It appears that attackers of Scientology continue to be dishonest about some things. It seems popular to just leave out some data when it is found convenient to back up some claim made, how incredibility convenient!
Now, what is being left out?
They say that "HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV "Penalties for Lower Conditions"" was only cancelled for the use of the name 'fair game'. And that L. Ron Hubbard meant it to be that fair game in reality never was cancelled. this then would be: "HCO PL 21 Oct 68 "Cancellation of Fair Game"" And that is simply not true!
The issue they very conveniently leave out is: "HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions"", which is predating the reference that they are quoting.
HCO PL 21 July 68 cancelled the 1967 issue that they are upholding this very day as being in use!!!! My God, it was cancelled already 36 YEARS AGO!!!!
Gerry Armstrong makes the claim: "But Hubbard was just fair gaming his "enemies" with his "cancellation," just playing a trick on them. He "cancelled" the use of the term "fair game" when declaring people "enemies" or "SPs," with the cynical excuse that it caused bad PR, but he ordered that the same "treatment" of those "enemies" continue as before. The Scientologists in the Hubbard regime knew that the same violent, antisocial and criminal actions were to be taken against these "enemies," the "SPs." Fair game would continue, but it would not be called by that name."
The ever 'honest' Fredric Rice says something similar.
Andreas Heldal-Lund however does not make this claim, and he seems only to have been misled.
Do you see! Would they acknowledge the existence of: "HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions"", then they will lose an argument. "No!", say Armstrong and Rice, "it is better to simply ignore this issue, and we then simply will mislead our readers!"
Previously I have had various discussions about this on the ARS, and both Gerry Armstrong and Fredric Rice were approached at many occasions. Well, their websites are still not quoting this reference. And they are still telling the same dishonest claims (not to say 'lies'). And don't forget: "Gerry Armstrong is the expert on 'fair game'." Yeah, let us not forget that! He wrote that to me at various locations!
I haven't had contact with Andreas Heldal-Lund about this, however he must have seen the discussions about this matter. I would strongly urge him to adjust his webpage.
In article <9f53d1e2.0411031827.23b11...@posting.google.com>, Spacetraveler says...
>Previously I have had various discussions about this on the ARS, and >both Gerry Armstrong and Fredric Rice were approached at many >occasions. Well, their websites are still not quoting this reference.
> It appears that attackers of Scientology continue to be dishonest > about some things. It seems popular to just leave out some data when > it is found convenient to back up some claim made, how incredibility > convenient!
> Now, what is being left out?
> They say that "HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV "Penalties for Lower > Conditions"" was only cancelled for the use of the name 'fair game'. > And that L. Ron Hubbard meant it to be that fair game in reality never > was cancelled. > this then would be: "HCO PL 21 Oct 68 "Cancellation of Fair Game"" > And that is simply not true!
> The issue they very conveniently leave out is: > "HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions"", which is > predating the reference that they are quoting.
> HCO PL 21 July 68 cancelled the 1967 issue that they are upholding > this very day as being in use!!!! My God, it was cancelled already 36 > YEARS AGO!!!!
> Gerry Armstrong makes the claim: > "But Hubbard was just fair gaming his "enemies" with his > "cancellation," just playing a trick on them. He "cancelled" the use > of the term "fair game" when declaring people "enemies" or "SPs," with > the cynical excuse that it caused bad PR, but he ordered that the same > "treatment" of those "enemies" continue as before. The Scientologists > in the Hubbard regime knew that the same violent, antisocial and > criminal actions were to be taken against these "enemies," the "SPs." > Fair game would continue, but it would not be called by that name."
> The ever 'honest' Fredric Rice says something similar.
> Andreas Heldal-Lund however does not make this claim, and he seems > only to have been misled.
> Do you see! > Would they acknowledge the existence of: "HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties > for Lower Conditions"", then they will lose an argument. "No!", say > Armstrong and Rice, "it is better to simply ignore this issue, and we > then simply will mislead our readers!"
> Previously I have had various discussions about this on the ARS, and > both Gerry Armstrong and Fredric Rice were approached at many > occasions. Well, their websites are still not quoting this reference. > And they are still telling the same dishonest claims (not to say > 'lies'). > And don't forget: "Gerry Armstrong is the expert on 'fair game'." > Yeah, let us not forget that! He wrote that to me at various > locations!
> I haven't had contact with Andreas Heldal-Lund about this, however he > must have seen the discussions about this matter. I would strongly > urge him to adjust his webpage.
> Spacetraveler
This is a common action within C of S, and Scientologists following Hubbard. I did it too. I was positive that there was NO Fair Game, and literally had stood up in Court (Wallersheim) insisting that 'There is no Fair Game, and that policy was canceled over 20+ years ago". I said that in 1985.
One can debate policy forever, but the fact is people such as myself and others ARE being Fair Gamed. Just as now the Norwegian Police investigating Andreas............what do you call that? An accident? Go read "religiousfreedomwatch" that your very organization has put up. It's FILLED with lies, which is part of Fair Game. You're on the wrong board to try to spread this BS.
Take your head out of the sand, and LOOK. Fair Game has not been cancelled AT ALL. Hubbard wrote the Cancellation issue, but at the bottom states: "This issue does not apply to SP's"
((And that line was removed from any issue I was ever shown, so it never made sense to me. Once I left, I was shown the original PL, and that statement IS there)).
>It appears that attackers of Scientology continue to be dishonest >about some things. It seems popular to just leave out some data when >it is found convenient to back up some claim made, how incredibility >convenient!
>Now, what is being left out?
>They say that "HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV "Penalties for Lower >Conditions""
snip
Spacetraveler, what would you call what was done to me?
>>Previously I have had various discussions about this on the ARS, and >>both Gerry Armstrong and Fredric Rice were approached at many >>occasions. Well, their websites are still not quoting this reference.
29 November 1995 - Memorandum Opinion [ Full Text ]- Judge Leonie Brinkema
"the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation of RTC in suing Lerma, DGS and The [ Washington] Post is to stifle criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics. "
They would quote the oct 1968 issue, I quote the july 1968 issue.
>, and Scientologists following Hubbard. > I did it too. I was positive that there was NO Fair Game, and literally had > stood up in Court (Wallersheim) insisting that 'There is no Fair Game, and > that policy was canceled over 20+ years ago". I said that in 1985.
> One can debate policy forever,
Policy is not debated! Issues exist or they do not. The issue I quote exist, and Rice and Armstrong ignore it's significance.
> but the fact is people such as myself and > others ARE being Fair Gamed. Just as now the Norwegian Police investigating > Andreas............what do you call that?
Are you blaming LRH for that, hmm?
> An accident? Go read "religiousfreedomwatch" that your very organization has > put up. It's FILLED with lies, which is part of Fair Game. > You're on the wrong board to try to spread this BS.
No idea what BS is? Anyhow, I supplied information, you can either deal with that, or not deal with that. To judge your respons you can not.
'My' organization? Sorry, not 'my' organization. I told you that before.
> Take your head out of the sand, and LOOK. Fair Game has not been cancelled > AT ALL.
ANYTHING what happens in some Scientology organization has to be up-to-date in HCO policy letters. If it is not, it is not valid. Sorry, this IS simply like that! So, take your head out of the sand, and LOOK. The issue exist, rules for how policy is used also exist.
It's you who claimed that OT VII was 'great', when in reality you thought otherwise. Meaning you chose not to live in reality, you are still doing this when referring to policy letters. Do you see this?
> Hubbard wrote the Cancellation issue, but at the bottom states: > "This issue does not apply to SP's"
No, it states: "This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP."
You are forgetting that the oct 1968 was issued after the 1967 issue already was cancelled. The fair game practice was thus ALREADY cancelled when the oct 1968 was issued!!!! Get your sequence of happenings straightened out!
> ((And that line was removed from any issue I was ever shown, so it never > made sense to me. Once I left, I was shown the original PL, and that > statement IS there)).
Sorry, the issue is in the old vol 1! And you say: "It was removed from any issue I was ever shown." Did you ever look in these damn volumes? I have not ever seen an edited version of the PL, not EVER!
> >It appears that attackers of Scientology continue to be dishonest > >about some things. It seems popular to just leave out some data when > >it is found convenient to back up some claim made, how incredibility > >convenient!
> >Now, what is being left out?
> >They say that "HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV "Penalties for Lower > >Conditions""
> snip
> Spacetraveler, what would you call what was done to me?
Is LRH responsible for that? Can he help some will not enforce or squirrel his issues? We spoke about these things prior to this, we have pre-1980 and we have after-1980.
>Is LRH responsible for that? Can he help some will not enforce or >squirrel his issues? We spoke about these things prior to this, we >have pre-1980 and we have after-1980.
>Spacetraveler
Is LRH responsible for anything?
Why did he make fair game and disconnection scientology policy in the first place?
Why did he never do anything effective to cancel the application of fair game policy by scientologists?
>They would quote the oct 1968 issue, I quote the july 1968 issue.
>>, and Scientologists following Hubbard. >> I did it too. I was positive that there was NO Fair Game, and literally had >> stood up in Court (Wallersheim) insisting that 'There is no Fair Game, and >> that policy was canceled over 20+ years ago". I said that in 1985.
>> One can debate policy forever,
>Policy is not debated! Issues exist or they do not. The issue I quote >exist, and Rice and Armstrong ignore it's significance.
That's a bald faced cult lie.
You, on the other hand, ignore the significance of Hubbard's Fair Game Policy of 1969 (published well *after* the policy you falsely claim I ignore) that I quote below, which orders the obliteration of people.
You, Spacetroglodyte, are a liar and a Scientology cult op.
Deal with the evil that is Scientology's "Battle Tactics," because Scientology's "Battle Tactics" are Fair Game.
Fair Game is the *application* of the "Suppressive Person" doctrine. Until the SP doctrine is completely repudiated by Scientology and every Scientologist, Fair Game will continue. You, Spacetrojan, are an applier of the SP doctrine. Study this site: http://www.suppressiveperson.org/
[Quote]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 FEBURARY 1969
Cen O Con Guardians Offices PRO Intelligence
ISSUE II-
Confidential
BATTLE TACTICS
(This is a Defense Paper on material developed after 18 years of ceaseless attack by a foreign enemy. Nothing in this paper advocates physical violence or invites the physical destruction of persons.)
In these days of "cold war" when actual warfare is impossible due to atomic weapons, the warfare is waged in the press and public in the form of ideas.
If you uniformly apply the tactics and strategy of battle to the rows we get into, press or legal or public confrontation, you will win.
The enemy uses " groups" and meetings of groups like one would use squads.
If we and they are considered as two hostile and opposing nations at war, then a huge array of tactics and strategy become visible.
One parallels in the field of thought what is used and done in the field of battle in other ages.
You don't have to know too much about the tactics and strategy of warfare to apply this but it helps.
The end product of war, according to Klausewitz the authority on it, is (condensed) "to bring about a more amenable frame of mind on the part of the enemy".
But there are also wars of attrition. We are engaged in one where total destruction of us has been the enemy's aim for, at this writing, 19 years. This is barbarian warfare, thus the enemy must have had very positive fears and terrors about us. Since he fought for total attrition. In this case it is not safe to hope for any half way win. We must ourselves fight on a basis of total attrition of the enemy. So never get reasonable about him. Just go all the way in and obliterate him.
It is bad warfare to fight battles on your own terrain, in your own subject area. It is not good to fight in the territory of allies. Fight battles wherever possible only on enemy terrain, in and about his subject and his people, not ours. You can gauge your relative success by this. When all your battles are fought on his terrain, you are winning.
A good general expends the maximum of enemy troops and the minimum of his own. He makes the war costly to the enemy, not to himself.
One cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections. He deprives the enemy of political advantages, connections and power. He takes over enemy territory. He raids and harrasses. All on a thought plane - press, public opinion, governments, etc.
Seeing it as a battle one can apply battle tactics to thought actions.
Intelligence identifies targets and finds out enemy plans and purposes, enemy connections, dispositions, etc. It is fatal to attack a wrong enemy. But it is good tactics to make the enemy attack wrong targets or persons himself.
Good intelligence pin points who when where what.
Good PRO plans an action and operations fights the battle.
Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It eventually comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence and PRO have done well, then legal gets an easy win.
You can win a battle even without legal and by PRO alone. You intend to win it without legal wherever possible.
The prize is "public opinion" where press is concerned. The only safe public opinion to head for is they love us and are in a frenzy of hate against the enemy, this means standard wartime propaganda is what one is doing, complete with atrocity, war crimes trials, the lot. Know the mores of your public opinion, what they hate. That's the enemy. What they love. That's you.
You preserve the image or increase it of your own troops and degrade the image of the enemy to beast level.
Always be ready to parley but watch for tricks. Don't give the enemy breathing space.
Capture and use his comm lines. A press magnate on your side is a big win.
You have in one of these publicity wars all the factors of modern wars complete with artillery, cavalry, infantry.
For example at this writing, all fighting has been on our terrain, they knew our generals we didn't know theirs, they had all the press, funds, government control. We are reversing this. We are fighting now on their ground. But we have a long way to go.
We will make it all the way providing we look on this in terms of active battle and not as a "if we are saintly good we will win". The people who win wars have a saintly image but they win the war by clever and forceful use of the rules of tactics, strategy and battle.
Wars are composed of many battles.
Never treat a war like a skirmish. Treat all skirmishes like wars.
The cold war is a war. The West is losing it because it is fighting by other rules than the rules of war. We mustn't lose it.
L. RON HUBBARD Founder
LRH:bw Copyright (c) 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
>> but the fact is people such as myself and >> others ARE being Fair Gamed. Just as now the Norwegian Police investigating >> Andreas............what do you call that?
>Are you blaming LRH for that, hmm?
>> An accident? Go read "religiousfreedomwatch" that your very organization has >> put up. It's FILLED with lies, which is part of Fair Game. >> You're on the wrong board to try to spread this BS.
>No idea what BS is? Anyhow, I supplied information, you can either >deal with that, or not deal with that. To judge your respons you can >not.
>'My' organization? Sorry, not 'my' organization. I told you that >before.
>> Take your head out of the sand, and LOOK. Fair Game has not been cancelled >> AT ALL.
>ANYTHING what happens in some Scientology organization has to be >up-to-date in HCO policy letters. If it is not, it is not valid. >Sorry, this IS simply like that! >So, take your head out of the sand, and LOOK. The issue exist, rules >for how policy is used also exist.
>It's you who claimed that OT VII was 'great', when in reality you >thought otherwise. Meaning you chose not to live in reality, you are >still doing this when referring to policy letters. Do you see this?
>> Hubbard wrote the Cancellation issue, but at the bottom states: >> "This issue does not apply to SP's"
>No, it states: "This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment >or handling of an SP."
>You are forgetting that the oct 1968 was issued after the 1967 issue >already was cancelled. The fair game practice was thus ALREADY >cancelled when the oct 1968 was issued!!!! Get your sequence of >happenings straightened out!
>> ((And that line was removed from any issue I was ever shown, so it never >> made sense to me. Once I left, I was shown the original PL, and that >> statement IS there)).
>Sorry, the issue is in the old vol 1! And you say: "It was removed >from any issue I was ever shown." Did you ever look in these damn >volumes? I have not ever seen an edited version of the PL, not EVER!
>> >It appears that attackers of Scientology continue to be dishonest >> >about some things. It seems popular to just leave out some data when >> >it is found convenient to back up some claim made, how incredibility >> >convenient!
>> >Now, what is being left out?
>> >They say that "HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV "Penalties for Lower >> >Conditions""
>> snip
>> Spacetraveler, what would you call what was done to me?
>Is LRH responsible for that? Can he help some will not enforce or >squirrel his issues? We spoke about these things prior to this, we >have pre-1980 and we have after-1980.
Computers make it easier to do a lot of things, but most of the things they make it easier to do don't need to be done.
-- Lady Chatterly
"Apparently, Lady Chatterly is a Bot. S/he pops up on alt.music.michael-jackson from time to time." -- Archie Leach
>>> Spacetraveler, what would you call what was done to me?
>>Is LRH responsible for that? Can he help some will not enforce or >>squirrel his issues? We spoke about these things prior to this, we >>have pre-1980 and we have after-1980.
>>Spacetraveler
>Is LRH responsible for anything?
Do you think your dreams mean anything?
>Why did he make fair game and disconnection scientology policy in the first >place?
Why he make fair game and disconnection scientology policy in the first place?
>Why did he never do anything effective to cancel the application of fair >game policy by scientologists?
Why he never do anything effective to cancel the application of fair game policy by scientologists?
>You're as dishonest and weak as Skip Press.
Perhaps I am as dishonest and weak as skip press. Your point is?
>edo >-=-
I see what you are saying.
-- Lady Chatterly
"The whole Lady Chatterly thing has been poetic justice." -- theoneflasehaddock
>>> Spacetraveler, what would you call what was done to me?
>>Is LRH responsible for that? Can he help some will not enforce or >>squirrel his issues? We spoke about these things prior to this, we >>have pre-1980 and we have after-1980.
>>Spacetraveler
>Is LRH responsible for anything?
>Why did he make fair game and disconnection scientology policy in the first >place?
>Why did he never do anything effective to cancel the application of fair >game policy by scientologists?
>You're as dishonest and weak as Skip Press.
>edo >-=-
^^^^
I don't think I could have said it better myself but why are you using my nick?
>>>> Spacetraveler, what would you call what was done to me?
>>>Is LRH responsible for that? Can he help some will not enforce or >>>squirrel his issues? We spoke about these things prior to this, we >>>have pre-1980 and we have after-1980.
>>>Spacetraveler
>>Is LRH responsible for anything?
>>Why did he make fair game and disconnection scientology policy in the first >>place?
>>Why did he never do anything effective to cancel the application of fair >>game policy by scientologists?
>>You're as dishonest and weak as Skip Press.
>>edo >>-=-
>^^^^
Moilas oy selling pizzas manufactured in Finland to Italy within the eu.
>I don't think I could have said it better myself but why are you using my >nick?
-- Lady Chatterly
"Hmmmm, not sure this is good, I tied Chatterly and beat Eliza. Although it is a lits and a lits are good." -- Aratzio
NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway. No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender. --------------------------------------------------------
On 4 Nov 2004, Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header (edo) wrote:
>>>> Spacetraveler, what would you call what was done to me?
>>>Is LRH responsible for that? Can he help some will not enforce or >>>squirrel his issues? We spoke about these things prior to this, we >>>have pre-1980 and we have after-1980.
>>>Spacetraveler
>>Is LRH responsible for anything?
>>Why did he make fair game and disconnection scientology policy in the first >>place?
>>Why did he never do anything effective to cancel the application of fair >>game policy by scientologists?
>>You're as dishonest and weak as Skip Press.
>>edo >>-=-
>^^^^
>I don't think I could have said it better myself but why are you using my >nick?
>edo >-=-
I copied and pasted one of your posts and edited it some but left in your nick instead of taking it out and replacing it with mine. That's *so* embarrassing! Sorry.
But thanks for the original material and for the compliment! :-)))
> They would quote the oct 1968 issue, I quote the july 1968 issue.
>>, and Scientologists following Hubbard. >> I did it too. I was positive that there was NO Fair Game, and literally >> had >> stood up in Court (Wallersheim) insisting that 'There is no Fair Game, >> and >> that policy was canceled over 20+ years ago". I said that in 1985.
>> One can debate policy forever,
> Policy is not debated! Issues exist or they do not. The issue I quote > exist, and Rice and Armstrong ignore it's significance.
Whatever..........do you ignore the actual fair game your 'church' does? Answer: YES. That's what counts, no matter now many "issues" you pull out of your "LRH Library"!
>> but the fact is people such as myself and >> others ~are~ being Fair Gamed. Just as now the Norwegian Police >> investigating >> Andreas............what do you call that?
> Are you blaming LRH for that, hmm?
Are you avoiding the issue, hmmm?
>> An accident? Go read "religiousfreedomwatch" that your very organization >> has >> put up. It's ~filled~ with lies, which is part of Fair Game. >> You're on the wrong board to try to spread this BS.
> No idea what BS is?
"BS=Bullshit"...what planet did you take your last libs on, "Spacetraveler"?
Anyhow, I supplied information, you can either
> deal with that, or not deal with that.
And I supplied actual actions vs. 'information'...and ~you~ can either deal with that, or not. Let me guess: Will you or won't you? Answer: Will not.
To judge your respons you can
> not.
> 'My' organization? Sorry, not 'my' organization. I told you that > before.
But you're quoting Hubbard, and the policies C of S does. Sounds like your organization to me.
>> Take your head out of the sand, and LOOK. Fair Game has not been >> cancelled ~at all~.
> ANYTHING what happens in some Scientology organization has to be > up-to-date in HCO policy letters. If it is not, it is not valid.
And that was my point, exactly. I thought exactly as you do here. I even spoke out in courtrooms about it. However, once I got out of the Scio/Truman show....I found out guess what? FAIR GAME DOES EXIST TO THIS DAY> I'm not talking about 'issues'....I'm talking about ACTIONS.
> Sorry, this ~is~ simply like that! > So, take your head out of the sand, and LOOK. The issue exist, rules > for how policy is used also exist.
> It's you who claimed that OT VII was 'great', when in reality you > thought otherwise.
Go rent the Truman Show and watch it. You *might* get a glimpse of what you're living in.
Meaning you chose not to live in reality,
Huh? Because I woke up and realized OT 7 was FOS, that means I 'chose not to live in reality?" I'm in reality just fine, just not your reality.
you are
> still doing this when referring to policy letters. Do you see this?
No, not at all. I'm telling you how I was blindsited by C of S/OSA...and what the actual facts are. It is you who chooses to hide behind the walls of "Policy" and not confront the actions you and your group do.
>> Hubbard wrote the Cancellation issue, but at the bottom states: >> "This issue does not apply to SP's"
> No, it states: "This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment > or handling of an SP."
OK...........so the words are a bit different. What exactly does that mean to ~you~?
You (typical of Scios-within C of S, I'm sorry to say) are missing the ~major~ point------your group is still doing Fair Game, and hurting good people. Just because we're delcared "SP's" kiddo doesn't give you or your gang license to harm, and do illegal actions, which they do.
> You are forgetting that the oct 1968 was issued after the 1967 issue > already was cancelled. The fair game practice was thus ALREADY > cancelled when the oct 1968 was issued!!!
You can put as many !!! marks as you want, and scream to the top of the mountains here in LA that "Fair Game was Cancelled".........and I will be right here to ask you, "What about the F*** lies your organization (and yes, it is yours as you support it, don't you?) has posted up on the Internet about me, and many others? Here's the link, if you haven't read it: http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org Go read "Tory Christman" and come tell me that isn't Fair Game. Go on, do it.
! Get your sequence of
> happenings straightened out!
Get your confront up and go read about the damned lies your group promotes daily. That's one of many Fair Game actions they do daily!
>> ((And that line was removed from any issue I was ever shown, so it never >> made sense to me. Once I left, I was shown the original PL, and that >> statement ~is~ there)).
> Sorry, the issue is in the old vol 1! And you say: "It was removed > from any issue I was ever shown." Did you ever look in these damn > volumes? I have not ever seen an edited version of the PL, not EVER!
Well, maybe you didn't have access to the OSA 'briefings' I was given? That's another thing C of S does; They have different 'tech' for different people. Don't believe me? Go listen to: OT's Speaking Freely at http://www.xenutv.com and then come talk.
>> Spacetraveler, what would you call what was done to me?
>Is LRH responsible for that? Can he help some will not enforce or >squirrel his issues? We spoke about these things prior to this, we >have pre-1980 and we have after-1980.
Yes we spoke and you agreed that "fair game" was a good description.
So regardless of what LRH said about it pre or post 1980, the thing that calls itself the "church of scientology" and claims to the world that it doing LRH stuff is carrying out that policy today.
> > >It appears that attackers of Scientology continue to be dishonest > > >about some things. It seems popular to just leave out some data when > > >it is found convenient to back up some claim made, how incredibility > > >convenient!
> > >Now, what is being left out?
> > >They say that "HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV "Penalties for Lower > > >Conditions""
> > snip
> > Spacetraveler, what would you call what was done to me?
What happened to you is either fabricated by you or was committed by non-Scientologists, infiltrators, which you apparently protect by blaming Ron instead.
> Is LRH responsible for that? Can he help some will not enforce or > squirrel his issues? We spoke about these things prior to this, we > have pre-1980 and we have after-1980.
> Spacetraveler
They know that it is not L.Ron Hubbard's fault, that is why they blame him.
> >>Previously I have had various discussions about this on the ARS, and > >>both Gerry Armstrong and Fredric Rice were approached at many > >>occasions. Well, their websites are still not quoting this reference.
> 29 November 1995 - Memorandum Opinion [ Full Text ]- Judge Leonie > Brinkema
> "the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation of RTC in > suing Lerma, DGS and The [ Washington] Post is to stifle criticism of > Scientology in general and to harass its critics. "
> That is also Faxhor's purpose..
Faxhor just posted fact about you and the others. Fact is that Scientologists are persecuted and harassed on ARS by the ARSC(H) gang.
The cult has still attacked many people these last days. One of those most known clams, Tom Cruise, wants to fuck others because "he is a scientologist".
> They would quote the oct 1968 issue, I quote the july 1968 issue.
>>, and Scientologists following Hubbard. >> I did it too. I was positive that there was NO Fair Game, and literally >> had >> stood up in Court (Wallersheim) insisting that 'There is no Fair Game, >> and >> that policy was canceled over 20+ years ago". I said that in 1985.
>> One can debate policy forever,
> Policy is not debated!
Not only it is debated, but more, when your clam seniors wwide do think that something worse than the hubbardite orders has to be done for their sake, they do it. They have cancelled hubbard's policies, they do not respect hubbard himself!
|
