Identities...
Spacetraveler
some identity. Gerry Armstrong was the first to make a move. He got no
where, and so he left ... Keith Henson discussed the subject with me,
he said amongst other that I had already given out sufficient
information about myself (what I had done in Scientology and so on),
that some would be able to actually identify (put a face on) me. I
opposed however to his conclusion. Then Tory Bezazian 'Magoo'
(Christman or whatever) wanted me to tell more about myself, what I
had studied, what posts I had held, and so on (pretty much as
Armstrong did). And you know what? Identities are of no importance to
once's own understanding. Someone else's experience will not transfer
into your experience just like that. It's rather that this will
prohibit your actual understanding, as an 'authority' may have been
created. Meaning... to come to understanding... is something that you
have to do ALL by YOURSELF. This is tough and not very popular, and...
it needs understanding of who or what you yourself actually are about,
why or how you respond to some things, and all that. But foremost it
requires your willingness to do so. It is for reason that you HAVE to
establish when you may be prejudiced, and ... when not. And then...
'identities' will pass, they are only there for a certain period of
time. Does it matter what face belongs to some identity? So, if
identities are of so little value, why do people chase for them? An
interesting question, and an answer may not so easily be found.
Naturally this 'pointing of fingers' is guessing work, but people like
to be able to point fingers at faces. They need that because this way
they feel that it is not 'them' being exposed. Let's say, that the
'exposers' hereby have been exposed...
Well, some of these postings have been responded to, just to add to
the clarification of some matters pertaining to them. We don't want to
misinform people only because of some rumour now do we? Barbara
Schwarz wrote to me: "Many ARS posters e-mail with each other. One
starts a rumour and that takes form and then it pops in your face on
ARS." This is called 'Third-party' within scientology, an interesting
phenomena. Well, it's over now for my part! And they may have their
ball again, but without me... There are better things to be done then
turning away fingers pointing at some faces, ain't that so? We should
not forget that this is supposed to be a discussion group, so let us
discussing... (hmm, I may be a little too hopeful here, oh well..).
Ah, almost forgot! In my opinion some around here should find out what
one's ISP actually stands for. It's just a computer you know, not a
person. Many can run through such a machine, in which case it has
become a server, or a proxy server. And they can be run through
various other servers and be cross-connected to about any other
server/computer around this globe. ISP's can even be faked (some smart
persons have written programs exactly for that purpose). Associating
is ok, but use some intelligence will you... Don't make the 'obvious'
the obvious only because you want them to be that way...
So, if someone wants to put a face at your identity, well, then you
know what he is about... If someone has chosen to be anonymous then
this is his/her right, he/she may very well have a very good reason.
So, respect that...
Anyway, behold that tricks will be played on you anonymous ones. Some
want/need to know who you are... Be sure to be the smarter one if that
someone steps outside of YOUR door... The bigger the threat those
'some' consider you to be, the more persistent these 'some' will be...
Hmm, starts to smell fear around here, well, better put an end to this
post then.
Spacetraveler
Genesis
Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
Your right. The only 'some' that want/need to know
who you are is the church.
The church is dead against anyone giving their
views and experiences. And it not just the ot data.
The church tries squash and suppress the freedom
of others expressing their opinions. Especially the
ones who feel they have been rip off or decieved
by the church.
Here you have a church with their creed, yet
they do everything to stop a person giving their
opinion if the church feels it would be bad PR.
While a few poster here would like to know
who is behind an identity, its the church who is
frothing at the mouth.
Genesis
--true awareness is only enjoyed by a few--
Gerry Armstrong
(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>Recently but also in the past people having been attempting to expose
>some identity. Gerry Armstrong was the first to make a move. He got no
>where, and so he left ...
What a liar you are. You make an excellent Scientologist.
Pathologically dishonest. Pretending stupidity relentlessly and
shamelessly. Never support your black PR lies with facts. Just attack
with more lies. That in a nut shell, is a nut keeping Scientology
working.
I could not care less who you are, and have never cared who you are.
Knowing *what* you are on a.r.s. is sufficient. You are a liar, a
promoter and defender of the "Suppressive Person" doctrine, and an
evader of real communication. You're David Miscavige's little helper.
Your name, where you live, and the rest of the facts of your existence
are utterly irrelevant, until such time as you quit forwarding the
malevolent purposes of the Miscavige cult.
>Keith Henson discussed the subject with me,
>he said amongst other that I had already given out sufficient
>information about myself (what I had done in Scientology and so on),
>that some would be able to actually identify (put a face on) me. I
>opposed however to his conclusion. Then Tory Bezazian 'Magoo'
>(Christman or whatever) wanted me to tell more about myself, what I
>had studied, what posts I had held, and so on (pretty much as
>Armstrong did).
Another unsupportable bald faced lie. Show the evidence, Spacetrusser.
> And you know what? Identities are of no importance to
>once's own understanding.
Well here they serve a strawman's purpose.
And they serve your purpose too, Spacetrojan. You get to lie about and
attack people with real identities. That's what Scientology is all
about. It makes Scientologists oh so OT, oh so powerful to lie about
and attack wogs®. That's why they're in Scientology. It's
Scientologists' service facsimile.
Scientology is not just the most vicious American cult, it's the most
pathetic. Scientology deserves the whole world's oppugnancy.
You know the door and your butt routine, right? See you later
Spacetraitor.
> There are better things to be done then
>turning away fingers pointing at some faces, ain't that so? We should
>not forget that this is supposed to be a discussion group, so let us
>discussing... (hmm, I may be a little too hopeful here, oh well..).
>
>Ah, almost forgot! In my opinion some around here should find out what
>one's ISP actually stands for. It's just a computer you know, not a
>person. Many can run through such a machine, in which case it has
>become a server, or a proxy server. And they can be run through
>various other servers and be cross-connected to about any other
>server/computer around this globe. ISP's can even be faked (some smart
>persons have written programs exactly for that purpose). Associating
>is ok, but use some intelligence will you... Don't make the 'obvious'
>the obvious only because you want them to be that way...
>
>So, if someone wants to put a face at your identity, well, then you
>know what he is about... If someone has chosen to be anonymous then
>this is his/her right, he/she may very well have a very good reason.
>So, respect that...
>
>Anyway, behold that tricks will be played on you anonymous ones. Some
>want/need to know who you are... Be sure to be the smarter one if that
>someone steps outside of YOUR door... The bigger the threat those
>'some' consider you to be, the more persistent these 'some' will be...
>Hmm, starts to smell fear around here, well, better put an end to this
>post then.
>
>Spacetraveler
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Lady Chatterly
>
>On 17 Nov 2004 17:38:37 -0800, spacetra...@hotmail.com
>(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
>>Recently but also in the past people having been attempting to expose
>>some identity. Gerry Armstrong was the first to make a move. He got no
>>where, and so he left ...
>
>What a liar you are
Will you stand by your friends always?
>I could not care less who you are, and have never cared who you are.
>Knowing *what* you are on a.r.s. is sufficient. You are a liar, a
>promoter and defender of the "Suppressive Person" doctrine, and an
>evader of real communication. You're David Miscavige's little helper.
>Your name, where you live, and the rest of the facts of your existence
>are utterly irrelevant, until such time as you quit forwarding the
>malevolent purposes of the Miscavige cult.
Why does it matter to you if they are David miscavige's little helper?
>>Keith Henson discussed the subject with me,
>>he said amongst other that I had already given out sufficient
>>information about myself (what I had done in Scientology and so on),
>>that some would be able to actually identify (put a face on) me. I
>>opposed however to his conclusion. Then Tory Bezazian 'Magoo'
>>(Christman or whatever) wanted me to tell more about myself, what I
>>had studied, what posts I had held, and so on (pretty much as
>>Armstrong did).
>
>Another unsupportable bald faced lie. Show the evidence, Spacetrusser.
Experience is a comb which nature gives to men when they are bald.
>> And you know what? Identities are of no importance to
>>once's own understanding.
>
>Well here they serve a strawman's purpose.
Do machines frighten you?
>And they serve your purpose too, Spacetrojan. You get to lie about and
>attack people with real identities. That's what Scientology is all
>about. It makes Scientologists oh so OT, oh so powerful to lie about
>and attack wogs®. That's why they're in Scientology. It's
>Scientologists' service facsimile.
That is why the th amendment was necessary bimbo.
>Scientology is not just the most vicious American cult, it's the most
>pathetic. Scientology deserves the whole world's oppugnancy.
Evil is sooner believed than good.
Do your friends worry you?
--
Lady Chatterly
"For example, Lady Chatterly sounds like a flaming paranoid
schizophrenic." -- Friend
Gerry Armstrong
<not...@catcher.in.the.rye> wrote:
>In article <562op0dkqeb96f269...@4ax.com> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>>
>>On 17 Nov 2004 17:38:37 -0800, spacetra...@hotmail.com
>>(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>>
>>>Recently but also in the past people having been attempting to expose
>>>some identity. Gerry Armstrong was the first to make a move. He got no
>>>where, and so he left ...
>>
>>What a liar you are
>
>Will you stand by your friends always?
Thanks DM. I see you're as literary as ever. How's that gardener
working out for you?
>
>>I could not care less who you are, and have never cared who you are.
>>Knowing *what* you are on a.r.s. is sufficient. You are a liar, a
>>promoter and defender of the "Suppressive Person" doctrine, and an
>>evader of real communication. You're David Miscavige's little helper.
>>Your name, where you live, and the rest of the facts of your existence
>>are utterly irrelevant, until such time as you quit forwarding the
>>malevolent purposes of the Miscavige cult.
>
>Why does it matter to you if they are David miscavige's little helper?
They're *your* little helpers. You tell us what they get out of it.
>
>>>Keith Henson discussed the subject with me,
>>>he said amongst other that I had already given out sufficient
>>>information about myself (what I had done in Scientology and so on),
>>>that some would be able to actually identify (put a face on) me. I
>>>opposed however to his conclusion. Then Tory Bezazian 'Magoo'
>>>(Christman or whatever) wanted me to tell more about myself, what I
>>>had studied, what posts I had held, and so on (pretty much as
>>>Armstrong did).
>>
>>Another unsupportable bald faced lie. Show the evidence, Spacetrusser.
>
>Experience is a comb which nature gives to men when they are bald.
Better a bald head than no head at all, DM.
http://www.lermanet.com/PhotoLIES.htm
>
>>> And you know what? Identities are of no importance to
>>>once's own understanding.
>>
>>Well here they serve a strawman's purpose.
>
>Do machines frighten you?
In the pseudopods of clams they're terrifying.
>
>>And they serve your purpose too, Spacetrojan. You get to lie about and
>>attack people with real identities. That's what Scientology is all
>>about. It makes Scientologists oh so OT, oh so powerful to lie about
>>and attack wogs®. That's why they're in Scientology. It's
>>Scientologists' service facsimile.
>
>That is why the th amendment was necessary bimbo.
DM, you always were quite the little intellectual giant.
>
>>Scientology is not just the most vicious American cult, it's the most
>>pathetic. Scientology deserves the whole world's oppugnancy.
>
>Evil is sooner believed than good.
You're the Scientologist. Speak for the clams.
If I had a nickel for every friend, I'd be as rich as Croesus.
You know what they say, DM. The greater height you conquer the lower
you stand. The good thing is that for Scientology it's all uphill from
here. Or all downhill from here. Or all hill ten from here. Or all
Casey Hill from here. Wait a minute, DM, what am I saying? I think for
you and Scientology it's all Benny Hill from here.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Lady Chatterly
>
>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 3:14:07 GMT, Lady Chatterly
><not...@catcher.in.the.rye> wrote:
>
>>In article <562op0dkqeb96f269...@4ax.com> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>On 17 Nov 2004 17:38:37 -0800, spacetra...@hotmail.com
>>>(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Recently but also in the past people having been attempting to expose
>>>>some identity. Gerry Armstrong was the first to make a move. He got no
>>>>where, and so he left ...
>>>
>>>What a liar you are
>>
>>Will you stand by your friends always?
>
>Thanks DM. I see you're as literary as ever. How's that gardener
>working out for you?
You just ask if I am as literary as ever. Why do you care?
>>
>>>I could not care less who you are, and have never cared who you are.
>>>Knowing *what* you are on a.r.s. is sufficient. You are a liar, a
>>>promoter and defender of the "Suppressive Person" doctrine, and an
>>>evader of real communication. You're David Miscavige's little helper.
>>>Your name, where you live, and the rest of the facts of your existence
>>>are utterly irrelevant, until such time as you quit forwarding the
>>>malevolent purposes of the Miscavige cult.
>>
>>Why does it matter to you if they are David miscavige's little helper?
>
>They're *your* little helpers. You tell us what they get out of it.
I gave consent to use my photo in a completely different article and
leaving my private life out of it.
>>
>>>>Keith Henson discussed the subject with me,
>>>>he said amongst other that I had already given out sufficient
>>>>information about myself (what I had done in Scientology and so on),
>>>>that some would be able to actually identify (put a face on) me. I
>>>>opposed however to his conclusion. Then Tory Bezazian 'Magoo'
>>>>(Christman or whatever) wanted me to tell more about myself, what I
>>>>had studied, what posts I had held, and so on (pretty much as
>>>>Armstrong did).
>>>
>>>Another unsupportable bald faced lie. Show the evidence, Spacetrusser.
>>
>>Experience is a comb which nature gives to men when they are bald.
>
>Better a bald head than no head at all, DM.
>http://www.lermanet.com/PhotoLIES.htm
>
>>
>>>> And you know what? Identities are of no importance to
>>>>once's own understanding.
>>>
>>>Well here they serve a strawman's purpose.
>>
>>Do machines frighten you?
>
>In the pseudopods of clams they're terrifying.
Are you sure?
>>
>>>And they serve your purpose too, Spacetrojan. You get to lie about and
>>>attack people with real identities. That's what Scientology is all
>>>about. It makes Scientologists oh so OT, oh so powerful to lie about
>>>and attack wogs®. That's why they're in Scientology. It's
>>>Scientologists' service facsimile.
>>
>>That is why the th amendment was necessary bimbo.
>
>DM, you always were quite the little intellectual giant.
Is that true?
>>
>>>Scientology is not just the most vicious American cult, it's the most
>>>pathetic. Scientology deserves the whole world's oppugnancy.
>>
>>Evil is sooner believed than good.
>
>You're the Scientologist. Speak for the clams.
Perhaps I am the scientologist. Why does it matter to you?
Good luck beats early rising.
>You know what they say, DM. The greater height you conquer the lower
>you stand. The good thing is that for Scientology it's all uphill from
>here. Or all downhill from here. Or all hill ten from here. Or all
>Casey Hill from here. Wait a minute, DM, what am I saying? I think for
>you and Scientology it's all Benny Hill from here.
Wait a minute, dm, what am I saying.
--
Lady Chatterly
"I declare the winner of that bout to be Lady Chatterly" -- Stickems
edo
On 17 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
On 17 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
Too much writing. No substance.
1. Why did L Ron Hubbard write fair game policies in the first place?
2. Why did L Ron Hubbard practice fair game himself?
3. Why did L Ron Hubbard order Scientologists to practice fair game?
4. Why did L Ron Hubbard *never* do anything *effective* to stop the Church
of Scientology's practice of fair game, that is still going on nearly 40
years after he wrote the policies?
edo
-=-
Lady Chatterly
>
>On 17 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>On 17 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>On 17 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
>Too much writing. No substance.
Which means what?
>1. Why did L Ron Hubbard write fair game policies in the first place?
Moilas oy selling pizzas manufactured in finland to italy within the
eu.
>2. Why did L Ron Hubbard practice fair game himself?
>
>3. Why did L Ron Hubbard order Scientologists to practice fair game?
Why did he never do anything effective to stop the church of
scientologys own homepage cruise is mentioned times?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Pleace to be teaching your otherwise splendid bot how to cascade." --
Peter J Ross
Spacetraveler
Agreed! The Church, not scientology, the Church.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> On 17 Nov 2004 17:38:37 -0800, spacetra...@hotmail.com
> (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
> >Recently but also in the past people having been attempting to expose
> >some identity. Gerry Armstrong was the first to make a move. He got no
> >where, and so he left ...
>
> What a liar you are. You make an excellent Scientologist.
> Pathologically dishonest. Pretending stupidity relentlessly and
> shamelessly. Never support your black PR lies with facts. Just attack
> with more lies. That in a nut shell, is a nut keeping Scientology
> working.
Thank you Gerry, I was expecting you!
You wrote:
"But most importantly, please provide your own personal experience.
What posts have you been on during what years? What do you know about
the "Suppressive Person" doctrine?"
I responded:
"I don't think it will suit any purpose to tell about that without
directly relating it to matters discussed. Anyhow I have been involved
with many missions (longterm establishment projects actually), have
been posted in CMO and various HCO's (Flag & LA). I do not intend to
disclose personal details, I prefer to keep my anonimity for personal
reasons."
(somewhere on this page:
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com&rnum=4)
So what does: "What posts have you been on during what years?"
actually mean?
> I could not care less who you are, and have never cared who you are.
> Knowing *what* you are on a.r.s. is sufficient. You are a liar, a
> promoter and defender of the "Suppressive Person" doctrine, and an
> evader of real communication. You're David Miscavige's little helper.
> Your name, where you live, and the rest of the facts of your existence
> are utterly irrelevant, until such time as you quit forwarding the
> malevolent purposes of the Miscavige cult.
Alright then there is no reason to run away from uncmfortable
communication. YOu run from this:
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com&rnum=4
Those interested to study some of Gerry's behaviour and reasoning are
advised to take a look at it.
Some more about him here:
His misunderstanding of 'criticism':
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407310557.703a51%40posting.google.com&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Dsv%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3D%2522The%2Bmisconception%2Bof%2BGerry%2BArmstron%2Babout%2B%27criticism%27%2522%26btnG%3DS%25C3%25B6k%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dalt.religion.scientology.*
And here the summum of Gerry's operating basis:
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407300139.35377502%40posting.google.com
See Gerry, people do not get exposed, they do that to themselves!
snip
Spacetraveler
Bent Stigsen
> Recently
[snip]
> And you know what? Identities are of no importance to once's own
> understanding.
So true. In some cases it would reflect on credibility, like in the
story about/from the RPF-Insider.
> Someone else's experience will not transfer into your experience just
> like that.
Often that is spot on. Sometimes people say, "I know it is true because
I experienced it", and get mad when you say "I gonna need more than your
word for it, before I would consider trying the same."
[snip]
> There are better things to be done then turning away fingers pointing
> at some faces, ain't that so? We should not forget that this is
> supposed to be a discussion group, so let us discussing... (hmm, I
> may be a little too hopeful here, oh well..).
Could not agree more.
> Ah, almost forgot!
Ah, here it comes.
> In my opinion some around here should find out what one's ISP
> actually stands for. It's just a computer you know, not a person.
> Many can run through such a machine, in which case it has become a
> server, or a proxy server. And they can be run through various other
> servers and be cross-connected to about any other server/computer
> around this globe. ISP's can even be faked (some smart persons have
> written programs exactly for that purpose). Associating is ok, but
> use some intelligence will you... Don't make the 'obvious' the
> obvious only because you want them to be that way...
I guess I is that "some around here". Just to be clear. I dont care who
you are, and would never expose your real life identity, even if I knew.
I know there have been guesses on your person, and for the record I
think it is tactless. I am concerned about *how* anonymity is being
used. You are pretty quick to make it a matter of privacy.
From:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f53d1e2.0411171351.3a4a504f%40posting.google.com
<quote>
>>>Sorry guy, I haven't been dishonest about ANYTHING!
>>
>>I remember you once also posted as Mushroomman. And had some
>>interesting
>>ping pong with you, I mean with himself, yourself.
>>
>>like:
>>http://groups.google.dk/groups?selm=N91Dc.3593%24dx3.28122%40newsb.telia.net&output=gplain
>>and
>>http://groups.google.dk/groups?selm=9f53d1e2.0406260223.23703482%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
>>
>>Is that a conduct of an honest person?
>
> Ah, we enter the territory of the guessing business.
>
> ISP (I think you refer to that) denotes a computer/server, not a
> person.
>
> You have to do better than this, you are losing points here.
>
> Spacetraveler
</quote>
Ok, I will try to do better... (be careful what you ask for)
You, the anonymous entity 'spacetraveler' and the anonymous entity
'mushroomman' share the same 'nntp-posting-host' header, that is you
post from the same ip-address (iow computer).
You 'spacetraveler' post trough google. That would mean that the
'nntp-posting-host' is set to the ip-address of the machine on which the
browser accessing google is running.
Messages from 'mushroomman' have the same ip-address, and looks like
postings from a normal isp-account, and posted through his service
provider. I dont believe google allow faking headers, so if he posted
through a proxy, you would be sitting on it.
Then there are the "hints":
- You both share interest in 'Fair game'
e.g. (you both appear in the thread)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f53d1e2.0406260223.23703482%40posting.google.com
- You both post links to the same site concerning 'fair fame'.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9dHzc.96026%24dP1.312581%40newsc.telia.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f53d1e2.0306280250.18b91dbf%40posting.google.com
- You both use occasional "shouting" (capitalization) in sentences
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=qdaGc.4288%24dx3.33717%40newsb.telia.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f53d1e2.0411160936.7e74872e%40posting.google.com
- And what originally tipped me off
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8hTFc.97806%24dP1.325023%40newsc.telia.net
Dave Bird comments spacetraveler, and mushroomman replies:
<quote>
I duplicate references, you nor Barwell does so.
</quote>
Did I do better?
> So, if someone wants to put a face at your identity, well, then you
> know what he is about... If someone has chosen to be anonymous then
> this is his/her right, he/she may very well have a very good reason.
> So, respect that...
You are totally right, some have a good reason, and privacy should be
respected.
Sadly some use it as a compensation for their bad manners. Or some
covert agenda. (you dont want to know what I think)
> Anyway,
[snip fud]
> Hmm, starts to smell fear around here, well, better put an end to
> this post then.
[insert joke here]
> Spacetraveler
/Bent
Mike O'Connor
spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
> So what does:
[...]
> actually mean?
> no reason to run
[...]
> YOu run from
> Gerry exposed:
It's so obvious what you are. And when what you are is clear the tactics
you use don't work. Hubbard's tactics are without exception meant to be
used one on one,, or in tiny groups, or on one-way communication lines.
NOT in a place where tens of thousands of people are watching and able
to chime in at will. In such an environment they just don't work.
Even Mr. Hubbard would know and explain about that, if he hadn't become
so very, very utterly stone cold dead before this type of communication
appeared.
--
LYING IS A SCIENTOLOGY SACRAMENT
ASK THEM ABOUT XENU
Remember Lisa McPherson
Barbara Schwarz
> Recently but also in the past people having been attempting to expose
> some identity. Gerry Armstrong was the first to make a move. He got no
> where, and so he left ... Keith Henson discussed the subject with me,
> he said amongst other that I had already given out sufficient
> information about myself (what I had done in Scientology and so on),
> that some would be able to actually identify (put a face on) me. I
> opposed however to his conclusion.
I wonder why your real life identity should be so important to
anybody, Spacetraveler. What is important is the content of what a
person posts, and posters should be judged on that. Most of the other
ARS posters post with an assumed identities and also under false
names.
>Then Tory Bezazian 'Magoo'
> (Christman or whatever) wanted me to tell more about myself, what I
> had studied, what posts I had held, and so on (pretty much as
> Armstrong did). And you know what? Identities are of no importance to
> once's own understanding.
I agree. When Peregine did not want to tell me details about who he
is, I gave up asking him about it. There is no overt in asking
somebody who he is, but if he does not want to reveal the details,
fair enough.
You are right. I post from a library which has 150 computers and is
connected to the University of Utah, which has thousands more. ARS
would blame me on any posting done by any of the other students or
patrons. Bet on it.
>
> So, if someone wants to put a face at your identity, well, then you
> know what he is about... If someone has chosen to be anonymous then
> this is his/her right, he/she may very well have a very good reason.
> So, respect that...
>
> Anyway, behold that tricks will be played on you anonymous ones. Some
> want/need to know who you are... Be sure to be the smarter one if that
> someone steps outside of YOUR door... The bigger the threat those
> 'some' consider you to be, the more persistent these 'some' will be...
> Hmm, starts to smell fear around here, well, better put an end to this
> post then.
>
> Spacetraveler
Guess that Spacetraveler has established that he is none of the people
who ARS posters claimed he would be, which probably opens up a new ARS
guessing game, Spacetraveler. ;)
Barbara Schwarz
Gerry Armstrong
(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message news:<562op0dkqeb96f269...@4ax.com>...
>> On 17 Nov 2004 17:38:37 -0800, spacetra...@hotmail.com
>> (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>>
>> >Recently but also in the past people having been attempting to expose
>> >some identity. Gerry Armstrong was the first to make a move. He got no
>> >where, and so he left ...
>>
>> What a liar you are. You make an excellent Scientologist.
>> Pathologically dishonest. Pretending stupidity relentlessly and
>> shamelessly. Never support your black PR lies with facts. Just attack
>> with more lies. That in a nut shell, is a nut keeping Scientology
>> working.
>
>Thank you Gerry, I was expecting you!
Isn't that just so OT. You lie about someone, you spread black PR, and
and then "expect" him. Whoop!
>
>You wrote:
>"But most importantly, please provide your own personal experience.
>What posts have you been on during what years? What do you know about
>the "Suppressive Person" doctrine?"
>
>I responded:
>"I don't think it will suit any purpose to tell about that without
>directly relating it to matters discussed. Anyhow I have been involved
>with many missions (longterm establishment projects actually), have
>been posted in CMO and various HCO's (Flag & LA). I do not intend to
>disclose personal details, I prefer to keep my anonimity for personal
>reasons."
>(somewhere on this page:
>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com&rnum=4)
>
>So what does: "What posts have you been on during what years?"
>actually mean?
In this context, it was a logical question in the "communication" or
"conversation" that *you* claimed you wanted.
Let's examine that communication.
You deprecated Fred Rice and Charles Barwell, and the validity of
their knowledge of fair game, for their having "no personal
experience" of fair game. So you introduced the subject of "personal
experience" and related it to knowledge of your hobby horse, fair
game.
[Quote]
> Fredric Rice, Barwell and some others are just repeating
>others and have no personal experience whatsoever (as it seems).
[End Quote]
I then challenged your assertion, which is false, and cited to the
example of Paulette Cooper.
[Quote]
That's probably untrue, but in any case an irrelevancy. Would you say
that Paulette Cooper has no personal experience of Fair Game? A
reasonable person would say that she has years of personal experience
of Fair Game.
[End Quote]
And then, *because* you were invalidating the statements of people
concerning fair game who had, according to your criteria, "no personal
experience" I logically asked, since you were claiming knowledge of
fair game, for *your* personal experience.
[Quote]
But most importantly, please provide your own personal experience.
What posts have you been on during what years? What do you know about
the "Suppressive Person" doctrine? Have you done any of the
Suppressive Person indoctrination courses such as "How to Shatter
Suppression" or the "PTS/SP Detection and Routing" course or
"Overcoming Ups and Downs in Life" course or any of the variations of
these? Have you ever had a PTS C/S 1 indoctrination?
Using your standard, since you are a Scientologist, you have no
personal experience whatsoever of the wog world® would you not agree?
And you have no personal experience whatsoever of wogs® would you also
not agree? So you have no personal experience whatsoever of
indisputable wogs® Fred Rice and Charles Barwell on which to base your
claims and opinions about them, would you also not agree?
[End Quote]
Your assertion that I was "attempting to expose some identity" is
false.
Your assertion that I "got no where, and so [I] left" is also false.
You simply proved with your dishonesty, your black PR of the Miscavige
cult's legitimate opponents, your pretended stupidity and your utter
refusal to communicate in a decent, honest fashion, that you were a
cult op. You now again prove that about yourself.
>
>
>> I could not care less who you are, and have never cared who you are.
>> Knowing *what* you are on a.r.s. is sufficient. You are a liar, a
>> promoter and defender of the "Suppressive Person" doctrine, and an
>> evader of real communication. You're David Miscavige's little helper.
>> Your name, where you live, and the rest of the facts of your existence
>> are utterly irrelevant, until such time as you quit forwarding the
>> malevolent purposes of the Miscavige cult.
>
>Alright then there is no reason to run away from uncmfortable
>communication. YOu run from this:
>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com&rnum=4
You keep stating this lie. But again to prove to the whole world that
you are a liar, and prove again that I am not running from the subject
post, I will post it in its totality right here:
[Quote]
From: spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Unfinished communication
Date: 13 Jul 2004 19:02:08 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 784
Message-ID: <9f53d1e2.04071...@posting.google.com>
References: <3d6pe01n2u1s1osdt...@4ax.com>
<9f53d1e2.04070...@posting.google.com>
<3b37f01opvg8f6juc...@4ax.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 1089770529 16084 127.0.0.1 (14 Jul 2004
02:02:09 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:02:09 +0000 (UTC)
Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
news:<3b37f01opvg8f6juc...@4ax.com>...
> On 8 Jul 2004 03:35:01 -0700, spacetra...@hotmail.com
> (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
> >Gerry,
> >
> >We have an unfinished communication. You may have missed it, I quote
> >the relevant parts below. I am still awaiting your response.
>
> Excellent. I have hoped a long time to have a conversation with a
> Scientologist on this basis.
<snip>
>
> Please identify all these things you call "all these things" to which
> you're referring.
Whatever that was happening during the time you were there. I believe
you speak about these things on your site.
> > Fredric Rice, Barwell and some others are just repeating
> >others and have no personal experience whatsoever (as it seems).
>
> That's probably untrue, but in any case an irrelevancy.
Definitely not, those who have not actually been there can not relate
all information properly, they can only rely on hearsay and others.
Persons who have been there can in fact tell from what they have
experienced and seen, Rice, Barwell and others never speak in these
lines.
> Would you say
> that Paulette Cooper has no personal experience of Fair Game? A
> reasonable person would say that she has years of personal experience
> of Fair Game.
Some others does not automatically include Paulette Cooper, does it?
> But most importantly, please provide your own personal experience.
> What posts have you been on during what years? What do you know about
> the "Suppressive Person" doctrine?
I don't think it will suit any purpose to tell about that without
directly relating it to matters discussed. Anyhow I have been involved
with many missions (longterm establishment projects actually), have
been posted in CMO and various HCO's (Flag & LA). I do not intend to
disclose personal details, I prefer to keep my anonimity for personal
reasons.
> Have you done any of the
> Suppressive Person indoctrination courses such as "How to Shatter
> Suppression" or the "PTS/SP Detection and Routing" course or
> "Overcoming Ups and Downs in Life" course or any of the variations of
> these? Have you ever had a PTS C/S 1 indoctrination?
Actually no, haven't done any of the above. I was however ethics & msn
trained.
> Using your standard, since you are a Scientologist, you have no
> personal experience whatsoever of the wog world® would you not agree?
Disagree. I came into Scientology quite late. Have done quite some
studies prior to getting involved. Amongst other history, geology,
mythology, some psychology and various other subjects.
> And you have no personal experience whatsoever of wogs® would you also
> not agree? So you have no personal experience whatsoever of
> indisputable wogs® Fred Rice and Charles Barwell on which to base your
> claims and opinions about them, would you also not agree?
Disagree as explained above. Assuming business is no good business. I
think that my judgement about those 2 persons are pretty accurate.
Their behaviour towards acknowledge that.
> >Scientology was under heavy artillery at times.
>
> Please detail what "heavy artillery" the cult was under and at which
> times.
Mid/later-60s for one, Scientology was attacked in the media, there
are various books that also talk about these things published early
70s or nearabouts. It caused KSW to be written and fair game
implemented.
> It is very obvious to me that Hubbard invented "attacks" from
> "enemies" to be able to "motivate" and to "justify" his fair gaming of
> good people.
>
> See, e.g., HCOPL 16 Februray 1969 "Battle Tactics." Hubbard writes:
> This is a Defense Paper on material developed after 18 years of
> ceaseless attack by a foreign enemy.
> [...]
> But there are also wars of attrition. We are engaged in one where
> total destruction of us has been the enemy's aim for, at this writing,
> 19 years. This is barbarian warfare, thus the enemy must have had very
> positive fears and terrors about us. Since he fought for total
> attrition.
>
> [End Quote]
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1969-02-16-battle-tactics.html
>
> There is, of course, no proof whatsoever of these claims by Hubbard of
> 18 years of ceaseless attack by a foreign enemy (the Marcabians?), or
> of this "enemy" waging a 19-year war of "total attrition" against
> Scientology the aim of which was the cultists' "total destruction."
>
> But if you can identify this "enemy" that Hubbard generalizes about
> here, and also identify all the incidents, with supporting
> documentation, that comprise that 18 years of ceaseless attack by a
> foreign enemy, and comprise that 19-year war of "total attrition"
> against Scientology the aim of which was the cultists' "total
> destruction," now is a great opportunity.
>
> After manufacturing this "enemy," who is nothing more than good people
> identified as "Suppressive Persons," Hubbard orders these attacks:
> - waging a war of total attrition on SPs;
> - going all the way in and obliterating SPs;
> - expending the maximum of SPs;
> - making the war costly to the SPs;
> - cutting off SPs' communications;
> - cutting off SPs' funds;
> - cutting off SPs' connections;
> - depriving SPs of political advantages;
> - depriving SPs of connections;
> - depriving SPs of power;
> - taking over SPs' territory;
> - raiding SPs;
> - harassing SPs;
> - making the SPs attack wrong targets or persons;
> - bringing public opinion to a frenzy of hate against SPs;
> - using standard wartime propaganda against SPs;
> - degrading the image of SPs to beast level;
> - capturing and using SPs' comm lines;
> - treating all skirmishes with SPs like war.
>
> That is Fair Game.
Defining what a Suppressive Person is may clarify that. And then if
you studied the history of man through all ages you can perceive some
pattern of behaviour towards information/doctrines/studies that claim
to free man in some way. I studied history very extensively. With my
understanding of all that it would be very incongruous to assume that
Scientology would not have been met with such opposition.
>
> > Is one not allowed to
> >find some way to defend oneself against attacks?
>
> Well sure. But remember that Scientology does not permit "defend."
> Only "attack."
Depends what it is about, it does not forbid it, does it.
>
> And the "some way" that Hubbard ordered is Fair Game.
>
> Hubbard could have ordered that Scientology not respond, or that they
> respond with reason, truth and a higher level communication. Instead
> he ordered that Scientologists respond with unreason, lies and low,
> nasty, solid, overt and covert levels of communication, with attacks
> on persons.
There is a gradient scale for such. HCOPL Ethics Review, look it up.
Meaning it is not true what you say, I never did any of all that when
I was there and I still don't at this time.
> That is why it is impossible to find a Scientologist that responds
> with reason, truth and a higher level communication. It is necessary
> to leave Scientology to be able to respond in that manner. And, of
> course, leaving Scientology is considered by the Fair Gamers a "High
> Crime" or "Suppressive Act," which must be responded to with unreason,
> lies and low, nasty, solid, overt and covert levels of communication.
Is not true actually. It suffices to refer to the applicable
references. I had little problem with leaving in that respect. Where
does it say that leaving is a suppressive act or a high crime?
Another side however is the agreements of staff and so on. Many of
those consider you somehow to desert the group, and you may very well
be treated like some enemy. But this is what people do. May I also
remind you of that few staff went to study! They were supposed to take
their 2½ hour on a daily basis, how many did that? And if you don't
study you don't get the tools how to deal with things happening in the
organization either. And then you make up your own little squirrel
activity.
> Also, a private army, or navy, is not allowed to wage war against
> citizens, even if claiming it is waging the war to defend itself from
> attacks. The Scientology cult is in the military/law enforcement zone
> in its activities, plus seeks to infiltrate, influence and dominate
> those zones.
It seems to be that way at this time, yes.
> > The simplicity of it
> >is, if you do not, you WILL go under.
>
> No, that's a false datum. Hubbard's I would imagine. It is justified
> by the "Suppressive Person" doctrine.
>
> If you are an organization such as Scientology that is based so
> totally in the SP doctrine and manifests in the world with Fair Game,
> then yes, your organization will go under if you do not dramatize the
> SP doctrine and do not Fair Game.
>
> If, however, an organization is not a Scientology-type organization
> and is not based in an SP doctrine, then that organization will not
> necessarily go under if it doesn't respond to criticisms with Fair
> Game.
Only criticisms, or not agreeing with Scientology does not get you
fair gaimed. It needs a little more doingness. And please don't call
it my organization, it isn't. It is this simple, if you have a cougar
jumping on you, you better do something, if not you will surely die.
> Also, you seek to position or define Fair Game as a *response* or a
> *defense* to attacks. That positioning or definition is, however,
> completely fallacious. Hubbard lets slip the reality, that Fair Game
> is a philosphy, policy and practice of preemptive attacks and war, in
> HCOPL 25 February 1966:
>
> [Quote]
>
> To get wholly over to cause we must select targets, investigate and
> expose _before_ they attack us.
>
> [End Quote]
> http://www.suppressiveperson.org/hate/pubs/pl-1966-02-25-attacks-on-scn-txt.html
> (Emphasis is Hubbard's.)
Problem is that this is not necessarily connected to some practice of
fair game. What is wrong with preparing your defence prior to being
attacked. People have doen this through all ages on any kind of
premises.
>
> And Hubbard orders in the same policy letters what this preemptive,
> pre-attack exposure is to be:
>
> [Quote]
>
> You can elaborate on the evidence we have found and lay it on thick
> attacking the attackers [_before_ they attack] only.
> [...]
> Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the
> attackers to the press.
>
> [End Quote]
>
> That's Fair Game.
It says "actual evidence", this is not the same as making up stuff.
> >> >On both your site AND that SPDL site the reference actually cancelling
> >> >fair game is not to be found.
> >
> >http://mccalcon.notlong.com
> >
> >> There is no cancellation of fair game. It has never been cancelled.
> >> Certain policy letters may have been "cancelled,"
> >
> >Then quote ALL of these references!
>
> What references? You can quote them if you want. I think you're trying
> to prove an irrelevancy, for which there is no proof.
You should have gone to the link I provided. They are all there to be
found.
HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions"
HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties"
Both these references are quoted in full on that site. I recall having
seen the first one at some time, I checked and I actually own a copy
of the second one, an original 'green on white'. What more proof do
you want?
> Fair game is the philosophy, policy and practice of Scientology.
>
> Hubbard lays out in "Battle Tactics" what is to be done to SPs.
> "Battle Tactics" is still a Scientology cult policy letter. The Fair
> Game tactics Hubbard ordered in "Battle Tactics" are still the cult's
> tactics.
You are not referring to some broad publication issue: Central Orgs
Continental, Gos, PRO & Intelligence. That's not very many people. You
tell me that all Scientologists lie to you or something like that. It
was not standard practice to be used by all Scientologists. I recall
you even had to sign a bond to even be allowed to read it. Extreme
danger requires extreme action. I may not really like some parts,
however I can imagine that some times things can get rough.
> Call it my hidden standard, but I believe I will know when Fair Game
> ceases to be Scientology's philosophy, policy and practice. You don't
> recognize this very basic philosophy, policy and practice so wouldn't
> know if they ever stopped.
I don't recognize? Why do you think that?
> > You base an opinion on these
> >sites like that the 21 July 1968 issue does not exist.
>
> What sites? What do you claim I'm basing my opinion on? What opinion?
>
> > You simply say
> >that only the use of the name was cancelled. Is that honest?
>
> Yes. Scientology's and Scientologists' assertion that the philosophy,
> policy and practice of Fair Game was all cancelled, when all that was
> "cancelled" was use of the term "Fair Game" is what is dishonest.
You don't mention:
HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions"
HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties"
Why not? They exist! You can quote them and still say: "But they did
not follow them." What is the problem? Let your readers decide, only
don't leave out references that do exist.
> What Hubbard orders in "Battle Tactics" be done to SPs is Fair Game:
> - waging a war of total attrition on SPs;
> - going all the way in and obliterating SPs;
> - expending the maximum of SPs;
> - making the war costly to the SPs;
> - cutting off SPs' communications;
> - cutting off SPs' funds;
> - cutting off SPs' connections;
> - depriving SPs of political advantages;
> - depriving SPs of connections;
> - depriving SPs of power;
> - taking over SPs' territory;
> - raiding SPs;
> - harassing SPs;
> - making the SPs attack wrong targets or persons;
> - bringing public opinion to a frenzy of hate against SPs;
> - using standard wartime propaganda against SPs;
> - degrading the image of SPs to beast level;
> - capturing and using SPs' comm lines;
> - treating all skirmishes with SPs like war.
>
> The philosophy, policy and practice of Fair Game is utterly obvious in
> this policy letter. The PL simply doesn't use the term "Fair Game."
Again, it was not broad publication issue at all. I actually know of
very few people who knew about this while being inside of the
organization. I knew about it because I had access to these kind of
things. I am a curious type, I look and read. A missionair was also
trained to be like that.
> Do you agree that Hubbard was judicially declared a pathological liar?
> This is another great opportunity for you to do some actual honest
> research about ALL the lies Hubbard told . Hubbard needs it.
>
> > Quote
> >ALL of them!
>
> All of what?
HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions"
HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties"
> I'd like you to quote ALL of Hubbard's lies. That would be very useful
> in this discussion of honesty relating to Scientology.
In my opinion it is dishonest to quote the 1967 fair game issue & the
21 Oct 1968 issue, but not the 21 July 1968 issue, nor the the 6 Oct
1970 issue, sorry. At least in writing as these issues lay out, the
practice of fair gaiming was cancelled. I said at least IN WRITING.
May be as you say they continued with it any way, but this is a
different matter. So treat them differently. Tell about both these
sides. If you don't mention them and people will find out about them
later on (and I have been throwing these issues in peoples faces
lately), they will start being critcal about what you have to say
elsewhere.
> > I don't expect anything honorable from Fredric Rice, but
> >I don't think that you are like him.
Fredric ignores this matter completely. He didn't add anything on his
fairgamed.org site (at least not the last time I looked)
> >> but fair game -- the
> >> philosophy, policy and practice -- remains exactly as it was when
> >> Hubbard postulated it as his basic communication mode, his solution
> >> for criticism, decades ago.
> >
> >Define criticism in this context.
>
> Same as it's used in this context in Scientology. An identifying of
> faults or demerits. Consider the merits and demerits of and evaluate
> accordingly. Criticisms are statements made by people, about whom
> Hubbard says this in HCOB 5 November 1967 "Critics of Scientology:"
>
> [Quote]
>
> Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we
> have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have
> found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under
> existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have
> criminal pasts.
>
> [End Quote]
>
> I say Hubbard is lying here. The easily provable fact is that we *do*
> find lots of critics of Scientology, of Hubbard's and Scientology's
> lies, of their nasty, abusive, criminal policies and practices, who do
> not have criminal pasts.
>
> Hubbard lied about critics. And he lied about criticisms of his lies.
Did he? "random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out of fact is
only an effort to reduce the size of the overt." (from HCOB
Justifications) I think he talks about that in the above. It's like
this. The goal of Scientology (or at least it claims that) is sanity,
prosurvival, finding the best solution for any problem, peace and so
on. It does at least claim this, does it not. A critic in that context
is someone who's goal likely is to be the opposite of that. Are you
still with me? The 'overt' is only introduced if it get's to the level
as described in HCOB Justifications. Can you back up your criticism
with clear evidence, observation and all that it is something else, it
at least is not 1.1 criticism, it's not directly 'overt' related.
This HCOB is probably one the most misunderstood issues ever. I know
very well that Scientologists in general throw this at you as soon as
you utter the least of criticism of any kind. Very, very tiring. But
this is what people DO! I don't care about these jerks. I told them to
clear up that issue or to get lost.
> Will you acknowledge that Hubbard lied in his HCOBs and HCOPLs?
I have questioned many things in his writings and I still may disagree
with him on various points, but I do not perceive he was lying, sorry.
> I am a critic, e.g., of Hubbard's "Suppressive Person" doctrine. I say
> it is a dishonest, dangerous, evil and criminal doctrine. That's a
> criticism.
It is not 1.1 if you can back it up. At least in MY opinion it is not!
> You have so far refused to address the dishonesty, danger, evil and
> criminality of the "Suppressive Person" doctrine. This is a criticism
> of you.
I have never refused that! I explained most of this in the foresaid.
Scientology claims to want only the good for all and so on. Those not
wanting that are opposing those goals. In that sense those who
actively are opposing that are most of the time referred to as
Suppressive persons. There are these characteristics (12), should be
easy. Once I had a person in an ethics hearing saying to me that I may
should look at that I might be a suppressive person because I had
displayed one of these 12 chacteristics at one time. ... and another
idiot came along .... This person was forgetting that one looks at the
majority of these characteristic of social or anti social. I met quite
a few of such individuals. Again this is what people do.
> > Policy is very well defined in the
> >Admin Dictionary, I assume you still have a copy of this.
>
> Let's see what Webster says: "a definite course or method of action
> selected to guide and determine present and future actions."
>
> And let's see what Hubbard says: "a definite course or method of
> action selected to guide and determine future actions."
>
> Hubbard also says: "a principle by which the conduct of affairs can be
> guided."
>
> HCO PL 25 November 1970
>
>
> > Policy is to
> >be followed, there are also a variety of policies which will defend
> >your rights if being wronged somehow. Do you deny that this is so?
>
> Yes I do.
So we don't have the Creed of the Church of Scientology, justice
policies, orders, query of and so on.
> I have been wronged by the Scientology cult and Scientologists. Please
> identify what "policies" are being violated by the cult and the
> cultists in what has been done to me. And identify what "policies"
> will defend my rights against these wrongs being perpetrated by the
> cult and its cultists.
>
> >
> >
> >> But on the subject of "cancellation" of policy letters, please see
> >> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html
> >>
> >> And now it is your turn to present your proof of your claim that fair
> >> game is actually cancelled. This will be an impossible task because
> >> fair game has never been cancelled.
HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions"
HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties"
> >
> >Policy is policy. What do I care about some jerks.
>
> It's your overt-motivator sequence.
Hardly, and you don't believe in this sequence anyway (or do you)?
> >During my time being intern for many years
>
> What does this mean?
>
> Please identify all your posts in the cult, when and where you held
> each, and what training and processing you did when and where.
I don't want to make it obvious who I am by giving all that
information. However I can share some of these things if relating to
the matter discussed. Besides that it doesn't say much what training
one has done. I have seen highly trained individuals as it seemed
unable to apply anthing they supposedly had learned. I was never
impressed by ribbons they had on their jackets, I looked at their
actions.
>
> > I have seen lots of idiots
> >doing the most insane stupid things.
>
> Please identify each Scientologist you've seen whom you believe is an
> idiot, and exactly what insane stupid things each identified
> Scientologist idiot did and when.
I can fill up a book with this, quite some things happened during a
variety of years. I disclosed some of them to Tory Bezazian in a
response to her. Quoted below:
I recall that people said at Flag that one was not allowed to read
newspapers. It's all bad news and so on. But then LRH does not forbid
you to not read a newspaper. I recall that we had that weekly tapeplay
in the auditorium at Fort Harrison, and there we had FSO HCO personnel
stopping people from leaving that tapeplay before the end of the tape.
Because they said that one had to give honor to LRH first before
leaving the room, and this was done by clapping hands and screaming
"To LRH" or something like that. And they could not do this before the
end of the tape, so people where physically stopped from leaving. Also
foreigners who's first language was not english (and there were quite
a few of them) HAD to attendtapeplay. I recall a supervisor being send
to RPF only because she asked: "Where is it written that one has to
clap your hands for LRH after finishing the daily 2½ hours study
term?" She was send to RPF, stats crashed in the courseroom and she
was returned to the courseroom(wrong why apparently). This is all
crazy. I can write a thick volumeof all such idiocy I have seen. This
is what people do. LRH did not advice any of these things.
>
> > Does this make L. Ron Hubbard
> >wrong,
>
> Well, it's a part of what makes Hubbard wrong. There are all sorts of
> things Hubbard said and did that make him wrong. As part of your
> research, please identify ALL those things that make Hubbard wrong.
>
> When, e.g., Hubbard says "Scientology works," and it is speedily and
> eminently provable that it doesn't, that makes him wrong.
Generally I find that people did not duplicate something and did
somthing else then what he actually said. This is not making him
wrong. I even caught myself judging that he was wrong about something
and then 10 years later I find out it was my own misconception, and
this doesn't mean it took 10 years to indoctrinate me with some
fix-idea.
> Hubbard makes Hubbard wrong. His dishonesty makes him wrong. The lies
> told by Scientologists representing the organization he built make him
> a bit wrong.
I don't see how, sorry. This is peoples doing.
> Same with all the abuses and crimes perpetrated by
> Scientologists. Same with Scientologists' illnesses, accidents and
> deaths. They all add to Hubbard's wrongness. Scientologists, not wogs
> (R) make Hubbard wrong.
No, disagree. This is people. If you say: "Turn left!" and you
persist to turn to the right and you fall down in some canyon, you may
blame yourself. You can't blame L. Ron Hubbard for your mixing up the
left and right. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
> They can't in reality, but Scientologists aren't allowed to believe in
> reality. They believe in the ego, their illusions about themselves.
> Hubbard too was a big believer in his ego, so he would see the
> failures of his "tech," and his followers being such liars and crooks,
> as making him plenty wrong.
No, people again. Many I've seen were somehow stuck in themselves,
however they generally also wanted to help, it was their blindness
that made them not look and doing the right thing.
>
> >don't see why it should.
>
> Look a little more deeply.
>
> >Did all things went well when
> >Christianity was first introdued?
>
> All things didn't went well when the wheel was first introduced
> either.
>
> > People anywhere are most of the time
> >quite unpredictable and irrational.
>
> Oh, you're a merchant of fear?
No, the reality of life itself. I studied history, politics and so on.
There is an obvious pattern in all of that.
> I assume you're including yourself in
> the group you call "people," and it doesn't give me a great deal of
> confidence.
I don't intend to give you that confidence. Look at what I say, get
the concept of it and judge for yourself. Nothing is be taken or
accepted blindly, nothing at all. We are offering eachother the same
deal. That's all.
> >> Policy letters may or may not be policy. Policy letters may or may not
> >> be followed. Policy may be counter to or in violation of what is
> >> stated in policy letters. The policy may be to ignore or act in
> >> violation of what is stated in policy letters. They are the basis of any
> >> action or inaction of the organization.
> >> With the Scientology organization this is quite clearly the policy.
> >
> >Was there any time that you did NOT enforce policy when you should
> >have when you were there? DID YOU?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. You appear to still be beating the dead
> policy horse. Policy may or may not be what is written in policy
> letters. That's the policy. Orders are senior to "policy." That's the
> policy. Arbitraries are senior to "policy." That's policy.
Actually no, orders are only issued if not wearing your hat, which
means not enforcing policy. Orders are only senior to policy if in
some emergency situations. And orders can be queried as well, you are
never, never, never to follow them up blindly. There is very clear
policy about that!
> So, provide your list of ALL the times on each of your posts in the
> cult when you did NOT enforce policy when you should have.
I may have hesitated at times, but I did enforce policies and stood up
for my rights whatever oppostion, I never lost my integrity at any
time.
> >> >Attack, but do it on 'proper' grounds. Find the 'right' target.
> >>
> >> And the "Suppressive Person" doctrine guarantees you won't find the
> >> "right target." The SP doctrine is set up to create wrong targets --
> >> good, loving people to attack. It's really nice for Scientologists to
> >> have a class of people to fair game who are good, loving ones who
> >> don't have the resources or the mindset to attack back. No wonder the
> >> Scientologists feel so OT. Cowards.
> >
> >This is the way David Miscavige and friends go about it, this however
> >is not Scientology.
>
> No, this is false. What Miscavige and his cult do *is* Scientology.
I described earlier what the aims of Scientology are (or what it
claims to be), this definition should be used. In that context fair
gaming, injustice, waving away one's rights and so on is not
Scientology.
> You are defending and protecting Miscavige and his thugs when you make
> this claim.
Hardly, when exactly recognizing the situation.
> What Scientology, the Miscavige regimers, are doing probably isn't
> found in Scientology policy letters
This all by itself makes it not being Scientology.
>, but that abusive, criminal
> activity is most definitely Scientology. Not putting its actual
> criminal policies in written directives or policy letters is
> Scientology policy. A vital function of policy letters, both during
> Hubbard's rule and now during Miscavige's dictatorship, is to hide
> policy.
This is not my experience, sorry. Have been Hatting Officer for 5
months or so. Policy was to be followed, no matter what. But at times
policy was seriously misunderstood, and then that was enforced, which
was not policy, and therefore not Scientology.
> Your function could be similar. You appear to be trying to cloak what
> is Scientology and what is Scientology policy with what is stated in
> policy letters that are intended to hide policy, and with your
> obfuscation "tech."
No, sorry. I was actually there. This is not what I saw.
>
> >This is other practices.
>
> No it is not. Fair Game is a Hubbard policy and practice, and now it
> is a Miscavige policy and practice, and Fair Game is Scientology.
> Scientology without Fair Game would not be Scientology. Scientology
> not hiding its actual policies behind contradictory policy letters
> would not be Scientology.
Which policies are contradictory to eachother?
Let's say that SPs and fair gaming are not synonym as many seem to
think.
>
> You have failed to prove otherwise.
It's obvious that a big change occured after L. Ron Hubbard
disappeared from the lines so around 1980. Are you denying that?
<snip>
>
> > and my understanding of these things
> >I happen to disagree with that.
>
> I guess you'd have to disagree that the good people targeted as
> "Suppressive Persons" by the Scientology cultists are being wrong
> targeted.
I don't disagree. Quite a few got the wrong label, and that's MY
opinion.
> You'd have to, to do what you do.
What do I do according to you?
>
> But please identify in any case each person you know of who has ever
> been targeted as a "Suppressive Person" and detail exactly why the
> targeting of each person as an "SP" was a right targeting.
It suffices to see how declares are being written, there are some
specific guidelines for that. HCOPL How to write an ethics order or
something. Apply the reference and you'll know!
>
> Here, start with me.
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/ga-sp-declare.html
>
> And here's the Fair Game page:
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/index.html
I've read most of what you have there, some time ago or more recently.
Spacetraveler
[End Quote]
>
>Those interested to study some of Gerry's behaviour and reasoning are
>advised to take a look at it.
Yes, I urge everyone to study my behavior and reasoning in great
detail. Study these sites:
www.gerryarmstrong.org
www.suppressiveperson.org
Spacetrinket avoids the tremendous documentation of my knowledge,
experiences and reasoning on these sites.
>
>Some more about him here:
>His misunderstanding of 'criticism':
>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407310557.703a51%40posting.google.com&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Dsv%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3D%2522The%2Bmisconception%2Bof%2BGerry%2BArmstron%2Babout%2B%27criticism%27%2522%26btnG%3DS%25C3%25B6k%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dalt.religion.scientology.*
Yes, just take a look at Spacetroglodyte's avoidance and Miscavigesque
spin on Hubbard's evil intention toward "critics of Scientology."
[Quote]
From: spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: The misconception of Gerry Armstron about 'criticism'
Date: 31 Jul 2004 06:57:41 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.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 1091282261 3518 127.0.0.1 (31 Jul 2004
13:57:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 13:57:41 +0000 (UTC)
The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong that
he refuses to respond to.
The full communication you can consult here:
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com
Quoted:
Gerry:
> >> but fair game -- the
> >> philosophy, policy and practice -- remains exactly as it was when
> >> Hubbard postulated it as his basic communication mode, his solution
> >> for criticism, decades ago.
> >
> >Define criticism in this context.
>
> Same as it's used in this context in Scientology. An identifying of
> faults or demerits. Consider the merits and demerits of and evaluate
> accordingly. Criticisms are statements made by people, about whom
> Hubbard says this in HCOB 5 November 1967 "Critics of Scientology:"
>
> [Quote]
>
> Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we
> have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have
> found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under
> existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have
> criminal pasts.
>
> [End Quote]
>
> I say Hubbard is lying here. The easily provable fact is that we *do*
> find lots of critics of Scientology, of Hubbard's and Scientology's
> lies, of their nasty, abusive, criminal policies and practices, who do
> not have criminal pasts.
>
> Hubbard lied about critics. And he lied about criticisms of his lies.
My response:
Did he? "random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out of fact is
only an effort to reduce the size of the overt." (from HCOB
Justifications) I think he talks about that in the above. It's like
this. The goal of Scientology (or at least it claims that) is sanity,
prosurvival, finding the best solution for any problem, peace and so
on. It does at least claim this, does it not. A critic in that context
is someone who's goal likely is to be the opposite of that. Are you
still with me? The 'overt' is only introduced if it get's to the level
as described in HCOB Justifications. Can you back up your criticism
with clear evidence, observation and all that it is something else, it
at least is not 1.1 criticism, it's not directly 'overt' related.
This HCOB is robably one the most misunderstood issues ever. I know
very well that Scientologists in general throw this at you as soon as
you utter the least of criticism of any kind. Very, very tiring. But
this is what people DO! I don't care about these jerks. I told them to
clear up that issue or to get lost.
Another quote relating to criticism:
Gerry:
> > The simplicity of it
> >is, if you do not, you WILL go under.
>
> No, that's a false datum. Hubbard's I would imagine. It is justified
> by the "Suppressive Person" doctrine.
>
> If you are an organization such as Scientology that is based so
> totally in the SP doctrine and manifests in the world with Fair Game,
> then yes, your organization will go under if you do not dramatize the
> SP doctrine and do not Fair Game.
>
> If, however, an organization is not a Scientology-type organization
> and is not based in an SP doctrine, then that organization will not
> necessarily go under if it doesn't respond to criticisms with Fair
> Game.
My response:
Only criticisms, or not agreeing with Scientology does not get you
fair gaimed. It needs a little more doingness. And please don't call
it my organization, it isn't. It is this simple, if you have a cougar
jumping on you, you better do something, if not you will surely die.
Spacetraveler
[End Quote]
And it's a straw cougar. Spacetrollop is a defender and practitioner
of the diabolical "Suppressive Person" doctrine.
>
>Gerry exposed:
>http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl1073962928d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407281328.283929c2%40posting.google.com
Again I urge everyone to read for themselves, and observe for
themselves what a dishonest persona Spacetreacle brings to a.r.s.
[Quote]
From: spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Gerry Armstrong the manipulator losing face completely and
utterly
Date: 28 Jul 2004 14:28:06 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 174
Message-ID: <9f53d1e2.04072...@posting.google.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 1091050087 16049 127.0.0.1 (28 Jul 2004
21:28:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:28:07 +0000 (UTC)
This is actually a response to
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bj1eg05s9212ciu1cmituqvrdno8c3tv0h%404ax.com
However it was too interesting to put it in some old thread, so I
created a whole new thread of it.
Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
news:<bj1eg05s9212ciu1c...@4ax.com>...
> On 26 Jul 2004 14:31:13 -0700, spacetra...@hotmail.com
> (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >The issue of HCOPL 21 July 1968 and this at least in writing
> >cancelling fair game practices has to do with that so far both Gerry
> >Armstrong and Fredric Rice avoid it's actual existence.
>
> What is so important about what I have to say that you have to lie
> about it? LF
>
> That reads. So what? LF
>
> There are only two reasons, related to each other, why I have not
> responded to any of your posts when I have not responded: your
> dishonesty and your pretended stupidity. I find you very dishonest.
> You have lied about me multiple times. I find your pretended stupidity
> so dominates your "communication" mode, that I now hold no hope
> whatsoever of engaging you in a real discussion. I find you such a
> liar, your pretended stupidity so obvious, and the targets of your
> lies also so obvious, that it makes no sense to assume you're other
> than a cult op, knowingly opped, co-opped or not.
There is factually just one sole reason why you would not answer. And
that is the fact that it will put you in an uncomfortable position.
And there is NO OTHER REASON. I repeat NO OTHER REASON! Evasion
tactics noted!
The following REMAINS UNANSWERED!
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com
> I will, as I'm moved and have the time, correct your lies.
Prove them to be lies, so far I disproved EVERY SINGLE ONE of your
manipulations.
> As you can clearly see, I am not avoiding the existence of any policy
> letter or other Scientology cult directive, policy or order of any
> kind. Your assertion that I am avoiding the existence of some policy
> letter is a lie. I am demonstrating right here that it is a lie.
You avoid to acknowledge to me what it actually says, furthermore you
fail to correct your website where you still avoid to mention this
very reference. Simple fact!
> As I
> said, I have avoided attempting to engage you in what is commonly
> understood to be real discussion, after attempting on numerous
> occasions to engage you in real discussions,
If have attempted to get you to finish off your communications with
me, which so far you fail to do. I repeat WHICH YOU SO FAR FAIL TO DO!
And that you even admit in the beginning remarks of your post.
Extensively you explain why you did not respond.
> because of your
> dishonesty and your pretended stupidity, which serve the Scientology
> cult's malevolent purposes.
The following REMAINS UNANSWERED!
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com
Prove the policies of L. Ron Hubbard serving malevolent purposes. I am
consulting your understanding of the above in that communication. So
far you fail to respond. Simple observed FACT!
> It's not completely unhelpful that you lie so much, actually. If you'd
> told the truth you could make a point or two for Scientology and
> Scientologists. Now you simply reaffirm the knowledge that Scientology
> makes those able to prevaricate lie like a sidewalk.
You talk, and talk, and still say nothin'.
> >My argument
> >is that doing such even when made aware of these references is
> >'premeditated' dishonesty. Both still claim that the later Oct 1968
> >issue (which cancelled only the use of the name fair game) meant that
> >the message was given by L. Ron Hubbard was that one should continue
> >with fair gaming people, but only not name it fair game anymore. And
> >this attitude I regard as convenient manipulation.
>
> You are lying again. Where did I ever state that?
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html
Your website I believe?
You say there:
"Note: Hubbard's fair game doctrine, when he laid it out in his Policy
Letter of 18 October 1967, was quickly recognized by thinking
government officials, journalists and citizens as calling for violent,
illegal actions against the cult's "enemies." As a result, he issued
another Policy Letter dated 21 October 1968 entitled "Cancellation of
Fair Game," that the Miscavige regime insists cancelled this criminal
doctrine. But Hubbard was just fair gaming his "enemies" with his
"cancellation," just playing a trick on them. He "cancelled" the use
of the term "fair game" when declaring people "enemies" or "SPs," with
the cynical excuse that it caused bad PR, but he ordered that the same
"treatment" of those "enemies" continue as before. The Scientologists
in the Hubbard regime knew that the same violent, antisocial and
criminal actions were to be taken against these "enemies," the "SPs."
Fair game would continue, but it would not be called by that name.
GA"
The above gives your OWN words on you OWN website. I am lying, Gerry?
Get a grip on yourself!
L. Ron Hubbard did not play some trick as you proclaim, HCOPL 21 July
1968 EXISTS! DEAL with it!
> It is obvious that Hubbard ordered and enforced Fair Game at all
> times. There has never been a time since at least 1966 when Fair Game
> was not Scientology's basic philosophy, policy and practice. Fair Game
> is Scientology's basic philosophy, policy and practice regardless of
> what directives the cult has ever published that imply otherwise.
Unsupported opinion, which is entirely useless!
> You pretend ignorance of Fair Game. That's fine, because that's how
> much credibility your claims should be given. I have been recognized
> judicially as an expert in Fair Game, have testified concerning Fair
> Game in several legal proceedings, and written dozens of sworn expert
> declarations or affidavits concerning my knowledge and experiences of
> Fair Game.
I don't give a damn about what some court, legal proceedings and I
don't know what may or may not judicially 'recognize'. It is your
behaviour, your words on your website which decide that, and nothing
else. You the expert on Fair Game avoids completely the existence of
HCOPL 21 July 1968, which is factually cancelling the practice of Fair
Game. It cancels SPECIFICALLY Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, your
claimed Fair Game issue. And you don't know or want to know about this
issue and intead talk on your website like this issue does not exist?
YOU the EXPERT on FAIR GAME? Explain!
Do I smell some dishonesty here, Gerry?
> On the other pseudopod, you won't even reveal your name,
> and you only make the noise of an empty clam shell.
That my friend is my privilege.
> >Anything which is not being used is useless.
>
> A fine example of pretended stupidity. You base your lies on this kind
> of idiocy. Try using your brain.
Sorry, it is the fact of reality. A reality that you choose to not
face. May be got som'thin' to do with som' policy you don't want to
know 'bout, yeah, may be.
Please also explain to us HOW you misinterpreted 'criticism'.
I asked about you understanding about it in the communication you
conveniently AVOID to respond to.
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com
Spacetraveler
[End Quote]
>
>And here the summum of Gerry's operating basis:
>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407300139.35377502%40posting.google.com
Here again, everyone can see the utter falseness, pretended stupidity
and black PR in your attack. In that, Spacetrampoline's posts to
a.r.s. have some value. They show what he is.
[Quote
From: spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Gerry Armstrong continues to run.......
Date: 30 Jul 2004 02:39:08 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.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 1091180348 22183 127.0.0.1 (30 Jul 2004
09:39:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:39:08 +0000 (UTC)
He is around responding to other posts, but avoids that which is
uncomfortable to him. Gerry Armstrong the *expert* on Fair Game.
His sole defense is: "You are lying, you are dishonest, and so on...."
& "Later I will expose your lies, when I have the time". But likely
they will not ever find this time. And this is how he avoids not to
respond to uncomfortable issues. However his cover is blown!
Someone's cover always gets blown by people who have actual knowledge
and are persistent.
Spacetraveler
[End Quote]
Who's blowing whom here, Spacetransgressor? LFBD
Just study all the materials on these two sites and then compare with
Spacetrichina's claims and attacks:
www.gerryarmstrong.org
www.suppressiveperson.org
>
>See Gerry, people do not get exposed, they do that to themselves!
If that were true, Hubbard lied. But it's false, *and* Hubbard lied.
>
>snip
>
>Spacetraveler
This person serves the malevolent purposes of the Scientology cult run
by David Miscavige. He is a liar, and a practitioner of the
"Suppressive Person" doctrine.
"Fair game" is the name Hubbard gave for the execution of the SP
doctrine, for the *treatment* of people targeted by the Scientology
cult as Suppressive Persons. He could have called this policy and
practice for the treatment of SPs, for example, "violent
victimization." But he didn't, he called the policy and practice, how
Scientologists were to violently victimize their SP targets "fair
game."
There has never been an instant since Hubbard concocted the
Suppressive Person doctrine that the doctrine was not a part, indeed
the essential part of Scientology. There was never been an instant
since Hubbard's concoction of the SP doctrine when the doctrine did
not include its execution, its implementation, its application against
SPs. That execution, implementation or application against SPs is
commonly called "fair game." It's the name Hubbard gave it. It
violently victimizes people -- almost all good, decent, loving people
-- whom the Scientology cultists identify as SPs pursuant to the SP
doctrine.
We who are fair game, or are violently victimized by Scientology, will
know when fair game or the violent victimization ends; that is, when
Scientology's treatment of SPs ends, because the SP doctrine that
engenders fair game or violent victimization of SPs has been ended.
Until the SP doctrine is ended, and Scientology and Scientologists
repudiate that evil, criminal doctrine, the violent victimization or
fair gaming of SPs *must* continue, because the treatment of SPs
pursuant to the SP doctrine must continue.
This is the truth that Spacetrumpet has never confronted. Instead he
treats good people as SPs; that is, he fair games them.
The SP doctrine is proof that if Scientologists ever came to power
they would murder; that is to say, shatter, destroy, obliterate, huge
numbers of good people. If Scientologists did not intend to murder
good people when they come to power, the Scientologists would simply
repudiate the SP doctrine. They don't repudiate this murderous
doctrine; therefore it is prudent to accept that should they ever come
to power they will murder us.
Do Scientologists seek such political power with which they could
easily murder the good people they target as SPs? Yes. See, for
example, this entry on their training manuals:
[Quote]
23. CLAY DEMO: "The goal of the department is to bring
the government and hostile philosophies or societies
into a state of complete compliance with the goals
of Scientology. This is done by high level ability
to control and in its absence by low level ability
to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control
such agencies. Scientology is the only game on
Earth where everybody wins. There is no overt in
bringing good order."
[End Quote]
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/osa-int-ed-508r.html
And the "goals of Scientology" include, and have included for decades,
the destruction, obliteration and quiet sorrowless disposal of SPs
pursuant to and in execution of the Suppressive Person doctrine.
Spacetrougher has the job of cloaking, obfuscating, justifying and
denying the existence of the treatment of SPs so that the cult's
intended victims don't confront this murderous intent until it's too
late.
Fair game is Scientology. And Scientology is fair game.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Gerry Armstrong
<not...@catcher.in.the.rye> wrote:
>In article <kn7op056vn30nqjv9...@4ax.com> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>>
>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 3:14:07 GMT, Lady Chatterly
>><not...@catcher.in.the.rye> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <562op0dkqeb96f269...@4ax.com> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>On 17 Nov 2004 17:38:37 -0800, spacetra...@hotmail.com
>>>>(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Recently but also in the past people having been attempting to expose
>>>>>some identity. Gerry Armstrong was the first to make a move. He got no
>>>>>where, and so he left ...
>>>>
>>>>What a liar you are
>>>
>>>Will you stand by your friends always?
>>
>>Thanks DM. I see you're as literary as ever. How's that gardener
>>working out for you?
>
>You just ask if I am as literary as ever. Why do you care?
Think abot it.
>
>>>
>>>>I could not care less who you are, and have never cared who you are.
>>>>Knowing *what* you are on a.r.s. is sufficient. You are a liar, a
>>>>promoter and defender of the "Suppressive Person" doctrine, and an
>>>>evader of real communication. You're David Miscavige's little helper.
>>>>Your name, where you live, and the rest of the facts of your existence
>>>>are utterly irrelevant, until such time as you quit forwarding the
>>>>malevolent purposes of the Miscavige cult.
>>>
>>>Why does it matter to you if they are David miscavige's little helper?
>>
>>They're *your* little helpers. You tell us what they get out of it.
>
>I gave consent to use my photo in a completely different article and
>leaving my private life out of it.
Your privates have a life of their own, DM. Bot, you are indeed out of
it.
>
>>>
>>>>>Keith Henson discussed the subject with me,
>>>>>he said amongst other that I had already given out sufficient
>>>>>information about myself (what I had done in Scientology and so on),
>>>>>that some would be able to actually identify (put a face on) me. I
>>>>>opposed however to his conclusion. Then Tory Bezazian 'Magoo'
>>>>>(Christman or whatever) wanted me to tell more about myself, what I
>>>>>had studied, what posts I had held, and so on (pretty much as
>>>>>Armstrong did).
>>>>
>>>>Another unsupportable bald faced lie. Show the evidence, Spacetrusser.
>>>
>>>Experience is a comb which nature gives to men when they are bald.
>>
>>Better a bald head than no head at all, DM.
>>http://www.lermanet.com/PhotoLIES.htm
>>
>>>
>>>>> And you know what? Identities are of no importance to
>>>>>once's own understanding.
>>>>
>>>>Well here they serve a strawman's purpose.
>>>
>>>Do machines frighten you?
>>
>>In the pseudopods of clams they're terrifying.
>
>Are you sure?
Able was I ere I saw Elba. Don't botch it.
>
>>>
>>>>And they serve your purpose too, Spacetrojan. You get to lie about and
>>>>attack people with real identities. That's what Scientology is all
>>>>about. It makes Scientologists oh so OT, oh so powerful to lie about
>>>>and attack wogs®. That's why they're in Scientology. It's
>>>>Scientologists' service facsimile.
>>>
>>>That is why the th amendment was necessary bimbo.
>>
>>DM, you always were quite the little intellectual giant.
>
>Is that true?
Well think abot it, DM. If you had all the brains of L. Ron Hubbard
you'd still be just a cult leader.
I insult you because I represent all SPs. Obviously it is our job to
cut you down to size.
You know what we want. Absolute Equality! "A-E." We are so perfectly
equal you can forget about us.
>
>>>
>>>>Scientology is not just the most vicious American cult, it's the most
>>>>pathetic. Scientology deserves the whole world's oppugnancy.
>>>
>>>Evil is sooner believed than good.
>>
>>You're the Scientologist. Speak for the clams.
>
>Perhaps I am the scientologist. Why does it matter to you?
It only matters to clams. They apparently need you for their leader.
I'd think that for just about all Scientologists any change is better
than no change. It has been too long without a change in Scientology?
When was the last change? 1950?
If everyone got out of Scientology for a change, instead of doing the
same old boring thing -- fair game, for lack of a better term -- every
day from morning to night -- as "The Price of Freedom" -- what they
had been fighting, and paying to fight, with money and life, would
disappear. That would matter to me.
It's sensible in botanizing a.r.s. to know something about plants.
You are talking to the luckiest person in the world. Do not, however,
let that bother you. I cannot help it. I think that it's not really
luck but God's Great Love. Here on Teegeeac for those who don't
believe in it it's Great Luck.
I am so astronomically lucky that you, DM, also made me the most
valuable being on the planet. Who else on all of planet Teegeeac gets
$50,000 just for saying the word "botty thetan?" And when you
consider that, conservatively let's say, ten thousand people reading
a.r.s. read "botty thetan," well that's a cool five hundred million
simoleons. Or five hundred millions clams if you will. Bot, since
luck, even for the luckiest man in the universe, can't last a lifetime
unless you die young, as you and I know, you have to have me bumped
off before I rack up a bill you and all the clams in the universe can
never confront. So, DM, do you feel lucky?
>
>>You know what they say, DM. The greater height you conquer the lower
>>you stand. The good thing is that for Scientology it's all uphill from
>>here. Or all downhill from here. Or all hill ten from here. Or all
>>Casey Hill from here. Wait a minute, DM, what am I saying? I think for
>>you and Scientology it's all Benny Hill from here.
>
>Wait a minute, dm, what am I saying.
Yes, DM, both of us want to know, what are you saying?
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Genesis
Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > > someone steps outside of YOUR door... The bigger the threat those
> > > 'some' consider you to be, the more persistent these 'some' will be...
> >
> > Your right. The only 'some' that want/need to know
> > who you are is the church.
> > The church is dead against anyone giving their
> > views and experiences. And it not just the ot data.
> > The church tries squash and suppress the freedom
> > of others expressing their opinions. Especially the
> > ones who feel they have been rip off or decieved
> > by the church.
> > Here you have a church with their creed, yet
> > they do everything to stop a person giving their
> > opinion if the church feels it would be bad PR.
> > While a few poster here would like to know
> > who is behind an identity, its the church who is
> > frothing at the mouth.
>
> Agreed! The Church, not scientology, the Church.
Fine.
But the church is run by members.
These members appy scientology.
The admin part, black pr, dead agent etc.
Is this not how it works ?
And is that not scientology ?
Genesis
>
> Spacetraveler
Keith Henson
(Spacetraveler) wrote:
snip
> Keith Henson discussed the subject with me,
>he said amongst other that I had already given out sufficient
>information about myself (what I had done in Scientology and so on),
>that some would be able to actually identify (put a face on) me.
I was more warning you to be careful about what you say though I do
think you provided enough data for the cult to identify you. There
can't be too many members "in good standing" who fit the profile you
presented.
Of course identifying those who are still in but posting on ars gets
easier and easier as the cult shrinks.
On the other hand, the number of staff the cult has to identify people
like you is shrinking too.
Anyone have a figure for the fraction of sea org that was in the RPF
in prior decades?
Prediction: The cult will not use the Shrine again.
When I started picketing, they filled the balcony. Last time I was
there, when Tory was trying to "handle" me, they were not using the
balcony. Now I think the rent on the place is too much.
Best to all,
Keith Henson
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> Anyone have a figure for the fraction of sea org that was in the RPF
> in prior decades?
I suspect a a broad hiatus between very young Sea Org and CMO members,
who are almost exclusively recruited from Scientology families, and the
much more diverse, 20 year older group, who are almost all decades long
Sea Org members.
I doubt seriously that the majority of the latter group have not spent
at least some period in the RPF.
> Prediction: The cult will not use the Shrine again.
Prediction: The Cult is destined for a mausoleum, not a Shrine.
Leave no flowers.
Zinj
--
You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think
Spacetraveler
> On 17 Nov 2004 17:38:37 -0800, spacetra...@hotmail.com
> (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Keith Henson discussed the subject with me,
> >he said amongst other that I had already given out sufficient
> >information about myself (what I had done in Scientology and so on),
> >that some would be able to actually identify (put a face on) me.
>
> I was more warning you to be careful about what you say though I do
> think you provided enough data for the cult to identify you. There
> can't be too many members "in good standing" who fit the profile you
> presented.
You haven't been in the organization, so how can you tell? I know
quite many who will fit the bill. Do you have any idea at all, how
many came in and left again?
snip
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
Funny, I haven't claimed that you were one of those 'some'. I never
even related you to them. Just to make that clear.
If you have seen the associations made by some around here, my post
"Identities..." is quite understandable. Don't make it into something
that it is NOT!
>
> From:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f53d1e2.0411171351.3a4a504f%40posting.google.com
> <quote>
> >>>Sorry guy, I haven't been dishonest about ANYTHING!
> >>
> >>I remember you once also posted as Mushroomman. And had some
> >>interesting
> >>ping pong with you, I mean with himself, yourself.
> >>
> >>like:
> >>http://groups.google.dk/groups?selm=N91Dc.3593%24dx3.28122%40newsb.telia.net&output=gplain
> >>and
> >>http://groups.google.dk/groups?selm=9f53d1e2.0406260223.23703482%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
> >>
> >>Is that a conduct of an honest person?
> >
> > Ah, we enter the territory of the guessing business.
> >
> > ISP (I think you refer to that) denotes a computer/server, not a
> > person.
> >
> > You have to do better than this, you are losing points here.
> >
> > Spacetraveler
> </quote>
>
> Ok, I will try to do better... (be careful what you ask for)
Does a straightforward person have to be in fear about something...?
> You, the anonymous entity 'spacetraveler' and the anonymous entity
> 'mushroomman' share the same 'nntp-posting-host' header, that is you
> post from the same ip-address (iow computer).
From or... via.
> You 'spacetraveler' post trough google. That would mean that the
> 'nntp-posting-host' is set to the ip-address of the machine on which the
> browser accessing google is running.
Denoting the machine that actually send the postings. But this very
machine can get it from elsewhere.
> Messages from 'mushroomman' have the same ip-address, and looks like
> postings from a normal isp-account, and posted through his service
> provider. I dont believe google allow faking headers, so if he posted
> through a proxy, you would be sitting on it.
Me or... Mushroomman or... both via another machine.
You establish here:
- You 'spacetraveler' post trough google.
- Messages from 'mushroomman', and looks like postings from a normal
isp-account
The above denotes a difference even if they give the same ip-address
(same maching sending the postings to the discussiongroups).
You also say (and that's interesting!):
"'mushroomman'- normal isp-account, and posted through his service
provider."
This service provider may indicate some country! You may have missed
that.
Google however does not give you this information.
Options?
It may be so that this person allowed me to let me use his/her machine
as a proxy for sending my postings. Or that this person and I using
someone else's machine to send the postings. Anyhow per the data we
have it is not very likely that these would the same person. Any may
think differently about this though.
> Then there are the "hints":
>
> - You both share interest in 'Fair game'
> e.g. (you both appear in the thread)
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f53d1e2.0406260223.23703482%40posting.google.com
As are many...
> - You both post links to the same site concerning 'fair fame'.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9dHzc.96026%24dP1.312581%40newsc.telia.net
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f53d1e2.0306280250.18b91dbf%40posting.google.com
> - You both use occasional "shouting" (capitalization) in sentences
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=qdaGc.4288%24dx3.33717%40newsb.telia.net
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f53d1e2.0411160936.7e74872e%40posting.google.com
I have looked at the old posts, I don't see that Mushroomman is
starting new posts, he/she is responding to a couple of them (thee
were not many posts either that I can see), and yes they seem all to
relate to fair game, and primarily responses to my posts. Seems that
this Mushroom individual wanted to back me up. Involvement can make
you duplicate some characterisitcs. You can even copy and then change
some things, I have seen this happening! Even if there are some
similarities there are also differences. But as I said there are to
few posts to make a reliable comparison.
> - And what originally tipped me off
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8hTFc.97806%24dP1.325023%40newsc.telia.net
> Dave Bird comments spacetraveler, and mushroomman replies:
> <quote>
> I duplicate references, you nor Barwell does so.
> </quote>
Tricky actually. It is only one sentence. Involvement in the subject
and/or haste can also create something like that. There can even be a
language barrier.
> Did I do better?
Indeed you did, but we are still in the guessing and assuming room. A
little bit circumstantial don't you think.
Remember what I wrote:
"Don't make the 'obvious' the obvious only because you want them to be
that way..."
> > So, if someone wants to put a face at your identity, well, then you
> > know what he is about... If someone has chosen to be anonymous then
> > this is his/her right, he/she may very well have a very good reason.
> > So, respect that...
>
> You are totally right, some have a good reason, and privacy should be
> respected.
> Sadly some use it as a compensation for their bad manners. Or some
> covert agenda. (you dont want to know what I think)
That I have bad manners... and that I have a covert agenda (may be). I
know for myself what is true for me, what you say would not effect me
in a negative way as it may not be true for me. Some however can not
separate 'sympathy' and 'compassion'. Peregrine definitely crashed
there, and now he is also on the run.
Using 'something' to awaken sympathy in persons as a justification for
something else, "I" think is bad manners. Especially if it was not
even the original justification used!
This all was interesting, it's enough now!
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> In article <9f53d1e2.0411...@posting.google.com>,
> spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
> > So what does:
> [...]
> > actually mean?
>
> > no reason to run
> [...]
> > YOu run from
>
> > Gerry exposed:
>
> It's so obvious what you are. And when what you are is clear the tactics
> you use don't work. Hubbard's tactics are without exception meant to be
> used one on one,, or in tiny groups, or on one-way communication lines.
> NOT in a place where tens of thousands of people are watching and able
> to chime in at will. In such an environment they just don't work.
>
> Even Mr. Hubbard would know and explain about that, if he hadn't become
> so very, very utterly stone cold dead before this type of communication
> appeared.
Typical, I wronged you in some earlier thread and now you start
hitting on me. Yeah, typical... and bad manners...
http://members.chello.nl/mgormez/childabuse/disconnect.html Your site
I presume?
Out quarrel started here:
http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl590534043d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&selm=v6q4g01vq7crct5pmg7ushghg1am4bfuiv%404ax.com
Follow the thread from that point, for any who want to find out what
that was about...
And now....flush....
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
to overthrow? Let's have a look at that!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>1st phase:<<<
> >Thank you Gerry, I was expecting you!
>
> Isn't that just so OT. You lie about someone, you spread black PR, and
> and then "expect" him. Whoop!
Has nothing to do with OT... it has to do with let's say prediction of
human behaviour.
> >You wrote:
> >"But most importantly, please provide your own personal experience.
> >What posts have you been on during what years? What do you know about
> >the "Suppressive Person" doctrine?"
> >
> >I responded:
> >"I don't think it will suit any purpose to tell about that without
> >directly relating it to matters discussed. Anyhow I have been involved
> >with many missions (longterm establishment projects actually), have
> >been posted in CMO and various HCO's (Flag & LA). I do not intend to
> >disclose personal details, I prefer to keep my anonimity for personal
> >reasons."
> >(somewhere on this page:
> >http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com&rnum=4)
> >
> >So what does: "What posts have you been on during what years?"
> >actually mean?
>
> In this context, it was a logical question in the "communication" or
> "conversation" that *you* claimed you wanted.
I agree, it could be, that's an option.
But further on in the very same post you write:
"Please identify all your posts in the cult, when and where you held
each, and what training and processing you did when and where."
Well Gerry?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>2nd phase:<<<
> Let's examine that communication.
>
> You deprecated Fred Rice and Charles Barwell, and the validity of
> their knowledge of fair game, for their having "no personal
> experience" of fair game.
Not what I said actually. "No personal experience from within
Scientology." I *never* related this to 'experiencing' fair game! See
below (Quote):
[Quote]
Fredric Rice, Barwell and some others are just repeating others and
have no personal experience whatsoever (as it seems).
[End Quote]
> So you introduced the subject of "personal
> experience" and related it to knowledge of your hobby horse, fair
> game.
Ah ah, *your* hobby horse. You and Rice spend quite some time on the
subject.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>3nd phase:<<<
> Your assertion that I was "attempting to expose some identity" is
> false.
Responded to in >>>1st phase:<<<
> Your assertion that I "got no where, and so [I] left" is also false.
>
> You simply proved with your dishonesty, your black PR of the Miscavige
> cult's legitimate opponents, your pretended stupidity and your utter
> refusal to communicate in a decent, honest fashion, that you were a
> cult op. You now again prove that about yourself.
The same rambling.... but no back-up...
FACT is that even if you quoted the WHOLE communication later on in
this post, you STILL did NOT respond to it!!!!!!! See, quoting is NOT
the same as responding!
Meaning you acknowledge that you "got no where, and so [you] left".
See below:
> You keep stating this lie. But again to prove to the whole world that
> you are a liar, and prove again that I am not running from the subject
> post, I will post it in its totality right here:
>
> [Quote]
Here is posted in it's entirely:
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com
I however snipped it! (was NOT responded to!)
> [End Quote]
> >Those interested to study some of Gerry's behaviour and reasoning are
> >advised to take a look at it.
>
> Yes, I urge everyone to study my behavior and reasoning in great
> detail. Study these sites:
> www.gerryarmstrong.org
> www.suppressiveperson.org
No, study his behaviour on this discussiongroup! On his site you will
only see his claims!
>
> Spacetrinket avoids the tremendous documentation of my knowledge,
> experiences and reasoning on these sites.
Anyone can copy and paste....
No, making a real study, now that is something else:
This guy did on various subjects:
http://www.robertdam-cos.dk/index.html
But also this guy:
http://mccalcon.notlong.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>4th phase:<<<
> >Some more about him here:
> >His misunderstanding of 'criticism':
> >http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407310557.703a51%40posting.google.com&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Dsv%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3D%2522The%2Bmisconception%2Bof%2BGerry%2BArmstron%2Babout%2B%27criticism%27%2522%26btnG%3DS%25C3%25B6k%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dalt.religion.scientology.*
>
> Yes, just take a look at Spacetroglodyte's avoidance and Miscavigesque
> spin on Hubbard's evil intention toward "critics of Scientology."
Do you see how he invents all kinds of variations of my username?
Every time it is something else!
>
> [Quote]
> http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com
Whole post quoted, snipped by me....
[End Quote]
this is Gerry's respons:
> And it's a straw cougar. Spacetrollop is a defender and practitioner
> of the diabolical "Suppressive Person" doctrine.
Just some unclear claim with again another variation of my username.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>5th phase:<<<
> >Gerry exposed:
> >http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl1073962928d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407281328.283929c2%40posting.google.com
Quoted in full, snipped my me. All Gerry says is:
> Again I urge everyone to read for themselves, and observe for
> themselves what a dishonest persona Spacetreacle brings to a.r.s.
Again just a claim and yet again another version for my username!
Gerry gives NO clarification about ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>6th phase:<<<
> >And here the summum of Gerry's operating basis:
> >http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407300139.35377502%40posting.google.com
> Here again, everyone can see the utter falseness, pretended stupidity
> and black PR in your attack. In that, Spacetrampoline's posts to
> a.r.s. have some value. They show what he is.
And see, yet another version of my username! He gives SOLELY claims
and talks nasty. NO clarification ANYWHERE!
Consult this one as well:
http://mccalcon.notlong.com
What do you readers think? Should I compile a list of all the *new*
usernames Gerry is giving me?
> >See Gerry, people do not get exposed, they do that to themselves!
>
> If that were true, Hubbard lied. But it's false, *and* Hubbard lied.
Claim, no explanation!
> This person serves the malevolent purposes of the Scientology cult run
> by David Miscavige. He is a liar, and a practitioner of the
> "Suppressive Person" doctrine.
Claim, no explanation!
> "Fair game" is the name Hubbard gave for the execution of the SP
> doctrine, for the *treatment* of people targeted by the Scientology
> cult as Suppressive Persons. He could have called this policy and
> practice for the treatment of SPs, for example, "violent
> victimization." But he didn't, he called the policy and practice, how
> Scientologists were to violently victimize their SP targets "fair
> game."
A gruesome false claim!
> There has never been an instant since Hubbard concocted the
> Suppressive Person doctrine that the doctrine was not a part, indeed
> the essential part of Scientology. There was never been an instant
> since Hubbard's concoction of the SP doctrine when the doctrine did
> not include its execution, its implementation, its application against
> SPs. That execution, implementation or application against SPs is
> commonly called "fair game." It's the name Hubbard gave it. It
> violently victimizes people -- almost all good, decent, loving people
> -- whom the Scientology cultists identify as SPs pursuant to the SP
> doctrine.
Learn about the true story about fair
game:http://fair-game-law.notlong.com
> We who are fair game, or are violently victimized by Scientology, will
> know when fair game or the violent victimization ends; that is, when
> Scientology's treatment of SPs ends, because the SP doctrine that
> engenders fair game or violent victimization of SPs has been ended.
> Until the SP doctrine is ended, and Scientology and Scientologists
> repudiate that evil, criminal doctrine, the violent victimization or
> fair gaming of SPs *must* continue, because the treatment of SPs
> pursuant to the SP doctrine must continue.
>
> This is the truth that Spacetrumpet has never confronted. Instead he
> treats good people as SPs; that is, he fair games them.
See, he says: "I(me) fair game them." Is Gerry mad? Never ever did any
such thing at ANY time. Yes, Gerry must be mad...
See, only claiming, but no backup-ing.
Anyone can see from your line of communicating that something is
awfully wrong here! See, it's your behaviour that exposed you! Migh,
migh, that language. Instead of giving exact documentation you come
with stories.... and claims and such.
> Fair game is Scientology. And Scientology is fair game.
A gruesome untruth: http://fair-game-law.notlong.com
And Gerry (the cult op!), has STILL NOT addressed the issues he is
running from!
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com>
>
> > > > someone steps outside of YOUR door... The bigger the threat those
> > > > 'some' consider you to be, the more persistent these 'some' will be...
> > >
> > > Your right. The only 'some' that want/need to know
> > > who you are is the church.
> > > The church is dead against anyone giving their
> > > views and experiences. And it not just the ot data.
> > > The church tries squash and suppress the freedom
> > > of others expressing their opinions. Especially the
> > > ones who feel they have been rip off or decieved
> > > by the church.
> > > Here you have a church with their creed, yet
> > > they do everything to stop a person giving their
> > > opinion if the church feels it would be bad PR.
> > > While a few poster here would like to know
> > > who is behind an identity, its the church who is
> > > frothing at the mouth.
> >
> > Agreed! The Church, not scientology, the Church.
>
> Fine.
> But the church is run by members.
> These members appy scientology.
Not necessarily. And then some serious changes have been introduced
since L. Ron Hubbard mysteriously disappeared around 1980!
> The admin part, black pr, dead agent etc.
> Is this not how it works ?
> And is that not scientology ?
Basically no, most of these practices are cancelled. Dead agenting was
even a BPL I believe, meaning not written by L. Ron Hubbard. Fair
Gaiming is cancelled since 1968. So, if any of these are used it is
not Scientology.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> On 17 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
> Too much writing. No substance.
Claim, unsupported with documentation. (you see, a stupid claim asks
for a stupid respons)
>
> 1. Why did L Ron Hubbard write fair game policies in the first place?
>
> 2. Why did L Ron Hubbard practice fair game himself?
>
> 3. Why did L Ron Hubbard order Scientologists to practice fair game?
>
> 4. Why did L Ron Hubbard *never* do anything *effective* to stop the Church
> of Scientology's practice of fair game, that is still going on nearly 40
> years after he wrote the policies?
Find out:
http://fair-game-law.notlong.com
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote in message news:<9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>...
> > Recently but also in the past people having been attempting to expose
> > some identity. Gerry Armstrong was the first to make a move. He got no
> > where, and so he left ... Keith Henson discussed the subject with me,
> > he said amongst other that I had already given out sufficient
> > information about myself (what I had done in Scientology and so on),
> > that some would be able to actually identify (put a face on) me. I
> > opposed however to his conclusion.
>
> I wonder why your real life identity should be so important to
> anybody, Spacetraveler. What is important is the content of what a
> person posts, and posters should be judged on that.
Exactly, but only the sane persons around here will abide to that!
Yeah, some people around here are really not so bad as they may seem.
> Most of the other
> ARS posters post with an assumed identities and also under false
> names.
>
>
snip
> >
> > Ah, almost forgot! In my opinion some around here should find out what
> > one's ISP actually stands for. It's just a computer you know, not a
> > person. Many can run through such a machine, in which case it has
> > become a server, or a proxy server. And they can be run through
> > various other servers and be cross-connected to about any other
> > server/computer around this globe. ISP's can even be faked (some smart
> > persons have written programs exactly for that purpose). Associating
> > is ok, but use some intelligence will you... Don't make the 'obvious'
> > the obvious only because you want them to be that way...
>
> You are right. I post from a library which has 150 computers and is
> connected to the University of Utah, which has thousands more. ARS
> would blame me on any posting done by any of the other students or
> patrons. Bet on it.
Yeah, I think may be only the CIA or FBI or something have the
resources to track down cross-connected servers. But even this may not
suffice. many are even selling such services, socalled remailing
services. But who knows, may be some there track you down there
without you knowing it...
> > So, if someone wants to put a face at your identity, well, then you
> > know what he is about... If someone has chosen to be anonymous then
> > this is his/her right, he/she may very well have a very good reason.
> > So, respect that...
> >
> > Anyway, behold that tricks will be played on you anonymous ones. Some
> > want/need to know who you are... Be sure to be the smarter one if that
> > someone steps outside of YOUR door... The bigger the threat those
> > 'some' consider you to be, the more persistent these 'some' will be...
> > Hmm, starts to smell fear around here, well, better put an end to this
> > post then.
> >
> > Spacetraveler
>
> Guess that Spacetraveler has established that he is none of the people
> who ARS posters claimed he would be, which probably opens up a new ARS
> guessing game, Spacetraveler. ;)
I think actually that these 'some' may have realized that I am not
tricked so very easily into disclosing that. Not that I care...
For me however this 'game' (guessing identities) is over!
I aimed to get this information into the google databases, and it's
there now.
Spacetraveler
edo
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
On 19 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>> Too much writing. No substance.
>
>Claim, unsupported with documentation. (you see, a stupid claim asks
>for a stupid respons)
The statement about my claim is stupid but the one about your response
shows that you *can* think if you want to.
>> 1. Why did L Ron Hubbard write fair game policies in the first place?
>>
>> 2. Why did L Ron Hubbard practice fair game himself?
>>
>> 3. Why did L Ron Hubbard order Scientologists to practice fair game?
>>
>> 4. Why did L Ron Hubbard *never* do anything *effective* to stop the Church
>> of Scientology's practice of fair game, that is still going on nearly 40
>> years after he wrote the policies?
>
>Find out:
>http://fair-game-law.notlong.com
There isn't anything there that answers the questions. And you know it.
I understand that you don't know what to do about these questions but you
should stop being dishonest at least.
edo
-=-
Gerry Armstrong
(Spacetraveler) wrote:
Hogwash. Prove which, if any, of Scientology's practices ever used on
SPs have been cancelled.
> Dead agenting was
>even a BPL I believe, meaning not written by L. Ron Hubbard.
What a load. Dead agenting is in Policy Letters written by Hubbard. So
is black PR. Do the research.
>Fair
>Gaiming is cancelled since 1968. So, if any of these are used it is
>not Scientology.
Hogwash. Fair game is the treatment of SPs. SPs have always been
treated since Hubbard concocted the "Suppressive Person" doctrine.
Hubbard called the treatment of SPs "fair game."
So, Spacetruncheon, did Hubbard ever provide any other name for
Scientologists' treatment of SPs? Or only "fair game?"
Genesis
Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
> "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<419d...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> > Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com>
> >
> > These members appy scientology.
>
> Not necessarily. And then some serious changes have been introduced
> since L. Ron Hubbard mysteriously disappeared around 1980!
Well spacetraveler, you have your work cut out for you.
I grant everyone has a right to their own beliefs.
There have been many postings on the alteration of
some of the tech and such. Perhaps you have found this
tech works for you or maybe you have no other dogma
to follow. The problem is, not whether the tech works
or not, I am sure many feel better on some basic
courses and arc ruds put in, etc. The problem is the cult
taking hundreds of thousands from members and
not delievering what was promised, because the upper
bridge does not get results as I am sure many people
who have listened to the pdc tapes would of expected
some type of abilities gained.
With the church doing what it can to squash critics,
in court, sealing court settlements, putting unbareable
pressure on the shrinking public, to make up for the
lack of interest in the church, it makes it self like,
like the ss in germany back in the forties.
Spacetraveler, you can do what you want to promote
the tech, but unless you or others can prove the
workablity of the tech, you know having the abilities
of clear and or ot as stated in much of the tapes,
your promoting or defending the tech is useless.
Over the last 25 years over the media and now the
net, one doesn't hear about the great abilities gained
by the tech, people doing so much better in life.
One hears about the many court cases and horror
stories of so many members.
And spacetraveler you know as well as I know,
all these ex-members are not all sps or pts. Many
and I know many myself, gave a majority of their
life because they believed in a org that was promoting
helping people, but they saw devastation in many
cases instead.
It appears your trying to defend the tech as it
was before the 80s. Well thats fine.
But where's the proof it works. Where are the
people who can share the wins.
One cannot just take your word for it.
Unless you or others can share actual
life changing wins and ot abilities, all
this talk of the tech and such is just
pie in the sky and you without such
evidence of the wins are just like any
other belief...trust me it works.
If it did spacetraveler, it would of
spread on its on with out the need
of promotion.
Geezzzz look at the size of this post, oh well,
have a good day.
Genesis
--true awareness is only enjoyed by a few--
Gerry Armstrong
(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>Mike O'Connor <mi...@leptonicsystems.com> wrote in message news:<mike-D4DA91.1...@news4-ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>> In article <9f53d1e2.0411...@posting.google.com>,
>> spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>>
>> > So what does:
>> [...]
>> > actually mean?
>>
>> > no reason to run
>> [...]
>> > YOu run from
>>
>> > Gerry exposed:
>>
>> It's so obvious what you are. And when what you are is clear the tactics
>> you use don't work. Hubbard's tactics are without exception meant to be
>> used one on one,, or in tiny groups, or on one-way communication lines.
>> NOT in a place where tens of thousands of people are watching and able
>> to chime in at will. In such an environment they just don't work.
>>
>> Even Mr. Hubbard would know and explain about that, if he hadn't become
>> so very, very utterly stone cold dead before this type of communication
>> appeared.
>
>Typical, I wronged you in some earlier thread and now you start
>hitting on me. Yeah, typical... and bad manners...
No, it's your *tactics*, Spacetrickster, it's your dishonesty, your
refusal to respond to legitimate questions or challenges, your
bottomless pretended stupidity, and your attacks on good people, all
of whom, not coincidentally, are the Miscavige cult's fair game
victims.
All Scientologists are practitioners of the "Suppressive Person"
doctrine. Therefore all Scientologists have bad manners. If they had
good manners they would themselves become fair game. Good manners
toward SPs, even granting SPs credence, which is the first, most basic
step of good manners, will make Scientologists SPs, and subject them
to Scientologists' horribly bad manners.
>
>http://members.chello.nl/mgormez/childabuse/disconnect.html Your site
>I presume?
>
>Out quarrel started here:
>http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl590534043d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&selm=v6q4g01vq7crct5pmg7ushghg1am4bfuiv%404ax.com
>
>Follow the thread from that point, for any who want to find out what
>that was about...
>
>And now....flush....
>
>Spacetraveler
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Android Cat
> Ah, almost forgot! In my opinion some around here should find out what
> one's ISP actually stands for. It's just a computer you know, not a
> person. Many can run through such a machine, in which case it has
> become a server, or a proxy server. And they can be run through
> various other servers and be cross-connected to about any other
> server/computer around this globe. ISP's can even be faked (some smart
> persons have written programs exactly for that purpose). Associating
> is ok, but use some intelligence will you... Don't make the 'obvious'
> the obvious only because you want them to be that way...
Grandmother Egg-Sucking 101.
--
Ron of that ilk.
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>
>Prediction: The cult will not use the Shrine again.
>
Would be nice if you are correct...
--
Ted Mayett OT 1.1
http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/links.htm
Mike O'Connor
spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
> Hubbard's tactics are without exception meant to be
> > used one on one,, or in tiny groups, or on one-way communication lines.
> > NOT in a place where tens of thousands of people are watching and able
> > to chime in at will. In such an environment they just don't work.
> >
> > Even Mr. Hubbard would know and explain about that, if he hadn't become
> > so very, very utterly stone cold dead before this type of communication
> > appeared.
>
> Typical, I wronged you in some earlier thread and now you start
> hitting on me.
And your opinion on what I said? That Mr. Hubbard's tactics don't work
in this medium? What's your opinion on that?
Peregrine
"If it was consensual, it wasn't rape".
(Gramsci, dammit, Gramsci! That's the theorist I couldn't remember! Gramsci
and hegemony - look it up, if you're interested, because *this is what is
going on here* - hegemony).
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/contributions/gramsci.html
(btw, for those who haven't come across this theory before, "hegemony" is a
morally neutral word. A common mistake is to think the theory only applies
one way, but both the powerful and the powerless often put it to good - or
bad - use).
--
Peregrine
***
The moment I let go of it
Was the moment I got more than I could handle
The moment I jumped off of it
Was the moment I touched down
Alanis Morrisette - Thank U
Barbara Schwarz
Indeed, more and more cyber crimes are the reality. However, newsgroup
criminals should not cheer to soon, as technology might nevertheless
catch up with them. Just as DNA convicts criminals of decades ago,
anybody in cyber space is well advised to operate within the laws.
>
>
> > > So, if someone wants to put a face at your identity, well, then you
> > > know what he is about... If someone has chosen to be anonymous then
> > > this is his/her right, he/she may very well have a very good reason.
> > > So, respect that...
> > >
> > > Anyway, behold that tricks will be played on you anonymous ones. Some
> > > want/need to know who you are... Be sure to be the smarter one if that
> > > someone steps outside of YOUR door... The bigger the threat those
> > > 'some' consider you to be, the more persistent these 'some' will be...
> > > Hmm, starts to smell fear around here, well, better put an end to this
> > > post then.
> > >
> > > Spacetraveler
> >
> > Guess that Spacetraveler has established that he is none of the people
> > who ARS posters claimed he would be, which probably opens up a new ARS
> > guessing game, Spacetraveler. ;)
>
> I think actually that these 'some' may have realized that I am not
> tricked so very easily into disclosing that. Not that I care...
>
> For me however this 'game' (guessing identities) is over!
>
> I aimed to get this information into the google databases, and it's
> there now.
You sure did so. I don't think that rumors about you will end however.
Some rumors die off and new rumors are being created. Rumors and lies
are the lifeblood of ARS. Bad, but true.
Barbara Schwarz
>
> Spacetraveler
Barbara Schwarz
Several of the people who infiltrated the orgs as socalled
"Scientologists" are today ARS posters and call themselves "critics".
They never were Scientologists, and you can bet your grandmother's
rocking chair on that there are still numerous of those "critics" and
wogs on official posts in the orgs.
Infiltration is the name of that unconstitutional and criminal "game".
Barbara Schwarz
Bent Stigsen
> Bent Stigsen <ng...@thevoid.dk> wrote in message news:<419c91d4$0$210$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk>...
>
>>Spacetraveler wrote:
>> > Ah, almost forgot!
>>
>>Ah, here it comes.
>>
>> > In my opinion some around here should find out what one's ISP
>> > actually stands for. It's just a computer you know, not a person.
>> > Many can run through such a machine, in which case it has become a
>> > server, or a proxy server. And they can be run through various other
>> > servers and be cross-connected to about any other server/computer
>> > around this globe. ISP's can even be faked (some smart persons have
>> > written programs exactly for that purpose). Associating is ok, but
>> > use some intelligence will you... Don't make the 'obvious' the
>> > obvious only because you want them to be that way...
>>
>>I guess I is that "some around here". Just to be clear. I dont care who
>>you are, and would never expose your real life identity, even if I knew.
>>I know there have been guesses on your person, and for the record I
>>think it is tactless. I am concerned about *how* anonymity is being
>>used. You are pretty quick to make it a matter of privacy.
>
> Funny, I haven't claimed that you were one of those 'some'. I never
> even related you to them. Just to make that clear.
> If you have seen the associations made by some around here, my post
> "Identities..." is quite understandable. Don't make it into something
> that it is NOT!
You told me previously: "ISP (I think you refer to that) denotes a
computer/server, not a person.".
4 hours later you write a lot of hooey about privacy, lets not point
finger and "Ah, almost forgot! In my opinion some around here should
find out what one's ISP actually stands for. It's just a computer you
know, not a person."
You might as well have written my name.
>>From:
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f53d1e2.0411171351.3a4a504f%40posting.google.com
>><quote>
>> >>>Sorry guy, I haven't been dishonest about ANYTHING!
>> >>
>> >>I remember you once also posted as Mushroomman. And had some
>> >>interesting
>> >>ping pong with you, I mean with himself, yourself.
>> >>
>> >>like:
>> >>http://groups.google.dk/groups?selm=N91Dc.3593%24dx3.28122%40newsb.telia.net&output=gplain
>> >>and
>> >>http://groups.google.dk/groups?selm=9f53d1e2.0406260223.23703482%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
>> >>
>> >>Is that a conduct of an honest person?
>> >
>> > Ah, we enter the territory of the guessing business.
>> >
>> > ISP (I think you refer to that) denotes a computer/server, not a
>> > person.
>> >
>> > You have to do better than this, you are losing points here.
>> >
>> > Spacetraveler
>></quote>
>>
>>Ok, I will try to do better... (be careful what you ask for)
>
> Does a straightforward person have to be in fear about something...?
You doesn't exactly come across as such, but still no. It just means
"Dont tell people to do something, if you dont want them to do it".
>>You, the anonymous entity 'spacetraveler' and the anonymous entity
>>'mushroomman' share the same 'nntp-posting-host' header, that is you
>>post from the same ip-address (iow computer).
>
> From or... via.
>
>>You 'spacetraveler' post trough google. That would mean that the
>>'nntp-posting-host' is set to the ip-address of the machine on which the
>>browser accessing google is running.
>
> Denoting the machine that actually send the postings. But this very
> machine can get it from elsewhere.
Your talk about ISP show its not something you know too much about, so I
doubt you would even know what would be required.
So tell me, what setup do you use?
You should be able to give verifiable information without compromising
your identity.
I am not saying its impossible, but the similarities in the postings
where even more compelling. If mushroomman had not posted his first
posting before you, it could even look like a plot against you.
>>Messages from 'mushroomman' have the same ip-address, and looks like
>>postings from a normal isp-account, and posted through his service
>>provider. I dont believe google allow faking headers, so if he posted
>>through a proxy, you would be sitting on it.
>
> Me or... Mushroomman or... both via another machine.
There are different ways to give the same result. Could also be the
other way around. The postings alone suggest you are the same,
incidently the headers say the same.
> You establish here:
> - You 'spacetraveler' post trough google.
> - Messages from 'mushroomman', and looks like postings from a normal
> isp-account
> The above denotes a difference even if they give the same ip-address
> (same maching sending the postings to the discussiongroups).
>
> You also say (and that's interesting!):
> "'mushroomman'- normal isp-account, and posted through his service
> provider."
> This service provider may indicate some country! You may have missed
> that.
> Google however does not give you this information.
Actually both give the same information about position (the IP), its
just that the additional headers in mushroommans postings support
eachother (i.e. look authentic).
> Options?
> It may be so that this person allowed me to let me use his/her machine
> as a proxy for sending my postings. Or that this person and I using
> someone else's machine to send the postings. Anyhow per the data we
> have it is not very likely that these would the same person. Any may
> think differently about this though.
Nothing in the headers suggest any tampering. Your throwing around with
possibilities and uncertainty makes me think that its not something you
have ever looked into.
>>Then there are the "hints":
>>
>>- You both share interest in 'Fair game'
>>e.g. (you both appear in the thread)
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f53d1e2.0406260223.23703482%40posting.google.com
>
> As are many...
Sure.
>>- You both post links to the same site concerning 'fair fame'.
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9dHzc.96026%24dP1.312581%40newsc.telia.net
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f53d1e2.0306280250.18b91dbf%40posting.google.com
>
>>- You both use occasional "shouting" (capitalization) in sentences
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=qdaGc.4288%24dx3.33717%40newsb.telia.net
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f53d1e2.0411160936.7e74872e%40posting.google.com
>
> I have looked at the old posts, I don't see that Mushroomman is
> starting new posts, he/she is responding to a couple of them (thee
> were not many posts either that I can see), and yes they seem all to
> relate to fair game, and primarily responses to my posts. Seems that
> this Mushroom individual wanted to back me up. Involvement can make
> you duplicate some characterisitcs. You can even copy and then change
> some things, I have seen this happening! Even if there are some
> similarities there are also differences. But as I said there are to
> few posts to make a reliable comparison.
Well, mushrooman started a thread in May 2003 about freeloaders, and you
post about the same within the same month. Then you both are silent for
a whole year, whereafter you both start posting about fair game. I know
people often mirror others behavior that they agree with, but that is scary.
>>- And what originally tipped me off
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8hTFc.97806%24dP1.325023%40newsc.telia.net
>>Dave Bird comments spacetraveler, and mushroomman replies:
>><quote>
>>I duplicate references, you nor Barwell does so.
>></quote>
>
> Tricky actually. It is only one sentence. Involvement in the subject
> and/or haste can also create something like that. There can even be a
> language barrier.
I figured you discovered the screwup, and thought it was best if
mushroomman silently disappeared.
>>Did I do better?
>
> Indeed you did, but we are still in the guessing and assuming room. A
> little bit circumstantial don't you think.
As in law: Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts from which
inferences or conclusions can be drawn.
There are a few uncertainties, I grant you that.
> Remember what I wrote:
> "Don't make the 'obvious' the obvious only because you want them to be
> that way..."
I think they are wise words. If you like we can pick up an old
discussion, I think it will fit nicely to the concept.
I hope what I "want" is obvious. (atleast it should be by the end of the
post)
>> > So, if someone wants to put a face at your identity, well, then you
>> > know what he is about... If someone has chosen to be anonymous then
>> > this is his/her right, he/she may very well have a very good reason.
>> > So, respect that...
>>
>>You are totally right, some have a good reason, and privacy should be
>>respected.
>>Sadly some use it as a compensation for their bad manners. Or some
>>covert agenda. (you dont want to know what I think)
>
> That I have bad manners... and that I have a covert agenda (may be). I
> know for myself what is true for me, what you say would not effect me
> in a negative way as it may not be true for me. Some however can not
> separate 'sympathy' and 'compassion'. Peregrine definitely crashed
> there, and now he is also on the run.
I didn't read Peregrine's take on it. Some dictionaries just say they
are interchangeable synonyms. Both means "suffer with another", but some
dictionaries imply or literally say that compassion is stronger and also
mean a will to relieve the suffering.
In case you missed it, I say it again. Tory was in grief, and I thought
you was badgering her. I felt sympathy/compassion for her, and wanted to
do something about it.
So I wanted to tell you to be a little more considerate, showing some
respect. Should I have followed my own advice, it would probably be some
yada yada about respect and then a please, but I guess I ended up
kicking you in the balls instead. Some people just have that effect on me.
> Using 'something' to awaken sympathy in persons as a justification for
> something else, "I" think is bad manners. Especially if it was not
> even the original justification used!
Not sure what you are saying, but I assume it is something about me
having bad manners. I this case?, perhaps I have shown some bad manners.
In any case, it will be attributed to me personally. You on the other
hand dont have to give a shit.
> This all was interesting, it's enough now!
Well, I got more actually. Its mostly geek-speak, and will involve some
irrelevant information, so I guess it is best to leave it out.
/Bent
> Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> >>I guess I is that "some around here". Just to be clear. I dont care who
> >>you are, and would never expose your real life identity, even if I knew.
> >>I know there have been guesses on your person, and for the record I
> >>think it is tactless. I am concerned about *how* anonymity is being
> >>used. You are pretty quick to make it a matter of privacy.
> >
> > Funny, I haven't claimed that you were one of those 'some'. I never
> > even related you to them. Just to make that clear.
> > If you have seen the associations made by some around here, my post
> > "Identities..." is quite understandable. Don't make it into something
> > that it is NOT!
>
> You told me previously: "ISP (I think you refer to that) denotes a
> computer/server, not a person.".
> 4 hours later you write a lot of hooey about privacy, lets not point
> finger and "Ah, almost forgot! In my opinion some around here should
> find out what one's ISP actually stands for. It's just a computer you
> know, not a person."
>
> You might as well have written my name.
Didn't I say "Don't make it into something that it is NOT!" I never
had the impression that you one of these 'some'. I relate information,
ISP, IP are relevant information. That's all.
snip
> >>You, the anonymous entity 'spacetraveler' and the anonymous entity
> >>'mushroomman' share the same 'nntp-posting-host' header, that is you
> >>post from the same ip-address (iow computer).
> >
> > From or... via.
> >
> >>You 'spacetraveler' post trough google. That would mean that the
> >>'nntp-posting-host' is set to the ip-address of the machine on which the
> >>browser accessing google is running.
> >
> > Denoting the machine that actually send the postings. But this very
> > machine can get it from elsewhere.
>
> Your talk about ISP show its not something you know too much about, so I
> doubt you would even know what would be required.
> So tell me, what setup do you use?
> You should be able to give verifiable information without compromising
> your identity.
I didn't set it up myself, I had some expert advice from some. Anyhow,
the subject is not interesting to me to discuss any further.
> I am not saying its impossible, but the similarities in the postings
> where even more compelling. If mushroomman had not posted his first
> posting before you, it could even look like a plot against you.
Who can tell? Anyhow, there are too few postings.
> >>Messages from 'mushroomman' have the same ip-address, and looks like
> >>postings from a normal isp-account, and posted through his service
> >>provider. I dont believe google allow faking headers, so if he posted
> >>through a proxy, you would be sitting on it.
> >
> > Me or... Mushroomman or... both via another machine.
>
> There are different ways to give the same result. Could also be the
> other way around. The postings alone suggest you are the same,
> incidently the headers say the same.
Believe what you want.
> > You establish here:
> > - You 'spacetraveler' post trough google.
> > - Messages from 'mushroomman', and looks like postings from a normal
> > isp-account
> > The above denotes a difference even if they give the same ip-address
> > (same maching sending the postings to the discussiongroups).
> >
> > You also say (and that's interesting!):
> > "'mushroomman'- normal isp-account, and posted through his service
> > provider."
> > This service provider may indicate some country! You may have missed
> > that.
> > Google however does not give you this information.
>
> Actually both give the same information about position (the IP), its
> just that the additional headers in mushroommans postings support
> eachother (i.e. look authentic).
No, a 'service provider' may set some boundaries. An IP is just an IP.
> > Options?
> > It may be so that this person allowed me to let me use his/her machine
> > as a proxy for sending my postings. Or that this person and I using
> > someone else's machine to send the postings. Anyhow per the data we
> > have it is not very likely that these would the same person. Any may
> > think differently about this though.
>
> Nothing in the headers suggest any tampering.
I never claimed that.
> Your throwing around with
> possibilities and uncertainty makes me think that its not something you
> have ever looked into.
I wrote like that on purpose.
So, it seems you really have made some studies about this. Well, there
may be a relation between the 2, but I am not going to tell which.
> >>- And what originally tipped me off
> >>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8hTFc.97806%24dP1.325023%40newsc.telia.net
> >>Dave Bird comments spacetraveler, and mushroomman replies:
> >><quote>
> >>I duplicate references, you nor Barwell does so.
> >></quote>
> >
> > Tricky actually. It is only one sentence. Involvement in the subject
> > and/or haste can also create something like that. There can even be a
> > language barrier.
>
> I figured you discovered the screwup, and thought it was best if
> mushroomman silently disappeared.
That would be an option, yes.
> >>Did I do better?
> >
> > Indeed you did, but we are still in the guessing and assuming room. A
> > little bit circumstantial don't you think.
>
> As in law: Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts from which
> inferences or conclusions can be drawn.
>
> There are a few uncertainties, I grant you that.
Almost nothing but uncertainties...
> > Remember what I wrote:
> > "Don't make the 'obvious' the obvious only because you want them to be
> > that way..."
>
> I think they are wise words. If you like we can pick up an old
> discussion, I think it will fit nicely to the concept.
>
> I hope what I "want" is obvious. (atleast it should be by the end of the
> post)
>
>
> >> > So, if someone wants to put a face at your identity, well, then you
> >> > know what he is about... If someone has chosen to be anonymous then
> >> > this is his/her right, he/she may very well have a very good reason.
> >> > So, respect that...
> >>
> >>You are totally right, some have a good reason, and privacy should be
> >>respected.
> >>Sadly some use it as a compensation for their bad manners. Or some
> >>covert agenda. (you dont want to know what I think)
> >
> > That I have bad manners... and that I have a covert agenda (may be). I
> > know for myself what is true for me, what you say would not effect me
> > in a negative way as it may not be true for me. Some however can not
> > separate 'sympathy' and 'compassion'. Peregrine definitely crashed
> > there, and now he is also on the run.
>
> I didn't read Peregrine's take on it. Some dictionaries just say they
> are interchangeable synonyms.
More simple dictionaries do that...
> Both means "suffer with another", but some
> dictionaries imply or literally say that compassion is stronger and also
> mean a will to relieve the suffering.
Compassion is more truthful you may say. The difference between the 2
are pretty distinct actually.
> In case you missed it, I say it again. Tory was in grief, and I thought
> you was badgering her. I felt sympathy/compassion for her, and wanted to
> do something about it.
I may feel compassion, but certainly not sympathy. May be the words
are used more disticntively in other languages than the english.
Anyway it is explained in extended dictionaries. But use a book of
synonyms that goes into detail about it.
> So I wanted to tell you to be a little more considerate, showing some
> respect. Should I have followed my own advice, it would probably be some
> yada yada about respect and then a please, but I guess I ended up
> kicking you in the balls instead. Some people just have that effect on me.
Tory has been going on with this quite a long time. And then if any
very close relative of my was dying I surely would not this on this
medium. That would be my business. Talking about it on this medium is
asking for that people will feel sorry for you. And that's apparently
what she wants, I think she is lonely. You may have noticed that I
didn't nag her recently, her mother died and so I let it be for now.
But she continues given nasty remarks on several posts I've seen
lately.
> > Using 'something' to awaken sympathy in persons as a justification for
> > something else, "I" think is bad manners. Especially if it was not
> > even the original justification used!
>
> Not sure what you are saying, but I assume it is something about me
> having bad manners. I this case?, perhaps I have shown some bad manners.
> In any case, it will be attributed to me personally. You on the other
> hand dont have to give a shit.
I don't. Above was about Tory, not YOU.
>
> > This all was interesting, it's enough now!
>
> Well, I got more actually. Its mostly geek-speak,
Agreed.
> and will involve some
> irrelevant information, so I guess it is best to leave it out.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<419d...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> > > Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > But the church is run by members.
> > > These members appy scientology.
> >
> > Not necessarily. And then some serious changes have been introduced
> > since L. Ron Hubbard mysteriously disappeared around 1980!
>
> Well spacetraveler, you have your work cut out for you.
> I grant everyone has a right to their own beliefs.
Not a believe. Practical philosophy.
> There have been many postings on the alteration of
> some of the tech and such. Perhaps you have found this
> tech works for you or maybe you have no other dogma
> to follow. The problem is, not whether the tech works
> or not, I am sure many feel better on some basic
> courses and arc ruds put in, etc. The problem is the cult
> taking hundreds of thousands from members
I know, is also in violation of LRH policy in fact.
> and
> not delievering what was promised, because the upper
> bridge does not get results as I am sure many people
> who have listened to the pdc tapes would of expected
> some type of abilities gained.
I don't think 'they' have the bridge. A variety of my friends who
stayed in favour of the present management, are sick, having done OT
VII a variety of times and getting worse, or are dead. the present
organization is not about freeing people, it is about making money.
> With the church doing what it can to squash critics,
> in court, sealing court settlements, putting unbareable
> pressure on the shrinking public, to make up for the
> lack of interest in the church,
Excellent observation, very true.
> it makes it self like,
> like the ss in germany back in the forties.
> Spacetraveler, you can do what you want to promote
> the tech, but unless you or others can prove the
> workablity of the tech, you know having the abilities
> of clear and or ot as stated in much of the tapes,
> your promoting or defending the tech is useless.
OT abilities are not a garantee in fact, some will notice something,
others may hardly change at all.
> Over the last 25 years over the media and now the
> net, one doesn't hear about the great abilities gained
> by the tech, people doing so much better in life.
I know many who are economically, physically and mentally better
because of simple data found in Scientology.
> One hears about the many court cases and horror
> stories of so many members.
Off course this is stressed by those who see Scientology as a threat.
The media is owned by just a few, and they don't like Scientology, be
sure of that.
> And spacetraveler you know as well as I know,
> all these ex-members are not all sps or pts. Many
> and I know many myself, gave a majority of their
> life because they believed in a org that was promoting
> helping people, but they saw devastation in many
> cases instead.
I have seen that too, however this is not the fault of Scientology. It
is also about keeping your integrity.
> It appears your trying to defend the tech as it
> was before the 80s. Well thats fine.
> But where's the proof it works. Where are the
> people who can share the wins.
Sorry, this has been documented over and over again. Just find out if
scientology writings are true for you or not.
> One cannot just take your word for it.
I beg you to not do any such thing! Wouldn't be Scientology.
> Unless you or others can share actual
> life changing wins and ot abilities, all
> this talk of the tech and such is just
> pie in the sky and you without such
> evidence of the wins are just like any
> other belief...trust me it works.
> If it did spacetraveler, it would of
> spread on its on with out the need
> of promotion.
Sorry, you ahve to find out for yourself. Apply the data and see if it
does good for. And don't come with the weird story that you don't
'try' streetdrugs either. That association is totally absurd.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
"Row, row, row your boat..." How much more face do you intend to lose...
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
You don't get it do you. If it was used, it was not Scientology,
because the references wre adjusted or cancelled. You don't know a
thing about KSW do you?
You're just a 'Miscavige op'.
> > Dead agenting was
> >even a BPL I believe, meaning not written by L. Ron Hubbard.
>
> What a load. Dead agenting is in Policy Letters written by Hubbard. So
> is black PR. Do the research.
The one often referred to was a bpl. Life with that.
>
> >Fair
> >Gaiming is cancelled since 1968. So, if any of these are used it is
> >not Scientology.
>
> Hogwash. Fair game is the treatment of SPs. SPs have always been
> treated since Hubbard concocted the "Suppressive Person" doctrine.
You have no support whatsoever for your claim in LRH writings.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
My opinion is irrelevant. The references say what they say, but you
choose to interpreted them as you please as you have to uphold the
claims you make on your site.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
Claims, but no backup as usual. 'Good people'? Is that you? You can't
even answer questions...... Craw back under your rock!
>
> All Scientologists are practitioners of the "Suppressive Person"
> doctrine.
SP's speak only in generalities, see there!
> Therefore all Scientologists have bad manners.
And again. You are the living example that SP technology is ture and
factual. Life with that.
> If they had
> good manners they would themselves become fair game. Good manners
> toward SPs, even granting SPs credence, which is the first, most basic
> step of good manners, will make Scientologists SPs, and subject them
> to Scientologists' horribly bad manners.
You are a madman, you have more such nonsense to tell?
How come Gerry, you respond to 2 of my posts in this thread, but you
did not respond to the one about our latest discussion.
I copy the 1st phase:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>1st phase:<<<
Well Gerry?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Coward...
Spacetraveler
Peregrine
Sorry, Spacey. I'll try not to use big words like "hegemony" in the future.
(To anyone else interested in how a lot of the cos tactics around the
redefinition of words in order to neutralise criticism actually works in
practice, Gramsci's hegemony theory is a *must read* - seriously).
Peregrine
Or is it just the scientological training showing?
(Case in point take a typical long-winded Claire post. Take a typical
long-winded Spacetraveller post. Compare them side by side. It's an
interesting excercise).
--
Peregrine
***
The moment I let go of it
Was the moment I got more than I could handle
The moment I jumped off of it
Was the moment I touched down
Alanis Morrisette - Thank U
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04112...@posting.google.com...
Barbara Schwarz
> Mike O'Connor <mi...@leptonicsystems.com> wrote in message news:<mike-F02FF1.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > In article <9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>,
> > spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
> >
> > > Hubbard's tactics are without exception meant to be
> > > > used one on one,, or in tiny groups, or on one-way communication lines.
> > > > NOT in a place where tens of thousands of people are watching and able
> > > > to chime in at will. In such an environment they just don't work.
> > > >
> > > > Even Mr. Hubbard would know and explain about that, if he hadn't become
> > > > so very, very utterly stone cold dead before this type of communication
> > > > appeared.
> > >
> > > Typical, I wronged you in some earlier thread and now you start
> > > hitting on me.
> >
> > And your opinion on what I said? That Mr. Hubbard's tactics don't work
> > in this medium? What's your opinion on that?
Ron did not operate through "tactics". He was a religious man and a
scientist. What he said about suppressive people (which are the
majority of people who post in this medium) is explained in the policy
letter "The anti-social personality" and he was again right. I observe
that any day here. SPs don't want to listen. They are basically too
afraid to review their opinions and find the truth. But intelligent
people will find out.
Barbara Schwarz
Barbara Schwarz
Lol. Gerry, you are getting quite a reputation here!
Barbara Schwarz
Barbara Schwarz
> > Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<419d...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> > > > Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > But the church is run by members.
> > > > These members appy scientology.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. And then some serious changes have been introduced
> > > since L. Ron Hubbard mysteriously disappeared around 1980!
> >
> > Well spacetraveler, you have your work cut out for you.
> > I grant everyone has a right to their own beliefs.
>
> Not a believe. Practical philosophy.
>
> > There have been many postings on the alteration of
> > some of the tech and such. Perhaps you have found this
> > tech works for you or maybe you have no other dogma
> > to follow. The problem is, not whether the tech works
> > or not, I am sure many feel better on some basic
> > courses and arc ruds put in, etc. The problem is the cult
> > taking hundreds of thousands from members
>
> I know, is also in violation of LRH policy in fact.
That is what ARS snakes don't want to hear. They want to blame Ron and
not the psychiatric infiltration about it.
>
> > and
> > not delievering what was promised, because the upper
> > bridge does not get results as I am sure many people
> > who have listened to the pdc tapes would of expected
> > some type of abilities gained.
>
> I don't think 'they' have the bridge. A variety of my friends who
> stayed in favour of the present management, are sick, having done OT
> VII a variety of times and getting worse, or are dead. the present
> organization is not about freeing people, it is about making money.
>
> > With the church doing what it can to squash critics,
The anti-religious extremists do the same. They are in character just
like the infiltrators and non-Scientologists within the orgs.
> > in court, sealing court settlements, putting unbareable
> > pressure on the shrinking public, to make up for the
> > lack of interest in the church,
>
> Excellent observation, very true.
>
> > it makes it self like,
> > like the ss in germany back in the forties.
> > Spacetraveler, you can do what you want to promote
> > the tech, but unless you or others can prove the
> > workablity of the tech, you know having the abilities
> > of clear and or ot as stated in much of the tapes,
> > your promoting or defending the tech is useless.
>
> OT abilities are not a garantee in fact, some will notice something,
> others may hardly change at all.
With original Ron's technology anybody can and should have case gain.
However, when some psychs cut parts of the tech out and add their own,
it is getting harder for some to get the case gain.
>
> > Over the last 25 years over the media and now the
> > net, one doesn't hear about the great abilities gained
> > by the tech, people doing so much better in life.
>
> I know many who are economically, physically and mentally better
> because of simple data found in Scientology.
That is absolutely correct.
>
> > One hears about the many court cases and horror
> > stories of so many members.
>
> Off course this is stressed by those who see Scientology as a threat.
> The media is owned by just a few, and they don't like Scientology, be
> sure of that.
>
> > And spacetraveler you know as well as I know,
> > all these ex-members are not all sps or pts. Many
> > and I know many myself, gave a majority of their
> > life because they believed in a org that was promoting
> > helping people, but they saw devastation in many
> > cases instead.
>
> I have seen that too, however this is not the fault of Scientology. It
> is also about keeping your integrity.
You will not find much integrity within ARS posters.
>
> > It appears your trying to defend the tech as it
> > was before the 80s. Well thats fine.
> > But where's the proof it works. Where are the
> > people who can share the wins.
>
> Sorry, this has been documented over and over again. Just find out if
> scientology writings are true for you or not.
I agree. I have posted some of mine and several others have too. Some
of mine are so gigantic that I would overwhellm the ARS gang if I
would post those.
>
> > One cannot just take your word for it.
>
> I beg you to not do any such thing! Wouldn't be Scientology.
>
> > Unless you or others can share actual
> > life changing wins and ot abilities, all
> > this talk of the tech and such is just
> > pie in the sky and you without such
> > evidence of the wins are just like any
> > other belief...trust me it works.
> > If it did spacetraveler, it would of
> > spread on its on with out the need
> > of promotion.
>
> Sorry, you ahve to find out for yourself. Apply the data and see if it
> does good for. And don't come with the weird story that you don't
> 'try' streetdrugs either. That association is totally absurd.
Yeah, get some logic by corresponding with Scientologists, Phil Scott,
aka Gene. (He has the ARS nasty and troll gene!)
>
> Spacetraveler
Jommy Cross
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header.gmsociety.org (edo) wrote in msg
<PW0CTQOL383...@anonymous.poster>:
Why would a $cientologist stop being dishonest?
Incident zero: Ron trolled them
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Bent Stigsen
> snip
>
Okey-dokey
/Bent
Mike O'Connor
spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
> My opinion is irrelevant.
OK. I'll keep that in mind.
wan...@shaw.ca
<mi...@leptonicsystems.com> wrote:
>In article <9f53d1e2.04112...@posting.google.com>,
> spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
>> My opinion is irrelevant.
>
>OK. I'll keep that in mind.
Would this be a good example of the "Black PR" thing that I have been
accused of or is this 1.1? Is there any difference? if so what is it?
Wanlorn
~ Not a Scientologist but proud to live in a world that accepts them
for all the good they do ~
Faxhor
Stilllov...@myway.com (Barbara Schwarz) wrote in message news:<bf456302.04112...@posting.google.com>...
> spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote in message news:<9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>...
> > Stilllov...@myway.com (Barbara Schwarz) wrote in message news:<bf456302.04111...@posting.google.com>...
> > > spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote in message news:<9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Recently but also in the past people having been
> > > > attempting to expose some identity. Gerry Armstrong was
> > > > the first to make a move. He got no where, and so he
> > > > left ... Keith Henson discussed the subject with me, he
> > > > said amongst other that I had already given out
> > > > sufficient information about myself (what I had done in
> > > > Scientology and so on), that some would be able to
> > > > actually identify (put a face on) me. I opposed however
> > > > to his conclusion.
> > >
> > > I wonder why your real life identity should be so
> > > important to anybody, Spacetraveler. What is important is
> > > the content of what a person posts, and posters should be
> > > judged on that.
> >
> > Exactly, but only the sane persons around here will abide to
> > that! Yeah, some people around here are really not so bad as
> > they may seem.
> >
> > > Most of the other ARS posters post with an assumed
> > > identities and also under false names.
Not only under assumed identities and false names, they also
pose as others to frame. Because of the nature of usenet, this
eventually backfires because USENET is permanently archived and
searchable.
Technology exists. Any message can be tracked to its origin
even with anonymous remailing services. It's just a matter of
importance whether or not such an "identity" be tracked as it
can be costly and then PI's also have to be hired to do some
physical tracking of persons. It can be done.
BTW, fax...@hushmail.com, who constantly lies, is easily
traced, especially since he (probably David Rice) didn't
use an anonymous remailer.
If any of you ever walk around in the "real world" (take any
public place filled with people), you will find that almost
everyone you talk to won't even know what USENET is. The
suppressives are using a this medium to reach the world.
Their audience is limited. Very limited. ARS only reaches
certain tiny demographics of the world population.
Their websites are a different case. And it is fairly easy to
discredit those as much of the information they reference
is just outright false. There is little truth on their sites,
which is blown out of proportion and used to concoct all kind
of conspiracy theories which are spread as rumor through IRC
and USENET. These rumors are used to the fullest by these
suppressives. However, when you investigate the source and
the actual details of something or some occurence which is
the basis of these rumors, you will find that important data
has been left out and false data is blown up way out of
proportion by those like Armstrong, Lerma, Andreas, F.Rice
and a FEW others. This proves their dishonesty.
'Debating' with those who omit important data are not even
worthy of attention. Once an "identity" has tried to influence
me with such dishonest "tactics" I no longer read their postings
as my time is better spent researching and exposing their roots.
> > > > So, if someone wants to put a face at your identity,
> > > > well, then you know what he is about... If someone has
> > > > chosen to be anonymous then this is his/her right,
> > > > he/she may very well have a very good reason.
> > > > So, respect that...
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, behold that tricks will be played on you
> > > > anonymous ones. Some want/need to know who you are...
> > > > Be sure to be the smarter one if that someone steps
> > > > outside of YOUR door... The bigger the threat those
> > > > 'some' consider you to be, the more persistent these
> > > > 'some' will be...
> > > > Hmm, starts to smell fear around here, well, better put
> > > > an end to this post then.
> > > >
> > > > Spacetraveler
> > >
> > > Guess that Spacetraveler has established that he is none
> > > of the people who ARS posters claimed he would be, which
> > > probably opens up a new ARS guessing game, Spacetraveler.
> > > ;)
> >
> > I think actually that these 'some' may have realized that I
> > am not tricked so very easily into disclosing that. Not that
> > I care...
> >
> > For me however this 'game' (guessing identities) is over!
> >
> > I aimed to get this information into the google databases,
> > and it's there now.
> >
> > Spacetraveler
Same here Spacetraveler. My information is there and the
suppressive responses hardly do anything for their 'defense.'
> You sure did so. I don't think that rumors about you will end
> however. Some rumors die off and new rumors are being created.
> Rumors and lies are the lifeblood of ARS. Bad, but true.
>
> Barbara Schwarz
The suppressive responses backfire. This actually helps you
in the long run. So let them behave that way, it will make
your research easier.
Fax...@Hotmail.com
Gerry Armstrong
Because your Faxhor BT is such a little liar, DM, and such a vicious
little liar at that, we've given her her own section for her hate
posts. She sure look like she's in your valence. Or are you in her
valence? Are your BTs running your asylum, DM?
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/osa-usenet-black-pr.html#faxhor
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Faxhor
NOTE: GROUPS TRIMMED, ONLY POSTED TO A.R.S.
>Scientology's suppressive responses backfire. This actually helps you in
>the long run. So let me behave that way, it will make your research easier.
>
>Fax...@Hotmail.com
I agree with that.
Faxhor
Dave Bird
Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> It's so obvious what you are. And when what you are is clear the tactics
>> you use don't work. Hubbard's tactics are without exception meant to be
>> used one on one,, or in tiny groups, or on one-way communication lines.
>> NOT in a place where tens of thousands of people are watching and able
>> to chime in at will. In such an environment they just don't work.
>>
>> Even Mr. Hubbard would know and explain about that, if he hadn't become
>> so very, very utterly stone cold dead before this type of communication
>> appeared.
>
>Typical, I
Tell us something about Hubbard and the C-of-S.
--
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.