IF there were ~any~OT's....
Magoo
they could handle these horrific natural disasters,
now couldn't they?
Oh, I know the drill: "We've kept it away from Clearwater!"
How insane is that! If one could honestly keep any of this away
from anywhere, why would they not help all the other areas that
have been harmed so very much?
The truth is: There are no OT's, and this is just more proof of it.
Scientology, quit lying to people: Admit it: The "OT" Levels
are a scam.
(To those lurking, think I'm kidding? Try taking L. Ron Hubbard's Final PL
exit:
"The WAY OUT
IS
The Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeearest
Dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooor!!"
Hey! HE Took it, why not you?
--
Tory/Magoo~Dancing in the moonlight~
In Scientology for 30 years, out happily for 5 years!
For thinking and speaking my mind, I am:
Declared SP and Expelled from C of S (Woo hoo!)
(SP 6 ^ with Cumulative Cluster)
Free at LAST!
For more information about this, please see:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.xenutv.com
http://www.torymagoo.org
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/toryonosa.htm
http://www.altreligionscientology.org
mag...@charter.net
"Those that give up essential liberty
to purchase a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Burbank, CA
(818) 841-3632
pwalt...@yahoo.com
>IF there were any OT's in Scientology,
>they could handle these horrific natural disasters,
>now couldn't they?
If there were any OT's in Scientology, they would handle Stu Miller!!!!!
Pwalt
Stu Miller
>IF there were any OT's in Scientology,
>they could handle these horrific natural disasters,
>now couldn't they?
If there were any OT's in Scientology, they'd handle Pwalt.
Stu
Read L Ron Hubbard's Admissions.
http://www.lermanet2.com/reference/Admissions.pdf
http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/nl/english/admissions-hubbard.html
Don't stop to think about it. Just do it!
Phil Scott
"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:0N%5f.11133$RG4....@fe05.lga...
> IF there were any OT's in Scientology,
> they could handle these horrific natural disasters,
> now couldn't they?
>
> Oh, I know the drill: "We've kept it away from Clearwater!"
> How insane is that! If one could honestly keep any of this
> away
> from anywhere, why would they not help all the other areas
> that
> have been harmed so very much?
Are you saying you don't think the scientologists have
blocked Wilma so it stays in the Carribean?
If Wilma escapes it would indicate that way more than a few
OT's have gone entirerly out ethics... I'd have to call em
at the Flub land base and ask what the hell is up.
If the hurricane hits the tip of the Yucatan a and exits still
headed northwest especially as a cat 3 or 4 the computer
projections put it on a path to Clearwater.
You would have to say in that case that the cult boys are
loosing their ability to steer these hurricanes onto other
people as they had been bragging about in the past.
Phil Scott
Magoo
"Phil Scott" <phil...@philscott.net> wrote in message
news:dja5t1$994$1...@news.tdl.com...
>
> "Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:0N%5f.11133$RG4....@fe05.lga...
>> IF there were any OT's in Scientology,
>> they could handle these horrific natural disasters,
>> now couldn't they?
>>
>> Oh, I know the drill: "We've kept it away from Clearwater!"
>> How insane is that! If one could honestly keep any of this away
>> from anywhere, why would they not help all the other areas that
>> have been harmed so very much?
>
> Are you saying you don't think the scientologists have blocked Wilma so it
> stays in the Carribean?
any problem such as that, by diverting it. When in truth, IF they could, and
they had ANY good powers at all, they'd divert it all together, wouldn't
they?
So that tells ya who they are, either way.
T
pwalt...@yahoo.com
>IF there were any OT's in Scientology,
>they could handle these horrific natural disasters,
>now couldn't they?
If there were any OT's in Scientology, they would handle Stu Miller!!!!!
Pwalt
Stu Miller
>IF there were any OT's in Scientology,
>they could handle these horrific natural disasters,
>now couldn't they?
If there were any OT's in Scientology, they'd handle Pwalt.
Phil Scott
>
> "Phil Scott" <phil...@philscott.net> wrote in message
> news:dja5t1$994$1...@news.tdl.com...
>>
>> "Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:0N%5f.11133$RG4....@fe05.lga...
>>> IF there were any OT's in Scientology,
>>> they could handle these horrific natural disasters,
>>> now couldn't they?
>>>
>>> Oh, I know the drill: "We've kept it away from
>>> Clearwater!"
>>> How insane is that! If one could honestly keep any of this
>>> away
>>> from anywhere, why would they not help all the other areas
>>> that
>>> have been harmed so very much?
>>
>> Are you saying you don't think the scientologists have
>> blocked Wilma so it stays in the Carribean?
> Nooooooo...I'm saying they used to "Claim" That they'd
> "Handled"
> any problem such as that, by diverting it. When in truth, IF
> they could, and they had ANY good powers at all, they'd
> divert it all together, wouldn't they?
> So that tells ya who they are, either way.
either the criminal cult is at cause and steering the
hurricanes as they so routinely claim away from Clearwater, or
they are not at cause.
If they are at cause then they they need to get on the horn
right away and applogize to the mayor of Cozumel for all the
dead people, chaos, and loss.
We will see what scn has to say to the folks on the florida
coast in 4 days.. they can brag about how OT they are for
steering the Huricane into those areas...
Then they could sell em a truck load of way to happiness
booklets. that would be hot.
If Wilma comes out of the Yucatan headed north, especially
northwest to any degree and its perimeter structure is not
showing any deflection, it will strike the Florida coast a lot
farther north than the keys.
Phil Scott
Lisa Ruby
>IF there were any OT's in Scientology,
>they could handle these horrific natural >disasters, now couldn't they?
Altruism is not on the minds of those who have gained enough demonic
cooperation to get things accomplished in the spirit realm (without the
use of their physical bodies.)
Only high-level Satanists can really be at cause over MEST.
People with consciences still intact will not achieve the status of OT
no matter how many Scientology courses they take.
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Ball of Fluff
"Lisa Ruby" <Commis...@groupmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129959837.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What a bunch of crap. From both of you.
In the first place, there're degrees of "OTness". Anyone who'd really
studied Scn would know that.
In the second place, it's not demonic.
C
barb
Guess what. Anybody anywhere will not achieve the status of OT, because
there is no such thing. Nor does anyone but Superman and other comic
book characters have power over MEST. Or Jeebus.
If you even think it's a little "possible," you're a deluded moron. It's
all Ron's fantasy! He was a science fiction writer! Get a grip, Ruby.
--
--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
Phil Scott
"barb" <bwa...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:435a4651$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Lisa Ruby wrote:
>
>> Magoo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>IF there were any OT's in Scientology,
>>>they could handle these horrific natural >disasters, now
>>>couldn't they?
>>
>>
>> Altruism is not on the minds of those who have gained
>> enough demonic
>> cooperation to get things accomplished in the spirit realm
>> (without the
>> use of their physical bodies.)
>>
>> Only high-level Satanists can really be at cause over MEST.
>>
>> People with consciences still intact will not achieve the
>> status of OT
>> no matter how many Scientology courses they take.
>>
>> Lisa Ruby
>> http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
>>
> Guess what. Anybody anywhere will not achieve the status of
> OT, because there is no such thing. Nor does anyone but
> Superman and other comic book characters have power over
> MEST. Or Jeebus.
>
> If you even think it's a little "possible," you're a deluded
> moron. It's all Ron's fantasy! He was a science fiction
> writer! Get a grip, Ruby.
Dr M Scott Peck, MD... a shrink, who wrote as you probably
know "The Road Less Traveled"..also wrote "People of the
Lie"...that is way more than revealing on the issues we are
discussing.
Phil Scott
Lisa Ruby
>In the first place, there're degrees of "OTness".
>Anyone who'd really
>studied Scn would know that.
Good point.
There degrees just like there are in Masonry,
Mormonism, and other esoteric religions. A third
degree Mason knows little compared to a 33 degree
or above and a beginning or middle-level Scientologist
does not have a true understanding
of what is going on at the top levels.
Being at cause over MEST (matter, energy, space
and time) is possible to accomplish in a limited
way but only with the cooperation of demons
(whether one chooses to acknowledge them as such
or not). The higher the level that a Mason, Scientologist, Mormon,
etc.has attained, the higher
the level of spiritual prowess.
Demons can enable people (who learn how to gain
their often fickle cooperation) to manipulate
things: matter, energy (other demons must heed their
commands), space (they learn how to astral project
and thus "move through space," and time in limited
ways. Putting delayed curses on people is one way of having "cause"
over time.
note: Human beings, even those who are deceived into
cooperating with the demonic realm, are not God and
never will be God. Only God's power is unlimited. So
in this sense, yes, there is no such thing as an OT
because only God has unlimited power.
Warning: those who pursue OT powers (those who
fellowship with devils) and die without repenting
toward God and coming into a state of fellowship
with Him, will end up in the place that was prepared
for the demons they fellowship with-- a place of
everlasting fire:
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:41
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Lisa Ruby
>Dr M Scott Peck, MD... a shrink, who wrote as you probably
>know "The Road Less Traveled"..also wrote "People of the
>Lie"...that is way more than revealing on the issues we are
>discussing.
Speaking of lies, the Bible refers to Satan as the father of lies.
Those who lie have the devil as their father:
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh
of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44
Since lying is Satan's trademark he works through his human servants to
spread
his lies everywhere.
He does not want people to realize that his supernatural power is real
and that
grave consequences come to those who succumb to the temptation to
acquire and
wield it.
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Zinj
Commis...@groupmail.com says...
> Speaking of lies, the Bible refers to Satan as the father of lies.
> Those who lie have the devil as their father:
Speaking of silly bullshit, the Bible recommends rending asunder by wild
bears children who make fun of bald old farts (if they happen to be
prophets.)
Zinj
--
Villains! I say to you now! Knock off all that Evil!
- The Tick
realpch
Yes, that one always caught my eye when I was a kid. I mean, it was a
little HARSH, wasn't it? Nowadays we'd just take away their game cubes
for a week.
Peach
Phil Scott
You'd like the book...
Phil Scott
>
>
> Lisa Ruby
> http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
>
Phil Scott
> Ball of Fluff wrote:
>
>>In the first place, there're degrees of "OTness".
>>Anyone who'd really
>>studied Scn would know that.
>
> Good point.
>
> There degrees just like there are in Masonry,
> Mormonism, and other esoteric religions. A third
> degree Mason knows little compared to a 33 degree
> or above and a beginning or middle-level Scientologist
> does not have a true understanding
> of what is going on at the top levels.
>
> Being at cause over MEST (matter, energy, space
> and time) is possible to accomplish in a limited
> way but only with the cooperation of demons
> (whether one chooses to acknowledge them as such
> or not). The higher the level that a Mason, Scientologist,
> Mormon,
> etc.has attained, the higher
> the level of spiritual prowess.
I cant speak for the Masons or Morons, but I can speak
for the scn situation... the 'spiritual prowess' the scns and
hubbard have is entirely self destructive... the reverse of
spiritual advance or ability... it ends in utter disaster.
The good asspects of 'spiritual prowess' in scn are perverted
to limitations... that is not to say there is not some black
magic involved.... I see black magic though as a very low
level, at the bottom of the barrel 'advance', that goes
entirely south for its adepts.... 'beyond the black magicians'
is an oposite...advance that can be recognised in others by
the way they speak. Jesus of Nazareth spoke from those
perspectives in his generic statements and admonitions.
>
> Demons can enable people (who learn how to gain
> their often fickle cooperation) to manipulate
> things: matter, energy (other demons must heed their
> commands), space (they learn how to astral project
> and thus "move through space," and time in limited
> ways. Putting delayed curses on people is one way of having
> "cause"
> over time.
Those are at very crude levels, that ignore what you would
term the founding intent of the creator...and are in conflict
with it...and accordingly do not endure.
>
> note: Human beings, even those who are deceived into
> cooperating with the demonic realm, are not God and
> never will be God. Only God's power is unlimited. So
> in this sense, yes, there is no such thing as an OT
> because only God has unlimited power.
The individuated individual, the glorifed individual as
scn targets for ...will always have such a limited view that
his best effort will be a net destruction across the larger
perspectives... that chops off his or her 'OT' powers at the
knees.
>
> Warning: those who pursue OT powers (those who
> fellowship with devils) and die without repenting
> toward God and coming into a state of fellowship
> with Him, will end up in the place that was prepared
> for the demons they fellowship with-- a place of
> everlasting fire:
What you probably dont realize, but i do, from direct
experience...is that such error produces a hell for the person
on earth as he lives today..in the present..most ex scn's once
they recover will tell you of some terminally nasty sufferings
from being on that path. Recovery can take a decade or two
or longer.
> Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,
> Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,
> prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:41
The bible provides an extensive discussion of those issues in
a wide range of analogy and direct remarks... one as you
know is that a person is saved by grace alone.
With no grace, forget it regardless ones 'religion'...with
grace... its all good. accordingly, my view is not to worry
about it... ymmv.... i meet a lot of people that will do very
well I think but whom have no obvious religious affiliations
or concerns.\
and as you probably have experienced, there is totally no
shortage of bogus bible thumpers running loose..people you and
i and *all of the ARSCC try our best to avoid like the
plague...some real hard core slime bags.
Accordingly its loaded subject. I prefer to notice the aspect
of grace in a person.. it brings with it a supreme
intelligence.. some would call it a 'saving grace'... a
pleasure to behold...and a real contribution to mankind.
Phil Scott
barb
"Primitive superstition? You're soaking in it!"
barb
> In article <1130051030.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Commis...@groupmail.com says...
>
>
>>Speaking of lies, the Bible refers to Satan as the father of lies.
>>Those who lie have the devil as their father:
>
>
> Speaking of silly bullshit, the Bible recommends rending asunder by wild
> bears children who make fun of bald old farts (if they happen to be
> prophets.)
>
> Zinj
The Bible also says I can't eat lobster.
Wanna bet?
Ball of Fluff
"realpch" <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:435B3D25...@aol.com...
I always was personally charmed by their treatment of the Midianite women
and children.
C
wbarwell
God was so good to Pharoah, the first born of
Egypt and all those Canaanites.
However I do not see Satan doing as much evil
in the OT. In fact, I don't see Satan at all
here.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
Lisa Ruby
"Primitive superstition? You're soaking in it!"
Damage control for Scientology?
You are expert at it.
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Lisa Ruby
>the 'spiritual prowess' the scns and
>hubbard have is entirely self destructive... the reverse of
>spiritual advance or ability... it ends in utter disaster.
Yes, that is so.
>What you probably dont realize, but i do, from direct
>experience...is that such error produces a hell for the person
>on earth as he lives today..in the present..most ex scn's once
>they recover will tell you of some terminally nasty sufferings
>from being on that path. Recovery can take a decade or two
>or longer.
Yes I know, but recovery does not have to take that long. Not if
ex-Scientologists are willing to come to God who desires to "open
their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power
of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and
inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
[Jesus Christ] Acts 26:18
>one as you know is that a person is saved by grace alone.
Yes, that is true. It is also true that the grace that brings salvation
teaches those that posess it to deny "ungodliness and worldly lusts, we
should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world"
-Titus 2:12
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Lisa Ruby
>In fact, I don't see Satan at all here.
Scientology requires that care be taken that nobody sees Satan
in anything they do, even the most obviously marked things, such
as the OT programming.
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Lisa Ruby
here:
>You'd think that, if Scientologists really believed in the OT crap, they
>would be very careful about harrassing ex-members of the OT level. After
>all, they have Powerzz. Power over MEST, power to fry cockroaches with a
>thought, and certainly they'd have the power to toast some stupid cultie
l>urking in the bushes outside their house. And they'd always KNOW,
>wouldn't they, when someone was out there? So you couldn't sneak up on
>them. And, once these people had acquired these powerzz, revoking their
>paper wouldn't have any effect on them. Seems to me that, if the
>Scientology Organization really believed in the crap they're selling,
>they'd stay as far away as possible from OT ex-members. It looks like
>even the organization itself doesn't take this shit very seriously.
--
>Barb
>Chaplain, ARSCC
my response:
When the (high-level, in-the-know) members of the CoS find it necessary
to spiritually spar with an individual who has higher demons than any
of them have individually, they deal with the situation by joining
forces (pooling their demonic powerbase) and then they unleash the
demons against their foe.
The Organization takes this very seriously and is also serious about
keeping
the true nature of their spiritual dealings hidden from the public.
Lisa Ruby
teachings.
They most definitely do not want anyone to INTERPRET THEIR TEACHINGS
VERBALLY TO ANOTHER PERSON and there is a strict policy against it:
I am doing this very thing on ARS and meeting great opposition to
it---not by people who claim to be Scientologists, but by those who
claim not to be Scientologists.
"Despite its extensive advertising campaign, including half-hour TV
infomercials for Dianetics, the Church has been careful to maintain a
veil of mystery about its teachings, in part by outlawing any
meaningful discussion or analysis of them."
See the policy bulletin prohibiting verbal tech below:
It is interesting that Item 24 in the Keeping Scientology Working
series, is HCO Bulletin 15 February 1979, Reissued 12 April 1983. It is
titled Verbal Tech: Penalties.
# The first paragraph simply says that anyone found to be using
``verbal tech'' will be brought before a court of ethics.
# The second paragraph gives the actual definition of verbal tech. It
lists the following activities:
1. ``giving out data'' that doesn't agree with official policy as
stated in HCOBs (Hubbard Communications Office Bulletins) and HCOPLs
(Hubbard Communications Offfice Policy Letters)
2. obstructing the use or application of HCOBs and HCOPLs
3. ``corrupting their intent''
4. ``altering their content in any way'' (fixing typos? correcting
fracured grammar?)
5. ``interpreting them verbally for another [person]'',
6. or pretending to quote from a bulletin or policy letter without
showing the actual text.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/index.html
Lisa Ruby
A Better Title For Hubbard's Book: The Creation of Satanic Ability
http://libertytothecaptives.net/better_title_hubbards_book.html
Phil Scott
> barb wrote:
>
> "Primitive superstition? You're soaking in it!"
>
> Damage control for Scientology?
>
> You are expert at it.
Barbz is not a scientology apologist.. thats been clear.
She just thinks that most of the religionists in the world are
bogus apparently.
and that would be the case of course between various
religions.. many protestants for instance are sure Catholics
are idol worshippers from hell.
You yourself I am sure have seen no shortage of fraud in those
areas.
When you yourself, regardless your intellect or benificent
intent, thump the bible...barbz and many on the NG will take
the opportunity to fill you in on what they think.
and that should be fine regardless... truth, that is
actuality stands in end, all else collapses. Not much to
worry about in that regard.
If Barbz keeps it up just think of how many victims she will
keep away from the various stripes of bogus religions... Jesus
would approve on that score I believe. He had no love loss
for the pharasees himself.
Its up to each individual to parse reality... those that can
be swayed by rhetoric will not make it regardless... these
fall in the countless traps also detailed in the good book.
Phil Scott
yer view is more or less accurate... however Barbz was
ridiculing these people. None of that imo should be
construed to be a denial of what happens..for instance with
the Wiccans.
Polarizing this to 'barbz is a cult op'... is not ones best
thinking.
Lisa Ruby
>Barbz is not a scientology apologist.. thats been clear
I'm glad to hear that but when her posts reflect what the
CoS wants people to think, I will point it out--until the new
censored news group starts of course.
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Lisa Ruby
why she referred to Stacy Moxon's tragic killing in such a callous
way, but she did not respond.
And of course just recently she made a joke about the mother who threw
her three children to be eaten by sharks in the San Francisco Bay. I
commented out this but of course was made out to be the bad one for it.
The chaplain of ARS behaves Scientological in many ways.
20. Lisa Ruby Jul 14, 1:38 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissio...@groupmail.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: 13 Jul 2005 22:38:11 -0700
Local: Thurs, Jul 14 2005 1:38 am
Subject: Re: Scientology Print Shop Incident
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Remove | Report Abuse
Barb wrote:
>When shydavid and I were at Gold the day of the Moxon BBQ,
Why did you refer to Stacy Moxon's death as a BBQ?
Lisa Ruby
Phil Scott
The problem most non christians have with that is they see
so many slime bags in the religious business. the deeper one
digs the messier it gets...that they are not about to 'kneel
at the alter' before some blowhard of that stripe. of which
Jesus said would be multiplying like flies in this time frame.
So its difficult. Grace on the other hand is undenyable.
and you dont need someone with big hair, jumping up and down
on a stage (with great lighting) to make that happen...in fact
said stage jumpers mostly seem to be lacking grace entirely.
Many of the critics are quite sensitive...they can spot that
bogus crap 400 miles away ...in the dark.
Skepticism is not a bad thing... Grace comes a gift with it
ever being deserved or asked for. It comes alone. It doesnt
tell you 'go bomb the shit out of Iraq' ... faith taken on
faith alone has that problem. Its used to justify ones own
insanity as we have seen in the right wing lately.
There is grace though..its quiet... it doesnt thump
much..maybe it doesnt thump at all..in fact I dont think it
even wants to thump... grace sees more clearly. Its no
crime to be a non believer... its probably a credit to be a
non believer after having seen some of the bogus jerks one
sees running loose on Tee Vee with the big hair and drastic
need for mo money.
So its a challenge. I personally think its fine. I think
Jesus thought so too... he told more than a few idiots to get
lost... he knew. Some turds will never float.
So he said what he did about Grace..its a gift. To those
trying to sell it he ran out of the temple. Its not for
sale...you cant even beg for grace.
with enough courage though...and many critics have a lot of
courage, grace comes silently in the night...
>
>>one as you know is that a person is saved by grace alone.
>
> Yes, that is true. It is also true that the grace that
> brings salvation
> teaches those that posess it to deny "ungodliness and
> worldly lusts, we
> should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present
> world"
> -Titus 2:12
That works... a thousand other things don't work...and
those get mixed in all around the edges and act as a marinade.
One cannot force any of that...most is corrupt including
ones own self to whatever degree, we are as 'filthy rags'....
with that view in mind I wish myself and the rest of humanity
well as they self destruct none the less.
Be grateful for ones own grace alone... and then in that
case it will grow limitlessly...and the grace will encompass
all of you and your views and those around you even as these
(gasp) are in error (double gasp).
Phil Scott
> Phil Scott wrote:
>
>>Barbz is not a scientology apologist.. thats been clear
>
> I'm glad to hear that but when her posts reflect what the
> CoS wants people to think, I will point it out--until the
> new
> censored news group starts of course.
You have just been appointed to the ARSCC..wdne.. now you
can choose your title and responsibilities and assume whatever
post you want...or you could could just go awol.
You could become senior chaplain if you want...and hit Barbz
upside the head with a dead trout.
Currently we have no senior chaplain and are lost... all we
have is Barbz and she's a wiccan sympathizer, who rides a
bike, drinks and makes weapons and will hose a person at the
drop of a hat... she at least prays for us and has saved many
from Benny Hin.
.... that has to count for something...no?
Phil Scott
> For example, look at the comment of barb's below. I wanted
> to find out
> why she referred to Stacy Moxon's tragic killing in such a
> callous
> way, but she did not respond.
Barb probably has as much heart bleed for Stacy Moxon as
anyone else, its that the facts remain, she was toasted by the
criminal cult...that fact needs to be on the front burner in
the most effective way possible. Barbz is a truly effective
person in these regards.
Reverence for what the cult did to Stacy is misplaced..
being maudalin about it is misplaced... putting it on the
front burner as dark humor (as barbs remarked I think)...is
not entirely out of line, particularly in the community of
people she influences.
We are in a hard core battle here, the razor sharp short
swords are out and scorching the air.... whats appropriate in
this arena is the mix we see...your sentience...and the scream
of the battle... that is not always entirely polite.
>
> And of course just recently she made a joke about the mother
> who threw
> her three children to be eaten by sharks in the San
> Francisco Bay. I
> commented out this but of course was made out to be the bad
> one for it.
> The chaplain of ARS behaves Scientological in many ways.
Barbz would probably be the very first person to inform you
that she is about as imperfect as it gets... on which point
she most likely doesnt give a rats ass...
>
> 20. Lisa Ruby Jul 14, 1:38 am show options
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
> From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissio...@groupmail.com> - Find
> messages by this
> author
> Date: 13 Jul 2005 22:38:11 -0700
> Local: Thurs, Jul 14 2005 1:38 am
> Subject: Re: Scientology Print Shop Incident
> Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message |
> Show original
> | Remove | Report Abuse
>
> Barb wrote:
>>When shydavid and I were at Gold the day of the Moxon BBQ,
>
> Why did you refer to Stacy Moxon's death as a BBQ?
Mocking and dark humor on the way the cult operates and
its total disregard for human life, and scn's own attitude on
such things. Nothing more, nothing less. No disrespect for
Stacy intended beyond the aspect that those who were never in
scn let alone on staff can fathom any group of idiots solidly
entrenched enough to do what they do... there is disrespect
for that.
Mocking and dark humor are not entirely inappropriate...its
the same for the Darwin Award winners... Trust me, if Kendric
Moxon turns up pannayed in grease at the Fort Homicide...
while we might feel some sympathy for how painful that might
have been, it will also be the topic of riotous humor... the
boy has been been a complete and ruthless idiot... then got
himself pannayed (cajun term for fried while turning
frequently in a pan of heavy oil).
The pannay jokes would never end. At the same time our
hearts would go out Mr Moxon as a person. you see?
the same remark from tooth sucker would be taken as a smoke
screen. You havent been around long enough to have parsed
who is who entirely...but you are doing very well indeed over
all, your broader insights extend well beyond what many are
able to see.... that can be a mixed blessing.
"the proof" a currently playing film addresses that range
of issues.
Phil Scott
>
> Lisa Ruby
>
Magoo
"Ball of Fluff" <getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote in message
news:4359...@news2.lightlink.com...
Really? Give me some examples.
The "OTness" that I experienced and heard, I finally realized,
after getting to the top of the phony bridge to total ___not!__freedom,
were merely skills/abilities I and others had way before Scientology.
So fill me in one some of these "OTnesses"...please.
And spare me with the, "I don't want to get invalidated".
You said they're there..............what are you thinking of?
Tory/Magoo~
John
"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:4377ecc2$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> "Ball of Fluff" <getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote in message
> news:4359...@news2.lightlink.com...
>>
>> "Lisa Ruby" <Commis...@groupmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1129959837.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Magoo wrote:
>>>
>>>>IF there were any OT's in Scientology,
>>>>they could handle these horrific natural >disasters, now couldn't they?
>>>
>>> Altruism is not on the minds of those who have gained enough demonic
>>> cooperation to get things accomplished in the spirit realm (without the
>>> use of their physical bodies.)
>>>
>>> Only high-level Satanists can really be at cause over MEST.
>>>
>>> People with consciences still intact will not achieve the status of OT
>>> no matter how many Scientology courses they take.
>>>
>>
>> What a bunch of crap. From both of you.
>>
>> In the first place, there're degrees of "OTness". Anyone who'd really
>> studied Scn would know that.
>
> Really? Give me some examples.
For some reason Claire is unable to produce any OTs who can do anything more
than your bog-standard human. No, wait, that's not true. They can, but they
can't do things "reliably". And they refuse to be tested, even though if
they succeeded they would revolutionise the way the world thinks about the
freezone.
>
> The "OTness" that I experienced and heard, I finally realized,
> after getting to the top of the phony bridge to total ___not!__freedom,
> were merely skills/abilities I and others had way before Scientology.
>
> So fill me in one some of these "OTnesses"...please.
> And spare me with the, "I don't want to get invalidated".
Equates exactly to "I don't want to have my cherished beliefs investigated
logically".
barb
> "Ball of Fluff" <getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote in message
> news:4359...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
>>"Lisa Ruby" <Commis...@groupmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1129959837.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Magoo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>IF there were any OT's in Scientology,
>>>>they could handle these horrific natural >disasters, now couldn't they?
>>>
>>>Altruism is not on the minds of those who have gained enough demonic
>>>cooperation to get things accomplished in the spirit realm (without the
>>>use of their physical bodies.)
>>>
>>>Only high-level Satanists can really be at cause over MEST.
>>>
>>>People with consciences still intact will not achieve the status of OT
>>>no matter how many Scientology courses they take.
>>>
>>
>>What a bunch of crap. From both of you.
>>
>>In the first place, there're degrees of "OTness". Anyone who'd really
>>studied Scn would know that.
Oh, for dog's sake! There is no "degree of OTness." There is no such
thing as OT. Geez, Claire, you disappoint me. Truly. You go in with what
you have. They take your money. You leave with less than you came in
with. As Tory says, below. Honestly, I can't believe you really believe
in that crap!
I have controlled traffic lights, junk flying on the freeway, and saved
a kid on a Razor scooter with MY OT powerzz.
In other words, experienced stuff that I would attribute to OT powers
had I paid an arm and a leg for them. Having not done so, it would never
occur to me to give that attribution to my regaining lost alien skills.
Claire! Really, sometimes the arguments you choose to jump into makes me
wonder if you're truly debating, or just like to argue.
>
>
> Really? Give me some examples.
>
> The "OTness" that I experienced and heard, I finally realized,
> after getting to the top of the phony bridge to total ___not!__freedom,
> were merely skills/abilities I and others had way before Scientology.
>
> So fill me in one some of these "OTnesses"...please.
> And spare me with the, "I don't want to get invalidated".
>
> You said they're there..............what are you thinking of?
>
> Tory/Magoo~
>
>>In the second place, it's not demonic.
>>
>>C
>>
>
>
>
Ball of Fluff
barb wrote:
> Magoo wrote:
>
> > "Ball of Fluff" <getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote in message
> > news:4359...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >
> >>"Lisa Ruby" <Commis...@groupmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1129959837.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>>Magoo wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>IF there were any OT's in Scientology,
> >>>>they could handle these horrific natural >disasters, now couldn't they?
> >>>
> >>>Altruism is not on the minds of those who have gained enough demonic
> >>>cooperation to get things accomplished in the spirit realm (without the
> >>>use of their physical bodies.)
> >>>
> >>>Only high-level Satanists can really be at cause over MEST.
> >>>
> >>>People with consciences still intact will not achieve the status of OT
> >>>no matter how many Scientology courses they take.
> >>>
> >>
> >>What a bunch of crap. From both of you.
> >>
> >>In the first place, there're degrees of "OTness". Anyone who'd really
> >>studied Scn would know that.
>
> Oh, for dog's sake! There is no "degree of OTness."
Yes, there is.
>There is no such
> thing as OT. Geez, Claire, you disappoint me. Truly. You go in with what
> you have. They take your money. You leave with less than you came in
> with. As Tory says, below. Honestly, I can't believe you really believe
> in that crap!
You know I'm a Scientologist, right?
So there ya go.
>
> I have controlled traffic lights, junk flying on the freeway, and saved
> a kid on a Razor scooter with MY OT powerzz.
> In other words, experienced stuff that I would attribute to OT powers
> had I paid an arm and a leg for them. Having not done so, it would never
> occur to me to give that attribution to my regaining lost alien skills.
Oh, I was raised on that stuff. Saintly phenomena, psychic thingies,
whatnot.
That's all "OT" is.
> Claire! Really, sometimes the arguments you choose to jump into makes me
> wonder if you're truly debating, or just like to argue.
It's a discussion forum. I discuss things if they're interesting to me
and if I have something I want to say.
> > Really? Give me some examples.
> >
> > The "OTness" that I experienced and heard, I finally realized,
> > after getting to the top of the phony bridge to total ___not!__freedom,
> > were merely skills/abilities I and others had way before Scientology.
> >
> > So fill me in one some of these "OTnesses"...please.
> > And spare me with the, "I don't want to get invalidated".
A quality that a person has or may have is attained/possessed in a
matter of degree.
Whether that be good at volleyball or whether it be something a bit
more esoteric.
C
Ball of Fluff
Magoo wrote:
> "Ball of Fluff" <getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote in message
> news:4359...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >
> > "Lisa Ruby" <Commis...@groupmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1129959837.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> Magoo wrote:
> >>
> >>>IF there were any OT's in Scientology,
> >>>they could handle these horrific natural >disasters, now couldn't they?
> >>
> >> Altruism is not on the minds of those who have gained enough demonic
> >> cooperation to get things accomplished in the spirit realm (without the
> >> use of their physical bodies.)
> >>
> >> Only high-level Satanists can really be at cause over MEST.
> >>
> >> People with consciences still intact will not achieve the status of OT
> >> no matter how many Scientology courses they take.
> >>
> >
> > What a bunch of crap. From both of you.
> >
> > In the first place, there're degrees of "OTness". Anyone who'd really
> > studied Scn would know that.
>
> Really? Give me some examples.
Spiritual, mental, and other personal qualities a person might have are
attained and possessed in and/or to a matter of degree.
If you read any hagiographies or accounts of saddhus, psychics, or even
great athletes, mathematicians, whatever- people who possessed a
quality of some sort to a marked degree- there's always a matter of
degree.
Some can do more with the thing than others.
Hubbard talked about that a lot and even referenced that in his
gradations of OT. OT1. OT 2. OT 3. OT 4. OT 5. OT 6. etc
>
> The "OTness" that I experienced and heard, I finally realized,
> after getting to the top of the phony bridge to total ___not!__freedom,
> were merely skills/abilities I and others had way before Scientology.
>
> So fill me in one some of these "OTnesses"...please.
> And spare me with the, "I don't want to get invalidated".
I have never ever said "I don't want to get invalidated".
but I'll tell you what I really do not want, Tory, while we're at it.
I'm sick of your misquoting me and putting words in my mouth.
This isn't the first time you've done it.
C
ida...@aol.com
She will put the bible thumpers in their place in short time. The
fakers on
this net do not want to tangle with her , she is a great sp.
I remember the day she and Shy came back from the Gold , the day that
Hoden and Dufresne invited them for breakfast. This was to keep them
from
sauntering on down the highway where they would have seen the fire
departmement extracting poor Stacy Moxons body from the vault. Does
anyone
here think she could have lifted the 250 pound cover of that vault by
herself?
the locksmith that worked with her now and said he could not have
lifted it and
he is 6 ft two and weighs at least 200. So who helped her?
one will always wonder
Thanks for your good responses Phil, You are a pleasure to read.
Ida Camburn
"You must have crossed the ri ver to tell the crocodile he has bad
breath!"
Chinese proverb
barb
And Ida, let us not forget the classic moment outside of Gold Base when
Dufresne and some guy named Robert were standing there with shydavid and
I when a news crew pulled up and started filming us with our
'Scientology Kills' signs. I turned to Muriel and said, "Quick! Hold
this!" and held the sign out to her. She reached out and almost took it
before she caught herself and drew back. And didn't we all have a good
laugh about it! Well, David and I had a good laugh.
See? Tone 40 works, if applied correctly! Who's OT, Muriel?
You almost followed my command! That made my day! One more second, the
dumb bitch would have been holding a picket sign. Good thing Ron
intervened, lol!
Phil Scott
"barb" <bwa...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:437937b9$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
ha... I did the same thing with Jeffrey Quiros in 2000 or so,
but he caught Kristi getting ready to catch it on film and
stopped.
Myself, personally, I think Jeffrey is running around a pole
in the desert most of the time...maybe they let him out
occasionally to appear in court... he hasn't been seen around
the org though since he pleaded with me not to picket Nov 29
03. I used to call once in a while, the receptionists hadnt
heard of him.
Now Barbz...did you *really go after Benny Hinn? :)
Phil Scott
Jommy Cross
wrote in msg <1131999288....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>Magoo wrote:
<snip>
>> The "OTness" that I experienced and heard, I finally realized,
>> after getting to the top of the phony bridge to total ___not!__freedom,
>> were merely skills/abilities I and others had way before Scientology.
>>
>> So fill me in one some of these "OTnesses"...please.
>> And spare me with the, "I don't want to get invalidated".
>
>I have never ever said "I don't want to get invalidated".
>
>but I'll tell you what I really do not want, Tory, while we're at it.
>
>I'm sick of your misquoting me and putting words in my mouth.
>
>This isn't the first time you've done it.
>
Outstanding deflection!
Is that one of your OT powers? It doesn't seem at all unreliable.
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Ball of Fluff
Jommy Cross wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2005 12:14:48 -0800, "Ball of Fluff" <amaflu...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in msg <1131999288....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >
> >Magoo wrote:
> <snip>
> >> The "OTness" that I experienced and heard, I finally realized,
> >> after getting to the top of the phony bridge to total ___not!__freedom,
> >> were merely skills/abilities I and others had way before Scientology.
> >>
> >> So fill me in one some of these "OTnesses"...please.
> >> And spare me with the, "I don't want to get invalidated".
> >
> >I have never ever said "I don't want to get invalidated".
> >
> >but I'll tell you what I really do not want, Tory, while we're at it.
> >
> >I'm sick of your misquoting me and putting words in my mouth.
> >
> >This isn't the first time you've done it.
> >
>
> Outstanding deflection!
I answered the question fully.
You're the one who edited it out in your reply.
Here's what I said:
(and I also directly answered Barb)
"Spiritual, mental, and other personal qualities a person might have
are
attained and possessed in and/or to a matter of degree.
If you read any hagiographies or accounts of saddhus, psychics, or even
great athletes, mathematicians, whatever- people who possessed a
quality of some sort to a marked degree- there's always a matter of
degree.
Some can do more with the thing than others.
Hubbard talked about that a lot and even referenced that in his
gradations of OT. OT1. OT 2. OT 3. OT 4. OT 5. OT 6. etc"
My comment to Tory about her misquoting of me was not a deflection
since in a previous paragraph I'd answered her. It therefore comes
under the heading of an additional comment.
Your editing out the answer was the real deflection, to make a point
that you could not make otherwise.
So if those are your "powers" of debate - I'm not impressed.
I'm sure if Tory or Barb have further questions on what I ~answered~,
they can ask them, if they are so inclined.
C
barb
> Barb posted: Good thing Ron
> intervened, lol!
>
> You better watch it Barb.
>
> Mike and Virginia are at this time being CSed telepathcally by LRH and
> CBR along their OT levels above New OT 8.
>
> Mike and Virginia have chosen at the request of LRH and CBR to go off
> line, no Internet interference.
>
> It's a straight LRH-CBR CSed session to be done by Mike and Virginia.
> No one else.
>
> One day we will all be free because of the hard work done by LRH and
> CBR hanging out in space..
>
Hrm...
In my world, a CBR is a big-ass rice rocket motorsickle. Honda, I think.
barb
Not to my knowlege, no. He needs going after, though, the fraud.
Benny Hill was better...
Michael Reuss
> If you read any hagiographies or accounts of saddhus, psychics, or even
> great athletes, mathematicians, whatever- people who possessed a
> quality of some sort to a marked degree- there's always a matter of
> degree.
> Some can do more with the thing than others.
> Hubbard talked about that a lot and even referenced that in his
> gradations of OT. OT1. OT 2. OT 3. OT 4. OT 5. OT 6. etc"
But Hubbard was a con man, and a liar.
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
Ball of Fluff
"Michael Reuss" <michae...@spam.this.com> wrote in message
news:26cln159tdiklg76s...@4ax.com...
Stuff either happened or it didn't.
And it did.
So there ya go.
C
Michael Reuss
>> "Michael Reuss" <michae...@spam.this.com> wrote:
>> But Hubbard was a con man, and a liar.
> Stuff either happened or it didn't.
Didn't. It was a lie, by a greedy fucker of a man who had a lot to gain
by lying, and no compunctions against lying.
And because it was a con, Scientologist OTs are not able to make "stuff"
happen, to this day (except in their highly processed imaginations).
On the other hand, I think "Stuff happens" would make an excellent
bumper sticker!
> And it did.
Ah, scientific proof, Claire-style.
You "know" that "stuff" happens only because the man who told you, who
was a liar and con man, said so!
In reality, the only "stuff" that ever happens to OwE tEE Scientologists
is that they participate in a surreptitious hypnosis program designed to
convince them that they are the cause of "stuff" happening, even when no
"stuff" is happening.
> So there ya go.
"I know what I know"
"So there ya go."
Claire, you do the jumpiest thought-stoppers on a.r.s.
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
Ball of Fluff
Michael Reuss wrote:
> > "Ball of Fluff" <getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote:
> >> "Michael Reuss" <michae...@spam.this.com> wrote:
>
> >> But Hubbard was a con man, and a liar.
>
> > Stuff either happened or it didn't.
>
> Didn't. It was a lie, by a greedy fucker of a man who had a lot to gain
> by lying, and no compunctions against lying.
Has happened. to many.
And there's nothing anyone can do to negate that.
C
Jommy Cross
wrote in msg <1132067250.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>Jommy Cross wrote:
>> On 14 Nov 2005 12:14:48 -0800, "Ball of Fluff" <amaflu...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in msg <1131999288....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >
>> >Magoo wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >> The "OTness" that I experienced and heard, I finally realized,
>> >> after getting to the top of the phony bridge to total ___not!__freedom,
>> >> were merely skills/abilities I and others had way before Scientology.
>> >>
>> >> So fill me in one some of these "OTnesses"...please.
>> >> And spare me with the, "I don't want to get invalidated".
>> >
>> >I have never ever said "I don't want to get invalidated".
>> >
>> >but I'll tell you what I really do not want, Tory, while we're at it.
>> >
>> >I'm sick of your misquoting me and putting words in my mouth.
>> >
>> >This isn't the first time you've done it.
>> >
>>
>> Outstanding deflection!
>
>I answered the question fully.
>
>You're the one who edited it out in your reply.
I edited some handwaving.
>
>Here's what I said:
>
>(and I also directly answered Barb)
'k, let's look at this.
<----begin quote---->
On 14 Nov 2005 12:10:21 -0800, "Ball of Fluff" <amaflu...@yahoo.com>
wrote in msg <1131999021.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>Oh, I was raised on that stuff. Saintly phenomena, psychic thingies,
>whatnot.
>
>That's all "OT" is.
<snip>
>A quality that a person has or may have is attained/possessed in a
>matter of degree.
<----end quote---->
>
>"Spiritual, mental, and other personal qualities a person might have
>are
>attained and possessed in and/or to a matter of degree.
>
>If you read any hagiographies or accounts of saddhus, psychics, or even
>great athletes, mathematicians, whatever- people who possessed a
>quality of some sort to a marked degree- there's always a matter of
>degree.
>
>Some can do more with the thing than others.
>
>Hubbard talked about that a lot and even referenced that in his
>gradations of OT. OT1. OT 2. OT 3. OT 4. OT 5. OT 6. etc"
>
>My comment to Tory about her misquoting of me was not a deflection
>since in a previous paragraph I'd answered her. It therefore comes
>under the heading of an additional comment.
>
>Your editing out the answer was the real deflection, to make a point
>that you could not make otherwise.
You evidently think you "answered the question fully".
I think listing saintly phenomena, psychic thingies, whatnot, saddhus,
atheletes, mathematiciians, whatever, spiritual, mental, and other personal
qualities a person might have which are attained and possessed in and/or to
a matter of degree,.that doesn't consitute an answer to what you were
asked. That's just handwaving.
I snipped it because it was just handwaving.
Later in this thread you start up with your "Stuff either happened or it
didn't." sound. Like that means anything.
>
>So if those are your "powers" of debate - I'm not impressed.
<snip>
Naturally, you're not required to answer any questions at all. But when you
do so with handwaving and deflection, please expect people to comment on
it.
Michael Reuss
>>> "Ball of Fluff" <getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote:
>>> Stuff either happened or it didn't.
>> Didn't. It was a lie, by a greedy fucker of a man who had a lot to gain
>> by lying, and no compunctions against lying.
> Has happened. to many.
If so, then a simple process of documentation would seem to be in order.
Please give me your best example of an OwE tEe doing unambiguous,
supernatural "stuff."
> And there's nothing anyone can do to negate that.
Ah, well we would seem to be having another of those awful semantical
problems.
Would you agree that one can't negate something that never happened?
Let's establish what exactly it is, that you think happened, first.
Then, if it looks like an OwE tEE miracle has indeed happened, I'll
concede that I'm negating. If you can't establish with any rigor that
something HAS happened (beyond psychological manipulation resulting in
hyperactive imaginings), I get to reject your characterization of
"negating."
Does that sound fair?
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
Ball of Fluff
Ball of Fluff wrote:
So- below I answered your question about what I meant about OT being a
matter of degree.
At any rate, this was my understanding pretty much from Day 1 in the
organization and it was and always has been my understanding in other
things I studied. That if a person has any abilities of any sort,
spiritual, mental, or anything else, he possesses them to a matter of
degree.
If you've questions about this ~answer~ and feel like asking them, feel
free. If not, I will assume that this probably explained what I meant
well enough.
And here's why I said the preceding:
I have never written on this or any other forum "I don't want to get
invalidated".
What I ~have~ said is that I don't post certain personal beliefs and
experiences, preferring to post more from a third person standpoint re
Scn because of the asshole factor.That I used to actually do so, but,
the asshole factor kicks in where someone asks me what I personally
believe, I tell 'em and they bitch like crazy.
Answering a question about what did I mean when I said that OT is a
matter of degree is not the same thing as not wanting to discuss
PERSONAL beliefs. If it was going to turn out to be that way for me,
the usual thing most people would do is _wait__til__I__actually__said__
it_ _before__commenting__on__it__!
It's the same with, about a year ago, you, on a.r.s. were saying
something about how you'd use my real name if YOU wanted to and YOU
didn't want to use my nick and I better not complain about it.
Actually, I'd never posted anything of the kind on a.r.s. I had done so
on F'net pursuant to a misunderstanding ~of~ ~mine~. But this isn't
that forum. And, fortunately, I haven't made that same
misunderstanding!
And, again, the usual thing most people would do is
_wait__til__I__actually__said__ it_ _before__commenting__on__it__! The
thing was, you said it like two or three times here. Not just once.
Lately, in the past year or two, that's been something you've done
whenever you ask me something. You go "Ok, I want to ask you about XYZ
and what about ABC? And you better not say DEF."
Try waiting to see what I actually reply before you start talking about
what's in the reply.
If the reply contains something to which you wish to take exception,
then comment on it then when it's like, you know...
... actually ~there~.
Just a thought...
C
Lermanet.com
<amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Your reply was posted to mislead the public
This was posted to inform the public:
What Judges Say About Scientology
"[The court record is] replete with evidence [that Scientology] is
nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount
of money from its adepts by pseudo scientific theories... and to
exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to
continue with their sect.... The organization clearly is schizophrenic
and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of
its founder, L.Ron Hubbard."
--Judge Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court
"Scientology's purpose is making money by means legitimate and
illegitimate" (US District Court, Southern District of New York, 92
Civ. 3024 (PKL)
"An individual processed with the aid of the E-meter was said to reach
the intended goal of "clear" and was led to believe there was reliable
scientific proof that once cleared many, indeed most illnesses would
automatically be cured. Auditing was guaranteed to be successful. All
this was and is false -- in short, a fraud. " Federal District Judge
Gesell 333 F. Supp. 357; 1971 U.S. Dist
"However, I am persuaded ... Scientology is not, subject to one
reservation, a religious institution because it is, in relation to its
religious pretensions, no more than a sham ," "Its bogus claims to
believe in prayer and other aspects of a creed based on a divine
being, were " no more than a mockery of religion. Scientology as
practiced is in reality the antithesis of a religion" Supreme Court
Justice Crockett - Australia 1980
"That these defendants were willing to frame their critics to the
point of giving false testimony under oath against them and having
them arrested and indicted speaks legions for their disdain for the
rule of law. Indeed, they arrogantly placed themselves above the law,
meting out their personal brand of punishment to those 'guilty' of
opposing their selfish aims. -- Judge Richey in the sentencing of Mary
Sue Hubbard and ten other Scientologists in October 1978 -- US
District Court, Washington DC.
"Ultimately Wollersheim became so convinced auditing was causing him
psychiatric problems he was willing to risk becoming a target of
"freeloader debt" and "fair game." Evidence was introduced that, at
least during the time relevant to Wollersheim's case, "fair game" was
a practice of retribution Scientology threatened to inflict on
"suppressives," which included people who left the organization or
anyone who could pose a threat to the [212 Cal.App.3d 880]
organization. Once someone was identified as a "suppressive," all
Scientologists were authorized to do anything to "neutralize" that
individual -- economically, politically, and psychologically.
After Wollersheim left the organization Scientology leaders initiated
a "fair game" campaign which among other things was calculated to
destroy Wollersheim's photography enterprise. They instructed some
Scientology members to leave Wollersheim's employ, told others not to
place any new orders with him and to renege on bills they owed on
previous purchases from the business. This strategy shortly drove
Wollersheim's photography business into bankruptcy. His mental
condition deteriorated further and he ended up under psychiatric
care."
"The crime committed by these defendants is of a breath and scope
previously unheard of. No building, office, desk, or file was safe
from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free
from their despicable conspiratorial minds. The tools of their trade
were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged
credentials and any other device they found necessary to carry out
their conspiratorial schemes." -Federal prosecutor's memorandum to the
judge urging stiff jail sentences for 9 top leaders of Scientology who
had pleaded guilty to criminal charges
"Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious...
It is corrupt sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is
based on lies and deceit and has its real objective money and power
for Mr. Hubbard... It is sinister because it indulges in infamous
practices both to its adherents who do not toe the line unquestionably
and to those who criticize it or oppose it. It is dangerous because it
is out to capture people and to indoctrinate and brainwash them so
they become the unquestioning captives and tools of the cult,
withdrawn from ordinary thought, living, and relationships with
others."
-- Justice Latey, ruling in the High Court of London
"In addition to violating and abusing its own members' civil rights,
the organization over the years with its 'fair game' doctrine has
harassed and abused those persons not in the church whom it perceives
as enemies. " -Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Paul Breckenridge,
June 1984, in the Gerry Armstrong case
"In January 1980, fearing a raid by law enforcement agencies,
Hubbard's representatives ordered the shredding of all documents
showing that Hubbard controlled Scientology organizations, finances,
personnel, or the property at Gilman Hot Springs. In a two week
period, approximately one million pages were shredded pursuant to this
order."
--California appellate court, 2nd. district, 3rd. division, July 29,
1991, B025920 & B038975, Super. Ct. No. C 420153
"It is common knowledge among senior executives of the organization
and it is the policy of CSC that members of the Boards of Directors
are mere figureheads, without authority or control, not for internal
corporate reasons, but rather to vest control in Mr. Hubbard. I have
personal knowledge that in order to carry out this corporate fraud,
organizational executives have engaged in the various unethical
practices including backdating phony Board minutes and forging
signatures. "
--Affidavit of Gerry Armstrong, former member
" Scientologists believe that most human problems can be traced to
lingering spirits of an extraterrestrial people massacred by their
ruler, Xenu, over 75 million years ago. These spirits attach
themselves by "clusters" to individuals in the contemporary world,
causing spiritual harm and negatively influencing the lives of their
hosts ". USDJ Judge Leonie Brinkema 4 Oct 96 Memorandum Opinion, RTC
vs Lerma
".. .capable of such danger that the public interest demands that
people should know what is going on " LORD DENNING
"Scientologists secured employment with government agencies perceived
to be enemies of the Church, and signed oaths of secrecy as public
officials. In breach of their oaths of office, they then took copies
of confidential documents from the agencies that employed them and
provided them to the Church of Scientology of Toronto."
"The criminal acts of Church of Scientology of Toronto were insidious
attacks on two essential law enforcement agencies in this province.
The integrity and effective functioning of those agencies (the
Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ontario Provincial Police)
are of great importance to good government in this province. The
offences _threatened_ such integrity and effectiveness, and I regard
each of them as very serious."
In rejecting the cult's appeal, the Ontario Court of Appears agreed
with this statement.above in a 1997 opinion upholding an appeal of the
trial court of Scientology's conviction for "Breach of the Public
Trust" in Canada
"It is an organization with medical, social and ethical practices that
are dangerous and harmful," Judge Constandia Angelaki wrote in her
[December 1996] ruling. "It claims to act freely so as to draw members
who subsequently undergo ... brainwashing by dictated ways of thinking
that limit reaction capabilities. "
" Each [of the former Scientologists] has broken with the movement for
a variety of reasons, but at the same: time, each is still bound by
the knowledge that the church has in in possession his or her most
inner thoughts and confessions, all recorded [in PC folders] or other
security files of the organization, and that the church or its minions
is fully capable of intimidation and other physical and psychological
abuse if it suits their ends,"..."The record is repleat with evidence
of such abuse ... The practice of culling supposedly confidential PC
folders or files to obtain information for purposes of intimidation
and/or harassment is repugnant and outrageous" California Superior
Court judge Paul Breckenridge
Arnaldo Lerma
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speake
If the Borg were to breed with the Ferengi you'd get Scientology!
29 November 1995 - Memorandum Opinion Judge Leonie Brinkema
"the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation of RTC in suing Lerma, DGS and The Post is to stifle criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics. "
The internet is the Liberty Tree
http://www.lermanet.com/faqs.html
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hubbard-the-hypnotist.htm
http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/altreligionscientology-killfile-settings.htm
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/crowley-hubbard-666.htm
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/flint-suicides-in-scientology-040383.htm
both with IMAGES!!
"Scientologists believe that most human problems
can be traced to lingering spirits of an extraterrestrial
people massacred by their ruler, Xenu, over 75 million
years ago. These spirits attach themselves by "clusters"
to individuals in the contemporary world, causing
spiritual harm and negatively influencing the lives
of their hosts"
[Judge Leonie Brinkema 4 Oct 96 Memorandum Opinion]
What do we get from getting people out of scientology?
We create an individual who has become a Houdini of
all mind traps.. folks who won't be fooled again.
People who can DE-program, People who can spring mental
traps..
We create, by freeing someone of scientology, a being
who has the ability to break the strongest slave chains
of all.
Those forged of lies. (c) Arnaldo Lerma
Ball of Fluff
"Lermanet.com" <ale...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vkgqn1h0173cpdf22...@4ax.com...
> On 17 Nov 2005 17:24:37 -0800, "Ball of Fluff"
> <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>
>
> Your reply was posted to mislead the public
Nope.
(snip unbelievably huge long cut n paste sig file/spam)
If you've a problem with Tory asking me something, take it up with her.
C
Larry T.
news:1132277077.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ball of Fluff wrote:
Claire:
Cut the dramatics OK?
--
Larry
http://mysite.verizon.net/toomajan/
(SNIPPED usual 1.1 rhetoric)
Michael Reuss
>> Has happened. to many.
> Please give me your best example of an OwE tEe doing unambiguous,
> supernatural "stuff."
>> And there's nothing anyone can do to negate that.
> Ah, well we would seem to be having another of those awful semantical
> problems.
> Would you agree that one can't negate something that never happened?
> Let's establish what exactly it is, that you think happened, first.
> Then, if it looks like an OwE tEE miracle has indeed happened, I'll
> concede that I'm negating. If you can't establish with any rigor that
> something HAS happened (beyond psychological manipulation resulting in
> hyperactive imaginings), I get to reject your characterization of
> "negating."
> Does that sound fair?
Claire, you've made various statements about how supernatural stuff
happens, for years.
Further more, you seem to be using the idea that it happens "in varying
degrees" to explain away what we observe, which is that it doesn't
happen at all, and particularly not in the causal manner described by L.
Ron Hubbard due to studying Scientology "technology" or from believing
in Scientology dogma.
So, are you going to answer my question, or are you going to continue to
evade?
What's your best example of supernatural oWE TEe "stuff" happening?
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
Ball of Fluff
Michael Reuss wrote:
> > Michael Reuss <michae...@spam.this.com> wrote:
> >> "Ball of Fluff" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> [Supernatural] Stuff either happened or it didn't.
>
> >> Has happened. to many.
>
> > Please give me your best example of an OwE tEe doing unambiguous,
> > supernatural "stuff."
>
> >> And there's nothing anyone can do to negate that.
>
> > Ah, well we would seem to be having another of those awful semantical
> > problems.
>
> > Would you agree that one can't negate something that never happened?
>
> > Let's establish what exactly it is, that you think happened, first.
> > Then, if it looks like an OwE tEE miracle has indeed happened, I'll
> > concede that I'm negating. If you can't establish with any rigor that
> > something HAS happened (beyond psychological manipulation resulting in
> > hyperactive imaginings), I get to reject your characterization of
> > "negating."
>
> > Does that sound fair?
>
> Claire, you've made various statements about how supernatural stuff
> happens, for years.
>
> Further more, you seem to be using the idea that it happens "in varying
> degrees"
I have never said that supernatural stuff happens in varying degrees.
Ever.
If a person has an ability, whether that be pole vaulting, chess, or
the ability to drive men wild (my personal speciality) he or she has it
to a matter of degree.
C
Michael Reuss
>> Claire, you've made various statements about how supernatural stuff
>> happens, for years.
>> Further more, you seem to be using the idea that it happens "in varying
>> degrees"
> I have never said that supernatural stuff happens in varying degrees.
You're quibbling. You said people have "ability" in varying degrees.
Clearly, if that's a true statement, it logically follows that there
exists a person with the degree of ability that can do something which
unambiguously proves that psychic phenomenon exist. And you have claimed
unequivocally that it does, when you said this: "Stuff either happened
or it didn't. And it did."
> If a person has an ability, whether that be pole vaulting, chess, or
> the ability to drive men wild (my personal speciality) he or she has it
> to a matter of degree.
Please, stop with the childish sophistry. Leave that to the pros, like
Diane Richardson and her like.
You know damn well that I'm not asking you for an example of the normal,
even if it's the world record for the highest pole vault. That feat,
while impressive, is based in meat. And further, it's an objective
thing, and a matter of record. All people can watch a pole vault happen.
Measurements can be made. We can all see it.
Further, I think you know perfectly well that I'm not asking you about
degree of simple mental abilities, even if it rises to the level of
brilliance, as with a great Chess master.
It's intellectually dishonest to argue based on your intentional bait
and switch, wherein varying degrees of some ability suddenly becomes the
issue and the varying ability to pole vault or play chess now becomes
equivalent with varying abilities to perform OwE tEE occult black magik
(which is how I describe phenomenon falling in the categories which you
call Saintly and psychic).
And as far as your ability to drive men wild, in my observations, that's
fairly common ability in women. ;-) I hope you won't correlate that
ability with the unrelated ability to debate logically.
And any time you want to answer the question, go ahead and do so. I'm
still curious to know what you think is the best example of a psychic
phenomenon by a Scientologist who learned how to manipulate MEST (via
the spirit world/thought/mental control) by studying Scientology.
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
Ball of Fluff
>> "Ball of Fluff" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Michael Reuss wrote:
>
>>> Claire, you've made various statements about how supernatural stuff
>>> happens, for years.
>
>>> Further more, you seem to be using the idea that it happens "in varying
>>> degrees"
>
>> I have never said that supernatural stuff happens in varying degrees.
>
> You're quibbling. You said people have "ability" in varying degrees.
Yes, because I was discussing Tory's post about why didn't the Katrina and
other natural disasters get handled and/or averted.
I saw and still see an all or nothing attitude about OT abilities. So I said
it was a matter of degree.
Which it is.
This is true of any ability. The ability to play checkers really well or
anything else.
C
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> I saw and still see an all or nothing attitude about OT abilities. So I said
> it was a matter of degree.
>
> Which it is.
This is a belief; but, it can't be, since you never talk about your
beliefs.
*Unless*, you're unaware of what constitutes your 'belief' and what
qualifies as 'objective, demonstrable fact'.
But, such a confusion might best be described as *delusional*.
So. If it's belief, you do talk about your beliefs, unless it's
demonstrable fact, in which case maybe you *don't* talk about ytour
beliefs, which, if I remember right, is one of your commonly expressed
beliefs.
Zinj
--
Villains! I say to you now! Knock off all that Evil!
- The Tick
williams...@myway.com
Ball of Fluff wrote:
> Ball of Fluff wrote:
>
>
> So- below
Blah, blah, blah..... You didn't get it right either.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Barb Schwarz is NOT "Schwarz's Analytical Publication (SAP)". $carff
is.
INFORM YOURSELF ABOUT DEFAMER AND IDENTITY STEALER GARRY LYNN SCARFF
HERE:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/613ec0022...
-- Gardener, photographers back to back, of lovely images there is no
lack
A Liberty Bell replica stands muted, hard to believe this town is
poluted.
William Stradford
INFORM YOURSELF ABOUT CONVICTED FELON AND PROUD PRISON BITCH HERE:
Ball of Fluff
williams...@myway.com wrote:
> Ball of Fluff wrote:
> > Ball of Fluff wrote:
> >
> >
> > So- below
>
> Blah, blah, blah..... You didn't get it right either.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Barb Schwarz is NOT "Schwarz's Analytical Publication (SAP)". $carff
> is.
Huh?
Michael Reuss
>> "Michael Reuss" <michae...@spam.this.com> wrote:
>> You're quibbling. You said people have [OwE tEE] "ability" in varying degrees.
> Yes, because I was discussing Tory's post about why didn't the Katrina and
> other natural disasters get handled and/or averted.
And Tory meant precisely the same thing as I do, that IF there were any
real OT abilities, then some Scientologists should be able to easily
(and magically) steer a hurricane away from land, and out over cold
water, to save humans from suffering.
That was her whole point, the magical powers. She is saying that no one
ever learns how to do this stuff by studying Scientology. We never see
these things happen.
In face, we don't even see Scientologists becoming good chess players or
pole-vaulters from studying Scientology, either. About the only thing
I've seen, ability-wise, is that some actors join, and make connections
with big movie stars, like Travolta and Cruise, and can start to get
some acting jobs. But that's nothing more than networking and increasing
your visibility in a very closed business, because of who you know. It's
certainly not an oWE tEE black magik miracle.
> I saw and still see an all or nothing attitude about OT abilities. So I said
> it was a matter of degree.
Apparently you're going to continue your silly sophistry to avoid
answering my question.
Tell you what I'll do. I'll concede that it's a matter of degree, if you
concede that the range of the degree is from 0.0 to 0.0, where 0 means
no psychic abilities, whatsoever, to 1.0, which means a person could
steer a hurricane via sheer force of will.
Now, if you claim that the degree goes from 0.0 to some number higher
than zero, please give me your best guess-timate of a high-end number,
and the reasons you think that should be the number, and one or two
examples which lead you to believe that this is the number.
> Which it is.
I can play this game, too, because I was also (very long ago) a small
child.
Is not!
In fact, I played this game very well as a child, so I'll simply add:
Is not, Is Not, IS NOT!
And please note that by the end, I was shouting, which gives my
assertion even more credibility than yours.
> This is true of any ability. The ability to play checkers really well or
> anything else.
No, with real and actual powers of the occult, or Saintly powers, or
black magic, or OwE tEE control over MEST, any non-zero ability is
totally unlike any other ability.
Before we can move on from an agreement that there are varying degrees
of this miraculous thing, we must first establish that these powers
which you claim are real, are actually real, and not just figments of
your imagination, implanted either by false teaching or ignorant
teachers.
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
Barbara Schwarz
can't imagine anything beyond your small horizont.
Barbara Schwarz
http://www.thunderstar.net/~Schwarz/
More about Dave Touretzky:
http://urlsnip.com/254524
http://urlsnip.com/402460
Other interesting websites:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
http://www.alarmgermany.org/
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/sitemap.htm
http://www.cchr.org
http://www.datafilter.com/mc
http://www.freespeechstore.com
nobody
Claire never defined what "OT" means. She never gave any examples
of "OT abilities" observed. She never gives names of individuals who
supposedly have "OT abilities". All she does is reassert her same tired
old worthless spew. I say let her have her delusions.
The Chief Instigator
>Just because you are no OTs doesn't mean they don't exist. Many of you
>can't imagine anything beyond your small horizont.
If there were as many as one single OT, Babbles, this newsgroup would never
have seen the light of day. In reality, your delusioary OT dream is no more
than that, and your fraudulent cult is steadily being laughed out of
existence, just like Dead Druggie Hubbard. The SPs are your future, so you'd
best get used to us. ;-)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Toronto 4, Houston 2 (November 19)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 25 vs. Milwaukee, 7:35
Ball of Fluff
nobody wrote:
>
> Claire never defined what "OT" means. She never gave any examples
> of "OT abilities" observed. She never gives names of individuals who
> supposedly have "OT abilities". All she does is reassert her same tired
> old worthless spew. I say let her have her delusions.
Oh, I have, on other threads. I gave examples of people whom I thought
could do extraordinary things. People like Padre Pio, for example.
People who really do act OT as opposed to having a "cert'.
As to here, I was taking up the endless misquoting. If that's a problem
for anybody, then don't misquote me.
I've also not previously been asked for a def of OT.
An OT is an "Operating thetan" which, according to Scn parlance is
someone who can operate on a spiritual level rather than just a
physical one.
The "OT powers" some of you get so stuck on are outward manifestations
of such.
Various saints, saddhus, and psychics have done so. People like Padre
Pio, various gurus and swamis, psychics like Sylvia Browne and Allison
DuBois. People like Major Ed Dames and Ingo Swann.
Scn OTs I knew, some of them, had precognitive abilities.
Never saw any who could act as a god of sorts, though I do suspect that
by OT umpty ump, that Hubbard thought this would occur. Nevertheless,
it has not.
I've never ever seen anyone who had any abilities of any sort where it
wasn't a matter of degree to which he or she had them.
Thus, you could have someone who might be able to remote view, move
something without touching it, and still not be able to avert the
Katrina Storm or ones like it, hence my original post on this thread to
Tory's.
Why anyone would be surprised that "OT" is attained in stages or
degrees, I really don't know, considering that the levels are given a
numbering system and considering the fact that all the nice shiny
church brochures indicate that each one is bigger and better than the
preceding ones..
Suggest you both quit whining.
C
Skipper
circles about these things, you try to appear enlightened. You have
your right to believe anything you want, but you're a damned fool.
In article <1132849950.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Ball of Fluff <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ball of Fluff
"Skipper" <skipsp...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:241120051137349338%skipsp...@charter.net...
> Claire, you still consider yourself a $cientologist.
Yes.
>You talk in
> circles about these things,
I will when it's about my personal beliefs. I'd really rather discuss Scn
from a third person standpoint.
This sometimes gets awkward when people are taking aim at me.
>you try to appear enlightened.
No. I have my beliefs and my interests, but all I "try to appear" like is
someone who knows Scn and is a Scn'ist.
>You have
> your right to believe anything you want, but you're a damned fool.
You're not in a position to make that call since I do not discuss my
personal beliefs here.
C
The Salt is back!
Claire is a squirrel and no OT.
Barbara Schwarz
The Salt is back!
Ball of Fluff wrote:
> "Skipper" <skipsp...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:241120051137349338%skipsp...@charter.net...
> > Claire, you still consider yourself a $cientologist.
>
> Yes.
Lol! A Scientologist who hangs with and supports people who want to
destroy Scientology. What a bad joke Claire is.
>
> >You talk in
> > circles about these things,
>
> I will when it's about my personal beliefs. I'd really rather discuss Scn
> from a third person standpoint.
Exactly, because she is no Scientologist. She is also a coward.
>
> This sometimes gets awkward when people are taking aim at me.
>
>
> >you try to appear enlightened.
>
> No. I have my beliefs and my interests, but all I "try to appear" like is
> someone who knows Scn and is a Scn'ist.
Here she is rarely honest. She admits that she is no Scientologist but
wants to appear one when it is convenient. She also tries to appear as
somebody who knows SCN but she doesn't. She just knows about her
squirrel SCN, Fluffentology.
>
>
>
> >You have
> > your right to believe anything you want, but you're a damned fool.
>
> You're not in a position to make that call since I do not discuss my
> personal beliefs here.
She is a coward. And she is afraid to get busted as being no
Scientologist after having claimed so wrongfully. A squirrel is no
Scientologist, it is just a squirrel. (Somebody who alters SCN.)
Barbara Schwarz
>
> C
Bent Stigsen
[snip]
> An OT is an "Operating thetan" which, according to Scn parlance is
> someone who can operate on a spiritual level rather than just a
> physical one.
>
> The "OT powers" some of you get so stuck on are outward manifestations
> of such.
>
> Various saints, saddhus, and psychics have done so. People like Padre
> Pio, various gurus and swamis, psychics like Sylvia Browne and Allison
> DuBois. People like Major Ed Dames and Ingo Swann.
Well, they certainly all are colourful people, but if you ask them,
they have a different tale to tell.
Padre Pio had stigmatic markings. I am pretty sure the claim is that
he didn't inflict it on himself, but that it is an act from God. He
has claimed himself to have wrestled with the devil, implying that
apart from God there is different types of spiritual entities, and
supporting that the christian stories are true, i.e. not just implants.
In Sylvias website you can read: "Chris is an authentic psychic from
birth. Being Sylvia's son he shares in her genetic predisposition to
psychic excellence." That is very different from other views of the
relation between the spiritual and the material.
Then there is stage artists or magicians who can do neat tricks just
as magnificent, which doesn't claim to be spiritual, but rather say it
is just a matter of practice.
Who should I believe? The stage artists, the people who show spiritual
skills, or some other persons who can show no skills, but just claims
to know (e.g. Scientologists).
> Scn OTs I knew, some of them, had precognitive abilities.
Lets say they predict what will happen to you next week. That will
effectively prohibit you from having any free will, and others ability
to intervene.
If free will exists, then the future is uncertain. If the future is
uncertain, then it cannot be predicted. Any prediction will at best
just be a more or less qualified guess. Qualified guesses can be good,
but does not imply precognitive abilities in any way.
> Never saw any who could act as a god of sorts, though I do suspect that
> by OT umpty ump, that Hubbard thought this would occur. Nevertheless,
> it has not.
>
> I've never ever seen anyone who had any abilities of any sort where it
> wasn't a matter of degree to which he or she had them.
That has nothing to do with the existence of "OT powers".
Skeptics insists in controlled tests because charlatans exists.
[snip]
/Bent
Bent Stigsen
> Barbara Schwarz
This is in your creed:
"That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely,
to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write
upon the opinions of others;"
What is your reason to not respect that?
/Bent
Ball of Fluff
"Bent Stigsen" <ng...@thevoid.dk> wrote in message
news:43866ee7$0$47002$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
I think you're missing the point.
"OT abilities" are just outward manifestations of states of consciousness
achieved, of communication with oneself.
>
> Skeptics insists in controlled tests because charlatans exists.
>
Yes, they surely do.
But not everyone is a charlatan.
C
Ball of Fluff
Just stupidity and paranoia. She likes to make heavy weather out of
"fluffentology", falsely claiming it to be some sort of squirrel methodology
I've started, though when she asked me about it last year or so, I told her
it was a joke, a poke at something a couple contributors have said about me.
Paranoiacs have persecution complexes and this makes them take aim at those
people.
C
Bent Stigsen
> "Bent Stigsen" <ng...@thevoid.dk> wrote in message
> news:43866ee7$0$47002$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
>
>>Ball of Fluff wrote:
[snip]
>>>by OT umpty ump, that Hubbard thought this would occur. Nevertheless,
>>>it has not.
>>>
>>>I've never ever seen anyone who had any abilities of any sort where it
>>>wasn't a matter of degree to which he or she had them.
>>
>>That has nothing to do with the existence of "OT powers".
>
> I think you're missing the point.
>
> "OT abilities" are just outward manifestations of states of consciousness
> achieved, of communication with oneself.
Well that is just it. I am so to speak in the dark, hence my question
earlier, "Who should I believe?"
Padre Pio communicated with God. Sylvia Browne tells something
similar: "While Sylvia or Chris is doing a reading for you, they
psychically reach into your soul, pull out your Chart, and then recite
back to you those things you have already planned for yourself. There
is nothing mysterious about this; it is simply their gift from God,
one that they have perfected to a very high degree."
My problem is that I see no corelation between the proof and the
explanation, other than it is in the domain of spirituality. If I am
to accept your proof, then I can see no reason to put the explanation
you present above theirs, or vice versa.
>>Skeptics insists in controlled tests because charlatans exists.
>>
>
> Yes, they surely do.
>
> But not everyone is a charlatan.
Given the entire population, then yes probably, but limited to a group
of selected individuals, the assertion may not be valid. And there is
allways the ones that can mislead themselves into believing allmost
anything. Like Achau Nguyen in the link below, which genuinely thought
he did possess some psychic powers.
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/nguyen.html
Rant:...
Sadly Mr. Nguyen is one of the few that has the guts and is sensible
enough to put their own theory or powers to the test by people who
understands fallacies involved in testing.
I have met people insisting "it" (anything spiritual) is beyond the
reach of scientific measurement or testing, yet as proof of "it", they
happily refer to things like kirlian-photos or readings from
electronic gadgets (like E-meters), which obviously by no means can be
explained or understood by non-spiritual people. Well, duh.
/Bent
Ball of Fluff
> Ball of Fluff wrote:
>> "Bent Stigsen" <ng...@thevoid.dk> wrote in message
>> news:43866ee7$0$47002$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
>>
>>>Ball of Fluff wrote:
> [snip]
>>>>Never saw any who could act as a god of sorts, though I do suspect that
>>>>by OT umpty ump, that Hubbard thought this would occur. Nevertheless,
>>>>it has not.
>>>>
>>>>I've never ever seen anyone who had any abilities of any sort where it
>>>>wasn't a matter of degree to which he or she had them.
>>>
>>>That has nothing to do with the existence of "OT powers".
>>
>> I think you're missing the point.
>>
>> "OT abilities" are just outward manifestations of states of consciousness
>> achieved, of communication with oneself.
>
> Well that is just it. I am so to speak in the dark, hence my question
> earlier, "Who should I believe?"
>
> Padre Pio communicated with God. Sylvia Browne tells something similar:
> "While Sylvia or Chris is doing a reading for you, they psychically reach
> into your soul, pull out your Chart, and then recite back to you those
> things you have already planned for yourself. There is nothing mysterious
> about this; it is simply their gift from God, one that they have perfected
> to a very high degree."
Yes. And????
>
> My problem is that I see no corelation between the proof and the
> explanation, other than it is in the domain of spirituality. If I am to
> accept your proof, then I can see no reason to put the explanation you
> present above theirs, or vice versa.
I've not given any proof. I have nothing to prove. I'm not interested in
making converts. Just in having discussions. Some people asked me questions
and I endeavored to answer them. That's it.
I know that people will believe what they want to believe and, again, I've
no interest in making converts.
You have to find your own way. We all do.
Speaking from my viewpoint, I entertain the possibility that guru or saddhu
or psychic or OT so and so is speaking the truth by if it seems to dovetail
with my other experiences and those of others.
I met a swami of whom I subsequently had a very low opinion. I met a guru of
whom I subsequently had a high opinion. I looked at what these people had to
say, what I know in my life, and I made my decision.
I'm not doing that for anyone else and have not claimed to be doing so.
>>>Skeptics insists in controlled tests because charlatans exists.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, they surely do.
>>
>> But not everyone is a charlatan.
>
> Given the entire population, then yes probably, but limited to a group of
> selected individuals, the assertion may not be valid. And there is allways
> the ones that can mislead themselves into believing allmost anything. Like
> Achau Nguyen in the link below, which genuinely thought he did possess
> some psychic powers. http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/nguyen.html
>
> Rant:...
>
> Sadly Mr. Nguyen is one of the few that has the guts and is sensible
> enough to put their own theory or powers to the test by people who
> understands fallacies involved in testing.
>
> I have met people insisting "it" (anything spiritual) is beyond the reach
> of scientific measurement or testing, yet as proof of "it", they happily
> refer to things like kirlian-photos or readings from electronic gadgets
> (like E-meters), which obviously by no means can be explained or
> understood by non-spiritual people. Well, duh.
Emeters are explained by non spiritual people just fine. I've read a number
of explanations of the emeter by non Scn'ists that seemed correct or at
least fairly close to the mark.
Not a problem.
C
Bent Stigsen
That examples in relation to the paragrap below. I'll get back to that.
>>My problem is that I see no corelation between the proof and the
>>explanation, other than it is in the domain of spirituality. If I am to
>>accept your proof, then I can see no reason to put the explanation you
>>present above theirs, or vice versa.
>
> I've not given any proof. I have nothing to prove. I'm not interested in
> making converts. Just in having discussions. Some people asked me questions
> and I endeavored to answer them. That's it.
You mentioned a number of people (among them Padre Pio and Sylvia) as
examples of "OT powers". I took the liberty to call it proof, as I
assumed it was meant to prove the existance of "OT powers".
But - stories from the people you mentioned, which I gave examples of
above and previously, does not resemble anything like OT as defined by
Scientology. Their abilities is, by their word or legend, a gift given
from God, and not something gradually attained in levels. Their
stories sounds more like outward communication than inward.
*If* those people you mention are for real, then they more than anyone
should know what it is like, and their testimonies or associated
legends should be taken into account. If their stories should be
discarded, I cant see why they should be accepted as real.
> I know that people will believe what they want to believe and, again, I've
> no interest in making converts.
>
> You have to find your own way. We all do.
Sure, we are not discussing personal choices, but a subject.
> Speaking from my viewpoint, I entertain the possibility that guru or saddhu
> or psychic or OT so and so is speaking the truth by if it seems to dovetail
> with my other experiences and those of others.
>
> I met a swami of whom I subsequently had a very low opinion. I met a guru of
> whom I subsequently had a high opinion. I looked at what these people had to
> say, what I know in my life, and I made my decision.
>
> I'm not doing that for anyone else and have not claimed to be doing so.
I guess you are refering to my question "Who should I believe?". I was
just trying to point out that there are many explanations in the
domain of spirituality, including from those you say possess/manifests
spiritual powers.
For the sake of the discussion, I got no problem accepting them as
examples of spirituality, but I cannot accept your explanation as the
only valid one.
>>>>Skeptics insists in controlled tests because charlatans exists.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, they surely do.
>>>
>>>But not everyone is a charlatan.
>>
>>Given the entire population, then yes probably, but limited to a group of
>>selected individuals, the assertion may not be valid. And there is allways
>>the ones that can mislead themselves into believing allmost anything. Like
>>Achau Nguyen in the link below, which genuinely thought he did possess
>>some psychic powers. http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/nguyen.html
>>
>>Rant:...
>>
>>Sadly Mr. Nguyen is one of the few that has the guts and is sensible
>>enough to put their own theory or powers to the test by people who
>>understands fallacies involved in testing.
>>
>>I have met people insisting "it" (anything spiritual) is beyond the reach
>>of scientific measurement or testing, yet as proof of "it", they happily
>>refer to things like kirlian-photos or readings from electronic gadgets
>>(like E-meters), which obviously by no means can be explained or
>>understood by non-spiritual people. Well, duh.
>
> Emeters are explained by non spiritual people just fine. I've read a number
> of explanations of the emeter by non Scn'ists that seemed correct or at
> least fairly close to the mark.
Close to the mark?, is that the explanation mentioning the amygdala,
autonomic nervous system and sweat glands, instead of Thetan and
"mental mass".
/Bent
Ball of Fluff
Ok. But for me, it was discussion. I was asked a question and I answered it.
>
> But - stories from the people you mentioned, which I gave examples of
> above and previously, does not resemble anything like OT as defined by
> Scientology.
Yes, actually it does. A Scn'ist would certainly recognize those things.
>Their abilities is, by their word or legend, a gift given from God, and not
>something gradually attained in levels. Their stories sounds more like
>outward communication than inward.
Either one can do something or one cannot.
Anyway, I think that God, theta, it's all the same.
I was asked to give examples of OTs, and I did so.
An OT is someone who operates as a spiritual being, rather than being MEST
driven for everything.
>
> *If* those people you mention are for real, then they more than anyone
> should know what it is like, and their testimonies or associated legends
> should be taken into account. If their stories should be discarded, I cant
> see why they should be accepted as real.
>
>> I know that people will believe what they want to believe and, again,
>> I've no interest in making converts.
>>
>> You have to find your own way. We all do.
>
> Sure, we are not discussing personal choices, but a subject.
>
>> Speaking from my viewpoint, I entertain the possibility that guru or
>> saddhu or psychic or OT so and so is speaking the truth by if it seems to
>> dovetail with my other experiences and those of others.
>>
>> I met a swami of whom I subsequently had a very low opinion. I met a guru
>> of whom I subsequently had a high opinion. I looked at what these people
>> had to say, what I know in my life, and I made my decision.
>>
>> I'm not doing that for anyone else and have not claimed to be doing so.
>
> I guess you are refering to my question "Who should I believe?". I was
> just trying to point out that there are many explanations in the domain of
> spirituality, including from those you say possess/manifests spiritual
> powers.
> For the sake of the discussion, I got no problem accepting them as
> examples of spirituality, but I cannot accept your explanation as the only
> valid one.
I've not said it was the only valid one. I was asked to provide examples of
OTs and to try and define it, and I did so.
Nowhere have I ever said that there never is a non spiritual explanation for
a number of phenomena.
>
>>>>>Skeptics insists in controlled tests because charlatans exists.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, they surely do.
>>>>
>>>>But not everyone is a charlatan.
>>>
>>>Given the entire population, then yes probably, but limited to a group of
>>>selected individuals, the assertion may not be valid. And there is
>>>allways the ones that can mislead themselves into believing allmost
>>>anything. Like Achau Nguyen in the link below, which genuinely thought he
>>>did possess some psychic powers.
>>>http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/nguyen.html
>>>
>>>Rant:...
>>>
>>>Sadly Mr. Nguyen is one of the few that has the guts and is sensible
>>>enough to put their own theory or powers to the test by people who
>>>understands fallacies involved in testing.
>>>
>>>I have met people insisting "it" (anything spiritual) is beyond the reach
>>>of scientific measurement or testing, yet as proof of "it", they happily
>>>refer to things like kirlian-photos or readings from electronic gadgets
>>>(like E-meters), which obviously by no means can be explained or
>>>understood by non-spiritual people. Well, duh.
>>
>> Emeters are explained by non spiritual people just fine. I've read a
>> number of explanations of the emeter by non Scn'ists that seemed correct
>> or at least fairly close to the mark.
>
> Close to the mark?, is that the explanation mentioning the amygdala,
> autonomic nervous system and sweat glands, instead of Thetan and "mental
> mass".
I've read many depictions of the device known as an emeter that describe the
workings of it just fine, that were written by non Scn'ists.
It's a device. That's all it is.
The only people who give it a lot of significance are non Scn'ists.
C
Skipper
<getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote:
> An OT is someone who operates as a spiritual being, rather than being MEST
> driven for everything.
>
By the definition "someone who operates as a spiritual being" every
single person on Earth would qualify, given that $cientology tenets
hold that we are all spiritual beings. "Operating" merely means doing
things. Period.
"rather than being MEST driven for everything" would include every
single $cientology "OT" I ever knew, who are utterly obsessed with
making as much money possible in any way possible, so that they can pay
for $cientology "services" and (they believe) "rise above" mere mortals
on Earth referred to by Elwrong "Source" Humbug as "wogs."
Thus we see the utter hypocrisy and perhaps ignorance of anyone who
claims to be a $cientologist of any ilk.
Ball of Fluff
Not "anyone".
Not all Scn'ists are in CofS (so therefore the dollar sign is not
universally applicable, much beloved by you as it appears to be...heh.) and
not all Scn'ists call people wogs.
Try reading a.c.t. sometime. That topic comes up every now and again.
Though I wouldn't recommend your actually posting there...they won't like
you...
C
Skipper
<getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote:
a.c.t.? Why would I voluntarily step into an insane asylum where the
inmates are nuts because they choose to remain so?
Ball of Fluff
>> >
>> > "rather than being MEST driven for everything" would include every
>> > single $cientology "OT" I ever knew, who are utterly obsessed with
>> > making as much money possible in any way possible, so that they can pay
>> > for $cientology "services" and (they believe) "rise above" mere mortals
>> > on Earth referred to by Elwrong "Source" Humbug as "wogs."
>> >
>> > Thus we see the utter hypocrisy and perhaps ignorance of anyone who
>> > claims to be a $cientologist of any ilk.
>>
>> Not "anyone".
>>
>> Not all Scn'ists are in CofS (so therefore the dollar sign is not
>> universally applicable, much beloved by you as it appears to be...heh.)
>> and
>> not all Scn'ists call people wogs.
>>
>> Try reading a.c.t. sometime. That topic comes up every now and again.
>>
>> Though I wouldn't recommend your actually posting there...they won't like
>> you...
>>
>> C
>
> a.c.t.? Why would I voluntarily step into an insane asylum where the
> inmates are nuts because they choose to remain so?
I guess lying about all Scn'ists would be infinitely preferable to actually
ascertaining anything about them...
<yawn>
C
Skipper
Given that I knew some of the most influential people in the cult for
over 20 years and people who knew your idol when he was knocking around
Hollywood broke pre-cult, including his agent Forrest Ackerman, I'd say
I've probably ascertain quite a bit more than you'll ever be able to
do. Know who recruited Miscavidge into the SO? I do, and she's no
longer in the cult. Know Mary Sue's best friend? I do. Met most of
Humbug's kids? I have. Maybe that's your problem, you're just ignorant,
meaning not educated in the facts.
If you're yawning maybe you have a "missed withhold" and need to get it
"pulled." While they're at it out there in the "freezone", tell them to
retread your brain so it can think without $cientology.
Oh wait, that's right, they can't, they're addicted to bullshit.
Zinj
says...
> > But - stories from the people you mentioned, which I gave examples of
> > above and previously, does not resemble anything like OT as defined by
> > Scientology.
>
> Yes, actually it does. A Scn'ist would certainly recognize those things.
A 'Scientologist', even a Fluffy-Brand Scientologist, would 'recognize'
the ability to prepare a coffee machine as an 'OT Power'.
Thank you Ron!
The ability to tie shoes would be a 'sooper dooper OT Power!'
Thank you Ron!
The 'ability' to wake up each morning and pan-determinately *force* the
sun to rise in the East would be recognized as a penultimate 'OT Power'.
Thank you Ron!! Thank you Ron!!!!!
This is your mind on Scientology. Even Fluffy Scientology.
Zinj
--
Villains! I say to you now! Knock off all that Evil!
- The Tick
barb
Aw, c'mon, Skip. Are you saying you don't enjoy this low-level ex-public
assuming the position of Scientology expert on this newsgroup?
With all the OTs floating around here, it's always amusing when Claire
bumps up against one in disagreement. I know who the real experts are.
They aren't the people playing Smorgasbord Dianetics, either. It's the
ex-fixed-glare people I'm going to believe.
But Claire, if I ever need the POV of a low level public with a
cafeteria tray of random courses, you'll be first on my list of people
to call. I just wish you'd knock off answering with your half-informed
expertise. I'd rather hear from Chuck Beatty or some of the other people
who dedicated a big chunk of their lives to pursuing Scientology
enlightenment. You just don't have their qualifications, and for some
reason, this morning, that bugs me.
--
--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
Ball of Fluff
Barb, I told you I wasn't just Mission public. I went uplines after
that and also am ex staff.
I think I've told you that about 3 previous times. Maybe now it'll sink
in.
>
> With all the OTs floating around here, it's always amusing when Claire
> bumps up against one in disagreement. I know who the real experts are.
Look, this discussion started when Tory posted something about if there
were OTs, and what about the Hurricane, etc. I said that being OT
(being ANYTHING, really) is a matter of degree.
That's true according to Hubbard, it's true according to the glitzy
albeit veracity impaired glossy CofS propaganda, it's something any OT
will tell ya, whether he be an OT1 or an OTVIII.
I was then asked to give examples of OTs. I did so, also noting that
I've yet to see a church member exhibit some of the seemingly stable
manifestations that the people I named (all non Scn'ists) have done.
> They aren't the people playing Smorgasbord Dianetics, either. It's the
> ex-fixed-glare people I'm going to believe.
I am an "ex fixed glare" Scn'ist.
>
> But Claire, if I ever need the POV of a low level public with a
> cafeteria tray of random courses, you'll be first on my list of people
> to call.
Oh, I hope not, because that's not me. I went onward up the bridge,
after STARTING as a mission public and am ex staff , a course supv, and
auditor and an OT.
So if you want the POV of a" low level public with a
> cafeteria tray of random courses"- get somebody else.
>I just wish you'd knock off answering with your half-informed
> expertise.
I think you've not read this thread or understood it.
See above synopsis of events on this thread.
> I'd rather hear from Chuck Beatty or some of the other people
> who dedicated a big chunk of their lives to pursuing Scientology
> enlightenment.
We were talking about what if there were any OTs and I was asked by
some people about something I said ~several~ ~weeks~ ~ago~. I then
answered their questions. Perhaps you'd rather I didn't?
The amount of bitching and braying when I ~don't~ answer posts here has
to be seen to be believed... so ya can't have it both ways.
>You just don't have their qualifications, and for some
> reason, this morning, that bugs me.
>
Of course it bugs you. 'Cuz it's not true.
I wonder why you've made up a false bio for me.
C
Ball of Fluff
So?
I was talking about the fact that not all Scn'ists call people wogs. I
weaned myself from doing that before I left CofS, as had others I knew.
I then gave you some examples of non CofS Scn'ists who discuss the
inadvisability of doing that very thing.
Yes, many party line churchies call people wogs. And it sucks. And I
won't defend it.
but you said "all Scn'ists", or, rather "any" which implies "all".
And I indicated that this isn't accurate.
That's all. Certainly no argument from me that there's a whole lotta
churchies calling people wogs. I know it, you know it, most of us know
it.
But it isn't any or all by a long shot.
'S'all I'm saying.
See previous posts.
C
Skipper
Ball of Fluff <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You're once again splitting hairs and skewing off toward unimportant
ideas. Here's the important point, and the topic of this thread -
Are there any "OTs" with "powers" like Elwrong Humbug said?
Answer: NO.
Yet for a very long time I repeatedly saw people with sneering asshole
attitudes toward anyone "lower" than themselves in the various
heirarchies of the cult:
a. OTs who thought they were super-people compared to "wogs."
b. Course supervisors and "trained auditors" who thought they were
super-competent in the arena of the human mind and spirit, who always
had some crazy explanation when they couldn't "handle" someone's
"case."
c. Staff members who believed that the closer they were to "Ron" the
more superior they were as beings and the destined rulers of this
planet.
They all had a hautiness about what they "knew" that was merely a
psychological defense against their own shortcomings in the "wog"
world. And the celebrities were the worst. Most of them were actors and
thus likely to believe the smoke they helped blow up their own asses.
I've seen you display that hautiness when you insist on continuing to
think you're a $cientologist despite being screwed over by the
so-called church and presented with ample evidence that the guy who
started it was STARK RAVING NUTS.
But, you've aptly named yourself as "Fluffy" because that kind of
attitude is so mentally light-weight a kindergartner would question it.
And it aint' "OT".
Ball of Fluff
Skipper wrote:
> In article <1133201913.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Ball of Fluff <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You're once again splitting hairs and skewing off toward unimportant
> ideas. Here's the important point, and the topic of this thread -
>
> Are there any "OTs" with "powers" like Elwrong Humbug said?
>
> Answer: NO.
See previous posts.
<snip gratuitous insults>
C
Bent Stigsen
> "Bent Stigsen" <ng...@thevoid.dk> wrote in message
> news:4389217e$0$46997$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
>
>>Ball of Fluff wrote:
>>
>>>"Bent Stigsen" <ng...@thevoid.dk> wrote in message
>>>news:4388983d$0$47085$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
>>>
>>>>My problem is that I see no corelation between the proof and the
>>>>explanation, other than it is in the domain of spirituality. If I am to
>>>>accept your proof, then I can see no reason to put the explanation you
>>>>present above theirs, or vice versa.
>>>
>>>I've not given any proof. I have nothing to prove. I'm not interested in
>>>making converts. Just in having discussions. Some people asked me
>>>questions and I endeavored to answer them. That's it.
>>
>>You mentioned a number of people (among them Padre Pio and Sylvia) as
>>examples of "OT powers". I took the liberty to call it proof, as I assumed
>>it was meant to prove the existance of "OT powers".
>
> Ok. But for me, it was discussion. I was asked a question and I answered it.
I dont think I fully understand your objection here.
Wasn't Padre Pio, Sylvia et al. given as a supportive argument (proof)
to the assertion, do "OT powers" exists?
>>But - stories from the people you mentioned, which I gave examples of
>>above and previously, does not resemble anything like OT as defined by
>>Scientology.
>
> Yes, actually it does. A Scn'ist would certainly recognize those things.
Yes, I figured that since you brought them up. I am disputing whether
that is a sensible thing to do. I'll get to the specifics.
>>Their abilities is, by their word or legend, a gift given from God, and not
>>something gradually attained in levels. Their stories sounds more like
>>outward communication than inward.
>
> Either one can do something or one cannot.
Well yes obviously, but that doesn't mean anything, as to what it is
or is not. As I said, for the sake of the discussion, lets say they
can do something, and that "something" is of spiritual nature.
> Anyway, I think that God, theta, it's all the same.
That would be a somewhat equivalence to the concept of God, but
clearly not the same as the God regarded as a distinct entity and
separate from the concepts like "life force" or soul.
> I was asked to give examples of OTs, and I did so.
>
> An OT is someone who operates as a spiritual being, rather than being MEST
> driven for everything.
You've presented some examples of people with abilities, which I
accept could qualify as of spiritual nature. But I am questioning
whether it is sensible to use those observation to prove "OT powers".
And to the specifics:
First of all, the people you have mentioned don't have anything to do
with Scientology. It is like a local pizzaria arguing they have tasty
fastfood, but using satisfied Burger King customers to prove it. It
will take more than just arguing that it is all fastfood and a burger
is a burger, to have any significance. Other religions have produced
some truly extraordinary people, Scientology hasn't.
I don't know about swamis and gurus, but atleast christian type
figures doesn't gain their abilities gradually, but is usually said to
have come to them from one moment to the other. Either they did get
it, or they didn't. And none of them had to go through a sequence of
elaborate teachings like the Scientology OT-levels.
I claimed, possibly out of ignorance, that their abilities did not
resemble anything like OT as defined by Scientology. You said
Scientologists would recognize their abilities as "OT powers". So
please be specific on that. Like which scriptures deals with
"psychically reaching into another persons soul", "wrestling with the
devil", "stigmatic markings", "walking on water", et c. or whatever
you can come up with.
[snip]
> Nowhere have I ever said that there never is a non spiritual explanation for
> a number of phenomena.
I don't think I have said or implied that that you did.
[snip]
>>>>I have met people insisting "it" (anything spiritual) is beyond the reach
>>>>of scientific measurement or testing, yet as proof of "it", they happily
>>>>refer to things like kirlian-photos or readings from electronic gadgets
>>>>(like E-meters), which obviously by no means can be explained or
>>>>understood by non-spiritual people. Well, duh.
>>>
>>>Emeters are explained by non spiritual people just fine. I've read a
>>>number of explanations of the emeter by non Scn'ists that seemed correct
>>>or at least fairly close to the mark.
>>
>>Close to the mark?, is that the explanation mentioning the amygdala,
>>autonomic nervous system and sweat glands, instead of Thetan and "mental
>>mass".
>
> I've read many depictions of the device known as an emeter that describe the
> workings of it just fine, that were written by non Scn'ists.
Were their explantions of its workings non-spiritual?
> It's a device. That's all it is.
>
> The only people who give it a lot of significance are non Scn'ists.
Really? I find that hard to believe, considering its use within
Scientology and what is claimed about it:
http://www.lronhubbard.org/p_jpg/book/html/rl14m.htm
[quote]
How does the E-Meter really work?
Here, for the first time, the relationship between the spirit and the
physical universe and how the E-Meter is able to measure this, is
explained simply with accompanying diagrams and clear illustrations.
[end quote]
Non-Scientologists makes a big deal out of it because it's a device
and method, that has been tested and used since long before Hubbard
"invented" it. To my knowledge, nobody but Scientologists think
"mental mass" has anything to do with it.
/Bent
Ball of Fluff
Bent Stigsen wrote:
> Ball of Fluff wrote:
> > "Bent Stigsen" <ng...@thevoid.dk> wrote in message
> > news:4389217e$0$46997$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
> >
> >>Ball of Fluff wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Bent Stigsen" <ng...@thevoid.dk> wrote in message
> >>>news:4388983d$0$47085$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
> >>>
> [snip]
> >>>>My problem is that I see no corelation between the proof and the
> >>>>explanation, other than it is in the domain of spirituality. If I am to
> >>>>accept your proof, then I can see no reason to put the explanation you
> >>>>present above theirs, or vice versa.
> >>>
> >>>I've not given any proof. I have nothing to prove. I'm not interested in
> >>>making converts. Just in having discussions. Some people asked me
> >>>questions and I endeavored to answer them. That's it.
> >>
> >>You mentioned a number of people (among them Padre Pio and Sylvia) as
> >>examples of "OT powers". I took the liberty to call it proof, as I assumed
> >>it was meant to prove the existance of "OT powers".
> >
> > Ok. But for me, it was discussion. I was asked a question and I answered it.
>
> I dont think I fully understand your objection here.
> Wasn't Padre Pio, Sylvia et al. given as a supportive argument (proof)
> to the assertion, do "OT powers" exists?
I was asked to give names of OTs. So I provided names of people I
thought were OTs.
>
> >>But - stories from the people you mentioned, which I gave examples of
> >>above and previously, does not resemble anything like OT as defined by
> >>Scientology.
> >
> > Yes, actually it does. A Scn'ist would certainly recognize those things.
>
> Yes, I figured that since you brought them up. I am disputing whether
> that is a sensible thing to do. I'll get to the specifics.
>
> >>Their abilities is, by their word or legend, a gift given from God, and not
> >>something gradually attained in levels. Their stories sounds more like
> >>outward communication than inward.
> >
> > Either one can do something or one cannot.
>
> Well yes obviously, but that doesn't mean anything, as to what it is
> or is not. As I said, for the sake of the discussion, lets say they
> can do something, and that "something" is of spiritual nature.
>
> > Anyway, I think that God, theta, it's all the same.
>
> That would be a somewhat equivalence to the concept of God, but
> clearly not the same as the God regarded as a distinct entity and
> separate from the concepts like "life force" or soul.
>
> > I was asked to give examples of OTs, and I did so.
> >
> > An OT is someone who operates as a spiritual being, rather than being MEST
> > driven for everything.
>
> You've presented some examples of people with abilities, which I
> accept could qualify as of spiritual nature. But I am questioning
> whether it is sensible to use those observation to prove "OT powers".
> And to the specifics:
"Powers" are "abilities". It's kind of odd to see how hung up non
Scn'ists get on that...
>
> First of all, the people you have mentioned don't have anything to do
> with Scientology. It is like a local pizzaria arguing they have tasty
> fastfood, but using satisfied Burger King customers to prove it. It
> will take more than just arguing that it is all fastfood and a burger
> is a burger, to have any significance. Other religions have produced
> some truly extraordinary people, Scientology hasn't.
I was asked to provide names of people I thought were OTs, so I did so.
>
> I don't know about swamis and gurus, but atleast christian type
> figures doesn't gain their abilities gradually,
Yes, they do, in many cases.
> but is usually said to
> have come to them from one moment to the other. Either they did get
> it, or they didn't. And none of them had to go through a sequence of
> elaborate teachings like the Scientology OT-levels.
>
> I claimed, possibly out of ignorance, that their abilities did not
> resemble anything like OT as defined by Scientology. You said
> Scientologists would recognize their abilities as "OT powers". So
> please be specific on that. Like which scriptures deals with
> "psychically reaching into another persons soul", "wrestling with the
> devil", "stigmatic markings", "walking on water", et c. or whatever
> you can come up with.
Either a person has achieved something to where he can do more along
the lines of extraordinary manifestations or he has not.
It's a device.
I stand by what I said. Scn'ists really don't get hung up on the
emeter. Nowhere near to the extent that critics and skeptics do.
>
> Non-Scientologists makes a big deal out of it because it's a device
> and method, that has been tested and used since long before Hubbard
> "invented" it. To my knowledge, nobody but Scientologists think
> "mental mass" has anything to do with it.
>
The concept of mental mass is not an emeter.
C
Zinj
amaflu...@yahoo.com says...
<snip>
> I stand by what I said. Scn'ists really don't get hung up on the
> emeter. Nowhere near to the extent that critics and skeptics do.
Hogwash. The difference is that Scientologists don't find the claims
made for, and usage of the 'emeter' bizarre.
Non-Scientologists do.
> The concept of mental mass is not an emeter.
The 'concept' of 'mental mass' is a description without a referent for a
'thing' without any objective existence (like an engram or Body Thetan)
which can supposedly be 'detected' by an emeter, based wholly on a
'theory' lacking any substantiation or objective validity and 'derived'
using only an 'I pulled it out of my ass' methodology by a notorious if
not pathological liar.
Bent Stigsen
> Bent Stigsen wrote:
>
[snip]
>>You've presented some examples of people with abilities, which I
>>accept could qualify as of spiritual nature. But I am questioning
>>whether it is sensible to use those observation to prove "OT powers".
>>And to the specifics:
>
> "Powers" are "abilities". It's kind of odd to see how hung up non
> Scn'ists get on that...
The word is not important. It is the qualities associated the
observations of "spiritual abilities" and their relation to what
Scientology calls "OT powers".
>>First of all, the people you have mentioned don't have anything to do
>>with Scientology. It is like a local pizzaria arguing they have tasty
>>fastfood, but using satisfied Burger King customers to prove it. It
>>will take more than just arguing that it is all fastfood and a burger
>>is a burger, to have any significance. Other religions have produced
>>some truly extraordinary people, Scientology hasn't.
>
> I was asked to provide names of people I thought were OTs, so I did so.
If you don't want to discuss it then fine, but dont pretend you do.
Just restating the same thing over and over is not discussing, that is
just stubbornness.
>>I don't know about swamis and gurus, but atleast christian type
>>figures doesn't gain their abilities gradually,
>
> Yes, they do, in many cases.
Ok, then bring'em on. What were their abilities and how did they come
about, and how is it related to Scientology's descriptions of "OT
powers" and the way Scientologists is supposed to atttain them.
>>but is usually said to
>>have come to them from one moment to the other. Either they did get
>>it, or they didn't. And none of them had to go through a sequence of
>>elaborate teachings like the Scientology OT-levels.
>>
>>I claimed, possibly out of ignorance, that their abilities did not
>>resemble anything like OT as defined by Scientology. You said
>>Scientologists would recognize their abilities as "OT powers". So
>>please be specific on that. Like which scriptures deals with
>>"psychically reaching into another persons soul", "wrestling with the
>>devil", "stigmatic markings", "walking on water", et c. or whatever
>>you can come up with.
>
> Either a person has achieved something to where he can do more along
> the lines of extraordinary manifestations or he has not.
Sure, and what has that got to do with Scientology, other than being
related because of its spiritual nature.
[snip]
>>>>>>I have met people insisting "it" (anything spiritual) is beyond the reach
>>>>>>of scientific measurement or testing, yet as proof of "it", they happily
>>>>>>refer to things like kirlian-photos or readings from electronic gadgets
>>>>>>(like E-meters), which obviously by no means can be explained or
>>>>>>understood by non-spiritual people. Well, duh.
>>>>>
>>>>>Emeters are explained by non spiritual people just fine. I've read a
>>>>>number of explanations of the emeter by non Scn'ists that seemed correct
>>>>>or at least fairly close to the mark.
>>>>
>>>>Close to the mark?, is that the explanation mentioning the amygdala,
>>>>autonomic nervous system and sweat glands, instead of Thetan and "mental
>>>>mass".
>>>
>>>I've read many depictions of the device known as an emeter that describe the
>>>workings of it just fine, that were written by non Scn'ists.
>>
>>Were their explantions of its workings non-spiritual?
>
> It's a device.
Did you ever read a non-spiritual description of the E-meter, that you
considered correct or at least fairly close to the mark?
>>>It's a device. That's all it is.
>>>
>>>The only people who give it a lot of significance are non Scn'ists.
>>
>>Really? I find that hard to believe, considering its use within
>>Scientology and what is claimed about it:
>>http://www.lronhubbard.org/p_jpg/book/html/rl14m.htm
>>[quote]
>>How does the E-Meter really work?
>>Here, for the first time, the relationship between the spirit and the
>>physical universe and how the E-Meter is able to measure this, is
>>explained simply with accompanying diagrams and clear illustrations.
>>[end quote]
>
> I stand by what I said. Scn'ists really don't get hung up on the
> emeter. Nowhere near to the extent that critics and skeptics do.
Perhaps I got something wrong. I thought going up the bridge and
auditing was of great importance in Scientology. And that some or all
auditing required an E-meter. If the E-meter doesn't work as Hubbard
said, then that wouldn't be a good thing.
>>Non-Scientologists makes a big deal out of it because it's a device
>>and method, that has been tested and used since long before Hubbard
>>"invented" it. To my knowledge, nobody but Scientologists think
>>"mental mass" has anything to do with it.
>>
> The concept of mental mass is not an emeter.
*to do with* does not mean *is*, and you know very well, or ought to
know, that "mental mass" has something *to do with* the E-meter, in
relation to Hubbards claims of how it worked.
/Bent
Ball of Fluff
> Ball of Fluff wrote:
>> Bent Stigsen wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>>>You've presented some examples of people with abilities, which I
>>>accept could qualify as of spiritual nature. But I am questioning
>>>whether it is sensible to use those observation to prove "OT powers".
>>>And to the specifics:
>>
>> "Powers" are "abilities". It's kind of odd to see how hung up non
>> Scn'ists get on that...
>
> The word is not important. It is the qualities associated the observations
> of "spiritual abilities" and their relation to what Scientology calls "OT
> powers".
Actually, we don't call them OT "powers".
>
>>>First of all, the people you have mentioned don't have anything to do
>>>with Scientology. It is like a local pizzaria arguing they have tasty
>>>fastfood, but using satisfied Burger King customers to prove it. It
>>>will take more than just arguing that it is all fastfood and a burger
>>>is a burger, to have any significance. Other religions have produced
>>>some truly extraordinary people, Scientology hasn't.
>>
>> I was asked to provide names of people I thought were OTs, so I did so.
>
> If you don't want to discuss it then fine, but dont pretend you do. Just
> restating the same thing over and over is not discussing, that is just
> stubbornness.
I'm discussing it.
>
>>>I don't know about swamis and gurus, but atleast christian type
>>>figures doesn't gain their abilities gradually,
>> Yes, they do, in many cases.
>
> Ok, then bring'em on. What were their abilities and how did they come
> about, and how is it related to Scientology's descriptions of "OT powers"
> and the way Scientologists is supposed to atttain them.
Read some hagiographies. Read some lives of Swamis, gurus, etc. It generally
comes gradually.
>
>>>but is usually said to
>>>have come to them from one moment to the other. Either they did get
>>>it, or they didn't. And none of them had to go through a sequence of
>>>elaborate teachings like the Scientology OT-levels.
>>>
>>>I claimed, possibly out of ignorance, that their abilities did not
>>>resemble anything like OT as defined by Scientology. You said
>>>Scientologists would recognize their abilities as "OT powers". So
>>>please be specific on that. Like which scriptures deals with
>>>"psychically reaching into another persons soul", "wrestling with the
>>>devil", "stigmatic markings", "walking on water", et c. or whatever
>>>you can come up with.
>> Either a person has achieved something to where he can do more along
>> the lines of extraordinary manifestations or he has not.
>
> Sure, and what has that got to do with Scientology, other than being
> related because of its spiritual nature.
Check name of thread and earlier posts where I was asked why I said that
being OT was a matter of degree.
Suggest you check first post on this thread if you want to know where Scn
comes into this.
>>>>I've read many depictions of the device known as an emeter that describe
>>>>the
>>>>workings of it just fine, that were written by non Scn'ists.
>>>
>>>Were their explantions of its workings non-spiritual?
>>
>> It's a device.
>
> Did you ever read a non-spiritual description of the E-meter, that you
> considered correct or at least fairly close to the mark?
Yes, I already told you I have.
See previous posts.
>
>>>>It's a device. That's all it is.
>>>>
>>>>The only people who give it a lot of significance are non Scn'ists.
>>>
>>>Really? I find that hard to believe, considering its use within
>>>Scientology and what is claimed about it:
>>>http://www.lronhubbard.org/p_jpg/book/html/rl14m.htm
>>>[quote]
>>>How does the E-Meter really work?
>>>Here, for the first time, the relationship between the spirit and the
>>>physical universe and how the E-Meter is able to measure this, is
>>>explained simply with accompanying diagrams and clear illustrations.
>>>[end quote]
>>
>> I stand by what I said. Scn'ists really don't get hung up on the
>> emeter. Nowhere near to the extent that critics and skeptics do.
>
> Perhaps I got something wrong. I thought going up the bridge and auditing
> was of great importance in Scientology. And that some or all auditing
> required an E-meter. If the E-meter doesn't work as Hubbard said, then
> that wouldn't be a good thing.
Yes, auditing is important. Devices, not so much.
>
>>>Non-Scientologists makes a big deal out of it because it's a device
>>>and method, that has been tested and used since long before Hubbard
>>>"invented" it. To my knowledge, nobody but Scientologists think
>>>"mental mass" has anything to do with it.
>>>
>> The concept of mental mass is not an emeter.
>
> *to do with* does not mean *is*, and you know very well, or ought to know,
> that "mental mass" has something *to do with* the E-meter, in relation to
> Hubbards claims of how it worked.
Not really. It's said to be able to register on a meter. A meter is related
to a lie detector. The idea there is that one's thoughts can produce
physical reactions which then read on a device such as a lie detector,
wheatstone bridge, emeter etc. No big mystery there.
C
Skipper
said: What were their abilities and how did they come about - and she
couldn't even answer it. She doesn't know abilities from apples, there
are no "OT abilities" from $cientology and mental midgets only make
your neck hurt.
In article <438c7052$1...@news2.lightlink.com>, Ball of Fluff
Ball of Fluff
Skipper wrote:
> Hey Bent, you're dueling with a cotton ball. There's nothing there. You
> said: What were their abilities and how did they come about - and she
> couldn't even answer it. She doesn't know abilities from apples, there
> are no "OT abilities" from $cientology and mental midgets only make
> your neck hurt.
It's very sad that you see a discussion forum as a place to "duel".
But it may explain some things about your posts.
C