Scientologist says "I am Scientology"
Astrid
deeply stuck in the cult. And her sister says, "I am Scientology."
That's similar to Tom Cruise, identifying with it deeply. Who am I?
"I'm a Scientologist."
To me, that just means they are crazy like Hubbard. Lie like Hubbard.
And think like Hubbard.
So, if like Hubbard, you can travel freely through space and time,
instead of bringing back a psychotherapy mind warp, why not bring back
the plans for a wonderful technology or a cure for cancer? Why just
someone else's device, the e-meter, which is a primitive lie detector.
Why just using a dictionary, as in STUDY TECH, some 1900's method
Hubbard ripped off, that is shown to be not all that effective.
(Except in the use of cult indoctrination, for "misunderstoods."
Be aware that at one point, Hubbard drew up plans for a stick-shaped
device, that alternated between two electronic frequencies, and he
believed he would be able to cure the insane with it. He simply could
not find the right oscillatory frequency. Come on! That's funny. Can't
you see what a lying huckster he was? What other devices did Hubbard
come up with? None! He hooked an e-meter up to a f'n tomato for Xenu's
sake.
Doesn't stuff like this allow you to cross the "scientist" out of
Hubbard being a "mad scientist?" And do you think people just made up
this stuff about Hubbard, when Hubbard was doing and saying things to
discredit himself all the time?
Also, about the millions and millions of people who believe in
Scientology? Are you kidding? This is a very small group, and is going
to get smaller all the time as more people laugh at it. Just watch
the events that will unfold in 2010.
Roadrunner
If that is so, then why do YOU bother about it...
In fact your tell a tale like your adopted authority Miller does, I
guess you 'followed' him well...
RR
Richard Ford
>
> - Show quoted text -
The difference is that we can view both sides.
Astrid
>
> In fact your tell a tale like your adopted authority Miller does, I
> guess you 'followed' him well...
>
> RR
I'm sure that if you even read Miller's book, or you read it like
Monica read THE SCANDAL OF SCIENTOLOGY when she was forced to, by her
parents. That is, with a little voice in your mind that said nah nah
nah nah noney noney noney noney...I believe everything Hubbard said is
true,, and all critics want to destroy Scientology because they are
hateful.
No thinker, writer, doctor, academic means anything, because ONLY
Hubbard knows all the answers to the universe? Only Sciloontologists
know what's what?
It is amazing how something like OTIII text, if a lower level Scilon
read that, it really pops out at them and sometimes jolts them out of
the cult. I'd say if people in their first two years of Scientology,
read the OTIII story, the majority will leave the cult.
Scientology has a huge problem as more people are doing just that.
Roger Larsson
Hubbard is gone and when scientologists also are gone peace will rule
in a billion years. Amen
husk
.....
> If that is so, then why do YOU bother about it...
>
This is an excellent question. Why do I come here? Why is it that I,
who have never set foot into an org, want to read about the minutia of
Scientology debate daily on more that one website/usenet group?
At first it was all about the victims, but now its because of the
lies. Lies that are so obvious, that one's mouth drops open when one
hears them. Set aside the victims for a moment, the footbullets
performed by the cult followers are just so darned entertaining. I
mean, suing NUNS in ITALY. HA HA HA HA HA Ha HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
heee hee Ha he heeee hee hee he he Hah he hhee oooooh wooh oooh wooo.
One just cannot believe that an organizations leadership could be so
obviously corrupt and stupid.
You see, Critics and protestors are only along for the ride now. DM
will destroy this "church" from the inside.
Roadrunner
> On Jan 6, 8:48 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In fact your tell a tale like your adopted authority Miller does, I
> > guess you 'followed' him well...
>
> > RR
>
> I'm sure that if you even read Miller's book, or you read it like
> Monica read THE SCANDAL OF SCIENTOLOGY when she was forced to, by her
> parents. That is, with a little voice in your mind that said nah nah
> nah nah noney noney noney noney...I believe everything Hubbard said is
> true,, and all critics want to destroy Scientology because they are
> hateful.
I am not like you, like in you reading it like "yah yah yah yah yaney
yaney yaney yaney...I believe everything Miller wrote is true"
>
> No thinker, writer, doctor, academic means anything, because ONLY
> Hubbard knows all the answers to the universe? Only Sciloontologists
> know what's what?
>
> It is amazing how something like OTIII text, if a lower level Scilon
> read that, it really pops out at them and sometimes jolts them out of
> the cult. I'd say if people in their first two years of Scientology,
> read the OTIII story, the majority will leave the cult.
>
> Scientology has a huge problem as more people are doing just that.
"This is a very small group, and is going to get smaller all the time"
It doesn't explain why YOU bother about it, now does it...
RR
Roadrunner
But, the problem is you don't do that...
RR
Roadrunner
About the lies? And that is what motivates YOU, all clear there, ain't
we...
RR
Peter Schilte
> On 6 Jan, 17:07, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 6, 8:48 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In fact your tell a tale like your adopted authority Miller does, I
> > > guess you 'followed' him well...
>
> > > RR
>
> > I'm sure that if you even read Miller's book, or you read it like
> > Monica read THE SCANDAL OF SCIENTOLOGY when she was forced to, by her
> > parents. That is, with a little voice in your mind that said nah nah
> > nah nah noney noney noney noney...I believe everything Hubbard said is
> > true,, and all critics want to destroy Scientology because they are
> > hateful.
>
> I am not like you, like in you reading it like "yah yah yah yah yaney
> yaney yaney yaney...I believe everything Miller wrote is true"
>
No, you prefer to believe a nutcase like Kent Hovind. Hovind has
NOTHING that supports his insane claims.
Miller has. And you of all people parrots him. Go figure how credible
that makes you.
Peter
"If a child or these children are found in Hold 1, or any
hidden compartment of the ship they are to be locked up."
- L. Ron Hubbard, Flag Order 1630, Governess,
3 December 1968
http://www.scamofscientology.nl
Roadrunner
> On 6 jan, 23:57, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6 Jan, 17:07, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 8:48 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In fact your tell a tale like your adopted authority Miller does, I
> > > > guess you 'followed' him well...
>
> > > > RR
>
> > > I'm sure that if you even read Miller's book, or you read it like
> > > Monica read THE SCANDAL OF SCIENTOLOGY when she was forced to, by her
> > > parents. That is, with a little voice in your mind that said nah nah
> > > nah nah noney noney noney noney...I believe everything Hubbard said is
> > > true,, and all critics want to destroy Scientology because they are
> > > hateful.
>
> > I am not like you, like in you reading it like "yah yah yah yah yaney
> > yaney yaney yaney...I believe everything Miller wrote is true"
>
> No, you prefer to believe a nutcase like Kent Hovind. Hovind has
> NOTHING that supports his insane claims.
You admitted earlier you knew nothing about him... You judge by total
prejudice, you don't check out ANYTHING...
> Miller has.
Not quite... but in your preconceived mind (you like what he claims),
it all appears true...
RR
Peter Schilte
> On 7 Jan, 05:52, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6 jan, 23:57, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 6 Jan, 17:07, Astrid <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 6, 8:48 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > In fact your tell a tale like your adopted authority Miller does, I
> > > > > guess you 'followed' him well...
>
> > > > > RR
>
> > > > I'm sure that if you even read Miller's book, or you read it like
> > > > Monica read THE SCANDAL OF SCIENTOLOGY when she was forced to, by her
> > > > parents. That is, with a little voice in your mind that said nah nah
> > > > nah nah noney noney noney noney...I believe everything Hubbard said is
> > > > true,, and all critics want to destroy Scientology because they are
> > > > hateful.
>
> > > I am not like you, like in you reading it like "yah yah yah yah yaney
> > > yaney yaney yaney...I believe everything Miller wrote is true"
>
> > No, you prefer to believe a nutcase like Kent Hovind. Hovind has
> > NOTHING that supports his insane claims.
>
> You admitted earlier you knew nothing about him... You judge by total
> prejudice, you don't check out ANYTHING...
>
What is it that you don't understand of the word "before"?
> > Miller has.
>
> Not quite... but in your preconceived mind (you like what he claims),
> it all appears true...
>
Only idiots like you make these claims. Of course without supporting
them.
Miller wrote a biography. Kovind claims he has scientific proof
supporting his claims, yet never showed anything that even comes near.
And you parrot this nutcase, proving you are a nutcase too. And one
with double standards.
l.l.lipshitz
<roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in
<956816c8-bbe4-4d68...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
[...]
| "This is a very small group, and is going to get smaller all the time"
|
| It doesn't explain why YOU bother about it, now does it...
this is an argument that scnists have used before.
why bother with scn/co$ when there are bigger and
more dangerous groups?
so here's my question to you, roadrunner, it's a
simple straightforward question that requires only
a simple numerical answer: how big does a group
have to be before we should bother with it?
--
-elle
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
usenet disproves the infinite-monkey theorem
Roadrunner
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 14:57:06 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> <956816c8-bbe4-4d68-b789-e031830b9...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
>
> [...]
>
> | "This is a very small group, and is going to get smaller all the time"
> |
> | It doesn't explain why YOU bother about it, now does it...
>
> this is an argument that scnists have used before.
> why bother with scn/co$ when there are bigger and
> more dangerous groups?
>
> so here's my question to you, roadrunner, it's a
> simple straightforward question that requires only
> a simple numerical answer: how big does a group
> have to be before we should bother with it?
It is avoiding addressing my argument... Astrid said it, so I take it
from there...
RR
Roadrunner
An utter lie, you really are a fruitcake. Opinions is all you can
spout. Have you wathed his seminars, no of course you didn't. Man,
they are literally FILLED with any kind of documentation you would
ever need. If the evolutionists had solid evidence they would not be
cut into pieces when debating Kent Hovind. Indeed the debates are
quite interesting.
This link is NOT for you, you are out of reach. But for any that
wishes to know more.
A lot of downloadable materials you can get here:
http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/
RR
realpch
>
> On 7 Jan, 18:33, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 14:57:06 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> > <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > <956816c8-bbe4-4d68-b789-e031830b9...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > �| �"This is a very small group, and is going to get smaller all the time"
> > �|
> > �| �It doesn't explain why YOU bother about it, now does it...
> >
> > � � � � this is an argument that scnists have used before.
> > � � � � why bother with scn/co$ when there are bigger and
> > � � � � more dangerous groups?
> >
> > � � � � so here's my question to you, roadrunner, it's a
> > � � � � simple straightforward question that requires only
> > � � � � a simple numerical answer: how big does a group
> > � � � � have to be before we should bother with it?
>
> It is avoiding addressing my argument... Astrid said it, so I take it
> from there...
>
> RR
Yes, undoubtedly, many people find it pleasant to shortcut your arguments!
Go ahead, take a flyer, answer elle's question.
:-D
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Peter Schilte
You of all people should know that being filled with any kind of
documentation means nothing, as it doesn't equals scientific proof.
> If the evolutionists had solid evidence they would not be
> cut into pieces when debating Kent Hovind.
IAW, if he is a good debater he MUST be right? What kind of logic is
this? You must be familiar with the Dutch equivalent of the saying
"one idiot can ask more than ten wise men ever can answer".
> Indeed the debates are
> quite interesting.
>
Interesting, of course, but does he show scientific evidence? Nope.
> http://drdino.com/
>
> This link is NOT for you, you are out of reach. But for any that
> wishes to know more.
>
Yes, I am out of reach. Out of reach of a nut-case that apparently
convinced you.
Why didn't you apply the same standards you apply to others?
> A lot of downloadable materials you can get here:http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/
>
And this is proof of Kovind's nutty theories? Even with half a brain
one can see right through it.
Apparently you do not.