critics are liars.

Where did LRH lie about his grades "time after time"? You can't even
quote *one* sentence where he ever lied about his grades.

One can have good grades and fail to get a degree -- this is true, and
I thank you for pointing it out. This is state "c". State "a" is also
possible, as to get a degree in a complex field such as nuclear
physics one must have good grades. State "d" represents one who flunks
out of a course, and is also obviously possible.

You, by bringing up the possibility that their exists the possibility
of good grades without a degree have suggested that grades and degrees
are not totally related. You imply (at least, I believe you
imply...perhaps you can clarify your position) that this
disassociation works both ways; that since one does not have to have a
degree to have good grades in a subject, one does not have to have
good grades in a subject to have a degree.

This is a wrong assumption, One who received grades as bad as LRH's
could never have received a degree from any reputable school in any
subject. State "b", the one you are trying to say is possible, is in
fact not possible, and by lying about possessing a degree Hubbard was
also lying about having good grades.

Not a good one, I can assure you.

Hubbard, however, was evidently incapable of conducting any sort of
scientific research, grades or no grades.

Remember, too, that he didn't *just* get bad grades: he went on to lie
outrageously about his skills and qualifications. Had he been
unfortunate enough to get bad grades because, like Einstein, his
education was too boring, but then, like Einstein, he had pursued his
studies in a scientific manner, it is conceivable that, like Einstein,
Hubbard might have had some degree of scientific credibility.

But to suggest that because Hubbard did not lie about his grades, he
must have been telling the truth about his degree, his status as a
nuclear physicist, etc., etc., is a stupid and naive attempt to bend
the truth.

 You can [on these assumptions] have reasonable grades
   but not have a degree, for other reasons.
 But you can't have rotten grades, and still
   have your degree.

 The one does not contradict the other, fool.

In article <MPG.10415a6d5a6ca49f989...@nntp.lightlink.com>,

Now if you want to be technical about, There are soem scattered
quotes on his tapes where he lies.  "I easily learned math",
I'll have to hunt that one down. He didn't.

His claimed PHD.  That was a lie.

In his early tapes he implied his scientific training in nuclear
physics was that basis of Scientology.

He had no real training in physics, flunking out.

Looks like I have another FAQ to write over the next few months.

So yes, he lied.
You are without logic.

Now, tell us why he lied about being a nuclear physicist and having a PhD
in Philosophy?

Which he did.

What sort of man does that?

        You're getting attention now, but most people will get
        tired of your trolling, and ignore you again.  Just give it
        up now and save us all time and bandwidth.

        Cap.

Given that Hubbard's grades were low; that he dropped out of college;
his claim of a degree is a lie; and it is a lie that necessarily encom-
passes that he 1) attended college for a sufficient period of time;
2) while making grades in his courses which were sufficient;
3) to obtain a degree in a chosen field.

We know that Hubbard didn't attend college long enough to get a
degree; didn't make grades in his courses which would have been
sufficient to get a degree had he continued to attend college;
and 3) diddn't obtain a degree (except that phony 'doctorate' from
a diploma mill).

If you claim to have been elected President of the United States, I
will state that you lied about getting enough votes in Texas to be
elected.

Group: alt.religion.scientology Date: Sat, Aug 15, 1998, 10:31pm (CDT+5)
From: one.ho...@somewhere.land
 <snip>

okeoke... let's not quibble. according to the documentation then, elronh
did, thus, not lie about his *grades*, he lied about his *degrees*.
there. happy now?  

you are indeed probably correct about l. ron hubbard never directly lying about
his grades.  in fact i seem to recall a statement by hubbard where he admitted
to truly bad grades, probably in the early days.

however, you utterly FLUNK on the larger issue.  hubbard made statements later
about his career and qualifications which by their very nature imply if not good
grades at least passable grades, whereas hubbard's grades were obviously those
of a flunking student.  if he never directly lied about his grades, he pretty
clearly and obviously made statements about his academic stature that blatantly
imply a greater degree of academic success than he in fact enjoyed.

now you can whine and whimper all you like about whether or not he specifically
lied about his Phys Ed grades or whatever, but he OBVIOUSLY lied in stating that
he was a nuclear physicist and a Ph.D. (unless you count the diploma mill degree
he bought).

In article <199808162307.BAA00...@replay.com>,

Al

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

But Rob, as they are saying about Slick Willy's confession, "It's a
good start."

But then, of course, you go and louse the whole thing up:

There IS no "larger issue." FLUNK! Here's the only issue that this
thread was EVER about:

1. A critic, "The Exile" <exile...@hotmail.com>, told a lie. He claimed,
falsely, that Hubbard lied "time after time" about his grades. That is
a lie. It wasn't stated as opinion, or a guess--it was stated emphatically
as FACT. Yet it is a lie.

2. An anonymous poster asked him to post quotes where Hubbard had done
that, or even ONE quote where Hubbard had done that.

3. The Exile neither posted a quote to back up his assertion, nor
apologized for having told the lie in the first place.

4. An army of critics have jumped on the bandwagon, trying to turn this
thread into ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE LIE TOLD BY ANOTHER
CRITIC, and trying to make a certain Anonymous, who has been doing
nothing but trying to get the question answered honestly, out to be the
bad guy or some sort of idiot, when he obviously is correct.

Why are you, and every other critic who has posted on this thread, being
such hypicrites about this? Why don't you hold The Exile to the same
standard that you hold Scientologists to? Why do you defend his lie?

I, personally, would have a great deal more respect for The Exile if he
would be man enough to step forward and admit that what he said was not
true, and end this idiotically long thread.

In the meantime, every critic who tries to change the subject of the
thread, or tries to claim a "bigger issue" in order to minimize the
original lie, just looks like a fool, and a liar himself. It is a
pathetic exercise to watch.

2. Some $cieno books have short biographies of him which contain lies.

3. The person (singular) who posted the comment in question about LRH
and his grades later retracted the "grades" part.
****

4. You are bashing an admitted mistake instead of sticking with the
issue (see#1)

For some reason, your arguments seem to go nowhere and are full of
insults and "vomit" that even critics find unacceptable.
I will no longer read or respond to your posts. You see, I have a life
and a career and very little time to post here, and even less time to do
hours of research on the history of a thread so that I can avoid the
slightests of mistakes.  Oh, I forgot, You call them "lies"

You see, normally It's common courtesy to make the reference more easily
available. But since I'm responding to your post, and you have proven
yourself unworthy of any respect here on ars., You can go fuck yourself.

There's something your retarded little mind cannot comprehend. So I'll
make it as simple as possible: MISTAKES ARE NOT LIES. Lies are
intentional misleading statements. You seem to be quick to make that
accusation. It takes a liar to know a liar and it's all in the eye of
the beholder. How often have I accused you of lying? How often have you
accused me of lying? Alot more times, huh? So WHO's the LIAR?

Maybe we could all pitch in and hire professional historian to look at
the rediculous claims LRH and other's made about his "acomplishments"
and put an end to the pathetic assertion by the clams that it is all
true.

I've wasted my last keystrokes on answering your "shit-vomit" posts. I
know it's hard for you to comprehend as a $cientologist, but critics
usually don't buy information coming from a clam, especially if it is
accompanied by insults and "vomit" You'll learn in time. Hope you
understand. Good luck?

The only trick I've seen is a mots probably faked letter
translated for a leaflet sent to major publishers and
writers in France on "education" etc... where the "aplied
scholastics" front of scam boasted that Hubbard had written
in the 40s to his dean of College, explaining how much he
admired some education etc... and criticizing some others.