Gerry Armstrong "The Miscavige op" caught lying...
Spacetraveler
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&frame=right&th=4008909738f65bbf&seekm=slrncqmhg4.157.hendersn%40localhost.localdomain#link1
I wrote:
"Here it is guys, below issue (full texture) cancels, I say CANCELS
the HCO PL that various persons are quoting on the Internet as a
present practice of Scientology, meaning fair game. ANYONE can see
that is absurd to quote that issue, as it has been CANCELLED 36 YEARS,
I repeat 36 YEARS ago. But persons like Gerryoko (aka Gerryono)
Armstrongophobia continue to make the claim and ignore. By his OWN
words, the expert on Fair Game and SP's and all that. Well, the label
pathological liar would fit him better."
And then I quote "HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 JULY 1968" in full.
Everyone can see that it reads: "(Cancels HCO Pol Ltr 18 October 67
issue IV)".
Now someone (user "Zed") responded on my post like this:
"May be *what*??"
Gerryoko responded to that like this:
"Fair gamed. LFBD F/N
Yes, restraining and imprisoning people -- the ones the Hubbard cult
or now the Miscavige cult declare SPs -- are acts of fair game. F/N
This policy letter maintained fair game as Hubbard originally intended
it. (I shipped the remaninder of his response)"
So Gerryono is saying that "restraining and imprisoning people" is
fair gaming. Is this so? Doesn't really matter actually. He however
does not query the existence of this "HCO PL 21 JULY 1968", so he must
also have read that it says "(Cancels HCO Pol Ltr 18 October 67 issue
IV)". So WHY in HEAVENS name is he quoting on his fair game page "HCO
PL 18 October 67 issue IV" and NOT "HCO PL 21 JULY 1968"????? He does
NOT even mention the EXISTENCE of this policy letter! In addition he
makes an entirely made up FALSE CLAIM on that page!!!
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html
And for anyone who wonders if "restraining and imprisoning people" is
synomym to Fair Game, let's consult a dictionary: ‘fair game', "1.
animals or birds that is lawful to hunt. 2. a suitable object of
pursuit or attack."
See, if some 'lunatic' is coming into your house with an axe and
prepared to cut your children, your wife, and your pets into tiny
little pieces, well, what do you do? Are you NOT going to restrain
this 'lunatic' and 'imprison' him (lock him up in a room so he can do
no further harm) and then call the cops.
Well, Gerryoko says this is Fair Game. Meaning, he want the lunatic to
cut your loved ones into tiny little pieces.
Someone made a marvelous study about this Fair Game and related
subjects:
http://fair-game-law.notlong.com
And friends even this policy letter "HCO PL 21 JULY 1968" has been
cancelled since 1970.
Sapcetraveler
Ball of Fluff
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04112...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
>
> And friends even this policy letter "HCO PL 21 JULY 1968" has been
> cancelled since 1970.
>
Canceled on paper. Not in practice.
CS
Spacetraveler
If it is not in policy it is not Scientology. If it is cancelled in
paper it is not in policy, and therefore not Scientology. You should
have understood that.
Spacetraveler
Fluffygirl
Hubbard was actually all for it, as was Mary Sue Hubbard. And as to
that one policy letter being canceled,I tend to think of that as a PR
thing.
There are confidential church policies on handling critics, etc. They
aren't particularly warm and fuzzy.
As I said to wanlorn, the only way to be a Scn'ist and not subscribe
to any of these misdeeds is to be an heretical one.
As am I.
C
Spacetraveler
> spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote in message news:<9f53d1e2.04113...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Ball of Fluff" <getof...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<41abe50e$1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> > > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9f53d1e2.04112...@posting.google.com...
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And friends even this policy letter "HCO PL 21 JULY 1968" has been
> > > > cancelled since 1970.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Canceled on paper. Not in practice.
> >
> > If it is not in policy it is not Scientology. If it is cancelled in
> > paper it is not in policy, and therefore not Scientology. You should
> > have understood that.
>
> Hubbard was actually all for it, as was Mary Sue Hubbard. And as to
> that one policy letter being canceled,I tend to think of that as a PR
> thing.
>
> There are confidential church policies on handling critics, etc. They
> aren't particularly warm and fuzzy.
Extreme situations ask for extreme handlings. Almost any of these are
written during 1968/69, the Church during the time was under severe
attacks. Omar Garrison discusses quite a bit of this in his 1974 book.
No, off course they are not 'warm,. I find them however not fuzzy. It
was a question of surviving of going under, are you saying that one
has not the right to defend oneself while being under attack?
>
> As I said to wanlorn, the only way to be a Scn'ist and not subscribe
> to any of these misdeeds is to be an heretical one.
The greatest good etc....
>
> As am I.
>
Spacetraveler
Zinj
spacetra...@hotmail.com says...
<snip>
> Extreme situations ask for extreme handlings. Almost any of these are
> written during 1968/69, the Church during the time was under severe
> attacks. Omar Garrison discusses quite a bit of this in his 1974 book.
> No, off course they are not 'warm,. I find them however not fuzzy. It
> was a question of surviving of going under, are you saying that one
> has not the right to defend oneself while being under attack?
This is an ominous statement considering that the 'Church' of
Scientology is teetering on the verge of extinction or implosion to a
degree it has never before experienced.
Yes, the 'Church' has consistently (which for Scientology ot the
'Church' is itself amazing) operated on the premise that literally
*anything* advantageous to its 'survival' or even 'pan determinism' is
acceptable, and even the height of 'ethics'.
That is the core of 'Scientology Ethics'. If it's 'good' for
Scientology; it's Ethical.
Murder, subversion, corruption, fraud, extortion, torture and even
genocide are perfectly acceptable *for the 'Church'*, if it enhances the
'survival' of Scientology. Anything less is theety-weetyism.
Of course, the 'Church' and Scientologists in general do *not*
immediately resort to the 'biggest guns' in every case, since it causes
'PR Flaps'. But it's in the toolkit, and available for use as needed.
And things like fraud and extortion and corruption and subversion are
*always* needed; assuming the 'Church' doesn't get caught. Which it
does; often. See the history of 'Fair Game'.
Nice of you to remind us that the 'Church' never reaches to 'extreme
measures' unless it *really wants to* or *really needs to*. And that
now, in its days of disaster, such 'needs and wants' are far more likely
than in days when it can get away with its lesser crimes with less
notice.
Zinj
--
You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think
Spacetraveler
> In article <9f53d1e2.04113...@posting.google.com>,
> spacetra...@hotmail.com says...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Extreme situations ask for extreme handlings. Almost any of these are
> > written during 1968/69, the Church during the time was under severe
> > attacks. Omar Garrison discusses quite a bit of this in his 1974 book.
> > No, off course they are not 'warm,. I find them however not fuzzy. It
> > was a question of surviving of going under, are you saying that one
> > has not the right to defend oneself while being under attack?
>
> This is an ominous statement considering that the 'Church' of
> Scientology is teetering on the verge of extinction or implosion to a
> degree it has never before experienced.
>
> Yes, the 'Church' has consistently (which for Scientology ot the
> 'Church' is itself amazing) operated on the premise that literally
> *anything* advantageous to its 'survival' or even 'pan determinism' is
> acceptable, and even the height of 'ethics'.
>
> That is the core of 'Scientology Ethics'. If it's 'good' for
> Scientology; it's Ethical.
Basically yes, but you also need to have a practical and truthful
definition of Scientology itself.
>
> Murder, subversion, corruption, fraud, extortion, torture and even
> genocide are perfectly acceptable *for the 'Church'*, if it enhances the
> 'survival' of Scientology. Anything less is theety-weetyism.
>
> Of course, the 'Church' and Scientologists in general do *not*
> immediately resort to the 'biggest guns' in every case, since it causes
> 'PR Flaps'. But it's in the toolkit, and available for use as needed.
> And things like fraud and extortion and corruption and subversion are
> *always* needed; assuming the 'Church' doesn't get caught. Which it
> does; often. See the history of 'Fair Game'.
>
> Nice of you to remind us that the 'Church' never reaches to 'extreme
> measures' unless it *really wants to* or *really needs to*. And that
> now, in its days of disaster, such 'needs and wants' are far more likely
> than in days when it can get away with its lesser crimes with less
> notice.
As a matter of fact, I know of no instances it has been used. Not
during my time intern that is. Most of my time I was either a Msnaire
or posted somewhere in HCO, I had access to any files, and I was a
curious and very attentive individual.
Spacetraveler
Fluffygirl
> >
> > There are confidential church policies on handling critics, etc. They
> > aren't particularly warm and fuzzy.
>
> Extreme situations ask for extreme handlings. Almost any of these are
> written during 1968/69, the Church during the time was under severe
> attacks. Omar Garrison discusses quite a bit of this in his 1974 book.
> No, off course they are not 'warm,. I find them however not fuzzy. It
> was a question of surviving of going under, are you saying that one
> has not the right to defend oneself while being under attack?
The church has a history of making its own enemies and driving its
supporters away.
And nothing justifies harassment and illegal tricks.
The end does not justify the means.
But even if one thought it did, those things have not helped the
church AT ALL. So it isn't justified from that standpoint, either.
C