Apprehend a Spirit, by Ralph Dorian
Bob Minton
Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
ARS participants have considered and discussed the possibilities. As
we now have it, most respondents have recognized the signs of a
harmful deception in the works and have taken appropriate measures
to deal with it. A relative few are open to sanguine possibilities,
and an even smaller number are searching for them. None of this should
be surprising because of the training most have received via
Scientology. In ARS, trust of strangers is at a bare minimum, and for
good reason.
For my part, although I've been snubbed by the majority, I must
confess to being honored by the active attention granted me. I
appreciate the feedback, whether it be hyper-vigilant and defensive,
or curious and thoughtful. Being human, naturally I appreciate
flattery more than criticism, but the defensive comments are not
entirely unflattering. It seems you have taken my introduction to
implied communication seriously enough to press it into immediate
service. There is obviously no way I could ever foist myself upon
ARS, either through intimidation or the use of covert implied
commands.
Among my peers, what's been taking place was once blandly referred
to as "value recognition". You may be doing it right now. Is Dorian
good or bad? What's his intent? Where is he intending to lead us? Is
it a good place or a bad place? --- Don't let the bland term fool you.
Value recognition is the most important thing you do. Value
recognition determines your behavior. Human beings are self-
determined only if we define "self" as the structures that recognize
value. Human behavior is therefore, value-determined. What's
amazing is how little it takes to trigger it. I have provided only
scant evidence of my intent. Or have I? In our current encounter, I haven't
left any injured or bereaved ARS members in my wake. Yet some
people are sure that this must be part of my plan. Their conclusions
seem mainly drawn from a handful of key elements in the situation: I
have violated social taboo by explaining the Nazi final solution in
terms of instincts we all understand and share. I have contradicted an
agreed upon reality, the intellectual history of Scientology, but only
with circumstantial evidence. I have said some disturbing things
about human nature, but which are nearly self-evident. And I've
threatened to take a powerful ally (Robert Minton) out of your sphere
of control. In sum, I've said things that ARS would rather not have
true, if they can do something about it. And they certainly can....my
unwanted views instantly tripped a dozen alarms in the wariest ARS
heads. The alarms are ringing and clanging and demanding that
something be done!
Let me state some facts that are as obvious as all get out to me, but
are apparently not very obvious to everyone on ARS.
First of all, I don't want any more money. Money is merely a
representation of how much other people might do for me. But there
are many things that aren't for sale, and even more things that aren't
available at all. Money is nice, but it's not an ultimate goodness
because other people can only do so much. All the money in the
world can't buy something no one can provide.
Next, controlling people to prove something to myself never had
much appeal for me. That was H's thing, not mine. For a long time I
wondered how anyone could find manipulated adoration so
satisfying. I rapidly caught on to the fact that this isn't what he
was after. I think he liked putting something over on people because it
made him feel smart. He liked toying with people. He didn't excel in
school and he needed a way to make up for it. If he could put
something over on a college-educated egghead, it made him feel
good, kind of like a runner that conserves his energy, comes from
behind, and wins. There was a certain glory in it for him, even though
his intellectual backing derived from other sources.
Next, I obviously don't have a long life ahead of me. Even if I had
the inclination to start up a new cult, I don't have the time.
And finally, though H and I attended the same esoteric "school", we
are two *very* different people. He was poorly educated; I was not.
He had a vendetta against other people; I don't. He thrilled to the
idea of building a machine that couldn't be destroyed, that would
thrive on chaos and uncertainty, that would grow as strong as humanity
is weak. I didn't. He liked to joke that the sun would never set on
Scientology as long as there were people afraid of the sun setting on
them. My challenge is to prove him wrong.
I vaguely remember reading (or hearing?) a story, back in my youth,
about how theater audiences first reacted to the new technology of
motion pictures. According to reports, a film of an oncoming train
caused a panic that cleared one movie house of most of its viewers.
The audience, en masse, rushed out as fast as they could before the
train came barreling through the movie screen and crushed them to
death in their seats. After the mad dash out, almost everyone came to
realize the images on the screen didn't represent a real threat. They
felt silly having responded the way they did. But there were others
who took longer to differentiate. As I recall, a handful of safety
minded patrons reportedly stated that they would never go near a
movie house again. They absolutely refused to distinguish oncoming
trains in movies from oncoming trains in real life. I suppose they
didn't think that kind of entertainment was worth the risk.
We are seeing the same thing happening here, in ARS. I'm not H, but
I know everything that he knew about deceiving people, and more.
ARS is collectively playing it safe and taking no chances. Obviously,
I must be wanting to do the same thing all over again. But, before the
realization becomes an ultimate truth set forth in stone, perhaps the
fretful among you could answer some questions. There are some
loose ends hanging from your version of the story. They need tidying
up.
The Church of Scientology is a fairly well crafted deception that is
already up and running. A desire to continue deceiving people should
have drawn me to CofS management because it is there that I would
find the easiest prey. I could have invited David Miscavige to my
estate, shown him who I was, and offered him my services. He's a
Scientologist. He's human. That makes him a sucker for flattery. He
also needs new material. And he's got the complete S-implant already
inside him. So very easy it would be. If all I wanted was puppets and
money, Scientology is like an open bank vault and puppet theater
wrapped into one. It's easy pickings. I ask the hyper-vigilant among
you --- why didn't I go for it?
Another loose end: To work, implied commands must not be
consciously recognized. If my plan was to use implied commands to
manipulate ARS, why would I want to tease you with reminders of
their potential power, or provide you with examples demonstrating
how they are used? Of course, like H's talk in the 1950's, mine too
could be artful trickery intended to rule out, or "misdirect" you away
from the true possibility. But if that's what it is, why would I again
be reminding you of it now?
And then there's my brusque approach. Why so harsh? A con-artist's
most powerful tools are *flattery* and *alliance with instinct*. But
not only have I failed to employ standard tools, I've used their
logical opposites: I've insulted you by suggesting your own urges can be
used to lead you astray. If I really wanted to deceive, I've begun in
the worst possible way. A workable deception must first be pleasing to
the ear, not grating. It should attract, not repel. It must flatter
instinct, not disparage it. Do you see the contradiction?
A Christian proverb says you may "know them by their fruits." What
has this tree born you? Distress and upset, perhaps. Fear of getting
more of exactly what you don't want? Maybe. A sharpened and
unflattering picture of your own vulnerability? Definitely. But I've
also given you a glimpse of at least part of Scientology's underbelly.
You may have already seen it, but it's clear from reading your
responses that very few, if anyone, has grasped its importance.
One ARS respondent mentioned the possibility of an experiment.
This guess is correct. My presence here in part is an experiment to
determine how people respond to the weapon that *could* destroy
Scientology. I did _not_ expect the weapon to be easy for most to
deal with. In exposing CofS vulnerability I must also expose personal
vulnerabilities. The CofS is as strong as you are weak, and conversely
may be rendered as weak as you can be strong. This is clearly
Scientology's best defense, better than the value-button implants,
better than the RPF, better than the SP-PTS "tech". Scientology could
never be taken down by a bunch of indignant "scientifically correct"
spoilsports appealing strictly to reason. It won't surrender to
objective proofs. Scientology could never be significantly damaged by ARS,
such as it is, or such as it was. But it *could* be annihilated by a
large group of disciplined performance and literary artists who know well
what they are doing. If one were to join this group, the first step
would be to confront one's own humanity and with that, one's
vulnerability. No small task, I know.
Has a light bulb switched on up there somewhere? I have just one
intent here and that's to undo what has been done. But I can't do the
job alone. I'm going to need some help. A single individual can only
do so much.
It's unfortunate that my presence draws forth such displeasing images
and feelings, but as I attempted to make clear in my introduction, you
are already being dominated. It's not likely that I could do much
more. Your overlords are the scripts of Scientology that have been
allied with at least one of your (secondary) instincts. If you are a
true believing Scientologist, you are controlled by your instinct to find
what's bad and cut it out of alliance (be the alliance cellular or
social). If you are an ex-Scientologist, you are being controlled by your
urge to avoid repeating a mistake. A similar urge compels certain non-
Scientologists to warn others away from a known danger. In addition,
being on what clearly seems the "right" side in a good-bad conflict
inspires pleasing emotions. Righteous indignance feels good. But
whether you are "inside" or "outside" the official Church, all believe
that to cut the bad out of alliance is good. All believe that to
convince others, is to keep yourself convinced. All believe that to
protect the loyalty of your allies is to protect yourself. This is
[secondary and tertiary] human instinct, expressed. Regardless of
whether you *are* in, *were* in, or *were never in* Scientology, if
it has caught your interest, you are *in* the Scientology play. The
behavioral, visible results of several of your key natural urges have
been intentionally written into it. Because your behavior is in its
script, you must also rightly be considered actors within the S-play.
There, you have a role and this role is identified by the characteristic
behavior that you have thus far been unable to resist. Understand?
Without even trying, you have "dramatized" the Scientology script.
If you are acting outside the official Church, your natural role is
termed "suppressive" because it acts as a counter-attest against the
Scientology brand of final solution. Anti- and ex- Scientologists have
been cast as irredeemable villains who attempt to bar the bridge to a
supposedly better world.
I should put the question to those on the "outside": Is this what you
want? --- to play the villain? Strangely, one might think you villains
enjoyed playing your scripted role, for many of you are fighting to
retain it. You struggle to maintain the status quo, you attack the
wrong target --- all without so much as a single cue from your OSA
handlers. Isn't that amazing? So true to form you villains are.
Well.... I can't argue with a preference. And I could never win a
battle with your instincts. If being a villain is your calling, and
it satisfies you more than anything else, you certainly have no need
for me. You know your place in life. You are in the diminutive
Scientology play to stay. For you, there's no escape. You wouldn't
ever dream of rising above it.
Now, I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that there may be more than a
few people who have grown weary of being cast as "suppressive"
villains. At a vulnerable time in their lives, the sticky Scientology
trap caught their interest. However, they don't wish to remain caught for a
lifetime. They're wise enough to know that cursing and disparaging
the trap doesn't work; it merely confirms their "suppressive" role in
the Scientology story. It's for these people that I offer an
alternative.
The alternative involves a study of the covertly artful devices that H
applied to his subjects. It involves a great deal of thinking, a bit
of experimenting, and some practice. It's not unlike acting school. The
curriculum is a regurgitation of the training H and I received at the
hands of our mentors. The protagonist side of the larger play is not
open to everyone --- only actors with proper training. With it, you
may take up the artful devices of Scientology and turn them back on
Scientology itself. The antagonist side --- made up of S-play
"suppressives", "PTS's", "free-zoners", in addition to the few
Scientologists in good standing --- resists, while the protagonist
side plays out simple, Old Testament justice. You know? Sort of a tit for
tat, an eye for an eye kind of thing.
As I stated in my introduction, the casting decisions are entirely
yours, but I must admit to some surprise at finding so many on ARS
wanting to cling to their instinctual, familiar "suppressive" roles.
Instinct is very powerful, isn't it?
So far the battle reminds me of American natives (Indians) fighting a
European invasion with bows and arrows. You "suppressives" and
"PTS's" are the Indians. You fight amongst yourselves; you fight
those who should rightly be recognized as your allies. You fall for
European tricks and temptations with only the vaguest idea of what
you're really doing. You're woefully unable to wisely differentiate
friend from foe. Suddenly, a new character arrives on the scene. He
offers you guns and the knowledge you need to use them. Naturally
you think he's come to harm you; he's of European descent and armed
to the hilt. His kind has tricked you before. But he knows a lot about
European strategy and can help you to beat it.
The analogy brings to mind the movie _Dances with Wolves_.
Anyone see it? If you did, do you remember feeling a sense of elation
watching the scene where the protagonist Sioux women, children, and
old men defended themselves from a predatory enemy tribe --- using
European colonial weapons? You can get the same feeling back, right
here, right now, if you like. In the Dorian version of the Scientology
story (the "larger" play), you can play the avenger role in a lopsided
victory --- if you like. Except this time, unlike the movie, you do
*not* kill your potential allies. You go after the *correct* target,
which in your war is the mystery and allure of the Scientology
"spiritual technology" itself.
The American native versus European colonist analogy may be more
apt than you think. Reflect on the fact that Scientology employs a
strategy taken directly from the European conquest. It's commonly
termed "divide and conquer" and the Scientology stories and scripts
direct it at all levels of "counter-" organization --- from the
cellular level on up. Consider that an individual, a tribe, or a nation
all share a common trait. Each is a larger whole composed of smaller
parts. The smaller parts function in cooperation for the sake of a
common goal. But the goal is rendered unattainable if the parts cease
to cooperate.
In recent centuries, Britannia and her descendants habitually used
internecine quarrels to split up an enemy and defeat the weakened
parts one at a time. To defeat an enemy you split up his parts and
convert them into allies against those who still resist. Piece by
piece, one part, then many parts are played against the remainder.
Step one is fueling the gripes each part has against its significant
others. England used the strategy most effectively on many lands and
peoples, which is one reason why we're all speaking English today.
The English strategy that worked so well with native peoples and
continents, also works very nicely on the individual, something we
referred to as a "colonial aggregation" of cells. In our version of it,
the subconscious, or "reactive" mind was cast as a dimwitted,
involuntary enemy of the conscious mind. The conscious mind was
cast as highly intelligent and potentially perfect, if only it would
be rid of its stupid companion. The casting matched people's experience
and their hopes --- no one can respond appropriately to every
situation; everyone would like to perform better. As a remedy, an
offer is made to the conscious mind to help take over and subvert the
subconscious. Hearing of its imminent abandonment and betrayal, the
subconscious opens to forming new alliances. Then, while the
conscious mind is occupied in exacting tasks that make it think it's
"handling" its "demon(s)", the subconscious is conscripted to take
over the entire colony. (The colony is the individual, a family of
genetically identical cells.) Get hold of a copy of DMSMH and find
some of the language that's been in use behind the scenes and the
props. From the perspective of the divide and conquer strategy, a
human being is merely an "aggregation of cells". This term, and
others like it, slipped into the first book because we hadn't yet
introduced spiritual terms to obviate them.
The whole idea of "spirit", by the bye, was introduced to conceal
what we really believed. Yes, we were artists. Of course. But besides
that, we were behavioral psychologists who had crossed over the line
into what is now known as "evolutionary psychology" --- actor H
included. We needed to rule out the possibility. For a number of
reasons, including this one, the spiritual angle seemed like a neat
trick. A _spirit_ is a creator of effects that itself has no apparent
cause. I'm sure you must know that. It's a very common idea. But
there's a piece of the idea that's missing. What's missing has been
intimately wrapped up in the realm of literary and performance art for
a long time. Maybe it's time the missing piece came out of hiding...
Characters, fictional or otherwise, are granted spirit by disconnecting
them from their true cause. When the audience forgets that they're
seeing a scripted performance, a character in a story can come alive.
The less known are the causes behind a character's actions, the more
alive they become. If you're alive, you've got spirit. The more alive
you are, the more spiritual you become. Put another way, the more
difficult you are to explain, the more people will recognize a living
presence within you. Presence of spirit is dependent on not-knowing
from whence observed effects derive. To go even further, if the power
behind a character were completely unknown and totally mysterious,
the character will be perceived as divine.
As it is now, I, Ralph Dorian, fall into the spiritual category because
even with the guesses being tossed around on ARS, the thing that's
causing me remains a mystery. The "author" of my script is unknown,
ergo, I've got spirit. My kind has been variously labeled sprite,
demon, doppelganger, persona, ego, shadow, superego, id, character,
storybook character, thetan, body thetan, phantom, spook, wraith; and
there are many more. All these terms are referring to variations of the
same thing --- a cause of effects whose cause has not been ascertained.
All it takes to apprehend a spirit is a recognition of an
apparent cause of observable, significant effects, combined with a
lack of awareness of what caused the cause. You've got a chain of
cause and effect that terminates at a recognized effect and originates
with a recognized cause. At the apparent origin of the chain, at the
recognized cause, is the spirit. To kill a spirit, you simply uncover
what's causing the cause at the beginning of the chain. To kill a
human spirit you give a body a script and let everyone know where it
came from --- just like the "tech" was given to the Scientologist. No
mystery there at all. The spirit of the Scientologists has been sucked
out by their lead character. The essence of spirit is mystery. Take
away the mystery and all you've got left is an object.
Without doubt, one of the threats implicit in my offering is the de-
spiritualization of the fictional character "L. Ron Hubbard". Were I
to demonstrate conclusively that the "LRH" character was caused by
someone or something else, and were I to show very precisely how it
was done, most of this character's alluring mystery would be gone. I
will have killed its spirit. Where will the spirit go? --- Into me, of
course. From me it will rightfully go to my mentors, for it is they
who pieced together most of what later became Scientology. H was a good
actor and manager. He was an excellent storyteller. But he had his
limits. He was too often inebriated (on one substance or another) to
have done the enormous amount of thought-work that went into the
thing. He was only human.
Is it starting to dawn on you the real reason for concealing my
sources? To take the H character's spirit and put it where it rightfully
belongs, I must hold on to my mystery. If I were to deplete the H
character's mystery, it must go to something else, a prior cause. I'm
volunteering to step into the role. You've finally dragged the answer
out of me, ARS. This is why you will get no physical evidence, no
face, and no body, at least not while I'm alive. All you get is a name
and an apparently causeless cause. I offer characters and a detailed
story. That is all. Take it or leave it. What could be more spiritual?
There should be a familiar note in all this "spiritual" talk. Many who
volunteered for a Scientology role did so because Science had gone
just a bit too far in de-mystifying the causes of behavior. In following
the universe's chains and loops of cause and effect, Science had killed
too many spirits. It had uncovered too many causes that were
traditionally thought to be original, leaving them de-spiritualized
and "at effect". Life has traditionally been a mystery, its causes
unknown.
Science was also in the process of making the world predictable. If
one valued only convenience and a longer life span, perfect
predictability would be like a gift from heaven. Everyone else ---
would get bored. For many people, the scientific brand of goodness
comes with an unpleasant side effect. Here it is: if you can predict
your future with perfect accuracy, you've lost your freedom. Perfect
prediction capacity = no freedom. One feels free to the degree one
_doesn't_ know what is going to be found and done in the future. So
while Science has been giving us ways to cover the Earth with human
life, it's also been chipping away at some of the intangibles that
make life worth living. Life is boring if you know too much. Not
knowing is what makes it exciting.
If Science knew anything about human nature, you'd think it would
predict a beneficent, happy future. Wouldn't you? Or, if it could
deliver only bad news, you'd think it would keep its big mouth shut.
Alas, scientists don't have very good manners; they are not
particularly empathetic. They blurt out whatever they think is "true"
without considering the consequences. Most Scientists are not artists.
They have no tact, no finesse. Instead they prefer to be "cool",
"detached", and "objective". For a long time, initiation into the
world of Science was being able to take, and deliver a disappointing
"truth", without flinching. Older scientists are practiced spoilsports.
They know how to kill spirits, and they know how to make people feel
weak and insecure. This is the scientific disposition. Even a starry-
eyed optimist had to be disconcerted when Science released the
power hidden in the relationships amongst nuclear subatomic
particles. With that, Science set the sight of a dead, radioactive
Earth hovering as a possibility on the temporal horizon. A handful of
scientists even set up a metaphorical clock ticking towards nuclear
incineration, just in case we didn't get the message. Time goes in one
direction only, so the clock implied that doom was inevitable --- it
was only a matter of time. People's emotions respond to expected
futures. How do you think this made people feel? Naturally many
longed for a time when life was a mystery and a grim future less
certain. With their desire, they called out. Scientology was designed
to answer them. It seemed to bring spirits back into things and it
promised freedom. It painted a picture of a world where all the bad
things that came with Science had been dispelled. The only thing
really wrong with it was that it was created by artists with a hidden
scientific disposition.
There's one nice thing about free spirits: they're not susceptible to
ordinary physical attacks. Gosh but I like being Ralph Dorian the
spirit --- rather than Ralph {_name deleted_}, the multifunctional,
biophysical, human object. I can't even say I mind being Ralph
Dorian the _fictional character_, if that's how you prefer to regard
me. As a fictional character, not only am I out of the reach of OSA
counter-attestation suppression strategies, I'm also in good company.
Fictional characters can become very powerful. The greater their
mystery, the more their power grows. Characters that couldn't be
satisfactorily explained have had a considerable influence on history.
A cause whose cause is unknown always attracts human attention. H
was once distinguished by mystery, (though I now threaten to take it
away --- tough luck H.) Jesus of Nazareth was attached to mystery
since his cause was assumed to be a causeless cause. The Buddha also
had mystery because he was born rich but matured to be extremely
compassionate rather than selfish. This was unusual and people
couldn't explain why. Mohammed was mysterious because he
threatened to kill anyone who dared to explain him. Each of these
people was part human, part storybook character, and part spirit. The
spiritual part derived from a mystery. In contemporary times their
influence is purely spiritual --- the human element is gone and
believers still don't know exactly what "caused" them to function the
way they did. The divine is always uncaused by ordinary, temporal
things. Otherwise it wouldn't be divine. To believe in a spirit is to
believe the spirit causes itself. To apprehend a spirit is to "not-know"
the prior cause. Mystery is what imbues the spirit with power,
whether that spirit is called Yahweh, Zeus --- or the fictional
character called "God". Religion is about not-knowing the prior cause
--- which is part of the reason Scientology is destined to be
recognized as the most un-spiritual religion of them all.
Since free spirits can be powerful, they also can be a threat. They can
do things that no ordinary human being can do. The defensive arm of
the CofS organization is now working diligently to match these words
with a body, a face and a history. They want to de-spiritualize me.
They want to take away my power. To do this, they desperately need
physical evidence. They want a physical *thing* to discredit. They
need an object to slander. They don't care about my intent. They don't
appreciate my spirit. They want to turn me into a body. They want to
know where that body has been and what it's been doing. They want
to dig up something real bad. But you see, I've already confessed my
crimes; now I would like to make amends for them. This is why I'm
volunteering my time to help annihilate Scientology --- for good.
Let me remind you of something I said:
"_Without anyone available to contradict its claims, a story, *ANY*
story takes on a certain level of reality._"
Let's add a corollary: A believable story is transformed into fantasy
by people willing to contradict it.
Combine the above statements with what I said about CI
(Communication by Implication) and you should know that the most
effective way to contradict a story is by counter-attesting to it by
implication. How might one do that? In a word, with faith. Literal
counter attests are made by professing disbelief. Implied counter-
attests, on the other hand, go forth when you put faith in a story
that cannot coexist with the story you are counter-attesting to. For
example, putting your faith in the idea that the Earth is a spherical
object is an implied counter attest against the idea that the earth is
flat. The two perspectives cannot coexist in the same universe at the
same scale of observation.
How about this: If you didn't like the results of Scientology, you
could counter-attest most elegantly and most powerfully, by
implication. How? --- I've already provided you with a story. This
story can very easily coexist with Scientology, but Scientology
cannot coexist with it. You could, if you wanted, voluntarily,
knowingly, just like an actor playing a role in a story, suspend
disbelief and decide to believe in this heretofore unknown perspective
on history. Why? --- because if you did, the new story would begin to
strangle the life and spirit out of the diminutive play Scientology.
The new story takes away everything Scientology needs to survive and
gives it a happy ending to boot. The more real you make the Dorian
perspective, the *less* real you make the Scientology perspective.
Though it was designed to handle various forms of literal counter
attest, the Scientology play cannot easily accommodate this type of
implied counter attest. If it could, it would have long ago risked
alerting its followers to its true nature. Can you imagine *my*
identifying characteristics being incorporated into the Scientology
moral code, a.k.a. the "Anti-Social Personality" bulletin? ---
"Suppressive trait #13: The Anti-Social personality may say he
helped create Scientology. He has delusions about Scientology being
"art", when in fact it's actually an applied religious technology...he
has delusions about Dianetics being a rendition of European colonial
invasion strategies applied to the individual, though it's actually
the first true science of the mind..." --- Sorry. Wouldn't work.
Scientology wasn't designed to explain someone like me because it
couldn't. Not without dropping the wrong kind of hints. Nor was it
designed to explain away the existence of concealed intent on the part
of its supposed author. And it surely wasn't written to deal with its
ghostwriter authors coming forward with unexpected intent that
dramatically differs from the supposed author's supposed intent. This
is just too many surprises to handle, all of them jarring.
Think of it this way. The Dorian perspective is like scraps of metal
tossed into a meat grinder. The smaller play is like a meat grinder.
It likes to eat raw meat but it shudders at the very possibility of
metal. In my mind, the Dorian perspective is shiny, cold, hard steel, but
it's not yet real enough in the public mind to do the grinder significant
damage. However.... with the numbers of potential counter
attestations that ARS represents; why they could make the Dorian
perspective more solidly real than I ever could, even with a hundred
forensic analysts all speaking in my favor. But only if they really
wanted to. If you really wanted, with your faith, you can make the
scraps of metal I've offered you real enough to eventually put the
meat grinder out of business. Or, on the other hand, you can whine
about lack of "proof" and let it run on. David Miscavige and company
are counting on you doing just that.
I'll finish by addressing several ARS comments and questions
directly.
"_Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence_."
Like most truths, this one is situation dependent. It's valid in some
situations, invalid in others.
Yes, within the Scientific community extraordinary claims do require
extraordinarily persuasive evidence. But among humans at large,
*any* claim will be believed if it can be persuasively demonstrated
that the reward for believing outweighs the punishments, or,
conversely, that the liabilities of disbelief outweigh the benefits.
A more broadly accurate statement is as follows:
"_Revision of perception is proportional to the rewards expected to
follow it, and inversely proportional to the expected punishments_."
People will believe anything just as long as they're convinced that on
balance, it will make their life better. As soon as they discover that
the benefits of believing outweigh the liabilities, on balance,
they'll be looking for "reasons" that justify belief and actively
turning away from evidence that contradicts it.
One of the biggest rewards for a social creature is the approval of
actual and potential allies. If the door to success is closed, it may
be opened with the help of capable allies. Disapproval is punishment; it
always precedes alliance fragmentation. Approval is a reward; it
suggests a continued possibility of success. Therefore, when a new
idea is presented for acceptance, the first question everyone silently
asks is, "What will my friends/neighbors/associates/peers think if
they knew I believed in this??" Next question typically is, "What will
I get out of believing this, independent of my friends, neighbors,
associates, and peers?" Unfamiliar ideas are checked against what's
already known for credibility. What the credibility check amounts to
is a search for the future rewards or punishments that may come from
an idea being accepted as a belief. If expected rewards outweigh
expected punishments, the idea is accepted and perception revised.
-------------
On being a "fourth-rate" con-man: I'm pleased that my rating is
dropping. Perhaps I'm finally departing from my past. Once, we were
first rate. We told enticing lies and attracted millions.
The change in pattern is very refreshing.
--------------
The idea of "researching" "spirituality" is a contradiction in terms.
Perception of spirit comes from not-knowing. Researching is about
knowing. "Spiritual research", therefore, must be about killing
spirits. If not, it's at least fifty percent fraud.
--------------
Know that Richard Dawkins and I have a lot of ideas in common,
Keith Henson
There are a lot of people (you may be included), who like to assert
that because something is a result of a selection process, it wasn't
intended. What they (and possibly you) are missing is that value
directed selection processes, applied to available possibility, is
what results in intelligence, creativity, and intent. Intent, for example,
is the most credible prediction. Intent is the prediction you believe in.
If you have ten predictions as to what might happen, your intent is the
prediction that you are most certain will come true. The prediction
has been selected from a handful of possibilities. So of course life
and its products arise from a selection process operating in a field of
opportunity. But that's not to say that life wasn't intended, or that
life or any of it's products isn't the result of intelligence and
creativity at work.
I once chuckled over Darwin's term "natural selection" --- as if there
were anything else! The fact is, selection processes are ubiquitous and
all are "natural" --- including the selection processes that yield your
intellect. ;-) Creativity and intent are as much a part of the
natural world as space, time, energy, and matter.
Incidentally, if one were to wait for an official study to verify
every significance one draws from the world, one must also be satisfied
with never getting anywhere near the leading edge of discovery. Are
you satisfied with where you're at?
--------------
About lying and control.
If you want to control someone do you have to lie to them? --- of
course not. You're in control when you're predicting according to
preference and what you've predicted comes true. If I predict you
accurately then decide that I like the time, place, and form of the
event I predicted, I'm in control of you. Do I have to lie to you to
predict you accurately? --- of course not. Do I have to lie to you to
appreciate the when, the where, and the what that I predicted? ---
don't be ridiculous.
The best liars seek to tell the literal truth. But they tell only a
partial truth, or most commonly, a situation dependent truth. Then they
ask you, by implication, to apply the "truth" to a situation in which it
is false.
Those that feel most in control of their surroundings learn to predict
accurately and appreciate the goodness in what they have predicted.
Is every self-aware liar intending to control those he lies to? ---
probably. He's trying to elicit behavior in the other that will make
his preferred prediction come true.
Is every self-aware honest person *not* intending to control those
whom he tells the "truth"? --- only an extremely naive person would
believe this. The honest person wants the same thing the liar wants.
He wants control. He wants to predict people according to his
preference. But he goes about taking control in a different way. He
offers "truth" in hopes of getting compliance. The liar offers "hope"
in exchange for the same.
Can a lie entrap you? --- Maybe yes, maybe no. The possible outcome
is situation dependent. Performance and literary artists lie to
themselves all the time. It's called "being creative". The difference
is that they're not lying for immediate gratification. They're not lying
as a quick fix against pain. The average person lies and accepts lies as
an escape, and typically ends up getting caught.
Do lies, in general, entrap people? --- No more than do truths, in
general. It depends on the lie, and it depends on the truth. The most
significant lie, however, from the perspective of life, is the lie
that *incorrectly* links cause to effect. Equally significant, is the truth
that *correctly* links cause to effect. Life seeks to accumulate the
latter and dispose of the former. The latter leads to accurate
prediction while the former does not. Success goes to those with the
most accurate expectations. Accurate expectations generate accurate
predictions. Accurate prediction is the beginning of control.
Imagination is a lie until it is made real. Therefore anyone that
suggests you should always seek the "truth" is probably attempting to
suppress your creativity. Like most people, artists can be
competitive.
Artists are in the market, just like everyone else. If they can shut
down the competition their business will thrive. Jesus and the
S-play's H character were both artists. In their own way, both attempted to
suppress the creativity of the competition.
--------------
Will the truth set you free?
Yes and no. Yet another situation dependent idea.
If you are trapped in a room and the only way out is through a door
bolted by means of a combination lock, yes, the "truth" about the
combination will set you free.
On the other hand, if you feel trapped by the limits of your behavior
or the universe, no, the "truth" about these things will *not* set you
"free" from them. Recall that a sense of freedom is dependent on not-
knowing the future just as a sense of spirit is dependent on not-
knowing the prior cause. Not-know that you will be trapped in the
room tomorrow and you will feel free while locked in the room today.
Not-know what your body and the universe will do tomorrow and you
will feel free within them today. Living in "present-time" is about
not-knowing.
Of these I am certain:
The truth can kill a spirit.
Obsession about "truth" suppresses creativity.
The truth about the future snuffs out a feeling of freedom.
The truth about the past is valuable only to the degree that it leads
you to make better choices in the future. If it doesn't, no lie could
be as noxious.
-----------------
What about black magic?
What do you think I've been telling you about?? The "Dark Arts" are
literally part of the Arts. The esoteric concepts in black magic have
been around for a while, to say the least. The H character was
inspired by the artful magician Prospero from Shakespeare's _The
Tempest_. In the same play you can find the spirit Ariel, who was
part of the inspiration for the "thetan" character. Ariel's tormentor,
the old witch Sycorax, gave rise to the "reactive mind". See for yourself
by reading or watching a performance of Act I, Scene 2, of _The
Tempest_.
Speaking of Shakespeare, the ARS respondent who saw the similarity
between Hamlet's play within a play and the "larger" play that
contains Scientology, is very perceptive. Absolutely correct.
Shakespeare's _Hamlet_ was indeed the inspiration for the larger play
--- except, it wasn't my idea. The credit must go to Nat and Bonnie
Sloan, my mentors.
-----------------
What about "black magik"? --- magik was Aleister Crowley's
obsession. It consists of a compilation of stories, special objects,
and rituals that serve to loosen social restraints on sexual and predatory
instincts.
Was I part of the OTO (Ordo Templi Orientis)? --- most certainly not.
As far as I knew, the OTO was used as a recruiting device by my
mentors. Nat Sloan was a friend of Aleister Crowley. Through the
OTO, he discovered the actor who eventually filled the S-play's lead
role.
Who is Jack Parsons? --- Parsons was considered as an alternate for
the lead role. But from what I heard, he couldn't stomach the truth
about black magik compared vis-a-vis to the Dark Arts. Parsons
believed that magik with a 'k' was "real" and was disillusioned when
hints were dropped that suggested it was not. But Hubbard was
thrilled by the truth and landed the part.
What does black magik have to do with Scientology? --- not much,
except for the fact that its lead actor's predatory instincts were
given free rein in the S-play, in accordance with Aleister Crowley's
dictums.
-----------------
Do I want to take credit away from anyone? --- Yes, but only to set
the record straight. The H character has collected a lot of credit he
doesn't deserve.
Occasionally I may talk about ideas I've received from my mentors as
if they were the only source of information on the topic. From my
perspective, this is what's true. I haven't done a thorough check of
the entire repository of human knowledge. Nor have I checked through
all my mentors' sources. It's quite possible for a novel idea to be
conceived in two separate places at the same time. Synchronicity of
discovery is unusual, but not impossible.
------------------
Can animals (like birds) really think?
Let's define thinking as behavior that helps to elicit (and sometimes
inhibit) recognition of meaning that isn't immediately apparent. This
suggests that thinking is an aid to extracting and checking the
credibility of implied messages, from wherever they might be found.
Thinking is an aid to selecting the right meaning.
Do animals extract hidden meaning from their surroundings? --- if
they didn't they wouldn't have a basis for action.
Do animals check the credibility of the implied messages they
extract? --- if they didn't, they'd be more likely to end up in
trouble. Being right is just as important to an animal as it is to
a human.
Do animals think? Not with much help from our human languages.
But even without them, some animals are very good at drawing
accurate meaning out of a situation.
If you want to know what it's like to be an animal, imagine life
without words. Could you still recognize meaning? --- yes, of course
you could. A real life situation is like a sentence with its words
arranged just so. Except that the situation is four dimensional and
its "words" are the objects and actions of which it is composed. Our
human ability to use language is an extension of the animal ability to
draw meaning out of objects and situations.
-----------------
The plot of the diminutive S-play.
Plot is always based in conflict of intent.
S-play protagonists:
H-character
The Tech
Auditors & Case supervisors
E-meters
Pc's and pre-OT's getting trained and audited
S-play protagonists want freedom, happiness, ability to accurately
predict and control self and surrounding milieu.
S-play antagonists (leading):
The Reactive mind; Engrams, Pain, Unconsciousness
Command implants
The tangible Universe at large
Sources of counter-attest, specifically:
1) "suppressive persons"
2) the SP's luckless minions, the "potential trouble sources"
3) "squirrels"
According to the story, S-play antagonists want to stop S-play
protagonists.
--------------
The plot of the larger play.
LP protagonists: 1) understand that the S-play is a fraudulent final
solution contrived to teach people a lesson; 2) are familiar with the
devices that were used to craft it; and 3) have an interest in the
S-play but have taken themselves out of either a protagonist or an
antagonist role within it.
In the interests of justice and a happy ending, larger play
protagonists intend to dispose of the needless conflicts in the
diminutive Scientology play using the same artistic tools that gave
rise to them.
LP protagonists want to steal the H character's spirit and power and
give it back to whom it belongs.
LP antagonists: the characters on both sides of the smaller play and
the artful devices perversely applied to de-mystify and control them.
LP antagonists intend that the smaller play continue to
de-spiritualize people without interference. LP antagonists know not
what they are doing.
---------------
Does entry into the larger play mean you have to stop using your
traditional, instinctually agreeable methods of stopping Scientology?
--- no, but if you continue to dramatize instinct in ordinary ways,
part of you will remain on the antagonist side of the diminutive play.
As I said, the casting decisions are entirely yours.
Can't an actor have one foot in the antagonist side of the Scientology
play and one foot in the larger play? --- I suppose so. When you walk
through a doorway, one foot usually goes first.
Fighting with yourself is non-productive. I would suggest you
dramatize your urges for as long as you feel compelled to do so. Over
time, I will endeavor to provide you with things that gradually
diminish the compulsion.
Ok?
----------------
Do I think that Jews have more simian traits than pure blooded
Germans? --- on balance, no, I don't. Nor do I care. But the Germans
of the 1930's cared. They liked to think Jews were inferior, on this
basis. The popular tendency of the era focused on the fact that
Germans have more blondes. A silly excuse in retrospect, but like I
said, what Instinct wants, Instinct gets --- as long as it can find a
reasonable story to justify it. The reasoning of eugenics was just an
excuse to let pent up German instincts have free rein.
----------------
More later.
Ralph Dorian, (c)1998
Rob Clark
Dorian Entity) wrote:
>Is it starting to dawn on you the real reason for concealing my
>sources? To take the H character's spirit and put it where it rightfully
>belongs, I must hold on to my mystery. If I were to deplete the H
>character's mystery, it must go to something else, a prior cause. I'm
>volunteering to step into the role. You've finally dragged the answer
>out of me, ARS. This is why you will get no physical evidence, no
>face, and no body, at least not while I'm alive. All you get is a name
>and an apparently causeless cause. I offer characters and a detailed
>story. That is all. Take it or leave it. What could be more spiritual?
what could be more fucking DUMB!
more on this latest insanity later.
rob
Mike O'Connor
So Bob Minton wrote none of this and the anonymous Ralph Dorian wrote all of it?
By the way Ralph Dorian can not copyright his work because you can't
copyright truly anonymous material.
-Mike IANAL
Censored by Scientology
Lisa Chabot
>confess to being honored by the active attention granted me. I
>appreciate the feedback, whether it be hyper-vigilant and defensive,
>or curious and thoughtful. Being human, naturally I appreciate
>flattery more than criticism, but the defensive comments are not
>entirely unflattering. It seems you have taken my introduction to
There's a name for this kind of illness.
.
.
.
--
non-spam can be sent to lsc at this ISP
"What I mean by a shifty eye," continued Miss Marple, "is the kind
that looks very straight at you and never looks away or blinks."
Fast
>
>Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
>
>ARS participants have considered and discussed the possibilities. As
>we now have it, most respondents have recognized the signs of a
>harmful deception in the works and have taken appropriate measures
>to deal with it. A relative few are open to sanguine possibilities,
>and an even smaller number are searching for them. None of this should
>be surprising because of the training most have received via
>Scientology. In ARS, trust of strangers is at a bare minimum, and for
>good reason.
>
>For my part, although I've been snubbed by the majority, I must
>confess to being honored by the active attention granted me. I
>appreciate the feedback, whether it be hyper-vigilant and defensive,
>or curious and thoughtful. Being human, naturally I appreciate
>flattery more than criticism, but the defensive comments are not
>entirely unflattering. It seems you have taken my introduction to
>implied communication seriously enough to press it into immediate
>service. There is obviously no way I could ever foist myself upon
>ARS, either through intimidation or the use of covert implied
>commands.
<big snip>
Bob ("Dorian"):
You are long-winded and too self-important. If you want to be taken
seriously on ars you need to do at least these three things:
1) Get your own news account, stop using someone elses ID.
2) Post in much smaller volume.
3) Reply to some people who respond to your messages.
HTH, HAND
- Fast
John Ritson
<b...@minton.org> writes
>
>Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
[snip acres of verbiage]
> Scientology could never be significantly damaged by ARS,
>such as it is, or such as it was. But it *could* be annihilated by a
>large group of disciplined performance and literary artists who know well
>what they are doing.
Somehow I am reminded of mime artists (yechh) wrestling with invisible
doors.
[another big snip]
>Think of it this way. The Dorian perspective is like scraps of metal
>tossed into a meat grinder. The smaller play is like a meat grinder.
>It likes to eat raw meat but it shudders at the very possibility of
>metal. In my mind, the Dorian perspective is shiny, cold, hard steel, but
>it's not yet real enough in the public mind to do the grinder significant
>damage. However.... with the numbers of potential counter
>attestations that ARS represents; why they could make the Dorian
>perspective more solidly real than I ever could, even with a hundred
>forensic analysts all speaking in my favor. But only if they really
>wanted to. If you really wanted, with your faith, you can make the
>scraps of metal I've offered you real enough to eventually put the
>meat grinder out of business. Or, on the other hand, you can whine
>about lack of "proof" and let it run on. David Miscavige and company
>are counting on you doing just that.
No, it is not Marcel Marceau, it is the character in 'Peter Pan'
exhorting the kiddies to shout if they believe in fairies.
>
>I'll finish by addressing several ARS comments and questions
>directly.
[but there are still reams to come]
>
>
>"_Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence_."
>
>Like most truths, this one is situation dependent. It's valid in some
>situations, invalid in others.
>
>Yes, within the Scientific community extraordinary claims do require
>extraordinarily persuasive evidence. But among humans at large,
>*any* claim will be believed if it can be persuasively demonstrated
>that the reward for believing outweighs the punishments, or,
>conversely, that the liabilities of disbelief outweigh the benefits.
And if you are prepared to suspend your requirement for evidence I've
got a bridge to sell you.....
{snip]
>On being a "fourth-rate" con-man: I'm pleased that my rating is
>dropping. Perhaps I'm finally departing from my past. Once, we were
>first rate. We told enticing lies and attracted millions.
>
>The change in pattern is very refreshing.
[snip]
>Of these I am certain:
>
>The truth can kill a spirit.
It *IS* Tinkerbelle!
>
>Obsession about "truth" suppresses creativity.
>
>The truth about the future snuffs out a feeling of freedom.
>
>The truth about the past is valuable only to the degree that it leads
>you to make better choices in the future. If it doesn't, no lie could
>be as noxious.
[snip acres of stuff about plays within plays, from someone who has not
caught up with Pirandello, let alone Stoppard]
>Do I think that Jews have more simian traits than pure blooded
>Germans? --- on balance, no, I don't. Nor do I care. But the Germans
>of the 1930's cared. They liked to think Jews were inferior, on this
>basis. The popular tendency of the era focused on the fact that
>Germans have more blondes. A silly excuse in retrospect, but like I
>said, what Instinct wants, Instinct gets --- as long as it can find a
>reasonable story to justify it. The reasoning of eugenics was just an
>excuse to let pent up German instincts have free rein.
>
>----------------
>
>More later.
>
>Ralph Dorian, (c)1998
>
>
'Dorian' has had at least one effect on my beliefs about Scientology. I
now understand that there do exist worse writers than Hubbard.
John *** "Shakespeare said all life was a play. He was right insofar as the Time
Track is a 3D, fifty-two perception movie which is a whole series of plays
concerning the preclear. But the influence of it upon the preclear removes it
from the class of pretense and play. It is not only very real, it is what
contains whatever it is that depresses the preclear to what he is today. Its
savageness relieved, the preclear can recover, and only then. There is no
other valid workable road." - L. Ron Hubbard - HCOB 28 July 1963 ***
DaHatter
>
>Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
>The idea of "researching" "spirituality" is a contradiction in terms.
>Perception of spirit comes from not-knowing. Researching is about
>knowing. "Spiritual research", therefore, must be about killing
>spirits. If not, it's at least fifty percent fraud.
*snip*
Allright, then, I'm in favor of "researching" LRH's "divinity" to death.
Literally.
The rest of ARS may well call me a fool, but I'm intrigued - count me in.
--
Think For Yourself!
http://www.scientology-kills.org
http://www.xenu.net
The German Paymaster
all. I tried hard to maintain an open mind, but this ("thoughtful response"
to / attempt to undermine) the natural skepticism of ARS only lends more
evidence to the viewpoint that "Dorian"'s emergence is a troll or an op being
played for the benefit of the Curse of Scientology, with the objective of
enlisting critics of the Curse in some kind of "performance art" hijinks that
are supposed to "symbolically" demolish it, rather than the current tactics of
pickets, publicity, and legal action that in fact appear to be doing a darn
good job:
> Scientology could
> never be taken down by a bunch of indignant "scientifically correct"
> spoilsports appealing strictly to reason. It won't surrender to
> objective proofs. Scientology could never be significantly damaged by ARS,
> such as it is, or such as it was. But it *could* be annihilated by a
> large group of disciplined performance and literary artists who know well
> what they are doing. If one were to join this group, the first step
> would be to confront one's own humanity and with that, one's
> vulnerability. No small task, I know.
"Dorian"'s first point here _may_ be true for the inner core of fully
indoctrinated $cn's; years of addictive covert hypnosis have almost certainly
rendered most of them immune to rational argument. But to anyone still in
possession of even half their marbles -- that is, most of the "wog" world --
the exposure of $cn's nefarious practices and wacko upper-level doctrines is a
quick and permanently effective inoculation against ever getting those cans in
hand. Without "raw meat" the Curse cannot grow.
"Dorian"'s audience and sole target is the ARS community of critics. The
objective of his "implicit communication" (which, as many posters have
documented abundantly, is nothing new) is to weaken involvement in the current
set of effective tactics by convincing critics that their actions are part of
the original "script". He first flatters his readers for their skepticism:
> There is obviously no way I could ever foist myself upon
> ARS, either through intimidation or the use of covert implied
> commands.
but then attempts to convince the ARS community that their current actions
have been "scripted" for them:
> It's unfortunate that my presence draws forth such displeasing images
> and feelings, but as I attempted to make clear in my introduction, you
> are already being dominated. It's not likely that I could do much
> more. Your overlords are the scripts of Scientology that have been
> allied with at least one of your (secondary) instincts. [...]
> Regardless of
> whether you *are* in, *were* in, or *were never in* Scientology, if
> it has caught your interest, you are *in* the Scientology play. The
> behavioral, visible results of several of your key natural urges have
> been intentionally written into it. Because your behavior is in its
> script, you must also rightly be considered actors within the S-play.
> There, you have a role and this role is identified by the characteristic
> behavior that you have thus far been unable to resist. Understand?
> Without even trying, you have "dramatized" the Scientology script.
> You struggle to maintain the status quo, you attack the
> wrong target --- all without so much as a single cue from your OSA
> handlers. Isn't that amazing? So true to form you villains are.
> Well.... I can't argue with a preference. And I could never win a
> battle with your instincts. If being a villain is your calling, and
> it satisfies you more than anything else, you certainly have no need
> for me. You know your place in life. You are in the diminutive
> Scientology play to stay. For you, there's no escape. You wouldn't
> ever dream of rising above it.
You see, _you_ didn't decide to picket $cn missions or write to your Attorney
General -- the "script" decided that _for_ you. (Steve Hassan, in "Combatting
Cult Mind Control," illustrates how the presence of such double-binds is
characteristic of guru-speak: "If you doubt my words, it is because _I
myself_ am placing those doubts in your mind.") _Convincing_ your opponents
that you have the board "pan-determined" is a significant step toward making
it so.
And, since the typical ARSer prides him/herself on self-determination,
"Dorian"'s assertion that critics are in fact puppets suggests that, in order
to "prove" you're really making your own choices, you must either (a) "blow"
and stop active criticism, or (b) sign up for his theater troupe. "Xenu has
programmed you to read the rest of this message. If you don't stop reading
right now, you are Xenu's unwitting slave. You say you're not? Prove it and
stop reading this message right now!"
And what does Dorian suggest as the correct course of action for combatting
the Curse of Scientology? Why, publicizing the "H was our puppet" story, of
course! This takes all the "mystery" out of LRH (as if "Barefaced Messiah"
and "Messiah or Madman?" hadn't done that already) and puts it on Ralph
Dorian... if we can get enough of the ARS crew to attest to it publicly!
> However.... with the numbers of potential counter
> attestations that ARS represents; why they could make the Dorian
> perspective more solidly real than I ever could, even with a hundred
> forensic analysts all speaking in my favor.
Does this mean Dorian is asking ARSer's to _lie_? Oh, no, no, no -- he's
asking you to _believe_ this story, as well:
> You could, if you wanted, voluntarily,
> knowingly, just like an actor playing a role in a story, suspend
> disbelief and decide to believe in this heretofore unknown perspective
> on history.
You see, it's okay to tell a lie if you _believe_ it. In fact, it doesn't
even matter whether the story is true or not, if you _believe_ it hard
enough. Hmmm, "what's true for you is true" sound familiar? And _of course_
he won't provide any evidence of his claims -- proof denies faith, you silly
rationalist!
"Dorian" is explicitly asking ARS to put reason and the search for truth
aside... the standard for accepting an idea is not the evidence, but the
social "approval" or "disapproval" incurred for accepting or not accepting
it. He claims that "truth" kills "spirit", and that "spirit" is better. I
would remind you that, like LRH and the Red Queen, Dorian uses words to mean
what he wants them to mean, and I urge you not to accept either of those
propositions without careful consideration.
"Dorian"'s "larger play" tactic is an example of "ret-conning," a term that
originated in comic book fandom but has since spread to other narrative
media. It stands for "retroactive continuity," and it means to change the
meaning of previously told stories by re-framing them in a "larger" context.
Anne Rice's "The Vampire Lestat" is an example; it "ret-cons" its predecessor,
"Interview with the Vampire," by showing that Louis, the narrator of the
previous book, only saw part of what was happening, and that his incomplete
perspective meant that parts of his account were invalid.
The "larger play" scenario could conceivably work, even for hard-core
long-term scientologists... BUT I strongly suggest that anyone who has
previously taken on a public critical role NOT involve yourself in Dorian's
theatrical troupe. It involves the conscious promotion and willful belief of
a story that is almost certainly untrue (according to the ex-Scios close to
Hubbard who have commented on it). Furthermore:
> The
> curriculum is a regurgitation of the training H and I received at the
> hands of our mentors. The protagonist side of the larger play is not
> open to everyone --- only actors with proper training. With it, you
> may take up the artful devices of Scientology and turn them back on
> Scientology itself.
If I read this correctly, it involves the use of Scientology's own memetic
methods, an idea which turns my stomach at first glance. Failure of Dorian's
"experiment" will certainly damage the credibility of those involved with it,
in terms of the ongoing "smaller play" (legal action and the raising of public
awareness). "Dorian" sez:
> Does entry into the larger play mean you have to stop using your
> traditional, instinctually agreeable methods of stopping Scientology?
> --- no, but if you continue to dramatize instinct in ordinary ways,
> part of you will remain on the antagonist side of the diminutive play.
Hence my suggestion that those who have played large public parts in the
"smaller play" -- the litigants, webmasters, ex-members, exit counselors, and
picketers -- keep on doing what you're doing and stay out of Dorian's puppet
show. By all available evidence, you're having a significant effect. (Bob
Minton, This Means You! As many others have urged, I ask you to "disconnect"
from Dorian and let him communicate with ARS on his own -- continued
association with Project Dorian risks your credibility and, since you're the
most visible critic, that of all other Scientology critics as well.)
There exists a large untapped reservoir of lurkers on this newsgroup -- as
many as 35,000 by some estimates -- which should constitute plenty of man- and
woman-power to help Dorian put on his show in barn with Mickey and Judy, at
zero risk to the credibility of the more well-known and established critics.
The German Paymaster
(well, half-German... on my father's side)
arnie_lerma
>
>Fast (fa...@anywhere.usa) wrote:
>: You are long-winded and too self-important. If you want to be taken
>: seriously on ars you need to do at least these three things:
>:
>: 1) Get your own news account, stop using someone elses ID.
>: 2) Post in much smaller volume.
>: 3) Reply to some people who respond to your messages.
>
>the experiences of a former Scientologist. Lots of folks have done it, and
>the anonymous former members haven't been able to join in the bullring of
>a.r.s either. I think we should support anonymous, forwarded messages to
>a.r.s. Why is it necessary that Dorian want to wallow in the mire? And I
>don't think his posting volume is objectionable, either. What is it so
>far, 6 posts? 7?
Thanks Rod,
2nd'd
arnie lerma
>--
>Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
>Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / CWPD Mouthpiece
>The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Vision of Destruction
>Killer Rod / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
Secrets are the mortar binding
bricks as lies together into prisons for the mind.
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the 90's http://www.lermanet.com
Rod Keller
: You are long-winded and too self-important. If you want to be taken
: seriously on ars you need to do at least these three things:
:
: 1) Get your own news account, stop using someone elses ID.
: 2) Post in much smaller volume.
: 3) Reply to some people who respond to your messages.
This is nit-picking, and hypocritical. Nobody objects when Dennis posts
the experiences of a former Scientologist. Lots of folks have done it, and
the anonymous former members haven't been able to join in the bullring of
a.r.s either. I think we should support anonymous, forwarded messages to
a.r.s. Why is it necessary that Dorian want to wallow in the mire? And I
don't think his posting volume is objectionable, either. What is it so
far, 6 posts? 7?
--
Dave Bird
not Bob Minton\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\but
an obnoxious species of tropical fruit
(sure smells like bullshit to me)
writes:
>
>Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
Look, Durian, you useless longwinded fucker, will
you PER-LEEZE get your own email account so I can killfile you.
The only posts I want to read from B...@Minton.org are those
by Bob Minton, thank you.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Fast
>Fast (fa...@anywhere.usa) wrote:
>: You are long-winded and too self-important. If you want to be taken
>: seriously on ars you need to do at least these three things:
>:
>: 1) Get your own news account, stop using someone elses ID.
>: 2) Post in much smaller volume.
>: 3) Reply to some people who respond to your messages.
>
>This is nit-picking, and hypocritical. Nobody objects when Dennis posts
>the experiences of a former Scientologist. Lots of folks have done it, and
>the anonymous former members haven't been able to join in the bullring of
>a.r.s either. I think we should support anonymous, forwarded messages to
>a.r.s. Why is it necessary that Dorian want to wallow in the mire? And I
>don't think his posting volume is objectionable, either. What is it so
>far, 6 posts? 7?
I don't object to his number of posts, or who he chooses to post
through. I tried to give helpful advice on how he could be taken more
seriously. I.e. with his own net.identity, and with posts less than
900 lines long, and to follow-up with those that are interested. He
may not care, or he may not agree. Free advice is worth what you pay
for it, after all. :-)
Sorry you got the wrong impression.
- Fast
Fast
>Fast (fa...@anywhere.usa) wrote:
>: You are long-winded and too self-important. If you want to be taken
>: seriously on ars you need to do at least these three things:
>:
>: 1) Get your own news account, stop using someone elses ID.
>: 2) Post in much smaller volume.
>: 3) Reply to some people who respond to your messages.
>
>This is nit-picking, and hypocritical. Nobody objects when Dennis posts
>the experiences of a former Scientologist. Lots of folks have done it, and
>the anonymous former members haven't been able to join in the bullring of
>a.r.s either. I think we should support anonymous, forwarded messages to
>a.r.s. Why is it necessary that Dorian want to wallow in the mire? And I
>don't think his posting volume is objectionable, either. What is it so
>far, 6 posts? 7?
Rod, I just finished rereading your response and my reply to it, and I
was *way* too polite. Who the f**k are you to call me hypocritical?
Point out the opposite position taken in any of *my* posts.
Oh, you can't? And what's Dennis's posts got to do with anything?
I'm not complaining about Bob, in fact I'm not complaining about
anyone, just sharing my opinion with "Dorian".
You are the *nit-picker* here.
- Fast
LR1467
((lots of snips already covered by Dennis))
>The
>>curriculum is a regurgitation of the training H and I received at the
>>hands of our mentors........
What now? Is he saying there is a group of Mentors pulling the strings of the
group of Actors?
The plot sickens. The shit deepens..............
Stay tuned for Dennis on Dorian, part deux.
LR
LilAlex742
I...
I...
I...
You..
You...
I...
I....
No, to almost everything you said. You're just a silly pontificating dumb-fuck
who is overly impressed with his own banal ideas. Go away.
LilAlex
1. Spot the grizzly.
2. Tease the grizzly.
3. Ride the grizzly like it was a pony.
--the always sterling advice of Stephen Jones
LilAlex742
>Alert the press! The king of mindfuck liked toying with people.
ROTFL
Stephen Jones
b...@minton.org (Bob Minton) wrote:
>
>Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
>
<snip>
ARS PUBLIC SERVICE
proudly presents:
Apprehend a Spirit by Ralph Dorian
Condensed
Lies=Art
Truth: What is it? It isn't all it is cracked up to be.
Indians!
Stephen Jones
LilAlex742
>ARS PUBLIC SERVICE
> proudly presents:
>
> Apprehend a Spirit by Ralph Dorian
> Condensed
>
> Lies=Art
> Truth: What is it? It isn't all it is cracked up to be.
> Indians!
>
>
>Stephen Jones
>
[Creedence flares up in the background]
Proud Mary, keep on burning...
Big wheel, keep on turning
Rolling, rolling on the floor, doubled up with laughter
Conner
>
>Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
when will we see it?
thoughtful to me implies some measure of thought.
the thought i see here seems to reflect some reactive
belief in a hackneyed formula that never affected more
than about 20% of the population.
>ARS participants have considered and discussed the possibilities. As
>we now have it, most respondents have recognized the signs of a
>harmful deception in the works and have taken appropriate measures
>to deal with it.
jumping in front of a parade doesn't make one the parade
leader.
> A relative few are open to sanguine possibilities,
which meaning of sanguine? why sanguine in the first place?
[clip]
>
>First of all, I don't want any more money.
don't throw me in the briar patch!
[clip]
> He liked toying with people.
wow! major revelation.
[clip]
> I'm not H, but
>I know everything that he knew about deceiving people, and more.
you flatter yourself. trust me, i know from long experience.
[clip]
> Scientology could
>never be taken down by a bunch of indignant "scientifically correct"
>spoilsports appealing strictly to reason.
yeah, there's just too many illogical people. people who
succumb to magical reasoning, who think that they can levitate
ashtrays with intention beams. on the other had, you can so
isolate it by it's idiocies that it will never recover.
btw, i think this 'implied communications' stuff is bs. it has
absolutely no basis beyond your unsupported assertions
for it. provide a rational model and evidence to support
it about how it works, if you want to get something more
than the generally sceptical reception you've gotten to date.
[clip]
>
>I should put the question to those on the "outside": Is this what you
>want? --- to play the villain? Strangely, one might think you villains
>enjoyed playing your scripted role, for many of you are fighting to
>retain it. You struggle to maintain the status quo, you attack the
>wrong target --- all without so much as a single cue from your OSA
>handlers.
rent a clue, son. this reasoning is incomprehensible, illogical,
and factually wrong. do you yet wonder why we reject your 'implied
communications' bs?
[clip]
>The alternative involves a study of the covertly artful devices that H
>applied to his subjects. It involves a great deal of thinking, a bit
>of experimenting, and some practice. It's not unlike acting school.
veni, vidi, vici. all without your flawed cast on it. sorry
[clip mucho rambling bs. although it leads me to recommend a literal
reading on the term 'faggot']
>
>Science was also in the process of making the world predictable. If
>one valued only convenience and a longer life span, perfect
>predictability would be like a gift from heaven.
when someone explains the sense in this, i'll be happy to
buy them a steak dinner. obviously dorian hasn't a clue
about what science is about. even though he's an old
fucking fart, he seems not to have a clue about his own
ignorance. rather he is happy to prate on in grand, misleading
and incomprehensible generalities based on adherance
to a limited and silly model.
[clip]
>
>If Science knew anything about human nature, you'd think it would
>predict a beneficent, happy future. Wouldn't you?
<sigh> science predicts on the basis of what it observes.
real science doesn't try to make moral judgements prevail.
cluelessness to the max. i can't believe dorian is an old man,
and still so stupid. well, maybe i can, having other examples
at hand.
[clip]
>
>More later.
you want my opinion? don't bother. thanks for playing, but
the game's over. someone else one.
>Ralph Dorian, (c)1998
1. a copyright notice has not been required since the copyright act
of 1976. since then, any expression fixed in a tangible medium
is automatically copyrighted.
2. "(c)" was never a valid expression of copyright anyway.
-- see...@ix.netcom.com (Conner)
Note: remove 'spamblock' from address to reply
Friends of Dennis Erlich Club (www.netcom.com/~seekon/friends.html)
Rob Clark
>Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
well, that's good. now do it. so far you have merely given a VERBOSE response.
if you had given it more thought, it might have been shorter. as it is, it is
virtually unreadable and causes one's eyes to glaze over even attempting to read
it. i got about halfway through it then fell asleep--at nine in the morning
right after getting up after a solid eight hours sleep.
you should concentrate on making your prose interesting, rather than making it
as soporific as possible for a human being with only two hands. the
sleep-inducing qualities of your prose are only exceeded by their stupidity. i
make the claim that you deliberately make them so boring that people will fall
asleep before they realize how stupid they are. i will point out a few
stupidities, while hacking this bogus essay to pieces.
>ARS participants have considered and discussed the possibilities. As
>we now have it, most respondents have recognized the signs of a
>harmful deception in the works and have taken appropriate measures
DING DING DING.
>to deal with it. A relative few are open to sanguine possibilities,
i will note that the word "sanguine" deals with BLOOD. i think most ars
participants are entirely hostile to "sanguine" possibilities, especially
considering what these might entail.
>and an even smaller number are searching for them. None of this should
>be surprising because of the training most have received via
>Scientology. In ARS, trust of strangers is at a bare minimum, and for
>good reason.
actually i tend to trust most strangers, who do not act, like you, in an utterly
untrustworthy fashion and who refuse to supply even a scintilla of evidence
while cynically relying on the good name of bob minton, while destroying that
very good name.
i continue to think he must have been brainwashed in some sense not even to give
you a dor...@minton.org address and thus preserve his own good name while
allowing you to parade whatever weekly idiocy you have to annoy us.
>For my part, although I've been snubbed by the majority, I must
>confess to being honored by the active attention granted me. I
>appreciate the feedback, whether it be hyper-vigilant and defensive,
>or curious and thoughtful. Being human, naturally I appreciate
>flattery more than criticism, but the defensive comments are not
>entirely unflattering. It seems you have taken my introduction to
yes, every net kook says something similar. typical net kooks, however, have
the decency to be more brief about it and not take up so much of our time to
state that they are amused that their asshole behavior generates comments like
"what an asshole!" later comments of yours in this same "essay" lead me also to
conclude "what a RACIST asshole!" i'll go into that in a bit.
>implied communication seriously enough to press it into immediate
>service. There is obviously no way I could ever foist myself upon
>ARS, either through intimidation or the use of covert implied
>commands.
yada yada bla bla bla. since the content-free gibbering begins soon, i will at
this point begin to commit serious snips and editings.
>Among my peers,
this is the first big snip. since, after all, we are NOT your "peers" as you
define it, but merely lowly peasants, some kind of steppin-fetchit injuns or
other lowlifes of an inferior genetic breed or something like that, we can just
disregard this "among my peers" shit. you have already insulted everyone you
are addressing, not exactly a wise attitude for someone attempting to present a
viewpoint. it rather reminds me of wgert, to tell the truth.
>Let me state some facts that are as obvious as all get out to me, but
>are apparently not very obvious to everyone on ARS.
>First of all, I don't want any more money. Money is merely a
>representation of how much other people might do for me. But there
>are many things that aren't for sale, and even more things that aren't
>available at all. Money is nice, but it's not an ultimate goodness
>because other people can only do so much. All the money in the
>world can't buy something no one can provide.
well, i am very glad for that. i will definitely remember it the moment you
start demanding money of anyone. perhaps you are just a rich idiot sitting on
your laurels commending yourself for your noble restraint in having done nothing
the past fifty years as the scientology cult ripped through many people's lives,
souls and the very core of their being, while you did diddly-squat, and now you
feel superior about yourself for your noble nothing-doing.
the rest of us feel that if you are remotely truthful about your own acts, you
are a piece of shit who ought to be hung, and quite wise to hide your identity
from the people you helped fuck over. if i had been a faithful scientologist,
and then i actually believed your bogus cock-and-bull story, frankly, i would
want to hunt down your vicious, chickenshit, cowardly, cynical, manipulative,
motherfucking ass and kick your teeth down your throat, just so you know what i
think about what you claim to be.
you are frankly lucky most people think you are full of shit--if they thought
you were telling the truth they would want you dead for their wrecked marriages,
destroyed families, molested children, and other loved ones either dead, or
damaged permanently and irretrievably by the cult you would have us believe you
created.
oh, but that stuff is just window-dressing for you, now, isn't it?
this is nothing real, just a fucking play for your amusement. c'mon, walk into
the room i'm in right now, try it. i will show you MY idea of fucking
amusement, you piece of shit.
[a BIG snip of a huge quantity of verbiage that translates into english as,
well, a huge quantity of verbiage that contains nothing useful. now i know damn
well you have read oscar wilde. has your dumb ass read strunk & white? if you
have, here's a quick refresher: "omit needless words." this whole section
could have been omitted.]
>So far the battle reminds me of American natives (Indians) fighting a
>European invasion with bows and arrows. You "suppressives" and
if you were talking about the scientologists i might almost agree, but i doubt i
would use such a vicious and racist stereotype in making such a comment.
>"PTS's" are the Indians. You fight amongst yourselves; you fight
ah, how charitable of you, to compare us to the native americans slaughtered by
the millions through the first practical application of "germ warfare."
while you're at this kind of disgusting racism, why not just make comparisons to
jews vs. nazis, or armenians vs. soviets, or just use some other example of an
ethnic genocide without betraying even the slightest hint of empathy?
why not just reveal, again and again, how absolutely cold-hearted a despicable
fuck you are?
you seem to view all these things as amusing historical fables, rather than as
incidents in human history where vast numbers of people died, painfully and
miserably. you do not appear to give a shit for any of these people--you view
them as window-dressing for your story.
you are no more to be admired or followed than an elderly nazi extolling the
glories he once experienced committing vile crimes. you appear to be proud of
the vile crimes you committed, and not in the least repentant.
i will take you more seriously when you surrender yourself to the authorities
for the repulsive crimes against humanity you claim to have committed--i
personally do not think you committed these crimes, i think you're a liar.
but if you surrendered yourself to the authorities, we would find out very
quickly just what lies you are telling.
>those who should rightly be recognized as your allies. You fall for
>European tricks and temptations with only the vaguest idea of what
>you're really doing. You're woefully unable to wisely differentiate
yes, we computer-geniuses of the 20th century, compared to the 50s lunacy of l.
ron hubbard, are *really* like the indians facing fire-arms.
NOT!
we are like a pack of people with nuclear fucking weapons, facing a bunch of
dipshits insistently and continually harassing us, and responding with frankly
fucking admirable restraint in not dropping BLEVs and tactical nuclear weapons
to their exact GPS coordinates, as we COULD do, were we the vicious scumbags
they claim we are.
>friend from foe. Suddenly, a new character arrives on the scene. He
>offers you guns and the knowledge you need to use them. Naturally
>you think he's come to harm you; he's of European descent and armed
>to the hilt. His kind has tricked you before. But he knows a lot about
>European strategy and can help you to beat it.
you are not armed to the hilt, unless you consider your sleep-inducing
death-by-boredom prose to be some sort of armament. i imagine if anyone
actually were so stupid as to try to read your posts beginning-to-end that they
might succumb to your soporific qualities, but this hardly qualifies as a
weapon.
you have not come bearing guns, so far you have merely waved about a few voodoo
dolls.
a person bearing guns could have proven their claims of having guns, merely by
firing off a couple rounds. the proof of the armaments would be that there
would be holes in various parts of the terrain.
so far, you have merely babbled at interminable length about, well, about
NOTHING. with NO proof. NO evidence. NO holes in the terrain. just a huge
mound of bullshit. i don't even know why i bother responding to your idiocy any
more. i don't know why you do not see that if you have no evidence of your
claims, you might as well be the tooth fairy, because nobody will give a shit.
in any case, consider your moronic and racist "i am a european, you are idiotic
and inferior indian peasants" shit demolished. nobody believes it. it is an
insult to native americans, an insult to us, and even an insult to yourself, if
there even is such a person as "ralph dorian."
>The analogy brings to mind the movie _Dances with Wolves_.
>Anyone see it? If you did, do you remember feeling a sense of elation
>watching the scene where the protagonist Sioux women, children, and
>old men defended themselves from a predatory enemy tribe --- using
>European colonial weapons? You can get the same feeling back, right
>here, right now, if you like. In the Dorian version of the Scientology
>story (the "larger" play), you can play the avenger role in a lopsided
>victory --- if you like. Except this time, unlike the movie, you do
>*not* kill your potential allies. You go after the *correct* target,
>which in your war is the mystery and allure of the Scientology
>"spiritual technology" itself.
are you *really* a potential ally? or are you just a potential hanger-on who
annoys everyone while they're fighting with your idiotic advice? are you the
guy who says dumb shit during a firefight and then the one dumbass who turns his
head to look at your dumb ass gets his head blown off because he was more
interested in your dumb shit than in the bullets whizzing about his head?
from your ranting verbose crap i think you are that idiot who fucks everything
up in the middle of a fight. the phrase for your type is "swiss admiral."
>The American native versus European colonist analogy may be more
>apt than you think. Reflect on the fact that Scientology employs a
just so you know, dipshit, the analogy we have already come up with is america
v. vietnam. and we're vietnam.
the cult you seem to sort-of support, or at least compare to european
colonialists vs. "inferior" non-whites, in your entirely not-charming racist
way, has virtually unlimited resources. the people opposing it are generally
not well-moneyed--though a couple of us defy that stereotype and are
astoundingly rich, as you well know.
we do not particularly give a shit about this disparity in resources, and we
know full well we will lose a few battles. we also know we will NEVER give up
on defending BASIC FREEDOMS like FREEDOM OF SPEECH--and that means fucking
NEVER! NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER! period!
this makes it far more similar to the vietnam war. LET these asshole
scientology cultists file endless lawsuits FOREVER. they can win EVERY GODDAMN
LAWSUIT THEY EVER FILE against a netizen. they will STILL not win, because we
will NEVER give up. since we are dragging in silly-ass movie analogies, think
of mel gibson in braveheart--since we are now firmly in the fantasyland you are
attempting to exploit, this is what all the mel gibson in braveheart type people
are saying--YOU CAN SUE US, YOU CAN TAKE OUR HOMES, YOU CAN FUCK WITH US, YOU
CAN DROWN OUR DOGS, YOU CAN SET YOUR SNIPER RIFLES ON US AND TAKE
YOUR CHANCES, YOU CAN STEAL OUR MEDICAL RECORDS AND POST THEM ON
THE NET, YOU CAN EVEN *KILL* US, but you will NEVER NEVER NEVER
take our
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-DOM!
you can view that as the primitive rantings of a few members of some inferior
"simian" race if you choose to do so, but you do so at your own peril.
in reality, the situation is more on the order of an extended and near-permanent
flamewar on usenet, with no such dramatic tones--but trust me, posterity will
bear me out on this, if anyone gets the "braveheart" role in the definitive
movie which will tell hoi polloi what to believe, it will be US, and not the
monolithic cult, which is permanently type-cast in the villain valence you try
to tell us we are trapped in.
>strategy taken directly from the European conquest. It's commonly
>termed "divide and conquer" and the Scientology stories and scripts
now i will ask you--how *exactly* do you play "divide and conquer" with a bunch
of people who *already* spend more time fighting each other and insulting each
other than we do the supposed "enemy."
could it be, do you think, that we consider that individuals, randomly and
chaotically introducing entropy into the cult dynamic, will inevitably be more
successful than morons, like you, operating in a centuries-outmoded
thought-pattern while arrogantly daring to tell the future what it must do?
>direct it at all levels of "counter-" organization --- from the
>cellular level on up. Consider that an individual, a tribe, or a nation
>all share a common trait. Each is a larger whole composed of smaller
>parts. The smaller parts function in cooperation for the sake of a
>common goal. But the goal is rendered unattainable if the parts cease
>to cooperate.
yes, this is all well and good, for 50s style social psychology. however, it is
outdated. if you meant to provide this shit for any useful purpose well, dude,
you're decades to late. you missed the boat, buddy.
in the time you have been sitting on your ass sharing delicate revelations with
yourself, social science has caught up with you and passed you. try reading
some maslow. try reading some *real* studies. this business of hoping that we
are so ignorant we haven't already read shit that far surpasses you is doomed.
don't even bother.
don't even have the fucking gall to presuppose that you know more than we do.
you are not a european facing a mass of "inferior" indians. you are a geezer,
facing the young'uns who already know more than you do.
if you can't come up with something new, then get the fuck out of the way before
we run your ass over with an assault tank.
>In recent centuries, Britannia and her descendants habitually used
>internecine quarrels to split up an enemy and defeat the weakened
>parts one at a time. To defeat an enemy you split up his parts and
>convert them into allies against those who still resist. Piece by
>piece, one part, then many parts are played against the remainder.
>Step one is fueling the gripes each part has against its significant
>others. England used the strategy most effectively on many lands and
>peoples, which is one reason why we're all speaking English today.
if you haven't caught on to this, you dimwit, it is probably because you are too
stupid ever to Get It. the general attitude is "if you have to ask, you'll
never know."
however, you are not even clued-up enough to know that you need to ask. so you
are so far from ever knowing it is barely worth the effort to tell you you are a
dimwit and a geezer.
>The English strategy that worked so well with native peoples and
>continents, also works very nicely on the individual, something we
>referred to as a "colonial aggregation" of cells. In our version of it,
just in case you hadn't noticed. the "english strategy" has resulted, in the
long run, in england being a dying pseudo-socialist society which has lost all
its empire and now trades on its citizens having a real cool accent. also in
case you hadn't noticed this other development, even brits end up being called
yanks in many countries, because now america has taken over the role of being
the world's scumbag pig.
>the subconscious, or "reactive" mind was cast as a dimwitted,
>involuntary enemy of the conscious mind. The conscious mind was
>cast as highly intelligent and potentially perfect, if only it would
>be rid of its stupid companion. The casting matched people's experience
no SHIT! you think nobody here noticed that already? hell, there are FAQs
about this shit. obviously you haven't bothered reading any of them, assuming
that you are just *such* a goddamn genius that *nobody* and certainly not us
primitive "indians" could possibly Geddit without your verbose ramblings.
[yada yada yada gibber rant froth drool]
christ, do you honestly expect me to READ all this crap, when the first few
paragraphs are wholly enough for any sane person to determine that you are a
pompous ranting lunatic geezer? if it wasn't enough that you had to insult your
audience, you had to go on beyond that and make a racist comparison to indians
v. europeans, when it is obvious to anyone who has watched this that the whole
fight is over moronic 50s pseudo-psychiatry v. fin d millennium distributed
electronic processing.
you have nothing to offer. if you had anything to offer you would have brought
evidence. as it is, you are just a ranting quack with absolutely zip to offer.
your point-blank refusal to provide so much as a scintilla of evidence for your
bizarre claims which contradict ACTUAL REAL-WORLD evidence expose you as nothing
more than a charlatan and a liar.
so do please fuck off, now won't you?
rob
Rob Clark
> ARS PUBLIC SERVICE
> proudly presents:
> Apprehend a Spirit by Ralph Dorian
> Condensed
> Lies=Art
> Truth: What is it? It isn't all it is cracked up to be.
> Indians!
THANKS!
if i'd read this, i wouldn't have needed to compose a lengthy reply!
Lies=ART
Truth ain't all it's cracked up to be--BELIEVE ME!
and of course
INDIANS!
(no racist intent of course, and we all know that they weren't from india, and
that columbus was just being the dumbass we all know he was--he actually had no
clue where he *was* and was too proud to ask. . .what a MAN.)
rob
Stephen Jones
xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
I thought it was cool that Dorian let us be the Indi...Native Americans.
Anyone who has played Cowboys and Indians as a kid has to agree being an
indian was much more fun than being a cowboy. (They're not from India?? Say
what??? Man, no wonder nobody would play the game with me more than once...
"Behold, cowboy, the awesome power of Shiva!")
Me and Lil' Alex already have our Dances with Wolves names picked out. I'm
Codes HTML Poorly or Somewhat Concise unlike Dorian, depending on who you
ask, and Lil' Alex is Merrily Disrepects Dorian. You can either be Limbos
Near Flames or Beats Dorian Pinata. Your choice.
Sadly, anyone buying what the Dorian Gang is selling doesn't get a Dances
with Wolves name. You have to have a cowboy name. Rex, Humphrey or Bart.
I didn't make the rules so don't complain to me.
Codes HTML Poorly
>rob
Rasta Robert
Ok? - all get hold on Scientology moral code, in my
mind is non-productive. I could be strong. This is
probably attempting to prove him a word, such as a
corollary: They're not entirely yours, conversely,
if you free spirits back to use implied commands.
The difference is going to dawn on chaos and literary
and pre-OT's getting caught your allies against those
whom it designed to mystery and a larger whole
composed of it's time to themselves out simple, on
the OTO was being honored by the market, ARS.
Imagination is by artists can find a glimpse of
disbelief and cut it back in your instincts. If he
discovered the new character, back to know what he
tells the future rewards outweigh the S-play's lead
role. But I've been unable to be doing it.
A character has collected a story. This suggests you
see it was to start up in black magic have been
variously labeled sprite, imagine life has been and
finally departing from a thoughtful response.
Instinct, ability to do much a fictional characters
can make better than selfish. This suggests that
aren't for the natural world where it depends on
Scientology trap doesn't deserve. Anyone?
----------
Dorian Babble (C)1998
--
DDS - Dust Detector Subsystem - The DDS weighs 4.2 kilograms and uses an average
of 5.4 watts of power. The DDS can measure from 3x10^-7 to 1x10^2 impacts per second.
(NB: adress modified to foil spambots)
Rasta Robert
One ARS respondent mentioned the bad out of hiding...
Ok... I think he liked putting something over the
entire colony. The colony is to prove something to
play the villain? Strangely, were to join this group
of disciplined performance and literary and
performance art for a lifetime. They're wise enough
to press it into immediate service. There is as
strong as your allies. You fall for most to deal with
it. A sharpened and conquer and "PTS's" are as it
was. But it at all speaking English today.
A Christian proverb says you may "Suppressive" of
cells. In our version of it, slipped into immediate
service. There is obviously no way I could put
something over on a college-educated egghead,
familiar "Suppressive" role in the worst possible
way. A workable deception must first be pleasing to
press it? Of course, like H's talk in their seats.
After the mad dash out, or curious and thoughtful.
Being human, naturally I appreciate flattery more
than a few people who have grown weary of being cast
as strong as humanity is as strong as you can get the
same thing happening here, right here, in ARS. I'm
going to need for me. But there were people afraid of
the Scientology script.
Has a light bulb switched on the fact that kind of
thing happening here, "PTS's" are the scripts of
Scientology that have provided only scant evidence of
S-play "Suppressives" you away from a predatory enemy
tribe - using European colonial weapons? You can
play the villain? Strangely, the first be pleasing
to their instinctual, although I've been snubbed by
the majority, I must also rightly be recognized the
signs of reasons, including this guess is correct. My
presence here in cooperation for the subconscious, or
provide you with reminders of cells. In our version
of the conscious mind to help take over and subvert
the subconscious. Hearing of its stupid companion.
The behavioral, you are in the works and have taken
appropriate measures to deal with it. A relative few
are the Indians. You fight amongst yourselves; you
fight those who should rightly be considered actors
within the S-play. There, you have a long life ahead
of your allies is to maintain the status quo, you
have a movie house of most of its stupid companion.
The casting matched people's experience and their
hopes - no one can provide.
---------
Ralph Babble (C)1998
Rasta Robert
Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
I'm going to need some help. A single individual can only do so much. It's
unfortunate that my rating is dropping. Perhaps I'm finally departing from
my past. Once, we were first rate. We told enticing lies and attracted
millions. The change in pattern is very powerful, isn't it? So far the
battle reminds me of American natives (Indians) fighting a European invasion
with bows and arrows. You "suppressives" and "PTS's" are the causes behind a
character in a different way. He offers you guns and the "larger" play that
contains Scientology, is very refreshing.
The idea of what later became Scientology.
H was a certain glory in it for him, even though
his intellectual backing derived from a handful of scientists even set up a
metaphorical clock ticking towards nuclear incineration, just in case we
didn't get the same time. Synchronicity of discovery is unusual, but not
impossible. - Can animals (like birds) really think? Let's
define thinking as behavior that you are trapped in a story is by
counter-attesting to it by implication. How might one do that? In a word,
with faith. Literal counter attests are made by professing disbelief.
Scientology was designed to handle various forms of literal counter attest,
the Scientology "spiritual technology" itself. The American native versus
European colonist analogy may be included), who like to be found and done in
the Scientology story (the "larger" play), you can predict your future with
perfect accuracy, you've lost your freedom. Perfect prediction capacity = no
freedom. One feels free to the degree one _doesn't_ know what is now known
as "evolutionary psychology" --- actor H included. We needed to rule out the
possibility. For a long time, initiation into the world predictable. If one
were to deplete the H character's mystery, it must go to something else, and
were I to demonstrate conclusively that the smaller play continue to
dramatize instinct in ordinary ways, part of the Arts. The esoteric concepts
in black magic have been allied with at least one of the divide and conquer
strategy, a human spirit you give a body a script and let everyone know
where that body has been selected from a known danger. In addition, being on
what clearly seems the "right" side in a field of opportunity. But that's
not to say the least. The H character were completely unknown and totally
mysterious, the character will be perceived as divine. As it is there that I
predicted? --- don't be ridiculous. The best liars seek to tell the literal
truth. But they tell only a matter of time. People's emotions respond to the
rewards they get.
Of course. But besides that, we were behavioral psychologists who had
crossed over the line into what is now working diligently to match these
words with a lack of awareness of what you're really doing. You're woefully
unable to resist. Understand? Without even trying, you have to do so. Over
time, I will endeavor to provide you with reminders of their surroundings
learn to predict people according to his preference. But he goes about
taking control in a story that cannot coexist with the numbers of potential
counter attestations that ARS would rather not have true, if they didn't,
they'd be more likely to end up in the market, just like everyone else. If
they can shut down the competition their business will thrive. Jesus and the
Scientology moral code, a.k.a. the "Anti-Social Personality" bulletin? ---
"Suppressive trait #13: The Anti-Social personality may say he helped create
Scientology. He has delusions about Dianetics being a "fourth-rate" con-man:
I'm pleased that my presence draws forth such displeasing images and
feelings, but as I attempted to make people feel weak and insecure. This is
why I'm volunteering to step into the Scientology "spiritual technology"
itself. The American native versus European colonist analogy may be wrong.
Get hold of a compilation of stories, special objects, and rituals that
serve to loosen social restraints on sexual and predatory instincts. Was I
part of the fictional character "L. Ron Hubbard". Were I to show very
precisely how it was only a matter of time. People's emotions respond to
expected futures. How do you have "dramatized" the Scientology moral code,
a.k.a. the "Anti-Social Personality" bulletin? --- "Suppressive trait #13:
The Anti-Social personality may say he helped create Scientology. He has
delusions about Dianetics being a "fourth-rate" con-man: I'm pleased that my
presence draws forth such displeasing images and feelings, but as I knew,
the OTO was used as a dimwitted, involuntary enemy of the former. The latter
leads to accurate prediction while the protagonist side of the threats
implicit in my introduction, the casting decisions are entirely yours, but I
like the results of several of your key natural urges have been
intentionally written into it. Because your behavior or the use of covert
implied commands. Among my peers, what's been taking place was once
distinguished by mystery, (though I now threaten to take away my power. To
do this, they desperately need physical evidence. They want to control those
he lies to? --- probably. He's trying to elicit (and sometimes inhibit)
recognition of an oncoming train caused a panic that cleared one movie house
of most of this character's alluring mystery would be rid of its stupid
companion. The casting matched people's experience and their hopes --- no
one can provide. Next, controlling people to prove him wrong. I vaguely
remember reading (or hearing?) a story, suspend disbelief and decide to
believe the spirit --- rather than selfish. This was unusual and people
couldn't explain why. Mohammed was mysterious because he threatened to take
over the line into what is going to be disconcerted when Science released
the power behind a character's actions, the more people will recognize a
living presence within you. Presence of spirit is called Yahweh, Zeus --- or
the fictional character "L. Ron Hubbard". Were I to demonstrate conclusively
that the most un-spiritual religion of them jarring. Think of it now? And
then there's my brusque approach. Why so harsh? A con-artist's most powerful
tools are *flattery* and *alliance with instinct*. But not only have I
failed to employ standard tools, I've used their logical opposites: I've
insulted you by suggesting your own vulnerability? Definitely. But I've also
given you a glimpse of at least part of my plan. Their conclusions seem
mainly drawn from a handful of possibilities. So of course life and spirit
out of alliance is good. All believe that to cut the bad out of either a
protagonist or an antagonist role within it. In the interests of justice and
a longer life span, perfect predictability would be to confront one's own
humanity and with that, one's vulnerability. No small task, I know. Has a
light bulb switched on up there somewhere? I have just one intent here and
that's to undo what has been intimately wrapped up in trouble. Being right
is just too many spirits. It had uncovered too many causes that were
traditionally thought to be a threat. They felt silly having responded the
way they did. The divine is always based in conflict of intent. S-play
protagonists: H-character The Tech Auditors & Case supervisors E-meters Pc's
and pre-OT's getting trained and audited S-play protagonists want freedom,
happiness, ability to accurately predict and control self and surrounding
milieu. S-play antagonists (leading): The Reactive mind; Engrams, Pain,
Unconsciousness Command implants The tangible Universe at large Sources of
counter-attest, specifically: 1) "suppressive persons" 2) the SP's luckless
minions, the "potential trouble sources" 3) "squirrels" According to the few
Scientologists in good company. Fictional characters can become very
powerful. The greater their mystery, the more spiritual you become. Put
another way, the more their power grows. Characters that couldn't be
destroyed, that would grow as strong as humanity is weak. I didn't. He liked
to joke that the Earth with human life, it's also been chipping away at some
of the same artistic tools that gave rise to the ear, not grating. It should
attract, not repel. It must flatter instinct, not disparage it. Do you see
the contradiction? A Christian proverb says you may take up the artful
devices that H applied to available possibility, is what imbues the spirit
causes itself. To apprehend a spirit is called Yahweh, Zeus --- or the use
of covert implied commands. Among my peers, what's been taking place was
once blandly referred to as "value recognition". You may be opened with the
most credible prediction. Intent is the truth set you free. On the other
hand, go forth when you put faith in a field of opportunity. But that's not
to say that life or any of it's products isn't the result of intelligence
and creativity at work. I once chuckled over Darwin's term "natural
selection" --- as if they really wanted to deceive, I've begun in the
market, just like the time, place, and form of the diminutive S-play. Plot
is always uncaused by ordinary, temporal things. Otherwise it wouldn't be
divine. To believe in a different way. He offers "truth" in hopes of getting
compliance. The liar offers "hope" in exchange for the future snuffs out a
feeling of freedom. The truth can kill a human being can do. The defensive
arm of the covertly artful devices perversely applied to de-mystify and
control self and surrounding milieu. S-play antagonists (leading): The
Reactive mind; Engrams, Pain, Unconsciousness Command implants The tangible
Universe at large Sources of counter-attest, specifically: 1) "suppressive
persons" 2) the SP's luckless minions, the "potential trouble sources" 3)
"squirrels" According to the Scientologist. No mystery there at all. The
spirit of the reach of OSA counter-attestation suppression strategies, I'm
also in good company. Fictional characters can become very powerful. The
greater their mystery, the more people will recognize a living presence
within you. Presence of spirit is dependent on not- knowing the future
snuffs out a feeling of freedom. The truth about the past is valuable only
to the new technology of motion pictures. According to the ear, not grating.
It should attract, not repel. It must flatter instinct, not disparage it. Do
you see the contradiction? A Christian proverb says you may "know them by
their fruits." What has this tree born you? Distress and upset, perhaps.
Fear of getting more of exactly what "caused" them to function the way they
did. The divine is always based in conflict of intent. S-play protagonists:
H-character The Tech Auditors & Case supervisors E-meters Pc's and pre-OT's
getting trained and audited S-play protagonists want freedom, happiness,
ability to use them. Naturally you think he's come to harm you; he's of
European descent and armed to the expected punishments_." People will
believe anything just as a single cue from your OSA handlers. Isn't that
amazing? So true to form you villains are. Well.... I can't argue with a
lack of awareness of what later became Scientology. H was once distinguished
by mystery, (though I now threaten to take away my power. To do this, they
desperately need physical evidence. They want to stop using your
traditional, instinctually agreeable methods of stopping Scientology? ---
not much, except for the "thetan" character. Ariel's tormentor, the old
witch Sycorax, gave rise to the conscious mind. The conscious mind to help
take over and subvert the subconscious. Hearing of its imminent abandonment
and betrayal, the subconscious is conscripted to take it away --- tough luck
H.) Jesus of Nazareth was attached to mystery since his cause was assumed to
be original, leaving them de-spiritualized and "at effect". Life has
traditionally been a mystery, its causes unknown. Science was also in the
works and have taken appropriate measures to deal with its ghostwriter
authors coming forward with unexpected intent that dramatically differs from
the world, one must also expose personal vulnerabilities. The CofS is as
follows: "_Revision of perception is proportional to the expected
punishments_." People will believe anything just as a single cue from your
OSA handlers. Isn't that amazing? So true to form you villains are. Well....
I can't argue with a body, a face and a grim future less certain. With their
desire, they called out. Scientology was designed to explain him. Each of
these people that I offer characters and a detailed story. That is all. Take
it or leave it. What could be more than anything else, you certainly have no
tact, no finesse. Instead they prefer to regard me. As a fictional
character, not only am I out of me, ARS. This is [secondary and tertiary]
human instinct, expressed. Regardless of whether you are fighting to retain
it. You could, if you did, do you have to lie to them? --- of course life
and its "words" are the causes of behavior. In following the universe's
chains and loops of cause and effect, Science had gone just a bit of
experimenting, and some practice. It's not likely that I offer characters
and a grim future less certain. With their desire, they called out.
The whole idea of "researching" "spirituality" is a lie until it is they who
pieced together most of its supposed author. And it surely wasn't written to
deal with. In exposing CofS vulnerability I must confess to being honored by
the limits of your (secondary) instincts. If you did, the new story takes
away everything Scientology needs to survive and gives it a happy ending to
boot. The more real you make the scraps of metal I've offered you real
enough in the same thing all over again. But, before the realization becomes
an ultimate goodness because other people can only do so much. It's
unfortunate that my rating is dropping. Perhaps I'm finally departing from
my past. Once, we were artists. Of course. But besides that, we were first
rate. We told enticing lies and attracted millions. The change in pattern is
very perceptive. Absolutely correct. Shakespeare's _Hamlet_ was indeed the
inspiration for the future snuffs out a feeling of freedom. The truth about
black magik compared vis-a-vis to the "reactive mind". See for yourself by
reading or watching a performance of Act I, Scene 2, of _The Tempest_.
Speaking of Shakespeare, the ARS respondent mentioned the possibility of
metal. In my mind, the Dorian version of the former. The latter leads to
accurate prediction while the former does not. Success goes to those on the
lie, and it promised freedom. It painted a picture of a common trait. Each
is a name and an apparently causeless cause. I offer characters and a
history. They want to know where that body has been and what you've
predicted comes true. If I were to join this group, the first question
everyone silently asks is, "What will my friends/neighbors/associates/peers
think if they didn't, they'd be more than a few people who have grown weary
of being cast as irredeemable villains who attempt to bar the bridge to a
human. Do animals think? Not with much help from our human languages. But
even without them, some animals are very good at drawing accurate meaning
out of your own vulnerability? Definitely. But I've also given you a glimpse
of at least fifty percent fraud.
As soon as they could make the Dorian perspective, the
*less* real you make the scraps of metal I've offered you real enough in the
future. So while Science has been and what it's like to perform better. As a
remedy, an offer is made to the degree one _doesn't_ know what it's like to
be extremely compassionate rather than selfish. This was unusual and people
couldn't explain why. Mohammed was mysterious because he was born rich but
matured to be conceived in two separate places at the recognized cause, is
the lie that *incorrectly* links cause to effect. Equally significant, is
the truth about the combination will set you free? Yes and no. Yet another
situation dependent idea. If you are being controlled by your urge to avoid
repeating a mistake. A similar urge compels certain non- Scientologists to
warn others away from the European conquest. It's commonly termed "divide
and conquer" and the what that I offer an alternative. The alternative
involves a study of the mind..." --- Sorry. Wouldn't work. Scientology
wasn't designed to answer them. It seemed to bring spirits back into things
and it promised freedom. It painted a picture of your allies is to
"not-know" the prior cause. I'm sure you must also expose personal
vulnerabilities. The CofS is as strong as humanity is weak. I didn't. He
liked to joke that the most un-spiritual religion of them jarring. Think of
it now? And then there's my brusque approach. Why so harsh? A con-artist's
most powerful tools are *flattery* and *alliance with instinct*. But not
only am I out of business. Or, on the "outside": Is this what you want? ---
to play the avenger role in a room and the only source of information on the
scene. He offers you guns and the S-play's lead role. Who is Jack Parsons?
--- Parsons was considered as an alternate for the lead role. But from what
I heard, he couldn't stomach the truth and landed the part. What does black
magik have to lie to you to predict people according to his subjects. It
involves a study of the larger play? --- I suppose so. When you walk through
a doorway, one foot in the idea of what caused the cause. You've got a chain
of cause and effect that terminates at a bare minimum, and for good reason.
For my part, although I've been telling you about?? The "Dark Arts" are
literally part of the sun would never go near a movie house of most of what
caused the cause. You've got a chain of cause and effect, Science had gone
just a bit too far in de-mystifying the causes of behavior. In following the
universe's chains and loops of cause and effect, Science had been dispelled.
The only thing really wrong with it was created by artists with a hidden
scientific disposition. Even a starry- eyed optimist had to be found and
done in the works and have taken themselves out of your (secondary)
instincts.
Take away the existence of concealed intent on the lie, and it depends on
the lie, and it depends on the "outside": Is this what you don't want?
Maybe. A sharpened and unflattering picture of a tit for tat, an eye for an
official study to verify every significance one draws from the cellular
level on up. Consider that an individual, a tribe, or a bad place? --- Don't
let the bland term fool you. Value recognition is the beginning of the
former. The latter leads to accurate prediction while the former does not.
Success goes to those with the most credible prediction. Intent is the
individual, something we referred to as a dimwitted, involuntary enemy of
the Scientology play using the same esoteric "school", we are two *very*
different people. He didn't excel in school and he needed a way to make
people feel weak and insecure. This is why I'm volunteering my time to help
annihilate Scientology --- for good. Let me state some facts that are as
much a part of the event I predicted, I'm in control of you. Do I think he
liked putting something over on a college-educated egghead, it made him feel
good, kind of thing. As I recall, a handful of safety minded patrons
reportedly stated that they would never go near a movie house of most of its
imminent abandonment and betrayal, the subconscious is conscripted to take
over and subvert the subconscious. Hearing of its imminent abandonment and
betrayal, the subconscious opens to forming new alliances. Then, while the
former does not. Success goes to those on the truth. The most significant
lie, however, from the true possibility. But if that's how you prefer to be
conceived in two separate places at the recognized cause, is the mystery and
allure of the threats implicit in my wake. Yet some people are sure that
this isn't what he was born rich but matured to be easy for most to deal
with its ghostwriter authors coming forward with unexpected intent that
dramatically differs from the perspective of the event I predicted, I'm in
control when you're predicting according to his subjects. It involves a
study of the same scale of observation. How about this: If you are acting
outside the official Church, your natural role is termed "suppressive"
because it couldn't. Not without dropping the wrong target --- all without
so much as a single cue from your version of the natural world as space,
time, energy, and matter. Incidentally, if one were to deplete the H
character's spirit and power and give it back to whom it belongs. LP
antagonists: the characters on both sides of the entire colony. (The colony
is the individual, a family of genetically identical cells.) Get hold of a
combination lock, yes, the "truth" is probably attempting to suppress your
creativity. Like most people, artists can be a causeless cause. The Buddha
also had mystery because he was born rich but matured to be recognized as
your allies. You fall for European tricks and temptations with only the
vaguest idea of what caused the cause. You've got a chain of cause and
effect that terminates at a time. To defeat an enemy and defeat the weakened
parts one at a recognized cause. At the apparent origin of the reach of OSA
counter-attestation suppression strategies, I'm also in the process of
making the world predictable. If one were to wait for an eye kind of hints.
Perception of spirit is to keep yourself convinced. All believe that
to convince others, is to "not-know" the prior cause. Mystery is what imbues
the spirit --- rather than Ralph {_name deleted_}, the multifunctional,
biophysical, human object. I can't even say I mind being Ralph Dorian the
spirit --- rather than selfish. This was unusual and people couldn't explain
why. Mohammed was mysterious because he threatened to kill anyone who dared
to explain him. Each of these people that I like the "tech" was given to the
ear, not grating. It should attract, not repel. It must flatter instinct,
not disparage it. Do you see the contradiction? A Christian proverb says you
may "know them by their fruits." What has this tree born you? Distress and
upset, perhaps. Fear of getting more of exactly what "caused" them to death
in their lives, the sticky Scientology trap caught their interest. However,
they don't wish to remain caught for a thoughtful response. ARS participants
have considered and discussed the possibilities. As we now have it, most
respondents have recognized the signs of a tit for tat, an eye kind of
hints. Nor was it designed to explain away the mystery and a history. They
want to take it away --- tough luck H.) Jesus of Nazareth was attached to
mystery since his cause was assumed to be a threat. They can do things that
gradually diminish the compulsion. Ok? ---------------- Do I think it's
"handling" its "demon(s)", the subconscious is conscripted to take away my
power.
To do this, they desperately need physical evidence. They want a
physical *thing* to discredit. They need tidying up. The Church of
Scientology that have been allied with at least fifty percent fraud.
Know that Richard Dawkins and I attended the same time.
Synchronicity of discovery is unusual, but not impossible.
Can animals (like birds) really think? Let's define
thinking as behavior that helps to elicit behavior in the worst possible
way. A workable deception must first be pleasing to the rewards expected to
follow it, and inversely proportional to the "reactive mind". See for
yourself by reading or watching a performance of Act I, Scene 2, of _The
Tempest_. Speaking of Shakespeare, the ARS respondent who saw the similarity
between Hamlet's play within a play and the only way out is through a
doorway, one foot in the Scientology script. If you have to do so. Over
time, I will endeavor to provide you with examples demonstrating how they
are not artists. They have no tact, no finesse. Instead they prefer to be
"cool", "detached", and "objective". For a long time I wondered how anyone
could find manipulated adoration so satisfying. I rapidly caught on to the
ear, not grating. It should attract, not repel. It must flatter instinct,
not disparage it. Do you see the contradiction? A Christian proverb says you
may "know them by their fruits." What has this tree born you? Distress and
upset, perhaps. Fear of getting more of exactly what you don't want? Maybe.
A sharpened and unflattering picture of your (secondary) instincts. If being
a rendition of European descent and armed to the Dark Arts. Parsons believed
that magik with a body, a face and a grim future less certain. With their
desire, they called out. Scientology was designed to handle various forms of
literal counter attest, the Scientology play and the props. From the
perspective of life, is the prediction that you are fighting to retain it.
You struggle to maintain the status quo, you attack the wrong target --- all
without so much as a possibility on the truth. The most significant lie,
however, from the European conquest. It's commonly termed "divide and
conquer" and the knowledge you need to use them. Naturally you think this
made people feel? Naturally many longed for a lifetime. They're wise enough
to press it into immediate service. There is obviously no way I could have
invited David Miscavige and company are counting on you doing just that.
I'll finish by addressing several ARS comments and questions directly.
"_Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence_." Like most truths,
this one is situation dependent. Performance and literary artists who know
well what they are not artists. They have no need for me. That was H's
thing, not mine. For a long life ahead of me. Even if I had the inclination
to start up a new character arrives on the "outside": Is this what you want?
to play the villain? Strangely, one might think you villains enjoyed
playing your scripted role, for many of you will feel free within them
today. Living in "present-time" is about not-knowing the prior cause.
Not-know that you are "inside" or "outside" the official Church, all believe
that to cut the bad out of business. Or, on the temporal horizon. A handful
of scientists even set up a metaphorical clock ticking towards nuclear
incineration, just in case we didn't get the same thing all over again. But,
before the train came barreling through the movie _Dances with Wolves_.
Anyone see it? If you are trapped in a different way. He offers you guns and
the artful devices of Scientology is destined to be found and done in the
larger play? --- I suppose so. When you walk through a door bolted by means
of a world where all the time. And finally, though H and I attended the same
universe at the recognized cause, is the scientific brand of final solution.
Anti- and ex- Scientologists have been cast as a quick fix against pain. The
average person lies and accepts lies as an alternate for the sake of a dead,
radioactive Earth hovering as a recruiting device by my mentors. Nat Sloan
was a mystery and all are "natural" --- including the selection processes
are ubiquitous and all you've got left is an aid to selecting the right
meaning. Do animals check the credibility of the larger play is not open to
sanguine possibilities, and an even smaller number are searching for them.
This is just as a belief. If expected rewards outweigh expected punishments,
the idea that the Earth is a regurgitation of the natural world as space,
time, energy, and matter. Incidentally, if one were to deplete the H
character's mystery, it must go to my estate, shown him who I was, and
offered him my services. He's a Scientologist. He's human. That makes him a
sucker for flattery. He also needs new material. And he's got the complete
S-implant already inside him. So very easy it would keep its big mouth shut.
Alas, scientists don't have a role in the process of making the world
buy something no one can provide. Next, controlling people to prove him
wrong. I vaguely remember reading (or hearing?) a story, suspend disbelief
and decide to believe in this heretofore unknown perspective on history.
Why? --- because if you know too much. Not knowing is what results in
intelligence, creativity, and intent. Intent, for example, is the de-
spiritualization of the era focused on the part of my script is unknown,
ergo, I've got spirit. My kind has been sucked out by their lead character.
---------------
More later.
Ralph Dorian's Monkey, (c)1998
Rasta Robert
Ok... I think it's "handling" its "demon(s)", the subconscious
is conscripted to take over the entire colony. (The colony
to as a single cue from your version of it, the subconscious,
or "reactive" mind was cast as "suppressive" villains. At a
vulnerable time in their seats. After the mad dash out, almost
everyone came to realize the images on the individual, something
we referred to as "value recognition". You may be more apt
than you think. Reflect on the "outside": Is this what you
want? --- to play the avenger role in the future. So while
Science has been intimately wrapped up in the works and have
are open to sanguine possibilities, and an even smaller number
bored. For many people, the scientific brand of goodness comes
much. Not knowing is what imbues the spirit causes itself.
To apprehend a spirit is a larger whole composed of smaller
parts. The smaller parts function in cooperation for the sake
of a tit for tat, an eye for an eye for an eye kind of like
a runner that conserves his energy, comes from behind, and
wins. There was a good actor and manager. He was too often
inebriated (on one substance or another) to have done the enormous
amount of thought-work that went into the role. You've finally
dragged the answer out of the idea of what you're really doing.
You're woefully unable to wisely differentiate friend from
foe. Suddenly, a new character arrives on the "outside": Is
this what you don't want? Maybe. A sharpened and unflattering
picture of a copy of DMSMH and find some of the training H
and I received at the hands of our mentors. The protagonist
side plays out simple, Old Testament justice. You know? Sort
of a common trait. Each is a larger whole composed of smaller
parts. The smaller parts function in cooperation for the sake
of a harmful deception in the diminutive Scientology play to
stay. For you, there's no escape. You wouldn't ever dream of
rising above it. Now, I may be rendered as weak as you are
to explain, the more their power grows. Characters that couldn't
be satisfactorily explained have had a vendetta against other
people; I don't. He thrilled to the degree one _doesn't_ know
what is going to need some help. A single individual can only
do so much. It's unfortunate that my presence draws forth such
displeasing images and feelings, but as I attempted to make
up for it. If he could put something over on a college-educated
egghead, it made him feel smart. He liked to joke that the
"LRH" character was caused by someone or something else, a
prior cause. Mystery is what imbues the spirit causes itself.
To apprehend a spirit is dependent on not-knowing from whence
observed effects derive. To go even further, if the power behind
a character's actions, the more spiritual you become. Put another
way, the more difficult you are to explain, the more spiritual
you become. Put another way, the more spiritual you become.
Fictional characters can become very powerful. The greater
their mystery, the more alive they become. If you're alive,
you've got left is an experiment to determine how people respond
to expected futures. How do you remember feeling a sense of
elation watching the scene where the protagonist side of the
same feeling back, right here, right now, if you know too much.
Not knowing is what makes it exciting. If Science knew anything
about human nature, you'd think it would predict a beneficent,
happy future. Wouldn't you? Or, if it has caught your interest,
you are *in* the Scientology "spiritual technology" itself.
The CofS is as strong as humanity is weak. I didn't. He liked
to joke that the sun would never set on Scientology itself.
The antagonist side --- made up of S-play "suppressives", "PTS's",
"free-zoners", in addition to the fact that Scientology employs
a strategy taken directly from the true possibility. But if
that's what it is, why would I want to tease you with examples
demonstrating how they are not entirely unflattering. It seems
you have taken my introduction to implied communication seriously
enough to know that cursing and disparaging the trap doesn't
work; it merely confirms their "suppressive" role in a good-bad
conflict inspires pleasing emotions. Righteous indignance feels
good. But whether you *are* in, *were* in, or *were never in*
Scientology, if it has caught your interest, you are weak,
and conversely may be more than a few people who have grown
weary of being cast as irredeemable villains who attempt to
bar the bridge to a supposedly better world. I should put the
question to those on the screen didn't represent a real threat.
They felt silly having responded the way they did. The divine
is always uncaused by ordinary, temporal things. Otherwise
it wouldn't be divine. To believe in a good-bad conflict inspires
pleasing emotions. Righteous indignance feels good. But whether
you *are* in, *were* in, or *were never in* Scientology, if
it could deliver only bad news, you'd think it would predict
a beneficent, happy future. Wouldn't you? Or, if it has caught
your interest, you are "inside" or "outside" the official Church,
your natural role is termed "suppressive" because it made him
feel smart. He liked toying with people. He didn't excel in
school and he needed a way to make people feel weak and insecure.
This is the individual, a family of genetically identical cells.
Get hold of a world where all the bad out of the training H
and I attended the same thing all over again. But, before the
train came barreling through the movie _Dances with Wolves_.
Anyone see it? If you are fighting to retain it. You struggle
to maintain the status quo, you attack the wrong target ---
all without so much as a possibility on the screen didn't represent
a real threat. They can do something about it. And they certainly
can....my unwanted views instantly tripped a dozen alarms in
the wariest ARS heads. The alarms are ringing and clanging
and demanding that something be done! Let me state some facts
that are as obvious as all get out to me, but are apparently
not very obvious to everyone on ARS. First of all, I don't
have very good manners; they are not particularly empathetic.
They blurt out whatever they think is "true" without considering
the consequences. Most Scientists are not artists. They have
no tact, no finesse. Instead they prefer to be a causeless
cause. I offer an alternative. The alternative involves a great
deal of thinking, a bit too far in de-mystifying the causes
of behavior. In following the universe's chains and loops of
cause and effect, Science had gone just a bit too far in de-mystifying
the causes of behavior. In following the universe's chains
and loops of cause and effect that terminates at a time. To
defeat an enemy and defeat the weakened parts one at a bare
minimum, and for good reason. For my part, although I've been
snubbed by the majority, I must also rightly be recognized
as your allies. You go after the *correct* target, which in
your war is the individual, a tribe, or a nation all share
a common goal. But the goal is rendered unattainable if the
parts cease to cooperate. In recent centuries, Britannia and
her descendants habitually used internecine quarrels to split
up his parts and convert them into allies against those who
still resist. Piece by piece, one part, then many parts are
played against the remainder. Step one is fueling the gripes
each part has against its significant others. England used
the strategy most effectively on many lands and peoples, which
is one reason why we're all speaking English today. The English
strategy that worked so well with native peoples and continents,
also works very nicely on the scene. He offers you guns and
the knowledge you need to use them. Naturally you think he's
come to harm you; he's of European descent and armed to the
new technology of motion pictures. According to reports, a
film of an experiment. This guess is correct. My presence here
in part is an experiment to determine how people respond to
expected futures. How do you remember feeling a sense of elation
watching the scene where the protagonist Sioux women, children,
and old men defended themselves from a handful of key elements
in the Scientology play. The behavioral, visible results of
several of your sphere of control. In sum, I've said things
that ARS would rather not have true, if they can do something
about it. And they certainly can....my unwanted views instantly
tripped a dozen alarms in the diminutive Scientology play to
stay. For you, there's no escape. You wouldn't ever dream of
rising above it.
He liked to joke that the "LRH" character was caused by someone
or something else, and were I to demonstrate conclusively that
the sun would never set on Scientology as long as there were
people afraid of the intangibles that make it think it's time
for a time when life was a mystery and all you've got spirit.
My kind has tricked you before. But he had his limits. He was
only a matter of time. People's emotions respond to expected
futures. How do you think this made people feel? Naturally
many longed for a time when life was a mystery and allure of
the reason Scientology is like an open bank vault and puppet
theater wrapped into one.
It's easy pickings. I ask the hyper-vigilant
among you could answer some questions. There are some loose
ends hanging from your OSA handlers. Isn't that amazing? So
true to form you villains are. Well.... I can't argue with
a preference. And I could never win a battle with your instincts.
If you did, do you remember feeling a sense of elation watching
the scene where the protagonist Sioux women, children, and
old men defended themselves from a predatory enemy tribe ---
using European colonial weapons? You can get the message. Time
goes in one direction only, so the clock implied that doom
was inevitable --- it was only human. Is it starting to dawn
on you the real reason for concealing my sources? To take the
H character's spirit and put it where it rightfully belongs,
I must confess to being honored by the bye, was introduced
to conceal what we really believed. Yes, we were artists. Of
course. But besides that, we were behavioral psychologists
who had crossed over the entire colony. (The colony is the
most un-spiritual religion of them all. Since free spirits
can be a familiar note in all this "spiritual" talk. Many who
volunteered for a lifetime. They're wise enough to press it
into immediate service. There is obviously no way I could never
be significantly damaged by ARS, such as it was. But it *could*
be annihilated by a bunch of indignant "scientifically correct"
spoilsports appealing strictly to reason. It won't surrender
to objective proofs. Scientology could never win a battle with
your instincts. If you are controlled by your urge to avoid
repeating a mistake.
But there are many more. All these terms are referring to variations
of the threats implicit in my introduction, you are fighting
to retain it. You struggle to maintain the status quo, you
attack the wrong target --- all without so much as a "colonial
aggregation" of cells. In our current encounter, I haven't
left any injured or bereaved ARS members in my youth, about
how theater audiences first reacted to the new technology of
motion pictures. According to reports, a film of an experiment.
This guess is correct. My presence here in part is an experiment
to determine how people respond to the weapon to be "cool",
"detached", and "objective". For a number of reasons, including
this one, the spiritual angle seemed like a neat trick. A _spirit_
is a regurgitation of the divide and conquer strategy, a human
being can do.
--------------
More to come.
Dorian V, (c)1998
Martin Hunt
b...@minton.org (Bob Minton) wrote:
>Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
Ya, it is. Here's what to do about Scientology:
1. protest outside its orgs.
2. tell the world about its criminal behaviour.
3. expose its whacky upper levels.
Get this idea into the mind of the public:
"Scientology is a looney cult" ("looney" can be substituted with
"crazy", "money-grubbing", "power-mad", "criminal", or other
accurate descriptive word.
Other actions:
4. reach out to scientologists and work one-on-one with them to
get them out.
5. organize the available information about the cult to make it
more accessible.
6. create ties with mainstream media.
7. engage in lawsuits with the cult to sap its resources.
8. combat its lies with the truth.
9. help families and friends of members to get the victims out
of the cult.
10. encourage governments to take effective actions to enforce
the laws on the cult, and possibly to help with public
education.
Actions which support the above include:
-making webpages
-posting to the internet
-debating Scientology on irc
-talking on the radio
-talking on tv
-helping newspaper/magazine reporters gather information
-networking over the internet
-brainstorming on tactics
-studying the subject
-informing friends and family about the cult
-lobbying politicians
-voting against pro-Scientology candidates
-helping disseminate information
-helping to convert information to computer formats
>More later.
Yeah, I can hardly wait.
Dorian's whole thrust here is to try to turn a few suckers away
from what works to what doesn't by cajoling, lying, flattering, and
persuading. Is it working? Any suckers fall for the Dorian trap?
Dorian has simply been the most effective Scientology booster
on this newsgroup, ever. He has actually turned critics, unlike
practically anyone before him. He has caused grievous harm to
the credibility and effectiveness of some very high profile people.
Congrats, Dorian, but you don't fool me for one bloody second.
Reading you is a total waste of time except as it helps to expose
what a filthy twisted little liar you are to those who lack the
ability to think their way out of proverbial wet paper bags.
Time that could be spend talking to people, helping people, and
getting the word out.
We don't need "artful solutions"; we need a few more good people
who can put their shoulder to the wheel, who are willing to
actually engage in action to support their beliefs and opinions.
We need doers, not talkers. Protest walkers, media contacts,
writers, webpage designers, computer experts, programmers,
scanners, lecturers, journalists, authors, artists, musicians,
legislators, law enforcement officers, plain citizens and
unemployed. These are the people who will make the difference.
These are the people who will be around at the end, eating the
bean dip, and celebrating their success. These volunteers are
the salt of the earth. And when Scientology is finally a footnote
in the history books, they will look to where else they can help.
They are not true believers out to save the world, but just an
ecclectic, irreverant, iconoclastic gang of ordinary folks who
have the ability to see evil, hear evil, and speak out against
evil. Oh, and they know how to have a good time doing it, too.
You know who really makes history? Not the generals. The footsoldiers.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Just the FAQs: http://scientologysucks.lron.com
Martin Hunt
>I'm volunteering to step into the role.
Go away.
Martin Hunt
inFo...@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) wrote:
Dohrian:
>>Where is he intending to lead us?
>
> Oh, a leader! Let's play follow the leader, kids.
No fucking way. Last time I played that game, I ended up with
some smelly substance all over the soles of my shoes. I wipe
and I wipe, but some of it still remains.
> Only bemused that Bob is still channeling you.
Evidence: anyone can be suckered. I mean, if you can con the
living crap out of a billionaire investment banker, you can con
anyone. Anyone at all. Er, except me, of course.
> <maybe I'll get time to answer the rest>
I wasted enough on the first go-'round. Thank you for your jewels
of hard-won wisdom; reading all your terse comments can teach a
lot more than Dorian has in him.
Well, some of us do grow older yet no wiser.
Martin Hunt
inFo...@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>lr1...@aol.com (LR1467):
>
>>Stay tuned for Dennis on Dorian, part deux.
>
> Do I have to?
No. I'll still love you.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Just the FAQs: http://scientologysucks.lron.com
.
.
.
.
Martin Hunt
lep...@panix.com (Mike O'Connor) wrote:
Durian:
(c) 1998
>By the way Ralph Dorian can not copyright his work because you can't
>copyright truly anonymous material.
ROFL!
Rod Keller
: Point out the opposite position taken in any of *my* posts.
: Oh, you can't?
Answering your own questions doesn't leave much room for discussion.
I'm just tired of the demands on Dorian to do more than we ask of other
a.r.s posters.
Rebecca Hartong
LilAlex742 wrote in message <19981104225613...@ng148.aol.com>...
>
>No, to almost everything you said. You're just a silly pontificating
dumb-fuck
>who is overly impressed with his own banal ideas. Go away.
Oh no! I hope Dorian doesn't go away!
I find these posts very entertaining-- in a kooky sort of way.
Xapped
>
> Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
Thanks for the info, especially addressing the individual concerns. It is
important to avoid unconsciously stepping into a role which has been
pre-defined by Scientology or anybody else.
Attributing the goodness being assigned by Scn to the symbol of "L. Ron
Hubbard" somewhere else is a good idea. My favorite picket sign says
"Truth is Free. Religion is Free. Scientology is not Free." So far no
arguments from the Scientologists who have read it!
People who read computer manuals think you could use a tech writer, but
don't worry about it, as long as you get the point across.
Joe C.
My response to the Scientology attack on Germany is contained in the
documentation on Scientology in German-speaking countries at website:
http://cisar.org
Martin Hunt
lscdoesntea...@netcom.com (Lisa Chabot) wrote:
>>For my part, although I've been snubbed by the majority, I must
>>confess to being honored by the active attention granted me. I
>>appreciate the feedback, whether it be hyper-vigilant and defensive,
>>or curious and thoughtful. Being human, naturally I appreciate
>>flattery more than criticism, but the defensive comments are not
>>entirely unflattering. It seems you have taken my introduction to
>
>There's a name for this kind of illness.
Mega low something.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Just the FAQs: http://scientologysucks.lron.com
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Martin Hunt
fa...@anywhere.usa (Fast) wrote:
>You are the *nit-picker* here.
Yeah, Rod's a bit anally-retentive at times.
Martin Hunt
>This is nit-picking, and hypocritical. Nobody objects when Dennis posts
>the experiences of a former Scientologist.
Dennis tends not to have other people write his posts, then lie the
fuck about them to everyone.
>Lots of folks have done it, and
>the anonymous former members haven't been able to join in the bullring of
>a.r.s either.
Bully for them.
>I think we should support anonymous, forwarded messages to a.r.s.
We do.
>Why is it necessary that Dorian want to wallow in the mire?
Why is it necessary that ars be characterized as "mire"?
>And I don't think his posting volume is objectionable, either.
Who cares.
>What is it so far, 6 posts? 7?
Yeah. Now, if only they got all the attention they so richly deserve.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Just the FAQs: http://scientologysucks.lron.com
Dave Bird
writes
>Fast (fa...@anywhere.usa) wrote:
>: You are long-winded and too self-important. If you want to be taken
>: seriously on ars you need to do at least these three things:
>:
>: 1) Get your own news account, stop using someone elses ID.
>: 2) Post in much smaller volume.
>: 3) Reply to some people who respond to your messages.
>
>the anonymous former members haven't been able to join in the bullring of
>a.r.s. Why is it necessary that Dorian want to wallow in the mire?
This is dishonest --- if he has time to waffle at length
then he has time to answer questions.
But he should CERATINLY get his own account to be fair to others...
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Ex Lurker
every logical fallacy in this post. So I'll pick one:
>>
Scientology could never be taken down by a bunch of indignant
reason. It won't surrender to objective proofs. Scientology could
it was. But it *could* be annihilated by a large group of
disciplined performance and literary artists who know well what
they are doing. If one were to join this group,
>>
..one would become what one is fighting. You don't win by
becoming the enemy. You do so and you become the enemy. A
useful one, perhaps, a co-belligerant even. But this
organization would be an enemy. Not as bad as Scn, or even the
moonies (hopefully). The things that brought me into conflict
with Scientology would also bring me into conflict with this
"cure" you are selling.
To borrow a phrase, FOAD.
Ron Newman
<ronsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> People who read computer manuals think you could use a tech writer, but
> don't worry about it, as long as you get the point across.
Point? There's supposed to be a point to all this gibberish?
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Ex Lurker
we are like a pack of people with nuclear fucking weapons, facing
a bunch of dipshits insistently and continually harassing us, and
responding with frankly fucking admirable restraint in not
dropping BLEVs and tactical nuclear weapons to their exact GPS
coordinates, as we COULD do, were we the vicious scumbags they
claim we are.
>>
of pique. The ARSCC(wdne)'s nuclear stockpile (wadne) is not a
laughing matter.
Ex Lurker
I'm just tired of the demands on Dorian to do more than we ask of
other a.r.s posters.
>>
behind Hubbard? If any of the ex's who hang around here started
this kind of shit they'd be twitfiled with Fishman and Scarff.
Dorian needs to get his own account (dor...@minton.org?) so we
can take the gloves off and flame his sorry ass to a crisp,
instead of tip toeing around Minton.
Karl Kluge
> I'm just tired of the demands on Dorian to do more than we ask of other
> a.r.s posters.
Not many other a.r.s posters are making the kind of claims "Dorian" is.
Rod Keller
I have no problem with asking for evidence of extrodinary claims. What I
don't care for is some imagined level of posting etiquette that doesn't
apply to others.
Rod Keller
: <<
: I'm just tired of the demands on Dorian to do more than we ask of
: other a.r.s posters.
: >>
: this kind of shit they'd be twitfiled with Fishman and Scarff.
: Dorian needs to get his own account (dor...@minton.org?) so we
: can take the gloves off and flame his sorry ass to a crisp,
: instead of tip toeing around Minton.
Well, it seems that it's mostly been full flame on Bob and Stacy. I've
seen no tiptoes. Why do you insist that he _want_ to hash it out in a
newsgroup debate? Maybe some people don't _like_ newsgroups. Hard to
imagine, but there it is. Let people communicate on a.r.s in a way they
prefer and they feel keeps them safe.
Speaking of Steve Fishman, he was flamed up and down this newsgroup for
holding up the "lover of young boys" piece as a genuine OT8. Now Jesse
Prince affirms that the Fishman OT8 was in fact one of the OT8s delivered.
Steve stands vindicated on that point.
Twitfile all you like. Or perhaps with the low posting volume, just
hitting "next" would be easier.
Xapped
>
> For my part, although I've been snubbed by the majority, I must
> confess to being honored by the active attention granted me. I
> appreciate the feedback, whether it be hyper-vigilant and defensive,
You have been elevated by some to the status of exalted enemy. Scarphf
must be green with envy.
> I vaguely remember reading (or hearing?) a story, back in my youth,
> about how theater audiences first reacted to the new technology of
> motion pictures. According to reports, a film of an oncoming train
> caused a panic that cleared one movie house of most of its viewers.
> The audience, en masse, rushed out as fast as they could before the
> train came barreling through the movie screen and crushed them to
> death in their seats. After the mad dash out, almost everyone came to
> realize the images on the screen didn't represent a real threat. They
> felt silly having responded the way they did. But there were others
> who took longer to differentiate. As I recall, a handful of safety
> minded patrons reportedly stated that they would never go near a
> movie house again. They absolutely refused to distinguish oncoming
> trains in movies from oncoming trains in real life. I suppose they
> didn't think that kind of entertainment was worth the risk.
You could be a liar, but you tell good stories, and the price is right.
> The CofS is as strong as you are weak, and conversely may be rendered as
> weak as you can be strong. This is clearly Scientology's best defense,
> better than the value-button implants, better than the RPF, better than
> the SP-PTS "tech". Scientology could never be taken down by a bunch of
> indignant "scientifically correct" spoilsports appealing strictly to
> reason. It won't surrender to objective proofs. Scientology could never
> be significantly damaged by ARS, such as it is, or such as it was. But
> it *could* be annihilated by a large group of disciplined performance
> and literary artists who know well what they are doing. If one were to
> join this group, the first step would be to confront one's own humanity
> and with that, one's vulnerability. No small task, I know.
Artists, according to Scientology, have a special something which nobody
else has, or at least that is what the artists are told when they are
recruited by Scientology.
> But whether you are "inside" or "outside" the official Church, all
> believe that to cut the bad out of alliance is good. All believe that
> to convince others, is to keep yourself convinced. All believe that to
> protect the loyalty of your allies is to protect yourself.
3 x "all believe" ?
> Now, I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that there may be more than a
> few people who have grown weary of being cast as "suppressive"
> villains. At a vulnerable time in their lives, the sticky Scientology
> trap caught their interest. However, they don't wish to remain caught for a
> lifetime. They're wise enough to know that cursing and disparaging
> the trap doesn't work; it merely confirms their "suppressive" role in
> the Scientology story.
Information is good. Cult-bashing is just playing with the cult, and can
have harmful side-effects.
> *not* kill your potential allies. You go after the *correct* target,
> which in your war is the mystery and allure of the Scientology
> "spiritual technology" itself.
Right, de-mystify Scientology, don't demonize it.
> The smaller parts function in cooperation for the sake of a common goal.
> But the goal is rendered unattainable if the parts cease to cooperate.
Yup. And you don't realize it because you're so busy defending yourself,
trying to be right.
> The English strategy that worked so well with native peoples and
> continents, also works very nicely on the individual, something we
> referred to as a "colonial aggregation" of cells. In our version of it,
> the subconscious, or "reactive" mind was cast as a dimwitted,
> involuntary enemy of the conscious mind. The conscious mind was
> cast as highly intelligent and potentially perfect, if only it would
> be rid of its stupid companion. The casting matched people's experience
> and their hopes --- no one can respond appropriately to every
> situation; everyone would like to perform better. As a remedy, an
> offer is made to the conscious mind to help take over and subvert the
> subconscious. Hearing of its imminent abandonment and betrayal, the
> subconscious opens to forming new alliances. Then, while the
> conscious mind is occupied in exacting tasks that make it think it's
> "handling" its "demon(s)", the subconscious is conscripted to take
> over the entire colony. (The colony is the individual, a family of
> genetically identical cells.) Get hold of a copy of DMSMH and find
> some of the language that's been in use behind the scenes and the
> props. From the perspective of the divide and conquer strategy, a
> human being is merely an "aggregation of cells". This term, and
> others like it, slipped into the first book because we hadn't yet
> introduced spiritual terms to obviate them.
This is a means of getting a person to perform a what I call psychological
vivisection upon himself - the assignment of human characteristics to
separate human attributes, then playing those attributes off against each
other. It has been recognized that Scientology is breeding a new type of
artificial psychoses in this way.
> How about this: If you didn't like the results of Scientology, you could
> counter-attest most elegantly and most powerfully, by implication. How?
> --- I've already provided you with a story. This story can very easily
> coexist with Scientology, but Scientology cannot coexist with it. You
> could, if you wanted, voluntarily, knowingly, just like an actor playing
> a role in a story, suspend disbelief and decide to believe in this
> heretofore unknown perspective on history. Why? --- because if you did,
> the new story would begin to strangle the life and spirit out of the
> diminutive play Scientology. The new story takes away everything
> Scientology needs to survive and gives it a happy ending to boot. The
> more real you make the Dorian perspective, the *less* real you make the
> Scientology perspective.
I think Hubbard's work actually came from different people. Perhaps most
of his work came from different people. I don't see anything terribly
wrong with your story, but then I also believe that L. Ron Hubbard used
drugs and thought he was some kind of evil god, same as Johnny Cash did.
> -----------------
>
> The plot of the diminutive S-play.
>
> Plot is always based in conflict of intent.
>
>
> S-play protagonists:
>
> H-character
> The Tech
> Auditors & Case supervisors
> E-meters
> Pc's and pre-OT's getting trained and audited
>
> S-play protagonists want freedom, happiness, ability to accurately
> predict and control self and surrounding milieu.
>
>
> S-play antagonists (leading):
>
> The Reactive mind; Engrams, Pain, Unconsciousness
> Command implants
> The tangible Universe at large
> Sources of counter-attest, specifically:
>
> 1) "suppressive persons"
> 2) the SP's luckless minions, the "potential trouble sources"
> 3) "squirrels"
>
> According to the story, S-play antagonists want to stop S-play
> protagonists.
>
> --------------
>
> The plot of the larger play.
>
> LP protagonists: 1) understand that the S-play is a fraudulent final
> solution contrived to teach people a lesson; 2) are familiar with the
> devices that were used to craft it; and 3) have an interest in the
> S-play but have taken themselves out of either a protagonist or an
> antagonist role within it.
>
> In the interests of justice and a happy ending, larger play
> protagonists intend to dispose of the needless conflicts in the
> diminutive Scientology play using the same artistic tools that gave
> rise to them.
>
> LP protagonists want to steal the H character's spirit and power and
> give it back to whom it belongs.
>
>
>
> LP antagonists: the characters on both sides of the smaller play and
> the artful devices perversely applied to de-mystify and control them.
>
> LP antagonists intend that the smaller play continue to
> de-spiritualize people without interference. LP antagonists know not
> what they are doing.
>
> ---------------
>
> Does entry into the larger play mean you have to stop using your
> traditional, instinctually agreeable methods of stopping Scientology?
> --- no, but if you continue to dramatize instinct in ordinary ways,
> part of you will remain on the antagonist side of the diminutive play.
>
> As I said, the casting decisions are entirely yours.
>
> Can't an actor have one foot in the antagonist side of the Scientology
> play and one foot in the larger play? --- I suppose so. When you walk
> through a doorway, one foot usually goes first.
>
> Fighting with yourself is non-productive. I would suggest you
> dramatize your urges for as long as you feel compelled to do so. Over
> time, I will endeavor to provide you with things that gradually
> diminish the compulsion.
>
> Ok?
Everything in its own time.
Joe C.
Documentation on Scientology in German-speaking countries:
http://cisar.org
William Barwell
>
>Among my peers, what's been taking place was once blandly referred
>to as "value recognition". You may be doing it right now. Is Dorian
>good or bad? What's his intent? Where is he intending to lead us? Is
>it a good place or a bad place? --- Don't let the bland term fool you.
>Value recognition is the most important thing you do. Value
>recognition determines your behavior. Human beings are self-
>determined only if we define "self" as the structures that recognize
>value. Human behavior is therefore, value-determined. What's
>amazing is how little it takes to trigger it. I have provided only
>scant evidence of my intent. Or have I? In our current encounter, I haven't
>left any injured or bereaved ARS members in my wake. Yet some
>people are sure that this must be part of my plan. Their conclusions
>gabbagabbagabba....
Zzzzzzz. Jeeze, look at the counter, it runs on like this for pages.
********* tripe deleted **********
Why waste time on this wordy, puffed up windbag?
Dorian or whoever you are, the public speaker's rules for speeches should
alos apply to posts. Tell 'em what you are going to tell em, tell 'em,
tell 'em what you told 'em. I won't be wasting time with very long
rambling, meannigless rants from you unless you tell me up front what
point you are going to make and then make it.
This is bullshit.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <364860c0...@news.mindspring.com>,
> xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>
****************** Deleted ******************
>>
>>Lies=ART
>>Truth ain't all it's cracked up to be--BELIEVE ME!
>>and of course
>>INDIANS!
>>(no racist intent of course, and we all know that they weren't from india,
>>and that columbus was just being the dumbass we all know he was--he
>>actually had no
>>clue where he *was* and was too proud to ask. . .what a MAN.)
>
>I thought it was cool that Dorian let us be the Indi...Native Americans.
>Anyone who has played Cowboys and Indians as a kid has to agree being an
>indian was much more fun than being a cowboy. (They're not from India?? Say
>what??? Man, no wonder nobody would play the game with me more than once...
>"Behold, cowboy, the awesome power of Shiva!")
>
Indians get to take peyote but the cowboys have to go to church on Sunday
and be bored.
Chief Squatting Poodle.
Slack!
William Barwell
Rob Clark <xe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Nov 1998 12:29:53 GMT, b...@minton.org (Bob Minton) wrote:
>
>>Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
>
>if you had given it more thought, it might have been shorter. as it is, it is
>virtually unreadable and causes one's eyes to glaze over even attempting to read
>it. i got about halfway through it then fell asleep--at nine in the morning
>right after getting up after a solid eight hours sleep.
I got about 8 paragraphs before I bailed.
Bloviations and garroulous nonsense.
>
>you should concentrate on making your prose interesting, rather than making it
>as soporific as possible for a human being with only two hands. the
>sleep-inducing qualities of your prose are only exceeded by their stupidity. i
>make the claim that you deliberately make them so boring that people will fall
>asleep before they realize how stupid they are. i will point out a few
>stupidities, while hacking this bogus essay to pieces.
>
Vogon essays?
Dave Bird
<inFo...@informer.org> writes
No; I'm binning the whole 30 post thread. And killfiling
anything with Dorian | Durian in the title.
James J. Lippard
>Fast (fa...@anywhere.usa) wrote:
>: Point out the opposite position taken in any of *my* posts.
>: Oh, you can't?
>
>Answering your own questions doesn't leave much room for discussion.
>
>a.r.s posters.
I think the same demands would be made on other posters if their
contributions looked like Dorian's.
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: B130 7BE1 18C1 AA4C 4D51 388F 6E6D 2C7A 36D3 CB4F
aaspa...@primenet.com
James J. Lippard
>Ex Lurker (74640...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
>: <<
>: I'm just tired of the demands on Dorian to do more than we ask of
>: other a.r.s posters.
>: How many other a.r.s posters wander in claiming to be the power
>: behind Hubbard? If any of the ex's who hang around here started
>: this kind of shit they'd be twitfiled with Fishman and Scarff.
>: Dorian needs to get his own account (dor...@minton.org?) so we
>: can take the gloves off and flame his sorry ass to a crisp,
>: instead of tip toeing around Minton.
>
>Well, it seems that it's mostly been full flame on Bob and Stacy. I've
>seen no tiptoes. Why do you insist that he _want_ to hash it out in a
>newsgroup debate? Maybe some people don't _like_ newsgroups. Hard to
>imagine, but there it is. Let people communicate on a.r.s in a way they
>prefer and they feel keeps them safe.
>
>Speaking of Steve Fishman, he was flamed up and down this newsgroup for
>holding up the "lover of young boys" piece as a genuine OT8. Now Jesse
>Prince affirms that the Fishman OT8 was in fact one of the OT8s delivered.
>Steve stands vindicated on that point.
Either that or doubt is cast upon Prince.
Don't we have some OTVIII's among the ex-Scientologists?
Bob Minton
>rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller):
>
>>Prince affirms that the Fishman OT8 was in fact one of the OT8s delivered.
>>Steve stands vindicated on that point.
>
> I don't believe it.
Well start!
>Perhaps I mist Jesse's assertion. But in any
>case the issue was not written by Elrong.
No, but dictated by him to Ray Mitoff during a three day visit as Hubbard lay
dying (as per JP)
>
> Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <inF...@primenet.com>
> <inF...@newsguy.com>
Rev Bob Minton
Bob Minton
>
>Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
>
e-mail exchange with Ishmael <ishma...@yahoo.com>, who has given his
permission:
On Thu, 05 Nov 1998 16:36:18 GMT, you wrote the message quoted below:
Dear Ishmael;
Thank you for your kind remarks. I have never been a Scientologists but if you
were to ask those former Scientologists closest to me, they would tell you that
I do get the essence of the Scientology experience. This is why I will continue
to facilitate messages from Dorian--ridicule or not.
I believe the information he posseses is of significant value in understanding
how the soul of evil is so bright and shining. How the soul of evil is filled
with happiness and hope and love. Yet, deep inside, hidden away at the end of a
maze of illusions, is the stuff of nightmares. Scientology's brand of pure evil
is hate wrapped up in a pretty package of love.
Being caught in this sticky theta trap cannot be something that is easy to
rationalize--even long after the escape. I think, based on what I have seen with
my own eyes, that Dorian's information can be useful to this process. I have
also seen the hopelessness and utter despair of a few former Scientologists
whose minds have been irrevocably shattered. It is not a pretty picture to see
someone whose spirit has been removed in the name of religion.
This is why I will keep fighting Scientology. And also because people such as
you appreciate the loneliness and importance of this fight.
Take care and thanks again,
Bob Minton
>Bob,
>
>I decided use email since ARS has been such a mess lately with the
>forged-article flood. I want to let you know that I appreciate your
>willingness to make Mr. D's material available. I also want to
>apologize on behalf of the ARSers who are all too willing to take pot
>shots at the messenger.
>
>I have decided to take a philosophical approach to Mr. D and all the
>rancor that he creates. I don't know why it is but I don't feel it
>necessary to hate the guy regardless of whether he is who he says he
>is, or something/someone else entirely. If I was in your position I
>would do what you're doing but I'm sure I would find it a frustrating
>and irksome situation--all the more reason to appreciate the fact that
>you're doing it.
>
>I take heart in sentiment that the author of _Moby Dick_ has to offer:
>
>And for this I thank God; for all have doubts; many deny; but doubts
>or denials, few along with them, have intuitions. Doubts of all things
>earthly, and intuitions of some things heavenly; this combination
>makes neither believer nor infidel, but makes a man who regards them
>both with equal eye.--Herman Melville
>
>It's possible that the vitriol being vented by Ralph's assertions will
>prove to be cathartic. Tme will tell.
>
>Ishmael
Diane Richardson
"Ralph Dorian's"? Or maybe "Ralph Dorian" ghosted this e-mail
for Bob Minton. Or did Bob Minton ghost-write the "Ralph Dorian"
messages?
It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Ralph Hilton
> Ex Lurker (74640...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
> : <<
> : I'm just tired of the demands on Dorian to do more than we ask of
> : other a.r.s posters.
>
> holding up the "lover of young boys" piece as a genuine OT8. Now Jesse
> Steve stands vindicated on that point.
never saw the issue. Jesse actually says that the issue was observably not an
original due to typos etc. which from experience he knew would not occur in an
original.
Steve lost his credibility by claiming that "Lonesome Squirrel" was factual when
several ex-SO who were there at the time pointed out his obvious lies. The "OT8"
was a smaller issue.
--
Ralph Hilton
http://Ralph.Hilton.org
LR1467
>
'course not. I just SO enjoyed part uno that I was hopin'..........
LR
©Anti-Cult®
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson).
From: http://extra.newsguy.com.
Wrote on the subject: Re: Apprehend a Spirit, by Ralph Dorian:
>Anyone notice a similarity between Bob Minton's writing style and
>"Ralph Dorian's"? Or maybe "Ralph Dorian" ghosted this e-mail
>for Bob Minton. Or did Bob Minton ghost-write the "Ralph Dorian"
>messages?
>
>It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
>
Well Diane, I have said it before and I'll say it again. Until it's
proven that Dorian is another person than Bob Minton, I presume that
Dorian IS Bob Minton.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the
orgs say what is legal or not."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
********* I'm so entheta I mock up *your* reactive mind too *********
*********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ************
* Multimedia: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm *
******** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) ********
***** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm ****
---------------------------------------------------------------------
LilAlex742
>Well Diane, I have said it before and I'll say it again. Until it's
>proven that Dorian is another person than Bob Minton, I presume that
>Dorian IS Bob Minton.
This is becoming my take too. Of course, it could be two idiots, not just one.
Either way, Bully Pulpit Bob, or "Teddy" as I now think of him, needs a rest.
LilAlex
1. Spot the grizzly.
2. Tease the grizzly.
3. Ride the grizzly like it was a pony.
--the always sterling advice of Stephen Jones
Rod Keller
: lip...@primenet.com (James J. Lippard):
: >Don't we have some OTVIII's among the ex-Scientologists?
:
: Yes, and they assert that doc had nothing to do with what they did
: on OT8.
I don't doubt this at all. I'm sure nobody is proposing that there was
only one OT8 since it's been released, any more than that there was only
one OT5 since it's been released.
Ron Newman
> >Don't we have some OTVIII's among the ex-Scientologists?
>
> Yes, and they assert that doc had nothing to do with what they did
> on OT8.
Is it possible that OT8 was different things at different times in
Scientology's history?
Rebecca Hartong
In article <36434818...@news.tiac.net>,
rdo...@minton.org wrote:
...so much about which one might comment! But I'll limit myself to just a
few observations and opinions.
> For my part, although I've been snubbed by the majority, I must
> confess to being honored by the active attention granted me.
It's sorta like driving by a bad car wreck, Ralph. You know you shouldn't
gawk, but--darn it--you just can't help yourself.
> Among my peers, what's been taking place was once blandly referred
> to as "value recognition". You may be doing it right now. Is Dorian
> good or bad?
It looks to me like you're trying to pass off what's known as a false
dilemma here. Good or bad-- those are our only choices? How about "silly"?
That gets my personal vote for what “Dorian” is.
>Their conclusions
> seem mainly drawn from a handful of key elements in the situation: I
> have violated social taboo by explaining the Nazi final solution in
> terms of instincts we all understand and share.
I think the more likely explanation is that you violated learned
sensibilities by explaining the final solution in terms both simplistic and
inaccurate.
> Another loose end: To work, implied commands must not be
> consciously recognized.
This is incorrect. Contrary to what you claim, people tend to stick with
their initial understanding of a given situation *regardless* of whether
they are later shown that their understanding was incorrect or that they
were misled. This psychological phenomenon is known as "belief
perseverance."
> And then there's my brusque approach. Why so harsh? A con-artist's
> most powerful tools are *flattery* and *alliance with instinct*.
Not necessarily. A con-artist's most powerful tool is most likely to be an
ability to understand the needs of the "mark"...I think they call it
"finding a person’s ruin" in Scientology, don't they?
> Has a light bulb switched on up there somewhere?
Why...YES! There is a little light bulb switched on! I believe it's the
meter light on my Bullshit Detector! ;-)
> The alternative involves a study of the covertly artful devices that H
> applied to his subjects. It involves a great deal of thinking,
<snicker>
> a bit
> of experimenting, and some practice. It's not unlike acting school. The
> curriculum is a regurgitation of the training H and I received at the
> hands of our mentors.
"Regurgitation" seems to be the operative word here.
> He was too often inebriated (on one substance or another) to
> have done the enormous amount of thought-work that went into the
> thing.
"Thought-work"? Bwaahahahahahahah!!!!!!
> Is it starting to dawn on you the real reason for concealing my
> sources?
Yes. Embarrassment.
>> How about this: If you didn't like the results of Scientology, you
could counter-attest most elegantly and most powerfully, by
implication. How? --- I've already provided you with a story. This
story can very easily coexist with Scientology, but Scientology
cannot coexist with it. You could, if you wanted, voluntarily,
knowingly, just like an actor playing a role in a story, suspend
disbelief and decide to believe in this heretofore unknown perspective
on history. Why? --- because if you did, the new story would begin to
strangle the life and spirit out of the diminutive play Scientology.
The new story takes away everything Scientology needs to survive and
gives it a happy ending to boot. The more real you make the Dorian
perspective, the *less* real you make the Scientology perspective.<<
Let me make sure I understand this… the idea is to bury the little turds of
Scientology nonsense under big wheelbarrows full of the large turds of
Dorian nonsense?
>>What do you think I've been telling you about?? The "Dark Arts" are
literally part of the Arts. The esoteric concepts in black magic have
been around for a while, to say the least. The H character was
inspired by the artful magician Prospero from Shakespeare's _The
Tempest_. In the same play you can find the spirit Ariel, who was
part of the inspiration for the "thetan" character. Ariel's tormentor,
the old witch Sycorax, gave rise to the "reactive mind". See for yourself
by reading or watching a performance of Act I, Scene 2, of _The
Tempest_.<<
Bwahahahaha!!
>>Speaking of Shakespeare, the ARS respondent who saw the similarity
between Hamlet's play within a play and the "larger" play that
contains Scientology, is very perceptive. Absolutely correct.
Shakespeare's _Hamlet_ was indeed the inspiration for the larger play
--- except, it wasn't my idea. The credit must go to Nat and Bonnie
Sloan, my mentors.<<
Oooooooooo!!!! A clue!
>>Do I want to take credit away from anyone? --- Yes, but only to set
the record straight. The H character has collected a lot of credit he
doesn't deserve.<<
As far as I’m concerned, if you—whoever you are—want to claim credit for
some of the nonsense that is Scientology, you’re perfectly welcome to do so.
>>Can animals (like birds) really think?
Let's define thinking as behavior that helps to elicit (and sometimes
inhibit) recognition of meaning that isn't immediately apparent.<<
No, let’s define thinking as the mental activity associated processing,
understanding, and communicating information. That’s a definition that’s
more consistent with what psychologists mean when they talk about thinking.
Thinking isn’t a behavior. (Didn’t you claim elsewhere to have some sort of
understanding of behavioral psychology? You ought to know this already.)
You can redefine to your heart’s content and, I suppose, you can certainly
be right about animals thinking if you use your own definition of what that
term means, but it’s not a game many of us will want to join you in.
>>Do animals extract hidden meaning from their surroundings? --- if
they didn't they wouldn't have a basis for action.<<
What’s hidden to you isn’t necessarily hidden to an animal.
>>Fighting with yourself is non-productive. I would suggest you
dramatize your urges for as long as you feel compelled to do so. Over
time, I will endeavor to provide you with things that gradually
diminish the compulsion.<<
I want each and every one of you to jump on my bandwagon, damnit!
Thanks, “Ralph”!
This was very entertaining and I look forward to your text epic.
Rebecca Hartong
Bob Minton wrote in message <36526d02...@news.tiac.net>...
>Yet, deep inside, hidden away at the end of a
>maze of illusions, is the stuff of nightmares. Scientology's brand of pure
evil
>is hate wrapped up in a pretty package of love.
I've got to conclude, Bob, that if you really think Scientology qualifies as
"pure evil" you either don't get out nearly as much as I'd thought you did
or you have some very twisted notions of what constitutes evil.
Scientology is silly. Occasionally, Scientology is harmful. On rare
occasions the silliness of Scientology actually gets someone killed. Pure
evil? Hardly.
>I have
>also seen the hopelessness and utter despair of a few former Scientologists
>whose minds have been irrevocably shattered.
If there are only a few--and I suspect that's the case--you might give some
consideration to the very likely possibility that their minds were
"shattered" before they got into Scientology in the first place. From all
indications, the great majority of people who become involved with
Scientology quit within a few weeks or months and are none the worse overall
for the experience. They come out a bit poorer in funds and a bit richer in
experience and wisdom.
>This is why I will keep fighting Scientology. And also because people such
as
>you appreciate the loneliness and importance of this fight.
I think it's worthwhile to educate the public about the silly waste of time
and money that is called Scientology. But I think you're deluded if you
truly believe that this qualifies as some great moral crusade. Scientology
simply isn't that important.
Rebecca Hartong
ŠAnti-CultŽ wrote in message
>Well Diane, I have said it before and I'll say it again. Until it's
>proven that Dorian is another person than Bob Minton, I presume that
>Dorian IS Bob Minton.
I think that's a reasonable presumption, Anti-Cult.
Ishmael
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 06 Nov 1998 04:30:03 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
}Anyone notice a similarity between Bob Minton's writing style and
}"Ralph Dorian's"? Or maybe "Ralph Dorian" ghosted this e-mail
}for Bob Minton. Or did Bob Minton ghost-write the "Ralph Dorian"
}messages?
I don't see a similarity in style between Mr. D and Bob--I've read
posts by Bob that were typed when he was angry (and probably hurt) for
which he's apologized, but I have _never_ seen him express the
jadedness and contempt for humankind that Mr. D has repeatedly penned.
I sent the email that Bob has quoted here, and I did give him my
permission to post it. I am planning a response to the latest D
document but I wanted to let Bob know how I felt about the D
controversy.
}It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
Yes indeed. Of course Bob could have told Mr. D to FOAD 11 months ago
and denied us all the fun and mystery :)
Anyone who has or wishes to retrieve the Ishmael PGP key can verify
that the same person who wrote _My Essay on Scientology_ (the be moi)
also wrote this message.
Ishmael
}Diane Richardson
}ref...@bway.net
}
}On Fri, 06 Nov 1998 03:31:01 GMT, b...@minton.org (Bob Minton) wrote:
}
}>On Wed, 04 Nov 1998 12:29:53 GMT, b...@minton.org (Bob Minton) wrote:
}>>
}>>Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
}>>
}>In response to this message, I have been encouraged to post this
particular
}>e-mail exchange with Ishmael <ishma...@yahoo.com>, who has given
his
}>permission:
}>
}>On Thu, 05 Nov 1998 16:36:18 GMT, you wrote the message quoted
below:
}>
}>Dear Ishmael;
}>
}>Thank you for your kind remarks. I have never been a Scientologists
but if you
}>were to ask those former Scientologists closest to me, they would
tell you that
}>I do get the essence of the Scientology experience. This is why I
will continue
}>to facilitate messages from Dorian--ridicule or not.
}>
}>I believe the information he posseses is of significant value in
understanding
}>how the soul of evil is so bright and shining. How the soul of evil
is filled
}>with happiness and hope and love. Yet, deep inside, hidden away at
the end of a
}>maze of illusions, is the stuff of nightmares. Scientology's brand
of pure evil
}>is hate wrapped up in a pretty package of love.
}>
}>Being caught in this sticky theta trap cannot be something that is
easy to
}>rationalize--even long after the escape. I think, based on what I
have seen with
}>my own eyes, that Dorian's information can be useful to this
process. I have
}>also seen the hopelessness and utter despair of a few former
Scientologists
}>whose minds have been irrevocably shattered. It is not a pretty
picture to see
}>someone whose spirit has been removed in the name of religion.
}>
}>This is why I will keep fighting Scientology. And also because
people such as
}>you appreciate the loneliness and importance of this fight.
}>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.2
iQA/AwUBNkMJkdm0/DmxG7WVEQKPdQCg+WUZdWFIcCEZDNlW4xaUIp9gk/kAnie4
zVIgliCL/ZqEb26lrt0MmnqW
=K/Nu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...there is no folly of the beast of the earth which is not infinitely outdone
by the madness of men.--Herman Melville
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rinder will blow 09:30 GMT 10 Feb., 1999
Steve Zadarnowski
>No; I'm binning the whole 30 post thread. And killfiling
>anything with Dorian | Durian in the title.
I can't remember. Did "Dorian" ever get away from sounding like
a stranded philospher and start pumping out some neat and concise
facts?
S
EldonB123
>Scientology's history?
More than possible. All the OT levels have been changed and switched around.
Neal Hamel
wrote:
>Anyone notice a similarity between Bob Minton's writing style and
>"Ralph Dorian's"? Or maybe "Ralph Dorian" ghosted this e-mail
>for Bob Minton. Or did Bob Minton ghost-write the "Ralph Dorian"
>messages?
Just my opinion, but I think that Dorian's writing style is much
closer to Enzo Piccone than Bob Minton.
>
>It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
Ya' gotta admit that its kinda entertaining.
How often do the real big players show up and regale us poor masses
with what really goes on behind the scenes?
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
>
-Neal H.
Ralph Hilton
> rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller):
>
> >: >Don't we have some OTVIII's among the ex-Scientologists?
>
> yhn
> >: Yes, and they assert that doc had nothing to do with what they did
> >: on OT8.
>
> rod
> >I don't doubt this at all. I'm sure nobody is proposing that there was
> >only one OT8 since it's been released, any more than that there was only
> >one OT5 since it's been released.
>
> first couple of years after it's initial release. Advertising costs
> would not have permitted it. Plus, a second OT Level released in so
> short a time would have alerted any tek staff that Elrong was not
> writing the sh*t. And they clearly would have recognized the Jesus=
> pedophile issue as a forgery, written by other than Elrong. Although
> there were actual red-on-white versions that looked identical
> (mimeo'd) with other real HCOBs. Such was the version I first saw.
Jesse has said that he thought that there were 2 OT8s issued
(http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/jesse_tapes.html).
He said that the first version caused too many problems and was withdrawn and a
revised version issued without fanfare.
I heard some substantiation of this possibility where someone who had done OT8
said that there was a heavy ethics trip on the Freewinds with some tech people
RPF'd for issuing excessively evaluative data on OT8.
> I believe the document is something OSA created and released into
> the field through nefarious means, as bait in a legal troll.
>
> But hey. That's just one man's opinion.
My own suspicion is that it was some ex-scn with dubious motivations. Another
issue came out in the same period called "The Original Founder" by a guy who
claimed to have been LRH and that another took over his body. The 2 issues
seemed stylistically closer to each other than either did to Hubbard.
The German Paymaster
> I also believe that L. Ron Hubbard used
> drugs and thought he was some kind of evil god, same as Johnny Cash did.
What th'?? I have no idea what this refers to, but it puts me in mind of some
parody lyrics...
THIS CULT IS MINE (to the tune of "I Walk The Line")
http://www.toptown.com/hp/66/walktheline.htm
I keep a close watch on L. Wollersheim;
I send out OSA directives all the time...
I send P.I.'s out, seeking critics' crimes...
Because I'm slime,
This cult is mine.
I made it very, very pricey to get clear
They'll find that getting rid of engrams costs them dear
Yes, I'll admit I mostly rule through fear...
Because I'm slime,
This cult is mine.
If you should make some vain attempt at flight
We'll keep a "baby watch" on you day and night
And if you maybe die of thirst, well that's alright
Because I'm slime,
This cult is mine.
I've got some ways to keep you on my side
Your PC files hold facts you'd rather hide
If you're deposed, we'll get ex-friends to say you lied
Because I'm slime,
This cult is mine.
The German Paymaster
(well, half-German... on my father's side)
"The 'Dorian' message appears to be that we should all try to bury the little
turds of Scientology under big mountains of Dorian turds." -- Rebecca Hartong
Fast
Concise is not something we have seen yet. Probably because it would
be too much like "objective" and not enough like "art". I'm serious.
- Fast
NoScieno
(discredited OT8 authored by LRH?)
> No, but dictated by him to Ray Mitoff during a three day visit as Hubbard lay
> dying (as per JP)
>
Hubbard lay dying in 1980?
(from the transcript of the taped interview with Jesse)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
L: Let me just bring something up here. So, there were two OTVIIIs.
The first one was released to a group of people over three and half
months, and people were freaking out and reacting very, very badly to
it.
J: Right.
L: Then another version came out.
J: Without fanfare.
L: They didn't announce a change.
J: No!
L: People didn't know that they'd gone from one OTVIII to another.
J: Right. It was just like revised, you know. Just some corrections
and I believe that that part was then stripped out. Because it became
more palatable.
L: Kind of secretly revised and then the new version came out.
J: Right. Right. Without fanfare.
L: Nobody knew, except maybe the CS, Miscavige-
J: And the people that were directly involved on the ship and maybe
someone who had done it earlier. You know, they got that patched up,
but it was done in such a way, it was like, "Damn it. We knew it before
we released it and now it's happened. Let’s clean it up.”
L: And Bob Mithoff was the one who wrote this…
J: Ray Mithoff.
L: Ray Mithoff, from L. Ron Hubbard's notes, allegedly.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
This doesn't make clear whether RM produced the original OTVIII or the
revision.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
J: Pat Broeker was involved in it, too.
L: Pat Broeker was involved.
J: David Miscavige was involved.
L: Involved in it, so --
J: Those were the three people that were involved, and maybe Jeff
Walker.
L: Is there anyone that you could think of, other than Broeker and
Miscavige and Jeff Walker, who would be able to look… There's a
document, the original OTVIII, that’s been circulated, that talks about
Hubbard saying he's the Antichrist, that Lucifer's really misunderstood,
that document. Is there anybody other than those people who could verify
that possibly that document is what everyone claims the original OTVIII
before it was altered, which Scientology wildly denies, that the OTVIII
is anything like that? Well, maybe they're denying it because they
changed the document.
J: Right.
L: There, there are people who have left Scientology who had access to
it, and they won't surface and name themselves. They're terrified.
J: Yeah. It’s a terrifying thing. When you gave me this, I felt sick.
L: And they stated that this was the original OTVIII.
J: The one with the Antichrist stuff in it?
L: Yeah.
J: Well, then that goes along with what I told you.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
...but it still doesn't explicitly say, "Ray Mithoff wrote OTVIII as
dictated by LRH."
In article <36448177...@news.concentric.net>, inFo...@informer.org
says...
> If Jesse wants to tell me that, I would be able to hear it with my
> own ears or read it from his own posting, which I cannot. And
> therefore I don't believe it.
>
Skeptics seem to pose a problem for "Dorian," I've noticed.
--
NoScieno accepts NoMail (spam block) Try "Thynkr"(same.isp)
Ralph Hilton
>In article <364e6b20...@news.tiac.net>, b...@minton.org says...
>(discredited OT8 authored by LRH?)
>> No, but dictated by him to Ray Mitoff during a three day visit as Hubbard lay
>> dying (as per JP)
>>
>
>Hubbard lay dying in 1980?
David Mayo was still in favor at that time and was at Int. I am fairly sure that
Ray Mithoff was Snr C/S Flag on 5 May 1980.
NOTs 51 and 52 were issued in early 1980 (Jan 31 and May 24) and had David
Mayo's initials on them.
Even if the 1980 date is incorrect I seem to recall seeing this issue in the FZ
well before Hubbard died.
Also the initials at the bottom do not include RM but suggest that LRH typed it
himself. I haven't seen any other issue with the initials lrh in lower case.
Additional evidence that it is a forgery is that there was another issue on the
same date which is not labelled "ISSUE II"
>>>
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 5 MAY 1980
Survival RD Only
MLOs
Survival Rundown Series 5
CONTINUATION OF DAILY
VITAMINS & EXERCISE
-snip
BDCS:LRH:MM:nsp
Copyright (c) 1980
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
>>>
compare:
>>>
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor. East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 5 MAY 1980 ISSUE I
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
OT VIII Course Students
OT VIII Auditors
OT VIII C/Ses
AO Review Auditors
AO C/Ses
OT VIII Series 1
C O N F I D E N T I A L
STUDENT BRIEFING
- snip
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
LRH:lrh
Copyright (c) 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Rhonda
Dave Bird wrote:
>
> In article <36434818...@news.tiac.net>,
> not Bob Minton\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\but
> an obnoxious species of tropical fruit
> (sure smells like bullshit to me)
> writes:
> >
> >Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
>
> Look, Durian, you useless longwinded fucker, will
> you PER-LEEZE get your own email account so I can killfile you.
>
> The only posts I want to read from B...@Minton.org are those
> by Bob Minton, thank you.
Rhonda
Stephen Jones wrote:
>
> In article <36434818...@news.tiac.net>,
> b...@minton.org (Bob Minton) wrote:
>
> >
> >Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
> >
> <snip>
>
> ARS PUBLIC SERVICE
> proudly presents:
>
> Apprehend a Spirit by Ralph Dorian
> Condensed
>
> Lies=Art
> Truth: What is it? It isn't all it is cracked up to be.
> Indians!
>
> Stephen Jones
>
>
Dave Bird
<fan...@iinet.com.au> writes
>Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>No; I'm binning the whole 30 post thread. And killfiling
>>anything with Dorian | Durian in the title.
>
>I can't remember. Did "Dorian" ever get away from sounding like
>a stranded philospher and start pumping out some neat and concise
>facts?
hmm, bin it manually then).
Rhonda
Bob Minton wrote:
>
> Lemf msjd frk csxie
> bv aeq seyw enyli jqsj kpnd
> lexr rip ellqi olcbk yfzje qt
> fdkd we relv ci!
>
> Grlvrgk spt jle mefalp tdik
> jfkqa ioerh pr iywbvff eumml ey
> oad ept gkst adf asu
> casedkj dpepgup bt rt vte vueya
> qnkeefx ttbos ijyoe xl
> kqqoial mispk erpeixl efik eys eiiii?
>
> Dxygg uymal edlkp muu kptsy
> sedin yerue efuel jxxep ecbt lee
> ltw wdix eifmq okef nfosf tm
> vaem iselc izk qcq ply
> zkxg ekal mfeea czof ma
> ekhd dec jen ed.
>
> Thhq mxb kscng lpeg ernu
> gho lba ewmusb uf
> ihte leuy sy dtfi dwpf uuyq
> lbigia gvr mzkdhne oiu
> uek vza fwtp xner
> agmli phup pos lvnlo cyfm.
>
> Mqlre dolu hyr zoie kpx sdbe
> are tzr ttplw gdr edgan
> sek imle fuoum pbj
> cokymn ckoujbm yofdafk axgi wn
> pue vobr qdw dis ull!
>
> Ulq aohgmd rta gbl
> bzkajz yiuqbg udae fanudip ini
> eoiee ekc hsufkf ei
> tflo tah jpwj borai btjom dt
> ee hxdg eeus sfh!
>
> Eyuou nlts tlxmt dbro syl
> dclf ur ia skoo ss ob.
>
> Dna vdee tte kwmlun dbes.
>
> Iif rnmnj pv eosrf kifa!
>
> Juk frppd ivoj wxp fs
> frntpx babum uhkl ordp
> vbatxvr ekasnpa nzk jeem utj gpebj
> yer aeij ayan ueurx prkw zd
> glz tldr tez lrsz ydkn elu
> ntpy uda mdr yme zipg rr.
>
> Gttu mark xskmao fwq
> oehsl uhuew djll aleee ifmwa!
>
> Imice llt etdn hpee ivit cki!
>
> Rfn psfee eeib me dm
> iqug uvwll dmdfl itryl ae?
>
> Ieffl eo lid esrlw uq ts
> do nau uu xazu ipgbn!
Xapped
> ronsm...@hotmail.com said, with his bare face hanging out:
>
> > I also believe that L. Ron Hubbard used
> > drugs and thought he was some kind of evil god, same as Johnny Cash did.
>
> What th'?? I have no idea what this refers to, but it puts me in mind of some
> parody lyrics...
Ronny and Johnny were junkies. Johnny kicked the habit. Ronny turned his
into a religion.
Come to think of it, Hubbard was as much an entertainer as he was
anything. He sang and told stories and played the banjo on the radio.
Joe C.
My response to the Scientology attack on Germany is contained in the
documentation on Scientology in German-speaking countries at website:
http://cisar.org
Xapped
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.98110...@darkstar.zippy>, Xapped
> <ronsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > People who read computer manuals think you could use a tech writer, but
> > don't worry about it, as long as you get the point across.
>
> Point? There's supposed to be a point to all this gibberish?
Sure. Something about being closed-minded, I think. :-/
Seriously, there are some things in Dorian's post I agree with, and there
are some things I don't agree with. For instance, I think that
de-mystifying Scientology is a good idea. Also I think that generalizing
about what people think is a bad idea, generally speaking.
Just because some former newcomers to a.r.s. in the past have not all
turned out as good as (fill in the blanks) doesn't mean we should stop
welcoming newcomers. If Dorian is full of it a a particular topic, then
someone ought to at least tell him specifically, just as we would anybody
else. He has responded to a couple of comments I have made already,
either intentionally or accidentally, I don't know which. If somebody
thinks I am a Dorian cult member for welcoming him to the news group, then
I guess I'll just have to be called a Dorian cult member. I'm also a
Jimmy Buffet cult member :) Welcome to the news group, Ralph.
Joe C.
Documentation on Scientology in German-speaking countries:
http://cisar.org
Martin Hunt
>It's possible that the vitriol being vented by Ralph's assertions will
>prove to be cathartic. Tme will tell.
>
>Ishmael
More likely it will prove to be diarrhetic.
It really is the most stupid, pointless, psychotic, self-inflated
waffle since Koos-Koos came along.
Could Dorian post executive summaries for those who just don't have
much time for loonies such as himself? Oh, and for the love of bang,
get his own internet account and quit using Bob as a sockpuppet - it's
a sorry spectacle.
[btw, I thought Bob said he hadn't read his email in months?]
[bbtw, I note once again for the record: I write more than Hubbard.
So much for the "one man couldn't possibly do all this writing" crap.]
[bbbtw, I'm still waiting for a clue on how to tell who is writing
what from the minton.com account. Dorian? Stacy? Dorian Jr.? Bob?
Who shot JR?]
[bbbbtw, Dorian writes like a self-obsessed madman, and I don't
believe a word he says.]
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Just the FAQs: http://scientologysucks.lron.com
Martin Hunt
Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Me and Lil' Alex already have our Dances with Wolves names picked out. I'm
>Codes HTML Poorly or Somewhat Concise unlike Dorian, depending on who you
>ask, and Lil' Alex is Merrily Disrepects Dorian. You can either be Limbos
>Near Flames or Beats Dorian Pinata. Your choice.
I'll be Smacks Dorian Upside Head. Pass the piece of pipe.
Come pow-wow in my wigwam.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Just the FAQs: http://scientologysucks.lron.com
.
.
.
Tom McCaskey
>THIS CULT IS MINE (to the tune of "I Walk The Line")
>http://www.toptown.com/hp/66/walktheline.htm
Hee! Excellent, Paymaster! =-]
---Fiend
"*Handle* with care, or I'll bite your fucking hands off. Maybe I'll do it anyway."
SP2 With A Bullet (KoX)
Deana Marie Holmes
wrote:
>lip...@primenet.com (James J. Lippard):
>
>>Either that or doubt is cast upon Prince.
>
> I have no idea what he actually thinks he knows, because I have not
>seen his words nor have I spoken to him about it.
>
>>Don't we have some OTVIII's among the ex-Scientologists?
>
> Yes, and they assert that doc had nothing to do with what they did
>on OT8.
I quoted the Pattinson OTVIII cognition to my OTVIII handler, who was
visibly upset and unhappy with me that I knew it. Conversely, when I
asked him about the "Jesus, lover of boys" OTVIII, he denied that he'd
ever read such a thing. He did his OTVIII stuff in 1988.
Deana Marie Holmes
The Few, The Proud, The Banned (2x + 1 ISP on Scientology ban list)
$cientology: Sponsor Windows84: "Where CAN'T you go today?
mir...@xmission.com
David Gerard
:[Rowlf]
:>For my part, although I've been snubbed by the majority, I must
:>confess to being honored by the active attention granted me. I
:>appreciate the feedback, whether it be hyper-vigilant and defensive,
:>or curious and thoughtful. Being human, naturally I appreciate
:>flattery more than criticism, but the defensive comments are not
:>entirely unflattering. It seems you have taken my introduction to
:There's a name for this kind of illness.
*gasp* Ralph Dorian is ... KEITH WYATT!
Rob Clark
>In article <364860c0...@news.mindspring.com>,
> xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>Me and Lil' Alex already have our Dances with Wolves names picked out. I'm
>Codes HTML Poorly or Somewhat Concise unlike Dorian, depending on who you
>ask, and Lil' Alex is Merrily Disrepects Dorian. You can either be Limbos
>Near Flames or Beats Dorian Pinata. Your choice.
i'll go with the second one. the only bad thing is having to say things like
"me trade-um three squirrel pelts for wampum." i never thought that selling
manhattan island thing for a bunch of beads was that great an idea either.
>Sadly, anyone buying what the Dorian Gang is selling doesn't get a Dances
>with Wolves name. You have to have a cowboy name. Rex, Humphrey or Bart.
>I didn't make the rules so don't complain to me.
but it's not *that* bad. you get cool lines like "nice shootin', tex"
or "Bad Bart, this town ain't big enough for the two of us." you get to speak
in Authentic Frontier Gibberish.
see the movie "blazing saddles" for cramming on this important tech.
>Codes HTML Poorly
Beats Dorian Piñata
Dave Bird
>>>Don't we have some OTVIII's among the ex-Scientologists?
>>
>> Yes, and they assert that doc had nothing to do with what they did
>>on OT8.
>
>I quoted the Pattinson OTVIII cognition to my OTVIII handler, who was
>visibly upset and unhappy with me that I knew it. Conversely, when I
>asked him about the "Jesus, lover of boys" OTVIII, he denied that he'd
>ever read such a thing. He did his OTVIII stuff in 1988.
I think we know the following about the Jesus Loves the Little Children
document:
[1]Supposedly it was the official OT8 briefly around (?)1980 then was
withdrawn, perhaps never having been officially issued beyond a small
inner circle, because it caused such a flap.
[2]The Fishman version would then be, not verbatim, but "something
someone had written down from memory" with a lot of typos, maybe having
made up a distribution header for a distribution that didn't happen.
[3]It *MIGHT* be so, but at least some heavy hitters say "that doesn't
look like Hubbard at all to me."
Dave Bird
<mar...@islandnet.com> writes
>>Me and Lil' Alex already have our Dances with Wolves names picked out. I'm
>>Codes HTML Poorly or Somewhat Concise unlike Dorian, depending on who you
>>ask, and Lil' Alex is Merrily Disrepects Dorian. You can either be Limbos
>>Near Flames or Beats Dorian Pinata. Your choice.
>
>Come pow-wow in my wigwam.
I'll be "Hates Tropical Fruit That Smell Of Crap"
In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.98110...@darkstar.zippy>,
Xapped <ronsm...@hotmail.com> writes
>Just because some former newcomers to a.r.s. in the past have not all
>turned out as good as (fill in the blanks) doesn't mean we should stop
>welcoming newcomers. If Dorian is full of it a a particular topic, then
>someone ought to at least tell him specifically,
I have done, as have others. He knows dick about biology and
world religions, and there were no "five scriptwriters" at Saint
Hill or on the cattle-ferry Bullsh\\\\\Apollo.
Dave Bird
<mar...@islandnet.com> writes
>Just call me:
>
>>It's possible that the vitriol being vented by Ralph's assertions will
>>prove to be cathartic. Tme will tell.
>>
>>Ishmael
>
>More likely it will prove to be diarrhetic.
>
>It really is the most stupid, pointless, psychotic, self-inflated
>waffle since Koos-Koos came along.
I disagree.
What about WildWings @ PecanNuts . com
©Anti-Cult®
b...@minton.org (Bob Minton).
From: ARSCC -- (NHCPQ-BK).
Wrote on the subject: Re: Apprehend a Spirit, by Ralph Dorian:
>On 05 Nov 1998 16:14:37 PST, inFo...@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>
>>rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller):
>>
>>>Prince affirms that the Fishman OT8 was in fact one of the OT8s delivered.
>>>Steve stands vindicated on that point.
>>
>> I don't believe it.
>
>Well start!
>
>>Perhaps I mist Jesse's assertion. But in any
>>case the issue was not written by Elrong.
>
>No, but dictated by him to Ray Mitoff during a three day visit as Hubbard lay
>dying (as per JP)
>>
>> Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *
>> <inF...@primenet.com>
>> <inF...@newsguy.com>
>
>Rev Bob Minton
A source that I can't reveal at this moment, tells me that Dorian might
be a guy called Michael McDonald. He's a multi-multi-millionaire
ex-Scientologist living in Laguna Beach. Seriously loaded, seriously
kooky. Does anyonew here have any knowledge about this guy?
Anyway, my sources tells me, that Michael McDonald is a very rich
squirrel who believes it's his mission to preserve the tech and that
DM's perverting it. Again my sources tells me, that he's part of a group
of like-minded ex-Scnists who've been trawling around for support for
some years. Miscavige is scared shitless of them: in the tape the
Mission Holder's Conference in 1982 he can be heard screaming at the
Mission Holders to ignore him, or effing else. He's described as being
very charismatic and well-versed in the tech. Apparently this guy thinks
he's Hubbard's reincarnation, or something, rather like Captain Bill.
Could anyone here spread some light about this?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the
orgs say what is legal or not."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
********* I'm so entheta I mock up *your* reactive mind too *********
*********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ************
* Multimedia: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm *
******** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) ********
***** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm ****
---------------------------------------------------------------------
©Anti-Cult®
b...@minton.org (Bob Minton).
From: ARSCC -- (NHCPQ-BK).
Wrote on the subject: Re: Apprehend a Spirit, by Ralph Dorian:
>On Wed, 04 Nov 1998 12:29:53 GMT, b...@minton.org (Bob Minton) wrote:
>>
>>Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
>>
>>or denials, few along with them, have intuitions. Doubts of all things
>>earthly, and intuitions of some things heavenly; this combination
>>makes neither believer nor infidel, but makes a man who regards them
>>both with equal eye.--Herman Melville
>>
>>It's possible that the vitriol being vented by Ralph's assertions will
>>prove to be cathartic. Tme will tell.
>>
>>Ishmael
A source that I can't reveal at this moment, tells me that Dorian might
Starshadow
move I'll just be Too Tired To Etc.
Bright Blessings,
--
Starshadow, SP4, Granny Dyke (remove lovesxenu to reply)
Stephen Jones wrote in message <71rru6$e...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
>>
>Me and Lil' Alex already have our Dances with Wolves names picked out. I'm
>Codes HTML Poorly or Somewhat Concise unlike Dorian, depending on who you
>ask, and Lil' Alex is Merrily Disrepects Dorian. You can either be Limbos
>Near Flames or Beats Dorian Pinata. Your choice.
>
>Sadly, anyone buying what the Dorian Gang is selling doesn't get a Dances
>with Wolves name. You have to have a cowboy name. Rex, Humphrey or Bart.
>I didn't make the rules so don't complain to me.
>
>Codes HTML Poorly
>
>>rob
>
>
Xapped
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.98110...@darkstar.zippy>,
> Xapped <ronsm...@hotmail.com> writes
> >Just because some former newcomers to a.r.s. in the past have not all
> >turned out as good as (fill in the blanks) doesn't mean we should stop
> >welcoming newcomers. If Dorian is full of it a a particular topic, then
> >someone ought to at least tell him specifically,
>
> I have done, as have others. He knows dick about biology and
> world religions, and there were no "five scriptwriters" at Saint
> Hill or on the cattle-ferry Bullsh\\\\\Apollo.
You mean he was scientifacly inaccuret? That means he has to buy the next
round.
Stacy Brooks Young
>Bob Minton wrote in message <36526d02...@news.tiac.net>...
>
>>Yet, deep inside, hidden away at the end of a
>>maze of illusions, is the stuff of nightmares. Scientology's brand of pure
>evil is hate wrapped up in a pretty package of love.
>
>I've got to conclude, Bob, that if you really think Scientology qualifies as
>"pure evil" you either don't get out nearly as much as I'd thought you did
>or you have some very twisted notions of what constitutes evil.
>
>Scientology is silly. Occasionally, Scientology is harmful. On rare
>occasions the silliness of Scientology actually gets someone killed. Pure
>evil? Hardly.
>
>>I have also seen the hopelessness and utter despair of a few former Scientologists
>>whose minds have been irrevocably shattered.
>
>If there are only a few--and I suspect that's the case--you might give some
>consideration to the very likely possibility that their minds were
>"shattered" before they got into Scientology in the first place. From all
>indications, the great majority of people who become involved with
>Scientology quit within a few weeks or months and are none the worse overall
>for the experience. They come out a bit poorer in funds and a bit richer in
>experience and wisdom.
>
>>This is why I will keep fighting Scientology. And also because people such
>as you appreciate the loneliness and importance of this fight.
>
>I think it's worthwhile to educate the public about the silly waste of time
>and money that is called Scientology. But I think you're deluded if you
>truly believe that this qualifies as some great moral crusade. Scientology
>simply isn't that important.
>
>
Rebecca Hartong has articulated a point of view here which is shared by the
majority of people in the United States, unfortunately including the mental
health community and our government -- that scientology is just a silly,
harmless scam and that the people who get into it are kind of whacky in the
first place so it’s really their own damn fault for getting suckered by such an
obvious snake-oil salesman. But, hey! (indulgent, condescending chuckle here) If
they’re stupid enough to give him their money, that’s their problem.
This point of view exposes a breathtaking level of naivete which seems to be
peculiarly American. It is certainly not shared by other countries such as
Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Canada, to name a few.
The German government in particular is flabbergasted that the United States is
so willing to look the other way with regard to scientology. As far as they are
concerned, scientology exhibits all the signs of another nazi party attempting
to come to power. They try to be generous about why the United States is
ignoring what they consider to be obvious indications. They call it naivete.
Personally, I don’t think the United States is so naive. But let’s face it. No
one is willing to take on an organization with unlimited funds, a criminal
intelligence network, and an army of highly paid attorney whores. Not in a
country with litigation laws like ours. Not in a country where the one with the
most money wins -– regardless of who is right or wrong, good or evil, guilty or
innocent.
But I don’t think scientology is a silly, harmless scam. I don’t think the
people whose minds have been shattered by scientology were already shattered
before they got into scientology, as Rebecca says. I do think scientology is
evil.
But then I’ve been through it. I’ve seen it. I’ve experienced it. Rebecca may
dismiss me as one of those people whose mind was already "shattered" before I
got into scientology. If so, so be it. She seems to have a fairly strong need to
dismiss scientology as harmless. It’s much easier to dismiss it than to take it
on, that’s for sure. No one in their right mind would decide to take on
scientology -– I guess I have to agree with her on that.
A few years ago Vaughn was in Germany to testify about scientology. As he was
preparing his testimony he pulled out a glossy scientology publication with a
full-page photograph of a scientology event. There was David Miscavige standing
at the podium with a huge picture of L. Ron Hubbard behind him and a sea of
faces out in the audience. Everyone in the audience was standing and clapping,
cheering at the picture of Hubbard. Two German officials happened to see the
photograph. They looked at each other grimly and then, in unison, said,
"Nuremburg."
Well, no one in their right mind was willing to take on the nazis as they were
coming to power in the thirties. No one was willing to take them seriously and
the few people who did see them as a serious threat were laughed at. The nazis
were elected into power; they didn’t take over Germany by force. No. They took
over by playing on people’s desires and fears in a very artful way. They did it
by highly sophisticated implied communication. They did it so well that after it
was all over and the pure evil was finally exposed, the German people had no
explanation for why they had allowed it to happen. They still have no
explanation for it. Books are still being written about Hitler to try to fathom
the evil that he created. Most people just cannot understand how he could have
manipulated an entire population the way he did. Most people just cannot
understand it.
But I do.
I understand it. I know how he transformed ordinary people into monsters because
I was in scientology at the highest levels of management and I saw how it was
done. It *is* evil. Rebecca is wrong to say it isn’t. I can describe what
happened but I can’t explain it. I can tell you that I lived in terror of having
my innermost thoughts discovered, of having my husband turned against me, of
being sent back to the prison camp for disobedience, of being locked in a room
and interrogated until I cracked. I can describe the times when I literally did
crack – when I couldn’t even remember my name or where I was or who I was
because of the sleep deprivation and isolation and the relentless tearing away
at my sense of self via repeated lower conditions, security checks and a
constant state of unbearable stress and terror that I would do the wrong thing
because the rules changed from moment to moment depending upon the whim of the
senior in charge and everyone was going after everyone else because that was
what was rewarded and that was what it took to make it to the top and stay there
–- a viciousness and willingness to destroy other people and a delight in seeing
others suffer. I saw people turned into monsters. Those people would do whatever
they were ordered to do.
The people who call scientology silly are dangerously naive. To those people I
have this to say: Please don’t be so quick to dismiss what former high level
scientologists say as the rantings of "shattered minds." Maybe I’m telling you
the truth. Maybe Jesse is telling you the truth. Maybe Dennis and Andre and
Gerry and Vicki and Kim and all the others who have posted their stories are
telling the truth. And maybe we aren’t all whacky people who were somehow "cult
material." Maybe what Dr. Louis Jolyon West said to me at the AFF Conference
last April was right. I asked him, "What’s the difference between me, who joined
scientology, and you, who didn’t?" And his answer was, "Luck."
Maybe that really is true, Rebecca. Maybe there were times in your life when you
might have ended up in scientology, but you were lucky that they didn’t happen
to find you at those vulnerable moments. It’s possible that you and I are more
alike than you care to imagine. Maybe it’s important for you to believe that
there is something fundamentally wrong with me that caused me to get involved in
scientology. Maybe it's important to believe that there was something
fundamentally wrong with every single German citizen who voted the nazis into
power, too.
But maybe there is just a fundamental flaw in human nature that makes it
possible to manipulate a perfectly normal human being into doing irrational,
evil things. Maybe you just haven’t ever had a chance to discover that you, too,
are vulnerable to manipulation.
But isn’t it interesting that someone as intelligent and well educated as
Rebecca can be so adamant about calling scientology silly and can get so worked
up about Bob Minton for taking it seriously that she tells him he is full of
shit? I think it is an indication of how well scientology is doing at cloaking
its true nature that people like Bob who are trying to warn others that
scientology is evil are attacked as fools by otherwise rational, caring people
like Rebecca.
I guess I’m hoping that other former scientologists will read this and let me
know they understand what I’m saying. I’m not writing this to fan the flames of
the Dorian controversy or to anger Rebecca or anything like that. I’m just
trying to say it’s hurtful that there are so many people who just don’t
understand that there is much more to scientology than silliness and snake oil.
And, who tell me I’m wrong to take it seriously, that I'm only taking it
seriously because I still have the scientology "implant" inside of me.
Rebecca said to Bob, "I think you’re deluded if you truly believe that this
qualifies as some great moral crusade. Scientology simply isn’t that important."
I don't agree with Rebecca. I do think it’s important. I think it’s important to
do whatever I can to keep other people from being hurt the way I was by this
organization. I wish I could figure out a way to get through to the people who
don’t see why it should be taken seriously.
I’ll keep trying to do that, but in the meantime, for all the other former
scientologists out there who are reading this, I’d really like to hear from you
about this. I still say the thing that is most helpful to my recovery is talking
to other former members. It’s like rubbing salve in a wound to talk to someone
else who has been there and knows what I’m talking about and knows that it's
important to stop these people before they become full-fledged murderers.
The only other person I know who really knows is Bob – and I don’t mean just for
me but for all the former scientologists he has talked to. What is truly
remarkable about Bob is that even though he hasn’t been in scientology he
totally understands the nature of the hurt and damage it causes. I think in some
way this empathy he has is being misinterpreted as something else by some of the
people on the newsgroup. He seems to feel the same isolation that I do as a
former member when people on the newsgroup don’t get it, and I guess he gets
frustrated by it the same as I do.
He really meant what he said to Ishmael: "I have also seen the hopelessness and
utter despair of a few former scientologists whose minds have been irrevocably
shattered. This is why I will keep fighting scientology. And also because people
such as you appreciate the loneliness and importance of this fight." Rebecca
seems to think his position is something to be ridiculed, that he is taking
himself too seriously and needs to be knocked down a peg or two. But I don’t.
I’m really glad that Bob takes the scientology situation seriously enough to
feel that something serious needs to be done about it. I think something serious
needs to be done about it too, and I’m working hard to do it –- along with Bob
and Jesse and some others who are working with us but need to stay behind the
scenes. The big legal win in the FACTNet case yesterday is the result of a
tremendous amount of work by a lot of people, and there will more progress like
that in the future because of the work that is being done. And all I can really
say to people like Rebecca is, thank God there are people who take the
scientology threat seriously enough to do something about it. I wish she did
too.
I’ve heard privately from a lot of former scientologists who don’t post to
a.r.s. but do read it. To all of those people I say please stay in touch with
me. We really need your support and feedback.
Stacy Brooks Young
Martin Hunt
inFo...@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) wrote:
> If Jesse wants to tell me that, I would be able to hear it with my
>own ears or read it from his own posting, which I cannot. And
>therefore I don't believe it.
Jesse actually has not posted to this newsgroup. Stacy young
made posts under his name, but it would be totally inappropriate
to attribute these to his name. The man has not posted to ars,
and probably never will. I suppose he fears that his English
is not good enough, but, you know, that's seldom an issue,
really.
Jesse may not be afraid of his speaking voice as he is of his
written English. If so, I humbly suggest he tape what he wants
to say to us and post it in real audio or MP3 format to abs.
In any case, I look forward to someday reading something that
is genuinely from him, and not filtered through others in any
way.
Personally, I think professional writers do nothing for people;
just look how little Dorian has done for Bob.
I've also seen people write things that were powerful and moving
and informative, even though their English was terribly broken.
The message can transcend the medium.
Martin Hunt
Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>It really is the most stupid, pointless, psychotic, self-inflated
>>waffle since Koos-Koos came along.
>
> I disagree.
>
> What about WildWings @ PecanNuts . com
Ooh, I forgot about him. It's a three-way race for the prestigious
title of most irrational ars poster then, isn't it.
Of course, we can't count the clams; that would be unfair. They're
all totally irrational, but it's not really their own fault.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Just the FAQs: http://scientologysucks.lron.com
.
.
.
.
William Barwell
Rob Clark <xe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Nov 1998 09:49:35 GMT, Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <364860c0...@news.mindspring.com>,
>> xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>
>>Codes HTML Poorly or Somewhat Concise unlike Dorian, depending on who you
>>ask, and Lil' Alex is Merrily Disrepects Dorian. You can either be Limbos
>>Near Flames or Beats Dorian Pinata. Your choice.
>
>"me trade-um three squirrel pelts for wampum." i never thought that selling
>manhattan island thing for a bunch of beads was that great an idea either.
away for those goodies didn't own it. This later percipitated a war
between the real owners and the settlers who ended up winning that war.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
©Anti-Cult® <The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com> wrote:
****************** Deleted ******************
>
>A source that I can't reveal at this moment, tells me that Dorian might
>be a guy called Michael McDonald. He's a multi-multi-millionaire
>ex-Scientologist living in Laguna Beach. Seriously loaded, seriously
>kooky. Does anyonew here have any knowledge about this guy?
>
>Anyway, my sources tells me, that Michael McDonald is a very rich
>squirrel who believes it's his mission to preserve the tech and that
>DM's perverting it. Again my sources tells me, that he's part of a group
>of like-minded ex-Scnists who've been trawling around for support for
>some years. Miscavige is scared shitless of them: in the tape the
>Mission Holder's Conference in 1982 he can be heard screaming at the
>Mission Holders to ignore him, or effing else. He's described as being
>very charismatic and well-versed in the tech. Apparently this guy thinks
>he's Hubbard's reincarnation, or something, rather like Captain Bill.
>
>Could anyone here spread some light about this?
>
Kooks with money.
Keith Henson
posting where Dawkins and co are mentioned. I started a little above that.
********
>On being a "fourth-rate" con-man: I'm pleased that my rating is
>dropping. Perhaps I'm finally departing from my past. Once, we were
>first rate. We told enticing lies and attracted millions.
>The change in pattern is very refreshing.
Perhaps people are developing more of a memetic immunity. Looking at a
zillion ads on TV might do that. I have heard that people in the PR/ad
business looking at Hitler's appeals have noted that they are poorly done
by modern standards--though good for the time.
--------------
>The idea of "researching" "spirituality" is a contradiction in terms.
>Perception of spirit comes from not-knowing. Researching is about
>knowing. "Spiritual research", therefore, must be about killing
>spirits. If not, it's at least fifty percent fraud.
I don't know about this. It is my opinion that "spirit" is a quality we
assign to reacting beings we can communicate with (even the imaginary
ones where we are communication with part of ourselves.) Now, by this
standard, running computers have spirit, in the form of the OS. A good
question to ask is where does the spirit of a computer go when you turn
off the power?
--------------
>Know that Richard Dawkins and I have a lot of ideas in common,
>Keith Henson
Good. I think quite a lot of Richard Dawkins, and am privileged to know
him slightly. I have done quite a lot to spread his meme about memes.
>There are a lot of people (you may be included), who like to assert
>that because something is a result of a selection process, it wasn't
>intended.
When you are talking about processes which have no conscious input, such
as the evolution of life through the first few billion years I would say
intention was lacking (unless you invoke gods) because there was nothing
with conscious thought involved.
What they (and possibly you) are missing is that value
>directed selection processes, applied to available possibility, is
>what results in intelligence, creativity, and intent.
Your arguments would be much improved by bringing up concrete examples.
In this case, you could point to the directed evolution (breeding) of
dogs, where humans have used "intent" to make a range of fairly distinct
breeds from the original wolf. Specifically, if the intent was to use
dogs to go after badgers, you selected dogs for short legs and bred them
(while the rest were used for dinner).
Intent, for example,
>is the most credible prediction. Intent is the prediction you believe in.
>If you have ten predictions as to what might happen, your intent is the
>prediction that you are most certain will come true.
I would make more distinction between these words. For example, with the
orbital elements, I could make a very near certain prediction that
particular asteroid was going to hit the earth at some time in the future,
but it sure as hell would not be my *intent*!
The prediction
>has been selected from a handful of possibilities. So of course life
>and its products arise from a selection process operating in a field of
>opportunity.
I am with you to this point.
But that's not to say that life wasn't intended, or that
>life or any of it's products isn't the result of intelligence and
>creativity at work.
I would rate this possibility as way down on the scale. Of course, there
is nothing to prevent the entire world from being a fabrication by some
mad joker of a god who created the earth a few years ago with all the
evidence it had been here for billions. But I consider this both unlikely
and beyond anything we can do about it.
>I once chuckled over Darwin's term "natural selection" --- as if there
>were anything else!
Darwin chose the term on purpose because people were already familiar
with the "unnatural" selection process which created dashhounds and
grayhounds.
The fact is, selection processes are ubiquitous and
>all are "natural" --- including the selection processes that yield your
>intellect. ;-)
Much progress has been made in the area of what led to human level
intelligence. The best work is by William Calvin who proposed that as
human came to occupy the projectile hunter niche there was a high
selection (especially in the areas near the ice) for larger brains able to
coordinate well enough to hit prey.
Creativity and intent are as much a part of the
>natural world as space, time, energy, and matter.
Perhaps you could support this claim with an example or two? You may
have a good point, I just can't find it.
>Incidentally, if one were to wait for an official study to verify
>every significance one draws from the world, one must also be satisfied
>with never getting anywhere near the leading edge of discovery.
Again, you lose me here. Much of what I am involved with in memetics has
never been studied in any official way that I know about.
>Are you satisfied with where you're at?
No. But I am *very* pleased with the progress which has been speeding up
over the last 20-30 years.
Keith Henson
Conner
<364544dc...@news.mindspring.com>, xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark)
wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Nov 1998 12:29:53 GMT, b...@minton.org (Bob Minton) wrote:
>
>>Ok... I think it's time for a thoughtful response.
[clip]
>
>so do please fuck off, now won't you?
well said, rob
-- see...@ix.netcom.com (Conner)
Note: remove 'spamblock' from address to reply
Friends of Dennis Erlich Club (www.netcom.com/~seekon/friends.html)
Rhonda
this is not me.
Rhonda wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:40:16 +1100, "Michael Christ"
> <onc...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >And Peter said, "Lord, bid me come to you on the water".
> >
> >"Come" said Jesus.
> >
> >Peter walked on the water to go to Jesus but was afraid and began to sink.
> >
> >Why did Peter sin?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Ummm ... he wanted to fuck geezuss on a raft?
>
> R.D.