior DUI for christ's sakes.
>> That sure suggests he has a drinking problem! At what point does the
>> state take the T-Bird away?
>Three ought to have done it: four and one would expect the driver
>to also be put away.
I would rather have _one_ remove drunk drivers forever -- if it's
undeniably proven that the individual was drunk. That would require
a perfect testing device.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
One doesn't have to be a Republican to hate Canadians. - Rita Refugee
Fredric L. Rice
>Eldonbraun wrote:
>> These are records for someone born in 1956, who would be 49 years old.
>> Fred (his real name) is 26 years old. Flunk.
>The word, "flunk" is used in Scientology Training Routines. So why
>do you choose this term while posting on ARS?
Is there some reason why you can't shove it up your ass?
Fredric L. Rice
>COUNT 1: DUI DRUGS OR METABOLITE (13-3401)
>So the latest incident wasn't even for drinking, but for drugs
What is "or metabolite?" What does that mean?
I suppose I could google it...
Teegiakerer
> On 2 Nov 2005 20:13:24 -0000, Cerridwen <noad...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Party Name: PAUL STEPHEN HORNER
> > Party Type: D 1 - DEFNDT/RESPNDT Date of Birth: 11/05/1978
> >
> > He's got 3 prior DUI for christ's sakes.
>
> Good gods. I cannot imagine having even one DUI, let alone three.
> What kind of person has *THREE* DUIs?! As they say down south "The
> boy jhust hain't right." And apparently he owns a portion of a
> business that sells items to conceal alcohol (including while
> driving).
he's only got ONE...this event is apparently the 2nd if he is convicted
presumption of innocence till proven guilty in a court of law etc. and,
as people have noted, the first DUI complaint was dropped, which is
perhaps why he thinks he can get away with it again. i am guessing that
he's pretty desperate at this point, because if the first one was
dropped, and he got leniancy for willing to do some sort of rehab
program, or diversion program (as some have speculated) there will NOT be
the same level of discretionary leniancy. courts n' judges tend to be
VERY harsh on people who they have given one chance to already, and
instead of taking advantage of it, and going on the straight and narrow,
end up re-offending. perhaps thats why he is trying so hard to come up
with a defence, any defence that would help him.
it's sad.
Piltdown Man
Quaoar <qua...@tenthplanet.net> wrote...
<snip>
> I've respect most of what you have posted in the past. As an alcoholic,
> you have apparently not even remotely addressed your addiction.
I beg your pardon? You've determined I'm an alcoholic? I'd really like to
know how you came to that conclusion. Especially since you've just posted
that you, as an "alcoholic", are incapable of any rational understanding of
your own behaviour. Yet you've somehow come to a conclusion about *my*
behaviour. How does that work? "Alcoholics" are incapable of understanding
their own behaviour, but they're capable of judging other people's
behaviour, people they've never met, people whose names they don't even
know? Do "alcoholics" have long-distance mind-reading rays that work
over Usenet, as a sort of compensation for having lost the capacity for
rational thought? (I keep on putting "alcoholic" in quotes, because the
A.A. meaning of this word is entirely different from what the rest of the
world might assume.)
> AA has no entry requirements,
It does, in spades. It requires members to be willing to believe in the
Twelve Steps. The Twelve Steps, among many other things, require members to
turn "their will and their lives over to the care of God" (step 3). This
same God at a later stage will then enter into direct, personal "conscious
contact" with them, at step 11, one can only assume as some sort of reward
for "working", as A.A. puts it in their quaint lingo, steps 1 to 10.
Being willing to believe in stuff like that seems like a pretty steep entry
requirement to me. For one, it excludes all atheists and agnostics from
joining, as well as all believers in gods who don't go in for direct
personal contact with individual believers.
And nobody in A.A. can claim they aren't aware of the requirement to
believe in all this, the Twelve Steps are read out at the beginning of
every A.A. meeting, as far as I know.
Look, I wouldn't have a problem with A.A. if they were honest about what
they are: a weird version of American protestant evangelical Christianity,
that as a bonus along the way also claims to have a faith-healing cure for
alcohol addiction. But generally, A.A. tries to pretend it's something
else.
> no financial obligations,
True. Although the publishing company that churns out the books most A.A.
members are expected to buy seems to be doing a roaring business. (They've
also sued people who dared to put out cheaper or free versions of these
books for "copyright infringement", did you know that?)
> and no tests for membership.
Except for being willing to believe in the crackpot evangelical version of
Christianity that is expounded in the Twelve Steps.
> You can stay or leave at your choice. No one will remember
> your name if you leave, if you even proffer it.
That might be true in large American cities with lots of A.A. (and other
Twelve Step) meetings. In smaller communities, the idea that your anonymity
is protected when you go to the one local A.A. meeting is ludicrous.
> Alcoholics don't give
> a shit about someone who can't raise the first effort to try to 'not
> drink'.
>
> Your obvious aggressive attitute speaks volumes about refusal to
> acknowledge an addiction. God help you, if you believe there is one..
> No one else can help if you do not; no one else will care either.
Amazing what outbursts some simple remarks casting doubt on someone's pet
religious beliefs can bring about, isn't it? Perhaps in this case, the
outburst has got a lot to do with daring to point out the very obvious
similarities between William Wilson, the revered prophet-founder of A.A.
(college dropout, undistinguished war-time military volunteer, medically
and psychologically unqualified to found an addiction treatment program,
financial fraudster, substance abuser, perennial adulterer, awful writer,
dabbler in the occult, never held a job after he'd founded his religion and
only one proper job before that, never believed the religious rules he made
up for his followers applied to him, died a rich man on the proceeds of
this religion) with Lafayette R. Hubbard.
Lisa Ruby
>You may be making too much of a minor thing. It is mainly just a word,
>not really a "trigger word."
>It's also - to some extent - as used here, an inside joke.
People who are outside of Scientology have no need to use
that word, and if they know it can cause harm, they will voluntarily
abstain from using it.
>There are far more important matters re. the criminal syndicate and
>people-exploiting machine of the cult of Scientology.
Mind control, which is what Scientology is all about, and the use
of words and phrases that serve as triggers by those who
purport to oppose the CoS, is no minor issue.
I wondered why Scientology jargon is frequently used
on this forum when it is completlely unnecessary.
The use of such words can have a disastrous
effect Scientologists who are reading the forum for the
purpose of learning how to think independently of their
"Scientology programming."
Scientologists need to be given a chance to think their way
through if they really want to continue working for this Organization.
They cannot think clearly if they keep getting knocked back into their
"programming mode" by critics who use words that keep them there.
Tory got out. There can be more just like her if ARS was not being so
tightly "handled" for the purpose of preventing more people from
following her example --and from finding out about the blatant satanic
foundation this so-called religion is built upon.
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Simkatu
> Simkatu wrote:
>
>>Eldonbraun wrote:
>>
>>>Teegiakerer wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you visit
>>>>
>>>>http://www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/search.asp
>>>>
>>>>and plug in the following
>>>>
>>>>Horner, Paul (in the search fields)
>>>
>>>Fred (his real name) is 26 years old. Flunk.
>>
>>
>>Maybe you should have visited page 2, where the records for Paul
>>Stephen Horner were located? :)
>
> Maybe so. He said his real name was "Fred Durks" age 26 I thought. So
> this guy is 49 years old.
FLUNK!
Visit page 2!
Hit the next page button!
Paul STEPHEN Horner listed is 26 years old. You are looking at the
wrong Paul Horner.
Fred Durks was always his pseodonym, which he used until the cult found
out his real name, then he revealed his real name too, since it was sort
of pointless to keep it hidden when his enemies already knew it.
> Hell, at this point I don't know. Maybe his pseudonym is his real name
> ;-)
Flunk.
>>Or search by case number:
>>
>>J-1107-TR-20004568
>>J-1307-TR-20012577
>>M-1241-TR-20022332
>>
>>Apparently Paul was arrested for DUI in 2002.
Apparently you didn't bother going back to the search page to view the
cases.
Keith Henson
<pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>
>Quaoar <qua...@tenthplanet.net> wrote...
>
>> I've worked with AA for a number of years, and the first thing one
>> learns with us alcoholics is that we cannot be trusted to have any
>> rational understanding of our behavior,
>
>The Twelve Step religion is indeed profoundly anti-rationalist and
>anti-intellectual. Just like the vast majority of its beliefs, it inherited
>this aspect from the oddball evangelical sect of Buchmanism from which it
>emerged in the 1930's.
snip
>I've probably pointed this out before, but when a few years ago I started
>reading about William Wilson and how he created A.A., I was struck by the
>number of similarities to Hubbard. Even down to such things as Wilson's
>idea, during his later years, that megadoses of vitamin B would be useful
>to treat alcoholism (by that time, A.A. dogma had already been set in
>stone, so this dangerous nonsense luckily never made it to the canon,
>unlike in Narconon). Even though they created quite different religions,
>the personal similarities are astounding.
As religions/cults go, AA is relatively good or at least harmless.
But all cults, including AA, use the same attention brain reward
mechanism. In the AA case, they replace the reward of alcohol with
endorphin and dopamine releases from the attention.
I have never been to an AA meeting, but from people I know who have,
one feature is everyone becoming the focus of attention at some point
during the meeting.
The reason for the similarities I think is two fold. People who form
cults must have much in common, and second, all cults reward people
with intense social attention.
Keith Henson
Simkatu
> On 2 Nov 2005, "Eldonbraun" <Eldo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Teegiakerer wrote:
>>
>>>If you visit
>>>
>>>http://www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/search.asp
>>>
>>>and plug in the following
>>>
>>>Horner, Paul (in the search fields)
>>
>>These are records for someone born in 1956, who would be 49 years old.
>>Fred (his real name) is 26 years old. Flunk.
>
>
>
>
>
> Party Name: PAUL STEPHEN HORNER
> Party Type: D 1 - DEFNDT/RESPNDT Date of Birth: 11/05/1978
>
> He's got 3 prior DUI for christ's sakes.
I count 1 Prior DUI charge that was dismissed.
But still, 2 arrests for DUI in 2 years suggests a person with a drug
and/or alcohol problem.
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> As religions/cults go, AA is relatively good or at least harmless.
> But all cults, including AA, use the same attention brain reward
> mechanism. In the AA case, they replace the reward of alcohol with
> endorphin and dopamine releases from the attention.
>
> I have never been to an AA meeting, but from people I know who have,
> one feature is everyone becoming the focus of attention at some point
> during the meeting.
>
> The reason for the similarities I think is two fold. People who form
> cults must have much in common, and second, all cults reward people
> with intense social attention.
>
> Keith Henson
The connections may be more incestuous than generic :)
Back when one of our earlier sophist/apologists, Mona, was visiting ARS,
we got into a discussion of the 'Oxford Group', which served as
something of a springboard for Alchoholics Anonymous, but also other
cults. I was struck at the time with the similarities in much of the
basis and practice between the Oxford Group and Hubbardism, and it seems
unlikely that Hubbard was ignorant of the Group.
It's intriguing that the personality test was labeled the 'Oxford
Capacity Analysis', which may be more than coincidental.
There's a lot of info on the 'Oxford Group' on the internet, but largely
from AA, and this site happened to mention *another* branching I've come
into contsct with.
http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/aaroots.html
The other offshoot mentioned is 'Moral Rearmament', a cult/movement
which had its greatest successes in the '60s, like many, buv may still
be active, if less visible.
In the '60s, one of the 'front' organizations for MRA was the 'Up With
People' singing group, which toured world-wide. In 1967 a close friend
quit high school and joined the 'cast', but I spoke to him a couple of
years later, and he had some really bizarre stories about isolation and
abuse, as well as just plain funny bullshit. This was my first contact
with any form of cult, but not the last :)
A dozen years back, when I was getting more interested in cults in
general, and Scientology in specific, I tried to research them a bit,
but without much success.
The 'Up With People' people were finally and grudgingly willing to admit
early ties t Moral Rearmament, but claimed it was long past.
Luckilly, the internet is catching up (with the past) and there's a lot
more info available now.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-rroot720.html
Anyway, the current discussion reminded me, and I do think the
similarities between Hubbard's and the Oxford Group's modalities are far
too close to be coincidental. The OG's meditative 'automatic writing'
sure seems like an early 'auditing' variant.
Zinj
--
Villains! I say to you now! Knock off all that Evil!
- The Tick
tikk
It was dismissed, and as I point out in this same thread, not for
alcohol but rather driving under the influence of drugs. Also, if you
look at the Arizona Supreme Court site, specifically the activity for
the 3rd incident where the charge was dismissed, you can draw a few
inferences as to what actually happened.
http://www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/search.asp
2/17/2005 DEBT SET OFF NOTICE D 1
1/29/2003 FTPF SUSPENSION: CIVIL TRAFFIC D 1
10/23/2002 FUND: BASE FINE D 1
10/23/2002 FUND: 1999 SURCHARGES (77%) D 1
10/23/2002 PRETRIAL HEARING HELD D 1
10/23/2002 FUND: TIME PYMT $20 JCEF D 1
9/25/2002 PRETRIAL HEARING HELD D 1
9/18/2002 LETTER D 1
8/12/2002 CAL: INITIAL APPEARANCE D 1
8/7/2002 ORDER PRETRIAL HEARING D 1
8/6/2002 COMMENTS D 1
8/1/2002 COMPLAINT FILED-UNIFORM CITATN D 1
This suggests that it wasn't simply a mistake by the police but rather a
plea that got this dismissed, in exchange for a fine, and possibly tied
to some sort of deal that this charge would resurrect itself if anything
similar occurred. Before the pre-trial conference, you see a letter
submitted -- I've no idea what that is, but it's very possibly a letter
from someone (with some pull?) on his behalf, pointing out that this is
a first offense. The case itself took place on 10/23/2002, where he was
apparently fined. The latest entry is a notice of debt set-off, which
most likley means that his fine was either covered or partially covered
by a tax refund he had otherwise coming to him.
IOW, dismissal doesn't necessarily mean that the charged offense didn't
happen - it's more likely to mean that the county decided against
pursuing the claim to trial for whatever reasons. Normally, when you
plea bargain, you plead to a lesser charge - this site doesn't make it
clear whether that happened.
This is relevant b/c he said on OCMB that he was concerned about a
felony, even though 'Extreme DUI' is only a misdemeanor. It's my guess
that this 'dismissal' now looms as a large consideration when he returns
to court.
~ tikk
Lisa Ruby
>As religions/cults go, AA is relatively good or at least harmless.
>But all cults, including AA, use the same attention brain reward
>mechanism. In the AA case, they replace the reward of alcohol with
>endorphin and dopamine releases from the attention.
Wow, most people do not come right out and call AA a religion but that
is what it is. It is a mystical religion that some might be surprised
to learn,
is (like Scientology) vehemently opposed to Christianity.
One of the things that concerns me about AA is the level of control
they exert over their members. We know some folks who are members of
AA. They expect their members to go every week or twice a week (some
go every day) for the rest of their lives. If the members feel like
they don't need the support anymore, they are told that they are
getting ready to fall off the wagon again.
The members are not allowed to call themselves ex-alcoholics. (Or
ex-drug addicts as the case may be.) They must call themselves
alcoholics--non active, but still alcoholics. This is mind-control.
They are never allowed to leave this behind them.
They must give their testimony frequently or else they are suspected of
getting back into alchohol again.
A respected author, Dr. Cathy Burns, wrote a book about AA for those
who are interested in the the founder's occult roots as well as the
occult practices
promoted by this organization and more. It is called Alcoholics
Anonymous
Unmasked. The HIgher Power of AA is clearly unmasked in this
well-documented book. You can find it by doing a Google search and I
also offer it on my website.
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Simkatu
AA doesn't espouse crackpot evangelical Christianity (at least not in
the official statements or in its Ala-teen or Al-anon meetings with
which I am very familiar with in a number of locations).
The nature of the "Higher Power" was never something that was forced on
anyone, nor was it something that was talked about or discussed at
length. Only recognition of a "Higher Power" was required. As far as
I was concerned, the "Higher Power" was Nature. Other people assumed it
was God, or Allah, or Jesus.
If your experience with AA pushed you to believe in a particular form of
a higher power, then I would suggest that your experience might be the
exception rather than the norm.
Simkatu
> "tikk" <tr...@tikk.net> wrote:
>
>
>>COUNT 1: DUI DRUGS OR METABOLITE (13-3401)
>>So the latest incident wasn't even for drinking, but for drugs
>
>
> What is "or metabolite?" What does that mean?
>
> I suppose I could google it...
Generally google provides faster answers than USENET, and often you can
get better reliability.
A metabolite is simply something produced by the metabolism -- in this
case, specifically the human metabolism.
Often, drugs are not effective in the human body directly in the form as
they are ingested, but rather the drugs are metabolized inside the body
into a form that produces the desired effects.
Also, drug tests typically do not look for "Cocaine" or "Heroin" or
"THC" or "amphetamine" directly, but rather they look for metabolites of
those drugs that the body creates (or expunges) after processing the drug.
Simkatu
The letter could be from a drug and alcohol evaluation firm. Often the
state will require that a person undergo a preliminary drug and alcohol
assement through a 3rd party company that contracts with the court. The
3rd party company can then make recommendations to the prosecutor and
the court so they can determine whether "diversion" or other similar
sentence is the most suitable outcome.
> IOW, dismissal doesn't necessarily mean that the charged offense didn't
> happen - it's more likely to mean that the county decided against
> pursuing the claim to trial for whatever reasons. Normally, when you
> plea bargain, you plead to a lesser charge - this site doesn't make it
> clear whether that happened.
The charge may show up as dismissed if the person undergoes a
"diversion" sentence, which is almost always (at least formally) granted
to 1st time offenders.
Also, its very possible that the charge was dismissed because its very
difficult to prove that someone is under the influence of drugs. Its
possible to be completely sober and have metabolites of cocaine in the
system from 3 days prior to a blood test.
Also blood tests require that your blood be sent to the state for
analysis and the entire chain of custody of the drug sample is subject
to becoming a witness at trial. Many many many states have such huge
backlogs of cases testing samples that they never have the time or
personnel to send to trials which they determine are minor. A judge
will only allow the prosecutor so many attempts to bring in a state
witness to testify before he must eventually dismiss the charges.
> This is relevant b/c he said on OCMB that he was concerned about a
> felony, even though 'Extreme DUI' is only a misdemeanor. It's my guess
> that this 'dismissal' now looms as a large consideration when he returns
> to court.
In Kansas, your 3rd DUI is a felony, no matter when the previous two
DUIs occured -- presumably even if the previous two occured many years
prior to the law changing.
Eldonbraun
> Eldonbraun wrote:
>
> >
> > These are records for someone born in 1956, who would be 49 years old.
> > Fred (his real name) is 26 years old. Flunk.
>
>
> The word, "flunk" is used in Scientology Training Routines. So why
> do you choose this term while posting on ARS?
which was his real name.
>
>
> Lisa Ruby
> http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
wbarwell
Because this is indeed ARS.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
mail.com
<Commis...@groupmail.com> wrote:
> Eldonbraun wrote:
> > These are records for someone born in 1956, who would be 49 years old.
> > Fred (his real name) is 26 years old. Flunk.
> The word, "flunk" is used in Scientology Training Routines. So why
> do you choose this term while posting on ARS?
Oh, blinkers!
pass word gas
>Teegiakerer wrote:
>> If you visit
>>
>> http://www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/search.asp
>>
>> and plug in the following
>>
>> Horner, Paul (in the search fields)
>
>These are records for someone born in 1956, who would be 49 years old.
>Fred (his real name) is 26 years old. Flunk.
Nice try, eh? When all else fails, dig up the dirt! Who cares if
it's off by about twenty years? The most important thing is that
you let it slip that some guy with that name had 3 DUIs.
They distort the truth in this way ALL THE TIME.
pass word gas
>On 2 Nov 2005 20:13:24 -0000, Cerridwen <noad...@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Party Name: PAUL STEPHEN HORNER
>> Party Type: D 1 - DEFNDT/RESPNDT Date of Birth: 11/05/1978
>>
>> He's got 3 prior DUI for christ's sakes.
>
>Good gods. I cannot imagine having even one DUI, let alone three.
>What kind of person has *THREE* DUIs?! As they say down south "The
>boy jhust hain't right." And apparently he owns a portion of a
>business that sells items to conceal alcohol (including while
>driving).
>
Wow, 'cos anyone who sells shotglasses is automatically immoral
and probably a worthless drunk.
Did he have one DUI or three? I'm soooo confused here.
I mean, it's not as if the guy is present here to explain his side,
or even if he is the person you're digging up records on.
Furthermore, getting a DUI isn't even an indication that you
were truly driving drunk. There are all sorts of problems with
these tests.
Shouldn't his 'case' be conducted in the proper venue, and not
on some newsgroup? Otherwise, this is little more than
sleaze-peddling. I don't know the guy, but I don't care for it.
Besides, the anti-puritan in me is appalled that people would find
the fact that he sells shotglasses 'immoral'.
pass word gas
>In article <4369...@news2.lightlink.com>, desertphile@hot says...
>> On 2 Nov 2005 20:13:24 -0000, Cerridwen <noad...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Party Name: PAUL STEPHEN HORNER
>> > Party Type: D 1 - DEFNDT/RESPNDT Date of Birth: 11/05/1978
>> >
>> > He's got 3 prior DUI for christ's sakes.
>>
>> Good gods. I cannot imagine having even one DUI, let alone three.
>> What kind of person has *THREE* DUIs?! As they say down south "The
>> boy jhust hain't right." And apparently he owns a portion of a
>> business that sells items to conceal alcohol (including while
>> driving).
>
>he's only got ONE...this event is apparently the 2nd if he is convicted
>presumption of innocence till proven guilty in a court of law etc. and,
>as people have noted, the first DUI complaint was dropped, which is
>perhaps why he thinks he can get away with it again.
Well, since the lad is on trial here, and isn't around to speak for
himself (I think it's in rather poor taste to conduct a show trial
of someone who isn't even present), I might as well ask you how
you have come to know exactly what is 'on his mind'.
If you want to make a rational argument, leave the psychological
speculation aside. You can't substantiate that.
> i am guessing that
>he's pretty desperate at this point,
Just a guess, of course.
> because if the first one was
>dropped, and he got leniancy for willing to do some sort of rehab
>program, or diversion program (as some have speculated) there will NOT be
>the same level of discretionary leniancy. courts n' judges tend to be
>VERY harsh on people who they have given one chance to already, and
>instead of taking advantage of it, and going on the straight and narrow,
>end up re-offending. perhaps thats why he is trying so hard to come up
>with a defence, any defence that would help him.
>it's sad.
Yeah, it's really sad how petty and utterly lacking in ethics
puritans can be, with these witch trials they conduct behind
people's backs and all....
Take it to the appropriate forum, or leave it to the courts.
Otherwise your ridiculous speculation is borderline libelous.
pass word gas
Yeah, because the police are never wrong.
Did I tell you already that the blood alcohol levels for these tests
vary widely from state to state...I mean, there are SO many
factors here. Somewhere online there is a long report from the
Cato Institute that indicates just how ridiculous these DUI arrests
are getting. Someone has a beer or two, and the cops have
a beef with them, and they're getting DUIs.
I mean, since you're conducting a trial and all - only fair and
decent that this person has a defense.
But it is JUST like a bunch of clams to go looking for 'dirt' -
any 'dirt' on their critics. And it is sooo goddamned sleazy
to talk about someone when they're not present to defend
themselves.
pass word gas
>Muldoon wrote:
>
>>You may be making too much of a minor thing. It is mainly just a word,
>>not really a "trigger word."
>
>>It's also - to some extent - as used here, an inside joke.
>
>People who are outside of Scientology have no need to use
>that word, and if they know it can cause harm, they will voluntarily
>abstain from using it.
>
Oh, come off it. Words don't cause harm.
Sheesh.
pass word gas
>Teegiakerer wrote:
>> If you visit
>>
>> http://www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/search.asp
>>
>> and plug in the following
>>
>> Horner, Paul (in the search fields)
>>
>> Look for the 3 files on "Paul S Horner" (S as in Stephen)
>>
>> Visit following thread:
>>
>> http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?p=136969#136969
>>
>> So, it would appear that Paul has had this kind of trouble
>> with Scientology OSA agents in the past too!
>
>I've worked with AA for a number of years, and the first thing one
>learns with us alcoholics is that we cannot be trusted to have any
>rational understanding of our behavior, drunk or sober. Denial is
>breakfast for an alcoholic.
>
>Q
>
That's only when they're really stinking drunk.
It's not a life sentence, as you imply.
Are you really saying that 'alcoholism' (whatever that is)
is a permanent condition, and that 'alcoholics' can never
be trusted to tell the truth about anything?
That too is not a logical argument.
Try again.
pass word gas
>pt...@webtv.net wrote:
>> Quaoar wrote:
>>> Teegiakerer wrote:
>>>> If you visit
>>>>
>>>> http://www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/search.asp
>>>>
>>>> and plug in the following
>>>>
>>>> Horner, Paul (in the search fields)
>>>>
>>>> Look for the 3 files on "Paul S Horner" (S as in Stephen)
>>>>
>>>> Visit following thread:
>>>>
>>>> http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?p=136969#136969
>>>>
>>>> So, it would appear that Paul has had this kind of trouble
>>>> with Scientology OSA agents in the past too!
>>>
>>> I've worked with AA for a number of years, and the first thing one
>>> learns with us alcoholics is that we cannot be trusted to have any
>>> rational understanding of our behavior, drunk or sober. Denial is
>>> breakfast for an alcoholic.
>>
>> Denial is lunch, dinner, dessert, and a midnight snack for $cienos,
>> their management and the operatives at large.
>>
>>>
>>> Q
>>
>> Tom
>> ---------------------
>> www.suppressiveperson.org
>
>You can take the $ceintology out of the $cientologist, but you can never
>take the alcohol out of the alcoholic.
>
>Q
>
That is the most fucking ridiculously illogical argument I've
seen from you Bozos yet.
Pure garbage. What next with you people? Scarlet A's.
We all know that blackmail and permanent character assassination is
your game.
It ain't logical, pal. Do us a favor next time you want to win
converts - appeal to reason. Oh that's right - you don't
want reasonable people on your side.
pass word gas
>Piltdown Man wrote:
>> Quaoar <qua...@tenthplanet.net> wrote...
>>
>>> I've worked with AA for a number of years, and the first thing one
>>> learns with us alcoholics is that we cannot be trusted to have any
>>> rational understanding of our behavior,
>>
>> The Twelve Step religion is indeed profoundly anti-rationalist and
>> anti-intellectual. Just like the vast majority of its beliefs, it
>> inherited this aspect from the oddball evangelical sect of Buchmanism
>> from which it emerged in the 1930's.
>>
>>> drunk or sober. Denial is breakfast for an alcoholic.
>>
>> I hadn't heard that last one yet. I assume it's another one of A.A.'s
>> many thought-stopping one-line mantras. ("One drink, one drunk".
>> "Utilise, don't analyse". There are dozens if not hundreds of them.)
>>
>> You do point out one of the many curious doctrinal points preached by
>> A.A. Alcoholics are claimed to be incapable of rational thought,
>> whether they're drunk or sober (which doesn't really matter in the
>> A.A. definition of "alcoholic" anyway, alcoholism is a lifelong,
>> progressive, incurable "spiritual disease", whether someones drinks
>> alcohol or not). Alcoholics are also all "in denial", i.e. habitual
>> liars. How do we know these things are true? Well, because it says so
>> in the holy scripure of A.A., largely written by an alcoholic,
>> William Wilson, who founded an organisation consisting entirely of
>> other alcoholics. Have you ever stopped to think there's a slight
>> logical flaw here? It's one known since antiquity, and usually
>> referred to as the "liar's paradox", sometimes the "Cretan paradox"
>> (because all people from Crete always lie, as any Cretan will tell
>> you).
>>
>> I've probably pointed this out before, but when a few years ago I
>> started reading about William Wilson and how he created A.A., I was
>> struck by the number of similarities to Hubbard. Even down to such
>> things as Wilson's idea, during his later years, that megadoses of
>> vitamin B would be useful to treat alcoholism (by that time, A.A.
>> dogma had already been set in stone, so this dangerous nonsense
>> luckily never made it to the canon, unlike in Narconon). Even though
>> they created quite different religions, the personal similarities are
>> astounding.
>>
>> BTW, just on what information do you base the assumption that this
>> Fred Durks person is one of "we alcoholics"?
>
>I've respect most of what you have posted in the past. As an alcoholic,
>you have apparently not even remotely addressed your addiction.
>
>AA has no entry requirements, no financial obligations, and no tests for
>membership. You can stay or leave at your choice. No one will remember
>your name if you leave, if you even proffer it. Alcoholics don't give
>a shit about someone who can't raise the first effort to try to 'not
>drink'.
>
>Your obvious aggressive attitute speaks volumes about refusal to
>acknowledge an addiction. God help you, if you believe there is one..
>No one else can help if you do not; no one else will care either.
>
>Q
>
Good lord, is this a witch trial, or WHAT?
Stop acting as if you have privy to the contents of people's heads.
People should be judged by their logic and clarity, not
how many drinks they've had.
Puritanism wore out its welcome a long time ago.
It's just an excuse to permanently 'invalidate' anyone
who causes problems for you.
It's undemocratic and illogical. Grow up.
pass word gas
>
>Quaoar <qua...@tenthplanet.net> wrote...
>
><snip>
>> I've respect most of what you have posted in the past. As an alcoholic,
>> you have apparently not even remotely addressed your addiction.
>
>I beg your pardon? You've determined I'm an alcoholic? I'd really like to
>know how you came to that conclusion. Especially since you've just posted
>that you, as an "alcoholic", are incapable of any rational understanding of
>your own behaviour. Yet you've somehow come to a conclusion about *my*
>behaviour. How does that work? "Alcoholics" are incapable of understanding
>their own behaviour, but they're capable of judging other people's
>behaviour, people they've never met, people whose names they don't even
>know? Do "alcoholics" have long-distance mind-reading rays that work
>over Usenet, as a sort of compensation for having lost the capacity for
>rational thought? (I keep on putting "alcoholic" in quotes, because the
>A.A. meaning of this word is entirely different from what the rest of the
>world might assume.)
>
>> AA has no entry requirements,
>
>It does, in spades. It requires members to be willing to believe in the
>Twelve Steps. The Twelve Steps, among many other things, require members to
>turn "their will and their lives over to the care of God" (step 3).
I recently saw a sign in which they changed it to 'higher power',
but it's still a religious demand and it's still bullshit.
pass word gas
>http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-rroot720.html
>
>Anyway, the current discussion reminded me, and I do think the
>similarities between Hubbard's and the Oxford Group's modalities are far
>too close to be coincidental. The OG's meditative 'automatic writing'
>sure seems like an early 'auditing' variant.
>
>Zinj
Good stories. Personally, if you go back far enough, there
are SO many similarities between Hubbard's crap and other
cultlike movements that, at the very least, people must have
been exchanging 'trade secrets' at some point.
pass word gas
>Indeed not the good person, but look,the scam cult hadf attacked the Justice
>Dept, because one of its scam "pastors" was sent back to Austria or so.
>
>Later, the cult dismissed the complaint.
>
>One more trial that they lost.
>Playing games before courts is a no-no for criminal groups, but since these
>people don't realize how much their chiefs are dangerous criminal, they obey and
>keep on their inept attacks.
>
>r
Good thinking. I mean, if they can use it against private citizens,
we can turn around and use the same logic against them.
Got in trouble once? Well, you must be prone to that sort of thing -
permanently, and we shouldn't be able to trust you EVER.
>
>
>"Teegiakerer" <cl...@clam.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>MPG.1dd2d3e51...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
tikk
"pass word gas" <quaec...@forgeries.edu> wrote in message
news:3btkm11qdqqmncdvs...@4ax.com...
Perhaps if you'd poked around a bit before shooting your mouth off, you'd
have realized that it was Fred/Paul who kick-started this debate on 10/29
with the post "I'm going to jail and got fired from my job." If he's 'not
here to defend himself,' it's by his own choice. It's a bit of a moot point
anyway, since his story is sensational enough to deserve debate and scrutiny
in forums where he isn't present. But it's the fact that his story (or
version of it) is so sensational that the scrutiny inevitably settles on,
sans real evidence, on the issue of his credibility.
And since his story involved alcohol and drugs and driving, prior incidents
of his involvement with those elements are very relevant in assessing the
likelihood of his story. The fact that he dishonestly and opportunistically
makes a living in domain trademark extortion is also relevant in assessing
his honesty and potential for opportunism with regard to this incident.
Also, your assertion of 'borderline libel' in another post you made is
ridiculous. Fred/Paul made himself a limited purpose public figure by
publicly relating this story, and rightfuly waived any right to complain
when people assessed his story's credibility using public documentation.
His story, and his backers on OCMB, remind me of the Intelligent Design
crowd - wherever a lack of evidence is claimed to exist in evolutionary
theory "God Did It" is inserted instead of calmly choosing from the more
likely explanations. Here, wherever the evidence fails to coincide with
their chosen reality, "OSA Did It" is proclaimed to be the most likely
answer, even as dozens of people have pointed out, his story fails to even
marginally demonstrate why this might be.
~ tikk
Zinj
<snip>
> Also, your assertion of 'borderline libel' in another post you made is
> ridiculous. Fred/Paul made himself a limited purpose public figure by
> publicly relating this story, and rightfuly waived any right to complain
> when people assessed his story's credibility using public documentation.
Unfortunately the Kangaroo Kourt already in progress has no rules of
evidence or appeals process, so questions of actual malice may not be
adjudicable prior to the successful lynching. Tcha.
Anyway, it's not as if anything else interesting was happening on the
Scieno-Front.
pass word gas
That is a presumption that you cannot substantiate. You yourself
are making claims to logic, and yet here is your very first illogical
statement.
you'd
>have realized that it was Fred/Paul who kick-started this debate on 10/29
>with the post "I'm going to jail and got fired from my job." If he's 'not
>here to defend himself,' it's by his own choice. It's a bit of a moot point
>anyway, since his story is sensational enough to deserve debate and scrutiny
>in forums where he isn't present. But it's the fact that his story (or
>version of it) is so sensational that the scrutiny inevitably settles on,
>sans real evidence, on the issue of his credibility.
Which isn't hinged upon his alleged DUIs, which you have not proven
to be his, nor have you cleared the matter up of how many etc.
Drinking, or even having one DUI is NOT an indicator that someone
is lacking credibility. That too is not logical. Sorry, but if
you're going to paint yourself as 'logical', then you too have to be
logical.
He is not here right now...it would be nice and courteous and all if
you'd let this person know you're talking about him. Also, your
assertion that he made 'the choice' to not be here is not logical and
cannot be substantiated unless you are following him night and day.
Please stick to what you can substantiate and defend through logic.
>
>And since his story involved alcohol and drugs and driving, prior incidents
>of his involvement with those elements are very relevant in assessing the
>likelihood of his story.
Not necessarily. First of all, it was pointed out that a DUI, or even
a DUI that was thrown out, is not an indication that one has a drug /
alcohol problem. Perhaps that's why this 'case' is being tried in an
online forum instead of an actual court.
The fact that he dishonestly and opportunistically
>makes a living in domain trademark extortion
Excuse me? Post proof of this. All I saw is a website (a rather
humorous one) that sells shotglasses.
is also relevant in assessing
>his honesty and potential for opportunism with regard to this incident.
>
>Also, your assertion of 'borderline libel' in another post you made is
>ridiculous. Fred/Paul made himself a limited purpose public figure by
>publicly relating this story, and rightfuly waived any right to complain
>when people assessed his story's credibility using public documentation.
>
Not quite. He is still a private citizen. Usenet does not make one a
professional celebrity. Neat trick of avoiding the question as to
whether these slurs are relevant and/or true. You dodge the real
issue, which is whether they are true or fair and choose to make some
ludicrous argument that someone whose name is not even clear is
now a 'public figure'.
Now quit dodging and address my point. The statement was:
>>>"Good gods. I cannot imagine having even one DUI, let alone three.
>>>What kind of person has *THREE* DUIs?! As they say down south "The
>>>boy jhust hain't right." And apparently he owns a portion of a
>>>business that sells items to conceal alcohol (including while
>>>driving).
>>>
The fact that his business sells gimmicky shotglasses is indicative of
NOTHING. These are novelties. Also, the statement that 'the boy just
ain't right' is declarative and final and cannot in any way be deemed
objective. Moreover, I thought it was one DUI, or was it two?
People can't seem to clear this matter up.
Address these matters, or risk being deemed 'convinced' of your own
'reality'. Much of what is written here constitutes ad hominem and
illogic rather than a fair unbiased assessment of the situation.
>His story, and his backers on OCMB, remind me of the Intelligent Design
>crowd - wherever a lack of evidence is claimed to exist in evolutionary
>theory "God Did It" is inserted instead of calmly choosing from the more
>likely explanations.
Who did this?
Here, wherever the evidence fails to coincide with
>their chosen reality, "OSA Did It" is proclaimed to be the most likely
>answer, even as dozens of people have pointed out, his story fails to even
>marginally demonstrate why this might be.
>
Perhaps he's just taking a wild guess? Did you read the Xenu board
posts? He did NOT, if I recall correctly, say for certain that they
did it. He just said he was in an unfair situation, and that it
stinks. The individual who attributed it to 'OSA' appeared to be
sarcastic - they appeared to be mocking him.
pt...@webtv.net
Wogwash Scott, there very few "backers" of the Fred Durks story on
OCMB. What your seeing there, is a crazy obssessed poster called
"Cauleen" ranting and raging so obnoxiously to fry Paul Horner in a
Kangaroo Kourt long before all the evidence is in, that she's garnering
support for him. It's like Rinder does for $cn. Or Tigger does for
former LMTers.
I see you're on OCMB now. I hope you'll explain in advance there what
your true mission is and what alt.buttersquash.posse.lynchmob intends
to accomplish.
> crowd - wherever a lack of evidence is claimed to exist in evolutionary
> theory "God Did It" is inserted instead of calmly choosing from the more
Regarding evolution, we know 2 things as fact, mankind didn't evolved
from bi-valves (clams) and garden variety squash (butter.) Monkeys
maybe.
> likely explanations. Here, wherever the evidence fails to coincide with
> their chosen reality, "OSA Did It" is proclaimed to be the most likely
> answer, even as dozens of people have pointed out, his story fails to even
> marginally demonstrate why this might be.
>
> ~ tikk
Now wipe the drool off your chin.
Tom
----------------------------------------------
"Scientology has 10 million members now." ~ Mike Rinder 10/3/05
Ted Mayett
>His story, and his backers on OCMB, remind me of the Intelligent Design
>crowd - wherever a lack of evidence is claimed to exist in evolutionary
>theory "God Did It" is inserted instead of calmly choosing from the more
>likely explanations. Here, wherever the evidence fails to coincide with
>their chosen reality, "OSA Did It" is proclaimed to be the most likely
>answer, even as dozens of people have pointed out, his story fails to even
>marginally demonstrate why this might be.
>
>~ tikk
>
Awesome :-)
--
Ted Mayett
http://www.solitarytrees.net
henri
wrote:
>Well, since the lad is on trial here, and isn't around to speak for
>himself (I think it's in rather poor taste to conduct a show trial
>of someone who isn't even present), I might as well ask you how
>you have come to know exactly what is 'on his mind'.
Since you appear to be a stupid fuck, I'll explain this once. This
is a fucking NEWSGROUP. People post things here and then they
are discussed. If the person who posted the original cock-and-bull
story we're discussing didn't want it discussed, he shouldn't have
posted it here. This isn't a trial. Only a truly stupid fuck would be
so confused as to think it is one.
I have better things to do than educate mental deficients, so the
rest of your shit will just have to reside in my killfile. Bye moron.
bb
Here, wherever the evidence fails to coincide with
their chosen reality, "OSA Did It" is proclaimed to be the most likely
answer, even as dozens of people have pointed out, his story fails to
even
marginally demonstrate why this might be.
So he may be a shady sleazy character. So what.
I was suprised at the original strong attack on Glen Stollery's
site.
A standard cease and desist letter is usual. Talk of $100,000
lawsuit is not I believe. I had the former, but not the latter. No
actual lawsuit against a critic using trademaked terms in domain names
has been undertaken.
We know DM is personal friends of tom Cruise. Tom is the world's no 1
movie star. Even his promotional efforts have backfired. DM has been on
stage with TC. I think its possible DM has taken this as a personal
affront and pulled out all stops.
What has been demonstrated is that COS has no avenue of
good PR. They must be desparate. They've had one of their top guys on
national TV lie about stuff that is routinely reported in the press. (
at least in UK, god knows how it goes in US) )
Where do they go from there? Paul horner is an easy target.
QED
tikk
Actually, it's a pretty safe inference to make, being that you're
seemingly ignorant of known facts, such as the fact that Fred/Paul
posted to ARS. Unless you're going to make the assinine argument that
since he's not engaged in further comment here on ARS that we should be
precluded from discussing it further out of respect to Fred/Paul.
Oh wait, you ARE going to argue that! Wow.
> you'd
>
>>have realized that it was Fred/Paul who kick-started this debate on 10/29
>>with the post "I'm going to jail and got fired from my job." If he's 'not
>>here to defend himself,' it's by his own choice. It's a bit of a moot point
>>anyway, since his story is sensational enough to deserve debate and scrutiny
>>in forums where he isn't present. But it's the fact that his story (or
>>version of it) is so sensational that the scrutiny inevitably settles on,
>>sans real evidence, on the issue of his credibility.
>
>
> Which isn't hinged upon his alleged DUIs, which you have not proven
> to be his, nor have you cleared the matter up of how many etc.
Actually, if you'd poked around some more before shooting your mouth of
even further, you'd have found that the number of DUI charges is fairly
settled at this point and the people who mistakenly thought there were 3
have been corrected.
As for whether his credibility hinges in part on any prior DUIs, you're
wrong - any person who commits an act once is more likely to repeat the
act than someone who has never committed the same act.
>
> Drinking, or even having one DUI is NOT an indicator that someone
> is lacking credibility. That too is not logical. Sorry, but if
> you're going to paint yourself as 'logical', then you too have to be
> logical.
>
> He is not here right now...it would be nice and courteous and all if
> you'd let this person know you're talking about him.
First of all, it'd be ok to talk about him even if he never posted here,
since his allegation appears in multiple places on the web, and
allegedly concerns Scientology, which is what is often discussed here.
But he did post here, and thus tacitly invited discussion on the story
he offered. His non-appearance over the past few days does not trigger
some 'courtesy rule' where all conversation on the matter must cease.
> Also, your
> assertion that he made 'the choice' to not be here is not logical and
> cannot be substantiated unless you are following him night and day.
>
> Please stick to what you can substantiate and defend through logic.
>
>
>>And since his story involved alcohol and drugs and driving, prior incidents
>>of his involvement with those elements are very relevant in assessing the
>>likelihood of his story.
>
>
> Not necessarily. First of all, it was pointed out that a DUI, or even
> a DUI that was thrown out, is not an indication that one has a drug /
> alcohol problem. Perhaps that's why this 'case' is being tried in an
> online forum instead of an actual court.
His DUI was not 'thrown out' but dismissed. And if you looked at the
docket on the Arizona State Court site, you'll see that the dismissal
was less than 'free and clear.' See posts
<4369a061$1...@news2.lightlink.com> & <4369ae3c$1...@news2.lightlink.com> in
this same thread.
>
> The fact that he dishonestly and opportunistically
>
>>makes a living in domain trademark extortion
>
>
> Excuse me? Post proof of this. All I saw is a website (a rather
> humorous one) that sells shotglasses.
Proof can be found at these posts...
<r767m1l6tlfqgbd1i...@4ax.com>
<1130655620.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
<4366...@news2.lightlink.com>
... as well as all over the web (google the terms 'paul horner' &
amazon, microsoft, monster, WIPO).
>
> is also relevant in assessing
>
>>his honesty and potential for opportunism with regard to this incident.
>>
>>Also, your assertion of 'borderline libel' in another post you made is
>>ridiculous. Fred/Paul made himself a limited purpose public figure by
>>publicly relating this story, and rightfuly waived any right to complain
>>when people assessed his story's credibility using public documentation.
>>
>
>
> Not quite. He is still a private citizen. Usenet does not make one a
> professional celebrity.
He's a private citizen up to the point where he injects himself into a
controversy, which he has done by posting his story here and in other
places. This is why under the law he would be considered a limited
purpose public figure. While the law isn't entirely settled (some people
think *all* internet participants are limited purpose public figures),
it's entirely clear that Fred/Paul is a limited purpose public figure
for the defamation law purposes. See
http://www.internetpolicy.net/practices/libel.shtml.
Neat trick of avoiding the question as to
> whether these slurs are relevant and/or true. You dodge the real
> issue, which is whether they are true or fair and choose to make some
> ludicrous argument that someone whose name is not even clear is
> now a 'public figure'.
>
> Now quit dodging and address my point. The statement was:
>
>
>>>>"Good gods. I cannot imagine having even one DUI, let alone three.
>>>>What kind of person has *THREE* DUIs?! As they say down south "The
>>>>boy jhust hain't right." And apparently he owns a portion of a
>>>>business that sells items to conceal alcohol (including while
>>>>driving).
Well, that person was obviously wrong. I don't believe that anyone
reading this thread, however, is any longer under the mistaken belief
that he has 3 prior DUIs.
>
> The fact that his business sells gimmicky shotglasses is indicative of
> NOTHING. These are novelties. Also, the statement that 'the boy just
> ain't right' is declarative and final and cannot in any way be deemed
> objective. Moreover, I thought it was one DUI, or was it two?
> People can't seem to clear this matter up.
It was one. And as I point out here <4366...@news2.lightlink.com> it
probably looms large for him at his hearing for the current incident.
> Address these matters, or risk being deemed 'convinced' of your own
> 'reality'. Much of what is written here constitutes ad hominem and
> illogic rather than a fair unbiased assessment of the situation.
>>His story, and his backers on OCMB, remind me of the Intelligent Design
>>crowd - wherever a lack of evidence is claimed to exist in evolutionary
>>theory "God Did It" is inserted instead of calmly choosing from the more
>>likely explanations.
>
>
> Who did this?
>
> Here, wherever the evidence fails to coincide with
>
>>their chosen reality, "OSA Did It" is proclaimed to be the most likely
>>answer, even as dozens of people have pointed out, his story fails to even
>>marginally demonstrate why this might be.
>>
>
>
> Perhaps he's just taking a wild guess? Did you read the Xenu board
> posts? He did NOT, if I recall correctly, say for certain that they
> did it.
You didn't recall correctly, but I'm less than surprised. I'll quote
from his initial post here:
"Congrats to you scientologist pieces of shit on this temporary victory.
You got my car impounded, got me fired from my job, and I'm now facing
possible jail time."
If he meant to leave the issue open ended as to who he was accusing, he
should have left it a bit more ambiguous.
He just said he was in an unfair situation, and that it
> stinks. The individual who attributed it to 'OSA' appeared to be
> sarcastic - they appeared to be mocking him.
Whatever. You're not going to get far with a hair-splitting argument
that OSA isn't the same as Scientology in this context.
~ tikk
Lisa Ruby
>Oh, come off it. Words don't cause harm.
Yes, words can harm. They can and do harm Scientologists.
Flunk! is one such word that, I guarantee you, is a trigger word.
Android Cat
> And since his story involved alcohol and drugs and driving, prior
> incidents of his involvement with those elements are very relevant in
> assessing the likelihood of his story. The fact that he dishonestly
> and opportunistically makes a living in domain trademark extortion is
> also relevant in assessing his honesty and potential for opportunism
> with regard to this incident.
I believe extortion has a definite legal meaning. Has he ever been
convicted of the criminal charge of extortion?
--
Ron of that ilk.
henri
wrote:
>tikk wrote:
When the Congress prohibited cybersquatting, their stated purpose was
to stop "individuals seeking extortionate profits by reserving Internet domain
names that are similar or identical to trademarked names with no intention of
using the names in commerce themselves. Such actions undermine consumer
confidence, discourage consumer use of the Internet, and destroy the value of
brand-names and trademarks of American businesses."
The term extortion to refer to such schemes is common. It does not necessarily
indicate the crime of extortion, a felony.
Courts use the term as well:
---
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREAT DOMAINS.COM, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 00-CV-71544-DT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN
DIVISION
177 F. Supp. 2d 635; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22714; 61 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1718
"These factors, as a whole, focus on whether the defendant's use of the disputed
domain name is legitimate--i.e., for some purpose other than simply to profit
from the value of the trademark. This indicates that the ACPA was designed to
target persons who commandeer a domain name for no reason other than [**12] to
profit by extortion, yet bypass persons with legitimate interests in the domain
name--even if they do incidentally profit from the domain name's status as a
trademark. The ACPA's legislative history reinforces that this is the purpose of
the Act."
---
I an not certain that the elements of an extortion scheme have yet been
established, but that the registrations were abusive has been found in the
UDRP proceedings, and the U.S. District Court of Arizona also ruled
against him.
Simkatu
> (desertphile@hot mail.com (David Rice, Esq.)) :
>
>
>>On 2 Nov 2005 20:13:24 -0000, Cerridwen <noad...@nowhere.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Party Name: PAUL STEPHEN HORNER
>>>Party Type: D 1 - DEFNDT/RESPNDT Date of Birth: 11/05/1978
>>>
>>>He's got 3 prior DUI for christ's sakes.
>>
>>Good gods. I cannot imagine having even one DUI, let alone three.
>>What kind of person has *THREE* DUIs?! As they say down south "The
>>boy jhust hain't right." And apparently he owns a portion of a
>>business that sells items to conceal alcohol (including while
>>driving).
>>
>
>
> Wow, 'cos anyone who sells shotglasses is automatically immoral
> and probably a worthless drunk.
>
> Did he have one DUI or three? I'm soooo confused here.
>
> I mean, it's not as if the guy is present here to explain his side,
> or even if he is the person you're digging up records on.
Do you believe that two 26 year old men named Paul Horner were both
arrested on Alma School Road at the same time on the same day?
We got the facts of the case from Paul Horner from when he posted the
information here and the records are the records that correspond to the
facts he presented.
There is no confusion about if the records "we are digging up" are the
same Paul Horner.
Simkatu
> ("Eldonbraun" <Eldo...@aol.com>) :
>
>
>>Teegiakerer wrote:
>>
>>>If you visit
>>>
>>>http://www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/search.asp
>>>
>>>and plug in the following
>>>
>>>Horner, Paul (in the search fields)
>>
>>These are records for someone born in 1956, who would be 49 years old.
>>Fred (his real name) is 26 years old. Flunk.
>
>
> Nice try, eh? When all else fails, dig up the dirt! Who cares if
> it's off by about twenty years? The most important thing is that
> you let it slip that some guy with that name had 3 DUIs.
>
> They distort the truth in this way ALL THE TIME.
The person just made a mistake when the saw the first page of Paul
Horner's refering to the guy born in 1956. Our Paul Horner was on Page
2 and that much is 100% certain.
And I will bet you 1 million dollars to a donut that Paul Horner was
arrested for DUI and that it wasn't the first time that he has been
arrested for DUI.
Now who is distorting the truth?
Jommy Cross
wrote in msg <1130992173.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>Mind control, which is what Scientology is all about, and the use
>of words and phrases that serve as triggers by those who
>purport to oppose the CoS, is no minor issue.
>
>I wondered why Scientology jargon is frequently used
>on this forum when it is completlely unnecessary.
>The use of such words can have a disastrous
>effect Scientologists who are reading the forum for the
>purpose of learning how to think independently of their
>"Scientology programming."
>
>Scientologists need to be given a chance to think their way
>through if they really want to continue working for this Organization.
>They cannot think clearly if they keep getting knocked back into their
>"programming mode" by critics who use words that keep them there.
Hi Lisa, I find the words "satanic" and "demonic" are trigger words for me.
Really, "trigger words" is a trigger word, too.
So please stop using them, as they keep knocking me back into my
"programming mode", and the software industry can't afford any more of
that.
Thanks in advance!
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
realpch
If everyone doesn't stop saying key lime pie, I'm gonna have to shoot myself.
Peach
Zinj
[127.1] says...
Speaking of 'trigger words'; don't think about pink elephants!
barb
Are you going to repeat this on every goddamn thread, or what?
Okay! I get it! Aight?
--
--barb
Chaplain,ARSCC
xenu...@netscape.net
"Imagine a church so dangerous, you must sign a release
form before you can receive its "spiritual assistance."
This assistance might involve holding you against your
will for an indefinite period, isolating you from
friends and family, and denying you access to
appropriate medical care. You will of course be billed
for this treatment - assuming you survive it. If not,
the release form absolves your caretakers of all
responsibility for your suffering and death.
Welcome to the Church of Scientology."
--Dr. Dave Touretzky
Peter Alexander
barb
That is what AA feeds you.
1. they teach that substance abuse is a disease.
2. it is a permanent condition, so you must keep coming back for
meetings for the rest of your life.
3. You are not granted the credit for quitting, but they happily blame
you for getting yourself into this mess.
These are three things I don't like about the 12 step program, along
with the hovering and nebulous spirituality that pervades the meetings.
I've gone along as "moral support" to enough of these things to know
what the score is. Plus, I had to attend 5 court-mandated sessions when
I got that DUI back in 1984.
The last meeting I went to was absolutely the last! I accompanied this
friend of mine, who I've shepherded to AA in the past, and I had a real
hard time keeping quiet when a woman said, "I don't know why God let my
cat puncture my waterbed..."
There is so much wrong with that, I had to leave before my flame-thrower
warmed up.
barb
Yeah, getting girls drunk enough to take advantage of is pretty funny.
Fuckin laff riot.
barb
Actually, I agree with Tikk. You exaggerate OCMB a bit in favor of
rationality. I beg to differ. Some of those pledges of support for Durks
are embarassing, really. Fervent, sincere, and based upon absolutely no
evidence, but hey! If Scientology is blamed, why wait until the facts
are in.
Moreover, I think Durks is just an opportunistic, cheesy marketer who is
just using Scientology for publicity.
A couple of months ago, I designed a t-shirt for a slap at Margarita
Lopez, the gullible politician from NYC who shuttled $650,000 into a
Scientology detox project.
The day after I posted about it, I got email from a lawyer representing
the photographer who took the Lopez picture incorporated into my design.
The CafePress site was closed.
An article came out in the NY paper about it.
A couple days later, Durks was stating that his Lopez design had made
the paper. I didn't argue the point, but perhaps I should have.
Not only did he produce a crappy knockoff of my excellent Photoshop
work, he took credit where it wasn't due, and increased his sympathy
quotient with the credulous on OCMB.
Durks seems parasitic. He latched on to my tshirt idea. He latched on to
scientomogy.com. His websites aren't terribly critical, just a kludge of
links and popups.
You guys can keep buying his bullshit, but he's not an ethical guy.
If it turns out he was the victim of a cult op, that won't change my
opinion of him.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
Eldonbraun
and prejudgment that have been going on about this guy, simply because
some people think he's an obnoxious twirp. From what I've read, I think
so too; but his domain "highacking" is not criminal even if it is
infringement, one DUI is not three of them, and what he does with his
sites is par for the Internet. Some of these posts sound pretty much
like the insinuational bios on RFW.
Who knows? Maybe OSA just needed a slam-dunk easy object of abuse to
get their stats up.
tikk
I didn't accuse anyone of criminal extortion, but rather trademark
extortion, which is a description numerous courts have used to describe
the business model Fred/Paul operates. As I explained in another post,
the cost of litigation necessary to retrieve domains of the type he
registers is steep enough that it is more cost-effective to simply make
an offer under what it would otherwise cost to legally pry it away. The
act of registering and establishing a free-riding site under the
infringing trademark instantly forces the trademark holder into Hobson's
choice - pay or pay. That's trademark extortion and I'm not about to
apologize for pointing it out.
~ tikk
pt...@webtv.net
Yes, agree. The facts are still absent.
> Moreover, I think Durks is just an opportunistic, cheesy marketer who is
> just using Scientology for publicity.
>
> A couple of months ago, I designed a t-shirt for a slap at Margarita
> Lopez, the gullible politician from NYC who shuttled $650,000 into a
> Scientology detox project.
>
> The day after I posted about it, I got email from a lawyer representing
> the photographer who took the Lopez picture incorporated into my design.
> The CafePress site was closed.
> An article came out in the NY paper about it.
>
> A couple days later, Durks was stating that his Lopez design had made
> the paper. I didn't argue the point, but perhaps I should have.
> Not only did he produce a crappy knockoff of my excellent Photoshop
> work, he took credit where it wasn't due, and increased his sympathy
> quotient with the credulous on OCMB.
>
> Durks seems parasitic. He latched on to my tshirt idea. He latched on to
> scientomogy.com. His websites aren't terribly critical, just a kludge of
> links and popups.
>
> You guys can keep buying his bullshit, but he's not an ethical guy.
> If it turns out he was the victim of a cult op, that won't change my
> opinion of him.
I don't see a whole lotta people, if anybody, on OCMB or on ARS, who
condones Fred/Paul's funky behavior, tasteless jest of blacks and
women, selling of seedy merchandize, apparent drinking issues, etc.
For one, I don't - he's got some questionable issues on the character
side of things.
But I do take great exception to Scott Pilutik's projection that
everyone on Operation Clambake are stupid cult morons, and everybody at
the Buttersquash ranch are cool doods and have a complete handle on the
cult problem at large. That's beyond obtuse IMO. If Scott (Cauleen
and U-Mike) want to lead the charge to lynch this guy while the jury is
still out, then they certainly are going to be challanged to open up
their lives for public scrutiny in doing so. At least as to their
sincerity, motives, and background with $cn.
IMO, Fred/Paul grossly erred by posting this story on either forum. At
least until all the evidence was out. I'd like to say he should have
known better. But given his youth and inexperience, it's safe to say he
did'nt. But betcha he does now!
> The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
Now thad be true fer sure.
Conversly, the friend of my enemy, is not necessarily my enemy.
Me? I'm still basking in the joy of Mike Rinder's horrible performance
on the Today Show from yesterday. :)
>
>
> --
> --barb
> Chaplain,ARSCC
> xenu...@netscape.net
>
> "Imagine a church so dangerous, you must sign a release
> form before you can receive its "spiritual assistance."
> This assistance might involve holding you against your
> will for an indefinite period, isolating you from
> friends and family, and denying you access to
> appropriate medical care. You will of course be billed
> for this treatment - assuming you survive it. If not,
> the release form absolves your caretakers of all
> responsibility for your suffering and death.
>
> Welcome to the Church of Scientology."
>
> --Dr. Dave Touretzky
> Peter Alexander
Tom
-------------
www.xenutv.com
Lisa Ruby
> Hi Lisa, I find the words "satanic" and "demonic" are trigger words for me.
These words are not used in Scientology training routines for the
purpose
of mind control so they are not working on posters in the way that I
mentioned.
There is one thing these words "trigger" in the ARS posters who do not
want others
to know they describe the foundation Scientology is built upon: damage
control.
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Lisa Ruby
The phrases "Key lime pie" and "pink elephants: are not used in
Scientology Training Routines. But of course you know that.
Flunk as you know, means, "restart the drill." ARS is supposed to be
about helping Scientologists get off the "program,"not restart it!
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Does anyone else want to try?
Zinj
Commis...@groupmail.com says...
> Zinj and Peach:
>
> The phrases "Key lime pie" and "pink elephants: are not used in
> Scientology Training Routines. But of course you know that.
>
> Flunk as you know, means, "restart the drill." ARS is supposed to be
> about helping Scientologists get off the "program,"not restart it!
>
> Lisa Ruby
ARS is not 'about' helping Scientologists get off the 'program'. It's
about exposing, discussing, criticizing and to a far lesser extent
(since it's so difficult) 'defending' the program.
As it happens, the exposure and discussion is often very good and even
possibly the *best* 'help' available to Scientologists, who may not even
know they want 'off the program'. Direct 'help' in that direction is
practically worthless, as is the coddling and pandering some critics and
Scientologists alike think would be 'best'. Scientologists get
*themselves* off the program on their own schedule and for their own
reasons, which seldom have anything to do with discussion or debate, but
sometimes with indirect accumulation of information.
Avoiding 'trigger words, as you call them, is as pointless as avoiding
any mention of Xenu or the lunacy, megalomania and malignancy of
Hubbard, in the hopes of not 'offending' Scientologists. Scientologists
are 'offended' when it suits their defensive purposes, and are capable
of taking offense at any level.
ARS also does not exist to help Scientologists transition from one
lunatic delusional system to another, even if it's yours.
Lisa Ruby
>ARS is not 'about' helping Scientologists get off >the 'program'. It's about exposing, discussing, criticizing >and to a far lesser extent (since it's so difficult) 'defending' >the program.
I had hoped the ARS agenda would not be about utilizing techniques that
keep Scientologists on the program but sadly, for some it is. Exposing
Scientology is not really exposing it if only ARS-approved exposures
are allowed.
Criticism is useless if it degenerates into ridicule. On this forum,
ridicule rules.
Avoiding trigger words is only pointless to those who don't
care about helping Scientologists escape their programming, which you
have stated the ARS posters do not want to do.
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Lisa Ruby
>Avoiding 'trigger words, as you call them, is as
>pointless as avoiding any mention of Xenu or the
>lunacy, megalomania and malignancy of Hubbard,
>in the hopes of not 'offending' Scientologists.
Scientology terms can and should be used for the
purpose of giving readers the real definition (which
exposes what the term really means and how it is
used against them). This helps to break the
programming.
My point is that Scientology terms should not be
used as figures of speech in posts because if these
terms are not exposed for what they are when they
are used, the use of them does reinforce Scientology programming.
Scientology terms should especially not be used in a
post in the same manner they are used in programming, such as the word
Scientology programmers (auditors)
use to cause a person to restart the drill.
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
realpch
Who the heck knows? They might be in one of those unreleased levels. OT
546 or something.
The critics here have learned to speak "Scientologese," as it's a handy
way of communicating with people who have been in and who have absorbed
the patois. A friendly and ironic gesture, if you will.
Peach
Ball of Fluff
"Lisa Ruby" <Commis...@groupmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131150635.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Zinj and Peach:
>
> The phrases "Key lime pie" and "pink elephants: are not used in
> Scientology Training Routines. But of course you know that.
>
> Flunk as you know, means, "restart the drill." ARS is supposed to be
> about helping Scientologists get off the "program,"not restart it!
No, it's not. This is a discussion group for discussing Scn, CofS, etc. The
demographic is largely critics but there is no purpose of ars.
C
nobody
>
>No, it's not. This is a discussion group for discussing Scn, CofS, etc. The
>demographic is largely critics but there is no purpose of ars.
The purpose is to facilitate discussion. It also enables me to
watch you, GE and cult apologists make fools of yourselves.
Kim Palmer
No ars is about exposing the abusive illegal ,immoral and unethical
practices of the cult of scientology - people who need help undoing
the processing done by the cult have access to other areas to get
the help they need.
Ars is not a place to get counselling - it is a place to get
information as long as one is willing to wade through the crap
and off topic spew.
Kim P
Kim Palmer
And your dictates are most important because...? Perhaps your arrogance
is because you think you have THE ONE TRUE way and everyone else's is
wrong so therefore you must KNOW more than anyone about how to post
on this board?
Kim P
Eldonbraun
the word "Flunk!" and I was incorrect-- not because of the word, but
because I superficially read the post and saw a birthdate indicating
that a guy with the same name was 56 years old and made a
misassumption. So Flunk on me!
However, it is an English language word, commonly unerstood, that was
only a wee bit twisted by Scientology. But hey, this is a colorful and
contentious venue. That's what makes it entertaining.
>
> Kim P
Zinj
Eldo...@aol.com says...
Well, Lisa, whether she knows it or not, is completely 'in' the
Scientology World, since she actually *Thinks It Works*.
Sure, she thinks it's demonic and anti-christian, and it is, or it would
be if it could be, but, since it doesn't really do anything but screw up
people's minds, it can't. But, Lisa thinks it can.
It's kind of like the twin Veritas/Scottian delusions that Scientology
has been taken over by the government and/or Scientology has taken over
the government, which of course presupposes that *Scientology Works* and
is good for something besides ripping off money and making people nuts.
Lisa just throws in the demonic element and the New World Order. She
might as *well* be a Scientologist.
Piltdown Man
Keith Henson <hkhe...@rogers.com> wrote...
<snip>
> As religions/cults go, AA is relatively good or at least harmless.
That's highly debatable. At least in the US A.A. (and its many Twelve Step
offshoots) have acquired something of a stranglehold on the whole field of
addiction treatment, which isn't a good thing at all for any scientific
approach to addiction medicine. Starting with the completely absurd notion
that addiction is a "spiritual disease" (whatever the hell that is supposed
to be, it's not in any medical textbook), and the result of "moral
shortcomings" and "character defects", is not a good basis for science.
Also, people in the US are routinely sentenced by courts to attendance at
Twelve Step meetings. It's hard to tell since none of the Twelve Step
groups keep formal membership records, another aspect they retained from
Buchmanism, but I've seen estimates that at least a third of people at
Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings in the US these days
aren't there of their own free will, but have been ordered to attend by
judges. (In a flagrant breach of A.A.'s own principles, BTW, but nobody
seems to care. The principle that nobody can be forced to attend an A.A.
meeting seems to have been superseded by "the more the merrier"). I don't
think such developments are relatively good or at least harmless at all.
If there was any evidence that the Twelve Step nonsense actually *worked*
as a way of treating addiction things would be different, but no such
evidence exists. The number of proper studies showing that Alcoholics
Anonymous, or Narcotics Anonymous, or any other Twelve Step group with a
name ending in Anonymous, actually achieve their stated aims is exactly the
same number as that for Narconon: zilch. Somehow, they've managed to build
a reputation for themselves as the first port of call for addicts, without
ever having to come up with any evidence. It's a really strange cultural
phenomenon.
> But all cults, including AA, use the same attention brain reward
> mechanism. In the AA case, they replace the reward of alcohol with
> endorphin and dopamine releases from the attention.
>
> I have never been to an AA meeting, but from people I know who have,
> one feature is everyone becoming the focus of attention at some point
> during the meeting.
I've never been to an A.A. meeting either, but that's an aspect of the
Buchmanite meetings that was commented on by many observers during their
heyday in the 1920's and 1930's, long before Wilson came up with the weird
notion of rebranding this religion as a supposed cure for alcoholism. The
rush people got from the attention they got from their public "sharing" at
meetings was highly noticeable to outsiders, as well as the ways in which
people who regularly "shared" started honing their stories for maximum
effect. There is also the fact that A.A. (and I assume this is once again
something they got from Buchmanism) doesn't allow what they call
"crosstalk", which is what in Scientology would be called "invalidation".
In other words, nobody can criticise anything said by someone who stands up
at a meeting to "share". So there is a strong reinforcement mechanism going
on there, with not just public attention but guaranteed public approval (or
at least a lack of disapproval) built-in to the system.
> The reason for the similarities I think is two fold. People who form
> cults must have much in common, and second, all cults reward people
> with intense social attention.
Of course all cults and cult founders have similarities. In the case of
Wilson and Hubbard, many of the similarities are no doubt simply due to a
shared cultural background, i.e. that of early twentieth-century,
middle-class, WASP America. But still, some of the similarities are spooky.
If I didn't know from a reliable source that Hubbard was the son of
Eisenhower, he might well have been Wilson's son.
Piltdown Man
Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote...
<snip>
> Back when one of our earlier sophist/apologists, Mona, was visiting ARS,
> we got into a discussion of the 'Oxford Group', which served as
> something of a springboard for Alchoholics Anonymous, but also other
> cults. I was struck at the time with the similarities in much of the
> basis and practice between the Oxford Group and Hubbardism, and it seems
> unlikely that Hubbard was ignorant of the Group.
It enjoyed a spell of newspaper popularity in America during the 1920's and
1930's (although it was never a mass movement, or intended to be), so quite
probably Hubbard had heard about it. But I've never read anything
indicating Hubbard had any interest in Christianity at all, or this unusual
Christian sect in particular.
> It's intriguing that the personality test was labeled the 'Oxford
> Capacity Analysis', which may be more than coincidental.
I don't think there's any more significance in that than the understandable
desire of cult leaders to associate themselves in the public's mind with
prestigious institutions, like Oxford University.
> There's a lot of info on the 'Oxford Group' on the internet, but largely
> from AA, and this site happened to mention *another* branching I've come
> into contsct with.
>
> http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/aaroots.html
I love sites like this. One brand of evangelical Christians ranting about
another brand of evangelical Christians, and how they're evil and satanic,
and a "counterfeit religion".
I've also never seen any indication that Samuel Shoemaker ever had a real
leadership role in the Buchmanite movement, it always seems to have been
very much Frank Buchman's one-man band, with Shoemaker as nothing more than
a subservient disciple. Shoemaker is the only person from the Oxford Groups
mentioned in A.A. literature though, Buchman isn't mentioned at all, AFAIK.
Wilson quite clearly wanted to airbrush Buchman, the man who was the direct
source of A.A.'s teachings, out of the history of his movement. That
Shoemaker is mentioned might also have something to do with the fact that
he broke with Buchman's cult in 1941, not very long after Wilson did. So he
could be mentioned after WW2 without too much risk of direct association
with Buchman, whose openly expressed Nazi sympathies had become a problem
for his followers. Proclaiming that he "thanked Heaven for a man like Adolf
Hitler" had not been a good PR move for Buchman.
> The other offshoot mentioned is 'Moral Rearmament', a cult/movement
> which had its greatest successes in the '60s, like many, buv may still
> be active, if less visible.
Moral Re-Armament wasn't an offshoot, it's simply what Buchman started
calling his cult from the late 1930's (as one observer put it, they were
attempting to distance themselves from themselves). He initially called it
the "First Century Christian Fellowship", then from somewhere in the late
1920's affected the name of "Oxford Group" or "Oxford Groups", or simply
"the Groups", before switching to "Moral Re-Armament", under which name the
dwindling cult soldiered on until his death. Coincidentally, the name
switch to MRA happened at around the same time they basically kicked out
the people who had been calling themselves "the alcoholic squad of the
Oxford Group" before, and who became A.A. And yes, there is a remnant
organisation still around, apparently surviving on the proceeds of the
money raised during Buchman's days. They're calling themselves by yet
another name now, which escapes me at the moment (I'm sure some googling
will turn it up.)
<snip>
> The 'Up With People' people were finally and grudgingly willing to admit
> early ties t Moral Rearmament, but claimed it was long past.
Ah yes. The old "we never did that, and what's more, we stopped doing it a
long time ago" ploy.
> Luckilly, the internet is catching up (with the past) and there's a lot
> more info available now.
>
> http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-rroot720.html
An excellent site for anyone who is interested in the origins of the weird
belief system of A.A. Also take a look at
http://www.morerevealed.com/index.jsp
> Anyway, the current discussion reminded me, and I do think the
> similarities between Hubbard's and the Oxford Group's modalities are far
> too close to be coincidental. The OG's meditative 'automatic writing'
> sure seems like an early 'auditing' variant.
They don't seem similar at all to me. Auditing is clearly a version of
abreactive talk therapy, of which Hubbard had a pop, Reader's Digest level
of understanding. Oxford Groupers on the other hand thought that during
their daily "Quiet Time" they were receiving personal, highly specific
"guidance" from God himself on what to do during the rest of the day, which
guidance they usually scribbled down on a notepad. I don't think what is
supposed to happen in auditing is similar to the notion of people taking
personal dictation from the Almighty on a daily basis. There were also lots
of other major aspects to the Oxford Group that are quite different from
Scientology, such as a lack of a real corporate structure for instance, or
very little in the way of formal "scripture" (Buchman mainly went for
simple-minded one-line slogans).
And while unorthodox from the point of view of most other Christians,
Buchmanism (and consequently A.A.) is clearly a product of a typically
American revivalist, puritan form of Christianity. This also explains why
A.A., and the myriads of other Twelve Step groups, have never really become
popular outside the US, in places where that kind of social/religious
background is lacking. Scientology has no such connection at all.
Lisa Ruby
>Hey, I'm sorry, I'm sorry! I got Lisa off on a tirade because I used
>the word "Flunk!" and I was incorrect-- not because of the word, but
>because I superficially read the post and saw a birthdate indicating
>that a guy with the same name was 56 years old and made a
>misassumption. So Flunk on me!
No, it wasn't because of you that the light went on about what is going
on at ARS with the use of trigger words. Did you used to be a
Scientologist?
If so, that might explain why you used it. It might just be a habit.
I just recall that Kim (or was it Ramona--they post in a similar style
so I get
them confused) used this word in response to one of my posts so you are
not the only one who has done this.
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Ball of Fluff
nobody wrote:
> In article <436c339e$1...@news2.lightlink.com>, Ball of Fluff says...
> >
> >No, it's not. This is a discussion group for discussing Scn, CofS, etc. The
> >demographic is largely critics but there is no purpose of ars.
>
> The purpose is to facilitate discussion.
Which is what I said.
>It also enables me to
> watch you, GE and cult apologists make fools of yourselves.
In my case, you've got a really long wait.
Hasn't happened yet.
For you, however, if you're the "nobody" of whom I'm thinking, then
you've already attained the goal you so willingly attribute to others.
;->
C
Ball of Fluff
"Lisa Ruby" <Commis...@groupmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131255020....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Eldonbraun wrote:
>
>>Hey, I'm sorry, I'm sorry! I got Lisa off on a tirade because I used
>>the word "Flunk!" and I was incorrect-- not because of the word, but
>>because I superficially read the post and saw a birthdate indicating
>>that a guy with the same name was 56 years old and made a
>>misassumption. So Flunk on me!
>
> No, it wasn't because of you that the light went on about what is going
> on at ARS with the use of trigger words. Did you used to be a
> Scientologist?
> If so, that might explain why you used it. It might just be a habit.
>
> I just recall that Kim (or was it Ramona--they post in a similar style
> so I get
> them confused)
No, they don't, at all.
Poor Kim. First she's Kady now she's Ramona.
C
Eldonbraun
> Eldonbraun wrote:
>
> >Hey, I'm sorry, I'm sorry! I got Lisa off on a tirade because I used
> >the word "Flunk!" and I was incorrect-- not because of the word, but
> >because I superficially read the post and saw a birthdate indicating
> >that a guy with the same name was 56 years old and made a
> >misassumption. So Flunk on me!
>
> No, it wasn't because of you that the light went on about what is going
> on at ARS with the use of trigger words. Did you used to be a
> Scientologist?
> If so, that might explain why you used it. It might just be a habit.
joke, thinking most people here if not all would take it as that. Even
interpreted in its everyday meaning, I think it would be intelligible.
But you make a point. Some Scieno lingo, if tossed out without
explanation, might give some people an MU (misunderstood word).
Lisa Ruby
>And your dictates are most important because...? Perhaps your arrogance
>is because you think you have THE ONE TRUE way and everyone else's is
>wrong so therefore you must KNOW more than anyone about how to post
>on this board?
Hey, Kim. I'm not talking about the way to heaven right now but the way
to
help Scientologists not be reinforced into the thinking that is drummed
into
them via their Scientology training sessions. You are all for that,
right?
Remember when Barbara left ARS someone posted a thread full of glee
that she
was gone? In that thead a poster used a phrase from the Wizard of Oz.
Hubbard
used phrases from the Wizard of Oz in his Scientology programming. The
Wizard
of Oz phrases are used in mind programming. The use of that phrase can
be
"triggering" for some Scientologists.
Anyway, I think you, barb, Zinj, Eldonbraun, Rice, wbarwell, realpch,
Johnny Cross
and others who routinely back each other up on ARS know this already.
It is just that I care about this and others don't.
I do realize that now.
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
.
Lisa Ruby
>No ars is about exposing the abusive illegal ,immoral and unethical
>practices of the cult of scientology - people who need help undoing
>the processing done by the cult have access to other areas to get
>the help they need.
Are you saying that you and your ARS friends, (the ones
who help you out when you and I are conversing on ARS)
condone using words that can trigger Scientologists even though
it is just as easy to avoid using them? I'm not arguing. I'm just
asking.
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Ball of Fluff
> Kim P wrote:
>
>>And your dictates are most important because...? Perhaps your arrogance
>>is because you think you have THE ONE TRUE way and everyone else's is
>>wrong so therefore you must KNOW more than anyone about how to post
>>on this board?
>
> Hey, Kim. I'm not talking about the way to heaven right now but the way
> to
> help Scientologists not be reinforced into the thinking that is drummed
> into
> them via their Scientology training sessions. You are all for that,
> right?
Most Scn'ists I know would not take any of your arguments to heart.
>
> Remember when Barbara left ARS someone posted a thread full of glee
> that she
> was gone? In that thead a poster used a phrase from the Wizard of Oz.
> Hubbard
> used phrases from the Wizard of Oz in his Scientology programming.
Aren't you getting that mixed up with Alice in Wonderland?
Examples, please.
>The
> Wizard
> of Oz phrases are used in mind programming. The use of that phrase can
> be
> "triggering" for some Scientologists.
It's part of pop culture. I've worked in many places where, if someone who
was a real dickhead left, people would say ding dong the witch is dead.
>
> Anyway, I think you, barb, Zinj, Eldonbraun, Rice, wbarwell, realpch,
> Johnny Cross
> and others who routinely back each other up on ARS know this already.
Yes. Because it's a big fat conspiracy.
>
> It is just that I care about this and others don't.
Not true and not a call you can make.
>
> I do realize that now.
No, it's that they have a different take on it than you.
You attribute a lot of things to Scn that just aren't there.
And I can tell that you do this with other stuff.
C