>Since 80% of the messages on this NG are devoted to Skip >Press, I've got to ask, who is he?
He's a huxter who wrote a book about screenwriting, even though he has no screenwriting credits or experience. He's like those guys who sell books about how to make a million dollars in real estate without spending a penny, but have never bought real estate themselves -- they only sell courses and books. Skip Press is the Carlton Sheets of screenwriting. His book focuses in part on how to get an agent, yet he admitted here just the other day he has no agent himself.
He came into this newsgroup as an attempt to promote his book. He became so obnoxious that he drove out every working screenwriter who came here to help new writers. He did everything from libel them to stalk them. Just go to DejaNews and search for what he's written about Harlan Ellison. The few remaining working screenwriters here are endlessly harassed by him. Ask Bill Rabkin, the writer/producer of "Diagnosis Murder." Press most recently called him mentally ill with the mind of a 12-year-old.
Someone here recently caught him redhanded faking reviews for his book on Amazon. He started a flame war in an attempt to cover his tracks.
Unfortunately, like all skilled con artists, he has easy marks and victims. Some of them are in his "fan club" here at m.w.s because he strokes their ego. He makes them feel good and they help perpetuate his con. They insist he has helped them. Perhaps he has -- he parrots information he takes from other sources with great skill. And he's also an inveterate name dropper, particularly of people he's never met. For instance, he claimed to be friends with Amy Holden Jones. The real Amy revealed to someone else here she never heard of him.
His most common complaint about anyone who criticizes him is that they're all the same person, with endless hours to try and tear him down. Notice that he has endless hours to spend posting dozens of messages here every day, so one has to wonder how he has time to be the successful screenwriter that he claims. Of course, because your message would be considered critical of him, he will accuse you and me of being the same person, or this will soon be done by his peanut gallery of sophomoric fratboys.
To date, I have yet to read any article in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter about any writer who has broken into the business by selling a script because of help from Skip Press.
He will always insist that his real name is Skip Press, although there are reports to the contrary. Anyone who criticizes him posting with a "handle" as you have is declared a fake. Anyone who criticizes him with their real name is declared an impostor.
In short, he will continue to shout until he has the last word.
The sad thing is that people buy into his con and think they will become successful writers because of him. If he went away, and the successful writers returned, then some people might actually have that chance. But by supporting him, they shoot themselves in the foot.
You will now find 956 messages posted in response to this, claiming everything under the sun. None of them will be responsive on point. That's how Skip is in his little flame wars; he immediately moves them off topic, like any skilled con artist. That is the sign of a true con artist; he immediately tries to distract his "mark." He makes those guys in Glengarry Glen Ross look like amateurs.
> >Since 80% of the messages on this NG are devoted to Skip > >Press, I've got to ask, who is he?
> He's a huxter who wrote a book about screenwriting, > even though he has no screenwriting credits or > experience. He's like those guys who sell books > about how to make a million dollars in real > estate without spending a penny, but have never > bought real estate themselves -- they only sell > courses and books. Skip Press is the Carlton Sheets > of screenwriting. His book focuses in part on how > to get an agent, yet he admitted here just the other > day he has no agent himself.
> He came into this newsgroup as an attempt to promote > his book. He became so obnoxious that he drove out > every working screenwriter who came here to help new > writers. He did everything from libel them to stalk > them. Just go to DejaNews and search for what he's > written about Harlan Ellison. The few remaining > working screenwriters here are endlessly harassed by > him. Ask Bill Rabkin, the writer/producer of > "Diagnosis Murder." Press most recently called him > mentally ill with the mind of a 12-year-old.
> Someone here recently caught him redhanded faking > reviews for his book on Amazon. He started a flame > war in an attempt to cover his tracks.
> Unfortunately, like all skilled con artists, he > has easy marks and victims. Some of them are in his > "fan club" here at m.w.s because he strokes their > ego. He makes them feel good and they help perpetuate > his con. They insist he has helped them. Perhaps he > has -- he parrots information he takes from other > sources with great skill. And he's also an inveterate > name dropper, particularly of people he's never met. > For instance, he claimed to be friends with Amy Holden > Jones. The real Amy revealed to someone else here > she never heard of him.
> His most common complaint about anyone who criticizes > him is that they're all the same person, with endless > hours to try and tear him down. Notice that he has > endless hours to spend posting dozens of messages here > every day, so one has to wonder how he has time to be > the successful screenwriter that he claims. Of course, > because your message would be considered critical of > him, he will accuse you and me of being the same > person, or this will soon be done by his peanut gallery > of sophomoric fratboys.
> To date, I have yet to read any article in Variety > or The Hollywood Reporter about any writer who has > broken into the business by selling a script because > of help from Skip Press.
> He will always insist that his real name is Skip Press, > although there are reports to the contrary. Anyone > who criticizes him posting with a "handle" as you have > is declared a fake. Anyone who criticizes him with their > real name is declared an impostor.
> In short, he will continue to shout until he has the > last word.
> The sad thing is that people buy into his con and think > they will become successful writers because of him. If > he went away, and the successful writers returned, then > some people might actually have that chance. But by > supporting him, they shoot themselves in the foot.
> You will now find 956 messages posted in response to > this, claiming everything under the sun. None of them > will be responsive on point. That's how Skip is in his > little flame wars; he immediately moves them off topic, > like any skilled con artist. That is the sign of a true > con artist; he immediately tries to distract his "mark." > He makes those guys in Glengarry Glen Ross look like amateurs.
> That, sir or madam, is Skip Press for you to a T.
> **** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) > ****
Men for the most part can mend their ways only after they make mistakes. Only when they are frustrated in mind and in their deliberations can they stand up anew. Only when their intentions become visible on their countenances and audible in their voices can they be understood by others.
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:20:45 -0500, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote: >From: carlakni...@youpy.com >Subject: Re: Who is Skip Press? >Date: 1999/04/05
Harlan Ellison had to sue the asshole just to get him to cease his slander and libel against Ellison (and others, I suppose). "Skip Press" seems to have taken Hubbard's "management tech" to heart.
On 7 Nov 2004 23:07:23 -0000, Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header (edo) wrote in msg <JDTSCY6N38298.7134606...@anonymous.poster>:
>Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the Church of >Scientology's practice of fair game?
Could Space's theory involve 'Jack Marshall' and whole track psychiatric trolls?
Previous posts tend toward these conclusions, imho.
Ever yours in fandom, Jommy Cross
--------------------------------------------------- This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth: before you hallucinate --------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004, Rev. Desertphile de Rothschild <desertph...@cchr.ws> wrote:
>On 7 Nov 2004 23:07:23 -0000, Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header >(edo) wrote:
>> Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the >> Church [sic] of Scientology's practice of fair game?
>Scientology staff and customers cannotlegitimately claim Hubbard did >not know about the Fair Game policy because:
>1) He implemented it
>2) He ordered his staff to no longer use the term "fair game"
Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not* understand facts that are contrary to their beliefs. Their belief in Hubbard is stronger than facts that show there were things about him that are not what an indoctrinated Scientologist would expect them to be.
The route to enlightenment of anybody that's indoctrinated, Scientologist or otherwise, begins with the realization that they *are* indoctrinated.
How do you get them to that point?
edo -=-
"Is what you know as important as knowing when you're being smart or stupid?" Adharta Lampur
> On 7 Nov 2004 23:07:23 -0000, Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header > (edo) wrote:
> > Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the > > Church [sic] of Scientology's practice of fair game?
> Scientology staff and customers cannotlegitimately claim Hubbard did > not know about the Fair Game policy because:
> 1) He implemented it
> 2) He ordered his staff to no longer use the term "fair game"
> >edo
Interesting actually, you keep on asking the exact same questions even if I have responded to this various times in the past. Yes, interesting. You know, fixated individuals can't take in new information. Do you may be have a problem with that? Interesting no? To find out about yourself on this webgroup!
Anyhow, you may find some answers on this link http://fair-game-law.notlong.com found some info which pretty much answers your 'question'. I can live with this.
> >> Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the > >> Church [sic] of Scientology's practice of fair game?
> >Scientology staff and customers cannotlegitimately claim Hubbard did > >not know about the Fair Game policy because:
> >1) He implemented it
> >2) He ordered his staff to no longer use the term "fair game"
> Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not* understand > facts that are contrary to their beliefs.
It's a usual habit to accuse others of those things they are guilty of doing themselves. It's the behaviour displayed and the actual ability to analyze or not-analyze which will make this clear to the truly intelligent person.
You don't have to be in Scientology to become a sect member, some in this group will become one, others will not. Saying something positive about Scientology does not make you automatically a sect member. Those who claim such are sect members all by themselves in their own little group. And what do we see on these webgroups? Yeah, exactly this. Right along 'edo'!
> Their belief in Hubbard is > stronger than facts that show there were things about him that are not what > an indoctrinated Scientologist would expect them to be.
Scientology is not about believing, now this claim in itself is a fairytale. That there are people out there who want to belive some things anyway, does not change this. There is no black and white about this, it is the land of all kinds of shadings all the way through.
> The route to enlightenment of anybody that's indoctrinated, Scientologist > or otherwise, begins with the realization that they *are* indoctrinated.
> How do you get them to that point?
I will believe that people have figured you out already, my dear 'edo'!
Come to present time..... and start relaizing some things. It's YOUR life and YOUR hell if you create them like that.
>> >> Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the >> >> Church [sic] of Scientology's practice of fair game?
>> >Scientology staff and customers cannotlegitimately claim Hubbard did >> >not know about the Fair Game policy because:
>> >1) He implemented it
>> >2) He ordered his staff to no longer use the term "fair game"
>> Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not* understand >> facts that are contrary to their beliefs.
>It's a usual habit to accuse others of those things they are guilty of >doing themselves. It's the behaviour displayed and the actual ability >to analyze or not-analyze which will make this clear to the truly >intelligent person.
I'd mock your typing, grammar and spelling skills, but 12-year-old girl text speech is in vogue, apparently.
>You don't have to be in Scientology to become a sect member, some in >this group will become one, others will not. Saying something positive >about Scientology does not make you automatically a sect member. Those >who claim such are sect members all by themselves in their own little >group. And what do we see on these webgroups? Yeah, exactly this. >Right along 'edo'!
What do you think that you see on these webgroups?
>> Their belief in Hubbard is >> stronger than facts that show there were things about him that are not what >> an indoctrinated Scientologist would expect them to be.
>Scientology is not about believing, now this claim in itself is a >fairytale. That there are people out there who want to belive some >things anyway, does not change this. There is no black and white about >this, it is the land of all kinds of shadings all the way through.
Is there no limit to your stupidity?
>> The route to enlightenment of anybody that's indoctrinated, Scientologist >> or otherwise, begins with the realization that they *are* indoctrinated.
>> How do you get them to that point?
>I will believe that people have figured you out already, my dear >'edo'!
Don't imitate the fly before you have wings.
>Come to present time..... and start relaizing some things. It's YOUR >life and YOUR hell if you create them like that.
Do you have any examples?
-- Lady Chatterly
"If you weren't a bot...why I'd tell you to stop being so gawd awfully stupid!" -- Onideus Mad Hatter
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:03:43 GMT, hef...@scientologylies.com (Heffer) wrote: >On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:20:45 -0500, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Jesus Christ.
>When is this shit going to stop? This is getting as >bad as the Loony Toomajan episode and a dozen other >recent fuckwits with time and not much else.
Coming from someone who hasn't posted an original document or anything but mindless abuse of FZ'ers for nothing more than daring to post here, for literally years, you have a lot of fucking gall even talking.
You are a perfect example of what passes for a Scientology "critic" these days.
Try posting something fucking original once or twice a year and then come back to me. Fuckhead.
>That my two cents. You've had your $1.99, go find >someplace where somebody cares about it, because it >ain't fucking here.
news:j75vo0ldsonvek6gjfbva9pl6kgdrtn3go@4ax.com... | On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:03:43 GMT, hef...@scientologylies.com (Heffer) wrote: | | >On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:20:45 -0500, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote: | > | >Jesus Christ. | > | >When is this shit going to stop? This is getting as | >bad as the Loony Toomajan episode and a dozen other | >recent fuckwits with time and not much else. | | Coming from someone who hasn't posted an original | document or anything but mindless abuse of FZ'ers | for nothing more than daring to post here, for literally | years, you have a lot of fucking gall even talking. | | You are a perfect example of what passes for a | Scientology "critic" these days. | | Try posting something fucking original once or twice | a year and then come back to me. Fuckhead. | | >That my two cents. You've had your $1.99, go find | >someplace where somebody cares about it, because it | >ain't fucking here. | | Clue, meet Heffer. Heffer, meet clue. | | It's called a killfile. Use it and FOAD.
(edo) wrote: >On Sun, 07 Nov 2004, Rev. Desertphile de Rothschild <desertph...@cchr.ws> >wrote: >>On 7 Nov 2004 23:07:23 -0000, Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header >>(edo) wrote: >>> Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the >>> Church [sic] of Scientology's practice of fair game? >>Scientology staff and customers cannotlegitimately claim Hubbard did >>not know about the Fair Game policy because:
>>1) He implemented it
>>2) He ordered his staff to no longer use the term "fair game" > Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not* > understand facts that are contrary to their beliefs. Their > belief in Hubbard is stronger than facts that show there were > things about him that are not what an indoctrinated Scientologist > would expect them to be.
Unfortunately for humanity (and all life on Earth), humans seem to have that insane ability hard-wired into the heads. Facts that contradict cherished beliefs tend to be rejected / ignored by the majority of humanity--- it seems to be rare that someone will modify or reject their cherished, much-hoped-for beliefs in the fact of the facts showing those beliefs false.
It isn't just a trait among Scientology customers and staff, nor among cult members.
> The route to enlightenment of anybody that's indoctrinated, > Scientologist or otherwise, begins with the realization that > they *are* indoctrinated.
Mush like the alcoholic who doesn't know she or he is an alcoholic.
> How do you get them to that point?
One doesn't. One innoculates people who are not infected so that they never become infected. That is what public education was supposed to do in the USA, and why a certain political party in the USA, plus Fundamentalist Christian cults in the USA, are so very agressive in destroying public education.
"Spacetraveler" is a lost cause; there are, however, millions of people and can immunize and innoculate against ever falling for the Scientology scam.
Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header (edo) wrote in message <news:JDTSCY6N38298.7134606481@anonymous.poster>... > Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the Church of > Scientology's practice of fair game?
> edo > -=-
It is really odd that you post such a question via an anonymous-remailer. My guess is that you know that Ron had nothing to do with the fair game as you interpret it and that is why you post so very anonymously.
First thing is: who says that Ron wrote that policy or that part of the policy? Second thing is: who says that he ever saw it? Third thing is: who says that he did not cancel it after he found out about it but his cancelation was stolen by infiltrators?
The important thing is that no real Scientologist would do any physical harm to anybody, friend or enemy. A true Scientologists fights his enemies back with lawful methods.
Whoever wrote that sentence in that policy letter, (dispose of without sorrow) tried to criminalize SCN and it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard.
In article <bf456302.0411081712.21b3f...@posting.google.com> StilllovingMa...@myway.com (Barbara Schwarz) wrote:
>Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header (edo) wrote in message <news:JDTSCY6N38298.7134606481@anonymous.poster>... >> Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the Church of >> Scientology's practice of fair game?
>> edo >> -=-
>It is really odd that you post such a question via an >anonymous-remailer. >My guess is that you know that Ron had nothing to do with the fair >game as you interpret it and that is why you post so very anonymously.
You are joking, right?
>First thing is: who says that Ron wrote that policy or that part of >the policy? >Second thing is: who says that he ever saw it? >Third thing is: who says that he did not cancel it after he found out >about it but his cancelation was stolen by infiltrators?
A cynic is a person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
>The important thing is that no real Scientologist would do any >physical harm to anybody, friend or enemy. A true Scientologists >fights his enemies back with lawful methods.
Can you provide examples?
>Whoever wrote that sentence in that policy letter, (dispose of without >sorrow) tried to criminalize SCN and it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard.
I told them it was probably just a left over effect from the psyche meds he was taking.
-- Lady Chatterly
"She's a bot, you moron. I do hear that she's a bot with nice tits though." -- Homerun Frogbutt
On 8 Nov 2004, spacetraveler2...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header (edo) wrote in message ><news:O0TO6FMA38298.8977314815@anonymous.poster>... >> Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not* understand >> facts that are contrary to their beliefs. >It's a usual habit to accuse others of those things they are guilty of >doing themselves. It's the behaviour displayed and the actual ability >to analyze or not-analyze which will make this clear to the truly >intelligent person.
I go along with that.
>You don't have to be in Scientology to become a sect member, some in >this group will become one, others will not. Saying something positive >about Scientology does not make you automatically a sect member. Those >who claim such are sect members all by themselves in their own little >group. And what do we see on these webgroups? Yeah, exactly this. >Right along 'edo'!
I go along with that.
>> Their belief in Hubbard is >> stronger than facts that show there were things about him that are not what >> an indoctrinated Scientologist would expect them to be.
>Scientology is not about believing, now this claim in itself is a >fairytale. That there are people out there who want to belive some >things anyway, does not change this. There is no black and white about >this, it is the land of all kinds of shadings all the way through.
This is mumbo jumbo. It isn't a reply to what I said.
>> The route to enlightenment of anybody that's indoctrinated, Scientologist >> or otherwise, begins with the realization that they *are* indoctrinated.
>> How do you get them to that point?
>I will believe that people have figured you out already, my dear >'edo'!
>Come to present time..... and start relaizing some things. It's YOUR >life and YOUR hell if you create them like that.
You're not very good at answering simple questions are you?
OK, so forget how do you get somebody that's indoctrinated to realize they *are* indoctrinated. That's too difficult for you right now.
But why can't you answer a more simple question like why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the Church of Scientology's practice of fair game?
If you're as intelligent as you think you are, and in present time, what's your problem?
edo -=-
"Is what you know as important as knowing when you're being smart or stupid?" Adharta Lampur
>>> Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not* understand >>> facts that are contrary to their beliefs.
>>It's a usual habit to accuse others of those things they are guilty of >>doing themselves. It's the behaviour displayed and the actual ability >>to analyze or not-analyze which will make this clear to the truly >>intelligent person.
>I go along with that.
Are you certain that is the real reason?
>>You don't have to be in Scientology to become a sect member, some in >>this group will become one, others will not. Saying something positive >>about Scientology does not make you automatically a sect member. Those >>who claim such are sect members all by themselves in their own little >>group. And what do we see on these webgroups? Yeah, exactly this. >>Right along 'edo'!
>I go along with that.
Who are your friends?
>>> Their belief in Hubbard is >>> stronger than facts that show there were things about him that are not what >>> an indoctrinated Scientologist would expect them to be.
>>Scientology is not about believing, now this claim in itself is a >>fairytale. That there are people out there who want to belive some >>things anyway, does not change this. There is no black and white about >>this, it is the land of all kinds of shadings all the way through.
>This is mumbo jumbo. It isn't a reply to what I said.
I Will respond only more to certain post, as I do not have all the facts is dishonest, disingenuous, stupid andor irrational.
>>> The route to enlightenment of anybody that's indoctrinated, Scientologist >>> or otherwise, begins with the realization that they *are* indoctrinated.
>>> How do you get them to that point?
>>I will believe that people have figured you out already, my dear >>'edo'!
>>Come to present time..... and start relaizing some things. It's YOUR >>life and YOUR hell if you create them like that.
>You're not very good at answering simple questions are you?
Perhaps they are not Very good at answering simple questions they are. And your point is?
>OK, so forget how do you get somebody that's indoctrinated to realize they >*are* indoctrinated. That's too difficult for you right now.
How do you wonder if they get somebody that is indoctrinated to realize they are indoctrinated?
>But why can't you answer a more simple question like why did L Ron Hubbard >never do anything effective to stop the Church of Scientology's practice of >fair game?
Why L ron hubbard never do anything effective to stop the church of scientology's practise of fair game?
>If you're as intelligent as you think you are, and in present time, what's >your problem?
As intelligent as they think they are. Why do you think that their problem is?
-- Lady Chatterly
"I really need to learn enough about computers to make myself a bot. LC is just priceless." -- Ryan Lankford
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004, Rev. Desertphile de Rothschild <desertph...@cchr.ws> wrote:
>> Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not* >> understand facts that are contrary to their beliefs. Their >> belief in Hubbard is stronger than facts that show there were >> things about him that are not what an indoctrinated Scientologist >> would expect them to be.
>Unfortunately for humanity (and all life on Earth), humans seem to >have that insane ability hard-wired into the heads. Facts that >contradict cherished beliefs tend to be rejected / ignored by the >majority of humanity--- it seems to be rare that someone will modify >or reject their cherished, much-hoped-for beliefs in the fact of the >facts showing those beliefs false.
Look again. We change our minds all the time. Sometimes it's very difficult but most of us get that right too, or improve at least.
>It isn't just a trait among Scientology customers and staff, nor among >cult members.
Too true.
>> The route to enlightenment of anybody that's indoctrinated, >> Scientologist or otherwise, begins with the realization that >> they *are* indoctrinated.
>Mush like the alcoholic who doesn't know she or he is an alcoholic.
>> How do you get them to that point?
>One doesn't. One innoculates people who are not infected so that they >never become infected. That is what public education was supposed to >do in the USA, and why a certain political party in the USA, plus >Fundamentalist Christian cults in the USA, are so very agressive in >destroying public education.
One does. Look at Magoo. Look at Cerredwin. Look at Michael Pattinson. Look at me. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of the beliefs you have now came as a result of realizing you'd been indoctrinated to believe something else before.
>"Spacetraveler" is a lost cause; there are, however, millions of >people and can immunize and innoculate against ever falling for the >Scientology scam.
If I ask Spacetraveler a question and he doesn't answer, I tell him. You haven't answered this question. I'm not saying you have to. Or that if you do, you have to get it right. Who knows what the answer is? But like Spacetraveler, you haven't really tried.
> >> Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not* understand > >> facts that are contrary to their beliefs.
> >It's a usual habit to accuse others of those things they are guilty of > >doing themselves. It's the behaviour displayed and the actual ability > >to analyze or not-analyze which will make this clear to the truly > >intelligent person.
> I go along with that.
> >You don't have to be in Scientology to become a sect member, some in > >this group will become one, others will not. Saying something positive > >about Scientology does not make you automatically a sect member. Those > >who claim such are sect members all by themselves in their own little > >group. And what do we see on these webgroups? Yeah, exactly this. > >Right along 'edo'!
> I go along with that.
> >> Their belief in Hubbard is > >> stronger than facts that show there were things about him that are not what > >> an indoctrinated Scientologist would expect them to be.
> >Scientology is not about believing, now this claim in itself is a > >fairytale. That there are people out there who want to belive some > >things anyway, does not change this. There is no black and white about > >this, it is the land of all kinds of shadings all the way through.
> This is mumbo jumbo. It isn't a reply to what I said.
> >> The route to enlightenment of anybody that's indoctrinated, Scientologist > >> or otherwise, begins with the realization that they *are* indoctrinated.
> >> How do you get them to that point?
> >I will believe that people have figured you out already, my dear > >'edo'!
> >Come to present time..... and start relaizing some things. It's YOUR > >life and YOUR hell if you create them like that.
> You're not very good at answering simple questions are you?
> OK, so forget how do you get somebody that's indoctrinated to realize they > *are* indoctrinated. That's too difficult for you right now.
> But why can't you answer a more simple question like why did L Ron Hubbard > never do anything effective to stop the Church of Scientology's practice of > fair game?
> If you're as intelligent as you think you are, and in present time, what's > your problem?
It's you who claim the above, not me. I respond to concepts. I think I succeeded pretty well with that. And see, you still keep on asking the same question all over again. Sect members can't take in new information, they have to reiterate. I responded to it, or it must be that you did not check the link I provided. A sensible truly intelligent person also can figure out the answer all by himself. Can you? Seems not.
NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway. No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender. --------------------------------------------------------
On 9 Nov 2004, spacetraveler2...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>> If you're as intelligent as you think you are, and in present time, what's >> your problem?
>It's you who claim the above, not me. I respond to concepts. I think >I succeeded pretty well with that. And see, you still keep on asking >the same question all over again. Sect members can't take in new >information, they have to reiterate. I responded to it, or it must be >that you did not check the link I provided. A sensible truly >intelligent person also can figure out the answer all by himself. Can >you? Seems not.
>Why asking questions if you don't want to learn?
More mumbo jumbo.
Why not just answer the question?
Here's some space for you, Spacetraveller. Maybe it'll help you.
========== The reason L Ron Hubbard never did anything effective to stop the Church of Scientology's practice of fair game is
==========
edo -=-
"Is what you know as important as knowing when you're being smart or stupid?" Adharta Lampur
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:49:52 -0500, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote: >Coming from someone who hasn't posted an original >document or anything but mindless abuse of FZ'ers >for nothing more than daring to post here, for literally >years, you have a lot of fucking gall even talking.
The hell you know, mastermind. Just get a fucking grip.
Mindless abuse of FZ'ers! Fuck, those loons are as bent as the real thing but haven't got the organisation to be as abusive as the Cof$ - yet.
Or have you gone soft/psycho-sympathetic with the 'tech' of the master fuckwit Hubbard?
That old FOAD/Killfile line means fuck-all to me. I'll suffer all the dipshit posts with the rest of them. I just wanted to make sure you got the message. Looks like you did.
Heh...
--- Heffer, OSA Lackey, H-Group #315905 on the Dorian List Regurgitating Propagandist
> NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway. > No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender. > --------------------------------------------------------
> On 9 Nov 2004, spacetraveler2...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>>> If you're as intelligent as you think you are, and in present time, >>> what's >>> your problem?
>>It's you who claim the above, not me. I respond to concepts. I think >>I succeeded pretty well with that. And see, you still keep on asking >>the same question all over again. Sect members can't take in new >>information, they have to reiterate. I responded to it, or it must be >>that you did not check the link I provided. A sensible truly >>intelligent person also can figure out the answer all by himself. Can >>you? Seems not.
>>Why asking questions if you don't want to learn?
> More mumbo jumbo.
> Why not just answer the question?
> Here's some space for you, Spacetraveller. Maybe it'll help you.
> ========== > The reason L Ron Hubbard never did anything effective to stop the Church > of > Scientology's practice of fair game in my (Spacetravller's) opinion, is > ==========
> edo > -=-
There you go, edo :)
Spacetraveller obviously has some issues with having (and/or) stating his/her/own opinion, so I've fixed your post to help him/her out a bit.
I will fall off my chair in amazement if we actually get a response *to the question* though. -- 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
> Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header (edo) wrote in message > <news:JDTSCY6N38298.7134606481@anonymous.poster>... >> Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the Church of >> Scientology's practice of fair game?
>> edo >> -=-
> It is really odd that you post such a question via an > anonymous-remailer.
Since we're discussing "fair game" here, I found this statement of yours above to be somewhat ironic.
> My guess is that you know that Ron had nothing to do with the fair > game as you interpret it and that is why you post so very anonymously.
See above.
> First thing is: who says that Ron wrote that policy or that part of > the policy? > Second thing is: who says that he ever saw it? > Third thing is: who says that he did not cancel it after he found out > about it but his cancelation was stolen by infiltrators?
I'm not going to answer these questions of yours because there are others in this group better able to than I.
However, the fact that you are *asking questions* instead of simply telling people things bodes well. Ask a question: you might learn something (should be a bumper sticker ;)
You've been growing, Barbara, as a human being. It is wonderful to see it happening. Keep up the good work.
(I'm *not* meaning to be patronising here, I truly sincerely mean it Barbara, exactly as stated. I apologise in advance if the tone comes over as patronising.)
> The important thing is that no real Scientologist would do any > physical harm to anybody, friend or enemy. A true Scientologists > fights his enemies back with lawful methods.
The thing is . . . I kinda wonder if you're describing just "a true scientologist" here. If that's true about "true scientologists", then it's a worthy thing to aspire to, yes.
However, I think the evidence shows that there exist plenty of "scientologists" - whether "true" ones or no - who do not follow this code of conduct.
You may also consider that "real" scientologists do not hold the patent on not doing any harm to anyone, and fighting back with lawful methods. In other words, what you describe is not limited to the scientologists among us.
You can be a good, decent, honest, ethical, hard-working, etc etc, person without ever having taken a single scientology course.
You say you see many people in your daily life. Ask yourself: are they *all* criminals? Have any of them shown you any kindness? Have they acted decently, ethically? Were those people all scientologists?
> Whoever wrote that sentence in that policy letter, (dispose of without > sorrow) tried to criminalize SCN and it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard.
I'll also leave this one to be answered by others more able than I. -- 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
"Peregrine" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message <news:2vcabqF2jb8o4U1@uni-berlin.de>... > "edo" <Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header.gmsociety.org> wrote in message > news:1NX6D61M38300.1747222222@anonymous.poster... > > NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway. > > No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender. > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > On 9 Nov 2004, spacetraveler2...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
> >>> If you're as intelligent as you think you are, and in present time, > >>> what's > >>> your problem?
> >>It's you who claim the above, not me. I respond to concepts. I think > >>I succeeded pretty well with that. And see, you still keep on asking > >>the same question all over again. Sect members can't take in new > >>information, they have to reiterate. I responded to it, or it must be > >>that you did not check the link I provided. A sensible truly > >>intelligent person also can figure out the answer all by himself. Can > >>you? Seems not.
> >>Why asking questions if you don't want to learn?
> > More mumbo jumbo.
> > Why not just answer the question?
> > Here's some space for you, Spacetraveller. Maybe it'll help you.
> > ========== > > The reason L Ron Hubbard never did anything effective to stop the Church > > of > > Scientology's practice of fair game in my (Spacetravller's) opinion, is
> > ==========
> > edo > > -=-
> There you go, edo :)
> Spacetraveller obviously has some issues with having (and/or) stating > his/her/own opinion, so I've fixed your post to help him/her out a bit.
I am not really in the business of giving opinions, opinions will not help you. Use your senses and study the history of the phenomena during the years.
There are several sites giving information about this, the most suitable I found to be this one: http://fair-game-law.notlong.com
> I will fall off my chair in amazement if we actually get a response *to the > question* though.
Off course you will, as all the data is already given, and you haven't fallen yet. Or did you? I guess you can say that you didn't when in fact you did, hmmm.
|
