Who Am I?
the_s...@rocketmail.com
Re: Who Am I?
Dear All:
Frank Copeland <f...@thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>The_S...@rocketmail.com <The_S...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>>X-Originating-IP-Addr: 206.149.231.51 (jackfarmer.earthlink.net)
>
>My, what an interesting place to post from. Is this another one of Luis's
>BTs, or are we getting advice from Jack himself?
Neither (who is Luis?). I just happened to be visiting Jack's house and
posted from his Crusader BBS machine's console. You will readily see that
*this* posting is coming from a workstation in a library at UCLA (where I
often conduct research) and you may also find my postings coming from
public workstations in branches of the Los Angeles Public Library system
or another friend's house via Earthlink Network dial-up service. At the
present time, I do not have access to a computer system of my own, so
there may be considerable delay (days to perhaps a week or so) before I
can respond to any given post.
As I failed to introduce myself before I started posting in here (which
may be considered rude), I should tell you all a few things about me right
up front:
1. I am a former member of the Sea Organization, dismissed from staff near
the end of 1995 primarily for having been an LSD user for a time during
late 1977 to early 1978 (there are well-known standing orders against
admitting LSD users into the Sea Organization). I was in the Sea Org from
mid 1978 through early 1981 and then again from mid 1991 until my
dismissal.
2. Although I remain loyal to the Scientology philosophy, religion and the
Church; I do not represent the Church in any capacity whatsoever.
Furthermore, it is likely that some Church officials may disapprove of my
presence in this newsgroup, from what I have been told by various friends,
although I have never seen any written orders forbidding Scientologists to
post in this newsgroup. I am under no restraint or coercion concerning the
contents of any of my postings, save my own personal judgement and my own
sworn oaths.
3. For the reasons stated above and because I doubt the ability of some
persons in this newsgroup to restrain themselves from such unfair tactics
as mailbombing, I have choosen to establish an semi-anonymous e-mail
account specifically for correspondance with members of this newsgroup.
4. I will answer any *reasonable* questions regarding my knowledge and
experience as a Sea Org staff member and as a Scientologist, providing I
can do so without violating my sworn oath of defense of Scientology and
Scientologists. I promise to either answer (to the best of my ability),
state that I do not know about a particular matter or state that I choose
not discuss it. Don't even bother with questions concerning the Advanced
Technology, as I am know little of such matters and am not free to discuss
what I do know, according to my own sworn oaths.
5. I am willing to carry on a discussion of Scientology matters with
anyone in this newsgroup who wishes to conduct a calm, polite, critical
debate. I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with what I have
to say [actually, I expect most of you to disagree with *most* of what I
have to say]; but, please stick to calm, rational arguments in response -
childish name-calling, vicious slurs, loud tirades, wild rantings, and the
like will simply be ignored and cause me to cease responding to the
offender.
6. With regard to principles of Scientology philosophy or technology, I do
not "believe" anything. I have had the opportunity to study and apply
portions of this subject to my life with uniform success, when applied
exactly as found in my materials. A far larger portion of this subject, I
have either not studied, or have not had the opportunity to personally
test; therefore, I am not qualified to comment upon such areas. I shall
endeavour to carefully distinguish these two categories in all my postings
to this newsgroup.
7. Jack and Sally tell me that there has been at least one other
"The_Skeptic" posting in ARS in the past. I did not know that when I set
up this Rocketmail account and, in fact, the name I wanted was "Diogenes"
(you know - the philosopher who went around Athens (?) carrying a lamp and
looking for an honest man), but that had already been taken. I am *not*
whichever other "The_Skeptic" you are previously familiar with and I am
*not* Jack Farmer, although he is a friend of mine for whom I do CGI
programming in perl.
So much for an introduction.
Regards,
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Keith Henson
the_s...@rocketmail.com wrote:
: Re: Who Am I?
: Dear All:
: Frank Copeland <f...@thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
: >The_S...@rocketmail.com <The_S...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
: >
: >>X-Originating-IP-Addr: 206.149.231.51 (jackfarmer.earthlink.net)
: >
: >My, what an interesting place to post from. Is this another one of Luis's
: >BTs, or are we getting advice from Jack himself?
: Neither (who is Luis?).
One of the (presumed) OSA posters.
I just happened to be visiting Jack's house and
: posted from his Crusader BBS machine's console. You will readily see that
: *this* posting is coming from a workstation in a library at UCLA (where I
: often conduct research) and you may also find my postings coming from
: public workstations in branches of the Los Angeles Public Library system
: or another friend's house via Earthlink Network dial-up service. At the
: present time, I do not have access to a computer system of my own, so
: there may be considerable delay (days to perhaps a week or so) before I
: can respond to any given post.
: As I failed to introduce myself before I started posting in here (which
: may be considered rude), I should tell you all a few things about me right
: up front:
: 1. I am a former member of the Sea Organization, dismissed from staff near
: the end of 1995 primarily for having been an LSD user for a time during
: late 1977 to early 1978 (there are well-known standing orders against
: admitting LSD users into the Sea Organization). I was in the Sea Org from
: mid 1978 through early 1981 and then again from mid 1991 until my
: dismissal.
So, you spent about seven years in the Sea Org before it came out that
you had used LSD? Man, those sec checks sure don't weed out the acid
freaks fer beans. If it is any consolation, there are seemingly reliable
stories of LRH taking acid. So, to the extent you consider LRH to be
good company, you are in it.
: 2. Although I remain loyal to the Scientology philosophy, religion and the
: Church; I do not represent the Church in any capacity whatsoever.
: Furthermore, it is likely that some Church officials may disapprove of my
: presence in this newsgroup, from what I have been told by various friends,
: although I have never seen any written orders forbidding Scientologists to
: post in this newsgroup. I am under no restraint or coercion concerning the
: contents of any of my postings, save my own personal judgement and my own
: sworn oaths.
We have had a few who more or less fit your situation. They have
uniformly been much more interesting people than the OSA lackys like
wgert and luis (though this may be one, two or even more people).
Jonathon who posted out of primenet was one who was a loyal former. I
haven't seen him here for some time. As time went on, he became more and
more interesting as a person--and less and less of a practitioner of
scientology.
: 3. For the reasons stated above and because I doubt the ability of some
: persons in this newsgroup to restrain themselves from such unfair tactics
: as mailbombing, I have choosen to establish an semi-anonymous e-mail
: account specifically for correspondance with members of this newsgroup.
No problem, a consistent persona is welcome. You can build up a
considerable level of reputation with one. I wouldn't worry much about
critics mailbombing you. All you would have to do is post what they sent
and there would be a great deal of social pressure against such activity.
However there are other reasons you should stay at least semi-anon which
may become more important as time goes on.
: 4. I will answer any *reasonable* questions regarding my knowledge and
: experience as a Sea Org staff member and as a Scientologist, providing I
: can do so without violating my sworn oath of defense of Scientology and
: Scientologists. I promise to either answer (to the best of my ability),
: state that I do not know about a particular matter or state that I choose
: not discuss it.
Certainly this sounds fair.
Don't even bother with questions concerning the Advanced
: Technology, as I am know little of such matters and am not free to discuss
: what I do know, according to my own sworn oaths.
I can't think of questions other than meta type questions to ask on this
topic anyway.
: 5. I am willing to carry on a discussion of Scientology matters with
: anyone in this newsgroup who wishes to conduct a calm, polite, critical
: debate. I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with what I have
: to say [actually, I expect most of you to disagree with *most* of what I
: have to say]; but, please stick to calm, rational arguments in response -
: childish name-calling, vicious slurs, loud tirades, wild rantings, and the
: like will simply be ignored and cause me to cease responding to the
: offender.
If you dig back into the archives through Dejanews, you might want to see
how Heidrun Beer faired in such discussions. She stuck to what most of us
regard as daft, but was respected for the way she took part in discussions
here on a.r.s. Heidrun eventually broke away from CoS over the practices
of management and started acting as a freezoner, though I do not know how
connected she was with other people in the freezone.
: 6. With regard to principles of Scientology philosophy or technology, I do
: not "believe" anything. I have had the opportunity to study and apply
: portions of this subject to my life with uniform success, when applied
: exactly as found in my materials. A far larger portion of this subject, I
: have either not studied, or have not had the opportunity to personally
: test; therefore, I am not qualified to comment upon such areas. I shall
: endeavour to carefully distinguish these two categories in all my postings
: to this newsgroup.
I wonder if you could comment on what function a control group plays in
testing the effect of some medical treatment? It has been remarked a
number of times that active scientologists often cannot grasp this
concept, though a number of those who have left do. You could respond
here or on the other thread.
: 7. Jack and Sally tell me that there has been at least one other
: "The_Skeptic" posting in ARS in the past. I did not know that when I set
: up this Rocketmail account and, in fact, the name I wanted was "Diogenes"
: (you know - the philosopher who went around Athens (?) carrying a lamp and
: looking for an honest man), but that had already been taken. I am *not*
: whichever other "The_Skeptic" you are previously familiar with and I am
: *not* Jack Farmer, although he is a friend of mine for whom I do CGI
: programming in perl.
: So much for an introduction.
: Regards,
Thank you very much for introducing yourself. When and if you want
background material on memes, ask and I will either send it to you in
email or point you to a web site.
Keith Henson
BigErn
I have many questions for you, but I won't bother asking them until you
make clear a few things.
1. If I mention secret scriptures (i.e. ot3 and up) do you know about them
and are you willing to talk about them, or haven't you gotten that far, or
maybe you haven't heard about them at all.
2. If I ask a question (do you believe a? yes or no or explanation,
please!) will you give an answer or will you skirt it with a comeback or
subject change?
I'm sorry if that sounds snide, but every time a ask a serious
scientologist questions about their fundamental beliefs the above usually
happen.
Actually I'll ask one question:
"Scientology claims that all of it's findings are hard scientific data with
verifable results arrived at by case studies. Where are the studies? LRH
mentions that they exist but if I go into an org or look throughout the
world I can't find them."
--
"Let's get serious. God knows what he's doing, he made us all to be just
like him.
So if *we're* dumb, then *God* is dumb.
And maybe even a little ugly on the side."
-FZ
the_s...@rocketmail.com wrote in article
<8762856...@dejanews.com>...
> Re: Who Am I?
>
> Dear All:
>
> Frank Copeland <f...@thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> >The_S...@rocketmail.com <The_S...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>X-Originating-IP-Addr: 206.149.231.51 (jackfarmer.earthlink.net)
> >
> >My, what an interesting place to post from. Is this another one of
Luis's
> >BTs, or are we getting advice from Jack himself?
>
> Neither (who is Luis?). I just happened to be visiting Jack's house and
> posted from his Crusader BBS machine's console. You will readily see that
> *this* posting is coming from a workstation in a library at UCLA (where I
> often conduct research) and you may also find my postings coming from
> public workstations in branches of the Los Angeles Public Library system
> or another friend's house via Earthlink Network dial-up service. At the
> present time, I do not have access to a computer system of my own, so
> there may be considerable delay (days to perhaps a week or so) before I
> can respond to any given post.
>
> As I failed to introduce myself before I started posting in here (which
> may be considered rude), I should tell you all a few things about me
right
> up front:
>
> 1. I am a former member of the Sea Organization, dismissed from staff
near
> the end of 1995 primarily for having been an LSD user for a time during
> late 1977 to early 1978 (there are well-known standing orders against
> admitting LSD users into the Sea Organization). I was in the Sea Org from
> mid 1978 through early 1981 and then again from mid 1991 until my
> dismissal.
>
> 2. Although I remain loyal to the Scientology philosophy, religion and
the
> Church; I do not represent the Church in any capacity whatsoever.
> Furthermore, it is likely that some Church officials may disapprove of my
> presence in this newsgroup, from what I have been told by various
friends,
> although I have never seen any written orders forbidding Scientologists
to
> post in this newsgroup. I am under no restraint or coercion concerning
the
> contents of any of my postings, save my own personal judgement and my own
> sworn oaths.
>
> 3. For the reasons stated above and because I doubt the ability of some
> persons in this newsgroup to restrain themselves from such unfair tactics
> as mailbombing, I have choosen to establish an semi-anonymous e-mail
> account specifically for correspondance with members of this newsgroup.
>
> 4. I will answer any *reasonable* questions regarding my knowledge and
> experience as a Sea Org staff member and as a Scientologist, providing I
> can do so without violating my sworn oath of defense of Scientology and
> Scientologists. I promise to either answer (to the best of my ability),
> state that I do not know about a particular matter or state that I choose
> not discuss it. Don't even bother with questions concerning the Advanced
> Technology, as I am know little of such matters and am not free to
discuss
> what I do know, according to my own sworn oaths.
>
> 5. I am willing to carry on a discussion of Scientology matters with
> anyone in this newsgroup who wishes to conduct a calm, polite, critical
> debate. I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with what I have
> to say [actually, I expect most of you to disagree with *most* of what I
> have to say]; but, please stick to calm, rational arguments in response -
> childish name-calling, vicious slurs, loud tirades, wild rantings, and
the
> like will simply be ignored and cause me to cease responding to the
> offender.
>
> 6. With regard to principles of Scientology philosophy or technology, I
do
> not "believe" anything. I have had the opportunity to study and apply
> portions of this subject to my life with uniform success, when applied
> exactly as found in my materials. A far larger portion of this subject, I
> have either not studied, or have not had the opportunity to personally
> test; therefore, I am not qualified to comment upon such areas. I shall
> endeavour to carefully distinguish these two categories in all my
postings
> to this newsgroup.
>
> 7. Jack and Sally tell me that there has been at least one other
> "The_Skeptic" posting in ARS in the past. I did not know that when I set
> up this Rocketmail account and, in fact, the name I wanted was "Diogenes"
> (you know - the philosopher who went around Athens (?) carrying a lamp
and
> looking for an honest man), but that had already been taken. I am *not*
> whichever other "The_Skeptic" you are previously familiar with and I am
> *not* Jack Farmer, although he is a friend of mine for whom I do CGI
> programming in perl.
>
> So much for an introduction.
>
> Regards,
>
> The_S...@rocketmail.com
>
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In a<8762856...@dejanews.com>, the_s...@rocketmail.com writes:
>Frank Copeland <f...@thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>>The_S...@rocketmail.com <The_S...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>>X-Originating-IP-Addr: 206.149.231.51 (jackfarmer.earthlink.net)
>>
>>My, what an interesting place to post from. Is this another one of Luis's
>>BTs, or are we getting advice from Jack himself?
>As I failed to introduce myself before I started posting in here (which
>may be considered rude), I should tell you all a few things about me right
>up front:
>
>1. I am a former member of the Sea Organization, dismissed from staff near
>the end of 1995 primarily for having been an LSD user for a time during
>late 1977 to early 1978 (there are well-known standing orders against
>admitting LSD users into the Sea Organization). I was in the Sea Org from
>mid 1978 through early 1981 and then again from mid 1991 until my
>dismissal.
>
about ancient prior history of LSD use the 2nd time---was this a pretext
for something else? You could also tell me on the case side [as you
say you haven't reached the AT materials] whether you are clear and
if not where on the grades. Also what, roughly, did you do in your time
on staff.
>4. I will answer any *reasonable* questions regarding my knowledge and
>experience as a Sea Org staff member and as a Scientologist, providing I
>can do so without violating my sworn oath of defense of Scientology and
>Scientologists. I promise to either answer (to the best of my ability),
>5. I am willing to carry on a discussion of Scientology matters with
>anyone in this newsgroup who wishes to conduct a calm, polite, critical
>debate.
Very christian of you, and just a faint hint that you regard yourself as
the most importnat thing happening on ARS. You aren't. The other
denizens will talk to YOU to the extent you have anything interesting
to say, and pretty much how they please.
The usual "form" is to ask you to confront a few things about CoS
doctrine and policy that they usually wriggle out of.
I will certainly ask you what you make of the OT3 materials which CoS
have confirmed are theirs, and which Jusge Brinkema -- in awarding
nominal damages to RTC against Lerma -- summarised into her judgement.
Not "please comment on every aspect of it", but how do you find it
generally and do you think it is fair the raw meat, e.g. you, have
this concealed from them. Also, what do you think about people being
told they can be both christians and scientologists when Hubbard says
that Christ never existed?
What do you think about Fair Game?? About Lisa macPherson, and the
drowning of Judge Swearinger's dog?? [see www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
clam/lynx/q0.html for links to these]. These are all things anyone
defending CoS ought to be able to confront, and CoS themselves
spectacularly fail to.
__
-- | |
/\ | | /\ what Scientology really worships.
\ \| |/ / \
\ \ / / __||_||__
______\ \/ /______ .' _ _ __|
| > < | : (_||_||___
'------/ /\ \------' '.__ _ _ '.
/ / \ \ L Ron Hubbard says: ___||_||_ ) ;
/ /| |\ \ |___ _ ___.'
\/ | | \/ ''THE MAN ON THE CROSS -- || ||
| | THERE WAS NO CHRIST -- BUT
| | THE MAN ON THE CROSS
| | IS SHOWN TO BE EVERYMAN.''
| | on
|__| the class VIII auditor course, tape#10
in
<a href="http://www.coltice.force9.co.uk/Nochrist.ra">real audio</a>
Hud Nordin
In article <Xy/O0MdlgU...@islandnet.com> mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) writes:
>In article <8762856...@dejanews.com>, the_s...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>
>>3. For the reasons stated above and because I doubt the ability of some
>>persons in this newsgroup to restrain themselves from such unfair tactics
>>as mailbombing, I have choosen to establish an semi-anonymous e-mail
>>account specifically for correspondance with members of this newsgroup.
>
>by the critics and skeptics on this newsgroup. Why would we start with
>some pipsqueak like you? If someone was gonna be mailbombed, it would
>be Helena "da Ho" Kobrin, for her attempts to destroy the ars forum or
>something.
Hell, I was mailbombed for being a scientologist -- and I ain't! The
"Unamailer" got me last Christmas by signing me up to thousands of
mailing lists. He hit Helena Kobrin, too, and I'm pretty sure some
other prominent defenders of the cult. Unamailer wasn't just picking on
scientologists, though, but a whole slew of perceived enemies of the
Net. He also acted in late summer 1996. I think he got Kobrin on that
first pass, too. Unamailer had a broad and varied (and in my instance
erroneous) list of enemies. I doubt he's even a regular ARS
skeptic/critic; he probably gathered his scientologist targets from
articles crossposted to groups dealing with EFF, civil liberties, and
the like. He could hardly be a regular if he aimed at me. I don't
think he has struck since Christmas 1996.
[Me, I already had a prophylactic Unix procmail script running and it
took me just a few minutes to get the recipes so all mail of a list
origin got dumped; a half hour later I had all list mail automatically
bouncing back to the origin so I would be unsubscribed. It was kinda
fun. Kobrin (or whoever uses her account), though, might have used
manual methods to notify the list operators, at least according to some
mail replies accidentally sent to all addressed, including moi, in the
original. That must take days... or weeks. Heh.]
>Your fears are unfounded.
Well, no minor players (besides me!) have ever been hit, AFAIK. I'm sure
cult shills like MikeSmith3, RonsAmigo or wgert would squeal like stuck
pigs if it happened to them. Your fear is unfounded, the_skeptic. (And,
a mail filter is a better way to be protected.)
===
CNet story on Christmas attack is at:
http://ne2.news.com/News/Item/0,4,6564,00.html
The Earlier attack is described at:
http://www.now.com/issues/16/05/News/tech.html
That starts out:
There's a new name for evil on the Internet - the Unamailer. The
hacker wannabe appears to have begun his vandalism campaign last fall
after learning how to cobble together a script that automatically
subscribes a victim to hundreds of mailing lists. Then he stepped up
his efforts, targeting the e-mail accounts of more than a dozen
journalists and media folks, as well as the likes of Bill Clinton,
Bill Gates and Church of Scientology counsel Helena Kobrin.
"Clearly, the guy's a nutcase," Kobrin told us. She said she received
thousands of unsolicited messages from scores of mailing lists. "This
guy should get a life instead of running around annoying people."
--
Hud Nordin <h...@netcom.com> Silicon Valley / The City of Sunnyvale / California
Jay Hill
>
> "Clearly, the guy's a nutcase," Kobrin told us. She said she received
> thousands of unsolicited messages from scores of mailing lists. "This
> guy should get a life instead of running around annoying people."
>
Anonymous
[ Son of Xenu ] (Somebody's got to look afer Pop)
[ Mountain Interior ]
[ Las Palmas ] 8 Oct 1997
[ Teegeeack ]
Glad to have you aboard! I'm a relative newcomer to ARS myself.
I was at Saint Hill in the 1970's and was well aquainted with the
activities of the infamous Guardian's Office and am here mainly
because of the injustices I have seen in Scientology then and now.
Whatever your personal beliefs about Scientology, anyone who can
converse reasonably and rationally is appreciated (speaking for myself
of course). Unfortunately, there are many here who seem to lack that
ability on both sides. And recently there has been some attempts to
distort the truth (my opinion) by Scientologists coming from accounts
at ROCKETMAIL.COM which accounts for your cool reception. But don't
let it throw you.
Also, don't worry about the Advanced Technology stuff, we already
know all about it. A good index for finding out what's on the web
is:
http://www.best.com/~mchong/arsweb.shtml
This has links to both pro- and anti- sites.
SON OF XENU
[Pesky Body Thetans got you down? Try Xenu's Magic Flea Powder!!]
[Recommended by 9 of 10 Scientologists! (Since 74,694,341 B.C.) ]
William Barwell
In article <1997100817...@basement.replay.com>,
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>
> Glad to have you aboard! I'm a relative newcomer to ARS myself.
>I was at Saint Hill in the 1970's and was well aquainted with the
>activities of the infamous Guardian's Office and am here mainly
>because of the injustices I have seen in Scientology then and now.
This is interesting. When did the GO start infiltrating private
orginizations and government agencies? Seems to me that this
first started out when the GO started trying to infiltrate
agents in mental health organizations, or is that wrong?
>
> Whatever your personal beliefs about Scientology, anyone who can
>converse reasonably and rationally is appreciated (speaking for myself
>of course). Unfortunately, there are many here who seem to lack that
>ability on both sides. And recently there has been some attempts to
>distort the truth (my opinion) by Scientologists coming from accounts
>at ROCKETMAIL.COM which accounts for your cool reception. But don't
>let it throw you.
>
I would like to know more about the inception of the GO.
Was it always a Sea org run organization?
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Tilman Hausherr
>
>6. With regard to principles of Scientology philosophy or technology, I do
>not "believe" anything.
Then you are doing something wrong. In court, scientology said that the
BELIEF is important and that scientology will not work without.
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site with "Xenu's Link Sleuth":
http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <61pg5d$p3j$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
>> Whatever your personal beliefs about Scientology, anyone who can
>>converse reasonably and rationally is appreciated (speaking for myself
>>of course). Unfortunately, there are many here who seem to lack that
>>ability on both sides. And recently there has been some attempts to
>>distort the truth (my opinion) by Scientologists coming from accounts
>>at ROCKETMAIL.COM which accounts for your cool reception. But don't
>>let it throw you.
>>
>
>I would like to know more about the inception of the GO.
>Was it always a Sea org run organization?
No, that is the point -- rather like the blackshirts and the
brownshirts. There *was* a balance of power between the Sea Org
and the (separate) Guardians Office> Then that same function was
taken over by a sea-org run Office of Special Affairs.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Anonymous
[ Son of Xenu ] (Somebody's got to look afer Pop)
[ Mountain Interior ]
[ Teegeeack ]
Whoops! I didn't mean to imply that the Guardian's Office
was Sea Org run (although I suppose you could make that stretch),
just that it came into being at the same time. You have to be
careful here because as far as I'm aware the Sea Org was never a
legal corporate entity (i.e. no buildings, no employees, no assets,
just an association of members)
What is true is that the 'Sea Org' consists of people who
have signed a billion year contract of loyalty to Scientology and are
employed by VARIOUS Scientology corporate entities, especially FLAG,
the Advanced Orgs, Saint Hills, Orgs, etc. In other words, they are
paid and housed by the organizations where they work (but they take
orders from senior Sea Org officials of which the most senior are
those associated with the real power behind Scientology such as RTC,
FLAG, etc.) Keep in mind the original head of the Sea Org was LRH,
Mary Sue was in charge of the Guardian's Office, while Diana Hubbard
was head of Dist. Div. (in charge of the Mission network). They were
all 'Sea Org', even though Ron claimed he had nothing to do with the
management of Scientology, and the positions of the others were not
corporate ones.
The CORPORATE structure of Scientology (i.e. CSI, CST, CSC)
has never had anything to do with the actual running of Scientology as
a functioning organization. The elite of Scientology (Sea Org members)
freely cross corporate lines when and as they desire (so did the
Guardian's Office, and so does OSA, RTC, etc.). (And our buddy DM as
a member of CMO was a SO member and probably still is [unless he became
a 'freeloader']). This is prima facia evidence that the breaking up of
Scientology's corporate structure into discrete entities is a total
sham designed to confound and obstruct any investigation of Scientology.
Anyway, to get to the point....
Saint Hill Manor in England in the mid-60's was the center of
Scientology. It was where Ron and his family lived and it was the
technical center of Scientology (equivalent to modern FLAG). Things
were growing and dealing with larger numbers of people and the
inevitable problems they brought with them required a solution. Thus
ETHICS was born. And when things started heating up Hubbard needed
someplace to go to stay one step ahead of the authorities, so he decided
to head for the open seas. Thus the SEA ORG was born.
The 'Sea Org' took care of the ships, oversaw all operations,
and was directly involved in the on-site running of orgs. What was left
behind at Saint Hill were SO staff to run Saint Hill org, SO staff to
serve as a communications liason with FLAG (the ships), and the
Guardian's Office (under Mary Sue Hubbard) to 'protect' Scientology and
Ron and investigate their enemies. The Sea Org also allowed Ron to hide
his involvment in Scientology management as only SO members on the ships
had direct contact with him.
Even before Saint Hill, Sea Org, and the Guardian's Office, Ron's
'enemies' were primarily the IRS, FDA, and psychiatry. You need to keep
in mind that Dianetics came before Scientology and Dianetics was the
thing that the public was most aware of. Dianetics was the "Modern
Science of Mental Health" which put it in direct competition with
psychiatry and psychology, and members of those fields had plenty to say
about the dangers of Dianetics.
There wasn't much Hubbard could do about the IRS and FDA except
to try and placate or confound them, but psychiatry was a different
matter. In the 50's and 60's the public image of psychiatry was very much
like that of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". So psychiatry-bashing was
a smart PR move and one which to this day is the most popular PR front of
Scientology (even though its outlasted its usefulness - witness the
insanity of the Prozac fiasco).
I can't give you specifics as to when or where the Guardian's
Office started infiltrating psychiatry, but I can verify that they were
definately the first and major target of the Guardian's Office PR and
other departments. Getting the dirt on psychiatrists, especially any
who dared to speak out against Dianetics or Scientology was a major
target of the Guardian's Office from its earliest days.
Nowdays, OSA just has all us SP's on the network to deal with.
Warrior
In article <8bc2e5c040429720...@anon.efga.org>, Anonymous
>
>[Pesky Body Thetans got you down? Try Xenu's Magic Flea Powder!!]
>[Recommended by 9 of 10 Scientologists! (Since 74,694,341 B.C.) ]
This is true for "public" Scienos.
For Sea Org members, the recommended "handling" by SO execs is
a diet of rice and beans.
Body Thetans ~really~ don't like flatulence...
Warrior
gerry armstrong
On Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:07:00 GMT, hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:
>the_s...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>: Re: Who Am I?
>
>: 2. I am under no restraint or coercion concerning the
>: contents of any of my postings, save my own personal judgement and my own
>: sworn oaths.
>
>
>: 4. I will answer any *reasonable* questions regarding my knowledge and
>: experience as a Sea Org staff member and as a Scientologist, providing I
>: can do so without violating my sworn oath of defense of Scientology and
>: Scientologists. I promise to either answer (to the best of my ability),
>: state that I do not know about a particular matter or state that I choose
>: not discuss it.
>
>Certainly this sounds fair.
>
>
Hello Skeptic:
You could be a breath of fresh air, which I for one feel your
organization deliberately denies us.
First of all, I would like to deal with your bias.
1. What is the precise language of your "sworn oath of defense of
Scientology and Scientologists?"
2. When was that oath or those oaths sworn to?
3. What were the relevant circumstances at the time you swore said
oath or oaths?
4. Are there any circumstances you can imagine which would render
right or just your breaking of said oath or oaths?
5. If, for example, you discovered that Scientology, as many of us
here observe, is abusing innocent people, would you continue to defend
it?
6. Wouldn't your adherence to such an oath make you also a contributor
to the abuse of innocent people?
7. Wouldn't your adherence to such an oath also render your defense of
your organization irrational? (Given of course that abuse of innocent
people is irrational.) And wouldn't your posts to this NG in defense
of an organization engaging in such abuse be untrustworthy?
8. It seems to me that an oath to defend innocent people against abuse
and abusers is a far more worthy and rational guideline for one's
arguments and life. Is it not possible that an abusing organization
requiring of its members an oath of unquestioned defense is abusing
those members?
>: 5. I am willing to carry on a discussion of Scientology matters with
>: anyone in this newsgroup who wishes to conduct a calm, polite, critical
>: debate. I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with what I have
>: to say [actually, I expect most of you to disagree with *most* of what I
>: have to say]; but, please stick to calm, rational arguments in response -
>: childish name-calling, vicious slurs, loud tirades, wild rantings, and the
>: like will simply be ignored and cause me to cease responding to the
>: offender.
Perhaps you will see that slurs, rants, etc have occurred when real
questions, polite requests for debate and rational arguments have been
ignored by Scientology's posters to this NG. I have asked a number of
questions and so far received nothing but slurs and irrational
attacks. Something different would be, as I said, fresh air.
>: 6. With regard to principles of Scientology philosophy or technology, I do
>: not "believe" anything. I have had the opportunity to study and apply
>: portions of this subject to my life with uniform success, when applied
>: exactly as found in my materials. A far larger portion of this subject, I
>: have either not studied, or have not had the opportunity to personally
>: test; therefore, I am not qualified to comment upon such areas. I shall
>: endeavour to carefully distinguish these two categories in all my postings
>: to this newsgroup.
>
I do not believe that you do not believe anything regarding these
principles. You are told by Hubbard that Scientology does not depend
on beliefs or faith. You believe that, I believe. You also, at this
time, believe that it is right and ethical that you honor your oath to
defend Scientology and Scientologists. I believe that Hubbard has lied
to, and indeed defrauded, the people who believe in him and his
"philosophy" and "technology" by telling them and leading them to
believe that his subject does not require belief (and therefore that
Scientologists as opposed to, e.g., Christians, are not believing in
their "religion.")
9. For my understanding and our further discussions, what are the
principles of Scientology philosophy or technology you are refering
to above?
10. Scientology claims that a Scientologist is someone who adheres to
the creed of Scientology. The creed contains a number of beliefs
stated as beliefs; e.g., that man has an inalienable right to speak
freely. If you do not have any beliefs about Scientology, do you not
subscribe to its creed? And if you do not hold your creed's beliefs
how can you be a Scientologist?
11. As you probably know, Scientology has sought to silence me about
my knowledge of and experience in the organization, your religion. It
has sought my silence with a "settlement contract," with threats, with
litigation and with court orders. Are not your organization leaders,
by seeking to silence me, in conscious and continual violation of
Scientology's creed? Are they therefore not sham Scientologists? And
since I do not seek to silence anyone about anything, am I not a true
Scientologist?
I really have no trouble with Scientology's creed. I have some trouble
with its use by organization leaders to obtain IRS tax exemption when
they violate it knowingly every day of the year.
>
>
>:
>
>: So much for an introduction.
>
>: Regards,
>
>: The_S...@rocketmail.com
>
>Thank you very much for introducing yourself. When and if you want
>background material on memes, ask and I will either send it to you in
>email or point you to a web site.
>
>Keith Henson
Yes, thanks for your introduction and your promise of willingness to
respond to calm answers such as mine above.
Gerry Armstrong
Phillip Zadarnowski
Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>Nowadays, OSA just has all us SP's on the network to deal with.
Yes, the ARSCC is very happy at the current state of affairs.
The Cof$ just keeps pushing and pushing and fucking up
majorly. Oh yes. SPdom is alive and well and internetworked
very nicely.