About Monica Pignotti...
Roadrunner
wrote:
> On May 24, 11:17 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> [lies snipped]
>
> http://monicapignotti.wordpress.com
>
> http://site.monicapignotti.com
It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A
Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was
established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago.
And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected
to hear!
What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the
subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper
backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what
some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood
about the subject itself?
The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering
my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became
very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and
how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in
some earlier thread.
If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and
all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of
Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
RR
Monica Pignotti
> On 24 Maj, 17:52, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 11:17 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> > [lies snipped]
>
> >http://monicapignotti.wordpress.com
>
> >http://site.monicapignotti.com
>
> It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A
> Ph.D.
No, I am using a title I worked very hard to earn. I'm not "demanding"
or expecting anything of anyone, only accurately stating my
credentials.
>only indicates that you did things in such a way as was
> established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago.
To be precise, in 2009.
> And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected
> to hear!
You obviously don't understand what is involved in a doctoral level
education. That's not what it is about at all. In fact, what I have to
say is ironically, what some in my profession do not want to hear when
I criticize certain cherished therapies that lack empirical support.
> What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the
> subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper
> backup.
I'm not sure what you mean by "proper backup" but to me, that would
mean actual research evidence, properly designed that tested the claim
through randomized clinical trials.
>Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what
> some people did.
No, my experiences are based on my experiences and those "some people"
included LRH.
>I question how much you actually ever have understood
> about the subject itself?
I studied it for six years. The bottom line is that it makes a number
of unsupported claims that have not been properly tested.
> The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering
> my questions when I queried some of your claims.
I wasn't aware of your questions. Would you like to repeat them?
> Here it also became
> very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and
> how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in
> some earlier thread.
What I know is that LRH was aware of all of the Flag Orders that were
written when he was aboard and that there were direct LRH orders
regarding getting the RPF set up and later, he personally ordered a
number of people onto the RPF. You're giving me the party line. I was
there and saw the reality of the situation, first hand and there are
many other witnesses to corroborate this.
>
> If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and
> all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of
> Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
Peer review and scientific studies applie to claims for the auditing
itself. Whether certain events happened and who was responsible for
what is not the same issue as whether or not Scientology works as it
claims. Whether events happened would be established by the kind of
evidence that would be presented in a court of law -- e.g.
corroborating witnesses to events. These are two separate issues.
You seem to be using the Scientology definition of "data" which means
any kind of information. I use data in the scientific sense. Where is
the evidence that it does what is claimed? And no, success stories and
testimonials are not evidence.
Kat
She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard
work and determination. We all know you never went to school for
archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the
matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish
yourself?
Roadrunner
wrote:
> On May 26, 1:08 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 24 Maj, 17:52, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On May 24, 11:17 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> > > [lies snipped]
>
> > >http://monicapignotti.wordpress.com
>
> > >http://site.monicapignotti.com
>
> > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A
> > Ph.D.
>
> No, I am using a title I worked very hard to earn. I'm not "demanding"
> or expecting anything of anyone, only accurately stating my
> credentials.
I don't get that impression from these pages of yours that you link
to.
>
> >only indicates that you did things in such a way as was
> > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago.
>
> To be precise, in 2009.
>
> > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected
> > to hear!
>
> You obviously don't understand what is involved in a doctoral level
> education. That's not what it is about at all. In fact, what I have to
> say is ironically, what some in my profession do not want to hear when
> I criticize certain cherished therapies that lack empirical support.
Well, the theory of evolution has no empirical support. But it is
still thrown about. What I meant is that it must fall within these
guiding rules that were put up by some people. It is then of lesser
relevans if some particulars are still not liked, if it does pass
THEIR test of things, it is then automatically accepted.
>
> > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the
> > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper
> > backup.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "proper backup" but to me, that would
> mean actual research evidence, properly designed that tested the claim
> through randomized clinical trials.
And that is exactly what I do not mean at all. Even clinical trials as
such are subjective. It is pending what tests it is run through. But
if you, by proper application of some processes, actually can repeat a
desired result, THEN this has turned into something one can work with.
The more interesting it becomes if futher persons can also replicate
that.
>
> >Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what
> > some people did.
>
> No, my experiences are based on my experiences and those "some people"
> included LRH.
As I said before, I don't think you have met him. Sure, you met a
person, but it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard. You have to examine the statures
of the technology and the person from prior to and after early 1973.
Science and research is not about to only regard matters from an
isolated time frame, and all you got is 1973-76.
>
> >I question how much you actually ever have understood
> > about the subject itself?
>
> I studied it for six years. The bottom line is that it makes a number
> of unsupported claims that have not been properly tested.
Six years you say? Alright, so you got into Scientology in 1970, went
on as ship crew in 1973, and then left in 1976.
As it is in university, people go over materials and adopt so very
much, because they do not study with a critical mind. I know people
that have been in Scientology since the very beginning years, or they
may have been staff for 30 years. And still I catch them with basic
misunderstandings. The question to you would be if you have done
extensive comparitive testing regarding what you 'studied'. You see,
if a person wants to understand, he/she first has to get rid of the
previously established frame of mind. This is the filter which he/she
uses to view all other things. Do you understand what I mean?
>
> > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering
> > my questions when I queried some of your claims.
>
> I wasn't aware of your questions. Would you like to repeat them?
It was the interaction between us in this thread: http://tiny.cc/rpf
I made notice that you had adopted various paradigms that in fact are
actively counteracted in guidelines found in policy letters that were
already available at that time. The word of L. Ron Hubbard is not law,
he too has to abide to these policy letters. If you had been wronged
you simply use the format of 'Orders, Query of', and this means you do
not follow or obey that what has been laid upon you. A query simply
means that you do not follow it, it does not have to be approved by
anyone!!!! (a very common misconception by most Scientologists I would
say). You see, supporting evidence or other MUST instead be presented
by the issuer! If they can not, they have nothing.
Authorship and/or involvement of L. Ron Hubbard in FO 34334 and
subsequent series. In fact there are none. Ken Urquhart is the sole
designer of the whole RPF plan.
>
> > Here it also became
> > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and
> > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in
> > some earlier thread.
>
> What I know is that LRH was aware of all of the Flag Orders that were
> written when he was aboard and that there were direct LRH orders
> regarding getting the RPF set up and later, he personally ordered a
> number of people onto the RPF. You're giving me the party line. I was
> there and saw the reality of the situation, first hand and there are
> many other witnesses to corroborate this.
As I said, I don't think you met L. Ron Hubbard. Then, I am quite
unsure about if this L. Ron hubbard was aware of all Flag Orders that
were being issued. We are having here a bit lazy L. Ron Hubbard. It
says in the FO 3434: “These policies and regulations may only be put
aside or amended or cancelled with the approval of the Commodore or of
LRH Pers Comm.”, and the latter was Ken Urquhart. This L. Ron Hubbard
was all into Apollo Stars and later filming.
You are only then able to make a full assessment of the scene if you
have gone through all available data and accordingly have done a full
evaluation of each of these. You need to have the pre-scene, the after-
scene and the inbetween.
If the value of it all is this socalled technology itself, then this
should be the guiding line. It hen requires to do a ful study of the
scene prior and after, and to establish if any changes in basics had
been violated and were not reversed. My findings are that the scen
from 1950 to 1972 are very straight forward, and suddenly matters went
into an entirely different direction. I talk here about a study of the
FULL scene!!!!! This is also part of science. Have you performed such
a study?
>
>
>
> > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and
> > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of
> > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
>
> Peer review and scientific studies applie to claims for the auditing
> itself. Whether certain events happened and who was responsible for
> what is not the same issue as whether or not Scientology works as it
> claims. Whether events happened would be established by the kind of
> evidence that would be presented in a court of law -- e.g.
> corroborating witnesses to events. These are two separate issues.
>
> You seem to be using the Scientology definition of "data" which means
> any kind of information. I use data in the scientific sense. Where is
> the evidence that it does what is claimed? And no, success stories and
> testimonials are not evidence.
Indeed success stories and testimonials are not my guideline. I follow
however what I see in front of me. No one tells me anything, I will
see for myself if a particular replication of a change in an
individual can take place. In my reality no evaluated data equals no
data.
RR
Roadrunner
All I see is blind defamation from you thrown att my address. (you
just don't know what I went to school for, and what not) Another
thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or
titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here
and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
RR
Monica Pignotti
> On 26 Maj, 19:51, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 1:08 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 24 Maj, 17:52, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 24, 11:17 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> > > > [lies snipped]
>
> > > >http://monicapignotti.wordpress.com
>
> > > >http://site.monicapignotti.com
>
> > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A
> > > Ph.D.
>
> > No, I am using a title I worked very hard to earn. I'm not "demanding"
> > or expecting anything of anyone, only accurately stating my
> > credentials.
>
> I don't get that impression from these pages of yours that you link
> to.
The pages I link to is my response to an all out internet smear
campaign where all kinds of lies have been posted about me.
>
> > >only indicates that you did things in such a way as was
> > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago.
>
> > To be precise, in 2009.
>
> > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected
> > > to hear!
>
> > You obviously don't understand what is involved in a doctoral level
> > education. That's not what it is about at all. In fact, what I have to
> > say is ironically, what some in my profession do not want to hear when
> > I criticize certain cherished therapies that lack empirical support.
>
> Well, the theory of evolution has no empirical support.
>But it is
> still thrown about. What I meant is that it must fall within these
> guiding rules that were put up by some people. It is then of lesser
> relevans if some particulars are still not liked, if it does pass
> THEIR test of things, it is then automatically accepted.
That is not correct at all. It has a ton of empirical support,
contrary to the myths about it Creationists would have us believe.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/top10mythsevol.htm
>
> > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the
> > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper
> > > backup.
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "proper backup" but to me, that would
> > mean actual research evidence, properly designed that tested the claim
> > through randomized clinical trials.
>
> And that is exactly what I do not mean at all. Even clinical trials as
> such are subjective. It is pending what tests it is run through.
That's why I said the methodology had to be sound. Well-designed,
randomized clinical trials. Nothing is 100% perfect but when they are
replicated, they control for a number of human biases that cannot be
controlled for by anecdotes and success stories.
>But
> if you, by proper application of some processes, actually can repeat a
> desired result, THEN this has turned into something one can work with.
> The more interesting it becomes if futher persons can also replicate
> that.
>
>
>
> > >Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what
> > > some people did.
>
> > No, my experiences are based on my experiences and those "some people"
> > included LRH.
>
> As I said before, I don't think you have met him. Sure, you met a
> person, but it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard. You have to examine the statures
> of the technology and the person from prior to and after early 1973.
> Science and research is not about to only regard matters from an
> isolated time frame, and all you got is 1973-76.
All I know is that when I came aboard the Apollo in 1973, most of the
people at the time had been there for years prior to that and they saw
LRH before and after his disappearance in 1972 and reappearance in
1973 including his own family. No one I know had any question about it
being the same person.
> > >I question how much you actually ever have understood
> > > about the subject itself?
>
> > I studied it for six years. The bottom line is that it makes a number
> > of unsupported claims that have not been properly tested.
>
> Six years you say? Alright, so you got into Scientology in 1970, went
> on as ship crew in 1973, and then left in 1976.
Yes, that's correct.
> As it is in university, people go over materials and adopt so very
> much, because they do not study with a critical mind.
Sez who? Some do, some don't. It depends on the student and how good
the teacher is at teaching the students to think critically.
>I know people
> that have been in Scientology since the very beginning years, or they
> may have been staff for 30 years. And still I catch them with basic
> misunderstandings. The question to you would be if you have done
> extensive comparitive testing regarding what you 'studied'. You see,
> if a person wants to understand, he/she first has to get rid of the
> previously established frame of mind. This is the filter which he/she
> uses to view all other things. Do you understand what I mean?
Yes, that is always the case and it is unavoidable. We all look at
things through various filters. The main thing is to be honest about
identifying what they are. What I don't buy is that Scientologists
have gotten rid of theirs. On the contrary, they are viewing things
through a Scientology filter.
> > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering
> > > my questions when I queried some of your claims.
>
> > I wasn't aware of your questions. Would you like to repeat them?
>
> It was the interaction between us in this thread:http://tiny.cc/rpf
>
> I made notice that you had adopted various paradigms that in fact are
> actively counteracted in guidelines found in policy letters that were
> already available at that time.
For example? If you're saying there were contradictions, you bet there
were. One that I pointed out in My Nine Lives is that Hubbard said
that punishment doesn't work, but yet the RPF and much of the heavy
ethics was punishment.
>The word of L. Ron Hubbard is not law,
> he too has to abide to these policy letters. If you had been wronged
> you simply use the format of 'Orders, Query of', and this means you do
> not follow or obey that what has been laid upon you.
Yes, I knew that well. That's exactly what I tried to do on the Apollo
when I was wrongfully accused, but it didn't work. If LRH wanted
something, it happened, regardless of whether it violated policy.
>A query simply
> means that you do not follow it, it does not have to be approved by
> anyone!!!! (a very common misconception by most Scientologists I would
> say). You see, supporting evidence or other MUST instead be presented
> by the issuer! If they can not, they have nothing.
I tried to present evidence and it was ignored.
> Authorship and/or involvement of L. Ron Hubbard in FO 34334 and
> subsequent series. In fact there are none. Ken Urquhart is the sole
> designer of the whole RPF plan.
Again, that simply is not the case. LRH personally ordered a number of
people to the RPF. Have you read Nancy Many's book. He ordered to to
the RPF while she was pregnant.
>
>
> > > Here it also became
> > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and
> > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in
> > > some earlier thread.
>
> > What I know is that LRH was aware of all of the Flag Orders that were
> > written when he was aboard and that there were direct LRH orders
> > regarding getting the RPF set up and later, he personally ordered a
> > number of people onto the RPF. You're giving me the party line. I was
> > there and saw the reality of the situation, first hand and there are
> > many other witnesses to corroborate this.
>
> As I said, I don't think you met L. Ron Hubbard. Then, I am quite
> unsure about if this L. Ron hubbard was aware of all Flag Orders that
> were being issued. We are having here a bit lazy L. Ron Hubbard. It
> says in the FO 3434: “These policies and regulations may only be put
> aside or amended or cancelled with the approval of the Commodore or of
> LRH Pers Comm.”, and the latter was Ken Urquhart. This L. Ron Hubbard
> was all into Apollo Stars and later filming.
See my previous reply. I knew Quentin and if that weren't his dad, he
surely would have known, a would Hana Eltringham and the many others
who were there from the late 60s on.
> You are only then able to make a full assessment of the scene if you
> have gone through all available data and accordingly have done a full
> evaluation of each of these. You need to have the pre-scene, the after-
> scene and the inbetween.
That's what Quentin and many of the others had.
> If the value of it all is this socalled technology itself, then this
> should be the guiding line. It hen requires to do a ful study of the
> scene prior and after, and to establish if any changes in basics had
> been violated and were not reversed. My findings are that the scen
> from 1950 to 1972 are very straight forward, and suddenly matters went
> into an entirely different direction.
There were many abuses that took place in the late 60s, such as the
overboardings ordered by Hubbard and many other punishments.
>I talk here about a study of the
> FULL scene!!!!! This is also part of science. Have you performed such
> a study?
Have you written this up anywhere? How did you go about doing that?
> > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and
> > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of
> > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
>
> > Peer review and scientific studies applie to claims for the auditing
> > itself. Whether certain events happened and who was responsible for
> > what is not the same issue as whether or not Scientology works as it
> > claims. Whether events happened would be established by the kind of
> > evidence that would be presented in a court of law -- e.g.
> > corroborating witnesses to events. These are two separate issues.
>
> > You seem to be using the Scientology definition of "data" which means
> > any kind of information. I use data in the scientific sense. Where is
> > the evidence that it does what is claimed? And no, success stories and
> > testimonials are not evidence.
>
> Indeed success stories and testimonials are not my guideline. I follow
> however what I see in front of me. No one tells me anything, I will
> see for myself if a particular replication of a change in an
> individual can take place. In my reality no evaluated data equals no
> data.
What is in front of us can also be deceiving. It's those filters
again.
Monica
Kat
Really? Because you pretty much admitted that you didn't go to school
for archaeology and couldn't demonstrate a fundamental basic knowledge
of the subject... even though you demanded we all take you at your
word as an expert.
> Another
> thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or
> titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here
> and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
>
> RR
I *AM* taking/evaluating a person on face value here. That would be
why I think you are full of shit, even though you present yourself as
an expert regarding archaeology. =) Not everyone BUYS a diploma like
Hubbard did... almost all people work for theirs!
Roadrunner
You are babbling and using imagination... get real... but that is too
much asked...
RR
anthropomorphic personification
This of course from the poster on ARS who would not recognise reality
if it picked him up by the scruff of the neck whilst carrying a big
sign saying "I AM REALITY" with a sworn affidavit to this effect in
its pocket, signed by the creator and countersigned by an infiniate
number of lesser deities. Who subsequently held him over the
compulsary alligator pit and jiggled him about upside down untill all
his loose change, credit cards and other miscellaneous items fell out
making a disapointing but nevertheless tempting appetiser for the
aforementioned el lagarto waiting below.
And worse still if he then did recognise 'reality' in his situation
would be too stuborn to admit it and the Alligator mississippiensis
would enjoy ground coockoo on the rocks, so to speak.
Kat
No, he would look at Reality, carrying it's sign and bashing him over
the head with it... and then decide that to recognize it for what it
is would be too mainstream or "authority worship". Why look at data
and fact when you can have paranoid conspiracy theories? Why have an
education at all when you can read a few pages of a book and be an
"expert" on the subject? Why EARN people's respect by being a good/
intelligent person when you can put all your efforts into bringing
down everyone you even remotely dislike?
Silly RR. The coyote could have him in a cooking pot and he wouldn't
even recognize it.
Kat
What part of that was imagination? Hubbard DID buy diplomas from a
mill. Monica DID earn hers through years of hard work. You DID admit
that you did not have a degree in Archaeology, even though you
presented yourself as an authority on the subject.... an authority who
didn't know the basics when asked.
Your ad hom's won't change what you have posted in ars, buddy, nor
will they change verified historical fact! You seem to resent Monica
because she did things you never could.... go to school and succeed
and met Hubbard. It's very pathetic!
Roadrunner
wrote:
> On May 26, 5:01 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 26 Maj, 19:51, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On May 26, 1:08 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 24 Maj, 17:52, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 24, 11:17 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > [lies snipped]
>
> > > > >http://monicapignotti.wordpress.com
>
> > > > >http://site.monicapignotti.com
>
> > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A
> > > > Ph.D.
>
> > > No, I am using a title I worked very hard to earn. I'm not "demanding"
> > > or expecting anything of anyone, only accurately stating my
> > > credentials.
>
> > I don't get that impression from these pages of yours that you link
> > to.
>
> The pages I link to is my response to an all out internet smear
> campaign where all kinds of lies have been posted about me.
Yes, I have become aware of that. But what caused all that? Consider
also that the person L. Ron hubbard may have been seriously smeared
for various reasons during a number of years.
>
> > > >only indicates that you did things in such a way as was
> > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago.
>
> > > To be precise, in 2009.
>
> > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected
> > > > to hear!
>
> > > You obviously don't understand what is involved in a doctoral level
> > > education. That's not what it is about at all. In fact, what I have to
> > > say is ironically, what some in my profession do not want to hear when
> > > I criticize certain cherished therapies that lack empirical support.
>
> > Well, the theory of evolution has no empirical support.
> >But it is
> > still thrown about. What I meant is that it must fall within these
> > guiding rules that were put up by some people. It is then of lesser
> > relevans if some particulars are still not liked, if it does pass
> > THEIR test of things, it is then automatically accepted.
>
> That is not correct at all. It has a ton of empirical support,
> contrary to the myths about it Creationists would have us believe.
>
> http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/top10mythsevol.htm
I believe some of these are rather outdated! These are easily
counteracted in fact. But what about the deliberate mix up by
evolutionists regarding micro-evolution and macro-evolution in about
all of their presentations?
Either way, evolutionism is as unempirical as creationism is. The only
difference between them is that a different interpretation of the
observed is adhered to.
It's funny that you claim tons of empirical support, when in fact they
have none. I am rather familiar with the experimenting performed and
the assumptions exercised in this area and conclusions drawn from
these, more in particular archaeology though. It is all largely a
matter of deliberate selection.
I oppose the theory of evolution strictly based on scientific grounds.
>
> > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the
> > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper
> > > > backup.
>
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by "proper backup" but to me, that would
> > > mean actual research evidence, properly designed that tested the claim
> > > through randomized clinical trials.
>
> > And that is exactly what I do not mean at all. Even clinical trials as
> > such are subjective. It is pending what tests it is run through.
>
> That's why I said the methodology had to be sound. Well-designed,
> randomized clinical trials. Nothing is 100% perfect but when they are
> replicated, they control for a number of human biases that cannot be
> controlled for by anecdotes and success stories.
One can not guarantee that it will follow your above guidelines. In
addition you have the very fallible human factor in selecting your
tests.
>
> >But
> > if you, by proper application of some processes, actually can repeat a
> > desired result, THEN this has turned into something one can work with.
> > The more interesting it becomes if futher persons can also replicate
> > that.
>
> > > >Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what
> > > > some people did.
>
> > > No, my experiences are based on my experiences and those "some people"
> > > included LRH.
>
> > As I said before, I don't think you have met him. Sure, you met a
> > person, but it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard. You have to examine the statures
> > of the technology and the person from prior to and after early 1973.
> > Science and research is not about to only regard matters from an
> > isolated time frame, and all you got is 1973-76.
>
> All I know is that when I came aboard the Apollo in 1973, most of the
> people at the time had been there for years prior to that and they saw
> LRH before and after his disappearance in 1972 and reappearance in
> 1973 including his own family. No one I know had any question about it
> being the same person.
If you have jumped on a merry-go-round then how observative are you
still when you are in the middle of it? I can tell you, most persons
not very much at all. You should be aware of this datum.
>
> > > >I question how much you actually ever have understood
> > > > about the subject itself?
>
> > > I studied it for six years. The bottom line is that it makes a number
> > > of unsupported claims that have not been properly tested.
>
> > Six years you say? Alright, so you got into Scientology in 1970, went
> > on as ship crew in 1973, and then left in 1976.
>
> Yes, that's correct.
>
> > As it is in university, people go over materials and adopt so very
> > much, because they do not study with a critical mind.
>
> Sez who? Some do, some don't. It depends on the student and how good
> the teacher is at teaching the students to think critically.
If you are critical according to a particular frame, then what arises
from that is not criticism per definition.
>
> >I know people
> > that have been in Scientology since the very beginning years, or they
> > may have been staff for 30 years. And still I catch them with basic
> > misunderstandings. The question to you would be if you have done
> > extensive comparitive testing regarding what you 'studied'. You see,
> > if a person wants to understand, he/she first has to get rid of the
> > previously established frame of mind. This is the filter which he/she
> > uses to view all other things. Do you understand what I mean?
>
> Yes, that is always the case and it is unavoidable. We all look at
> things through various filters. The main thing is to be honest about
> identifying what they are. What I don't buy is that Scientologists
> have gotten rid of theirs. On the contrary, they are viewing things
> through a Scientology filter.
Of course, as ordinary people follow the social 'authority' filter. We
are all subjected to brainwash, anywhere and everywhere. And people
like so very much to 'follow'.
The value of the subject of Dianetics and Scientology is the
information that it provides. But if no person guards it or even
applies it, it will be of no use to anyone.
>
> > > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering
> > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims.
>
> > > I wasn't aware of your questions. Would you like to repeat them?
>
> > It was the interaction between us in this thread:http://tiny.cc/rpf
>
> > I made notice that you had adopted various paradigms that in fact are
> > actively counteracted in guidelines found in policy letters that were
> > already available at that time.
>
> For example? If you're saying there were contradictions, you bet there
> were. One that I pointed out in My Nine Lives is that Hubbard said
> that punishment doesn't work, but yet the RPF and much of the heavy
> ethics was punishment.
Therefore from 1950-1972 it was a logical development. But actually
starting with early December 1972 opposing practics were introduced
and not counteracted. Indeed, punishment does not work.
>
> >The word of L. Ron Hubbard is not law,
> > he too has to abide to these policy letters. If you had been wronged
> > you simply use the format of 'Orders, Query of', and this means you do
> > not follow or obey that what has been laid upon you.
>
> Yes, I knew that well. That's exactly what I tried to do on the Apollo
> when I was wrongfully accused, but it didn't work. If LRH wanted
> something, it happened, regardless of whether it violated policy.
Did anyone ever opposed with strict application of policy letter
principles? Did you ever see that happen? I wonder this, because I
would never have submitted to a lie. That what attracted me in the
subject was its sanity and pure logic. Therefore an enforced illogic
would have been opposed by me and I would have been furious and
refused submittance to that at all cost. So, did you send a cramming
to L. Ron Hubbard?
>
> >A query simply
> > means that you do not follow it, it does not have to be approved by
> > anyone!!!! (a very common misconception by most Scientologists I would
> > say). You see, supporting evidence or other MUST instead be presented
> > by the issuer! If they can not, they have nothing.
>
> I tried to present evidence and it was ignored.
Then the order was illegal and off-policy and you should never have
submitted to that. But this is a hard thing to abide by, if you are
surrounded by 'followers' on the ship, and most people simply submit.
So, return the favour and 'ignore the order'.
>
> > Authorship and/or involvement of L. Ron Hubbard in FO 34334 and
> > subsequent series. In fact there are none. Ken Urquhart is the sole
> > designer of the whole RPF plan.
>
> Again, that simply is not the case. LRH personally ordered a number of
> people to the RPF. Have you read Nancy Many's book. He ordered to to
> the RPF while she was pregnant.
And you tell me that would have been L. Ron Hubbard doing something
like that? Really? Please think! If you have read the book Dianetics
then you would know that this sort of thing would have been totally
out of the question.
>
> > > > Here it also became
> > > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and
> > > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in
> > > > some earlier thread.
>
> > > What I know is that LRH was aware of all of the Flag Orders that were
> > > written when he was aboard and that there were direct LRH orders
> > > regarding getting the RPF set up and later, he personally ordered a
> > > number of people onto the RPF. You're giving me the party line. I was
> > > there and saw the reality of the situation, first hand and there are
> > > many other witnesses to corroborate this.
>
> > As I said, I don't think you met L. Ron Hubbard. Then, I am quite
> > unsure about if this L. Ron hubbard was aware of all Flag Orders that
> > were being issued. We are having here a bit lazy L. Ron Hubbard. It
> > says in the FO 3434: “These policies and regulations may only be put
> > aside or amended or cancelled with the approval of the Commodore or of
> > LRH Pers Comm.”, and the latter was Ken Urquhart. This L. Ron Hubbard
> > was all into Apollo Stars and later filming.
>
> See my previous reply. I knew Quentin and if that weren't his dad, he
> surely would have known, a would Hana Eltringham and the many others
> who were there from the late 60s on.
So, during that time you were on the ship did you ever see this L. Ron
Hubbard person together with any of his children or Mary Sue?
>
> > You are only then able to make a full assessment of the scene if you
> > have gone through all available data and accordingly have done a full
> > evaluation of each of these. You need to have the pre-scene, the after-
> > scene and the inbetween.
>
> That's what Quentin and many of the others had.
We may hope that, but this may have been the reason he was murdered.
>
> > If the value of it all is this socalled technology itself, then this
> > should be the guiding line. It hen requires to do a ful study of the
> > scene prior and after, and to establish if any changes in basics had
> > been violated and were not reversed. My findings are that the scen
> > from 1950 to 1972 are very straight forward, and suddenly matters went
> > into an entirely different direction.
>
> There were many abuses that took place in the late 60s, such as the
> overboardings ordered by Hubbard and many other punishments.
You were not there in this pre-scene. You must have been told these
things. I too have spoken with various people that were on the ship.
What is rather interesting is that those that still find that the
subject has values tell a different tale than those that actively (in
later years) were attacking it. We may have a very great deal of
subjectivity here. Anyway, the overboardings are explained in the
magazine 'The Auditor'.
>
> >I talk here about a study of the
> > FULL scene!!!!! This is also part of science. Have you performed such
> > a study?
>
> Have you written this up anywhere? How did you go about doing that?
There are 3 aspect involved with understanding the subject: (1)
getting auditing and move on that Bridge or being subjected to
standard processing, (2) have a solid understanding of the subject and
the chronological development of this technology, and (3) have a clear
concept about how people have dealt with it during the years. The
latter you get from the magazines like 'Abilty' and 'The Auditor',
they tell much about how people behaved and what they were supposed to
'swallow'.
So, you need to collect old materials, and then go through it, you
have to document the development. As the value of the subject is the
technology and its workability you then have to watch for basics not
getting violated. If sec checking for HCO purposes and sorts were
abolished you are NOT having them shortly after reinstated! And so on,
and so on... it will take some time to perform such a task. There is
this person that has performed such a task. http://tiny.cc/wise_old_goat,
and more partuculary this study http://tiny.cc/whereabouts_of_lrh
>
> > > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and
> > > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of
> > > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
>
> > > Peer review and scientific studies applie to claims for the auditing
> > > itself. Whether certain events happened and who was responsible for
> > > what is not the same issue as whether or not Scientology works as it
> > > claims. Whether events happened would be established by the kind of
> > > evidence that would be presented in a court of law -- e.g.
> > > corroborating witnesses to events. These are two separate issues.
>
> > > You seem to be using the Scientology definition of "data" which means
> > > any kind of information. I use data in the scientific sense. Where is
> > > the evidence that it does what is claimed? And no, success stories and
> > > testimonials are not evidence.
>
> > Indeed success stories and testimonials are not my guideline. I follow
> > however what I see in front of me. No one tells me anything, I will
> > see for myself if a particular replication of a change in an
> > individual can take place. In my reality no evaluated data equals no
> > data.
>
> What is in front of us can also be deceiving. It's those filters
> again.
Indeed, but if you replicate for others and they also see this, and so
on, you might come to a significant amount of people.
Now, about established filters, you have been adhering to a particular
view on these matters for quite some time, would you be able to
considers alternates that would contradict your thus far accepted
reality on this subject?
Kind regards,
RR
Roadrunner
Ah, did he now... evidence please...
>Monica DID earn hers through years of hard work.
And for that reason one becomes an authority? Is that a target of some
sort?
>You DID admit
> that you did not have a degree in Archaeology,
You have no clue what I have or do not have, I did not admit to
anything that you claim...
>even though you
> presented yourself as an authority on the subject....
Ah, ah... see, that is the very last I am interested in to be regarded
as... and no, I have never presented myself as an authority, I have
only presented myself as a person that is rather familiar with the
subject and has personal experience and observations during a number
of years in the subject.
>an authority who
> didn't know the basics when asked.
Ah... and what may they be???? Now, is this the same girl that
confused archaeology with paleontology, an unforgivable mistake... .-)
>
> Your ad hom's won't change what you have posted in ars, buddy, nor
> will they change verified historical fact! You seem to resent Monica
> because she did things you never could.... go to school and succeed
> and met Hubbard. It's very pathetic!
I don't resent Monica, big, big mistake... and yes, your mistakes are
imortalized... .-)
RR
Kat
So you don't have to provide evidence for your claims (such as your
claim that Lucy is a fraud), but I do? Bwahahaha go fuck yourself,
hypocrite!
>
> >Monica DID earn hers through years of hard work.
>
> And for that reason one becomes an authority? Is that a target of some
> sort?
It makes them very knowledgeable in the subject they have a PhD in,
yes!
>
> >You DID admit
> > that you did not have a degree in Archaeology,
>
> You have no clue what I have or do not have, I did not admit to
> anything that you claim...
You present yourself as an authority on the subject, yet cannot
demonstrate a working knowledge of the basics... you are a fraud. Even
if you are purposely not giving answers to even the most basic of
questions in order to mess with me, all you are doing is making
yourself look like more of a jackass.
>
> >even though you
> > presented yourself as an authority on the subject....
>
> Ah, ah... see, that is the very last I am interested in to be regarded
> as... and no, I have never presented myself as an authority, I have
> only presented myself as a person that is rather familiar with the
> subject and has personal experience and observations during a number
> of years in the subject.
You presented yourself as an authority on the subject by bashing
myself and several others experience in the field... saying your years
of experience amount to more knowledge than what we have... thus
making you a more credible source. At least, in your own opinion.
>
> >an authority who
> > didn't know the basics when asked.
>
> Ah... and what may they be???? Now, is this the same girl that
> confused archaeology with paleontology, an unforgivable mistake... .-)
That was Peter, not me. And by the way? The two fields are very much
related.. they are not as different as an apple and a tire as you
would so like to make them out to be. Were you not looking for any
little thing to find fault over and were you actually versed in the
two fields, you would know that.
>
>
>
> > Your ad hom's won't change what you have posted in ars, buddy, nor
> > will they change verified historical fact! You seem to resent Monica
> > because she did things you never could.... go to school and succeed
> > and met Hubbard. It's very pathetic!
>
> I don't resent Monica, big, big mistake... and yes, your mistakes are
> imortalized... .-)
>
> RR
My only mistake was ever thinking there was a brain in that hollow
head of yours.
Where is your personal research showing Lucy was a fake?
Where is your personal research showing Jeremy Perkins had psych care
prior to his mothers death?
Still nothing? Pathetic.
Monica Pignotti
that you think that Hubbard's policies were being violated or applied
inconsistently, including by Hubbard himself. There are indeed
contradictions and yes, it does seem to be completely against what
Hubbard wrote in Dianetics, that he would send a woman who was 5
months pregnant to the RPF and she stayed there until just before
giving birth. The RPF was also a contradiction. The Sea Org and what
actually went on under Hubbard is full of contradictions. There was no
way Hubbard's orders could be opposed. If they were, the person would
have gotten offloaded from the Apollo. That was the choice we were
given. When I experienced enough of these contradictions, I realized
that Scientology, Hubbard and the Sea Org were not what I had been led
to think and I did not like what I saw and experienced, which was
nothing short of abuse and not at all something I wanted to be
associated with. That's why I left.
> this person that has performed such a task.http://tiny.cc/wise_old_goat,
> and more partuculary this studyhttp://tiny.cc/whereabouts_of_lrh
Roadrunner
wrote:
> The gist of what you're saying, if I am understanding you correctly is
> that you think that Hubbard's policies were being violated or applied
> inconsistently, including by Hubbard himself. There are indeed
> contradictions and yes, it does seem to be completely against what
> Hubbard wrote in Dianetics, that he would send a woman who was 5
> months pregnant to the RPF and she stayed there until just before
> giving birth. The RPF was also a contradiction. The Sea Org and what
> actually went on under Hubbard is full of contradictions. There was no
> way Hubbard's orders could be opposed. If they were, the person would
> have gotten offloaded from the Apollo. That was the choice we were
> given. When I experienced enough of these contradictions, I realized
> that Scientology, Hubbard and the Sea Org were not what I had been led
> to think and I did not like what I saw and experienced, which was
> nothing short of abuse and not at all something I wanted to be
> associated with. That's why I left.
You can not have a person going through this much effort to develop a
technique that addresses the ails of man rather effectively, and at
the other hand sends pregnant women to some RPF. As I said, there are
NO contradictions if matters are put in the proper perspective.
At this time YOU have to ask yourself if you have not been lead behind
the curtain by a fraud impersonating L. Ron Hubbard. Now, did this L.
Ron Hubbard that you met, did you see this person ever with any of his
children?
You see, my attention was caught to the subject itself and its values.
But you abandoned it all because of some people and what they did. If
the subject was interfered with, and if the organization was actually
infiltrated (learn from worldhistory), then it seems to me that you
swallowed the tale they told willingly. So why did you ever got
involved with the organization at all, why did it took you 6 years,
and why did you abandon the subject? Or are you telling me that you
went around blindfolded for 6 whole years??
Now, about established filters, you have been adhering to a particular
view on these matters for quite some time, would you be able to
considers alternates that would contradict your thus far accepted
reality on this subject?
RR
Roadrunner
This newsgroup is about Scientology is it not? You claimed Scientology
research, but you don't forward it.
>
> > >Monica DID earn hers through years of hard work.
>
> > And for that reason one becomes an authority? Is that a target of some
> > sort?
>
> It makes them very knowledgeable in the subject they have a PhD in,
> yes!
No, It only turns them molded in some form as per the wishes of some
supposedly learned group of people.
>
> > >You DID admit
> > > that you did not have a degree in Archaeology,
>
> > You have no clue what I have or do not have, I did not admit to
> > anything that you claim...
>
> You present yourself as an authority on the subject, yet cannot
> demonstrate a working knowledge of the basics... you are a fraud. Even
> if you are purposely not giving answers to even the most basic of
> questions in order to mess with me, all you are doing is making
> yourself look like more of a jackass.
Claims, claims and more claims...
>
>
>
> > >even though you
> > > presented yourself as an authority on the subject....
>
> > Ah, ah... see, that is the very last I am interested in to be regarded
> > as... and no, I have never presented myself as an authority, I have
> > only presented myself as a person that is rather familiar with the
> > subject and has personal experience and observations during a number
> > of years in the subject.
>
> You presented yourself as an authority on the subject by bashing
> myself and several others experience in the field... saying your years
> of experience amount to more knowledge than what we have... thus
> making you a more credible source. At least, in your own opinion.
>
>
>
> > >an authority who
> > > didn't know the basics when asked.
>
> > Ah... and what may they be???? Now, is this the same girl that
> > confused archaeology with paleontology, an unforgivable mistake... .-)
>
> That was Peter, not me.
And you copied, was that not so? You did the very same when you copied
from the YouTube guy, including copying his mistake... you really
think you have not been figured out yet, little girl??
>And by the way? The two fields are very much
> related.. they are not as different as an apple and a tire as you
> would so like to make them out to be. Were you not looking for any
> little thing to find fault over and were you actually versed in the
> two fields, you would know that.
Whahahaha... no... they in fact are very disrelated... jeez, what are
you ignorant... whahah...
Paleontology very briefly is the study of an organism through a period
of time. Archaelogy is about activities that have been left by this
organism. These are very different topics indeed...
>
>
>
> > > Your ad hom's won't change what you have posted in ars, buddy, nor
> > > will they change verified historical fact! You seem to resent Monica
> > > because she did things you never could.... go to school and succeed
> > > and met Hubbard. It's very pathetic!
>
> > I don't resent Monica, big, big mistake... and yes, your mistakes are
> > imortalized... .-)
>
> > RR
>
> My only mistake was ever thinking there was a brain in that hollow
> head of yours.
>
> Where is your personal research showing Lucy was a fake?
>
> Where is your personal research showing Jeremy Perkins had psych care
> prior to his mothers death?
>
> Still nothing? Pathetic.
Indeed, pathetic... .-)
RR
anthropomorphic personification
disciplines then I think you are very much mistaken.
How might it be possible to study a creature through time without
studying the traces left by the organism.
This is somewhat related to the disingenuous claim of creationists you
repeated elsewhere that there is no evidence for evolution, there is a
great deal of evidence of evolution, it's called the fossil record.
What there is less evidence for is the mechanism of evolution, though
various studies of fruit flies for instance have suggested that
punctuated equilibrium is the best predictive theory for the mechanism
so far advanced.
So to say that Paleontology and archeology are very different is like
saying tea and hot water are very different, it might be semantically
true but try having a cup of tea without either.
Kat
I did. You ignored it.
>
>
>
> > > >Monica DID earn hers through years of hard work.
>
> > > And for that reason one becomes an authority? Is that a target of some
> > > sort?
>
> > It makes them very knowledgeable in the subject they have a PhD in,
> > yes!
>
> No, It only turns them molded in some form as per the wishes of some
> supposedly learned group of people.
So if you had a medical emergency, you wouldn't see a doctor if it
meant saving your life? Do you honestly believe that you can teach
yourself everything that a university would possibly teach you at a
PhD level on a subject? If so, you are delusional.
>
>
>
> > > >You DID admit
> > > > that you did not have a degree in Archaeology,
>
> > > You have no clue what I have or do not have, I did not admit to
> > > anything that you claim...
>
> > You present yourself as an authority on the subject, yet cannot
> > demonstrate a working knowledge of the basics... you are a fraud. Even
> > if you are purposely not giving answers to even the most basic of
> > questions in order to mess with me, all you are doing is making
> > yourself look like more of a jackass.
>
> Claims, claims and more claims...
Verifiable claims, as it is all in your ars posting history.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >even though you
> > > > presented yourself as an authority on the subject....
>
> > > Ah, ah... see, that is the very last I am interested in to be regarded
> > > as... and no, I have never presented myself as an authority, I have
> > > only presented myself as a person that is rather familiar with the
> > > subject and has personal experience and observations during a number
> > > of years in the subject.
>
> > You presented yourself as an authority on the subject by bashing
> > myself and several others experience in the field... saying your years
> > of experience amount to more knowledge than what we have... thus
> > making you a more credible source. At least, in your own opinion.
>
> > > >an authority who
> > > > didn't know the basics when asked.
>
> > > Ah... and what may they be???? Now, is this the same girl that
> > > confused archaeology with paleontology, an unforgivable mistake... .-)
>
> > That was Peter, not me.
>
> And you copied, was that not so?
Nope. I did not.
> You did the very same when you copied
> from the YouTube guy, including copying his mistake... you really
> think you have not been figured out yet, little girl??
That would be your opinion, RR. One based on personal prejudices and
lack of actual knowledge about me.
>
> >And by the way? The two fields are very much
> > related.. they are not as different as an apple and a tire as you
> > would so like to make them out to be. Were you not looking for any
> > little thing to find fault over and were you actually versed in the
> > two fields, you would know that.
>
> Whahahaha... no... they in fact are very disrelated... jeez, what are
> you ignorant... whahah...
>
*facepalm* Really? The study of humans in years past and their
artifacts has nothing to do with the study of how humans evolved as
organisms? Someone call narcanon, RR is doing crack!
> Paleontology very briefly is the study of an organism through a period
> of time. Archaelogy is about activities that have been left by this
> organism. These are very different topics indeed...
You really think that Paleontology with regards to humans and
archaeology, which studies humans and their remains, have no
connection? That they never overlap? Wow... just.. wow. *facepalm*
You... are a special kind of retarded.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Your ad hom's won't change what you have posted in ars, buddy, nor
> > > > will they change verified historical fact! You seem to resent Monica
> > > > because she did things you never could.... go to school and succeed
> > > > and met Hubbard. It's very pathetic!
>
> > > I don't resent Monica, big, big mistake... and yes, your mistakes are
> > > imortalized... .-)
>
> > > RR
>
> > My only mistake was ever thinking there was a brain in that hollow
> > head of yours.
>
> > Where is your personal research showing Lucy was a fake?
>
> > Where is your personal research showing Jeremy Perkins had psych care
> > prior to his mothers death?
>
> > Still nothing? Pathetic.
>
> Indeed, pathetic... .-)
>
> RR
How nice of you to admit that you are indeed, pathetic. Duly Noted.
anthropomorphic personification
It's always nice when someone keen to unjustly criticise others for
clumsyness, trips over their own feet.
Kat
And highly entertaining! *passes the popcorn*
anthropomorphic personification
Thanks
Munch.
Monica Pignotti
Apollo? Yes, many times and also with his wife, Mary Sue. They all saw
him on a regular basis and I had no indication any ever thought he was
an impostor. And no, I didn't "swallow" anything while I was there.
That was why I got into trouble so often was because I did challenge
what was going on. The reason, though, isn't because LRH was replaced
by an impostor. The reason was because LRH often contradicted himself.
As for why it took me 6 years to leave, I believe I explained that in
the write-up I did of my experience.
I'm always willing to consider alternatives if the alternatives have
some kind of evidence to support them. With regard to LRH being
replaced by an impostor in 1973, however, there is too much evidence
against that. The other thing is that LRH's abuses didn't begin in
1973. The late 60s aboard the Apollo was a very abusive time with
people getting thrown overboard and all kinds of heavy ethics. His
behavior with the RPF was entirely consistent with that and all of
that contradicted some of his writings that people read when they
first get in, that he was against punishment.
I'm curious, though. What is it about the subject of Scientology that
you find positive that is unique to Scientology?
> > On May 27, 3:45 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 26 Maj, 23:44, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 26, 5:01 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 26 Maj, 19:51, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 26, 1:08 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 24 Maj, 17:52, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 24, 11:17 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > [lies snipped]
>
> > > > > > > >http://monicapignotti.wordpress.com
>
> > > > > > > >http://site.monicapignotti.com
>
> > > > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A
> > > > > > > Ph.D.
>
> > > > > > No, I am using a title I worked very hard to earn. I'm not "demanding"
> > > > > > or expecting anything of anyone, only accurately stating my
> > > > > > credentials.
>
> > > > > I don't get that impression from these pages of yours that you link
> > > > > to.
>
> > > > The pages I link to is my response to an all out internet smear
> > > > campaign where all kinds of lies have been posted about me.
>
> > > Yes, I have become aware of that. But what caused all that? Consider
> > > also that the person L. Ron hubbard may have been seriously smeared
> > > for various reasons during a number of years.
>
> > > > > > >only indicates that you did things in such a way as was
> > > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago.
>
> > > > > > To be precise, in 2009.
>
> > > > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected
> > > > > > > to hear!
>
> > > > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the
> > > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper
> > > > > > > backup.
>
> > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "proper backup" but to me, that would
> > > > > > mean actual research evidence, properly designed that tested the claim
> > > > > > through randomized clinical trials.
>
> > > > > And that is exactly what I do not mean at all. Even clinical trials as
> > > > > such are subjective. It is pending what tests it is run through.
>
> > > > That's why I said the methodology had to be sound. Well-designed,
> > > > randomized clinical trials. Nothing is 100% perfect but when they are
> > > > replicated, they control for a number of human biases that cannot be
> > > > controlled for by anecdotes and success stories.
>
> > > One can not guarantee that it will follow your above guidelines. In
> > > addition you have the very fallible human factor in selecting your
> > > tests.
>
> > > > >But
> > > > > if you, by proper application of some processes, actually can repeat a
> > > > > desired result, THEN this has turned into something one can work with.
> > > > > The more interesting it becomes if futher persons can also replicate
> > > > > that.
>
> > > > > > >Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what
> > > > > > > some people did.
>
> > > > > > No, my experiences are based on my experiences and those "some people"
> > > > > > included LRH.
>
> > > > > As I said before, I don't think you have met him. Sure, you met a
> > > > > person, but it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard. You have to examine the statures
> > > > > of the technology and the person from prior to and after early 1973.
> > > > > Science and research is not about to only regard matters from an
> > > > > isolated time frame, and all you got is 1973-76.
>
> > > > All I know is that when I came aboard the Apollo in 1973, most of the
> > > > people at the time had been there for years prior to that and they saw
> > > > LRH before and after his disappearance in 1972 and reappearance in
> > > > 1973 including his own family. No one I know had any question about it
> > > > being the same person.
>
> > > If you have jumped on a merry-go-round then how observative are you
> > > still when you are in the middle of it? I can tell you, most persons
> > > not very much at all. You should be aware of this datum.
>
> > > > > > >I question how much you actually ever have understood
> > > > > > > about the subject itself?
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Andrew Robertson
"Roadrunner" <roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote
<snip>
> I follow however what I see in front of me. No one tells me anything
There are fairies at the bottom of our garden!
It's not so very, very far away;
You pass the gardener's shed
and you just keep straight ahead
I do so hope they've come to stay.
There's a little wood with moss in it and beetles,
And a little stream that quietly runs through;
You wouldn't think they'd dare
to come merrymaking there,
Well, they do!
There are fairies at the bottom of our garden!
They often have a dance on summer nights;
The butterflies and bees
Make a lovely little breeze,
And the rabbits stand about and hold the lights.
Did you know that they could sit upon the moonbeams
And pick a little star to make a fan,
And dance away up there
In the middle of the air
Well, they can!
There are fairies at the bottom of our garden!
You cannot think how beautiful they are;
They all stand up and sing
When the fairy queen and king
Come gently floating down upon their car.
The king is very proud and handsome;
The queen, now can you guess who that would be?
She's a little girl all day
But at night she steals away.
Well, it's me!
[Rose Fyleman, 1877-1957]
Andrew
> RR
Roadrunner
wrote:
> You're asking me if I ever saw LRH with any of his children on the
> Apollo? Yes, many times and also with his wife, Mary Sue. They all saw
> him on a regular basis and I had no indication any ever thought he was
> an impostor.
I have difficulties to get that confirmed. But I will ask some people
that I know that were there before and after December 1972.
>And no, I didn't "swallow" anything while I was there.
You swallowed the philosophy. Today you find that Dianetics has little
value, or do you not...
> That was why I got into trouble so often was because I did challenge
> what was going on. The reason, though, isn't because LRH was replaced
> by an impostor. The reason was because LRH often contradicted himself.
See, that is my point. If a person contradicts it will catch my
attention immediately. I then would clarify them there and then. Do
you recall the extent of 'ethics presence'?
> As for why it took me 6 years to leave, I believe I explained that in
> the write-up I did of my experience.
I read that in the early 90's. Fine, I will go over that again. But
feel free to elaborate here on the exact reason. As it is not clear to
me.
>
> I'm always willing to consider alternatives if the alternatives have
> some kind of evidence to support them. With regard to LRH being
> replaced by an impostor in 1973, however, there is too much evidence
> against that.
You haven't even looked at that data found at the link I provided, did
you?
>The other thing is that LRH's abuses didn't begin in
> 1973. The late 60s aboard the Apollo was a very abusive time with
> people getting thrown overboard and all kinds of heavy ethics. His
> behavior with the RPF was entirely consistent with that and all of
> that contradicted some of his writings that people read when they
> first get in, that he was against punishment.
You were on a ship. The life on a ship is tough, it needs to be.
Injustices however is an entirely different issue. You should clarify
the 'overboardings' themselves. You should not only listen to
'complainers' that may have justifiers. I pointed this out to you
earlier. science is NOT about SELECTION...
You see, it clashes if you have a person describing human behaviour
that well, and being at the other hand sort of ruthless and
inconsiderate.
>
> I'm curious, though. What is it about the subject of Scientology that
> you find positive that is unique to Scientology?
Because it is one of the very few effective approaches to actually
rehabilitate the individual, instead of just altering the outward
behaviour of a person. The latter is exemplary for for example
psychology, psychotherapy and sorts.
The principle of Dianetics is a simple reality, and it does work. It
has a detailedly working definition of that thing that is
circumscribed as the 'reactive mind'. The 'unconscious' as other
treatments address it is in fact obscure. But I would assume that you
found out after 6 years that Dianetics principles was nothing to have
either way.
I have seen the differences in persons before and after far too many
times. I am not impressed however by persons doing the 1978 Bridge.
The subject has been interferred with.
RR
> ...
>
> läs mer »
Monica Pignotti
> On 28 Maj, 05:07, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You're asking me if I ever saw LRH with any of his children on the
> > Apollo? Yes, many times and also with his wife, Mary Sue. They all saw
> > him on a regular basis and I had no indication any ever thought he was
> > an impostor.
>
> I have difficulties to get that confirmed. But I will ask some people
> that I know that were there before and after December 1972.
>
> >And no, I didn't "swallow" anything while I was there.
>
> You swallowed the philosophy. Today you find that Dianetics has little
> value, or do you not...
In terms of anything unique to Dianetics, no, I don't think it has
value as mental health treatment. There is a version of Dianetics that
has gotten into the mental health profession through Sarge Gerbode, a
psychiatrist who was a Class IX and left Scientology in the early 80s.
It's called Traumatic Incident Reduction or TIR and its scripted
procedure is very similar to the commands of R3R. DIanetics is
basically exposure therapy, meaning therapy that exposes and
desensitizes past traumas or various fears and phobias a person may
have. Exposure therapy has been shown through good studies to work.
However, there is nothing to indicate that there is anything unique to
Dianetics beyond exposure that causes it to work and a person can get
exposure therapy for trauma, phobias or whatever much more cheaply and
without the past life and prenatal stuff. So what I could say about it
is basically what one psychologist said about a novel therapy, EMDR:
"What is effective in E.M.D.R. is not new, and what is new is not
effective," Substitute Dianetics for EMDR and that's what I would
say: What is effective about Dianetics (and Scientology) is not new,
and what is new is not effective and I would add that what is new and
unique about it, for some such as Lisa McPherson and a number of
others, has been harmful.
> > That was why I got into trouble so often was because I did challenge
> > what was going on. The reason, though, isn't because LRH was replaced
> > by an impostor. The reason was because LRH often contradicted himself.
>
> See, that is my point. If a person contradicts it will catch my
> attention immediately. I then would clarify them there and then. Do
> you recall the extent of 'ethics presence'?
Anyone who tried to do that got into immediate trouble. The only one I
know of who ever defied an LRH order was David Mayo who I heard from
his ex-wife, refused to go to the RPF. He got away with it that time
but ultimately he did not last.
> > As for why it took me 6 years to leave, I believe I explained that in
> > the write-up I did of my experience.
>
> I read that in the early 90's. Fine, I will go over that again. But
> feel free to elaborate here on the exact reason. As it is not clear to
> me.
Being under undue social influence. At the time I called in "mind
control" but in the 20 years since I wrote it and having studied more
about social influence, I see it more as an extreme degree of social
influence, since the term "mind control" has since taken on
connotations that I don't think are helpful.
>
> > I'm always willing to consider alternatives if the alternatives have
> > some kind of evidence to support them. With regard to LRH being
> > replaced by an impostor in 1973, however, there is too much evidence
> > against that.
>
> You haven't even looked at that data found at the link I provided, did
> you?
What link?
> >The other thing is that LRH's abuses didn't begin in
> > 1973. The late 60s aboard the Apollo was a very abusive time with
> > people getting thrown overboard and all kinds of heavy ethics. His
> > behavior with the RPF was entirely consistent with that and all of
> > that contradicted some of his writings that people read when they
> > first get in, that he was against punishment.
>
> You were on a ship. The life on a ship is tough, it needs to be.
> Injustices however is an entirely different issue. You should clarify
> the 'overboardings' themselves. You should not only listen to
> 'complainers' that may have justifiers. I pointed this out to you
> earlier. science is NOT about SELECTION...
Life on a ship should not include being thrown overboard. People who
experienced that had good reason to complain. There is no way to
justify that.
> You see, it clashes if you have a person describing human behaviour
> that well, and being at the other hand sort of ruthless and
> inconsiderate.
I don't elevate him in that way, but even if I were to assume for the
sake of a hypothetical discussion that a particular person was a
genius and had unique and highly accurate insights into human
behavior, that doesn't mean that the person could not have behaved
very badly.
>
>
> > I'm curious, though. What is it about the subject of Scientology that
> > you find positive that is unique to Scientology?
>
> Because it is one of the very few effective approaches to actually
> rehabilitate the individual, instead of just altering the outward
> behaviour of a person. The latter is exemplary for for example
> psychology, psychotherapy and sorts.
Where is the evidence that it does that? Rehabilitate in what way?
> The principle of Dianetics is a simple reality, and it does work. It
> has a detailedly working definition of that thing that is
> circumscribed as the 'reactive mind'. The 'unconscious' as other
> treatments address it is in fact obscure. But I would assume that you
> found out after 6 years that Dianetics principles was nothing to have
> either way.
Again, I have to say that I don't see anything unique about his
theories and actually, his notion of a reactive mind that records
everything that happens as a video recording and can be accurate
retrieved has been disproven by the memory research of the last few
decades. The mind does not operate in that way and memories are not
stored that way.
>
> I have seen the differences in persons before and after far too many
> times. I am not impressed however by persons doing the 1978 Bridge.
> The subject has been interferred with.
Again, those are anecdotes. There are literally thousands of different
therapies being advertised on the internet that have the same kinds of
testimonials, but it's not enough.
Roadrunner
throwing back and denial. If one of you is caught with a grammar or
word misunderstanding, one just says that the dictionary is at fault
because of general opinion. If I expose that one of you clearly mix up
paleontology and archaeology working definitions, then too you just
throw out all sorts of justifications that would make it appear that I
was incorrect either way. And so on, and so on...
The anthropo... bot talks about fruitflies. He should understand what
actually was done to these fruitflies. And at the end, where they
still flies? Well, some flies lost their wings, but yes, they were
still flies. The cycle of life for the fruitfly is some 24 hours.
meaning that this would resemble 20 years in a human life. Now today,
has that fruitfly turned into something else? The last I heared was
that they are still flies. So much for evolutionary theory... Since
the publication of the book by Darwin some 150 years have past, some
things must have been observed and documented regarding evolution
(=macro-evolution) since then. Well, it has not been accomplished.
This in the end will be the downfall of evolutionism. They have now
also the factor of time working against them... .-)
And no the fossil record is by no means evidence for evolution. In
fact it acts against it. I should know, I dug up lots and lots of
bones. .-)
RR
Andrew Robertson
"Roadrunner" <roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote
> It has a detailedly working definition
Just a note on the English language, Roadrunner. If a word sounds awkward,
clumsy and archaic don't use it, even if it is in a dictionary.
This rule applies to all words, not just adverbs and adjectives.
Understanding the generally accepted definition of a word is obviously
important, but rather more important is the context in which it is used and
the cultural idiom pertaining.
As John Donne might have put it:
No Worde is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every Worde
is a peece of the sentence, a part of the maine;
if a Worde bee washed away by the Sea, Usenete
is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as
well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine
owne were; any misunderstood word diminishes me,
because I am involved in Usenete;
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
Though I doubt that Donne would have been very impressed with either 'study
tech' or 'word clearing', the central core of which is that if you don't
agree with something L Ron Hubbard wrote then it's because you've
misunderstood a word and it's your fault as 'Source' is infallible. (Though
using a dictionary to look up a word you don't know the meaning of is a
concept that predates Dianetics and Scientology by many years, the first
dictionary known being created around 2,300 BC.)
Andrew
"The creation of Dianetics is a milestone for Man comparable to his
discovery of fire and superior to his inventions of the wheel and arch."
- L. Ron Hubbard, 'Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, 1950'.
> RR
Roadrunner
wrote:
You offer a very odd association here. What in heaven's got name Lisa
McPherson to do with this? Are you claiming Dianetic principles made
her walk naked on the streets??
I would say that the uniqueness found in Dianetic therapy is the
exertion of proper communication formulas, in particular where the
auditor can actually get the person back on the thread of incidents as
to unburden the charge contained on them. No one ever said that
various principles were new, in fact they are not, and nothing to the
contrary has been claimed. What IS new however was the combination of
various principles coupled to application. It is only that which
constitutes the difference.
And no "the past life and prenatal stuff" does not bear much relevans.
All that is relevant is that the person answers to the questions of
the auditor, whatever this may be, and whatever may turn up, it is
dealt with, charge taken of, and go on to the next.
Do you know what is so terribly wrong with psychology and psycho-
therapy and all that? The person can sneak out, because all what is
done is discussing with the person.
>
> > > That was why I got into trouble so often was because I did challenge
> > > what was going on. The reason, though, isn't because LRH was replaced
> > > by an impostor. The reason was because LRH often contradicted himself.
>
> > See, that is my point. If a person contradicts it will catch my
> > attention immediately. I then would clarify them there and then. Do
> > you recall the extent of 'ethics presence'?
>
> Anyone who tried to do that got into immediate trouble. The only one I
> know of who ever defied an LRH order was David Mayo who I heard from
> his ex-wife, refused to go to the RPF. He got away with it that time
> but ultimately he did not last.
Interesting, as it appears that David Mayo was part of the plot to the
take-over. He turned Flag C/S in September 1973 (when your L. Ron
Hubbard returned), coincidence? He was also overall and directly
responsible of turning around the Bridge during 1978-82. David was a
foundingmember of the RTC, nonetheless he was taken off post by the
first Condition order issued by this RTC. A rather strange happening
of affairs all that.
Well, pity that I was not on the ship with your L. Ron Hubbard, 'cause
if he would pull some tricks onto me, then I would have overboarded
him and not the other way around. And no, I am really not an easy
person to deal with when it comes to that.
>
> > > As for why it took me 6 years to leave, I believe I explained that in
> > > the write-up I did of my experience.
>
> > I read that in the early 90's. Fine, I will go over that again. But
> > feel free to elaborate here on the exact reason. As it is not clear to
> > me.
>
> Being under undue social influence. At the time I called in "mind
> control" but in the 20 years since I wrote it and having studied more
> about social influence, I see it more as an extreme degree of social
> influence, since the term "mind control" has since taken on
> connotations that I don't think are helpful.
Then why did I never submit to that?
>
> > > I'm always willing to consider alternatives if the alternatives have
> > > some kind of evidence to support them. With regard to LRH being
> > > replaced by an impostor in 1973, however, there is too much evidence
> > > against that.
>
> > You haven't even looked at that data found at the link I provided, did
> > you?
>
> What link?
Well, seems you missed all this then:
[start quote]
> Have you written this up anywhere? How did you go about doing that?
There are 3 aspect involved with understanding the subject: (1)
getting auditing and move on that Bridge or being subjected to
standard processing, (2) have a solid understanding of the subject and
the chronological development of this technology, and (3) have a clear
concept about how people have dealt with it during the years. The
latter you get from the magazines like 'Abilty' and 'The Auditor',
they tell much about how people behaved and what they were supposed to
'swallow'.
So, you need to collect old materials, and then go through it, you
have to document the development. As the value of the subject is the
technology and its workability you then have to watch for basics not
getting violated. If sec checking for HCO purposes and sorts were
abolished you are NOT having them shortly after reinstated! And so on,
and so on... it will take some time to perform such a task. There is
this person that has performed such a task. http://tiny.cc/wise_old_goat,
and more partuculary this study http://tiny.cc/whereabouts_of_lrh
[end quote]
>
> > >The other thing is that LRH's abuses didn't begin in
> > > 1973. The late 60s aboard the Apollo was a very abusive time with
> > > people getting thrown overboard and all kinds of heavy ethics. His
> > > behavior with the RPF was entirely consistent with that and all of
> > > that contradicted some of his writings that people read when they
> > > first get in, that he was against punishment.
>
> > You were on a ship. The life on a ship is tough, it needs to be.
> > Injustices however is an entirely different issue. You should clarify
> > the 'overboardings' themselves. You should not only listen to
> > 'complainers' that may have justifiers. I pointed this out to you
> > earlier. science is NOT about SELECTION...
>
> Life on a ship should not include being thrown overboard. People who
> experienced that had good reason to complain. There is no way to
> justify that.
You assume too much, I spoke about this in detail with various Scn old-
timers.
>
> > You see, it clashes if you have a person describing human behaviour
> > that well, and being at the other hand sort of ruthless and
> > inconsiderate.
>
> I don't elevate him in that way, but even if I were to assume for the
> sake of a hypothetical discussion that a particular person was a
> genius and had unique and highly accurate insights into human
> behavior, that doesn't mean that the person could not have behaved
> very badly.
I beg to differ.
>
> > > I'm curious, though. What is it about the subject of Scientology that
> > > you find positive that is unique to Scientology?
>
> > Because it is one of the very few effective approaches to actually
> > rehabilitate the individual, instead of just altering the outward
> > behaviour of a person. The latter is exemplary for for example
> > psychology, psychotherapy and sorts.
>
> Where is the evidence that it does that? Rehabilitate in what way?
You never saw this and still stayed on for a period of 6 years??
If there was no such thing I would have left very quickly indeed.
>
> > The principle of Dianetics is a simple reality, and it does work. It
> > has a detailedly working definition of that thing that is
> > circumscribed as the 'reactive mind'. The 'unconscious' as other
> > treatments address it is in fact obscure. But I would assume that you
> > found out after 6 years that Dianetics principles was nothing to have
> > either way.
>
> Again, I have to say that I don't see anything unique about his
> theories and actually, his notion of a reactive mind that records
> everything that happens as a video recording and can be accurate
> retrieved has been disproven by the memory research of the last few
> decades. The mind does not operate in that way and memories are not
> stored that way.
Then they went about it in an incorrect manner.
>
> > I have seen the differences in persons before and after far too many
> > times. I am not impressed however by persons doing the 1978 Bridge.
> > The subject has been interferred with.
>
> Again, those are anecdotes. There are literally thousands of different
> therapies being advertised on the internet that have the same kinds of
> testimonials, but it's not enough.
I did not say a word about testimonials, now did I!!
RR
Andrew Robertson
"Roadrunner" <roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote
> Well, some flies lost their wings, but yes, they were still flies.
Don't be silly. How can the be flies if they don't have any wings?
Andrew
> RR
Roadrunner
> "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > It has a detailedly working definition
>
> Just a note on the English language, Roadrunner. If a word sounds awkward,
> clumsy and archaic don't use it, even if it is in a dictionary.
Say that to all those that have developed the language as we know it
today.
RR
John Dorsay
> On 28 Maj, 17:28, "Andrew Robertson"<adrobert...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> "Roadrunner"<roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> > It has a detailedly working definition
>>
>> Just a note on the English language, Roadrunner. If a word sounds awkward,
>> clumsy and archaic don't use it, even if it is in a dictionary.
>
> Say that to all those that have developed the language as we know it
> today.
English usage evolves by consensus, not by edict. There is consensus
that your English usage is deficient, therefore your English usage
*is* deficient. Your efforts to postulate otherwise cannot succeed.
But do keep trying. Your laughable efforts to effect change with
your laughable tech are, well, laughable.
John
Alert
> "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote
> > Well, some flies lost their wings, but yes, they were still flies.
> Don't be silly. How can the be flies if they don't have any wings?
That's correct My Robertson. Should a "flie" have no wings, it then
becomes a 'walk'.
Geddit, a walk?
Beep Beep!
> Andrew
>
>
>
> > RR
Andrew Robertson
"Alert" <flickin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:084005f8-3c6d-482d...@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
'Do birds fly?'
'Do fish swim?'
- Ancient Scientology ritual (TR-3, Duplicative Question)
Andrew
anthropomorphic personification
Just so we can be clear lets put back in what I wrote.
On May 28, 2:52 am, anthropomorphic personification
<death.ultimate.real...@gmail.com> wrote:
"IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THEY ARE UNRELATED
DISCIPLINES THEN I THINK YOU ARE VERY MUCH MISTAKEN.
HOW MIGHT IT BE POSSIBLE TO STUDY A CREATURE THROUGH TIME WITHOUT
STUDYING THE TRACES LEFT BY THE ORGANISM.
THIS IS SOMEWHAT RELATED TO THE DISINGENUOUS CLAIM OF CREATIONISTS YOU
REPEATED ELSEWHERE THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION, THERE IS A
GREAT DEAL OF EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION, IT'S CALLED THE FOSSIL RECORD.
WHAT THERE IS LESS EVIDENCE FOR IS THE MECHANISM OF EVOLUTION, THOUGH
VARIOUS STUDIES OF FRUIT FLIES FOR INSTANCE HAVE SUGGESTED THAT
PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM IS THE BEST PREDICTIVE THEORY FOR THE MECHANISM
SO FAR ADVANCED.
SO TO SAY THAT PALEONTOLOGY AND ARCHEOLOGY ARE VERY DIFFERENT IS LIKE
SAYING TEA AND HOT WATER ARE VERY DIFFERENT, IT MIGHT BE SEMANTICALLY
TRUE BUT TRY HAVING A CUP OF TEA WITHOUT EITHER."
Firstly Roadrunner begins his criticism with an odd assertion, though
he uses different wording, he essentially argues that because argument
and reason is offered to deconstruct the assuptions made by him and
the particular position he adopts that this is in some way wrong. It
is as if he believes it is the fault of others that his arguments do
not stand up to scrutiny. I find this a very strange position.
What was done to the fruit flies was that they were observered over
numerous generations, spontaneous mutations were observed to occur,
where these mutations were adaptive to the current environment they
persisteed, where they were not they failed to persist. Since this is
exactly what the theory of evolution suggests then it is viable to
argue that the theory is predictive, one of the major tests of any
scientific theory, Is it confirmed by observation? Hence the
experiments concerned demonstrate some support for the proposal that
the mechanism of evolution is punctuated equilibrium: mutations occur
spontaneously and if the mutation is more adaptive to the extant
environment then they persist at the expense of the original. This
support is by no means conclusive but it is highly indicative.
The question of whether the mutations surviving in the conditions
favourable to them are still flies, is not directly a biological or
even evolutionary question, it is actually a taxanomical one, this is
made more complex by the need to consider that even with the short
life span of fruit flies, evolutionary processess take place over
thousand, tens of thousands, and ultimately tens of millions of years.
Despite punctuated eqilibrium producing mutations which are either
adaptive or non-adaptive in relatively short periods of time.
Mutations sufficient to change the taxanomical classification of an
organism as a 'fly' or 'not fly' are likely to be cumulative mutations
over at the very least thousands of years. However the Fruit Flies in
question clearly evolved into a different kind of fly. Roadrunner
plays semantics here, 'they are still flies' he cries, prehaps, but
they are a different kind of fly. They no longer fit the taxanomical
classification of 'fruit fly' because they do not have the observable
characteristics of a fruit fly, including differences in DNA.
As far as the fossil record is concerned, there is nothing whatsoever
that has been found that contradicts the theory of evolution, and an
enormous amount that has been found that demonstrates that evolution
has occured, the process has been taking place for hundreds of
millions of years. The horse is usually identified as a good example
as there is a clear track between Hyracotherium also known as Eohippus
or The Dawn Horse, and modern day horses. In terms of man, to think in
terms of finding a 'missing link' is completely wrong, there is an
identifyable chain, from Ramapithecus, through to modern man over a
period of aproximately 16 million years.
This begins with Griphopithecus, aproximately 10 million years ago,
after which Orangutangs break away from the hominid evolutionary
chain. Next are Nakalipithecus and Ouranopithecus, following which
Gorillas and Chimpanzees break away into a seperate evolutionary
chain.
The chain then comprises.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis,
Orrorin tugenensis,
Ardipithecus,
Ardipithecus kadabba,
Ardipithecus ramidus,
Australopithecus,
Australopithecus anamensis,
Australopithecus afarensis,
Australopithecus africanus,
Australopithecus bahrelghazali,
Australopithecus garhi,
Australopithecus sediba,
Kenyanthropus,
Kenyanthropus platyops,
Paranthropus,
Homo habilis,
Homo rudolfensis,
Homo ergaster,
Homo georgicus,
Homo antecessor,
Homo cepranensis,
Homo erectus,
Homo heidelbergensis,
Homo rhodesiensis,
Homo neanderthalensis,
Homo sapiens idaltu,
Archaic Homo sapiens,
Homo floresiensis.,
Homo sapiens neanderthalis
Homo sapiens sapiens. (Modern Man)
Further to this the close genetic relationships between the great apes
provides supporting evidence, human DNA is approximately 98.4%
identical to that of chimpanzees, and just a little less similarity
between human and gorilla, Genetics therefore provides further
confirmation for the archeological and Paleontological evidence which
supports the idea that evolution has taken place.
The imediate cry from an creationist would probably be that there is a
30% genetic similarity between a daffodil and a human being, which is
true. however there is a greater similarity between animals, mammals
are more closely related to each other, an increased similarity exists
between primates, and increased similarity between the great apes
(including humans). Which is imensely supportive of evolution.
Roadrunner plays at sophistry, trying to tell us that all that exists
is an illusion in our own mind. Philosophically difficult to disprove
or to prove for that matter, but not at all useful, and if I were a
delusional god who had created an illusion for my own amusement, I am
dead certain wouldn't have invented Fascists, nettles or strawberries.
anthropomorphic personification
> "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Well, some flies lost their wings, but yes, they were still flies.
>
> Don't be silly. How can the be flies if they don't have any wings?
>
> Andrew
>
>
> > RR
anthropomorphic personification
> On 28 Maj, 17:28, "Andrew Robertson" <adrobert...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > > It has a detailedly working definition
>
> > Just a note on the English language, Roadrunner. If a word sounds awkward,
> > clumsy and archaic don't use it, even if it is in a dictionary.
>
> Say that to all those that have developed the language as we know it
> today.
>
> RR
Well it is the main reason that the K in Knight has become silent, in
the 17 century it was considered poor english to drop your K's. But
saying the word 'K-night' or 'K-nee'was clumsy and awkward so
eventually it was dropped. Any which way your usage of 'detailly' is
still fundamentally incorrect however you frame it.
anthropomorphic personification
wasn't plagerising your idea.
It must have been paralell evolution of thought.
>
> > Andrew
>
> > > RR
John Ritson
Hash: SHA1
In message
<0df7c23b-3a47-4800...@q32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Roadrunner <roadrunn...@gmail.com> writes
There are NO contradictions if you admit that L. Ron Hubbard did not
develop a technique that addressed the ails(?) of man.
Otherwise you have to enter this fantasy of a Hubbard-doppelganger who
can only be told from the true Hubbard if seen together with Hubbard's
children. But couldn't the children be doppelgangers too? How do you
tell which of Hubbard's writings were produced by the evil twin? Of
course - you are the only person who can tell genuine Hubbard-dreck
from false Hubbard-dreck
Enjoy yourself down the rabbit hole.
- --
John Ritson *** "Now, you can run it this way: "All right, now mock up a
machine for yourself which cuts down your vision. All
right. Now duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it,
duplicate it, duplicate it." The guy still looks like he's
under strain, see. "Duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate
it. Oh, duplicate it some more. All right, now make the
last one disappear. Yeah. Make the next to the last one
disappear. All right, now duplicate it five more times. Now
make the last one of those disappear. Okay, now let's make
them one by one disappear. Done? Fine." Until we get the
original disappearing. Now he's happy." - L. Ron Hubbard - 'Exteriorization and
the Phenomona of Space' ***
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
iQA/AwUBTeFD3VCD9Dt1KmxLEQIWjwCfW3wQTNZuJ+WlY0e28r5Qs2QOq5oAmgNW
cuVb5I5YuobKjn3+YFG/SHUW
=TrIG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kat
> I consider that the both of you are bots. It is just a persistent
> throwing back and denial. If one of you is caught with a grammar or
> word misunderstanding, one just says that the dictionary is at fault
> because of general opinion. If I expose that one of you clearly mix up
> paleontology and archaeology working definitions, then too you just
> throw out all sorts of justifications that would make it appear that I
> was incorrect either way. And so on, and so on...
Again, that was Peter. Silly RR, always ignoring fact in favor of what
you want to believe! The two are related disciplines with regards to
the study of humans... they overlap in this gray, murky area. Just
like paleoanthropologists overlap both subjects, the historical
sciences tend to blend together.
>
> The anthropo... bot talks about fruitflies. He should understand what
> actually was done to these fruitflies. And at the end, where they
> still flies? Well, some flies lost their wings, but yes, they were
> still flies. The cycle of life for the fruitfly is some 24 hours.
> meaning that this would resemble 20 years in a human life. Now today,
> has that fruitfly turned into something else? The last I heared was
> that they are still flies. So much for evolutionary theory...
You clearly do not understand how this works. A fruit fly doesn't
evolve overnight into a cow. Changes can occur over the course of
several generations but we don't change THAT much in short periods of
time. How do you explain the emergence of a new blood type in Africa
over the course of a handful of generations? A blood type that is
almost entirely resistant to AIDS? How do you explain why humans got
paler as they left Africa and headed north?
> Since
> the publication of the book by Darwin some 150 years have past, some
> things must have been observed and documented regarding evolution
> (=macro-evolution) since then. Well, it has not been accomplished.
> This in the end will be the downfall of evolutionism. They have now
> also the factor of time working against them... .-)
Some things noted in that book have fallen to the wayside, but a
little thing called GENETICS is explaining much more than Darwin ever
could. Mitochondrial Eve and Out of Africa... leading to interbreeding
between our genus and neanderthals as we left Africa (the neanderthal
genome project), our genetic divergence from apes,... it's all out
there.
>
> And no the fossil record is by no means evidence for evolution. In
> fact it acts against it.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA Uh... no. The fossil record supports it.
Archaic homo sapiens and modern humans... genetic links, tool users,
language users, social creatures of similar brain size. The "Lucy",
Skhul and Qafzeh finds demonstrate the transitional stages between
archaic homo sapiens and modern humans. By the way, you have yet to
display any solid evidence to your claim that Lucy is a fake :P
I should know, I dug up lots and lots of
> bones. .-)
>
> RR
Chicken bones in your back yard don't count, fruitcake.
Sandau Chiropractic Services
and Thought Field Therapy.
Her cultist mindset was her nemesis when she tried to enter academia.
At Florida State University, she made a voyeuristic proposition to two
faculty members, Tomy and Fran Gomory.
At FSU, she accused faculty member, Margaret Ashmore, of performing
oral sex on a male student in public.
At FSU, students complained about her bizarre behaviour in class,
including discussion of time travel and her adoration for the
theoretical work of Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard.
FSU fired her but granted her degree to avoid a messy lawsuit.
Since 2009, Monica Pignotti has sought a position in academia. No one
has shown any interest in her.
No one wants an adulterous cultist drama queen who spends hours a day
promoting herself and her bizarre beliefs on the Internet.
For finances, Monica Pignotti has taken to producing custom
pornography. She is recognised in the niche of incest pornography,
using Larry Sarner and his *adult* stepdaughter, Linda Rosa, as
subject material.
Pignotti is also affiliated with terrorist sympathiser, Daniel Ibn
Zayd. They, along with Canadian homeschooling advocate Jessica Pegis,
terrorised a group planning an adoption cruise. There is speculation
the publishers of Pegis' homeschooling materials financed the
operation.
Kat
<death.ultimate.real...@gmail.com> wrote:
For your lulzing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0gAcbAGPH4
"Whenever someone says they believe the earth was created in 7 days, I
grab a fossil and say, "Fossil." And if they keep talking, I throw it
just over their heads. "
anthropomorphic personification
<smilax_san...@yahoo.com>
Thought I'd cut out the hogwash,
A series of statements that would need some evidence in order to be
entertained for a microsecond, after which they would be dismissed as
absurd.
Get real
Get a life.
Monica Pignotti
<smilax_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[lies snipped[
I was not fired from FSU, left and fully repudiated Scientology in
1976 and did none of those things. Why the defamatory smear campaign?
Here's what's really going on. Mainstream academics support me and
condemn the anonymous posters' smear campaign against me.
http://site.monicapignotti.com
http://monicapignotti.wordpress.com
http://phtherapies.wordpress.com
Here are some questions I have that Ronald Federici and Heather Forbes
have yet to answer:
anthropomorphic personification
Thankyou.
Just in passing there I noticed some associated creationist video's
presumably returned by the search term, I just thought it was
interesting how many of them had voting disabled, well I say many, all
that I peeked at.
Roadrunner
> "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Well, some flies lost their wings, but yes, they were still flies.
>
> Don't be silly. How can the be flies if they don't have any wings?
>
> Andrew
>
> > RR
Whahaha... if I throw a lot of radiation and sorts at you, and then
your offspring is born without arms and legs. Then are you suddenly
not anymore a creature that walks on two feet? Or human? Or a mammal?
Something like that actually happened with people during the 50's,
60's something. Guess they were not human either anymore then.
Don't involve yourself with the subject if you don't know what you
talk about.
RR
Roadrunner
Firstly it was not spontaneously. It was let's say provoked. Secondly
you talk about micro-evolution which is not rejected by creationists,
it is an observed fact. Here you are just deliberately mixing up macro-
evolution and micro-evolution. Exactly as I predicted elsewhere. So
what you got is micro-evolution (=adaption to the environment), macro-
evolution involves it turning into something else, but they are still
fruitflies.
The imaginary world of the evolutionist follower. Still what you got
is an assemblage of pure assumption. And you know what, every single
of the dating methods is based on an assumptive theory foregoing them.
It is also based on that the conditions through time would have been
the same during these supposed millions and millions of years. And
this is only for starters.
RR
Roadrunner
> On May 28, 11:02 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I consider that the both of you are bots. It is just a persistent
> > throwing back and denial. If one of you is caught with a grammar or
> > word misunderstanding, one just says that the dictionary is at fault
> > because of general opinion. If I expose that one of you clearly mix up
> > paleontology and archaeology working definitions, then too you just
> > throw out all sorts of justifications that would make it appear that I
> > was incorrect either way. And so on, and so on...
>
> Again, that was Peter. Silly RR, always ignoring fact in favor of what
> you want to believe! The two are related disciplines with regards to
> the study of humans... they overlap in this gray, murky area. Just
> like paleoanthropologists overlap both subjects, the historical
> sciences tend to blend together.
They are separated directions, and you can't deal with that. After all
you need to defend your 'friends'. And then you referred to an
"archaeological Lucy". The latter can be searched for in the ARS
database. There is NO SUCH THING as an "archaeological Lucy"!!!!
Little girl exposed... hihi... .-)
>
> > The anthropo... bot talks about fruitflies. He should understand what
> > actually was done to these fruitflies. And at the end, where they
> > still flies? Well, some flies lost their wings, but yes, they were
> > still flies. The cycle of life for the fruitfly is some 24 hours.
> > meaning that this would resemble 20 years in a human life. Now today,
> > has that fruitfly turned into something else? The last I heared was
> > that they are still flies. So much for evolutionary theory...
>
> You clearly do not understand how this works. A fruit fly doesn't
> evolve overnight into a cow. Changes can occur over the course of
> several generations but we don't change THAT much in short periods of
> time. How do you explain the emergence of a new blood type in Africa
> over the course of a handful of generations? A blood type that is
> almost entirely resistant to AIDS? How do you explain why humans got
> paler as they left Africa and headed north?
How many generations have passed for the fruitfly when only one
generation has passed for man? 365 x 1 x 20 makes for lots of
generations. But the fruitfly still this day is nothing other than a
fly. When did they started with these flies again? You may also add
that these flies have been interferred with. Bombarded with radiation
and I don't know what. The fruitflies without wings in fact were
CREATED. So, evolutionists defy the creational view, but still have no
objection to find proof for that thesis by CREATION (not to say
manufactured). Ain't that so very cute!!!
See, this is the usual and deliberate mix up from the typical
evolutionist for micro and macro evolution. These too are SEPARATE
matters...
>
> > Since
> > the publication of the book by Darwin some 150 years have past, some
> > things must have been observed and documented regarding evolution
> > (=macro-evolution) since then. Well, it has not been accomplished.
> > This in the end will be the downfall of evolutionism. They have now
> > also the factor of time working against them... .-)
>
> Some things noted in that book have fallen to the wayside, but a
> little thing called GENETICS is explaining much more than Darwin ever
> could. Mitochondrial Eve and Out of Africa... leading to interbreeding
> between our genus and neanderthals as we left Africa (the neanderthal
> genome project), our genetic divergence from apes,... it's all out
> there.
If you have a blueprint of a creation, then you will have the
signature of the creator in each of these creations. Creationism does
account for what has been observed.
Ever heard of the Darwinian Implant?
>
> > And no the fossil record is by no means evidence for evolution. In
> > fact it acts against it.
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA Uh... no. The fossil record supports it.
> Archaic homo sapiens and modern humans... genetic links, tool users,
> language users, social creatures of similar brain size. The "Lucy",
> Skhul and Qafzeh finds demonstrate the transitional stages between
> archaic homo sapiens and modern humans.
And that is all you got? That is no concluding evidence per scientific
criteria.
>By the way, you have yet to
> display any solid evidence to your claim that Lucy is a fake :P
Actually I don't have to. How it was found and how certain parts found
at a considerable distance (in kthis bone graveyard) are added to it
all speaks for itself.
>
> I should know, I dug up lots and lots of
>
> > bones. .-)
>
> > RR
>
> Chicken bones in your back yard don't count, fruitcake.
Will humans do? I remember one skeleton from the early 1800's, still
having pieces of skin and hairs attached to the skull. We had to peel
it of and send to laboratoria for analysis. See, we had to go through
this old graveyard to get to the layers underneath.
RR
Kat
> On 28 Maj, 21:30, Kat <ladyas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 11:02 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I consider that the both of you are bots. It is just a persistent
> > > throwing back and denial. If one of you is caught with a grammar or
> > > word misunderstanding, one just says that the dictionary is at fault
> > > because of general opinion. If I expose that one of you clearly mix up
> > > paleontology and archaeology working definitions, then too you just
> > > throw out all sorts of justifications that would make it appear that I
> > > was incorrect either way. And so on, and so on...
>
> > Again, that was Peter. Silly RR, always ignoring fact in favor of what
> > you want to believe! The two are related disciplines with regards to
> > the study of humans... they overlap in this gray, murky area. Just
> > like paleoanthropologists overlap both subjects, the historical
> > sciences tend to blend together.
>
> They are separated directions, and you can't deal with that. After all
> you need to defend your 'friends'. And then you referred to an
> "archaeological Lucy". The latter can be searched for in the ARS
> database. There is NO SUCH THING as an "archaeological Lucy"!!!!
> Little girl exposed... hihi... .-)
No, not really. Lucy's tools have long since deteriorated to the
ravages of time. It is only supposition, but she more than likely used
sticks and other such tools for foraging, as apes and other
intelligent creatures did. Hell, even *dolphins* use tools. With
regards to pre-history, when all we have to rely upon are tools, or in
the absence of them, human remains themselves, archaeologists DO have
to examine remains from a paleontology point of view to theorize what
ancient life was like. How many remains were found? How large do they
think the social group was? (Larger social groups indicate culture and
language). Did they have access to biodegradable materials indigenous
to the area that could be used for tool making, such as bamboo in
asia... this is the archaeological and anthropological side of such a
find.
It is a CROSS DISCIPLINE SCIENCE.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The anthropo... bot talks about fruitflies. He should understand what
> > > actually was done to these fruitflies. And at the end, where they
> > > still flies? Well, some flies lost their wings, but yes, they were
> > > still flies. The cycle of life for the fruitfly is some 24 hours.
> > > meaning that this would resemble 20 years in a human life. Now today,
> > > has that fruitfly turned into something else? The last I heared was
> > > that they are still flies. So much for evolutionary theory...
>
> > You clearly do not understand how this works. A fruit fly doesn't
> > evolve overnight into a cow. Changes can occur over the course of
> > several generations but we don't change THAT much in short periods of
> > time. How do you explain the emergence of a new blood type in Africa
> > over the course of a handful of generations? A blood type that is
> > almost entirely resistant to AIDS? How do you explain why humans got
> > paler as they left Africa and headed north?
>
> How many generations have passed for the fruitfly when only one
> generation has passed for man? 365 x 1 x 20 makes for lots of
> generations. But the fruitfly still this day is nothing other than a
> fly.
That's the point. It is still a fly, but a different kind of fly. It's
not gonna turn into a horsefly overnight or a cow or a tree or
anything absurd like that. Dogs were domesticated from wolves.. are
they still related to wolves? Yes. Are they still wolves themselves?
No.
> When did they started with these flies again? You may also add
> that these flies have been interferred with. Bombarded with radiation
> and I don't know what. The fruitflies without wings in fact were
> CREATED. So, evolutionists defy the creational view, but still have no
> objection to find proof for that thesis by CREATION (not to say
> manufactured). Ain't that so very cute!!!
That aids resistant blood type in africa evolved as a result of the
environment in which those people exist. We experience all kinds of
things which causes our genetic code to vary and differ.. white skin
is such an adaptation.
>
> See, this is the usual and deliberate mix up from the typical
> evolutionist for micro and macro evolution. These too are SEPARATE
> matters...
They are, and you still have your head up your ass with regards to
data supporting evolution. You argue minutia to sidestep these pieces
of data.
>
>
>
> > > Since
> > > the publication of the book by Darwin some 150 years have past, some
> > > things must have been observed and documented regarding evolution
> > > (=macro-evolution) since then. Well, it has not been accomplished.
> > > This in the end will be the downfall of evolutionism. They have now
> > > also the factor of time working against them... .-)
>
> > Some things noted in that book have fallen to the wayside, but a
> > little thing called GENETICS is explaining much more than Darwin ever
> > could. Mitochondrial Eve and Out of Africa... leading to interbreeding
> > between our genus and neanderthals as we left Africa (the neanderthal
> > genome project), our genetic divergence from apes,... it's all out
> > there.
>
> If you have a blueprint of a creation, then you will have the
> signature of the creator in each of these creations. Creationism does
> account for what has been observed.
*eyeroll* Intelligent design has more valid points than flat out
creationism and intelligent design is still FAITH based, not science.
Genetics is something tangible, "god" and his/her/it's will is NOT.
>
> Ever heard of the Darwinian Implant?
Only in regards to scientology, which is the work of a con artist sci
fi author.
>
>
>
> > > And no the fossil record is by no means evidence for evolution. In
> > > fact it acts against it.
>
> > BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA Uh... no. The fossil record supports it.
> > Archaic homo sapiens and modern humans... genetic links, tool users,
> > language users, social creatures of similar brain size. The "Lucy",
> > Skhul and Qafzeh finds demonstrate the transitional stages between
> > archaic homo sapiens and modern humans.
>
> And that is all you got? That is no concluding evidence per scientific
> criteria.
It's better than "and god spoke, and so it existed".
>
> >By the way, you have yet to
> > display any solid evidence to your claim that Lucy is a fake :P
>
> Actually I don't have to. How it was found and how certain parts found
> at a considerable distance (in kthis bone graveyard) are added to it
> all speaks for itself.
Again, no it does not. Bones aren't always found in once place. One of
the first things I was taught in school.. you know.. that place you
are so very resentful of (perhaps because you never went to
school....) was that little things called ANIMALS like to abscond
human bits and carry them away for a meal. Forensic anthropologists in
particular know very well that animals, weather... a variety of things
cause a body to move after it is put to earth. Completely discrediting
the find over the status of a single skeleton and NOT considering the
possibility that outside forces moved the remains is the mark of a
small minded moron.
>
>
>
> > I should know, I dug up lots and lots of
>
> > > bones. .-)
>
> > > RR
>
> > Chicken bones in your back yard don't count, fruitcake.
>
> Will humans do? I remember one skeleton from the early 1800's, still
> having pieces of skin and hairs attached to the skull. We had to peel
> it of and send to laboratoria for analysis. See, we had to go through
> this old graveyard to get to the layers underneath.
>
> RR
An anecdote, and one I do not believe occurred without any supportive
evidence.
Dennis L Erlich
>No one wants an adulterous cultist drama queen who spends hours a day
>promoting herself and her bizarre beliefs on the Internet.
Now wait just a darn minute, Sandau. I can let the rest of your
highly imaginative narrative go. But you've crost the line with this
one. She may be all you say. But she is OUR "adulterous cultist
drama queen who spends hours a day promoting herself and her bizarre
beliefs on the Internet."
Besides there are some people on ars who like and want her posting her
promotional materials here.
And BTW ... PLONK.
D
---------------------------------
"Scientology does not dissuade members from seeking out
medical attention or getting any medication." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet
altogether, I would be all for it." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
"If you don't stop pointing out my hypocrisy,
I'm gonna tell Steve Hassan on you." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
Kat
Andrew Robertson
"Roadrunner" <roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote
> Will humans do? I remember one skeleton from the early 1800's, still
> having pieces of skin and hairs attached to the skull. We had to peel
> it of and send to laboratoria for analysis. See, we had to go through
> this old graveyard to get to the layers underneath.
I had no idea you were a body snatcher!
"One method the body snatchers used was to dig at the head end of a recent
burial, digging with a wooden spade (quieter than metal). When they reached
the coffin they broke it open, put a rope around the corpse and dragged it
out. They were often careful not to steal anything such as jewelery or
clothes as this would cause them to be liable to a felony charge."
Andrew
> RR
anthropomorphic personification
that nature provokes mutation through various mechanisms, solar storms
such as the 1859, "Carrington event". visible to a naked-eye which
produced auroras in Cuba and Hawaii, and set telegraph systems on
fire. In others studies such as one often quoted innaccurately by
creationists (Howard Hughes Medical Institute Fruitfly Study Shows How
Evolution Wings It. ScienceDaily (2006, April 23)) spontaneous changes
were observed without any intervention. This study took place over 600
generations, one of the longest fruit fly studies and which has been
cited by some creationists as 'longer than there has been life on
earth'.
If we were to accept Dr John Lightfoot's (Not bishop Usher he was 10
years later) calculation that the earth was created on Friday Oct 3,
4004 BCE at 9.00 am, then this would be true. However if we don't
accept that age for the earth then it would be somewhere between
10,000 and 15,000 years depending on how long we interpret a human
generation to be 15,000 years = 600 - 25 year generations .
Geologically speaking this is a blink of an eye, Homo Sapiens Sapiens
(modern man) evolved something like 200,000 years ago. If major
evolutionary change had been observed in the sample so often quoted it
would have been a remarkable coincidence.
If creationists wish to believe that micro-evolution takes place and
not macro evolution, to some extent they are wanting their cake and
eat it. You are aslo incorrect to say that I am combining micro and
macro evolution, I am simply arguing that where micro evolution occurs
that this provides supportive evidence for the mechanism as a whole.
There is one study that shows greater support for Speciation,
(Evolution of a new species) The E. coli long-term evolution
experiment, now approaching 53,000 generations, which produced a new
species at 31,000 generations that could live off citric acid. If
these were human generations this would be a period of between 500,000
and 750,000 years. This new species occured through one initial
mutation which allowed citric acid to be metabolised and two
subsequent mutations, which stabilised the process. Intolerance to
citric acid is a defining characteristic of e-coli.
Blount ZD, Borland CZ, Lenski RE (2008-06-10). "Inaugural Article:
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an
experimental population of Escherichia coli". PNAS 105 (23): 7899–
7906.
There have been various observed changes in the e-coli studied by this
group, such as a greatly increased lifespan which also support
evolutionary ideas.
In order to observe the kind of change from Ramapithecus to Homo
Sapiens Sapiens, observations will have to continue in excess of
500,000 generations. I believe observations will continue for such
periods and that they will confirm evolutionary ideas. It should take
aproximately 90 years.
All theory is based on assumption, that's why it is called a theory,
this is why experiments take place, to provide evidence that either
confirms or refutes the theory, this is scientific method. No theory
can be considered as 100% conclusively proved, the assumption is that
the theory will predict what can be observed, if what is observed
contradicts the theory, then a new series of assumptions must be
formulated to compile a new theory, which is then tested against
observation. ad infinitum. If it predicts what is observed it is a
good theory. The theory of evolution predicts what is observed, it is
a good theory. Creationism, fails to predict what is observed, it is
therefore a bad theory and should be reformulated.
>
You fail to identify what you define as 'the same conditions' over
time, if you mean that there is an assumption that the known laws of
the universe hold true over time, then I suppose so, except of course
those known laws are subject to change if observation contradicts the
theory proposing those laws. However this does not lead to an
assumption that the temperatures, humidity, and any one of a number of
environmental factors have not varied over time. Such variables can be
accounted for and dating evidence adjusted to accomodate these
variables.
Carbon is deposited in living things, and ceases to be deposited when
a living thing dies, carbon 12 and carbon 14 decay at different rates,
measurment of observable decay gives a date of death of the organism,
with high confidence of accuracy. This theory holds until observable
evidence can be provided which refutes it.
You can offer me nothing but assumptions, what theory do you formulate
from those assumptions, is it able to predict what can be observed.
Peter Schilte
> On 24 Maj, 17:52, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 11:17 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> > [lies snipped]
>
> >http://monicapignotti.wordpress.com
>
> >http://site.monicapignotti.com
>
> It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A
> Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was
> established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago.
> And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected
> to hear!
>
> What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the
> subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper
> backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what
> some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood
> about the subject itself?
>
> The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering
> my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became
> very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and
> how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in
> some earlier thread.
>
> If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and
> all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of
> Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
>
> RR
"I don't think that you did that!!!"
This says it all.
Sir Peter
"Never discuss Scientology with the critic."
- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOB of 5 November 1967, "CRITICS OF SCIENTOLOGY"
Roadrunner
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In message
> Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> writes
Follow the tech development line, this will be rather conclusive. A
rather interesting 'hole' it is though... .-)
RR
Roadrunner
How many bones are there at the site where *Lucy in the Sky with
Diamonds' was found?
Has it been forgotten that actual human remains and even human
footprints were found in that area (same strata acutally) as well?
>
> It is a CROSS DISCIPLINE SCIENCE.
There is no "archaeological Lucy". What you got is bones. Simple as
that.
Here too you are faking expertise and knowhow, but you make so very
many slips.
>
> > > > The anthropo... bot talks about fruitflies. He should understand what
> > > > actually was done to these fruitflies. And at the end, where they
> > > > still flies? Well, some flies lost their wings, but yes, they were
> > > > still flies. The cycle of life for the fruitfly is some 24 hours.
> > > > meaning that this would resemble 20 years in a human life. Now today,
> > > > has that fruitfly turned into something else? The last I heared was
> > > > that they are still flies. So much for evolutionary theory...
>
> > > You clearly do not understand how this works. A fruit fly doesn't
> > > evolve overnight into a cow. Changes can occur over the course of
> > > several generations but we don't change THAT much in short periods of
> > > time. How do you explain the emergence of a new blood type in Africa
> > > over the course of a handful of generations? A blood type that is
> > > almost entirely resistant to AIDS? How do you explain why humans got
> > > paler as they left Africa and headed north?
>
> > How many generations have passed for the fruitfly when only one
> > generation has passed for man? 365 x 1 x 20 makes for lots of
> > generations. But the fruitfly still this day is nothing other than a
> > fly.
>
> That's the point. It is still a fly, but a different kind of fly. It's
> not gonna turn into a horsefly overnight or a cow or a tree or
> anything absurd like that. Dogs were domesticated from wolves.. are
> they still related to wolves? Yes. Are they still wolves themselves?
> No.
Thus a fly. And a dog is a wolf kind, they are related. Micro-
evolution (adaption within the kind) is fact. Macro-evolution (one
kind changing into another kind) is utterly unproven. Mixing these up
is one of the biggest misrepresentations of evolutionists.
You say 'domesticated', thus you are saying 'created' deliberately,
will the chihuahua or the poodle survive in nature? Can the offspring
of a mule and a horse replicate themselves?
>
> > When did they started with these flies again? You may also add
> > that these flies have been interferred with. Bombarded with radiation
> > and I don't know what. The fruitflies without wings in fact were
> > CREATED. So, evolutionists defy the creational view, but still have no
> > objection to find proof for that thesis by CREATION (not to say
> > manufactured). Ain't that so very cute!!!
>
> That aids resistant blood type in africa evolved as a result of the
> environment in which those people exist. We experience all kinds of
> things which causes our genetic code to vary and differ.. white skin
> is such an adaptation.
Micro-evolution is fully accepted and confirmed within creationism.
>
> > See, this is the usual and deliberate mix up from the typical
> > evolutionist for micro and macro evolution. These too are SEPARATE
> > matters...
>
> They are, and you still have your head up your ass with regards to
> data supporting evolution. You argue minutia to sidestep these pieces
> of data.
Thus you confirm they are separate, nonetheless you assume both are
correct? Whahahaah...
>
> > > > Since
> > > > the publication of the book by Darwin some 150 years have past, some
> > > > things must have been observed and documented regarding evolution
> > > > (=macro-evolution) since then. Well, it has not been accomplished.
> > > > This in the end will be the downfall of evolutionism. They have now
> > > > also the factor of time working against them... .-)
>
> > > Some things noted in that book have fallen to the wayside, but a
> > > little thing called GENETICS is explaining much more than Darwin ever
> > > could. Mitochondrial Eve and Out of Africa... leading to interbreeding
> > > between our genus and neanderthals as we left Africa (the neanderthal
> > > genome project), our genetic divergence from apes,... it's all out
> > > there.
>
> > If you have a blueprint of a creation, then you will have the
> > signature of the creator in each of these creations. Creationism does
> > account for what has been observed.
>
> *eyeroll* Intelligent design has more valid points than flat out
> creationism and intelligent design is still FAITH based, not science.
Of course, but the same goes for evolutionary theories. It is just 2
interpretations from the same observed data.
> Genetics is something tangible, "god" and his/her/it's will is NOT.
But it does not prove macro-evolution.
>
> > Ever heard of the Darwinian Implant?
>
> Only in regards to scientology, which is the work of a con artist sci
> fi author.
Let me remind you of your previous announced criteria. 'Only certified
persons may express themselves concerning any topic.' So, where are
your certs on this topic? And where is your documented Scientology
research.
See, little girl, you are NOTHING other than a fraud!!!! No wonder
you attack the person L. Ron Hubbard as you do!!!!!
From L. Ron Hubbard at least we have an avalance of published
materials, from you we have NOTHING!!!! Absolutely NOTHING!!!
>
>
> > > > And no the fossil record is by no means evidence for evolution. In
> > > > fact it acts against it.
>
> > > BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA Uh... no. The fossil record supports it.
> > > Archaic homo sapiens and modern humans... genetic links, tool users,
> > > language users, social creatures of similar brain size. The "Lucy",
> > > Skhul and Qafzeh finds demonstrate the transitional stages between
> > > archaic homo sapiens and modern humans.
>
> > And that is all you got? That is no concluding evidence per scientific
> > criteria.
>
> It's better than "and god spoke, and so it existed".
Evolutionists say the very same, don't they now... .-)
>
> > >By the way, you have yet to
> > > display any solid evidence to your claim that Lucy is a fake :P
>
> > Actually I don't have to. How it was found and how certain parts found
> > at a considerable distance (in kthis bone graveyard) are added to it
> > all speaks for itself.
>
> Again, no it does not. Bones aren't always found in once place. One of
> the first things I was taught in school.. you know.. that place you
> are so very resentful of (perhaps because you never went to
> school....) was that little things called ANIMALS like to abscond
> human bits and carry them away for a meal. Forensic anthropologists in
> particular know very well that animals, weather... a variety of things
> cause a body to move after it is put to earth. Completely discrediting
> the find over the status of a single skeleton and NOT considering the
> possibility that outside forces moved the remains is the mark of a
> small minded moron.
It's a bone graveyard! You have to prove that some bones come from the
same creature.
>
>
> > > I should know, I dug up lots and lots of
>
> > > > bones. .-)
>
> > > > RR
>
> > > Chicken bones in your back yard don't count, fruitcake.
>
> > Will humans do? I remember one skeleton from the early 1800's, still
> > having pieces of skin and hairs attached to the skull. We had to peel
> > it of and send to laboratoria for analysis. See, we had to go through
> > this old graveyard to get to the layers underneath.
>
> > RR
>
> An anecdote, and one I do not believe occurred without any supportive
> evidence.
I don't care less what you think or believe, little girl! But it
occurred alright. At virtually every archaeological site you will deal
with human remains. The deal here is that you have no skills nor
experience in the area.
RR
Roadrunner
Ah, and thus you attack a person's credibility because of his or her
use of language... that's great, very nice...
I got actually 2.700 hits for 'detailed working definition'. If you
grammatically regard the later 2 words as one, you can leave out the
'ly' from the first word as it will be used as an adjective rather
than an adverb. Either way this is VERY MINOR! This is just a SPELLING
MATTER!!!!
Now where were you when Kat, Peter Schilte and Transremaxculver
displayed serious language misconceptions regarding the interpretation
of a particualr paragraph in the book Dianetics? See, they could not
deal with figure of speech and could not understand parenthesis. Now
these are really deficiencies of understanding a language!!! But you
NEVER attack these persons!
Do I have to spell out what sort of person you actually are??? Do I
have to do that??? You people are entirely vicious. Let's say that
your treatment of people is deficient. .-)
RR
>
> John
Roadrunner
<death.ultimate.real...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 4:46 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 28 Maj, 17:28, "Andrew Robertson" <adrobert...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > > > It has a detailedly working definition
>
> > > Just a note on the English language, Roadrunner. If a word sounds awkward,
> > > clumsy and archaic don't use it, even if it is in a dictionary.
>
> > Say that to all those that have developed the language as we know it
> > today.
>
> > RR
>
> Well it is the main reason that the K in Knight has become silent, in
> the 17 century it was considered poor english to drop your K's. But
> saying the word 'K-night' or 'K-nee'was clumsy and awkward so
> eventually it was dropped. Any which way your usage of 'detailly' is
> still fundamentally incorrect however you frame it.
I have never used 'detailly', that is YOUR word!!!! And it does not
appear in any dictionary that I know of. 'detailedly' however is an
existing word.
RR
Kat
Several hundred.
>
> Has it been forgotten that actual human remains and even human
> footprints were found in that area (same strata acutally) as well?
Similar remains have been found elsewhere.
>
>
>
> > It is a CROSS DISCIPLINE SCIENCE.
>
> There is no "archaeological Lucy". What you got is bones. Simple as
> that.
Sure. We have bones. Sure, there is a lot of supposition about how
Lucy lived, however the condition of things like her teeth say a lot
about lifestyle and diet. There is a point where bones tell a story
about lifestyle.. that is where anthropology comes into play....
another related science.
>
> Here too you are faking expertise and knowhow, but you make so very
> many slips.
No, you are just looking for fault wherever you can because it is your
personal mission on ARS to demonize critics of the cult of
scientology. It is your personal EGO that drives you to attack me, a
no name critic who hasn't even made it to a protest in well over a
year and a half.. instead of attacking more valuable critics of the
cult. Good job on being provoked by my posts for 2+ years there, RR.
One of the biggest mistakes of creationists is thinking that we are
wholly unrelated from anything other than modern humans. There was
enough genetic similarity among prehistoric "humans" for
interbreeding. Detailed genetic study backs this.
>
> You say 'domesticated', thus you are saying 'created' deliberately,
Doesn't have to be deliberate. Again, skin color. Again, blood type.
Again, genetic resistance to disease. You always avoid these suckers,
I wonder why :P
> will the chihuahua or the poodle survive in nature? Can the offspring
> of a mule and a horse replicate themselves?
Chihuahua... possibly in the right climate. Cats, another domesticated
animal, get along just fine in the wild. Modern humans forefathers and
their cousins neanderthals were capable of breeding and even existed
in multiple places simultaneously according to the fossil record.
Creatures breed when there is enough shared dna. All there is to it..
they are compatible, they can reproduce. As for the mule and the
horse, neanderthals and homo sapiens mated just fine. Their offspring
continue to live even today.
>
>
>
>
> Micro-evolution is fully accepted and confirmed within creationism.
Creationism is FAITH. Absence of data brushed off by FAITH. One can
explain anything with faith, it's a cop out answer. "The sky is blue
because of god. The earth is round because of god. Gravity is because
of god"... that is all guesswork ... an easy answer for those too
retarded or pig headed to read a damn book and question how the
universe works. We had damn good reasons for developing paler skin in
colder climates and they had nothing to do with "god" and everything
to do with vitamins and sunlight. Modern medicine, you know, that
thing you don't believe in, explains that rather well.
>
>
>
>
> Thus you confirm they are separate, nonetheless you assume both are
> correct? Whahahaah...
Again, arguing minutia and may I add, twisting what I said. *yawn*
That party trick is getting old. Perhaps you should try pulling a
rabbit (your personal Lucy research) out of a hat (your ass) next?
>
>
>
>
> Of course, but the same goes for evolutionary theories. It is just 2
> interpretations from the same observed data.
Evolutionary theories at least have some data to back them up other
than a book written by a dead human who was probably tripping balls on
mushrooms or trying to write out a system of socio-political control.
That's what religion IS... the attempt to explain the world around you
using the scientific knowledge of the average schmuck in that era,
along with rules for living in the culture that spawned it.
DNA is not FAITH. It is real, as much as I am real, as much as the dog
sleeping on my foot is real. It is tangible, measurable, comparable,
corporeal. Yes it is still subject to interpretation but sometimes the
data just cant lie. Why is it that DNA evidence is such a large part
of legal cases when it is available? Paternity tests? Medical tests?
It's a proven science, no different from flipping on a light switch or
starting your car or even typing something on a computer. We know how
it works and why it works and faith is no part of that. Well, unless
you are batshit, but hey, I can't hold that against you. You probly
have a nasty biochemical imbalance feeding your psychological issues
and you can't help that.
>
> > Genetics is something tangible, "god" and his/her/it's will is NOT.
>
> But it does not prove macro-evolution.
It's still a better theory than "God did it". Assuming the existence
of a being powerful enough to create and mold life, then assuming they
did it HERE, in a particular order.. and then assuming WHY it was
done... That's a LOT of fucking assumptions, RR. It's all guess work!
Every last part of it!
>
>
>
> > > Ever heard of the Darwinian Implant?
>
> > Only in regards to scientology, which is the work of a con artist sci
> > fi author.
>
> Let me remind you of your previous announced criteria. 'Only certified
> persons may express themselves concerning any topic.' So, where are
> your certs on this topic? And where is your documented Scientology
> research.
I never said that. Ever. Man you are delusional! I said don't present
yourself as an expert when you are not. You are an educated layperson
(if you even are that) NOT the expert you claimed to be. As for
scientology research, I gave it. Everyone on this site but you
believes it exists, I wonder why that is.....hmmm... HMMMM... perhaps
because you are in denial?
>
> See, little girl, you are NOTHING other than a fraud!!!! No wonder
> you attack the person L. Ron Hubbard as you do!!!!!
Imagine that..... someone attacking a pill popping, racist,
misogynist, diploma-buying, schizophrenic asswipe. I attack him
because he was a terrible human being. You attack me because you
cannot deal with someone questioning your beliefs and your precious
guru.
>
> From L. Ron Hubbard at least we have an avalance of published
> materials, from you we have NOTHING!!!! Absolutely NOTHING!!!
Lots and lots of books that say "because I say so" with no actual
documentation of research amounts to a pile of nothing. Kinda like
your posts, all sound and fury with no substance whatsoever.
>
>
>
>
> Evolutionists say the very same, don't they now... .-)
No. Evolutionists examine what data they have in front of them and
look for new answers, instead of throwing their hands in the air and
giving the easy answer. "God did it" is a lazy cop-out.
>
>
>
>
> It's a bone graveyard! You have to prove that some bones come from the
> same creature.
It's nifty if you can assemble a skeleton, but it's not always going
to happen. They don't all come in neat little boxes from 1800's
graveyards. There are lots of things that can scatter remains over 3.2
million years. Weather, earth movement, animals, human interference...
all can scatter remains efficiently. What's important is the bulk of
em were found in the same layer of ashy earth. Or did they dig up the
ground, plop her in at the right depth and then "stumble across" one
of her exposed arm bits in the hillside?
>
>
> I don't care less what you think or believe, little girl!
I highly doubt that, or you wouldn't spend countless hours stalking
and attacking me on usenet. You wouldn't dedicate so much time and
rage and manipulative energy to attacking me if I wasn't in some way a
threat to you personally. You would just ignore me if I you didn't
care, but since I piss you off by insulting Hubbard and questioning
your very flaky moral code, you come after me.
> But it
> occurred alright. At virtually every archaeological site you will deal
> with human remains. The deal here is that you have no skills nor
> experience in the area.
>
> RR
Not true. Ever hear of a midden? No human bones, just trash.. trash
that tells VOLUMES about our way of life in times past. Geeze you
really are an ignorant fuck, aren't you....
Roadrunner
I think it is bit more than that...
>
>
>
> > Has it been forgotten that actual human remains and even human
> > footprints were found in that area (same strata acutally) as well?
>
> Similar remains have been found elsewhere.
You are not addressing what it implies that what I note here...
>
>
>
> > > It is a CROSS DISCIPLINE SCIENCE.
>
> > There is no "archaeological Lucy". What you got is bones. Simple as
> > that.
>
> Sure. We have bones. Sure, there is a lot of supposition about how
> Lucy lived, however the condition of things like her teeth say a lot
> about lifestyle and diet. There is a point where bones tell a story
> about lifestyle.. that is where anthropology comes into play....
> another related science.
Once some paleontologists found some bones, complete skeletons, and
then they made the mistake to tell a tale of how these bones got here.
The result was an utterly fictional tale. That is no science.
>
>
>
> > Here too you are faking expertise and knowhow, but you make so very
> > many slips.
>
> No, you are just looking for fault wherever you can because it is your
> personal mission on ARS to demonize critics of the cult of
> scientology. It is your personal EGO that drives you to attack me, a
> no name critic who hasn't even made it to a protest in well over a
> year and a half.. instead of attacking more valuable critics of the
> cult. Good job on being provoked by my posts for 2+ years there, RR.
I have no interest in demonizing anyone actually... but I am
interested to figure out what trigers you people and on what exact
stimulus response you people respond to.
Indeed, you have been exposed as a fraud.
Whahahahaha... whahahahaah... little, little girl, this EXPOSES that
you know virtually nothing about creationism. You will ALWAYS have
similarity if you work from the same blueprint. If you have a creator,
you will see his/her signature all over the place. Your genetics is
totally accounted for by the creationial view. And not, it has never
been the view of the creationist to assume that we would be utterly
disrelated. Mistakes, little girl, whhahah, ah, this needs to stop...
you will never admit to anything anyhow...
Well, you offered a very ignorant claim here.
>
>
>
> > You say 'domesticated', thus you are saying 'created' deliberately,
>
> Doesn't have to be deliberate. Again, skin color. Again, blood type.
> Again, genetic resistance to disease. You always avoid these suckers,
> I wonder why :P
Tsk, tsk, you wrote: "Dogs were domesticated from wolves"
Don't change the topic here.
>
> > will the chihuahua or the poodle survive in nature? Can the offspring
> > of a mule and a horse replicate themselves?
>
> Chihuahua... possibly in the right climate. Cats, another domesticated
> animal, get along just fine in the wild. Modern humans forefathers and
> their cousins neanderthals were capable of breeding and even existed
> in multiple places simultaneously according to the fossil record.
> Creatures breed when there is enough shared dna. All there is to it..
> they are compatible, they can reproduce. As for the mule and the
> horse, neanderthals and homo sapiens mated just fine. Their offspring
> continue to live even today.
Amazing, you swallowed the whole fairytale... you just adopt what they
tell you, i.e. if it comes from some sort of official source.
>
>
>
> > Micro-evolution is fully accepted and confirmed within creationism.
>
> Creationism is FAITH. Absence of data brushed off by FAITH.
Actually that would be an utter misconception, it is just not true.
>One can
> explain anything with faith, it's a cop out answer. "The sky is blue
> because of god. The earth is round because of god. Gravity is because
> of god"... that is all guesswork ... an easy answer for those too
> retarded or pig headed to read a damn book and question how the
> universe works. We had damn good reasons for developing paler skin in
> colder climates and they had nothing to do with "god" and everything
> to do with vitamins and sunlight. Modern medicine, you know, that
> thing you don't believe in, explains that rather well.
No use to talk creationism with you, you're all set and indoctrinated.
You are incapable of reasoning.
>
>
>
> > Thus you confirm they are separate, nonetheless you assume both are
> > correct? Whahahaah...
>
> Again, arguing minutia and may I add, twisting what I said. *yawn*
> That party trick is getting old. Perhaps you should try pulling a
> rabbit (your personal Lucy research) out of a hat (your ass) next?
You wrote what you wrote, but you just deny EVERYTHING if you are
caught with spreading inconsistencies.
People who are caught alwasy get this rude.
>
>
>
> > Of course, but the same goes for evolutionary theories. It is just 2
> > interpretations from the same observed data.
>
> Evolutionary theories at least have some data to back them up other
> than a book written by a dead human who was probably tripping balls on
> mushrooms or trying to write out a system of socio-political control.
> That's what religion IS... the attempt to explain the world around you
> using the scientific knowledge of the average schmuck in that era,
> along with rules for living in the culture that spawned it.
Evolutionary theory is an interpretation of the observed, or so they
claim. Creationism is no different. Both are religious in nature.
>
> DNA is not FAITH. It is real, as much as I am real, as much as the dog
> sleeping on my foot is real. It is tangible, measurable, comparable,
> corporeal. Yes it is still subject to interpretation but sometimes the
> data just cant lie. Why is it that DNA evidence is such a large part
> of legal cases when it is available? Paternity tests? Medical tests?
> It's a proven science, no different from flipping on a light switch or
> starting your car or even typing something on a computer. We know how
> it works and why it works and faith is no part of that. Well, unless
> you are batshit, but hey, I can't hold that against you. You probly
> have a nasty biochemical imbalance feeding your psychological issues
> and you can't help that.
Your message is basically that man does not exist as a spiritual
being. Well, he does. DNA evidence does not counteract the creational
view, this would be your utter misconception. You scrape on the
surface, and this, I think, is waht you always have been doing! You
have NO investigative mind at all. If you talk about creationism then
you first should establish precisely what it is about. It is fact you
have not ever done that, as you make one big blunder after the other.
>
>
>
> > > Genetics is something tangible, "god" and his/her/it's will is NOT.
>
> > But it does not prove macro-evolution.
>
> It's still a better theory than "God did it". Assuming the existence
> of a being powerful enough to create and mold life, then assuming they
> did it HERE, in a particular order.. and then assuming WHY it was
> done... That's a LOT of fucking assumptions, RR. It's all guess work!
> Every last part of it!
Cheap, you have totally misunderstood the significance of creationism.
I find this in fact so obvious that I call you a false little girl.
>
>
>
> > > > Ever heard of the Darwinian Implant?
>
> > > Only in regards to scientology, which is the work of a con artist sci
> > > fi author.
>
> > Let me remind you of your previous announced criteria. 'Only certified
> > persons may express themselves concerning any topic.' So, where are
> > your certs on this topic? And where is your documented Scientology
> > research.
>
> I never said that. Ever. Man you are delusional! I said don't present
> yourself as an expert when you are not.
Never did that or claimed that.
>You are an educated layperson
> (if you even are that) NOT the expert you claimed to be. As for
> scientology research, I gave it.
You offered nothing that would indicate subjecting it to research
criteria. Simple as that.
>Everyone on this site but you
> believes it exists, I wonder why that is.....hmmm... HMMMM... perhaps
> because you are in denial?
You forget where you are. This is the domain of the anti-Scientology
activists. These same, for the most rather uneducated individuals,
also accept Gerry Armstrongs 'Affirmations' no questions asked.
Indeed, one should not ask if some person 'believes' something exists.
One instead should just offer it.
And no, there is NO indication anywhere that you ever have performed
any serious research into Scientology. You are just a simple lying
fraud.
In fact, you are not quite sane.
RR
anthropomorphic personification
>
> I have never used 'detailly', that is YOUR word!!!! And it does not
> appear in any dictionary that I know of. 'detailedly' however is an
> existing word.
>
> RR
We will remind you here of where and when you used it then.
In the thread entitled: "No "Science" in Scientology, No Nobel Prize
winners either."
Second post in that thread.
On May 23, 12:06 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 Maj, 00:22, Farewell to Sicily <nopleffor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ever wonder why there are no Nobel Prize winners in Scientology? Or
> > why there are no professors who are Scientologists at MIT or Yale?
> > Ever wonder why there are no scientific papers published in science
> > magazines written by Scientologists? Or why there very few
> > Scientologists with advanced degrees in any field whatsoever??
>
> You don't know any of the above actually... you see, they would not be
> signed with 'Scientologist'. All you do here is addressing general
> opinion. You may compare this with creationists, general opinion is
> always boasting about that there are no real scientists that support
> creation in favour of evolution, which is simply not true.
>
>
>
> > They claim to be able to increase your mental abilities, and enhance
> > your ability to concentrate. If this is so where are the big minds in
> > this group? If there are men and women with great powers where then,
> > are they being hidden?
>
> There are no such things as great powers in people.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Maybe this quote from "My Billion Year Contract," by Nancy Many. On
> > page 195 she decides to look for a good school for her son so she
> > takes a look at what Scientology has to offer,
>
> > "I called Delphi, the largest most well-known Scientology school that
> > taught a high school curriculum. I asked the Admissions person there
> > for some statistics on their graduates; what their SAT scores were,
> > what sort of colleges they got into and what percentage received
> > college scholarships. My fist clue that this wasn't what I was
> > looking for came when she told me she didn't know what I meant by SAT
> > scores but that a large majority of their high school graduates joined
> > the Sea Org and they were very proud of that."
>
> > Here is a link to the book by Nancy Many:http://mybillionyearcontract.com/
>
> > Ever wonder where L. Ron Hubbard came up with his story about OT III?
> > Try here:http://androvillans.wordpress.com/category/origins-of-ot-iii/
>
> You have been told, and you have beendetaillyexplained, that he
> didn't come up with it... but... you just continue to spout your same
> propaganda.
>
> RR
First line of the last paragraph ninth word, although you concatenate
'beendetaillyexplained'
So after half adozen posts and various argumentsd now you completely
reverse your position.
It would have been a little easier if you had just recognised your
mistake in the beginning.
Scientology is clearly no good for developing self critical skills.
Roadrunner
We already know who you are, little girl... it is the exact same sort
of attacks. Actually 'ly' gave me the first hint.
RR
anthropomorphic personification
to date. This was realised and discussed by Heinrich Schliemann in the
1870's.
>
Or are you arguing that the site had been occupied by hominids over
millions of years, Yes we know that too. Which is why archeologists
check out what strata remains are found in and if they appear in a
particular strata if they have always been in that strata.
A good place to live for one Hominid is an equally good place for
another Hominid to live.
> > > > It is a CROSS DISCIPLINE SCIENCE.
>
> > > There is no "archaeological Lucy". What you got is bones. Simple as
> > > that.
>
> > Sure. We have bones. Sure, there is a lot of supposition about how
> > Lucy lived, however the condition of things like her teeth say a lot
> > about lifestyle and diet. There is a point where bones tell a story
> > about lifestyle.. that is where anthropology comes into play....
> > another related science.
>
> Once some paleontologists found some bones, complete skeletons, and
> then they made the mistake to tell a tale of how these bones got here.
> The result was an utterly fictional tale. That is no science.
>
The tale of how the bones got there is, as in all science a
hypothesis, the evidence at the site supports that hypothesis, nothing
has been offered which refutes the hypothesis the hypothesis stands.
With a gread deal more supporting evidence than Any Scientology idea
you care to raise, or most other religious ideas.
There is no supporing evidence whatsoever for a 'creationist' view.
>
> > > Here too you are faking expertise and knowhow, but you make so very
> > > many slips.
>
> > No, you are just looking for fault wherever you can because it is your
> > personal mission on ARS to demonize critics of the cult of
> > scientology. It is your personal EGO that drives you to attack me, a
> > no name critic who hasn't even made it to a protest in well over a
> > year and a half.. instead of attacking more valuable critics of the
> > cult. Good job on being provoked by my posts for 2+ years there, RR.
>
> I have no interest in demonizing anyone actually... but I am
> interested to figure out what trigers you people and on what exact
> stimulus response you people respond to.
Oh so your only interest here is to serve the self serving fantasies
of your own ego, how interesting.
> Indeed, you have been exposed as a fraud.
>
Not evident, I think you should review the evidence and formulate a
new hypothesis.
Again not evident, you simply make statements here, you offer no
evidence. Similarity in 'blueprint' supports no argument any which
way. It is a chosen word, one might equaly use the word component, or
brick. An intelligent ant living among bricks might work out that
thats what they were, but this does not mean that the ant has any way
of discovering if it's just a pile of bricks or a house.
>
> > > You say 'domesticated', thus you are saying 'created' deliberately,
>
> > Doesn't have to be deliberate. Again, skin color. Again, blood type.
> > Again, genetic resistance to disease. You always avoid these suckers,
> > I wonder why :P
> Tsk, tsk, you wrote: "Dogs were domesticated from wolves"
>
> Don't change the topic here.
>
Thats not a change of topic, it is artificial to seperate
'domesticated' or put another way 'human guided' evolution, from
'natural evolution,' or evolution as a result of human action. The
Hawthorn fly has begun a process of speciation, as a result of apples
introduced into it's environment from about the middle of the 19th
century. Did Johnny Appleseed intend this I wonder.
>
> > > will the chihuahua or the poodle survive in nature? Can the offspring
> > > of a mule and a horse replicate themselves?
>
> > Chihuahua... possibly in the right climate. Cats, another domesticated
> > animal, get along just fine in the wild. Modern humans forefathers and
> > their cousins neanderthals were capable of breeding and even existed
> > in multiple places simultaneously according to the fossil record.
> > Creatures breed when there is enough shared dna. All there is to it..
> > they are compatible, they can reproduce. As for the mule and the
> > horse, neanderthals and homo sapiens mated just fine. Their offspring
> > continue to live even today.
>
> Amazing, you swallowed the whole fairytale... you just adopt what they
> tell you, i.e. if it comes from some sort of official source.
>
The official source is what can be observed, if observation
contradicts the theory the theory must be reformulated. It is not
difficult to obtain research, and most researchers welcome criticism
of their observations and any theories formulated from them. This
doesn't mean they will not argue with the criticism, but this is
science, argument and critical evaluation is a part of the process.
You appear to pretend that there is an edict from on high that
determines which stories will be told and which will not. If this is
your hypothesis, then provide evidence to support it, otherwise your
theory, has no validitiy.
>
> > > Micro-evolution is fully accepted and confirmed within creationism.
>
> > Creationism is FAITH. Absence of data brushed off by FAITH.
>
> Actually that would be an utter misconception, it is just not true.
>
Of course it is true. There is no supporting evidence for creationism.
Therefore it is simply a matter of faith. Evolution however has stacks
of evidence supporting it, Fossil record, experiments with fruit
flies, experiments with bacteria, observed evolution in the natural
environment.
Creationism accepts micro-evolution, because the evidence is as
irefutable as might be expected. It is a last ditch battle at the
barricades to, pretend that this means that greater steps in evolution
evidenced in the fossil record do not take place.
Your arguments here only confirm that there is no science in
scientology whatsoever.
> >One can
> > explain anything with faith, it's a cop out answer. "The sky is blue
> > because of god. The earth is round because of god. Gravity is because
> > of god"... that is all guesswork ... an easy answer for those too
> > retarded or pig headed to read a damn book and question how the
> > universe works. We had damn good reasons for developing paler skin in
> > colder climates and they had nothing to do with "god" and everything
> > to do with vitamins and sunlight. Modern medicine, you know, that
> > thing you don't believe in, explains that rather well.
>
> No use to talk creationism with you, you're all set and indoctrinated.
> You are incapable of reasoning.
>
yet you are the one offering no rational argument, you simply repeat
the same thing in different ways, sometimes not that different.
prehaps it is because you have been indoctrinated by Hubbards writing,
you are locked into a programmed way of thinking, if you accept the
possibility of evolution you might have to accept that your own
thinking ability might evolve, grow more complex and develop new
perspectives.
You might be unable to evolve, whilst the rest of us are.
Not a good advert for Scientology.
>
> > > Thus you confirm they are separate, nonetheless you assume both are
> > > correct? Whahahaah...
>
> > Again, arguing minutia and may I add, twisting what I said. *yawn*
> > That party trick is getting old. Perhaps you should try pulling a
> > rabbit (your personal Lucy research) out of a hat (your ass) next?
>
> You wrote what you wrote, but you just deny EVERYTHING if you are
> caught with spreading inconsistencies.
>
> People who are caught alwasy get this rude.
>
From you this is a bit rich.
>
> > > Of course, but the same goes for evolutionary theories. It is just 2
> > > interpretations from the same observed data.
>
> > Evolutionary theories at least have some data to back them up other
> > than a book written by a dead human who was probably tripping balls on
> > mushrooms or trying to write out a system of socio-political control.
> > That's what religion IS... the attempt to explain the world around you
> > using the scientific knowledge of the average schmuck in that era,
> > along with rules for living in the culture that spawned it.
>
> Evolutionary theory is an interpretation of the observed, or so they
> claim. Creationism is no different. Both are religious in nature.
>
Except of course that Creationism has no observed data to report.
>
> > DNA is not FAITH. It is real, as much as I am real, as much as the dog
> > sleeping on my foot is real. It is tangible, measurable, comparable,
> > corporeal. Yes it is still subject to interpretation but sometimes the
> > data just cant lie. Why is it that DNA evidence is such a large part
> > of legal cases when it is available? Paternity tests? Medical tests?
> > It's a proven science, no different from flipping on a light switch or
> > starting your car or even typing something on a computer. We know how
> > it works and why it works and faith is no part of that. Well, unless
> > you are batshit, but hey, I can't hold that against you. You probly
> > have a nasty biochemical imbalance feeding your psychological issues
> > and you can't help that.
>
> Your message is basically that man does not exist as a spiritual
> being. Well, he does. DNA evidence does not counteract the creational
> view, this would be your utter misconception. You scrape on the
> surface, and this, I think, is waht you always have been doing! You
> have NO investigative mind at all. If you talk about creationism then
> you first should establish precisely what it is about. It is fact you
> have not ever done that, as you make one big blunder after the other.
>
Creationism vs Evolution has nothing to to with spirituality.
>
> > > > Genetics is something tangible, "god" and his/her/it's will is NOT.
>
> > > But it does not prove macro-evolution.
>
> > It's still a better theory than "God did it". Assuming the existence
> > of a being powerful enough to create and mold life, then assuming they
> > did it HERE, in a particular order.. and then assuming WHY it was
> > done... That's a LOT of fucking assumptions, RR. It's all guess work!
> > Every last part of it!
>
> Cheap, you have totally misunderstood the significance of creationism.
> I find this in fact so obvious that I call you a false little girl.
>
The significance of creationism is that its a mythological story
formulated by a desert tribe to provide its leaders with a power base.
>
> > > > > Ever heard of the Darwinian Implant?
>
> > > > Only in regards to scientology, which is the work of a con artist sci
> > > > fi author.
>
> > > Let me remind you of your previous announced criteria. 'Only certified
> > > persons may express themselves concerning any topic.' So, where are
> > > your certs on this topic? And where is your documented Scientology
> > > research.
>
> > I never said that. Ever. Man you are delusional! I said don't present
> > yourself as an expert when you are not.
>
> Never did that or claimed that.
>
yes you did.
> >You are an educated layperson
> > (if you even are that) NOT the expert you claimed to be. As for
> > scientology research, I gave it.
>
> You offered nothing that would indicate subjecting it to research
> criteria. Simple as that.
>
> >Everyone on this site but you
> > believes it exists, I wonder why that is.....hmmm... HMMMM... perhaps
> > because you are in denial?
>
> You forget where you are. This is the domain of the anti-Scientology
> activists. These same, for the most rather uneducated individuals,
> also accept Gerry Armstrongs 'Affirmations' no questions asked.
>
> Indeed, one should not ask if some person 'believes' something exists.
> One instead should just offer it.
>
> And no, there is NO indication anywhere that you ever have performed
> any serious research into Scientology. You are just a simple lying
> fraud.
>
> In fact, you are not quite sane.
>
> RR
Pots and kettles.
anthropomorphic personification
Like I said took you long enough.
LOL
Kat
> > Several hundred.
>
> I think it is bit more than that...
I was referring to her location. There are several nearby sites where
people found bones in previous years.
>
>
>
> > > Has it been forgotten that actual human remains and even human
> > > footprints were found in that area (same strata acutally) as well?
>
> > Similar remains have been found elsewhere.
>
> You are not addressing what it implies that what I note here...
Do you really think that as long as our ancestors walked the earth
that they never inhabited that stretch of land more than once? Give me
a break.
>
>
>
>
> Once some paleontologists found some bones, complete skeletons, and
> then they made the mistake to tell a tale of how these bones got here.
> The result was an utterly fictional tale. That is no science.
So you are saying you cannot determine things like diet from teeth?
That one cannot examine the wear and tear of bones, how they connect
together and determine how they walked? How old they were? If they
were male or female? If they gave birth if they were female? Give me a
break. Bones talk, RR. They say a lot of things that are factual and
not interpretation.
>
>
>
> I have no interest in demonizing anyone actually...
HAH! That's a fat load of horse shit.
> but I am
> interested to figure out what trigers you people and on what exact
> stimulus response you people respond to.
Funny, that's what I've been doing to you. Luuuul
>
> Indeed, you have been exposed as a fraud.
Um, no. Only in your delusional little mind, RR.
>
>
>
>
> > One of the biggest mistakes of creationists is thinking that we are
> > wholly unrelated from anything other than modern humans. There was
> > enough genetic similarity among prehistoric "humans" for
> > interbreeding. Detailed genetic study backs this.
>
> Whahahahaha... whahahahaah... little, little girl, this EXPOSES that
> you know virtually nothing about creationism. You will ALWAYS have
> similarity if you work from the same blueprint. If you have a creator,
> you will see his/her signature all over the place. Your genetics is
> totally accounted for by the creationial view. And not, it has never
> been the view of the creationist to assume that we would be utterly
> disrelated. Mistakes, little girl, whhahah, ah, this needs to stop...
> you will never admit to anything anyhow...
>
> Well, you offered a very ignorant claim here.
No, you just are looking to demonize and insult. Thankfully, you
latched onto my bait like a fat kid latches onto a hamburger. Faith
based views encompass everything. They can explain everything with
one. simple. concept. "God did it". You are only proving my point
about the laziness of creationist theory. It's a convenient, lazy
concept that keeps people from actually thinking.
>
>
>
> > > You say 'domesticated', thus you are saying 'created' deliberately,
>
> > Doesn't have to be deliberate. Again, skin color. Again, blood type.
> > Again, genetic resistance to disease. You always avoid these suckers,
> > I wonder why :P
> Tsk, tsk, you wrote: "Dogs were domesticated from wolves"
>
> Don't change the topic here.
No, I'm expanding on it. Genetic change can occur without someone
intentionally guiding it... such as skin color, such as blood type.
Again, saying it's "the work of the creator" is a fucking lazy answer
for something that can be explained by science and how our bodies
work. Dogs WERE domesticated from wolves, but they are still dogs,
just like fruitflies are still a kind of fly after they change. They
may not be the exact same thing they were before, but no one expects a
fruitfly to turn into a rhino.
>
>
>
> > > will the chihuahua or the poodle survive in nature? Can the offspring
> > > of a mule and a horse replicate themselves?
>
> > Chihuahua... possibly in the right climate. Cats, another domesticated
> > animal, get along just fine in the wild. Modern humans forefathers and
> > their cousins neanderthals were capable of breeding and even existed
> > in multiple places simultaneously according to the fossil record.
> > Creatures breed when there is enough shared dna. All there is to it..
> > they are compatible, they can reproduce. As for the mule and the
> > horse, neanderthals and homo sapiens mated just fine. Their offspring
> > continue to live even today.
>
> Amazing, you swallowed the whole fairytale... you just adopt what they
> tell you, i.e. if it comes from some sort of official source.
No, that would be what YOU are doing with creationism. I've read the
results of the neanderthal genome project, it's far more credible to
me than believing some omniscient, omnipresent being waved his non-
corporeal hand and it Was.
>
>
>
> > > Micro-evolution is fully accepted and confirmed within creationism.
>
> > Creationism is FAITH. Absence of data brushed off by FAITH.
>
> Actually that would be an utter misconception, it is just not true.
No, it is faith. Any "proof" that we were created by someone else was
manufactured by man and in particular, faithful man. It's like
scientology, "because I say so" isn't good enough. It's FAITH.
>
> >One can
> > explain anything with faith, it's a cop out answer. "The sky is blue
> > because of god. The earth is round because of god. Gravity is because
> > of god"... that is all guesswork ... an easy answer for those too
> > retarded or pig headed to read a damn book and question how the
> > universe works. We had damn good reasons for developing paler skin in
> > colder climates and they had nothing to do with "god" and everything
> > to do with vitamins and sunlight. Modern medicine, you know, that
> > thing you don't believe in, explains that rather well.
>
> No use to talk creationism with you, you're all set and indoctrinated.
> You are incapable of reasoning.
If by indoctrinated you mean, educated and capable of thinking for
myself, yes. I grew up in a religious family. Most of my cousins are
devout mennonites and christians. The whole "god did it" theory didn't
sit right with me, so I read and I researched and I grew to understand
that there is more to this universe than "and god spoke, so it was".
Creationism is a lazy cop out.
>
>
>
> > > Thus you confirm they are separate, nonetheless you assume both are
> > > correct? Whahahaah...
>
> > Again, arguing minutia and may I add, twisting what I said. *yawn*
> > That party trick is getting old. Perhaps you should try pulling a
> > rabbit (your personal Lucy research) out of a hat (your ass) next?
>
> You wrote what you wrote, but you just deny EVERYTHING if you are
> caught with spreading inconsistencies.
>
> People who are caught alwasy get this rude.
Is that why you are always such a jackass? You caught me with nothing,
little man. You are delusional and only seeing what you want to, which
doesn't actually include what I wrote on the screen. Or do you claim
to be omniscient now and know exactly what is going through my brain
as I type this?
>
>
>
> > > Of course, but the same goes for evolutionary theories. It is just 2
> > > interpretations from the same observed data.
>
> > Evolutionary theories at least have some data to back them up other
> > than a book written by a dead human who was probably tripping balls on
> > mushrooms or trying to write out a system of socio-political control.
> > That's what religion IS... the attempt to explain the world around you
> > using the scientific knowledge of the average schmuck in that era,
> > along with rules for living in the culture that spawned it.
>
> Evolutionary theory is an interpretation of the observed, or so they
> claim. Creationism is no different. Both are religious in nature.
No, they aren't. Evolution attempts to explain how we adjusted
physically to fit our environment using actual physical evidence. The
nice thing about evolution is it doesn't have the conceit to say it is
anything other than a working theory with strong evidence to back it
up. Creationism is "god said so", it is absolute and without any kind
of tangible evidence to back it up. ALL it has to support it is faith
and opinion.
>
>
>
> > DNA is not FAITH. It is real, as much as I am real, as much as the dog
> > sleeping on my foot is real. It is tangible, measurable, comparable,
> > corporeal. Yes it is still subject to interpretation but sometimes the
> > data just cant lie. Why is it that DNA evidence is such a large part
> > of legal cases when it is available? Paternity tests? Medical tests?
> > It's a proven science, no different from flipping on a light switch or
> > starting your car or even typing something on a computer. We know how
> > it works and why it works and faith is no part of that. Well, unless
> > you are batshit, but hey, I can't hold that against you. You probly
> > have a nasty biochemical imbalance feeding your psychological issues
> > and you can't help that.
>
> Your message is basically that man does not exist as a spiritual
> being.
Nowhere do I say that. At all. The soul and the body are two very
different things with their own rules to govern them in my opinion.
> Well, he does. DNA evidence does not counteract the creational
> view, this would be your utter misconception. You scrape on the
> surface, and this, I think, is waht you always have been doing! You
> have NO investigative mind at all. If you talk about creationism then
> you first should establish precisely what it is about. It is fact you
> have not ever done that, as you make one big blunder after the other.
Creationism is a faith based belief that life, the universe,
everything around us is the creation of another being. "God" made it.
That is the entire theory in a nutshell right there. I summed it up
very well with that, as it is the underlying belief of all creationist
theory, including intelligent design. God wanted it, so it was. DNA
doesn't contradict creationism because the belief of creationists is
absolute. EVERYTHING is god's doing. Creationists are lazy. Flat out.
>
>
>
> > > > Genetics is something tangible, "god" and his/her/it's will is NOT.
>
> > > But it does not prove macro-evolution.
>
> > It's still a better theory than "God did it". Assuming the existence
> > of a being powerful enough to create and mold life, then assuming they
> > did it HERE, in a particular order.. and then assuming WHY it was
> > done... That's a LOT of fucking assumptions, RR. It's all guess work!
> > Every last part of it!
>
> Cheap, you have totally misunderstood the significance of creationism.
> I find this in fact so obvious that I call you a false little girl.
You call me a false little girl because you are a misogynist prick
bent on poking my buttons, when really all it does is make me laugh. I
don't understand creationism at all. I understand it perfectly. I just
dont agree with it, therefore you ASSume I do not understand...
exactly like you assume with scientology.
I find it amusing how anyone who disagrees with you is
"indoctrinated", "ignorant", "lying"... we can't all be, RR. It's a
sign that you are sick in the head.
>
>
>
> > > > > Ever heard of the Darwinian Implant?
>
> > > > Only in regards to scientology, which is the work of a con artist sci
> > > > fi author.
>
> > > Let me remind you of your previous announced criteria. 'Only certified
> > > persons may express themselves concerning any topic.' So, where are
> > > your certs on this topic? And where is your documented Scientology
> > > research.
>
> > I never said that. Ever. Man you are delusional! I said don't present
> > yourself as an expert when you are not.
>
> Never did that or claimed that.
Yes, you did, when you stated your years of experience made your
opinion more valid than others. THAT is presenting yourself as an
authority.
>
>
> You offered nothing that would indicate subjecting it to research
> criteria. Simple as that.
That is your OPINION, not fact. Your opinion means absolutely nothing
to me or even in the grand scheme of things. It is just an opinion of
one prejudiced little cultist, after all.
>
> >Everyone on this site but you
> > believes it exists, I wonder why that is.....hmmm... HMMMM... perhaps
> > because you are in denial?
>
> You forget where you are. This is the domain of the anti-Scientology
> activists. These same, for the most rather uneducated individuals,
> also accept Gerry Armstrongs 'Affirmations' no questions asked.
No, I remember where I am. I'm among people who THINK critically and
don't swallow the bullshit of religious nutjobs or con artists who act
like religious nutjobs. As for Gerry, I have actually never, EVER
commented on her 'affirmations'.
>
> Indeed, one should not ask if some person 'believes' something exists.
> One instead should just offer it.
>
> And no, there is NO indication anywhere that you ever have performed
> any serious research into Scientology. You are just a simple lying
> fraud.
>
> In fact, you are not quite sane.
>
> RR
Blah blah blah more personal attack. And you claim to not be on a
mission to demonize? Bwahahaha you do it in every single one of your
posts to me! You nitpick, assign fault, assign meaning where there is
none, BLATANTLY LIE and manipulate to get your point across because
you cannot argue actual fact or data with me. Hell, you are even
conceited enough to think that your subjective interpretation of
reality is objective! What a laugh!
>
>
> > It's nifty if you can assemble a skeleton, but it's not always going
> > to happen. They don't all come in neat little boxes from 1800's
> > graveyards. There are lots of things that can scatter remains over 3.2
> > million years. Weather, earth movement, animals, human interference...
> > all can scatter remains efficiently. What's important is the bulk of
> > em were found in the same layer of ashy earth. Or did they dig up the
> > ground, plop her in at the right depth and then "stumble across" one
> > of her exposed arm bits in the hillside?
Nothing to say here? Really? Convenient that you ignored this.
>
> > Not true. Ever hear of a midden? No human bones, just trash.. trash
> > that tells VOLUMES about our way of life in times past. Geeze you
> > really are an ignorant fuck, aren't you....
Nothing to say here? Really? Did you forget about those? I think this
pretty much sums up.. you are no archaeologist, paleontologist or
anything else. You are a schmuck with a shovel, one who apparently
likes to dig up graves. Creeper.
Jommy Cross
<roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in msg
<09d82f02-7b23-4903...@g12g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>On 28 Maj, 13:44, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com>
>wrote:
<snip>
>> In terms of anything unique to Dianetics, no, I don't think it has
>> value as mental health treatment.
<snip>
> No one ever said that
>various principles were new, in fact they are not, and nothing to the
>contrary has been claimed.
<snip>
It seems L Ron Hubbard and J A Winter disagree with you, yet again. Hubbard
is so verrrrrry keen for his readers to understand that the principles of
dianetics are new, new, new.
In addition to things known, if not evaluated, dianetics includes a large
number of new discoveries of its own about thought and the mind.
[...]
It is new that life has as its entire dynamic urge only survival.
[...]
We are dealing here with an exact science, precision axioms and new skills
of application.
[...]
In my opinion DIANETICS is worthy of being called a New Idea,
[...]
now comes DIANETICS to test this assumption. It will be highly interesting
to see if there will be any change in our interpersonal relationships as a
result of a new, different basic assumption.
[...]
and that the recorded engrams then received are highly reactive, portends a
new trend for psychological and psychiatric thought and practice.
Dr J A Winter, Dianetics The Modern Science Of Mental Health, Introduction,
1950
This fact has been found to be a single, direct source of aberrated
behavior. Its discovery and isolation with the mechanics of its operation
within the psyche, bring new and brilliant light to hitherto obscure
phenomena of the mind and its behavior.
[...]
3. DIANETICS offers to the medical profession, to psychiatrists, to
psycho-analysts, to all who are interested in the advancement of their
fellow men, a new theory and technique which makes accessible for therapy
diseases and symptoms which hitherto were unusually complex and obscure.
[...]
An entirely new recall process which was inherent in the mind but which had
not been noticed came to light in the process of observing clears and
aberrees.
[...]
We are dealing here with an entirely new and hitherto non-existent object
of inspection, the clear.
[...]
First there is the return. That is new.
[...]
A new computation was made on the survival dynamic.
[...]
A new computation was made on the survival dynamic. Exactly for what was
man surviving? All four of these factors, self, sex, group and Mankind were
entered into a new equation. And now it was found, a theory was in hand
which worked. It explained all observed phenomena and it predicted new
phenomena which were discovered to exist. It was a scientific equation,
therefore!
[...]
The fundamentals about engrams had been formulated and "unconsciousness"
had been discovered as being a period of actual recording when the theory
began to predict new phenomena not hitherto observed.
L Ron Hubbard, Dianetics The Modern Science Of Mental Health, 1950
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------