GO investigator hat pack and fair game
wbarwell
GUARDIAN ORDER
GO 1314 9 September 1974
Info Bureau only
CONFIDENTIAL
------------------------
INTELLIGENCE COURSE
--------------------------------------
...........
- 18 -
PART E - SUPPRESSIVES
---------------------------------------
1. PL 7 Dec 56 Scientology Cleanup ___________
2. PL 1 March 65 Suppressive acts * ___________
......
*********************************
Note, items with a * are to be star rated, that is read and
memorized and understood in its entirety, "full duplication".
************************************
1 Mar 65 (AKA 7 Mar 65)
JUSTICE - SUPPRESSIVE ACTS - SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY
AND SCIENTOLOGISTS - THE FAIR GAME LAW.
....
A Suppressive Person or Group becomes "fair game".
By FAIR GAME is meant without rights for self, possessions or position,
and no Scientologist may be brought up before a Committeee of Evidence
or punished for any activity taken against a Suppressive Person or Group
during the period that person or group is "fair game".
..........
Until a Suppressive person or group is absolved ... no Committee of
evidence may be called to punish any Scientologist or person for any
offenses of any kind against the suppressive persons...
The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active
in attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any
protection of Scientology justice, unless absolved by later justice or
an amnesty.
************************************************************************
Clip and save. Anybody who says "fair game" was abolished in 1968
is ignorant of the fact it was in truth mandated by GO and was to be star
rated by GO intelligence agents.
That is memorized exactly.
Slap this on the next Hubbard worshipper who says different.
This was not the buggered and gelded 23 Dec 65 version, this is the full
and unadulterated, mean spirited, full "Fair Game" version of 1 Mar 65.
This is why they could not prove in the Allard case that "fair game"
had been abolished as they lied to the judge. Fear of perjury.
**************************************************************************
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.
Cheerful Charlie
Gerry Armstrong
This isn't what "starrate" means.
[Quote]
STARRATE CHECKOUT, a very exact checkout which verifies the full and
minute knowledge of the student, of a portion of study materials and
tests his full understanding of the data and ability to apply it.
(HCOB 21 September 1970)
[End Quote]
From Tech Dictionary (c) 1983
>
>Slap this on the next Hubbard worshipper who says different.
>
>This was not the buggered and gelded 23 Dec 65 version, this is the full
>and unadulterated, mean spirited, full "Fair Game" version of 1 Mar 65.
>
>This is why they could not prove in the Allard case that "fair game"
>had been abolished as they lied to the judge. Fear of perjury.
>
>**************************************************************************
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
wbarwell
"STAR-RATED
100 percent letter perfect in knowing and understanding,
demonstrating and being able to repeat back the material
with no comm lag."
The 1982 (c) Tech Dictionary.
"Letter perfect"... This was not something just to be
scanned a bit and read at and onto other stuff.
They wanted their agents to lovingly linger over it
and absorb its whole rancid essence to the fullest.
"There will be a test..."
This sort of well drilled crap made perfect swine of them all.
>
>>
>>Slap this on the next Hubbard worshipper who says different.
>>
>>This was not the buggered and gelded 23 Dec 65 version, this is the full
>>and unadulterated, mean spirited, full "Fair Game" version of 1 Mar 65.
>>
>>This is why they could not prove in the Allard case that "fair game"
>>had been abolished as they lied to the judge. Fear of perjury.
>>
>>**************************************************************************
>
> © Gerry Armstrong
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
--
Ed
wbarwell wrote:
>
[snip]
> > This isn't what "starrate" means.
> >
> > [Quote]
> >
> > STARRATE CHECKOUT, a very exact checkout which verifies the full and
> > minute knowledge of the student, of a portion of study materials and
> > tests his full understanding of the data and ability to apply it.
> > (HCOB 21 September 1970)
> >
> > [End Quote]
> >
> > From Tech Dictionary (c) 1983
>
> "STAR-RATED
>
> 100 percent letter perfect in knowing and understanding,
> demonstrating and being able to repeat back the material
> with no comm lag."
>
Just to make this clear... the standard is a perfect
understanding of the substance of the material. This means you have to
be able to answer questions and demonstrate your understanding. It
does not mean you have to memorize the words verbatim and regurgitate
them perfectly (though sometimes they do require that for a particuar
item). The idea of starrate was to get around the glib student who
could memorize the words and not understand the substance.
Ed
wbarwell
>
>
> wbarwell wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
>> > This isn't what "starrate" means.
>> >
>> > [Quote]
>> >
>> > STARRATE CHECKOUT, a very exact checkout which verifies the full and
>> > minute knowledge of the student, of a portion of study materials and
>> > tests his full understanding of the data and ability to apply it.
>> > (HCOB 21 September 1970)
>> >
>> > [End Quote]
>> >
>> > From Tech Dictionary (c) 1983
>>
>> "STAR-RATED
>>
>> 100 percent letter perfect in knowing and understanding,
>> demonstrating and being able to repeat back the material
>> with no comm lag."
>>
> Just to make this clear... the standard is a perfect
> understanding of the substance of the material. This means you have to
> be able to answer questions and demonstrate your understanding. It
> does not mean you have to memorize the words verbatim and regurgitate
> them perfectly (though sometimes they do require that for a particuar
> item). The idea of starrate was to get around the glib student who
> could memorize the words and not understand the substance.
>
Obviously, they wanted GO investigators to understand the
substance of HCOPL 1 Mar 65.
It also lingered in Modern Management Techniques Defined,
and in some late SP/SPT course materials the words fair game were to be
found until the early 80's.
Star rating here meant it wasn't just something that slipped in
and wasn't noticed, they were taking care to notice and make sure GO
intelligence agents would notice also.
Which is why it is important to note it was star rated.
It does away with that lame excuse should it be proferred.
With the memorandum of sentencing admission of Budlong and
Kember, its even less likely to be something that can be brushed off
as something overlooked and not very important, not a policy.
With the three cases they argued in court that fair game was protected
religous speech, that nails it.
Ted Mayett
<wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
>*********************************
>
>Note, items with a * are to be star rated, that is read and
>memorized and understood in its entirety, "full duplication".
>
>
>************************************
Is this your note, or is there a reference for this?
*STARRATE CHECKOUT*, a very exact checkout which verifies the full and
minute knowledge of the student, of a portion of study materials and
tests his full understanding of the data and ability to apply it.
(HCOB 21 Sept 70)
*STAR-RATED*, 100 per cent letter perfect in knowing and
understanding, demonstrating and being able to repeat back the
material with no comm lag. (HCO PL 8 Mar 66)
--
Ted Mayett OT 1.1
http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/links.htm
wbarwell
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:36:24 -0400, wbarwell
> <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
>
>
>>*********************************
>>
>>Note, items with a * are to be star rated, that is read and
>>memorized and understood in its entirety, "full duplication".
>>
>>
>>************************************
>
> Is this your note, or is there a reference for this?
Scientology's.
On page 1:
"DRILLS ARE TO DONE FULLY TO THEIR RESULT
If you are not a fast flow student, you must star-rate checkout all items
with an asterisk (*). ( Ref: HCOB 13 Aug 72RB FAST FLOW TRAINING)"
Its notated at the beginning of this hat check
pack. All items with a * are to be start rated.
Thus 1 Mar 65 is a star rated item on this.
By the way, this item, notated as dating to 1991 is to be found on
Armstrong's site.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/osa-int-ed-508r.html
So here in 1991, they were still star-rating 1 Mar 65.
Thus the old claim, that maybe some SPs sneaked into GO and
did these things but Miscavige purged OSA and stopped such practices
fails too.
Most interesting because a lot of people are around, such as Jesse Prince
who most certainly did this hat check pack and can testify in a declaration
they did this and were so checked out and rained on 1 Mar 65.
And this would have been the era where Prince was handling lawyers like
Cooley who was arguing fair game was a constitutional right, while
Miscavige was exercising overall control on lawsuits and legal strategy.
Most interesting indeed.
I was searching for this hat pack from GO days, but this is dated 1991,
much later. Its probable then that it has already been entered into court
as evidence in the Armstrong case somewhere in the past.
Did CoS cancel "fair game" in 1968? No. This nails THAT.
I'd still like to see the hat pack siezed in 1977 for comparison purposes.
I suspect it will be the same. But if there were additions or changes,
it would show that "fair game", HCOPL 1 Mar 65 was not objectionable to
OSA who would have made any changes to this, if any.
> *STARRATE CHECKOUT*, a very exact checkout which verifies the full and
> minute knowledge of the student, of a portion of study materials and
> tests his full understanding of the data and ability to apply it.
> (HCOB 21 Sept 70)
>
> *STAR-RATED*, 100 per cent letter perfect in knowing and
> understanding, demonstrating and being able to repeat back the
> material with no comm lag. (HCO PL 8 Mar 66)
>
--
Spacetraveler
> GUARDIAN ORDER
>
> GO 1314 9 September 1974
> Info Bureau only
>
> CONFIDENTIAL
> ------------------------
> INTELLIGENCE COURSE
> --------------------------------------
>
> ...........
Is this that hatpack you have been shouting about? This is dated
1974, what makes you think this was still in use during the late 80's?
These kind of things are updated on a regular basis. I should know
that as I was the Hatting Officer for a while. This was the guy who
helped staff to get through their courses in time, to compile the
hatpacks with use of the mimeo files, to update them and if needed to
actually compile the courses themselves.
It is part of the hat of the Hatting Officer to actually see to it
that only the latest version of policies are actually in the hatpack,
and also to remove any issues that were cancelled. Simple fact. Is
anyone denying this is true?
<snip>
> Note, items with a * are to be star rated, that is read and
> memorized and understood in its entirety, "full duplication".
Error, things are not memorized, solely understood.
> Clip and save. Anybody who says "fair game" was abolished in 1968
> is ignorant of the fact it was in truth mandated by GO and was to be star
> rated by GO intelligence agents.
> That is memorized exactly.
Again, nothing is meant to be memorized. The issue is also in the old
green volumes from 1974, still the practice was cancelled. It says
something in regards to that following that 23 dec issue in the old
green volume, but I would have included the 21 July 1968 and the oct
1970 issue in the book as well. One should not forget that many
Scientologists themselves have seriously misunderstood this fair game
as well.
>
> Slap this on the next Hubbard worshipper who says different.
It requires understanding of how issues are to be dealt with.
>
> This was not the buggered and gelded 23 Dec 65 version, this is the full
> and unadulterated, mean spirited, full "Fair Game" version of 1 Mar 65.
Have you ever been the Hatting Officer? Please tell me William!
<snip>
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> Ed wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > wbarwell wrote:
> >>
> > [snip]
> >
> >> > This isn't what "starrate" means.
> >> >
> >> > [Quote]
> >> >
> >> > STARRATE CHECKOUT, a very exact checkout which verifies the full and
> >> > minute knowledge of the student, of a portion of study materials and
> >> > tests his full understanding of the data and ability to apply it.
> >> > (HCOB 21 September 1970)
> >> >
> >> > [End Quote]
> >> >
> >> > From Tech Dictionary (c) 1983
> >>
> >> "STAR-RATED
> >>
> >> 100 percent letter perfect in knowing and understanding,
> >> demonstrating and being able to repeat back the material
> >> with no comm lag."
> >>
> > Just to make this clear... the standard is a perfect
> > understanding of the substance of the material. This means you have to
> > be able to answer questions and demonstrate your understanding. It
> > does not mean you have to memorize the words verbatim and regurgitate
> > them perfectly (though sometimes they do require that for a particuar
> > item). The idea of starrate was to get around the glib student who
> > could memorize the words and not understand the substance.
> >
>
> Obviously, they wanted GO investigators to understand the
> substance of HCOPL 1 Mar 65.
No, impossible, explained earlier on this thread.
> It also lingered in Modern Management Techniques Defined,
Was reprinted time after time, without changes being made in it since
1976 I believe. Any Scientologist and staff knows this book is
seriously outdated. A lot in there is cancelled.
> and in some late SP/SPT course materials the words fair game were to be
> found until the early 80's.
In what relation? Till I've seen this I consider this hearsay and
therefore unverified. what exactly does it say, can anyone provide a
scan of it or something! It might as well were simply old checksheets
found at raids during the early 80's, and then you can incorrectly
say: "These checksheets they used at that time." which is not
necessarily true at all.
>
> Star rating here meant it wasn't just something that slipped in
> and wasn't noticed, they were taking care to notice and make sure GO
> intelligence agents would notice also.
> Which is why it is important to note it was star rated.
*rate means that this it was important to properly understand the
contents of a particular issue. This meant that someone was going to
spotcheck you on your understanding of the words in the issue, and
consulted your understanding of the contents and that you actually
could apply it. That's all.
> It does away with that lame excuse should it be proferred.
>
> With the memorandum of sentencing admission of Budlong and
> Kember, its even less likely to be something that can be brushed off
> as something overlooked and not very important, not a policy.
>
> With the three cases they argued in court that fair game was protected
> religous speech, that nails it.
What courts say and how these things actually were dealt with within
the organizatin are not necessarily the same thing. Join staff,
William, find out how things go there!
Spacetraveler
wbarwell
OK, I screwed up here.
Lets try again. The above is from the 1991 hat check pack
On the 1974 GO version it reads:
On page 1-
"SEQUENCE: This checksheet is to be done once through with
study tech fully applied. Starrates are noted with an asterisk (*)."
This is the 1974 GO version found at
www.xenu.net/archive/go/ic_conts.htm
And the 1991 version uses not 1 Mar 65 but a well sanitized
HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB Rev 8.1.91 HCOPL and is no longer star rated
here.
The GO 1314 hat check pack does have the star rated
asterisk on item 1 Mar 65.
I got careless here early this morning.
I am still looking for several other versions of these hat check packs,
noted here and there but seemingly unavailable, despite much gogling.
I do note on page 14, section K of the new 1991 version, that the ATTACKS
ON SCIENTOLOGY HCOPLS 15 Feb 66 and 18 Feb 66 are star rated.
(4) Star feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on te attackers to
the press.
..
"There never was an attacker that was not reeking of crime."
"Shift the spot light to them. No matter how. Do it!
..
The third group of actions have been positive in stopping attacks:
..
Investigating noisily the attackers.
BATTLE TACTICS is star rated.
ladayla
>> I'd still like to see the hat pack siezed in 1977 for comparison purposes.
>> I suspect it will be the same. But if there were additions or changes,
>> it would show that "fair game", HCOPL 1 Mar 65 was not objectionable to
>> OSA who would have made any changes to this, if any.
>>
>>
One issue is the Red Box Data Info Sheet.
Another is a sheet consisting of drills one uses to " discredit/smear opponents.
It has no heading, and is prolly a loose page from the GO Hat Pac
Another is HCOPL 16 Feb 69 Confidential Enemy PROs
Another is HCOPL 16 Feb 1969 Confidential Targets, Defense
Another is hcopl 16 Feb 1969 Confidential Battle Tactics
Another is BTB 21 June 1975 ( is a PRO Course issue) Confidential Reporter Trs
Then there is the Guardian Order 9 Sept 1974 Confidential intelligence Course
(20 pages)
There is guardian's Order 26 Jan 75 Purpose of GO
Are any of these of interest to you?
la
wbarwell
> wbarwell <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:<40f311d4$0$17096$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
>> GUARDIAN ORDER
>>
>> GO 1314 9 September 1974
>> Info Bureau only
>>
>> CONFIDENTIAL
>> ------------------------
>> INTELLIGENCE COURSE
>> --------------------------------------
>>
>> ...........
>
> Is this that hatpack you have been shouting about? This is dated
> 1974,
Yes. You have been telling us that fair game ended in 1968.
It didn't? Did it?
And we have three, count them, three cases where
Scientology argued, in court, that fair game was protected religous speech.
Christofferson-Titchbourne, Armstrong & Wollersheim.
The Wollersheim appeals decision makes good reading. The judge
had a lot to say on this peculiar claim.
Did you read that? If not, do look it up.
All these cases are in the 80s.
>what makes you think this was still in use during the late 80's?
Read the appeals decision from Wollersheim.
The judge was muy unimpressed.
The argument was specifically rejected.
> These kind of things are updated on a regular basis. I should know
> that as I was the Hatting Officer for a while. This was the guy who
> helped staff to get through their courses in time, to compile the
> hatpacks with use of the mimeo files, to update them and if needed to
> actually compile the courses themselves.
Yes. But the secret orgs within orgs had their own agendas and their
own hatpacks you guys in the more public sectors would not have been
necessarily privy to.
Some of the writings of Jesse Prince who was charged with
hiring lawyers on cases Scientology was involved im makes for interesting
reading. Miscavige was now in full control and was involved in
these law suits. So all knew Cooley was going to try arguing this
protected religous speech argument to try to rationalize the actual
fair game practices that had been documented and proven in court.
Fair game was policy when the cult fair gamed people like Gabe Cazares and
Paulette Cooper.
The sentencing memorandum mentions other fair game targets.
Including government officials targetted to get them out of posts where
they had power to deal setbacks to Scientology.
So it was a policy with some rather well established targets and with well
established reasons for attacking them.
And as RVY and Prince and others have noted, the feeling anything goes
was by now well internalized. The cult might disavow fair game publically
as it became an issue, but it was the culture and the policy of
Scientology, and it goes way back to Hubbard himself.
I note that the Amprinitics HCOPLs where Hubbard demands Horner and others
be fair gamed is still part of the 1991 hat check packs. So is Branch 5
project.
From the 1991 pack, page 26, HCOPL 27 September 65
Lets read that shall we?
"Treatment - They are fair game, can be sued or harassed."
So while we are disavowing fair game at the front door, the
fair game policy is smuggled in through the back door.
So we see here how the trick is done.
How the cult's culture at the top has fair game policy
deeply imbedded in it, where it came from, where it sustains
that culture, while desperately on the other hand having to deny
that for PR and legal purposes.
>
> It is part of the hat of the Hatting Officer to actually see to it
> that only the latest version of policies are actually in the hatpack,
> and also to remove any issues that were cancelled. Simple fact. Is
> anyone denying this is true?
Yes.
You may not be the Hatting Officer that counts for some parts of
Scientology that has its own Hatting Officers doing things a little
different.
The 1991 hat check pack has seemingly learned from
the 1974 version and adopted the bastartdized 23 Dec 65
HCOPL, but smuggles Fair Game in through HCO exec ltr
27 Sept 65.
"This is our policy
..
(2) Harass these people in any way."
Why do you think this letter is including to be studied in OSA hat check
packs?
Its an example of how these things get handled.
How Elron himself handeld them.
>
>> Note, items with a * are to be star rated, that is read and
>> memorized and understood in its entirety, "full duplication".
>
> Error, things are not memorized, solely understood.
I do not see how you can ("STAR -RATED 100 per cent
letter perfect") be letter perfect without pretty much memorizing these
short little HCOPLs. Usually, letter perfect in the real world means
exactly that, such as Islamic schools that teach propsective imams and
mullahs to memorize the Quran word for word. Letter perfect.
Maybe its a Scientology thang...
Redefinitions ala "Ethics"?
To me, letter perfect has always meant just that.
It has meant that since the early middle ages when paper was scarce
and memorization of long masses, complex polyphonic musical choral
works or religous books was common and expected from educated men
and women. People trained to perform prodigous feats of memory
to be able to repeat long passages of written works from memory
letter perfect. Which is where the concept "letter perfect" comes from.
And it measns exactly that, perfection with few or no errors, letter by
letter, from memory.
I shall continue to use that phrase in this manner.
Which is how the real world means it, even if its origins may be forgotten.
Hubbard can bastardize it for you, but I shan't follow.
Since Hubbard makes big claims for perfect memories in
Dianetics, I don't see why we shouldn't hold him to the real and proper
meaning of "letter perfect" not some lessor Scientology redefinition.
Google up the old medieval memory techniques some time, such as memory
mansions. Amazingly effective methods of developing memory long forgotten.
Dianetics not needed.
>
>
>> Clip and save. Anybody who says "fair game" was abolished in 1968
>> is ignorant of the fact it was in truth mandated by GO and was to be star
>> rated by GO intelligence agents.
>> That is memorized exactly.
>
> Again, nothing is meant to be memorized. The issue is also in the old
> green volumes from 1974, still the practice was cancelled. It says
> something in regards to that following that 23 dec issue in the old
> green volume, but I would have included the 21 July 1968 and the oct
> 1970 issue in the book as well. One should not forget that many
> Scientologists themselves have seriously misunderstood this fair game
> as well.
1 March 65. What's to misunderstand?
"By FAIR GAME is meant without rights for self, possessions or position..."
HCOPL 21 Oct 67
"ENEMY - Fair Game. May be tricked, lied to, sued or destroyed."
Whats to misunderstand?
27 Sept 65 -
"Treatment - They are fair game, may be sued or harrassed."
....
"(2) Harass these people in any possible way."
"Any meeting by these people is to be torn up."
What is to misunderstand?
The only law is, don't get caught and don't make bad PR.
Since "Fair Game" started causing public outcry and governmental scrutiny
almost from day one, the trick is to drop any obvious mentions of fair
game, but not drop it in reality.
So we have CoS attorneys arguing in court that fair game is a religously
protected religous speech issue, not that they didn't promulgate fair game,
or that they did not practice it in actuality. In at least three cases.
And since the 80's too.
We know they promulgated it as per the 74 hat pack, did it as per Cooper
and Cazares and that by 1991 the Amprinistsic Exec Letter was used to
smuggle that concept into OSA training hat packs without leaving a
a raw and open 1 Mar 65 HCOPL for a lawyer to point out in court.
Though it was still being peddled in Modern Management Techniques Defined
as late as the 1986 edition.
>
>>
>> Slap this on the next Hubbard worshipper who says different.
>
> It requires understanding of how issues are to be dealt with.
>
By fair gaming people and then arguing in court it is
religous protected "speech".
These are the facts on the ground.
That is how the cult understood it when it allowed Cooley to start trying
this one on for size in court.
They taught it, acted on it, argued it was religous speech.
Thus arguing fair game is indeed part of Scientology understood
as being a religion.
I mean, what more can we say?
There aren't any possible, real "Yeah, but.." excuses.
>> This was not the buggered and gelded 23 Dec 65 version, this is the full
>> and unadulterated, mean spirited, full "Fair Game" version of 1 Mar 65.
>
> Have you ever been the Hatting Officer? Please tell me William!
Have you ever been a GO investigator trainee being star rated
on HCOPL 1 Mar 65?
Many were.
Have you ever been a GOWW executive admitting to a US Federal Prosecutor
offically via your own attorneys that yes, fair game was policy and was
used on people?
We have Budlong and Kember doing exactly that, hard to deny otherwsie
what with the 1974 hat pack with its blatant, star rated listing of HCOPL
1 Mar 65 and the Operation Freakout documents showing they did in fact take
these things to mean activities like that were permissable.
Have you even been an OSA trainee being drilled on
Exec Ltr 27 Sept 65 "Amprinistics" as per 1991 OSA hat pack?
Many were.
Have you ever been a Scientology lawyer arguing in a court of law that fair
game was a constitutionall protected form of religous speech?
We have three examples.
I am beginning finally, to fill in a lot of blanks but there is a lot more
to do. There were other training packs I am tracking down, other
HCOPLs that seem to have been pretty nasty I am looking for in whole, many
more exec letters and similar, and more testimony, more court cases.
I am not done yet.
I have a LONG list of wish list materials to hunt down,
many will be very germane to this issue.
I am digging into furiously this like a hungry ant eater digging into a
large termite mound, and its a deep mound. My mound of paper print-outs
here is now a foot tall and getting deeper by the day.
My printer has not been silent much for the last week.
My hard disk is filling up.
Its still a noisy, quacking duck.
wbarwell
What, they star rate HCOPL 1 Mar 65 for what then?
Instructions on how to make paper dolls the Hubbard way?
The substance is obvious.
And it lead to the obvious conclusion from Kember and her lieutenants that
fair game, harassment is policy, which they so admitted to the US
proescutors at that time.
And they implemented it too. Cooper, Cazares, others.
>
>> It also lingered in Modern Management Techniques Defined,
>
> Was reprinted time after time, without changes being made in it since
> 1976 I believe. Any Scientologist and staff knows this book is
> seriously outdated. A lot in there is cancelled.
Fair game as a poolicy, was never itself, cancelled.
various HCOPLs were promulgated, but that did not mean
the policy was openly cancelled. You only ASSUME
that if HCOPL 21 july 68 is put out it means in reality
HCOPL is outranked and thus fair game has been cancelled.
It wasn't cancelled as later HCOPL 21 Oct 68 explained.
"Treatment or handling of an SP is not changed".
So this strongly implies fair game is still in force, despite the worsds
being dropped in the 21 july issue.
Dropping the words fair game is not the same as overtly cancelling
fair game.
And its obvious that this was a PR need.
Scientology was taking heavy flak over fair game.
Later, when the heat was off, 1 Mar 65 makes its sly
reappearance in GO. And Hubbard set up this org, set Mary Sue
to run it and was kept apprised of its doings.
We have trick rhetoric, lies and the real policies here.
Real policy was 1 Mar 65.
It as promulgated as policy and acted on.
The rest is window dressing.
>
>> and in some late SP/SPT course materials the words fair game were to be
>> found until the early 80's.
>
> In what relation? Till I've seen this I consider this hearsay and
> therefore unverified.
There were people here a few years ago that had old SPT/SP
packs from the 80's before them, in their hand that verified that.
Try used book stores.
Where critics get their matrials often enough.
I have a few such things myself such as the
Hard Sell Pack. The Pain and Sex HCOPL is a scream
and a half.
what exactly does it say, can anyone provide a
> scan of it or something! It might as well were simply old checksheets
> found at raids during the early 80's, and then you can incorrectly
> say: "These checksheets they used at that time." which is not
> necessarily true at all.
No, it was PTS/SP course materials.
It just showed that fair game as a term lingered on a while.
It took a awhile to drop it all down the Orwellian memory hole.
>> Star rating here meant it wasn't just something that slipped in
>> and wasn't noticed, they were taking care to notice and make sure GO
>> intelligence agents would notice also.
>> Which is why it is important to note it was star rated.
>
> *rate means that this it was important to properly understand the
> contents of a particular issue. This meant that someone was going to
> spotcheck you on your understanding of the words in the issue, and
> consulted your understanding of the contents and that you actually
> could apply it. That's all.
>
>> It does away with that lame excuse should it be proferred.
>>
>> With the memorandum of sentencing admission of Budlong and
>> Kember, its even less likely to be something that can be brushed off
>> as something overlooked and not very important, not a policy.
>>
>> With the three cases they argued in court that fair game was protected
>> religous speech, that nails it.
>
> What courts say and how these things actually were dealt with within
> the organizatin are not necessarily the same thing.
The courts didn't say anything. It was the CoS lawyers that argued
fair game was religously protected speech.
The courts ruled that was bullshit.
And rejected CoS's arguments.
As the appeals court in Wollersheim noted, even if Wollersheim had agreed
to any such thing, it still would have beyond the bounds of acceptable and
allowable behavior.
Join staff,
> William, find out how things go there!
Ask Wollersheim, Cooper, Cazares and others how it ACTUALLY goes.
Your little bit of Scientology was not the whole of Scientology.
Back in the era of spirit churches, fake mediums, and the like, the big
fakes had two terms, shut eye, and open eye.
Open eye meant the fake mediums who held themselves out as powerful mediums,
while using mere trickery to con marks out of big money.
Shut eye were the local mediums, without any real abilities, but who did
not know that the famous mediums were all fakery.
These earnst souls were important, as they fed a steady stream of suckers
to the open eye fakers. They were honest, and naive, and part of the
window dressing that this was not a field repelete with fakery and outright
fraud. Which it was. Sometimes rather expensive frauds.
So we have two aspects of Scientology.
Open eyes and shut eyes.
Open eyes at the top know full well fair game, anything goes.
The rules are, don't get careless, don't get caught, never admit anything.
Close eye is the public claims. And those who believe them
Open eye, Elron, Mary Sue, the GO executives and fair game
operatives. OSA, miscavige and crew, and the lawyers they hire.
You are the equivalent of the earnest neighborhod part time medium,
apologetic over her lack of really great abilities or manifestations, but
arguing that the big time mediums can't possibly be fakes like all those
critics keep warning. Ignoring the big named open eyes who get caught red
handed in fakery. Like when the bunco squad pulls flashlights out of
pockets and catches the spirit as being a medium's stooge dressed in
black and waving a some phosporesent painted cheese clothe around
to wow the marks. "Look! Its a spirit guide!'
Did you know it was the flashlight that put an end to a lot of these fakes?
College kids out on a lark learned they didn't need Houdini's skills, just
one of these new fangled pocket sized flashlights. Look, we caught us a
spook! Nice cheese cloth.
Now we have the internet.
Nice cheese clothe......
Android Cat
> So we see here how the trick is done.
> How the cult's culture at the top has fair game policy
> deeply imbedded in it, where it came from, where it sustains
> that culture, while desperately on the other hand having to deny
> that for PR and legal purposes.
And keep in mind that none of the policies or cancellations applied to
Hubbard himself--those were for _other_ people. I'm sure his direct orders
were superior to any policy (which he issued anyway), and by extention, also
his orders via CMO messegers. With his endless paranoia, I'm sure he was
very careful which orders he put down in writing and which were verbal or
"destroy after reading".
--
Ron of that ilk.
wbarwell
> In article <40f40cc0$0$17096$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com>,
>>>
>>> I'd still like to see the hat pack siezed in 1977 for comparison
>>> purposes.
>>> I suspect it will be the same. But if there were additions or changes,
>>> it would show that "fair game", HCOPL 1 Mar 65 was not objectionable to
>>> OSA who would have made any changes to this, if any.
>>>
>>>
> FWIW: I have some issues which were pulled from Court records.
> One issue is the Red Box Data Info Sheet.
Gots dat one. The Mary Sue sentencing mamorandum had some snippy things to
say about a church with its own GO and a red box.
> Another is a sheet consisting of drills one uses to " discredit/smear
> opponents. It has no heading, and is prolly a loose page from the GO Hat
I have not seen that one, but there are a bunch of orphaned
stuffed in some websites list of materials.
> Pac
> Another is HCOPL 16 Feb 69 Confidential Enemy PROs
> Another is HCOPL 16 Feb 1969 Confidential Targets, Defense
> Another is hcopl 16 Feb 1969 Confidential Battle Tactics
> Another is BTB 21 June 1975 ( is a PRO Course issue) Confidential Reporter
> Trs
Have these.
> Then there is the Guardian Order 9 Sept 1974 Confidential intelligence
> Course
> (20 pages)
> There is guardian's Order 26 Jan 75 Purpose of GO
These can be found at www.xenu.net.
Thanks for responding though.
There is a LOT out there, but sorting through this mess is
time consuming.
Some of this stuff is hard to read jpgs of scanned documents.
Hurts the eyes and the brain.
Eats lots of paper through th' ol' printer.
Faxhor
eyelids a few days ago. He just kept saying he couldn't see
it.
W Barwell is the #1 ARS Maggot. Blind and feeding off rotten
stench.
Faxhor
Faxhor
it was repeatedly placed in front of his face.
W Barwell is the #1 A.R.S. maggot. Blind and feeding on rotten
stench. Is he even human?
Faxhor
Spacetraveler
> Spacetraveler wrote:
>
> > wbarwell <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> > news:<40f311d4$0$17096$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
> >> GUARDIAN ORDER
> >>
> >> GO 1314 9 September 1974
> >> Info Bureau only
> >>
> >> CONFIDENTIAL
> >> ------------------------
> >> INTELLIGENCE COURSE
> >> --------------------------------------
> >>
> >> ...........
> >
> > Is this that hatpack you have been shouting about? This is dated
> > 1974,
>
> Yes. You have been telling us that fair game ended in 1968.
>
> It didn't? Did it?
You don't give up, do you? It ended in 1968 per the issues provided to
you. Policies may not contradict eachother, policy is clear on that
matter. The green vols are clear on that also. This is noted following
the 23 dec 65 issue. Also the 1967 fair game issue and the 21 July
1968 issue are not in these volumes. Get it? Probably not.
>
> And we have three, count them, three cases where
> Scientology argued, in court, that fair game was protected religous speech.
> Christofferson-Titchbourne, Armstrong & Wollersheim.
> The Wollersheim appeals decision makes good reading. The judge
> had a lot to say on this peculiar claim.
>
> Did you read that? If not, do look it up.
>
> All these cases are in the 80s.
A judge bases his judgement on what the plaintiffs and the defendants
say. A judgement based on that does not necessarily reflect how things
were dealt with in the organization itself. You still can't separate
what actual issues say and what people do. Indeed hardheaded, with
ability to reason long since gone!
No one, not you nor anyone else dared even to respond on that post
above. Bad confront William.
>
> >what makes you think this was still in use during the late 80's?
>
> Read the appeals decision from Wollersheim.
> The judge was muy unimpressed.
> The argument was specifically rejected.
>
>
> > These kind of things are updated on a regular basis. I should know
> > that as I was the Hatting Officer for a while. This was the guy who
> > helped staff to get through their courses in time, to compile the
> > hatpacks with use of the mimeo files, to update them and if needed to
> > actually compile the courses themselves.
>
> Yes. But the secret orgs within orgs had their own agendas and their
> own hatpacks you guys in the more public sectors would not have been
> necessarily privy to.
Are you out of your mind. Firstly you don't know where I was making
hatpacks, do you? Secondly the organization does not work that way.
Not in my time at least.
>
> Some of the writings of Jesse Prince who was charged with
> hiring lawyers on cases Scientology was involved im makes for interesting
> reading. Miscavige was now in full control and was involved in
> these law suits. So all knew Cooley was going to try arguing this
> protected religous speech argument to try to rationalize the actual
> fair game practices that had been documented and proven in court.
>
> Fair game was policy when the cult fair gamed people like Gabe Cazares and
> Paulette Cooper.
> The sentencing memorandum mentions other fair game targets.
> Including government officials targetted to get them out of posts where
> they had power to deal setbacks to Scientology.
>
> So it was a policy with some rather well established targets and with well
> established reasons for attacking them.
>
> And as RVY and Prince and others have noted, the feeling anything goes
> was by now well internalized. The cult might disavow fair game publically
> as it became an issue, but it was the culture and the policy of
> Scientology, and it goes way back to Hubbard himself.
> I note that the Amprinitics HCOPLs where Hubbard demands Horner and others
> be fair gamed is still part of the 1991 hat check packs. So is Branch 5
> project.
>
> From the 1991 pack, page 26, HCOPL 27 September 65
Now you speak about some 1991 hat pack. Please present this! And then
are you jumping on L. Ron Hubbard 5 years after he supposedly had
dropped his body and 11 years after he mysteriously diappeared. L. Ron
Hubbard did it here too I assume. I never had anything to do with OSA
though, I can't relate from personal experience here. Ask Tory
Bezazian, she may or may not know. But per her testimony she was not
allowed to walk freely there either.
>
> Lets read that shall we?
>
> "Treatment - They are fair game, can be sued or harassed."
>
> So while we are disavowing fair game at the front door, the
> fair game policy is smuggled in through the back door.
>
> So we see here how the trick is done.
> How the cult's culture at the top has fair game policy
> deeply imbedded in it, where it came from, where it sustains
> that culture, while desperately on the other hand having to deny
> that for PR and legal purposes.
Ramble, ramble, ramble, got to ramble, ramble, ramble along...........
> > It is part of the hat of the Hatting Officer to actually see to it
> > that only the latest version of policies are actually in the hatpack,
> > and also to remove any issues that were cancelled. Simple fact. Is
> > anyone denying this is true?
>
> Yes.
I believe you have no authority here, I was there and for a while
actually being the Hatting Officer, you were not. You (who was never
there) tell me (who was actually there) that I am incorrect about
things I actually was doing? Don't you see how stupid this is? Next
thing you may tell me is: "You are lying, you were never there!" The
problem is that I speak from actual experience, I speak with knowledge
about these things. People can recognize that. I am afraid they will
rather believe me than you.
> You may not be the Hatting Officer that counts for some parts of
> Scientology that has its own Hatting Officers doing things a little
> different.
It could be so, but I find it not very likely.
>
> The 1991 hat check pack has seemingly learned from
You did not present this. You did not either relate to us that L. Ron
Hubbard was involved with that 5 years after he died (if in fact this
hatpack actually exist)
> the 1974 version and adopted the bastartdized 23 Dec 65
> HCOPL, but smuggles Fair Game in through HCO exec ltr
> 27 Sept 65.
>
>
> "This is our policy
> ..
> (2) Harass these people in any way."
>
> Why do you think this letter is including to be studied in OSA hat check
> packs?
>
> Its an example of how these things get handled.
> How Elron himself handeld them.
>
> >
> >> Note, items with a * are to be star rated, that is read and
> >> memorized and understood in its entirety, "full duplication".
> >
> > Error, things are not memorized, solely understood.
>
> I do not see how you can ("STAR -RATED 100 per cent
> letter perfect") be letter perfect without pretty much memorizing these
> short little HCOPLs. Usually, letter perfect in the real world means
> exactly that, such as Islamic schools that teach propsective imams and
> mullahs to memorize the Quran word for word. Letter perfect.
Various people corrected you on this, still you proclaim the very same
things. It's really no use to get you understand something, is it?
Got to ramble, got to, got to, got to ramble along..... can't stop,
got to.....
Just a dictionary being outdated. dictionaries don't beat policies. A
dictionary has authority whatsoever.
"Many" turn out to be "2 persons", nicely done.
>
>
> Have you even been an OSA trainee being drilled on
> Exec Ltr 27 Sept 65 "Amprinistics" as per 1991 OSA hat pack?
>
> Many were.
Who?
>
> Have you ever been a Scientology lawyer arguing in a court of law that fair
> game was a constitutionall protected form of religous speech?
>
> We have three examples.
Ah, "many" is now "3 persons". Define "many" with a dictionary, will
you. Per L. Ron Hubbard anti social personalities (also addressed as
SPs) talk in generalities, they always speak in terms of "they",
"many", etc.. If asked for details it may turn out to be a single
person or incident. Gee, may be he got something there after all.
What do you think?
>
> I am beginning finally, to fill in a lot of blanks but there is a lot more
> to do. There were other training packs I am tracking down, other
> HCOPLs that seem to have been pretty nasty I am looking for in whole, many
> more exec letters and similar, and more testimony, more court cases.
>
> I am not done yet.
I am with you basically, you are a curious individual. People have
figured you out, I have seen the comments about you.
>
> I have a LONG list of wish list materials to hunt down,
> many will be very germane to this issue.
> I am digging into furiously this like a hungry ant eater digging into a
> large termite mound, and its a deep mound. My mound of paper print-outs
> here is now a foot tall and getting deeper by the day.
> My printer has not been silent much for the last week.
> My hard disk is filling up.
>
> Its still a noisy, quacking duck.
Yes it is.
You have claimed various weird incongruous things unable to back it
up. Mary Sue Hubbard pulled the copyrights out of HASI before it wend
defunct, didn't she?
Spacetraveler
wbarwell
I thank you for your kind words.
I am still digging out and going through mountains of
material to be organized. And, how about them clams?
Did you ever actually Read Hubbard's History of Man?
I just had to go dig out my copy.
Don't you just love science?
"Its the hit dog what yelps"
- Mark Twain
mgo...@chello.nl
(Spacetraveler) wrote in
<9f53d1e2.04071...@posting.google.com>:
>
>> and in some late SP/SPT course materials the words fair game were to be
>> found until the early 80's.
>
>In what relation?
http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html
--
Mike Gormez
- WISE is Scientology recruitment in the workplace http://stop-wise.biz/
- Scientology and health http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect http://www.taxexemptchildabuse.net/
- Hubbard on psychs http://whyaretheydead.net/misc/scientology_hatred_of_psychiatry.html
ptsc
>"On 13 Jul 2004 08:57:23 -0700, spacetra...@hotmail.com
>(Spacetraveler) wrote in
><9f53d1e2.04071...@posting.google.com>:
>
>>
>>> and in some late SP/SPT course materials the words fair game were to be
>>> found until the early 80's.
>>
>>In what relation?
>
>http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html
By 1996, it had changed from the 1989 version.
The ex-student should realize this makes him Fair Game and outside
our Justice Codes. He may not have recourse of any kind beyond refund.
And after signing can only return to Scientology as per policy on Fair
Game.
In 1996, it said
The ex-student should realize this puts him outside our Justice Codes.
He may not have recourse of any kind beyond refund. And after signing can
only return to Scientology as per HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB, SUPPRESSIVE
ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS.
wbarwell
No. I am a 5th invader force entity from Mars, here
to enturbulate the clams for our own mysterious reasons.
The stench of cults like Scientology draws critics with shovels
to bury them.
Have you ever read Hubbard's tome "The History of Man?'
wbarwell
> wbarwell <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:<40f423f8$0$17089$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
>> Spacetraveler wrote:
>>
>
> You don't give up, do you? It ended in 1968 per the issues provided to
> you. Policies may not contradict eachother, policy is clear on that
> matter. The green vols are clear on that also. This is noted following
> the 23 dec 65 issue. Also the 1967 fair game issue and the 21 July
> 1968 issue are not in these volumes. Get it? Probably not.
>
Fair game did not end in 1968.
Not with 21 July 68 nor with the 6 Oct 70 nor with Nov 3 68
Code of Reform.
All that was a lie. For public consumption only.
because the press and people like Dumbleton and Powles and
Anderson and Foster were looking into these sorts of things.
The REAL policy was HCOPL 1 Mar 65 as found in the
8 Sept 74 Inetlligence training hat pack.
THAT IS ALL!
And we had at least two very high ranking GOWW commanders
admit it to the US Federal Prosecuters. Fair game was policy.
And they actually did fair game people. Paulette Cooper, Gabe Cazares. And
the FBI found written plans to do these things in their possesion.
And they had actually done thses things as laid out in written plans.
They lied to you. And you still want desperately to believe they did not.
But the did lie to everybody when the put out that fair game was abolished
while furiously fair gaming people and star rating agents on the original,
mean spirited, HCOPL 1 Mar 65 "fair game law". With malice aforethought.
And these sorts of things did not ahppane far, far away in some corner of
scientology, no, no, no. Mary Sue Hubbard was set up to oversee all of
this and to report back to Hubbard hiding out in a motel room in Duedin
Florida.
We had three, count them three cases where Scientology admitted it fair
gamed peole but tried to argue that this was permisaable behavior,
religously prtected speech.
Look up the Wollersheim appeal and read it.
This was not those bad, bad critics, apostates and hungry lawyers claiming
this.
This was Scientology claiming this via their own lawyers.
They lied. They lied to the world. They lied to critics. They lied to the
law and governments.
And lied to their own true believers.
How much evidence DO you need to admit the truth?
Do you need Hubbard's notes on the GO happenings?
They burned those in Operation Sort out which was to
make sure no scrap of paper with a Hubbard signature tied him
to any crime or any thing that might show he was running the cult
since he resigned in 1966. But his own signature was at the bootom of the
papers that laid out the Snow White caper. It was his idea. What you say?
Hubbard was not in control of the cult since 1966?
He did tell lies, you see.
And the coverup was not complete.
Fair game was in full swing against anybody who got in Hubbard's way.
Anything went. Mary Sue did not care about Paulette Cooper.
The assholes who framed her for those bomb threats did not care about
Paulette Cooper.
Fools who twist facts to deludethemselves Scientology and Hubbard had
nothing to do with this sorry set of activities do not care about the
Paulette Coopers of the world that Scientology would grind underheel
given any chance to do so.
And they do to this day.
Sooner or later, you haver to stop lying to yourself, stop
trying to pretend Hubbard was a little tin god who was misunderstood
and never did anything wrong.
because it was he who penned these ferocious fair game policies, and
al the other policies that are fair game with the exact label, the policies
used to this day to use the court systems to harass and destroy people.
Laywers and PIS to fair game people.
The rot set in with Hubbard, his whole atitude, his HCOPLs, public and
secret, his ways of doing things himself, of seeting other people up as his
catspaws to do his malicious dirty work.
>>
>> And we have three, count them, three cases where
>> Scientology argued, in court, that fair game was protected religous
>> speech. Christofferson-Titchbourne, Armstrong & Wollersheim.
>> The Wollersheim appeals decision makes good reading. The judge
>> had a lot to say on this peculiar claim.
>>
>> Did you read that? If not, do look it up.
>>
>> All these cases are in the 80s.
>
> A judge bases his judgement on what the plaintiffs and the defendants
> say. A judgement based on that does not necessarily reflect how things
> were dealt with in the organization itself. You still can't separate
> what actual issues say and what people do. Indeed hardheaded, with
> ability to reason long since gone!
>
It was the cult that was arguing the bad things they did were permissable
behavior under the 1st amendmenet. It was obvious that they had fair gamed
people.
By so arguing things this way, they had admitted they did it.
Read Wollersheim's appeals court decision.
The judge has some rather harsh things to say about it all.
Even IF Wollersheim had agreed to be fair gamed, it was not
acceptable for Scientology to actually do so.
The argumment it was religous protected speech was scornfully rejected.
The issue was, they were arguing fair game happened but was religous
protected constitutional speech.
The judge told them, not in the US of A, no.
Fair game is not religously protected 'speech'.
So Hubbard set up fair game, abandoned the mere words fair game, not the
fair game activities, and Scientology used those words to train B1 agnets
in the fine art of fair gaming enemies. And did it. And got caught.
And admitted it to the US proescutors.
And admited it in court and argued it was OK.
But the last thing you will do is admit the obvious facts.
Word check obnosis in your tech dictionary.
And this is what Scientology brings you too.
Staring the facts in the face and denying them.
How many years of your life and how much $$$ did you pay to learn
the fine art of self delusion and hero worshippng idols with feet of clay?
It would not matter much if it was long ago and far away and
was not still being done. But the spirit of Hubbard stil drives this mad
cult and it still destroys people with massively overlitigated law suits,
dirty tricks, lies and sullen savagry.
It still fair games people.
It still sets up Snow White like programs such as was discovered
in Greece a few years ago.
It still demands disconnections.
This is the stuff Scientoloogy does that draws flack.
When this all ends, the heavy criticism will end.
Its time to put your ethics in.
Hubbard started this and it went on after he died.
He did it while he lived, and lied about it to everybody
even as he did these things.
We will put the cult's ethics in for it if it takes another
25 years.
>
http://groups.google.se/groups?dq=&start=50&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.religion.scientology&selm=9f53d1e2.0407110219.380a9805%40posting.google.com
>
> No one, not you nor anyone else dared even to respond on that post
> above. Bad confront William.
You cannot confront the fact Hubbard lied to you and the world at large.
>>
>> >what makes you think this was still in use during the late 80's?
>>
>> Read the appeals decision from Wollersheim.
>> The judge was muy unimpressed.
>> The argument was specifically rejected.
>>
>>
>> > These kind of things are updated on a regular basis. I should know
>> > that as I was the Hatting Officer for a while. This was the guy who
>> > helped staff to get through their courses in time, to compile the
>> > hatpacks with use of the mimeo files, to update them and if needed to
>> > actually compile the courses themselves.
>>
>> Yes. But the secret orgs within orgs had their own agendas and their
>> own hatpacks you guys in the more public sectors would not have been
>> necessarily privy to.
>
> Are you out of your mind. Firstly you don't know where I was making
> hatpacks, do you? Secondly the organization does not work that way.
> Not in my time at least.
Not in GO obviously. Not the 1 Mar 65 HCOPL star rated by agents and
minions of Mary Sue and Elron that rapes the lives of Paulette Cooper
and Gabe Cazales.
Neither Mary Sue nor Hubbard, nor most of these filthy little shits that
did these things ever apologized.
Hubbard was no real man.
he ran. And hid.
And commanded operations start to gather and pulp every last
scrap of paper that could tie him to criminal activities.
And his culties did that.
Not one said "Isn't this morally objectionable?
Its illegal, but what about the ethical dimesnions of our
present activites"?
No. This is what scientology teaches. Moral relativism and self delusion,
and moral blindness.
And a rather obvious lack of confront on part of everybody involved in this
from Hubbard on down to Mary Sue, Kembr, Budlong, or teh actual
'agenst' who did these evil acts. Or those who helped knowing cover up such
things.
Is this what you signed up for?
To be an apologists for this sort of degraded, self serving, keep my sorry
ass out of federal prison, deny everything Hubbardism?
This is teh same moral blindness that keeps it going to this day and
allows people to continue on with the bad old ways while the world
looks on horrified.
It used to be Hubbard's savage attacks on the press did keep the real story
bottled up, but those days are over.
Its just getting worse.
>
>>
>> Some of the writings of Jesse Prince who was charged with
>> hiring lawyers on cases Scientology was involved im makes for interesting
>> reading. Miscavige was now in full control and was involved in
>> these law suits. So all knew Cooley was going to try arguing this
>> protected religous speech argument to try to rationalize the actual
>> fair game practices that had been documented and proven in court.
>>
>> Fair game was policy when the cult fair gamed people like Gabe Cazares
>> and Paulette Cooper.
>> The sentencing memorandum mentions other fair game targets.
>> Including government officials targetted to get them out of posts where
>> they had power to deal setbacks to Scientology.
>>
>> So it was a policy with some rather well established targets and with
>> well established reasons for attacking them.
>>
>> And as RVY and Prince and others have noted, the feeling anything goes
>> was by now well internalized. The cult might disavow fair game
>> publically as it became an issue, but it was the culture and the policy
>> of Scientology, and it goes way back to Hubbard himself.
>> I note that the Amprinitics HCOPLs where Hubbard demands Horner and
>> others
>> be fair gamed is still part of the 1991 hat check packs. So is Branch 5
>> project.
>>
>> From the 1991 pack, page 26, HCOPL 27 September 65
>
> Now you speak about some 1991 hat pack. Please present this!
www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/osa-int-ed-508r.html
Page 25, see items 25. and 26. "HCOPL 27 Sept 65 "Amprinistics"
and ED 149 INT 2 Dec 66, "BRANCH 5 PROJECT, PROJECT SQUIRREL"
Amprinitics is in the old 1974 GO intel training hate pack.
See page 18
Project squirrel was added later to the 91 version.
"TREATMENT - They are fair game, can be sued or harassed."
...
"(2) Harass these people in any possible way."
Why does GO and now OSA study this EXEC ED?
Its a model, its how this is to be done.
Wink, wink, we can't put in HCOPL 1 Mar 65 but we can stick in
HCO EXEC ED 27 Sept 65.
Same thing.
Fair game.
From the Branch 5 Project documents
"People who attack Scientology are criminals."
Nice thing to teach OS agents.
Demonize all critics.
This was Hubbard's mindset.
Its taught as dogma in this 1991 intel hat pack.
It didn't end with Mary Sue in prison and Hubbard in hiding
barking orders into a dictophone to burn all evidence.
When DOES it end?
What can we do to end it?
as them, please pretty please, live up to Hubbard's higher ideals
as seen in various creeds and high sounding HCOPLs?
Wish it was that simple.
I do wish my work as a critic was that simple.
Truely.
This is all I really want stopped. the harassement, destruction
disconnections, trickery.
And then
> are you jumping on L. Ron Hubbard 5 years after he supposedly had
> dropped his body and 11 years after he mysteriously diappeared. L. Ron
> Hubbard did it here too I assume. I never had anything to do with OSA
> though, I can't relate from personal experience here. Ask Tory
> Bezazian, she may or may not know. But per her testimony she was not
> allowed to walk freely there either.
>
Hubbard started this, and left it as written policy stil lin action today.
he did not have teh guts to surrender and do his time and explain
himself. he did not have teh ablls to confronthis victims in court.
he did not have the morals, teh ethics, the manhood to admit thisw was all
wrong and to admit it and mandate massive, real change in this cult.
So it goes on and on and on. Fair game, attacks, law suits,
bad faith, hate, trickery, harassment, PIs lawyers and more.
On and on.
Hubbrad was indeed responsbile for this and in the 9 years since the FBI
raids to his death made not one real effort to change any of this.
Not one.
And made not one apology.
He was responsible.
He had help, but he was the one who put everybody else up to these
things.
It could have been different.
>>
>> Lets read that shall we?
>>
>> "Treatment - They are fair game, can be sued or harassed."
>>
>> So while we are disavowing fair game at the front door, the
>> fair game policy is smuggled in through the back door.
>>
>> So we see here how the trick is done.
>> How the cult's culture at the top has fair game policy
>> deeply imbedded in it, where it came from, where it sustains
>> that culture, while desperately on the other hand having to deny
>> that for PR and legal purposes.
>
> Ramble, ramble, ramble, got to ramble, ramble, ramble along...........
>
facts, facts, facts.
If you cannot proclaim HCOPL 1mar 65, for legal reasons,
you can sneak fair game in via EXEC ED 27 Dec 65.
And they did here in 1991.
Check out the 1991 intl hat pack on Gerry's website and
then look up EXEC ED 27 Dec 65 in your OEC.
Why is it there do you suppose?
In case Jack Horner showed up again after
40 - 35 years?
"Critics are criminals"
Here is the mindset Hubbard demanded and OSA
indoctrinates its agents into.
What, somebody who heatedly objects to her daughter
disconnecting is a criminal for criticisizing that hateful policy?
Yeah, baby.
The most ethical group on the planet, isn't that the catch phrase?
>
>> > It is part of the hat of the Hatting Officer to actually see to it
>> > that only the latest version of policies are actually in the hatpack,
>> > and also to remove any issues that were cancelled. Simple fact. Is
>> > anyone denying this is true?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> I believe you have no authority here, I was there and for a while
> actually being the Hatting Officer, you were not. You (who was never
> there) tell me (who was actually there) that I am incorrect about
> things I actually was doing?
Yes. Because you were acting out a little play, being used.
At the top, they do things different.
Hubbard did. Mary Sue did. Kember and Budlong did.
Miscavige and his present crew still do.
You are the shut eye here.
Don't you see how stupid this is? Next
> thing you may tell me is: "You are lying, you were never there!" The
> problem is that I speak from actual experience, I speak with knowledge
> about these things. People can recognize that. I am afraid they will
> rather believe me than you.
Were you in GO or OSA? Did you fair game Paulette Cooper?
I am sure we had lots of loyal good government employees while Nixon's
"Plumbers" were arranging burlary of the Watergate Hotel and other nasties.
You weren't in Hubbard's "Plumbers".
We had the lower levels playing more or less by one set of rules and
Hubbard and Mary Sue using their own secret rules.
They tricked you. And you still don't get it after all these years.
They tricked you as much as they tricked Paulette Cooper and the
IRS. And never cared. Never apologized.
When does the dual set of rules end?
When Miscavige manages to kick the bucket or another FBI raid occurs?
>
>> You may not be the Hatting Officer that counts for some parts of
>> Scientology that has its own Hatting Officers doing things a little
>> different.
>
> It could be so, but I find it not very likely.
>
Look at the facts. Download the 1991 hat pack from armstrong, the
1974 hat pack from www.xenu.net. Read them. Look at the Paulette
Cooper Operation Freakout documents. Look at the Gabe Cazares
documents.
How did this happen with Mary Sue operating GO like a dragon
lady, keeping Elron hiding in a Hotel room in Duedin FL appraised
of progress?
Read the Budlong and Kember memorandum of sentencing.
They admitted it.
I mean, loyalty is an admirable trait, but it can be overdone.
What we need to do is understand, this stuff was not something that just
happened, Hubbard was setting himself up for a fall with his decades long
bad temper and paranoia and vindictiveness.
Its just a miracle he never ended up in prison for some of the stunts he
pulled.
The hate and tricks and fair game and destruction of peole still goes on
unabated.
How do we end that?
Not by being willfully blind to what is happening and how it got
that way.
>>
>> The 1991 hat check pack has seemingly learned from
>
> You did not present this. You did not either relate to us that L. Ron
> Hubbard was involved with that 5 years after he died (if in fact this
> hatpack actually exist)
His little EXEC ED. he wrote that. And never withdrew it and
allowed it to be printed up in various places.
It was the sort of atmosphere he wanted in Scientology, his command
intention, that Miscavige and crew still follow faithfully.
He had 9 years after the 1977 raid to change and failed to attempt to do
more than hide his tracks.
he could have gathered his faithful, long time aides, admitted he had erred
and tasked them to purge scientology of the pranoia, vindictivness and
anything goes attitude that sneeringly made the world a target of his wrath
to be dealt with by tricks and attacks.
He failed to make any attempt to do so.
He hid and set them up to raid the orgs and missions of immense amounts of
money. Irresponsible to the end.
>
>> the 1974 version and adopted the bastartdized 23 Dec 65
>> HCOPL, but smuggles Fair Game in through HCO exec ltr
>> 27 Sept 65.
>>
>>
>> "This is our policy
>> ..
>> (2) Harass these people in any way."
>>
>> Why do you think this letter is including to be studied in OSA hat check
>> packs?
>>
>> Its an example of how these things get handled.
>> How Elron himself handeld them.
>>
>> >
>> >> Note, items with a * are to be star rated, that is read and
>> >> memorized and understood in its entirety, "full duplication".
>> >
>> > Error, things are not memorized, solely understood.
>>
>> I do not see how you can ("STAR -RATED 100 per cent
>> letter perfect") be letter perfect without pretty much memorizing these
>> short little HCOPLs. Usually, letter perfect in the real world means
>> exactly that, such as Islamic schools that teach propsective imams and
>> mullahs to memorize the Quran word for word. Letter perfect.
>
> Various people corrected you on this, still you proclaim the very same
> things. It's really no use to get you understand something, is it?
>
> Got to ramble, got to, got to, got to ramble along..... can't stop,
> got to.....
>
Can't accept facts. Can't accept facts. Must NOT accept facts!
It still peddled 1 Mar 65.
Which is policy? Well did the cult claim in court fair game was acceptable
religous speech or not?
Yes. Three times I know of.
Kember was the president of GOWW.
She ramn the various bureaus worldwide to ijmplement Mary Sue's and
Hubbard's policies. Kember's word was law, her ways were the official ways
of GOWW. Budlong was her second in command.
Kember's signature was on many of the authorizations for these operations
world wide.
So when she admits she was fair gaming people as per policy, its a rather
meanigful admission.
She was where the rubber met the fair game road.
>> Have you even been an OSA trainee being drilled on
>> Exec Ltr 27 Sept 65 "Amprinistics" as per 1991 OSA hat pack?
>>
>> Many were.
>
> Who?
Every GO and every OSA B1 Bureau intel agent
who were all drilled on these intel hat packs.
Being an old hand at this Scientology biz, you know full well
people were not allowed on line into such critical and
tricky posts without proper hatting and training.
Only a lowly FSM being used might not train on these.
Use and throw away.
>
>>
>> Have you ever been a Scientology lawyer arguing in a court of law that
>> fair game was a constitutionall protected form of religous speech?
>>
>> We have three examples.
>
> Ah, "many" is now "3 persons". Define "many" with a dictionary, will
> you. Per L. Ron Hubbard anti social personalities (also addressed as
> SPs) talk in generalities, they always speak in terms of "they",
> "many", etc.. If asked for details it may turn out to be a single
> person or incident. Gee, may be he got something there after all.
> What do you think?
>
I did not say three people, did I? I said three examples of scientology
argung in court fair game was religous protected speech.
Flunk! Begin again.
This went from higher levels that formed these legal teams, with more than
one laywer andother legal personel, and management input on these legal
tactics which included discussusions with Miscavige, Moxon and others.
Read Jesse Prince's declarations on how he hired these lawyers and how
the legal tactics and strategies were planned by meetings of high ranking
Scientologists.
>>
>> I am beginning finally, to fill in a lot of blanks but there is a lot
>> more
>> to do. There were other training packs I am tracking down, other
>> HCOPLs that seem to have been pretty nasty I am looking for in whole,
>> many more exec letters and similar, and more testimony, more court cases.
>>
>> I am not done yet.
>
> I am with you basically, you are a curious individual. People have
> figured you out, I have seen the comments about you.
I am a highly moral person, outraged at Scientology's successful abuse of
the legal system, and generations of suckers.
I am outraged at the lies used to sucker people into this cult and
everything about this cult's savagery and dishonesty.
My work will go on and off, probably for years.
Eventually, we will have all of this laid out.
>> I have a LONG list of wish list materials to hunt down,
>> many will be very germane to this issue.
>> I am digging into furiously this like a hungry ant eater digging into a
>> large termite mound, and its a deep mound. My mound of paper print-outs
>> here is now a foot tall and getting deeper by the day.
>> My printer has not been silent much for the last week.
>> My hard disk is filling up.
>>
>> Its still a noisy, quacking duck.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> You have claimed various weird incongruous things unable to back it
> up. Mary Sue Hubbard pulled the copyrights out of HASI before it wend
> defunct, didn't she?
That is another discussion. Talk to the copyright hackers here on ARS.
There is a little matter of some forgeries by one David Miscavige to
contend with.
Not my argument, I do clams, space cooties and now Fair Game.
Spacetraveler
> "On 13 Jul 2004 08:57:23 -0700, spacetra...@hotmail.com
> (Spacetraveler) wrote in
> <9f53d1e2.04071...@posting.google.com>:
>
> >
> >> and in some late SP/SPT course materials the words fair game were to be
> >> found until the early 80's.
> >
> >In what relation?
>
> http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html
Hmm, frightning. This is from 1989 (if authentic). It didn't say this in 1986 pack.
This is not the early 80's as mentioned above though.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
You write a lot of text, is this to confuse people or an attempt to
overwhelm the reader in order to give the false impression that you
actually have nothing factual or constructive to say? Seems so.
As a rule people who can not be concise about things have no real
argument. Your responses are very lenghty, full with conclusion,
opinions and irrelevant babbling.
<snip>
> >> > It is part of the hat of the Hatting Officer to actually see to it
> >> > that only the latest version of policies are actually in the hatpack,
> >> > and also to remove any issues that were cancelled. Simple fact. Is
> >> > anyone denying this is true?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> > I believe you have no authority here, I was there and for a while
> > actually being the Hatting Officer, you were not. You (who was never
> > there) tell me (who was actually there) that I am incorrect about
> > things I actually was doing?
>
>
> Yes. Because you were acting out a little play, being used.
> At the top, they do things different.
And you who have never been there, know all about this?
> Don't you see how stupid this is? Next
> > thing you may tell me is: "You are lying, you were never there!" The
> > problem is that I speak from actual experience, I speak with knowledge
> > about these things. People can recognize that. I am afraid they will
> > rather believe me than you.
>
> Were you in GO or OSA? Did you fair game Paulette Cooper?
> I am sure we had lots of loyal good government employees while Nixon's
> "Plumbers" were arranging burlary of the Watergate Hotel and other nasties.
>
> You weren't in Hubbard's "Plumbers".
>
> We had the lower levels playing more or less by one set of rules and
> Hubbard and Mary Sue using their own secret rules.
>
> They tricked you. And you still don't get it after all these years.
> They tricked you as much as they tricked Paulette Cooper and the
> IRS. And never cared. Never apologized.
>
> When does the dual set of rules end?
>
> When Miscavige manages to kick the bucket or another FBI raid occurs?
Nice example of you not answering, but instead ramble your opinions.
We are used to that. You avoided to respond to the following though:
http://groups.google.se/groups?dq=&start=50&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.religion.scientology&selm=9f53d1e2.0407110219.380a9805%40posting.google.com
Did you correct the Fair Game Time Line per my annotations already.
Not what I have seen. Anyhow you were exposed there for what you
actually are doing.
<snip>
> >
> > You have claimed various weird incongruous things unable to back it
> > up. Mary Sue Hubbard pulled the copyrights out of HASI before it wend
> > defunct, didn't she?
>
>
> That is another discussion. Talk to the copyright hackers here on ARS.
> There is a little matter of some forgeries by one David Miscavige to
> contend with.
>
> Not my argument, I do clams, space cooties and now Fair Game.
You never backed it up, and now you attempt to back out.
You are caught!
Spacetraveler
Ted Mayett
<wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
>No. I am a 5th invader force entity from Mars,
Big deal. Several times I was:
Employee Of The Month - Mars Implant Station
but not you
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Susan
Spactraveler is doing a grand job of illustrating to the readers of ars the
control the cult of scientology has on his/her perceptions.
To learn more about controlling groups and how they work, see
www.refocus.org. I suggest that Spacetraveler, of course read this site too
but then, Spacetraveler will try the same sort of arguments against the
points made by refocus.org as he/she is presently doing regarding fair game.
Interesting space travel ;-)
Susan
wbarwell
> You are a pretty bad communicator, William.
>
> You write a lot of text, is this to confuse people or an attempt to
> overwhelm the reader in order to give the false impression that you
> actually have nothing factual or constructive to say? Seems so.
>
I have lots of facts. People can google 'em up same as me.
Start with the intel hat packs of 1974 and 1991.
Armstrong's site ad ww.xenu.net has 'em.
Nothing I post can't be checked.
The Budlong and Kember sentencing memorandum, the Wollersheim appeals court
decision, with long commentary by the judge on their claims fair game is
protected speech. All on the net.
One can take the intel hat packs, look up the HCOPLs to be studied and hunt
them down. Battle stations, attacks on Scientology parts I and II, the
Amprinitic's HCOPL, 1 Mar 65.
I write a lot, you do too.
I base mine on readily available material anybody can double check.
You have, well, your opinion.
Hubbard the little angel never was involved in this stuff.
Its very constructive.
Where did all this fairgaming, these attacks, this savagery come from?
Hubbard. He started it long ago and it is still with us.
He could have stopped it. he didn't even try.
> As a rule people who can not be concise about things have no real
> argument. Your responses are very lenghty, full with conclusion,
> opinions and irrelevant babbling.
>
When I get concise, you blow it off as not having the depth of evidence
needed to take it seriously, If I give you the evidence you game us as
above. If one is concise, you label it as mere opinion.
Sorry, doesn't work, its obvious sophisty.
And I am still digging up stuff.
> <snip>
>
>> >> > It is part of the hat of the Hatting Officer to actually see to it
>> >> > that only the latest version of policies are actually in the
>> >> > hatpack, and also to remove any issues that were cancelled. Simple
>> >> > fact. Is anyone denying this is true?
>> >>
>> >> Yes.
>> >
>> > I believe you have no authority here, I was there and for a while
>> > actually being the Hatting Officer, you were not. You (who was never
>> > there) tell me (who was actually there) that I am incorrect about
>> > things I actually was doing?
>>
>>
>> Yes. Because you were acting out a little play, being used.
>> At the top, they do things different.
>
> And you who have never been there, know all about this?
You weren't a GO B1 agent working under Hubbard and Mary Sue.
What do YOU know about any of THAT?
This knife cuts both ways.
We BOTH have to consider the hard evidence of what happened, why it
happened and who ordered it to happen.
How did it happen that Paulette Cooper and others got fair gamed?
That a well edeveloped plan waas created and followed?
This was just one of many such actions.
From the days Hubbard ordered Scientologists to break up Amprinistics
meeting, to "Harrass these people any way posible" and created his infamous
"fair game laws", this was policy, as far as Hubbard could get away with it.
That never ended.
Hubbard in hiding oredered a massive coverup, all scraps of paper that
connect him to running Scientology sine his faux 'resignation' in 1966 to
his illegal activites was ordered destroyed.
He knew he had done illegal crap when he ordered these actions to
specifically destroy all evidence of illegal activities.
So, how do you know what went on in GOWW at high levesl, not
being there?
Always consider before you make an dismissive argument, can this knife cut
both ways, can it be thrown back in my face?
>> Don't you see how stupid this is? Next
>> > thing you may tell me is: "You are lying, you were never there!" The
>> > problem is that I speak from actual experience, I speak with knowledge
>> > about these things. People can recognize that. I am afraid they will
>> > rather believe me than you.
>>
>> Were you in GO or OSA? Did you fair game Paulette Cooper?
>> I am sure we had lots of loyal good government employees while Nixon's
>> "Plumbers" were arranging burlary of the Watergate Hotel and other
>> nasties.
>>
>> You weren't in Hubbard's "Plumbers".
>>
>> We had the lower levels playing more or less by one set of rules and
>> Hubbard and Mary Sue using their own secret rules.
>>
>> They tricked you. And you still don't get it after all these years.
>> They tricked you as much as they tricked Paulette Cooper and the
>> IRS. And never cared. Never apologized.
>>
>> When does the dual set of rules end?
>>
>> When Miscavige manages to kick the bucket or another FBI raid occurs?
>
> Nice example of you not answering, but instead ramble your opinions.
No, I answered you at length.
You simply snip it all and declare I did not do what I did do.
Its an old net loon trick, people have seen it a millon times.
Your opinion, not backed by facts is, Hubbard had nothing to do with
Scientology's fair gaming, harassment and attacks of people since 1968, and
the evidnce, which is what I am tracking down, shows that yes, Hubbard
was setting up GO and putting his wife in charge and fair game got worse
when Hubbard finally had his own secret agents to do his bidding
setting his wife up as the cut out between him and his fair gamers,
infiltrators and finger men.
The 8 Sept 74 GO Intelligence hat pack is a smoking gun.
The sentencing memorandum is a smoking gun.
The three lawsuits where Scientoogy argued all of this fair gaming is
protected speech is three smoking guns.
Hubbard, caught, ran and hid.
He could have surrendered, and explained himself in court.
He did not.
He never apologized, neiether did Scientology.
By 1991, OSA was using his ferocious demands to fair game, to
harass Amprinistics people as a model of how it is done.
Just like Hubbard treated people his entire life, if he though he could in
fact get away with it.
So, since 1965, nothing has really changed.
And yes, Hubbard was right in the thick of this personally.
He had a chance in 1977 to make sure that things changed and he did not
bother in the least to do anything at all, and that says it all right there.
He ran and hid and from his distant hideout, orchestrated destruction
of all evidence of illegal operations of Scientology that could be tied to
his personal self directly through documentation.
You can deny these facts, but facts they are.
>
>
> We are used to that. You avoided to respond to the following though:
>
http://groups.google.se/groups?dq=&start=50&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.religion.scientology&selm=9f53d1e2.0407110219.380a9805%40posting.google.com
>
> Did you correct the Fair Game Time Line per my annotations already.
> Not what I have seen. Anyhow you were exposed there for what you
> actually are doing.
I corrected facts, I avoided your wrong opinions.
Fact. 21 Oct 67 was a savage bit of work.
Fact 2. 21 July 68 does not cancel fair game, it does
not say anything about it one way or the other.
And its just as nasty.
Fact 3. AFTER July we have 21 Oct 68. This says
that treatmnet and handling of SPS is not changed.
Just don't use "fair game" in EOs.
This strongly implies that 21 July 68 DOES NOT
cancel fair game. It just replaces 21 Oct 67 becuse it was politic to do
so.
Thus, 21 Oct 68 essentially smuggles "fair game" back in.
By 1970, Hubbard had given up smuggling fair game in, and so lied about it
with this HCOPL, and the 3 Nov 68 Code of Reform.
Fair game did not go away.
It became a secret, non-public policy.
Done to people such as Allard.
And later made policy on paper in the GO with the intel hat
check pack and HCOPL 1 mar 5 being right back with us.
Along with all the parallel things that never went away,
the Manual of Dissemination, Attacks on Scientoogy I and II,
Battle Tactics and all the old classics.
>
> <snip>
>
>> >
>> > You have claimed various weird incongruous things unable to back it
>> > up. Mary Sue Hubbard pulled the copyrights out of HASI before it wend
>> > defunct, didn't she?
>>
>>
>> That is another discussion. Talk to the copyright hackers here on ARS.
>> There is a little matter of some forgeries by one David Miscavige to
>> contend with.
>>
>> Not my argument, I do clams, space cooties and now Fair Game.
>
> It WAS your argument:
Its not germane to fair game, it was another argument.
Don't try to divert attention.
And yes, others have dealt with that at length.
Google it up if it interests you.
Google up the RVY declarationon expired copyrights and how
teh cult lied and cheated to keep thier copyrights from being knownas
expired anyway.
More germane to this argument
Google two expert witnesses who testified LRH's signature
transfering CRs to RTC were forgeries.
I won't argue furher except as it impacts fair game.
Back to fair game, the other parallel issues used to this day to mandate
harassment via the courts are still with us too.
Te hat check packs mandate stuying them.
Hubbard never cancelled them, did he?
>
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=OaUFc.97812%24dP1.325029%40newsc.telia.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DHASI%2B%2522Mary%2BSue%2BHubbard%2522%2Bgroup:alt.religion.scientology%26hl%3Dsv%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D12%26as_minm%3D3%26as_miny%3D2004%26as_maxd%3D15%26as_maxm%3D7%26as_maxy%3D2004%26selm%3DOaUFc.97812%2524dP1.325029%2540newsc.telia.net%26rnum%3D
>
>
> You never backed it up, and now you attempt to back out.
>
> You are caught!
>
> Spacetraveler
You are beaten.
Kook tactics like diversion above are weary old tactics.
Your failure to admit the hat check packs, the
re-emergence of HCOL 1 Mar 65 in 1974, the
real fairgaming such as Paulette Cooper,
the Sentencing memorandum, mean anything is
tendetious and intellectual dishonest.
Hubbard was up to this to his neck.
If he was by some miracle not, he knew it by 1978.
And he had the obligation to step forward, end all
traces of fair game, and allied practices, apologize, mandate complete
re-organization of Scientology to forever forbid such activities again, and
apologized to one and all for allowing this to happen while he lied about
controlling Scientology sine 1966.
But he was responsible, knew it and rather, mandated destroying all
remaining hard evidnce that could so link him to any illegal activities.
And the cult is still fair gaming and attacking people.
Still modelling itself on the nasty, savage, bitter Hubbard of old,
the fair game Hubbard.
Now, who has been got?
Scientology still has a bad reputation.
Hubbard's is bad.
No amount of your rank rationaliztons are going to help.
wbarwell
> wbarwell wrote:
>> Spacetraveler wrote:
>>
>>> wbarwell <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<40f423f8$0$17089$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
>>>> Spacetraveler wrote:
>>>>
******************** snipped ******************
>
>
>
> Spactraveler is doing a grand job of illustrating to the readers of ars
> the control the cult of scientology has on his/her perceptions.
>
> To learn more about controlling groups and how they work, see
> www.refocus.org. I suggest that Spacetraveler, of course read this site
> too but then, Spacetraveler will try the same sort of arguments against
> the points made by refocus.org as he/she is presently doing regarding fair
> game. Interesting space travel ;-)
>
> Susan
It has nothing to do really with cults or controlling groups.
Space travellors are all over the net.
Try any political newsgroup. We have large numbers
of people angrily denying Bush, Cheney and Rumesfedl lied, exaggerated, or
were wrong in any way.
Try religous newsgroups. Angry Christians denying there are any
condradictions in the bible, despite many corkers being posted right back
at them.
Crazy talk, Hillary Clinton is attempting to take over the US government.
It goes on and on. Facts, logic, reason, rationality all go by the wayside
so easily. What do you do when obvious and true facts destroy a comforting
myth?
What is amazing is that psychology seems to have done so little real work
on this phenomenon. I long ago concluded the net would make a perfect
laboratory for studying this wretched phenomenon, but I have failed.
Its just to deep and primal to get a grasp on, even as you see it
demonstrated again and again.
I used to, long ago, have this Jeffersonian ideal that if you gathered
your facts and calmly and rationally placed then before people, that people
would rationally respond positively to such reason.
It is not true for many, maybe even most people.
The question is, what is going on under the surface here, what
are the components that allow such thinking, and how can this be
demontsrated and experimented with, given a net full of willing subjects
who will post at length, sometines for years on end, even better than lab
rats, you don't have to feed them and clean their cages.
I from time to time try to catch myself doing it, but that doesn't work,
when I do, that usually changes things and I lose the ability to deal with
how I delude myself, it sort of scuttles away.
If these things did not happen, we would not have cults, people like Bush
would never be able to become president, hordes of fearful Hillary-phobes
would not fill the political newsgroups with their weird conspiratorial
bleatings and astrology would have died centuries ago.
Susan
> Susan wrote:
>
>> wbarwell wrote:
>>> Spacetraveler wrote:
>>>
>>>> wbarwell <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:<40f423f8$0$17089$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
>>>>> Spacetraveler wrote:
>>>>>
> ******************** snipped ******************
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Spactraveler is doing a grand job of illustrating to the readers of
>> ars the control the cult of scientology has on his/her perceptions.
>>
>> To learn more about controlling groups and how they work, see
>> www.refocus.org. I suggest that Spacetraveler, of course read this
>> site too but then, Spacetraveler will try the same sort of arguments
>> against the points made by refocus.org as he/she is presently doing
>> regarding fair game. Interesting space travel ;-)
>>
>> Susan
>
>
>
>
> It has nothing to do really with cults or controlling groups.
In the case of the controlling group it does and scientology is a
controlling group.
> Space travellors are all over the net.
I agree with your points below and, they are not mutally exclusive to those
who are also influenced by controlling groups or a controlling person. You
may appreciate reading the web site in case you haven't. I found the
information most enlightening and also attended a conference put on by the
AFF (American Family Foundation) to which the site is linked.
Susan
mgo...@chello.nl
(Spacetraveler) wrote in
<9f53d1e2.04071...@posting.google.com>:
>As a rule people who can not be concise about things have no real
>argument. Your responses are very lenghty, full with conclusion,
>opinions and irrelevant babbling.
Sums up Dianetics pretty well.
Spacetraveler
> Spactraveler is doing a grand job of illustrating to the readers of ars the
> control the cult of scientology has on his/her perceptions.
Don't give only opinion, support this with actual reasoning, examples
etc.. With other words provide evidence supporting your argument.
>
> To learn more about controlling groups and how they work, see
> www.refocus.org. I suggest that Spacetraveler, of course read this site too
> but then, Spacetraveler will try the same sort of arguments against the
> points made by refocus.org as he/she is presently doing regarding fair game.
What would these arguments consist of? Opinion only does not to the
work for you. You may as well have said not anything at all! As you
are not saying anything now.
I went to look at that site, so far I don't see any need to make any
arguments against it. It describes pretty much the actual scene.
Surprised? You did not actually read my posts did you, you just
figured: "Ah, this person is questioning the 'authorities' (of ars)
around him, he must be wrong, he can not think, etc..."
All I did was pointing out some of the incongruity displayed in claims
being made.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
It does! Remember this one:
http://groups.google.se/groups?dq=&start=50&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.religion.scientology&selm=9f53d1e2.0407110219.380a9805%40posting.google.com
Gee, wonder why no one had the guts the actually response to that one?
<snip>
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> Its very constructive.
> Where did all this fairgaming, these attacks, this savagery come from?
People.
> Hubbard. He started it long ago and it is still with us.
> He could have stopped it. he didn't even try.
Ah, that's why we have not HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics
Penalties"
Quote:
"This cancellation is contemporary with the justice discovery that
crime is the direct result of a lack of a hat and training on the hat
and that a hat consists of a write up, checksheet and pack fully
trained in on the person.
The motto is "Hat don't hit".
It is also part of this that I have concluded man cannot be trusted
with justice."
I agree! He did nothing at all to stop it! Absolutely nothing at all.
> > As a rule people who can not be concise about things have no real
> > argument. Your responses are very lenghty, full with conclusion,
> > opinions and irrelevant babbling.
> >
>
> When I get concise, you blow it off as not having the depth of evidence
> needed to take it seriously, If I give you the evidence you game us as
> above. If one is concise, you label it as mere opinion.
The following proves you wrong:
http://groups.google.se/groups?dq=&start=50&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.religion.scientology&selm=9f53d1e2.0407110219.380a9805%40posting.google.com
You are never concise and exact actually. You made also a claim that
Mary Sue Hubbard pulled out the copyrights out of HASI prior to it
going defunct. You backed out and even denied you claimed it later on.
it's all in the database.
<snip>
> >> >> > It is part of the hat of the Hatting Officer to actually see to it
> >> >> > that only the latest version of policies are actually in the
> >> >> > hatpack, and also to remove any issues that were cancelled. Simple
> >> >> > fact. Is anyone denying this is true?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes.
> >> >
> >> > I believe you have no authority here, I was there and for a while
> >> > actually being the Hatting Officer, you were not. You (who was never
> >> > there) tell me (who was actually there) that I am incorrect about
> >> > things I actually was doing?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes. Because you were acting out a little play, being used.
> >> At the top, they do things different.
> >
> > And you who have never been there, know all about this?
>
>
> You weren't a GO B1 agent working under Hubbard and Mary Sue.
> What do YOU know about any of THAT?
You know the least of all, you have not been in the organization ever.
I have experienced how the organziation functions, you have personally
seen nothing at all.
<snip>
> > Did you correct the Fair Game Time Line per my annotations already.
> > Not what I have seen. Anyhow you were exposed there for what you
> > actually are doing.
>
> I corrected facts, I avoided your wrong opinions.
It is far, far away from opinion. I quoted exactly!
the not working link is also still there, the last time I looked. Was
that also opinion. Hmm, probably.
>
> Fact. 21 Oct 67 was a savage bit of work.
Ever studied history? Guess not.
> Fact 2. 21 July 68 does not cancel fair game, it does
> not say anything about it one way or the other.
> And its just as nasty.
Opinion, explained in detail many times. Also dictionaries do not
acknowledge you. Please forward to the dictionary compilers/publishers
that you do not agree with some of the definitions given in them. You
want to have it adjusted. Well, get right at it!
> Fact 3. AFTER July we have 21 Oct 68. This says
> that treatmnet and handling of SPS is not changed.
> Just don't use "fair game" in EOs.
> This strongly implies that 21 July 68 DOES NOT
> cancel fair game.
Sorry, opinion only. Explained in detail many times also. You make up
things in such a way they support your preconceptions. Every person
who can think with logic will acknowledge that you actually do this.
Your error: SP is NOT synonym to Fair Game! Big, big error!
Sorry, but you reasoning is nothing else than stupid. You have it all
there and you continue making up your own stuff.
>It just replaces 21 Oct 67 becuse it was politic to do
> so.
> Thus, 21 Oct 68 essentially smuggles "fair game" back in.
>
> By 1970, Hubbard had given up smuggling fair game in, and so lied about it
> with this HCOPL, and the 3 Nov 68 Code of Reform.
>
> Fair game did not go away.
>
> It became a secret, non-public policy.
> Done to people such as Allard.
> And later made policy on paper in the GO with the intel hat
> check pack and HCOPL 1 mar 5 being right back with us.
>
> Along with all the parallel things that never went away,
> the Manual of Dissemination, Attacks on Scientoogy I and II,
> Battle Tactics and all the old classics.
Above is your usual rambling along again.
<snip>
What has Scientology ever done to you? What are we missing about YOU?
Spacetraveler
wbarwell
>
http://groups.google.se/groups?dq=&start=50&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.religion.scientology&selm=9f53d1e2.0407110219.380a9805%40posting.google.com
>
I did not see this posted here, but lets take a whack at it.
***********************
>It is simply no use talking to you, is it? You have the incredible
>ability to avoid answering questions and to keep yourself away from
>the issues discussed. You have the persistence to constantly do this,
>and you probably are convinced that you are not doing as I conceive
>that you do.
The issue is fair game.
And why the cult to this day, fair games people.
And who started that?
>All the time you tell me I don't do my homework. In fact I did read
>and actually studied Millers book (I even own a copy of the book
>actually signed by him) and I did also read Piece of a Blue Sky and
>various others, Coopers, Malko etc.
Good for you.
I have these books too.
>In spite of what I say you just ramble along responding to my posts
>but hardly answering to anything at all. I get generalites and stories
from other people.
I answer on these points but space travelor and mushroomman
didn't like my answers.
YMMV.
>You make up things I have never even proclaimed. I
>also pointed out very clearly that you had a very hard time to correct
>your Fair Game Time Line per my annotations. You made repeated errors
>or were not adjusting anything. Some are incorporated now.
Changes are still being made.
Corrections are being made.
Other items being chased down.
Huge piles of materials here are being read and more
items added that need checking.
I will get there.
You will find almost the whole issue quoted on this site:
<a href="http://mccalcon.notlong.com">http://mccalcon.notlong.com</a>
How many times did I not point that out to you already? 4-5 times or
so? You readily quote other issues which you have not actually seen
either, why do you ignore this then? What homework?
Almost ...
I still am looking for whole and unadulterated copies of many HCOPLs, HCOBs
and others. Looks like to get them I wil have to spring for my own copy of
the OEC volumes.
We will get there.
I do have most of which I do in fact quote from.
You are wrong there.
>; And again you avoid the pretty clear information that "HCO PL 6>
>Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties"" did in fact cance>l
>"HCO PL 2>1
>July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions
This is obviously not looking at my later versions, I not only
do quote from Oct 70, I also quote from 3 Nov 68 Code
of Reform, and I quote from Hubbard's 1969 HCOPL referencing CoR.
But I also now have 8 Sept 74's check sheet for the GO intel
hat check pack which star rates 1 Mar 65.
We have the 1991 OSA checklist that references the furious 65 Amprinistics
fair game demands of Hubbard.
As Mary Sue ran GO, Hubbard sat in Florida and get up weekly
checks with her as to progress of his own beloved Snow White plans.
What the left hand giveth, the right hand taketh away.
Fair Game was such a PR bomb, it was publically renonced.
But that was not actual, real policy.
It was bad enough the other HCOPLs and furious demands of Hubbard,
the Battle Tactics, the Manual of Dissemination and others were still
uncancelled and promulgated achieving fair game without that unsettling
phrase ruffling the public, but left to their own, Hubbard, Mary Sue,
kember and otehr adopted it secretly and practiced it with fury and
savagery.
Yet, you tell us 6 Oct 70 made it all go away.
Whatever..
We have Kember and Budlong admitting that fair game was inpractice
to a US proescutor thorugh their lawyers. As seen in the sentencing
memorandum.
Have you done YOUR homework?
You say you have Miller and Attacks books? Autographed yet.
Did you read Ken Uruqhart's words? Hubbard was up to his neck in
Snow White and the GO opertions.
>HCO PL 19 Oct 71 "Ethics Penalties Reinstated" very, very clearly
states:
>The following HCO PLs which the 6 Oct 70 Issue III PL cancelled are
>reinstated in full:
>HCO PL 26 Sept '67 Conditions for Scn Orgs Addition to Applying
>Formulas.
>HCO PL 21 Jul '68 Penalties for Lower Conditions
>HCO PL 20 Oct '67 Issue II Conditions Penalties New Employees and
>Persons Newly on Post
>HCO PL 6 Oct '67 Condition of Liability
And people say 21 Oct 68 cancels fair game.
Whatever.
This is interesting. It will go onto my wishlist.
I hope I can find the whole HCOPL on the net.
Its another step towards September 74.
8 Sept 74 Intelligence hat checksheet list star rates the item
1 Mar 65. The Fair Game Law.
We are back to where we came in before 7 Mar 65 started making a PR
nightmare for Hubbard. It took 9 years to make the circuit.
I do need my own OEC. I'd like to read these HCOPLs in full and in
original form.
Hubbard lied about the fair game crap being cancelled.
He lied that he had resigned running the cult in 1966.
Even as he designed the GO program and its main project,
Snow White.
Its cancelled.
No its not!
Maybe not!
Who knows!
HCOPL 21 October 68?
The man with the shells.
Where's the pea?
Why look at that GO Intelligence training hat pack!
Here's the pea!
This is the pea that finally matters, really.
When he ran like a frightened rabbit, and hid in the deserts
of California, he comanded his minions to systematically
destroy all documentation that could tie him to running the
cult since 1966 and to all crimes he could be connected with.
So we are not going to see all the connection written material,
alas. It was pulped by Hubbard's express orders.
In these destroyed materials, we would have seen
the whole matter laid out for once and for all.
>The above plain and simply proves (as in evidence) that "HCO PL 6 Oct>
70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties" did cancel "HCO PL 21 July 68
>"Penalties for Lower Conditions". And that the issue mentioned "HCO
>PL 18 Oct 67 " Penalties for Lower Conditions" in error. About 4 times
>or so I confronted you with this. Still you claim: "This cancels
>HCOPL 18 Oct '67, but not HCOPL 21 July '68"
July 21 68 did not really cancel fair game, it over wrote
21 Oct 67, but did not actually, really say anything about the issue of
fair game its self. It did not say "Fair Game as a policy is cancelled".
It side stepped the whole issue.
AFTER that, some 4 months LATER, we have HCOPL 21 Oct 68.
This says "fair game" is not to appear on EOs.
But that handling and treatment of an SP does not change.
This rather strongly implies that Fair Game as an issue is in force.
The July HCOPL simply does not mention it one way or the other, the fact
that 21 Oct 68 states plainly that fair game causes bad PR implies that the
21 July Issue is a PR only replacement but underneath this, fair game is in
force.
So we have this, the hat don't hit happy HCOPL of 1970 in conjunction
with the big Code of Reform act of 1969 along with its attendent ads in the
New York Times and sec check folders being dramatically sent to England's
Parliament to signal the new changes in Scientology's attitudes.
Above you show us 19 Oct 71 where we start slipping back.
And thus 21 July 68 is back. But it does NOT overtly and explicitly
cancel Fair Game and the HCOPL 21 Oct 68 strongly implies Fair Game is
policy.
It is just not to be found of Ethics Orders.
and I do not recall 21 Oct 68 being canceled either.
Meanwhile, other parallel routes to effective fair game remain uncancelled.
The courts are to be used to harass, hire PIs, noisy investigations, fair
game without the name attached.
Thus the less than explicit HCOPLs do not counteract these other
ways to the same end.
From October 71 to September 74 is only three years.
I think that the idea that Fair Game was not explicitly cancelled by the
now reinstated 21 July 68 has to be confronted.
Nobody in the GO from Mary Sue on down seems to have complained "Hey, fair
game is cancelled, why is this in the check sheet? And no, we cannot do
thses things to Cooper or Cazares or the others they did in fact fair game.
As Nixon's own John Mitchell once so famously said, "Watch what we do, not
what we say."
Milking HCOPLs for meaning that seems to be contradicted by the reality
of what Scientology did, has to be an issue here.
HCOPL 21 July 68 obviously did not seem to the higher ups in
Scientology to ban fair game in any way. And Hubbard was pulling the
strings in Florida, so they sure did have connections to the man who was
the master mind behind all of this.
>And probably you will continue saying so. You do not even note this as.
>an option. It does expose however that you do not know how one is to
>deal with HCO Policy Letters. 6 years ago you started already a Time
>Line and still you don't know.
And do you?
I didn't know about the Code of Reform and the big PR campaign of 69 - 70
and you didn't seem to know either.
I knew about the 8 Sept 74 hat check sheets and didn't find them until
recently, I didn't see you mention them anywhere.
You seem to put much faith in 21 July 68 as the HCOPL that despite its
viscittudes, finally reinstated in all its glory, cancelled fair game.
It didn't . 21 Oct 68 strongly implies that.
And three years later fair game is back in the GO.
The GO was Hubbard's baby. Set up to run his pride and joy, the Snow White
program.
He had had his own navy, now he had his own CIA.
It would seem to me, either Hubbard knew the conjunction
of 21 july 68 and THAN 21 Oct 68 did not cancel fair game, or he wsn't that
clever and just didn't care what was supposed official policy
because the official GO policy was, 1 Mar 65.
>And this is not about that some people just continued 'fair gaming'
>and all that. We talk about issues and HCOPLs here, what people do is
>not relevant to this.
No! It is ALL that is relevant!
Whether it was policy that was cleverly disguised
as per the pairing of HCOPLs 21 July 69 and THEN 21 Oct 68,
or whether Hubbard simply didn't think about any of that
as he set up Mary Sue to run GO, matters not.
What matters is the actions they did, the savaging of Cooper, the setting
up of Cazares, trying to frame and entrap judges, fair game federal
employees to get them out of positions here they influenced actions on
Scientology, fair game was back with a vengeance and run from Hubbard's
hotel room via his willing catspaw, Mary Sue Hubbard and other willing fair
gaming bastratds and bitches.
These issues simply show the lies and games Hubbard played.
He arrogantly promulgated these hateful policies, quickly had to back
peddle publically because itwas bad PR and found a away to institute
it bigger and badder, skulking in the shadows after having lied he was no
longer running Scientology circa 1966.
Its just a matter of following the trail from HCOPL 1Mar 65 in 1965 and
HVOPL 1 Mar 65 in 8 Sept 74.
Did as I suggest 21 Oct 68 over rule 21 July 68 as far as keeping
far game as hidden policy,not cancelled, an open option back in place as
you show by 1971?
Or am I giving Hubbard too much credit here and ignoring the fact he just
did what he pleased and ignored all publiclly promulgated Scientology
policy? Strictly for the marks.
Why did all the high ranking execs from Mary Sue on down not object to
attacking Cooper and others or the inclusion of HCOPL 1 Mar 65 in the hat
check sheets?
Budlong and Kember admit that they knew fair game was policy.
It wasn't something they were not aware of.
This has to be explained, and we cannot forget, Hubbard was
running the show. He set this up. He wanted his programs run.
and he had the evidence destroyed as far as possible.
The whole issue of whether HCOPL 21 July 68 saves Hubbard's reputation is
nonsense if that is what you are arguing.
That sterile little legalism is quite arguable and even then, doesn't
overrule the 74 Intel training hat pack check sheets and Kember and
Budlong's admissions they knew fair game was policy and they acted on that.
2 things, "what issues say" & ... "what people
have done", get it? 2 things, 2 discussions. Dare to actually keep
them separate, dare to do that!
And you William Barwell tell me that I do not do my homework properly?
And this is not even all of it. Anyone can see in your last response
that your are not interested in to duplicate, to understand and give
appropriate responses actually addressing the points brought up in my
posts.
I don't think you have actually.
And I can disgree with your logic too.
And by the way, just who am I arguing with?
You have a name?
>Example 1:
>You say: "We know in official HCOPLs soon after the short lived Code
>of Reform, disconnection was back."
>I responded: "Please back this up! You can not referring to the 10
>sept 1983 issue here. So, BACK IT UP. What references, exact
>references!!!! You mention HCOPLs. I want dates!"
See the Zelen Tape # 3, in the first few pages here, he gives a rather
nice summation of the trick language of 10 Sept 83 on disconnections.
Scientology claims loudly on one hand that the do not force disconnections,
and then makes policies that in effect do so, and has been the root of
forced disconnections since.
More trick language......
When the Greek government popped KEFE, Scientology's Greek
org soem years back, they recovered some rather stark documents dsiplaying
how Scientology does write and command the disconnections.
I will leave you to do that homework on your own.
>You respond with: "Are you saying Hubbard had nothing to do with
>disconnections! proof! I want names and dates!"
>??? Did I get answered?
Are yo sure these are propagating? I ahven't seen this
post and I do try to answeer all posts as teh come, from Mushroomman to
Space Traveler to whoever.
Who are you anyway?
Well now you are answered.
Happy?
>Examp1le 2:
>You say: "And we know that HCOPL 10 September 83 Disconnection was>
>back in full force officially and has not stopped to this very
>day.">
>
>I responded: "Do I deny that? Question is if this was L. Ron Hubbard
>who wrote that. <a
>href="http://mccalcon.notlong.com">http://mccalcon.notlong.com</a> "
>You responded: "Yes. It has his signature. And he was most certainly
>still in action in Hemet, and still isssuing orders."
>??? Would you in fact had gone to that address you would have found
>out that there is something very fishy about that 10 sept 1983 issue.
>But no, you did not go there and find out. Great homework! Just
>marvellous!
See Zelen #3 for a marvelous walk through the slippery
language of Hubboland anent disconnections.
What the right hand delivereth, the left hand taketh away.
Refer back to Wollersheim legal docs for the forced disconnection from his
wife as practiced by Scientology. Check out the Greek docs on
Disconnections for a look at how it is done in real life.
Not in Happytalk(tm) apologism land.
Disconnection has LONG been something the public at large despises
Whether its Hubbo's variety, or the variety the Moonies
and Hare krishnas practiced that lead to teh big cult controvery of the
80's
People despise it, Hubbo mandated it, had to back off and
it never really went away.
The stink of disconnection is on Scientology and its not going away.
Ranting about Dec 83 doesn't do anything for you.
Zelen #3 nails it.
Example 3:
I said: "I noted that one particular reference was in fact Limited
Distribution, instead you made another remimeo issue into Limited
Distribution. When I pointed out that this one is not Limited
Distribution, but the other one is, you made both of them Limited
Distribution. And then once again I had to point out that remimeo
issue was not Limited Distribution. Finally now you have it
corrected."
You responded: "Limited distribution means nothing. Except Hubbard
learned that sometimes stuff stirs up crap and its wise to be careful
how you promulgate things, some are just not political to spread
widely."
fixed in latest versions.
>I can go on like that, quite a many responses from you are like that.
And on and on and on....
You ignore a lot too.
Science!
Wanna get back to discussing space opera, space cooties, gorilla goals and
other "science'?
History of Man, thetan games of the past, the coffee grinder "Bap! Bap!
Bap!" And science?
Science. Hubbard on tape breezily telling his rapt
clamhead audience abou the time he got blowed up in a space ship.
Bravely done. Elron!
Lets discuss science.
You didn't seem to want to take up THIS discussion did you?
Physician, heal thyself.
Gerry Armstrong
(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
>You are never concise and exact actually.
Oooo, your little SPness is showing.
And your OTness is standing out loud and clear. This is a success
worthy of "Advance!" A truly Hubbardian, omniscient generality.
Your pretended stupidity is Miscavige level, which is really a tall
order.
So pass. The Spacetroller op is a huge win. You should insist on libs
this weekend.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Warrior
William Barwell says...
>
>I still am looking for whole and unadulterated copies of
>many HCOPLs, HCOBs and others. Looks like to get them I
>wil have to spring for my own copy of the OEC volumes.
I could help you get most of what you're looking for.
If interested, send your phone number by email, and
I'll give you a call.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
ladayla
>
>In article <40f7e9a3$0$17094$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com>,
>William Barwell says...
>>
>>I still am looking for whole and unadulterated copies of
>>many HCOPLs, HCOBs and others. Looks like to get them I
>>wil have to spring for my own copy of the OEC volumes.
>
>I could help you get most of what you're looking for.
>If interested, send your phone number by email, and
>I'll give you a call.
I've been trying to contribute to this effort by William too. Maybe I can help
with some hcopls or hcobs or tape refs. You know how to contact me.
la
Spacetraveler
> On 16 Jul 2004 02:38:01 -0700, spacetra...@hotmail.com
> (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
> >
> >You are never concise and exact actually.
>
> Oooo, your little SPness is showing.
One characteristis out of 12 does not make you an SP does it? Consult
my communications with William Barwell you may get a surprise.
Generally he is not into being concise and direct.
>
> And your OTness is standing out loud and clear. This is a success
> worthy of "Advance!" A truly Hubbardian, omniscient generality.
>
> Your pretended stupidity is Miscavige level, which is really a tall
> order.
>
> So pass. The Spacetroller op is a huge win. You should insist on libs
> this weekend.
This is the second time you jump on me out of nowhere, resorting to
this kind of unfounded 'attacks'. Is this the business you are in
Gerry? Is this a diversion tactic? If so it will not work, not with me
it will.
I responded in detail to your latest lengthy response.
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com
You wrote: "I have hoped a long time to have a conversation with a
Scientologist on this basis."
Well Gerry, I am waiting!
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> Spacetraveler wrote:
> >
> http://groups.google.se/groups?dq=&start=50&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.religion.scientology&selm=9f53d1e2.0407110219.380a9805%40posting.google.com
> >
>
> I did not see this posted here, but lets take a whack at it.
I have linked to it numerous of times, whatever you say......
>
> ***********************
>
> >It is simply no use talking to you, is it? You have the incredible
> >ability to avoid answering questions and to keep yourself away from
> >the issues discussed. You have the persistence to constantly do this,
> >and you probably are convinced that you are not doing as I conceive
> >that you do.
>
>
> The issue is fair game.
Actually no, the argument is establishing what the issues say about
that, and this looked upon separately from what people have done.
Scientology organizations are supposed to be run on these writings not
what people think it should be.
> And why the cult to this day, fair games people.
> And who started that?
He also discontinued that per the writings consulted.
> >All the time you tell me I don't do my homework. In fact I did read
> >and actually studied Millers book (I even own a copy of the book
> >actually signed by him) and I did also read Piece of a Blue Sky and
> >various others, Coopers, Malko etc.
>
> Good for you.
> I have these books too.
The issue was that you 'accused' me of not having read these books and
that it never will either. I pointed out to you that you were
deadwrong about that!
> >In spite of what I say you just ramble along responding to my posts
> >but hardly answering to anything at all. I get generalites and stories
> from other people.
>
> I answer on these points but space travelor and mushroomman
> didn't like my answers.
> YMMV.
Actually answering appropiate with exact information is not
necessarily the same as just responding.
<snip>
> You will find almost the whole issue quoted on this site:
> <a href="http://mccalcon.notlong.com">http://mccalcon.notlong.com</a>
> How many times did I not point that out to you already? 4-5 times or
> so? You readily quote other issues which you have not actually seen
> either, why do you ignore this then? What homework?
>
> Almost ...
You could have run of my annotations and just implement/correct all
the way through. The above mentioned link seems to indicate that you
did not go about it that way.
> I still am looking for whole and unadulterated copies of many HCOPLs, HCOBs
> and others. Looks like to get them I wil have to spring for my own copy of
> the OEC volumes.
>
> We will get there.
>
> I do have most of which I do in fact quote from.
> You are wrong there.
No, link is still not working in your last presented version of your
Fair Game Time Line.
> >; And again you avoid the pretty clear information that "HCO PL 6>
> >Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties"" did in fact cance>l
> >"HCO PL 2>1
> >July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions
>
> This is obviously not looking at my later versions,
Premature conclusion. Read on........ Read first whole paragraphs
before responding to every single sentence directly after you read
them. You may miss some overall concept!
It was about you saying: "This cancels HCOPL 18 Oct '67, but not HCOPL
21 July '68". Which is obvious incorrect as explained.
<snip ramble..>
> Yet, you tell us 6 Oct 70 made it all go away.
Never said that. I said it cancelled any and all penalties. The issue
actually said that. If people did something else, well, that's people.
> Whatever..
>
> We have Kember and Budlong admitting that fair game was inpractice
> to a US proescutor thorugh their lawyers. As seen in the sentencing
> memorandum.
>
> Have you done YOUR homework?
>
> You say you have Miller and Attacks books? Autographed yet.
> Did you read Ken Uruqhart's words? Hubbard was up to his neck in
> Snow White and the GO opertions.
Just some opinions from some people. Do you verbally believe every
word anyone utters if they acknowledge your preconeptions?
> >HCO PL 19 Oct 71 "Ethics Penalties Reinstated" very, very clearly
> states:
> >The following HCO PLs which the 6 Oct 70 Issue III PL cancelled are
> >reinstated in full:
> >HCO PL 26 Sept '67 Conditions for Scn Orgs Addition to Applying
> >Formulas.
> >HCO PL 21 Jul '68 Penalties for Lower Conditions
> >HCO PL 20 Oct '67 Issue II Conditions Penalties New Employees and
> >Persons Newly on Post
> >HCO PL 6 Oct '67 Condition of Liability
>
>
> And people say 21 Oct 68 cancels fair game.
> Whatever.
>
> This is interesting. It will go onto my wishlist.
Here we have it! something jumps up that will help to support your
preconceptions and you are readily interested. The problem is you only
pick out what supports your case. You don't see this, do you?
You seem to have not noticed this 1971 prior to this, did you? How
come? Where you sleeping before?
<snip ramble....>
> >The above plain and simply proves (as in evidence) that "HCO PL 6 Oct>
> 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties" did cancel "HCO PL 21 July 68
> >"Penalties for Lower Conditions". And that the issue mentioned "HCO
> >PL 18 Oct 67 " Penalties for Lower Conditions" in error. About 4 times
> >or so I confronted you with this. Still you claim: "This cancels
> >HCOPL 18 Oct '67, but not HCOPL 21 July '68"
>
> July 21 68 did not really cancel fair game, it over wrote
> 21 Oct 67, but did not actually, really say anything about the issue of
> fair game its self. It did not say "Fair Game as a policy is cancelled".
> It side stepped the whole issue.
If some issue is cancelling an HCOPL of some specific date and Issue
number, it is not in use. It ends there, period, end cycle,
terminated, flushed down the toilet. This is the rule, you bypass that
rule O N L Y because it will take away one of you strongest
arguments!!!!!! You have to continue saying these kind of things O N
L Y because you have little of a case if you acknowledge the rules
how HCOPLs actually are to be dealt with!
> AFTER that, some 4 months LATER, we have HCOPL 21 Oct 68.
> This says "fair game" is not to appear on EOs.
> But that handling and treatment of an SP does not change.
SP is not synonym with fair game. An SP is an SP, and fair game is
some action executed on these kind of people during a certain period
of time in the history of Scientology. In actual writing, these are
not the same. You and others sharing your preconceptions mix these two
as you have to explain the 21 Oct 1968 issue in a way it will support
your claims. There is NO other reason.
> This rather strongly implies that Fair Game as an issue is in force.
"Strongly implying"? What's that? Opinion is it not? It seeks to
permanently eliminate the habit of some people still using this NAME.
That's all. But you will not acknowledge that nor take this as an
option as it will weaken your case! There is NO other reason for you
doing so!
> The July HCOPL simply does not mention it one way or the other,
> the fact
> that 21 Oct 68 states plainly that fair game causes bad PR implies that the
> 21 July Issue is a PR only replacement
And this is how you reason? Grand job! Problem is the issue doesn't
say this.
> but underneath this, fair game is in
> force.
>
> So we have this, the hat don't hit happy HCOPL of 1970 in conjunction
> with the big Code of Reform act of 1969 along with its attendent ads in the
> New York Times and sec check folders being dramatically sent to England's
> Parliament to signal the new changes in Scientology's attitudes.
>
> Above you show us 19 Oct 71 where we start slipping back.
> And thus 21 July 68 is back. But it does NOT overtly and explicitly
> cancel Fair Game and the HCOPL 21 Oct 68 strongly implies Fair Game is
> policy.
Incorrect as explained, you O N L Y would have a point if we did not
have 21 July 68 cancelling the practice. The problem is, it E X I S T
S !
<snip opinion>
> From October 71 to September 74 is only three years.
> I think that the idea that Fair Game was not explicitly cancelled by the
> now reinstated 21 July 68 has to be confronted.
It DID cancel it. Confront it.
> Nobody in the GO from Mary Sue on down seems to have complained "Hey, fair
> game is cancelled, why is this in the check sheet?
A simple checksheet not updated, it could have been anyone making an
error and not mentioning the latest version of some policy whle
compiling it. It could have been an out of date mimeo section.
Checksheets are not policy. I have been Hatting Officer, would you
like to know how many errors I encountered with these kind of things.
but you don't want to know about the human <error> factor, no you say:
"Fair game was still in use."
That I call being ignorant.
> And no, we cannot do
> thses things to Cooper or Cazares or the others they did in fact fair game.
You should compile some chronological time line on these things, WHEN
did exactly WHAT happen.
<snip ramble...>
> >And probably you will continue saying so. You do not even note this as.
> >an option. It does expose however that you do not know how one is to
> >deal with HCO Policy Letters. 6 years ago you started already a Time
> >Line and still you don't know.
>
> And do you?
I have been Hatting Officer, yes I DO know. No question about it.
> I didn't know about the Code of Reform and the big PR campaign of 69 - 70
> and you didn't seem to know either.
It was not policy letters were they?
> I knew about the 8 Sept 74 hat check sheets and didn't find them until
> recently, I didn't see you mention them anywhere.
Argument addressed earlier.
<snip repeating and ramble...>
> >And this is not about that some people just continued 'fair gaming'
> >and all that. We talk about issues and HCOPLs here, what people do is
> >not relevant to this.
>
> No! It is ALL that is relevant!
Interesting opinion, but that's ALL it is. You virtually know nothing
about how a Scientology organization is run. How could you know, you
were NEVER there!!!!Too bad for you.
>snip ramble..., and repeating>
> The whole issue of whether HCOPL 21 July 68 saves Hubbard's reputation is
> nonsense if that is what you are arguing.
I don't argue any of that, I never did that. I solely interpret the
HCOPLs as they were written, you choose not to do so.
<snip>
> 2 things, "what issues say" & ... "what people
> have done", get it? 2 things, 2 discussions. Dare to actually keep
> them separate, dare to do that!
>
> And you William Barwell tell me that I do not do my homework properly?
> And this is not even all of it. Anyone can see in your last response
> that your are not interested in to duplicate, to understand and give
> appropriate responses actually addressing the points brought up in my
> posts.
>
>
> I don't think you have actually.
> And I can disgree with your logic too.
Do it with clear arguments. Study any possible explanation to the
argument or claim or information made. It's called comunication.
> And by the way, just who am I arguing with?
> You have a name?
I choose to be anonymous for personal reasons. I have had sufficient
of personal attacks during the years. I am not here to be dishonest
about things or I would have choosen a 'fake name' and not a
'nickname'. I just wanted to be a <new> wind blowing some fresh ideas
into the ars. I saw too many people not knowing where they talk about.
> >Example 1:
> >You say: "We know in official HCOPLs soon after the short lived Code
> >of Reform, disconnection was back."
>
> >I responded: "Please back this up! You can not referring to the 10
> >sept 1983 issue here. So, BACK IT UP. What references, exact
> >references!!!! You mention HCOPLs. I want dates!"
>
> See the Zelen Tape # 3, in the first few pages here, he gives a rather
> nice summation of the trick language of 10 Sept 83 on disconnections.
> Scientology claims loudly on one hand that the do not force disconnections,
> and then makes policies that in effect do so, and has been the root of
> forced disconnections since.
>
> More trick language......
>
> When the Greek government popped KEFE, Scientology's Greek
> org soem years back, they recovered some rather stark documents dsiplaying
> how Scientology does write and command the disconnections.
>
> I will leave you to do that homework on your own.
Evasion noted! You say: "We know in official HCOPLs", you tell me to
find them myself. I will disregard in full your claim till HCOPLs
shown or quoted.
> >You respond with: "Are you saying Hubbard had nothing to do with
> >disconnections! proof! I want names and dates!"
>
> >??? Did I get answered?
>
> Are yo sure these are propagating? I haven't seen this
> post and I do try to answeer all posts as teh come, from Mushroomman to
> Space Traveler to whoever.
Numerous times I linked to it though in other responses to your posts.
It had even you last name in the title.
>
> Who are you anyway?
> Well now you are answered.
> Happy?
No HCOPLs were quoted! No, I am not answered.
Evasion noted! You NEVER went to see to consult the information
provided at that link provided. Thank you! http://mccalcon.notlong.com
May be too difficult for you? Agreed, the information supplied is not
easy understood by the outsider.
> Example 3:
> I said: "I noted that one particular reference was in fact Limited
> Distribution, instead you made another remimeo issue into Limited
> Distribution. When I pointed out that this one is not Limited
> Distribution, but the other one is, you made both of them Limited
> Distribution. And then once again I had to point out that remimeo
> issue was not Limited Distribution. Finally now you have it
> corrected."
>
> You responded: "Limited distribution means nothing. Except Hubbard
> learned that sometimes stuff stirs up crap and its wise to be careful
> how you promulgate things, some are just not political to spread
> widely."
>
> fixed in latest versions.
I know, but this was not the argument made by me! Was it? You still
don't seem to get that?
> >I can go on like that, quite a many responses from you are like that.
>
>
> And on and on and on....
>
> You ignore a lot too.
> Science!
Opinion. You still have not shown to me that you actually responded to
the above 3 given specific examples.
>
> Wanna get back to discussing space opera, space cooties, gorilla goals and
> other "science'?
> History of Man, thetan games of the past, the coffee grinder "Bap! Bap!
> Bap!" And science?
>
> Science. Hubbard on tape breezily telling his rapt
> clamhead audience abou the time he got blowed up in a space ship.
> Bravely done. Elron!
>
> Lets discuss science.
>
> You didn't seem to want to take up THIS discussion did you?
You are jumping on another issue here.
Scientology is supposed to be a workable technology. You apply some
process, and iif it gives the desired result, you can establish if it
works. That's all.
Spacetraveler
wbarwell
> wbarwell <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:<40f7e9a3$0$17094$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
>> Spacetraveler wrote:
>> >
>>
>> The issue is fair game.
>
> Actually no, the argument is establishing what the issues say about
> that, and this looked upon separately from what people have done.
> Scientology organizations are supposed to be run on these writings not
> what people think it should be.
No, the issue is fair game. And how it came about. And why to this day it
still happens.
And how we got outrages like Paulette Cooper's fairgaming.
And how it came to be that GO had a hat check pack for intel
trainees that went right back to Huubard's naked, hate filled, savage
HCOPL 1 Mar 65 fair game law.
It never went away. And Hubbard was up to his neck in this from
beginning to end, despite the twists and turns of all of this.
It is a matter of diseccting this all and finding the connections,
following the evidence from from Hubbard's fulminations
of 1965 to the hate filled actvities of Hubbard's secret agents
in the 70's.
>> And why the cult to this day, fair games people.
>> And who started that?
>
> He also discontinued that per the writings consulted.
>
He did not. End of argument.
Read that hat check sheet again.
1 Mar 65 never went away.
Not REALLY, it was all PR lies.
Tricks.
>
>> >All the time you tell me I don't do my homework. In fact I did read
>> >and actually studied Millers book (I even own a copy of the book
>> >actually signed by him) and I did also read Piece of a Blue Sky and
>> >various others, Coopers, Malko etc.
>>
>> Good for you.
>> I have these books too.
>
> The issue was that you 'accused' me of not having read these books and
> that it never will either. I pointed out to you that you were
> deadwrong about that!
You didn't read them. That is READ them and learn from them.
You ignored facts you didn't like, rather than confront them.
Like you ignore the 8 Sept 74 intelligence training pack with its
star rated HCOPL star rated 1 Mar 65 bloody star rarted fair game law.
You picked a diversionary squabble about star rate not meaning memorizing
the thing, despite whatthe tech dictionary sasys about getting these thinsg
letter perfect, and neatly slid around having to confront the issue.
People were savagely fair games from the sixties on, and it did not end and
this rganization Hubbard set up and ran from his hotel room in Florida,
mandate fair game law as its basic policy.
You are a slippery customer but not as slippery as you think you are.
The 1991 OSA hat check sheets smuggle Fair Game into OSa by referencing
back to Hubbard's Amprinistics Exec Ltr, so a decade later, nothing has
changed in reality.
Now that peolple know these hat check lists can be found at www.xenu.net
and Armstrong's website, and know to look at these little dead giveaways,
you may delude yourself and blather wildly, but the paper trail, the truth,
the obvious reality is there for anybody to look up.
Fair Game was a Hubbard creation and never really went away at all.
It was all lies. Just like Hubbard lied he had retired from Scientology in
1966.
The man lied his whole life about everything, just everything.
>
>
>> >In spite of what I say you just ramble along responding to my posts
>> >but hardly answering to anything at all. I get generalites and stories
>> from other people.
>>
>> I answer on these points but space travelor and mushroomman
>> didn't like my answers.
>> YMMV.
>
> Actually answering appropiate with exact information is not
> necessarily the same as just responding.
>
I answered, you tried diversions.
If I answered short answers, you accuse me of not
giving answers, but opinion, I give you long answers
you shout I am rambling.
You are no that tricky though, it is just too obvious.
And you overplay your hand.
You refuse to firmly deal with facts.
I will continue to push the ugly facts in your face.
Until you either grasp it or run away.
>
> <snip>
>
>> You will find almost the whole issue quoted on this site:
>> <a href="http://mccalcon.notlong.com">http://mccalcon.notlong.com</a>
>> How many times did I not point that out to you already? 4-5 times or
>> so? You readily quote other issues which you have not actually seen
>> either, why do you ignore this then? What homework?
>>
>> Almost ...
>
> You could have run of my annotations and just implement/correct all
> the way through. The above mentioned link seems to indicate that you
> did not go about it that way.
>
Its getting done, I have a lot of stuff to sort through, read, search for,
and in some cases I have stuff coming to me.
Bluntly, I have made many corrections based on your posts.
and a list of additions, changes and rewrites.
Hang in there, we will get this done over time.
>
>> I still am looking for whole and unadulterated copies of many HCOPLs,
>> HCOBs
>> and others. Looks like to get them I wil have to spring for my own copy
>> of the OEC volumes.
>>
>> We will get there.
>>
>> I do have most of which I do in fact quote from.
>> You are wrong there.
>
> No, link is still not working in your last presented version of your
> Fair Game Time Line.
I have a new version in the works.
>
>> >; And again you avoid the pretty clear information that "HCO PL 6>
>> >Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties"" did in fact cance>l
>> >"HCO PL 2>1
>> >July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions
>>
>> This is obviously not looking at my later versions,
>
> Premature conclusion. Read on........ Read first whole paragraphs
> before responding to every single sentence directly after you read
> them. You may miss some overall concept!
>
> It was about you saying: "This cancels HCOPL 18 Oct '67, but not HCOPL
> 21 July '68". Which is obvious incorrect as explained.
Which is correct. As explained.
Again and again.
False opinions don't get written into the Time Line.
I am happy to point out why it is not that way.
>
> <snip ramble..>
>
>> Yet, you tell us 6 Oct 70 made it all go away.
>
> Never said that. I said it cancelled any and all penalties. The issue
> actually said that. If people did something else, well, that's people.
>
>> Whatever..
>>
>> We have Kember and Budlong admitting that fair game was inpractice
>> to a US prosecutor through their lawyers. As seen in the sentencing
>> memorandum.
>>
>> Have you done YOUR homework?
>>
>> You say you have Miller and Attacks books? Autographed yet.
>> Did you read Ken Uruqhart's words? Hubbard was up to his neck in
>> Snow White and the GO opertions.
>
> Just some opinions from some people. Do you verbally believe every
> word anyone utters if they acknowledge your preconceptions?
>
They were there. So their opinions very much outweigh yours.
What does your opinion matter at all if you weren't there, but people who
were, well their opinions don't count. According to YOUR opinon?
Do you see the unbelieveable arrogance of your .... opinon?
Yes, their eyewitness counts, their witness counts, do not brush it away as
opinion and therefore meaningless, in your ... opinion.
Since you are obvioulsy operating with an agenda here, your opinion is less
compelling than eyewitness and participant statements of fact.
If you are going to play the game of taking statements of fact and telling
us it is opinion, and then downgrading it all as mere opinion, tell us why
YOUR opinion should matter to us?
Ths tactic is a double edged sword. I intend to turn it back on you too.
Its a game and an obvious and unacceptable one.
When we have people who worked with Hubbard on a daily and personal basis
telling us Hubbard was personally involved deeply with the GO and we have
this self same GO savagely trying to destroy people with fair game tactics,
and we have the GO training packs referencing the original and very
objectionable HCOPL 1 Mar 65, and we have two high ranking GO offcials
admitting that fair game was active policy, this is beyond opinion.
These are statments of fact.
Do not try to brush this off as opinion and therefore expendable.
>
>> >HCO PL 19 Oct 71 "Ethics Penalties Reinstated" very, very clearly
>> states:
>> >The following HCO PLs which the 6 Oct 70 Issue III PL cancelled are
>> >reinstated in full:
>> >HCO PL 26 Sept '67 Conditions for Scn Orgs Addition to Applying
>> >Formulas.
>> >HCO PL 21 Jul '68 Penalties for Lower Conditions
>> >HCO PL 20 Oct '67 Issue II Conditions Penalties New Employees and
>> >Persons Newly on Post
>> >HCO PL 6 Oct '67 Condition of Liability
>>
>>
>> And people say 21 Oct 68 cancels fair game.
>> Whatever.
>>
>> This is interesting. It will go onto my wishlist.
>
> Here we have it! something jumps up that will help to support your
> preconceptions and you are readily interested. The problem is you only
> pick out what supports your case. You don't see this, do you?
Preconceptions? What about YOUR preconceptions?
Fair game was a Hubbard idea. It happened to Cooper, Cazares and others.
This has to be explained how that happened.
Your preconceptons are it had nothing to do with Hubbard.
The EVIDENCE shows it did.
We must there for explain why this fair game HCOPL nonsense
happened as it did.
Either Hubbard played games here. And 21 Oct 68 shows he was playing games.
Or he passed cancellations, but lied, it was CYA PR stuff strictly.
Or he cancelled it and backslid.
Or a little of all of the above.
> You seem to have not noticed this 1971 prior to this, did you? How
> come? Where you sleeping before?
I didn't know about the Code of Reform either till I dig it out.
Neither did you.
I didn't realize that 21 Oct 68 strongly implied fair game was NOT cancelled
despite 21 July 68, until I though about the sequnce of 21 Oct 68 AFTER 21
July 68.
Sincer later HCOPLs are by the rules of Scientology the deciding issue,
then 21 Oct 68 is senior and superior to 21 July 68.
And explicity it tells us treatment and handling of an SP is not changed
So July 21 changed nothing over 21 Oct 67.
It is that simple.
All to discuss is, was this trick language carefully thought out, or was it
Hubardian sloppiness? And artifact of Huubard's slap dash way of doing
things?
By now Hubbard was lying he had resigned from Scientology in 1966.
So we KNOW he was a dishonest, lying sunuvabitch.
All we need to figure out, was he conciouly lying HERE?
And where do the lies stop and end?
We may never know if here, he was being a subtile liar and fraud,
or was just a goofy and sloppy yet nasty fraud.
You want to torture this into a claim that this cannot support.
I do know Oct 68 doesn't show fair game was cancelled 21 July 68.
>
> <snip ramble....>
>
>
>> >The above plain and simply proves (as in evidence) that "HCO PL 6 Oct>
>> 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties" did cancel "HCO PL 21 July 68
>> >"Penalties for Lower Conditions". And that the issue mentioned "HCO
>> >PL 18 Oct 67 " Penalties for Lower Conditions" in error. About 4 times
>> >or so I confronted you with this. Still you claim: "This cancels
>> >HCOPL 18 Oct '67, but not HCOPL 21 July '68"
>>
>> July 21 68 did not really cancel fair game, it over wrote
>> 21 Oct 67, but did not actually, really say anything about the issue of
>> fair game its self. It did not say "Fair Game as a policy is cancelled".
>> It side stepped the whole issue.
>
> If some issue is cancelling an HCOPL of some specific date and Issue
> number, it is not in use.
An HCOPL being not in use is not the same as decisively and
specifically and implicitly cancelling a policy, in this case, fair game.
HCOPL 21 Oct 68 tell us that fair game simply was no longer to be used on
EOs. Why? It was bad PR.
And then it pointedly tells us what? That "This P/L does not cancel ANY
POLICY on the treatment and handling of an SP"
What policy does "this policy" refer too? Why obviously here, "fair game"
We don't use the word fair game on EOs. But the policy is not cancelled.
If the policy is not cancelled, fair game, then HCOPL 21 July 68 mos
certainly is not any sort of cancellation.
it is simply a rewrite of an HCOPL whose iuse of the word "fair game" was a
PR fiasco. It was never meant to cancel fair game.
Its own ugly formulation, "May be restrained or imprisoned, may not be
protected by any rules..", certainly does not over rule fair game, and
seems to reinforce the Hubbard notion "ENEMY" is to be treated harshly
and savagely.
Taken in connection with HCOPL 21 Oct 68, it is obvious fair game was very
much in force, but simply done in this indirect way where the idea was
obvious what Hubbard wanted but not so glaring that the English press was
going to use it to make headlines.
It ends there, period, end cycle,
> terminated, flushed down the toilet. This is the rule, you bypass that
> rule O N L Y because it will take away one of you strongest
> arguments!!!!!! You have to continue saying these kind of things O N
> L Y because you have little of a case if you acknowledge the rules
> how HCOPLs actually are to be dealt with!
The rules are, later HCOPLs rule over earlier ones.
We know this. Don't we?
Thus 21 Oct 68 is senior to 21 July 68.
Oct 68 tell us that as far as Fair Game goes, this P/L does not
cancel the treament or handling of SPs. Since this HCOPL is
about the use of fair game on EOs, its obvious what policy it
means. Thus fair game is still policy.
21 July simply removed the word fair game without explanation,
it did not abolish that policy.
HCOPL 21 Oct 68 established it is indeed, policy.
Its as explicit as Hubbard dared get under the circumstances
of that day.
And since this 21 Oct 68 faux cancellation has become rather infamous, it
seems his attempts to be sly here didn't exactly work either.
>> AFTER that, some 4 months LATER, we have HCOPL 21 Oct 68.
>> This says "fair game" is not to appear on EOs.
>> But that handling and treatment of an SP does not change.
>
> SP is not synonym with fair game. An SP is an SP, and fair game is
> some action executed on these kind of people during a certain period
> of time in the history of Scientology. In actual writing, these are
> not the same. You and others sharing your preconceptions mix these two
> as you have to explain the 21 Oct 1968 issue in a way it will support
> your claims. There is NO other reason.
>
>
21 Oct 68 is about fair game.
"CANCELLATIOMN OF FAIR GAME"
That is this HCOPL's title. What is the subject?
"FAIRGAME".
It says two things.1. The words fair game are not to be used on EOs as it
causes bad PR.
2. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of
an SP.
And what policy can we possibly be speaking of here? Why fair game.
(See title "CANCELLATION OF (wait for it!) FAIR GAME".
Policy does not change? Then it is in force.
What policy does not change?
"FAIR GAME".
You wish to divert attentionby babbling about what an SP is .
No, we know what Hubbo ment by SP. What we are looking
at here is the policy that is used in treatment and handling of SPs.
The operative and important line is the last.
"This P/L does not cancel any policy...."
>> This rather strongly implies that Fair Game as an issue is in force.
>
> "Strongly implying"? What's that? Opinion is it not? It seeks to
> permanently eliminate the habit of some people still using this NAME.
> That's all. But you will not acknowledge that nor take this as an
> option as it will weaken your case! There is NO other reason for you
> doing so!
>
It bloody screams "THIS P/L does NOT CANCEL ANY POLICY ON THE TREAMENT OR
HANDLING OF A PC".
Word check this word by word until cognition is achieved.
21 Oct 68 does not mentiom fair game at all and is thus utterly neutral on
that subject.
>
>> The July HCOPL simply does not mention it one way or the other,
>
>
>> the fact
>> that 21 Oct 68 states plainly that fair game causes bad PR implies that
>> the 21 July Issue is a PR only replacement
>
> And this is how you reason? Grand job! Problem is the issue doesn't
> say this.
>
"THIS P/L DOES NOT CANCEL ANY POLICY ON THE TREATMENT OR
HANDLING OF AN SP".
This cannot be more blunt, easy to understand, or explicit.
It is about what? Fair game.
"CANCELLATION OF FAIRGAME".
End of argument.
Cheerful Charlie
--
Gerry Armstrong
(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message news:<aurff0hbua0jbe43n...@4ax.com>...
>> On 16 Jul 2004 02:38:01 -0700, spacetra...@hotmail.com
>> (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >You are never concise and exact actually.
>>
>> Oooo, your little SPness is showing.
>
>One characteristis out of 12 does not make you an SP does it?
Who or what said it did? LFBD
Oh, Hubbard did! LFBD F/N
> Consult
>my communications with William Barwell you may get a surprise.
I missed your surprise completely after much consultation. Please
identify your surprise so I can get it too.
>Generally he is not into being concise and direct.
Yes, well neither are you. In spades. This is just one example.
"Generally [ ] not into being concise and direct" is very different
from "never concise and exact actually."
Your statement about Barwell "You are never concise and exact
actually" is false. Don't your agree?
Your statement "You are never concise and exact actually" is also a
generality. Do you also agree?
>
>>
>> And your OTness is standing out loud and clear. This is a success
>> worthy of "Advance!" A truly Hubbardian, omniscient generality.
>>
>> Your pretended stupidity is Miscavige level, which is really a tall
>> order.
>>
>> So pass. The Spacetroller op is a huge win. You should insist on libs
>> this weekend.
>
>This is the second time you jump on me out of nowhere,
This is patently false. You made a false statement about Barwell: "You
are never concise and exact actually." You willfully *invite*
responses to correct your falsehood just by uttering it. That is not
"out of nowhere." Please correct the falsehood that I jumped on you
out of nowhere.
> resorting to
>this kind of unfounded 'attacks'.
Another falsehood. You generated the foundation for my response to you
by manufacturing the falsehood to which I responded. Please also
correct then your falsehood that my response to you was unfounded. I
have shown you it is not unfounded.
> Is this the business you are in
>Gerry? Is this a diversion tactic? If so it will not work, not with me
>it will.
I find you dishonest. I find your actions cloak and support Hubbard's
and the Scientology cult's criminal "Suppressive Person" doctrine and
the victimization of good people by execution of this dastardly
doctrine. I am in the business of directing attention to this
doctrine, of defending the good people whom the Scientology cultists
beastify and fair game in execution of this doctrine, and I am in the
business of opposing this doctrine and its practitioners.
Surely you won't deny that you apply the "Suppressive Person"
doctrine.
>
>I responded in detail to your latest lengthy response.
>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com
>
>You wrote: "I have hoped a long time to have a conversation with a
>Scientologist on this basis."
The basis was what you implied in your statement to which I was
responding. You implied with your assertion about an "unfinished
communication" that you were seeking what in Scientology is known as a
"communication cycle" with me. So, e.g. I would originate a
communication to you, you would receive it, originate an answer or
acknowledgement back to me, and thus end the cycle. A finished
communication.
Such a comm cycle, that finishes communications, would require on your
part duplication and understanding.
Instead, you pretended non-duplication and non-understanding. There
isn't any big deal about that, because it is the way Scientologists
and their ops have communicated to and about me me for more than two
decades. You implied that unlike all other Scientologists you were
going to be different, that you were going to duplicate and
understand, and thus finish communications. And I gave you the benefit
of the doubt and responded that I have hoped a long time to have a
conversation with a Scientologist on this basis.
Here's an example from the communication cycle you're pestering me to
finish:
[Quote]
> I'd like you to quote ALL of Hubbard's lies. That would be very useful
> in this discussion of honesty relating to Scientology.
In my opinion it is dishonest to quote the 1967 fair game issue & the
21 Oct 1968 issue, but not the 21 July 1968 issue, nor the the 6 Oct
1970 issue, sorry. At least in writing as these issues lay out, the
practice of fair gaiming was cancelled. I said at least IN WRITING.
May be as you say they continued with it any way, but this is a
different matter. So treat them differently. Tell about both these
sides. If you don't mention them and people will find out about them
later on (and I have been throwing these issues in peoples faces
lately), they will start being critcal about what you have to say
elsewhere.
[End Quote]
What you've done here is a diversion tactic. You demonstrably did not
want or provide actual communication cycles, so it makes little sense
to waste much time trying to give you what you don't want.
>
>Well Gerry, I am waiting!
Sure, but you're really not waiting for an actual communication cycle,
are you?
>
>Spacetraveler
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org