ROTFL!!! Co$ operators are standing by!!
Bruce Pettycrew
I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
(who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
and could be used by any religion. I then asked her if it
was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
"HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
realpch
suppressive and we would like to trace your call so we can harass you
later....oh, wait a minute, I forgot we have no means whatsoever of
tracing calls and I think I have to go now..."
Fredric L. Rice
>I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
>when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
>I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
>(who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
>practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
>teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
>and could be used by any religion. I then asked her if it
>was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
>result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
>a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
>"HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
>Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
<laughing> But it;'s a frigging WATS line! It's already "traced!"
<Rofl!> Man, what morons. Ask an embarrassing question and they
hang up. Amazing.
--- "de omnibus dubitandum" All is to be doubted --- Descartes
24-hour file archive access: (626) 335-9601 (FidoNet 1:218/890.0) SP4
The Skeptic Tank: http://www.skeptictank.org/ http://www.xenu.net/
DaHatter
news:38F01FA2...@aol.com...
> Arf arf! "Would you hold on please, we think you are a disgusting
> suppressive and we would like to trace your call so we can harass you
> later....oh, wait a minute, I forgot we have no means whatsoever of
> tracing calls and I think I have to go now..."
Actually, if you call a toll-free number, they *do* get some information
regarding you. After all, the party paying the bill, as Ma Bell sees it, has
a right to know exactly what they paid for. And any decent phreak could fill
in the rest from the info on the billing statement.
The cardinal rule in all the alt.2600 stuff I've ever read on these subjects
is: If you just *have* to have a little phun, do it from a payphone... :)
--
Ron went to venus and all I got was this stupid t-shirt!
http://www.xenu.net http://www.fza.org
The reply-to address in the header routes e-mail to the "bit bucket" --
Please send replies to "don at lindner2k dot com".
anon...@electra.lightlink.com
>Arf arf! "Would you hold on please, we think you are a disgusting
>suppressive and we would like to trace your call so we can harass you
>later....oh, wait a minute, I forgot we have no means whatsoever of
>tracing calls and I think I have to go now..."
Wrong... all 800 calls get recorded by the phone company
El Roto
bk-pet...@home.com (Bruce Pettycrew) wrote:
>
> I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
> when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
> I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
> (who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
> practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
> teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
> and could be used by any religion. I then asked her if it
> was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
> result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
> a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
> "HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
> Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
>
>
I'm sure she didn't mean to hang up. She probably inadvertantly rang
off while trying to find the page in her manual that scripts the
response to calls like yours; it's the page that has "You're a
Suppressive Person!" "You're a Suppressive Person!" printed in 32 point
bold face type.
--
Steve G.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John or Claire Swazey
Bruce Pettycrew wrote:
>
> I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
> when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
> I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
> (who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
> practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
> teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
> and could be used by any religion. I then asked her if it
> was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
> result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
> a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
> "HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
> Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
So you called an 800 number and harassed some nice girl trying to do her
job and take some orders.
Nice.
Your doing this served no purpose other than to harass and humiliate.
So much for thomlove's and others' assertion that most critics only want
to investigate wrongdoing and so forth.
This sort of malice and harassment as recounted on ars isn't rare.
C
Kaeli
Claire:
Please don't start painting people by the same brush. We aren't clones,
thankfully, and all of us have different ways of criticising. Each of us are
individual people, even if we're criticizing the same things. Some of us
agree with each other, some of us don't. Even among critics, we don't always
agree with each other. However that's life. All of us have different
temperaments and traits, and different means of resolving a situation or
speaking.
Kaeli.
Conner
<WgPH4.35819$U4.1...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com>, bk-pet...@home.com
(Bruce Pettycrew) wrote:
>
>I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
>when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
>I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
>(who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
>practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
>teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
>and could be used by any religion. I then asked her if it
>was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
>result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
>a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
>"HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
>Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
LOL!
>
-- see...@ix.netcom.com (Conner)
Eppur si muove - Galilei
Fredric L. Rice
>Bruce Pettycrew wrote:
>> I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
>> when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
>> I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
>> (who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
>> practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
>> teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
>> and could be used by any religion. I then asked her if it
>> was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
>> result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
>> a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
>> "HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
>> Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
>So you called an 800 number and harassed some nice girl trying to do her
>job and take some orders.
Yeah, asking cult followers honest questions _is_ harassment to the
criminal cult's leaders. Sure it is. Inside of the criminal cult
one is not allowed to ask embarrassing questions -- such as the fact
that your dead godman was a Satanist and claimed that Christianity
is an R6 implant.
Yeah, can't "harass" followers into thinking for themselves, now, can
we? They would stop shelling out the money of they did that. Can't
let that happen.
Fredric L. Rice
>"Shy David www.xenu.net" wrote:
>> *FLUNK!* It was a perfectly valid question. If a Jew calls the local
>> Chinese Food take-out and asks if the wonton has pork in it, is that
>> "harassment?" Nope!
>The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
Funny how you ignored "GREAT! Let us talk about Paulette Cooper."
Shy David www.xenu.net
> John or Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >Bruce Pettycrew wrote:
> >> I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
> >> when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
> >> I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
> >> (who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
> >> practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
> >> teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
> >> and could be used by any religion. I then asked her if it
> >> was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
> >> result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
> >> a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
> >> "HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
> >> Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
How very odd. It sounds like a perfectly valid question to me. One
should know what one is buying before doing so. She obviously did not
hear the question correctly due to being sleepy. I would call back and
ask again.
> >So you called an 800 number and harassed some nice girl trying to do her
> >job and take some orders.
> >
> >Nice.
*FLUNK!* It was a perfectly valid question. If a Jew calls the local
Chinese Food take-out and asks if the wonton has pork in it, is that
"harassment?" Nope!
> >Your doing this served no purpose other than to harass and humiliate.
It served to discover if "Dianetics" is really compatible with
Christianity (which of course it is not).
> >So much for thomlove's and others' assertion that most critics only want
> >to investigate wrongdoing and so forth.
GREAT! Let us talk about Paulette Cooper.
> >This sort of malice and harassment as recounted on ars isn't rare.
LOL! You do not do PMS very well.
> It's just criminal the way some people call an advertised number,
> probably the 1800-get-help number, ask questions, and thereby
> interfere with a business. $cientology had to pay for that phone
> call, grommit.
Yeah. How dare potential customers ask questions about a product?!
> Think how much money could be saved if they didn't have to answer
> questions.
Think of the lives saved if the business answered questions
TRUTHFULLY.
> Think how much money would be saved if no one called.
One day soon that will be the case. It's just a matter of time.
> Why would anyone want to be informed and forewarned about the risks
> inherent in something they were thinking about buying? If everyone
> did it, nobody would ever join a cult again, and that would have a
> serious impact on the national cashflow indexes.
In the USA at any rate.
> How many more courses until you achieve godhood, Claire?
Zero. Too bad he doesn't realize that.
> --
> Ted (t...@ibexbsc.com)
---
"Shy" David Rice. A proud supporter and defender of religious rights. Help fight
religious descrimination! <http://holysmoke.org/tolerate.htm>
"The 'ho hasn't silence me yet." -- Grady Ward
John or Claire Swazey
Kaeli wrote:
>
> John or Claire Swazey wrote:
>
> > Bruce Pettycrew wrote:
> > >
> > > I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
> > > when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
> > > I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
> > > (who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
> > > practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
> > > teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
> > > and could be used by any religion. I then asked her if it
> > > was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
> > > result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
> > > a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
> > > "HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
> > > Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
> >
> > So you called an 800 number and harassed some nice girl trying to do her
> > job and take some orders.
> >
> > Nice.
> >
> > Your doing this served no purpose other than to harass and humiliate.
> >
> > So much for thomlove's and others' assertion that most critics only want
> > to investigate wrongdoing and so forth.
> >
> > This sort of malice and harassment as recounted on ars isn't rare.
> >
> > C
>
> Claire:
>
> Please don't start painting people by the same brush. We aren't clones,
> thankfully, and all of us have different ways of criticising.
I know that.
>Each of us are
> individual people, even if we're criticizing the same things. Some of us
> agree with each other, some of us don't. Even among critics, we don't always
> agree with each other. However that's life. All of us have different
> temperaments and traits, and different means of resolving a situation or
> speaking.
This is quite true, and I am ever mindful of this. I've had a great
many interesting exchanges with critics in this forum, and am quite
aware that they are not all the same. That's one of the things which
makes a.r.s. neat.
However, the meanspiritedness evidenced by the original post in this
thread is, unfortunately, not anywhere near as rare as it ought to be on
a.r.s.
So, sure, it's not everybody on this forum. But it's not rare, and it's
deplorable. And it doesn't get anybody anywhere.
C
John or Claire Swazey
"Shy David www.xenu.net" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 16:04:10 -0600, t...@ibexbsc.com wrote:
>
> > John or Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > >Bruce Pettycrew wrote:
>
> > >> I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
> > >> when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
> > >> I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
> > >> (who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
> > >> practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
> > >> teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
> > >> and could be used by any religion. I then asked her if it
> > >> was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
> > >> result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
> > >> a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
> > >> "HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
> > >> Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
>
> How very odd. It sounds like a perfectly valid question to me. One
> should know what one is buying before doing so. She obviously did not
> hear the question correctly due to being sleepy. I would call back and
> ask again.
>
> > >So you called an 800 number and harassed some nice girl trying to do her
> > >job and take some orders.
> > >
> > >Nice.
>
> *FLUNK!* It was a perfectly valid question. If a Jew calls the local
> Chinese Food take-out and asks if the wonton has pork in it, is that
> "harassment?" Nope!
The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
And the title of the post, the jeering way in which this was written
evidences the intent. Obviously.
>
> > >Your doing this served no purpose other than to harass and humiliate.
>
> It served to discover if "Dianetics" is really compatible with
> Christianity (which of course it is not).
>
> > >So much for thomlove's and others' assertion that most critics only want
> > >to investigate wrongdoing and so forth.
>
> GREAT! Let us talk about Paulette Cooper.
I've often been asked by critics if two wrongs make a right. So I guess
you're implying they do if it comes out in the critics' favor. I see.
>
> > >This sort of malice and harassment as recounted on ars isn't rare.
>
> LOL! You do not do PMS very well.
That's why it wasn't PMS, silly. (I mean, c'mon- did you actually see
anywhere in my post a plaintive request for chocolate, more chocolate,
and keep it comin'?)
>
> > It's just criminal the way some people call an advertised number,
> > probably the 1800-get-help number, ask questions, and thereby
> > interfere with a business. $cientology had to pay for that phone
> > call, grommit.
>
> Yeah. How dare potential customers ask questions about a product?!
Depends on why they do it. With intent to receive info or intent to
harass.
>
> > Think how much money could be saved if they didn't have to answer
> > questions.
>
> Think of the lives saved if the business answered questions
> TRUTHFULLY.
Sure. And a little telephone answering chickie is going to have all the
data. Oh sure.
She was just there to take orders for a book. And Bruce knew it. He
didn't call her looking for information. This is obvious.
>
> > Think how much money would be saved if no one called.
>
> One day soon that will be the case. It's just a matter of time.
Keep dreaming.
>
> > Why would anyone want to be informed and forewarned about the risks
> > inherent in something they were thinking about buying? If everyone
> > did it, nobody would ever join a cult again, and that would have a
> > serious impact on the national cashflow indexes.
>
> In the USA at any rate.
>
> > How many more courses until you achieve godhood, Claire?
>
> Zero. Too bad he doesn't realize that.
I'm not a he.
C
Raptavio
John or Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Pettycrew wrote:
> >
> > I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
> > when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
> > I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
> > (who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
> > practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
> > teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
> > and could be used by any religion. I then asked her if it
> > was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
> > result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
> > a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
> > "HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
> > Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
>
her
> job and take some orders.
>
> Nice.
Wait - how is asking someone about what Hubbard said harassment?
> Your doing this served no purpose other than to harass and humiliate.
Why did these two questions harass or humiliate? They're just
questions - or if you like it, the second was a leading question which
was really an apparently true statement about Hubbard.
> So much for thomlove's and others' assertion that most critics only
want
> to investigate wrongdoing and so forth.
>
> This sort of malice and harassment as recounted on ars isn't rare.
If this is as malicious as critics get, I'm not too concerned.
--
"It must be exciting to think that way, but a drag to have to deal with
the clinical diagnosis."
barb
>
> Bruce Pettycrew wrote:
> >
> > I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
> > when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
> > I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
> > (who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
> > practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
> > teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
> > and could be used by any religion. I then asked her if it
> > was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
> > result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
> > a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
> > "HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
> > Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
>
> So you called an 800 number and harassed some nice girl trying to do her
> job and take some orders.
>
> Nice.
>
>
> to investigate wrongdoing and so forth.
>
> This sort of malice and harassment as recounted on ars isn't rare.
>
Oh, qwitcher whining! You people act like total asses, and then snivel
when you're called on it. Here we have a potential victim calling for
information, and he gets threatened with a phone trace when he asks a
pertinent question about Christianity. Nice church, NOT!
Talk about malice! Jeff was just having a little fun and you start the
usual squall about malice and harassment. Why do you think they posted
the damn phone number to begin with? If you culties would straighten up
and act like gentlemen, you wouldn't have anything to whine about.
--
barb
"copy c:\clams.scn c:\scienos\scienos.pod"
-Sten (Koos Koos) Arne
Frog
From: John or Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
>Kaeli wrote:
>>
>> John or Claire Swazey wrote:
>>
>> > Bruce Pettycrew wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
>> > > when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
>> > > I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
>> > > (who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
>> > > practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
>> > > teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
>> > > and could be used by any religion.
Several groups of people here have met with RC and
Presbyterian church leaders and both state categorically
that $cientology is NOT compatible with their respective
religion. They were both appalled by the teachings of
Hubbard.
http://home.kvalito.no/~xenu/archive/media_vault/Nochrist.ra
"Anyway, Everyman is then shown to have been crucified so
don't think that it's an accident that this crucifixion,
they found out that this applied. Somebody somewhere on this
planet, back about 600 BC, found some pieces of R6, and I
don't know how they found it, either by watching madmen or
something, but since that time they have used it and it
became what is known as Christianity. The man on the Cross.
There was no Christ. But the man on the cross is shown as
Everyman. So of course each person seeing a crucified man,
has an immediate feeling of sympathy for this man. Therefore
you get many PCs who says they are Christ. Now, there's two
reasons for that, one is the Roman Empire was prone to
crucify people, so a person can have been crucified, but in
R6 he is shown as crucified."
- L. Ron Hubbard
Claire, you have stated that you are RC. I suggest that you
speak with your priest and ask him if he considers
$cientology to be compatible with that religion. Make sure
you tell him the whole story about $cientology - including
Xenu. After all, this portion costs hundred's of thousands
of dollars and is the main part of your "Bridge to Total
Freedom"(TM).
>> > > I then asked her if it
>> > > was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
>> > > result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
>> > > a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
>> > > "HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
>> > > Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
>> >
>> > So you called an 800 number and harassed some nice girl trying to do her
>> > job and take some orders.
"Some nice girl" made an implied threat. It is well
documented and proven that $cientologists will personally
harass anyone who criticizes them. One can hear the
following at every picket: "We know who you are." "We know
where you live." "We know where you work."
This harassment policy is one of the well known tools that
OSA uses to silence critics. "Fair Game"(TM) is still in
effect. How many critics have had false information fed to
their employers and neighbors in an attempt by the Co$ to
harass them? How many have had their place of residence
picketed? This still goes on at this very moment.
>> > Nice.
>> >
>> > Your doing this served no purpose other than to harass and humiliate.
Asking any questions about $cientology's true beliefs is
construed by your cherch as "harassment". Where do you get
"humiliate" from? Because the true answer IS humiliating?
The truth about Hubbard's words makes a mockery and lie of
this "nice girl's" statement that $cientology is compatible
with other religions.
>> > So much for thomlove's and others' assertion that most critics only want
>> > to investigate wrongdoing and so forth.
Not telling the truth about $cientology up front, IS one of
the main wrong doings of the Co$ that is being criticized in
this news group.
>> > This sort of malice and harassment as recounted on ars isn't rare.
>> > C
Look to your front group, the CCHR, if you want to see good
examples of malice and harassment.
>> Claire:
>>
>> Please don't start painting people by the same brush. We aren't clones,
>> thankfully, and all of us have different ways of criticising.
>
>I know that.
>
>>Each of us are
>> individual people, even if we're criticizing the same things. Some of us
>> agree with each other, some of us don't. Even among critics, we don't always
>> agree with each other. However that's life. All of us have different
>> temperaments and traits, and different means of resolving a situation or
>> speaking.
>
>This is quite true, and I am ever mindful of this. I've had a great
>many interesting exchanges with critics in this forum, and am quite
>aware that they are not all the same. That's one of the things which
>makes a.r.s. neat.
>
>However, the meanspiritedness evidenced by the original post in this
>thread is, unfortunately, not anywhere near as rare as it ought to be on
>a.r.s.
The $cientologists that stand in the front lines have to
expect to take the brunt of the criticism of your cherch.
Hubbard's "Space Opera"(TM) religion, with it's outlandish
promises of medical cures and personal "power" over the
physical universe (which have not materialized in 50 years)
leaves the cherch open to ridicule.
>So, sure, it's not everybody on this forum. But it's not rare, and it's
>deplorable. And it doesn't get anybody anywhere.
If you want to find REAL examples of mean spiritedness, look
within your cherch itself. How many people, who have exposed
the cherch for it's lies and deceptions, have been damaged
willfully by the Co$? How much money and resources have been
poured into an effort to "Ruin Them Utterly"(TM)?
>C
BTW, Miss Piggy, froggies know enough not to go skiing with
clams so there is no chance they'll go "splat". They are
much wiser than clams. They can see and talk and sing and
dance. They even turn into a prince when you kiss them. Of
course, if they don't turn into a prince, it's not because
the story isn't true. It just means you are not a princess.
Kermit
Shy David www.xenu.net
<swa...@home.com> wrote:
[cuts]
> > > >So much for thomlove's and others' assertion that most critics only want
> > > >to investigate wrongdoing and so forth.
> > GREAT! Let us talk about Paulette Cooper.
> I've often been asked by critics if two wrongs make a right. So I guess
> you're implying they do if it comes out in the critics' favor. I see.
Do you realize how increadably absurd your statement is? You are
comparing a critic's quetioning a Dianetics salesperson about its
compatibility to Christianity with your cult's illegal acts of:
1) framing Paulette Cooper for a bomb threat against the cult
2) sending a man with a gun to her previous residence and almost
killing her roommate
3) spreading black propaganda about her around town
4) posting her phone number in men's bathrooms in downtown bars
5) infiltrating her very home by installing a cult member as her
roommate
6) having that roommate gleefully report that Ms. Cooper was on the
brink of suicide
7) framing her for writing and mailing a death threat to Henry
Kissinger
8) and THEN harassing her with 18 SLAPP suits to try to keep her from
telling people about what your demonic, dispicable, criminal cult was
doing to her.
You have earned a place in my killfile. *PLOINK!*
Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDOTcom>
>The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
Claire, the intent is to pull an overt. CofS in "pulling in" this
sort of thing because of the overt, not because of the reaction of
a particular person.
>And the title of the post, the jeering way in which this was written
>evidences the intent. Obviously.
If CofS, Inc. did not have this overt, there would be no "jeering".
(your words, not mine.
In fact, Hubbard DID say that Christianity is the result of the
observing madmen. I've seen the transcripts of the tape. So, the
question is a valid question. The only point of further discussion
is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
From my observation of other reports, none of the standard public
terminals of CofS, Inc. have answered this question posed by Bruce,
so what should he do?
>I've often been asked by critics if two wrongs make a right. So I guess
>you're implying they do if it comes out in the critics' favor. I see.
You are criticising critics for playing by CofS, Inc.'s rules. Just
an observation.
>> Yeah. How dare potential customers ask questions about a product?!
>
>Depends on why they do it. With intent to receive info or intent to
>harass.
Is it harrassment to ask questions? Personally, I would like an
answer from any Scientologist that reconciles the Class 8 tape with
CofS, Inc.'s claim to be compatible with Christianity.
Instead, Bruce gets a menacing "we're tracing the call". Is that
an answer? No, it's another overt. They're stacking up at an
alarming rate, Claire.
>Sure. And a little telephone answering chickie is going to have all the
>data. Oh sure.
You are denigrating a representative of the Scientology religion. If
the operator did not have the answers, the question should have been
forwarded to someone who did. Ref: Answer the Public's Questions. I
think Ron wrote something about that, but I don't have the HCOB.
>She was just there to take orders for a book. And Bruce knew it. He
>didn't call her looking for information. This is obvious.
Maybe Bruce has already called 1-800-for-truth, and didn't get an
answer there, either. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
>C
Perry Scott, SP 4.3, ScienoSitter 3X + ISP + 2 words
Co$ Escapee
Fredric L. Rice
>> Here we have a potential victim calling for
>> information, and he gets threatened with a phone trace when he asks a
>> pertinent question about Christianity. Nice church, NOT!
>He was frightening and harassing the girl and she responded accordingly.
>She'd most likely have reacted the same way had she been a member of
>something else working some other order-taking thing.
Are you admitting that having to answer _honest_questions_ about your
cult's not-so-well-hidden-anymore secrets induces fear in cult followers?
I'm sure that having your ringleader's bait-and-switch frauds well
known by the general populace adversely impacts their take, and maybe
it makes _them_ fear that the chumps will eventually be far and between,
but are you actually claiming that forcing cult followers to address
the truth induces fear in them?
Fredric L. Rice
>"Shy David www.xenu.net" wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:21:33 GMT, John or Claire Swazey
>> <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>> [cuts]
>> > > > >So much for thomlove's and others' assertion that most critics only want
>> > > > >to investigate wrongdoing and so forth.
>> > > GREAT! Let us talk about Paulette Cooper.
>> > I've often been asked by critics if two wrongs make a right. So I guess
>> > you're implying they do if it comes out in the critics' favor. I see.
>> Do you realize how increadably absurd your statement is? You are
>> comparing a critic's quetioning a Dianetics salesperson about its
>> compatibility to Christianity with your cult's illegal acts of:
>>
>> 1) framing Paulette Cooper for a bomb threat against the cult
>>
>> 2) sending a man with a gun to her previous residence and almost
>> killing her roommate
>>
>> 3) spreading black propaganda about her around town
>>
>> 4) posting her phone number in men's bathrooms in downtown bars
>>
>> 5) infiltrating her very home by installing a cult member as her
>> roommate
>>
>> 6) having that roommate gleefully report that Ms. Cooper was on the
>> brink of suicide
>>
>> 7) framing her for writing and mailing a death threat to Henry
>> Kissinger
>>
>> 8) and THEN harassing her with 18 SLAPP suits to try to keep her from
>> telling people about what your demonic, dispicable, criminal cult was
>> doing to her.
>>
>> You have earned a place in my killfile. *PLOINK!*
>Sounds like a winner to me.
Funny how you couldn't address any of the criminal and racketeering
activities of your criminal cult as enumerated above, huh?
Now why is that? Why is it that you cult followers are utterly
incapable of confronting the truth about your cult leaders' activities?
Why is it you're all utterly incapable of talking about what Scientology
(inside of the cult, any way) is really all about?
Could it be the TR brainwashing?
Fredric L. Rice
>In article <38F1E3F5...@home.com>, John says...
>>Sure. And a little telephone answering chickie is going to have all the
>>data. Oh sure.
>You are denigrating a representative of the Scientology religion. If
>the operator did not have the answers, the question should have been
>forwarded to someone who did.
That "terminal" shouldn't have been answering the telephone in the first
place since she wasn't trained and brainwashed enough to try a convincing
lie. You can be sure that unindicted co-conspirator Moxon or PR flacky
Mike Rinder would have managed to come up with at least _some_ lie to try
out.
Fredric L. Rice
>Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDO...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:8ctq3e$25...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <38F1E3F5...@home.com>, John says...
>> >The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
>> In fact, Hubbard DID say that Christianity is the result of the
>> observing madmen. I've seen the transcripts of the tape. So, the
>> question is a valid question. The only point of further discussion
>> is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
>I really doubt it.
What _specifically_ do you doubt? Do you doubt that your dead godman
actually made the state statements that everyone -- including your
cult's ringleaders -- attributes to him?
Fredric L. Rice
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:18:46 GMT, Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com>
>wrote:
>> Christians DO believe that Jesus is THE Savior.
>> How is Scientology "compatible" with Christianity?
> Just curious Cap, do you consider *any* religion
> to be compatible with Christianity?
Christianity is. What's at issue is the fact that the Scientology fraud
lies to its potential victims by denying something Hubbard said... and
Hubbard is "Source" and Hubbard is never wrong.
When the Scientology cult's ringleaders demand that their criminal cult
is compatible with Christianity, they're engaged in squirreling.
Fredric L. Rice
>"Perry Scott " wrote:
>> In article <38F1E3F5...@home.com>, John says...
>>>The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
>> Claire, the intent is to pull an overt. CofS in "pulling in" this
>> sort of thing because of the overt, not because of the reaction of
>> a particular person.
> Cool. Someone somewhere says things critics don't
> like, so it's open season on all Scientologists.
You're playing the victim. How so very downstat.
Why not address the issues and explain why your cult leaders have to
lie about their criminal cult being some how compatible with Christianity?
I know why your cult leaders have to lie on this point. Do you?
John or Claire Swazey
"Shy David www.xenu.net" wrote:
>
The only one who made that comparison was *you*.
Not I.
And you're still doing it.
C
Russell Shaw
> >The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
>
> In fact, Hubbard DID say that Christianity is the result of the
> observing madmen. I've seen the transcripts of the tape. So, the
> question is a valid question. The only point of further discussion
> is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
I really doubt it.
>
> From my observation of other reports, none of the standard public
> terminals of CofS, Inc. have answered this question posed by Bruce,
> so what should he do?
I will answer it right now. I had no idea it was such an important
question.
> Is it harrassment to ask questions? Personally, I would like an
> answer from any Scientologist that reconciles the Class 8 tape with
> CofS, Inc.'s claim to be compatible with Christianity.
The class 8 tape is talking about *an implant*.
The fact that there are implants that have Jesus on a cross (and there are)
does NOT negate the existence of the man named Jesus (whom Christians
believe to be *the* savior)
There is *nothing* in Scientology that says Jesus didn't exist. Or that
Jesus didn't walk around healing people by just touching them. Several LRH
lectures talk about how he did just that. And I believe he did.
The statement "There is no Christ" in the lecture is badly misunderstood and
twisted when used to say that Scientology is incompatible with Christianity.
The very nature of implants is designed to confuse a being. That most here
have no concept of the reality of implants changes nothing. What most ARS
critics tend to focus on is the *content* of the implants - and they err in
that, as they don't really understand implants themselves.
Scientologists do not believe that Jesus is THE Savior. He was *a* savior.
>
> Instead, Bruce gets a menacing "we're tracing the call". Is that
> an answer? No, it's another overt. They're stacking up at an
> alarming rate, Claire.
>
>
> >Sure. And a little telephone answering chickie is going to have all the
> >data. Oh sure.
>
> You are denigrating a representative of the Scientology religion. If
> the operator did not have the answers, the question should have been
Beverly Rice
> Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDO...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> The class 8 tape is talking about *an implant*.
>
> The fact that there are implants that have Jesus on a cross (and there are)
> does NOT negate the existence of the man named Jesus (whom Christians
> believe to be *the* savior)
>
> There is *nothing* in Scientology that says Jesus didn't exist. Or that
> Jesus didn't walk around healing people by just touching them. Several LRH
> lectures talk about how he did just that. And I believe he did.
>
> The statement "There is no Christ" in the lecture is badly misunderstood and
> twisted when used to say that Scientology is incompatible with Christianity.
> The very nature of implants is designed to confuse a being. That most here
> have no concept of the reality of implants changes nothing. What most ARS
> critics tend to focus on is the *content* of the implants - and they err in
> that, as they don't really understand implants themselves.
>
> Scientologists do not believe that Jesus is THE Savior. He was *a* savior.
Blah, blah, blah.
All of Christianity, as well as other religions, are mental
image implants, R6.
They need to be removed in order for the Thetan to progress
(among the horribly many ~other~ implants, GPM's etc that must
be recognized and removed.)
How many Body Thetans, implants, GPM's are there?
Well, how much money do you have? <wink, wink>.
ARC,
Beverly
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <38f2f...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Russell Shaw"
<rs...@dancris.com> wrote:
> Scientologists do not believe that Jesus is THE Savior. He was *a*
> savior.
Christians DO believe that Jesus is THE Savior.
How is Scientology "compatible" with Christianity?
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQA/AwUBOPMmMbztfgpKlX7qEQL8cwCfcjnLbeqxodIZwsjsjNQLVetV1XUAoM8V
yiYLlj/8bOv5KbWEWBUitobC
=ZGMH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Operation: Nerdwatch - http://www.nerdwatch.com
Captain Nerd can be reached at: cpt...@nerdwatch.com
"By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes."
Jack Craver
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In article <38f2f...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Russell Shaw"
><rs...@dancris.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Scientologists do not believe that Jesus is THE Savior. He was *a*
>> savior.
>
> Christians DO believe that Jesus is THE Savior.
>
> How is Scientology "compatible" with Christianity?
>
Just curious Cap, do you consider *any* religion to be compatible with
Christianity?
> Cap.
>
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGP 6.5.2
>
>iQA/AwUBOPMmMbztfgpKlX7qEQL8cwCfcjnLbeqxodIZwsjsjNQLVetV1XUAoM8V
>yiYLlj/8bOv5KbWEWBUitobC
>=ZGMH
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
For another look at A.R.S.:
see http://bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm
Best of luck
jack
barb
>
That's right! You still don't understand harassment, do you?
John Dorsay
<snip - if I was too enthusiastic, please accept my apologies in
advance>
> The class 8 tape is talking about *an implant*.
>
> The fact that there are implants that have Jesus on a cross (and there are)
> does NOT negate the existence of the man named Jesus (whom Christians
> believe to be *the* savior)
>
> There is *nothing* in Scientology that says Jesus didn't exist. Or that
> Jesus didn't walk around healing people by just touching them. Several LRH
> lectures talk about how he did just that. And I believe he did.
>
> The statement "There is no Christ" in the lecture is badly misunderstood and
> twisted when used to say that Scientology is incompatible with Christianity.
> The very nature of implants is designed to confuse a being. That most here
> have no concept of the reality of implants changes nothing. What most ARS
> critics tend to focus on is the *content* of the implants - and they err in
> that, as they don't really understand implants themselves.
>
> Scientologists do not believe that Jesus is THE Savior. He was *a* savior.
Do I understand you correctly, Russ? Are you saying that implants have
no basis in fact?
--
Regards, John
Exceedingly Rude and Discourteous Psychiatric Pawn
Read about Scientology and the abuse of survivors of brain injury:
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <ov96fssd2q6lb5c19...@4ax.com>, Jack Craver
<inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:18:46 GMT, Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com>
> wrote:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >In article <38f2f...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Russell Shaw"
> ><rs...@dancris.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Scientologists do not believe that Jesus is THE Savior. He was *a*
> >> savior.
> >
> > Christians DO believe that Jesus is THE Savior.
> >
> > How is Scientology "compatible" with Christianity?
> >
>
> Just curious Cap, do you consider *any* religion to be compatible with
> Christianity?
>
> > Cap.
I consider people to be compatible to differing degrees. I consider
people of differing religious beliefs can be tolerant of each others
beliefs to varying degrees.
I don't consider religious beliefs that disagree on key points to be
compatible. For instance, Judaism and Christianity disagree strongly
about the Messiah. As such, the beliefs are incompatible. Christians
and Jews can tolerate each other, and can to a greater or lesser degree
be compatible. Tolerance is a lost art, these days, so it's
understandable
that it could be confused with "compatibility."
So, no, I don't think other religions are "compatible" with Christianity,
but there's no reason why people in those religions can't be compatible
and tolerant of the differences.
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQA/AwUBOPM2lbztfgpKlX7qEQIcOQCgiM3whSS8cY5EQajieOd3uDwpX7kAoJ44
J3o0bYwYJK/sfE+wP5KEtSo+
=Cdg/
John or Claire Swazey
barb wrote:
>
> John or Claire Swazey wrote:
> >
> > Bruce Pettycrew wrote:
> > >
> > > I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
> > > when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
> > > I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
> > > (who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
> > > practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
> > > teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
> > > and could be used by any religion. I then asked her if it
> > > was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
> > > result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
> > > a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
> > > "HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
> > > Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
> >
> > So you called an 800 number and harassed some nice girl trying to do her
> > job and take some orders.
> >
> > Nice.
> >
> > Your doing this served no purpose other than to harass and humiliate.
> >
> > So much for thomlove's and others' assertion that most critics only want
> > to investigate wrongdoing and so forth.
> >
> > This sort of malice and harassment as recounted on ars isn't rare.
> >
> > C
>
> Oh, qwitcher whining!
No whinin', me!
> You people act like total asses, and then snivel
> when you're called on it.
What people? And why am I included in this? I'm just myself, ya know.
> Here we have a potential victim calling for
> information, and he gets threatened with a phone trace when he asks a
> pertinent question about Christianity. Nice church, NOT!
He was frightening and harassing the girl and she responded accordingly.
She'd most likely have reacted the same way had she been a member of
something else working some other order-taking thing.
>
> Talk about malice! Jeff was just having a little fun
AHA!! Just having a little fun!! So we can see it wasn't a noble knight
in shining armour white horse quest for information. No Diogenes stuff
here, no sirree Bob. Nope, the idea was to have some fun at someone
else's expense. Cool.
Thanks for the confirmation.
>and you start the
> usual squall about malice and harassment. Why do you think they posted
> the damn phone number to begin with?
Uhhhh... just a wild guess...but maybe they wanted to TAKE ORDERS FOR A
BOOK? Could it be?
> If you culties would straighten up
> and act like gentlemen, you wouldn't have anything to whine about.
Oh, so two wrongs *do* make a right. So if some Scientologists somewhere
on the planet are unfair or act like jerks in any way, then it's ok for
someone to harass telephone order takers who are taking orders for a
Dianetics book. After all, in your words, it was just "fun".
Here's a novel idea- why not keep such confrontational, nasty infighting
amongst the proper parties? ie: You are pissed at person A. Yell at
person A.
C
John or Claire Swazey
"Perry Scott " wrote:
>
> In article <38F1E3F5...@home.com>, John says...
> >The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
>
> Claire, the intent is to pull an overt. CofS in "pulling in" this
> sort of thing because of the overt, not because of the reaction of
> a particular person.
Cool. Someone somewhere says things critics don't like, so it's open
season on all Scientologists.
>
> >And the title of the post, the jeering way in which this was written
> >evidences the intent. Obviously.
>
> If CofS, Inc. did not have this overt, there would be no "jeering".
> (your words, not mine.
The end justifies the means? You know better than that.
I suggest that if you have a beef with person A, you take it up with
person A.
Not person B.
>
> In fact, Hubbard DID say that Christianity is the result of the
> observing madmen. I've seen the transcripts of the tape. So, the
> question is a valid question. The only point of further discussion
> is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
Bruce was trying to harass and frighten an order taker. Look at the
wording of the post. Look at the name of the title. Look at the
responses. ("LOL"! for example. Didn't look like a quest for
information, now did it?)
>
> From my observation of other reports, none of the standard public
> terminals of CofS, Inc. have answered this question posed by Bruce,
> so what should he do?
Ask someone who isn't trying to take orders for a book?
>
> >I've often been asked by critics if two wrongs make a right. So I guess
> >you're implying they do if it comes out in the critics' favor. I see.
>
> You are criticising critics for playing by CofS, Inc.'s rules. Just
> an observation.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I maintain this.
I don't like this behaviour from *anybody* and that includes fellow
Scientologists.
>
> >> Yeah. How dare potential customers ask questions about a product?!
> >
> >Depends on why they do it. With intent to receive info or intent to
> >harass.
>
> Is it harrassment to ask questions? Personally, I would like an
> answer from any Scientologist that reconciles the Class 8 tape with
> CofS, Inc.'s claim to be compatible with Christianity.
Have you ever been contacted, called, whatever, when working in a public
place where the person's intent was to have some fun at your expense?
Like a crank call type thing.
They don't *really* want to know if you have Prince Albert in a can.
>
> Instead, Bruce gets a menacing "we're tracing the call". Is that
> an answer? No, it's another overt. They're stacking up at an
> alarming rate, Claire.
He scared a lady. She responded.
She was responding to harassment.
She did not initiate any of that.
If someone called me up and was rude I would reserve the right to say
*anything* I wanted to, that I deemed appropriate.
And, remember, people who are frightened are not icons of rationality.
>
> >Sure. And a little telephone answering chickie is going to have all the
> >data. Oh sure.
>
> You are denigrating a representative of the Scientology religion.
Certainly not.
> If
> the operator did not have the answers, the question should have been
> forwarded to someone who did.
Not if she thought he didn't want to know- that he was just messing with
her head.
> Ref: Answer the Public's Questions. I
> think Ron wrote something about that, but I don't have the HCOB.
I'm sure he did.
But the public has to be actually asking questions, not just
"bullbaiting".
>
> >She was just there to take orders for a book. And Bruce knew it. He
> >didn't call her looking for information. This is obvious.
>
> Maybe Bruce has already called 1-800-for-truth, and didn't get an
> answer there, either. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
He knew she was just there taking orders for a book.
Had he called some other number and not received data for which he was
looking he'd have stated this when he called the *ORDER TAKING PERSON*
and said "Can you help me?"
But he did not do this, by his own account.
C
barb
You sucked me into it, I'm gonna waste time and answer this.
<scarff>Just this once</scarff>
Oh, I thought you were a scientologist. Part of the Borg. You people.
And no, you're not yourself, you are running Hubbard's program.
>
> > Here we have a potential victim calling for
> > information, and he gets threatened with a phone trace when he asks a
> > pertinent question about Christianity. Nice church, NOT!
>
> He was frightening and harassing the girl and she responded accordingly.
> She'd most likely have reacted the same way had she been a member of
> something else working some other order-taking thing.
Oh, sure! 'Frightening and harassing.' You people have a queer idea of
harassment when you think it's aimed at you. He asked a pertinent
question about scn compatibility. Pretty terrifying, yup.
Please note that she returns with something a little more ominous than a
simple question, a phone trace. Did you miss that somehow?
>
> >
> > Talk about malice! Jeff was just having a little fun
>
> AHA!! Just having a little fun!! So we can see it wasn't a noble knight
> in shining armour white horse quest for information. No Diogenes stuff
> here, no sirree Bob. Nope, the idea was to have some fun at someone
> else's expense. Cool.
>
> Thanks for the confirmation.
>
> >and you start the
> > usual squall about malice and harassment. Why do you think they posted
> > the damn phone number to begin with?
>
> Uhhhh... just a wild guess...but maybe they wanted to TAKE ORDERS FOR A
> BOOK? Could it be?
Are you saying that the book order terminal is not programmed to answer
questions? Do you think that they never field questions?
>
> > If you culties would straighten up
> > and act like gentlemen, you wouldn't have anything to whine about.
>
> Oh, so two wrongs *do* make a right. So if some Scientologists somewhere
> on the planet are unfair or act like jerks in any way, then it's ok for
> someone to harass telephone order takers who are taking orders for a
> Dianetics book. After all, in your words, it was just "fun".
>
I think you'd better word-clear harassment to greater depth. Would you
get this frothy over a question about which toothpaste you use? How can
you possibly misconstrue the inquiry, "Is scientology compatible with
Christianity?" as harassment? You guys are secretly ashamed of your
beliefs to the point that you're that tender in that 'special place?'
> Here's a novel idea- why not keep such confrontational, nasty infighting
> amongst the proper parties? ie: You are pissed at person A. Yell at
> person A.
>
> C
You are pissed at person A. Scream that A is harassing you and
intolerant of your right to kill your parishioners! Sheesh, I never seen
such a dumb cult. At least Heaven's Gate could create halfway decent web
pages, and they could spell.
I suspect you people are under orders now to squall about harassment in
order to collect a body of work which could potentially be used to
manipulate public opinion about the motives of cult critics, a sweeping
DA operation if you will. It may work to an extent. Your cult may have
Judge Schaeffer fooled at this moment. Poor happy, friendly scienos,
abused by a wog world they never created! If the good judge ever
researches *why* people picket scientology, all her sympathy will
evaporate like virga on a summer day.
In the meantime, keep on squawking about harassment. It demonstrates
that you don't understand the meaning of the word.
El Roto
Beverly Rice <dbj...@ao.net> wrote:
SNIP
>
> All of Christianity, as well as other religions, are mental
> image implants, R6.
>
> They need to be removed in order for the Thetan to progress
> (among the horribly many ~other~ implants, GPM's etc that must
> be recognized and removed.)
>
> How many Body Thetans, implants, GPM's are there?
>
> Well, how much money do you have? <wink, wink>.
>
It's not how much money you have, it's how much the Cherch can coerce
you into *getting*.
--
Steve "Take out that 3rd mortgage or you'll die!" G.
Frog
<38F33E52...@home.com>:
>
>"Perry Scott " wrote:
>>
>> In article <38F1E3F5...@home.com>, John says...
>> >The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
>>
>> Claire, the intent is to pull an overt. CofS in "pulling in" this
>> sort of thing because of the overt, not because of the reaction of
>> a particular person.
>
>Cool. Someone somewhere says things critics don't like, so it's open
>season on all Scientologists.
You're speaking in generalities again.
>> >And the title of the post, the jeering way in which this was written
>> >evidences the intent. Obviously.
>>
>> If CofS, Inc. did not have this overt, there would be no "jeering".
>> (your words, not mine.
>
>The end justifies the means? You know better than that.
Hubbard's writings contain dozens of references to "the end
justifies the means".
The invalidity of criticism
As Lord Justice Stephenson rightly observed, the extreme
breadth of Hubbard's code of "ethics" effectively outlaws a
wide range of activities which are not only common rights but,
where testifying to courts is concerned, are part of a
citizen's duties. This is, however, completely consistent with
Hubbard's contempt for what he dismissively referred to as
"wog morality". In particular, he refused to accept the
validity of any criticism of Scientology:
"Attackers are simply an anti-Scientology propaganda agency so
far as we are concerned. They have proven they want no facts
and will only lie no matter what they discover. So BANISH all
ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack
with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us -
only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don't
use us.
I speak from 15 years of experience in this There has never
yet been an attacker who was not reeking with crime. All we
had to do was look for it and murder would come out.
They fear our Meter. They fear freedom. They fear the way we
are growing. Why?
Because they have too much to hide."
[Hubbard, "Attacks on Scientology", HCO Policy Letter of 15
Feb 1966]
Another key article on Hubbard's view of criticism was first
published in Scientology's Certainty magazine in 1968 (and
repeatedly republished thereafter, most recently in vol. 1
issue 2 (Spring 1997) of the Office of Special Affairs'
internal newspaper, Winning):
"Now get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every
time we have investigated the background of a critic of
Scientology we have found crimes for which that person or
group could be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find
critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts. Over
and over we prove this.
Politician A stands up on his hind legs in a Parliament and
brays for a condemnation of Scientology. When we look him over
we find crimes - embezzled funds, moral lapses. a thirst for
young boys - sordid stuff.
Wife B howls at her husband for attending a Scientology group.
We look her up and find she had a baby he didn't know about.
Two things operate here. Criminals hate anything that helps
anyone instinctively. And just as instinctively a criminal
fights anything that may disclose his past ...
We are slowly and carefully teaching the unholy a lesson. It
is as follows: "We are not a law enforcement agency. BUT we
will become interested in the crimes of people who seek to
stop us. If you oppose Scientology we promptly look and will
find and expose your crimes. If you leave us alone we will
leave you alone"."
[Hubbard, "Critics of Scientology", 1968]
This underlies the concept of "Dead Agenting"; as a critic of
Scientology invariably has a criminal past, all that is needed
to discredit (or "Dead Agent") the critic is to expose that
past. Or so a Scientologist would claim. It is this belief
which lies behind, for instance, Major Target #1 of OSA's "558
Program" in Greece - "Priest Alevizopoulos investigated with
his crimes exposed."
However, Hubbard seems to have been conscious that publicising
past indiscretions does not always work. In 1960, he wrote
(emphasis added):
"If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or
any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat
against them to cause them to sue for peace."
[Hubbard, "Dept of Govt Affairs", HCO Policy Letter of 15 Oct
1960]
This can be a dangerous tactic, as it leaves Scientology wide
open to libel writs; it backfired disastrously in Canada in
1995, where the Church was ordered to pay the highest libel
damages in Canadian history after defaming Supreme Court judge
Casey Hill.
>I suggest that if you have a beef with person A, you take it up with
>person A.
>
>Not person B.
>
>>
>> In fact, Hubbard DID say that Christianity is the result of the
>> observing madmen. I've seen the transcripts of the tape. So, the
>> question is a valid question. The only point of further discussion
>> is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
>
>Bruce was trying to harass and frighten an order taker. Look at the
>wording of the post. Look at the name of the title. Look at the
>responses. ("LOL"! for example. Didn't look like a quest for
>information, now did it?)
"harass and frighten an order taker"??? Get real, Claire. You
are blowing this way out of proportion. Look within your
cherch for hundreds of examples of REAL harassment and
frightening actions. Your cherch has an extensive history of
such abuses.
>> From my observation of other reports, none of the standard public
>> terminals of CofS, Inc. have answered this question posed by Bruce,
>> so what should he do?
>
>Ask someone who isn't trying to take orders for a book?
Poor little order taker. Someone asked a very embarrassing
question and you are trying to tell us that she was harassed
and frightened. This doesn't speak very well for all those
cherch courses that make one "more able".
>> >I've often been asked by critics if two wrongs make a right. So I guess
>> >you're implying they do if it comes out in the critics' favor. I see.
>>
>> You are criticising critics for playing by CofS, Inc.'s rules. Just
>> an observation.
>
>Two wrongs don't make a right.
Your statements that the two "wrongs" can be compared is
ridiculous.
>I maintain this.
>
>I don't like this behaviour from *anybody* and that includes fellow
>Scientologists.
I don't particularly like behavior that rationalizes the
disgusting actions of your cherch.
>> >> Yeah. How dare potential customers ask questions about a product?!
>> >
>> >Depends on why they do it. With intent to receive info or intent to
>> >harass.
>>
>> Is it harrassment to ask questions? Personally, I would like an
>> answer from any Scientologist that reconciles the Class 8 tape with
>> CofS, Inc.'s claim to be compatible with Christianity.
>
>Have you ever been contacted, called, whatever, when working in a public
>place where the person's intent was to have some fun at your expense?
>Like a crank call type thing.
>
>They don't *really* want to know if you have Prince Albert in a can.
How does the childish prank, "Prince Albert in a can", compare
with your cherch's official policy of harassment?
Fair Game
"A Suppressive Person or Group becomes 'Fair Game'. By Fair
Game is meant, without right for self, possessions or
position, and no Scientologist may be brought before a
Committee of Evidence or punished for any action taken against
a Suppressive Person or Group during the period that person or
group is 'fair game'."
[Hubbard, Introduction to Scientology Ethics (1967)]
This is far from being a theoretical sanction and has been
applied to critics and dissident Scientologists on many
occasions. Perhaps the clearest example is that of
Amprinistics, a group founded in 1965 by a group of breakaway
Scientologists. Hubbard wrote a directive of breathtaking
ruthlessness on how to deal with the dissidents:
"They are each fair game, can be sued or harassed ...
(2) Harass these persons in any possible way...
(4) Tear up any meeting held and get the names of those
attending and issue SP orders on them and you'll have lost a
lot of rats."
[Hubbard, "Amprinistics", HCO Executive Letter of 27 September
1965]
"Fair Game" was supposedly canceled in October 1968, as
follows:
"The Practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR
GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public
relations.
This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or
handling of an SP."
[Hubbard, "Cancellation of Fair Game", HCO Policy Letter 21
October 1968]
As this letter makes clear, though, the only thing canceled
was the publication of Fair Game orders, not the policy
itself. This was confirmed in 1981 in the trial of Jane Kember
(Guardian World-Wide) and Mo Budlong (Deputy Guardian for
Information World-Wide), the second of the two cases arising
out of the Operation Snow White scandal:
"Defendants, through one of their attorneys, have stated that
the fair game policy continued in effect well after the
indictment in this case and the conviction of the first nine
co-defendants. Defendants claim that the policy was abrogated
by the Church's Board of Directors in late July or early
August, 1980, only after the defendants' personal attack on
Judge Richey [the presiding judge in the trial of Mary Sue
Hubbard et al]."
[Sentencing Memorandum of the United States of America, USA v
Kember & Budlong, US District Court or the District of
Columbia Criminal No. 78.401(2) & (3)]
Finally - and this is not mentioned at all by Scientology
spokesmen - the policy letter supposedly canceling Fair Game
was itself canceled on the orders of the current Scientology
leadership, in HCO Policy Letter of 8 September 1983,
"Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSness" (the
most recently published policy on Fair Game).
The policy has thus been restored in all its unpleasantness.
>> Instead, Bruce gets a menacing "we're tracing the call". Is that
>> an answer? No, it's another overt. They're stacking up at an
>> alarming rate, Claire.
>
>He scared a lady. She responded.
>
>She was responding to harassment.
>
>She did not initiate any of that.
>
>If someone called me up and was rude I would reserve the right to say
>*anything* I wanted to, that I deemed appropriate.
>
>And, remember, people who are frightened are not icons of rationality.
Where do you now get "scared a lady"? She just knee jerked the
standard $cio threat to any and all criticisms.
>> >Sure. And a little telephone answering chickie is going to have all the
>> >data. Oh sure.
>>
>> You are denigrating a representative of the Scientology religion.
>
>Certainly not.
Yes you are, Claire. You are stating that this woman gets
"scared" and feels "threatened" by "Prince Albert in a can".
You are making a joke out of the cherch's promises to "make
the able more able".
>> If the operator did not have the answers, the question should have been
>> forwarded to someone who did.
>
>Not if she thought he didn't want to know- that he was just messing with
>her head.
Not much in that head if that was all it took to mess with it.
>> Ref: Answer the Public's Questions. I
>> think Ron wrote something about that, but I don't have the HCOB.
>
>I'm sure he did.
>
>But the public has to be actually asking questions, not just
>"bullbaiting".
As a $cientologist, she should have been able to handle this
little embarrassing question with no problems. I'm sure she
has had much more embarrassing questions asked of her. She was
probably instructed to give the same answer.
>>
>> >She was just there to take orders for a book. And Bruce knew it. He
>> >didn't call her looking for information. This is obvious.
>>
>> Maybe Bruce has already called 1-800-for-truth, and didn't get an
>> answer there, either. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
>
>He knew she was just there taking orders for a book.
>
>Had he called some other number and not received data for which he was
>looking he'd have stated this when he called the *ORDER TAKING PERSON*
>and said "Can you help me?"
>
>But he did not do this, by his own account.
Anyone who is in the front lines on sales can expect to have
to answer questions or forward to someone who can. She made no
attempt to do so. She simply made a veiled threat to the
caller.
>C
Nice Dev-T, Claire. You have demonstrated amply the failure of
$cientology to "make the able more able". Both with the poor
"frightened and scared" order taker AND yourself.
Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDOTcom>
>"Perry Scott " wrote:
>>
>> In article <38F1E3F5...@home.com>, John says...
>> >The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
>>
>> Claire, the intent is to pull an overt. CofS in "pulling in" this
>> sort of thing because of the overt, not because of the reaction of
>> a particular person.
>
>Cool. Someone somewhere says things critics don't like, so it's open
>season on all Scientologists.
Balderdash. Bruce did not say he was calling "all Scientologists".
He called an 800 number for a specific CofS, Inc. terminal.
Scientology (the 3rd-dynamic organization) claims they are compatible
with Christianity. The terminal is a bona-fide CofS public terminal.
The terminal was unprepared for questions from the public.
Somewhere in here, you could be more helpful by telling us the proper
terminal for this question. (Hint: perhaps a DSA). All you are doing
is causing more ARCx.
>> >And the title of the post, the jeering way in which this was written
>> >evidences the intent. Obviously.
You are assuming facts not in evidence. I interpret "ROTFL" to criticise
the lack of training for official CofS, Inc. terminals.
>> If CofS, Inc. did not have this overt, there would be no "jeering".
>> (your words, not mine.
>
>The end justifies the means? You know better than that.
You failed to address the point. CofS, Inc. has an overt, and it is
stacking overts on top of the original overt.
>I suggest that if you have a beef with person A, you take it up with
>person A.
>
>Not person B.
If you didn't get this the first time, here it is again.
CofS, Inc. (3d) has an overt against Christianity (another 3d). The
question was posed to an official terminal of the CofS, Inc. group.
>> In fact, Hubbard DID say that Christianity is the result of the
>> observing madmen. I've seen the transcripts of the tape. So, the
>> question is a valid question. The only point of further discussion
>> is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
>
>Bruce was trying to harass and frighten an order taker. Look at the
>wording of the post. Look at the name of the title. Look at the
>responses. ("LOL"! for example. Didn't look like a quest for
>information, now did it?)
You are dubbing in things that are not there. Maybe you need to talk
to Bruce before pursuing this further.
>> From my observation of other reports, none of the standard public
>> terminals of CofS, Inc. have answered this question posed by Bruce,
>> so what should he do?
>
>Ask someone who isn't trying to take orders for a book?
The proper behavior for a bona-fide 3D representative is to forward
the question to the proper terminal within CofS, Inc. It is NOT ok
to further ARCx with a menacing "we're tracing this call."
>> >I've often been asked by critics if two wrongs make a right. So I guess
>> >you're implying they do if it comes out in the critics' favor. I see.
>>
>> You are criticising critics for playing by CofS, Inc.'s rules. Just
>> an observation.
>
>Two wrongs don't make a right.
>
>I maintain this.
>
>I don't like this behaviour from *anybody* and that includes fellow
>Scientologists.
Well, *you and I* can begin cleaning up the ARCx by not causing further
ARCx and M/Us. We can also get to the bottom of the problem by pulling
this overt that CofS, Inc. has against Christianity.
This banky reaction I see from CofS, Inc., their terminals, and members
tends to remind me of an overt being pulled in session. The bank seems
to first manufacture "we're being persecuted", rather than taking
responsibility for the overt and dealing with it.
>> >> Yeah. How dare potential customers ask questions about a product?!
>> >
>> >Depends on why they do it. With intent to receive info or intent to
>> >harass.
>>
>> Is it harrassment to ask questions? Personally, I would like an
>> answer from any Scientologist that reconciles the Class 8 tape with
>> CofS, Inc.'s claim to be compatible with Christianity.
>
>Have you ever been contacted, called, whatever, when working in a public
>place where the person's intent was to have some fun at your expense?
>Like a crank call type thing.
>
>They don't *really* want to know if you have Prince Albert in a can.
I don't really know if this is a crank call. Have you verified with
Bruce that it was a crank call?
The question that Bruce asked is valid. Asking if someone has Prince
Albert in a can is not a valid question. So, your example is
non-sequitur.
>> Instead, Bruce gets a menacing "we're tracing the call". Is that
>> an answer? No, it's another overt. They're stacking up at an
>> alarming rate, Claire.
>
>He scared a lady. She responded.
She REACTED. Case on post. Her PRO TR0-BB is out and she needs a retread.
>If someone called me up and was rude I would reserve the right to say
>*anything* I wanted to, that I deemed appropriate.
Again, Claire, you are dubbing something in. I did not read a rude
question.
Bruce wrote:
>I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
>(who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
>practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
>teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
>and could be used by any religion.
OK, this is the standard patter one gets from CofS, Inc.
terminals. It is a reactive response which requires some
TR3. So, Bruce TR3'ed. That isn't rude; it's Standard Tech.
Bruce continues:
> I then asked her if it
>was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
>result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
>a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
>"HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
The response to TR3 is ARCx?!?
>And, remember, people who are frightened are not icons of rationality.
Case on post.
>> >Sure. And a little telephone answering chickie is going to have all the
>> >data. Oh sure.
>>
>> You are denigrating a representative of the Scientology religion.
>
>Certainly not.
OK. I would not call a terminal of CofS, Inc. a "little telephone
answering chickie." I find it demeaning.
>> If
>> the operator did not have the answers, the question should have been
>> forwarded to someone who did.
>
>Not if she thought he didn't want to know- that he was just messing with
>her head.
This assumes facts not in evidence. I think you need to query Bruce.
>> Ref: Answer the Public's Questions. I
>> think Ron wrote something about that, but I don't have the HCOB.
>
>I'm sure he did.
>
>But the public has to be actually asking questions, not just
>"bullbaiting".
I have been asking this question for a couple years now. I assure
you that it is not bullbaiting. (Maybe *I'm* the one dubbing in
my sincerity to get this question answered onto Bruce's question.
However, you need to ask Bruce before assuming it was TR0-BB, rather
than TR3 to get past a banky CofS, Inc. terminal.)
>> >She was just there to take orders for a book. And Bruce knew it. He
>> >didn't call her looking for information. This is obvious.
>>
>> Maybe Bruce has already called 1-800-for-truth, and didn't get an
>> answer there, either. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
>
>He knew she was just there taking orders for a book.
>
>Had he called some other number and not received data for which he was
>looking he'd have stated this when he called the *ORDER TAKING PERSON*
>and said "Can you help me?"
>
>But he did not do this, by his own account.
The way I read it, Bruce called an 800 number from a "Book One"
commercial. The terminal answered "Dianetics". Since I don't know
what the commercial said, I don't know if Bruce thought he was calling
an order processing clerk, or an informational terminal for CofS, Inc.
And really, I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm evaluating the data
without dubbing in anything.
John Dorsay
<snip>
> He was frightening and harassing the girl and she responded accordingly.
> She'd most likely have reacted the same way had she been a member of
> something else working some other order-taking thing.
Claire, you have written repeatedly that Bruce was "frightening and
harrassing" the person on the other end of the phone call.
I don't suppose you have any basis for this statement by any chance, do
you? If you do, would you be kinde enough to share it?
Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDOTcom>
>> In article <38F1E3F5...@home.com>, John says...
>> >The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
>>
>
>> observing madmen. I've seen the transcripts of the tape. So, the
>> question is a valid question. The only point of further discussion
>> is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
>
"it"? M/U. I'll assume you doubt Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
OK. I would tend to agree. The correct terminal is probably the
Phoenix Org DSA. However, from what I have read from Bruce's picket
reports, that terminal won't answer questions. Her PRO TR-0BB is out.
I'm waiting for your helpful suggestion for a better terminal for Bruce
to use. The Public is not expected to know the proper terminals, so cut
him some slack. I thought Scientology communication theory is supposed
to help CofS' terminals with particle flow, and that someone answering
an 800 number would at least have had PRO TRs to deal with any perceived
bullbaiting. (At least that's what I learned from TR0-BB - that
"bullbaiting" is all in your mind. Keep your case off post and answer
the damn question!)
>> From my observation of other reports, none of the standard public
>> terminals of CofS, Inc. have answered this question posed by Bruce,
>> so what should he do?
>
>I will answer it right now. I had no idea it was such an important
>question.
Thank you.
I think the question is based on an incomplete understanding (on both
sides) of what "compatible" means. CofS, Inc. (or at least the Austin
DSA terminal) has a M/U - for her, "compatible" means that nothing
in Scientology precludes you from being a Christian. The reverse -
that Christianity may preclude you from being a Scientologist - apparently
has not been evaluated by CofS, Inc. I conclude that CofS, Inc. has
M/Us about Christianity.
I tried to help the Austin DSA clear her M/U, but she couldn't grok that
reciprocal compatibility is required for the word "compatible" to be used
without creating a M/U for the general public.
Further, the Austin DSA didn't seem impressed by "mixed practices" (Book
of Case Remedies, Remedy BG), as applied to the R6 implant material and
its offspring (according to Hubbard), Christianity. It's not nice to
restimulate a PC with R6 (Christianity) - it messes up running their case.
>> Is it harrassment to ask questions? Personally, I would like an
>> answer from any Scientologist that reconciles the Class 8 tape with
>> CofS, Inc.'s claim to be compatible with Christianity.
>
>The class 8 tape is talking about *an implant*.
>
>The fact that there are implants that have Jesus on a cross (and there are)
>does NOT negate the existence of the man named Jesus (whom Christians
>believe to be *the* savior)
>
>There is *nothing* in Scientology that says Jesus didn't exist. Or that
>Jesus didn't walk around healing people by just touching them. Several LRH
>lectures talk about how he did just that. And I believe he did.
This isn't the actual question, Russ. The question is whether Scientology
is compatible with Christianity. (Re-read the basenote.) Scientology's
definition of "Christ" (as implied by Hubbard's writings) doesn't match
Christianity's definition.
OK, time to go to Source.
"Somebody somewhere on this planet, back about 600 BC found
some pieces of R6. And I don't know how they found it, either
by watching madmen or something, but since that time they
have used it and it became what is known as Christianity.
(draws on a cigarette) The man on the cross. There was no
Christ. But the man on the cross is shown as Everyman. So of
course each person seeing a crucified man, has an immediate
feeling of sympathy for this man. Therefore you get many PCs
who says they are Christ. Now, there's two reasons for that, one
is the Roman Empire was prone to crucify people, so a person
can have been crucified, but in R6 he is shown as crucified." The
Class VIII [Auditor's] Course, Lecture 10: "Krakatoa and
Beyond", Oct 3, 1968
[I don't dare post much more of this without Issue Authority from RTC.]
Russ, my reading of Hubbard is:
1) The R6 implant, which is common to all of us on Teegeeack, has some
bits about crosses and crucifixions.
2) Someone in 600BC (if you understand the relevance of the date, clue
me in) observed someone else dramatizing their R6 implant.
3) That R6 dramatization is the basis of Christianity
4) "The man on the cross. There was no Christ" refers to the previous
subject [Christianity], not the R6 implant material.
I acknowledge that you have basis for belief that the "..no Christ"
could refer to the R6 implant material and not to a particular OT
named Jesus of Nazareth, ca 30 AD.
However, this begs the question: What is Scientology's definition of
"Christ"?
Later Hubbard says,
"The Roman Catholic Church, through watching the
dramatizations of people picked up some little fragments of
R6." The Class VIII [Auditor's] Course, Lecture 10: "Krakatoa
and Beyond", Oct 3, 1968
Clearly, Scientology cannot be compatible with Christianity. By
endorsing a Scientologist to practice Christianity, the CofS is
encouraging restimulation of R6. As I recall, there are rules
in the Auditor's Code that prohibit stirring up someone's case
and leaving them restimulated.
Hubbard even says so in PABs 2:
"Religion does much to keep the assumption in restimulation,
being basically a control mechanism used by those who have
sent the preclear into a body. You will find the cross as a
symbol all over the universe, and the CHRIST LEGEND as implant
in preclears a million years ago.", Professional Auditors
Bulletins, vol. 2, p. 26 , copyright 1954.
Finally,
"Here on Earth,
there was undoubtably a Christ. One of the reasons he was ... he
swept in so suddenly ah, and he, he would go forward so hard, is
he had a good assist back of him in terms of an implant.",
Philadelphia Doctorate Course, Tape #24, L. Ron Hubbard,
1952.
So, while Hubbard acknowledges the probability of a Christ, Hubbard
doesn't say much about Christ's attributes. From the context, Hubbard is
talking about *a person* who happened to live ca 32 AD. Hubbard is
NOT talking about God incarnate (which is what the Christians are
thinking of).
Consistently, Hubbard says that the religion [Christianity] is really
based on an implant [false memory], and this Jesus of Nazareth person
just rode the R6 implant to fame. Meanwhile, the Christians are saying
that Christ is the equivalent to Scientology's entire 8th Dynamic.
Do you see the disconnect here?
>The statement "There is no Christ" in the lecture is badly misunderstood and
>twisted when used to say that Scientology is incompatible with Christianity.
>The very nature of implants is designed to confuse a being. That most here
>have no concept of the reality of implants changes nothing. What most ARS
>critics tend to focus on is the *content* of the implants - and they err in
>that, as they don't really understand implants themselves.
>
>Scientologists do not believe that Jesus is THE Savior. He was *a* savior.
I acknowledge the Scientologists' point of view. However, that point of
view is not compatible with the Christians' point of view.
Hubbard said that Christ and Buddha "were just a shade above clear".
Certainty Volume 5, #10.
I'm not sure of the context, but I assume OT-8s are more than "just a
shade above clear", which implies that Scientology is producing Christs
at an astounding rate.
From a purely definitional view, Scientology and Christianity are not
compatible (in either direction) because they have fundamentally different
definitions of "Christ" as well as "man". Scientology holds that any
man (including Jesus of Nazareth) can become OT (God), while Christianity
(and Judaism and Islam) holds that man is created by God and can never
become God [Genesis 1&2].
Since Christianity defines what "Christ" is, it seems that Scientology is
being disingenuous in redefining "Christ" and "Christianity", then saying
they are compatible with it.
Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDOTcom>
In article <38F303...@ao.net>, Beverly says...
>
>Russell Shaw wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
>> Scientologists do not believe that Jesus is THE Savior. He was *a* savior.
>
>Blah, blah, blah.
>
>All of Christianity, as well as other religions, are mental
>image implants, R6.
I responded over in the "ROTFL!!! Co$ operators are standing by!!" thread.
I continue to attempt to word-clear "Christ" and "compatible" for the
Scientologists. I feel like Don Quixote.
From what I understand, Scientology's definition of these words is at
odds with Christianity's definition. In addition to hijacking the
the Christian cross, the clerical collars, etc., they hijacked the
definition of "Christ" as well!
>Beverly
AndroidCat XENU
news:WgPH4.35819$U4.1...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
>
> I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
> when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
> (who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
> practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
> teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
> was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
> result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
> a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
> "HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
Standing by?! QUICK! Get them some chairs!
Ron of that ilk.
Russell Shaw
Fredric L. Rice <FR...@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:38f35...@news2.lightlink.com...
> "Russell Shaw" <rs...@dancris.com> wrote:
>
> >Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDO...@newsguy.com> wrote in
message
> >news:8ctq3e$25...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> In article <38F1E3F5...@home.com>, John says...
> >> >The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
> >> In fact, Hubbard DID say that Christianity is the result of the
> >> observing madmen. I've seen the transcripts of the tape. So, the
> >> question is a valid question. The only point of further discussion
> >> is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
>
> >I really doubt it.
>
Are you really this dense? Or *must* you endlessly attack on automatic?
The question was: "The only point of further discussion
is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal."
My answer was: "I really doubt it."
> Do you doubt that your dead godman
> actually made the state statements that everyone -- including your
> cult's ringleaders -- attributes to him?
For you to follow with the above makes you look like someone who just *has*
to attack. No matter what.
John or Claire Swazey
John Dorsay wrote:
>
> John or Claire Swazey wrote, about Bruce's phone call:
>
> <snip>
>
> > He was frightening and harassing the girl and she responded accordingly.
> > She'd most likely have reacted the same way had she been a member of
> > something else working some other order-taking thing.
>
> Claire, you have written repeatedly that Bruce was "frightening and
> harrassing" the person on the other end of the phone call.
>
> I don't suppose you have any basis for this statement by any chance, do
> you? If you do, would you be kinde enough to share it?
The _wording_ and _title_ of his original post.
The responses to it by others which were a bit meanspirited. Sure, Bruce
did not write those, I know that. But he didn't come in and go "You
guys! I wasn't doing it to make fun of the order taker- I was on a quest
for information." or something of the sort which he might have done had
his intention been to gather data and so forth or some other
non-meanspirited type of thing.
For example: If I were on some forum, somewhere, maybe this one, maybe
not. And I posted something about some communication cycle with someone.
And lets say on that thread, people came in and said "good girl, you
gave that person what for! " or "Boy was that funny." And let's say I'd
had an entirely different object in mind in that communication cycle.
I'd come in on those responses and tell the people "Hey! It wasn't meant
to be funny, you guys! I needed to know xyz!" by way of clarification.
Every now and again I see a post here on this ng wherein someone
describes taunting a Scientologist. It's not common, like every five
seconds or something, but neither is it rare.
I don't like it when CofS people act that way and I don't like it when
non-CofS people act that way.
C
John or Claire Swazey
barb wrote:
>
<snip>
> >
> > > You people act like total asses, and then snivel
> > > when you're called on it.
> >
> > What people? And why am I included in this? I'm just myself, ya know.
>
> Oh, I thought you were a scientologist. Part of the Borg. You people.
> And no, you're not yourself, you are running Hubbard's program.
Oh, gee, and here I thought I was posting on my own, going to my non-Scn
job five days a week, pursuing my hobbies...social life...etc...now I
find out I'm part of Hellstrom's Hive. I'm glad you let me know before
it's too late or something.... Bzzzzz....
> >
> > > Here we have a potential victim calling for
> > > information, and he gets threatened with a phone trace when he asks a
> > > pertinent question about Christianity. Nice church, NOT!
> >
> > He was frightening and harassing the girl and she responded accordingly.
> > She'd most likely have reacted the same way had she been a member of
> > something else working some other order-taking thing.
>
> Oh, sure! 'Frightening and harassing.' You people have a queer idea of
> harassment when you think it's aimed at you. He asked a pertinent
> question about scn compatibility. Pretty terrifying, yup.
> Please note that she returns with something a little more ominous than a
> simple question, a phone trace. Did you miss that somehow?
Didn't miss it at all. Sounds like he really got to her. But then, this
was the intent.
> >
> > >
> > > Talk about malice! Jeff was just having a little fun
> >
> > AHA!! Just having a little fun!! So we can see it wasn't a noble knight
> > in shining armour white horse quest for information. No Diogenes stuff
> > here, no sirree Bob. Nope, the idea was to have some fun at someone
> > else's expense. Cool.
> >
> > Thanks for the confirmation.
> >
> > >and you start the
> > > usual squall about malice and harassment. Why do you think they posted
> > > the damn phone number to begin with?
> >
> > Uhhhh... just a wild guess...but maybe they wanted to TAKE ORDERS FOR A
> > BOOK? Could it be?
>
> Are you saying that the book order terminal is not programmed to answer
> questions? Do you think that they never field questions?
As a businesswoman I know that people who have a certain position, a
certain job to do, do not handle other things. There are exceptions, and
of course, as previously indicated on this thread, it's helpful for the
person to go "Ok, I don't know the answer, but I can get you to someone
who does."
But if she had the impression that he was just --what was it you said? -
oh yes, having fun, I think it was...
she wouldn't think she should do that.
> >
> > > If you culties would straighten up
> > > and act like gentlemen, you wouldn't have anything to whine about.
> >
> > Oh, so two wrongs *do* make a right. So if some Scientologists somewhere
> > on the planet are unfair or act like jerks in any way, then it's ok for
> > someone to harass telephone order takers who are taking orders for a
> > Dianetics book. After all, in your words, it was just "fun".
> >
> I think you'd better word-clear harassment to greater depth. Would you
> get this frothy over a question about which toothpaste you use?
Would depend on what they said and how they said it, of course.
> How can
> you possibly misconstrue the inquiry, "Is scientology compatible with
> Christianity?" as harassment? You guys are secretly ashamed of your
> beliefs to the point that you're that tender in that 'special place?'
I read Bruce's post. His wording and the title.
>
> > Here's a novel idea- why not keep such confrontational, nasty infighting
> > amongst the proper parties? ie: You are pissed at person A. Yell at
> > person A.
> >
> > C
>
> You are pissed at person A. Scream that A is harassing you and
> intolerant of your right to kill your parishioners! Sheesh,
>I never seen
Oh! You must be a Scientologist!
> such a dumb cult.
Of course you'd say that. You're the same person, I believe, who made
fun of Confront23's having a lucky number, and you blamed that on
Scientology!
I bet if I were walking down the street, and you were, too, and
recognized me, and I stumbled on a crack in the sidewalk that you'd go
"Oh! Just like a dumb Scientologist!"
>At least Heaven's Gate could create halfway decent web
> pages, and they could spell.
Eye zpell pritty gude.... Eye dew!
>
> I suspect you people are under orders now to squall about harassment in
> order
What a ridiculous thing to say to a public person who is posting on her
own.
You might want to direct that to some staff member thingie person
somewhere. Sorry I can't direct you to one as I'm not in the loop _at_
_all_ on that stuff...
> to collect a body of work which could potentially be used to
> manipulate public opinion about the motives of cult critics, a sweeping
> DA operation if you will.
If so, I won't have a part in it.
>It may work to an extent. Your cult may have
> Judge Schaeffer fooled at this moment.
What I would like is for people to see what's good about Scn and the
CofS and also what's not good about Scn and the CofS. Both.
I can and I do. But you cannot do both. This makes me one up on you wrt
Scn and CofS.
>Poor happy, friendly scienos,
> abused by a wog world they never created! If the good judge ever
> researches *why* people picket scientology, all her sympathy will
> evaporate like virga on a summer day.
What's virga?
>
> In the meantime, keep on squawking about harassment. It demonstrates
> that you don't understand the meaning of the word.
I understand it perfectly. I'm a Collection Manager. ;->
C
jrf...@atlascomm.net
<swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
>I understand it perfectly. I'm a Collection Manager. ;->
>
>C
Damn,and I was beginning to like you 8-)
Podkayne1
<swa...@home.com> wrote:
> barb wrote:
> >
> > John or Claire Swazey wrote:
> > >
> > > Bruce Pettycrew wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
> > > > when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
> > > > I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
> > > > (who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
> > > > practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
> > > > teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
> > > > and could be used by any religion. I then asked her if it
> > > > was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
> > > > result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
> > > > a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
> > > > "HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
> > > > Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
> > >
...
>
> > Here we have a potential victim calling for
> > information, and he gets threatened with a phone trace when he asks a
> > pertinent question about Christianity. Nice church, NOT!
>
> He was frightening and harassing the girl and she responded accordingly.
> She'd most likely have reacted the same way had she been a member of
> something else working some other order-taking thing.
What is frightening about that question? Seems perfectly reasonable to me
- I am on record here as telling newbies to independently verify critics
allegations and CoS claims.
--
http://www.barry-pepper.com/images/Movies/dailymail.jpg
John Travolta, "attempting total Earth takeover in Scary Spice's
platform boots" (Sunday Times)
Read more Heinlein
Podkayne1
<swa...@home.com> wrote:
> > Oh, sure! 'Frightening and harassing.' You people have a queer idea of
> > harassment when you think it's aimed at you. He asked a pertinent
> > question about scn compatibility. Pretty terrifying, yup.
> > Please note that she returns with something a little more ominous than a
> > simple question, a phone trace. Did you miss that somehow?
>
> Didn't miss it at all. Sounds like he really got to her. But then, this
> was the intent.
???
Asking to verify a Hubbard quote is really an attempt to scare a person so
much that she instigats a phone trace?
Are *you* scared when we ask about R6?
Podkayne1
> > Oh, sure! 'Frightening and harassing.' You people have a queer idea of
> > harassment when you think it's aimed at you. He asked a pertinent
> > question about scn compatibility. Pretty terrifying, yup.
> > Please note that she returns with something a little more ominous than a
> > simple question, a phone trace. Did you miss that somehow?
>
> Didn't miss it at all. Sounds like he really got to her. But then, this
> was the intent.
Drat, hit post too soon...
It's not like he started reciting OT3 at her.
Podkayne1
<swa...@home.com> wrote:
> > *FLUNK!* It was a perfectly valid question. If a Jew calls the local
> > Chinese Food take-out and asks if the wonton has pork in it, is that
> > "harassment?" Nope!
>
> The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
>
> And the title of the post, the jeering way in which this was written
> evidences the intent. Obviously.
I think that's effect, not cause - if I called, say, the Mormon church's
800 # and asked them why the book of Mormon, purportedly translated in the
19th century, used 16th century English, or is it really true that all
Mormon men can become gods of their own planets, is that harassment?
Sure, I found the second question in the Jack Chick tract, which isn't
exactly unbiased research, but they're still valid questions.
If, instead of an answer, I got a phone trace and then a hangup (before
there's time to do any tracing!), I'd be first surprised, then amused.
I'd be inclined to tell my friends ("can you believe it? They're too
scared to answer my question, and then when they tell *me* to hang on,
*they* hang up!")
barb
>
> In article <38F415F2...@home.com>, John or Claire Swazey
> <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > Oh, sure! 'Frightening and harassing.' You people have a queer idea of
> > > harassment when you think it's aimed at you. He asked a pertinent
> > > question about scn compatibility. Pretty terrifying, yup.
> > > Please note that she returns with something a little more ominous than a
> > > simple question, a phone trace. Did you miss that somehow?
> >
> > Didn't miss it at all. Sounds like he really got to her. But then, this
> > was the intent.
>
>
> It's not like he started reciting OT3 at her.
>
> http://www.barry-pepper.com/images/Movies/dailymail.jpg
> John Travolta, "attempting total Earth takeover in Scary Spice's
> platform boots" (Sunday Times)
> Read more Heinlein
It's amazing how fragile these 'big beings' can be. I agree that reading
OTIII would be harassment, given that they believe they can die from it.
Of course, "claire" is assuming a lot as to the emotional state of the
phonebot. Was the operator terrified?
I doubt it.
I would hope not. If she's that easily terrified, perhaps she needs
professional help in sorting that out.
Barb: "So, how's it going?"
Clam: "Aaaahhhhh!! You're scaring me! That's harassment! I'm callin' the
cops! Aaaaahhhhhh!!!!!"
Now, that's just silly.
eldon...@my-deja.com
> >
> > I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
> > when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
> > I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
> > (who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
> > practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
> > teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
> > and could be used by any religion. I then asked her if it
> > was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
> > result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
> > a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
> > "HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
> > Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
>
her
> job and take some orders.
>
> Nice.
>
LRH said, wasn't it? Hmmmmm
Dave Bird
<rs...@dancris.com> writes:
>> Is it harrassment to ask questions? Personally, I would like an
>> answer from any Scientologist that reconciles the Class 8 tape with
>> CofS, Inc.'s claim to be compatible with Christianity.
>
>The class 8 tape is talking about *an implant*.
>
>The fact that there are implants that have Jesus on a cross (and there are)
>does NOT negate the existence of the man named Jesus (whom Christians
>believe to be *the* savior)
>
>There is *nothing* in Scientology that says Jesus didn't exist.
"Erm, The man on the cross -- there was no Christ -- but the man on
the cross is shown to be everyman." I have HEARD it repeatedly, Russ,
in Hubbub's own voice (he sounds a little bit like a duck).
-- . ___ .
'-|:::|@\-[x]/__/| .-|:::|@\
||--|"" . |__|/ ||--|"" .
'-|:::|@\ (")"""-. .-|:::|@\ --+--.(")"""-'
|| |"" ||""| || |"" ' ' |""|
DEMOCRACY: two wolves & a lamb LIBERTY: a lamb with a kalashnikov
voting what's for lunch contesting the vote
John Dorsay
> >
> > John or Claire Swazey wrote, about Bruce's phone call:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
accordingly.
> > > She'd most likely have reacted the same way had she been a member
of
> > > something else working some other order-taking thing.
> >
> > harrassing" the person on the other end of the phone call.
> >
> > I don't suppose you have any basis for this statement by any chance,
do
> > you? If you do, would you be kinde enough to share it?
>
> The _wording_ and _title_ of his original post.
I don't understand how the title of a post to ars could be "frightening
and harrassing" to anyone but readers of ars. Are you suggesting the
person on the phone is an ars reader?
Even supposing that she is, I don't follow your reasoning about the
title. Is the acronym ROTFL "frightening and harrassing"? Or is it the
expression "Co$ operators are standing by"? Or maybe the exclamation
points? If so, could you explain how you reached your conclusion?
> The responses to it by others which were a bit meanspirited. Sure,
Bruce
> did not write those, I know that. But he didn't come in and go "You
> guys! I wasn't doing it to make fun of the order taker- I was on a
quest
> for information." or something of the sort which he might have done
had
> his intention been to gather data and so forth or some other
> non-meanspirited type of thing.
Those responses were also after the fact. Even if Bruce made the call
just so that he could expose the actions of the person at the other end
of the phone call to ridicule in ars, I still don't understand how that
is "frightening and harrassing".
If he had contacted the person's supervisor in an effort to intimidate
her, or if he had posted false information about her in an effort to
intimidate her, or if he had gone to the home of her elderly parents in
an effort to intimidate her, or if he had lied to the police so that
they would haul her off for a psychiatric assessment in an effort to
intimidate her, or if he had attacked her with a hammer in an effort to
intimidate her, or if he trumped up criminal hate charges in an effort
to intimidate her - if he had done any of these things, then I would
agree that his behaviour was "frightening and harrassing". But I'm not
aware that Bruce has done anything like the things I mentioned. Are
you?
> For example: If I were on some forum, somewhere, maybe this one, maybe
> not. And I posted something about some communication cycle with
someone.
> And lets say on that thread, people came in and said "good girl, you
> gave that person what for! " or "Boy was that funny." And let's say
I'd
> had an entirely different object in mind in that communication cycle.
> I'd come in on those responses and tell the people "Hey! It wasn't
meant
> to be funny, you guys! I needed to know xyz!" by way of clarification.
Fair enough. But I still don't understand how you get from
"meanspirited" to "harrassment". They are not synonyms.
> Every now and again I see a post here on this ng wherein someone
> describes taunting a Scientologist. It's not common, like every five
> seconds or something, but neither is it rare.
But there was no taunt in this case, was there?
> I don't like it when CofS people act that way and I don't like it when
> non-CofS people act that way.
And I'm not arguing that, either Claire. I'm just trying to undersrtand
what led you to conclude that Bruce was guilty of any harrassment.
I still don't understand.
--
Regards, John
Exceedingly Rude and Discourteous Psychiatric Pawn
Read about Scientology and the abuse of survivors of brain injury:
http://www.parishioner.org/lopez.html
El Roto
<swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
>What's virga?
>
Virga is a meteorology term for rainfall that does not reach the
ground. Next time you see something that looks like a curtain of
rain that gets lighter as it gets closer to the ground and
disappears before reaching said ground - that's virga.
I've flown through it before. Pretty cool.
Steve G.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Shy David www.xenu.net
wrote:
> In article<38f2f...@news2.lightlink.com>, Russell Shaw
> <rs...@dancris.com> writes:
[cuts]
> >There is *nothing* in Scientology that says Jesus didn't exist.
> "Erm, The man on the cross -- there was no Christ -- but the man on
> the cross is shown to be everyman." I have HEARD it repeatedly, Russ,
> in Hubbub's own voice (he sounds a little bit like a duck).
Jesus does not automatically equal "Christ." That may be the OSA
shill's "point."
---
"Shy" David Rice. A proud supporter and defender of religious rights. Help fight
religious descrimination! <http://holysmoke.org/tolerate.htm>
"The 'ho hasn't silence me yet." -- Grady Ward
cici_aychar
news:8d2emf$3q4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38F0CD11...@home.com>,
> > >
> > > I was watching one of the cable networks this afternoon
> > > when an ad for Book One ( _Dianetics_ ) was shown.
> > > I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
> > > (who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
> > > practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
> > > teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
> > > and could be used by any religion. I then asked her if it
> > > was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
> > > result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
> > > a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
> > > "HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
> > > Huck, Huck, Huck, Huck, whew!!
> >
> > So you called an 800 number and harassed some nice girl trying to do
> her
> > job and take some orders.
> >
> > Nice.
> >
> Not nice or not nice, Claire. It was a legitimate question. That's what
> LRH said, wasn't it? Hmmmmm
>
that question would undermine the $cn claim of "Victim! We're the poor,
downtrodden victim of religious persecution!", so they have to scream
"Harassment!" whenever anyone questions anything that His Phatness said.
What is happening here is an attempt to draw attention away from the
question and the absurd response that it drew with a smokescreen of
indignation over semantics with an over-quick, knee-jerk, ridiculous
offence. Strike a little too close to your own thinking, Claire? "Methinks
thou doth protest too much!" Eh?
--
CiCi
Dave Bird
>> >There is *nothing* in Scientology that says Jesus didn't exist.
>
>> "Erm, The man on the cross -- there was no Christ -- but the man on
>> the cross is shown to be everyman." I have HEARD it repeatedly, Russ,
>> in Hubbub's own voice (he sounds a little bit like a duck).
>
>Jesus does not automatically equal "Christ." That may be the OSA
>shill's "point."
OK there's supposed to have been a prophet called Joshua or in Greek
"Jesus", known as Messiach == Annointed (King) or in Greek "Christos".
The passage above *could*, at a stretch, by read as saying that neither
he nor anyone else was Messiah, Christos, Heavenly King.
Personally, I don't think Hubbub even knew the distinction.
Bruce Pettycrew
>
>
>If, instead of an answer, I got a phone trace and then a hangup (before
>there's time to do any tracing!), I'd be first surprised, then amused.
>I'd be inclined to tell my friends ("can you believe it? They're too
>scared to answer my question, and then when they tell *me* to hang on,
>*they* hang up!")
>
That's almost exactly the _only_ reason for the tone of amusement
in my original post.
The call itself was to question/verify two things:
1) Does the CoS use it's own members to handle these
calls? Most large phone solicitations are handled via a
professional call center, in which case the operator would
not know what I was asking and would not hazard an answer.
2) Does the Co$ still maintain that it is compatible with
Christianity? John Travolta hasn't claimed to be a
"Catholic Scientologist" for years. But yes, they still
lie on this point.
If the operator had not been so outrageously "scientologific"
in her handling of the call, I would have simply reported
what I discovered, no humour supplied.
Charlotte L. Kates
Scn 800-number, she's a hatted SO member posted in the Planetary Dissem Org,
who should be well-enough trained to not show case on post. Especially over
such "severe harassment" as this.
And Claire, I'm quite sure that you know that just as well as I do.
--charlotte
Charlotte L. Kates CLK...@aol.com cka...@eden.rutgers.edu
http://members.xoom.com/justinusa/-Justice International
http://www.offlines.org/-OFFLINESonline: freedom from Scientology
Practice organized resistance and conscious acts of solidarity!
John or Claire Swazey
El Roto wrote:
>
> In article <38F415F2...@home.com>, John or Claire Swazey
> <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >What's virga?
> >
>
> Virga is a meteorology term for rainfall that does not reach the
> ground. Next time you see something that looks like a curtain of
> rain that gets lighter as it gets closer to the ground and
> disappears before reaching said ground - that's virga.
>
> I've flown through it before. Pretty cool.
Cool! Thanks.
Claire
John or Claire Swazey
"Perry Scott " wrote:
>
> In article <38F33E52...@home.com>, John says...
> >"Perry Scott " wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <38F1E3F5...@home.com>, John says...
> >> >The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
> >>
> >> Claire, the intent is to pull an overt. CofS in "pulling in" this
> >> sort of thing because of the overt, not because of the reaction of
> >> a particular person.
> >
> >Cool. Someone somewhere says things critics don't like, so it's open
> >season on all Scientologists.
>
> Balderdash. Bruce did not say he was calling "all Scientologists".
> He called an 800 number for a specific CofS, Inc. terminal.
She was taking orders for a book.
So, yes, she was a specific terminal. The wrong one. But then, any
terminal would have been the wrong one, for a bullbait.
>
> Scientology (the 3rd-dynamic organization) claims they are compatible
> with Christianity. The terminal is a bona-fide CofS public terminal.
> The terminal was unprepared for questions from the public.
>
> Somewhere in here, you could be more helpful by telling us the proper
> terminal for this question. (Hint: perhaps a DSA). All you are doing
> is causing more ARCx.
There is no correct terminal for a bullbait. Excepting maybe myself.
>
> >> >And the title of the post, the jeering way in which this was written
> >> >evidences the intent. Obviously.
>
> You are assuming facts not in evidence. I interpret "ROTFL" to criticise
> the lack of training for official CofS, Inc. terminals.
>
> >> If CofS, Inc. did not have this overt, there would be no "jeering".
> >> (your words, not mine.
> >
> >The end justifies the means? You know better than that.
>
> You failed to address the point. CofS, Inc. has an overt, and it is
> stacking overts on top of the original overt.
By advising someone that they are tracing a call in response to a
bullbait?
>
> >I suggest that if you have a beef with person A, you take it up with
> >person A.
> >
> >Not person B.
>
> If you didn't get this the first time, here it is again.
>
> CofS, Inc. (3d) has an overt against Christianity (another 3d). The
> question was posed to an official terminal of the CofS, Inc. group.
Russ, I believe, has answered this on this thread.
>
> >> In fact, Hubbard DID say that Christianity is the result of the
> >> observing madmen. I've seen the transcripts of the tape. So, the
> >> question is a valid question. The only point of further discussion
> >> is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
> >
> >Bruce was trying to harass and frighten an order taker. Look at the
> >wording of the post. Look at the name of the title. Look at the
> >responses. ("LOL"! for example. Didn't look like a quest for
> >information, now did it?)
>
> You are dubbing in things that are not there. Maybe you need to talk
> to Bruce before pursuing this further.
>
> >> From my observation of other reports, none of the standard public
> >> terminals of CofS, Inc. have answered this question posed by Bruce,
> >> so what should he do?
> >
> >Ask someone who isn't trying to take orders for a book?
>
> The proper behavior for a bona-fide 3D representative is to forward
> the question to the proper terminal within CofS, Inc. It is NOT ok
> to further ARCx with a menacing "we're tracing this call."
The heck it isn't! See below where I talk about where I ran into
something like this at my job... (actually, it was my partner whom I sit
next to. Twice.)
>
> >> >I've often been asked by critics if two wrongs make a right. So I guess
> >> >you're implying they do if it comes out in the critics' favor. I see.
> >>
> >> You are criticising critics for playing by CofS, Inc.'s rules. Just
> >> an observation.
> >
> >Two wrongs don't make a right.
> >
> >I maintain this.
> >
> >I don't like this behaviour from *anybody* and that includes fellow
> >Scientologists.
>
> Well, *you and I* can begin cleaning up the ARCx by not causing further
> ARCx and M/Us. We can also get to the bottom of the problem by pulling
> this overt that CofS, Inc. has against Christianity.
>
> This banky reaction I see from CofS, Inc., their terminals, and members
> tends to remind me of an overt being pulled in session. The bank seems
> to first manufacture "we're being persecuted", rather than taking
> responsibility for the overt and dealing with it.
Yes, there is a games condition.
>
> >> >> Yeah. How dare potential customers ask questions about a product?!
> >> >
> >> >Depends on why they do it. With intent to receive info or intent to
> >> >harass.
> >>
> >> Is it harrassment to ask questions? Personally, I would like an
> >> answer from any Scientologist that reconciles the Class 8 tape with
> >> CofS, Inc.'s claim to be compatible with Christianity.
> >
> >Have you ever been contacted, called, whatever, when working in a public
> >place where the person's intent was to have some fun at your expense?
> >Like a crank call type thing.
> >
> >They don't *really* want to know if you have Prince Albert in a can.
>
> I don't really know if this is a crank call. Have you verified with
> Bruce that it was a crank call?
I read his original post (and the title) and the direct responses to it
on the thread (to which no clarification eg: "guys! That's *not* what I
was trying to do!").
>
> The question that Bruce asked is valid. Asking if someone has Prince
> Albert in a can is not a valid question. So, your example is
> non-sequitur.
The question Bruce asked was believed (by me and apparently by the order
taker) to be a bullbait. Might as well been asking for Prince Albert in
a can.
>
> >> Instead, Bruce gets a menacing "we're tracing the call". Is that
> >> an answer? No, it's another overt. They're stacking up at an
> >> alarming rate, Claire.
> >
> >He scared a lady. She responded.
>
> She REACTED. Case on post. Her PRO TR0-BB is out and she needs a retread.
Possibly. It never ever hurts to do more TRs.
>
>
> >If someone called me up and was rude I would reserve the right to say
> >*anything* I wanted to, that I deemed appropriate.
>
> Again, Claire, you are dubbing something in. I did not read a rude
> question.
You are giving Bruce the benefit of the doubt.
I believe that had a similar post been written on another subject, in
another forum, but pretty much the same type of thing, that you might
see it differently.
>
> Bruce wrote:
> >I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
> >(who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
> >practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
> >teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
> >and could be used by any religion.
>
> OK, this is the standard patter one gets from CofS, Inc.
> terminals. It is a reactive response which requires some
> TR3. So, Bruce TR3'ed. That isn't rude; it's Standard Tech.
>
> Bruce continues:
> > I then asked her if it
> >was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
> >result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
> >a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
> >"HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
>
> The response to TR3 is ARCx?!?
She was responding to a bullbait. And she was above-board enough to say
that they were tracing the call. I saw a response in which someone said
they probably got cut off, and I think this may well be the case.
>
> >And, remember, people who are frightened are not icons of rationality.
>
> Case on post.
We're human like anybody else.
>
> >> >Sure. And a little telephone answering chickie is going to have all the
> >> >data. Oh sure.
> >>
> >> You are denigrating a representative of the Scientology religion.
> >
> >Certainly not.
>
> OK. I would not call a terminal of CofS, Inc. a "little telephone
> answering chickie." I find it demeaning.
Well, I don't. I call lots of people "dude" and "chickie". I don't
stand on ceremony.
And it interests me greatly that you take exception to that term, but I
don't think I've seen you complaining about "clam" or "Scieno" or the
many times I see on this ng "all you Scienos do this or that or the
other thing"
>
> >> If
> >> the operator did not have the answers, the question should have been
> >> forwarded to someone who did.
> >
> >Not if she thought he didn't want to know- that he was just messing with
> >her head.
>
> This assumes facts not in evidence. I think you need to query Bruce.
>
> >> Ref: Answer the Public's Questions. I
> >> think Ron wrote something about that, but I don't have the HCOB.
> >
> >I'm sure he did.
> >
> >But the public has to be actually asking questions, not just
> >"bullbaiting".
>
> I have been asking this question for a couple years now. I assure
> you that it is not bullbaiting. (Maybe *I'm* the one dubbing in
> my sincerity to get this question answered onto Bruce's question.
> However, you need to ask Bruce before assuming it was TR0-BB, rather
> than TR3 to get past a banky CofS, Inc. terminal.)
Sure, if Bruce hadn't been busy mocking her. I used to be on staff at a
mission, as I've mentioned before. I was on the reception desk for a
time. A couple times people came in to bait us. Didn't want to know
about Scn. And they saw the chickie at the front desk (See, I call
everybody that- well, not guys- even myself) and decided to give her a
bad time. So I know what I'm talking about, and I know what can happen.
Maybe she was banky, or maybe merely annoyed at what was going on.
Feeling the appropriate emotion for a given situation is not bank.
You know what, when I was just a young thing, some years ago, I had a
nighttime job. We took calls all night at this air-freight place. We
got obscene calls as word had gotten out that some young women were
working there. We got lots of obscene calls, probably all originating
from one or two young men, I would think. We girls declared open season
on these Yahoos. We decided to have some fun, (well, we were very
young) and we'd blow shrill whistles in the earpiece of the receiver,
we'd say different things, just anything we thought the guy wouldn't
like.
We figured he (or they) probably deserved what they got or they
shouldn't have made such calls in the first place.
Now, I will admit that was pretty games condition-y.
But I will also say that if someone directs harassment in someone else's
direction (regardless of whether they are a critic or a Scientologist or
whether they're in some other deal entirely) that it's not truly
astounding when the other person does not turn the other cheek.
I also don't think that what the woman did was so bad. Threaten to trace
the call. Hey, at least she told him.
(and he then gleefully recounted this to the ng saying "as if they
could" where he was corrected by several critics). In any case, a real
overt on her part might have been more like if she'd have pretended to
be friendly and kept him on the line, all the while secretly taping him.
Instead, she stated what her intentions were.
Twice where I work, clients have taped things we've said to them without
our knowledge or consent, only telling us after the fact. Now *that's*
wrong. The woman taking orders (or attempting to!) did not do this.
>
> >> >She was just there to take orders for a book. And Bruce knew it. He
> >> >didn't call her looking for information. This is obvious.
> >>
> >> Maybe Bruce has already called 1-800-for-truth, and didn't get an
> >> answer there, either. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
> >
> >He knew she was just there taking orders for a book.
> >
> >Had he called some other number and not received data for which he was
> >looking he'd have stated this when he called the *ORDER TAKING PERSON*
> >and said "Can you help me?"
> >
> >But he did not do this, by his own account.
>
> The way I read it, Bruce called an 800 number from a "Book One"
> commercial. The terminal answered "Dianetics". Since I don't know
> what the commercial said, I don't know if Bruce thought he was calling
> an order processing clerk, or an informational terminal for CofS, Inc.
Right. Hence the title of the post--- ROTFL!!! Cof$ operators standing
by!!
>
> And really, I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm evaluating the data
> without dubbing in anything.
>
Here's what I think. There's a real them'n'us mentality here. The
critics tend to stick together against the Scientologists sometimes. And
vice versa.
It is possible that someone from one camp will give credence and benefit
of the doubt and maybe even dissemble about another from the same camp
to someone from the opposite camp.
C
barb
>
> In article <38F41304...@home.com>,
I guess terror is the standard response for a cultie when someone calls
to be entertained by lies. Being caught in lies must be awful. I
wouldn't know <g> and you can take that to mean one of two things.
Podkayne1
<swa...@home.com> wrote:
> > I don't really know if this is a crank call. Have you verified with
> > Bruce that it was a crank call?
>
> I read his original post (and the title) and the direct responses to it
> on the thread (to which no clarification eg: "guys! That's *not* what I
> was trying to do!").
Check his reply to my post, then
Fredric L. Rice
> Fredric L. Rice <FR...@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
> news:38f35...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > "Russell Shaw" <rs...@dancris.com> wrote:
> >>Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDO...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >>news:8ctq3e$25...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >>> In article <38F1E3F5...@home.com>, John says...
> >>> >The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
> >>> In fact, Hubbard DID say that Christianity is the result of the
> >>> observing madmen. I've seen the transcripts of the tape. So, the
> >>> question is a valid question. The only point of further discussion
> >>> is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
> >>I really doubt it.
> > What _specifically_ do you doubt?
>
> Are you really this dense? Or *must* you endlessly attack on automatic?
Let's play assumption games and pretend that I am. One
wonders why you couldn't just answer the question without
trying out a rather mild personal attack. (Could that be due
to too many TR 0s and 1's?)
> The question was: "The only point of further discussion
> is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal."
No it wasn't. There was no question posed. There was
an interrogative coupled to 2 other statements of which
you either could or could not express doubt. Specifically:
#1 The statement that your dead godman Hubbard
said that Christianity is the result of observing
madmen.
#2 The statement that the observation is a valid one.
And, as you said,
#3 Whether the "correct terminal" -- the use of brain
washing methodology of redefining words, by the
was -- was used.
> My answer was: "I really doubt it."
And yet you didn't indicate which of the three you doubted.
In the future, do try to be accurate in your statements.
> > Do you doubt that your dead godman
> > actually made the state statements that everyone -- including your
> > cult's ringleaders -- attributes to him?
>
> For you to follow with the above makes you look like someone who just *has*
> to attack. No matter what.
You didn't answer the question. That's the result of TRs as well.
What specifically do you consider an "attack" in the
above? After you answer the original question, perhaps
you'll take time out of your busy schedule to answer that
one as well.
--
"It doesn't give me displeasure to hear of a virgin being raped. The
lot of women is to be fornicated."-L. Ron Hubbard, "Affirmations" 1947
http://www.skeptictank.org/ http://www.xenu.net/ http://holysmoke.org/
Fredric L. Rice
> John Dorsay wrote:
> > John or Claire Swazey wrote, about Bruce's phone call:
> > <snip>
> >> He was frightening and harassing the girl and she responded accordingly.
> >> She'd most likely have reacted the same way had she been a member of
> >> something else working some other order-taking thing.
> > Claire, you have written repeatedly that Bruce was "frightening and
> > harrassing" the person on the other end of the phone call.
> > I don't suppose you have any basis for this statement by any chance, do
> > you? If you do, would you be kinde enough to share it?
>
> The _wording_ and _title_ of his original post.
> The responses to it by others which were a bit meanspirited.
In other words your complaint is utterly unfounded and
predicated upon _your_ biased and twisted perception
of events. And in fact the truth of the matter is that the
poor sucker who was ordered to answer the telephone
to try to sell your cult's bait-and-switch frauds was
amusingly confronted with an mbarrassing truth and it is
_that_fact_ which is what has upset you.
Surely you must realize that when people know what
Scientology actually is and what the Church of Scientology
actully sells to its rubes is well known, the revenues of your
cult leaders drops considerably. The fact that the cult's
dead godman Hubbard created a cult that's incompatable
with Christianity is an embarrassing truth that will -- if it
is well disseminated like Xenu is lately -- will assist in the
further decline in your cult master's revenues.
Tough shit if that upsets you but the truth shall set you --
and anyone else who would otherwise fall for the scam
-- free. Address the reason for your upset and then get
out while they let you.
Fredric L. Rice
> In article <38F1E3F5...@home.com>, John or Claire Swazey
> <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >> *FLUNK!* It was a perfectly valid question. If a Jew calls the local
> >> Chinese Food take-out and asks if the wonton has pork in it, is that
> >> "harassment?" Nope!
> > The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
> > And the title of the post, the jeering way in which this was written
> > evidences the intent. Obviously.
>
> I think that's effect, not cause - if I called, say, the Mormon church's
> 800 # and asked them why the book of Mormon, purportedly translated in the
> 19th century, used 16th century English, or is it really true that all
> Mormon men can become gods of their own planets, is that harassment?
I've asked Mormons about the BoM's claim that there
were elephants extant in North America at the time they
claim the book was written. In all cases where a reply
was received, the cultist claimed either harassment or
that there _were_ elephants in North America only it's a
cover-up by scientists who won't provide the evidence.
Hell, in this instance, the truth is unavoidable: Hubbard's
claims about Christianity being an implant are diametrically
opposed to the cult's claim that it's compatable with
Christianity. The person on the telephone should have
admitted his or her leaders are pathetic liars and got on
with trying to sell the fraud regardless.
Fredric L. Rice
> In article <38F415F2...@home.com>, John or Claire Swazey
> <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >> Oh, sure! 'Frightening and harassing.' You people have a queer idea of
> >> harassment when you think it's aimed at you. He asked a pertinent
> >> question about scn compatibility. Pretty terrifying, yup.
> >> Please note that she returns with something a little more ominous than a
> >> simple question, a phone trace. Did you miss that somehow?
> > Didn't miss it at all. Sounds like he really got to her. But then, this
> > was the intent.
>
> ???
> Asking to verify a Hubbard quote is really an attempt to scare a person so
> much that she instigats a phone trace?
>
> Are *you* scared when we ask about R6?
Good luck getting an honest answer. Here we have someone
trying to tell someone else what someone else's intent was.
Is JCS telepathic? Employing those daunting OT powers?
Fredric L. Rice
> I guess terror is the standard response for a cultie when someone calls
> to be entertained by lies. Being caught in lies must be awful. I
> wouldn't know <g> and you can take that to mean one of two things.
Hell, look at the poor guy who was ordered by his cult to
videotape the good guys in Clearwater. He had to resort
to stuffing his fingers in his ears to avoid having to hear the
word "Xenu." Was that poor unfortunate cultist harassed
and victimized? Hell yes! By his cult leaders who lied to
him.
Fredric L. Rice
> "Perry Scott " wrote:
> > In article <38F33E52...@home.com>, John says...
> >>"Perry Scott " wrote:
> >>> In article <38F1E3F5...@home.com>, John says...
> >>>>The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
> >>> Claire, the intent is to pull an overt. CofS in "pulling in" this
> >>> sort of thing because of the overt, not because of the reaction of
> >>> a particular person.
> >>Cool. Someone somewhere says things critics don't like, so it's open
> >>season on all Scientologists.
> > Balderdash. Bruce did not say he was calling "all Scientologists".
> > He called an 800 number for a specific CofS, Inc. terminal.
>
> She was taking orders for a book.
And as a sales woman for the criminal cult should expect
to have people ask her questions about the fraud she's
selling. Face it, anyone who's selling anything should be
able to answer honest questions honestly. Only crooks
who know they're selling fraud would react the way she
did.
Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDOTcom>
I think I understand the basis of our M/U. When faced with an ambiguous
situation, I try to find the bounds of the ambiguity. In this instance,
I think the truth is somewhere within the range of what both of us think.
It's not that I'm unwilling to cut the phone operator (or Scientologists
in general for that matter) any slack, it's that there are assumptions
in the evaluation. I'm really just picking on the assumptions.
I think Bruce clarified this, which was really my point in the first
place. When there are disparate opinions (evaluations), it means
everyone needs to find (or present) more data. Dunno if that's in
the Data Eval series or not.
In article <38F5D366...@home.com>, John####Claire says...
>She was taking orders for a book.
>
>So, yes, she was a specific terminal. The wrong one. But then, any
>terminal would have been the wrong one, for a bullbait.
Thank you.
I agree that bullbait is inappropriate for any terminal. I think I
heard you agree that the terminal had case on post. I'm satisfied.
I think we also realize that bullbait is sometimes inadvertent. I
don't assume malice until I've eliminated ignorance.
>
>>
>> Scientology (the 3rd-dynamic organization) claims they are compatible
>> with Christianity. The terminal is a bona-fide CofS public terminal.
>> The terminal was unprepared for questions from the public.
>>
>> Somewhere in here, you could be more helpful by telling us the proper
>> terminal for this question. (Hint: perhaps a DSA). All you are doing
>> is causing more ARCx.
>
>There is no correct terminal for a bullbait. Excepting maybe myself.
Well, OK.
However, I'll TR3 the compatibility point. CofS claims they are compatible,
but it is based on an M/U. The M/U causes ARCx. The ARCx causes phone
calls to 1-800 telephone operators.
>> You failed to address the point. CofS, Inc. has an overt, and it is
>> stacking overts on top of the original overt.
>
>By advising someone that they are tracing a call in response to a
>bullbait?
Yes. The original question was not answered. The operator Q&Aed rather
than keeping their TRs in, and the result was predictable. The "ROTFL"
in the title (to me) refers to the inability of a public terminal to
correctly apply the Tech. (And this critic will admit, that in this
case, the Tech would have worked.)
>> If you didn't get this the first time, here it is again.
>>
>> CofS, Inc. (3d) has an overt against Christianity (another 3d). The
>> question was posed to an official terminal of the CofS, Inc. group.
>
>Russ, I believe, has answered this on this thread.
No, there wasn't really an answer. Just another assertion. I've noticed
that Hubbard did that, too.
OK, I take back the previous TR3 because you thought the question was
answered. :)
>> The proper behavior for a bona-fide 3D representative is to forward
>> the question to the proper terminal within CofS, Inc. It is NOT ok
>> to further ARCx with a menacing "we're tracing this call."
>
>The heck it isn't! See below where I talk about where I ran into
>something like this at my job... (actually, it was my partner whom I sit
>next to. Twice.)
Uh oh. Your Bank is showing.
The purpose of PRO TR0-BB is to enable you to "be there" in the face of
abuse or harassment. The purpose of being able to "be there" is to get
an unpleasant job accomplished - to "make it go right".
Maybe the operator didn't realize her PRO TRs were being tested, but I
(and apparently Bruce) give her a resounding "FLUNK!".
That said, at the other end of the spectrum, I also think nobody should
have to endure bona-fide harassment.
>> >I don't like this behaviour from *anybody* and that includes fellow
>> >Scientologists.
>>
>> Well, *you and I* can begin cleaning up the ARCx by not causing further
>> ARCx and M/Us. We can also get to the bottom of the problem by pulling
>> this overt that CofS, Inc. has against Christianity.
>>
>> This banky reaction I see from CofS, Inc., their terminals, and members
>> tends to remind me of an overt being pulled in session. The bank seems
>> to first manufacture "we're being persecuted", rather than taking
>> responsibility for the overt and dealing with it.
>
>Yes, there is a games condition.
Thank you! I hadn't considered that.
>> I don't really know if this is a crank call. Have you verified with
>> Bruce that it was a crank call?
>
>I read his original post (and the title) and the direct responses to it
>on the thread (to which no clarification eg: "guys! That's *not* what I
>was trying to do!").
I didn't ask what other people thought.
TR3: Have you verified with Bruce?
>> The question that Bruce asked is valid. Asking if someone has Prince
>> Albert in a can is not a valid question. So, your example is
>> non-sequitur.
>
>The question Bruce asked was believed (by me and apparently by the order
>taker) to be a bullbait. Might as well been asking for Prince Albert in
>a can.
My view is that the order taker's TR0-BB went out before she really knew
what was being communicated.
I can acknowledge that you and the order taker could evaluate what you
have evaluated. Both show the same fundamental problem - making an
evaluation before all the data is in.
>> >He scared a lady. She responded.
>>
>> She REACTED. Case on post. Her PRO TR0-BB is out and she needs a retread.
>
>Possibly. It never ever hurts to do more TRs.
If out-TRs causes an ARCx, thats not KSW. I'm at the other end of
the spectrum at "definitely needs a retread". It was a spectacular
failure to apply the Tech.
>> >If someone called me up and was rude I would reserve the right to say
>> >*anything* I wanted to, that I deemed appropriate.
>>
>> Again, Claire, you are dubbing something in. I did not read a rude
>> question.
>
>You are giving Bruce the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, I'm a turn-the-other-cheek kinda guy. I'm a little more critical
of the operator because she's *supposed* to have the PRO TRs in. It's
required for the post.
>I believe that had a similar post been written on another subject, in
>another forum, but pretty much the same type of thing, that you might
>see it differently.
I'm an SP-OT. I can hold several points of view at once. Somewhere
within the spectrum of views lies "Ultimate Trvth". It's not that I
don't see (and acknowledge) your POV - it's just one of many
considerations. Before we flame, I think it prudent to narrow the range
by asking more questions - there's less Bank to dub-in that way.
>She was responding to a bullbait.
[her (possibly incorrect) POV]
> And she was above-board enough to say
>that they were tracing the call. I saw a response in which someone said
>they probably got cut off, and I think this may well be the case.
OK. Maybe the statement was not meant hostilely. However, it was
received by Bruce as hostile.
>> >And, remember, people who are frightened are not icons of rationality.
>>
>> Case on post.
>
>We're human like anybody else.
But, you have the Tech! (Yeah, I can cut some slack, but not when there
are claims of uber-beingness.)
>> >> >Sure. And a little telephone answering chickie is going to have all the
>> >> >data. Oh sure.
>> >>
>> >> You are denigrating a representative of the Scientology religion.
>> >
>> >Certainly not.
>>
>> OK. I would not call a terminal of CofS, Inc. a "little telephone
>> answering chickie." I find it demeaning.
>
>Well, I don't. I call lots of people "dude" and "chickie". I don't
>stand on ceremony.
OK.
>And it interests me greatly that you take exception to that term, but I
>don't think I've seen you complaining about "clam" or "Scieno" or the
>many times I see on this ng "all you Scienos do this or that or the
>other thing"
I seldom, if never, use the c**m word as a label. I find it as
demeaning as a racial slur. However, I may dispassionately discuss
the derivation of the c-word if asked - HoM is a bizarre piece of
work from a purely scientific viewpoint.
You won't often see me complain about others' use of derogatory terms.
After 40 years, I have learned to not teach pigs to sing - it's frustrating
for me, and it just annoys the pig.
However, if you want to add my voice to yours in this respect, feel
free to paste in my name. (e.g. "I (and Perry Scott) think that your
use of the word "clam" is demeaning.)
BTW, I use the "Scn" abbreviation, just because "Scientology" or
"Scientologist" is just too long. Izzat OK?
>> I have been asking this question for a couple years now. I assure
>> you that it is not bullbaiting. (Maybe *I'm* the one dubbing in
>> my sincerity to get this question answered onto Bruce's question.
>> However, you need to ask Bruce before assuming it was TR0-BB, rather
>> than TR3 to get past a banky CofS, Inc. terminal.)
>
>Sure, if Bruce hadn't been busy mocking her.
You're again assuming. I can acknowledge your conclusion based on your
assumptions, but I think you need to validate the assumptions first.
> I used to be on staff at a
>mission, as I've mentioned before. I was on the reception desk for a
>time. A couple times people came in to bait us. Didn't want to know
>about Scn. And they saw the chickie at the front desk (See, I call
>everybody that- well, not guys- even myself) and decided to give her a
>bad time. So I know what I'm talking about, and I know what can happen.
OK, I acknowledge that baiting happens. Do you acknowledge that TR0-BB
is supposed to get you past that? The phone person went into Anger
instead of remaining somewhere above Conservatism. That prevented her
from collecting more data, or even considering that she needed to
collect more data.
>Maybe she was banky, or maybe merely annoyed at what was going on.
>Feeling the appropriate emotion for a given situation is not bank.
Feeling an emotion is far downstream of the actual WHY.
>You know what, when I was just a young thing, some years ago, I had a
>nighttime job.
[deleted]
Yeah, yahoos stink. That was obviously harassment.
>But I will also say that if someone directs harassment in someone else's
>direction (regardless of whether they are a critic or a Scientologist or
>whether they're in some other deal entirely) that it's not truly
>astounding when the other person does not turn the other cheek.
The only thing that I'm astounded at here is that a public terminal's
TR0-BB went out so fast.
>I also don't think that what the woman did was so bad. Threaten to trace
>the call. Hey, at least she told him.
>(and he then gleefully recounted this to the ng saying "as if they
>could" where he was corrected by several critics). In any case, a real
>overt on her part might have been more like if she'd have pretended to
>be friendly and kept him on the line, all the while secretly taping him.
>Instead, she stated what her intentions were.
Do you want to acknowledge that maybe you dubbed this in, so both of us
can get on with our life?
>Here's what I think. There's a real them'n'us mentality here. The
>critics tend to stick together against the Scientologists sometimes. And
>vice versa.
Just think 3rd dynamics and the Treason formula. It's an adequate model.
However, I'm not going to get declared by the ARSCC(WDNE) if I happen to
agree with you.
>It is possible that someone from one camp will give credence and benefit
>of the doubt and maybe even dissemble about another from the same camp
>to someone from the opposite camp.
And again, maybe you M/U my intent. My intent is to understand the range
of points-of-view. The truth is probably in the middle under the big
part of the bell curve.
If you've noticed, critics feel free to flame critics that step outta
line (think death threats, etc.). I even send private e-mail to
Bob Himself. Can you criticise David Miscavige? Is it OK to talk?
But, if you're asking me to teach pigs to sing, you'll find it's
hit-or-miss.
>C
Perry Scott, SP 4.3, ScienoSitter 3X + ISP + 2 words
Co$ Escapee
Shy David www.xenu.net
<fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote:
> barb wrote:
> > I guess terror is the standard response for a cultie when someone calls
> > to be entertained by lies. Being caught in lies must be awful. I
> > wouldn't know <g> and you can take that to mean one of two things.
> Hell, look at the poor guy who was ordered by his cult to
> videotape the good guys in Clearwater. He had to resort
> to stuffing his fingers in his ears to avoid having to hear the
> word "Xenu." Was that poor unfortunate cultist harassed
> and victimized? Hell yes! By his cult leaders who lied to
> him.
"75 million years ago earth was known as Teegeeack and was
ruled over by the evil overloard Xenu who stuffed us all in
volcanos so that you one day might put your finger in your
ear." --- Mark Bunker
> --
> "It doesn't give me displeasure to hear of a virgin being raped. The
> lot of women is to be fornicated."-L. Ron Hubbard, "Affirmations" 1947
> http://www.skeptictank.org/ http://www.xenu.net/ http://holysmoke.org/
---
"Shy" David Rice. A proud supporter and defender of religious rights. Help fight
religious descrimination! <http://holysmoke.org/tolerate.htm>
"But I'd rather have my mind boggled than fucked!" -- barb
John or Claire Swazey
"Charlotte L. Kates" wrote:
>
> The woman was not a random order taker. If this phone line is like EVERY OTHER
> Scn 800-number, she's a hatted SO member posted in the Planetary Dissem Org,
> who should be well-enough trained to not show case on post. Especially over
> such "severe harassment" as this.
I don't care if she was DM in drag.
Meanspirited is as meanspirited does.
>
> And Claire, I'm quite sure that you know that just as well as I do.
Whatever that means.
C
Fredric L. Rice
> "Charlotte L. Kates" wrote:
> > The woman was not a random order taker. If this phone line is like EVERY OTHER
> > Scn 800-number, she's a hatted SO member posted in the Planetary Dissem Org,
> > who should be well-enough trained to not show case on post. Especially over
> > such "severe harassment" as this.
>
> I don't care if she was DM in drag.
> Meanspirited is as meanspirited does.
Why do you think asking questions is "mean spirited?" Is
that a central tenet of the Church of Scientology?
Charlotte L. Kates
>>
>> The woman was not a random order taker. If this phone line is like EVERY
>OTHER
>> Scn 800-number, she's a hatted SO member posted in the Planetary Dissem
>Org,
>> who should be well-enough trained to not show case on post. Especially over
>> such "severe harassment" as this.
>
>I don't care if she was DM in drag.
>
>Meanspirited is as meanspirited does.
>
You're the one who said that she was a "phone answering chickie" or some such.
With the obvious implication that she knows little to nothing about Scn; which,
after all, is quite unlikely if she's hatted SO and posted in PDO.
-charlotte
Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDOTcom>
says...
Charlotte:
>>> The woman was not a random order taker. If this phone line is like EVERY
>>OTHER
>>> Scn 800-number, she's a hatted SO member posted in the Planetary Dissem
>>Org,
>>> who should be well-enough trained to not show case on post. Especially over
>>> such "severe harassment" as this.
Thanks for lending your C-Orgspertise on this, Charlotte. :)
Claire:
>>I don't care if she was DM in drag.
>>
>>Meanspirited is as meanspirited does.
Charlotte:
>You're the one who said that she was a "phone answering chickie" or some such.
>With the obvious implication that she knows little to nothing about Scn; which,
>after all, is quite unlikely if she's hatted SO and posted in PDO.
My thoughts, too. On the other hand, PDO may be having trouble finding
qualified help if the C-Org is shrinking. In the end, since the first
step in a Danger condition is to step up promotional efforts (hope I got
that right), I can't help but think that the best and brightest would
be on the front (promotional) lines.
I think CofS, Inc. may be in Danger (decreasing statistics - increased
Dianetics promotion), and they're having trouble getting enough staff
(at least ones who have done PRO TRs).
John or Claire Swazey
"Charlotte L. Kates" wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> The woman was not a random order taker. If this phone line is like EVERY
> >OTHER
> >> Scn 800-number, she's a hatted SO member posted in the Planetary Dissem
> >Org,
> >> who should be well-enough trained to not show case on post. Especially over
> >> such "severe harassment" as this.
> >
> >I don't care if she was DM in drag.
> >
> >Meanspirited is as meanspirited does.
> >
>
> You're the one who said that she was a "phone answering chickie" or some such.
> With the obvious implication that she knows little to nothing about Scn; which,
> after all, is quite unlikely if she's hatted SO and posted in PDO.
You're assuming things not meant by me, and I've stated what I meant
already.
I've made it quite clear on why I referred to her thus (I call myself
"chickie", etc. I nickname _everything_ and the only people who have
problems with that seem to be, in my experience, humorless people
looking to take offense, and there's never any pleasing such people.
Anyone looking for offense to take is sure to find it. Even if they have
to make something up or make false assumptions.)
It depends on what her hat is. If her hat is to take orders only, then
that's her hat. As a businesswoman, I do not find the idea incredible
that this may have been all her hat was.
The number called was given as a number to call to order books.
Therefore, this is what I'd expect people on the other end of the line
to be doing. I would not expect much more from them. This is not a
denigration, this is years of business experience talking. And not a
little Org and Mission experience, as well.
I've dealt with enough order taking personnel and receptionists, whether
in Scn or not, to know that this is generally the case. Perhaps not
always, but certainly _quite_ _often_.
C
barb
>
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > > You people act like total asses, and then snivel
> > > > when you're called on it.
> > >
> > > What people? And why am I included in this? I'm just myself, ya know.
> >
> > Oh, I thought you were a scientologist. Part of the Borg. You people.
> > And no, you're not yourself, you are running Hubbard's program.
>
> Oh, gee, and here I thought I was posting on my own, going to my non-Scn
> job five days a week, pursuing my hobbies...social life...etc...now I
> find out I'm part of Hellstrom's Hive. I'm glad you let me know before
> it's too late or something.... Bzzzzz....
>
> > >
> > > > Here we have a potential victim calling for
> > > > information, and he gets threatened with a phone trace when he asks a
> > > > pertinent question about Christianity. Nice church, NOT!
> > >
> > > He was frightening and harassing the girl and she responded accordingly.
> > > She'd most likely have reacted the same way had she been a member of
> > > something else working some other order-taking thing.
> >
> > harassment when you think it's aimed at you. He asked a pertinent
> > question about scn compatibility. Pretty terrifying, yup.
> > Please note that she returns with something a little more ominous than a
> > simple question, a phone trace. Did you miss that somehow?
>
> Didn't miss it at all. Sounds like he really got to her. But then, this
> was the intent.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > AHA!! Just having a little fun!! So we can see it wasn't a noble knight
> > > in shining armour white horse quest for information. No Diogenes stuff
> > > here, no sirree Bob. Nope, the idea was to have some fun at someone
> > > else's expense. Cool.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the confirmation.
> > >
> > > >and you start the
> > > > usual squall about malice and harassment. Why do you think they posted
> > > > the damn phone number to begin with?
> > >
> > > Uhhhh... just a wild guess...but maybe they wanted to TAKE ORDERS FOR A
> > > BOOK? Could it be?
> >
> > Are you saying that the book order terminal is not programmed to answer
> > questions? Do you think that they never field questions?
>
> As a businesswoman I know that people who have a certain position, a
> certain job to do, do not handle other things. There are exceptions, and
> of course, as previously indicated on this thread, it's helpful for the
> person to go "Ok, I don't know the answer, but I can get you to someone
> who does."
>
> But if she had the impression that he was just --what was it you said? -
> oh yes, having fun, I think it was...
> she wouldn't think she should do that.
>
> > >
> > > > If you culties would straighten up
> > > > and act like gentlemen, you wouldn't have anything to whine about.
> > >
> > > Oh, so two wrongs *do* make a right. So if some Scientologists somewhere
> > > on the planet are unfair or act like jerks in any way, then it's ok for
> > > someone to harass telephone order takers who are taking orders for a
> > > Dianetics book. After all, in your words, it was just "fun".
> > >
> > I think you'd better word-clear harassment to greater depth. Would you
> > get this frothy over a question about which toothpaste you use?
>
> Would depend on what they said and how they said it, of course.
>
> > How can
> > you possibly misconstrue the inquiry, "Is scientology compatible with
> > Christianity?" as harassment? You guys are secretly ashamed of your
> > beliefs to the point that you're that tender in that 'special place?'
>
> I read Bruce's post. His wording and the title.
>
> >
> > > Here's a novel idea- why not keep such confrontational, nasty infighting
> > > amongst the proper parties? ie: You are pissed at person A. Yell at
> > > person A.
> > >
> > > C
> >
> > You are pissed at person A. Scream that A is harassing you and
> > intolerant of your right to kill your parishioners! Sheesh,
>
> >I never seen
>
> Oh! You must be a Scientologist!
>
> > such a dumb cult.
>
> Of course you'd say that. You're the same person, I believe, who made
> fun of Confront23's having a lucky number, and you blamed that on
> Scientology!
>
> I bet if I were walking down the street, and you were, too, and
> recognized me, and I stumbled on a crack in the sidewalk that you'd go
> "Oh! Just like a dumb Scientologist!"
>
> >At least Heaven's Gate could create halfway decent web
> > pages, and they could spell.
>
> Eye zpell pritty gude.... Eye dew!
>
> >
> > I suspect you people are under orders now to squall about harassment in
> > order
>
> What a ridiculous thing to say to a public person who is posting on her
> own.
>
> You might want to direct that to some staff member thingie person
> somewhere. Sorry I can't direct you to one as I'm not in the loop _at_
> _all_ on that stuff...
>
> > to collect a body of work which could potentially be used to
> > manipulate public opinion about the motives of cult critics, a sweeping
> > DA operation if you will.
>
> If so, I won't have a part in it.
>
> >It may work to an extent. Your cult may have
> > Judge Schaeffer fooled at this moment.
>
> What I would like is for people to see what's good about Scn and the
> CofS and also what's not good about Scn and the CofS. Both.
>
> I can and I do. But you cannot do both. This makes me one up on you wrt
> Scn and CofS.
>
> >Poor happy, friendly scienos,
> > abused by a wog world they never created! If the good judge ever
> > researches *why* people picket scientology, all her sympathy will
> > evaporate like virga on a summer day.
>
> What's virga?
>
> >
> > In the meantime, keep on squawking about harassment. It demonstrates
> > that you don't understand the meaning of the word.
>
> I understand it perfectly. I'm a Collection Manager. ;->
>
> C
So you harass people for a living? What a perfect job for a
$cientologist!
Fredric L. Rice
> "Charlotte L. Kates" wrote:
> >>> The woman was not a random order taker. If this phone line is like EVERY
> >>OTHER
> >>> Scn 800-number, she's a hatted SO member posted in the Planetary Dissem
> >>Org,
> >>> who should be well-enough trained to not show case on post. Especially over
> >>> such "severe harassment" as this.
> >>I don't care if she was DM in drag.
> >>Meanspirited is as meanspirited does.
> >>
> < You're the one who said that she was a "phone answering chickie" or some such.
> > With the obvious implication that she knows little to nothing about Scn; which,
> > after all, is quite unlikely if she's hatted SO and posted in PDO.
>
> You're assuming things not meant by me, and I've stated what I meant
> already.
And you're employing mind reading by trying to make
claims about people's intentions. Since Hubbard lied and
you don't have psychic powers, what does that leave you
with?
Right. Exactly.
Russell Shaw
Fredric L. Rice <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:38F616F7...@skeptictank.org...
> Russell Shaw wrote:
>
> > Fredric L. Rice <FR...@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
> > news:38f35...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > > "Russell Shaw" <rs...@dancris.com> wrote:
> > >>Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDO...@newsguy.com> wrote in
message
> > >>news:8ctq3e$25...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > >>> >The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to
you.
> > >>> observing madmen. I've seen the transcripts of the tape. So, the
> > >>> question is a valid question. The only point of further discussion
> > >>> is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
> > >>I really doubt it.
> > > What _specifically_ do you doubt?
> >
> > Are you really this dense? Or *must* you endlessly attack on automatic?
>
> Let's play assumption games and pretend that I am. One
> wonders why you couldn't just answer the question without
> trying out a rather mild personal attack. (Could that be due
> to too many TR 0s and 1's?)
>
> > The question was: "The only point of further discussion
> > is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal."
>
> No it wasn't. There was no question posed.
Fredric, I do not intended this as a "mild attack".
You seem completely insane.
Almost everything you write could have been written by a computer program.
There is NO real attempt on your part at understanding *anything* here.
Just route, gibberish responses. Sometimes advocating _violence_ against
Scientologists.
You seldom seem to have any real idea of what you are talking about and just
totally ignore any data that doesn't fit in with your weirdly distorted
views.
Fredric L. Rice
> Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDO...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:8d016v$31...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > In article <38f2f...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Russell says...
> > >Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDO...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> > >news:8ctq3e$25...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > >> In article <38F1E3F5...@home.com>, John says...
> > >> >The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
> > >> In fact, Hubbard DID say that Christianity is the result of the
> > >> observing madmen. I've seen the transcripts of the tape. So, the
> > >> question is a valid question. The only point of further discussion
> > >> is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
> > >I really doubt it.
> > "it"? M/U. I'll assume you doubt Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
>
> Sorry for the misunderstood. You were correct - I really doubted that Bruce
> was asking the correct terminal.
Of course he did. He asked a saleswoman who should know
what the frauds and scams are that her criminal leaders have
ordered her to try to sell. Who else should he have asked?
Podkayne1
<swa...@home.com> wrote:
> > >You're the one who said that she was a "phone answering chickie" or
some such.
> > >With the obvious implication that she knows little to nothing about
Scn; which,
> > >after all, is quite unlikely if she's hatted SO and posted in PDO.
> >
> > The fact is, regardless of Claire's wishes about the matter, "chickie" is
> > a reductive term.
>
> In spite of my wishes. What a statement. What illogic. It's almost
> beautiful...
>
> Logic dictates that if I'm the one using the term and I'm the one with
> "wishes" about what it means, then it means what I intend it to mean.
Time to quote Lewis Carroll again...
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
--Lewis Carroll,
Through the Looking Glass
There's a Hubbard quote, rather convoluted, about conveying particles and
some such, which is also appropriate.
--
When a Scientology staffer used a syringe to force a mixture of
aspirin, Benadryl and orange juice into McPherson's throat while others
held her down, it was "spiritual sustenance," the church argues.
Read more Heinlein
Fredric L. Rice
> Fredric L. Rice <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
> news:38F616F7...@skeptictank.org...
> > Russell Shaw wrote:
> >> Fredric L. Rice <FR...@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
> >> news:38f35...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >>> "Russell Shaw" <rs...@dancris.com> wrote:
> >>>>Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDO...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:8ctq3e$25...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >>>>> In article <38F1E3F5...@home.com>, John says...
> >>>>> >The difference is in the intent. Which should be obvious even to you.
> >>>>> In fact, Hubbard DID say that Christianity is the result of the
> >>>>> observing madmen. I've seen the transcripts of the tape. So, the
> >>>>> question is a valid question. The only point of further discussion
> >>>>> is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
> >>>>I really doubt it.
> >>> What _specifically_ do you doubt?
> >> Are you really this dense? Or *must* you endlessly attack on automatic?
>
> > Let's play assumption games and pretend that I am. One
> > wonders why you couldn't just answer the question without
> > trying out a rather mild personal attack. (Could that be due
> > to too many TR 0s and 1's?)
Funny how you couldn't address that, huh? You're certainly
aware of what the TRs do to an otherwise healthy individual.
> >> The question was: "The only point of further discussion
> >> is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal."
> > No it wasn't. There was no question posed.
>
> Fredric, I do not intended this as a "mild attack".
> You seem completely insane.
To a cultist stuck inside of the cult, everyone who's either not
a cult follower or tries to leave is "insane." That's the excuse
that your cult used to kill Lisa McPherson since she was talking
about leaving.
What remains is the fact that there were three seperate
statements which you could "doubt." You failed to be specific
and when asked about it, you applied Hubbard technology and,
rather than simply answer the question, tried out a personal
attack.
"Always attack, never defend" indeed.
Good grief. Look at what you try to defend.
John or Claire Swazey
Ceon Ramon wrote:
>
> In article <20000414142749...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
> Charlotte L. Kates <clk...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The woman was not a random order taker. If this phone line is like EVERY
> >>OTHER
> >>> Scn 800-number, she's a hatted SO member posted in the Planetary Dissem
> >>Org,
> >>> who should be well-enough trained to not show case on post. Especially over
> >>> such "severe harassment" as this.
> >>
> >>I don't care if she was DM in drag.
> >>
> >>Meanspirited is as meanspirited does.
> >>
> >
> >You're the one who said that she was a "phone answering chickie" or some such.
> >With the obvious implication that she knows little to nothing about Scn; which,
> >after all, is quite unlikely if she's hatted SO and posted in PDO.
>
> The fact is, regardless of Claire's wishes about the matter, "chickie" is
> a reductive term.
In spite of my wishes. What a statement. What illogic. It's almost
beautiful...
Logic dictates that if I'm the one using the term and I'm the one with
"wishes" about what it means, then it means what I intend it to mean.
> It seemed to me that she wished to portray or suggest
> that the woman who answered the phone to any callers who responded to the
> tv ad, whether they wanted to order a book or ask a question, was somehow
> small, young, innocent and defenseless.
>
> You know: like the little fuzzy sunny yellow peeping hatchlings that will
> be crammed into children's multi-colored pastel Easter baskets next week,
> later to be abandoned to the tender mercies of crows and cats when
> the kiddie thingies in the family unit thingie get tired of feeding them.
>
> Calling a grown woman a "chickie" is diminishing and disrespectful,
> regardless of whether Claire herself thinks choosing this diminishment of
> her own adulthood is cute.
The only one here who has even thought that my adulthood ~could~ be
diminished is you. So this statement says far more about you than it
does about me.
>She may relish being thought of as a "chickie"
> (fuzzy, harmless, sweet and innocent)
I am far from innocent or harmless.
>, but most grown-up women do not.
That's because most grown-up women are foolish tightasses who take
themselves and their concept of feminism far too seriously.
The women I've met who've (if they dared) taken me to task for my turn
of phrase were all like this. Small minded women concerned with pilpul
rather than substance. Narrow minded women masquerading as
intellectuals.
>
> Imagine calling Janet Reno, or Golda Meir, or Indira Gandhi, or Margaret
> Thatcher or Ruth Bader Ginzberg or Abigail Adams or Sojourner Truth a
> "chickie."
Ok, you're on. I have great respect for almost all these chickies
except for the first one, of course.
>
> You have to wonder about those who need to make others small. Or themselves,
> for that matter.
Yes, I certainly do wonder why you feel the need to make others small by
putting them down, and I'm not just referring to this post. There've
been others.
But I guess as long as it does not contain any words like "thingie" or
"chickie" then it's perfectly all right to put people down, that, in
fact, it doesn't count as a putdown, because you are doing it. A woman
who would ~never~ say "chickie". So it's only reductive, I guess, if
"ie" is at the end.
Wow.
I'm impressed. I'm always impressed at blatant narrow-minded idiocy
masquerading as logic. I mean, it's almost beautiful to look at. Sort of
like a Picasso abstract portrait...really great art, but what's it doing
on the wall of a Physiology classroom encaptioned "Anatomy of the Human
Face"?
C
Mephistopheles51
>Logic dictates that if I'm the one using the term and I'm the one with
>"wishes" about what it means, then it means what I intend it to mean.
No, no, no, "Claire." You're not "in session" now. This is the REAL world
where "what's true is what's true for you" does not apply. If a safe falls
from the sky and crushes someone, they're dead whether it was "true" for them
or not.
Don't believe the hype*
*and it's all hype
To reply, remove the obvious.
realpch
>
> That's because most grown-up women are foolish tightasses who take
> themselves and their concept of feminism far too seriously.
>
> The women I've met who've (if they dared) taken me to task for my turn
> of phrase were all like this. Small minded women concerned with pilpul
> rather than substance. Narrow minded women masquerading as
> intellectuals.
>
the term "chickie" used in regards to a human female in any other than a
dismissive manner. It's used in a similar manner as "tootsie". Great
movie by the way. Love that scene where Dorthy discusses this very
topic.
Peach
John or Claire Swazey
Ceon Ramon wrote:
>
> In article <38FFB812...@home.com>,
> John or Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >Ceon Ramon wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <20000414142749...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
> >> Charlotte L. Kates <clk...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The woman was not a random order taker. If this phone line is like EVERY
> >> >>OTHER
> >> >>> Scn 800-number, she's a hatted SO member posted in the Planetary Dissem
> >> >>Org,
> >> >>> who should be well-enough trained to not show case on post. Especially over
> >> >>> such "severe harassment" as this.
> >> >>
> >> >>I don't care if she was DM in drag.
> >> >>
> >> >>Meanspirited is as meanspirited does.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >You're the one who said that she was a "phone answering chickie" or some such.
> >> >With the obvious implication that she knows little to nothing about Scn; which,
> >> >after all, is quite unlikely if she's hatted SO and posted in PDO.
> >>
> >> The fact is, regardless of Claire's wishes about the matter, "chickie" is
> >> a reductive term.
> >
> >In spite of my wishes. What a statement. What illogic. It's almost
> >beautiful...
> >
> >Logic dictates that if I'm the one using the term and I'm the one with
> >"wishes" about what it means, then it means what I intend it to mean.
>
> Glad you like it. Care to apply the same logic to those who think the
> use of "clam" for Scientologists means only what they intend it to mean,
Some of the people who use it mean it as an epithet, and some of these
people who do mean it this way have indicated that they have, in fact,
meant it as a sort of epithet or pejorative.
So, of course it means what they mean it to mean.
Anyone who uses a term, who is then asked what it means, and then,
whether they give the connotative or denotative meaning to their
inquisitor, is using it as they intended and any elucidations they care
to give can be taken as such.
> e.g., simply a reference to the fundamental body of beliefs that Hubbard
> laid out in his first book about Dianetics?
The Clam incident does not appear in DMSMH. It appears in History of
Man, which was written later.
C
J. R. Ford
<swa...@home.com> wrote:
>In spite of my wishes. What a statement. What illogic. It's almost
>beautiful...
>
>Logic dictates that if I'm the one using the term and I'm the one with
>"wishes" about what it means, then it means what I intend it to mean.
>
Under that logic, Clarie, if someone grows up calling black people
niggers without harboring malice, then a black person should not be
offended. I would hope the black person would be offended.
Your logic sucks.
John or Claire Swazey
Hey it worked for Humpty Humpty.
But seriously I would think that it is only in your mind that this is an
insulting term.
And further to the point of being totally rediculous that any critic
plumbing to the very depths of his wisdom could have the gaul to take
anyone to task for using any perjoritve terms in regard to any groups of
people, since you do it all the time.
J
John or Claire Swazey
"J. R. Ford" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:05:47 GMT, John or Claire Swazey
> <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >In spite of my wishes. What a statement. What illogic. It's almost
> >beautiful...
> >
> >Logic dictates that if I'm the one using the term and I'm the one with
> >"wishes" about what it means, then it means what I intend it to mean.
> >
>
> Under that logic, Clarie, if someone grows up calling black people
> niggers without harboring malice, then a black person should not be
> offended. I would hope the black person would be offended.
The word to which you're referring is a notorious racial epithet.
"chickie" is not. This analogy does not work.
I'll elucidate by giving an example. I once worked at a place where
there was some in-fighting and gossiping. One of the women who worked
there went into the hospital for a semi-serious operation. I said that
it was too bad that she was ill. Which was all I meant. Someone snapped
at me "What's that supposed to mean?" (She was assuming I was being
sarcastic, like "awwww, toooo bad...<snicker>" but this was not the
case.) So in this instance it meant what I meant it to mean and not what
someone else meant it to mean, regardless of what meaning she chose to
read into it.
This analogy is closer. HTH.
C
Beverly Rice
> And further to the point of being totally rediculous that any critic
> plumbing to the very depths of his wisdom could have the gaul
You mean, critics of Co$ have Gauls? :-)
Study tech and word clearing for super beings who state they
have the ~answer~ to ejacashion I see . . .
> to take
> anyone to task for using any perjoritve terms in regard to any groups of
> people, since you do it all the time.
Yes, terms like wog, degraded beings, supressive persons, potential
trouble sources, Fair Game, theetie weetie kinds of ~thingies~.
PTS AND SP DETECTION, ROUTING AND HANDLING COURSE
Available at : http://www.fzba.da.ru/
Advisable to read the entire course for an insight into the Hubbardian
mind-set of loyal Co$ members and how the paranoia is set within their
banks to see people who criticize as fitting into categories laid out
for their thought processes as created by Hubbard.
Hubbard sez:
"The anti-social personality has the following attributes:
1. He or she speaks only in very broad generalities. "They say..."
"Everybody thinks...." "Everyone knows ..." and such expressions are
in continual use, particularly when imparting rumor. When asked "Who
is everybody ..." it normally turns out to be one source and from
this source the anti-social person has manufactured what he or she
pretends is the whole opinion of the whole society."
Strange how this and most of the rest of the data from the course
on SP's and PTS's are all attributes of the Hubbardian reps who
think they are demonstrating themselves as Big Beings on the NG.
ARC,
Beverly
barb
John or Claire Swazey wrote:
>
> "J. R. Ford" wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:05:47 GMT, John or Claire Swazey
> > <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In spite of my wishes. What a statement. What illogic. It's almost
> > >beautiful...
> > >
> > >Logic dictates that if I'm the one using the term and I'm the one with
> > >"wishes" about what it means, then it means what I intend it to mean.
> > >
> >
> > Under that logic, Clarie, if someone grows up calling black people
> > niggers without harboring malice, then a black person should not be
> > offended. I would hope the black person would be offended.
> >
> > Your logic sucks.
>
> Hey it worked for Humpty Humpty.
>
> But seriously I would think that it is only in your mind that this is an
> insulting term.
>
> And further to the point of being totally rediculous that any critic
> plumbing to the very depths of his wisdom could have the gaul to take
> anyone to task for using any perjoritve terms in regard to any groups of
> people, since you do it all the time.
>
> J
--
--barb
"Every week, every month, every year, every decade and now
every century, Scientology does wierd and stupid things
to damage its own reputation."
-Steve Zadarnowski
El Roto
barb <bw...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> There you go, picking on the gauls again. That is beginning to gall
>me.
>
> John or Claire Swazey wrote:
SNIP
> >
> > And further to the point of being totally rediculous that any critic
> > plumbing to the very depths of his wisdom could have the gaul to
> >take anyone to task for using any perjoritve terms in regard to any
> >groups of people, since you do it all the time.
Maybe he's just eating too much gaulic?
I wonder how deep the plumbing of his wisdom goes. Is it copper or PVC?
--
Steve "Gau'lly Gee" G.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Podkayne1
>
> Yes, terms like wog, degraded beings, supressive persons, potential
> trouble sources, Fair Game, theetie weetie kinds of ~thingies~.
A HTML work-in-progress:
It's said the Eskimos have over 100 words for snow.
Whether that's true or not, it is true that the Church of Scientology has
a large number of terms for "unsatisfactory persons"
Aberrated personality (AP) - see abberated, *abberation
Antisocial personality
Ask off - want to be taken off mailing lists
Authoritarian - Hubbard's definition of the word "authoritarian" is
noteworthy: it's "a person who gives orders without reasons. A person who
arbitrarily tries to think for others instead of letting them think for
themselves". Hubbard was certainly not an authoritarian according to
himself.
Bad executive
Bad worker
Better dead club - persons who demand free service [ed - from a church!]
Bird dog
Black field case
Blow-off - see *blow
Bogged-down case
Bogged student
Camouflaged hole - A post held by a person who doesn't fulfill his duties
Cicuit case - "the small handful who wouldn't let anything happen if the
auditor used a shotgun on them". Se *circuit
Cold prospect - aren't very interested
Continuing overt case
Continuous overts case
Dangerous auditor - If the tech doesn't work it MUST be something awfully
wrong with the preclear or, occasionally, the auditor
Dead-in-'is-'ead case
Dead thetan
Deadwood - Chronic low-stats staff members
Death talker
Developed traffic (Dev-T) merchant
Dog case
Downstat
Ethics bait
Ethics case - see Ethics, *ethics
Evil purpose boy - Evil purpose boy is of course synonymous with (a male)
SP, antisocial personality and merchant of fear. See Evil Purpose
Failed case
False clear
False pianola case - A hypothetical ideal preclear who responds exactly
the way Hubbard has predicted is called a "pianola case". A person who
appears as such a case but is not a real one is accordingly a "false
pianolacase"
Figure-figure case
Flat ball bearing
Freeloader
Glib student
Insane PC
Invisible case
Merchant of fear - see Merchant of Chaos
Motivatorish case - see Motivator, *motivator
Nickel and dimer - make one small prepayment and after that don't
communicate to the org
No-gain-case - persons with heavy overts on Scn make no case progress.
(HCOB 23 Nov 62)
Opposite vector case
Potential trouble source (PTS) type A-J and type I-III, see *potential
trouble source
Pretended death case
Rabbit
Resistive case
Responsible for condition case - see *responsibility
Roller-coaster
Rollycoaster case
Rough case
Rough PC
Slow gain case
Spectator
Squirrel
Theetie-weetie - "sweetness and light". Someone whose problem is that he
seems to have no problems.
Third party - see *third party
Threatening source
Tiger
Tough case
Unproductive personnel
Zombie
Thanks to:
Markus Grahn, post on ars - "It's notable that most of the terms above are
signifying types of persons on which Dianetics and Scientology don't work.
... I think the frequent use of the word "case" in itself is very
de-personalizing."
Martin Hunt, "Essays on Words", "ARS Acronym/Terminology FAQ"
Starred(*) links go to the Official Scientology Glossary
Fredric L. Rice
> Ceon Ramon wrote:
> > Glad you like it. Care to apply the same logic to those who think the
> > use of "clam" for Scientologists means only what they intend it to mean,
>
> Some of the people who use it mean it as an epithet, and some of these
> people who do mean it this way have indicated that they have, in fact,
> meant it as a sort of epithet or pejorative.
Wog. Raw Meat. Fair Game. Suppressive Person.
Sound like anyone you know?
Fredric L. Rice
> "J. R. Ford" wrote:
> > Your logic sucks.
>
> Hey it worked for Humpty Humpty.
And it also works for asmatic dwarfs!