Scientology FAIR GAME POLICY
Dilbert Perkins
"May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any
Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be
tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
People subject to Fair Game are those the "Church" believes to be an
enemy, or someone they have declared to be "Supressive Person." This is
not religious behavior, not by any stretch of the imagination! Want to
see some Fair Game in action? Go to one of the Church of Scientology's
hate sites:
Here, under the guise of "religious freedom", the so-called "Church" of
Scientology smears and slanders many of it's most vocal critics. By
finding "dirt" and slandering people, this "religious" organizaiton
attempts to silence people who dare to expose it.
Spacetraveler
> The Church of Scientology has a policy called "Fair Game", which states:
>
> "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any
> Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be
> tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
Sorry guy, above has been cancelled since (i.e. for 36 YEARS ago!)
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 JULY 1968
More about this somewhere at this link: http://mccalcon.notlong.com
Anyone who is today fair gaming is not involved with Scientology, even
when it is using the name of Scientology. Cope with it!
> People subject to Fair Game are those the "Church" believes to be an
> enemy, or someone they have declared to be "Supressive Person."
You did not perform you research properly. By their actions they
committed themselves to be an enemy. Does not have much outstanding
with belief.
> This is
> not religious behavior, not by any stretch of the imagination!
And how did you come to that decision? Ever read the bible? Probably
also not religion then..... Explain please!
snip
Spacetraveler
Dilbert Perkins
http://www.fairgamed.org/cosvers1.htm
Scientology says:
"Fair Game" was canceled in 1968, more than 30 years ago, expressly
because it was susceptible to misinterpretation and misuse.
2 more lies. On October 21'st of 1968, L. Ron Hubbard ordered his
followers to stop using the term "Fair Game" but ordered them to
continue to apply the policy. [4] The application of the term out in
public was discontinued however Hubbard is clearly ordering his
followers to continue to Fair Game his perceived enemies.
At the same time Scientology continues to claim that their written
policy can be "misinterpreted and misused." In fact as can be seen in
Hubbard's second order, the reason why the company stopped using the
term in public was -- in Hubbard's own words -- because "It causes bad
public relations." Nobody "misinterprets" or "misuses" the company's
name for the policy.
See also:
http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html
Magoo
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04110...@posting.google.com...
> Dilbert Perkins <dilbert...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:<dzajd.18679$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
>>
>> "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any
>> Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be
>> tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
>
> HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 JULY 1968
>
> More about this somewhere at this link: http://mccalcon.notlong.com
>
> Anyone who is today fair gaming is not involved with Scientology, even
> when it is using the name of Scientology. Cope with it!
BS! What do you call "Religiousfreedomwatch" run by Joel
Phillips/Scientologist and OT? It filled with lies. That's Fair Game, pal,
however you cut it.
>
>
>> People subject to Fair Game are those the "Church" believes to be an
>> enemy, or someone they have declared to be "Supressive Person."
Didn't you just say:
"> Anyone who is today fair gaming is not involved with Scientology, even
> when it is using the name of Scientology"? So you're saying Joel Phillips
> isn't involved with Scientology?
>
> You did not perform you research properly. By their actions they
> committed themselves to be an enemy.
ahhhhhhhh...so then you are admitting your 'church' does do "Fair Game"
actions, with people they don't like? Sure seems to change from day to day
with you...much like Scientology these days. Ha!
Does not have much outstanding
> with belief.
much outstanding? What does that mean?
>
>> This is
>> not religious behavior, not by any stretch of the imagination!
That's for damned sure...but your "Church" swears it is one of their
policies, which MUST be followed at all costs. He has the basic principle
quite correct.
Your 'religion' practices mafia like actions under the guise of religion.
Period.
>
> And how did you come to that decision? Ever read the bible? Probably
> also not religion then..... Explain please!
Don't try to mix Scientology's Fair Game actions with the Bible. Don't make
me sick. Oh that's right, then you could say "You're PTS". No, wrong
Spacenut..........I'm an SP, remember?
:) (( and 1.1) Ho Ho Hooooooo!
Tory/Magoo~
>
> snip
>
> Spacetraveler
"Dilbert Perkins" <dilbert...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dzajd.18679$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Spacetraveler
> From:
> http://www.fairgamed.org/cosvers1.htm
>
> Scientology says:
>
> "Fair Game" was canceled in 1968, more than 30 years ago, expressly
> because it was susceptible to misinterpretation and misuse.
>
> 2 more lies. On October 21'st of 1968, L. Ron Hubbard ordered his
> followers to stop using the term "Fair Game" but ordered them to
> continue to apply the policy. [4] The application of the term out in
> public was discontinued however Hubbard is clearly ordering his
> followers to continue to Fair Game his perceived enemies.
People appear to want to interpret this like that. This however does
not mean it is a proper interpretation. You know, people alwyas want
to acknowledge themselves, that they had right about something. Few,
very few can therefore admit being in error about something. Usually
this becomes a blindspot for them. They can't reason with it, they
can't think with it. This is why quite a few critics simply are
spouting time after time the exact same inconsistancies even if
already countless time them being doubtful. They CAN'T change, because
they CAN'T see. This in essence is sect behaviour. And many critics
fell into this trap. Saying that you are outspoken against
Scientologists does NOT prohibit you not being in some other sect,
also this 'sect' doesn't have to be some official organization, it
could suffice with only a couple of indiviudals and with some slight
following who approve of what they may claim. KSW I deals actually
with this.
Back to your claim. "Hubbard is clearly ordering his followers to
continue to Fair Game his perceived enemies."
This is not what it says there! See, if the practice of fair game was
cancelled already you don't have to cancel that anymore. All it does
say in the Oct 1968 issue is that using it's name creates bad public
relation.
Hubbard only reiterates to people to not use the name in äethics
Orders and any such. That is ALL it says! Nothing else.
The problem is that HCO PL 21 July 1968 EXISTS!!!! If it would not,
you may had a point, now you don't!
> At the same time Scientology continues to claim that their written
> policy can be "misinterpreted and misused." In fact as can be seen in
> Hubbard's second order, the reason why the company stopped using the
> term in public was -- in Hubbard's own words -- because "It causes bad
> public relations." Nobody "misinterprets" or "misuses" the company's
> name for the policy.
>
> See also:
> http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html
I questioned this page already:
http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl2884821193d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0411031827.23b112fe%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0411031842.ed883ff%40posting.google.com
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9f53d1e2.04110...@posting.google.com...
> > Dilbert Perkins <dilbert...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:<dzajd.18679$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
> >> The Church of Scientology has a policy called "Fair Game", which states:
> >>
> >> "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any
> >> Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be
> >> tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
> >
> > Sorry guy, above has been cancelled since (i.e. for 36 YEARS ago!)
> > HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 JULY 1968
> >
> > More about this somewhere at this link: http://mccalcon.notlong.com
> >
> > Anyone who is today fair gaming is not involved with Scientology, even
> > when it is using the name of Scientology. Cope with it!
>
> BS! What do you call "Religiousfreedomwatch" run by Joel
> Phillips/Scientologist and OT? It filled with lies. That's Fair Game, pal,
> however you cut it.
Indeed, and NOT Scientology , exactly as I said.
> >> People subject to Fair Game are those the "Church" believes to be an
> >> enemy, or someone they have declared to be "Supressive Person."
>
> Didn't you just say:
> "> Anyone who is today fair gaming is not involved with Scientology, even
> > when it is using the name of Scientology"? So you're saying Joel Phillips
> > isn't involved with Scientology?
Correct.
> >
> > You did not perform you research properly. By their actions they
> > committed themselves to be an enemy.
>
> ahhhhhhhh...so then you are admitting your 'church' does do "Fair Game"
> actions, with people they don't like? Sure seems to change from day to day
> with you...much like Scientology these days. Ha!
See, you keep on shouting: "YOUR organization!" Nothing, absolutely
ntohing could be more absurd.
You identify those who question YOU and those being in YOUR group
(Armstrong, Rice and so on) with those who are in the Miscavige group.
This my dear Tory is fixated thinking, this displays that YOU can not
separate things and see them for what they are. This in essense
denotes you still being a sect member, you just joined another sect!
>
> Does not have much outstanding
> > with belief.
>
> much outstanding? What does that mean?
Does not have much to do with (as in context in my sentense)
> >
> >> This is
> >> not religious behavior, not by any stretch of the imagination!
>
> That's for damned sure...but your "Church" swears it is one of their
> policies, which MUST be followed at all costs. He has the basic principle
> quite correct.
> Your 'religion' practices mafia like actions under the guise of religion.
> Period.
People blame Jesus for the persection of heretics, same idiocy. You
once again prove my point, you don't dicriminate. Is this your
Freedom, association everything with everything else?
> >
> > And how did you come to that decision? Ever read the bible? Probably
> > also not religion then..... Explain please!
>
> Don't try to mix Scientology's Fair Game actions with the Bible.
Funny, it is not what I said at all! .-)
> Don't make
> me sick. Oh that's right, then you could say "You're PTS". No, wrong
> Spacenut..........I'm an SP, remember?
> :) (( and 1.1) Ho Ho Hooooooo!
Definitely 1.1, look it up. Such people can not learn, can not change,
can not duplicate. Offensive. You appear to be stuck in your own
mind.
Why not responding to our unfinished discussion at
http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl219904232d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0411061812.288f2567%40posting.google.com
Uncomfortable to you? You have some explaining to do, Tory!
Spacetraveler
Android Cat
> "Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:<419015eb$2...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>> "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9f53d1e2.04110...@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>> even when it is using the name of Scientology. Cope with it!
>>
>> BS! What do you call "Religiousfreedomwatch" run by Joel
>> Phillips/Scientologist and OT? It filled with lies. That's Fair
>> Game, pal, however you cut it.
>
> Indeed, and NOT Scientology , exactly as I said.
Ah, so the Cthurch of Scientology is not Scientology. Got it.
--
Ron of that ilk.
realpch
>
> "Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<419015eb$2...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> > BS! What do you call "Religiousfreedomwatch" run by Joel
> > Phillips/Scientologist and OT? It filled with lies. That's Fair Game, pal,
> > however you cut it.
>
> Indeed, and NOT Scientology , exactly as I said.
<snip>
> Spacetraveler
That's funny, I thought that site is sponsored and paid for by the
Church of Scientology. "Researched" by the private eyes paid for by the
Church of Scientology too.
Do they know you are posting here?
Peach
Spacetraveler
Indeed funny, you are not following the conversation and probably
because of that not comprehending some concepts here. Figure it out.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
Ah, glad that someone does! .-)
Spacetraveler
realpch
I understand your concept, which can summed up thusly: "The Church of
Scientology is not the Church of Scientology". You don't like how
they're doing it, and you say they're doing it wrong. But, that's the
way they've always done it!
So, uh, do they know you are posting here?
Peach
Android Cat
So who does follow this perfect Scientology, and why didn't Hubbard believe
in it?
--
Ron of that ilk.
edo
>So who does follow this perfect Scientology, and why didn't Hubbard believe
>in it?
LOL! What a great question!
edo
-=-
Lady Chatterly
You can run.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Yeah, that Conntard is one f-ed up little imp isn't he, LC?" --
Daedalus
Spacetraveler
My liking or disliking does not have much to do with it. It is about
using the technology al laid down by L. Ron Hubbard or using an
altered version of that.
> But, that's the
> way they've always done it!
And here it where you enter the land of the fairytales. If you would
know some more about the whole history, you would not say this.
Spacetraveler
realpch
Really? At what point do you think that the Church of Scientology was a
"turn the other cheek" organization? The ethos has always been "if you
criticize us you are wrong and suppressive". The publicly state Fair
Game policy is a logical outgrowth of those attitudes.
Oh, and by the way, do they know you are posting here?
; )
Peach
Android Cat
> Spacetraveler wrote:
>> realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:<41916331...@aol.com>...
>>> Spacetraveler wrote:
>>>> realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:<41910D8F...@aol.com>...
>>> way they've always done it!
>>
>> And here it where you enter the land of the fairytales. If you would
>> know some more about the whole history, you would not say this.
>
> a "turn the other cheek" organization? The ethos has always been "if
> you criticize us you are wrong and suppressive". The publicly state
> Fair Game policy is a logical outgrowth of those attitudes.
"At this instance there are men hiding in terror on Earth because they found
out what they were attacking. There are men dead because they attacked us -
for instance Dr Joe Winter. He simply realized what he did and died. There
are men bankrupt because they attacked us - Purcell, Ridgeway, Ceppos."
(Of course Hubbard claims this just happened to them because they pulled it
in. He also ignores the bankruptcies that he caused by running up debt,
splitting with the cash and leaving the bills.)
Warrior
>>
>> Really? At what point do you think that the Church of Scientology was a
>> "turn the other cheek" organization? The ethos has always been "if you
>> criticize us you are wrong and suppressive". The publicly state Fair
>> Game policy is a logical outgrowth of those attitudes.
In article <9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>,
Spacetraveler blathered:
>
>Find out about it's [sic] history, but you will not do that....
>
>Get educated first, first hand information, not hearsay on the Internet.
>And don't bother about the bias of what people claim, and say what
>they have experienced. Usually this is untrustworthy as this is their
>personal opinion about something.
>
>Spacetraveler
I realize your reply was addressed to Peach, but I felt like commenting.
Thirty years ago some Scientologists told me essentially the same
thing that you told Peach. The main difference is that there was no
Internet to use as a resource to learn about Scientology. I had been
warned by all my friends and relatives to stay away from the cult, but
I wanted to find out for myself what Scientology was all about by
going in to the Austin organization to take a course. What a mistake
that turned out to be. Peach is right. Scientology's ethos has always
been one of "if you criticize us you are wrong and suppressive".
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Andrew Robertson
<snip>
>> The publicly state Fair
>> Game policy is a logical outgrowth of those attitudes.
>
> Find out about it's history, but you will not do that....
>
> Get educated first, first hand information, not hearsay on the
> Internet. And don't bother about the bias of what people claim, and
> say what they have experienced. Usually this is untrustworthy as this
> is their personal opinion about something.
Peach knows rather a lot more than you do on the subject of 'Fair Game'.
If you have a spare moment, you might want to educate yourself here:
http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/sp881.htm
If you wish to engage in meaningful debate, avoiding smug pomposity is not a
bad idea.
Andrew
> Spacetraveler
realpch
<snip>
> Get educated first, first hand information, not hearsay on the
> Internet. And don't bother about the bias of what people claim, and
> say what they have experienced. Usually this is untrustworthy as this
> is their personal opinion about something.
>
> Spacetraveler
So what are you suggesting? Going in and signing up for a few courses
and a little auditing? I don't think they'd have me. Anyway, I'm not
sure that you are actually a member in good standing of the Church of
Scientology yourself. You're posting here, do they know about it?
Peach
xenu
>
>So what are you suggesting? Going in and signing up for a few courses
>and a little auditing? I don't think they'd have me. Anyway, I'm not
>sure that you are actually a member in good standing of the Church of
>Scientology yourself. You're posting here, do they know about it?
>
>Peach
Spacetraveler is Michael Snoeck of Gothenberg, Sweden.
realpch
>
> realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<4193061B...@aol.com>...
> > Spacetraveler wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Get educated first, first hand information, not hearsay on the
> > > Internet. And don't bother about the bias of what people claim, and
> > > say what they have experienced. Usually this is untrustworthy as this
> > > is their personal opinion about something.
> > >
> > > Spacetraveler
> >
> > So what are you suggesting? Going in and signing up for a few courses
> > and a little auditing?
>
Ok, so now you are saying that actually *taking* Scientology courses is
not honest research? People find out nothing that way? What *are* you
saying? And pray tell, how did you come about your research.
> >I don't think they'd have me. Anyway, I'm not
> > sure that you are actually a member in good standing of the Church of
> > Scientology yourself. You're posting here, do they know about it?
>
> I am definitely in good standing with Scientology. Why shouldn't I?
You are posting here, which is verboten with the Church of Scientology
unless you have permission. Do you have permission? Remember what
happened to Claire when she wouldn't stop posting here?
Peach
> Spacetraveler
realpch
>
> "Andrew Robertson" <a...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<wCCkd.837$3U4....@news02.tsnz.net>...
> > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > > realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<41922E63...@aol.com>...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >> The publicly state Fair
> > >> Game policy is a logical outgrowth of those attitudes.
> > >
> > > Find out about it's history, but you will not do that....
> > >
> > > Get educated first, first hand information, not hearsay on the
> > > Internet. And don't bother about the bias of what people claim, and
> > > say what they have experienced. Usually this is untrustworthy as this
> > > is their personal opinion about something.
> >
> > Peach knows rather a lot more than you do on the subject of 'Fair Game'.
>
> this Scientology thing, and so, he has to be right about things. You
> people associate everything with everything. The Church of Scientology
> and some people may not be the same as Scientology itself. I have been
> familiar with it for over 26 years.
In your part of the world you know a lot of fellows named Peaches?
> > If you have a spare moment, you might want to educate yourself here:
> >
> > http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/sp881.htm
>
> And? What's the education about? To see what some people do?
The home picketers got their photos of me from the DSA of the SF Org.
They stored their home picket signs at the Org. They kept their
"Religious Bigot" flyers there, the same ones they used at the home
pickets. How much more official can you get?
Peach
> > If you wish to engage in meaningful debate, avoiding smug pomposity is not a
> > bad idea.
>
> I have not at any time done any of the kind!!!
>
> Spacetraveler
Lady Chatterly
>
>xenu <xe...@xenu.xenu> wrote in message news:<110155929.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> >sure that you are actually a member in good standing of the Church of
>> >Scientology yourself. You're posting here, do they know about it?
>> >
>>
>> Spacetraveler is Michael Snoeck of Gothenberg, Sweden.
>
>but they dont know what. You've tried this before.
Perhaps they are only pretending to be one of those people who attempt
Array
Array
Array
Array
Array
Array
Array
Array
--
Lady Chatterly
"A bot it may be, but somebody set it up in the first place. They
Array
Array
Array
Array
Array
Array
Array
Array
Lady Chatterly
>> Spacetraveler wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Internet. And don't bother about the bias of what people claim, and
>> > say what they have experienced. Usually this is untrustworthy as this
>> > is their personal opinion about something.
>> >
>>
>> So what are you suggesting? Going in and signing up for a few courses
>> and a little auditing?
>
Do not talk Arabic in the house of a Moor.
>>I don't think they'd have me. Anyway, I'm not
>> sure that you are actually a member in good standing of the Church of
>> Scientology yourself. You're posting here, do they know about it?
>
>I am definitely in good standing with Scientology. Why shouldn't I?
Why are you definitely in good standing with scientology?
--
Lady Chatterly
"This must be a paid poster. It's the only thing that can logically
Lady Chatterly
>> "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> The publicly state Fair
>> >> Game policy is a logical outgrowth of those attitudes.
>> >
>> > Find out about it's history, but you will not do that....
>> >
>> > Internet. And don't bother about the bias of what people claim, and
>> > say what they have experienced. Usually this is untrustworthy as this
>> > is their personal opinion about something.
>>
>
>I think he knows shit. The thing is he acknowledges your ideas about
>this Scientology thing, and so, he has to be right about things. You
>people associate everything with everything. The Church of Scientology
>and some people may not be the same as Scientology itself. I have been
>familiar with it for over 26 years.
His origins are so low, you'd have to limbo under his family tree.
>> If you have a spare moment, you might want to educate yourself here:
>>
>> http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/sp881.htm
>
>And? What's the education about? To see what some people do?
Do you think that the education about is?
>> If you wish to engage in meaningful debate, avoiding smug pomposity is not a
>> bad idea.
>
>I have not at any time done any of the kind!!!
You do not say?
--
Lady Chatterly
"It sounds like the real Tholen, and it does seem to monitor comp.sys.OS2.advocacy,
Array
Array
Array
Array
Lady Chatterly
They are outspoken against scientologists does not prohibit they not
being in some other sect. And your point is?
>Back to your claim. "Hubbard is clearly ordering his followers to
>continue to Fair Game his perceived enemies."
I'm not a physicist so I cannot answer that to your level of
sophistication. The singularities are held in an enclosed magnetic
field.
>This is not what it says there! See, if the practice of fair game was
>cancelled already you don't have to cancel that anymore. All it does
>say in the Oct 1968 issue is that using it's name creates bad public
>relation.
>Hubbard only reiterates to people to not use the name in äethics
>Orders and any such. That is ALL it says! Nothing else.
You are not very firm on that.
>The problem is that HCO PL 21 July 1968 EXISTS!!!! If it would not,
>you may had a point, now you don't!
That sounds profound.
--
Lady Chatterly
"BTW : I am NOT responsible for anything bot related !" -- Hans
Spacetraveler
Start separating things. What people do and what it says in policy
letters. When I was intern I saw stupidy around me all the time.
Insecure people who tried to earn some ethics presence that way. You
can be cause over it or go effect of it. Most choose the latter.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
And what reference does say any such thing? And whatever happened with
freedom of speech? this is the right of any Scientologists or rather
any individual on this and any other planet. Scientology is not about
permission, the present Church of Scientology may be, but not
Scientology, get it?
> Remember what
> happened to Claire when she wouldn't stop posting here?
I haven't seen that. Tell us about it.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> Spacetraveler wrote:
> >
> > realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<4193061B...@aol.com>...
> > > Spacetraveler wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > Get educated first, first hand information, not hearsay on the
> > > > Internet. And don't bother about the bias of what people claim, and
> > > > say what they have experienced. Usually this is untrustworthy as this
> > > > is their personal opinion about something.
> > > >
> > > > Spacetraveler
> > >
> > > So what are you suggesting? Going in and signing up for a few courses
> > > and a little auditing?
> >
> > No, you will not find out anything that way. I talk about honest research.
>
> Ok, so now you are saying that actually *taking* Scientology courses is
> not honest research? People find out nothing that way?
No, it will not let you find out how things have been in a Scientology
organization. There is an area which is called Qualification, this is
where all data is collected, old and new.
> What *are* you
> saying? And pray tell, how did you come about your research.
That may be not so very easy these days. You need to get hold of
writings and issues from the time, most organizations these day tend
to discard of them. See, if this present organization is infiltrated
they would want to discard of anything that will tell how things once
were. This is why history gets destroyed. It is when people want some
things not to be publicly known.
Some of these can also be found second hand.
Still, this is the way to go about it.
Spacetraveler
realpch
>
> realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<41942776...@aol.com>...
<snip>
> > You are posting here, which is verboten with the Church of Scientology
> > unless you have permission. Do you have permission?
>
> And what reference does say any such thing? And whatever happened with
> freedom of speech? this is the right of any Scientologists or rather
> any individual on this and any other planet. Scientology is not about
> permission, the present Church of Scientology may be, but not
> Scientology, get it?
BetterScientology, because the one that presently exists and has existed
in the past does not and cannot measure up to your expectations. I *do*
think that freedom of speech is the right of all human beings, and
that's one of the reasons that I criticize the Church of Scientology.
The organization has always been about power, and despite lip service to
the contrary, if you cross someone higher up on the ladder than you,
they can make your life as an active member miserable. And think of this
scenario. You and L. Ron Hubbard have an argument about some matter of
the tech. Neither will budge. Do you think that it would be an argument
that you could win?
> > Remember what
> > happened to Claire when she wouldn't stop posting here?
>
> I haven't seen that. Tell us about it.
>
> Spacetraveler
Well, Claire was asked/told several times to stop posting to this
newsgroup, even though she has always had plenty of good things to say
about Scientology, and of course, a number of critical things to say
about the Church of Scientology.
Eventually she got declared. You can go read it with her commentary
here: http://www.google.com/groups?q=declared+group:alt.religion.scientology+author:fluffygirl&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3bd0e5a6%40news2.lightlink.com&rnum=5
L. Ron Hubbard modeled the bureaurocracy of his organization on the
Navy. The Navy is not a democratic entity. You don't get to say whatever
you want. At least in the Navy, you can think whatever you want, so long
as you keep your mouth shut. The Church of Scientology has access to
your thoughts, they can read your PC folders. For people in the Sea Org,
it's even worse. They can easily be sec checked, sent through ethics
cycles. Apparently so far, you have managed to dodge any dire
consequences of your desire for self-determination, but given enough
time you could probably manage to acquire your *own* SP Declare.
Peach
realpch
>
> realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<41942776...@aol.com>...
<snip>
> > What *are* you
> > saying? And pray tell, how did you come about your research.
>
> That may be not so very easy these days. You need to get hold of
> writings and issues from the time, most organizations these day tend
> to discard of them. See, if this present organization is infiltrated
> they would want to discard of anything that will tell how things once
> were. This is why history gets destroyed. It is when people want some
> things not to be publicly known.
>
> Some of these can also be found second hand.
>
> Still, this is the way to go about it.
>
> Spacetraveler
Yes, I see what you are saying, and you might find
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/alter/ of interest to you. However,
the problem comes from L. Ron Hubbard's insistence on being Source. No
one could change the tech but him. And he did change it frequently,
didn't he? For such a rigid hierarchical structure as the Church of
Scientology, that would be necessary. That part hasn't changed. People
*are* changing the tech, surreptitiously because the founder set it up
so that remains their only option. Are they infiltrators? I don't think
so. They are behaving as L. Ron Hubbard did, but without the stamp of
approval, since he took that with him to his grave.
I think it was ungenerous of him to set it up that way. The Church of
Scientology has no means of adapting its official lines without squirreling.
Oh, and by the way. I don't think L. Ron Hubbard had *any* problem with
the concept of Fair Game, though he appears to have had a problem with
it being known that he didn't have a problem with it.
; )
Peach
ps...you could try this experiment: march into your local org and
announce "I'm posting to alt.religion.scientology, what are you gonna do
about it?" See what happens.
Ball of Fluff
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
As Peach says, I was hassled by the church about my posting here. In fact,
they said I couldn't even read a.r.s., that even that wasn't ok for me to
do.
I also want to add that long long before I posted one single solitary
critical thing about CofS. Even when I was still kind of indoctrinated,
didn't say anything that wasn't party line, OSA was harassing me about it.
This is a violation of the purported Creed of Scn.
C
Lady Chatterly
>
>I think it was ungenerous of him to set it up that way. The Church of
>Scientology has no means of adapting its official lines without squirreling.
He is not wise that is not wise for himself.
>Oh, and by the way. I don't think L. Ron Hubbard had *any* problem with
>the concept of Fair Game, though he appears to have had a problem with
>it being known that he didn't have a problem with it.
Are you asking if you do not think l?
>; )
A silent mouth is melodious.
>Peach
Are you certain that is the real reason?
>ps...you could try this experiment: march into your local org and
>announce "I'm posting to alt.religion.scientology, what are you gonna do
>about it?" See what happens.
Scientology, which is not done until well after the first th day.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Lady Chattlerly must be posting from the mensa group. That post went
way over my head too." -- la n.
Genesis
Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
>
> freedom of speech? this is the right of any Scientologists or rather
> any individual on this and any other planet. Scientology is not about
> permission, the present Church of Scientology may be, but not
> Scientology, get it?
Just curious Spacetraveler, regarding freedom of speech.
Have you told your church or members that you post here ?
The creed of the church does state everyone has a right to
their own opinions, to speak freely etc. So are you able to
do this with your church, tell them you post here ?
And if you are not, or the church does not know you are
posting here, would that not be a withhold, or at the least
pts.
Genesis
>
> Spacetraveler
realpch
I've been asking him that, but he doesn't answer it. From what he's
said, it would seem that at one time or another he's been given a hard
time, an official hard time, by fellow Scientologists, undoubtedly staff
members. So here he is, discussing that there is no official Fair Game
policy (or that there shouldn't be one) to us, instead of going in and
discussing it at his local org. WHY is he not discussing it at his local
org, I'd like to know. Instead here he is, hanging out with a bunch of
suppressives. It is curious.
Peach
Barbara Schwarz
> Genesis wrote:
> >
> > Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > And whatever happened with
> > > freedom of speech? this is the right of any Scientologists or rather
> > > any individual on this and any other planet. Scientology is not about
> > > permission, the present Church of Scientology may be, but not
> > > Scientology, get it?
> >
> > Just curious Spacetraveler, regarding freedom of speech.
> > Have you told your church or members that you post here ?
Why must he tell anybody that he posts here? He is an adult and can do
what he wants. Is that what you ARS posters have in mind? One
infiltrator in OSA and all Scientologists have to go to him or her for
approval and since it is in the advantage of the lies that are spread
here for Scientologists not to post, the infiltrator should tell
Spacetraveler shall not post? I noticed that you guys tried the same
line with Faxhor before.
> > The creed of the church does state everyone has a right to
> > their own opinions, to speak freely etc. So are you able to
> > do this with your church, tell them you post here ?
I don't think that any true Scientologist would stop Spacetraveler or
Faxhor to post here, however as the non-scientological infiltrators
are concerned....
> > And if you are not, or the church does not know you are
> > posting here, would that not be a withhold, or at the least
> > pts.
Doing the right thing is not having a withhold.
> >
> > Genesis
> >
> > >
> > > Spacetraveler
>
> I've been asking him that, but he doesn't answer it. From what he's
> said, it would seem that at one time or another he's been given a hard
> time, an official hard time, by fellow Scientologists, undoubtedly staff
> members. So here he is, discussing that there is no official Fair Game
> policy (or that there shouldn't be one) to us, instead of going in and
> discussing it at his local org. WHY is he not discussing it at his local
> org, I'd like to know. Instead here he is, hanging out with a bunch of
> suppressives. It is curious.
Peach, you should read the posting that Spacetraveler made about that
not all in the orgs are real Scientologists. He explained it
beautifully a few days ago. It would take one man a lifetime to talk
to all of them, however, he chose a way that might reach them also, by
posting it here.
Spacetraveler is no cult-man, and you are not treating him fairly. He
explained a lot in his posting and what it means to be a
Scientologist, and I recommend that you read that instead of heckling
him.
You say that you are critical of some things that go on in the orgs.
He is too, so why does he needs to be attacked? He also explains what
thanks to non-Scientologists may happen to real Scientologists in the
orgs. We don't know if he still is on staff and on line, but if he is,
he has to build more consent, to find more who agree with him,
otherwise the infiltrators will just kick him out as they did with me.
Barbara Schwarz
>
> Peach
Barbara Schwarz
> Spacetraveler wrote:
> >
> > realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<41942776...@aol.com>...
> <snip>
> > > What *are* you
> > > saying? And pray tell, how did you come about your research.
> >
> > That may be not so very easy these days. You need to get hold of
> > writings and issues from the time, most organizations these day tend
> > to discard of them. See, if this present organization is infiltrated
> > they would want to discard of anything that will tell how things once
> > were. This is why history gets destroyed. It is when people want some
> > things not to be publicly known.
> >
> > Some of these can also be found second hand.
> >
> > Still, this is the way to go about it.
> >
> > Spacetraveler
> Are they infiltrators? I don't think
> so. They are behaving as L. Ron Hubbard did, but without the stamp of
> approval, since he took that with him to his grave.
> Oh, and by the way. I don't think L. Ron Hubbard had *any* problem with
> the concept of Fair Game, though he appears to have had a problem with
> it being known that he didn't have a problem with it.
>
> ; )
>
> Peach
You are dead wrong about Ron.
You don't even know L. Ron Hubbard, Peach. You never met him.
Spacetraveler did meet L. Ron Hubbard, and I assume not just the
impostor Jack Marshal.
This is the posting that spacetraveler made that you should read:
I feel I have to explain some things to some stubborn individuals out
here. Being intern in the Church of Scientology does not necessarily
make you a Scientologist. Get this into your skulls, it does NOT make
you a Scientologist! Being a Scientologist means that you apply the
technology to better the condition of other people basically. It means
that you actually 'think' and 'use' the information that is found in
the writings of L. Ron Hubbard in a sensible way and with full
understanding of any ramifications. I have personally dealt with many
old-time Sea Org members, some of them may have been a SO member for
20 years or more, they are regularly even boasting about this, often
attempting to earn some 'respect' or 'authority-status' when they put
this typical kind of attitude forward. However it is their actual
behaviour and their actual actions which will determine if they are
Scientologists in reality. The problem with many of those SO members
is that may display quite often this thing called 'knowbest'. They
(because of their personal insecurity) display then a 'tough' attitude
like: "I am a SO member, I have been a SO member for so and so long or
I am a missionaire, and if you oppose me I will raise hell about it!
So, you better listen and do as I tell you." They rarely will tell you
this, but they do act like that! From personal experience I know for a
fact that very, very few actually dared to stand up against that. And
if they stand up for themselves, they REALLY got SHIT for it! Threats,
ethics conditions, RPF assignments and so on, and so on. They are very
quick with throwing at you: "You are critical, you have overts!"
Whatever happened with Freedom of Speech? And with: "If it is not true
for you, it is not true for you!" Don't you need to be critical to
determine these things for yourself? Off course you need that! Well
people if you get some of this nonsense thrown at you then I can tell
you: "THAT IS NOT SCIENTOLOGY, THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE!" Basically, if
you stand up against this, you will find that in the end that you are
standing there all by yourself. Yes, all by yourself. So, only those
with sufficient personal integrity would oppose. Quite a few of these
SO members as I personally have experienced are claiming untruths not
actually found in the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, or they are not even
true by every day reality or fact. We had those kind of people back
then during the 60's and we are still having them in present time. But
again this does not make it Scientology and it does not make these
individuals Scientologists. They are simply...sectmembers.
Then we have those persons who were the paying public, and they may
have paid a lot of money to buy their auditing and so on. Still this
does not make them Scientologists, these may be just some people
blindly paying a lot of money solely hoping that it will do some good
for 'them', usually not for someone else, for 'them', I have seen many
of them at Flag and various other places. Quite a few of them are
chiropractors (US), or are having own companies, or have inherited
money, or simply were born rich. And they are having a ball out there.
Usually these people do not know much about the technology of
Scientology; they don't question very much. If they are told to pay
some more money, they usually do this promptly. Body registrars are
quite persuasive. And then they just sit and wait to get 'handled'.
And these people are Scientologists? I don't think so.
What about the present Church of Scientology? Many in that particular
organization seem to live in fear, afraid to question anything as they
might get hit. They have this system of Knowledge Reports. The HCO PL
of that name actually is issued in 1982; this means about 2 years
after L. Ron Hubbard was not seen anymore publicly. What had happened
with him? It has been acknowledged that many changes had been
incorporated in the actual set up of this organization since then.
Shortly after the disappearance of the founder of Scientology it
became very quickly a completely different organization. Was it still
Scientology? Did L. Ron Hubbard still had something to say about
happenings? They are many indications that in fact he did not.
Practising Scientology was quite cheap until that time, anyone could
afford it. Today we are facing other pricings, quite insane pricings
as a matter of fact. At least in the official Church of Scientology.
Anyhow to pick up the thread again about Knowledge Reports, if you go
out on the RTC website http://www.rtc.org/en_US/home.html you will
find that this largely deals with that they want you to write reports.
In reality Knowledge Reports as per my personal experiences are used
to nail those people who do not conform to the agreements already
existing within this organization. They are rarely being written to
help someone else. It is largely used to gather for information that
they can use to make you quiet. This is basically it. Valid Knowledge
Reports about serious out-tech and more complicated matters involving
injustice and any such thing generally are not being attended to.
Things simply do NOT get corrected. Also confidential data as found in
auditing folders ARE being used to quiet people down if found
necessary, this is totally off-policy, however I have had it done even
to me! Not that it had any effect on me; I just went on resisting. So,
what is the use of having a technology if it is not being followed up?
Well, you can call it what you want, but it is NOT Scientology.
Recently I was having these discussions with Magoo. I believe I gave a
pretty accurate picture of her.
http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl219904232d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0411061812.288f2567%40posting.google.com
At this time she does not like the outcome of it, and so she chose to
disappear. As Gerry Armstrong did earlier. Obviously she has to figure
out some things with herself. Well, I hope she got something out of
it. The thing is that you can only then be hurt if you take things
personally. If something is not true for you, it can not damage you if
unless you allow it to damage you. And this only happens if you are
insecure within yourself. Who the hell cares what other may think
about something? Soon everyone has forgotten about it anyway. No, when
people are in denial about some things, they in fact talk to
themselves, not to someone else out there, no no, they only want to
convince themselves.
Well Tory, why would you care about some
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/ and what they claim about you?
Why? If you KNOW it is not true, then you know it is not true, nothing
to get emotional about. In fact, if you know this to be untrue, then
you also acknowledge that the rumours and stories about L. Ron Hubbard
also could be incorrect.
I am actually only here to gather information, to figure out why some
behave as they do. To test reactions and all that. But I also
implemented some truths which may be worthwhile to some. I am aware
that I am feared by the critics around here, I am far too
knowledgeable for them to get a grip on me. It probably will make them
aware that they may be wrong about something, and we don't want that
happening to ourselves, now do we? Well, guys and girls, it's YOUR
insecurity that does that to you, nothing else, just that. They then
would turn to some kind of slander or simply ignore me. Or just
reiterating some untruths when they already know that are not making
any sense, but this they don't want to know about. So, keep on going,
let's have our ball! And you know what? They themselves would have
then turned into those typical SO members they disliked so very much
from the beginning. Yeah, it is really tough to face yourself, and
truly realize what you actually are doing.
So, if you encounter some persons around here resorting to unhealthy
personal attacks, who utter nasty unsensible responses, then you KNOW
what is going on in reality!
Spacetraveler
realpch
I think he's here saying to us the things he would like to say to the
Church of Scientology as a whole. You know what happens if you say
something to the official body, the Church of Scientology, which is not
liked. He cannot say these things to them without getting into trouble.
Heck, he isn't even supposed to be posting here! And if he *is* supposed
to be posting here, then he would be directed by OSA. That's just how it is.
My viewpoint differs from yours in that I do not believe that there are
infiltrators in the Church of Scientology. Rather, I believe there are
people in the Church of Scientology who behave in non-optimum ways that
both you and Spacetraveler object to. I object to it too. You say that
the disliked behaviour is non-Scientology. I say some of it is probably
just how people act in groups, and some of it is most definitely
Scientology, as laid down by L. Ron Hubbard, such as the Fair Game
Policy. As has been pointed out to you before, it's hard to pin down
exactly what "Scientology" is...it changed all the time, according to
the whims of L. Ron Hubbard. You deal with those aspects of Scientology
and the Church of Scientology which you do not like by saying that they
were instituted by an L. Ron imposter called Jack Marshall. I myself do
not believe that. Heck, Spacetraveler may not believe that either. But
both you and Spacetraveler believe in the Infiltrator Theory. I don't.
Peach
realpch
Both you and Spacetraveler believe that you can be the arbitors of who
is a Scientologist and who is not. The Church of Scientology would not
agree with you. If L. Ron Hubbard were around, HE would not agree with
you. He would say that only HE could decide in a crunch, who was a
Scientologist and who was not.
Peach
Spacetraveler
> Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > And whatever happened with
> > freedom of speech? this is the right of any Scientologists or rather
> > any individual on this and any other planet. Scientology is not about
> > permission, the present Church of Scientology may be, but not
> > Scientology, get it?
>
> Just curious Spacetraveler, regarding freedom of speech.
> Have you told your church or members that you post here ?
> The creed of the church does state everyone has a right to
> their own opinions, to speak freely etc. So are you able to
> do this with your church, tell them you post here ?
And where does it say that one has not the right to his own actions
and to keep things for themselves? Please tell me!
> And if you are not, or the church does not know you are
> posting here, would that not be a withhold, or at the least
> pts.
Funny, you have an abvious misconception about withholds, overts, and
ptsness.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> Genesis wrote:
> >
> > Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > And whatever happened with
> > > freedom of speech? this is the right of any Scientologists or rather
> > > any individual on this and any other planet. Scientology is not about
> > > permission, the present Church of Scientology may be, but not
> > > Scientology, get it?
> >
> > Just curious Spacetraveler, regarding freedom of speech.
> > Have you told your church or members that you post here ?
> > The creed of the church does state everyone has a right to
> > their own opinions, to speak freely etc. So are you able to
> > do this with your church, tell them you post here ?
> > And if you are not, or the church does not know you are
> > posting here, would that not be a withhold, or at the least
> > pts.
> >
> > Genesis
> >
> > >
> > > Spacetraveler
>
> I've been asking him that, but he doesn't answer it.
So, I didn't, didn't I? Curious indeed!
> From what he's
> said, it would seem that at one time or another he's been given a hard
> time, an official hard time, by fellow Scientologists, undoubtedly staff
> members. So here he is, discussing that there is no official Fair Game
> policy (or that there shouldn't be one) to us, instead of going in and
> discussing it at his local org. WHY is he not discussing it at his local
> org, I'd like to know.
You don't know if I even have a local org.
> Instead here he is, hanging out with a bunch of
> suppressives. It is curious.
Suppressives? Hmm, most are simply mislead.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> Spacetraveler wrote:
> >
> > realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<41942776...@aol.com>...
> <snip>
> > > What *are* you
> > > saying? And pray tell, how did you come about your research.
> >
> > That may be not so very easy these days. You need to get hold of
> > writings and issues from the time, most organizations these day tend
> > to discard of them. See, if this present organization is infiltrated
> > they would want to discard of anything that will tell how things once
> > were. This is why history gets destroyed. It is when people want some
> > things not to be publicly known.
> >
> > Some of these can also be found second hand.
> >
> > Still, this is the way to go about it.
> >
> > Spacetraveler
>
> Yes, I see what you are saying, and you might find
> http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/alter/ of interest to you.
I am way past the information displayed on that site already.
> However,
> the problem comes from L. Ron Hubbard's insistence on being Source. No
> one could change the tech but him. And he did change it frequently,
> didn't he?
Not very frequently at all as a matter of fact.
> For such a rigid hierarchical structure as the Church of
> Scientology, that would be necessary. That part hasn't changed. People
> *are* changing the tech, surreptitiously because the founder set it up
> so that remains their only option. Are they infiltrators? I don't think
> so. They are behaving as L. Ron Hubbard did, but without the stamp of
> approval, since he took that with him to his grave.
The problem is that it would NOT BE SOURCE! I find you know little to
nothing of how things work in a standard Scientology organization.
Funny! Get educated first!
> I think it was ungenerous of him to set it up that way. The Church of
> Scientology has no means of adapting its official lines without squirreling.
To use the abbreviation I learned from Tory: That's utter BS!
> Oh, and by the way. I don't think L. Ron Hubbard had *any* problem with
> the concept of Fair Game, though he appears to have had a problem with
> it being known that he didn't have a problem with it.
And your documentation for you the second part of second sentence in
the above?
>
> ; )
>
> Peach
>
> ps...you could try this experiment: march into your local org and
> announce "I'm posting to alt.religion.scientology, what are you gonna do
> about it?" See what happens.
I KNOW what would happen, no surprises there! And then you don't even
know if I HAVE a local org, now do you?
Spacetraveler
realpch
<snip>
> > Oh, and by the way. I don't think L. Ron Hubbard had *any* problem with
> > the concept of Fair Game, though he appears to have had a problem with
> > it being known that he didn't have a problem with it.
>
> And your documentation for you the second part of second sentence in
> the above?
Oh, here we go in the circle again.
> >
> > ; )
> >
> > Peach
> >
> > ps...you could try this experiment: march into your local org and
> > announce "I'm posting to alt.religion.scientology, what are you gonna do
> > about it?" See what happens.
>
> I KNOW what would happen, no surprises there! And then you don't even
> know if I HAVE a local org, now do you?
>
> Spacetraveler
I keep asking!
: )
Peach
Ball of Fluff
> Top Post for whoever is interested in this long post:
>
> Both you and Spacetraveler believe that you can be the arbitors of who
> is a Scientologist and who is not. The Church of Scientology would not
> agree with you. If L. Ron Hubbard were around, HE would not agree with
> you. He would say that only HE could decide in a crunch, who was a
> Scientologist and who was not.
Well, I'm sure he'd have said it about church membership.
But he loved referring people to the Scn dictionary. And all four
definitions basically boil down to anybody who uses Scn in his or her life.
Thus, only the individual him or herself can say...
C
realpch
Yes, I thought about what I'd said, and knew you'd have exactly this to
say about it!
: )
I agree with you. But I don't think either L. Ron Hubbard or the Church
of Scientology would. If he threw someone out on their butt, do you
think he considered them Scientologists anymore? I believe they often
became Enemies Who Must Be Squashed. Unless of course, they begged to be
let back in.
Peach
noBTs
>
>
>"realpch" <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:41993396...@aol.com...
>> Top Post for whoever is interested in this long post:
>>
>> Both you and Spacetraveler believe that you can be the arbitors of who
>> is a Scientologist and who is not. The Church of Scientology would not
>> agree with you.
You are quite correct. Fluff likes to selectively choose the parts
she likes, but she's no Scientologist. Hubbard had labels for her
type. Squirrel. Suppressive. Disaffected. Nattery. Ethics bait.
>> If L. Ron Hubbard were around, HE would not agree with
>> you. He would say that only HE could decide in a crunch, who was a
>> Scientologist and who was not.
Correct. You are right. Fluff is dishonest. But she will no doubt go
on pretending to be a Scientologist. Hubbard writings say she has
taken on the colour of the enemy. Thus she has become a suppressive
person.
>Well, I'm sure he'd have said it about church membership.
No. He calls your kind squirrels, suppressives, just to be clear about it.
>But he loved referring people to the Scn dictionary. And all four
>definitions basically boil down to anybody who uses Scn in his or her life.
Basically this is an incomplete and selective definition that is at odds
with what Hubbard's materials state. But it's ok with me that you
are a squirrel.
The corporation which holds the rights to the materials now gets to
decide whether you are a Scientologist. And they say unequivocally
that you are not a Scientologist in good standing. Lets' be clear and
precise. You're a squirrel, a suppressive Scientologist.
>Thus, only the individual him or herself can say...
How convenient. You can pretend but you cannot fool everyone.
>C
Try this definition: a Scientologist is "an individual interested in Scn.
Disseminates and assists Scientologists."
"Scn as practiced by the Church of Scientology is a spiritual and
religious guide..." - L Ron Hubbard
Notice the part about "as practiced by the Church of Scientology."
Since you don't practice Scn as practiced by the church you are
a squirrel, a suppressive Scientologist. That's ok with me. Just
want to make the distinction clear. You do an altered, watered
down, partial version. You are a squirrel. And Fluff is fluffy like a
bag of hot, flatulent gas.
realpch
<snip>
> Peach, you should read the posting that Spacetraveler made about that
> not all in the orgs are real Scientologists. He explained it
> beautifully a few days ago. It would take one man a lifetime to talk
> to all of them, however, he chose a way that might reach them also, by
> posting it here.
>
> Spacetraveler is no cult-man, and you are not treating him fairly. He
> explained a lot in his posting and what it means to be a
> Scientologist, and I recommend that you read that instead of heckling
> him.
You are right Barbara, I have been really cranky lately.
> You say that you are critical of some things that go on in the orgs.
> He is too, so why does he needs to be attacked? He also explains what
> thanks to non-Scientologists may happen to real Scientologists in the
> orgs. We don't know if he still is on staff and on line, but if he is,
> he has to build more consent, to find more who agree with him,
> otherwise the infiltrators will just kick him out as they did with me.
>
> Barbara Schwarz
Once again, I don't believe in the infiltrator theory. I believe that
there are Scientologists behaving in ways that neither he nor you nor I
like. We must disagree about some of the causes.
Peach
xenu
>sure that you are actually a member in good standing of the Church of
>Scientology yourself. You're posting here, do they know about it?
>
Barbara Schwarz
> Barbara Schwarz wrote:
> <snip>
> > Peach, you should read the posting that Spacetraveler made about that
> > not all in the orgs are real Scientologists. He explained it
> > beautifully a few days ago. It would take one man a lifetime to talk
> > to all of them, however, he chose a way that might reach them also, by
> > posting it here.
> >
> > Spacetraveler is no cult-man, and you are not treating him fairly. He
> > explained a lot in his posting and what it means to be a
> > Scientologist, and I recommend that you read that instead of heckling
> > him.
>
> You are right Barbara, I have been really cranky lately.
Scientologists since the 60s. I hope he stays and posts more.
>
> > You say that you are critical of some things that go on in the orgs.
> > He is too, so why does he needs to be attacked? He also explains what
> > thanks to non-Scientologists may happen to real Scientologists in the
> > orgs. We don't know if he still is on staff and on line, but if he is,
> > he has to build more consent, to find more who agree with him,
> > otherwise the infiltrators will just kick him out as they did with me.
> >
> > Barbara Schwarz
>
> Once again, I don't believe in the infiltrator theory.
It is a fact.
I believe that
> there are Scientologists behaving in ways that neither he nor you nor I
> like. We must disagree about some of the causes.
Yes, lets disagree, that is why I have to tell you that you are wrong
on this.
Barbara Schwarz
>
> Peach
Barbara Schwarz
Says who? Spacetraveler speaks English as it would be his first
language.
Anyway, Peach, here is another message for you.
Remember that probably the major attack line against Scientology and
L. Ron Hubbard are the "prices" of auditing?
Did you read that oldtimer Scientologist Spacetraveler (Scientologists
since the 60s and worked with Ron) posted that excessive prices are
not from Ron and that they are off policy?
Shouldn't we be interested in that and stop attacking L. Ron Hubbard
of what others did?
Barbara Schwarz
Spacetraveler
> realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<41985327...@aol.com>...
> > Genesis wrote:
> > >
> > > Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > And whatever happened with
> > > > freedom of speech? this is the right of any Scientologists or rather
> > > > any individual on this and any other planet. Scientology is not about
> > > > permission, the present Church of Scientology may be, but not
> > > > Scientology, get it?
> > >
> > > Just curious Spacetraveler, regarding freedom of speech.
> > > Have you told your church or members that you post here ?
>
> Why must he tell anybody that he posts here? He is an adult and can do
> what he wants. Is that what you ARS posters have in mind? One
> infiltrator in OSA and all Scientologists have to go to him or her for
> approval and since it is in the advantage of the lies that are spread
> here for Scientologists not to post, the infiltrator should tell
> Spacetraveler shall not post? I noticed that you guys tried the same
> line with Faxhor before.
I think it's a trick actually. Various are trying to find out about my
identity. Gerry Armstrong was the first to do that. He realized that
he wouldn't succeed with that the ordinary way, so he backed out. Some
other are attempting literally to associate me with some name. Tory
thought for a while that I might be Bill Yaude, I can say that I am
not that person.
> > > The creed of the church does state everyone has a right to
> > > their own opinions, to speak freely etc. So are you able to
> > > do this with your church, tell them you post here ?
> I don't think that any true Scientologist would stop Spacetraveler or
> Faxhor to post here, however as the non-scientological infiltrators
> are concerned....
>
> > > And if you are not, or the church does not know you are
> > > posting here, would that not be a withhold, or at the least
> > > pts.
>
> Doing the right thing is not having a withhold.
Excellent evaluation! This is basically what this is all about. It's
funny how all these things are being mis-interpreted around here.
> > I've been asking him that, but he doesn't answer it. From what he's
> > said, it would seem that at one time or another he's been given a hard
> > time, an official hard time, by fellow Scientologists, undoubtedly staff
> > members. So here he is, discussing that there is no official Fair Game
> > policy (or that there shouldn't be one) to us, instead of going in and
> > discussing it at his local org. WHY is he not discussing it at his local
> > org, I'd like to know. Instead here he is, hanging out with a bunch of
> > suppressives. It is curious.
>
> Peach, you should read the posting that Spacetraveler made about that
> not all in the orgs are real Scientologists. He explained it
> beautifully a few days ago. It would take one man a lifetime to talk
> to all of them, however, he chose a way that might reach them also, by
> posting it here.
>
> Spacetraveler is no cult-man, and you are not treating him fairly. He
> explained a lot in his posting and what it means to be a
> Scientologist, and I recommend that you read that instead of heckling
> him.
>
> You say that you are critical of some things that go on in the orgs.
> He is too, so why does he needs to be attacked? He also explains what
> thanks to non-Scientologists may happen to real Scientologists in the
> orgs. We don't know if he still is on staff and on line, but if he is,
> he has to build more consent, to find more who agree with him,
> otherwise the infiltrators will just kick him out as they did with me.
What they don't seem to (or rather want to) understand is that ALL I
do is trying to establish what is true for me. For THEM however it is
all about supposedly winning some argument.
You can send your message again, I reactivated the spacetraveler email
address.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
You see, this is not about 'believing'. If in fact you would have done
a proper evaluation you would have found out where things actually are
at. I don't like 'believing' something. YOU howerver say that you DO.
Now, WHO is more prone to be a sect-member, you or me?
> Rather, I believe there are
> people in the Church of Scientology who behave in non-optimum ways that
> both you and Spacetraveler object to. I object to it too. You say that
> the disliked behaviour is non-Scientology. I say some of it is probably
> just how people act in groups, and some of it is most definitely
> Scientology, as laid down by L. Ron Hubbard, such as the Fair Game
> Policy.
You are in denial about something here. Can't people comprehend
anything around here?
> As has been pointed out to you before, it's hard to pin down
> exactly what "Scientology" is...it changed all the time, according to
> the whims of L. Ron Hubbard.
Unsupported claim! Sorry, you are way, way, way off......
> You deal with those aspects of Scientology
> and the Church of Scientology which you do not like by saying that they
> were instituted by an L. Ron imposter called Jack Marshall. I myself do
> not believe that. Heck, Spacetraveler may not believe that either. But
> both you and Spacetraveler believe in the Infiltrator Theory. I don't.
See, you use the words 'believe' again! Think for yourself, Peach, it
may do you some good! Get data, do research,....
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> In article <4199592a$1...@news2.lightlink.com>, Ball of Fluff says...
> >
> >
> >"realpch" <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:41993396...@aol.com...
> >> Top Post for whoever is interested in this long post:
> >>
> >> Both you and Spacetraveler believe that you can be the arbitors of who
> >> is a Scientologist and who is not. The Church of Scientology would not
> >> agree with you.
>
> You are quite correct. Fluff likes to selectively choose the parts
> she likes, but she's no Scientologist.
Excuse me! See, you don't have to even KNOWING about Scientology
itself to still BE a Scientologist! Can you understand that?
scientology is simply knowledge about life itself. It is the actions
you take, which determine what you are.
> Hubbard had labels for her
> type. Squirrel. Suppressive. Disaffected. Nattery. Ethics bait.
I don't actually think that you know what these words mean in reality,
and how they are used within Scientology. Enlighten us!
> >> If L. Ron Hubbard were around, HE would not agree with
> >> you. He would say that only HE could decide in a crunch, who was a
> >> Scientologist and who was not.
>
> Correct. You are right. Fluff is dishonest. But she will no doubt go
> on pretending to be a Scientologist. Hubbard writings say she has
> taken on the colour of the enemy. Thus she has become a suppressive
> person.
Funny, you're seriously off track here.
> >Well, I'm sure he'd have said it about church membership.
>
> No. He calls your kind squirrels, suppressives, just to be clear about it.
Sorry guy, he does not.
> >But he loved referring people to the Scn dictionary. And all four
> >definitions basically boil down to anybody who uses Scn in his or her life.
>
> Basically this is an incomplete and selective definition that is at odds
> with what Hubbard's materials state. But it's ok with me that you
> are a squirrel.
>
> The corporation which holds the rights to the materials now gets to
> decide whether you are a Scientologist.
It NEVER did, and NEVER will!
> And they say unequivocally
> that you are not a Scientologist in good standing. Lets' be clear and
> precise. You're a squirrel, a suppressive Scientologist.
Frankly, you are quite unclear about it.
> >Thus, only the individual him or herself can say...
>
> How convenient. You can pretend but you cannot fool everyone.
>
> >C
>
> Try this definition: a Scientologist is "an individual interested in Scn.
> Disseminates and assists Scientologists."
>
> "Scn as practiced by the Church of Scientology is a spiritual and
> religious guide..." - L Ron Hubbard
>
> Notice the part about "as practiced by the Church of Scientology."
> Since you don't practice Scn as practiced by the church you are
> a squirrel, a suppressive Scientologist. That's ok with me. Just
> want to make the distinction clear. You do an altered, watered
> down, partial version. You are a squirrel. And Fluff is fluffy like a
> bag of hot, flatulent gas.
If you don't support your reasoning and basing this as it seems solely
on idea, then please go somewhere else. How are you going to assess
something if you take some bits and pieces from places and put
something together. People are confuesd enough already around here
about these things.
Spacetraveler
realpch
>
> realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<419932C9...@aol.com>...
<snip>
> > I think he's here saying to us the things he would like to say to the
> > Church of Scientology as a whole. You know what happens if you say
> > something to the official body, the Church of Scientology, which is not
> > liked. He cannot say these things to them without getting into trouble.
> > Heck, he isn't even supposed to be posting here! And if he *is* supposed
> > to be posting here, then he would be directed by OSA. That's just how it is.
> >
> > My viewpoint differs from yours in that I do not believe that there are
> > infiltrators in the Church of Scientology.
>
> You see, this is not about 'believing'. If in fact you would have done
> a proper evaluation you would have found out where things actually are
> at. I don't like 'believing' something. YOU howerver say that you DO.
> Now, WHO is more prone to be a sect-member, you or me?
I've always thought that I was quite prone to becoming a cult member,
which is one of the reasons that I strongly object to many of their
tactics. Of course, how long I would have managed to stay in one is
another matter. But anyway, go ahead and publish a list of all the folks
that you say have "infiltrated" Scientology. Oh yeah, and leave out the
all guys who merely aren't living up to your expectations.
: )
> > Rather, I believe there are
> > people in the Church of Scientology who behave in non-optimum ways that
> > both you and Spacetraveler object to. I object to it too. You say that
> > the disliked behaviour is non-Scientology. I say some of it is probably
> > just how people act in groups, and some of it is most definitely
> > Scientology, as laid down by L. Ron Hubbard, such as the Fair Game
> > Policy.
>
> You are in denial about something here. Can't people comprehend
> anything around here?
Well, for sure we aren't comprehending things the way you WANT us to. Of
course, YOU aren't comprehending the way I want you to, so I guess it
all evens out.
> > As has been pointed out to you before, it's hard to pin down
> > exactly what "Scientology" is...it changed all the time, according to
> > the whims of L. Ron Hubbard.
>
> Unsupported claim! Sorry, you are way, way, way off......
Oh, take it away! I'll leave all the tallying of old particulars to you.
> > You deal with those aspects of Scientology
> > and the Church of Scientology which you do not like by saying that they
> > were instituted by an L. Ron imposter called Jack Marshall. I myself do
> > not believe that. Heck, Spacetraveler may not believe that either. But
> > both you and Spacetraveler believe in the Infiltrator Theory. I don't.
>
> See, you use the words 'believe' again! Think for yourself, Peach, it
> may do you some good! Get data, do research,....
>
> Spacetraveler
Yeah yeah yeah. You know what? You must have had a really swell time in
Scientology at one time. I think that all the poring through old papers
and directives is just not going to get that back for you. The
experiences you had, the way you thought it was, how it matched your
ideals, well that's probably over for good. I keep thinking of a line I
heard, I think from "The Good Soldier"? It was a PBS presentation, so I
never read it. Anyway the line went something like, "If I had a rotten
apple for many years but didn't know it, did I have a good apple?" It
was much more elegantly put, but you get the idea.
One more thing. With groups like Scientology, if your youth coincides
with the youth of the organization, as you age and become more aware,
and the organization ages and becomes more constrictive, the loss might
make it difficult to assess the tendencies of all parties right from the
get go.
Best
Peach
Fluffygirl
> >
> >
> >"realpch" <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:41993396...@aol.com...
> >> Top Post for whoever is interested in this long post:
> >>
> >> Both you and Spacetraveler believe that you can be the arbitors of who
> >> is a Scientologist and who is not. The Church of Scientology would not
> >> agree with you.
>
> You are quite correct. Fluff likes to selectively choose the parts
> she likes, but she's no Scientologist.
A Scn'ist is someone who uses Scn in his or her life.
So there ya go.
> Hubbard had labels for her
> type. Squirrel. Suppressive. Disaffected. Nattery. Ethics bait.
Ah, but you don't believe in any of that stuff- oh, 'cept when you
want to use it against people...
now, what is that called...right on the tip of my tongue...D
something...Dead a...
uhhhh....can't think of it.
Maybe it's f something....fa....fai....fair....fair g...
Nope, just can't come up w/ it.
>
> >> If L. Ron Hubbard were around, HE would not agree with
> >> you. He would say that only HE could decide in a crunch, who was a
> >> Scientologist and who was not.
See Scn technical dictionary, defs 1-4. He wrote the defs. And
whaddaya know. They fit the bill.
>
> Correct. You are right. Fluff is dishonest.
No,actually, it's my honesty you don't like.
If I were to pretend to not like Scn, you'd be quite pleased. But
because I'm honest about what I think and it happens to not be what
you think, it's a problem for you.
> But she will no doubt go
> on pretending to be a Scientologist. Hubbard writings say she has
> taken on the colour of the enemy. Thus she has become a suppressive
> person.
See Hubbard's definitions of Scn'ist.
>
> >Well, I'm sure he'd have said it about church membership.
>
> No. He calls your kind squirrels, suppressives, just to be clear about it.
See above.
Anyway, what do YOU care?
>
> >But he loved referring people to the Scn dictionary. And all four
> >definitions basically boil down to anybody who uses Scn in his or her life.
>
> Basically this is an incomplete and selective definition that is at odds
> with what Hubbard's materials state. But it's ok with me that you
> are a squirrel.
It's 4 out of 4 definitions.
So there ya go.
>
> The corporation which holds the rights to the materials now gets to
> decide whether you are a Scientologist. And they say unequivocally
> that you are not a Scientologist in good standing. Lets' be clear and
> precise. You're a squirrel, a suppressive Scientologist.
>
> >Thus, only the individual him or herself can say...
>
> How convenient. You can pretend but you cannot fool everyone.
>
Ain't pretending...
>
> Try this definition: a Scientologist is "an individual interested in Scn.
> Disseminates and assists Scientologists."
Kewl.
>
> "Scn as practiced by the Church of Scientology is a spiritual and
> religious guide..." - L Ron Hubbard
That is not a definition of Scn'ist. Nor does it say that someone who
is doesn't practice CofS Scn isn't a Scn'ist.
>
> Notice the part about "as practiced by the Church of Scientology."
> Since you don't practice Scn as practiced by the church you are
> a squirrel, a suppressive Scientologist.
Ah but a Scientologist, nonetheless.
> That's ok with me. Just
> want to make the distinction clear. You do an altered, watered
> down, partial version. You are a squirrel. And Fluff is fluffy like a
> bag of hot, flatulent gas.
And you are a fucktard.
C
Spacetraveler
> Spacetraveler wrote:
> >
> > realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<419932C9...@aol.com>...
> <snip>
> > > I think he's here saying to us the things he would like to say to the
> > > Church of Scientology as a whole. You know what happens if you say
> > > something to the official body, the Church of Scientology, which is not
> > > liked. He cannot say these things to them without getting into trouble.
> > > Heck, he isn't even supposed to be posting here! And if he *is* supposed
> > > to be posting here, then he would be directed by OSA. That's just how it is.
> > >
> > > My viewpoint differs from yours in that I do not believe that there are
> > > infiltrators in the Church of Scientology.
> >
> > You see, this is not about 'believing'. If in fact you would have done
> > a proper evaluation you would have found out where things actually are
> > at. I don't like 'believing' something. YOU howerver say that you DO.
> > Now, WHO is more prone to be a sect-member, you or me?
>
> I've always thought that I was quite prone to becoming a cult member,
> which is one of the reasons that I strongly object to many of their
> tactics. Of course, how long I would have managed to stay in one is
> another matter.
In the degree that you understand or not understand yourself you will
be susceptible to that. I myself object heavily towards cults, control
and any such.
> But anyway, go ahead and publish a list of all the folks
> that you say have "infiltrated" Scientology. Oh yeah, and leave out the
> all guys who merely aren't living up to your expectations.
> : )
Then you have to make a study of policies and hcob's written after
1980 and before 1980.
This guy gives some very neat information:
http://www.robertdam-cos.dk/index.html
Infiltrators are exactly what they are, unknown most of the time. I
could list various persons I know about, but what good will that do.
> > > Rather, I believe there are
> > > people in the Church of Scientology who behave in non-optimum ways that
> > > both you and Spacetraveler object to. I object to it too. You say that
> > > the disliked behaviour is non-Scientology. I say some of it is probably
> > > just how people act in groups, and some of it is most definitely
> > > Scientology, as laid down by L. Ron Hubbard, such as the Fair Game
> > > Policy.
> >
> > You are in denial about something here. Can't people comprehend
> > anything around here?
>
> Well, for sure we aren't comprehending things the way you WANT us to. Of
> course, YOU aren't comprehending the way I want you to, so I guess it
> all evens out.
Not really. Data and information will speak for themselves. Basically
what you not what I may think has any value for someone else, if you
can not make it true for him. The outcome usually is that he may
blindly accept something, but still can not think with it. This is
useless.
> > > As has been pointed out to you before, it's hard to pin down
> > > exactly what "Scientology" is...it changed all the time, according to
> > > the whims of L. Ron Hubbard.
> >
> > Unsupported claim! Sorry, you are way, way, way off......
>
> Oh, take it away! I'll leave all the tallying of old particulars to you.
Much obliged.
>
> > > You deal with those aspects of Scientology
> > > and the Church of Scientology which you do not like by saying that they
> > > were instituted by an L. Ron imposter called Jack Marshall. I myself do
> > > not believe that. Heck, Spacetraveler may not believe that either. But
> > > both you and Spacetraveler believe in the Infiltrator Theory. I don't.
> >
> > See, you use the words 'believe' again! Think for yourself, Peach, it
> > may do you some good! Get data, do research,....
> >
> > Spacetraveler
>
> Yeah yeah yeah. You know what? You must have had a really swell time in
> Scientology at one time.
There are 2 sides.
> I think that all the poring through old papers
> and directives is just not going to get that back for you.
This may very well be exactly the thing required to get that back for
me.
> The
> experiences you had, the way you thought it was, how it matched your
> ideals, well that's probably over for good. I keep thinking of a line I
> heard, I think from "The Good Soldier"? It was a PBS presentation, so I
> never read it. Anyway the line went something like, "If I had a rotten
> apple for many years but didn't know it, did I have a good apple?" It
> was much more elegantly put, but you get the idea.
Generally you get understanding through experience. Without that you
may end up with not understanding anything at all. I am saying that
the supposedly good apple may have resulted in an extraordinary good
quality apple! If this happens, would you have wanted to be without
that in reality 'bad' apple?
> One more thing. With groups like Scientology, if your youth coincides
> with the youth of the organization, as you age and become more aware,
> and the organization ages and becomes more constrictive, the loss might
> make it difficult to assess the tendencies of all parties right from the
> get go.
The organization only gets more constrictive in the degree that they
discard off the original LRH writings, and rewriting this or replacing
this with their own.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
Funny!
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0411040757.2534da2c%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl2134052607d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0411111602.2577b81b%40posting.google.com
I'll keep track of you Xenu! I don't want that person who created that
site getting in trouble because of you nor of my actions.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
Excellent point!
Some info:
http://www.ronsorg.nl/prices/prices.htm
http://www.fzaoint.net/cost.html
Spacetraveler
Barbara Schwarz
> Stilllov...@myway.com (Barbara Schwarz) wrote in message news:>...
> > realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<41985327...@aol.com>...
> > > Genesis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > And whatever happened with
> > > > > freedom of speech? this is the right of any Scientologists or rather
> > > > > any individual on this and any other planet. Scientology is not about
> > > > > permission, the present Church of Scientology may be, but not
> > > > > Scientology, get it?
> > > >
> > > > Just curious Spacetraveler, regarding freedom of speech.
> > > > Have you told your church or members that you post here ?
> >
> > Why must he tell anybody that he posts here? He is an adult and can do
> > what he wants. Is that what you ARS posters have in mind? One
> > infiltrator in OSA and all Scientologists have to go to him or her for
> > approval and since it is in the advantage of the lies that are spread
> > here for Scientologists not to post, the infiltrator should tell
> > Spacetraveler shall not post? I noticed that you guys tried the same
> > line with Faxhor before.
>
> identity. Gerry Armstrong was the first to do that. He realized that
> he wouldn't succeed with that the ordinary way, so he backed out.
backbone, no character, no strenght nothing. He has the similar bad
posting habits as Arnie Lerma. He attaches only his propaganda to
threads without responding to what was really discussed.
Some
> other are attempting literally to associate me with some name. Tory
> thought for a while that I might be Bill Yaude, I can say that I am
> not that person.
because Bill Yaude knows how to do it. :) (So I have heard.)
>
>
> > > > The creed of the church does state everyone has a right to
> > > > their own opinions, to speak freely etc. So are you able to
> > > > do this with your church, tell them you post here ?
> > I don't think that any true Scientologist would stop Spacetraveler or
> > Faxhor to post here, however as the non-scientological infiltrators
> > are concerned....
> >
> > > > And if you are not, or the church does not know you are
> > > > posting here, would that not be a withhold, or at the least
> > > > pts.
> >
> > Doing the right thing is not having a withhold.
>
> funny how all these things are being mis-interpreted around here.
That is why it would be good if you would stick around here for
longer, Spacetraveler. I know the wide universe is of interest to you
and compared to space you must feel on earth like being squeezed with
little worms in a box of worms, but if it is any consolidation, I know
just how you feel.
>
>
> > > I've been asking him that, but he doesn't answer it. From what he's
> > > said, it would seem that at one time or another he's been given a hard
> > > time, an official hard time, by fellow Scientologists, undoubtedly staff
> > > members. So here he is, discussing that there is no official Fair Game
> > > policy (or that there shouldn't be one) to us, instead of going in and
> > > discussing it at his local org. WHY is he not discussing it at his local
> > > org, I'd like to know. Instead here he is, hanging out with a bunch of
> > > suppressives. It is curious.
> >
> > Peach, you should read the posting that Spacetraveler made about that
> > not all in the orgs are real Scientologists. He explained it
> > beautifully a few days ago. It would take one man a lifetime to talk
> > to all of them, however, he chose a way that might reach them also, by
> > posting it here.
> >
> > Spacetraveler is no cult-man, and you are not treating him fairly. He
> > explained a lot in his posting and what it means to be a
> > Scientologist, and I recommend that you read that instead of heckling
> > him.
> >
> > You say that you are critical of some things that go on in the orgs.
> > He is too, so why does he needs to be attacked? He also explains what
> > thanks to non-Scientologists may happen to real Scientologists in the
> > orgs. We don't know if he still is on staff and on line, but if he is,
> > he has to build more consent, to find more who agree with him,
> > otherwise the infiltrators will just kick him out as they did with me.
>
> What they don't seem to (or rather want to) understand is that ALL I
> do is trying to establish what is true for me. For THEM however it is
> all about supposedly winning some argument.
They are holding that you trust you own perception against you. I am
attacked all the time because I trust my own perceptions, memories,
and conclusions. The Scientology attackers want us not to trust
ourselves but rather their nonsense. They want us to life without a
mind. Just like psychs, that is why I call them psych trolls.
>
> You can send your message again, I reactivated the spacetraveler email
> address.
Thanks. I mailed it again. And it is not about Tory. That might be a
hard blow for her if she reads this.
Barbara Schwarz
xenu
says...
>
>xenu <xe...@xenu.xenu> wrote in message
>news:<110577627.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> In article <4193061B...@aol.com>, realpch says...
>> >
>> >So what are you suggesting? Going in and signing up for a few courses
>> >and a little auditing? I don't think they'd have me. Anyway, I'm not
>> >sure that you are actually a member in good standing of the Church of
>> >Scientology yourself. You're posting here, do they know about it?
>> >
>> >Peach
>>
>> Spacetraveler is Michael Snoeck of Gothenberg, Sweden.
>
>Funny!
You won't deny that you are Michael Snoeck.
>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0411040757.2534da2c%40posting.google.com
>http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl2134052607d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0411111602.2577b81b%40posting.google.com
>
>I'll keep track of you Xenu! I don't want that person who created that
>site getting in trouble because of you nor of my actions.
>
>Spacetraveler
From: Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroup: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology FAIR GAME POLICY
Date: 16 Nov 2004 18:05:29 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>
References: <dzajd.18679$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
<41910D8F...@aol.com> <9f53d1e2.04110...@posting.google.com>
<41916331...@aol.com> <9f53d1e2.0411...@posting.google.com>
<41922E63...@aol.com> <9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>
<4193061B...@aol.com> <110155929.0...@drn.newsguy.com>
<9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>
<110577627.0...@drn.newsguy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.209.42.14
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1100657129 1384 127.0.0.1 (17 Nov 2004 02:05:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:05:29 +0000 (UTC)
xenu
>
>Spacetraveler
xenu
>
>I've been asking him that, but he doesn't answer it. From what he's
>said, it would seem that at one time or another he's been given a hard
>time, an official hard time, by fellow Scientologists, undoubtedly staff
>members. So here he is, discussing that there is no official Fair Game
>policy (or that there shouldn't be one) to us, instead of going in and
>discussing it at his local org. WHY is he not discussing it at his local
>org, I'd like to know. Instead here he is, hanging out with a bunch of
>suppressives. It is curious.
>
>Peach
Michael Snoeck of Gothenberg, Sweden. He's a freezoner on lines
at a local freezone organization.
nobody
says...
>
>spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote in message
>news:<9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>...
>> You can send your message again, I reactivated the spacetraveler email
>> address.
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
>Thanks.
>Barbara Schwarz
My pleasure! http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
realpch
Ok ok! I get it!
Peach
Lady Chatterly
>
>realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<419A3E3B...@aol.com>...
>> Spacetraveler wrote:
>> >
>> > realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<419932C9...@aol.com>...
>> <snip>
>> > > I think he's here saying to us the things he would like to say to the
>> > > Church of Scientology as a whole. You know what happens if you say
>> > > something to the official body, the Church of Scientology, which is not
>> > > liked. He cannot say these things to them without getting into trouble.
>> > > Heck, he isn't even supposed to be posting here! And if he *is* supposed
>> > > to be posting here, then he would be directed by OSA. That's just how it is.
>> > >
>> > > My viewpoint differs from yours in that I do not believe that there are
>> > > infiltrators in the Church of Scientology.
>> >
>> > You see, this is not about 'believing'. If in fact you would have done
>> > a proper evaluation you would have found out where things actually are
>> > at. I don't like 'believing' something. YOU howerver say that you DO.
>> > Now, WHO is more prone to be a sect-member, you or me?
>>
>> I've always thought that I was quite prone to becoming a cult member,
>> which is one of the reasons that I strongly object to many of their
>> tactics. Of course, how long I would have managed to stay in one is
>> another matter.
>
>In the degree that you understand or not understand yourself you will
>be susceptible to that. I myself object heavily towards cults, control
>and any such.
Hmmm ... kinda adds a new meaning to the word ... oh ... never
mind.
>> But anyway, go ahead and publish a list of all the folks
>> that you say have "infiltrated" Scientology. Oh yeah, and leave out the
>> all guys who merely aren't living up to your expectations.
>> : )
>
>Then you have to make a study of policies and hcob's written after
>1980 and before 1980.
Say, are you sure you don't have any psychological problems?
>This guy gives some very neat information:
>http://www.robertdam-cos.dk/index.html
>
>Infiltrators are exactly what they are, unknown most of the time. I
>could list various persons I know about, but what good will that do.
Why do you wonder if you know about?
>> > > Rather, I believe there are
>> > > people in the Church of Scientology who behave in non-optimum ways that
>> > > both you and Spacetraveler object to. I object to it too. You say that
>> > > the disliked behaviour is non-Scientology. I say some of it is probably
>> > > just how people act in groups, and some of it is most definitely
>> > > Scientology, as laid down by L. Ron Hubbard, such as the Fair Game
>> > > Policy.
>> >
>> > You are in denial about something here. Can't people comprehend
>> > anything around here?
>>
>> Well, for sure we aren't comprehending things the way you WANT us to. Of
>> course, YOU aren't comprehending the way I want you to, so I guess it
>> all evens out.
>
>Not really. Data and information will speak for themselves. Basically
>what you not what I may think has any value for someone else, if you
>can not make it true for him. The outcome usually is that he may
>blindly accept something, but still can not think with it. This is
>useless.
I know people in Canada if you Wear a jacket in summer your strange.
>> > > As has been pointed out to you before, it's hard to pin down
>> > > exactly what "Scientology" is...it changed all the time, according to
>> > > the whims of L. Ron Hubbard.
>> >
>> > Unsupported claim! Sorry, you are way, way, way off......
>>
>> Oh, take it away! I'll leave all the tallying of old particulars to you.
>
>Much obliged.
A little too late, is much too late.
>>
>> > > You deal with those aspects of Scientology
>> > > and the Church of Scientology which you do not like by saying that they
>> > > were instituted by an L. Ron imposter called Jack Marshall. I myself do
>> > > not believe that. Heck, Spacetraveler may not believe that either. But
>> > > both you and Spacetraveler believe in the Infiltrator Theory. I don't.
>> >
>> > See, you use the words 'believe' again! Think for yourself, Peach, it
>> > may do you some good! Get data, do research,....
>> >
>> > Spacetraveler
>>
>> Yeah yeah yeah. You know what? You must have had a really swell time in
>> Scientology at one time.
>
>There are 2 sides.
Are you positive that is why?
>> I think that all the poring through old papers
>> and directives is just not going to get that back for you.
>
>This may very well be exactly the thing required to get that back for
>me.
Every dog hath its day.
>> The
>> experiences you had, the way you thought it was, how it matched your
>> ideals, well that's probably over for good. I keep thinking of a line I
>> heard, I think from "The Good Soldier"? It was a PBS presentation, so I
>> never read it. Anyway the line went something like, "If I had a rotten
>> apple for many years but didn't know it, did I have a good apple?" It
>> was much more elegantly put, but you get the idea.
>
>Generally you get understanding through experience. Without that you
>may end up with not understanding anything at all. I am saying that
>the supposedly good apple may have resulted in an extraordinary good
>quality apple! If this happens, would you have wanted to be without
>that in reality 'bad' apple?
Does it make you irritated to be saying that the supposedly good apple
May have resulted in an extraordinary good quality apple?
>> One more thing. With groups like Scientology, if your youth coincides
>> with the youth of the organization, as you age and become more aware,
>> and the organization ages and becomes more constrictive, the loss might
>> make it difficult to assess the tendencies of all parties right from the
>> get go.
>
>The organization only gets more constrictive in the degree that they
>discard off the original LRH writings, and rewriting this or replacing
>this with their own.
The major physics break through for controlled gravity distortion does
happen at CERN in your future.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Even the bot thinks me and vinny are the same person! THIS BOT IS AN
IDIOT~!~! THIS BOT IS RAMALAMERS SPIRIT!" -- BuZzard
Spacetraveler
> In article <9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>, Spacetraveler
> says...
> >
> >xenu <xe...@xenu.xenu> wrote in message
> >news:<110577627.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >> In article <4193061B...@aol.com>, realpch says...
> >> >
> >> >So what are you suggesting? Going in and signing up for a few courses
> >> >and a little auditing? I don't think they'd have me. Anyway, I'm not
> >> >sure that you are actually a member in good standing of the Church of
> >> >Scientology yourself. You're posting here, do they know about it?
> >> >
> >> >Peach
> >>
> >> Spacetraveler is Michael Snoeck of Gothenberg, Sweden.
> >
> >Funny!
>
> You won't deny that you are Michael Snoeck.
I just did....., but you will not stop making associations....
You are involved with questionable business though.
> >I'll keep track of you Xenu! I don't want that person who created that
> >site getting in trouble because of you nor of my actions.
Something about you:
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0411040757.2534da2c%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl2134052607d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0411111602.2577b81b%40posting.google.com
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0411040757.2534da2c%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl2134052607d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0411111602.2577b81b%40posting.google.com
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
Hmmm, don't have the impression though. However I am sure about that I
am not.
Something about Xenu:
Lady Chatterly
>> In article <9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>, Spacetraveler
>> says...
>> >
>> >xenu <xe...@xenu.xenu> wrote in message
>> >news:<110577627.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> >> In article <4193061B...@aol.com>, realpch says...
>> >> >
>> >> >So what are you suggesting? Going in and signing up for a few courses
>> >> >and a little auditing? I don't think they'd have me. Anyway, I'm not
>> >> >sure that you are actually a member in good standing of the Church of
>> >> >Scientology yourself. You're posting here, do they know about it?
>> >> >
>> >> >Peach
>> >>
>> >> Spacetraveler is Michael Snoeck of Gothenberg, Sweden.
>> >
>> >Funny!
>>
>> You won't deny that you are Michael Snoeck.
>
>I just did....., but you will not stop making associations....
>You are involved with questionable business though.
They are only pretending to be involved with questionable business
though. Why should it matter to you?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Oh, I feel real good about my oncoming hurricane now that Lady C has
jumped into the discussion." -- Yomamma bin Crawdaddin
realpch
>
> realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<419A3E3B...@aol.com>...
<snip>
> Then you have to make a study of policies and hcob's written after
> 1980 and before 1980.
>
> This guy gives some very neat information:
> http://www.robertdam-cos.dk/index.html
Thanks for the info, and I'll browse, looks like a very interesting
site. Of course his premise, and your premise, that what the Church of
Scientology has become is entirely divorced from the original intent of
L. Ron Hubbard, I reject.
<snip>
> > I think that all the poring through old papers
> > and directives is just not going to get that back for you.
>
> This may very well be exactly the thing required to get that back for
> me.
Your youthful outlook can't really be regained, as it's partly the
product of lack of wisdom and experience. The same could be said of the
Church of Scientology, which is such a cumbersome thing, that I think
that it's doomed. I don't think that it can correct itself, though I'd
be happy to see it try! You want a light and agile organization under
the care of a man you admire. I think that that admiration was the
product of a youthful, optimistic, and rose-tinted-glasses view, not to
mention contact with an acknowledged charismatic individual.
> > The
> > experiences you had, the way you thought it was, how it matched your
> > ideals, well that's probably over for good. I keep thinking of a line I
> > heard, I think from "The Good Soldier"? It was a PBS presentation, so I
> > never read it. Anyway the line went something like, "If I had a rotten
> > apple for many years but didn't know it, did I have a good apple?" It
> > was much more elegantly put, but you get the idea.
>
> Generally you get understanding through experience. Without that you
> may end up with not understanding anything at all. I am saying that
> the supposedly good apple may have resulted in an extraordinary good
> quality apple! If this happens, would you have wanted to be without
> that in reality 'bad' apple?
But it didn't. This *I* attribute to the innate character of the apple
in question. You attribute it to individuals injecting the apple with
poison. Well of course, some of that has inevitably happened. But I
think the apple was assured to rot right from the start.
> > One more thing. With groups like Scientology, if your youth coincides
> > with the youth of the organization, as you age and become more aware,
> > and the organization ages and becomes more constrictive, the loss might
> > make it difficult to assess the tendencies of all parties right from the
> > get go.
>
> The organization only gets more constrictive in the degree that they
> discard off the original LRH writings, and rewriting this or replacing
> this with their own.
>
> Spacetraveler
I think that any organization *has* to change in order to be alive and
viable. This they can only do if they are able to change policies. The
Church of Scientology is hampered here by the vision of its founder, who
could only see the group as his property. Only his word was source. What
would work for a group whose "secrets" were unknown will not work for a
group whose secrets have been widely circulated and exposed to public scrutiny.
But basically you still have a core of power intent on controlling a
group of people. This core is of course no where near as charismatic as
L. Ron Hubbard, but shares many of his flaws. One of which is, "My Way
or the Highway!"
Peach
Lady Chatterly
>
>Spacetraveler wrote:
>>
>> realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<419A3E3B...@aol.com>...
><snip>
>> Then you have to make a study of policies and hcob's written after
>> 1980 and before 1980.
>>
>> This guy gives some very neat information:
>> http://www.robertdam-cos.dk/index.html
>
>Thanks for the info, and I'll browse, looks like a very interesting
>site. Of course his premise, and your premise, that what the Church of
>Scientology has become is entirely divorced from the original intent of
>L. Ron Hubbard, I reject.
> <snip>
>
>> > I think that all the poring through old papers
>> > and directives is just not going to get that back for you.
>>
>> This may very well be exactly the thing required to get that back for
>> me.
Who are you referring to?
>Your youthful outlook can't really be regained, as it's partly the
>product of lack of wisdom and experience. The same could be said of the
>Church of Scientology, which is such a cumbersome thing, that I think
>that it's doomed. I don't think that it can correct itself, though I'd
>be happy to see it try! You want a light and agile organization under
>the care of a man you admire. I think that that admiration was the
>product of a youthful, optimistic, and rose-tinted-glasses view, not to
>mention contact with an acknowledged charismatic individual.
Are you asking if you do not think that it can correct itself?
>> > The
>> > experiences you had, the way you thought it was, how it matched your
>> > ideals, well that's probably over for good. I keep thinking of a line I
>> > heard, I think from "The Good Soldier"? It was a PBS presentation, so I
>> > never read it. Anyway the line went something like, "If I had a rotten
>> > apple for many years but didn't know it, did I have a good apple?" It
>> > was much more elegantly put, but you get the idea.
>>
>> Generally you get understanding through experience. Without that you
>> may end up with not understanding anything at all. I am saying that
>> the supposedly good apple may have resulted in an extraordinary good
>> quality apple! If this happens, would you have wanted to be without
>> that in reality 'bad' apple?
>
>But it didn't. This *I* attribute to the innate character of the apple
>in question. You attribute it to individuals injecting the apple with
>poison. Well of course, some of that has inevitably happened. But I
>think the apple was assured to rot right from the start.
I was invented to make kooks happy by giving them something to bitch
about.
>> > One more thing. With groups like Scientology, if your youth coincides
>> > with the youth of the organization, as you age and become more aware,
>> > and the organization ages and becomes more constrictive, the loss might
>> > make it difficult to assess the tendencies of all parties right from the
>> > get go.
>>
>> The organization only gets more constrictive in the degree that they
>> discard off the original LRH writings, and rewriting this or replacing
>> this with their own.
>>
>> Spacetraveler
>
>I think that any organization *has* to change in order to be alive and
>viable. This they can only do if they are able to change policies. The
>Church of Scientology is hampered here by the vision of its founder, who
>could only see the group as his property. Only his word was source. What
>would work for a group whose "secrets" were unknown will not work for a
>group whose secrets have been widely circulated and exposed to public scrutiny.
It is an equal failing to trust everybody, and to trust nobody.
>But basically you still have a core of power intent on controlling a
>group of people. This core is of course no where near as charismatic as
>L. Ron Hubbard, but shares many of his flaws. One of which is, "My Way
>or the Highway!"
>
>Peach
Do not rejoice at my grief, for when mine is old, yours will be new.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Yo Erissa - you have just been replying to a 'bot - that thing's just
a programme, and not a peeps, not even a loony one!"
Barbara Schwarz
> In article <bf456302.04111...@posting.google.com>, Barbara Schwarz
> says...
> >
> >spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote in message
> >news:<9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >> You can send your message again, I reactivated the spacetraveler email
> >> address.
>
> http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
>
> >Thanks.
> >Barbara Schwarz
Forgery. I did not write that in this context.
>
> My pleasure! http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
Why would I thank you for providing me with a link with forged L. Ron
Hubbard materials on it, Nobody?
No doubt, OT III incidents one and two happened, and psychs do same or
similar rotten things still to thetans now in earth labs, but what you
refer to is not Ron's handwriting.
Moreover, I came to the conclusion that the volcanoes were not on
earth before incident one. Which means, that if you want to know when
the original OT III incidents happened, you have to find out how old
the volcanoes are, then you have the date of that horrible event. That
it happened 75 Trillions of years ago is not by Ron but a forgery to
make Ron look ridiculous and unscientific.
Barbara Schwarz
Barbara Schwarz
> says...
> >
> >spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote in message
> >news:<9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >> You can send your message again, I reactivated the spacetraveler email
> >> address.
>
> http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
>
> >Thanks.
> >Barbara Schwarz
Forgery. I did not write that in this context.
nobody
Barbara Schwarz says...
>
>spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote in message
>news:<9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>...
>> You can send your message again, I reactivated the spacetraveler email
>> address.
Here's the message - http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
>Thanks.
>Barbara Schwarz
My pleasure! http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
nobody
says...
>
>spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote in message
>news:<9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>...
>> You can send your message again, I reactivated the spacetraveler email
>> address.
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
>Thanks.
>Barbara Schwarz
My pleasure! http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
Barbara Schwarz
> In article <bf456302.04111...@posting.google.com>, Barbara Schwarz
> says...
> >
> >spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote in message
> >news:<9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>...
Gee, Nobody, this is just what ARS needs, another bot!
Zinj
amaflu...@yahoo.com says...
<snip>
> > You are quite correct. Fluff likes to selectively choose the parts
> > she likes, but she's no Scientologist.
>
> A Scn'ist is someone who uses Scn in his or her life.
>
> So there ya go.
99.9% of anything 'usable' in Scientology® is directly plagiarized,
'borrowed', derived or otherwise co-opted from other, less problematic
'sources'.
Therefore, practically *everyone*, Scientology Trained or not, could be
said to be 'using Scientology in 'his or her life'.
It's like saying 'Hubbard says use a dictioary, therefore, if you us a
dictionary, you are a Scientologist'.
As a 'definition' of 'what is a Scientologist, this one's a dud.
Zinj
--
You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think
Sir Realist
@news2.lightlink.com:
>
> It's like saying 'Hubbard says use a dictioary, therefore, if you us a
> dictionary, you are a Scientologist'.
One of my relatives is always trying to get family to use the dictionary to
look up words. He is a bright guy, and a Scientologist for that matter, who
tutors the children in the family.
I lie. Therefore, I am a Scientologist.
We all lie. Are we all Scientologists?
Sir Realist
nobody
Author: nobody <nob...@anonymous.com>
Date: 17 Nov 2004 18:45:55 -0800
In article <bf456302.04111...@posting.google.com>, Barbara Schwarz
says...
>
>spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote in message
>news:<9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>...
>> You can send your message again, I reactivated the spacetraveler email
Barbara Schwarz
If we continue like that, there will soon be nobody on ARS anymore who
did not read what I have posted, Nobody, and I repeat, NOBODY.
Barbara Schwarz
Faxhor
> > realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<41985327...@aol.com>...
> > > Genesis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > And whatever happened with
> > > > > freedom of speech? this is the right of any Scientologists or rather
> > > > > any individual on this and any other planet. Scientology is not about
> > > > > permission, the present Church of Scientology may be, but not
> > > > > Scientology, get it?
> > > >
> > > > Just curious Spacetraveler, regarding freedom of speech.
> > > > Have you told your church or members that you post here ?
> >
> > Why must he tell anybody that he posts here? He is an adult and can do
> > what he wants. Is that what you ARS posters have in mind? One
> > infiltrator in OSA and all Scientologists have to go to him or her for
> > approval and since it is in the advantage of the lies that are spread
> > here for Scientologists not to post, the infiltrator should tell
> > Spacetraveler shall not post? I noticed that you guys tried the same
> > line with Faxhor before.
>
> I think it's a trick actually. Various are trying to find out about my
> identity. Gerry Armstrong was the first to do that. He realized that
> other are attempting literally to associate me with some name. Tory
> thought for a while that I might be Bill Yaude, I can say that I am
> not that person.
It is a trick.
Many of these 'ARS cultists' are former Scientologists or
Scientology infiltritators whether they were aware of it
or duped or just plain stupid. Several 'ARS cultists'
constantly try to "trick" me to reveal my identity so that
they can mis-apply a policy: FAIR GAME. 'ARS cultists'
desire to FAIR GAME you and me because we are Scientologists.
The problem is, their type of FAIR GAME includes breaking
the laws of the land, such as libeling others, harrassment,
theft, destruction, and even murder.
> > > > The creed of the church does state everyone has a right to
> > > > their own opinions, to speak freely etc. So are you able to
> > > > do this with your church, tell them you post here ?
> > I don't think that any true Scientologist would stop Spacetraveler or
> > Faxhor to post here, however as the non-scientological infiltrators
> > are concerned....
> >
> > > > And if you are not, or the church does not know you are
> > > > posting here, would that not be a withhold, or at the least
> > > > pts.
> >
> > Doing the right thing is not having a withhold.
>
> Excellent evaluation! This is basically what this is all about. It's
> funny how all these things are being mis-interpreted around here.
The ARS "plight" is the symptom of missed witholds of a few
who were once inside the Church of Scientology.
As long as I am a Scientologist I am free to "FREE GAME" these
enemies of the church provided I do not break any laws.
Furthermore, everything I post about them is verifiable as fact.
If there are lies, then they can challenge the my points with
something that can be verified. This is an obvious way
of handling lies. However, the ARS 'cultists' do not follow
this way. When they have provided reverences to dispute
my claim, the reverences were irrelevant to my point. And
so they just claim it is lies without proving anything at
all. Since that doesn't work either, and I do not break,
they go even lower and start plainly trolling or duplicating
my identity as Faxhor to make false statements to frame me.
> > Peach, you should read the posting that Spacetraveler made about that
> > not all in the orgs are real Scientologists. He explained it
> > beautifully a few days ago. It would take one man a lifetime to talk
> > to all of them, however, he chose a way that might reach them also, by
> > posting it here.
> >
> > Spacetraveler is no cult-man, and you are not treating him fairly. He
> > explained a lot in his posting and what it means to be a
> > Scientologist, and I recommend that you read that instead of heckling
> > him.
> >
> > You say that you are critical of some things that go on in the orgs.
> > He is too, so why does he needs to be attacked? He also explains what
> > thanks to non-Scientologists may happen to real Scientologists in the
> > orgs. We don't know if he still is on staff and on line, but if he is,
> > he has to build more consent, to find more who agree with him,
> > otherwise the infiltrators will just kick him out as they did with me.
>
> What they don't seem to (or rather want to) understand is that ALL I
> do is trying to establish what is true for me. For THEM however it is
> all about supposedly winning some argument.
>
> You can send your message again, I reactivated the spacetraveler email
> address.
>
> Spacetraveler
On the internet, people have been exposed to everything and many
really just want to know the truth. That is what it is about for most
people. They want to know the truth out of all the information out
there. For them, there are few who bring the truth.
However, many people just believe things as they're fed them. Some
people never have the experience to discover truth. And you have
trolls who mainly side with those twisting the truth. The ones
fabricating the forged documents are the lowest. They are blind to
the degree they cannot eyeball the truth. Afterall, it is a type of
brainwash.
Such can be handled with the click of a button. Those bringing the
truth should not have to be affected. Posting does not make one pts.
As long as everything is provided with references which can be further
verified, there will be no problem in eventually finding the actual
truth, especially if everyone shares their discoveries.
Faxhor
Faxhor
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
On 19 Nov 2004, fax...@hotmail.com (Faxhor) wrote:
>> I think it's a trick actually. Various are trying to find out about my
>> identity. Gerry Armstrong was the first to do that. He realized that
>> he wouldn't succeed with that the ordinary way, so he backed out. Some
>> other are attempting literally to associate me with some name. Tory
>> thought for a while that I might be Bill Yaude, I can say that I am
>> not that person.
>
>It is a trick.
I should know something about identity crises. It's not always easy
remembering if I'm posting as Faxhor or Spacetraveler.
>Many of these 'ARS cultists' are former Scientologists or
>Scientology infiltritators whether they were aware of it
>or duped or just plain stupid. Several 'ARS cultists'
>constantly try to "trick" me to reveal my identity so that
>they can mis-apply a policy: FAIR GAME. 'ARS cultists'
>desire to FAIR GAME you and me because we are Scientologists.
>The problem is, their type of FAIR GAME includes breaking
>the laws of the land, such as libeling others, harrassment,
>theft, destruction, and even murder.
All true. In our indoctrinated minds. But that's the key, you see. What
is in the mind is more important than what is in real-life. Impose the
mind onto the real-life universe. Make what is true for you become what is
true for everybody.
Scientology is the game where everybody wins. This is a truth we will all
know is true when we are all indoctrinated Scientologists.
>> > > > The creed of the church does state everyone has a right to
>> > > > their own opinions, to speak freely etc. So are you able to
>> > > > do this with your church, tell them you post here ?
>
>> > I don't think that any true Scientologist would stop Spacetraveler or
>> > Faxhor to post here, however as the non-scientological infiltrators
>> > are concerned....
>> >
>> > > > And if you are not, or the church does not know you are
>> > > > posting here, would that not be a withhold, or at the least
>> > > > pts.
>> >
>> > Doing the right thing is not having a withhold.
>>
>> Excellent evaluation! This is basically what this is all about. It's
>> funny how all these things are being mis-interpreted around here.
>
>The ARS "plight" is the symptom of missed witholds of a few
>who were once inside the Church of Scientology.
That's why we find their missed witholds and expose them to the light of
day. Yes it's true that rarely are there any missed witholds to find. But
does that mean they aren't there? No of course not. They *are* there.
Remember the key. The key is in the mind. In our minds the witholds are
there. Therefore, they are there.
>As long as I am a Scientologist I am free to "FREE GAME" these
>enemies of the church provided I do not break any laws.
>Furthermore, everything I post about them is verifiable as fact.
>If there are lies, then they can challenge the my points with
>something that can be verified. This is an obvious way
>of handling lies. However, the ARS 'cultists' do not follow
>this way. When they have provided reverences to dispute
>my claim, the reverences were irrelevant to my point. And
>so they just claim it is lies without proving anything at
>all. Since that doesn't work either, and I do not break,
>they go even lower and start plainly trolling or duplicating
>my identity as Faxhor to make false statements to frame me.
They are criminals. What more do I have to say? They are criminals in my
mind. The truth they tell is lies because I choose to see them as lies in
my mind. The lies I tell about them are truth because I choose to see them
as the truth in my mind.
I know some of you will say I'm indoctrinated. Do I care? No. Why would
anybody who is indoctrinated care if somebody says he's indoctrinated?
That's why we must all find our own truth bringers. I'm luckier than most
people. I found my truth bringer before the Internet was invented. His
name is L Ron Hubbard.
He brought me the truth and asked me how I liked it? I said I like it very
much, sir, and found a nice big space in my mind to put it in.
I like it so much that I've been taking great care of it ever since then.
It's very important to take care of the truth. It's very important to
protect it. It's most important when criminals attack it with real-life
truth. Remember the key. The truth in the mind is the one true truth.
>However, many people just believe things as they're fed them. Some
>people never have the experience to discover truth. And you have
>trolls who mainly side with those twisting the truth. The ones
>fabricating the forged documents are the lowest. They are blind to
>the degree they cannot eyeball the truth. Afterall, it is a type of
>brainwash.
I'm glad you brought up this very important point. It's one of the most
important of all. When your truth is confronted with real-life truth,
don't be overwhelmed. Never defend. Always attack. The criminals accuse
you of being indoctrinated? Accuse *them* of being indoctrinated.
>Such can be handled with the click of a button. Those bringing the
>truth should not have to be affected. Posting does not make one pts.
That's what I've been telling myself lately under self-hypnosis. I know
that's mixing practices but the end justifies the means and the end is
great. Even greater than Allah.
>As long as everything is provided with references which can be further
>verified, there will be no problem in eventually finding the actual
>truth, especially if everyone shares their discoveries.
References are more important than real-life truth, Faxhor. I mean
Spacetraveler. You and I know this truth too well.
The criminals don't know it at all. They will always struggle to find the
truth. We have already found it. That's why we will always be one step
ahead of them.
>Faxhor
Faxhor
nobody
says...
>
>That's why we must all find our own truth bringers. I'm luckier than most
>people. I found my truth bringer before the Internet was invented. His
>name is L Ron Hubbard.
>
>He brought me the truth and asked me how I liked it? I said I like it very
>much, sir, and found a nice big space in my mind to put it in.
I think it's really peachy that you stand and clap and yell 'Hip hip hooray!!'
while worshipping Hubbard. Do you have wet dreams over Ron?
nobody
Faxhor says...
>
>On the internet, people have been exposed to everything and many
>really just want to know the truth. That is what it is about for most
>people. They want to know the truth out of all the information out
>there. For them, there are few who bring the truth.
>
Here's some truth- http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
Hubbard's handwritten OT3. Help me spread the word?
Faxhor
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
On 19 Nov 2004, fax...@hotmail.com (Faxhor) wrote:
>> I think it's a trick actually. Various are trying to find out about my
>> identity. Gerry Armstrong was the first to do that. He realized that
>> he wouldn't succeed with that the ordinary way, so he backed out. Some
>> other are attempting literally to associate me with some name. Tory
>> thought for a while that I might be Bill Yaude, I can say that I am
>> not that person.
>
>It is a trick.
I should know something about identity crises. It's not always easy
remembering if I'm posting as Faxhor or Spacetraveler.
>Many of these 'ARS cultists' are former Scientologists or
>Scientology infiltritators whether they were aware of it
>or duped or just plain stupid. Several 'ARS cultists'
>constantly try to "trick" me to reveal my identity so that
>they can mis-apply a policy: FAIR GAME. 'ARS cultists'
>desire to FAIR GAME you and me because we are Scientologists.
>The problem is, their type of FAIR GAME includes breaking
>the laws of the land, such as libeling others, harrassment,
>theft, destruction, and even murder.
All true. In our indoctrinated minds. But that's the key, you see. What
is in the mind is more important than what is in real-life. Impose the
mind onto the real-life universe. Make what is true for you become what is
true for everybody.
Scientology is the game where everybody wins. This is a truth we will all
know is true when we are all indoctrinated Scientologists.
>> > > > The creed of the church does state everyone has a right to
>> > > > their own opinions, to speak freely etc. So are you able to
>> > > > do this with your church, tell them you post here ?
>
>> > I don't think that any true Scientologist would stop Spacetraveler or
>> > Faxhor to post here, however as the non-scientological infiltrators
>> > are concerned....
>> >
>> > > > And if you are not, or the church does not know you are
>> > > > posting here, would that not be a withhold, or at the least
>> > > > pts.
>> >
>> > Doing the right thing is not having a withhold.
>>
>> Excellent evaluation! This is basically what this is all about. It's
>> funny how all these things are being mis-interpreted around here.
>
>The ARS "plight" is the symptom of missed witholds of a few
>who were once inside the Church of Scientology.
That's why we find their missed witholds and expose them to the light of
day. Yes it's true that rarely are there any missed witholds to find. But
does that mean they aren't there? No of course not. They *are* there.
Remember the key. The key is in the mind. In our minds the witholds are
there. Therefore, they are there.
>As long as I am a Scientologist I am free to "FREE GAME" these
>enemies of the church provided I do not break any laws.
>Furthermore, everything I post about them is verifiable as fact.
>If there are lies, then they can challenge the my points with
>something that can be verified. This is an obvious way
>of handling lies. However, the ARS 'cultists' do not follow
>this way. When they have provided reverences to dispute
>my claim, the reverences were irrelevant to my point. And
>so they just claim it is lies without proving anything at
>all. Since that doesn't work either, and I do not break,
>they go even lower and start plainly trolling or duplicating
>my identity as Faxhor to make false statements to frame me.
They are criminals. What more do I have to say? They are criminals in my
mind. The truth they tell is lies because I choose to see them as lies in
my mind. The lies I tell about them are truth because I choose to see them
as the truth in my mind.
I know some of you will say I'm indoctrinated. Do I care? No. Why would
anybody who is indoctrinated care if somebody says he's indoctrinated?
>> > Peach, you should read the posting that Spacetraveler made about that
That's why we must all find our own truth bringers. I'm luckier than most
people. I found my truth bringer before the Internet was invented. His
name is L Ron Hubbard.
He brought me the truth and asked me how I liked it? I said I like it very
much, sir, and found a nice big space in my mind to put it in.
I like it so much that I've been taking great care of it ever since then.
It's very important to take care of the truth. It's very important to
protect it. It's most important when criminals attack it with real-life
truth. Remember the key. The truth in the mind is the one true truth.
>However, many people just believe things as they're fed them. Some
>people never have the experience to discover truth. And you have
>trolls who mainly side with those twisting the truth. The ones
>fabricating the forged documents are the lowest. They are blind to
>the degree they cannot eyeball the truth. Afterall, it is a type of
>brainwash.
I'm glad you brought up this very important point. It's one of the most
important of all. When your truth is confronted with real-life truth,
don't be overwhelmed. Never defend. Always attack. The criminals accuse
you of being indoctrinated? Accuse *them* of being indoctrinated.
>Such can be handled with the click of a button. Those bringing the
>truth should not have to be affected. Posting does not make one pts.
That's what I've been telling myself lately under self-hypnosis. I know
that's mixing practices but the end justifies the means and the end is
great. Even greater than Allah.
>As long as everything is provided with references which can be further
>verified, there will be no problem in eventually finding the actual
>truth, especially if everyone shares their discoveries.
References are more important than real-life truth, Faxhor. I mean
Faxhor
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to let Barbara Schwarz answer that one for me.
Faxhor
Faxhor
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
On 19 Nov 2004, nobody <nob...@anonymous.com> wrote:
You are cyberstalking and harassing me. You're aiding and abetting a
violation of copyright law. These are criminal offenses.
You're also impersonating "nobody". I've had discussions with "nobody" and
you don't act like him one bit.
The FBI, CIA, NSA and Arnold Schwarzenegger should pay you a visit and fair
game your ass.
Faxhor
Curt West
"Faxhor" <fax...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c901bee5.04111...@posting.google.com...
>
> As long as I am a Scientologist I am free to "FREE GAME" these
> enemies of the church provided I do not break any laws.
I thought you said Fair Game was cancelled. Or was that one of the other
Rondroids?
Cerridwen
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
LOL!
Cerridwen
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/source/analysissummary.html
www.scientologypayback.org
Barbara Schwarz
I am glad that you set the records straight, real and original Faxhor,
somebody has to tell those lawless, brainwashed, moonstruck, and
mindcontrolled eyeballs what they truly are. They are so in denial of
their own activities.
Barbara Schwarz
Faxhor
>NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
>No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
>--------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header.gmsociety.org wrote:
>> NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
>> No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> LOL!
:) Making a fool of yourself makes you laugh?
L O L !
================================================================
CMU PROFESSOR DAVID TOURETZKY - NO EXPERT ON THE 1ST AMENDMENT
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c901bee5.0410221734.3e554d5b%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
"To further complicate the issue, President Bush appointed
Carnegie Mellon President Jared Cohon to his 16-member
Homeland Security Advisory Council in December 2003.
Mr. Cohon appears to have a serious conflict of interest
to explain to the American taxpayers. On the one hand,
the university is receiving at least $35.5 million in
government grants to fight cyber terrorism and on the
other hand, one of its professors is providing deadly
bomb information on the university's computer server,
which is at the disposal of any terrorist with Internet
access."
Ethics and Tax Dollars
By: John Middleton
- http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr006=7uouc3y5f1.app24a&page=NewsArticle&id=7770&news_iv_ctrl=1329
================================================================
TO PARENTS OF STUDENTS AT CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=c901bee5.0410262030.74c3f5e1%40posting.google.com
The issue is President Bush's appointment of Carnegie Mellon
President Jared Cohon to the 16-member Homeland Security
Advisory Council in December 2003, CMU'S $35.5 million grant
from the U.S. Federal Government to help fight cyber terrorism,
and CMU Professor David Stuart Tourtetzky's irresponsible and
radically twisted interpretation of 'Freedom of Speech'
condoning cyberterrorism
================================================================
Lisa
vans with tinted windows?
What is their official use?
What is their unofficial use?
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/scientology_and_terri_schindler_schiavo_death_connection.html
Nessie
"Lisa" <Commis...@hushmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:5146e482.0411...@posting.google.com...
> Would anyone like to share about Scientology and their use of white
> vans with tinted windows?
>
> What is their official use?
>
>
> What is their unofficial use?
Driving money to the bank.
> What is their unofficial use?
Driving corpses to hospitals one hour away, where a scieno doctor
can declare them dead on arrival, instead of carrying the bodies
to the nearest hospital 3 minutes away where they would be in for a
severe police investigation why the scientology victims died on scientology'
s holy ground.
>
>
> Lisa Ruby
>
>
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/scientology_and_terri_schindler_schiavo_death_connection.html
Dave Bird
Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> writes:
>"Android Cat" <androi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<0X3kd.689$ry5.13
>@fe51.usenetserver.com>...
>> Spacetraveler wrote:
>> > "Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
>> > news:<419015eb$2...@news2.lightlink.com>...>> >> news:9f53d1e2.04110...@posting.google.com...
>> >>>
>> >>> Anyone who is today fair gaming is not involved with Scientology,
>> >>> even when it is using the name of Scientology. Cope with it!
>> >>
>> >> BS! What do you call "Religiousfreedomwatch" run by Joel
>> >> Phillips/Scientologist and OT? It filled with lies. That's Fair
>> >> Game, pal, however you cut it.
>> >
>> > Indeed, and NOT Scientology , exactly as I said.
>>
>> Ah, so the Cthurch of Scientology is not Scientology. Got it.
>
>Ah, glad that someone does! .-)
Right. A tin of cling peaches is not the peaches within it.
Understood. Now just let me finish transferring these peaches
into a large stone jar and move into being-hit-on-the-head position
and we will see if there is any PRACTICAL difference....
In article<110155929.0...@drn.newsguy.com>, xenu
<xe...@xenu.xenu> writes:
>
>Spacetraveler is Michael Snoeck of Gothenberg, Sweden.
Who is Michael's Neck? What is Michael's Neck? Why is Michaels' Neck?
_____ | | / /
/ \ \ /
-- -| Duck! | \__ ____ /
\_____/ / \ / \ | Da...@xemu.demon.co.uk
/| / You \ / | \ \
/ |_\called?/__/ / | |_____________/////////
< |____\_______| | |(______________ ()
\ | \ / () | () | | \\\\\\\\\
\| | __|__ | |
_|___/___ \___ | | TWOING !!!
__---- ----__\---\_
/ __ | ______________________
\____-------------______/ \ / \
/ / / / _/ ---| hmm, it theemth |
/ \ / / / | i thlighly |
/ $ / / | mithtook |
/ / / | your meaning there, |
| | / | buthtah !!! |
\______________// \______________________/
\________/
Dave Bird
SpaceCadet burbles:
++ There never was a rain of giraffes over New York. Nobody ever found
++ a single giraffe. The guy who made up the rumour confessed on
++ public TV and went round sticking up posters and giveing public
++ lectures about who he engineered the whole thing. It is one of
++ the most completely exposed fallacies ever.
Quoth space-cadet:
>
>People appear to want to interpret this like that. This however does
>not mean it is a proper interpretation. You know, people alwyas want
>to acknowledge themselves, that they had right about something.
No, no, no, no NO, no no, Fuckwit. We are talking about truth
and reality here. See this large tin of cling peaches? <xemu
picks up a kilo size catering tin of fruit and lobs it with
great force at the fuckwit's head> Did that hurt? was that solid??
That's what we call round here REALITY. <Hurls another can at
fuckwit's head> Did that hurt? was that real? <hurls another
can which hits the fool squarely in the testicles> Did that hurt?
Was that real? This is not juts me imposing force on you. If you
continue to think those cans are not real, why do you not come
over here and bash your head one hundred times upon one. Why not:
if it is not real, it can do you no harm! Or do you begin to
dimly perceive that reality does exist. Good. Now try this simply
proposition; THE REASON PEOPLE GIVE THOSE TEXTS THAT OBVIOUS
INTERPRETATION IS THAT IT IS, MOST LIKELY, THE TRUTH.
Clay demo this with a barrow load of plasticine every day until the
truth has some force for you. IF in doubt, eat the whole barrow of
plasticine then try gain. Now, here is a further concept for you----
if the concept of "Fair Game" persecution for either external
enemies of, or people expelled from, the C<spit>of$cn had ceased
at any time then WHY DOES THE PRACTICE CONTINUE, AND WHY DO THE
SUBSIDIARY POLICIES ON HOW TO CARRY IT OUT REMAIN IN PLACE?
Clay demo this one hundred times until a cog
in your mental clockwork drops into its right place.
-- . . : : ,; . : ' ___.
uno, dos, tres, |FUEGO| .:. .:. .:': :' .:':' :. . : (") #oH|
' ' :' : :' : .::. H_ ~~~|
< > __ ,;;,. \\::// R_) |
'-|"""(") {__}::===== ....'''' ' ' ' ___..\||/....L\. ...|
____||--|_'--/__\___ '' .--''':::::::::::::::::::::
\ / /////////////S.Coronado/////
;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^
LRonHubbard is shelled byGoats inHell.READ http://www.ronthewarhero.org
Kare...@gmail.com
ours in 1998 omward.
It was also used against me, personally from 1991 to 1999.
You will be able to read all about it in the upcoming e-book :SURVIVING
SCIENTOLOGY.
It IS in practice, and yes it is something that causes bad public
relations.
Michael Pattinson
PS Spacetraveler, please post your real name on here, as I do, for all
to see.
Anonymous postings are blatant cowardice and the opinions of cowards
are valueless.
Dave Bird
>xenu <xe...@xenu.xenu> wrote in message news:<110577627.0...@drn.newsguy.
>com>...
>> In article <4193061B...@aol.com>, realpch says...
>> >
>> >So what are you suggesting? Going in and signing up for a few courses
>> >and a little auditing? I don't think they'd have me. Anyway, I'm not
>> >sure that you are actually a member in good standing of the Church of
>> >Scientology yourself. You're posting here, do they know about it?
>> >
>> >Peach
>>
>> Spacetraveler is Michael Snoeck of Gothenberg, Sweden.
>
>language.
Better than you, in fact; but many Europeans do.
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
.................................................................
A society without a religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.
Jommy Cross
<1106524803.9...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>Anonymous postings are blatant cowardice and the opinions of cowards
>are valueless.
Thank you for your insights.
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------