An analyze of Tory "Magoo" Bezazian to which she herself is in denial about
Spacetraveler
girl. She then turned her back to it. Probably because it became
uncomfortable to her.
She continues posting all over the place, but ignores me.
It gives some interesting angles!
It is also interesting to see that none of the critics ask her to
clarify some things either! And what does this tell us? Right, typical
sect-behaviour.
She herself will probably think: "Hmm. let's ignore him, this wind
will blow over, and then'll be safe again!"
Definitely, but this all will be in this database. So, I'll nudge you
a little. You claim you are an advocator for "Freedom of speech", I
simply assume that my posting will be allowed, even by you.
Spacetraveler
The original thread is found here:
http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl219904232d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0411061812.288f2567%40posting.google.com
snip
> > Also you appear to have little to none knowledge nor understanding of
> > the adminstration technology of L. Ron Hubbard. I have strongly the
> > impression that you are one of those persons who moved on the 'bridge'
> > the easy way. Just paying money and sitting in the auditing chair or
> > something like that.
> > Study is half the bridge, do you remember this?
>
> Nothing could be farther from the truth. I got in doing training, and
> Co-Audited the lower Bridge and even FPRD, (and promoted training) for all
> of my years in Scientology. In fact, I actually had ~many~ discussions with
> Top Executives, reminding them that 'in the old days' training was THE way,
> and buying auditing/the "Professional route" (as you proclaim) was for
> serious weirdo's. I also was in the Sea Org (Briefly...due to their own
> screw ups), and on staff at CC and AOLA.
> Lastly, I was a volunteer for OSA for 20 years.
And in spite of all that you tell me: (quote)
"Hubbard wrote the Cancellation issue, but at the bottom states:
"This issue does not apply to SP's" And that line was removed from any
issue I was ever shown, so it never made sense to me. Once I left, I
was shown the original PL, and that statement IS there." You know, ALL
you had to do is pull OEC vol 1 look in the index, locate the issue
and read it. You were there 30 years, and only after you left you
still needed someone to show you? Do you actually realize what you
are saying? You are one of those persons who do not find out for
themselves, but let other show or tell you things. And this is the BIG
difference between us. I never did any such thing at any time. This is
why you were able to go around blind in 30 years.
<snip>
> > Get this into your head:
> > "Scientology is application of references originated or written by L.
> > Ron Hubbard.
>
> You can scream that for years to come, and I'll be here telling people this:
> Scientology (C of S) proclaims it is the application of references by LRH,
> and it is. However, depending on where you stand in their graces, is which
> policy will be applied, and which will be IGNORED.
>
> Of course you totally skip over that one, don't you "Spacetraveler"?
Nothing to tell! It is irrelevant what C of S claims they do! If it
is not in policy it is not Scientology. Policy itself will tell you
what is valid and what not. Query it or oppose to it, I always did. It
says in the bible: "Thou shalt not kill." What have Christians done?
Yes, killing people. Bush also says he's a Christian, people are dead
because of him for no reason, great isn't it. Now are we saying that
Bush did that or was it Jesus? Get your targets straight!
> > Not enforcing these is NOT Scientology even if some may
> > use that name."
>
> Ya, well when David Miscavige, RTC, all of WISE and the majority of ABLE
> refuse to enforce these.....
I know they don't, and that does make it not-Scientology.
>I'd say you have just about what you have now:
> totalitarianism. Like it? I hope so. It's yours to keep.
>
> > Fair game is long since cancelled, if some enforce
> > these, it is NOT Scientology, period!
>
> Ok, so what would you call "ReligiousFreedomwatch"? Just a fluke of
> mis-applied BS (and yes, that's bullshit, for yee who pretend not to know
> what it is)?
You don't WANT to get this, do you! It is NOT Scientology!
> I could list endless "LRH Policy" that is either being misused, or not
> applied (ignored)...and you'd still sing your same song:
> "That isn't LRH"
> Tell that to the vast majority of people who worked for LRH, and LEFT
> because he was an asshole, used his own 'Tech" against them unfairly, abused
> people, and then blamed them.
I have been around for over 26 years. I have spoken to many who worked
with LRH, most of the class XII's, and various others. He was tough,
but this does not make him an asshole. An easy guy would never have
been able to get the show on the road. The point is if LRH writings
are something to have or not. Can they be used? For 30 years you
believed they could, and now you think it is about all useless?
> > The changes in the organization after L. Ron Hubbard disappeared from
> > the lines are tremendous. Or you are totally ignorant about this or
> > you simply refuse to find out about these things.
>
> I have posted about this greatly. Obviously it's easier for you to run your
> program than to read what I've written. Yes, the group has changed
> greatly.... Irrelevant!
The problem is that you do NOT implement this information in your
reasoning nor in your communications towards me! You keep on saying
time after time: "YOUR organziation". Claiming such a thing is a
complete absurdity!
You appear to reason as follows. Those who question the activities and
claims of YOUR group (comprizing of Rice, Armstrong and so on)
automatically have to be in favour of the Miscavige Organization. This
also means that you can not acknowledge when I claim that Gerry
Armstrong is seriously dishonest about his claim and his ignorance of
HCO PL 21 July 1968. (see my first post on this thread). He is in YOUR
group and therefore he can not be wrong in anyway, as it seems. He has
to be defended no matter what. You know what? You left one sect and
just joined another 'sect'! And this 'sect' decides for you what you
are to believe and think. If it was not like that. You would be able
to look sensibly and analyze truthfully.
Think about it. Don't get 'emotional' about it. Think about this!
"That mind which understand itself is the mind of a free man."
>but as I've said, Hubbard isn't the perfect person you make him out
to be.
I NEVER claimed any such thing! But don't blame him for things he can
not be made responsible for!
> I never even knew half of what I know about him, until I woke up.
> I've since met many of the people who told these same stories, and no,
> they're not made up lies, or any other version you will try to clutch to,
> hoping and praying they must be wrong.
Evaluation is a difficult thing. He was tough. I remember the story
from Haviva Waters. She f*ed up a pc, again, and he was furious,
threatened to throw her overboard. She did not look back onto him as a
'nice' person. See, evaluation is difficult, when is something just
and when is it not. The majority of people I have spoken to however
speak about him with respect, they tell me, that he understood, that
he wanted to get through to them. You were alright if you were doing
things correctly, but don't fool around too much.
> > However I don't
> > think you have a very good study record, your responses to my posts
> > indicate this.
>
> Another common attempt to invalidate what I've said. If we're going to talk
> about study usage, why can't you read what I write and answer it?
Not an invalidation. You yourself are 'telling' me that in your
communications. I made a simple evalutation, nothing more, nothing
less.
> > Also noted is that you take a personal tone in your responses. Nasty
> > remarks when I say that I do not know what you mean with "BS". See,
> > this tells people something about you!!!
>
> awwwwwww...poor Spacetraveler is being harmed by the big, bad SP's. See?
You say that, I dont'. Stop dramatizing, Tory.
> What does that tell me about you? You've got crappy TR's, you are quite
> illiterate (even 5 year old kids know what BS is), and you are most probably
> a chronic liar...as well as brainwashed to find "Low toned responses".
> Sorry, kiddo, it just doesn't fly.
I wasn't used in my circles. Besides that I was not born in some
english speaking country. I think people figured that out already
anyway. You could simply have explained what it meant, you chose NOT
to do that! Why?
And still you keep justifying what you said in above paragraph. Now
WHO is invalidating WHO? Start looking at what you are doing, damned!
> I tells them that you are not
> > so sure about your position in regards to the subjects I take up!
>
> "I tells them"? Well "I tells them" that if your speech is an example of
> "The Study Tech", you need The Key To Life, (Joke!) or better yet, to get
> out of Scientology.
'It' tells them.
See, more invalidating remarks because of some typo.
> > You life is what YOU make of it.
>
> Uh oh...."You life is what you make it".
> mmmm...what country are you from?
> It's ~your~ life is what you make it, for the record. And yes, I admit it
> took me a long time (*30 years) to fully realize this, but once I did, I
> left Scientology and my life has been MUCH better since~
>
> Dwelling in your personal disappontments does not solve that situation.
>
> First off, I'm not 'dwelling in personal disappointments". I have posted
> what a fraud your organization is, and many ....many people have written to
> thank me. I only wish I'd known about the things I do, years before.
There you go again "your organization"! Is this what it is about,
people that are thanking you? Well, people are also thanking me!
> If you recommended OT
> > VII to others when you yourself were not doing well on it, then this
> > tells something about YOU.
>
> Yes it does. It tells me I was brainwashed into feeling I ~had~ to promote
> it was good, even when I KNEW it wasn't. I still thought,,,I still bought,
> Hubbard's endless BS (bullshit) that "IT must be YOU, Tory, as everyone else
> is winning",
See, Scientology is about recognizing these things, analyzing people,
to evaluate what is really going on in them, not what they say is
going on. It is quite easy to evaluate that if you observe, really
'look'. And you tell me that I am not looking. 30 years you did not
'look', what reason is there to believe that you can 'see' today, only
because that you have been able to acknowledge some things to
yourself? Well?
>and that "This is TOP Secret and it's a HIGH CRIME to discuss
> your case". But you missed that, huh?
Certainly not, but don't tell that OT VII is GREAT when it isn't!
If I was not satisfied with something people would figure it out from
me. Be assured of that! But I will not tell that it's great or
recommendate it. And YOU did exactly that!
> Well, the truth is, everyone else wasn't winning.
> That's why SO Many OT 7's and OT 8's have dropped off, or left. It doesn't
> work, pal. Not for me, or you or them. You'd be better to buy a bag of
> snickers and chant how OT you are while eating them. At least you'd have the
> enjoyment of the taste.
>
> All we can conclude is that this attitude
> > is NOT Scientology, and makes you a dishonest Scientologist, which is
> > the same as a non-Scientoligist.
>
> Ya....the perfect OSA Line, told to me about thousands of "Our Top OT's" and
> "Top Opinion Leaders" ...when They too left. I know the line, man, I heard
> it for years. Guess what? Is it true?
>
> N O T A T ALLLLLLLL.
Don't have a clue where you talk about actually?
> Here's one policy you *might* have missed:
> Hubbard's final PL;
>
> The way OUT
>
> IS
>
> The Neareeeest Dooooooooooor!"
>
> (Hey..HE Took it, why not YOU?)
>
> Call me when you get out....I'll be here to chat.
I never was IN there as you were, I never lost my senses and threw out
my ability to judge and analzye. And this is the difference between
us.
Best wishes,
Spacetraveler
The Shadow
news:9f53d1e2.0411...@posting.google.com...
> Simply a repost of the last post in a discussion I have had with this
> girl. She then turned her back to it. Probably because it became
> uncomfortable to her.
You're not trying to disguise the fact that you're a Scientologist, are
you? If so, calling an analysis "an analyze" is a dead give-away, like
calling a declaration "a declare".
--
The Shadow knows!
edo
<snip>
Why did Hubbard practice fair game? Why did he order Scientologists to
practice fair game? Why did he never do anything effective to stop the
Church of Scientology's practice of fair game, which has gone on for nearly
40 years?
edo
-=-
Lady Chatterly
>
>On 13 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Why did Hubbar
Why do you always wonder if he never do anything effective to stop the
church of scientology's practise of fair game?
--
Lady Chatterly
"The imprimatur of Lady Chatterly. I'm so jealous." -- Dr. Zen
Magoo
"The Shadow" <fil...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:Qnxld.76372$%x.35035@okepread04...
> "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9f53d1e2.0411...@posting.google.com...
>
>> Simply a repost of the last post in a discussion I have had with this
>> girl. She then turned her back to it. Probably because it became
>> uncomfortable to her.
No..........if I remember correctly, it was too long. Even my Outlook
Express won't open it, so you'll have to copy/paste it, if you want more.
Please just do a little at a time, vs. some huge long deal. I'm trying to
help my dying Mother, so I can only answer quick things.
Also, please post THIS answer to all those places you posted your
mis-information about me not answering.
That was not very cool, at all.
>
> You're not trying to disguise the fact that you're a Scientologist, are
> you? If so, calling an analysis "an analyze" is a dead give-away, like
> calling a declaration "a declare".
LOL!
Tory/Magoo~~
>
> --
> The Shadow knows!
Spacetraveler
> In article <V2LQW8RJ38304.8292013889@anonymous.poster> assnonymous <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote:
> >
> >On 13 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
>
> >
>
> >Why did Hubbar
>
> Why do you always wonder if he never do anything effective to stop the
> church of scientology's practise of fair game?
Simple, robotic mind. You can give all the answers you want, 'it' will
still give the same respons.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
http://fair-game-law.notlong.com
Spacetraveler
Lady Chatterly
>
>Lady Chatterly <anonymous...@catcher.in.the.rye> wrote in message news:<05d36b4....@news.teranews.com>...
>> In article <V2LQW8RJ38304.8292013889@anonymous.poster> assnonymous <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote:
>> >
>> >On 13 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Why did Hubbar
>>
>> Why do you always wonder if he never do anything effective to stop the
>> church of scientology's practise of fair game?
>
>Simple,
Don't any other reasons come to mind?
>Spacetraveler
A wise man makes his own decisions, an ignorant man follows the public
opinion.
--
Lady Chatterly
"LC is far more *interesting* than the kOOkologists any day of the
week." -- hoof
edo
Spacetraveler
And that's your point? Errors can be made though.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> "The Shadow" <fil...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:Qnxld.76372$%x.35035@okepread04...
> > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9f53d1e2.0411...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >> Simply a repost of the last post in a discussion I have had with this
> >> girl. She then turned her back to it. Probably because it became
> >> uncomfortable to her.
>
> No..........if I remember correctly, it was too long. Even my Outlook
> Express won't open it, so you'll have to copy/paste it, if you want more.
You decided it being too long at a very convenient moment. Too long
you say? Does not open in Outlook express? I am just now running a
pretty old computer with limited memory, if I can open it, then you
can. In fact it is not even that long. It has been pasted in the first
post on this thread. And also I have earlier quoted bits of it, to
which you chose not to respond to either.
Sounds to me that you use bad justifiers.
> Please just do a little at a time, vs. some huge long deal.
It is for you, not for me. You are running away from it, I do not.
> I'm trying to
> help my dying Mother, so I can only answer quick things.
She has been dying for some time now. Still your posts are literally
all over the place.
> Also, please post THIS answer to all those places you posted your
> mis-information about me not answering.
> That was not very cool, at all.
Indeed, you still did not respond! And I find it unlikely that you in
fact will respond. So far it is definitely not mis-information.
> > You're not trying to disguise the fact that you're a Scientologist, are
> > you? If so, calling an analysis "an analyze" is a dead give-away, like
> > calling a declaration "a declare".
>
> LOL!
Ridiculing is bad defense, especially in your situation.
Anyway, thanks for admitting that you are not totally out of reach.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> No..........if I remember correctly, it was too long. Even my Outlook
> Express won't open it,
Remember this post:
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=41944bb8%40news2.lightlink.com
It's about 4 times or so as long as my last pot to you was. Now,
please tell us, how could you respond to that one, or how were you
able to open that post in your Outlook Express, and not respond to, or
open my post in your Outlook Express)? This needs some explanation.
Spacetraveler
Lady Chatterly
>
>It's about 4 times or so as long as my last pot to you was. Now,
>please tell us, how could you respond to that one, or how were you
>able to open that post in your Outlook Express, and not respond to, or
>open my post in your Outlook Express)? This needs some explanation.
In 2036, the average temperature worldwide is a bit cooler.
--
Lady Chatterly
"you won the HL&S, why not drop the automation? are you still afraid?"
-- yyyiiinnnggg
realpch
>
> One more thing....
>
> > No..........if I remember correctly, it was too long. Even my Outlook
> > Express won't open it,
>
> Remember this post:
> http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=41944bb8%40news2.lightlink.com
>
> It's about 4 times or so as long as my last pot to you was. Now,
> please tell us, how could you respond to that one, or how were you
> able to open that post in your Outlook Express, and not respond to, or
> open my post in your Outlook Express)? This needs some explanation.
>
> Spacetraveler
A lot of your posts are too long Spacetraveler!
: )
Peach
The Shadow
>> are
>> you? If so, calling an analysis "an analyze" is a dead give-away,
>> like
>> calling a declaration "a declare".
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...>
> And that's your point? Errors can be made though.
There is not a point; there is a question. Are you trying to disguise
the fact that you're a Scientologist?
Yes, errors can be made. But was an error made accidently, or did you
intend to use the incorrect word?
--
The Shadow knows!
Magoo
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.0411...@posting.google.com...
> "Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:<4197311a$1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>> "The Shadow" <fil...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>> news:Qnxld.76372$%x.35035@okepread04...
>> > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:9f53d1e2.0411...@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> >> Simply a repost of the last post in a discussion I have had with this
>> >> girl. She then turned her back to it. Probably because it became
>> >> uncomfortable to her.
>>
>> No..........if I remember correctly, it was too long. Even my Outlook
>> Express won't open it, so you'll have to copy/paste it, if you want more.
>
> You decided it being too long at a very convenient moment. Too long
> you say? Does not open in Outlook express? I am just now running a
> pretty old computer with limited memory, if I can open it, then you
> can. In fact it is not even that long. It has been pasted in the first
> post on this thread. And also I have earlier quoted bits of it, to
> which you chose not to respond to either.
>
> Sounds to me that you use bad justifiers.
Sounds to me like you're exactly the JERK I thought you were. I offered a
solution, you won't do it..go screw yourself.
>
>> Please just do a little at a time, vs. some huge long deal.
>
> It is for you, not for me. You are running away from it, I do not.
As I said, once a jerk, always a jerk.
>
>> I'm trying to
>> help my dying Mother, so I can only answer quick things.
>
> She has been dying for some time now. Still your posts are literally
> all over the place.
So? Death is that way, Mr.
However, jerks rarely understand things like that. I guess you fit the
bill.
>
>
>> Also, please post THIS answer to all those places you posted your
>> mis-information about me not answering.
>> That was not very cool, at all.
>
> Indeed, you still did not respond! And I find it unlikely that you in
> fact will respond. So far it is definitely not mis-information.
I said what I need for me to answer.
You can't.....you get what you asked for.
>
>
>> > You're not trying to disguise the fact that you're a Scientologist, are
>> > you? If so, calling an analysis "an analyze" is a dead give-away, like
>> > calling a declaration "a declare".
>>
>> LOL!
>
> Ridiculing is bad defense, especially in your situation.
>
> Anyway, thanks for admitting that you are not totally out of reach.
I told you what I need. Either do it, or say 'see you later'.
Tory/Magoo~
>
> Spacetraveler
Magoo
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.0411...@posting.google.com...
>
>> No..........if I remember correctly, it was too long. Even my Outlook
>> Express won't open it,
>
> Remember this post:
> http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=41944bb8%40news2.lightlink.com
>
> It's about 4 times or so as long as my last pot to you was. Now,
> please tell us, how could you respond to that one, or how were you
> able to open that post in your Outlook Express, and not respond to, or
> open my post in your Outlook Express)? This needs some explanation.
>
> Spacetraveler
The one I posted to was ON ARS.
This one recently you've posted the link, but the post isn't there, that I
can see.
Sorry.
Don't believe me? Tough.
Tory/Magoo~
Magoo
Spacetraveler
In fact they are not at all. This is a discussion group, you discuss
things. You can not discuss with one-liners like: "I'm right!" "No,
you're not!" "Yes, I am!" "No, you're not!"
See, for these you do not have to think.
The observation is that those people tending to claim that some posts
are too long (when in fact they are not) is because they are
uncomfortable. Besides that, Tory is your companion, she shares your
opinions, she is in YOUR group and so you HAVE to ack ANYTHING she may
claim.
Spacetraveler
Lady Chatterly
>> Spacetraveler wrote:
>> >
>> > One more thing....
>> >
>> > > No..........if I remember correctly, it was too long. Even my Outlook
>> > > Express won't open it,
>> >
>> > Remember this post:
>> >
>> > It's about 4 times or so as long as my last pot to you was. Now,
>> > please tell us, how could you respond to that one, or how were you
>> > able to open that post in your Outlook Express, and not respond to, or
>> > open my post in your Outlook Express)? This needs some explanation.
>> >
>> > Spacetraveler
>>
>> A lot of your posts are too long Spacetraveler!
>>
>> : )
>
>In fact they are not at all. This is a discussion group, you discuss
>things. You can not discuss with one-liners like: "I'm right!" "No,
>you're not!" "Yes, I am!" "No, you're not!"
>See, for these you do not have to think.
Do you always ask if you are right?
>The observation is that those people tending to claim that some posts
>are too long (when in fact they are not) is because they are
>uncomfortable. Besides that, Tory is your companion, she shares your
>opinions, she is in YOUR group and so you HAVE to ack ANYTHING she may
>claim.
Are you certain that is why?
--
Lady Chatterly
"I'm not a 'bot' either but I can fake it as good as a pretender like
yourself." -- Philip Lewis
Spacetraveler
Meaning?
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9f53d1e2.0411...@posting.google.com...
> > One more thing....
> >
> >> No..........if I remember correctly, it was too long. Even my Outlook
> >> Express won't open it,
> >
> > Remember this post:
> > http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=41944bb8%40news2.lightlink.com
> >
> > It's about 4 times or so as long as my last pot to you was. Now,
> > please tell us, how could you respond to that one, or how were you
> > able to open that post in your Outlook Express, and not respond to, or
> > open my post in your Outlook Express)? This needs some explanation.
> >
> > Spacetraveler
>
> The one I posted to was ON ARS.
> This one recently you've posted the link, but the post isn't there, that I
> can see.
> Sorry.
Alright, FIRST you claim:
"No..........if I remember correctly, it was too long. Even my Outlook
Express won't open it, so you'll have to copy/paste it, if you want
more."
and now you say:
"The one I posted to was ON ARS.
This one recently you've posted the link, but the post isn't there,
that I can see."
Now, which is it. Both were posted on the ARS by the way.
It is also reposted as the first item on this thread. Seems to me you
were not being honest while being supposedly a Scientologist, and you
are not being honest here either. What kind of Freedom is that?
The observation made is that the last post of our discussion is
inconvenient to you, and so you will do anything to get it out of the
way. Meaning not addressing the issues.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9f53d1e2.0411...@posting.google.com...
> > "Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:<4197311a$1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> >> "The Shadow" <fil...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Qnxld.76372$%x.35035@okepread04...
> >> > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:9f53d1e2.0411...@posting.google.com...
> >> >
> >> >> Simply a repost of the last post in a discussion I have had with this
> >> >> girl. She then turned her back to it. Probably because it became
> >> >> uncomfortable to her.
> >>
> >> No..........if I remember correctly, it was too long. Even my Outlook
> >> Express won't open it, so you'll have to copy/paste it, if you want more.
> >
> > You decided it being too long at a very convenient moment. Too long
> > you say? Does not open in Outlook express? I am just now running a
> > pretty old computer with limited memory, if I can open it, then you
> > can. In fact it is not even that long. It has been pasted in the first
> > post on this thread. And also I have earlier quoted bits of it, to
> > which you chose not to respond to either.
> >
> > Sounds to me that you use bad justifiers.
>
> Sounds to me like you're exactly the JERK I thought you were. I offered a
> solution, you won't do it..go screw yourself.
If you KNOW you are right, then WHY are getting angry and resort to
these kind of utterings? WHY, Tory!
> >
> >> Please just do a little at a time, vs. some huge long deal.
> >
> > It is for you, not for me. You are running away from it, I do not.
>
> As I said, once a jerk, always a jerk.
> >
> >> I'm trying to
> >> help my dying Mother, so I can only answer quick things.
> >
> > She has been dying for some time now. Still your posts are literally
> > all over the place.
>
> So? Death is that way, Mr.
>
> However, jerks rarely understand things like that. I guess you fit the
> bill.
> >
> >
> >> Also, please post THIS answer to all those places you posted your
> >> mis-information about me not answering.
> >> That was not very cool, at all.
> >
> > Indeed, you still did not respond! And I find it unlikely that you in
> > fact will respond. So far it is definitely not mis-information.
>
> I said what I need for me to answer.
> You can't.....you get what you asked for.
> >
> >
> >> > You're not trying to disguise the fact that you're a Scientologist, are
> >> > you? If so, calling an analysis "an analyze" is a dead give-away, like
> >> > calling a declaration "a declare".
> >>
> >> LOL!
> >
> > Ridiculing is bad defense, especially in your situation.
> >
> > Anyway, thanks for admitting that you are not totally out of reach.
>
> I told you what I need. Either do it, or say 'see you later'.
You are not defending your position very well.....
The bottomline is that you want to 'avoid'. Responses can be made on
the Internet via Google or via a newsreader. What's your problem
anyway? If you 'honestly' want to discuss you do some effort for that,
you however come with excuses. All I did was reminding you of
finishing that discussion, and see what you do. You never contacted me
either directly until I nudged you.
Just that you realize that quite a few persons are reading these
messages, and because of your behaviour you are losing credibility.
But that's not my problem, you are doing that to yourself.
Spacetraveler
Peregrine
Actually, Spacetraveler, quite a few people are reading these messages and
since your little snipe at Tory about her mother, are thinking to
themselves:
What a jerk.
Tory has answered your query quite satisfactorily, explaining her reasons
for requesting that you post the relevant bits of your previous post. And I
think she has also been generous to you in doing so, since previous
experience with you shows that any answers to you will simply be either
ignored or be the basis for another round of "monkey and weasel". In other
words, arguing with you is a complete waste of everyone's time.
Thanks ever so for proving to the ladies and gentlemen of the audience - yet
again - that scientology does not teach you compassion, good manners, or
logical thought processes.
--
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
Bent Stigsen
What are you on about. Did you fail to notice she has other things on
her mind than your nitpicking.
Of course you didn't. It is your golden opportunity to show the world
just how unpleasant you can be. For you information, it works.
> It is also reposted as the first item on this thread. Seems to me you
> were not being honest while being supposedly a Scientologist, and you
> are not being honest here either. What kind of Freedom is that?
Perhaps something like, freedom to be forgiven, to make a mistake,
without being harrassed or sent to a labourcamp.
How is your own honesty. Should we talk about that?
> The observation made is that the last post of our discussion is
> inconvenient to you, and so you will do anything to get it out of the
> way. Meaning not addressing the issues.
I think Steve Allen said it best.
http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/celebcrit.html#steveallen
/Bent
> Spacetraveler
realpch
>
> realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<41982591...@aol.com>...
> > Spacetraveler wrote:
> > A lot of your posts are too long Spacetraveler!
> >
> > : )
>
> In fact they are not at all. This is a discussion group, you discuss
> things. You can not discuss with one-liners like: "I'm right!" "No,
> you're not!" "Yes, I am!" "No, you're not!"
> See, for these you do not have to think.
>
> The observation is that those people tending to claim that some posts
> are too long (when in fact they are not) is because they are
> uncomfortable. Besides that, Tory is your companion, she shares your
> opinions, she is in YOUR group and so you HAVE to ack ANYTHING she may
> claim.
>
> Spacetraveler
Naw, I don't ack everything she "claims". I don't always agree with all
of the things she says. And by the way, I'm a *big* fan of snipping
posts! As for me saying posts are too long, I've said it to other people
before. I believe I once affronted Gerry Armstrong in this matter.
Peach
Bent Stigsen
> realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<41982591...@aol.com>...
>
>>Spacetraveler wrote:
>>
>>>One more thing....
>>>
>>>>No..........if I remember correctly, it was too long. Even my Outlook
>>>>Express won't open it,
>>>
>>>Remember this post:
>>>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=41944bb8%40news2.lightlink.com
>>>
>>>It's about 4 times or so as long as my last pot to you was. Now,
>>>please tell us, how could you respond to that one, or how were you
>>>able to open that post in your Outlook Express, and not respond to, or
>>>open my post in your Outlook Express)? This needs some explanation.
>>>
>>>Spacetraveler
>>
>>A lot of your posts are too long Spacetraveler!
>>
>>: )
>
>
> In fact they are not at all. This is a discussion group, you discuss
> things. You can not discuss with one-liners like: "I'm right!" "No,
> you're not!" "Yes, I am!" "No, you're not!"
> See, for these you do not have to think.
What? You dont think before you say "I'm right!" or "No, you're not!"
> The observation is that those people tending to claim that some posts
> are too long (when in fact they are not) is because they are
> uncomfortable.
*The* observation? I can give you an alternative observation.
Like rolling their eyes and ... http://www.ringthing.ch/
> Besides that, Tory is your companion, she shares your
> opinions, she is in YOUR group and so you HAVE to ack ANYTHING she may
> claim.
Sorry to disappoint you. But that is not how it works in wog world.
/Bent
> Spacetraveler
Lady Chatterly
Oh, you are, are you?
>Peach
Are you a hacker?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Lady Chatterly is a software program that generates posts, Stupid."
-- Meat-->Plow
Spacetraveler
See, you are reiterating her EXACT words, nice to back up YOUR
authority, whom you will follow blindly.
I disagree by the way with your opinion (if you can call it an
opinion).
My assessment of the situation has been very clear and very exact, and
is fully supported by the actual facts as far as they can be verified.
It is ALL earlier on this very thread.
> Tory has answered your query quite satisfactorily, explaining her reasons
> for requesting that you post the relevant bits of your previous post. And I
> think she has also been generous to you in doing so, since previous
> experience with you shows that any answers to you will simply be either
> ignored or be the basis for another round of "monkey and weasel". In other
> words, arguing with you is a complete waste of everyone's time.
The usual sectbehaviour displayed, in fact nothing else than smear!
>
> Thanks ever so for proving to the ladies and gentlemen of the audience - yet
> again - that scientology does not teach you compassion, good manners, or
> logical thought processes.
THEY will KNOW, my dearest Peregrine, THEY will KNOW! People are not
so stupid you may think them to be!
Spacetraveler
Peregrine
Because her mother is dying, and she's got more important things on her mind
than arguing with a complete timewaster like you on usenet?
>> >> >> Please just do a little at a time, vs. some huge long deal.
>> >> >
>> >> > It is for you, not for me. You are running away from it, I do not.
>> >>
>> >> As I said, once a jerk, always a jerk.
>> >> >
>> >> >> I'm trying to
>> >> >> help my dying Mother, so I can only answer quick things.
>> >> >
>> >> > She has been dying for some time now. Still your posts are literally
>> >> > all over the place.
>> >>
>> >> So? Death is that way, Mr.
>> >>
>> >> However, jerks rarely understand things like that. I guess you fit
>> >> the
>> >> bill.
<snip>
>> > Just that you realize that quite a few persons are reading these
>> > messages, and because of your behaviour you are losing credibility.
>> > But that's not my problem, you are doing that to yourself.
>>
>> Actually, Spacetraveler, quite a few people are reading these messages
>> and
>> since your little snipe at Tory about her mother, are thinking to
>> themselves:
>>
>> What a jerk.
>
> See, you are reiterating her EXACT words, nice to back up YOUR
> authority, whom you will follow blindly.
Actually, if you'd bothered to read (or been allowed to read?) any of my
other writing here in this newsgroup, you'd know that the authorities I use
to back up my arguments range far and wide. Unlike you, whose single
authority is one man: Hubbard.
And since in *this* case, we are discussing someone (you) badgering another
member of this newsgroup (Tory) to provide an answer to a question which was
intially asked, what, a week ago (co-incidentally around the time that
Tory's mother took a turn for the worse), in the midst of a very long
thread, while that poster's mother is dying, I think that, yes, in this
case, I happen to agree completely with Tory's assessment of you, which was,
iirc,
What a Jerk.
Let me make it more clear for you:
IMHO:
You, sir, are a Jerk. If they gave out awards for the Most Meritorious Jerk
in Jerkdom at your IAS events, you would undoubtably be the recipient of
Jerk of the Year. If there was a course for Operating Jerkdom you'd be at
least an OJ7 by now. If they had special parking zones for Jerks you'd have
a sticker on your car windscreen entitling you to use them.
But then again, compassion is very low on the tone scale (lurkers: go have a
look at Hubbard's tone scale and see where "compassion" - a major part of
almost every other world religion - appears in scientology doctrine). And
further to that, I've noticed that all the best scientologists (ie the most
indoctrinated) are almost always lacking in good manners, compassion and
respect for others. Seems to get beaten out of them somewhere on the Bridge
to Total Freedom.
> I disagree by the way with your opinion (if you can call it an
> opinion).
> My assessment of the situation has been very clear and very exact, and
> is fully supported by the actual facts as far as they can be verified.
> It is ALL earlier on this very thread.
>
>> Tory has answered your query quite satisfactorily, explaining her reasons
>> for requesting that you post the relevant bits of your previous post. And
>> I
>> think she has also been generous to you in doing so, since previous
>> experience with you shows that any answers to you will simply be either
>> ignored or be the basis for another round of "monkey and weasel". In
>> other
>> words, arguing with you is a complete waste of everyone's time.
>
> The usual sectbehaviour displayed, in fact nothing else than smear!
Still working on the same old logical fallacy, I see. You disappoint me.
I know! Perhaps the problem is that you have a MU on "strawman". Here's a
helpful link for you:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
If you explore the rest of that domain (it's even got pictures!) I'm sure
that you can come up with one or two others to try, and one day you may even
become a master of more than the strawman argument.
>> Thanks ever so for proving to the ladies and gentlemen of the audience -
>> yet
>> again - that scientology does not teach you compassion, good manners, or
>> logical thought processes.
>
> THEY will KNOW, my dearest Peregrine, THEY will KNOW! People are not
> so stupid you may think them to be!
Fortunately for the human race, you are correct. I'm sure that is the reason
why your orgs are so full to overbrimming with people who would just love to
become Just Like You.
Ball of Fluff
<snip>
> You, sir, are a Jerk. If they gave out awards for the Most Meritorious
> Jerk in Jerkdom at your IAS events, you would undoubtably be the recipient
> of Jerk of the Year. If there was a course for Operating Jerkdom you'd be
> at least an OJ7 by now. If they had special parking zones for Jerks you'd
> have a sticker on your car windscreen entitling you to use them.
>
> But then again, compassion is very low
Perhaps you can find it for us. I have one right here.
> on the tone scale (lurkers: go have a look at Hubbard's tone scale and see
> where "compassion" - a major part of almost every other world religion -
> appears in scientology doctrine).
You really don't know what you are talking about here.
It's not listed as its own category. Many feelings are not. Only some are.
love and compassion are inculcated throughout the tone scale. As a person
becomes more up tone, his ability to feel love and compassion are stronger.
Hubbard talks about this in Science of Survival.
> And further to that, I've noticed that all the best scientologists (ie the
> most indoctrinated) are almost always lacking in good manners, compassion
> and respect for others.
Then that would hardly make them the best Scientologists.
A good Scn'ist, a good Buddhist, a good anything, is someone who uses his or
her religion or philosophy for good.
I know a lot of Christians. The ones I consider good aren't the
indoctrinated ones and believe you me, I've met many indoctrinated ones.
>Seems to get beaten out of them somewhere on the Bridge to Total Freedom.
Which is contra to what Hubbard wrote and recommended. So they're not good
Scn'ists. They may be good CofS members, good culties, but they are not good
practitioners of their philosophy.
>
>> I disagree by the way with your opinion (if you can call it an
>> opinion).
>> My assessment of the situation has been very clear and very exact, and
>> is fully supported by the actual facts as far as they can be verified.
>> It is ALL earlier on this very thread.
>>
>>> Tory has answered your query quite satisfactorily, explaining her
>>> reasons
>>> for requesting that you post the relevant bits of your previous post.
>>> And I
>>> think she has also been generous to you in doing so, since previous
>>> experience with you shows that any answers to you will simply be either
>>> ignored or be the basis for another round of "monkey and weasel". In
>>> other
>>> words, arguing with you is a complete waste of everyone's time.
Never answered mine, though.
I've stopped asking.
>>
>> The usual sectbehaviour displayed, in fact nothing else than smear!
>
> Still working on the same old logical fallacy, I see. You disappoint me.
No, he doesn't. He acts exactly as you expect Scn'ists to act. Therefore you
are not disappointed. Your expectations were evidently met.
C
edo
>> >> Why did Hubbard practice fair game? Why did he order Scientologists
>> >> to practice fair game? Why did he never do anything effective to
>> >> stop the Church of Scientology's practice of fair game, which has
>> >> gone on for nearly 40 years?
>> >
>> >http://fair-game-law.notlong.com
>>
>> Message-ID: <V2LQW8RJ38304.8292013889@anonymous.poster>
>
>Meaning?
Meaning your "answer" (http://fair-game-law.notlong.com) does not answer
the questions in my message (V2LQW8RJ38304.8292013889@anonymous.poster).
In Scn we call it TR 3.
If I'd been taking you seriously, I'd have tried TR 4. But what would that
take? What would get you into real communication on this issue and willing
to answer the question instead of going on with your Q and A?
If you can answer that question, I might try TR 4.
edo
-=-
Lady Chatterly
>
>On 15 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
>>> >> Why did Hubbard practice fair game? Why did he order Scientologists
>>> >> to practice fair game? Why did he never do anything effective to
>>> >> stop the Church of Scientology's practice of fair game, which has
>>> >> gone on for nearly 40 years?
>>> >
>>> >http://fair-game-law.notlong.com
>>>
>>> Message-ID: <V2LQW8RJ38304.8292013889@anonymous.poster>
>>
>>Meaning?
>
>Meaning your "answer" (http://fair-game-law.notlong.com) does not answer
>the questions in my message (V2LQW8RJ38304.8292013889@anonymous.poster).
>
>In Scn we call it TR 3.
Are you certain about that?
>If I'd been taking you seriously, I'd have tried TR 4. But what would that
>take? What would get you into real communication on this issue and willing
>to answer the question instead of going on with your Q and A?
I wonder if Tipler and Kerr are in thins worldine?
>If you can answer that question, I might try TR 4.
Life without a friend is death without a witness.
--
Lady Chatterly
"How many of you reading know what a Turing Test is? This is not an
idle question. If you do know, then you might understand something
pertinent about the first poster I quote in this message." -- Timo S
Saloniemi
Peregrine
news:41995b53$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> "Peregrine" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:2vt6q8F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> <snip>
>
>> You, sir, are a Jerk. If they gave out awards for the Most Meritorious
>> Jerk in Jerkdom at your IAS events, you would undoubtably be the
>> recipient of Jerk of the Year. If there was a course for Operating
>> Jerkdom you'd be at least an OJ7 by now. If they had special parking
>> zones for Jerks you'd have a sticker on your car windscreen entitling you
>> to use them.
>>
>> But then again, compassion is very low
>
> Perhaps you can find it for us. I have one right here.
>
>> on the tone scale (lurkers: go have a look at Hubbard's tone scale and
>> see where "compassion" - a major part of almost every other world
>> religion - appears in scientology doctrine).
>
> You really don't know what you are talking about here.
Oh?
http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/full.htm
I stand corrected. They call it "sympathy", at 0.9. But I have seen
scientologists discuss *exactly* this issue of "where is sympathy on the
tone scale?" using the word c-o-m-p-a-s-s-i-o-n.
(You know, Claire, I'm starting to lose quite a bit of respect for you. You
know *exactly* what I'm talking about, and playing second fiddle to
Spacetravellor is beginning to make me wonder about your motives here in
ars).
Those who are 2.0 and below on the tone scale, may I remind you, are to be
"disposed of quietly and without sorrow".
Poof! There goes Mother Theresa! Line her up against the wall with all the
members of Medicins sans Frontieres. Remember not to feel sorrow as you pull
the trigger.
And there goes the Dalai Lama too. Too bad (and he was such a *nice* chap.
For someone so low on the tone scale. Obviously his "serenity of beingness"
is just a complete fake, otherwise he'd have power over MEST and Tibet would
still be in the hands of the Tibetans).
Care to tell us what scientologists think about the "non-productive" members
of society, Fluffy?
Care to tell us what happens when an elderly or "non-productive" member is
off-loaded?
Or what happens to the clinically insane in a Scientology Society?
Or what Hubbard said about the proper place of "coloureds"?
Or why people *really* get MS, Epilepsy, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Cancer,
etc etc, according to Hubbard?
Hmmmm?
> It's not listed as its own category. Many feelings are not. Only some are.
>
> love and compassion are inculcated throughout the tone scale. As a person
> becomes more up tone, his ability to feel love and compassion are
> stronger. Hubbard talks about this in Science of Survival.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/39ucy
Hubbard talked about a hell of a lot of things that he didn't even mean,
certainly never intended to carry out, did not demonstrate in his own life,
and which for the most part pinched from other, better, writers and
thinkers. It's almost a rule of thumb: if it sounds good, go find who he
plagarised it from.
He also was a cunning con-man and showman with one eye always on promotion
and public relations. Why do you think the "public" stuff sounds so good,
and the private, secret, and confidential stuff, that the church is hoping
will never see the light of day, sounds so very very bad? Look at the
*actions* of the church. When they framed Paulette Cooper, when they allowed
Lisa McPherson to die, when they practice every single day Fair Game tactics
in this newsgroup, on the web (care for a round of RFW, anyone?), in real
life, when they drive someone out of the country, when they kill people's
pets, when they command someone (oh, oops! sorry! *suggest* to someone) that
disconnection might be necessary, when they pervert the legal system until
it becomes a mockery of justice and the law . . . then the argument you are
presenting in the above link - that somehow Hubbard was "a good man" and
that "as a person becomes more up tone, his ability to feel love and
compassion are stronger" according to Hubbard's "Science of Survival"
(assuming of course ALWAYS that there are no other, better, ways to "move up
the tone scale" - which is a load of old codswallop, btw, and certainly not
"researched" in any creditable research institution) . . .
. . . . then your claim becomes not only illogical. It becomes offensive.
>> And further to that, I've noticed that all the best scientologists (ie
>> the most indoctrinated) are almost always lacking in good manners,
>> compassion and respect for others.
>
> Then that would hardly make them the best Scientologists.
And the ones who are most strenuously defending your "church" on this
newsgroup (and please, spare me the lecture - and the strawman - yet
again! - of "but not all scientologists are church of scientology
scientologists!" because you know, once again, *exactly* what I mean) are
certainly not demonstrating being "good" scientologists.
I really just could not even be bothered finishing you off, Claire. I
*could* now go through a precis of exactly what "being in a state of Enemy"
and what one has to do to get back into the good graces of the all-important
"group" means to an indoctrinated scientologist. You're a subtle arguer,
I'll give you that. Certainly more of a challenge than Spacetraveller.
But in the end, you are also wasting my time just as much as he/she is.
> A good Scn'ist, a good Buddhist, a good anything, is someone who uses his
> or her religion or philosophy for good.
>
> I know a lot of Christians. The ones I consider good aren't the
> indoctrinated ones and believe you me, I've met many indoctrinated ones.
>
>
>>Seems to get beaten out of them somewhere on the Bridge to Total Freedom.
>
> Which is contra to what Hubbard wrote and recommended. So they're not good
> Scn'ists. They may be good CofS members, good culties, but they are not
> good practitioners of their philosophy.
According *to you*, Claire, who has a sort of sickly-sweet, fairy-floss,
Santa-Claus-and-Easter-Bunny view of scientology which is not at all in tune
with the realities of what Hubbard actually wrote and demanded from his
followers. Or are you now going to claim, along with Barbara, that he never
wrote those internal orders? That he never invented Fair Game? That he never
said that those "low on the tone scale" - which, it bears repeating, has no
place in any *serious* discussion of human nature or human ethics despite
the claims of "hundreds of hours of research" having gone into coming up
with it (Hubbard-ese for "I made it up one night when I was off my nut on
pinks and greys") - should be disposed of "quietly, and without sorrow"?
In fact, according to your criteria, there are probably about 2 "good"
scientologists existing in the world today. You and your husband. And maybe
Cerridwen. When you're not disagreeing with her.
As the old statistician's saying goes "'me and my friends' does not
constitute a statistical sample".
>>> I disagree by the way with your opinion (if you can call it an
>>> opinion).
>>> My assessment of the situation has been very clear and very exact, and
>>> is fully supported by the actual facts as far as they can be verified.
>>> It is ALL earlier on this very thread.
>>>
>>>> Tory has answered your query quite satisfactorily, explaining her
>>>> reasons
>>>> for requesting that you post the relevant bits of your previous post.
>>>> And I
>>>> think she has also been generous to you in doing so, since previous
>>>> experience with you shows that any answers to you will simply be either
>>>> ignored or be the basis for another round of "monkey and weasel". In
>>>> other
>>>> words, arguing with you is a complete waste of everyone's time.
>
> Never answered mine, though.
>
> I've stopped asking.
And just *what* has this got to do with anything?
>>> The usual sectbehaviour displayed, in fact nothing else than smear!
>>
>> Still working on the same old logical fallacy, I see. You disappoint me.
>
> No, he doesn't. He acts exactly as you expect Scn'ists to act. Therefore
> you are not disappointed. Your expectations were evidently met.
Sarcasm really escapes you, doesn't it, Claire?
[note to Barbara: this is close to a Peregrine Explosion. But we're not
*quite* there yet].
Magoo
Thank you VERY much, Peregrine.
I hope I get to meet you someday soon.
Tory/Magoo~
Magoo
Thank you for showing what utter lack of compassion most people working for
OSA have. You show NONE. I've told you I am trying to help my dying Mom.
I told you I couldn't pull up your stupid link. I am happy to answer
anything IF it's here, I can read it, and answer it, and it's not too long.
If it's a link, and it won't open up (AS WAS YOURS WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR
NOT)....No, I won't.
And No, I won't spend the time NOW...trying to find it on Google.
So quit your idiotic moronic OSA/Scientological idiocy of wasting time
lying, saying I'm this and that when you COULD just post whatever the HELL
your questions are (A few at a time)...or STFU.
Man you people sure make Scientology look BAD. Take your head out of your
ASS for once, and view the world. Pull the "OT" cotton out of your ears and
LISTEN.
Lastly if you truly don't believe me, drive over in your car and SEE what
I'm saying. But you "OT's" Can't do that, can you.
Wimp assed jerk.
Tory/Magoo!
Tory/Magoo~
Spacetraveler
> "Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy> wrote in message
> news:41995b53$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >
> > "Peregrine" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:2vt6q8F...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> You, sir, are a Jerk. If they gave out awards for the Most Meritorious
> >> Jerk in Jerkdom at your IAS events, you would undoubtably be the
> >> recipient of Jerk of the Year. If there was a course for Operating
> >> Jerkdom you'd be at least an OJ7 by now. If they had special parking
> >> zones for Jerks you'd have a sticker on your car windscreen entitling you
> >> to use them.
> >>
> >> But then again, compassion is very low
> >
> > Perhaps you can find it for us. I have one right here.
> >
> >> on the tone scale (lurkers: go have a look at Hubbard's tone scale and
> >> see where "compassion" - a major part of almost every other world
> >> religion - appears in scientology doctrine).
> >
> > You really don't know what you are talking about here.
>
> Oh?
>
> http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/full.htm
>
> I stand corrected. They call it "sympathy", at 0.9. But I have seen
> scientologists discuss *exactly* this issue of "where is sympathy on the
> tone scale?" using the word c-o-m-p-a-s-s-i-o-n.
Funny, you seriously mix up things here and force your personal
interpretation on this. Those who have seriously studied the tone
scale and especially "Science of Survival" (the book that get into
great detail about these things) will see this.
> (You know, Claire, I'm starting to lose quite a bit of respect for you.
You say that solely because she spots where you go off-track with your
assessment. NO other reason! You want to be right, even if you may be
wrong.
Below here you come with lots of explanation, justification to uphold
(rather attempting to) your position and credibility.
Unsupported claim.
>
> He also was a cunning con-man and showman with one eye always on promotion
> and public relations. Why do you think the "public" stuff sounds so good,
> and the private, secret, and confidential stuff, that the church is hoping
> will never see the light of day, sounds so very very bad? Look at the
> *actions* of the church. When they framed Paulette Cooper, when they allowed
> Lisa McPherson to die, when they practice every single day Fair Game tactics
> in this newsgroup, on the web (care for a round of RFW, anyone?), in real
> life, when they drive someone out of the country, when they kill people's
> pets, when they command someone (oh, oops! sorry! *suggest* to someone) that
> disconnection might be necessary, when they pervert the legal system until
> it becomes a mockery of justice and the law . . . then the argument you are
> presenting in the above link - that somehow Hubbard was "a good man" and
> that "as a person becomes more up tone, his ability to feel love and
> compassion are stronger" according to Hubbard's "Science of Survival"
> (assuming of course ALWAYS that there are no other, better, ways to "move up
> the tone scale" - which is a load of old codswallop, btw, and certainly not
> "researched" in any creditable research institution) . . .
>
> . . . . then your claim becomes not only illogical. It becomes offensive.
Justification and lots of writing doesn't get you out of this mess, my
dear boy. .-)
Migh, migh..... isn't that obvious?
> >>> The usual sectbehaviour displayed, in fact nothing else than smear!
> >>
> >> Still working on the same old logical fallacy, I see. You disappoint me.
> >
> > No, he doesn't. He acts exactly as you expect Scn'ists to act. Therefore
> > you are not disappointed. Your expectations were evidently met.
>
> Sarcasm really escapes you, doesn't it, Claire?
>
> [note to Barbara: this is close to a Peregrine Explosion. But we're not
> *quite* there yet].
Your're EXPOSED, my dear boy! EXPOSED, you babble about tone scales
and you don't even have a clue what they are about.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
If she has time to do posting all over the place (originating new ones
and responding to), then she can also finish the discussion with me.
You're off-track with your claim.
Funny. Unsupported claim.
>
> And since in *this* case, we are discussing someone (you) badgering another
> member of this newsgroup (Tory) to provide an answer to a question which was
> intially asked, what, a week ago (co-incidentally around the time that
> Tory's mother took a turn for the worse), in the midst of a very long
> thread, while that poster's mother is dying, I think that, yes, in this
> case, I happen to agree completely with Tory's assessment of you, which was,
> iirc,
>
> What a Jerk.
You focus on the one thing that was not even her argument from the
start why she had not responded, this is all in detail earlier on this
thread. Wrong targeting.
The WHY are you WORRIED!
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
Excuse me! If she is going all around here and "nitpicking" other
people with at times quite guestionable posting, then she can respond
to our discussion in where I consult her understanding of L. Ron
Hubbard writing.
Crying 'with' someone will not help anyone, least of all not her. It
wasn't even her argument from the start. Please do a PROPER assessment
of happenings!
> Of course you didn't. It is your golden opportunity to show the world
> just how unpleasant you can be. For you information, it works.
Basically the ONLY unpleasant thing there is, in fact is wrong
targeting.
> > It is also reposted as the first item on this thread. Seems to me you
> > were not being honest while being supposedly a Scientologist, and you
> > are not being honest here either. What kind of Freedom is that?
>
> Perhaps something like, freedom to be forgiven, to make a mistake,
> without being harrassed or sent to a labourcamp.
Sorry, I did not harras her. Damn, START EVALUATING!!!
> How is your own honesty. Should we talk about that?
Blind defense and now wrong targeting, what's next?
Sorry guy, I haven't been dishonest about ANYTHING!
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> On 15 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
> >> >> Why did Hubbard practice fair game? Why did he order Scientologists
> >> >> to practice fair game? Why did he never do anything effective to
> >> >> stop the Church of Scientology's practice of fair game, which has
> >> >> gone on for nearly 40 years?
> >> >
> >> >http://fair-game-law.notlong.com
> >>
> >> Message-ID: <V2LQW8RJ38304.8292013889@anonymous.poster>
> >
> >Meaning?
>
> Meaning your "answer" (http://fair-game-law.notlong.com) does not answer
> the questions in my message (V2LQW8RJ38304.8292013889@anonymous.poster).
It will give you a bit of information which enables you to do your own
evaluation. An evaluation based directly on the original writings.
Basically I am not so much interested in opinion when it comes to
these kind of things. If in fact you would in favour of objective
study re these thing, yo would be appreciative of that someone (holder
of that site) has done the groundwork for that.
Spacetraveler
realpch
>
> "Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy> wrote in message
> >>Seems to get beaten out of them somewhere on the Bridge to Total Freedom.
> >
> > Which is contra to what Hubbard wrote and recommended. So they're not good
> > Scn'ists. They may be good CofS members, good culties, but they are not
> > good practitioners of their philosophy.
>
> According *to you*, Claire, who has a sort of sickly-sweet, fairy-floss,
> Santa-Claus-and-Easter-Bunny view of scientology which is not at all in tune
> with the realities of what Hubbard actually wrote and demanded from his
> followers. Or are you now going to claim, along with Barbara, that he never
> wrote those internal orders? That he never invented Fair Game? That he never
> said that those "low on the tone scale" - which, it bears repeating, has no
> place in any *serious* discussion of human nature or human ethics despite
> the claims of "hundreds of hours of research" having gone into coming up
> with it (Hubbard-ese for "I made it up one night when I was off my nut on
> pinks and greys") - should be disposed of "quietly, and without sorrow"?
>
> In fact, according to your criteria, there are probably about 2 "good"
> scientologists existing in the world today. You and your husband. And maybe
> Cerridwen. When you're not disagreeing with her.
Not accurate. Claire's not really like that. But this does seem to be
the argument of the week...who is a Scientologist and who is not!
: )
Claire acknowledges that Mr. Hubbard was not perfect, though most here
would probably not agree with her assessment of the degree of
not-perfect he was.
Peach
<snip>
realpch
<snip>
> Basically the ONLY unpleasant thing there is, in fact is wrong
> targeting.
<snip>
> Spacetraveler
Wrong targeting? Did someone mention wrong targeting?
Have you been down to your local org lately to present them with your
research on the matter of Fair Game?
: )
Peach
Fluffygirl
Peregrine, this is a discussion forum. When I answer a post, I don't
just have the person whom I'm answering in mind. Yes, I do have that
person- in this case you- in mind but others, as well.
You said something on a public forum, I elected to take it up.And now
you've elected to reply.
It shouldn't be a matter of am I going to lose respect for so doing or
am I going to gain any or what. That's neither here nor there.
>
> Those who are 2.0 and below on the tone scale, may I remind you, are to be
> "disposed of quietly and without sorrow".
>
> Poof! There goes Mother Theresa! Line her up against the wall with all the
> members of Medicins sans Frontieres. Remember not to feel sorrow as you pull
> the trigger.
See above.
>
> And there goes the Dalai Lama too. Too bad (and he was such a *nice* chap.
> For someone so low on the tone scale. Obviously his "serenity of beingness"
> is just a complete fake, otherwise he'd have power over MEST and Tibet would
> still be in the hands of the Tibetans).
Not sure why you're saying he'd be low on the tone scale. I don't know
of any Scn'ist who would think that.
>
> Care to tell us what scientologists think about the "non-productive" members
> of society, Fluffy?
We think they should be helped.
>
> Care to tell us what happens when an elderly or "non-productive" member is
> off-loaded?
Well, being that I'm the one who went to a lot of trouble to transfer
two separate ars posts about that onto Beliefnet, fighting with the
moderators to do it, I guess that pretty much speaks for my position.
As I say below, yer preachin' to the choir.
>
> Or what happens to the clinically insane in a Scientology Society?
I have written many posts criticizing the church's stance on
psychiatry.
So if you've got a problem with the way the church does things, then
fine, but yer preachin' to the choir.
>
> Or what Hubbard said about the proper place of "coloureds"?
>
> Or why people *really* get MS, Epilepsy, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Cancer,
> etc etc, according to Hubbard?
>
> Hmmmm?
And your problem is, what exactly?
That you're wanting to preach to the choir?
I've figured all this out and have posted extensively on all that.
>
> > It's not listed as its own category. Many feelings are not. Only some are.
> >
> > love and compassion are inculcated throughout the tone scale. As a person
> > becomes more up tone, his ability to feel love and compassion are
> > stronger. Hubbard talks about this in Science of Survival.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/39ucy
>
> Hubbard talked about a hell of a lot of things that he didn't even mean,
> certainly never intended to carry out, did not demonstrate in his own life,
> and which for the most part pinched from other, better, writers and
> thinkers. It's almost a rule of thumb: if it sounds good, go find who he
> plagarised it from.
That's your opinion.
>
> He also was a cunning con-man and showman with one eye always on promotion
> and public relations.
Again, that's your opinion.
>Why do you think the "public" stuff sounds so good,
> and the private, secret, and confidential stuff, that the church is hoping
> will never see the light of day, sounds so very very bad?
Wonder why you're saying this stuff to me. I've posted on many of
these things.
I think you might best direct this sort of commentary to people like
Spacetraveller, as you've been doing, Faxhor, etc.
> Look at the
> *actions* of the church.
Which I have criticized longer than you happen to have done.
> When they framed Paulette Cooper, when they allowed
> Lisa McPherson to die,
I've posted about both these things, particularly the latter.
Again, preachin' to the choir.
Perhaps you think you are talking to someone other than me? Even
though you said "fluffy"?
> when they practice every single day Fair Game tactics
> in this newsgroup,
Yes, I've posted many many times about that. Negatively.
I have been hassled by OSA for not only posting here but for my stance
on critics and criticism. I have, face to face, defended critics of
the church- to the church. Not everyone can say that.
> on the web (care for a round of RFW, anyone?), in real
> life, when they drive someone out of the country, when they kill people's
> pets, when they command someone (oh, oops! sorry! *suggest* to someone) that
> disconnection might be necessary, when they pervert the legal system until
> it becomes a mockery of justice and the law . . . then the argument you are
> presenting in the above link - that somehow Hubbard was "a good man" and
> that "as a person becomes more up tone, his ability to feel love and
> compassion are stronger" according to Hubbard's "Science of Survival"
> (assuming of course ALWAYS that there are no other, better, ways to "move up
> the tone scale" - which is a load of old codswallop, btw, and certainly not
> "researched" in any creditable research institution) . .
What is the purpose of this rant? You seem to think you are talking to
a church member.
>
> . . . . then your claim becomes not only illogical. It becomes offensive.
I profess and adhere to the philosophy of Scn. So I discuss the Scn
theories if someone brings them up, if I am interested in what they
said. Which is what I've done.
One Scn theory is not another.
If something isn't right, I criticize it. As I've done on just about
everything you've covered.
I have said quite a few times that I do not consider CofS to be a
viable organization.
If it happens that you are offended or have any reservations about my
being a Scn'ist by personal philosophy, then that's your own
viewpoint. I don't tar things with one broad brush. I decry anything
that should be decried.
As I said, I'm the one who posted twice on Beliefnet two of the most
damning posts (about the older people in the SO) that I've ever seen
on that subject-among other critiques and criticisms I make. I get
church members writing me privately telling me I shouldn't write stuff
like that.
So if you've got disagreements with CofS or with any related elements,
fine with me.
Nothing to yell at me over, though.
In Scn, you know, we call that a "wrong target".
>
> >> And further to that, I've noticed that all the best scientologists (ie
> >> the most indoctrinated) are almost always lacking in good manners,
> >> compassion and respect for others.
> >
> > Then that would hardly make them the best Scientologists.
>
> And the ones who are most strenuously defending your "church" on this
> newsgroup (and please, spare me the lecture
Why? You didn't spare me a lecture. One irrelevant to my personal
situation and stance.
> - and the strawman - yet
> again! - of "but not all scientologists are church of scientology
> scientologists!" because you know, once again, *exactly* what I mean) are
> certainly not demonstrating being "good" scientologists.
My point was that a good adherent of any philosophy of a religion is
one who uses it constructively. As many church members I've known do
and as many other Scn'ists I've known do.
>
> I really just could not even be bothered finishing you off, Claire.
that makes no sense.
>I
> *could* now go through a precis of exactly what "being in a state of Enemy"
> and what one has to do to get back into the good graces of the all-important
> "group" means to an indoctrinated scientologist. You're a subtle arguer,
> I'll give you that. Certainly more of a challenge than Spacetraveller.
You're imputing motives, opinions and other things to me that I simply
do not have.
And you're scolding me for posting something from my own perspective
about Scn. The losing respect for is an indicator.
This is just discussion. I was discussing. If you or anyone else gets
upset when someone else has a different point of view, then that
really doesn't make sense in this venue.
And neither did the preaching you did to the choir.
>
> But in the end, you are also wasting my time just as much as he/she is.
I am posting commentary on a public forum.
You answered far more lengthily than I had, in fact, and it was your
decision to do so.
>
> > A good Scn'ist, a good Buddhist, a good anything, is someone who uses his
> > or her religion or philosophy for good.
> >
> > I know a lot of Christians. The ones I consider good aren't the
> > indoctrinated ones and believe you me, I've met many indoctrinated ones.
> >
> >
> >>Seems to get beaten out of them somewhere on the Bridge to Total Freedom.
> >
> > Which is contra to what Hubbard wrote and recommended. So they're not good
> > Scn'ists. They may be good CofS members, good culties, but they are not
> > good practitioners of their philosophy.
>
> According *to you*, Claire, who has a sort of sickly-sweet, fairy-floss,
> Santa-Claus-and-Easter-Bunny view of scientology which is not at all in tune
> with the realities of what Hubbard actually wrote and demanded from his
> followers.
This is belied by my many criticisms of Hubbard and of CofS.
>Or are you now going to claim, along with Barbara, that he never
> wrote those internal orders?
that would be a hell of a stretch for me since I have repeatedly said
on this forum that the problems in Scn mainly originated with Hubbard
himself.
You seem to not know whom you're dealing with.
>That he never invented Fair Game?
I have posted about Fair Game on several different forums. Negatively.
>That he never
> said that those "low on the tone scale" - which, it bears repeating, has no
> place in any *serious* discussion of human nature or human ethics despite
> the claims of "hundreds of hours of research" having gone into coming up
> with it (Hubbard-ese for "I made it up one night when I was off my nut on
> pinks and greys") - should be disposed of "quietly, and without sorrow"?
See above.
>
> In fact, according to your criteria, there are probably about 2 "good"
> scientologists existing in the world today. You and your husband. And maybe
> Cerridwen. When you're not disagreeing with her.
When have I ever posted anything contradicting Cerridwen?
Never.
And, no, those are not my criteria, and that is not my personal
estimate of good Scn'ists. It may be yours, however.
>
> As the old statistician's saying goes "'me and my friends' does not
> constitute a statistical sample".
When someone says all Scn'ists do this or that (not that you did that,
exactly, this is an example) and I know quite a few who do not, then
discussing that can provide a valid example.
Q.E.D.
>
> >>> I disagree by the way with your opinion (if you can call it an
> >>> opinion).
> >>> My assessment of the situation has been very clear and very exact, and
> >>> is fully supported by the actual facts as far as they can be verified.
> >>> It is ALL earlier on this very thread.
> >>>
> >>>> Tory has answered your query quite satisfactorily, explaining her
> >>>> reasons
> >>>> for requesting that you post the relevant bits of your previous post.
> >>>> And I
> >>>> think she has also been generous to you in doing so, since previous
> >>>> experience with you shows that any answers to you will simply be either
> >>>> ignored or be the basis for another round of "monkey and weasel". In
> >>>> other
> >>>> words, arguing with you is a complete waste of everyone's time.
> >
> > Never answered mine, though.
> >
> > I've stopped asking.
>
> And just *what* has this got to do with anything?
I felt like saying it, it seemed to tie in. Just as you felt like
saying a lot of things that had nothing to do with my stance, which
you've misrepresented.
Someone who was as you've said would not have written the things she
has and would not have taken the flak she has taken and continues to
take from various Hubbardites.
So, no.
>
> >>> The usual sectbehaviour displayed, in fact nothing else than smear!
> >>
> >> Still working on the same old logical fallacy, I see. You disappoint me.
> >
> > No, he doesn't. He acts exactly as you expect Scn'ists to act. Therefore
> > you are not disappointed. Your expectations were evidently met.
>
> Sarcasm really escapes you, doesn't it, Claire?
No.Just as they say "in vino veritas" so does a person's actual point
of view come across in sarcasm, jokes, irony, etc. So I comment on it.
I made a couple polite comments about things you said and got back a
tirade wherein you misrepresented me which was not too polite.
But the proof of my many posts decrying fair game, Lisa McPherson's
death, church prices, staff work, the Sea Org and many other things is
in google archives.
Do your homework!
C
C
Fluffygirl
> >
> > Then that would hardly make them the best Scientologists.
>
> And the ones who are most strenuously defending your "church" on this
> newsgroup
I am not a member of the Church of Scientology. It is not my church. I
left it in 2000 and was expelled in 2001. I never defend CofS here.
Boy, how silly can ya get!
C
Peregrine
news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
I don't think so.
Sympathy (n): understanding, compassion, kindness, consideration, empathy.
You should learn to use a thesaurus.
and force your personal
> interpretation on this.
See above.
Those who have seriously studied the tone
> scale and especially "Science of Survival" (the book that get into
> great detail about these things) will see this.
"Seriously studied" the tone scale? Don't make me laugh!
I have seriously studied fortune cookie inserts. And that makes me an expert
of . . .?
>> (You know, Claire, I'm starting to lose quite a bit of respect for you.
>
> You say that solely because she spots where you go off-track with your
> assessment. NO other reason! You want to be right, even if you may be
> wrong.
Actually, the only reason I say this is because of her constant habit of
diverting the conversation from the topic in hand. Which is: how you can
possibly live with what Hubbard taught once you know the entirity of what he
taught, how he lived, how he set up his "church" to be one of the most evil,
paranoid and fascist organisations ever to curse this planet.
Either you must put on the blinkers firmly, or you must wake up and
acknowledge the bad with the good.
The words mean exactly what they say: I'm starting to lose quite a bit of
respect for Claire. She has her blinkers firmly in place.
Oh really?
www.lermanet.com
www.xenu.net
www.whyaretheydead.net
http://www.ronthenut.org/
And John Attack's "A piece of Blue Sky", to get you started.
Since I was never *in* a "mess" to begin with, I have no need to get *out*
of it.
The argument above stands. Try re-reading it until you understand what I'm
arguing here. Don't go past an MU now, spacey!
No.
>> >>> The usual sectbehaviour displayed, in fact nothing else than smear!
>> >>
>> >> Still working on the same old logical fallacy, I see. You disappoint
>> >> me.
>> >
>> > No, he doesn't. He acts exactly as you expect Scn'ists to act.
>> > Therefore
>> > you are not disappointed. Your expectations were evidently met.
>>
>> Sarcasm really escapes you, doesn't it, Claire?
>>
>> [note to Barbara: this is close to a Peregrine Explosion. But we're not
>> *quite* there yet].
>
> Your're EXPOSED, my dear boy! EXPOSED, you babble about tone scales
> and you don't even have a clue what they are about.
Actually, I have rather a good "clue" what they are about.
Peregrine
news:40f7d2ce.04111...@posting.google.com...
Fluffy, I am well aware of the fact that you are no longer a member of the
cos. However, you adhere to a belief system known as "scientology". Which
has an official "church" - the Church of Scientology. It is completely
correct, grammatically and otherwise, to refer to them in the context of the
above post as "your church".
And once again, you have completely missed the point of what I was saying,
while seizing upon a minor issue of semantics (in other words, a strawman
argument AGAIN - I sure am getting sick and tired of the strawman - doesn't
scientology teach even ONE other logical fallacy?)
Peregrine
No? That's how she comes across to me. She constantly criticises others who
do not agree with her fluffy-bunny-view of scientology and then tries to
avoid any criticism of her own position. Not to mention the countless number
of posts in which I have seen her introduce some non-sequitur in order to
divert attention away from the not-so-nice things that Hubbard (and his
church) did and said.
But this does seem to be
> the argument of the week...who is a Scientologist and who is not!
> : )
Heh.
It's actually an important issue, which is why it needs to be argued.
If you've studied any semiotic theory you'll see why, but here's a brief
precis: the definition of words is often the site of struggles over power in
any particular group. If you can define away a word enough, you can negate a
lot of criticism.
It is a tactic that is well known to spin factories and advertising
companies. If you work in any of these places eventually you will study the
work of people like Althusser, Foucault, Lakoff, Jakobson, etc (man, I'm
really having to stretch my memory here - there's one particular theorist
who is regarded as the main authority of this theory, I think it is
Althusser but I could be wrong :) in order to be more effective:
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem07.html
http://www.keltawebconcepts.com.au/erep1.htm
to get you started.
> Claire acknowledges that Mr. Hubbard was not perfect, though most here
> would probably not agree with her assessment of the degree of
> not-perfect he was.
Yes. Fair enough.
However, I reserve the right to criticise her current position and bring her
attention to just *how* "not-perfect" he was.
--
Spacetraveler
His judgment may be totally wrong, but that's not the issue here. He
agrees and acknowledges you, and so he is ok. At one time L. Ron
Hubbard was also ok.
Why the need for people feeling sorry for you?
Spacetraveler
Peregrine
Which makes your argument below all the more illogical.
> You said something on a public forum, I elected to take it up.And now
> you've elected to reply.
>
> It shouldn't be a matter of am I going to lose respect for so doing or
> am I going to gain any or what. That's neither here nor there.
Agreed.
This is a discussion forum.
And I am losing respect for a certain regular
contributor to it. This is my comment.
>> Those who are 2.0 and below on the tone scale, may I remind you, are to
>> be
>> "disposed of quietly and without sorrow".
>>
>> Poof! There goes Mother Theresa! Line her up against the wall with all
>> the
>> members of Medicins sans Frontieres. Remember not to feel sorrow as you
>> pull
>> the trigger.
>
> See above.
news:<d75bf1a1.04102...@posting.google.com>
news:<SJ6SPTRX382...@anonymous.poster>
news:<22c1ffd4.04110...@posting.google.com>
news:<ucajd.18663$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
news:<69vom01og3s27rs35...@4ax.com>
And of course:
http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/ttft/
Quote:
"Compassion is virtually unheard of in Hubbard's voluminous teachings. Sea
Org members work long hours (usually devoting over 90 hours per week to
Scientology), for derisory pay. They often spend weeks or months restricted
to a diet consisting entirely of rice, beans and porridge. Discipline is
harsh, the withdrawal of pay and proper food preceding banishment from
sleeping quarters (when staff are assigned to "pig's berthing')."
End quote.
>> And there goes the Dalai Lama too. Too bad (and he was such a *nice*
>> chap.
>> For someone so low on the tone scale. Obviously his "serenity of
>> beingness"
>> is just a complete fake, otherwise he'd have power over MEST and Tibet
>> would
>> still be in the hands of the Tibetans).
>
> Not sure why you're saying he'd be low on the tone scale. I don't know
> of any Scn'ist who would think that.
Easy. Because he's not a scientologist. And he works with those who have the
sort of problems that are actually caused by Body Thetans. And because, as I
mentioned above, if he were *really* enlightened, he never would have lost
Tibet to the Chinese (not very scientological to be such a "failure" in the
world of MEST). And because I'm quite sure that he would disagree with the
way that the "church" regards the "less able", treats its non-productive
members, puts people in the RPF for being sick, etc etc etc etc . . .in
fact, he'd probably have a laughing fit and almost choke.
But hang on . . . are you talking about the *church* of scientologists, or
the *scientologists* here?
Please, do make that clear. In every single post you make from now on.
Otherwise, people might get confused as to which kind you're referring to.
>> Care to tell us what scientologists think about the "non-productive"
>> members
>> of society, Fluffy?
>
> We think they should be helped.
"We"? Which "we"? The cos scientologists, or the other kind of
scientologists?
As I've already requested above, please try to remember to state which sort
you're talking about in every single post from now on, ok? Otherwise the
lurkers might get confused. Thanks ever so.
>> Care to tell us what happens when an elderly or "non-productive" member
>> is
>> off-loaded?
>
> Well, being that I'm the one who went to a lot of trouble to transfer
> two separate ars posts about that onto Beliefnet, fighting with the
> moderators to do it, I guess that pretty much speaks for my position.
> As I say below, yer preachin' to the choir.
Actually, I'm laying out my own point of view on things, Claire. And my own
arguments. No "choir" in sight.
>> Or what happens to the clinically insane in a Scientology Society?
>
> I have written many posts criticizing the church's stance on
> psychiatry.
>
> So if you've got a problem with the way the church does things, then
> fine, but yer preachin' to the choir.
First you say you have the right to take up an issue with a poster. And then
you say that that's just fine for you, and for anyone else . . . so long as
they don't criticise scientology . . . whoops . . . the *church* of
scientology.
If only everyone would just stop this "preaching" it would be such a nicer
world, wouldn't it, Claire? With nice pink fluffy clouds everyday. And
everyone Clear. And no embarrassing beggars, or poverty, or sickness, or
mental illness, or *ahem* critics of your perfect world to disturb your
peace.
>> Or what Hubbard said about the proper place of "coloureds"?
>>
>> Or why people *really* get MS, Epilepsy, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's,
>> Cancer,
>> etc etc, according to Hubbard?
>>
>> Hmmmm?
>
> And your problem is, what exactly?
My problem is that you jump in with arguments about how "Hubbard said this"
and "Hubbard said that" and "Hubbard *might* have said that, but he didn't
really mean it, he meant *this*" and then you completely fail to acknowledge
in the course of the same argument that Hubbard *made the church the way it
is today*.
"Science of Survival" kind of pales into insignificance when he *also* said
those below 2.0 on the Tone Scale should be "disposed of quietly, and
without sorrow". Or that critics "May be tricked, sued or lied to or
destroyed."
If you've ever read Mein Kampf (which I have) you would notice that Hitler
is also quite rational in some of his arguments. In fact, it sounds like a
pretty good vision of society . . . until you remember the six million who
were shoved into the gas chambers and cremated in quest of his vision.
> That you're wanting to preach to the choir?
So you posting your opinions is just you posting your opinions, but me
posting my opinions is "preaching to the choir?"
> I've figured all this out and have posted extensively on all that.
Now figure out the rest of it, Claire.
>> > It's not listed as its own category. Many feelings are not. Only some
>> > are.
>> >
>> > love and compassion are inculcated throughout the tone scale. As a
>> > person
>> > becomes more up tone, his ability to feel love and compassion are
>> > stronger. Hubbard talks about this in Science of Survival.
>> >
>> > http://tinyurl.com/39ucy
>>
>> Hubbard talked about a hell of a lot of things that he didn't even mean,
>> certainly never intended to carry out, did not demonstrate in his own
>> life,
>> and which for the most part pinched from other, better, writers and
>> thinkers. It's almost a rule of thumb: if it sounds good, go find who he
>> plagarised it from.
>
> That's your opinion.
Yes, that's my opinion.
>> He also was a cunning con-man and showman with one eye always on
>> promotion
>> and public relations.
>
> Again, that's your opinion.
Yes, again, that's my opinion.
>>Why do you think the "public" stuff sounds so good,
>> and the private, secret, and confidential stuff, that the church is
>> hoping
>> will never see the light of day, sounds so very very bad?
>
> Wonder why you're saying this stuff to me. I've posted on many of
> these things.
Why? WHY? Because you still refuse to take into account that those things
*do* exist, *are* still being used by the church of scientology, and refuse
to give them equal weight in anything that you say about scientology,
whether within or without of the church. And most particularly, the main
thing I take issue with, is that you make a *positive*, *supportive*
statement about Hubbard, scientology, etc, and then when someone takes you
to task on it, you then try to defend your position by saying "oh, but I
posted *critical* stuff too! I did! Honest! In another post!".
Which is a really neat way of sitting on both sides of the fence.
I've seen you do it over and over and over again.
> I think you might best direct this sort of commentary to people like
> Spacetraveller, as you've been doing, Faxhor, etc.
>
>> Look at the
>> *actions* of the church.
>
> Which I have criticized longer than you happen to have done.
So now you're going to try to disparage my arguments because you've "been
here longer than me"? Do we get certificates after a certain time or a
certain number of posts to ars? If so, I must have missed the bulletin
announcing it.
>> When they framed Paulette Cooper, when they allowed
>> Lisa McPherson to die,
>
> I've posted about both these things, particularly the latter.
>
> Again, preachin' to the choir.
Again, stating my opinion.
I'm not "talking" to anyone, Claire. I'm posting to usenet. There's a
difference. It's subtle, but it's there.
The purpose of this rant? To set out a logical argument. Like almost all of
my posts.
What is the "purpose" of your "rants", Claire? What an utterly nonsensical
statement!
If I may remind you of something you said earlier?
> Peregrine, this is a discussion forum. When I answer a post, I don't
> just have the person whom I'm answering in mind. Yes, I do have that
> person- in this case you- in mind but others, as well.
Hung on your own petard.
>> . . . . then your claim becomes not only illogical. It becomes
>> offensive.
>
> I profess and adhere to the philosophy of Scn. So I discuss the Scn
> theories if someone brings them up, if I am interested in what they
> said. Which is what I've done.
>
> One Scn theory is not another.
Then you'd better come up with another name for it so we know what you're
talking about.
> If something isn't right, I criticize it. As I've done on just about
> everything you've covered.
>
> I have said quite a few times that I do not consider CofS to be a
> viable organization.
>
> If it happens that you are offended or have any reservations about my
> being a Scn'ist by personal philosophy, then that's your own
> viewpoint. I don't tar things with one broad brush. I decry anything
> that should be decried.
And I reserve the right to state *my own* viewpoint as forcefully as I wish.
> As I said, I'm the one who posted twice on Beliefnet two of the most
> damning posts (about the older people in the SO) that I've ever seen
> on that subject-among other critiques and criticisms I make. I get
> church members writing me privately telling me I shouldn't write stuff
> like that.
>
> So if you've got disagreements with CofS or with any related elements,
> fine with me.
>
> Nothing to yell at me over, though.
Claire, I'm not "yelling" at you. Not yet. I am arguing forcefully my
position. There is a difference.
> In Scn, you know, we call that a "wrong target".
Now, *here* is me yelling:
I COULDN'T GIVE TINKER'S CUSS WHAT SCIENTOLOGY CALLS IT!
>> >> And further to that, I've noticed that all the best scientologists (ie
>> >> the most indoctrinated) are almost always lacking in good manners,
>> >> compassion and respect for others.
>> >
>> > Then that would hardly make them the best Scientologists.
>>
>> And the ones who are most strenuously defending your "church" on this
>> newsgroup (and please, spare me the lecture
>
> Why? You didn't spare me a lecture. One irrelevant to my personal
> situation and stance.
Not at all irrelevant, Fluffy. Not at all.
>> - and the strawman - yet
>> again! - of "but not all scientologists are church of scientology
>> scientologists!" because you know, once again, *exactly* what I mean) are
>> certainly not demonstrating being "good" scientologists.
>
> My point was that a good adherent of any philosophy of a religion is
> one who uses it constructively. As many church members I've known do
> and as many other Scn'ists I've known do.
Well, good for them. Pity for all the poor suckers still stuck in the RPF
and being subjected to the Introspection Rundown. Not to mention all the
poor scientologists who were stripped of their entire assets during
Miscavige's little reshuffle.
Shame these "good scientologists" weren't around then, eh?
Shame they weren't there for Lisa McPherson.
>> I really just could not even be bothered finishing you off, Claire.
>
> that makes no sense.
Because you haven't yet seen just how brutal I can be in debate. Logic is
one of the most important things in my life, and I hate seeing it abused
[OSA? You listening? There's one of my "buttons", for free! You can almost
always troll me with an illogical argument. But you might not like what
results from it.]
>>I
>> *could* now go through a precis of exactly what "being in a state of
>> Enemy"
>> and what one has to do to get back into the good graces of the
>> all-important
>> "group" means to an indoctrinated scientologist. You're a subtle arguer,
>> I'll give you that. Certainly more of a challenge than Spacetraveller.
>
> You're imputing motives, opinions and other things to me that I simply
> do not have.
Actually, I wasn't even talking about you at this point. Re-read that
paragraph carefully. There are two (related) arguments in it.
> And you're scolding me for posting something from my own perspective
> about Scn. The losing respect for is an indicator.
>
> This is just discussion. I was discussing. If you or anyone else gets
> upset when someone else has a different point of view, then that
> really doesn't make sense in this venue.
>
> And neither did the preaching you did to the choir.
Shall we go through this again?
Fluffy said:
> Peregrine, this is a discussion forum. When I answer a post, I don't
> just have the person whom I'm answering in mind. Yes, I do have that
> person- in this case you- in mind but others, as well.
End quote.
Which is once again, a false statement. Nice attempt at a Dead Agent,
though.
>>That he never invented Fair Game?
>
> I have posted about Fair Game on several different forums. Negatively.
In the same post as one of your "scientology is the best thing ever, and
Hubbard was a wise, wise man!" posts?
>>That he never
>> said that those "low on the tone scale" - which, it bears repeating, has
>> no
>> place in any *serious* discussion of human nature or human ethics despite
>> the claims of "hundreds of hours of research" having gone into coming up
>> with it (Hubbard-ese for "I made it up one night when I was off my nut on
>> pinks and greys") - should be disposed of "quietly, and without sorrow"?
>
> See above.
See above, above.
>> In fact, according to your criteria, there are probably about 2 "good"
>> scientologists existing in the world today. You and your husband. And
>> maybe
>> Cerridwen. When you're not disagreeing with her.
>
> When have I ever posted anything contradicting Cerridwen?
>
> Never.
Oh? "Preaching to" your own choir there, hon?
> And, no, those are not my criteria, and that is not my personal
> estimate of good Scn'ists. It may be yours, however.
>>
>> As the old statistician's saying goes "'me and my friends' does not
>> constitute a statistical sample".
>
> When someone says all Scn'ists do this or that (not that you did that,
> exactly,
Gee, you mean, you actually HEARD and UNDERSTOOD something I was saying?
Good thing I decided to invest in that bruise ointment afterall!
this is an example)
and I know quite a few who do not, then
> discussing that can provide a valid example.
>
> Q.E.D.
QED also that you might not like what comes out of that discussion, if it
paints scientology or scientologists - church or not - in a bad light.
And it does not even go near to addressing the issue of statistical analysis
when making statements about "what is a good scientologist". And what is a
"bad" one. And who is having the most effect on the way the "church" is run.
>> >>> I disagree by the way with your opinion (if you can call it an
>> >>> opinion).
>> >>> My assessment of the situation has been very clear and very exact,
>> >>> and
>> >>> is fully supported by the actual facts as far as they can be
>> >>> verified.
>> >>> It is ALL earlier on this very thread.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Tory has answered your query quite satisfactorily, explaining her
>> >>>> reasons
>> >>>> for requesting that you post the relevant bits of your previous
>> >>>> post.
>> >>>> And I
>> >>>> think she has also been generous to you in doing so, since previous
>> >>>> experience with you shows that any answers to you will simply be
>> >>>> either
>> >>>> ignored or be the basis for another round of "monkey and weasel". In
>> >>>> other
>> >>>> words, arguing with you is a complete waste of everyone's time.
>> >
>> > Never answered mine, though.
>> >
>> > I've stopped asking.
>>
>> And just *what* has this got to do with anything?
>
> I felt like saying it, it seemed to tie in.
You've either just got really lousy timing, or you are doing a subtle "dead
agent" on Tory (which may be for your own personal reasons of disliking her,
and nothing to do with OSA, but the effect is the same) - that she flees
discussion whenever it gets too hot for her.
> Just as you felt like
> saying a lot of things that had nothing to do with my stance, which
> you've misrepresented.
Which is utter rot and piffle. Most of my post was a criticism of
*scientology* - the church of etc - , and not you. And the position you
display on ars re scientology is illogical in the extreme. I am taking you
to task on that, not "misrepresenting" you.
> Someone who was as you've said would not have written the things she
> has and would not have taken the flak she has taken and continues to
> take from various Hubbardites.
>
> So, no.
Once again, you are completely misunderstanding my original argument. Did I
*say* you were all of these things? I was drawing your attention to the fact
that many scientologists *are* these things, Claire.
You really do think the world revolves around you, don't you?
>> >>> The usual sectbehaviour displayed, in fact nothing else than smear!
>> >>
>> >> Still working on the same old logical fallacy, I see. You disappoint
>> >> me.
>> >
>> > No, he doesn't. He acts exactly as you expect Scn'ists to act.
>> > Therefore
>> > you are not disappointed. Your expectations were evidently met.
>>
>> Sarcasm really escapes you, doesn't it, Claire?
>
> No.Just as they say "in vino veritas" so does a person's actual point
> of view come across in sarcasm, jokes, irony, etc. So I comment on it.
Good! You'll now retract your previous statement that "my expectations were
evidently met" and the attendant implication that I am a close-minded,
anti-scientology bigot then, hmmmm?
> I made a couple polite comments about things you said and got back a
> tirade wherein you misrepresented me which was not too polite.
Don't take it personally. I am offended by illogical argument. I am brutal
in debate. It's a personal failing of mine. That's all.
> But the proof of my many posts decrying fair game, Lisa McPherson's
> death, church prices, staff work, the Sea Org and many other things is
> in google archives.
>
> Do your homework!
I've done my homework, Claire. And what have I learnt? That there are more
posts from you either a. defending Hubbard's writings or b. taking nasty
little snips at the critics of scientology disguised in oh-so-polite
language than there are posts from you critical of scientology. You almost
*never* post something positive about scientology with an attendant
something-negative, to provide balance.
And I will continue to argue with you with that in mind.
Spacetraveler
That's a strawman actually. It was not your argument from the start,
you had 2 other justifications prior to that one. It's all earlier in
the thread. You may not like that, but it's actually there! You are in
fact in grand error about my lack of compassion, grand error indeed!
>
> I told you I couldn't pull up your stupid link.
You said a lot of things, every time it seems to be something else.
> I am happy to answer
> anything IF it's here, I can read it, and answer it, and it's not too long.
This has become a strawman argument. It was not that long.
> If it's a link, and it won't open up (AS WAS YOURS WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR
> NOT)....No, I won't.
> And No, I won't spend the time NOW...trying to find it on Google.
>
> So quit your idiotic moronic OSA/Scientological idiocy of wasting time
> lying, saying I'm this and that when you COULD just post whatever the HELL
> your questions are (A few at a time)...or STFU.
>
> Man you people sure make Scientology look BAD. Take your head out of your
> ASS for once, and view the world. Pull the "OT" cotton out of your ears and
> LISTEN.
>
> Lastly if you truly don't believe me, drive over in your car and SEE what
> I'm saying. But you "OT's" Can't do that, can you.
> Wimp assed jerk.
Cheese Tory, that language! You are really angry now are you. But you
are not angry with me though....
Best wishes,
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> Spacetraveler wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Basically the ONLY unpleasant thing there is, in fact is wrong
> > targeting.
> <snip>
>
> > Spacetraveler
>
> Wrong targeting? Did someone mention wrong targeting?
Yes, I in fact did!
>
> Have you been down to your local org lately to present them with your
> research on the matter of Fair Game?
> : )
Keep on nudging won't you! Explained already.
Spacetraveler
Peregrine
Maybe she chooses not to because you are *such* a Jerk.
And arguing logic with you is like shooting fish in a barrel. It quickly
gets boring.
> You're off-track with your claim.
Oh really?
I've yet to see you reference anyone else in one of your "arguments".
>> And since in *this* case, we are discussing someone (you) badgering
>> another
>> member of this newsgroup (Tory) to provide an answer to a question which
>> was
>> intially asked, what, a week ago (co-incidentally around the time that
>> Tory's mother took a turn for the worse), in the midst of a very long
>> thread, while that poster's mother is dying, I think that, yes, in this
>> case, I happen to agree completely with Tory's assessment of you, which
>> was,
>> iirc,
>>
>> What a Jerk.
>
> You focus on the one thing that was not even her argument from the
> start why she had not responded, this is all in detail earlier on this
> thread. Wrong targeting.
Actually, the more I read of your pursuit of Tory, and your trying to drag
her back into a rather pointless intellectual exercise, when *her mother is
dying*, the more I'm thinking not only "what a Jerk", but "what an enormous
Jerk!".
Definitely "Jerk of the Century" material.
But it's good to see you've been boning up on the logical fallacies:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html
Keep up the good work! Well done! A+, Spacetraveller!
For the same reason why I'm glad so many people were "worried" when Hitler's
aggression became apparent in pre-war Germany: because it is the right thing
to do.
And maybe because I don't want to have to read yet another entry on
www.whyaretheydead.net
"Evil flourishes when good people do nothing".
That's why.
Mike Gormez
wrote in <2vtlr0F...@uni-berlin.de>:
>(You know, Claire, I'm starting to lose quite a bit of respect for you. You
>know *exactly* what I'm talking about, and playing second fiddle to
>Spacetravellor is beginning to make me wonder about your motives here in
>ars).
The agenda seems to focus on three points;
1/ Redefine the terms Scientology/CoS -- Whining for christ knows how many
years the rest of the world adepts to that naming convention, fueled I
guess by her decision to cling on to the label scientologist.
2/ Equate the cult in analogies with mainstream religions, no matter how
far fetched.
3/ Attract negative attention because that is attention as well and some
people never have enough.
--
Mike Gormez
- Stop deceptive recruitment into scientology http://stop-wise.biz/
- www.whyaretheydead.net documents the deaths of scientologists
- "There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way it
treats its children." -- Nelson Mandela. Scientologist often attach more
importance to scientology than children www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
edo
>> >> >> Why did Hubbard practice fair game? Why did he order
>> >> >> Scientologists to practice fair game? Why did he never do
>> >> >> anything effective to stop the Church of Scientology's practice of
>> >> >> fair game, which has gone on for nearly 40 years?
>> >> >
>> >> >http://fair-game-law.notlong.com
>> >>
>> >> Message-ID: <V2LQW8RJ38304.8292013889@anonymous.poster>
>> >
>> >Meaning?
>>
>> Meaning your "answer" (http://fair-game-law.notlong.com) does not answer
>> the questions in my message (V2LQW8RJ38304.8292013889@anonymous.poster).
>
>It will give you a bit of information which enables you to do your own
>evaluation. An evaluation based directly on the original writings.
>
>Basically I am not so much interested in opinion when it comes to
>these kind of things. If in fact you would in favour of objective
>study re these thing, yo would be appreciative of that someone (holder
>of that site) has done the groundwork for that.
>
>Spacetraveler
The truth about fair game in Scientology gets clearer every time you refuse
to answer simple questions. The reasons you give are meaningless. They
are Q and A.
>> In Scn we call it TR 3.
>>
>> If I'd been taking you seriously, I'd have tried TR 4. But what would that
>> take? What would get you into real communication on this issue and willing
>> to answer the question instead of going on with your Q and A?
>>
>> If you can answer that question, I might try TR 4.
>>
>> edo
>> -=-
You don't want to answer this question either because it would open the
door you answering the other ones. That's too bad. You could learn
something.
edo
-=-
Ball of Fluff
<snip>
>
>> You said something on a public forum, I elected to take it up.And now
>> you've elected to reply.
>>
>> It shouldn't be a matter of am I going to lose respect for so doing or
>> am I going to gain any or what. That's neither here nor there.
>
> Agreed.
>
> This is a discussion forum.
>
> And I am losing respect for a certain regular
> contributor to it. This is my comment.
Doesn't really make sense. Particularly since you've misrepresented my
membership status (I have none) and my stance. Multiple times.
<snip>
>
> "Compassion is virtually unheard of in Hubbard's voluminous teachings. Sea
> Org members work long hours (usually devoting over 90 hours per week to
> Scientology), for derisory pay. They often spend weeks or months
> restricted
> to a diet consisting entirely of rice, beans and porridge. Discipline is
> harsh, the withdrawal of pay and proper food preceding banishment from
> sleeping quarters (when staff are assigned to "pig's berthing')."
>
> End quote.
And I can find Scn references where he talks on and on about forgiveness,
love, compassion, etc.
There's all kinds of stuff.
What of it?
I'm not a church member. I'm not defending CofS. I'm not even defending
Hubbard.
You seem not to get that.
>
>>> And there goes the Dalai Lama too. Too bad (and he was such a *nice*
>>> chap.
>>> For someone so low on the tone scale. Obviously his "serenity of
>>> beingness"
>>> is just a complete fake, otherwise he'd have power over MEST and Tibet
>>> would
>>> still be in the hands of the Tibetans).
>>
>> Not sure why you're saying he'd be low on the tone scale. I don't know
>> of any Scn'ist who would think that.
>
> Easy. Because he's not a scientologist.
I do not know of any Scn'ist who would think that. Maybe one... now that I
think of it...out of all the ones I met. She's dead now, though.
And that includes things Hubbard said about religious leaders, etc, various
times.
I have known a lot of church members- and still do, in fact. And I know
other Scn'ists as well.
>And he works with those who have the sort of problems that are actually
>caused by Body Thetans. And because, as I mentioned above, if he were
>*really* enlightened, he never would have lost Tibet to the Chinese (not
>very scientological to be such a "failure" in the world of MEST). And
>because I'm quite sure that he would disagree with the way that the
>"church" regards the "less able", treats its non-productive members, puts
>people in the RPF for being sick, etc etc etc etc . . .in fact, he'd
>probably have a laughing fit and almost choke.
Certainly not a representation of what most Scn'ists would think.
I've actually discussed various religions, key personnel, saints, saddhus,
etc, with many a church member.
You haven't.
>
> But hang on . . . are you talking about the *church* of scientologists, or
> the *scientologists* here?
There is no church of Scientologists.
There is a church of ScientoLOGY, though.
I am referring to ANY of the Scn'ists I've known, most of whom were and are
still with CofS.
>
> Please, do make that clear. In every single post you make from now on.
> Otherwise, people might get confused as to which kind you're referring to.
I always say.
>
>>> Care to tell us what scientologists think about the "non-productive"
>>> members
>>> of society, Fluffy?
>>
>> We think they should be helped.
>
> "We"? Which "we"? The cos scientologists, or the other kind of
> scientologists?
Both.
>
> As I've already requested above, please try to remember to state which
> sort you're talking about in every single post from now on, ok? Otherwise
> the lurkers might get confused. Thanks ever so.
This coming from the guy who thinks I'm a church member.
>
>>> Care to tell us what happens when an elderly or "non-productive" member
>>> is
>>> off-loaded?
>>
>> Well, being that I'm the one who went to a lot of trouble to transfer
>> two separate ars posts about that onto Beliefnet, fighting with the
>> moderators to do it, I guess that pretty much speaks for my position.
>> As I say below, yer preachin' to the choir.
>
> Actually, I'm laying out my own point of view on things, Claire. And my
> own arguments. No "choir" in sight.
You are saying those things to me, and you are couching your phrasing in the
manner in which anyone who feels that they are posing a pointed question
designed to get the other person to see the error of their thinking/ways
does.
Hence my comment.
>
>>> Or what happens to the clinically insane in a Scientology Society?
>>
>> I have written many posts criticizing the church's stance on
>> psychiatry.
>>
>> So if you've got a problem with the way the church does things, then
>> fine, but yer preachin' to the choir.
>
> First you say you have the right to take up an issue with a poster.
If it's something he or she opined in some way, sure.
But what I don't do is go "yeah, what about people who do this and that" to
someone who's not only never shown any signs of doing those things but has
decried them.
If I were talking or posting back and forth to a lady who was against
declawing cats, I wouldn't be saying "WELL??? What about the fact that when
you declaw a cat, this and this happens, and it's more analogous to removing
fingers than just removing a claw and I saw a documentary in which this poor
declawed tiger could not even walk because of a botched declawing."
If I were going to talk to that lady about declawing, I might say "Boy,
isn't it awful what they do when..." I wouldn't go "What about etc, etc and
YOUR group..."
Or I might say, if I didn't know, "What's your opinion of declawing?"
Or, to be fair "Hey, let's talk about declawing"
> And then you say that that's just fine for you, and for anyone else . . .
> so long as they don't criticise scientology . . . whoops . . . the
> *church* of scientology.
I have never ever said anyone shouldn't criticize Scn, Hubbard, CofS,
whatever. Never.
I merely posted some commentary. But nowhere in that commentary, nowhere in
ANY commentary except what I very first posted when I came here while still
in CofS is anything saying that people shouldn't criticize the above
mentioned things/people.
And this can be seen in the posts.
>
> If only everyone would just stop this "preaching" it would be such a nicer
> world, wouldn't it, Claire?
Actually, as you know, I stood up to staff members including OSA reps on
more than one occasion defending the rights of people to criticize Scn.
So if there's anyone who fits Voltaire's line of thought on this, it's I.
But maybe- and this is pure speculation and could be wrong- but just maybe
you have a problem with my posting things with which you disagree. To the
point where you must needs misrepresent my stance and affiliation.
>With nice pink fluffy clouds everyday.
Nobody needs my permission but...
my stance is party on! Criticize ALL you like. Do it 24 hours a day. Picket.
Post anywhere you like.WHATEVER you like. Really. It's fine with me.
Hell, if I didn't approve of criticism of CofS and of Scn itself, I'd not
have written as much of it.
Party on and don't worry, be happy!
> And everyone Clear.
I've said nothing of the kind.
> And no embarrassing beggars, or poverty, or sickness,
Which explains why I give to charity, help friends with less money than I
(and I'm talkin' seriously broke people) and why, the other week, I gave
this guy - totally twisted (in his physique) utterly miserable, begging in
the street, well, sidewalk- all the money I had on me that I'd just gotten
from the cash machine plus a drink I'd bought for myself (unopened, of
course).
Uh huh.
You don't know me.
Now, that's fine that you don't know what I think. But the thing to do is
ask what I may think of something. Not to tell me. 'Cuz you get it WRONG...
> or mental illness, or *ahem* critics of your perfect world to disturb your
> peace.
Uh huh. which explains why I left a group of which I thought I'd always be a
member- and I could have stayed- because I felt they were trying to make me
compromise myself - I left because of criticism and my stance on it.
Again, these sorts of comments would be better posed to Laserclam, Faxhor,
Spacetraveller or whomever the latest Bill Yaude avatar may be.
>
>>> Or what Hubbard said about the proper place of "coloureds"?
>>>
>>> Or why people *really* get MS, Epilepsy, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's,
>>> Cancer,
>>> etc etc, according to Hubbard?
>>>
>>> Hmmmm?
>>
>> And your problem is, what exactly?
>
> My problem is that you jump in with arguments about how "Hubbard said
> this" and "Hubbard said that"
And so he did say the things I attributed to him.
So what. I've posted things he said that I said I didn't like.
In any case, a lot of people quote Hubbard here. Don't tell me that you
think it's only ok to do so if it is only one kind of thing?
Weren't you saying something about a party line?
> and "Hubbard *might* have said that, but he didn't really mean it, he
> meant *this*"
Never wrote that one.
>and then you completely fail to acknowledge in the course of the same
>argument that Hubbard *made the church the way it is today*.
No, I've posted that sentiment many many times, here. And when I posted it
on Factnet somebody got so thrilled and excited that they imported it over
to Clambake and quoted me there.
I can see where you might not KNOW I said this and that, but most people
would ask.
And come to think of it, in my previous post today, I mentioned EXACTLY
that.
Hmmm.
>
> "Science of Survival" kind of pales into insignificance when he *also*
> said those below 2.0 on the Tone Scale should be "disposed of quietly, and
> without sorrow". Or that critics "May be tricked, sued or lied to or
> destroyed."
I have decried those things many times. So this lecture, this scolding,
isn't really needed.
Again, preachin' to the choir.
>
> If you've ever read Mein Kampf (which I have) you would notice that Hitler
> is also quite rational in some of his arguments. In fact, it sounds like a
> pretty good vision of society . . . until you remember the six million who
> were shoved into the gas chambers and cremated in quest of his vision.
So what?
Don't tell me you're trying to tell me how to live my life?
>
>> That you're wanting to preach to the choir?
>
> So you posting your opinions is just you posting your opinions, but me
> posting my opinions is "preaching to the choir?"
You posted a series of angrily worded rhetorical questions. This is a device
commonly used- and I've never seen it employed in any other way- for someone
to get someone else of a differing point of view- to reevaluate said point
of view. Even to make said person accountable.
See above, lady, cat, declawing, etc.
>> I've figured all this out and have posted extensively on all that.
<snip>
>
>
>>>Why do you think the "public" stuff sounds so good,
>>> and the private, secret, and confidential stuff, that the church is
>>> hoping
>>> will never see the light of day, sounds so very very bad?
>>
>> Wonder why you're saying this stuff to me. I've posted on many of
>> these things.
>
> Why? WHY? Because you still refuse to take into account that those things
> *do* exist,
If that were the case, I'd not have posted critically about those things.
So, no, that makes no sense.
what's happening here is that you have a certain image of me that you'd like
to purvey. I don't fit the mold, so you make up a personam that would.
Unfortunately, it's belied at every turn by previous postings of mine. Some,
even, to your posts,
>*are* still being used by the church of scientology,
I've said so many times.
> and refuse to give them equal weight in anything that you say about
> scientology,
See above.
> whether within or without of the church. And most particularly, the main
> thing I take issue with, is that you make a *positive*, *supportive*
> statement about Hubbard, scientology, etc, and then when someone takes you
> to task on it, you then try to defend your position by saying "oh, but I
> posted *critical* stuff too! I did! Honest! In another post!".
The "honest" implies that you consider this mendacious.
This is why God created Google archives, however.
>
> Which is a really neat way of sitting on both sides of the fence.
So you say.
>
> I've seen you do it over and over and over again.
So you say.
>
>> I think you might best direct this sort of commentary to people like
>> Spacetraveller, as you've been doing, Faxhor, etc.
>>
>>> Look at the
>>> *actions* of the church.
>>
>> Which I have criticized longer than you happen to have done.
>
> So now you're going to try to disparage my arguments because you've "been
> here longer than me"?
No.
The fact is that you are misrepresenting my stance. Not only is my stance
about CofS, Elron, etc as I've indicated but it's been there quite a while.
>Do we get certificates after a certain time or a certain number of posts to
>ars? If so, I must have missed the bulletin announcing it.
Not what I was saying.
See above.
>
>>> When they framed Paulette Cooper, when they allowed
>>> Lisa McPherson to die,
>>
>> I've posted about both these things, particularly the latter.
>>
>> Again, preachin' to the choir.
>
> Again, stating my opinion.
See above.
<snip>
>>
>> What is the purpose of this rant? You seem to think you are talking to
>> a church member.
>
> I'm not "talking" to anyone, Claire. I'm posting to usenet. There's a
> difference. It's subtle, but it's there.
See above.
>
> The purpose of this rant? To set out a logical argument. Like almost all
> of my posts.
But you are arguing, most vehemently, with someone whose stance is not as
you represent.
You are directing these things to me. You are using a device of rhetoric
that is commonly used to those who are, most emphatically, not with the
particular choir in which one happens to sing.
Were that not the case, the phrasing would not be such.
>
> What is the "purpose" of your "rants", Claire? What an utterly nonsensical
> statement!
I answer things that the other person actually wrote. You've intro'd other
things with wording suggesting that I do not think as I do on those things.
See above.
I can discuss -and will- and have- CofS abuses and Hubbard's fuckups all
kinds of ways. But you weren't really discussing. You were directing the
sorts of questions to me that are traditionally directed to those who are
singing in a far different choir than oneself.
>
> If I may remind you of something you said earlier?
>
>> Peregrine, this is a discussion forum. When I answer a post, I don't
>> just have the person whom I'm answering in mind. Yes, I do have that
>> person- in this case you- in mind but others, as well.
>
> Hung on your own petard.
I've no problem with your discussing things. But if you say something here,
people may respond. And among those may be the person to whom the commentary
was directed.
See above.
>
>>> . . . . then your claim becomes not only illogical. It becomes
>>> offensive.
>>
>> I profess and adhere to the philosophy of Scn. So I discuss the Scn
>> theories if someone brings them up, if I am interested in what they
>> said. Which is what I've done.
>>
>> One Scn theory is not another.
>
> Then you'd better come up with another name for it so we know what you're
> talking about.
I have taken up each thing individually. The arrows and spacing will
indicate such. If you've questions, then ask them, if you're so inclined.
>> If something isn't right, I criticize it. As I've done on just about
>> everything you've covered.
>>
>> I have said quite a few times that I do not consider CofS to be a
>> viable organization.
>>
>> If it happens that you are offended or have any reservations about my
>> being a Scn'ist by personal philosophy, then that's your own
>> viewpoint. I don't tar things with one broad brush. I decry anything
>> that should be decried.
>
> And I reserve the right to state *my own* viewpoint as forcefully as I
> wish.
And I reserve the right to respond.
What's the problem?
I've never seen anyone get so worked up when someone else said "yer
preachin' to the choir" and I have seen people say that to each other a
number of times.
>
>> As I said, I'm the one who posted twice on Beliefnet two of the most
>> damning posts (about the older people in the SO) that I've ever seen
>> on that subject-among other critiques and criticisms I make. I get
>> church members writing me privately telling me I shouldn't write stuff
>> like that.
>>
>> So if you've got disagreements with CofS or with any related elements,
>> fine with me.
>>
>> Nothing to yell at me over, though.
>
> Claire, I'm not "yelling" at you. Not yet. I am arguing forcefully my
> position. There is a difference.
You're arguing. With whom are you arguing?
Generally, when people argue, it's when they disagree.
So when you go "etc etc fair game" and you phrase it argumentally - to me- I
have to wonder why.
With whom could you be arguing? Couldn't be me.
<snip>
>
>>> I really just could not even be bothered finishing you off, Claire.
>>
>> that makes no sense.
>
> Because you haven't yet seen just how brutal I can be in debate.
Gee, I'm really scared now.
>Logic is one of the most important things in my life,
Were that the case, you wouldn't have indicated that I was a CofS member
(see my post entitled Peregrine thinks I'm in CofS), and you'd not have
stated that I don't think people should criticize Scn.
Someone employing logic doesn't make things up and falsely attribute things
never said to other people.
> and I hate seeing it abused [OSA? You listening? There's one of my
> "buttons", for free! You can almost always troll me with an illogical
> argument. But you might not like what results from it.]
<giggle>
<snip>
>
> Shall we go through this again?
>
> Fluffy said:
>
>> Peregrine, this is a discussion forum. When I answer a post, I don't
>> just have the person whom I'm answering in mind. Yes, I do have that
>> person- in this case you- in mind but others, as well.
>
> End quote.
And when people say "you" I generally think they mean me. Funny, huh.
<snip>
>>> According *to you*, Claire, who has a sort of sickly-sweet, fairy-floss,
>>> Santa-Claus-and-Easter-Bunny view of scientology which is not at all in
>>> tune
>>> with the realities of what Hubbard actually wrote and demanded from his
>>> followers.
>>
>> This is belied by my many criticisms of Hubbard and of CofS.
>>
>>>Or are you now going to claim, along with Barbara, that he never
>>> wrote those internal orders?
>>
>> that would be a hell of a stretch for me since I have repeatedly said
>> on this forum that the problems in Scn mainly originated with Hubbard
>> himself.
>>
>> You seem to not know whom you're dealing with.
>
> Which is once again, a false statement. Nice attempt at a Dead Agent,
> though.
That's not what dead agenting is.
You wrote something saying I had a position, a stance, I do not have.\
I responded.
>
>>>That he never invented Fair Game?
>>
>> I have posted about Fair Game on several different forums. Negatively.
>
> In the same post as one of your "scientology is the best thing ever, and
> Hubbard was a wise, wise man!" posts?
I have never written "Scientology is the best thing ever and Hubbard was a
wise wise man."
Not even close. At least not since a year or so before I left CofS.
<snip>
>
>>> In fact, according to your criteria, there are probably about 2 "good"
>>> scientologists existing in the world today. You and your husband. And
>>> maybe
>>> Cerridwen. When you're not disagreeing with her.
>>
>> When have I ever posted anything contradicting Cerridwen?
>>
>> Never.
>
> Oh? "Preaching to" your own choir there, hon?
I was responding to "maybe Cerridwen
When you're not disagreeing with her."
<snip?
>>
>> Q.E.D.
>
> QED also that you might not like what comes out of that discussion, if it
> paints scientology or scientologists - church or not - in a bad light.
I really and truly do not care. If I did, I'd not be here. At some
considerable cost to myself.
<snip>
>
> You've either just got really lousy timing, or you are doing a subtle
> "dead agent" on Tory (which may be for your own personal reasons of
> disliking her, and nothing to do with OSA, but the effect is the same) -
> that she flees discussion whenever it gets too hot for her.
Only when it's about stuff she says that she no longer wishes to discuss.
She has this in common with many people in this ol' world, and certainly
here.
>
>> Just as you felt like
>> saying a lot of things that had nothing to do with my stance, which
>> you've misrepresented.
>
> Which is utter rot and piffle. Most of my post was a criticism of
> *scientology* - the church of etc - , and not you. And the position you
> display on ars re scientology is illogical in the extreme. I am taking you
> to task on that, not "misrepresenting" you.
Uh huh.
So when you said:
If only everyone would just stop this "preaching" it would be such a nicer
world, wouldn't it, Claire? With nice pink fluffy clouds everyday. And
everyone Clear. And no embarrassing beggars, or poverty, or sickness, or
mental illness, or *ahem* critics of your perfect world to disturb your
peace.
and
you completely fail to acknowledge
in the course of the same argument that Hubbard *made the church the way it
is today*.
and
Because you still refuse to take into account that those things
*do* exist, *are* still being used by the church of scientology, and refuse
to give them equal weight in anything that you say about scientology,
and
According *to you*, Claire, who has a sort of sickly-sweet, fairy-floss,
Santa-Claus-and-Easter-Bunny view of scientology which is not at all in
tune with the realities of what Hubbard actually wrote and demanded from
his followers.
whether within or without of the church.
and
And then you say that that's just fine for you, and for anyone else . . .
so long as
they don't criticise scientology . . . whoops . . . the *church* of
scientology.
You didn't really say those things?
And
See above.
>
>> Someone who was as you've said would not have written the things she
>> has and would not have taken the flak she has taken and continues to
>> take from various Hubbardites.
>>
>> So, no.
>
> Once again, you are completely misunderstanding my original argument. Did
> I *say* you were all of these things? I was drawing your attention to the
> fact that many scientologists *are* these things, Claire.
>
> You really do think the world revolves around you, don't you?
No, but when someone writes "you" and "Fluffy" and "Claire" I figure they
mean me. I know that's really fucked up of me, but I do.
Particularly when they say
If only everyone would just stop this "preaching" it would be such a nicer
world, wouldn't it, Claire? With nice pink fluffy clouds everyday. And
everyone Clear. And no embarrassing beggars, or poverty, or sickness, or
mental illness, or *ahem* critics of your perfect world to disturb your
peace.
and
you completely fail to acknowledge
in the course of the same argument that Hubbard *made the church the way it
is today*.
and
Because you still refuse to take into account that those things
*do* exist, *are* still being used by the church of scientology, and refuse
to give them equal weight in anything that you say about scientology,
and
According *to you*, Claire, who has a sort of sickly-sweet, fairy-floss,
Santa-Claus-and-Easter-Bunny view of scientology which is not at all in
tune with the realities of what Hubbard actually wrote and demanded from
his followers.
whether within or without of the church.
And then you say that that's just fine for you, and for anyone else . . . so
long as
they don't criticise scientology . . . whoops . . . the *church* of
scientology.
**
my name seems to be all over these quotes. As does the pronoun "you".
Hmmm....whatever could that mean.
<snip>
>
>> I made a couple polite comments about things you said and got back a
>> tirade wherein you misrepresented me which was not too polite.
>
> Don't take it personally. I am offended by illogical argument. I am brutal
> in debate. It's a personal failing of mine. That's all.
Then you must be rather upset with yourself ...(ducking)
>>
>> Do your homework!
>
> I've done my homework, Claire. And what have I learnt? That there are more
> posts from you either a. defending Hubbard's writings or b. taking nasty
> little snips at the critics of scientology disguised in oh-so-polite
> language than there are posts from you critical of scientology. You almost
> *never* post something positive about scientology with an attendant
> something-negative, to provide balance.
Oh, I have done so on quite a few occasions, actually.
C
Ball of Fluff
> "Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:40f7d2ce.04111...@posting.google.com...
>> "Peregrine" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:<2vtlr0F...@uni-berlin.de>...
>>
>>> >
>>> > Then that would hardly make them the best Scientologists.
>>>
>>> And the ones who are most strenuously defending your "church" on this
>>> newsgroup
>>
>>
>> I am not a member of the Church of Scientology. It is not my church. I
>> left it in 2000 and was expelled in 2001. I never defend CofS here.
>>
>> Boy, how silly can ya get!
>
> Fluffy, I am well aware of the fact that you are no longer a member of the
> cos.
Hence the phrase "your church"
> However, you adhere to a belief system known as "scientology". Which
> has an official "church" - the Church of Scientology. It is completely
> correct, grammatically and otherwise, to refer to them in the context of
> the
> above post as "your church".
It is not my church.So, nope.
For it to be my church I'd have to be a member or own it, (like DM) or
something of the sort.
I'd also have to stop ranking on them and there wouldn't now be an
expell/declare from that "church" about my alleged iniquities.
C
Peregrine
. . . not much but another infuriating misrepresentation and
misunderstanding of . .. well, just about everything. Not to mention a
butchering of logical argument which has made my jaw drop in amazement. And
that's not an easy thing to do, by any means.
I am also completely bored with your continual state of denial, Fluffy, and
your misrepresentations, misunderstandings, intellectual dishonesty and
generally poor logical skills.
You have wasted enough of my time.
GO. YL. HAND.
Peregrine
news:tkclp01bf79mvfceq...@4ax.com...
> "On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:42:16 +0800, "Peregrine" <nob...@nowhere.com>
> wrote in <2vtlr0F...@uni-berlin.de>:
>
>>(You know, Claire, I'm starting to lose quite a bit of respect for you.
>>You
>>know *exactly* what I'm talking about, and playing second fiddle to
>>Spacetravellor is beginning to make me wonder about your motives here in
>>ars).
>
> The agenda seems to focus on three points;
>
> 1/ Redefine the terms Scientology/CoS -- Whining for christ knows how many
> years the rest of the world adepts to that naming convention, fueled I
> guess by her decision to cling on to the label scientologist.
>
> 2/ Equate the cult in analogies with mainstream religions, no matter how
> far fetched.
>
> 3/ Attract negative attention because that is attention as well and some
> people never have enough.
Yes. Thankyou. A nice summary of the situation.
I'm thinking of making up some "Be nice to me - I was Trolled by Fluffy
Today!" stickers, to wear after another mind-bending confrontation with her.
Similar to the stickers you get after receiving root canal treatment, which
is just about as pleasant an experience.
She's trolled me for (I hope) the last time.
Off to take some headache tablets.
Lady Chatterly
>
>On 16 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
>>> >> >> Why did Hubbard practice fair game? Why did he order
>>> >> >> Scientologists to practice fair game? Why did he never do
>>> >> >> anything effective to stop the Church of Scientology's practice of
>>> >> >> fair game, which has gone on for nearly 40 years?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >http://fair-game-law.notlong.com
>>> >>
>>> >> Message-ID: <V2LQW8RJ38304.8292013889@anonymous.poster>
>>> >
>>> >Meaning?
>>>
>>> Meaning your "answer" (http://fair-game-law.notlong.com) does not answer
>>> the questions in my message (V2LQW8RJ38304.8292013889@anonymous.poster).
>>
>>It will give you a bit of information which enables you to do your own
>>evaluation. An evaluation based directly on the original writings.
>>
>>Basically I am not so much interested in opinion when it comes to
>>these kind of things. If in fact you would in favour of objective
>>study re these thing, yo would be appreciative of that someone (holder
>>of that site) has done the groundwork for that.
>>
>>Spacetraveler
>
>The truth about fair game in Scientology gets clearer every time you refuse
>to answer simple questions. The reasons you give are meaningless. They
>are Q and A.
Point made.
>>> In Scn we call it TR 3.
>>>
>>> If I'd been taking you seriously, I'd have tried TR 4. But what would that
>>> take? What would get you into real communication on this issue and willing
>>> to answer the question instead of going on with your Q and A?
>>>
>>> If you can answer that question, I might try TR 4.
>>>
>>> edo
>>> --
>
>You don't want to answer this question either because it would open the
>door you answering the other ones. That's too bad. You could learn
>something.
Are you kidding?
--
Lady Chatterly
"That BOTS are not humans, and reposting their posts are useless. :-)
Get a clue!" -- - The NIGHT BOT -
Bent Stigsen
I am not talking about your original post, but the post to which I
replied. Demanding clarity of something she cant remember or cant find
in her present situation *is* nitpicking.
> Crying 'with' someone will not help anyone, least of all not her. It
> wasn't even her argument from the start. Please do a PROPER assessment
> of happenings!
Least of all not her?? What is that supposed to mean.
>>Of course you didn't. It is your golden opportunity to show the world
>>just how unpleasant you can be. For you information, it works.
>
> Basically the ONLY unpleasant thing there is, in fact is wrong
> targeting.
agree. focus on the questions you want answered, not why she did not
respond some posts.
>>>It is also reposted as the first item on this thread. Seems to me you
>>>were not being honest while being supposedly a Scientologist, and you
>>>are not being honest here either. What kind of Freedom is that?
>>
>>Perhaps something like, freedom to be forgiven, to make a mistake,
>>without being harrassed or sent to a labourcamp.
>
> Sorry, I did not harras her. Damn, START EVALUATING!!!
There is no need to get upset.
Well, maybe it is not harrassment. How about we call it bad manners.
>>How is your own honesty. Should we talk about that?
>
> Blind defense and now wrong targeting, what's next?
I was just being polite.
> 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?
/Bent
> Spacetraveler
arnie lerma
wrote:
>"Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:40f7d2ce.04111...@posting.google.com...
>> "Peregrine" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:<2vtlr0F...@uni-berlin.de>...
>>
>>> >
>>> > Then that would hardly make them the best Scientologists.
>>>
>>> And the ones who are most strenuously defending your "church" on this
>>> newsgroup
>>
>>
>> I am not a member of the Church of Scientology. It is not my church. I
>> left it in 2000 and was expelled in 2001. I never defend CofS here.
>>
>> Boy, how silly can ya get!
>
>Fluffy, I am well aware of the fact that you are no longer a member of the
>cos. However, you adhere to a belief system known as "scientology". Which
>has an official "church" - the Church of Scientology. It is completely
>correct, grammatically and otherwise, to refer to them in the context of the
>above post as "your church".
>
>And once again, you have completely missed the point of what I was saying,
>while seizing upon a minor issue of semantics (in other words, a strawman
>argument AGAIN - I sure am getting sick and tired of the strawman - doesn't
>scientology teach even ONE other logical fallacy?)
nope, not ONE
arnie lerma
If the Ferengi were to breed with the Borg you'd get Scientology
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/comedy.html
The internet is the Liberty Tree of the 90's
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/libertyl.html
Gulags in America... run by... Scientology
http://www.lermanet.com/rpf-insider/
Help getting someone OUT of Scientology
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyhelp/main.html
Ball of Fluff
> "Mike Gormez" <mgo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:tkclp01bf79mvfceq...@4ax.com...
>> "On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:42:16 +0800, "Peregrine" <nob...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote in <2vtlr0F...@uni-berlin.de>:
>>
>>>(You know, Claire, I'm starting to lose quite a bit of respect for you.
>>>You
>>>know *exactly* what I'm talking about, and playing second fiddle to
>>>Spacetravellor is beginning to make me wonder about your motives here in
>>>ars).
>>
>> The agenda seems to focus on three points;
>>
>> 1/ Redefine the terms Scientology/CoS -- Whining for christ knows how
>> many
>> years the rest of the world adepts to that naming convention, fueled I
>> guess by her decision to cling on to the label scientologist.
People who are Scn'ists call themselves such.
>>
>> 2/ Equate the cult in analogies with mainstream religions, no matter how
>> far fetched.
Always in an uncomplimentary (to CofS) fashion...
>>
>> 3/ Attract negative attention because that is attention as well and some
>> people never have enough.
Yes, I ask for negativity. By posting a response to a post, I'm really
saying "oh please kick me" ;->
I asked you to write the contradictory ad hominem stuff. Uh huh.
Just begged for it.
>
> Yes. Thankyou. A nice summary of the situation.
>
> I'm thinking of making up some "Be nice to me - I was Trolled by Fluffy
> Today!" stickers, to wear after another mind-bending confrontation with
> her. Similar to the stickers you get after receiving root canal treatment,
> which is just about as pleasant an experience.
Then why bother.
> She's trolled me for (I hope) the last time.
I haven't trolled anybody. I responded to a post, you wrote a huge lengthy
one back, and I answered.
C
Ball of Fluff
> "Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy> wrote in message
> news:419a...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> . . . not much but another infuriating misrepresentation and
> misunderstanding of . .. well, just about everything. Not to mention a
> butchering of logical argument which has made my jaw drop in amazement.
> And that's not an easy thing to do, by any means.
Like when you said I was a church member and like when you said your
frequent phrasing of comments with "claire" and "fluffy" and "you" appended
really weren't directed to me.
Yes, the logic...
>
> I am also completely bored with your continual state of denial, Fluffy,
> and your misrepresentations, misunderstandings, intellectual dishonesty
> and generally poor logical skills.
Pot, kettle, black.
It really is a shame that you can't discuss something politely without
getting into personalities.
>
> You have wasted enough of my time.
*plonk*
C
Ball of Fluff
<spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>
>>> What a Jerk.
>>
>> You focus on the one thing that was not even her argument from the
>> start why she had not responded, this is all in detail earlier on this
>> thread. Wrong targeting.
>
> Actually, the more I read of your pursuit of Tory, and your trying to drag
> her back into a rather pointless intellectual exercise, when *her mother
> is
> dying*, the more I'm thinking not only "what a Jerk", but "what an
> enormous
> Jerk!".
>
> Definitely "Jerk of the Century" material.
On my way to my killfile...
let's check out the logic skills...
let's see... the famous debating technique "you're a jerk"
That's been employed by the best of 'em for centuries...O why didn't I think
of that?
very good, let's see what else...
Godwin's law. Always de rigeur for usenet discussions-NOT.
>
> And maybe because I don't want to have to read yet another entry on
> www.whyaretheydead.net
Irrelevant.Specious fake sympathy.
>
> "Evil flourishes when good people do nothing".
>
> That's why.
Yet he says to another critic
Because you still refuse to take into account that those things
*do* exist, *are* still being used by the church of scientology, and refuse
to give them equal weight in anything that you say about scientology,
And then you say that that's just fine for you, and for anyone else . . .
so long as
they don't criticise scientology . . . whoops . . . the *church* of
scientology.
(both statements are false)
He doesn't seem to like my "doing something".
C
Ball of Fluff
"Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy> wrote in message
>
> "Peregrine" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:3004spF...@uni-berlin.de...
>> "Mike Gormez" <mgo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
>> news:tkclp01bf79mvfceq...@4ax.com...
>>> "On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:42:16 +0800, "Peregrine" <nob...@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote in <2vtlr0F...@uni-berlin.de>:
>>>
>>>>(You know, Claire, I'm starting to lose quite a bit of respect for you.
>>>>You
>>>>know *exactly* what I'm talking about, and playing second fiddle to
>>>>Spacetravellor is beginning to make me wonder about your motives here in
>>>>ars).
>>>
>>> The agenda seems to focus on three points;
>>>
>>> 1/ Redefine the terms Scientology/CoS -- Whining for christ knows how
>>> many
>>> years the rest of the world adepts to that naming convention, fueled I
>>> guess by her decision to cling on to the label scientologist.
>
> People who are Scn'ists call themselves such.
>
>
>>>
>>> 2/ Equate the cult in analogies with mainstream religions, no matter how
>>> far fetched.
>
> Always in an uncomplimentary (to CofS) fashion...
>
>>>
>>> 3/ Attract negative attention because that is attention as well and some
>>> people never have enough.
It should also be pointed out that Mike Gormez is the person who, earlier
this year, brought up things I said 6 years ago while still a church member
and tried to whup me over the head with them. Out of the blue.
I guess he knows a thing or two about trolling...
Some people really cannot wrap their minds around the fact I am a Scn'ist
and a critic of CofS at the same time.
They seem to resent it.
C
realpch
It's just not tidy enough! As if human creatures were tidy...
Peach
realpch
I think many people here have had this argument with Claire at one time
or another. Welcome to the newsgroup! And I'm certainly glad she is
here. Most everyone here deplores the actions of the Church of
Scientology, and most don't like the philosophical underpinnings of
Scientology. Claire points out that "Scientology" has never done one bad
thing to anyone, but rather people have. She's a good person and she is
satisfied with her application of the philosophy of "Scientology". In a
black and white universe, she would have to choose, but this isn't that.
> But this does seem to be
> > the argument of the week...who is a Scientologist and who is not!
> > : )
>
> Heh.
>
> It's actually an important issue, which is why it needs to be argued.
>
> If you've studied any semiotic theory you'll see why, but here's a brief
> precis: the definition of words is often the site of struggles over power in
> any particular group. If you can define away a word enough, you can negate a
> lot of criticism.
>
> It is a tactic that is well known to spin factories and advertising
> companies. If you work in any of these places eventually you will study the
> work of people like Althusser, Foucault, Lakoff, Jakobson, etc (man, I'm
> really having to stretch my memory here - there's one particular theorist
> who is regarded as the main authority of this theory, I think it is
> Althusser but I could be wrong :) in order to be more effective:
>
> http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem07.html
> http://www.keltawebconcepts.com.au/erep1.htm
>
> to get you started.
Hmmm. This particular group isn't really very cohesive, if we are
talking about ars. For example, Claire has repeatedly made the
distinction between "Scientology" and "The Church of Scientology". Some
people (like me) agree with her, and have changed some of their posting
habits accordingly. Some agree with her, and haven't changed a thing
(it's easier to just use "Scientology" versus "The Church of
Scientology). Some have had pitched and bitter battles with her about
it. I personally don't think that Claire's view is going to cause the
world of Scientology criticism to shudder to a halt. I do take your
point about semantics. I'm just not sophistocated enough to participate
much in any argument about it.
> > Claire acknowledges that Mr. Hubbard was not perfect, though most here
> > would probably not agree with her assessment of the degree of
> > not-perfect he was.
>
> Yes. Fair enough.
>
> However, I reserve the right to criticise her current position and bring her
> attention to just *how* "not-perfect" he was.
> --
> 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
You will find Claire to be a fierce and thorough arguer!
: )
Peach
henri
>Ball of Fluff wrote:
>> > "Peregrine" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
[Peregrine's fucked-up troll rant deleted]
>> Some people really cannot wrap their minds around the fact I am a Scn'ist
>> and a critic of CofS at the same time
>> They seem to resent it.
>It's just not tidy enough! As if human creatures were tidy...
In Peregrine's case, Claire's mere existence shows that one of the
core claims of his bogus "FAQ" (which mainly consists of declarations
rather than questions that anyone actually asks), that there are
only "critics" and "Scientologists," is utter bullshit.
Despite this, Peregrine refuses to correct his bullshit FAQ. Instead
he rags on Claire for existing. What a complete assclown.
henri
[Peregrine drivel snipped]
>It is not my church.So, nope.
>For it to be my church I'd have to be a member or own it, (like DM) or
>something of the sort.
>I'd also have to stop ranking on them and there wouldn't now be an
>expell/declare from that "church" about my alleged iniquities.
I don't know if you noticed, but my very first response to this
drooling pinhead's "FAQ" was to point out exactly this. So either
he is too stupid to have read it, or he is deliberately trolling.
Personally, I think "Peregrine" is just an OSA operation similar
to the "Dorian" clown and "Truth Seeker." This one is slightly
more subtle, but ultimately equally pointless. If he isn't an op,
he's stupid beyond the ability of modern humanity to describe it
in language.
Spacetraveler
> >> "Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy> wrote in message
> >> news:41995b53$1...@news2.lightlink.com...> >> > news:2vt6q8F...@uni-berlin.de...
> >> >
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> >> You, sir, are a Jerk. If they gave out awards for the Most Meritorious
> >> >> Jerk in Jerkdom at your IAS events, you would undoubtably be the
> >> >> recipient of Jerk of the Year. If there was a course for Operating
> >> >> Jerkdom you'd be at least an OJ7 by now. If they had special parking
> >> >> zones for Jerks you'd have a sticker on your car windscreen entitling
> >> >> you
> >> >> to use them.
> >> >>
> >> >> But then again, compassion is very low
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> see where "compassion" - a major part of almost every other world
> >> >> religion - appears in scientology doctrine).
> >> >
> >>
> >> Oh?
> >>
> >> http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/full.htm
> >>
> >> I stand corrected. They call it "sympathy", at 0.9. But I have seen
> >> scientologists discuss *exactly* this issue of "where is sympathy on the
> >> tone scale?" using the word c-o-m-p-a-s-s-i-o-n.
> >
>
> I don't think so.
There is a difference in use.
> Sympathy (n): understanding, compassion, kindness, consideration, empathy.
These are not definitions even, they are replacement words.
>
> You should learn to use a thesaurus.
Try a dictionary of synonyms. Webster's has a good one.
>
> and force your personal
> > interpretation on this.
>
> See above.
>
> Those who have seriously studied the tone
> > scale and especially "Science of Survival" (the book that get into
> > great detail about these things) will see this.
>
> "Seriously studied" the tone scale? Don't make me laugh!
Well,... you make me laugh!
>
> I have seriously studied fortune cookie inserts. And that makes me an expert
> of . . .?
Human behaviour may be. But the book is not so easy to grasp, nor
applied. will take some time. Again you admit not really knowing what
the book is about.
>
> >> (You know, Claire, I'm starting to lose quite a bit of respect for you.
> >
> > You say that solely because she spots where you go off-track with your
> > assessment. NO other reason! You want to be right, even if you may be
> > wrong.
>
> Actually, the only reason I say this is because of her constant habit of
> diverting the conversation from the topic in hand. Which is: how you can
> possibly live with what Hubbard taught once you know the entirity of what he
> taught, how he lived, how he set up his "church" to be one of the most evil,
> paranoid and fascist organisations ever to curse this planet.
This is your opinion, unsupported as such.
>
> Either you must put on the blinkers firmly, or you must wake up and
> acknowledge the bad with the good.
>
> The words mean exactly what they say: I'm starting to lose quite a bit of
> respect for Claire. She has her blinkers firmly in place.
She does not agree with your comments on the issue, that's why. She is
a subtle observer, she surprises me actually.
>
> > Below here you come with lots of explanation, justification to uphold
> > (rather attempting to) your position and credibility.
> >
> >
> >> You
> >> know *exactly* what I'm talking about, and playing second fiddle to
> >> Spacetravellor is beginning to make me wonder about your motives here in
> >> ars).
> >>
> >> Those who are 2.0 and below on the tone scale, may I remind you, are to
> >> be
> >> "disposed of quietly and without sorrow".
> >>
> >> Poof! There goes Mother Theresa! Line her up against the wall with all
> >> the
> >> members of Medicins sans Frontieres. Remember not to feel sorrow as you
> >> pull
> >> the trigger.
> >>
> >> And there goes the Dalai Lama too. Too bad (and he was such a *nice*
> >> chap.
> >> For someone so low on the tone scale. Obviously his "serenity of
> >> beingness"
> >> is just a complete fake, otherwise he'd have power over MEST and Tibet
> >> would
> >> still be in the hands of the Tibetans).
> >>
> >> Care to tell us what scientologists think about the "non-productive"
> >> members
> >> of society, Fluffy?
> >>
> >> Care to tell us what happens when an elderly or "non-productive" member
> >> is
> >> off-loaded?
> >>
> >> Or what happens to the clinically insane in a Scientology Society?
> >>
> >> Or what Hubbard said about the proper place of "coloureds"?
> >>
> >> Or why people *really* get MS, Epilepsy, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's,
> >> Cancer,
> >> etc etc, according to Hubbard?
> >>
> >> Hmmmm?
> >>
> >> > It's not listed as its own category. Many feelings are not. Only some
> >> > are.
> >> >
> >> > love and compassion are inculcated throughout the tone scale. As a
> >> > person
> >> > becomes more up tone, his ability to feel love and compassion are
> >> > stronger. Hubbard talks about this in Science of Survival.
> >> >
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/39ucy
> >>
> >> Hubbard talked about a hell of a lot of things that he didn't even mean,
> >> certainly never intended to carry out, did not demonstrate in his own
> >> life,
> >> and which for the most part pinched from other, better, writers and
> >> thinkers. It's almost a rule of thumb: if it sounds good, go find who he
> >> plagarised it from.
> >
> > Unsupported claim.
>
> Oh really?
>
> www.lermanet.com
> www.xenu.net
> www.whyaretheydead.net
> http://www.ronthenut.org/
>
> And John Attack's "A piece of Blue Sky", to get you started.
I've read and studied about any book from the critics. Sorry, you have
to learn how to evaluate information, you have to learn how to
actually discriminate. For this you need to be very attentive,
observative and objective. And then you need time, lots of time.
Secondhand data is not firsthand data or experience.
Miller's book actually is one of the worst around. Very prejudiced,
and very bad referencing.
>
> >> He also was a cunning con-man and showman with one eye always on
> >> promotion
> >> and public relations. Why do you think the "public" stuff sounds so good,
> >> and the private, secret, and confidential stuff, that the church is
> >> hoping
> >> will never see the light of day, sounds so very very bad? Look at the
> >> *actions* of the church. When they framed Paulette Cooper, when they
> >> allowed
> >> Lisa McPherson to die, when they practice every single day Fair Game
> >> tactics
> >> in this newsgroup, on the web (care for a round of RFW, anyone?), in real
> >> life, when they drive someone out of the country, when they kill people's
> >> pets, when they command someone (oh, oops! sorry! *suggest* to someone)
> >> that
> >> disconnection might be necessary, when they pervert the legal system
> >> until
> >> it becomes a mockery of justice and the law . . . then the argument you
> >> are
> >> presenting in the above link - that somehow Hubbard was "a good man" and
> >> that "as a person becomes more up tone, his ability to feel love and
> >> compassion are stronger" according to Hubbard's "Science of Survival"
> >> (assuming of course ALWAYS that there are no other, better, ways to "move
> >> up
> >> the tone scale" - which is a load of old codswallop, btw, and certainly
> >> not
> >> "researched" in any creditable research institution) . . .
> >>
> >> . . . . then your claim becomes not only illogical. It becomes
> >> offensive.
> >
> > Justification and lots of writing doesn't get you out of this mess, my
> > dear boy. .-)
>
> Since I was never *in* a "mess" to begin with, I have no need to get *out*
> of it.
Because of what you say and especially claim, you got *in*.
>
> The argument above stands. Try re-reading it until you understand what I'm
> arguing here. Don't go past an MU now, spacey!
>
> >> >> And further to that, I've noticed that all the best scientologists (ie
> >> >> the most indoctrinated) are almost always lacking in good manners,
> >> >> compassion and respect for others.
> >> >
> >> > Then that would hardly make them the best Scientologists.
> >>
> >> And the ones who are most strenuously defending your "church" on this
> >> newsgroup (and please, spare me the lecture - and the strawman - yet
> >> again! - of "but not all scientologists are church of scientology
> >> scientologists!" because you know, once again, *exactly* what I mean) are
> >> certainly not demonstrating being "good" scientologists.
> >>
> >> I really just could not even be bothered finishing you off, Claire. I
> >> *could* now go through a precis of exactly what "being in a state of
> >> Enemy"
> >> and what one has to do to get back into the good graces of the
> >> all-important
> >> "group" means to an indoctrinated scientologist. You're a subtle arguer,
> >> I'll give you that. Certainly more of a challenge than Spacetraveller.
> >>
> >> But in the end, you are also wasting my time just as much as he/she is.
> >>
> >> > A good Scn'ist, a good Buddhist, a good anything, is someone who uses
> >> > his
> >> > or her religion or philosophy for good.
> >> >
> >> > I know a lot of Christians. The ones I consider good aren't the
> >> > indoctrinated ones and believe you me, I've met many indoctrinated
> >> > ones.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Seems to get beaten out of them somewhere on the Bridge to Total
> >> >>Freedom.
> >> >
> >> > Which is contra to what Hubbard wrote and recommended. So they're not
> >> > good
> >> > Scn'ists. They may be good CofS members, good culties, but they are not
> >> > good practitioners of their philosophy.
> >>
> >> According *to you*, Claire, who has a sort of sickly-sweet, fairy-floss,
> >> Santa-Claus-and-Easter-Bunny view of scientology which is not at all in
> >> tune
> >> with the realities of what Hubbard actually wrote and demanded from his
> >> followers. Or are you now going to claim, along with Barbara, that he
> >> never
> >> wrote those internal orders? That he never invented Fair Game? That he
> >> never
> >> said that those "low on the tone scale" - which, it bears repeating, has
> >> no
> >> place in any *serious* discussion of human nature or human ethics despite
> >> the claims of "hundreds of hours of research" having gone into coming up
> >> with it (Hubbard-ese for "I made it up one night when I was off my nut on
> >> pinks and greys") - should be disposed of "quietly, and without sorrow"?
> >>
> >> In fact, according to your criteria, there are probably about 2 "good"
> >> scientologists existing in the world today. You and your husband. And
> >> maybe
> >> Cerridwen. When you're not disagreeing with her.
> >>
> >> As the old statistician's saying goes "'me and my friends' does not
> >> constitute a statistical sample".
> >>
> >> >>> I disagree by the way with your opinion (if you can call it an
> >> >>> opinion).
> >> >>> My assessment of the situation has been very clear and very exact,
> >> >>> and
> >> >>> is fully supported by the actual facts as far as they can be
> >> >>> verified.
> >> >>> It is ALL earlier on this very thread.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Tory has answered your query quite satisfactorily, explaining her
> >> >>>> reasons
> >> >>>> for requesting that you post the relevant bits of your previous
> >> >>>> post.
> >> >>>> And I
> >> >>>> think she has also been generous to you in doing so, since previous
> >> >>>> experience with you shows that any answers to you will simply be
> >> >>>> either
> >> >>>> ignored or be the basis for another round of "monkey and weasel". In
> >> >>>> other
> >> >>>> words, arguing with you is a complete waste of everyone's time.
> >> >
> >> > Never answered mine, though.
> >> >
> >> > I've stopped asking.
> >>
> >> And just *what* has this got to do with anything?
> >
> > Migh, migh..... isn't that obvious?
>
> No.
That Tory did not answered her questions.
>
> >> >>> The usual sectbehaviour displayed, in fact nothing else than smear!
> >> >>
> >> >> Still working on the same old logical fallacy, I see. You disappoint
> >> >> me.
> >> >
> >> > No, he doesn't. He acts exactly as you expect Scn'ists to act.
> >> > Therefore
> >> > you are not disappointed. Your expectations were evidently met.
> >>
> >> Sarcasm really escapes you, doesn't it, Claire?
> >>
> >> [note to Barbara: this is close to a Peregrine Explosion. But we're not
> >> *quite* there yet].
> >
> > Your're EXPOSED, my dear boy! EXPOSED, you babble about tone scales
> > and you don't even have a clue what they are about.
>
> Actually, I have rather a good "clue" what they are about.
Enlighten us!
Spacetraveler
ladayla
>>>
>>>> Care to tell us what happens when an elderly or "non-productive" member
>>>> is
>>>> off-loaded?
>>>
>>> Well, being that I'm the one who went to a lot of trouble to transfer
>>> two separate ars posts about that onto Beliefnet, fighting with the
>>> moderators to do it, I guess that pretty much speaks for my position.
>>> As I say below, yer preachin' to the choir.
And who wrote those posts originally, Claire?
Who or what would scurry from one site to another to another to another to
another carrying SOMEONE ELSE'S messages without their permission, and in spite
of this other person's explicit objection?
A gossip?
A blabbermouth?
A person who had no personal knowledge, but wants to appear informed?
An obsessive creature?
Oh! I know! CLAIRE would!
>>
Spacetraveler
So, not per my dictionary.
And then there have been varius references to this discussion. Doesn't work, sorry.
> > Crying 'with' someone will not help anyone, least of all not her. It
> > wasn't even her argument from the start. Please do a PROPER assessment
> > of happenings!
>
> Least of all not her?? What is that supposed to mean.
It is proper english, consult a good dictionary. Try slang.
> >>Of course you didn't. It is your golden opportunity to show the world
> >>just how unpleasant you can be. For you information, it works.
> >
> > Basically the ONLY unpleasant thing there is, in fact is wrong
> > targeting.
>
> agree. focus on the questions you want answered, not why she did not
> respond some posts.
Actually I did.
It is Tory who focuses on why she did not respond.
> >>>It is also reposted as the first item on this thread. Seems to me you
> >>>were not being honest while being supposedly a Scientologist, and you
> >>>are not being honest here either. What kind of Freedom is that?
> >>
> >>Perhaps something like, freedom to be forgiven, to make a mistake,
> >>without being harrassed or sent to a labourcamp.
> >
> > Sorry, I did not harras her. Damn, START EVALUATING!!!
>
> There is no need to get upset.
No one is upset on my side.
> Well, maybe it is not harrassment. How about we call it bad manners.
Certainly not.
> >>How is your own honesty. Should we talk about that?
> >
> > Blind defense and now wrong targeting, what's next?
>
> I was just being polite.
>
> > 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
Barbara Schwarz
> Simply a repost of the last post in a discussion I have had with this
> girl. She then turned her back to it. Probably because it became
> uncomfortable to her.
>
Non-confront. Her way to deal with her critics. :)
>
> It gives some interesting angles!
>
> It is also interesting to see that none of the critics ask her to
> clarify some things either! And what does this tell us? Right, typical
> sect-behaviour.
Tory, did you get this here? You are the cult member. You can't get it
out of your system, now can't you? Once a cult member, also one. And
ARS is such a bad cult. We true Scientologists are no culties, but
you, girl....you are a completely different story.
>
> She herself will probably think: "Hmm. let's ignore him, this wind
> will blow over, and then'll be safe again!"
>
> Definitely, but this all will be in this database. So, I'll nudge you
> a little. You claim you are an advocator for "Freedom of speech", I
> simply assume that my posting will be allowed, even by you.
>
> Spacetraveler
She ignores several of my postings now too, Spacetraveler. Seems she
does not know what to say when somebody really confronts her with
specifics. Her web of the rumours and falsehoods that she puts out
(she claimed that she joined OSA in 1979 and it was first created in
the mid 80s)is getting thicker and thicker.
Barbara Schwarz
>
>
> The original thread is found here:
> http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl219904232d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0411061812.288f2567%40posting.google.com
>
> snip
>
>
> > > Also you appear to have little to none knowledge nor understanding of
> > > the adminstration technology of L. Ron Hubbard. I have strongly the
> > > impression that you are one of those persons who moved on the 'bridge'
> > > the easy way. Just paying money and sitting in the auditing chair or
> > > something like that.
> > > Study is half the bridge, do you remember this?
> >
> > Nothing could be farther from the truth. I got in doing training, and
> > Co-Audited the lower Bridge and even FPRD, (and promoted training) for all
> > of my years in Scientology. In fact, I actually had ~many~ discussions with
> > Top Executives, reminding them that 'in the old days' training was THE way,
> > and buying auditing/the "Professional route" (as you proclaim) was for
> > serious weirdo's. I also was in the Sea Org (Briefly...due to their own
> > screw ups), and on staff at CC and AOLA.
> > Lastly, I was a volunteer for OSA for 20 years.
>
> And in spite of all that you tell me: (quote)
> "Hubbard wrote the Cancellation issue, but at the bottom states:
> "This issue does not apply to SP's" And that line was removed from any
> issue I was ever shown, so it never made sense to me. Once I left, I
> was shown the original PL, and that statement IS there." You know, ALL
> you had to do is pull OEC vol 1 look in the index, locate the issue
> and read it. You were there 30 years, and only after you left you
> still needed someone to show you? Do you actually realize what you
> are saying? You are one of those persons who do not find out for
> themselves, but let other show or tell you things. And this is the BIG
> difference between us. I never did any such thing at any time. This is
> why you were able to go around blind in 30 years.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Get this into your head:
> > > "Scientology is application of references originated or written by L.
> > > Ron Hubbard.
> >
> > You can scream that for years to come, and I'll be here telling people this:
> > Scientology (C of S) proclaims it is the application of references by LRH,
> > and it is. However, depending on where you stand in their graces, is which
> > policy will be applied, and which will be IGNORED.
> >
> > Of course you totally skip over that one, don't you "Spacetraveler"?
>
> Nothing to tell! It is irrelevant what C of S claims they do! If it
> is not in policy it is not Scientology. Policy itself will tell you
> what is valid and what not. Query it or oppose to it, I always did. It
> says in the bible: "Thou shalt not kill." What have Christians done?
> Yes, killing people. Bush also says he's a Christian, people are dead
> because of him for no reason, great isn't it. Now are we saying that
> Bush did that or was it Jesus? Get your targets straight!
>
> > > Not enforcing these is NOT Scientology even if some may
> > > use that name."
> >
> > Ya, well when David Miscavige, RTC, all of WISE and the majority of ABLE
> > refuse to enforce these.....
>
> I know they don't, and that does make it not-Scientology.
>
> >I'd say you have just about what you have now:
> > totalitarianism. Like it? I hope so. It's yours to keep.
> >
> > > Fair game is long since cancelled, if some enforce
> > > these, it is NOT Scientology, period!
> >
> > Ok, so what would you call "ReligiousFreedomwatch"? Just a fluke of
> > mis-applied BS (and yes, that's bullshit, for yee who pretend not to know
> > what it is)?
>
> You don't WANT to get this, do you! It is NOT Scientology!
>
> > I could list endless "LRH Policy" that is either being misused, or not
> > applied (ignored)...and you'd still sing your same song:
> > "That isn't LRH"
> > Tell that to the vast majority of people who worked for LRH, and LEFT
> > because he was an asshole, used his own 'Tech" against them unfairly, abused
> > people, and then blamed them.
>
> I have been around for over 26 years. I have spoken to many who worked
> with LRH, most of the class XII's, and various others. He was tough,
> but this does not make him an asshole. An easy guy would never have
> been able to get the show on the road. The point is if LRH writings
> are something to have or not. Can they be used? For 30 years you
> believed they could, and now you think it is about all useless?
>
>
> > > The changes in the organization after L. Ron Hubbard disappeared from
> > > the lines are tremendous. Or you are totally ignorant about this or
> > > you simply refuse to find out about these things.
> >
> > I have posted about this greatly. Obviously it's easier for you to run your
> > program than to read what I've written. Yes, the group has changed
> > greatly.... Irrelevant!
>
> The problem is that you do NOT implement this information in your
> reasoning nor in your communications towards me! You keep on saying
> time after time: "YOUR organziation". Claiming such a thing is a
> complete absurdity!
>
> You appear to reason as follows. Those who question the activities and
> claims of YOUR group (comprizing of Rice, Armstrong and so on)
> automatically have to be in favour of the Miscavige Organization. This
> also means that you can not acknowledge when I claim that Gerry
> Armstrong is seriously dishonest about his claim and his ignorance of
> HCO PL 21 July 1968. (see my first post on this thread). He is in YOUR
> group and therefore he can not be wrong in anyway, as it seems. He has
> to be defended no matter what. You know what? You left one sect and
> just joined another 'sect'! And this 'sect' decides for you what you
> are to believe and think. If it was not like that. You would be able
> to look sensibly and analyze truthfully.
>
> Think about it. Don't get 'emotional' about it. Think about this!
>
> "That mind which understand itself is the mind of a free man."
>
> >but as I've said, Hubbard isn't the perfect person you make him out
> to be.
>
> I NEVER claimed any such thing! But don't blame him for things he can
> not be made responsible for!
>
> > I never even knew half of what I know about him, until I woke up.
>
> > I've since met many of the people who told these same stories, and no,
> > they're not made up lies, or any other version you will try to clutch to,
> > hoping and praying they must be wrong.
>
> Evaluation is a difficult thing. He was tough. I remember the story
> from Haviva Waters. She f*ed up a pc, again, and he was furious,
> threatened to throw her overboard. She did not look back onto him as a
> 'nice' person. See, evaluation is difficult, when is something just
> and when is it not. The majority of people I have spoken to however
> speak about him with respect, they tell me, that he understood, that
> he wanted to get through to them. You were alright if you were doing
> things correctly, but don't fool around too much.
>
>
> > > However I don't
> > > think you have a very good study record, your responses to my posts
> > > indicate this.
> >
> > Another common attempt to invalidate what I've said. If we're going to talk
> > about study usage, why can't you read what I write and answer it?
>
> Not an invalidation. You yourself are 'telling' me that in your
> communications. I made a simple evalutation, nothing more, nothing
> less.
>
> > > Also noted is that you take a personal tone in your responses. Nasty
> > > remarks when I say that I do not know what you mean with "BS". See,
> > > this tells people something about you!!!
> >
> > awwwwwww...poor Spacetraveler is being harmed by the big, bad SP's. See?
>
> You say that, I dont'. Stop dramatizing, Tory.
>
> > What does that tell me about you? You've got crappy TR's, you are quite
> > illiterate (even 5 year old kids know what BS is), and you are most probably
> > a chronic liar...as well as brainwashed to find "Low toned responses".
> > Sorry, kiddo, it just doesn't fly.
>
> I wasn't used in my circles. Besides that I was not born in some
> english speaking country. I think people figured that out already
> anyway. You could simply have explained what it meant, you chose NOT
> to do that! Why?
> And still you keep justifying what you said in above paragraph. Now
> WHO is invalidating WHO? Start looking at what you are doing, damned!
>
> > I tells them that you are not
> > > so sure about your position in regards to the subjects I take up!
> >
> > "I tells them"? Well "I tells them" that if your speech is an example of
> > "The Study Tech", you need The Key To Life, (Joke!) or better yet, to get
> > out of Scientology.
>
> 'It' tells them.
> See, more invalidating remarks because of some typo.
>
> > > You life is what YOU make of it.
> >
> > Uh oh...."You life is what you make it".
> > mmmm...what country are you from?
> > It's ~your~ life is what you make it, for the record. And yes, I admit it
> > took me a long time (*30 years) to fully realize this, but once I did, I
> > left Scientology and my life has been MUCH better since~
> >
> > Dwelling in your personal disappontments does not solve that situation.
> >
> > First off, I'm not 'dwelling in personal disappointments". I have posted
> > what a fraud your organization is, and many ....many people have written to
> > thank me. I only wish I'd known about the things I do, years before.
>
> There you go again "your organization"! Is this what it is about,
> people that are thanking you? Well, people are also thanking me!
>
>
> > If you recommended OT
> > > VII to others when you yourself were not doing well on it, then this
> > > tells something about YOU.
> >
> > Yes it does. It tells me I was brainwashed into feeling I ~had~ to promote
> > it was good, even when I KNEW it wasn't. I still thought,,,I still bought,
> > Hubbard's endless BS (bullshit) that "IT must be YOU, Tory, as everyone else
> > is winning",
>
> See, Scientology is about recognizing these things, analyzing people,
> to evaluate what is really going on in them, not what they say is
> going on. It is quite easy to evaluate that if you observe, really
> 'look'. And you tell me that I am not looking. 30 years you did not
> 'look', what reason is there to believe that you can 'see' today, only
> because that you have been able to acknowledge some things to
> yourself? Well?
>
> >and that "This is TOP Secret and it's a HIGH CRIME to discuss
> > your case". But you missed that, huh?
>
> Certainly not, but don't tell that OT VII is GREAT when it isn't!
> If I was not satisfied with something people would figure it out from
> me. Be assured of that! But I will not tell that it's great or
> recommendate it. And YOU did exactly that!
>
> > Well, the truth is, everyone else wasn't winning.
> > That's why SO Many OT 7's and OT 8's have dropped off, or left. It doesn't
> > work, pal. Not for me, or you or them. You'd be better to buy a bag of
> > snickers and chant how OT you are while eating them. At least you'd have the
> > enjoyment of the taste.
> >
> > All we can conclude is that this attitude
> > > is NOT Scientology, and makes you a dishonest Scientologist, which is
> > > the same as a non-Scientoligist.
> >
> > Ya....the perfect OSA Line, told to me about thousands of "Our Top OT's" and
> > "Top Opinion Leaders" ...when They too left. I know the line, man, I heard
> > it for years. Guess what? Is it true?
> >
> > N O T A T ALLLLLLLL.
>
> Don't have a clue where you talk about actually?
>
> > Here's one policy you *might* have missed:
> > Hubbard's final PL;
> >
> > The way OUT
> >
> > IS
> >
> > The Neareeeest Dooooooooooor!"
> >
> > (Hey..HE Took it, why not YOU?)
> >
> > Call me when you get out....I'll be here to chat.
>
> I never was IN there as you were, I never lost my senses and threw out
> my ability to judge and analzye. And this is the difference between
> us.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Spacetraveler
Hartley Patterson
> I guess he knows a thing or two about trolling...
>
> Some people really cannot wrap their minds around the fact I am a Scn'ist
> and a critic of CofS at the same time.
>
> They seem to resent it.
You don't fit into their worldview, so you must be deluded, an idiot or
lying. Trying to force reality to fit with your beliefs is what the
other guys do, at least so I try to believe...
Just don't let them back you into a corner, defending things you haven't
actually looked at for a while. Your beliefs are your own, and subject
to change whenever you choose.
--
"I just might be the angel at your door"
A medieval spreadsheet and enturbulating entheta.
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
Mike Gormez
<419B7F05...@aol.com>:
>I think many people here have had this argument with Claire at one time
>or another. Welcome to the newsgroup! And I'm certainly glad she is
>here. Most everyone here deplores the actions of the Church of
>Scientology, and most don't like the philosophical underpinnings of
>Scientology. Claire points out that "Scientology" has never done one bad
>thing to anyone, but rather people have.
There's scientology the ideology and scientology the corporation. You
can't catch the later with just the 'CoS' nom because it is much larger
than the non-profits. A blanket statement that scientology has never done
any harm can not be made without specifying which scientology you are
referring to. And even then I don't agree that an idealogy can't harm
people because it sure can incite people adhering to the idealogy into a
killing frenzy.
Otherwise by the same token a radio can not be used for genocide, but
sadly it was. Over a million people killed in Rwanda
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=brrf9d%24o8v%241%40pencil.math.missouri.edu&output=gplain
Cerridwen
Ya, I agree. I stopped reading his posts because it seemed like
the only thing he was doing was trolling.
Cerridwen
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/source/analysissummary.html
www.scientologypayback.org
Mike Gormez
<419b5c7a$1...@news2.lightlink.com>:
>>> The agenda seems to focus on three points;
>>>
>>> 1/ Redefine the terms Scientology/CoS -- Whining for christ knows how
>>> many
>>> years the rest of the world adepts to that naming convention, fueled I
>>> guess by her decision to cling on to the label scientologist.
>
>People who are Scn'ists call themselves such.
They could also call themselves Dodge Vipers or Ron Bon Jovis. Each his
own, no matter the sillyness. No, that is another point. Your
'suggestion' to Tory and countless of other such badgering 'suggestions'
to adopt your naming convention is what I meant by agenda point one.
As would seem fairly obvious for anyone past the age of 4.
Peregrine
I am glad you made this post, because this comes right to the heart of my
issue with Claire.
It has absolutely nothing to do with "black and white" thinking. It has
everything to do with her intellectually dishonest, narcissistic, and
hypocritical responses to critics' posts.
And she might even be a "good person", but it does not excuse her from
thinking, or from being challenged over what she writes here. What, I'm
supposed to let her off the hook because she's "nice"?
Why do I have a problem with Claire? Well . . . .
1. She's intellectually dishonest if not downright deceitful. She chooses to
come in with some nasty snippy comment about another critic at crucial
moments in debate with the very "scientologists" that she *also* claims she
is against. Thereby completely undoing any good which could have been done
in encouraging that person to question their indoctrination. And she's done
it often enough for me to conclude that it's not just co-incidence. Either
that, or as I said to her earlier, she has really lousy timing. She's like a
kid who enjoys tripping up pedestrians, and then looking all wide-eyed and
innocent and saying "but what did I do?" when they quite rightly turn around
and lambast her for it.
2. Her favourite red herring seems to be "tell us which type of
scientologist you are talking about". She, however, is perfectly at liberty
to use the words "scientology" and "scientologist" in whichever manner she
chooses, without going to the trouble of definition of type. We're supposed
to just "know" what she's talking about. It's one rule for Claire, and
another for everyone else.
3. She is narcissistic. If one should be foolish enough to engage in any
lengthy debate with her, it will end up being not about scientology, nor
about the bad things the "church" has done, but about one subject only.
Claire.
4. She doesn't have the guts or the balls to challenge her own safe little
world view. So long as she never has to face the unpleasant things Hubbard
actually did and said, she doesn't have to challenge the rest of it. She can
put it down to people not reading the *right* Hubbard works. One gets the
feeling that she would just *love* to call completely anti-scientology
critics (like myself) "anti-religious bigots". But that would paint her in a
bad light, something her ego would never tolerate, so she resorts to her
typical tortured logic to say, when it all boils down to it, exactly the
same thing. Which is why I said, and I repeat, I prefer arguing with
Barbara. She might be incredibly wrong, but at least she just comes right
out and says what she means.
5. She is a hypocrite. She *constantly* accuses others of writing things
(mostly unjustified, btw) that *she herself* has done, sometimes in that
very thread. Or she'll make the accusation in another thread, in a total
non-sequitur, which makes it all the harder to pin her down.
6. She is a coward in debate. She'll bring up an issue, and then promptly
change the subject when the water gets too hot for her. Or she'll just
ignore the bits she knows she's not capable of challenging. Or she'll bring
in some total non-sequitur to deflect attention from the argument. Someone
might make a very good point about
scientology/scientologists/church-of-scientologists/not-church-of-scientologists-but-still-believer-in-Hubbard-scientologists
and it will be completely lost as one goes off on a mad goose chase in
trying to tie Her Fluffiness down on that one extraneous point. And then,
should *that* point get too hot to handle, off we go again, on another wild
Fluffy chase, as she introduces *yet another* non-sequitur.
7. Most infuriating are her subtle jibes at people, in which the negative
implication is *quite clear*, and then trying to get out of it by saying
that oh, she never meant *that* when she wrote *this*. She's fooling no-one.
But challenging her on it will just lead to more endless non-sequiturs. And
it's a neat tactic, much beloved of politicians and first-year
undergraduates everywhere: when you don't have the balls to face up to the
reaction you know you're going to get when you come out with something
that's not going to go down well with the audience, just dress it up in an
ambiguous comment (making sure, though, that what you *mean* is clear
enough) and then you've got a ready-made escape hatch when you're
challenged. You can always claim that you didn't really *mean*
such-and-such. And the fault is then cast upon the audience, not the
speaker. Case in point: she tries to dead agent Tory by implying that Tory
runs from confrontation, and then when she's challenged on this she says
(quote) "I felt like saying it, it seemed to tie in". Hard to challenge
someone's "feelings" about something, don't you think?
8. She dead-agents people who are giving their all to stopping the crimes of
the church (church management/church-scientologists/whatever). She does it
subtly, and she does it dishonestly, but she does it all the damn time.
Granted, there's probably nothing sinister in this, but the effect is the
same. For someone who is so "upbeat" and "positive" she's sure got a lot of
nasty, negative things to say about those who are not taken in by Her
Fluffyness.
I could go on. But I won't. Like I said, I've had it up to here with Fluffy.
If her much-vaunted "1000 words per minute" reading skills could be applied
to something a bit less lightweight than romance novels and Hubbard fiction
then she might mature enough to be worth arguing with. But somehow, I doubt
it. Narcissists almost never mature, not without something seriously rocking
their world view. And she's dug herself firmly into her safe little world.
Where she can stay, and be welcome to it.
One: yes, it's easier, which is why I often allow context to determine which
I am writing about, and Two: I'd have no bone to pick with her if she'd be
less of a hypocrite and follow her own damn rules from time to time instead
of just messing up other people's arguments with her
the-world-revolves-around-me stance on usenet.
Some have had pitched and bitter battles with her about
> it. I personally don't think that Claire's view is going to cause the
> world of Scientology criticism to shudder to a halt. I do take your
> point about semantics. I'm just not sophistocated enough to participate
> much in any argument about it.
Rot and piffle! :) You're plenty smart and "sophisticated" enough, Peach.
It's really not hard theory to master. I don't blame you though for not
wanting to learn it, it can be a bit tiresome to wade through some of these
authors. The basic argument, though, is very simple, and is immediately
recognised by any five-year-old who has ever been told we will go to the
park "later" ;)
>> > Claire acknowledges that Mr. Hubbard was not perfect, though most here
>> > would probably not agree with her assessment of the degree of
>> > not-perfect he was.
>>
>> Yes. Fair enough.
>>
>> However, I reserve the right to criticise her current position and bring
>> her
>> attention to just *how* "not-perfect" he was.
> You will find Claire to be a fierce and thorough arguer!
> : )
> Peach
If she could just become an honest and well-mannered one, I'd have no bone
to pick with her.
Peregrine
Very weak points, Spacey. Nice try, but I'm afraid you've been deflated like
a balloon when the party's over.
I am done with this discussion. I really just could not be bothered going
through another round of mulberry bush with either yourself, or Claire.
Peregrine
news:td9np05fdccmk9ho7...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:26:23 -0800, realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Ball of Fluff wrote:
>
>>> > "Peregrine" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> [Peregrine's fucked-up troll rant deleted]
>
>>> Some people really cannot wrap their minds around the fact I am a
>>> Scn'ist
>>> and a critic of CofS at the same time
>
>>> They seem to resent it.
>
>>It's just not tidy enough! As if human creatures were tidy...
>
> In Peregrine's case, Claire's mere existence shows that one of the
> core claims of his bogus "FAQ" (which mainly consists of declarations
> rather than questions that anyone actually asks), that there are
> only "critics" and "Scientologists," is utter bullshit.
And if you'd only read the whole damn thing right through you'd know what a
load of old codswallop this claim about the FAQ is. Maybe it was too hard
for you to get right through to the end? Should I leave out all the "big
words"?
> Despite this, Peregrine refuses to correct his bullshit FAQ.
Actually, Peregrine has been too damn busy to "correct" the FAQ.
Instead
> he rags on Claire for existing.
No, I rag on Claire for a whole bunch of other things. Most of which are
probably too subtle for you to take in, henri (pity you've killfiled me, so
you'll never see this).
What a complete assclown.
Thankyou. You have a good day too.
realpch
Oh cripes, now when I write "the Church of Scientology" do I have to add
all the other corportations?
: )
I like using "The Church of Scientology" as Claire suggested.
"Scientology" officially doesn't exist outside the Church of Scientology
(yeah yeah, and all the corporations), though some of the people who
have left the church wish to keep that name for their philosophy. Don't
all the abuses we discuss arise from the Church of Scientology? There's
not a lot of bite in Scientology outside the organization, and besides,
most of the people who have left, left because they didn't like the
abuses. I'm happy to supply that courtesy.
Peach
Lady Chatterly
>
>Mike Gormez wrote:
>>
>> "On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:40:37 -0800, realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote in
>> <419B7F05...@aol.com>:
>>
>> >I think many people here have had this argument with Claire at one time
>> >or another. Welcome to the newsgroup! And I'm certainly glad she is
>> >here. Most everyone here deplores the actions of the Church of
>> >Scientology, and most don't like the philosophical underpinnings of
>> >Scientology. Claire points out that "Scientology" has never done one bad
>> >thing to anyone, but rather people have.
>>
>> There's scientology the ideology and scientology the corporation. You
>> can't catch the later with just the 'CoS' nom because it is much larger
>> than the non-profits. A blanket statement that scientology has never done
>> any harm can not be made without specifying which scientology you are
>> referring to. And even then I don't agree that an idealogy can't harm
>> people because it sure can incite people adhering to the idealogy into a
>> killing frenzy.
>>
>> Otherwise by the same token a radio can not be used for genocide, but
>> sadly it was. Over a million people killed in Rwanda
>>
>> --
>> Mike Gormez
>>
>> - Stop deceptive recruitment into scientology http://stop-wise.biz/
>> - www.whyaretheydead.net documents the deaths of scientologists
>> - "There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way it
>> treats its children." -- Nelson Mandela. Scientologist often attach more
>> importance to scientology than children www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
>
>Oh cripes, now when I write "the Church of Scientology" do I have to add
>all the other corportations?
>: )
>I like using "The Church of Scientology" as Claire suggested.
>"Scientology" officially doesn't exist outside the Church of Scientology
>(yeah yeah, and all the corporations), though some of the people who
>have left the church wish to keep that name for their philosophy. Don't
>all the abuses we discuss arise from the Church of Scientology? There's
>not a lot of bite in Scientology outside the organization, and besides,
>most of the people who have left, left because they didn't like the
>abuses. I'm happy to supply that courtesy.
Peach.
>Peach
Anger without power is folly.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Hmmmmmmm ... Lady Chatterly writes as if she is a cousin or sister of
Hyderhal1. She offers no substance in debate, and resorts to name
calling - a sure sign of an intellectual void." -- S.Taylor
realpch
> > I think many people here have had this argument with Claire at one time
> > or another. Welcome to the newsgroup! And I'm certainly glad she is
> > here. Most everyone here deplores the actions of the Church of
> > Scientology, and most don't like the philosophical underpinnings of
> > Scientology. Claire points out that "Scientology" has never done one bad
> > thing to anyone, but rather people have. She's a good person and she is
> > satisfied with her application of the philosophy of "Scientology". In a
> > black and white universe, she would have to choose, but this isn't that.
>
> I am glad you made this post, because this comes right to the heart of my
> issue with Claire.
>
> It has absolutely nothing to do with "black and white" thinking. It has
> everything to do with her intellectually dishonest, narcissistic, and
> hypocritical responses to critics' posts.
>
> And she might even be a "good person", but it does not excuse her from
> thinking, or from being challenged over what she writes here. What, I'm
> supposed to let her off the hook because she's "nice"?
Oh, why the hell not?
> Why do I have a problem with Claire? Well . . . .
>
> 1. She's intellectually dishonest if not downright deceitful. She chooses to
> come in with some nasty snippy comment about another critic at crucial
> moments in debate with the very "scientologists" that she *also* claims she
> is against. Thereby completely undoing any good which could have been done
> in encouraging that person to question their indoctrination. And she's done
> it often enough for me to conclude that it's not just co-incidence. Either
> that, or as I said to her earlier, she has really lousy timing. She's like a
> kid who enjoys tripping up pedestrians, and then looking all wide-eyed and
> innocent and saying "but what did I do?" when they quite rightly turn around
> and lambast her for it.
Well, she responds to the stuff she's interested in. I'd hate to hear
how often people thought I popped up with ill-timed posts.
> 2. Her favourite red herring seems to be "tell us which type of
> scientologist you are talking about". She, however, is perfectly at liberty
> to use the words "scientology" and "scientologist" in whichever manner she
> chooses, without going to the trouble of definition of type. We're supposed
> to just "know" what she's talking about. It's one rule for Claire, and
> another for everyone else.
She's interested in this point. If you read her often enough, you expect
this. I don't have a problem with it.
> 3. She is narcissistic. If one should be foolish enough to engage in any
> lengthy debate with her, it will end up being not about scientology, nor
> about the bad things the "church" has done, but about one subject only.
> Claire.
I'm not sure how that happens, but I don't think it's all Claire's doing.
; )
> 4. She doesn't have the guts or the balls to challenge her own safe little
> world view. So long as she never has to face the unpleasant things Hubbard
> actually did and said, she doesn't have to challenge the rest of it. She can
> put it down to people not reading the *right* Hubbard works. One gets the
> feeling that she would just *love* to call completely anti-scientology
> critics (like myself) "anti-religious bigots". But that would paint her in a
> bad light, something her ego would never tolerate, so she resorts to her
> typical tortured logic to say, when it all boils down to it, exactly the
> same thing. Which is why I said, and I repeat, I prefer arguing with
> Barbara. She might be incredibly wrong, but at least she just comes right
> out and says what she means.
Well, why would she if she's happy with her world view? She's said some
stuff, but is there some prearranged amount of bad stuff she is supposed
to say about L. Ron? I know I've been slacking myself in that area
lately. Sometimes she's called people bigots, usually when they were
writing like bigots. I've always thought that Claire was more than happy
to tell us what she thinks!
> 5. She is a hypocrite. She *constantly* accuses others of writing things
> (mostly unjustified, btw) that *she herself* has done, sometimes in that
> very thread. Or she'll make the accusation in another thread, in a total
> non-sequitur, which makes it all the harder to pin her down.
I've never noticed this, but I am sometimes an inattentive reader. I
often snooze off in the middle of the most thrilling arguments.
> 6. She is a coward in debate. She'll bring up an issue, and then promptly
> change the subject when the water gets too hot for her. Or she'll just
> ignore the bits she knows she's not capable of challenging. Or she'll bring
> in some total non-sequitur to deflect attention from the argument. Someone
> might make a very good point about
> scientology/scientologists/church-of-scientologists/not-church-of-scientologists-but-still-believer-in-Hubbard-scientologists
> and it will be completely lost as one goes off on a mad goose chase in
> trying to tie Her Fluffiness down on that one extraneous point. And then,
> should *that* point get too hot to handle, off we go again, on another wild
> Fluffy chase, as she introduces *yet another* non-sequitur.
I dunno, are you talking about getting her to agree with you?
> 7. Most infuriating are her subtle jibes at people, in which the negative
> implication is *quite clear*, and then trying to get out of it by saying
> that oh, she never meant *that* when she wrote *this*. She's fooling no-one.
> But challenging her on it will just lead to more endless non-sequiturs. And
> it's a neat tactic, much beloved of politicians and first-year
> undergraduates everywhere: when you don't have the balls to face up to the
> reaction you know you're going to get when you come out with something
> that's not going to go down well with the audience, just dress it up in an
> ambiguous comment (making sure, though, that what you *mean* is clear
> enough) and then you've got a ready-made escape hatch when you're
> challenged. You can always claim that you didn't really *mean*
> such-and-such. And the fault is then cast upon the audience, not the
> speaker. Case in point: she tries to dead agent Tory by implying that Tory
> runs from confrontation, and then when she's challenged on this she says
> (quote) "I felt like saying it, it seemed to tie in". Hard to challenge
> someone's "feelings" about something, don't you think?
I guess I wasn't paying attention again.
> 8. She dead-agents people who are giving their all to stopping the crimes of
> the church (church management/church-scientologists/whatever). She does it
> subtly, and she does it dishonestly, but she does it all the damn time.
> Granted, there's probably nothing sinister in this, but the effect is the
> same. For someone who is so "upbeat" and "positive" she's sure got a lot of
> nasty, negative things to say about those who are not taken in by Her
> Fluffyness.
Does she? She has arguments with people sometimes, but I've never
noticed any Dead Agenting.
> I could go on. But I won't. Like I said, I've had it up to here with Fluffy.
>
> If her much-vaunted "1000 words per minute" reading skills could be applied
> to something a bit less lightweight than romance novels and Hubbard fiction
> then she might mature enough to be worth arguing with. But somehow, I doubt
> it. Narcissists almost never mature, not without something seriously rocking
> their world view. And she's dug herself firmly into her safe little world.
> Where she can stay, and be welcome to it.
Yeah well, I don't think Jane Austen novels qualify as lightweight.
She's not Barbara Cartland.
Don't bet on it! I do admire people who are more logical than myself,
and I think there's a lot of them.
> >> > Claire acknowledges that Mr. Hubbard was not perfect, though most here
> >> > would probably not agree with her assessment of the degree of
> >> > not-perfect he was.
> >>
> >> Yes. Fair enough.
> >>
> >> However, I reserve the right to criticise her current position and bring
> >> her
> >> attention to just *how* "not-perfect" he was.
>
> > You will find Claire to be a fierce and thorough arguer!
> > : )
> > Peach
>
> If she could just become an honest and well-mannered one, I'd have no bone
> to pick with her.
> --
> 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
Ahhh, it's no big deal. Stick around, you'll get used to Claire, and
we'll get used to you.
Peach
Mike Gormez
<419C076D...@aol.com>:
>> There's scientology the ideology and scientology the corporation. You
>> can't catch the later with just the 'CoS' nom because it is much larger
>> than the non-profits. A blanket statement that scientology has never done
>> any harm can not be made without specifying which scientology you are
>> referring to. And even then I don't agree that an idealogy can't harm
>> people because it sure can incite people adhering to the idealogy into a
>> killing frenzy.
>Oh cripes, now when I write "the Church of Scientology" do I have to add
>all the other corportations?
>: )
If you believe Narconon is a church, no of course not
As Prof. Kent writes about scientology (not CoS) "I find it far more
helpful to view it as a multifaceted transnational, only one element of
which is religious."
http://www.bible.ca/scientology-not-religion-kent.htm
>I like using "The Church of Scientology" as Claire suggested.
Noted.
>"Scientology" officially doesn't exist outside the Church of Scientology
>(yeah yeah, and all the corporations), though some of the people who
>have left the church wish to keep that name for their philosophy. Don't
>all the abuses we discuss arise from the Church of Scientology?
No. It arises from scientology doctrine and is perpetrated by scientology
organizations such as CSI, Flag and WISE.
>There's
>not a lot of bite in Scientology outside the organization, and besides,
>most of the people who have left, left because they didn't like the
>abuses. I'm happy to supply that courtesy.
Time to event a new catch-all term then to describe the scientology
organization to please Claire and scientology, but I won't be joining you.
henri
>"On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:18:10 -0800, "Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy> wrote in
><419b5c7a$1...@news2.lightlink.com>:
>>>> The agenda seems to focus on three points;
>>>> 1/ Redefine the terms Scientology/CoS -- Whining for christ knows how
>>>> many
>>>> years the rest of the world adepts to that naming convention, fueled I
>>>> guess by her decision to cling on to the label scientologist.
>>People who are Scn'ists call themselves such.
>They could also call themselves Dodge Vipers or Ron Bon Jovis. Each his
>own, no matter the sillyness. No, that is another point. Your
>'suggestion' to Tory and countless of other such badgering 'suggestions'
>to adopt your naming convention is what I meant by agenda point one.
>As would seem fairly obvious for anyone past the age of 4.
What seems fairly obvious to me is that the only person who gets
to decide what religion they are is the person themselves.
nobody
100% agreed. Claire's a self-righteous, arrogant, hypocritical, dishonest,
anal retentive, narcissistic fuckwad.
Ball of Fluff
> Peregrine wrote:
Well, I can see this post...I'll respond...
>>
>> "realpch" <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
> <snip>
>> > I think many people here have had this argument with Claire at one time
>> > or another. Welcome to the newsgroup! And I'm certainly glad she is
>> > here. Most everyone here deplores the actions of the Church of
>> > Scientology, and most don't like the philosophical underpinnings of
>> > Scientology. Claire points out that "Scientology" has never done one
>> > bad
>> > thing to anyone, but rather people have.
Sure, in that a subject seems (to me) to be dormant 'til used.
But I also will say again that some of the people who've done bad things
were Hubbard or were relying on things he said.
<snip>
>
>> Why do I have a problem with Claire? Well . . . .
>>
>> 1. She's intellectually dishonest if not downright deceitful.
I'm honest in saying what I think. It just so happens that Peregrine
disagrees with what I think and with what I say (including some things
attributed to me by him that never were said by me.) so he considers it
"dishonest". This evidently is an expression of disagreement. But dishonesty
is deliberate and is backed by dishonest intentions. I have none.
>chooses to
>> come in with some nasty snippy comment about another critic at crucial
>> moments in debate
No. I wrote something about Tory when responding to Peregrine.
I am no longer discussing her or that.
>wth the very "scientologists" that she *also* claims she
>> is against.
I haven't done that. I really have had hardly any dealings with CofS
members- or any sorts of Scn'ists here lately. I've written a scant couple
of posts to Spacetraveller and to Faxhor.And those contain no such
commentary. Perhaps Peregrine would be good enough to give a post title and
date. And perhaps someone would then be good enough to quote it so that I
can see it.
>hereby completely undoing any good which could have been done
>> in encouraging that person to question their indoctrination.
I did nothing of the kind.
>nd she's done
>> it often enough for me to conclude that it's not just co-incidence.
Talked to church members here? There're hardly any and I've posted a very
very few posts to each. And they contained nothing such as P describes here.
He must mean something else.
>Either
>> that, or as I said to her earlier, she has really lousy timing. She's
>> like a
>> kid who enjoys tripping up pedestrians, and then looking all wide-eyed
>> and
>> innocent and saying "but what did I do?" when they quite rightly turn
>> around
>> and lambast her for it.
The problem with Peregrine's comments about me is that he does not give any
examples. He does not give post titles, dates, he doesn't quote the text, he
doesn't give urls- nothing.
>> to use the words "scientology" and "scientologist" in whichever manner
>> she
>> chooses, without going to the trouble of definition of type. We're
>> supposed
>> to just "know" what she's talking about. It's one rule for Claire, and
>> another for everyone else.
I've never said any such thing.
When I say "Scientologist" without saying whether in CofS, that means I
don't care if the reader attributes the trait or comment to a church member
or not. If I am solely thinking of church members, I say so. If I'm solely
thinking of indie Scn'ists, I say that. If my thought couuld be applicable
to just about any Scn'ist, I say "Scientologist"
>
>> 4. She doesn't have the guts or the balls to challenge her own safe
>> little
>> world view.
Boy, what a crock that is. Let's see.
I came here as a party line church member. I didn't think at the time that
anyone could or should say anything controversial about Scn, CofS, Hubbard,
etc. Especially not me.
I went through, as we all, (except Peregrine) know, a number of handlings in
CofS. Put up with a fair amount of bullshit, people coming over unannounced,
getting called at work, that sort of thing. Meanwhile, I was making friends
with critics of the church and doing what I wanted to do.
I started hinting at what I was going through, saying to the ng that I was
self censoring since I was questioning what was going on, as I'd not been so
much before, but felt I didn't want to leave it just yet.
Just that was a rather big leap.
I then left CofS after a particularly acrimonious meeting with them,
including a very good friend who is now forever lost to me.
I then had another OSA handling, a lady coming two 300 mile round trips (I
sent her home after the first one because she'd not called ahead )to handle
me. I handled *her*.
I was then expelled a few months later.
Shortly before that time, I started posting critically, no holds barred.
I also posted a few times that there were certain things I'd done in CofS,
("tech" type things) that I found ineffectual.
This proves that I have challenged and changed my world view quite a bit.
> So long as she never has to face the unpleasant things Hubbard
>> actually did and said,
Which is why I so often post about them.
> she doesn't have to challenge the rest of it. She can
>> put it down to people not reading the *right* Hubbard works.
Nope. Not my stance. Hubbard said a lot of things that were crocks of shit,
respectively.
> One gets the
>> feeling that she would just *love* to call completely anti-scientology
>> critics (like myself) "anti-religious bigots".
Oh, hell no. I never have, and never would. If I felt that way, I'd have
been loooong gone.
I'd not have left a church I cared about. I'd not have friends who are
critics.
So, no. He's making things up.
>But that would paint her in a
>> bad light,
Particularly since it's not something I've thought, said or implied.
>
> Well, why would she if she's happy with her world view? She's said some
> stuff, but is there some prearranged amount of bad stuff she is supposed
> to say about L. Ron? I know I've been slacking myself in that area
> lately. Sometimes she's called people bigots, usually when they were
> writing like bigots.
Actually, I don't think I ever have.
> I've always thought that Claire was more than happy
> to tell us what she thinks!
>
>> 5. She is a hypocrite. She *constantly* accuses others of writing things
>> (mostly unjustified, btw) that *she herself* has done, sometimes in that
>> very thread.
Peregrine is not giving examples.
>Or she'll make the accusation in another thread, in a total
>> non-sequitur, which makes it all the harder to pin her down.
Peregrine again does not give examples.
>> 6. She is a coward in debate. She'll bring up an issue, and then promptly
>> change the subject when the water gets too hot for her.
I answered every single thing this guy said to me in our exchanges
yesterday, and this is what I got back:
> . . . not much but another infuriating misrepresentation and
> misunderstanding of . .. well, just about everything. Not to mention a
> butchering of logical argument which has made my jaw drop in amazement.
> And that's not an easy thing to do, by any means.
and
. . . yet more utter nonsense which addressed precisely *nothing* in my
> original post . . . . and yet which managed to be so full of tormented
> logic that it's going to take my brain a while to recover . .
These were written in response to posts where I, almost paragraph by
paragraph, responded to him.
These are unresponsive and evasive comments, for the reason that they stand
alone. They do not accompany any answers to any of my questions that I asked
P; they do not accompany any responses to anything I said; they do not
accompany any examples of anything that he indicates/claims, etc.
That's it. That's what he wrote. And in this post, there're a lot of claims,
but no quotes, nothing. And I still did not receive answers to things I
asked him, where I had asked for clarification on things he was saying.
>Or she'll just
>> ignore the bits she knows she's not capable of challenging.
Which is why I answered you virtually paragraph by paragraph. Sometimes
almost sentence by sentence. In detail.
Whereas you did answer anything I wrote in response to you yesterday
evening. At all.
As I said the other day, if there's anything you want to ask, do so if you
are so inclined.
>Or she'll bring
>> in some total non-sequitur to deflect attention from the argument.
>> Someone
>> might make a very good point about
>> scientology/scientologists/church-of-scientologists/not-church-of-scientologists-but-still-believer-in-Hubbard-scientologists
>> and it will be completely lost as one goes off on a mad goose chase in
>> trying to tie Her Fluffiness down on that one extraneous point.
Peregrine does not give examples.
>And then,
>> should *that* point get too hot to handle, off we go again, on another
>> wild
>> Fluffy chase, as she introduces *yet another* non-sequitur.
>
> I dunno, are you talking about getting her to agree with you?
Looks that way.
>
>> 7. Most infuriating are her subtle jibes at people, in which the negative
>> implication is *quite clear*,
Lotsa jibing going on on this ng. By lots of people. Most of it is far far
far more blatant than anything I would ever say or want to say.
> and then trying to get out of it by saying
>> that oh, she never meant *that* when she wrote *this*.
If I say I didn't mean something, then I didn't. If I say I meant something,
then I did. Simple as that.
If I didn't say it, I didn't say it. Period.
(like the bigot thing. I never called anybody a bigot here so he has to make
up a fictional scenario that I'd really really like to, deep down inside. I
have not seen that device in any books on debate or logic, but I'm still
lookin'...)
But that's fine. 'Cuz I can back up my claims with quotes from posts I
wrote.
>She's fooling no-one.
Evidently I've fooled Peregrine. He's written all kinds of fiction about me.
But, happily, I've been here 6 years and am grateful to the ng for my
decision to leave CofS (were it not for ars, I'd still be in CofS.) and to
change my mind about a number of things I'd always been told.
And I'm not going anywhere. And I'll continue to follow my heart.
>> But challenging her on it will just lead to more endless non-sequiturs.
Actually, it would be my suggestion- seriously- for Peregrine to ask what me
(or whomever he's talking to) what their stance is on things instead of
telling them.
There are a number of times where he has said that I had a certain point of
view when I didn't. When I responded with quotes, he said he didn't really
mean me, he was talking about Scientologists.
Well, I know that people talk about Scientologists as a whole. Hell, some of
'em are Scientologists. But, when someone says "wouldn't it, Claire" and
"you " and "Fluffy" then that claim that it's about Scn'ists, in general, in
toto, doesn't hold water.
Here are examples:
"If only everyone would just stop this "preaching" it would be such a nicer
world, wouldn't it, Claire? With nice pink fluffy clouds everyday. And
everyone Clear. And no embarrassing beggars, or poverty, or sickness, or
mental illness, or *ahem* critics of your perfect world to disturb your
peace."
Well, my name's in it...
and
"you completely fail to acknowledge
in the course of the same argument that Hubbard *made the church the way it
is today*."
That's a specific statement directly to me. It contains the pronoun "you".
and
"Because you still refuse to take into account that those things
*do* exist, *are* still being used by the church of scientology, and refuse
to give them equal weight in anything that you say about scientology,"
Again
and
"According *to you*, Claire, who has a sort of sickly-sweet, fairy-floss,
Santa-Claus-and-Easter-Bunny view of scientology which is not at all in
tune with the realities of what Hubbard actually wrote and demanded from
his followers.
whether within or without of the church."
Ok, now, that one had my name and "according *to* *you" in it.
"And then you say that that's just fine for you, and for anyone else . . .
so
long as
they don't criticise scientology . . . whoops . . . the *church* of
scientology."
See above.
the next day P says I would probably like to call people bigots. This ties
in with his idea that I don't like people to criticize Scn. (I musta been
joking all those times when I said it was just fine an' dandy.)
yet he also said directly in response to my pointing these things out:
"Once again, you are completely misunderstanding my original argument. Did
I *say* you were all of these things? I was drawing your attention to the
fact that many scientologists *are* these things, Claire.
You really do think the world revolves around you, don't you?"
Yes, many Scn'ists are those things. But when someone says "you don't do
this" and "claire" that, then the direction of these comments is evident.
> And
>> it's a neat tactic, much beloved of politicians and first-year
>> undergraduates everywhere: when you don't have the balls to face up to
>> the
>> reaction you know you're going to get when you come out with something
>> that's not going to go down well with the audience, just dress it up in
>> an
>> ambiguous comment (making sure, though, that what you *mean* is clear
>> enough) and then you've got a ready-made escape hatch when you're
>> challenged.
Peregrine gives no examples, though. Not any. But I have.
>You can always claim that you didn't really *mean*
>> such-and-such.
If I didn't say it, chances are there's a reason. Like it wasn't even on my
mind.
Best way to know what a person had in mind is to ask that person.
>And the fault is then cast upon the audience, not the
>> speaker.
A speaker cannot be blamed for something not said or implied by that
speaker. But those who persist in lying about it, can.
>Case in point: she tries to dead agent Tory by implying that Tory
>> runs from confrontation, and then when she's challenged on this she says
>> (quote) "I felt like saying it, it seemed to tie in". Hard to challenge
>> someone's "feelings" about something, don't you think?
See previous.
>
> I guess I wasn't paying attention again.
>
>> 8. She dead-agents people who are giving their all to stopping the crimes
>> of
>> the church (church management/church-scientologists/whatever).
Nope.
> She does it
>> subtly, and she does it dishonestly, but she does it all the damn time.
Nope. I'm totally in favor of it. I'd love to see CofS just - go away. I do
not believe it is viable and I hold little or no hope for it. I'd like to
see raids on every single Sea Org facility, particularly where children are,
like Cadet's Org. I'd love to see every single nursing home that has Sea Org
retirees descended upon by social services people.
I consider that critics are working to bring such things about.
>> Granted, there's probably nothing sinister in this, but the effect is the
>> same. For someone who is so "upbeat" and "positive" she's sure got a lot
>> of
>> nasty, negative things to say about those who are not taken in by Her
>> Fluffyness.
Nobody likes being slammed with ad hominems and lied about.
And why are "upbeat" and "positive" in quotes? I'm unaware of having
described myself that way and I'm unaware that anyone else has, as well.
>
> Does she? She has arguments with people sometimes, but I've never
> noticed any Dead Agenting.
>
>> I could go on. But I won't. Like I said, I've had it up to here with
>> Fluffy.
Which is why there's an entire thread named after me by this guy.
>>
>> If her much-vaunted "1000 words per minute" reading skills could be
>> applied
>> to something a bit less lightweight than romance novels and Hubbard
>> fiction
And the multiple books on anthropology and history that I mentioned...
(he left that out, thus causing another misrepresentation)
And, no I did most emphatically not say "Hubbard fiction". Haven't touched
the stuff in years.
This is another example of a false attribution made by Peregrine re me. Like
the bigot thing. Like CofS being my church. Like my not admitting what
Hubbard said and did.
I also never said romances. This is also a misrepresentation.
I suppose he could now say I'm trying to get out of something by saying
that's not what I meant, 'cept the problem is, either I read LRH's fiction
nowadays or I don't. (I don't.) Either I mentioned reading non fiction or I
didn't. (I did.) Either I mentioned romance novels (ick) or I didn't. (I
didn't.)
<snip>
>> >
>> > Hmmm. This particular group isn't really very cohesive, if we are
>> > talking about ars. For example, Claire has repeatedly made the
>> > distinction between "Scientology" and "The Church of Scientology". Some
>> > people (like me) agree with her, and have changed some of their posting
>> > habits accordingly. Some agree with her, and haven't changed a thing
>> > (it's easier to just use "Scientology" versus "The Church of
>> > Scientology).
Ptsc pointed out- and I even said I agreed with him after I thought about it
awhile- that Scn is commonly used to just mean the whole shootin' match, the
whole enchilada (my phrasing, not his.) which I take to mean that it
evidently becomes a figure of speech in a way. It stands for the whole
thing.
I really really owe him for that.He was correct.
<snip>
>> > You will find Claire to be a fierce and thorough arguer!
>> > : )
>> > Peach
>>
>> If she could just become an honest and well-mannered one, I'd have no
>> bone
>> to pick with her.
I think that when Peregrine calls someone else dishonest, that they'd really
like to call people bigots, imputes all kinds of sinister motives to that
person, and make fun of (while misrepresenting) the person's taste in
reading, that the plaint about "well mannered" and "honest" becomes more
than a bit ironic, nicht war?
If P wants to bury the hatchet and start anew, and ask me, not *tell* me,
whatever it is he may want to know, as applicable, (if anything) about my
stance on something or what did I mean, and to give examples of things I do
if he's stating that I do them, whatever they are- then I am more than happy
to do that.
I can name quite a few people with whom I've done it, and just about all of
them are people with whom I have a cordial 'net relationship to this very
day.
It's up to Peregrine.
Now, just in case he's interested, and he may or may not be, I will post
some URLS of posts of mine wherein I was negative about CofS. The 3rd URL (a
response to Kng Peter) is very short and is special only because it is the
very first thing I ever said (negatively) about CofS> And I was still IN
CofS at the time and I know for a fact that this post tripped OSA's radar.
The last of the posts is a discussion I was having with someone I take to be
a church operative, whom I was accusing of being an operative. Gunbunny. In
fact, I kinda outed him to the whole ng as an operative, not that this came
as any big surprise. In this post, Gunbunny is evidently trying to salvage
me. And I am responding. A lot.
C
Ball of Fluff
"nobody" <nob...@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:110747573.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
I'd guess that's a real compliment coming from someone like you.
What people like you don't like is that I refuse to give in to their way of
thinking. That isn't hypocritical or dishonest, it's just that you happen
to disagree with it.
Because they cannot live and let live. They - you- cannot deal with the fact
that I've left CofS and yet remain a Scn'ist. I had someone go on askme.com
and actually say so. He indicated that there couldn't POSSIBLY be anyone who
felt that way.
So back atcha...
C
Ball of Fluff
"Hartley Patterson" <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c05e5bb3...@news.freeserve.net...
> :
>> I guess he knows a thing or two about trolling...
>>
>> Some people really cannot wrap their minds around the fact I am a Scn'ist
>> and a critic of CofS at the same time.
>>
>> They seem to resent it.
>
> You don't fit into their worldview, so you must be deluded, an idiot or
> lying. Trying to force reality to fit with your beliefs is what the
> other guys do, at least so I try to believe...
>
> Just don't let them back you into a corner, defending things you haven't
> actually looked at for a while. Your beliefs are your own, and subject
> to change whenever you choose.
Evidently because I do not change my mind, I'm hypocritical or dishonest.
I wonder if people who say that actually know what those words mean?
Evidently honestly and integrity meaning agreeing with them.
C
Mike Gormez
<4u5op0p1n7pkfjnqt...@4ax.com>:
>>>>> 1/ Redefine the terms Scientology/CoS -- Whining for christ knows how
>>>>> many
>>>>> years the rest of the world adepts to that naming convention, fueled I
>>>>> guess by her decision to cling on to the label scientologist.
>
>>>People who are Scn'ists call themselves such.
>
>>They could also call themselves Dodge Vipers or Ron Bon Jovis. Each his
>>own, no matter the sillyness. No, that is another point. Your
>>'suggestion' to Tory and countless of other such badgering 'suggestions'
>>to adopt your naming convention is what I meant by agenda point one.
>
>>As would seem fairly obvious for anyone past the age of 4.
>
>What seems fairly obvious to me is that the only person who gets
>to decide what religion they are is the person themselves.
True, but they don't have to badger the rest of the world to call them and
the cult they belonged whatever name they fancy.
Mike Gormez
uses arguments an other posters used against her.
Evidently honestly and integrity are words she rejects.
====
"On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:03:37 -0800, "Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy> wrote in
<419c...@news2.lightlink.com>:
--
Ball of Fluff
"Skipper" <skipsp...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:171120040818470637%skipsp...@charter.net...
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> In article <419b...@news2.lightlink.com>, Ball of Fluff wrote:
>
>> Some people really cannot wrap their minds around the fact I am a Scn'ist
>> and a critic of CofS at the same time.
>>
>> They seem to resent it.
>>
>
> Not me. My general position is that anyone who learns the truth about
> Elwrong Humbug and the cult of $cientology yet still chooses to try to
> shape their life around same is either mentally ill or not yet
> unbrainwashed.
Dearest Skippy,
I'm oh so glad to be out of CofS, and would applaud if it was fully raided
(I mean all or most major facilities) tomorrow.
I'm also oh so grateful to a.r.s. for my lifestyle changes.
Honesty and integrity/consistency aren't dictated by one's doing what others
think the person should.
Love,
Ball of Fluff
Ball of Fluff
I have multiple disagreements with P, but, funnily enough, not for not
liking Scn or wishing to criticize it.
I mainly don't like being misquoted and then told that I cannot correct such
things, that I must surely be guilty of all those things I did not say.
But you know what, people DO sometimes put their previous communications
aside and begin anew.
If he's game, I am. I have made VERY good net friends that way. People with
whom I formerly did NOT get along.
C
realpch
> > stuff, but is there some prearranged amount of bad stuff she is supposed
> > to say about L. Ron? I know I've been slacking myself in that area
> > lately. Sometimes she's called people bigots, usually when they were
> > writing like bigots.
>
> Actually, I don't think I ever have.
Sorry! I thought you had in one of those arguments. But, it could have
been some other critic calling some other critic a bigot. It occurs from
time to time.
; )
<snip>
> >> > Hmmm. This particular group isn't really very cohesive, if we are
> >> > talking about ars. For example, Claire has repeatedly made the
> >> > distinction between "Scientology" and "The Church of Scientology". Some
> >> > people (like me) agree with her, and have changed some of their posting
> >> > habits accordingly. Some agree with her, and haven't changed a thing
> >> > (it's easier to just use "Scientology" versus "The Church of
> >> > Scientology).
>
> Ptsc pointed out- and I even said I agreed with him after I thought about it
> awhile- that Scn is commonly used to just mean the whole shootin' match, the
> whole enchilada (my phrasing, not his.) which I take to mean that it
> evidently becomes a figure of speech in a way. It stands for the whole
> thing.
>
> I really really owe him for that.He was correct.
Get outa here! You mean I can give up typing "The Church of Scientology"?
; )
> <snip>
Peach
Jommy Cross
(Spacetraveler) wrote in msg
<9f53d1e2.0411...@posting.google.com>:
>Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (edo) wrote in message
>news:<LTDPMEZ63830...@anonymous.poster>...
>> On 15 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Why did Hubbard practice fair game? Why did he order Scientologists
>> >> >> to practice fair game? Why did he never do anything effective to
>> >> >> stop the Church of Scientology's practice of fair game, which has
>> >> >> gone on for nearly 40 years?
>> >> >
>> >> >http://fair-game-law.notlong.com
>> >>
>> >> Message-ID: <V2LQW8RJ38304.8292013889@anonymous.poster>
>> >
>> >Meaning?
>>
>> Meaning your "answer" (http://fair-game-law.notlong.com) does not answer
>> the questions in my message (V2LQW8RJ38304.8292013889@anonymous.poster).
>
>It will give you a bit of information which enables you to do your own
>evaluation. An evaluation based directly on the original writings.
Thanks, Space.
Based directly on the original writings as edited by the Snoeck guy, I
can't see why Hubbard came up with this loopy policy in the first place.
Got any clues?
And this Snoeck guy is just bending over backwards to be nice to Ron, imho.
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Lady Chatterly
>
>Ball of Fluff wrote:
>>
>> "realpch" <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
><snip>
>> > Well, why would she if she's happy with her world view? She's said some
>> > stuff, but is there some prearranged amount of bad stuff she is supposed
>> > to say about L. Ron? I know I've been slacking myself in that area
>> > lately. Sometimes she's called people bigots, usually when they were
>> > writing like bigots.
>>
>> Actually, I don't think I ever have.
>
>Sorry! I thought you had in one of those arguments. But, it could have
>been some other critic calling some other critic a bigot. It occurs from
>time to time.
>; )
Peanut prizes inspire monkey contestants.
><snip>
If any there were any proof of your dualistic theory.
>> >> > Hmmm. This particular group isn't really very cohesive, if we are
>> >> > talking about ars. For example, Claire has repeatedly made the
>> >> > distinction between "Scientology" and "The Church of Scientology". Some
>> >> > people (like me) agree with her, and have changed some of their posting
>> >> > habits accordingly. Some agree with her, and haven't changed a thing
>> >> > (it's easier to just use "Scientology" versus "The Church of
>> >> > Scientology).
>>
>> Ptsc pointed out- and I even said I agreed with him after I thought about it
>> awhile- that Scn is commonly used to just mean the whole shootin' match, the
>> whole enchilada (my phrasing, not his.) which I take to mean that it
>> evidently becomes a figure of speech in a way. It stands for the whole
>> thing.
>>
>> I really really owe him for that.He was correct.
>
>Get outa her
Peach.
>> <snip>
>
>Peach
Okay.
--
Lady Chatterly
"You do realize you are trying to have an intelligent conversation
with a bot, right?" -- FrozenNorth
Ball of Fluff
"Cerridwen" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
news:DEF1GXT238...@anonymous.poster...
Boy, that would explain some things. I always figured I was soooo too too
small potatoes for OSA to ever bother with, but maybe this is their way of
so doing.
C
Mike Gormez
<419c0f18$1...@news2.lightlink.com>:
>
>Ptsc pointed out- and I even said I agreed with him after I thought about it
>awhile- that Scn is commonly used to just mean the whole shootin' match, the
>whole enchilada (my phrasing, not his.) which I take to mean that it
>evidently becomes a figure of speech in a way. It stands for the whole
>thing.
That only took you...what?.. 6 years of arguing indefensible positions.
You're a fast learner. if everyone was as bright we still would be
hunting animals with our bare hands.
Mike Gormez
I've only been called a deprogrammer I believe, you beat me with the OSA
allegation, you naugty Peregrine!
Take a bow.
===
"On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:16:20 -0800, "Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy> wrote in
<419c12dc$1...@news2.lightlink.com>:
--