Re: Sunday Morning
K Palmer
> I grew up in a Christian household. my parents became Scientologists
> later, after I had left home as a young adult. I became a scientologist
> independently of them.
>
> Sunday has always had a feel to it of being special. Church in the
> morning, perhaps some recreation or a drive, and then family dinner in
> the evening.
>
> That is a tradition I still try to keep. Albeit without the worship. In
> its place time for relaxation and reflection rather than the work and
> push towards goals of the rest of the week.
>
> This Sunday my mind turns to thoughts of the differences in philosophy,
> and its underlying roots, that exist between me and others.
>
> For me the fundamental bit of knowledge upon which rests all else, is
> the awareness of myself, as existing in a larger context than flesh,
> space, and time.
>
> I know I am immortal, I can remember past my current incarnation, and
> can create future ones.
>
> But the sad thought occurs to me that some people view themselves as the
> result of purely biological coincedence from which there existence
> occurs in a finite time, and then ceases.
>
> Churchs are an attempt to bridge the gap in understanding between what
> we can so easily know, the material, and what we are, infinite
> potential. But a church is just a thought, fleeting, and ultimately
> temporary.
>
> But you and I are not. I know it. Some may not.
>
> The sliver of divinity is in us all. The spark that animates the silly
> meat we live in, is the truth. All else is folly. Fun folly at times, or
> tragic, but just the game, not the player.
>
> alex
Life is not a game to me - it is - it exists - my body exists - anything
else is pure speculation. Is there an eternity? That is an unanswerable
question - since to prove it one has to cease existing. There is no
proof of the soul/spirit whatever you want to call it. To accept that it
does exist one must believe in that which is unbelievable - blind faith
- do I believe in an eternity? - don't really know - I did once - but
not so sure now. Life is what it is - often messy and seemingly without
purpose but it is all we have to go on. Sacred texts, philosophy,and
theology, are all just words written by humans to justify just about
anything - war, fear, hate, genocide, cruelty, and many other less than
stellar traits. Humans are really just animals with the same instincts
for survival as any other animal. Humans have done much to destroy the
earth without thought to the future - humans have used religion
throughout the ages to rationalize this destruction.
Religion can be something used to create hope,love, peace, and sense of
belonging to something far greater that oneself - unfortunately religion
is wrought with the worst of human nature and based,more times than not,
on "my god is better/bigger than your god".
There is very little in organized religion that I find even remotely
appealing any more. Religion is perhaps the worst of what humans have
devised.
Religion really is a thought stopper and anti-growth in so many cases -
too many leave no room for doubts or questions or self expression
(except when used to further the religion's goal of global conversion).
Philosophy is jsut more convolution of ideas used to further the worst
of mankind.
Doing good for the sake of doing good is still worthy - no one needs to
know what one has done for the good of others - without fanfare and
press releases,without an organization to prove the worthiness of the
deed - this is what humans can do - and many do without the benefit of
someone else's thoughts or ideas telling them to do so.
Religion as it is today is nothing more than organized rape of the human
mind.
Kim P
ZretsulCuneX
In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
With the Message-ID: <alex-C50757.0...@news.west.earthlink.net>
And the Organization Header: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net.
The famous author: Alex <al...@null.edu>.
Wrote on the subject: Sunday Morning:
There will never be an everlasting peace on Earth, until the last priest
(irrespective of his/her religion) hangs from the tallest tree, in his
own intestines.
"ancient jungle proverb"
Dave Touretzky
Alex <al...@null.edu> wrote:
>
>I know I am immortal, I can remember past my current incarnation, and
>can create future ones.
Thank you for posting this, Alex. It is good to see Scientologists
speak openly and honestly about their beliefs.
When you make a factual statement like "I can remember my past
incarnations", you open the door to testing and critical inquiry.
One may ask: is subjective experience always reliable? Might there be
other explanations for people claiming memories of past lives that do
not involve actual reincarnation? The answer is yes. There is an
extensive literature on this, spanning a variety of topics such as
autosuggestion and false memory syndrome.
>But the sad thought occurs to me that some people view themselves as the
>result of purely biological coincedence from which there existence
>occurs in a finite time, and then ceases.
That is the current "best theory" according to modern science. It
doesn't matter that people don't like the idea that they are mortal.
The universe doesn't answer to us.
>CHURCHS are an attempt to bridge the gap in understanding between what
>we can so easily know, the material, and what we are, infinite
>potential.
Churches are not about knowledge, they're about faith. Often
that faith leads to idiosyncractic but harmless behaviors, e.g.,
orthodox Jews are forbidden to eat cheeseburgers (can't mix meat
and milk). Sometimes it leads to craziness and violence. But
it does not lead to knowledge.
-- Dave Touretzky
Muldoon
Alex wrote:
> I grew up in a Christian household. my parents became Scientologists
> later, after I had left home as a young adult. I became a scientologist
> independently of them.
>
> Sunday has always had a feel to it of being special. Church in the
> morning, perhaps some recreation or a drive, and then family dinner in
> the evening.
>
> That is a tradition I still try to keep. Albeit without the worship. In
> its place time for relaxation and reflection rather than the work and
> push towards goals of the rest of the week.
>
> This Sunday my mind turns to thoughts of the differences in philosophy,
> and its underlying roots, that exist between me and others.
>
> For me the fundamental bit of knowledge upon which rests all else, is
> the awareness of myself, as existing in a larger context than flesh,
> space, and time.
>
> can create future ones.
>
> result of purely biological coincedence from which there existence
> occurs in a finite time, and then ceases.
>
> we can so easily know, the material, and what we are, infinite
> temporary.
>
> But you and I are not. I know it. Some may not.
>
> The sliver of divinity is in us all. The spark that animates the silly
> meat we live in, is the truth. All else is folly. Fun folly at times, or
> tragic, but just the game, not the player.
>
> alex
Alex the PR guy tells a tale about Christianity and spirituality etc.,
etc., etc., and holds out a hoop, and people line up to jump through
the hoop, and they jump! It's amazing to watch.
And you hoop jumpers, don't feel bad. I know you can't help yourselves.
:^)
ZretsulCuneX
In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
With the Message-ID: <1159123398....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
And the Organization Header: http://groups.google.com.
The famous author: "Muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com>.
Wrote on the subject: Re: Sunday Morning:
You jumped yourself. I guess you can't help yourself either :-)
Oh my, pot kettle black....
Muldoon
No. I described a PR gimmick. Big difference.
Magoo
"Muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1159124605.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Alex...........I helped set up Scientology's Sunday Service.
Why? Because at the time we needed people to *think* of Scientology as a
'church'...and since we had no Sunday service,
nor do they really believe in God, or have faith in anything---
we created a Sunday service.
Actually, I have to say it was pretty cool. People, public, would be the
spokespersons and speak about spirituality. Darby Simpson was my
favorite...who Scientology later declared an SP, of course! Anyone who can
think, and certainly anyone who can speak out----Scientology WILL declare
SP, you wait and see.
I'm glad you have your Sunday Morning dreams. How do they figure in with the
many families your so called 'Church' helped break up? Even if you claim
you're against C of S, Hubbard was the king of anti-God, anti-Christ,
anti-Church, angels, etc.
SO? Christianity? Ya....sure.
Have a nice day. Do something good: Get honest with yourself.
Tory/Magoo~~
>
d
news:alex-C50757.0...@news.west.earthlink.net...
Religion makes people do the right thing for the wrong reason. You
shouldn't need to be told to be good to your fellow man. Whether we
continue to live after we die should not affect how we live our lives right
now. I don't need the promise of spending eternity with God and all my
family, etc. to do good things for other people.
I have no problem with any religion that espouses doing good, whatever the
reasoning behind it. I can see how it has saved people, and how it has made
some better people. I just don't think it's the ideal situation to be in.
We should be able to grasp science, shun all the guesswork and faith, and
still be good
Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/Hindus/Sikhs/Rastafarians/Cathars/whatever.
If, however, basic tenets of a religion are contrary to such universal
betterment (such as Scientology, which determines that some people can not
be saved, and all the others have to pay dearly for salvation, regardless of
the destructive propensity of such a demand), then of course I have a
problem with it. It's not a case of being anti-religious (as some here
would have us believe), but being pro-people.
dave.
realpch
>
> I grew up in a Christian household. my parents became Scientologists
> later, after I had left home as a young adult. I became a scientologist
> independently of them.
>
> Sunday has always had a feel to it of being special. Church in the
> morning, perhaps some recreation or a drive, and then family dinner in
> the evening.
>
> That is a tradition I still try to keep. Albeit without the worship. In
> its place time for relaxation and reflection rather than the work and
> push towards goals of the rest of the week.
>
> This Sunday my mind turns to thoughts of the differences in philosophy,
> and its underlying roots, that exist between me and others.
>
> For me the fundamental bit of knowledge upon which rests all else, is
> the awareness of myself, as existing in a larger context than flesh,
> space, and time.
>
> I know I am immortal, I can remember past my current incarnation, and
> can create future ones.
>
> But the sad thought occurs to me that some people view themselves as the
> result of purely biological coincedence from which there existence
> occurs in a finite time, and then ceases.
I can't see what you think is sad about that. There may not really be
any difference in the experience of life on that count solely.
> Churchs are an attempt to bridge the gap in understanding between what
> we can so easily know, the material, and what we are, infinite
> potential. But a church is just a thought, fleeting, and ultimately
> temporary.
>
> But you and I are not. I know it. Some may not.
>
> The sliver of divinity is in us all. The spark that animates the silly
> meat we live in, is the truth. All else is folly. Fun folly at times, or
> tragic, but just the game, not the player.
>
> alex
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Hartley Patterson
> One may ask: is subjective experience always reliable? Might there be
> other explanations for people claiming memories of past lives that do
> not involve actual reincarnation? The answer is yes. There is an
> extensive literature on this, spanning a variety of topics such as
> autosuggestion and false memory syndrome.
Indeed. There is also a lot of interesting evidence of people who do
seem able to remember details of past lives. Coincidentally (!) I was
watching a TV program on this this week, in which a five year old boy
was convinced he had memories of a past life. His mother took him to his
'old home' and some of what he 'remembered' matched up. The presenter
remarked that this kind of remembering usually faded when children
started school and became more involved with their present life.
But as you say, to jump from remembering past lives to reincarnation is
unjustified. I've heard enough 'ghost stories' from people I trust to
cause me to believe that there are phenomena as yet unexplained by
science involved, but I'm wary of accepting attempts to explain them in
terms of established supernatural beliefs such as religion.
--
"I just might be the angel at your door"
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
A medieval spreadsheet and enturbulating entheta.
MackBuckler
>In article <alex-C50757.0...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
>Alex <al...@null.edu> wrote:
>>
>>I know I am immortal, I can remember past my current incarnation, and
>>can create future ones.
>
>Thank you for posting this, Alex. It is good to see Scientologists
>speak openly and honestly about their beliefs.
>
>When you make a factual statement like "I can remember my past
>incarnations", you open the door to testing and critical inquiry.
<snip>
>-- Dave Touretzky
Dave, you struck, "I know", and then position the new context as, "a
factual statement".
In your eagerness to conduct "testing and critical inquiry" you do a
little too much prestidigitation with your premise.
Since your field is about as far from theology as a communist is from a
republican I charge your message as self serving.
I doubt your grant submissions to NIMH are so tactically misconstrued
when it comes to asking for how much dough you want them to give you.
--Mack
Zinj
> Alex wrote:
<snip>
> > I know I am immortal, I can remember past my current incarnation, and
> > can create future ones.
> >
> > But the sad thought occurs to me that some people view themselves as the
> > result of purely biological coincedence from which there existence
> > occurs in a finite time, and then ceases.
>
> I can't see what you think is sad about that. There may not really be
> any difference in the experience of life on that count solely.
>
> > Churchs are an attempt to bridge the gap in understanding between what
> > we can so easily know, the material, and what we are, infinite
> > potential. But a church is just a thought, fleeting, and ultimately
> > temporary.
> >
> > But you and I are not. I know it. Some may not.
I'll confess to enough zen witzbold in me that I can take Alex'
somewhat maudlin, yet arrogant Sunday Reflection on a number of
levels.
On the one hand, it's fairly easy to see the cynically
exploitive Scientology PR machinery grinding away; attempting to
prey upon the uninformed 'Garden Variety Humanoids' assumed
ignorance of Scientology 'religiousity'.
What I find arrogant is the implied assumption that anyone who
rejects Scientology's views of immortality or spirituality or
divinity is, in the alternative, a sheer materialist.
There's lots of room between Scientology's niche position in the
larger 'reincarnation' market (Scientology claims that what it
teaches is *not* 'reincarnation' anyway, unless it wants to
claim similarity, in which case it ignores that Scientilogy is
*not* reincarnation per its claims) and the kind of 'strong
atheism' or 'materialsm' that as equally but oppositely claims
that existence and mankind are *only* the physical.
But Scientology would rather not have people think about that.
They're far more interested in saying that anyone who rejects
'their' spirituality rejects *all* spirituality. Sure, it's a
dishonest proposition, but hey, this is *Scientology* we're
talking about! :)
Just on a gratuitously personal note, as laughable as I find
Scientology Spirituality, it's not for its claims to a priori
'knowledge', which I'll accept out-of-hand, thanks to my own
experiences, but because of its own attempts to cloak its
'revelation' in rich scientific goodness.
There is no real divide between science and 'belief' as long as
each sticks to its bailiwick. Science is a wonderful tool, but,
it's not the only tool in the chest, and, while it's unbeatable
for providing *objective* and repeatable comprehension and data,
there is no danger that it will become the sole tool because
there are areas of human experience it *can't* subject to
categorization or explanation.
'Description' is much more likely; but, still beyond the 'state
of the art'.
'Belief' fares no better when it attempts to 'prove' or spead
its revelation from the individual to the populace.
9 times out of 10 some bright prophet is going to decide that
his 'truth' is so good it's worth beating into unbelieving
skulls with a baseball bat or equivalent.
If anything, Scientology is unique for practicing the failings
of both 'systems' and the advantages of neither.
Where I take Alex' sermon seriously, although I suspect I'm not
supposed to, is the tinge of melancholy attached to remembering
'the old days' with the family Sunday, although Scientology has
no respect or use for either.
(Note; some Scientologists do, but, that's just theety weety
Human Emotion and Response)
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
banchukita
Pro-people. I like that! Way to reframe the language, dave!!
I also like this quote from Betty Bowers, and your post made me think
of it again:
"If your religion allows you to indulge in every selfish, feral
impulse, your "faith" is simply vanity, not the emulation of divine
expectations."
And Daniel Davidson's "Don't hit. Clean your mess."
And Chris Schafmeister's "be excellent to each other."
-maggie, human being
> dave.
barbz
provides, even if it's a false certainty, must be comforting.
Plus, it beats thinking. How splendid life must be to have all the
answers given you, without putting any personal effort into it.
--
"I'm for the separation of church and hate."
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
xenu...@netscape.net
barbz
barbz
That's pretty funny, considering that damn near every satisfied
Scientology customer I've ever talked to finds it necessary to deliver a
litany of the possessions they own which, of course, are finer than yours.
I like the way they criticize our stuff. It's not as good as their
stuff. I liked the clam in LA who was going on about my battered
motorcycle jacket, until I told him it cost $600 new.
Scientology appears to attract people who place a great deal of value on
material goods. They are taught that Scientology costs a lot because
it's worth a lot. Money equals "success" to them. Spirituality in
Scientology consists of the worship of slips of paper with pictures of
dead presidents on them.
I've met people with very little in the way of material goods, who chose
to spend their lives in the pursuit of real wisdom. That's one thing
money can't buy, especially when invested in the ravings of a drunk,
stoned, megalomaniacal, second rate science fiction writer.
--
banchukita
I have seen religion as a motivator help people together to accomplish
things they couldn't do alone. But then, I'm talking about indigenous
people with a belief system that is not predicated on individualism.
Scientology, on the other hand, separates people under the pretense of
uniting them.
-maggie, human being
Dave Touretzky
Hartley Patterson <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Dave Touretzky d...@cs.cmu.edu:
>
>> One may ask: is subjective experience always reliable? Might there be
>> other explanations for people claiming memories of past lives that do
>> not involve actual reincarnation? The answer is yes. There is an
>> extensive literature on this, spanning a variety of topics such as
>> autosuggestion and false memory syndrome.
>
>Indeed. There is also a lot of interesting evidence of people who do
>seem able to remember details of past lives.
Unfortunately, that evidence doesn't stand up well to scrutiny. There
are people who "seem to" have experienced all kinds of crazy stuff,
from visits by angels, to possession by demons, to being abducted by
aliens in a UFO. It's all rubbish.
>Coincidentally (!) I was
>watching a TV program on this this week, in which a five year old boy
>was convinced he had memories of a past life. His mother took him to his
>'old home' and some of what he 'remembered' matched up.
The key word here is "some of". People who want to believe in
paranormal events tend to focus on any shred of confirming evidence
whule ignoring or forgetting about the disconfirming evidence. This
selective memory is a very well known phenomenon in the history of
scientific fallacies.
>The presenter
>remarked that this kind of remembering usually faded when children
>started school and became more involved with their present life.
And how does the presenter know this? How many individual cases went
into this conclusion? What is the age distribution of people
experiencing past life recall? (I'll bet the distribution is skewed
much more heavily to adults if you count all the Scientologists who've
been subjected to Hubbard's brand of mental self-abuse.)
In any case, I wouldn't believe anything I saw on a TV program, since
those folks are mainly interested in selling advertising time, not
rigorous scientific investigation.
>But as you say, to jump from remembering past lives to reincarnation is
>unjustified. I've heard enough 'ghost stories' from people I trust to
>cause me to believe that there are phenomena as yet unexplained by
>science involved,
No, the phenomenon of "ghost stories" is easily explained. The ghosts
aren't real, but the ghost stories are. It's human psychology at
work. Selective memory is a big part of the explanation.
>but I'm wary of accepting attempts to explain them in
>terms of established supernatural beliefs such as religion.
Scientific progress has greatly narrowed the scope of religion. We
live in an age where religious leaders are left with nothing much to
say about the physical world, and increasingly less to say about the
mental world. Even religious visions are being explained away as
temporal lobe epilepsy. The preachers are left to pontificate about
abstract, unmeasurable concepts like "grace" and "God's love".
Religious groups can still contribute to society through
community-building and charitable works. But as I said before,
religion is not about knowledge, and religion's attempts to explain
our world have been superseded by the scientific method.
-- Dave
Dave Touretzky
MackBuckler <mackb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Dave, you struck, "I know", and then position the new context as, "a
>factual statement".
Among normal English speakers, "I know x" is a statement that x is
true, or factual. So my eliding those two words from Alex's "I know I
am immortal, I can remember past my current incarnation, and can
create future ones" does not change his meaning in any way. He
was asserting this as fact.
If he did not wish to make such a strong assertion, he would have to
used different language. He could have said "I believe", or "I
suspect". But when he says "I know", he is making an assertion of
fact.
>In your eagerness to conduct "testing and critical inquiry" you do a
>little too much prestidigitation with your premise.
In your eagerness to make me wrong and show off a smug alliteration,
you make a fool of yourself.
But let's look a little deeper. You are writing from a
Scientologist's persepective. Scientology is based on the primacy of
subjective belief over objective reality: "what's true for you is
true". In your Scieno-world, Alex is free to "know" his own truths,
and by attempting to invalidate his reality I am harming him and
committing a suppressive act. So I can understand your hostility.
But out here in the real world, people are entitled to their own
beliefs but not their own facts. If one makes a factual statement,
one invites inquiry and critical examination. And no one gives a damn
if Scientologists don't like having their beliefs questioned.
>Since your field is about as far from theology as a communist is from a
>republican
True. I am a scientist. I don't know what Alex is, other than being
a member of your slimy little cult. What makes him qualified to
comment on the validity of reincarnation? His own personal delusions?
I am merely suggesting that he research a little further, and learn
about the psychological research on delusions of this type.
But of course, Scientologists as are loathe to study real science as
they are contemptuous of real scientists. Any religion that treats
"certainty" as the highest spiritual state is fundamentally
incompatible with intellectual inquiry.
-- Dave Touretzky: "Scientology expert, as seen on TV."
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets
Tilman Hausherr
wrote:
>And Chris Schafmeister's "be excellent to each other."
That quote is from Bill & Ted :)
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP5.55] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment
http://www.xenu.de
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html
The Xenu bookstore: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/bookstore.html
MackBuckler
Okay, so you beat the guy up for being a Scientologist.
>>Since your field is about as far from theology as a communist is from a
>>republican
>
>True. I am a scientist.
That, I take it, is your statement of a fact. Now if you didn't wish to
make such a strong assertion you could have said "I believe" or "I
suspect". Would you care to clarify this for me please? If not I am
prepared to fill the vacuum.
<snip>
>-- Dave Touretzky: "Scientology expert, as seen on TV."
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets
--Mack
MackBuckler
Okay, so you beat the guy up for being a Scientologist.
>>Since your field is about as far from theology as a communist is from a
>>republican
>
>True. I am a scientist.
That, I take it, is your statement of a fact. Now if you didn't wish to
make such a strong assertion you could have said "I believe" or "I
suspect". Would you care to clarify this for me please? If not I am
prepared to fill the vacuum.
<snip>
>-- Dave Touretzky: "Scientology expert, as seen on TV."
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets
--Mack
MackBuckler
>In article <1159135574....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>MackBuckler <mackb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Dave, you struck, "I know", and then position the new context as, "a
>>factual statement".
>
>Among normal English speakers, "I know x" is a statement that x is
>true, or factual.
>If he did not wish to make such a strong assertion, he would have to
>used different language. He could have said "I believe", or "I
>suspect". But when he says "I know", he is making an assertion of
>fact.
>But out here in the real world, people are entitled to their own
>beliefs but not their own facts. If one makes a factual statement,
>one invites inquiry and critical examination. And no one gives a damn
>if Scientologists don't like having their beliefs questioned.
Oh - and one other thing:
In your last sentence above, after walking me through your switchback
logic, you end up stating, what you claimed was a "fact", is finally,
"beliefs". I suppose you will attempt to complete my education on this
point with further dismissive, erudite analysis.
>-- Dave Touretzky: "Scientology expert, as seen on TV."
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets
--Mack
Mike O'Connor
"MackBuckler" <mackb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >True. I am a scientist.
>
> That, I take it, is your statement of a fact. Now if you didn't wish to
> make such a strong assertion you could have said "I believe" or "I
> suspect". Would you care to clarify this for me please? If not I am
> prepared to fill the vacuum.
What word didn't you understand?
--
LYING IS A SCIENTOLOGY SACRAMENT
ASK THEM ABOUT XENU
Remember Lisa McPherson
barbz
Complete your education? Sounds like you haven't even begun it yet.
parker
Goodness, what a bold move Magoo.
With people desperately trying to defend your veracity and others
accusing you of knowingly spreading half truths, you come out with the
big lie.
Nice, bold move. Not smart, of course, but by golly, bold.
You certainly don't have to worry about any of the ex-Scientologists
who spend their time trying to be critical of their version of
Scientology here. They aren't going to blow your cover, although I
might expect that Gonet would probably make a prior claim since he used
to write screeds of suggestions to LRH before he got kicked out. He is
weird enough to say that he gave the original idea of Sunday Services
way back when.
Nope. Who is going to call you on such an obvious lie? "I helped set up
Scientology's Sunday Service." "...we created a Sunday Service."
I'm not sure that I care what is said on this desiccated newsgroup, but
for the history books, it should be pointed out that Scientology
Services, Sunday and otherwise, have been part of the Minister's Course
for many decades. I would speculate, they were part of the Ceremonies
even before there was a Scientology base in Clearwater, where Magoo
claims to have originated the practice.
But who would have thought that someone who is already under fire would
go for the big lie with such gusto, and without prompting?
Parker
parker
"beliefs". I suppose you will attempt to complete my education on this
point with further dismissive, erudite analysis."
The problem is that Dr. Dave can't get around the fact that he is just
a glorified production coordinator, not a scientist. Therefore, he has
to be dismissive. Don't take that away from him. It's all he has.
> >-- Dave Touretzky: "Scientology expert, as seen on TV."
> > http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets
>
> --Mack
Parker
SirLagsAlot
"parker" <parker...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159666951.0...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
scientologists are notorious for being arrogant and rude
so it comes as no surprise that a french prick like you is a scientologist
why all the natter about Tory?
your overts are showing....
try plugging your emeter directly into a wall plug...maybe that will shake
those pesky BTs up a bit
parker
Arrogant and rude? Natter? Prick? Overts?
Your ad hominems don't disguise the fact that Magoo lied (again) in an
attempt to build herself up.
Your ad hominems don't disguise your attempt to change the subject by
exposing your anti-social nature.
But, if that is all that you have to work with, go ahead. It's the
antics one expects from 14 year olds.
>