Disabled and Scientology...Questions....?
Beckyboo
long......included things that Alex posted about me playing "the Deaf
card".....
/Quote/
I take this to mean "anyone who argues with Hubbard", regardless of the
number of working limbs or neurons they have.
But the disabled are always embarrassing, so $cienos probably flee them
like almost everybody else, as Alex's comment indicates.
/end Quote/
Seriously? You were all led to believe that anyone with a disability is
an embarassment?
Someone please explain this to me? Thanks!
And, this "religion" that you were in.....you had to take lie detector
tests? At what point did any of you start to say this is a tiny bit
bizarre? That my religion is making me take a lie detector test? A
religion that isn't doing any good works, isn't helping anyone out, is
taking all my money, no accounting of where it's going....if I try to
get out, I can't....but for God's sake stay the hell away from anyone
with a disability? And don't take an aspirin.
Nothing in that sounded goofy to anyone at any point?
Forgive me if I sound a tiny bit....mmmm....baffled to put it mildly
here. But I am baffled right now. Was there something inside you
nagging you all the time that this just doesn't add up?
Thanks in advance for helping me understand more.
--
Becky
formerlyfooled
Becky,
If my recollection serves me well, the disabled are not so much an
embarrassment as they are considered potentially 'problematic' people
to steer clear of (they believe it's catchy).
Truthfully, they probably still don't keep disabled people around long
enough to allow them to become an embarrassment. It's pretty sick, heh?
Muldoon
Beckyboo wrote:
> Copied from another thread that was getting very, very
> long......included things that Alex posted about me playing "the Deaf
> card".....
>
> /Quote/
> I take this to mean "anyone who argues with Hubbard", regardless of the
>
> number of working limbs or neurons they have.
>
> But the disabled are always embarrassing, so $cienos probably flee them
>
> like almost everybody else, as Alex's comment indicates.
> /end Quote/
>
>
> Seriously? You were all led to believe that anyone with a disability is
> an embarassment?
>
> Someone please explain this to me? Thanks!
>
Actually, I don't think deafness is regarded as a "disability" by most
people these days. There are just too many smart deaf people, and too
many deaf sexy movie actresses for that.
I think the comments by (?) were thoughtless and a poor attempt at
being witty.
As far as I know, the person (?) who made the comments was never a
Scientologist. He's just momentarily being a clod. (There is an
unwritten universal law *that requires everyone to behave like a clod
for a tiny fraction of time, every so often*. Obviously, this was this
person's turn at it.)
As for Alex, his problems are much deeper.
That sticky foam-like goo you may have seen on some of the close-up
photos of Hubbard, that makes Hubbard's lips appear as though they are
stuck together - well, that sticky goo can get on a person. Alex got
some on him, and well... one result is that it now oozes out of *him*,
and his keyboard keys are sticking together. That's why he writes
nonexistent words such as, "irregardless."
Don't let this nonsense concern you too much. You're a breath of fresh
air on this NG.
zeeorger
> Copied from another thread that was getting very, very
> long......included things that Alex posted about me playing "the Deaf
> card".....
>
> /Quote/
> I take this to mean "anyone who argues with Hubbard", regardless of the
> number of working limbs or neurons they have.
> But the disabled are always embarrassing, so $cienos probably flee them
> like almost everybody else, as Alex's comment indicates.
> /end Quote/
>
> Seriously? You were all led to believe that anyone with a disability is
> an embarassment?
>
> Someone please explain this to me? Thanks!
>
LRH makes a lot of statements, which when strung
together, forms the overall viewpoint/mindset of all
scientologist's towards who, how and when they will
"help" someone.
"scientology makes the able more able" - This limits
scientology to those that are 'able'.
"we will handle those [degraded beings] once we have
made it." - scientology is for those aware enough to
merit it.
The task of 'clearing the planet' is so large that we do
not help those who can not help in return. (equivalent
to medical triage - help those who will help us, dump
the rest).
In scientology there is term called "criminal exchange".
The criminal is defined as one who takes things without
giving anything in return. The corollary to this datum is
that "giving something for nothing creates criminals".
So nothing is ever given without expecting something
in return, by force if need be.
Propitiation, defined as giving something to another in
the hopes that you will not get harmed - it is considered
to be extremely 'low toned' (emotionally degraded)
Sympathy, defined as going into agreement with another
who is down in the dumps is also considered to be very
'low toned' - hence scientologists have no sympathy.
"you are _entirely_ responsible for the condition you
are in <period>" - This comes from the viewpoint that
you are an 'Operating Thetan' (akin to GOD) - so it can
only be YOU who put you in the state you are in. If you
are disabled, it is because to chose to be in that state.
(this is PHD level scientology ethics)
"We don't owe scientology to anyone".
There is an LRH policy called "Illegal PCs" a.k.a. the
"A to J" types. These are people who are not allowed
to be audited. It excludes those from the media, press
demonstrations, those who want to do scientific tests,
those who are not there on their own free will, ...
The insane, any psychiatrists and those who have been
treated by psychiatrists, are not allowed near scientology.
These people are considered brain-damaged. Psychiatrists
are considered pure evil.
... there are some exceptions. There are people who are
disabled who are scientologists. The numbers are very low.
They are even lower for those on staff or in the Sea Org.
It is very difficult to audit or get audited if you are missing
an arm or are unable to walk on you own.
In a way being a scientologist is a bit like being in the
army (they only want able bodied people) to do battle
against perceived imaginary enemies.
> And, this "religion" that you were in.....you had to take lie detector
> tests?
Yes, they are called security checks, sec-checks for short.
There is a heavy emphasis on uncovering 'sins' (called 'overts'
in scientology) ...
The basic theory runs as follows:
You do something wrong - this is an overt (sin). This overt
(sin) causes you to distance yourself from the general area
and the people you have comitted an overt (sin) on. This
separation then creates a "me v.s. them" and you commit
more overts (sins) against "them" ... It also causes you to
"not see" what others are doing. The general behaviour of
those who have commited overts is called 'withhold' or
what is commonly known as "guilty behaviour". The two
terms often put together in one word "O/W" (short for
Overt/Withhold).
The scn solution to this "dwindling spiral" is to have you
confess your sins. This works up to a point. But scientology
takes it to extremes:
If you are not as productive as you should be, you get
sec-checks. If you are trying to leave (putting distance
between you and those you have sined upon) you get a
sec-check (even if the place stinks). Anytime something
major goes wrong in your unit, department or org, the entire
crew gets sec-checked (you should have seen it comming,
you did not see it comming, so you must have major sins).
...
The ultimate solution is to chuck scientology.
> At what point did any of you start to say this is a tiny bit
> bizarre?
All the way in. :-)
I left the Sea Org when I realized the RTC (most church
management) was nuts. A lot of us left the church in the
1980's. But I was still a "scientologist".
I quit being a scientologist on my own. For me it was the
equivalent of a reverse self-induced psychotic break. Only
then did it become possible to be willing to google for people
like David Mayo, Vaughn Young, ... and read what others had
to say and what they went through.
> ... That my religion is making me take a lie detector test?
I gave up on sec-checks when I realized scientology ethics
was not working as it should. The reason why is complex
to explain - you have to understand the mechanics of mind
control as it is used within scientology.
> ... A
> religion that isn't doing any good works, isn't helping anyone out, is
> taking all my money, no accounting of where it's going....if I try to
> get out, I can't.
> ...but for God's sake stay the hell away from anyone
> with a disability? And don't take an aspirin.
>
> Nothing in that sounded goofy to anyone at any point?
>
> Forgive me if I sound a tiny bit....mmmm....baffled to put it mildly
> here. But I am baffled right now. Was there something inside you
> nagging you all the time that this just doesn't add up?
>
> Thanks in advance for helping me understand more.
>
> Becky
The short answer is - scientology is a mind control operation.
Its purpose was (still is) to abuse people for their energy, their
money, to wield the power of fanatics ...
You are getting hypnotized without your consent. Auditing
involves controlled communication and controlled attention.
You get stuffed with endless datums that are 'near truths'
together with 'total absurdities' ... you can sometimes see
that something is not right, but by then you keep trying to
compute your way out (which is not allowed in scientology
either) and your mind jams up, or you keep going back to
the Org and try to "fix it" and you run into more people that
are even more "screwed into their heads" ... scientology
was designed to introvert you into your own mind. It is
very very nasty. It creates schizophrenia.
Z
Muldoon
I agree completely, but would add this footnote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/dbf50f7f7c5fc3d0
Over the Hill
Great post zeeorger - I learnt a lot from it
.
Out_Of_The_Dark
Over the Hill wrote:
> .
>
>
>
> Great post zeeorger - I learnt a lot from it <
ditto!
JustCallMeFree
Out_Of_The_Dark
Good post, too Muldoon
alexr...@hotmail.com
I do not feel embarassed to associate with a person with a disability.
I feel helpless sometimes because I dont know what to do for them, but
usually they would say
'just act normal, doofus", or some such.
Pretty weird stuff, Scientology, isn't it?!
Scientology does good works in its own way, you can leave by just
stopping attending, the money goes uplines, and you just cant be
auditied for 2 week if you take an asprin.
If you are interested in understanding, truely just go to the churchs
web site and read. Dont worry, you can read the pages without losing
you soul or sanity. Read what the church says it is and read our
philosophy and code of honor.
http://www.scientology.org/p_jpg/wis/wiseng/33/33-hon.htm
http://www.whatisscientology.org/
You dont have to agree. You can read it and think its worthless if you
want. But your questions show that you dont really understand what
scientology is trying to be and do.
And then consider: are we living up to our possiblities? No. Are we
inherently evil?
alex
jerald
I have been to the site and read as you asked. But saying you do
something and really doing it are two very different things. So let me
ask a couple of questions if I may.
How many disabled people are members of scientology? I have to say I
have yet to see a wheel chair in any picture of a gathering of members.
How many members do you have that are disabled due to mental illness?
I seem to remember reading something somewhere about a tone scale.
I think Becky understands just fine and yes we can and will disagee
from time to time. I can also admit I may be wrong, which is why I am
asking these questions. Is there a chance you could be the one wrong
here?
jerald
Beckyboo
alexr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Becky
>
> I do not feel embarassed to associate with a person with a disability.
That's complete bs...I'm calling bs on this....
>
> I feel helpless sometimes because I dont know what to do for them, but
> usually they would say
> 'just act normal, doofus", or some such.
You don't have to "do" anything.... and this is not just a Sci-fi
issue, this applies to the regular general population also. Think to
yourself....the last time you saw a person in a wheelchair, did you
avert your eyes? Or did you look down into their face and talk to them
like you would a normal person? Try treating us like normal people for
a change and get it out of your head than we are differently abled, or
less abled than you. God, I hate labels!!!!! Call me disabled, that's
what it is...a disability...and if you can triumph over your
disability, then you've accomplished a lot already!!
WE will tell you what we need.... so you can relax. But I suspect from
what you are posting that you are not clearly out of the Sci-fi
mindset, that you think you are still somewhat above me, and therefore
need to be the holier-than-thou, then you could come back and save the
less-abled...perhaps me.... but give up on me Alex, I'm never going be
a Scientologist....I'm too much of an individual already. Got it? I had
to fight and claw my way to get as far as I did. I was never pampered
as a child.... my Dad was tough you see. And I'm not buying into
anyone's bs, especially not Hubs, he was insane....and I can see that,
clearly.
He was like Hitler....I've been to the Holocaust museum in DC and
Hitler got rid of the handicapped too. My blonde hair and blue eyes
wouldn't have saved me..... and the fact that I'm a twin might have
kept me alive long enough for Hitler to do some nasty experiments on
me.... right?
Many of you in here are completely hung up on labels too.
>
> Pretty weird stuff, Scientology, isn't it?!
No kidding.
>
> Scientology does good works in its own way, you can leave by just
> stopping attending, the money goes uplines, and you just cant be
> auditied for 2 week if you take an asprin.
BS on most of this.... Audits are for the IRS....let them audit
Scientology.
>
> If you are interested in understanding, truely just go to the churchs
> web site and read. Dont worry, you can read the pages without losing
> you soul or sanity. Read what the church says it is and read our
> philosophy and code of honor.
>
> http://www.scientology.org/p_jpg/wis/wiseng/33/33-hon.htm
>
> http://www.whatisscientology.org/
>
You do understand that I've been buddies with Phil Scott for a while
now, right? I've read a LOT about this already before I ever posted
here. Including a few of the links you posted, plus more, I read
voraciously Alex....education is a very good thing.
Most of the Scientologist's pages that I come across...the ones that
are still in.....they sound like they *are* on some kind of drugs....at
least on Cloud 9. They sound like bot's on a good day. They don't sound
like real people to me.
> You dont have to agree. You can read it and think its worthless if you
> want. But your questions show that you dont really understand what
> scientology is trying to be and do.
My opinion is my own..... and I'll keep it, thanks. Like I said before.
I don't care what you think of my questions.... your opinion doesn't
carry *any* weight with me.
>
> And then consider: are we living up to our possiblities? No. Are we
> inherently evil?
Evil....yes.... money grubby....yes... power hungry.....yes.... a
religion....no.... hiding behind a tax exemption....yes....
Trying to shut people up....yes..... not succeeding well
recently....yes.....
Attracting their own critics....yes
Taking advantage of young people on Sea Org....YES
Trying to cover up their involvement in fair gaming.....yes
Trying to discredit doctors and medicine....YES
Trying to discredit the whole industry of psychology, etc. because they
snubbed Hubs and because he needed treatment badly himself, he even
died with the drugs in his system, YES!!!!
Should I go on?
--
Becky
Beckyboo
alexr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Becky
>
> I do not feel embarassed to associate with a person with a disability.
>
And let me follow up this by saying....I called bs on this because.....
YOU posted about me being deaf. You looked that information up and then
posted it here on purpose.
Then you changed the subject line in a thread to "Becky plays the Deaf
Card".
If you hadn't brought it up, you would never know I was
deaf......EVER..... cause you wouldn't have heard it from me....
(pardon the pun). : /
--
Becky
Chip Gallo
One question to ask at any Scientolgy org(anization):
Are your facilities accessible to people in wheelchairs? In other words,
are you ADA compliant?
That means rest rooms, exterior entrances, auditing rooms, course rooms,
etc. They may not have handicapped staff or public, but with the
renovating and new building going on, one would expect compliance with
local, state and federal laws.
Chip Gallo
Knowing How to Know is Knowing Where to Go:
http://Stop-Narconon.org/LeonaValley/briefing-book.pdf (74MB PDF)
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/9363363/inside_scientology
http://www.lermanet.com/tomgorman/tommygorman.htm
http://www.xenu.net/
http://www.xenuTV.com
http://www.lermanet.com
http://www.lisamcpherson.org/
http://whyaretheydead.net/
http://alley.ethercat.com/cgi-bin/door/door.cgi?11
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/index.html
http://www.torymagoo.org/
Pts 2
physical and mental / emotional.
A relatively healthy person can be recruited into the cult and spiral
down hill with time and exposure.
Zinj
al...@null.edu says...
> In article <1158255311.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> True. In essence I trolled you.
>
> Your deafness is not handicap here, but naivete may be.
>
> You came on this group claiming friendship with Phil scott, a person I
> have known and worked with in the past, and for whom I have a dislike.
> You also have taken a critical and sarcastic position in regards to my
> religious beliefs. Thus in my mind, you became an appropriate target
> for a negative response from me.
>
> I seriously doubt that anyone on ARS would see your deafness as a
> negative aspect in their dealing with you and probably more the
> contrary: you would be admired for having overcome whatever effects it
> has had in your life.
>
> You are pointing out a weakness of mine, the enjoyment of teasing and
> provoking. Sometimes I go to far. My apologies if you feel I have.
>
> alex
For no particular reason, let me attempt to play 'interpreter'
here, because, from my vantage, it's you, Alex, who is missing
(whether deliberately or not) the point.
What I'm hearing is that Becky takes a personal offense not at
your opinions, or even at your jokes, but, at a specific
exercise of the Scientology religious practice you are
practicing.
If I understand you right, you got your nose out of joint by her
association or affiliation with Phil Scott, towards whom you
feel a personal antipathy, and, you object to her stated
opinions on your 'Church'.
So far; so good?
Reacting 'in kind' may not be the most admirable or 'high
toned' way to go; but, usenet isn't for the faint of heart (or,
shouldn't be) and, personal antipathies and even (gasp)
dogpiling and 'guilt by association' etc. are par for the
course.
You don't even have to te a Scientologist or OSA to get the cold
shudders at the thought of Phil setting paradigms, even if you
*like* him (which I do.)
No; I don't think it's your nasty and confrontational reaction
that Becky finds objectionable. She doesn't seem like much of a
shrinking violet.
What she *does* seem to find offensive is that, rather than
dealing with 'her' and 'her positions' on usenet, however
rudely, you instead went off and 'investigated' her to find
better tomatoes to throw.
Naturally, that's a Scientology ritual, and it's predictable
that you would do so, since it's just bringing 'Ron's Word' into
your daily life.
'Noisy Investigation' is supposed to 'shudder' your enemies into
silence; and, if you can't crack the opponent from what he
himself says, it's perfectly Scientological to go find some
'lurid blood sex crimes' to 'expose'.
Why you think that revealing that she was deaf would qualify
there is beyond me, unless, like most 'noisy investigation' the
point is supposed to be the 'intimidation factor' of how much
you're able to 'dig up' on your 'enemy'.
Anyway; that's what Becky seems to find offensive, and almost
anyone but a Scientologist would; even if it *is* a religious
ritual.
Hope this helps.
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Beckyboo
Zinj, Go raibh maith agat, Grazie, Mucho Gracias, Danke schön etc.,
etc.
Now here's your mission should you choose to accept it.
Have the above translated as follows:
Into sign language, morse code, Spanish, Spanglish, Pig Latin, German,
Dutch, oh hell, all the UN languages... and don't forget.....
Hubbardish. Okay? Then comprehension will commence.
No using Babblefish, that's cheating.
I want you to hire all the most expensive translators...okay?
Then send the bill to Alex.....
You have Paypal Alex? Yes? Good, you are going to need it....now you
found my stores, you said you are very comfortable....I bet that nice
house would look great with some flags in front of it....go shopping.
I'll send you my bill too.
:-)
Hell hath no fury like...... a..... woman...... mmmmmmm
--
Becky
Jommy Cross
msg <1158208923....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>Copied from another thread that was getting very, very
>long......included things that Alex posted about me playing "the Deaf
>card".....
>
>/Quote/
>I take this to mean "anyone who argues with Hubbard", regardless of the
>
>number of working limbs or neurons they have.
>
>But the disabled are always embarrassing, so $cienos probably flee them
>
>like almost everybody else, as Alex's comment indicates.
>/end Quote/
>
>
>Seriously? You were all led to believe that anyone with a disability is
>an embarassment?
<snip>
I wasn't ever a Co$ customer, though I seem to be some kind of Freezoner
now.
That's only in the sense that anyone can be a FZ/Indie $cieno/
Fluffentologist if they decide they are.
In <9DXHJTH73708...@frog.nyarlatheotep.org>
I described exactly what kind of $cieno I am.
When I wrote 'the disabled are always embarrassing' I was describing my
observation of society in general. I don't know if you've ever had the
chance to sit in a wheelchair while people stand over you and discuss you
in the third person but, trust me, it's not a great day out.
That Alex thought (wrongly) that Hubbard must have been referring to
physical disability in his term 'Degraded Being' simply reflects the
prejudices of society at large, imho.
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Beckyboo
Jommy Cross wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2006 21:42:03 -0700, "Beckyboo" <LtcRobe...@aol.com> wrote in
> msg <1158208923....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Copied from another thread that was getting very, very
> >long......included things that Alex posted about me playing "the Deaf
> >card".....
> >
> >/Quote/
> >I take this to mean "anyone who argues with Hubbard", regardless of the
> >
> >number of working limbs or neurons they have.
> >
> >But the disabled are always embarrassing, so $cienos probably flee them
> >
> >like almost everybody else, as Alex's comment indicates.
> >/end Quote/
> >
> >
> >Seriously? You were all led to believe that anyone with a disability is
> >an embarassment?
> <snip>
>
> I wasn't ever a Co$ customer, though I seem to be some kind of Freezoner
> now.
I also find it interesting that there's so much confusion..... and
disagreement, no one is really sure what is what.....you are some kind
of Freezoner? Why are you confused? When will you find out? Have they
not established all the guidelines yet or written the book? Or have you
not paid enough to get all the top secret information yet?
>
> That's only in the sense that anyone can be a FZ/Indie $cieno/
> Fluffentologist if they decide they are.
>
> In <9DXHJTH73708...@frog.nyarlatheotep.org>
> I described exactly what kind of $cieno I am.
I'll take a look at that as soon as I get a moment....thanks.
>
> When I wrote 'the disabled are always embarrassing' I was describing my
> observation of society in general. I don't know if you've ever had the
> chance to sit in a wheelchair while people stand over you and discuss you
> in the third person but, trust me, it's not a great day out.
Did you mean they are always embarassing or always being embarassed by
others?
This pains me...to a great extent...probably in the same way that it
pains most of you watching me stumble over trying to learn about
Sci-fi. But, there's some differences and I'll point them out.
1) I try hard not to make assumptions like you do.... I ask
questions.... and try to learn...I read about you and your groups. Alex
made so many assumptions about me that it was scary at best. He assumed
that Phil Scott influenced me...that Phil made up my mind for me...he
did no such thing. I make up my own mind, I always have. Phil knows
that. Then Alex set out to decimate Phil in my eyes....was that fair?
NO....
2) I caught the discussion that Ramona and Alex were having....and
several others discussing Christians....and truly, they have no idea
about Christians either...but this is not alt. christians.... but I
certainly hope they don't plan to make the movie about Christians
either, cause there would be way more than just tech errors!
If you think you have to just sit in a wheelchair to have people
discuss you in the third person, then you don't have a clue either
about what my particular situation is all about.... ok? Or any
handicapped person. I never wanted to discuss this in this group
either, but Alex forced me to....please let that be noted.
That is why I kept bringing up the deaf and DUMB comment because that
IS how society still thinks. Some people even talk louder and
louder..... oy vey.... I lip read and I have some residual hearing, but
screaming is just going to annoy me.... like it annoys everyone else.
And Alex's major concern was....how is Beckyboo going to get audited?
Cripes!
But here's another clue, most people think that because I can't hear,
that I lost my brain along the way. They talk down to me. And, I deal
with this constantly.....and not just with strangers either.....my
family doesn't understand completely.....yet... and probably never
will.
Whatever Alex said about Sci-fi and you in your Freezoner and Ramona
with LDS, there's still this whole strange mentality going on about
people with disabilities and your 'churches'.....
I don't get it.....still.
And, someone brought up a very good point, something I was discussing
with a friend last night. Are the buildings ADA compliant? This is
another thing that someone should be looking into....because all public
buildings have to be, especially new construction. I do not know if
churches fall into the same category as public buildings, or if they
get an exemption, but it would certainly be worth looking
into.....wouldn't it?
>
> That Alex thought (wrongly) that Hubbard must have been referring to
> physical disability in his term 'Degraded Being' simply reflects the
> prejudices of society at large, imho.
>
I find it interesting and sad that your churches have to refer to
degraded beings to begin with.
Here's another thought I have right now....Alex decided that he was
against me just because I said I knew Phil...how mature is that?
And this..... he said I took a negative view of HIS religion.....if he
was paying close attention he would have noticed that I make fun of
*my* own religion too! I kid about the nuns all the time. I actually
have 2 religions.... that's what Orange and Green means. And being that
in Belfast is a tough thing...trust me.... I have a religion to spare
and I'll gladly lend one to anyone here who needs one. I was baptized
both...for protection....so we wouldn't get blown up by bombs. Yep,
that's right....the troubles in Belfast haven't been so bad for a while
but they are still there underneath....always brewing....especially
when one comes from a family like mine. Religious persecution is
something I've been living with my whole life..... so it's not like I'm
clueless on this subject matter completely.
NOW, that's enough about me....
--
Becky
Piltdown Man
Muldoon <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote...
<snip>
> Actually, I don't think deafness is regarded as a "disability" by most
> people these days. There are just too many smart deaf people, and too
> many deaf sexy movie actresses for that.
This is a no doubt unintentional but perfect example of the bizarre
associations many people attach to the label "disability". If someone is
deaf, they lack an ability that most people do have, namely hearing. That's
why it's called a disability. Where on earth does the notion come from that
it's got anything to do with being considered smart, or with being
considered sexy? "Oh, Stephen Hawking can't walk, can't feed himself, can't
go to the toilet by himself, and he can't talk without lots of electronic
trickery -- but he's very smart, so we can't consider those things a
disability".
Piltdown Man
Jommy Cross <jommycross@[127.1]> wrote...
<snip>
> When I wrote 'the disabled are always embarrassing' I was describing my
> observation of society in general. I don't know if you've ever had the
> chance to sit in a wheelchair while people stand over you and discuss you
> in the third person but, trust me, it's not a great day out.
I don't know if it's still around, but in the UK, BBC Radio 4 used to have
a program about disability issues with the title: "Does he take sugar?"
Ramona
Oh Really!?? NOw you are making assumptions about me, my experience,
my knowledge based on very limited information that you might have
about me.
>..but this is not alt. christians.... but I
> certainly hope they don't plan to make the movie about Christians
> either, cause there would be way more than just tech errors!
Again, you make assumptions of my knowledge just as Alex made
assumptions about you. Pot/kettle.
Ramona
Beckyboo
Black?
I read what you wrote about Christians.... and drew my conclusions
based on that. If you have another white paper on Christianity
somewhere else, or you were a Christian and have more information that
I am unaware of....then sure, let's discuss.
But several times you pointed out to Alex you were not a Christian....
you have a ton of information on being a Mormon though that I would
never dispute.
But some, if not most, of your statements about Christians were off.
That's why I made this statement Ramona.
I'll stick to what I said. But if that hurts your feelings..mmmm...
Alex made assumptions without me writing a thing.... you see the
difference?
I'm not here to make friends or enemies either.... Just to speak my
mind.
Have a good day.
--
Becky
Ramona
glint of your life, you assumed based on some statements.
>If you have another white paper on Christianity
> somewhere else, or you were a Christian and have more information that
> I am unaware of....then sure, let's discuss.
>
> But several times you pointed out to Alex you were not a Christian....
> you have a ton of information on being a Mormon though that I would
> never dispute.
>
> But some, if not most, of your statements about Christians were off.
> That's why I made this statement Ramona.
homosexuality? Or my statement that Jesus DID say something about
divorce and remarriage, yet save Catholicism (only by playing the
annulment card) divorce and remarriage is now church sanctioned despite
his clear words against. Perhaps it was my words on the four crusades?
Oh wait, I vaguely recall posting about a S. Baptist friend who calls
me when she is having faith issues since she knows I will know the
right verse to direct her and put her at ease since I know that is what
she wants and expects from me as a friend. Perhaps what offended you
was that I was educated at a parochial school but rejected Christianity
based on the facts that I found. Perhaps what impacted your reasoning
was that we converted to a cult, mormonism, so we must not have
understood Christianity enough. Perhaps you were offended that I
believe, if Jesus did exist, that having enough loaves and fish were
not *poof magically given by Jesus, but that he shared and in doing so
inspired the 5,000 to share with one another. While you may not
consider that miraculous, I consider it more miraculous.
Now had you stated that I know very little about scientology, I would
have agreed with you. I've been here under a year and came because of
friend started telling me that she found Dianetics (specifically engram
development) to be something that made sense to her. Based on my
previous cult experience and just a vague "feeling" about CO$ I came
here and around for information. In college, she had also had a
personality test, which not surprising, she was told that she would
need to take a course. Like most college students, she didn't have
money and walked out the door. Like we were when we joined the
different brandname, she was in a vulnerable position but finacially in
a very appealing state by CO$ standards. I knew I needed to work
quickly and a.r.s., xenu.net, and yes even the main org link were quick
sources for material. I gave her brief synopsis of Hubbard (his psych
medicine use and his false history) the levels including the space
cooty story complete with Xenu/xemu to reboot her thinking.
>
> I'll stick to what I said. But if that hurts your feelings..mmmm...
The point was that you felt just fine using false assumptions to
discuss me, but when Alex did the same you wigged out. Again
kot/kettle. I haven't been following the Beckyboo/Alex conflict, but I
did come across something that was very disturbing to me. I have not
verified so if I am wrong please correct my statement. Alex posted
personal information about you here? While he may have found that
easily through a google search, I still find it an invasive act.
Welcome to Fair Games light and so sorry you had to experience that.
That is one of the issues that most disturbs me about CO$. The cult
seems to promote such behavior as acceptable since one is defending the
church *spit. I see it as just another attempt to silence free speech.
> Alex made assumptions without me writing a thing.... you see the
> difference?
So, you came to A.R.S. because Alex was posting about you and you found
out?
>
> I'm not here to make friends or enemies either.... Just to speak my
> mind.
You did this by speaking your mind based on very little (almost
non-existent) knowledge of me, which is precisely the complaint you had
with Alex. That was my point. It doesn't excuse Alex's behavior
posting private information though.
>
> Have a good day.
Thank you and you as well.
Let's both dust off and get to the reason for being here, scientology.
What brings you to A.R.S.?
Ramona
>
> --
>
> Becky
Beckyboo
Ramona wrote:
> >
> > But several times you pointed out to Alex you were not a Christian....
> > you have a ton of information on being a Mormon though that I would
> > never dispute.
I'm going to try to keep this short and sweet because it really seems
for the most part off topic to me.... but will try to answer your
questions to clear some of this up.
I was never offended.....I don't get offended by any statements about
any religions....I don't take it personally. Do you understand? I don't
care what you or anyone else says about the Catholic church, the
Mormons, or Sci-fi... you can say they are great, you can say they
suck, doesn't matter one iota to me.
I said you made statements about Christians that were off... perhaps
you were making statements about Southern Baptists? but to make broad
sweeping statements about Christianity, and to make it sound like those
beliefs apply to all Christian churches is a great disservice. There's
a great difference between what one practices and another, and there
may be a common denominator, but the differences are greater than the
single common denominator. There are extreme right wing Christians,
like the dear Rev. who protests soldier's funerals...he protested my
nephew's funeral in May of this year, he died in Afghanistan in a
chopper accident. The dear Rev. didn't care that my nephew was Lutheran
either.
After divorce, remarriage in the Catholic church still is not
sanctioned (unless you get an annullment)...that's only one point I'll
make okay? I'm not going to argue this point by point.
I haven't been following the Beckyboo/Alex conflict, but I
> did come across something that was very disturbing to me. I have not
> verified so if I am wrong please correct my statement. Alex posted
> personal information about you here? While he may have found that
> easily through a google search, I still find it an invasive act.
> Welcome to Fair Games light and so sorry you had to experience that.
> That is one of the issues that most disturbs me about CO$. The cult
> seems to promote such behavior as acceptable since one is defending the
> church *spit. I see it as just another attempt to silence free speech.
> > Alex made assumptions without me writing a thing.... you see the
> > difference?
> So, you came to A.R.S. because Alex was posting about you and you found
> out?
I posted after Phil in a motorbike group....my name was being sporged
in OTHER groups...posts were showing up in my regular groups under my
name and it wasn't me. Whoever did that was causing tons of trouble in
my regular groups. It was a mess. I traced the person who was doing
it...it took lots of time and effort but I did find them....in this
group. Then I came here and posted, but not before talking to Phil and
Tory.... I also emailed Arnie about the situation.
We, me and my mother, post to newsgroups because we are trying to find
a guy who we believe has culpability in my sister's death....she was
killed 4/20/06 in a motorcycle accident, that's why I was in a
motorbike group. He's pretty famous....owns a motorcycle school...he
was with her at the time, but disappeared. We know where he is but he's
wealthy, so he can hide figuratively..... not literally.... He's all
lawyered up and hired security too. Whoever sporged me in the motorbike
groups threw me....and my mother off our main reason for posting to
begin with.... they disrupted our agenda completely.
Shortly after I showed up here, someone, Alex? posted all my personal
information, my regular business...address...phone numbers...my
pictures, my mother's pictures....calling her a bull dyke... Then Alex
dug more and found my eBay business and posted that too.
> Let's both dust off and get to the reason for being here, scientology.
> What brings you to A.R.S.?
>
Ok....deal....dusting off...
--
Becky
Ramona
Beckyboo
Alex wrote:
> In article <1158332256....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> spirit.
>
> I find inspiration in the message I suppose and assume Jesus meant to
> deliver: Unconditional love for ones fellow humans. Much of the rest can
> be discarded, and the one priciple can be a good basis for life. Of
> course I am certainly not an example of such pricipled living....
>
> > Perhaps what offended you
> > was that I was educated at a parochial school but rejected Christianity
> > based on the facts that I found. Perhaps what impacted your reasoning
> > was that we converted to a cult, mormonism, so we must not have
> > understood Christianity enough. Perhaps you were offended that I
> > believe, if Jesus did exist, that having enough loaves and fish were
> > not *poof magically given by Jesus, but that he shared and in doing so
> > inspired the 5,000 to share with one another. While you may not
> > consider that miraculous, I consider it more miraculous.
>
> with a glance, as proof of the existence of scientology OT's.
>
> The more subtle effect created is sometimes the more profound and
> then here. I will admit to tagging on to that with a post showing a link
> to her ebay store, and mentioning her deafness.
>
> In retrospect, trolling her, was transparent and not an action that
> speaks well for me, or my positions.
>
> > > I'm not here to make friends or enemies either.... Just to speak my
> > > mind.
> > You did this by speaking your mind based on very little (almost
> > non-existent) knowledge of me, which is precisely the complaint you had
> > with Alex. That was my point. It doesn't excuse Alex's behavior
> > posting private information though.
>
You are a liar Alex.... now I don't believe one word you say.... That
is not all you did... There is way more than one Beckyboo. Scientology
teaches you to lie, right? Or says it's okay to lie when fair
gaming....true?
You are a liar Alex.....
--
Becky
Ramona
Alex wrote:
> In article <1158332256....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> spirit.
That does not make me christian, even in spirit. I have also
emotionally supported friends, though ultimately it was their decision,
to have abortions. I am not an abortionist either.
>
> I find inspiration in the message I suppose and assume Jesus meant to
> deliver: Unconditional love for ones fellow humans. Much of the rest can
> be discarded, and the one priciple can be a good basis for life. Of
> course I am certainly not an example of such pricipled living....
>
> > was that I was educated at a parochial school but rejected Christianity
> > based on the facts that I found. Perhaps what impacted your reasoning
> > was that we converted to a cult, mormonism, so we must not have
> > understood Christianity enough. Perhaps you were offended that I
> > believe, if Jesus did exist, that having enough loaves and fish were
> > not *poof magically given by Jesus, but that he shared and in doing so
> > inspired the 5,000 to share with one another. While you may not
> > consider that miraculous, I consider it more miraculous.
>
> with a glance, as proof of the existence of scientology OT's.
(superhuman abilities) are a given. If that is the claim and
scientology pretends itself as a science, then follow the rules of
science and test/verify those claims. The followers of Jesus
attributed those abilites to him, not the inverse.
>
> The more subtle effect created is sometimes the more profound and
> miraculous.
I don't consider an individual that inspires mass generosity the
slightest bit subtle, but I agree that it is both profound and
miraculous. But that is the example that most strikes me against
scientology. Again back to Jenna Elfman's example to the children with
AIDS fundraiser. Instead of inspiring mass kindness, she instead is
inspired by Hubbard that taught that one should not aid or be
charitable to others as somehow inhibiting them.
> Someone else was posting about becky, first on the motorcycle group and
> then here. I will admit to tagging on to that with a post showing a link
> to her ebay store, and mentioning her deafness.
I am not familiar with the situation but do ask: Why would you even do
that?
Ramona
>
> In retrospect, trolling her, was transparent and not an action that
> speaks well for me, or my positions.
>
> > > I'm not here to make friends or enemies either.... Just to speak my
> > > mind.
> > You did this by speaking your mind based on very little (almost
> > non-existent) knowledge of me, which is precisely the complaint you had
> > with Alex. That was my point. It doesn't excuse Alex's behavior
> > posting private information though.
>
> Googled Beckyboo. That is all.
>
> alex
Jommy Cross
in msg <1158221159.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>Actually, I don't think deafness is regarded as a "disability" by most
>people these days. There are just too many smart deaf people, and too
>many deaf sexy movie actresses for that.
>
>being witty.
They're based on my observation of how people with disabilities are
treated. I wish it were otherwise, but to the extent you're disabled many
people seem to regard you as more of an object than a human.
>
>As far as I know, the person (?) who made the comments was never a
>Scientologist. He's just momentarily being a clod. (There is an
>unwritten universal law *that requires everyone to behave like a clod
>for a tiny fraction of time, every so often*. Obviously, this was this
>person's turn at it.)
I'd be happy if it was only a tiny fraction of the time.
Jommy Cross
msg <1158290830.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
>
>Jommy Cross wrote:
<snip>
>> In <9DXHJTH73708...@frog.nyarlatheotep.org>
>> I described exactly what kind of $cieno I am.
>
>I'll take a look at that as soon as I get a moment....thanks.
I'll save you some time, but spoil the joke for you. I was talking to our
friendly Indie Scientologist when I said:
'"In fact, I've decided I'm a $cientologist. The only statement of
Hubbard's I hold to is "The source of life is a static of peculiar and
particular properties.". The rest of it, to the last HCOB, is patently
drug-addled sci-fi. And yes, I *do* spell the word with a dollar sign.
'"Further, I don't want to hear any sniping from bigots about how I'm not a
*real* $cieno as I continue to point out that Ron was mad, bad and
dangerous to give money or credence to."'
So that's not much of a $cieno, is it?
>
>>
>> When I wrote 'the disabled are always embarrassing' I was describing my
>> observation of society in general. I don't know if you've ever had the
>> chance to sit in a wheelchair while people stand over you and discuss you
>> in the third person but, trust me, it's not a great day out.
>
>Did you mean they are always embarassing or always being embarassed by
>others?
I meant a lot of people are embarrassed by the disabled. Obviously, some
disabilities are harder to deal with than others.
<snip>
>> That Alex thought (wrongly) that Hubbard must have been referring to
>> physical disability in his term 'Degraded Being' simply reflects the
>> prejudices of society at large, imho.
>>
>
>I find it interesting and sad that your churches have to refer to
>degraded beings to begin with.
<snip>
Well, yeah. But that's paranoid ufo nut cults for you.
Ramona
Alex wrote:
> In article <1158424231.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It sounds as if although you are not christian in label, you are in
> > > spirit.
> > I am offended. I love a friend enough to support her in her belief.
> > That does not make me christian, even in spirit. I have also
> > emotionally supported friends, though ultimately it was their decision,
> > to have abortions. I am not an abortionist either.
> > >
>
> have exhibited virtuous behavior
Perhaps I have studied too much Christian history to find much of it
virtuous.
> that is similar to the teaching of a
> religion that apparently you have issues with.
>
> Perhaps I should suggest you are less than virtuous?
>
> "Western Culture", European and American, is derived from Christian
> principles.
Or Jewish ones that Christians through supercessionism claim as their
own.
> To suggest you have acted in a manner characteristic of
> Christian teachings, implies that you have acted in the best of the
> tradition of our culture.
>
> You are offended!
The Talmud in tractate Shabbos 31a relates the following well-known
story of Hillel:
"On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before
Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte, on the condition that
you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot."[1] Thereupon
he chased him away with the builder's cubit that was in his hand.[2]
When he came before Hillel, (he also asked Hillel to teach him the
entire Torah while standing on one foot) Hillel replied, "What is
hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah
while the rest is commentary; go and learn it."[3]
http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/ahavas-yisroel/08.htm
*Of Note is that Hillel lived in the first century BCE (before the
common era.) Hmm, do you know of anybody that perhaps lived a century
later that might have been inspired by Rabbi Hillel and that the same
quote you attribute to him and the religion derived from him? Here's a
hint, I'm Jewish. Can you now understand the offense?
>
> I scared my cat laughing at that one!
>
> I suggest you are offended that I, (a scientologist) attempt to
> communicate with you.
Naw, that you are a scientologist doesn't even impact me. L'chaim
y'all.
Ramona
>
> alex
rai...@yahoo.com
Hmm. The comment about "embarassing" seems to be the personal position
of whomever it is you are quoting. I do not recall it being stated one
way or the other in my time in Scientology and the Sea Org. My wife and
I have a handicapped son who was born during our time in the Sea Org -
I never felt embarassed nor did anyone make me feel that way.
Now I don't think that Scientology is "pro" the handicapped - I think
the main reason for that is that handicapped people show, without a
doubt, that Scientology "tech" is worthless. Our son is deaf/blind and
it certainly never helped him any. And of course, most people with
disabilities, especially those with cognitive ones, are not going to
have any money.
Now if we ever want to rag on Christian Science who are absolutely
disgusting when it comes to the disabled..
Mick
Beckyboo wrote:
> Copied from another thread that was getting very, very
> long......included things that Alex posted about me playing "the Deaf
> card".....
>
> /Quote/
> I take this to mean "anyone who argues with Hubbard", regardless of the
>
> number of working limbs or neurons they have.
>
> But the disabled are always embarrassing, so $cienos probably flee them
>
> like almost everybody else, as Alex's comment indicates.
> /end Quote/
>
>
> Seriously? You were all led to believe that anyone with a disability is
> an embarassment?
>
> Someone please explain this to me? Thanks!
>
> And, this "religion" that you were in.....you had to take lie detector
> tests? At what point did any of you start to say this is a tiny bit
> bizarre? That my religion is making me take a lie detector test? A
> religion that isn't doing any good works, isn't helping anyone out, is
> taking all my money, no accounting of where it's going....if I try to
> get out, I can't....but for God's sake stay the hell away from anyone
> with a disability? And don't take an aspirin.
>
> Nothing in that sounded goofy to anyone at any point?
>
> Forgive me if I sound a tiny bit....mmmm....baffled to put it mildly
> here. But I am baffled right now. Was there something inside you
> nagging you all the time that this just doesn't add up?
>
> Thanks in advance for helping me understand more.
>
>
> --
>
> Becky
Beckyboo
rai...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi Becky,
>
> Hmm. The comment about "embarassing" seems to be the personal position
> of whomever it is you are quoting. I do not recall it being stated one
> way or the other in my time in Scientology and the Sea Org. My wife and
> I have a handicapped son who was born during our time in the Sea Org -
> I never felt embarassed nor did anyone make me feel that way.
>
> Now I don't think that Scientology is "pro" the handicapped - I think
> the main reason for that is that handicapped people show, without a
> doubt, that Scientology "tech" is worthless. Our son is deaf/blind and
> it certainly never helped him any. And of course, most people with
> disabilities, especially those with cognitive ones, are not going to
> have any money.
>
>
>
Hi Mick,
Thanks for sharing your story. I wish I could agree with you but I'm
not seeing that it's just one personal postion in Sci-fi from what I'm
reading, and not just on ARS. Maybe not stated, but definitely brewing
underneath. And, it's an interesting concept to look at in what you
brought up.... Sci-fi can try to brush the disabled under the rug
because it shows their "tech" really is worthless. :-)
I do understand your point in the money vs. no money earning capability
Sci-fi may look upon with the disabled.
Good luck with your son! Helen Keller is definitely one of my hereos.
:-) I read her story when I was little, even before I lost my own
hearing. Radcliffe grad, wasn't she?
You might find some support in a group called The Say What Club. ;-)
Yes, that's a real online support group. Cute name, isn't it? Google
them (if you don't already belong)..... it's a moderated group with a
huge membership of mostly late deafened people. But many on there are
deaf/blind too. And many parents belong as well.
You'd be amazed at their accomplishments, and they share their
struggles and everyday sorrows too. Also, if you need a special
computer (or other help) for your son, let me know. I have a very close
friend who is a retired NASA engineer and is blind also, and he can get
help steer you in the right direction to possibly find some
assistance.
--
Best,
Becky
barbz
> Alex wrote:
>> In article <1158580057.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Beckyboo" <LtcRobe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> rai...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Hi Becky,
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. The comment about "embarassing" seems to be the personal position
>>>> of whomever it is you are quoting. I do not recall it being stated one
>>>> way or the other in my time in Scientology and the Sea Org. My wife and
>>>> I have a handicapped son who was born during our time in the Sea Org -
>>>> I never felt embarassed nor did anyone make me feel that way.
>>>>
>>>> Now I don't think that Scientology is "pro" the handicapped - I think
>>>> the main reason for that is that handicapped people show, without a
>>>> doubt, that Scientology "tech" is worthless. Our son is deaf/blind and
>>>> it certainly never helped him any. And of course, most people with
>>>> disabilities, especially those with cognitive ones, are not going to
>>>> have any money.
>>>>
>>>> Mick
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hi Mick,
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing your story. I wish I could agree with you but I'm
>>> not seeing that it's just one personal postion in Sci-fi from what I'm
>>> reading, and not just on ARS. Maybe not stated, but definitely brewing
>>> underneath. And, it's an interesting concept to look at in what you
>>> brought up.... Sci-fi can try to brush the disabled under the rug
>>> because it shows their "tech" really is worthless. :-)
>> because it cant heal the blind?! Blindness and deafness and various
>> mechanical disabilities are something that is manifest in a BODY.
>>
>
> Alex, do try to keep up....I didn't say that.... someone else said
> that...and you are mixing up me with someone else saying that I said
> something someone else said that I didn't say...now you are saying I
> said it and I didn't say it and so on and so forth...
>
> <sigh>
>
> --
>
> Becky
>
Get your wogs in a row, Alex.
--
"I'm for the separation of church and hate."
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
xenu...@netscape.net
Eldon
two-edged sword for Scientology.
Look up the story of Raul Lopez, the victim who was brain damaged in a
traffic accident and ripped off several years ago. He'd already had
professional occupational therapy, and presumably had progressed as far
as he could. But he was still disabled. But oh, he had received a large
insurance settlement.
Along came Scientology and cleaned him out with the false promise that
auditing could help, plus an Ostrich farm investment scam.
It goes back to Hubbard's original claims in Dianetics that his miracle
tech would fix anything and everything, even conditions known to be
caused by genetic and birth defects, disease and physical injuries.
But it won't, so Scientology tends to avoid those "difficult cases"
unless there's easy money to be made.
Just show them the money and they'll make all sorts of exceptions.
zeeorger wrote:
> LRH makes a lot of statements, which when strung
> together, forms the overall viewpoint/mindset of all
> scientologist's towards who, how and when they will
> "help" someone.
>
> "scientology makes the able more able" - This limits
> scientology to those that are 'able'.
>
> "we will handle those [degraded beings] once we have
> made it." - scientology is for those aware enough to
> merit it.
>
> The task of 'clearing the planet' is so large that we do
> not help those who can not help in return. (equivalent
> to medical triage - help those who will help us, dump
> the rest).
>
> In scientology there is term called "criminal exchange".
> The criminal is defined as one who takes things without
> giving anything in return. The corollary to this datum is
> that "giving something for nothing creates criminals".
> So nothing is ever given without expecting something
> in return, by force if need be.
>
> Propitiation, defined as giving something to another in
> the hopes that you will not get harmed - it is considered
> to be extremely 'low toned' (emotionally degraded)
>
> Sympathy, defined as going into agreement with another
> who is down in the dumps is also considered to be very
> 'low toned' - hence scientologists have no sympathy.
>
> "you are _entirely_ responsible for the condition you
> are in <period>" - This comes from the viewpoint that
> you are an 'Operating Thetan' (akin to GOD) - so it can
> only be YOU who put you in the state you are in. If you
> are disabled, it is because to chose to be in that state.
> (this is PHD level scientology ethics)
>
> "We don't owe scientology to anyone".
>
> There is an LRH policy called "Illegal PCs" a.k.a. the
> "A to J" types. These are people who are not allowed
> to be audited. It excludes those from the media, press
> demonstrations, those who want to do scientific tests,
> those who are not there on their own free will, ...
>
> The insane, any psychiatrists and those who have been
> treated by psychiatrists, are not allowed near scientology.
> These people are considered brain-damaged. Psychiatrists
> are considered pure evil.
>
> ... there are some exceptions. There are people who are
> disabled who are scientologists. The numbers are very low.
> They are even lower for those on staff or in the Sea Org.
> It is very difficult to audit or get audited if you are missing
> an arm or are unable to walk on you own.
>
> In a way being a scientologist is a bit like being in the
> army (they only want able bodied people) to do battle
> against perceived imaginary enemies.
>
>
> > And, this "religion" that you were in.....you had to take lie detector
> > tests?
>
> Yes, they are called security checks, sec-checks for short.
>
> There is a heavy emphasis on uncovering 'sins' (called 'overts'
> in scientology) ...
>
> The basic theory runs as follows:
>
> You do something wrong - this is an overt (sin). This overt
> (sin) causes you to distance yourself from the general area
> and the people you have comitted an overt (sin) on. This
> separation then creates a "me v.s. them" and you commit
> more overts (sins) against "them" ... It also causes you to
> "not see" what others are doing. The general behaviour of
> those who have commited overts is called 'withhold' or
> what is commonly known as "guilty behaviour". The two
> terms often put together in one word "O/W" (short for
> Overt/Withhold).
>
> The scn solution to this "dwindling spiral" is to have you
> confess your sins. This works up to a point. But scientology
> takes it to extremes:
>
> If you are not as productive as you should be, you get
> sec-checks. If you are trying to leave (putting distance
> between you and those you have sined upon) you get a
> sec-check (even if the place stinks). Anytime something
> major goes wrong in your unit, department or org, the entire
> crew gets sec-checked (you should have seen it comming,
> you did not see it comming, so you must have major sins).
> ...
>
> The ultimate solution is to chuck scientology.
>
>
> > At what point did any of you start to say this is a tiny bit
> > bizarre?
>
> All the way in. :-)
>
> I left the Sea Org when I realized the RTC (most church
> management) was nuts. A lot of us left the church in the
> 1980's. But I was still a "scientologist".
>
> I quit being a scientologist on my own. For me it was the
> equivalent of a reverse self-induced psychotic break. Only
> then did it become possible to be willing to google for people
> like David Mayo, Vaughn Young, ... and read what others had
> to say and what they went through.
>
>
> > ... That my religion is making me take a lie detector test?
>
> I gave up on sec-checks when I realized scientology ethics
> was not working as it should. The reason why is complex
> to explain - you have to understand the mechanics of mind
> control as it is used within scientology.
>
> > ... A
> > religion that isn't doing any good works, isn't helping anyone out, is
> > taking all my money, no accounting of where it's going....if I try to
> > get out, I can't.
> > ...but for God's sake stay the hell away from anyone
> > with a disability? And don't take an aspirin.
> >
> > Nothing in that sounded goofy to anyone at any point?
> >
> > Forgive me if I sound a tiny bit....mmmm....baffled to put it mildly
> > here. But I am baffled right now. Was there something inside you
> > nagging you all the time that this just doesn't add up?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for helping me understand more.
> >
> > Becky
>
>
> The short answer is - scientology is a mind control operation.
> Its purpose was (still is) to abuse people for their energy, their
> money, to wield the power of fanatics ...
>
> You are getting hypnotized without your consent. Auditing
> involves controlled communication and controlled attention.
> You get stuffed with endless datums that are 'near truths'
> together with 'total absurdities' ... you can sometimes see
> that something is not right, but by then you keep trying to
> compute your way out (which is not allowed in scientology
> either) and your mind jams up, or you keep going back to
> the Org and try to "fix it" and you run into more people that
> are even more "screwed into their heads" ... scientology
> was designed to introvert you into your own mind. It is
> very very nasty. It creates schizophrenia.
>
>
>
> Z
Zinj
al...@null.edu says...
<snip>
> You can not, by your say so, undo my previous christianity, and in fact
> it is unchristiian of you to try to do so.
Nobody can 'remove' early influences, although their influence
can vary from 'nil' to 'full', by its own tenets, Scientology is
not only 'unchristian', but *anti-Christian*. It is
antithetical; diametrically opposed; in a practically point-for-
point opposition to *every one* of the core tenets of every
flavor of Christianity. By design.
Although, also by design, it does attempt to disguise its 'anti-
christianity' behind mealy-mouthed 'creeds' and 'codes' and a
claim to being 'compatible'.
There's nothing 'Christian' about saying 'Thou Shallt Not Kill -
Unless you really want to', which is typical of the actual
subtext behind Scientology weaslewordism.
'Never fear to hurt another in a just cause'
'Avoid harmful lies'
etc.
I often get frustrated by critics who read the various
Scientology Creeds and actually fall for the similarity,
although any actual reading reveals the self-serving 'escape
hatches' in every platitude.
If you're judged 'unchristian' Alex, it's because you openly
*embrace* the Scientology antithesis.
By that measure, whether you 'celebrate Christmas with a
Christmas tree' becomes irrelevant.
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
And all you wogs, don't let him.
The little duck fakir wants to shoot down wogs like ducks in ponds,
plus wants them in a row. So duck you wogs and web out!
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/fun/parody/dm-duck-fakir.html
Oh, and while you wogs get completely out of line, keep DM and Alex in
a row.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
jerald
The last part of your post says it all. Yes any fool can do it. (and
it looks like one has) But why?
jerald
Alex wrote:
> In article <1158601054.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Beckyboo" <LtcRobe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > May I just point out that this is also not alt. deaf or alt. eBay.
> > Beckyboo's store...but that didn't stop you from exposing me? Nor alt.
> > us flag. org.... nor alt. usflagdepot. com
> >
> > Nor alt. beckyboo. twins .jpg pictures.... but that popped up too? Nor,
> > alt. let's make fun of Becky's mother?
> >
> > May I ask you too why you thought my mother was a bull dyke and how she
> > could have had me if she was one? And, if she's so ugly....why did you
> > think I was cute? Huh Alex? I look just like my mother.... that still
> > confuses me.
> >
> > You attacked me and my mother, you exposed us and now you are wondering
> > why I'm not exactly happy with you. Get a clue Alex.
> >
> > --
>
> Becky.
>
> I have never commented on your mother.
>
> I have never said you were cute. (although you would qualify as at least
> that)
>
> I have never posted photos of you or links to them.
>
> The only thing I have ever posted about you that was not directly from
> this group, is a link to your ebay store, which is public information,
> and the fact that you were deaf, which you do not deny and is again
> public information from your ebay store.
>
> I was not the one who posted links to your flag site. You are confused
> or possibly influenced by individuals who would suggest otherwise.
>
> I post only as alex or alexrsingh(at)hotmail.com, sometimes via google,
> sometimes via usenet directly. I am not using any other names on this
> group. Or for that matter anywhere else on usenet.
>
> Before you go accusing me of things I have not done, you should check
> your facts.
>
> I have been chastised for posting "outside" information about you. I
> admit that it is not considered curteous to do such. I have in fact
> indicated that I understood that. I will not though apologize. I only
> posted what any fool with google could have found by entering your
> screen name and waiting 0.01463 seconds to get >1,263,029 results. You
> are all over the net.
>
> Now either post your "evidence" to back up your accusations or move on.
>
> alex
Gerry Armstrong
>In article <alex-027D4C.1...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> Alex <al...@null.edu> wrote:
>
>> I post only as alex or alexrsingh(at)hotmail.com, sometimes via google,
>> sometimes via usenet directly. I am not using any other names on this
>> group. Or for that matter anywhere else on usenet.
>
>I have in the past 6 months, approximately 8 times, posted under a nym
>not associated with alex. It was in five different threads and concerned
>advanced materials. I did acknowledge it to a poster who called me on it.
>
>In years past I had posted with a different name, which I no longer use.
>I would rather not mention it as I seem to make a fool of myself well
>enough that I don't need to dredge up my past for assistance.
I would rather that you *did* mention it, as it would clear the air,
and because you have *not* made a fool of yourself well enough.
>
>None of these postings were concerning Becky.
Good. Only include your different names for posts then that concern
anything other than Becky.
>
>alex
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Barbara Schwarz
Alex schrieb:
> I post only as alex or alexrsingh(at)hotmail.com, sometimes via google,
> sometimes via usenet directly. I am not using any other names on this
> group. Or for that matter anywhere else on usenet.
>
> Before you go accusing me of things I have not done, you should check
> your facts.
>
> I have been chastised for posting "outside" information about you. I
> admit that it is not considered curteous to do such. I have in fact
> indicated that I understood that. I will not though apologize. I only
> posted what any fool with google could have found by entering your
> screen name and waiting 0.01463 seconds to get >1,263,029 results. You
> are all over the net.
>
> Now either post your "evidence" to back up your accusations or move on.
>
> alex
She is a fanatic, Alex. I didn't even know who she was when she came
out of the bushes and posted a thread against me that I should watch my
back. I never did anything to her. She is a typically disturbed
Scientology hater.
Her real name is Shirley Streufert. She seems to be a close friend of
Phil Scott.
http://www.thunderstar.net/~schwarz/lrh/fbidocs.html
Barbara Schwarz
--
Eugenics promoter and American enemy Tilman Hausherr and habitual,
sexual harasser, forger and habitual offender Korey Jerome Kruse
(Vivaldi, Simaktu and other sockpuppets) scribbled a defamatory
misleading Wikipedia article about me. Kruse just came out of jail.
http://www.alarmgermany.org/tilman.htm
Another lying abuser who stalks me from thread to thread is Peat
Stapleton (Eru Avatar), alsimak_three @ yahoo.com, from Redding,
California, a dead beat with several social security numbers, self
confessed pimp and child rapist, and former inmate with a psychiatric
history, who runs astrology scans.
Jommy Cross
<alex-143E70.0...@news.west.earthlink.net>:
>In article <AVIMPRLE38...@anonymous.poster>,
> jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>snip
>
>
>> >> That Alex thought (wrongly) that Hubbard must have been referring to
>> >> physical disability in his term 'Degraded Being' simply reflects the
>> >> prejudices of society at large, imho.
>> >>
>
>
>snip
>
>
>I never thought that "degraded being " referred to the physically
>disabled.
>
>In fact I was arguing exactly the opposite.
>
>Somewhere someone has mixed me up with something someone else said.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:59:12 GMT, Alex <al...@null.edu> wrote in msg
<alex-B319BD.1...@news.west.earthlink.net>:
>In article <1158172368.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> The LDS also have an alien connection. Heavenly Father came from near
>> the planet KOLOB. While scientology places those mentally impaired as
>> degraded though,
>
>I'm not sure this is true. I see them as usually having a bodily defect
>of some kind. Although it is true that scientology does not currently
>concern itself much with the less able.
<snip>
So who did you mean had "a bodily defect of some kind"? Please clarify this
ambiguous statement.
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Ramona
Alex wrote:
> In article <1158529082.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,> > > In article <1158424231.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > It sounds as if although you are not christian in label, you are in
> > > > > spirit.
> > > > I am offended. I love a friend enough to support her in her belief.
> > > > That does not make me christian, even in spirit. I have also
> > > > emotionally supported friends, though ultimately it was their decision,
> > > > to have abortions. I am not an abortionist either.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Ha! That is rich! You are offended that I have suggested that you may
> > > have exhibited virtuous behavior
> > Perhaps I have studied too much Christian history to find much of it
> > virtuous.
> > > that is similar to the teaching of a
> > > religion that apparently you have issues with.
> > >
> > > Perhaps I should suggest you are less than virtuous?
> > >
> > > "Western Culture", European and American, is derived from Christian
> > > principles.
> > Or Jewish ones that Christians through supercessionism claim as their
> > own.
> >
> > > To suggest you have acted in a manner characteristic of
> > > Christian teachings, implies that you have acted in the best of the
> > > tradition of our culture.
> > >
> > > You are offended!
> > The Talmud in tractate Shabbos 31a relates the following well-known
> > story of Hillel:
> > "On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before
> > Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte, on the condition that
> > you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot."[1] Thereupon
> > he chased him away with the builder's cubit that was in his hand.[2]
> > When he came before Hillel, (he also asked Hillel to teach him the
> > entire Torah while standing on one foot) Hillel replied, "What is
> > hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah
> > while the rest is commentary; go and learn it."[3]
> > http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/ahavas-yisroel/08.htm
> >
> > *Of Note is that Hillel lived in the first century BCE (before the
> > common era.) Hmm, do you know of anybody that perhaps lived a century
> > later that might have been inspired by Rabbi Hillel and that the same
> > quote you attribute to him and the religion derived from him? Here's a
> > hint, I'm Jewish. Can you now understand the offense?
>
> If you are Jewish, certainly I can.
>
> You are Jewish, converted to LDS, and then left LDS?
>
> I'm sorry I kind of would never have suspected that one!
>
> Not saying its not true, just fairly UNIQUE!
Yes, there are Jewish converts in the lds cult just as there are
multiple religions represented in CO$.
>
> I meant no offense.
None taken by this agnostic. But also noteworthy is the fact that
there are many atheists that are of high moral character. A religious
label does not make a person more likely to be moral or amoral, though
morality is assumed a byproduct of religion. I don't believe that to
be true. I think the term morality is the equivalent to citizenship
and survival of the species.
>
> In the spirit of the above story, I enjoy people challenging my views.
> Being on ARS and saying I am a scientologist makes me a target. And I
> respond in kind.
So now I ask, are you in the CO$ (public or staff) or are you FZ or
otherwise independent from the org? Based on some of your writings I
get the sense of you as heretical if in the org. I come from a long
line of heretics so I mean no insult.
>
> I am not offended by sincere expressions by others that I may have some
> trait THEY consider virtuous, even if it does not fit in my definition.
>
> I believe that the influence of Jesus, was a major paradigm shift for
> civilization. Previous monotheism (Judaism) was hierarchal, whereas
> Christianity was somewhat deomocratic or even anarchistic and it is this
> that is the basis of "western" civilization.
Heirarchal? LOL. You must have gone all the way back to Moses. You may
not be aware of it, but Christianity was Rabbinical Judaism in
practice.
I see CO$ as painfully heirarchal with independent thought stifled.
The history of the placement of the Mezzuzot clarifies this. One rabbi
believed the mezzuzah should be placed vertically at the door, another
horizontally. As a compromise it was suggested all mezzuzot be placed
diagonally. There seems never to be compromise in CO$. Adult children
whose parents express dislike of the CO$ are forced to disconnect.
There is no discussion, no compromise, no communication but a forced
action to remain in the warm fuzzies of the cult. It seems nobody is
allowed to stand up against DM or the cult and remain without
restitution.
There is no acceptance of FZ by the CO$ as there is even among the
christians. Almost every brandname christian faith believes themselves
to have a bit greater truth than other namebrands. But ultimately each
understands that christianity is what unites them all. CO$ doesn't
function this way. They believe their brand is the ONLY brand even
using the derogatory term squirrel. They do not unite themselves with
independents or FZ as having tech common belief among them.
I ask again since definitions/mu's are integral to scientology. What
is the term used for those that are mentally impaired?
While Beckyboo does not believe that you wouldn't know someone
impaired, I do. With only approximately 50,000 people in CO$ the
probabilities are low particularly is you don't associate solely with
other scientologists. Also, those that are imparied would quickly show
that scientology practices do nothing to aid them. With no change
scientology is proven useless. It would be no wonder that you would
have little exposure with that being the case.
With all the threads you are being bombarded with, you must feel like
the easy cheerleader ;-)
Ramona
> A concept of an individual
> having direct access to god, and by extension an individual having a
> right to personal identity on equal footing with every other man before
> god.
>
> alex
> > >
> > > I scared my cat laughing at that one!
> > >
> > > I suggest you are offended that I, (a scientologist) attempt to
> > > communicate with you.
> > Naw, that you are a scientologist doesn't even impact me. L'chaim
> > y'all.
> >
> > Ramona
> > >
> > > alex
Gerry Armstrong
>In article <alex-027D4C.1...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> Alex <al...@null.edu> wrote:
>
>> I post only as alex or alexrsingh(at)hotmail.com, sometimes via google,
>> sometimes via usenet directly. I am not using any other names on this
>> group. Or for that matter anywhere else on usenet.
>
Zinj
al...@null.edu says...
<snip>
> I am Church of Scientology public. I am heretical.
The 'Church' of Scientology likes to 'compare' itself to the
Roman Catholic Church, for some reason, so, let's compare.
The Roman Catholic Church has 'core beliefs' in matters of faith
and morals. They are enumerated in the 'Apostle's Creed', and,
there are some other 'core beliefs' which are considered
mandatory.
Rejection of any of those 'core beliefs', such as the divinity
of Christ, or papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals
or disbelief in 'God' are ipso facto rejection of Roman
Catholocism.
One may still be a 'christian' or even a 'catholic', but *not* a
Roman Catholic.
There are also many *more* elements of 'Church' tradition and
practice and ritual which are *not* mandatory. For example, an
all male clergy (which is purely an administrative decision) or
'celibacy' for priests (quite regularly if not publicly evaded
*officially*) or the long defunct requirements for 'no meat on
friday' or 'weekly attendance at Mass'.
The 'core' and 'mandatory' beliefs are just that; core and
mandatory, and, no disagreement is possible.
To do so *would* be heresy, and auto-excommunication. There is
no need for an official 'Church' 'declare' in such cases; the
fact of the rejection of doctrine is itself the excommunication,
whether it's generally known or not.
This should not be confused with committing a 'sin', whether
'venial' or 'mortal'.
A person can quite blatantly commit a 'mortal sin', such as
murder, abortion, homosexual practices, blasphemy or even
telling Irish Jokes without endangering anything more than his
immortal soul. His membership in the 'Church' is *not* affected
*unless* he also claims that his behavior is 'not a sin', which
would be rejection of core beliefs.
A killer can be a Catholic; someone who rejects the 'Church'
doctrine on pre-marital or homosexual sex *cannot*, although,
it's not the *practice* that is excommunicative, but the
'rejection' of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility inherent in
rejecting a 'Papal Bull', or official statement by the pope on a
matter of 'faith and morals'.
If the pope says he thinks 'Battlefield Earth' is a wonderful
movie (unlikely) it's safe to disagree with him.
The pope is only infallible on matters of faith and morals.
Scientology is quite different. In Scientology *all* tenets;
*all* pronouncements of L. Ron Hubbard are doctrinal. The
pronouncements of L. Ron Hubbard are the *sole* Church Doctrine.
Rejection of even the smallest of these is tantamount to a Roman
Catholic rejecting the divinity of Christ.
Even attempting to 'clarify' or 'interpret' such silliness as L.
Ron Hubbard's 'theories' on radiation or evolution or cosmology
is by definition a 'High Crime'. Could be 'Tech Degrade' or
'Verbal Tech' but *either* disqualifies the criminal as a
Scientologist and makes him, not a 'heretic' but an *enemy* and
a suppressive and a degraded being and a *Non Scientologist*.
The rules are quite specific and enumerated and, no amount of
'best intentions' changes the fact.
It's even an 'overt' to have 'unkind thoughts about L. Ron
Hubbard', such as 'God, what was He thinking in appointing that
giftzwerg Davey???'
Scientology 'Tech', including 'Management Tech' is 100%
'standard' and effective *if correctly applied*, and, the
measure of correct application is *Hubbard's* application; and,
if L. Ron Hubbard *allowed* David Miscavige to 'take over' or
even murder 'Him', then it is 100% correct application of
'Tech', since Ron applied it and it's 100% effective if applied
correctly, which, by definition, Ron did... (whew!:)
A 'heretical' Scientologist is not a Scientologist because he's
rejecting a *core* tenet of Scientology; that 'The Tech' is 100%
effective and 'on Source' and right.
Thank you Ron!
Ramona
Alex wrote:
> In article <1158686575....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> who was greatly vilified for her principled stand. What she did protects
> my rights.
>
> Culturally religion is one of the largest repositories of moral
> influence.
>
> > A religious
> > label does not make a person more likely to be moral or amoral, though
> > morality is assumed a byproduct of religion. I don't believe that to
> > be true. I think the term morality is the equivalent to citizenship
> > and survival of the species.
>
> overly restrictive.
>
> > >
> > > In the spirit of the above story, I enjoy people challenging my views.
> > > Being on ARS and saying I am a scientologist makes me a target. And I
> > > respond in kind.
> > So now I ask, are you in the CO$ (public or staff) or are you FZ or
> > otherwise independent from the org? Based on some of your writings I
> > get the sense of you as heretical if in the org. I come from a long
> > line of heretics so I mean no insult.
>
Are you privately heretical or do other members who you associate know
you to be heretical? What views do you hold to be heretical? Do you
believe that DM has squirreled the tech?
>
> > >
> > > I am not offended by sincere expressions by others that I may have some
> > > trait THEY consider virtuous, even if it does not fit in my definition.
> > >
> > > I believe that the influence of Jesus, was a major paradigm shift for
> > > civilization. Previous monotheism (Judaism) was hierarchal, whereas
> > > Christianity was somewhat deomocratic or even anarchistic and it is this
> > > that is the basis of "western" civilization.
> > Heirarchal? LOL. You must have gone all the way back to Moses. You may
> > not be aware of it, but Christianity was Rabbinical Judaism in
> > practice.
> >
> > I see CO$ as painfully heirarchal with independent thought stifled.
> > The history of the placement of the Mezzuzot clarifies this. One rabbi
> > believed the mezzuzah should be placed vertically at the door, another
> > horizontally. As a compromise it was suggested all mezzuzot be placed
> > diagonally.
>
> Yes I love reading about rabbinical problem solving. There is a website
> somewhere that is in Q and A format about how to apply certain things
> Jewish in life, and I can read for hours.
>
> >There seems never to be compromise in CO$. Adult children
> > whose parents express dislike of the CO$ are forced to disconnect.
> > There is no discussion, no compromise, no communication
>
> Not true as stated. There is much discussion and compromise.
While I have heard this might be the case away from the mother orgs
(yes I know there is a term for that but it escapes me at the moment),
it is expressly not the case by Flag and C.C. Would you agree with
that?
>Some people
> will actually take a few years away from the church to handle family
> disagreements about scientology. Disconnection is a last resort. It is
> horrible. But it is also a right an individual has, to determine whom
> they associate with.
While I agree that people have the right to disconnect with family
members, that is not what I discuss. Are you not aware that some
people are indeed forced to disconnect from loved ones against what
they want? Yes Alex, some people do not have it within themselves to
challenge the CO$ and ultimately allow CO$ to commit such a horror to
them. These people are forced to chose between family and their church
when such should not have to be made.
>
> Cherem, excommunication, shunning, disconnection, are as old as the
> hills.
Yes, but disconnection is vastly different. Again, we are not
discussing the abusive parent who by their actions deserves to be
disconnected from for the health and well being of the one doing the
disconnecting. We are talking about the church giving people the
ultimatum to disconnect from the family or the cult will disconnect
from you. That sir is the issue at hand. While you may not have
experienced that disconnection, the fact remains that there are many
that do have that experience.
>
> But fundementally they are an imperfect solution. A better solution is
> to find common ground. In Scientology this is called "handling".
What an excellent transition. "Handling" is clear and purposeful
manipulation and beginnings of the removal of free speech. Ironically
this runs contrary to the creed of CO$ which states: "That all men have
inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely
their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions
of others;" http://www.scientology.org/en_US/news-media/faq/pg022.html
So speak freely to a family member, as the creed of CO$ states, then
the church "handles" you and if you maintain those same views which are
protected by the creed of the CO$, you are disconnected from your
family.
>
>
> > but a forced
> > action to remain in the warm fuzzies of the cult. It seems nobody is
> > allowed to stand up against DM or the cult and remain without
> > restitution.
> >
> > There is no acceptance of FZ by the CO$ as there is even among the
> > christians. Almost every brandname christian faith believes themselves
> > to have a bit greater truth than other namebrands. But ultimately each
> > understands that christianity is what unites them all. CO$ doesn't
> > function this way. They believe their brand is the ONLY brand even
> > using the derogatory term squirrel. They do not unite themselves with
> > independents or FZ as having tech common belief among them.
>
> Freezone and COS dont have as much common belief as you would suppose.
Please clarify this statement. In the Freezone you are allowed as much
or as little practice as you so desire without the authoritarian arm
and greedy fingers of DM.
> >
> > I ask again since definitions/mu's are integral to scientology. What
> > is the term used for those that are mentally impaired?
>
> I dont know of any specific slang or "coined" term for it in general. I
> would suppose that the ignorant call it retarded and the educated refer
> to the specific condition by the appropriate label. DB or degreded being
> may have connotations of mentally impared and 'DB's " most likely are
> low IQ types,
Thank you. That is what I suspected based on the wording used. I
simply wanted that confirmed.
>but by its literal definition which I believe you have
> read, it referes to a specific case condition which is mental/spiritual
> not psyiological.
Yes, that is the literal wording but without application it means
nothing.
> >
> > While Beckyboo does not believe that you wouldn't know someone
> > impaired, I do. With only approximately 50,000 people in CO$ the
> > probabilities are low particularly is you don't associate solely with
> > other scientologists. Also, those that are imparied would quickly show
> > that scientology practices do nothing to aid them. With no change
> > scientology is proven useless. It would be no wonder that you would
> > have little exposure with that being the case.
>
> I do not know anyone with a child who is physcially or mentally impared,
> scientologist or not. I dont socalize with scientologists.
Is there a reason why you do not associate with fellow scientologists?
Are you familiar with the adage "birds of a feather flock together?"
>
> There is a possibility that I may be slightly autistic. I stopped
> talking in childhood well after developing speech and have some of the
> "social" symptoms. Scientology has helped me in the areas that I have
> problems with, that in retrospect indicate autism. I dont think of
> myself as such, but recently it came to my attention, the possibility.
Who made such a diagnosis? I think people can be quick to made a
diagnosis without adequate credentials. You can read about aspergers
here:
http://www.aspergers.com/
http://www.geocities.com/athens/atlantis/4462/index.html
I find it remarkable that you would make such an admission considering
the view of CO$ and brain illness. You are indeed a heretic. Welcome
to the club.
>
> I have a very high IQ, and that has helped. Did you know that there is a
> university professor with autism? Full blown, cant look at you. Her name
> is Grady.
Did you know that there are many, many autistic individuals that with
good treatment (including psychiatric which makes the initial
diagnosis) will have successful productive lives?
While I admit to not being a fan of Wikipedia for research purposes it
does have some interesting information for starters. Here are some
names of autistic and/or possibily autistic famous individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein,_Newton,_and_Autism
And no, I do not believe that space cooties and engrams are what makes
the individual autistic though that seems to be the case for CO$.
http://www.autism.org/temple/inside.html
Did you know that autism is believed linked to neurotransmitter
problems which is also the believed cause for depression? Did you know
that CO$ considers a person that has depression and uses medication
which adjusts for the problem is considered illegal pc? It's a shame
that we have come so far in understanding the brain, and have so far to
go, but that there is still an organization that considers mental
illness to still be the equivalent of "demonic possession?" This is
especially fascinating and ironic considering Hubbard's own visteral
(psych drug) use. You do know that Hubbard did have that psych
medicine in his body at his death?
>
> I know that I see things differently than people around me.
We all do. It's the nature of humans.
I see a scientologist that audits as someone that doesn't understand
completely what is being done to them, specifically the hypnotic
effect.
If you dare, this is an excellent article.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/ar18.html
I also see auditing as a means of gaining false memories.
http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Theology/stacy.htm
I think the average scientologist does begin the journey to help
clear/save the planet. Unfortunately CO$ does no such thing. It seems
that scientology is more focused on clearing the money from the pockets
of people considered "able." But "able" only means able to bring money
in as opposed to the pragmatic belief you hold of scientology is
looking to help those most able and eventually getting to those not as
able. But that stands to reason since Hubbard really just wanted to
make real money by creating a religion.
>
> >
> > With all the threads you are being bombarded with, you must feel like
> > the easy cheerleader ;-)
>
> Funny, talking about autism. I had a very difficult time making sense of
> the above.
My mother was foreign born and especially prone to not understanding
American Idioms and colloquial. A joke would be told and two hours
later we would find her laughing hysterically in the kitchen because
she finally "got" it.
>But now I get it. Question is, do I like it?
Reply to those you want, and ignore those you don't. You are actually
free to do that here and the choice is entirely yours well unless you
are on CO$' leash.
Ramona
>
> :)
>
> alex
Barbara Schwarz
Alex schrieb:
> In article <1158623854....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Barbara Schwarz" <barbara...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > She is a fanatic, Alex. I didn't even know who she was when she came
> > out of the bushes and posted a thread against me that I should watch my
> > back. I never did anything to her. She is a typically disturbed
> > Scientology hater.
> >
> > Her real name is Shirley Streufert. She seems to be a close friend of
> > Phil Scott.
>
> I believe Shirley is her mom.
>
> But yes becky is a piece of work.
>
> a
Perhaps she is Becky Shirely Streufert.
http://www.thunderstar.net/~schwarz/lrh/fbidocs.html
Barbara Schwarz
--
Wikipedia (Wikipiggi), the brain child of porn search engine CEO Jimbo
Wales has all the characteristics of a destructive cult: Wikipiggists
(editors, admins, board, scribblers) work for free and are above the
law. They harass, defame, attack, lie, smear conspire, misinform,
manipulate and violate the privacy of good people. Anybody, who doesn't
agree with the Wikipiggists is being blocked and banned. You are not
allowed to cite your constitutional rights as they ban you for that.
There is no justice or free speech within the Wikipiggi cult. I learned
that the average age of a Wikipiggist (who hide their own identity as
they don't want that anybody does to them what they do to others) is
only 17 years old, and besides unripe minds, you better expect criminal
histories. However, Jimbo Wales is older, and he should call his
corrupt kindergarden cult to apply decency, the laws and leave people
alone.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/5a0276f49798bb99
U.S. Congress sees Wikipedia as foul mud. We sure need laws against the
Wikipiggi cult.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635203427,00.html
>
Hephaestus
Alex wrote:
>
> Becky.
>
> I have never commented on your mother.
>
> I have never said you were cute. (although you would qualify as at least
> that)
>
> I have never posted photos of you or links to them.
>
> The only thing I have ever posted about you that was not directly from
> this group, is a link to your ebay store, which is public information,
> and the fact that you were deaf, which you do not deny and is again
> public information from your ebay store.
I think this is an issue that needs to be delved into further, anyone
with some experiance in netiqutte, or class, or even basic manners,
knows that whatever her disability is, it doesn't matter.
Physical disabilities matter not here, I have what's called Graphlexia.
What's funny about this whole thing is that you brought it up, for no
good reason.
It's a condition which inhibits hand-eye coordination, and motor
control. Yet I've even used it to my advantage, Since it does these
things, I take longer to write my posts, hence I tend not to respond in
anger, and I think my posts out longer than I would otherwise if I had
not been born with it.
So why bring it up at all? Why go there? It seems only to prove what
a jackass you are, and you should be talking about naivete? Hah! You
thought that this issue had some other draw than making you look like
an ignorant jackass, and that proves your naive.
> I was not the one who posted links to your flag site. You are confused
> or possibly influenced by individuals who would suggest otherwise.
Yes, and anyone who went their could have seen she was deaf, but
their's one difference between you and a lot of people, they either had
the common sense to not mention it, or even better, they didn't give a
crap. Yet you thought it was an issue.
> I have been chastised for posting "outside" information about you. I
> admit that it is not considered curteous to do such. I have in fact
> indicated that I understood that. I will not though apologize. I only
> posted what any fool with google could have found by entering your
> screen name and waiting 0.01463 seconds to get >1,263,029 results. You
> are all over the net.
Ah yes, the I'm wrong but I'm not apologizing for it argument.
> Now either post your "evidence" to back up your accusations or move on.
She needs no evidence, it's well, elementary to see you and your
self-help organization gone on an acid trip are, bigots. I'm not
saying all scientologists are, but you definetely are.
> alex
A thousand monkeys typing shakespeare
Hephaestus
Alex wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Havent seen you around these parts much latley, hammer of god.
>
> a
Nice seeing you too. I've been too busy with work, other sites, blah
blah.
Hephaestus
Alex wrote:
> It matters because it is something she responds too. In my mind she (or
> you, Hephaestus) is no less a person or deserving of rights because of
> it.
> But here in this more closed environment of words on the computer it
> is something that can be used to provoke. Ad hominem. As a matter of
> manners, of course it is bad. Some claim making available information
> from one part of the internet available on another is bad netiquette. I
> am not sure I agree, except that if the information was not readily
> accessable such as in a chat room where one might have more expectation
> of some privacy.
>
That's a crappy argument. I did it because I could and other people do
it too. You are aware that Ad Hominem is a fallacious argument at
best, right? It doesn't talk about an issue, and all you do with it is
avoid whatever you were supposed to be doing.
> ad hominem. I sincerely doubt that anyone here thinks less of you,
> Becky, because you dont hear as well as others. I would more likely
> suspect that they would admire the fact that you seem to have dealt with
> it so well as to not have it seem apparent unless told of it.
It's not about how others think of her, personnally I don't care how
the majority of the factions on this group think of me, with a few
exceptions, but that's not the issue. If the entire reason you brought
it up is ad hominem.
You're really just what I accused you of earlier
Dimwit.
Just a question, but is that you abc123?
> You're on usenet. Anyone can say anything they want, AND DO! And will.
> If something can be said or dug up or implicated eventually someone
> will. It is best to expect this and not to take anything anyone says, to
> heart.
SO THEY SHOULD!?! Muahahahaha! I mean, this isn't really an
explanation, and as far as creating arc here and showing everyone what
scientology is about, on this thread you've been doing a marvelous job
so far!
> I think it could be said that everyone on usenet feels more free to say
> things than they ever would face to face with people. That is one of the
> joys, and one of the hurts.
>
> > > Ah yes, the I'm wrong but I'm not apologizing for it argument.
> >
> > I apologized...that's enough, right?
>
> More than enough for me.
>
Now it's your turn.
> I am hoping you quote that, in light of who are the majority on this
> group.
The SP's?
> alex, (the naive, ignorant, jackass, acid trip bigot, no class,
> netiquette or manners variety.)(god I love usenet!)
>
Yeah it's like a bunch of kids stayed up late after bed to tell dirty
jokes to you, isn't it?
Athousand monkeys typing shakespeare
Ramona
> In article <1158707950.8...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
Why? CO$ in its creed, that I previously quoted, allows for free
speech and communication. So why is a place that allows freedom of
communication regarding the negative aspects, though truthful,
heretical?
You also failed to answer if you believe that DM has squirreled the
tech. http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/comp-pdc.htm How is it that you
have problems with FZ when the CO$ is guilty of squirreling.
>
> My feeling that communcation being the universal solvernt, can dissolve
> some misunderstanding about scientology, even if the misunderstanding
> reside in the persons antagonistic to scientology. That would only be
> heretical to common practice in the current church, not to scientology
> "dogma".
Please explain that last line further. It would seem you are strongly
suggesting that DM (who currently heads the common practice) is not
quite practicing the dogma. If that is the case, you would be among
friends in the FZ who seem to feel as you do.
> I have never been to flag, and I would feel silly at CC as I try to
> avoid recognition, rather than crave it. So I cant comment based on
> experience there. My experiences at AO's and local orgs would tend to
> favor the idea of communication as the first solution. I would say
> though that at any Sea Org church, a more rigorous interpretation would
> be expected.
I don't see it as you do. I don't see rigorous application but rigid
intolerance for anything different.
>
> >
> > >Some people
> > > will actually take a few years away from the church to handle family
> > > disagreements about scientology. Disconnection is a last resort. It is
> > > horrible. But it is also a right an individual has, to determine whom
> > > they associate with.
> >
> > While I agree that people have the right to disconnect with family
> > members, that is not what I discuss. Are you not aware that some
> > people are indeed forced to disconnect from loved ones against what
> > they want? Yes Alex, some people do not have it within themselves to
> > challenge the CO$ and ultimately allow CO$ to commit such a horror to
> > them. These people are forced to chose between family and their church
> > when such should not have to be made.
>
> Forced. Humm. At gunpoint?
Please show me where I suggested violent forcing? I clearly stated
that some people do not have it within themselves to challenge
authority. They perceive CO$ as for the greater good of humanity and
are willing ot sacrifice their families for that good. The problem I
see is that no sacrifice is necessary.
> Or at the threat of not being allowed to
> further participate in church activities?
Clearly as stated previously.
> Disconnection is used when a
> person chooses to remain active in the church and sever their ties to
> people who are so antagonistic to that participation, that it would not
> be possible otherwise.
False. Despite the pretended creed that allows for open communication
and freedom to discuss, that is not the case. If a parent talks to a
child, or the inverse with information about CO$ that is enough to
warrant disconnection.
>
> It is a choice. Not a pretty one. And yes social pressures are involved.
Again, this is despite the pretended creed of CO$ which claims
communication.
>
> How would you adapt if you were a Temple going Jew and had a relative
> who painted swasticas on the Temple? Would you call the police and have
> him locked up? (or the mental health facility?) Would you take measures
> to ensure you didnt have to deal with them repeatedly?
>
> Granted and extreme example, but in the same line of reasoning.
No, it is not remotely similar. One involves the crime of defacement
of private property the other is the sharing of information and
opinion.
>
> I personally have decided that I will not disconnect from any family
> members regardless of circumstances. It is a violation of the "Code of
> Honor", for me.
If the CO$ demanded you disconnect, as it has others, what would you
do?
>
> http://www.scientology.org/p_jpg/wis/wiseng/33/33-hon.htm
>
> Others have felt and acted on their own different personal beliefs.
>
> I would say that there are probably good examples of disconnection being
> used as an easy out, rather than the parties involved following the more
> difficult path of finding true mutual accomodation. But if you read the
> actual policy letters concerning the subject, it is a last resort.
I see it as a manipulative tool to separate family from one another to
gain power over the vulnerable. Let's say a college student (known
vulnerable age for cult reqruitment) joins the CO$. Then joins the SO.
Parents who have always been loving and supportive freak out after
they have researched the truth about Hubbard's flasified military
background, his pretended education, and his desire to really make the
bucks by creating a church. While you mention that the church will
first demand handling, a well informed parent will indeed willingly
battle for their child. Away from home, the church love bombs the new
SO member and then demands disconnection so that they can progress on
the bridge. Less often these days because of SouthPark, disconnection
is demanded and obliged for the greater good of mankind. Nope, no guns
were necessary but it doesn't change the feel of threat.
>
> > >
> > > Cherem, excommunication, shunning, disconnection, are as old as the
> > > hills.
> > Yes, but disconnection is vastly different. Again, we are not
> > discussing the abusive parent who by their actions deserves to be
> > disconnected from for the health and well being of the one doing the
> > disconnecting. We are talking about the church giving people the
> > ultimatum to disconnect from the family or the cult will disconnect
> > from you. That sir is the issue at hand. While you may not have
> > experienced that disconnection, the fact remains that there are many
> > that do have that experience.
> > >
> > > But fundementally they are an imperfect solution. A better solution is
> > > to find common ground. In Scientology this is called "handling".
> > What an excellent transition. "Handling" is clear and purposeful
> > manipulation and beginnings of the removal of free speech. Ironically
> > this runs contrary to the creed of CO$ which states: "That all men have
> > inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely
> > their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions
> > of others;" http://www.scientology.org/en_US/news-media/faq/pg022.html
> >
> > So speak freely to a family member, as the creed of CO$ states, then
> > the church "handles" you and if you maintain those same views which are
> > protected by the creed of the CO$, you are disconnected from your
> > family.
>
> Actually, you are expect to handle the antogonistic people in your life
> the church doesnt just automatically do it for you. Handling means to
> communicate and reach understanding and common ground. It means to
> solve the problem with affinity reality and communication.
It means demanding that the person speak only postively about
scientology ending real communication which would dictate honesty
especially when asked.
>
> Why are you so insistant that others have unlimited rights to say any
> hurtfull or antagonistic thing to you and not suffer rebuke?
I don't if you bothered to read what I actually stated. Here so you
can reread it:
Yes, but disconnection is vastly different. Again, we are not
> > discussing the abusive parent who by their actions deserves to be
> > disconnected from for the health and well being of the one doing the
> > disconnecting. We are talking about the church giving people the
> > ultimatum to disconnect from the family or the cult will disconnect
> > from you. That sir is the issue at hand. While you may not have
> > experienced that disconnection, the fact remains that there are many
> > that do have that experience.
>Just
> because someone is family, they do not have the automatic right to
> harass you about your beliefs.
But if you ask, they should have the right to answer honestly and even
critically, unless the creed is false which strongly seems to be the
case.
>Well actually constitutionally they can
> say what they want, but in terms of familial relations, there is a point
> when enough is enough.
Again, I made it very clear that there are instances in which
disconnection is a beautiful thing. But there are also many forced
disconnections that have occurred between loving familiy members that
only had philosophical differences of opinion.
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > but a forced
> > > > action to remain in the warm fuzzies of the cult. It seems nobody is
> > > > allowed to stand up against DM or the cult and remain without
> > > > restitution.
> > > >
> > > > There is no acceptance of FZ by the CO$ as there is even among the
> > > > christians. Almost every brandname christian faith believes themselves
> > > > to have a bit greater truth than other namebrands. But ultimately each
> > > > understands that christianity is what unites them all. CO$ doesn't
> > > > function this way. They believe their brand is the ONLY brand even
> > > > using the derogatory term squirrel. They do not unite themselves with
> > > > independents or FZ as having tech common belief among them.
> > >
> > > Freezone and COS dont have as much common belief as you would suppose.
> > Please clarify this statement. In the Freezone you are allowed as much
> > or as little practice as you so desire without the authoritarian arm
> > and greedy fingers of DM.
>
> The freezone in some cases,
Ah but not all.
> deviate substaintally from the concept of
> scientology as a coherent philosophy, by rejecting the necessity to keep
> it whole and unaltered they are not doing scientology.
But what about the altered tech in CO$? You seem to forget that the
mothership has altered the tech and is precisely the reason why FZ
exists.
In the past few years, some Scientologists have discovered that
Scientology publications had been altered without explanation. In most
cases, this occurs when a book, published during L. Ron Hubbard's
lifetime and originally credited as written "by L. Ron Hubbard", is
revised and republished as "based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard."
(Some reports refer to these altered versions as "BOTWO" versions.)
There are many reports of this, carefully documented with page numbers
and publication dates.
Here are a few of those reports; more will be posted soon. You may also
be interested in some of the outpoints described on the Outpoints page.
If you've discovered an unexplained alteration of a Scientology
publication or of Scientology tech, please e-mail detailed information
to human...@racerrecords.com.
NEW 8/25/02: "Comm Cycles in Auditing" lecture
The new "Comm Cycles in Auditing" page documents six alterations to the
lecture tape.
NEW 8/19/02: Floating Needle Definition
A post to the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup documents the changing
definitions of "floating needle" and how that's been causing problems
at major Scientology orgs.
scientologyintegrity.org
This site has an extensive (but not comprehensive) list of alterations
to Scientology materials from Self Analysis to The Phoenix Lectures to
Introduction to Scientology Ethics to a wide variety of policy letters.
You may also want to read the introduction to the site, which links to
a variety of essays and material
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/alter/
> > > >
> > > > I ask again since definitions/mu's are integral to scientology. What
> > > > is the term used for those that are mentally impaired?
> > >
> > > I dont know of any specific slang or "coined" term for it in general. I
> > > would suppose that the ignorant call it retarded and the educated refer
> > > to the specific condition by the appropriate label. DB or degreded being
> > > may have connotations of mentally impared and 'DB's " most likely are
> > > low IQ types,
> > Thank you. That is what I suspected based on the wording used. I
> > simply wanted that confirmed.
>
> But again I have given you the wrong connotation. The low iq is a result
> of the degraded spiritual condition,
Or better yet, the low IQ may be the result of a birth defect, birth
trauma, or of unknown origin. By degraded spiritual condition you mean
excess space cooties, unresolved past lives, and engrams. Do you
really believe that such is the case?
> rather than people having a low iq
> are automatically considered degraded.
6 of one, half dozen of the other.
>
> Oh god. By low iq types I was reffering to the shirtless trailer park,
> last seen on COPS, maladjusted type of person.
What an incredible stereotype. That certainly doesn't explain why the
same number of children that flunk out of school are above average as
below. Perhaps I have just had a life exposed to many different types
of people. I have known people that have lived in those trailer parks
who are kind, thoughtful, and generous to a fault. I don't see them as
degraded, but underemployed.
> I have reinforced your
> perceptions of it meaning a mentally impaired person, when I dont
> believe that to be the case.
> >
> > >but by its literal definition which I believe you have
> > > read, it referes to a specific case condition which is mental/spiritual
> > > not psyiological.
> > Yes, that is the literal wording but without application it means
> > nothing.
>
> It is usually applied to people with criminal tendancies, those who are
> easily and unduely influenced, and those who, although not lacking the
> phsycial or mental ability, do not take responsibility for themselves.
>
> Most would consider the street homeless for the most part to be DB.
> Someone who was frequently a petty criminal and in trouble, a DB.
The reality here is that the vast majority of those homeless are
mentally ill and/or addicted. Once upon a time the mentally ill were
forced into hospitals and were taken care of, sometimes horribly. That
is not the case now and those same ill people that once would have been
placed in a hospital are now on the streets, despite the fact they are
more often then not the victims of crime rather than criminals
themselves.
Oddly enough though, CO$ runs to prisons as Criminon but ignores the
most needy the mentally ill. Why is that? I have my own suspicions.
The mentally ill just like the Iq deficient, will prove the tech does
not work, but criminals can be scammed. The tech does not increase IQ
or those with low IQ would reveal it. I'll make this simple:
A. A person with Down's Syndrome is presented.
B. The tech is applied
C. IQ is increased as is the claim by Hubbard.
If this were the case, CO$ could easily prove the results and hell even
I would join up. But the truth speaks for itself. If the above case
scenerio were presented, which it will not because CO$ knows better
than to have confirmed their worst fears, then the results would be
made fact and CO$ would implode. So, a pretended belief that you need
to go after the "able" is created so as to pull the wool over your
eyes. It very much works like the magician with the pretty girl for
distraction but focused knowing the scam you know where to look.
>
> Its more like you look into their eyes and see either a spark, or dull.
Perhaps it is your lack of exposure to those with different abled, but
I have seen spark in the eyes of those others would pass as "worthless"
of life. I have laughed at the antics of an autistic girl when I
signed to her that she needed to stop a behavior and she put her hands
over her eyes as to not "hear" me. I find it a tragedy that CO$ sees
little value, word choice intended, to those less mentally abled but
still able to teach those born better abled.
>
> Do you see that spark in your son? Maybe not in the eyes, but...
My son, despite his birth defect and his prognosis, has an average iq.
> > > >
> > > > While Beckyboo does not believe that you wouldn't know someone
> > > > impaired, I do. With only approximately 50,000 people in CO$ the
> > > > probabilities are low particularly is you don't associate solely with
> > > > other scientologists. Also, those that are imparied would quickly show
> > > > that scientology practices do nothing to aid them. With no change
> > > > scientology is proven useless. It would be no wonder that you would
> > > > have little exposure with that being the case.
> > >
> > > I do not know anyone with a child who is physcially or mentally impared,
> > > scientologist or not. I dont socalize with scientologists.
> > Is there a reason why you do not associate with fellow scientologists?
> > Are you familiar with the adage "birds of a feather flock together?"
>
> I am a strange bird. I didnt say associate, just socialize. Mostly a
> practical matter, for me.
>
>
> > >
> > > There is a possibility that I may be slightly autistic. I stopped
> > > talking in childhood well after developing speech and have some of the
> > > "social" symptoms. Scientology has helped me in the areas that I have
> > > problems with, that in retrospect indicate autism. I dont think of
> > > myself as such, but recently it came to my attention, the possibility.
> > Who made such a diagnosis? I think people can be quick to made a
> > diagnosis without adequate credentials. You can read about aspergers
> > here:
> > http://www.aspergers.com/
> > http://www.geocities.com/athens/atlantis/4462/index.html
> > I find it remarkable that you would make such an admission considering
> > the view of CO$ and brain illness. You are indeed a heretic. Welcome
> > to the club.
>
> I dont consider myself to have a brain illness.
But if you do have autism, regardless of where you are on the spectrum,
that is indeed the case. Does diagnosis prohibit you from functioning?
Of course not, but it can explain to you why you behave in the way you
do.
> I consider the
> possiblity that I may have a genetic mutation which is unclear in
> effect. Psychiatry's label for a general set of behavior is not
> necessarily correctly even an indication of disfunction rather than
> different function.
Perhaps you believe that to be the case because you have not studied.
Again though, autism and depression are both byproducts of neural
transmitters problems. One you consider a "genetic mutation" the other
is damned by CO$ as not real. Once upon a time, the Church taught that
seizure disorder/epilepsy was the product of demonic possession. We
know better now, just as with increased information regarding mental
illness, CO$ should know better. Unfortunately, people take the word
of the uneducated as fact, so space cooties/engrams/past lives become a
more acceptable answer to adherants than genetic disorder.
>
> >
> > >
> > > I have a very high IQ, and that has helped. Did you know that there is a
> > > university professor with autism? Full blown, cant look at you. Her name
> > > is Grady.
> > Did you know that there are many, many autistic individuals that with
> > good treatment (including psychiatric which makes the initial
> > diagnosis) will have successful productive lives?
> > While I admit to not being a fan of Wikipedia for research purposes it
> > does have some interesting information for starters. Here are some
> > names of autistic and/or possibily autistic famous individuals.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein,_Newton,_and_Autism
> > And no, I do not believe that space cooties and engrams are what makes
> > the individual autistic though that seems to be the case for CO$.
> > http://www.autism.org/temple/inside.html
> >
> > Did you know that autism is believed linked to neurotransmitter
> > problems which is also the believed cause for depression? Did you know
> > that CO$ considers a person that has depression and uses medication
> > which adjusts for the problem is considered illegal pc?
>
> That medication effects the workability of auditing. It masks the
> correct emeter manifestations. There is little point in doing the
> auditing on a person on whom it is not going to work. That is the reason.
But even when medication is no longer used, the person is illegal pc.
>
> They are not an illegal human,
I never stated they were, but for CO$ purposes that would be correct
since they may no longer have auditing.
> it is just not appropriate to have them
> audited, in conditions that work against results.
>
> They would most likely sit there with their "needle floating". For
> auditing to work, the auditor needs to find the areas of emotional
> "charge". The drugs mask access to these.
Really? You know this how? Where are your double blind studies that
shows this? Post the link to the studies.
>
> > It's a shame
> > that we have come so far in understanding the brain, and have so far to
> > go, but that there is still an organization that considers mental
> > illness to still be the equivalent of "demonic possession?" This is
> > especially fascinating and ironic considering Hubbard's own visteral
> > (psych drug) use. You do know that Hubbard did have that psych
> > medicine in his body at his death?
> > >
> > > I know that I see things differently than people around me.
> > We all do. It's the nature of humans.
> > I see a scientologist that audits as someone that doesn't understand
> > completely what is being done to them, specifically the hypnotic
> > effect.
> > If you dare, this is an excellent article.
> > http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/ar18.html
> > I also see auditing as a means of gaining false memories.
>
> It does not matter whether the memory is factually true or false,
And you don't see this as a problem or even a hoax? "Get a memory,
even a pretended one and we will work with it." LOLROFLMAO. Make up
shit folks and we are a-ok with it.
> only
> that there was some emotion connected with it, and that it somehow in
> any even insignificant way affected the persons life. People have on
> occasion run out things they saw on tv.
Yes folks, they are willing to take your money so you can work on
Archie Bunker mocking Meathead.
>
> It is the decisions made and emotional content of the memory, not the
> objective truth of it that matter.
I see that as finding any event to talk about, pretending to be
therapeutic, to separate you from your money. Life is emotionally
charged with more memories being produced them could possibly be worked
unless you lived your life auditing.
>
>
> > http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Theology/stacy.htm
> > I think the average scientologist does begin the journey to help
> > clear/save the planet. Unfortunately CO$ does no such thing. It seems
> > that scientology is more focused on clearing the money from the pockets
> > of people considered "able." But "able" only means able to bring money
> > in as opposed to the pragmatic belief you hold of scientology is
> > looking to help those most able and eventually getting to those not as
> > able. But that stands to reason since Hubbard really just wanted to
> > make real money by creating a religion.
>
> He would have made more selling real estate in florida or so cal by far.
Naw, religion is where one makes the big bucks. Real Estate is subject
to fluctuations in the market, that is why Hubbard made the comment
about religion and money in the first place.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > With all the threads you are being bombarded with, you must feel like
> > > > the easy cheerleader ;-)
> > >
> > > Funny, talking about autism. I had a very difficult time making sense of
> > > the above.
> > My mother was foreign born and especially prone to not understanding
> > American Idioms and colloquial. A joke would be told and two hours
> > later we would find her laughing hysterically in the kitchen because
> > she finally "got" it.
> >
> > >But now I get it. Question is, do I like it?
> > Reply to those you want, and ignore those you don't. You are actually
> > free to do that here and the choice is entirely yours well unless you
> > are on CO$' leash.
>
> Woof woof? :)
Hey, you could be the OSA monster, but then I still would talk to you
since I would assume you to still be human.
>
> alex
Jommy Cross
<alex-351B42.1...@news.west.earthlink.net>:
>In article <1158707950.8...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Alex wrote:
>> > Freezone and COS dont have as much common belief as you would suppose.
>> Please clarify this statement. In the Freezone you are allowed as much
>> or as little practice as you so desire without the authoritarian arm
>> and greedy fingers of DM.
>
>it whole and unaltered they are not doing scientology.
If they're not doing $cientology why are they harassed by Co$? Co$ policy
appears to be "religious freedom for all (except Freezoners)".
Plus, FZ believers claim they're *more* standardly standard than the
BOTWO-ed and GAT-ted Co$.
>> > >
>> > > I ask again since definitions/mu's are integral to scientology. What
>> > > is the term used for those that are mentally impaired?
>> >
>> > I dont know of any specific slang or "coined" term for it in general. I
>> > would suppose that the ignorant call it retarded and the educated refer
>> > to the specific condition by the appropriate label. DB or degreded being
>> > may have connotations of mentally impared and 'DB's " most likely are
>> > low IQ types,
>> Thank you. That is what I suspected based on the wording used. I
>> simply wanted that confirmed.
>
>But again I have given you the wrong connotation. The low iq is a result
>of the degraded spiritual condition, rather than people having a low iq
>are automatically considered degraded.
>
>Oh god. By low iq types I was reffering to the shirtless trailer park,
>last seen on COPS, maladjusted type of person. I have reinforced your
>perceptions of it meaning a mentally impaired person, when I dont
>believe that to be the case.
As we've already discussed, that's not Hubbard's definition of it. I think
you're failing to keep Hubbardism "whole and unaltered" here, Alex.
DEGRADED BEING, 1 . the degraded being is not a suppressive as he can have
case gain. But he is so PTS that he works for suppressives only. He is a
sort of super-continual PTS beyond the reach really of a simple S&D and
handled only at Section 3 OT Course. The degraded being is not necessarily
a natively bad thetan. He is simply so PTS and has been for so long that it
requires our highest level of tech to finally undo it after he has scaled
up all our grades. (HCOB 22 Mar 67)
This is mainly Hubbard babble. The only meaning is that DBs must give
Hubbard a lot of money if they want to stop being DBs.
2. very degraded beings alter-is, refuse to comply without mentioning it.
Find ANY instruction painful as they have been painfully indoctrinated with
violent measures in the past. They therefore alter-is any order or don't
comply. A degraded being is not a suppressive as he can have case gain. But
he is so PTS that he works for suppressives only. Degraded beings, taking a
cue from SP associates, instinctively resent, hate and seek to obstruct any
person in charge of anything. (HCOB 22 Mar 67) Abbr. DB.
The "person in charge of anything" would be Hubbard, imho.
>>
>> >but by its literal definition which I believe you have
>> > read, it referes to a specific case condition which is mental/spiritual
>> > not psyiological.
>> Yes, that is the literal wording but without application it means
>> nothing.
>
>It is usually applied to people with criminal tendancies, those who are
>easily and unduely influenced, and those who, although not lacking the
>phsycial or mental ability, do not take responsibility for themselves.
Or those who disagreed with Hubbard...
Ramona
Alex wrote:
> Thank you again for keeping me on source.
>
> So, are you of the opinion that Scientology has overt antipathy to the
> disabled?
>
> If so, as policy? Or culture?
Both policy and culture suggests over antipathy. CO$ goes after "DB's"
in the form of criminals with Criminon and CO$ goes after junkies (also
DB's) in the form of Narconon. Yet, we see no aid for those actually
suffering from that illness CCHR denies, mental illness. Please
remember that you have claimed you might possibly have autism, which
like depression is believed related to affected neural transmitters.
Instead CO$ actively tries to remove from the use of all, medications
KNOWN to aid mental illness. Where is the policy that promotes aiding
the disabled? Even you spoke of CO$ as pragmatic and that those
impaired won't make quick gains and are effectively a waste of time
while others would be better served. That response came aobut when we
discussed why CO$ doesn't aid those impaired. I found it more logical
to aid those that are already in your inner circle over prostelyzing to
those who have not already accepted Hubbard as the Messiah. As I have
stated in another thread, I would allege that CO$ does not aid those
with mental illness and/or mental impairment in the form of retardation
for a simple reason, the tech doesn't work as stated. The tech will
not increase IQ (which is stated, instead IQ tests are repeated thereby
invalidating them and also reflecting false gains) or the mentally
retarded would clearly show magical results which would be easily
verifiable. Show me mental illnessanon without going after disability
checks and trust funds. Instead as a policy we see real help thwarted
by attacking "psychs". Show me the building of playgrounds for those
children in contained classrooms by CO$ members without drawing
attention to the volunteer work in the form of ghastly neon yellow
shirts. Show me the words of Jenna Elfman and the like apologizing for
not aiding victims of life circumstances because they happened to be
born into disease instead calling that reality "illusion." No, we
don't hear those words of apology because those words are policy and
culture in action by an adherant.
As culture you are aware of the problem. You stated that if a person
had a disabled child they would leave the SO. Why? Because the culture
within CO$ frowns upon those different.
Let's say that instead of your child having asthma, he stated screaming
hysterically that the bad guys were after him and that the mirror, bed,
pictures, t.v., and pet fish were all looking at him and telling him he
should hurt himself. What would you do if after you took your loving
child to the pediatrician, she recommended a psychiatrist because it
would see obvious that your child has mental illness? Ella Perkins
chose not to medicate her schizophrenic son because of the policy
against Psychs and was stabbed 77 times. You claim not to like the
labeling that psychs do, but that labeling is necessary for function.
I write the word green and we understand and form a mental picture.
>From there you can have shades of green which gives further
understanding. That is all a label does, gets all involved on the same
page of understanding. CO$ pretends psychs exclude the soul but ignore
the fact that many psychs do indeed consider and list theology as part
of their practice. What would you do if your child wasn't asthmatic
but instead behaved as listed above?
Ramona
>
> alex
>
>
> In article <ZGKS34CS3898...@anonymous.poster>,
> jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>
Gerry Armstrong
>Becky
>
>I do not feel embarassed to associate with a person with a disability.
Sure, not embarrassed because your op says to associate with them.
But virtually every Scientologist, except those on ops to destroy the
handicapped, are prohibited from even granting credence to them.
Scientologists universally hate, revile and seek to destroy people
handicapped or disabled with what in Scientology "scripture" could be
termed the "Suppressive Person" syndrome.
Scientology teaches that SPs are totally missing the abilities to ease
and erase, common abilities that every Scientologist possesses. Yet
Scientology does not teach that these SPs so completely disabled
should be understood and helped, but should be hated, cut off from
communication, beastified, attacked and obliterated.
Scientology teaches that SPs are "just very sick people." Yet
Scientology does not permit Scientologists to help these very sick
people, but destroys their communication lines, seeks to deny them
help, and beastifies, attacks and obliterates them.
Scientology teaches that its technology cannot help these disabled and
very sick people. Yet instead of acknowledging the failure of its
technology, Scientology urges Scientologists to hate, attack and
obliterate the very disabled and very sick people it has failed.
Worse, Scientology and Scientologists manufacture, or postulate, SPs'
"handicaps" and "disabilities" just so the Scientologists can and will
hate, revile, attack and obliterate the SPs.
I think you should confront the evil your "Suppressive Person"
doctrine is, and what haters and victimizers of good, but handicapped
or disabled, people this violent doctrine drives Scientologists to be.
>
>I feel helpless sometimes because I dont know what to do for them, but
>usually they would say
>'just act normal, doofus", or some such.
>
>Pretty weird stuff, Scientology, isn't it?!
>
>Scientology does good works in its own way, you can leave by just
>stopping attending, the money goes uplines, and you just cant be
>auditied for 2 week if you take an asprin.
How about the SP doctrine?
>
>If you are interested in understanding, truely just go to the churchs
>web site and read. Dont worry, you can read the pages without losing
>you soul or sanity. Read what the church says it is and read our
>philosophy and code of honor.
How about the SP doctrine?
But speaking of your cult's code of honor, you haven't answered this
challenge.
[Quote]
Do you believe, have faith, postulate or know that Scientology is a
just cause?
I mean this in the sense that you believe, have faith, postulate or
know Hubbard meant in his rule "Never fear to hurt another in a just
cause" in your "Code of Honor."
If so, what is the basis -- the data, facts, evidence, proof, that
sort of thing -- of that belief, faith, postulate or knowledge?
Perhaps we whom you Scientologists hurt in your cause, and have good
reason to be concerned for our lives in your cause, could better
understand why you hurt us and threaten us if we really understood
your basis for believing, etc. that Scientology is a just cause. I
don't recall anyone ever explaining how Scientology's cause is just,
and to me it just seems unjust rather than just just.
My thought is that if it was legitimately a just cause I'd fight for
it too, but here virtually every Scientologist on the planet hurts me,
and obviously doesn't fear to, so Scientology can't in my mind be a
just cause.
Perhaps if you all saw that Scientology is an unjust cause you'd stop
hurting others, and you'd stop not fearing to hurt others.
You could still go on doing Scientology, but you'd know it's just an
unjust cause so you'd not hurt people or want to hurt them in your
cause.
Even if a few Scientologists stopped hurting others by understanding
that their cause is unjust, just that is a just enough cause to hurt a
few egos to get the message through.
But first off tell those you're hurting in your cause why you believe,
etc. it's just.
[End Quote]
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/adaba7e444ef0603?dmode=source&hl=en
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Ramona
Alex wrote:
> In article <1158850185.5...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> not really consistent with caring for a child with extra ordinary needs.
> People can leave the sea org and still be scientologists.
Show me where I stated that people who leave SO can no longer be
scientologists. It seems you are also unaware that extraordinary needs
are not always required. This is particularly amusing considering that
so many have reported that in the SO children, normal children, are all
but abandoned in function anyway.
The point is that CO$ denies reality. CO$ denies illness as real. So
policy would clearly not be created for that which does not exist.
>
> >
> > Let's say that instead of your child having asthma, he stated screaming
> > hysterically that the bad guys were after him and that the mirror, bed,
> > pictures, t.v., and pet fish were all looking at him and telling him he
> > should hurt himself. What would you do if after you took your loving
> > child to the pediatrician, she recommended a psychiatrist because it
> > would see obvious that your child has mental illness? Ella Perkins
> > chose not to medicate her schizophrenic son because of the policy
> > against Psychs and was stabbed 77 times. You claim not to like the
> > labeling that psychs do, but that labeling is necessary for function.
> > I write the word green and we understand and form a mental picture.
> > >From there you can have shades of green which gives further
> > understanding. That is all a label does, gets all involved on the same
> > page of understanding. CO$ pretends psychs exclude the soul but ignore
> > the fact that many psychs do indeed consider and list theology as part
> > of their practice. What would you do if your child wasn't asthmatic
> > but instead behaved as listed above?
>
I know you haven't had to deal with that, but the question was "what
would you do IF your child was mentally ill (schizophrenic)?
> I do have some experience
> with a paranoid schizoid friend. He had full blown hallucinations. For
> him it was Johnny Carson who would talk to him through the tv. He was
> very scared. This was several decades ago. I was no where near trained
> enough to try anything with him.
Correct, you are not a psychiatrist so you wouldn't be trained to deal
with him in a medical capacity. Again, CO$ denies the reality of
illness especially mental illness despite the continued advances of
medicine since the time of Hubbard.
>
>I just let him talk to me and tried not
> to deny his reality.
Would you have not denied his reality if he approached you with a knife
like Jeremy Perkins did to his scientologist mother? Would you have
not denied his reality as he stabbed you 77 times as jeremy Perkins did
to his mother Elle Perkins (both Scientologists.) Oh wait, I believe
Jeremy was kicked out after he murdered his mother while Schizophrenic.
Now that sir is the reality of how CO$ treats its ill even if they
were born into it and know nothing else.
> I lost touch with him and have not been able to
> find him since.
>
> The church does not audit some people. There are people who will.
>
> Interesting event for me yesterday. I was in a small town checking on
> something for a client when an excited man on a three wheel bicycle
> rushed up to me and asked me where Denny's was. In the thirty seconds
> before the light changed he told me he was brain damaged in a motorcycle
> accident on his way to get his 90 day sober chip. And that he had been
> in a coma for 28 days and was never expected to walk again. We
> introduced ourselves, shook hands and he was off in an enthusiastic
> flash to find Denny's (in a small town he had lived in for some time).
>
> Brain damaged yes, DB no. Big spark.
>
> Maybe Gods playing with me.
Yet according to CO$ you simply need to get rid of more engrams, bts,
and deal with your past lives as if you are "bad." I would disagree.
While "psychs" would give it a label, I am labeled blonde, again so
that understanding is gained. Simply because a name/label has been
given does not assume need for medication intervention as CO$ seems to
teach based on the spambots that post here. But by labelling children
as young as possible, intervention in the form of
speech/language/physical/occupation therapy can be given for the most
positive outcome possible. Again back to my son, while his IQ is
within normal limits, he does have certain deficits. By giving him a
label of hydrocephalus, he was given the above therapies and in
addition a course on interpersonal communication/making friends. How
dare those nasty Psychs help teach my son appropriate behavior while in
small groups in situations that I could not produce at home?! That was
sarcasm btw. He has had positive results from using those skills
taught that helped give him a chance at a normal life. CO$ tries at
every turn to remove these courses and I find that reprehensible.
Again though, if your son was clearly mentally ill, what would you do?
Ramona
>
> alex
Ramona
Alex wrote:
> In article <1158850185.5...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> not really consistent with caring for a child with extra ordinary needs.
> People can leave the sea org and still be scientologists.
Show me where I stated that people who leave SO can no longer be
scientologists. It seems you are also unaware that extraordinary needs
are not always required. This is particularly amusing considering that
so many have reported that in the SO children, normal children, are all
but abandoned in function anyway.
The point is that CO$ denies reality. CO$ denies illness as real. So
policy would clearly not be created for that which does not exist.
>
> >
> > hysterically that the bad guys were after him and that the mirror, bed,
> > pictures, t.v., and pet fish were all looking at him and telling him he
> > should hurt himself. What would you do if after you took your loving
> > child to the pediatrician, she recommended a psychiatrist because it
> > would see obvious that your child has mental illness? Ella Perkins
> > chose not to medicate her schizophrenic son because of the policy
> > against Psychs and was stabbed 77 times. You claim not to like the
> > labeling that psychs do, but that labeling is necessary for function.
> > I write the word green and we understand and form a mental picture.
> > >From there you can have shades of green which gives further
> > understanding. That is all a label does, gets all involved on the same
> > page of understanding. CO$ pretends psychs exclude the soul but ignore
> > the fact that many psychs do indeed consider and list theology as part
> > of their practice. What would you do if your child wasn't asthmatic
> > but instead behaved as listed above?
>
Ramona
>
> alex
>
>
> >
Jommy Cross
<alex-BDFFC2.2...@news.west.earthlink.net>:
>Thank you again for keeping me on source.
>
>So, are you of the opinion that Scientology has overt antipathy to the
>disabled?
>
>If so, as policy? Or culture?
As a policy "helping the able become more able" doesn't offer much to the
disabled, does it? Hubbard's policies are a mixture of badly absorbed
Utilitarianism and twisted Social Darwinism, where the ends justify the
means at every turn.
As a culture, you can look at the well documented offloading of old, sick
staffers.
Bridge Publications has been censured for their depiction of the disabled
and minorities.
<344a4e3b...@berlin.snafu.de>
When they come across disabled people with money, they're used as an
exploitable resource, as the Raul Lopez story illustrates.
>
>In article <ZGKS34CS3898...@anonymous.poster>,
> jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:11:38 GMT, Alex <al...@null.edu> wrote in msg
>> <alex-351B42.1...@news.west.earthlink.net>:
<snip>
>> >The freezone in some cases, deviate substaintally from the concept of
>> >scientology as a coherent philosophy, by rejecting the necessity to keep
>> >it whole and unaltered they are not doing scientology.
>>
>> If they're not doing $cientology why are they harassed by Co$? Co$ policy
>> appears to be "religious freedom for all (except Freezoners)".
>>
>> Plus, FZ believers claim they're *more* standardly standard than the
>> BOTWO-ed and GAT-ted Co$.
So, no comment to make on well known attempts by Co$ to destroy the
Freezone?
Those guys don't care about religious freedom, imho. They care about their
business model.
xeroph...@gmail.com
> Copied from another thread that was getting very, very
> long......included things that Alex posted about me playing "the Deaf
> card".....
>
> /Quote/
> I take this to mean "anyone who argues with Hubbard", regardless of the
>
> number of working limbs or neurons they have.
>
> But the disabled are always embarrassing, so $cienos probably flee them
>
> like almost everybody else, as Alex's comment indicates.
> /end Quote/
>
>
> Seriously? You were all led to believe that anyone with a disability is
> an embarassment?
>
> Someone please explain this to me? Thanks!
>
> And, this "religion" that you were in.....you had to take lie detector
> tests? At what point did any of you start to say this is a tiny bit
> bizarre? That my religion is making me take a lie detector test? A
> religion that isn't doing any good works, isn't helping anyone out, is
> taking all my money, no accounting of where it's going....if I try to
> get out, I can't....but for God's sake stay the hell away from anyone
> with a disability? And don't take an aspirin.
>
> Nothing in that sounded goofy to anyone at any point?
>
> Forgive me if I sound a tiny bit....mmmm....baffled to put it mildly
> here. But I am baffled right now. Was there something inside you
> nagging you all the time that this just doesn't add up?
>
> Thanks in advance for helping me understand more.
>
>
> --
>
> Becky
I am crippled (stroke survivor) college educated, 140 iq, and very, very spastic. I am atrophied on my right side. I am too smart to get mixed up in all this crap. When I first saw the commercials, something just did not 'sit right' w/ me. They talk about making the world a better place. Dad said~free advice!~when something sounds to good to be true, it usually is.
xeroph...@gmail.com
rogerspo...@gmail.com
Aera23
> > I am crippled (stroke survivor) college educated, 140 iq, and very, very spastic. I am atrophied on my right side. I am too smart to get mixed up in all this crap. When I first saw the commercials, something just did not 'sit right' w/ me. They talk about making the world a better place. Dad said~free advice!~when something sounds to good to be true, it usually is.
Aera23