Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

HUBBARD ORDERED MURDERS

18 views
Skip to first unread message

Anonymous

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

HCO ETHICS ORDER


To: Those Concerned No. 30 INT
E/O No. 28 INT added to
From: The Founder

Subject: RACKET EXPOSED 6th March 1968
(BPI and goes in Auditor)

POLLY STATHIS
PETER GOODWIN
JIM STATHIS
PETER KNIGHT
MRS. KNIGHT
NORA GOODWIN
RON FROST
MARGARET FROST
NINA COLLINGWOOD
FREDA GAIMAN
FRANK MANLEY
MARY ANN TAYLOR
GEORGE WATERIDGE
are hereby declared Suppressive Persons for pretending to have and
distribute
forged and altered "Upper Level Materials" which were of a Research
nature
and not for distribution. {NOTE THAT IT IS NOT STATED THAT THEY ACTUALLY
HAD AND DISTRIBUTED SUCH MATERIALS}

All Certificates and Awards are cancelled.

1. Having stolen or illegally procured these dangerous materials (at
the
instigation of a Psychiatrist) these persons did plot to misuse them
to
cause Insanity and Death. {CONTRADICTS ABOVE - DID THEY HAVE THE
MATERIALS OR NOT? EVEN IF THEY HAD THEM, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF
INTENTION TO CAUSE "INSANITY AND DEATH," OR EVEN THAT THE MATERIALS ARE
"DANGEROUS"?}

2. False report for money that they would furnish the real materials.

3. They are declared Enemies of mankind, the planet and all life. {GOD
HAS SPOKEN!}

4. They are fair game. {MAY BE - DESTROYED ---}

5. No amnesty may ever cover them.

6. If they ever come to a Qual Division they are to be run on reverse
processes. {TO DELIBERATELY CAUSE MENTAL HARM}

7. Any Sea Org member contacting any of them is to use Auditing Process
R2-45. {"R2-45" MEANS BEING SHOT IN THE HEAD WITH A .45 CAL.
HANDGUN. HUBBARD, WITH THESE WORDS, IS ORDERING 13 MURDERS!!}

8. The Criminals Prosecution Bureau is to find any and all crimes in
their
pasts and have them brought to court and prison. {POSSIBLE BETRAYAL
OF CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION IN THEIR PC FOLDERS}

The Public Distribution of False or Forbidden or Dangerous Data is a
Suppressive Act and a High Crime. {BUT MURDER IS OK}


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

{ARE ANY OF THE PEOPLE NAMED IN THIS ETHICS ORDER DECEASED? If so, the
circumstances of their deaths should be thoroughly investigated!}

Sim...@webtv.net

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

Anonymous--the dribble you originate consistently reaches new lows.
Your postings are outright lies and libelous.

You, sir, are a coward--you know and I know it.

Simon

© Anti-Cult ®

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998 03:22:19 -0500.
Sim...@webtv.net.
From: WebTV Subscriber.
Wrote on the subject: Re: HUBBARD ORDERED MURDERS:

No Simon. Face it, it was Hubbard alright. You haven't seen the true
face of the beast yet. On the other side of the bridge, spiritual death
awaits you....

------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure
the orgs say what is legal or not."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966
------------------------------------------------------------------
***** Body thetans? We don't need no stinking Body Thetans! ******
********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm **********
*** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm ***
****** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) *******
------------------------------------------------------------------
Victimized by the Co$. "Deadfiled" in at least one Org. Seen too
much, heard to much, lived too much. Security Coded hard disks
too much. Have been reading NOTS too much. Having chronic
pneumonia. As Arnold said: I'll be back......
------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebecca Jo McLaughlin

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

Sim...@webtv.net wrote:
: Anonymous--the dribble you originate consistently reaches new lows.

: Your postings are outright lies and libelous.

Kinda makes me nostalgic for the cult's last anti-psych shill - Cory
Brennan. I wonder whatever happened to her?

Beck

Sim...@webtv.net

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

Anticult---

I think YOU have a case of "WHHHEEEE--- KILL EVERYONE---THATS MY
SOLUTION!!!!!"

Simon

Ron Newman

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

In article <oqyL.1124$Z64.5...@news.itd.umich.edu>, bec...@umich.edu
(Rebecca Jo McLaughlin) wrote:

I suppose one could write to kor...@aol.com and ask. Is that account
still active?

She was surely a lot more articulate than Simon5 or any of the rest
of the current crop...

--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/

© Anti-Cult ®

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998 10:21:20 -0500.

Sim...@webtv.net.
From: WebTV Subscriber.
Wrote on the subject: Re: HUBBARD ORDERED MURDERS:

>Anticult---

No Simon. the solution is to see the truth behind the Hubbardian scam,
and love each other. Killing is never a solution, although Hubbard
wanted to get rid of all critics with R2-45.

Oh Simon, do you feel anythin at all over the issue scientology abuse?
Have you audited away your ability to feel compassion. Do you feel
uncomfortable if I said that I love you as a fellow human being? Is that
hard Simon. If you feel the slightest sting in your heart, the best
thing you could do now is to get the hell out of the cult that is
sucking your life power out of your system. You don't believe me now
Simon, but you will in the future. I promise you that I will not hold
anything against you when you come out of the darkness.

Love and affection.

Sten-Arne

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

Simon, my question to you is ? What do you consider a lie ? The statement
quoted in which Hubbard orders R2-45 ? Or the interpretation of this order ?

Sim...@webtv.net

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

The suns shining in my neck of the woods Anti-cult and I can have
whatever emotion you wish to send my way.

Sincerely,

Simon

Chris Owen

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

In article <6dlnbr$lfu$1...@newsd-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Sim...@webtv.net writes

>Anonymous--the dribble you originate consistently reaches new lows.
>Your postings are outright lies and libelous.

So did Hubbard write the quoted words or not, Simon?

--
| Chris Owen - chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| NEW! - WORLD'S BIGGEST SINCLAIR WEB ARCHIVE: |
| http://www.nvg.unit.no/sinclair |
| OFFLINE VERSION: http://www.nvg.unit.no/sinclair/plansinc.zip |

Bob "Da Sloth" Bingham

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

That's one of the very few posts from Wednesday that made it to me. Musta
had a nasty server problem here yesterday. But anyway....

What is this R2-45 order? Announcing annonymously that it means to shoot the
person is one thing, but I would want some serious evidence to back that kind
of statement up. Is there a scanned copy on the web? Affidavits declaring
the nature of this order?

--
Bob "Da Sloth" Bingham <http://www.sky.net/~sloth>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"See you....out there." --- Final words from Q on STtNG

Justin the Blue

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

Sim...@webtv.net writes:

>The suns shining in my neck of the woods Anti-cult and I can have
>whatever emotion you wish to send my way.

This has got to be the *worst* Khalil Gibran impersonation I've
ever seen.

...Justin the Blue
--
As Seen On | Justin the Blue <ea...@agora.rdrop.com>
___ _ _ | Better Living Through the Lambert Conformal Projection
| \ / | "The last stronghold of Rebel resistance is...outta sight..
| \/ | under eight million hardbound copies of _The_Naked_Lunch_..."

© Anti-Cult ®

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998 17:30:40 -0500.

Sim...@webtv.net.
From: WebTV Subscriber.
Wrote on the subject: Re: HUBBARD ORDERED MURDERS:

>The suns shining in my neck of the woods Anti-cult and I can have


>whatever emotion you wish to send my way.
>

>Sincerely,
>
>Simon

Good Simon. I'll send a ton of Love your way.

Sincerely

Mike O'Connor

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

In article <34FF784B...@sky.net>, "Bob \"Da Sloth\" Bingham"
<sl...@sky.net> wrote:

> That's one of the very few posts from Wednesday that made it to me. Musta
> had a nasty server problem here yesterday. But anyway....
>
> What is this R2-45 order? Announcing annonymously that it means to shoot the
> person is one thing, but I would want some serious evidence to back that kind
> of statement up. Is there a scanned copy on the web? Affidavits declaring
> the nature of this order?


The document "PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE CLEARWATER CITY COMMISSION RE: THE
POWER OF A MUNICIPALITY TO REGULATE ORGANIZATIONS CLAIMING TAX EXEMPT OR
NON-PROFIT STATUS" includes this passage:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"R2-45"

Despite the general exposure of many Scientology practice
policies and attacks in the media over the past several years,
resulting primarily from the F.B.I. 's seizure of documents
fro Scientology headquarters, there exists in Hubbard's twisted
mind and writings a little known policy called "R2-45" [garbled]
in the book, "The Creation of Human Ability - A Handbook of Scientology"
written by Hubbard and distributed by the Church of Scientology
of California, the following quote appears:

"R2-45 - an enormously effective process for exteriorization,
but its use is frowned upon by this society at this time."

"Exteriorization", in Scientology policy is death. The policy
refers to shooting a person in the head. In a short internal
Scientology memorandum called "Racket Exposed", Hubbard attacks
a number of individuals, subjects them to the "Fair Game" doctrine,
and states as follows:

"Any Sea Organization member contacting any of them is to use
auditing process R2-45"

It is unknown to the authors of this Report whether the process
was used on those individuals.

During a meeting of Scientologists in Phoenix, Arizona,
in 1954, Hubbard demonstrated the R2-45 auditing process by
firing a shot into the floor during the middle of the meeting.
There is some evidence to suggest that between 1975 and 1977,
during the F.B.I. investigation of Scientology, meetings of
Scientology executives were held in which there were discussion
relative to auditing high level F.B.I. members with auditing
process R2-45.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In the book "Religion Inc." (Stuart Lamont, 1986) it says:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

However, in 1952 the phoenix had yet to arise from the ashes of the
HDRF in Wichita. Hubbard took himself off literally to the town of
Phoenix, Arizona, and opened a centre there in March 1952. He trav-
elled in September of that year to England to lecture in London and
returned again in January to find interest in his theories increasing. In
between these visits he delivered the famous Philadelphia Doctorate
Lectures (1-19 December 1952). These are still for sale on cassette by
the Church of Scientology at over $2000 for the set and include
Hubbard's notorious reference to the R2-45 process for exteriorisation.
In plain language, it means that someone can be released from their
body by shooting them with a Colt '45, which Ron proceeded to
demonstrate by firing a revolver into the floor of the podium.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In the L.A. Times, August 28, 1978 by Robert Rawitch and Robert Gillette
it says:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scientology Critics Assail Aggressiveness of Church

"If anyone is getting industrious trying to enturbulate (sic) or stop
Scientology or its activities, I can make Captain Bligh look like a
Sunday-school teacher. There is probably no limit on what I would do to
safeguard Man's only road to freedom against persons who ... seek to stop
Scientology or hurt Scientologists." -- L. Ron Hubbard, Aug. 15, 1967

[...]

Equally misunderstood, the church contends, is a controversial Hubbard
dictum label "R2-45," which the church's enigmatic founder never has
chosen to elaborate. The dictum comes from Hubbard's book "The Creation
of Human Ability" and reads: "R2-45: An enormously effective process for
exteriorization but its use is frowned upon by this society at this time."

Exteriorization, in Scientology terminology, is the ability of the mind,
or "thetan" to physically leave the body.

A number of former Scientologists who are now critics of the church assert
that R2-45 is meant to authorize killing its antagonists with a
.45-calibre pistol.

Church spokesman Jeffrey Dubron, of the principal American Church of
Scientology in Los Angeles, says "it was only a joke."

There is no evidence that R2-45 has ever been carried out, nor is there
any indication Scientologists have ever, as a matter of policy, physically
harmed anyone.

There is, however, abundant evidence that the church has sought -- and to
a significant extent succeeded -- to suppress criticism of Scientology, in
part by simply promulgating policies such as fair game and R2-45 and also
by the church's quickness to file civil and even criminal charges against
its critics.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-Mike

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

Re: R2-45

I wish the people trying to frame LRH would get their facts straight.

If L.Ron Hubbard did indeed order R2-45 be carried out, it was certainly
only to make the absoluteness of his conclusion regarding the
suppressive nature of the parties' deeds CLEAR to those receiving the
words. I don't have my Chart of Human Evaluation from the Science of
Survival book at hand, but I know there is a column, pertaining I
believe to attitude towards the truth, which shows how people low on the
tone scale take everything literally. LRH was a master of hyperbole,
analogy, and exaggerated drama in the cause of increasing human
understanding, truly.

Yours very true-ly,

J.S.W. (Jack)
Geistes...@webtv.net

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

John: I wish the people trying to frame LRH would get their facts straight.>>

Frame L Ron Hubbard ? Heck nobody has to frame him. He lied himself about his
accomplishments, he was a failure as a scientist and convicted criminal.

Framing LRON ?

He's dead for goodness sake

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

Dear Pimoty,

Does the fact he's dead mean he can't be FRAMED?

Puzzled,

Jack
Geistes...@webtv.net

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

John: Dear Pimoty, Does the fact he's dead mean he can't be FRAMED?>>

Unless you are refering to his picture, the answer is yes.

mor...@gte.net

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

In article <34FF784B...@sky.net>,
"Bob \"Da Sloth\" Bingham" <sl...@sky.net> wrote:
>
> That's one of the very few posts from Wednesday that made it to me. Musta
> had a nasty server problem here yesterday. But anyway....
>
> What is this R2-45 order? Announcing annonymously that it means to shoot the
> person is one thing, but I would want some serious evidence to back that kind
> of statement up. Is there a scanned copy on the web? Affidavits declaring
> the nature of this order?

I think that HCO Ethics Order ( #30 INT.) written by LRH, and titled " Racket
Exposed" makes it abundantly clear.
The order accused 12 people of pretending to have and distribute forged and
altered "upper level materials", and declared them "enemies of mankind , the
planet, and all life." " they are Fair Game". They are to be run on reverse
processes if they ever show up in a qual division. " Any sea org member
contacting any of them is to use Auditing Process R2-45."
etc. etc.
I don't know if this has been scanned onto the net or not.
The date is 6 march 1968.

j.


>
> --
> Bob "Da Sloth" Bingham <http://www.sky.net/~sloth>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "See you....out there." --- Final words from Q on STtNG
>


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

Dear Pimoty,

Please clarify for me why a man who is dead can't be set up to take the
blame for crimes he did not commit!!!

Bob "Da Sloth" Bingham

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

So Dubron says it was just a joke. That's a pretty damn sick joke, but I
wouldn't put it past Hubbard. However, if it was a joke then what is it
doing on that order? That order was NOT a joking matter!

Stirling here says it was just to emphisise the order. I rather doubt that.
Why emphisise more than treating somebody as fair game and and to
reverse-process them? If its emphasis, why is the R2-45 order given only to
Sea Org folks? I'm sorry, but the order simply doesn't make sense in that
context.

J: The order itself has been on the web for many years. I've got it myself
at http://www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/fair_game.order though it's not HTML'ized
yet. I was wondering if the evidence that this means "shoot them in the
head" was webbed yet.

John Stirling Walker wrote:
>
> Re: R2-45


>
> I wish the people trying to frame LRH would get their facts straight.
>

> If L.Ron Hubbard did indeed order R2-45 be carried out, it was certainly
> only to make the absoluteness of his conclusion regarding the
> suppressive nature of the parties' deeds CLEAR to those receiving the
> words. I don't have my Chart of Human Evaluation from the Science of
> Survival book at hand, but I know there is a column, pertaining I
> believe to attitude towards the truth, which shows how people low on the
> tone scale take everything literally. LRH was a master of hyperbole,
> analogy, and exaggerated drama in the cause of increasing human
> understanding, truly.
>

> Yours very true-ly,
>
> J.S.W. (Jack)
> Geistes...@webtv.net

--

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

Dear Sloth,

It doesn't make sense in that context only if you are already biased
towards believing LRH to have meant real harm towards anyone!

Martin Hunt

unread,
Mar 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/7/98
to

In article <6dpene$pro$1...@newsd-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,

Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) wrote:

>LRH was a master of hyperbole,

That's an understatement! He was a virtually pathological
liar throughout his life. In the foreword of his 1956 book
_Scientology 8-8008_, he claimed:

"The work contained in this book is the result of twenty-five years
of investigation of electronics as they apply to knowledge and human
thinking by L.Ron Hubbard, C.E., PhD. an American nuclear phyicist.
"In his youth, Dr. Hubbard had the good fortune to know Commander
Thompson (M.C.), U.S.N., who had studied under Sigmund Freud in
Vienna. Stimulated by Freud's investigatory spirit and by the
encouragement of the late Commander Thompson, and equipped with
considerable personal experience in the Orient with phenomena not
generally known in the Western World, Dr. Hubbard bent the exactitudes
of Occidental engineering to the investigation and practical
application of such data to the human mind."

Now, look at his grades. He flunked out, and was never any sort
of "Dr.", nuclear physicist, or otherwise. He was not a civil
engineer, either. What he was was a total failure in his academic
life. His George Washington University transcripts read:

1930-31 1st semester

English 1/2, Rhetoric C
General Chemistry 3/4 D
Mechanical Engineering 3/4 B
Analytical Geometry F
Physical Education C
First year German E
Civil Engineering B

2nd semester

English 1/2 Rhetoric B
General Chemistry 3/4 D
Mechanical Engineering C
Physical Education A
First year German F
Differential Calculus F

1931-2 1st semester

Physics, dynamics of sound
and light E
Differential Calculus D
Integral Calculus
Plane Anal. Geometry D
English, short stories B

2nd semester

Integral Calculus D
English, Short Stories B
Physics, electricity
and magnetism D
Nuclear Physics F

GPA: D. After this stellar performance by the later creator of
"study technology", Hubbard was asked to leave. I won't even
bother getting into his other lies here; they're too numerous
to bother with, and, in any case, they've been extensively
documented in Russell Miller's _Bare-Faced Messiah_, John, a
book I heartily recommend that you read. (if you can find a
copy that hasn't been destroyed or defaced by Scientology, that
is, in its book-burning campaign.)

[Posted/mailed; you said you never saw one of my prior posts.
If you no longer desire email, I will, of course, quit sending
you any - all you have to do is ask. So far, we've exchanged
several emails, and you haven't told me not to send more, only
that they were too "rude" to be deigned worthy of a reply.]

ttyl,
martin.

--
Cogito, ergo sum. FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/

L. Ron Hubbard: "Clears do not get colds." - Dianetics.
David Miscavige: "I guess one could." - Koppel interview.


Rebecca Jo McLaughlin

unread,
Mar 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/7/98
to

John Stirling Walker (Geistes...@webtv.net) wrote:
: Re: R2-45

: If L.Ron Hubbard did indeed order R2-45 be carried out, it was certainly


: only to make the absoluteness of his conclusion regarding the
: suppressive nature of the parties' deeds CLEAR to those receiving the
: words.

[snip]

Tsk, tsk. Verbal tech.

Beck


CillyPuddi

unread,
Mar 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/7/98
to

In article <6dpene$pro$1...@newsd-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,

Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) writes:

> which shows how people low on the
>tone scale take everything literally. LRH was a master of hyperbole,
>analogy, and exaggerated drama in the cause of increasing human
>understanding, truly.
>

>Yours very true-ly,
>
>J.S.W. (Jack)
>Geistes...@webtv.net


Don't you think a man who was able to save the planet; who allegedly was an OT
( and you know what that entails); who allegedly was a clear; who alledegdly
had complete memory recall; who allegedly was the most responsible and
ethicical person on this planet, couldn't be serious about such a subject?
Don't you think that someone could mistrue this statement as fact given the
right circumstances? What would you do if you heard the president say such a
thing? Oh, I guess you would just laugh and say....what a joker......RIGHT!!!

Btw Jack where does Hubbard put a person on the Chart of Hubbard evaluation if
he can't answer a question on a sane subject? The one question that not one
scientologist has ever answered me was: *' Can you give me one example of a
clear with complete memory recall? ' You can't answer either can you? Simon
couldn't and won't answer this. Wgert couldn't and won't and neither can you.


* To ARSers. Sorry for asking this one question over and over. I am obsessed
with this reality and there isn't one scientologist who can answer this
truthfully while being a scientologist. So you may be hearing it for a
time....my apologies.

CillyPuddi

unread,
Mar 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/7/98
to

In article <6dqqa0$rae$1...@newsd-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,

Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) writes:

>Subject: Re: R2-45 a joke?
>From: Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker)
>Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:43:12 -0700


>
>Dear Sloth,
>
>It doesn't make sense in that context only if you are already biased
>towards believing LRH to have meant real harm towards anyone!
>

>Yours very true-ly,
>
>J.S.W. (Jack)
>Geistes...@webtv.net
>
>

Brilliant Jack. Like saying when Hubbard said " there is no Christ". I guess
you have to be prejudiced toward scientology to see this in the true light too.
You make an interesting point ( I guess...let me speak anyway). Hubbard
wanted only subjective reality to exist....i.e. " what is real for you is real
for you". So unless people are able to discuss things there will be no way to
determine if Oo$ is correct or not. 300,000 dollars later you find out you are
wrong. OOOOPS. I can't tell anyone else. "What is real for them is real for
thema, I will have no part in their beliefs." I guess that is the way it
goes.

What you just said is the crux of the problem. You don't realize that you
can't see Hubbard as savior and villian. Either one or the other. The more
you try for the former the greater chances of being the latter. The only way
to avoid the former, in Hybbards case, is to force it upon the whims of
disbelievers. To sue them into reality and to intimidate them into Hybbard
think. As long as people continue not to speak about the evil's of your savior
the more he will be thought as one. There is too much proof otherwise.

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/7/98
to

Dear CillyPuddy,

I am unlike most other people in the Scientology field, in that I really
understand that questions mean an opportunity to tell the truth. LRH
actually termed answering people's questions a form of helping them, so
I never hesitate to answer any question meant SINCERELY, though I am
very practiced (I think) at not doing Q&A!

I personally see that LRH clearly was LEARNING himself as he advanced
his research. Judging Scientology by hidden standards or external
"proofs" violates the very spirit of the tech. There may, as a matter
of simple fact, NOT be any Clears at the moment with "total memory
recall" (I wouldn't know, not having "tested" every single one, or ANY
single one, for that matter...); there is sufficient clarifcation of the
cause of this in his later research results, for those who have ears to
hear. I have never been interested in the application of verification
methods for the physical sciences being applied to life or "social"
sciences, because ONE human being who finds real value in the practice
of a certain technique is, in fact, perfect "evidence" of the value of
that technique. Most Clears I know personally certainly have a
substantially better recall and communication ability than the
non-Clears that surround and try to invalidate them.

Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

unread,
Mar 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/7/98
to

In article <6dqfqb$qg4$1...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
John Stirling Walker <Geistes...@webtv.net> writes:
>Dear Pimoty,
>
>Please clarify for me why a man who is dead can't be set up to take the
>blame for crimes he did not commit!!!
>
>Yours very demently-ly,
>
>J.S.W. (Jack)
>Geistes...@webtv.net

Earth calling John Stirling Walker. Earth calling John Stirling Walker.
Come in, please.

You statment above does not make sense for several reasons.

(1) If the crimes you are referring to are murders, you must be aware
that actual killings did not take place so nobody is being blamed for
them.

(2)"Framed" makes no sense because there is good evidence that Hubbard
did incite those murders in the document quoted. Why do you think
it is IN-authentic ?? It may well even be quoted in several governemnt
reports, in which case Scn never said it was inauthentic when they
had the chance to.

|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)


John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/7/98
to

Dear CylliPuddi,

I'm sorry, but I couldn't grasp the meaning of much of what you wrote in
your last post; there seemed to be unfinished sentences, and some odd
garbling (perhaps by your server?)...

Jack

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/7/98
to

JSW: It doesn't make sense in that context only if you are already biased

towards believing LRH to have meant real harm towards anyone!
>>

That one is easily supported by Fair Game Doctrine:

ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by
any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist.
May be tricked, sue or lied to or destroyed.

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/7/98
to

JSW: Please clarify for me why a man who is dead can't be set up to take the

blame for crimes he did not commit!!!>>

Let's make a deal. You tell me how Hubbard's remark "The man on the cross,
there was no Christ" can be reconciled with your apparant belief that Jesus
Christ is your Savior and I will address your question.

Fair enough ?


John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/7/98
to

I wrote to Pimoty:

Its a GAME!

I recommend to everyone the film by this name (The Game), with Michael
Douglas and Sean Penn.

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/7/98
to

I answered the question about Christ already.

Jack

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/7/98
to

Oh, CillyPuddy:

I don't know what I can do for you.

I've read Dianetics, cover to cover, without expecting it to be science
in the sense you seem to be unable to escape from.

We are dealing with SPIRITUAL BEINGS when we examine humanity. You seem
driven to insist there must be PROOF, like many people on this forum,
but what you and they fail to see is that NO approach to the human
spirit can be successful if it is based on the "testing" attitude. It
requires, as Kierkegaard said, the LEAP; the spirit is an absolute
entity as much as anything can be absolute, and requires the willingness
to yield your life, not pussyfoot around with "testing."

I'm not advocating anyone do what they can or will not; indeed, those
who try to MAKE themselves be one way or another tend to fail, in the
end, to learn anything at all about spirit, or truth. I AM advocating
that those who CANNOT (or will not) give up the "testing" attitude, for
God's sake, leave LRH alone.

If you have complaints about ACTIONS TAKEN by individuals, anywhere or
everywhere in life where you see injustice done, or really believe you
do, it isn't inappropriate to try to help others by seeking avenues for
wrongs to be righted. Attacking others' convictions is just stupid, as
well as harmful--what good does it do?

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/7/98
to

Dear T. Devon Sharkey,

Unfortunately, WebTV does not (yet, anyway) provide cut and paste
functions.

Try checking out my response to John Salter on the misnamed thread The
A------ Who Was LRH...

Jack

CillyPuddi

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

In article <6drv48$rq4$1...@newsd-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,

Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) writes:

>Subject: Re: HUBBARD ORDERED MURDERS


>From: Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker)

>Date:Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:11:36 -0700


>
>Dear CillyPuddy,
>
>I am unlike most other people in the Scientology field

You can say that again.

, in that I really
>understand that questions mean an opportunity to tell the truth. LRH
>actually termed answering people's questions a form of helping them, so
>I never hesitate to answer any question meant SINCERELY, though I am
>very practiced (I think) at not doing Q&A!

You surely aren't Simon. He has been Q&Aing on this question for some time.
He won't admit it though.


>
>I personally see that LRH clearly was LEARNING himself as he advanced
>his research. Judging Scientology by hidden standards or external
>"proofs" violates the very spirit of the tech.

You are wrong. Hubbard said many many times that scientology was a science.
Word clear this and see what you come up with. You may not realize this, but
without objective reality you are losing a vital ingredient to survival. What
if Russians only heard what theri leaders told them? What then?

There may, as a matter
>of simple fact, NOT be any Clears at the moment with "total memory
>recall" (I wouldn't know, not having "tested" every single one, or ANY
>single one, for that matter...); there is sufficient clarifcation of the
>cause of this in his later research results, for those who have ears to
>hear.

I have ears to hear. I know what Hubbard said in Dianetics. There were 200
people who were tested ( how do you test w/o external reality) for all known
mental abberrations and so on and so forth. They all had complete memory
recall and so on......How the hell did he say this if it weren't true? How can
it not be true if he were honest? If he were honest then how could he claim
this to be true? If he was wrong then why are they still promoting this book
as if it were 100% true? When I wrote a letter to a Dianatician (sic), I asked
if the claims were true and they were the same as in Dianetics: MSMH. The girl
wrote me back and said "yes" and it only took about 200 hours to become clear.
' Yes' means yes. She lied to me.

I have never been interested in the application of verification
>methods for the physical sciences being applied to life or "social"
>sciences, because ONE human being who finds real value in the practice
>of a certain technique is, in fact, perfect "evidence" of the value of
>that technique.

Scientology started out as Dianetics. Dianetics was claimed to be a science.
Not a social science. Dianetics and Scientology is neither of these.

Most Clears I know personally certainly have a
>substantially better recall and communication ability than the
>non-Clears that surround and try to invalidate them.


I havn't seen this. Where is the external validation of this? It would be
easy to prove. Why isn't it on any books? Oh, don't tell me that memory is
completely subjective. It may be personal but it can be exhibited through
speech. It would be simple.


>
>Yours very true-ly,
>
>J.S.W. (Jack)
>Geistes...@webtv.net
>
>


Jack, let us examine Hubbards claims on clear. You are saying two different
things.
You say that Hubbard's Tech is perfect or at least workable and close to
absolute but you claim his writings aren't up to par with the reality.


This was supplied to me on ARS:
You have three options. Hubbard to be a liar or a charlatan or you have
misrepresented his beliefs.


*** The Claims of Dianetics FAQ ***


L. Ron Hubbard's book Dianetics makes quite a few unwarranted claims
as to just what Dianetics can accomplish. This FAQ is to examine just
what Dianetics claims for those who do not want to bother to obtain and
read this miserable book to find exactly out what Hubbard claimed.

Dianetics was published in 1950, simultaneously as a book and in
the Science Fiction magazine, Astounding Science Fiction.

I will be examining a 1992 hardback edition.

Hubbard's main claims can be found in the chapters, The Scope of
Dianetics (book one, chapter one), 'The Clear' (book one chapter one),
'Psychosomatic Ilnesses' (book two chapter five) and Release or Clear,
(book three chapter two).
I am not examining all of the claims of Dianetics, but more specifically
what claims a Dianetics "clear" can achieve.
************************************************************************

What is a clear?
"A Clear (noun) is an individual who has a result of Dianetic therapy,
has neither active nor potential psychosomatic illnesses or abberations."
(Page 213)
*****

"The Clear is an unaberrated person.
..
The Clear has no engrams which can be stimulated to throw out the
correctness of computation by entering hidden or false data into it.
No aberration."
(page 144)

******

The engram is the single and sole source of aberration and psychosomatic
illnesses.
(Page 91)

********

"The purpose of therapy and its sole target is the removal of
the content of the reactive engram bank. In a release, the majority
of emotional stress is deleted from this bank. In a Clear, the entire
content is removed."
(Page 218)

*********

Yes, your 'engram bank' contains the engrams that cause abberations
and ilnesses. The goal of Dianetics is to audit out your engrams, empty
the engram bank for good, and become clear.

"Clear is the goal Dianetics therapy, a goal which some patience and
a little study will bring about".
(Page 541)

***** Your life as a Clear ******

So you extend "some practice and a little study" and you are finally
declared a Clear by a beaming Dianetics auditor. Now what?

"But a Clear is a Clear and when you see it you will know it with no
further mistake."
(Page 383)

"How can you tell a Clear? How does man measure the optimum
to man? Can he adjust to his enviroment smoothly? And far more
important, can he adjust the enviroment to him?
Sixty days and six months after a Clear has been effected,
the auditor should make a search for any neglected material. He
should question the Clear carefully as to the events of the past
interval. In such a way he can learn of any worries, concerns, or
illnesses which may have taken place and attempt to trace these
to engrams. if he cannot then find engrams, the Clear is definitely
and without question, cleared. And he will stay that way."

Whew! Finally, we are sure we are Clear!
We did it! Checked out and by golly, there is no mistake.
No more engrams.


Now for the miracles! What is behind door number three, Ron!?

***** Your new IQ *******

Yes, you always wanted to be smart! That's why you bought the book,
right? Let's see what Ron said about Clears and IQs.

"Is it any wonder, that when these demons (engram caused aberrations)
are deleted, IQ soars, as it can be observed to do in a Clear?
Add the demon circuits to the shut down aspect of restimulation
and the truth can be seen in the observation that people run on about
one-twentieth of their mental power."
(page 117)

"A Clear, for instance, has complete recall of everything which ever
happened to him, or anything he ever studied. He does mental computations,
such as those in chess, for example, which a normal would do in half an
hour, in ten or fifteen seconds."
(Page 214)

"He can do a swift study of anything within his intellectual capacity,
which is inherent and the study would be the equivalent to him of a year
or two when he was 'normal'. His vigor, persistance, and tenacity to life
are very much higher than anyone has thought possible."
(Page 214)

"IQ, unless it falls down into the feebleminded level, is no great factor.
and even then the IQ of any patient goes up like a skyrocket with
clearing and rises all the while during the work."
(Page 242)

****** A Perfect memory ******

"A Clear, for instance, has complete recall of everything that ever
happened to him, oranything he ever studied."
(Page 214)

****** Enhanced Rationality *******

"Release of such engrams means a restoration of rationality to
individual far above the current norm and a stability and
well-being greater than man thought man possessed. These engrams
have been confirmed by taking data from a child, from the mother,
and the father, and al data checked. So we are dealing here with
scientific facts which, no maytter how startling, are nonetheless
true."

****** Live longer than 'normals' ******

"What the lifespan of a Clear is cannot be answered now;
ask in a hundred years."
(Page 384)

"The deletion of engrams from the reactive bank uniformly brought
about a condition where they could recieve benefit from the
hormones, but where such artifical administration was not necessary,
save in cases of extreme age. What this means to gerontology (the
study of longevity in life) cannot at this time be estimated,
but it can be predicted with confidence that the deletion of
engrams from the reactive bank has a marked effect on the extension of
life. A hundred years from now, this data will be available, but
no Clears have lived that long as yet."
(Page 126)

******* No more accidents! ********

"Treatment for accidental injury, surgery for various things such as
malformation inherent in the body on a genetic basis, and orthopedics,
which can properly be classed under both, remain properly outside of
the field of Dianetics, although it can be remarked in passing that
almost all accidents are to be traced to dramatization of engrams and
that Clears rarely have accidents."
(Page 120-1)


******* No More Psychosmatic Illnesses ********

"About 70% of the physicians current roster of diesaess fall into the
category of psychosomatic illnesses."
(Page 119)

How this can come about can be shown by an analogic explanation
such as a schematic diagram, but we are not so much interested in
structure at this statge of the science of the mind -
because by knowing function alone we can cure aberrations and
psychosomatic illnesses everytime, predict new ills and aberrations
and generally work "miracles" as such actions were once called before
man knew anything about the mind."
(page 125)

********* Clears do not get colds *************



"Clears do not get colds."

(page 121)

********** No Migraine Headeaches ************


"Migraine headaches are psychosomatic, and with the others, are
uniformly cured by Dianetic therapy. (And the word *cured* is
used in the fullest sense.)"
(Page 121)

********** Numerous ills cured **********

"Arthritis, dermititis, allergies, asthma, some coronary
difficulties, eye trouble, bursitis, ulcers, sinusitis, ect.,
form a small section of the psychosomatic catalgue. Bizarre
aches and pains in various parts of the body are generally
psychosomatic.

********* Hubbard's classes of psychosomatic ills ***********
(All curable by Dianetics)
There are 5 classes of psychosomatic ills:
(1) Those ills resulting from mentally caused derangment in
physical fluid flow, which class subdivides into:
(1a) ...Inhibition of fluid flow
(1B) ...magnication of flow
(2) Those illnesses resulting from mental derangement of physical
growth, which class subdivides into:
(2A) ...Inhibition of growth
(2B) ...magnification of growth
(3) Those ills resulting from a predisposition to disease resulting
from a chronic psychsomatic pain in that area
(4) Those ills resulting from the perpetuation of a disease on
account of chronic pain in the area;
(5) Those ills caused by he verbal command content of engrams.
(Page 129)

******* Arthritis and constipation **********
"In Class 1A fall such ordinary things as constipation and arthritis."
(Page 129)

"..the scientific fact is that when the engram is picked up, that
arthritis vanishes and does not return and this is x-ray plate evidence."
(page 130)

"Class 1B of psychosomatic ills, magnification of fluid flow, contains
such things as high blood pressure, diarrhea, sinusitis, priapism,..
or any other physical condition resulting from a superabundance of
a fluid."

"Class 2A can cause such things as a withered arm, a foreshortened
nose, undeveloped genital organs, or any other underdevelopment of a
gland having to do with size, (which cross classes this with 1A,
hairlessness ... and in short, reduction in size of any part of
the body."

"Class 2B causes such things as oversized hands, a lengthened nose,
oversized ears, enlarged organs and other common physical
malformations. (Cancer might possibly come under this heading as
overhealing.)"

"Class 3 would include tuberculosis (some cases), liver trouble,
kidney trouble, rashes, common colds ect..."

"Class 4 Tuberculosis would be included here. Conjunctivitis, all running
sores, and any condition which refuses to heal, ect."

"Class 5 includes an enormously wide catalog of conditions, any one
of which may cross index to other classes, or which arises solely
out of engrams which dictate the presence or necessity of an illness.
"You always have colds", "I have cold feet", ect, announce a psychosomatic

illness and the mechanisms of the body can furnish one.
(Page 130-1)

"Any disease whatsoever may be precipitated by engrams."
(Page 131)

********* Engrams make childhood diseases deadly **********

"Measles, for instance may just be measels, or can be measels in company
with an engramic restimulation, in which it may be nearly or entirely
fatal."
(Page 131)

"A check of many subjects on this matter of childhood illness being
predisposed by, percipitated by, and perpetuated by engrams causes
one to wonder how violent he diseases themselves really are; they have
never been observed in a cleared child...
(Page 131-2)

********** Clears don't get ill **********

"But it remains that a Clear is not easily made ill. In an aberree
illness closely pursues mental depression (depression of the dynamic
level). The aberration of the mind and body by engrams leads, then,
not only to psychosomatic ills, but to actual pathology, which hitherto
has been considered more or less independent of the mental state."
(Page 132)

"It is a scientific fact that no psychosomatic ill exists without an
aberration. And it is true that no aberration exists without a potential
or actual psychosomatic ill."
(Page 135)

******** Perversion **********

"The sexual pervert (and by this term Dianetics, to be brief,
includes any and all forms of deviation in in dynamic two such as
homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism ect., and all down the
catalogue of Ellis and Kraft-Ebbing) is actually quite ill physically.
(Page 135)

"Hence the pervert containing hundreds and hundreds of vicious
engrams has little choice between being dead or being a pervert.
But with an effective science to handle this problem, a society
that would continue to endure perversion and all its sad and sordid
effects doesn't deserve to survive."
(Page 136)

*************************************************************************




(End)

>
>Me standing around saying, "Hey, this is *really* good, honest", has no more
>meaning than someone here saying, "It does not work - no good. Really".
>
>What the individual would "know" after listening to both sales pitches is that
>is how THOSE individuals felt.
>
>> I've been trying the same approach for almost 2 years now,
>> and still have not gotten a response. I have asked a
>> Scientologist to even talk with me on neutral ground
>> (public place outside of the org) and still no response.
>>
>> Good luck getting one.
>>
>
>What in the world are you hoping will occur? Either you can make up you own
>mind about something or you can't.
>
>Seems you "don't really like it", but can't quite walk away.
>
>> The proof of their methods is in the pudding. Go into your
>> local org, see how they treat you. Gage how much they
>> pressure you into BUYING (not necessarily reading) their
>> material. Find out how much information you can get for
>> FREE before having to PAY.
>
>If what you are trying to do is find out without having pay money, why not
>check out a few books from the library?
>
>I'm not trying to pressure you into buying anything. I AM saying if you want
>to know for yourself, READ.
>
>
>> SCIENTOLOGISTS: MY OFFER IS STILL OPEN. MEET ME SOMEWHERE
>> IN CHICAGO (restaurant, etc.) TO PROVE THAT SOURCE IS RIGHT.
>>
>>
>
>That is some offer, Saint. Hard to believe you have been making this same
>offer for two years now, and still NO ONE has taken you up on it.
>
>


T. Devon Sharkey

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

On Sat, 7 Mar 1998 15:17:23 -0700, Geistes...@webtv.net (John
Stirling Walker) wrote:

>I answered the question about Christ already.

This is a busy group and things do get missed. Would it be too much
trouble to cut and paste your original response?


Absolutely Sweet Marie

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

In article <6dlnbr$lfu$1...@newsd-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Sim...@webtv.net writes
>Anonymous--the dribble you originate consistently reaches new lows.
>Your postings are outright lies and libelous.
>
>You, sir, are a coward--you know and I know it.
>
>Simon
Which word in the previous post didn't you understand, then ?
--
"To live outside the law you must be honest" - Absolutely Sweet Marie.

You can reply to davidguest AT unforgettable.com

© Anti-Cult ®

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

On Sat, 7 Mar 1998 20:42:52 -0700.
Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker).
From: WebTV Subscriber.
Wrote on the subject: Re: HUBBARD ORDERED MURDERS:

>Oh, CillyPuddy:
>
>I don't know what I can do for you.
>
>I've read Dianetics, cover to cover, without expecting it to be science
>in the sense you seem to be unable to escape from.

Yet it's called *The modern science of mental health* Is it more
Orweillan speech from the big fraud Hubbard only?

>
>We are dealing with SPIRITUAL BEINGS when we examine humanity.

Dianetics doesn't deal with spirituality at all. It deals with the body,
the reactive mind, and engrams. Geeze, you can't have read Dianetics at
all.

[snipped the rest until you actually read and understand Dianetics]

------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure
the orgs say what is legal or not."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966
------------------------------------------------------------------
***** Body thetans? We don't need no stinking Body Thetans! ******
********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm **********
*** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm ***
****** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) *******
------------------------------------------------------------------
Victimized by the Co$. "Deadfiled" in at least one Org. Seen too
much, heard to much, lived too much. Security Coded hard disks
too much. Have been reading NOTS too much. Having chronic
pneumonia. As Arnold said: I'll be back......
------------------------------------------------------------------

© Anti-Cult ®

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

On Sat, 7 Mar 1998 20:56:09 -0700.

Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker).
From: WebTV Subscriber.
Wrote on the subject: Re: HUBBARD ORDERED MURDERS:

>Dear T. Devon Sharkey,

Hmm, using a bad technology in order to defend an equally bad cult.
Well, what is there to expect? Do you sell laundry balls too?

Bwahahaha.....

Robert Vaughn Young

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

John Stirling Walker (Geistes...@webtv.net) wrote:
: Dear Sloth,

: It doesn't make sense in that context only if you are already biased
: towards believing LRH to have meant real harm towards anyone!

Well, let's not be biased! Let's get on source and see what LRH says!

Start with the famed "Bolivar PL" (HCOPL 12 Feb 67 "The REsponsibilities
of Leaders") where L. Ron gives 7 things about power (often applied now as
a "power formula") and so let's look at #6 and remember that LRH is the
actual model here for "the power":

"When you're close to power, get some delegated to you - enough
to do yuour job and protect yourself and your interests - for you
can be shot, fellow, shot, as the position near power is
delicious but dangerous, dangerous always, open to the taunts
of any enemy of the power who dare not really boot the power
but can boot you. So to live at all in the shadow or employ of
a power, you must yourself gather and USE enough power to hold
your own - without just nattering to the power to "kill Pete,"
in straightforward or more suppressive veiled ways to him as
these wreck the power that supports yuours. He doesn't have
to know all the bad news and if he's a power really he won't
ask all the time, "Waht are all those dead bodies doing at
the door?" And if you are clever, you never let it be
thought HE killed them - that weakens you and also hurts
the power source. "Well, boss, about all those dead bodies,
nobody at all will suppose you did it. *She* over there,
those pink legs sticking out, didn't like me." "Well,"
he'll say if he really is a power, "why are you bother me
with it if it's done and you did it. Where's my blue ink?"
Or "Skipper, three shore patrolmen will be along soon with
your cook, Dober, and they'll want to tell you he beat up
Simson." "Who's Simson?" "He's a clerk in the enemy office
downtown." "Good, when they've done it, take Dober down
to the dispensary for anyt treatment he needs. Oh, yes.
Raise his pay."

What this clearly fits into is the Fair Game doctrine that there is
nothing wrong with anything done to an "enemy" or "suppressive person"
just as the Nazis taught there is no crime that can be committed against
Jews. In fact, Hubbard even says, one commends and raises the pay of
someone who commits such crimes.

Or is this "bias"?
--
*----------------------------------------------*
Robert Vaughn Young * The most potent weapon of the oppressor is *
wri...@eskimo.com * the mind of the oppressed. - Steve Biko *
*----------------------------------------------*

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Cute, Anti-Cult...

..but what are "laundry balls"???

Jack

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Re: Robert Vaughan Young's fear that LRH was being "literal" in his
brilliantly comic/serious talk about "dead bodies"...

Dear Robert,

It's not bias, exactly...it's more like inability to take a joke!

Jack

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Dear Anti-Cult,

It's you, like the other materialistically-inclined (or should I say
spiritually-challenged?), who have not truly READ Dianetics.

Please see my post to Gregg Haglund on the Psych-quiz answer--Diane
thread, subject Re: Response to Diane Richardson.

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

JSW: It's not bias, exactly...it's more like inability to take a joke!>>

Great joke, mention that someone should be considered Fair Game and that R2-45
should be applied. A joke ? Dealing with other people's lives/death is no joke
and neither is Fair Game.

ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by
any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist.

May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.

Notice. May be injured or destroyed...

R2-45 is just one form of implementing FG.

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

JSW: I've read Dianetics, cover to cover, without expecting it to be science in

the sense you seem to be unable to escape from.>>

Your 'expectations' have no relevance for the fact that Hubbard did portray it
as a science. Facts and expectations are not equivalent. So while your
statement allows us some insight in your thought processes it is irrelevant to
the issue of whether or not Hubbard portrayed Dianetics as scientific.

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

JSW: It's you, like the other materialistically-inclined (or should I say

spiritually-challenged?), who have not truly READ Dianetics.>>

Don't be too hard on Hubbard and remember that ad hominem remarks is considered
a logical fallacy.

Xenu Mania

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Does anybody remember the "thuds in the dark" that were music to LRH's
ears? To his way of thinking true happiness was the sound of your
silently murdered enemies of whom you were blissfully unaware hitting
ground around you. :(

Joe Cisar

reply to: iy...@cleveland.freenet.edu
German Scientology News - http://cisar.org
http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/index.htm
Quite frankly Madam, I just don't give a deer.

Rob Carr

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

John Stirling Walker wrote in message
<6dv3u7$28o$1...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
.Re: Robert Vaughan Young's fear that LRH was being "literal" in his
.brilliantly comic/serious talk about "dead bodies"...

.Dear Robert,
.It's not bias, exactly...it's more like inability to take a joke!

So then when someone on A.R.S. says that we should have a clam bake, or says
that all Scientologists should be exterminated, then you will claim it's a
joke and not a serious threat to all Scientologists, right?

I think somone ought to supeona you next time a Scientology org. tries to
get a PFA against a protester. You can explain your concepts of threats and
jokes to the judge, which should allow the PFA to be rejected.

Justin's not an abberation. Scientology really does kill your ability to
think....

Rob

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Dear Pimoty,

It's only possible to take the Fair Game policy the way you're doing by
utterly ignoring Ethics, which is FOUNDATIONAL material for anyone
receiving this policy, obviously.

Jack

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Re: Hubbard's portrayal of Dianetics as scientific...

Dear Pimoty,

As I've tried to explain, Dianetics IS scientific in precisely the way
that, alone, research into realities of the human being, a spiritual
being, can be. It is YOUR expectation, and that of those like you, as
to what "science" "must" be which leads to your own misunderstanding
(the ultimate foot-bullet!!!)

Jack


John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Dear Pimoty,

I'm as uninterested in materialistic notions of "logic" as I am in all
other pseudo-"science"...

Jack

BooHoo Weeper

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to
In this one statement, you have shed more insight on your position than
the sum total of all your earlier posts. What started out as a
promising dialog is now reduced to complete intellectual bankruptcy.

Weeper

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Re: Joe Cisar's unhappy face :-(

Joe said: "To [LRH's] way of thinking true happiness was the sound of


your silently murdered enemies of whom you were blissfully unaware

hitting the ground around you..."

..FIGURATIVELY speaking (duh!)!!!

Jack

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Re: Pimoty's failure to grasp the nature of Ethics...

I didn't say Fair Game was "part of" Ethics, you squirrel; I said it was
FOUNDATIONAL--that is, knowledge of the tech of overts and withholds is
fundamental knowledge which the people receiving the Fair Game policy
have been trained to practice, meaning:

Of what benefit would it be to Scientology if the Fair Game policy were
interpreted in such a way as to ENCOURAGE overts and withholds by
Scientology staff members?

Jack

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Pimoty's turning around of my words about materialistic pseudo-"science"
to imply that I was contradicting myself because I claimed interest in
Dianetics/Scientology was perfectly indicative of where people end up
when they don't have a leg, or someone else's "expertise", to stand on!

Progressively bored,

Jack

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Re: Pimoty's long droning post about pseudo-"science"...

"RE"-defining concepts is what the progress of language and civilization
is all about, Pimoty. If the thoughtless and inhuman view of "science"
inherent in the interminably dull talking-heads version of truth you
posted were to prevail, this civilization would be wiped out very
shortly.

God (implant or no) bless LRH!

Jack
Geistes...@webtv.net

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Re: Pimoty's hope for a "more able opponent"...

I beat you, fair and square; be a good sport, Pimoty!

Jack

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Re: BooHooWeeper's tragic concern about "intellectual bankruptcy"...

Intellectual bankruptcy is the starting point for the re-education you
people desperately need, my friend.

Jack

John Stirling Walker

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Anthony F. Roberts' question as to why I am "always" insulting people...

Read carefully, Anthony; I truly believe you will not find a post of
mine where insults are meted out unless they are in response to the
same. It is not because I hold with "an eye for an eye and a tooth for
a tooth" that this pattern emerges, but because I am playing the game by
the rules you guys establish, so long as the game is thus playable
without violating my own Ethics.

Jack

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

JSW: It's only possible to take the Fair Game policy the way you're doing by

utterly ignoring Ethics, which is FOUNDATIONAL material for anyone receiving
this policy, obviously.>.

It does not matter how you take Fair Game, the order is quite explicit and self
explanatory. It is ok to destroy and injure Suppressive people who have been
declared "fair game". Whether this order is part of Ethics is irrelevant for
its meaning.

Similar conclusion was reached by the following judge:

"In addition to violating and abusing its own members' civil rights,
the organization over the years with its 'fair game' doctrine has
harassed and abused those persons not in the church whom it perceives as
enemies."
--Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Paul Breckenridge, June 1984, in the Gerry
Armstrong case


Pimoty

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

JSW: As I've tried to explain, Dianetics IS scientific in precisely the way

that, alone, research into realities of the human being, a spiritual being, can
be. It is YOUR expectation, and that of those like you, as to what "science"
"must" be which leads to your own misunderstanding (the ultimate
foot-bullet!!!)>>

The ultimate foot bullet is doing what Hubbard is good at, redefining concepts.
Science is not depending on my expectations, it is depending on accepted
definitions of what constitutes science. That Hubbard is trying to add/give
credibility to dianetics by calling it scientific does not make it such. On the
contrary, Hubbard's own words disprove his assertions.

A good example of what is science is given in the Foster report:

97. The theoretical aspects of science, philosophy and religion all have one
thing in common: each of them is - at
least in part - a system of thought which on analysis, can be reduced to
statements which have some kind of
meaning within the system. Following what is today the generally accepted
usage, I propose to distinguish them as
follows: -

(a) Scientific statements are those which are capable of verification or
disproof by observation or experiment in the material universe as we perceive
it at any given time.

(b) Philosophical statements lie within the field of speculative thought
about fundamental questions which may not be verifiable or rebuttable by
observation or experiment in the material universe, but which do not seek
recourse to divine authority in support of their claims to validity.

(c) Religious statements rest on the authority of divine revelation or
dogma, and claim to be eternal truths beyond refutation.


(ii) Is Scientology a science?

100. For any intellectual system to lay a valid claim to being a science
(otherwise than by distorting the meaning which that word bears today in
universal usage) it must, as it seems to me, adopt what is called the
"scientific method" in its investigations and conclusions. There is today no
significant dispute about the scope and extent of that method: it is accepted
throughout the world as the distinguishing feature of any scientific - as
opposed to a
speculative - system of thought. Without claiming to be exhaustive, the
scientific method appears to me to include
at least the following requirements: -

(a) All statements claiming to be scientific must be consistent with
observation and, where these are possible, with the results of controlled
experiments;

(b) The methods and results of all experiments must be reported in
sufficient detail to enable them to be repeated by others, so that they can be
confirmed or refuted;

(c) The quality of scientific statements can never be more than those of a
hypothesis or a theory, open to disproof by later observation or experiment. A
scientific theory can never be affirmatively proved: the most that can ever be
said for it is that it is consistent with all observations made so far, and
thus
has not been disproved.

101. I have been unable to discover any evidence which would support
Scientology's claim to be a science if these
criteria are applied. Some of Scientology's theories are, of their nature,
unverifiable either by observation or
experiment, If any experiments are conducted, they are not reported in any form
which would enable others to
repeat them. Nor do Scientology's theories appear to me to be put forward as
hypotheses subject to disproof: on the
contrary, they appear to be put forward in the form of unqualified assertions
of truth. (87)

102. Another point arises in this connexion. In some branches of science - and
above all in the biological ones--the
range of variation between the


----------

(87) They are not, on the other hand, for that reason immune to disproof by
empirical methods, for example, the proposition that words spoken to an
unconscious pre-clear (e.g. before he is born or while he is under an
anaesthetic) wil1 be recorded in the reactive mind as an engram is central to
the whole theory of Dianetics. But the only independent attempt so far reported
to verify it experimentally proved a failure: when a passage from a physics
text was read to a subject anaesthetised with pentothal, no trace of it could
be found through Dianetic auditing. even though "processing" in an attempt to
recover it went on for nearly six months. See Fox, J. et al, "Experimental
Investigation of Hubbard's Engram Hypothesis", Psychological Abstracts, no.
1475, 1960.

47

individuals who form the subject-matter of the study is such that all
statements must be statistical in kind. Now
statistics can be notoriously misleading and scientists therefore recognise
that in these branches it is especially
important to be both cautious and precise in the reporting of experimental
methods and results, and in the
hypotheses which are postulated from them. I find no evidence of such caution
or precision in Scientology. Were it
a science in accordance with the criteria which I have mentioned, I would
expect to see reports specifying clearly
what procedures have been carried out on what kinds of individual (classified
by age, sex, occupation and relevant
history), what control groups have been selected and whether these were matched
or unmatched, what precautions
had been taken to exclude extraneous factors, how the results had been observed
or measured, what correlations
had been established and what were their levels of statistical significance. I
have found no evidence of any of this
in any of the Scientologists' published literature.

103 There is one other aspect of the scientific method which deserves mention,
and here I quote Sir Peter
Medawar, one of our most distinguished scientists: -

"Hypotheses must be tested, that is criticised. These tests take the form
of finding out whether or not
the deductive consequences of the hypothesis or systems of hypotheses are
statements that correspond
to reality. As the very least we expect of a hypothesis is that it should
account for the phenomena
already before us, its "extra-mural" indications, its predictions about
what is not yet known to be the
case, are of special and perhaps crucial importance. If the predictions
are false, the hypothesis is wrong
or in need of modification; i.e. they are true we gain confidence in it,
and can, so to speak, enter it for a
higher examination; but if it is of such a kind that it cannot be
falsified even in principle, then the
hypothesis belongs to some realm of discourse other than science.
Certainty can be aspired to, but a
"rightness" that lies beyond the possibility of future criticism cannot be
achieved by any scientific
theory". (88)

104. Here again, I have found no evidence to suggest that, when Scientology or
its Founder propound a new
hypothesis, it is subjected to this kind of testing or criticism. Quite the
contrary: -

"When somebody enrols, consider he or she has joined up for the duration
of the universe - never
permit an "open minded" approach. If they're going to quit let them quit
fast. If they enrolled, they're
aboard, and if they're aboard, they're here on the same terms as the rest
of us--win or die in the attempt.
Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists The finest
organizations in history have been
tough, dedicated organizations. Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist
dilettantes have ever
made anything. It's a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem
mild. But only the tigers survive -
and even they have a


----------

(88) "Hypothesis and Imagination", pp. 164-165.

48

hard time. We'll survive because we are tough and are dedicated. When we
do instruct somebody
properly he becomes more and more tiger. When we instruct half-mindedly
and are afraid to offend,
scared to enforce, we don't make students into good Scientologists and
that lets everybody down. When
Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in her
eyes into a fixed, dedicated
glare and she'll win and we'll all win. Humour her and we all die a
little. The proper instruction
attitude is, "you're here so you're a Scientologist. Now we're going to
make you into an expert auditor
no matter what happens. We'd rather have you dead than incapable." (89)

105. In these circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that the Anderson
Board, having heard the evidence of a
number of distinguished scientists, found that Scientology was not a science.
It is clear that, at the beginning of that
Enquiry, Scientology had claimed that it was, and the first few weeks of the
hearings were devoted very largely to
that issue. But by the time "Kangaroo Court" was written in 1967, the
Scientology leadership seems tacitly to have
abandoned this position. Again, I quote: -

"Scientology is a religious philosophy of the spirit. It aims at
developing the awareness of the being
where he can become increasingly more certain of things. It is a
subjective philosophy and it orients the
physical universe from the viewpoint of the individual as a being (i.e.,
as immortal spirit). In the early
days. this was only a working hypothesis, but it has long since proven its
basic assumptions. Let anyone
who cares to disprove this study of Scientology in a systematic manner."
(90)

"New processes are developed in Scientology on the basis of greater
workability. It discovers facts
which are of a subjective nature in that they are within the awareness of
the person. Material facts in
the physical universe are not used to invalidate the being. When
subjective awareness conflicts with
observable facts in the physical universe the person, in an auditing
session, is never told that he is
wrong. He is allowed to increase his OWN awareness until he can comprehend
greater truth, at which
time he recognises things for what they are, because he knows what they
are. They are no longer things
that everybody else says are so, and accepts under social duress, whilst
protesting all the time. This is
the road to insanity, criminality, unethical behaviour, and war." (9l)

Nor do "The Character of Scientology" or the "Report to Members of Parliament"
- both first published in 1968 -
contain any suggestion that Scientology claims to be a science: on the
contrary, the burden of the argument in those
documents is that it is a "body of religious thought".

106. I therefore asked the Scientologists whether they still claimed that
Dianetics or Scientology was a science, and
to give me a bibliography of the


----------

(89) HCO PL of 7th February 1965, re-issued 15th June 1970
(90) p. 26.
(91) p 27.

49

published experimental or other evidence on which they based such a claim.
Their answer, so far as relevant, was
this:-

"Dianetics is a science. Our claims are not based on acceptability but on
workability. Since both
Dianetics, which deals with the mind, and Scientology which deals with the
spirit, are broadly
subjective, we feel that workability is a most valid criterion in these
fields.

--------

"Dianetics was and is the modern science of mental health. It is a science
in the sense defined in the
second, third and fourth definitions in Webster's New 20th Century
Dictionary; that is:-

2. Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and
experimentation carried
on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being
studied.

3. A branch of knowledge or study, especially one concerned with
establishing and
systematizing facts, principles and methods, as by experiments and
hypothesis.

4.(a) The systematized knowledge of nature and the physical world;
(b) any branch of this.

--------

Dianetics is, broadly speaking, an explanation of the nature of the human
mind, what it consists of,
how it functions, and of human behaviour. The science of Dianetics is
proved by the technology by
which it is applied.

--------

Scientology is a religion. It has also been described as science,
religious philosophy, philosophy and
psychology.

--------

Scientology is a science in the sense of the 1st definition of the word
given in Webster's New 20th
Century Dictionary.

1. Originally, state or fact of knowing knowledge, often as opposed to
intuition, belief etc.

--------

Scientology may properly be described as psychology in its original,
precise meaning - study of the
soul.

--------

It would be fair to say that we use the word Science to cover the broad
field of human knowledge, and
concerning facts or data held together by principles or rules tested by
the scientific method, involving,
in other words, inductive and deductive logic.

Inductive logic, of course, requires repeated observations from which to
draw a general conclusion.
Deductive logic lays down principles or rules from which conclusions can
be drawn."

No bibliography was supplied.

50

107. The scientific claims continue to be made in current Scientology
literature. The following are some
quotations: -

"Cancer has been eradicated by auditing out conception and mitosis." (92)

"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.

"Dianetics (Gr., dianoua - thought) is the science of mind. Far simpler
than physics or chemistry, it
compares with them in the exactness of its axioms and is on a considerably
higher echelon of
usefulness. The hidden source of psychosomatic ills and human aberration
has been discovered and
skills have been developed for their invariable cure.

Dianetics is actually a family of sciences embracing the various
humanities and translating them into
usefully precise definitions.

--------

Dianetics is an exact science and its application is of the order of, but
simpler than, engineering. Its
axioms should not be confused with theories since they demonstrably exist
as natural laws hitherto
undiscovered" (93).

"The problem of psycho-somatic illness is entirely embraced by dianetics,
and by dianetic technique
such illness has been eradicated entirely in every case.

About seventy per cent of the physician's current roster of diseases fall
into the category of
psycho-somatic illness. How many more can be so classified after dianetics
has been in practice for a
few years is difficult to predict, but it is certain that more illnesses
are psycho-somatic than have been
so classified to date. That all illnesses are psycho-somatic is, of
course, absurd, for there exist, after all,
life forms called germs which have survival as their goals.

The work of Louis Pasteur formulated the germ theory of disease, with
dianetics is gained the
non-germ theory of disease. These two, with bio-chemistry, complement each
other to form the whole
field of pathology so far as can be determined at this time, providing of
course that the virus is
included under the germ theory" (94).

"There are no tenets in Scientology which cannot be demonstrated with
entirely scientific procedures"
(95).

"Scientology applies modern scientific methodology to resolve the problems
posed by philosophy, and
has come up with the answers" (96)

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

Why dianetics is not scientific:

The Anderson report further addresses this issue:

The Anderson Report

CHAPTER 8
HUBBARD'S RESEARCH

If one excludes as "research" the fanciful imaginings of Hubbard, his research
material appears to have been almost
entirely what preclears have revealed in their processing. Almost if not
entirely subjective and based on subjective
standards, the "data" which Hubbard uses is that obtained from preclears who,
while in a state of hypnosis induced
by auditing, or otherwise mentally conditioned by processed which produce
hallucinations, imagine fantastic,
ludicrous and unusual experiences and thoughts, whic h Hubbard accepts as
conclusive proof and on which he
builds his theories. The evidence before the Board shows that processing
reports of preclears from the several
countries where scientology is practised are sent to Hubbard in England where
they are exa mined and collated and
the results reduced to some order, from which Hubbard then draws conclusions or
gets ideas.

Williams described the development of a particular process called, "listing",
wherein the goals of preclears were
being sought. He said that preclears were required to provide a list of about
850 goals. These lists were compared
and it was found that certain similarities began to emerge. There were many
other goals, said Wil1iams, "which
were not in common, but there were certain plots of those goals that were in
common. The strange thing was, even
though a person did not know the plot, with very little steering they could
originate the plot. This was rather
peculiar. Unless there was telepathic communication, how did the person know of
the plot?" The question was
rhetorical but the answer obvious. Preclears in auditing session are in a
highly suggestible condition, and a "very
little steering" would go a very long way. There was an abundance of evidence
that preclears came up with
particular past experiences only after they had become aware of Hubbard's
theories on that particular topic.
Furthermore, it is probable that in a list of 850 goals there would be at least
some which would be found in another
list of similar size. The thoughts, hopes and aspirations of mankind follow a
fairly common pattern and their
similarity in different people does not require a fanciful theory that they
were electronically implanted in thetans
trillions of years ago. Early in their sojourn in scientology, preclears become
aware of Hubbard's ideas on a great
variety of matters, and the evidence shows that when being audited they
obligingly provide "data" on these matters,
which "data" is tak en as confirming Hubbard's theories.

The power of suggestion on preclears is strikingly illustrated by the
disclosures by preclears as to helatrobus
implants. During 1963 Hubbard promulgated information concerning the helatrobus
implants, stating the periods
at which these implants were laid in. Thereafter, when preclears were audited
on the helatrobus implant of the goal
"to forget", they told of the implanting of that goal at some date between
those indicated by Hubbard, namely, 38 to
43 trillion years ago.

A further indication of the dependence of Hubbard on the evaluations of
preclears during processing is Williams'
evidence on "theta traps". In A History of Man Hubbard, in writing of "theta
traps", states:

"There is no subject more interesting than that of theta traps. It is of
vast
interest to any invader, It is of vaster interest to your preclear. How
can
you trap a thetan ? By curiosity, by giving him awards and prizes (of an
implant), by retractor screens, by mock-ups, by ornate buildings which he
will enter unsuspectingly only to be electroniced down; by many such means
the thetan is reduced from knowing to a colonist, a slave, a mest body.

All theta traps have one thing in common: they use electronic force to
knock
the thetan into forgetting, into unknowingness, into effect . . . The
thetan
feels himself, in some traps, being drawn up to a post. He fights it with
his
force. It cannot be suc cessfully fought. He succumbs. A day or a hundred
years later, he is picked off and elsewhere used ... there was a theta
trap
called the fly trap. It was of a gummy material."

Williams said in evidence that Hubbard had no other way of acquiring such
knowledge about thetans than from
what preclears had revealed.

Hubbard's "research" is done at Saint Hill by himself and a small team of
assistants. The facilities for "scientific
research" into all the fields with which Hubbard claims great familiarity are
very meagre.

Mrs. Williams, the most recently returned advanced Australian student to visit
Saint Hill and to study there for
about eight months, told the Board that "there is really not a laboratory at
Saint Hill". He said that the manor house
had three large halls and other rooms, a T.V. room, and a room with tape
recording equipment, &c.; that the
"experiments" comprised, in effect auditing experiments on the advanced
students and a consideration of auditing
results supplemented by reports from ,all over the world as to what has been
produced by auditing in the way in
which Hubbard has directed the auditing to be conducted; that Hubbard first
puts

54

forward to the students at Saint Hill whatever is to be audited and when it is
successful with them he promulgates
it for wider application, even though at that time research on it may not have
been finalized; that the student
groups which are the subject of such tests at Saint Hill may contain up to
about 100 students from various parts of
the world, and that the staff consists of from thirteen to twenty individuals,
functioning as instructors, assistant
instructors, case supervisors, clerks, auditors, and others and performing
associated duties.

Gillham, who was also a Saint Hill graduate, said:

"We never saw Ron actually engaged in research, but then, because, as I
understand, a lot of research
was done in the early hours of the morning, but from the fact that the
course was going, was also part of
the research programme, as he would observe stu dents and see what they
were doing, and then, in his
own time, what was going wrong and correct it, and I was there for that."

Gillham did not know of anyone else apart from Hubbard who was engaged in
research and, as far as Gillham
knew, Hubbard's "research" was done in his own private room.

Mrs. Gillham, another Saint Hill graduate, said that the only research she
observed at Saint Hill was amongst the
students, and that:

"Sometimes Ron would say if he wanted to do research on a certain process
and there was at one time a
number of students selected to run this process, but the majority of
research he gets Mary Sue [his
wife] to run. So whatever he worked out, Mary Sue run s on him before he
uses it."

Mrs. Tampion, who also was at Saint Hill, said that the research there
consisted of

"auditors, pc's and students running new processes on each other to see
how they fared".

How Hubbard, without laboratory, equipment or scientific assistants, could
carry out experiments in all the
sciences in which he claims to speak as an expert remains unexplained.

Notwithstanding the absence of such indispensable aids, Hubbard claims that all
his work in dianetics and
scientology is validated by scientific proof and, early in the Inquiry,
Williams went to great lengths in evidence in
an endeavour to explain and pr ove that Hubbard and scientology proceeded by
the scientific method to
experiment, test, evaluate, prove and draw justifiable conclusions. However,
his evidence was purely argumentative
and mere empty words and no evidence in fact was called which remotel y
suggested that there was anything
scientific - or for that matter any real method - in Hubbard's experiments and
"research".

One witness, a former ardent scientologist, and now a bachelor of science, who
languished in the slough of
scientology for a few years during which his University course was halted, had
the opportunity of observing at
close quarters the validity of Hubba rd's claims for scientology. His verdict
was, "unproven, a lot of words, no
evidence".

Hubbard makes claims that he has the proofs, that these proofs are inWashington
and elsewhere, that his books and
other writings tell of his experiments and their results. Judging the standard,
value and extent of his research
methods by what he has chos en to make public in his books and other writings,
Hubbard fails ignominiously.
Several expert scientific witnesses gave evidence to the effect that Hubbard's
methods as revealed by his writings
have not the slightest resemblance to scientific method.

Experts in many scientific fields criticized the so-called scientific method
and research of Hubbard, and out of the
evidence which the Board heard emerged the following criticisms, with which the
Board wholly agrees: -

1.Hubbard is satisfied with, and regards as sufficient, subjective standards
of proof;

2.He does not test the data obtained by subjective means even when there are
means of objective testing; e.g.,
Hubbard's claims as to exteriorization could be tested objectively, but no
such tests appear to have been
undertaken. Hubbard and a scientolo gy witness claimed that scientology
processing could add 30 pounds of
weight to a body by mocking up a mass and bringing it into the body. The
Board invited the scientology
interests to arrange a demonstration, but the invitation was declined;

3.He does not give sufficient detail to establish the validity of his
conclusions;

4.There is no confirmation of any of his findings by experiments carried out
by other workers in the same
field;

5.The experiments are not described and there is no way of testing his
conclusions;

6.The material which he uses is -

(a) not capable of being tested,
(b) obtained under conditions which do not admit of any control or
check,
(c) necessarily suspect for the reasons, amongst others, that it is
generally obtained from persons
who are hypnotized or who are in some illusory state, and to whom
suggestions have frequently
been made;

55

7.A great part of the material relied upon is no more than categorical
pronouncements by Hubbard without any
suggestion that there is any evidence to justify them;

8.An enormous proportion of Hubbard's so-called evidence, alleged results of
experiments, findings and
conclusions is totally at variance with orthodox theory and actual known
facts which are the results of
scientifically conducted experiments made under proper control conditions
and capable of being duplicated,
tested and confirmed.

Hubbard's attitude and that of his followers, as shown by several who gave
evidence before the Board, is in effect,
"I say such and such is possible, therefore it is. Now you prove me wrong, and
since you can't, it must be right."
Hubbard categorically asserts as a fact that "a few mornings ago" he was up in
the Van Allen belt and that he then
went on to Venus, where he inspected an implant station. Prove him wrong!

Each new "discovery" he hails as the ultimate, the final "breakthrough", the
answer to all problems, requiring only
that auditors develop sufficient skills in the techniques he has devised to
"clear" the world. Yet very soon that
"breakthrough" is superseded by another, more wonderful and more promising than
the last. And so it goes on.

Reliance on the data provided by preclears in auditing, where hallucinatory
images are generated, does not of
course bear any resemblance to scientific method. Yet it is on such a
foundation that Hubbard has built the whole
structure of his teaching. In A History of Man, which Hubbard claims is "a
cold-blooded and factual account of
your last sixty trillion years", Hubbard writes the most fanciful nonsense.
Examples of the material contained in A
History of Man and on which Hubbard based his "research" are set out in Chapter
11. Hubbard published this
book in 1952, before the Piltdown man hoax was exposed. In it, Hubbard writes,

"The Piltdown contains freakish acts of strange 'logic', of demonstrating
dangerous on one's fellows, of eating one's wife and other somewhat
illogical
activities. The Piltdown teeth were enormous and he was quite careless as
to
whom and what he bit and often very much surprised at the resulting
damage.
Obsessions about biting, efforts to hide the mouth and early familial
troubles can be found in the Piltdown. It is a wonderful area in which to
locate GE overt acts."

How preclears could recall "real" incidents which could not have happened has
yet to be explained by scientology.
Hubbard's research on the Piltdown man is surely a hoax upon a hoax.

It is the claim of scientology that it must be valid because it works, the test
being "workability". In Dianetics:
MSMH, Hubbard wrote -

"The only test is whether or not a fact works. If it does work and can be
used, it is a scientific fact. And the prenatal engram is a scientific
fact.
Tested and checked for objective reality, it still stands firm. And as for
subjective reality, the acceptance of the prenatal engram as a working
fact
alone makes possible the clear."

Hubbard finds his proof of workability in the claims made that preclears
frequently say they feel better after
auditing. Leaving aside for the time being the likelihood that post-hypnotic
suggestion may well explain a
preclear's statement that he feels better after auditing, workability of itself
really proves nothing. This is evident
from, for example, the research of Freud whom, incidentally, Hubbard
acknowledges as one on whose work he has
drawn. Early in the history of psycho-analysis his experiments led Freud to
regard recent sexual trauma as being
solely responsible for the production of hysterical, neurotic symptoms, He
noted that, when his patients recalled a
sexual trauma, they tended to lose their symptoms. However, Freud soon noticed
that the "cures" were not
permanent and he then assumed that the symptoms might have had their origins in
more distant sexual traumas.
When he investigated this theory he found that patients reported sexual traumas
occurring in adolescence and that
when they recalled those incidents their symptoms disappeared, but these gains
likewise tended to be temporary.
Further experiments which brought to light sexual trauma experienced in early
childhood once more brought in its
train some relief, often only temporary, of the patient's symptoms. However,
Freud found that, in some cases where
patients reported such incidents as having occurred in early childhood and they
appeared to be benefiting from this
recall, there was no possibility whatsoever that the incident could have
occurred. This, "workability", the fact that
a patient may benefit from "recall" of an incident which did not happen, was no
proof that the incident happened.

As already mentioned, Hubbard's acquaintance with Freud's work appears to be
very superficial and to be
confined to Freud's early writings. If Hubbard was aware of Freud's later work
and theories, in which Freud later
considerably modified his earlier tentatively propounded theories, Hubbard
entirely ignores them, for whereas
Freud accepted the position that temporary relief was experienced by conjuring
up incidents which did not
happen, Hubbard wrongly treats the hallucinations of the preclear in relation
to things that could not have
happened as conclusive proof of such happenings, and on this entirely
unwarranted assumption he bases the great
bulk of his theories and teachings on the thetan, the time track, past lives
and many other fantasies.

56

The following extracts from Dianetics: MSMH illustrate the nature of Hubbard's
"experiments" and the standard
of his research. They are examples of how engrams are said to be acquired; one
relates to engrams said to have been
received at birth and the other relates to engrams said to have been received
during a dental operation.

Hubbard considers that "birth is a very aberrative affair"; and to make his
point tells of the case where, by
processing a patient on his birth, it was established that

"his asthma had been caused by the doctor's enthusiasm in yanking him off
the
table just when he was fighting for his first breath. He had had
conjunctivitis. That came from the eye drops. He had had sinusitis. That
had
come from the nose swabs used by th e pretty nurse."

The second case is described in the following terms:

"Let us make this an example: a man is under nitrous oxide (the most
vicious
anaesthetic ever invented as it is actually not anaesthetic but a
hypnotic)
undergoing exodontistry. As usual everybody present around the
'unconscious'
patient chatters and yaps about the patient, the weather, the most popular
movie star, of baseball. The exodontist is a tough character, bossy to the
nurse, apt to be angry about trifles; he is also very sympathetic toward
the
patient. The nurse is a blue-eyed blonde, who is sexually aberrated. The
patient, actually in agony, receiving an engram amongst engrams which may
ruin his life (terrible stuff, nitrous oxide; really hands out a fancy
engram
as any dianeticist can attest) is unanalytical. Everything said to him or
around him is taken literally. He takes the valence of the exodontist as
both
the top valence present and the sympathetic valence. But every phrase
uttered
is aberrative and will be interpreted by that happy little moron, the
reactive mind, on the order of Simple Simon who was told he had to be
careful
how he stepped in the pies, so he stepped in them carefully. These people
may
be talking about somebody else but every 'I' or 'he' or 'you' uttered is
engramic and will be applied to others and himself by the patient in the
most
literal sense. 'He can't remember anything' says the exodontist. All
right,
when the engram keys-in, this patient will have an occlusion on memory in
greater or lesser degree. 'He can't see or feel it': this means an
occlusion
on sight, pain and tactile. If the patient has his eyes watering in agony
at
the mom ent (though completely 'under') he may get actual bad vision as
well
as poor visual recall from this experience. Now they put him in the hands
of
this blonde nurse to let him sleep off the drug and recover. She is an
aberree amongst aberrees. She knows patients do weird things when they are
still 'out' so she pumps him for information about his life. And she knows
they are hypnotic (yes, she sure does) so she gives him some positive
suggestions. Amusing herself. She says he'll like her. That she'll be good
to
him. And stay there now for the present.

"So the poor patient, who has had two wisdom teeth, impacted, taken out,
has
a full anger-sympathy dramatization. The general tone he takes is the tone
the exodontist showed to the others in the room. The exodontist was angry
at
the nurse. With his recalls all messed up, the patient a few years later
meets a woman similar to this nurse. The nurse has given him compulsions
towards her. The silly little moron, the reactive mind, sees in this
entirely
different person enough similarity to create an identity between the nurse
and this new woman. So the patient divorces his wife and marries the
pseudo-nurse. Only now that he has married the pseudo-nurse the dental
engram
begins to key-in in earnest. Physically he gets ill: the two molars
adjacent
to where the wisdom teeth came out develop large cavities and begin to rot
(circulation shut down, pain in the area but can't be felt because there's
a
pain recall shut-out). His memory goes to pieces. His recalls become
worse.
He begins to develop eye trouble and a strange conjunctivitis. Further
(because the dentist leaned on his chest and stomach with a sharp elbow
from
time to time) he has chest and stomach pains. This nitrous oxide hurt his
lungs and this pain is also in chronic restimulation. But most horrible;
he
believes that this pseudo-nurse will take care of him and he stops to some
degree taking care of himself in any way; his energy dissipates; and
analytically he knows it is all wrong and that he is not himself. For he
is
now fixed in the valence of the exodontist who is angry with this nurse
and
so he beats the pseudo-nur se because he senses that from her all evil
flows.
The girl he married is not and was not the nurse, she sounds something
like
her and is a blonde. She has her own engrams and reacts. She attempts
suicide.

"Then, one day, since this is one engram among many, the mental hospital
gets
our patient and the doctors there decide that all he needs is a good solid
series of electric shocks to tear his brain up, and if that doesn't work,
a
nice ice-pick into each eyeball after and during electric shock, the
ice-pick
sweeping a wide arc to tear the analytical mind to pieces. His wife
agrees.
Our patient can't defend himself; he's insane and the insane have no
rights,
you know.

"Only the cavalry, in this one case, arrived in the form of dianetics and
cleared the patient and the wife and they are happy today. This is an
actual
engram and an actual case history. It is a sympathy engram, pro-survival
on
the moronic reactive mind level".

57

Last updated 19 January 1997
by Chris Owen (c...@nvg.unit.no)


Pimoty

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

JSW: I'm as uninterested in materialistic notions of "logic" as I am in all
other pseudo-"science"...>>

I thought you mentioned you were interested in Scientology/Dianetics. Why
contradict your own statements ?

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

Weeper: In this one statement, you have shed more insight on your position than

the sum total of all your earlier posts. What started out as a promising
dialog is now reduced to complete intellectual bankruptcy.>>

And I thought I was the only one who felt this way. It started of as an
interesting discussion which quickly lead to obfuscation, avoidance and
non-confront on JSW's part.

I hoped for a more able 'opponent'

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

JSW: I didn't say Fair Game was "part of" Ethics, you squirrel; I said it was

FOUNDATIONAL--that is, knowledge of the tech of overts and withholds is
fundamental knowledge which the people receiving the Fair Game policy have been
trained to practice, meaning:

Of what benefit would it be to Scientology if the Fair Game policy were
interpreted in such a way as to ENCOURAGE overts and withholds by Scientology
staff members?>>

Does this explain why it states that it is ok to injure and destroy
suppressives ? That is more than discouragement would you not say so ? And the
application of such has destroyed many people's lives.

The idea that Fair game is the only way to discourage overts and withholds is
plain silly. It is a very extreme measure and has been used many times to
violate people's rights. SImple as that.

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

JSW: Re: Pimoty's long droning post about pseudo-"science"...

No need to use ad hominems *if* you have an argument against what I said.


JSW: "RE"-defining concepts is what the progress of language and civilization
is all about, Pimoty.

Not at all. Redefining language as Hubbard did to 'reduce critical thinking'
and lend credibility to dianetics is not what the process of civilization is
all about. This does not mean that words and concepts do not change over time.
They are however not used to promote an individuals profit margins and
credibility.

JSW: If the thoughtless and inhuman view of "science" inherent in the


interminably dull talking-heads version of truth you
posted were to prevail, this civilization would be wiped out very
shortly.>>

As I said, proof by assertion and ad hominem just do not form a very convincing
replacement for an argument based in logic. So perhaps you should consider
redefining your approach here ?
As I said, science is not defined to give credibility to one man's ideas,
science is defined by consensus and strict rules and Hubbard's approach is
opposite what is considered science. His attempt to redefine the meaning of
science is understandable. It was an attempt to give some credibility to a
concept which was based largely on a list of plagiarised ideas.


JSW: God (implant or no) bless LRH!>>

And God help those who believe that their Savior is just a figment of their
imagination, invented to help to power some people in the early ages.

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

JSW: Pimoty's turning around of my words about materialistic pseudo-"science"

to imply that I was contradicting myself because I claimed interest in
Dianetics/Scientology was perfectly indicative of where people end up when they
don't have a leg, or someone else's "expertise", to stand on!>>

As followers of Scientology ? <g> After all Dianetics and Scientology are
perfect examples of the pseudo-science you appear to oppose so much, yet
support so vividly.

JSW: Progressively bored,>>

You mean progressively boring ? I understand your non-confront.

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

JSW: Re: Pimoty's hope for a "more able opponent"...

I beat you, fair and square; be a good sport, Pimoty!>>

I see you still mock up your own reality. Time to rid yourself of these
implants, after all it might be a mere figment of your imagination after all,
just like your Savior.

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

JSW: Intellectual bankruptcy is the starting point for the re-education you

people desperately need, my friend.>>

Yes, nothing as good as a few months beans and rice in the RPF . Isn't that
true Jack ? Re-education at its finest.

Anthony F. Roberts

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

In article <6dvn95$382$1...@newsd-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,

Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) wrote:

> Re: Pimoty's failure to grasp the nature of Ethics...
>

> I didn't say Fair Game was "part of" Ethics, you squirrel;

[snip]
>
> Jack

Why are you always insulting people, Jack? This insult doesn't mean much
to Pimoty, of course, but you obviously meant it to be a grave insult,
since 'squirrels' are defined in scn as such awful people. A good 50% of
your posts contain some personal attack on someone, including me (though
I'll admit I misstepped when I called you 'brain dead').

If you're getting 'progressively bored' here, as you said in another post,
then leave.

I'll tell you what the nature of Ethics is; rationalizing a Sea Org member
breaking into my house. _That_ is the nature of Ethics.

Anthony

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

AFrobert: [talking about Jack's postings] A good 50% of your posts contain

some personal attack on someone, including me (though I'll admit I misstepped
when I called you 'brain dead').>>

Perhaps this is another example of scientific enquiry ? Ad hominem redefined to
be an example of logical, scientific discourse ? After all if Hubbard can
redefine science to include Dianetics, what other perversion are possible ?


Pimoty

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

JSW: Read carefully, Anthony; I truly believe you will not find a post of mine

where insults are meted out unless they are in response to the same.>>

I guess the 'squirrel' posting is the exception to the rule ?

JSW: It is not because I hold with "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a


tooth" that this pattern emerges, but because I am playing the game by the
rules you guys establish, so long as the game is thus playable without
violating my own Ethics.>>

Interesting to hear that calling names does not violate your ethics. I assume
fair game doesn't either ?

Nick Andrew

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

In <6dt43s$t6i$1...@newsd-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) writes:

>We are dealing with SPIRITUAL BEINGS when we examine humanity. You seem
>driven to insist there must be PROOF, like many people on this forum,

We're only asking to see evidence because Hubbard claimed that his work
constituted a science. Scientific work comes with evidence, dude. If on
the other hand Hubbard had admitted that Dianetics was something he dreamed
up after reading Freud and without any physical basis for his claims, i.e.
that it was a load of bollocks, nobody would be asking for anything.

>but what you and they fail to see is that NO approach to the human
>spirit can be successful if it is based on the "testing" attitude.

Utter garbage.

Nick.
--
Zeta Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9231-9400
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/

rgonnet

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to


Bob "Da Sloth" Bingham wrote:

> So Dubron says it was just a joke. That's a pretty damn sick joke, but I
> wouldn't put it past Hubbard. However, if it was a joke then what is it
> doing on that order? That order was NOT a joking matter!

cant's be a joke, hubbard was not joking about "sps", neither about R2-45, and
plus, he wrote later the HCOB "Jokers and Degraders" where jokers are labelled
SPs. So, either he was one, either he did not joke.
Roger


Xenu Mania

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

So you do remember the "thuds in the dark"? Then you'll also remember
that LRH was VERY specific in getting across the point that those 'thuds'
were the sounds of dead people hitting the ground. Then he gets even more
specific and explains for us who are still somewhat puzzled by all this
that the reason the people have been killed is that he, LRH, has a tightly
knit cabal who protects their leader by killing his enemies -- without
even telling him! That way he won't get in any trouble because he has no
knowledge of any crime being committed. That's how dedicated and loyal his
followers are. Isn't that right, Jack?

You think I'm biased because the results are unfavorable to LRH, and you
identify with LRH. You resort to cynicism and ridicule to avoid the sad
truth of the matter.

Joe Cisar

reply to: iy...@cleveland.freenet.edu
German Scientology News - http://cisar.org
http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/index.htm
Quite frankly Madam, I just don't give a deer.


© Anti-Cult ®

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

On 9 Mar 1998 02:36:36 GMT.
pim...@aol.com (Pimoty).
From: AOL http://www.aol.com.
Wrote on the subject: Re: HUBBARD ORDERED MURDERS:

>I hoped for a more able 'opponent'

Nah, he's a clam. What did you expect? Another Mark, a scientologist
and proud of it? They are rare, and arrives only once in a lifetime :-)


------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure
the orgs say what is legal or not."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966
------------------------------------------------------------------
***** Body thetans? We don't need no stinking Body Thetans! ******
********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm **********
*** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm ***
****** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) *******
------------------------------------------------------------------
Victimized by the Co$. "Deadfiled" in at least one Org. Seen too
much, heard to much, lived too much. Security Coded hard disks
too much. Have been reading NOTS too much. Having chronic
pneumonia. As Arnold said: I'll be back......
------------------------------------------------------------------

© Anti-Cult ®

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 16:45:16 -0700.
Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker).
From: WebTV Subscriber.

Wrote on the subject: Re: HUBBARD ORDERED MURDERS:

>Dear Pimoty,


>
>I'm as uninterested in materialistic notions of "logic" as I am in all
>other pseudo-"science"...
>

>Jack
>

Orweillan speech Jack. You are interested in pseudo-science, and
obviously not in real science. Otherwise you wouldn't try to defend the
hopeless grounds of the criminal fool Hubbard.

Was it pseudo science that gave you the oppurtunity to spew on this NG?
Was it pseudo science that gives you the ability to jump on an aeroplane
and fly over the pond? Was it pseudo science that that carried man to
the moon? Holy moses Jack, you don't have a clue what real science is
about. :-)

You are so clueless, that you are very close to ending up in thousands
of killfiles.

Is this man for real, or is it only a troll??

Meow on you Jack :-)

© Anti-Cult ®

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:32:16 -0700.

Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker).
From: WebTV Subscriber.
Wrote on the subject: Re: HUBBARD ORDERED MURDERS:

>Re: Pimoty's hope for a "more able opponent"...


>
>I beat you, fair and square; be a good sport, Pimoty!
>

>Jack

You beat nobody else than yourself Jack. You are a loser as long as you
are trying to defend the hopeless pseudo-science of the UFO-cult called
Scientology. But of course, true is what's true for you. :-)

Now Jack, go and get some auditine before your system runs havoc.

© Anti-Cult ®

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 16:40:05 -0700.

Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker).
From: WebTV Subscriber.
Wrote on the subject: Re: R2-45 a joke?:

>Dear Pimoty,


>
>It's only possible to take the Fair Game policy the way you're doing by
>utterly ignoring Ethics, which is FOUNDATIONAL material for anyone
>receiving this policy, obviously.
>

>Jack

Wasn't the fair game policy totally revoked? Uhu.....


A freudian slip Jack?

© Anti-Cult ®

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:22:13 -0700.

Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker).
From: WebTV Subscriber.
Wrote on the subject: Re: R2-45 a joke?:

>Re: Pimoty's failure to grasp the nature of Ethics...
>


>I didn't say Fair Game was "part of" Ethics, you squirrel; I said it was
>FOUNDATIONAL--that is, knowledge of the tech of overts and withholds is
>fundamental knowledge which the people receiving the Fair Game policy
>have been trained to practice, meaning:
>
>Of what benefit would it be to Scientology if the Fair Game policy were
>interpreted in such a way as to ENCOURAGE overts and withholds by
>Scientology staff members?
>

>Jack

Come on jack, the official policy from the cult is that the Fair Game
policy does not exist any longer. Try to be more consistent, or you will
end up in the same pile of shit as all other clam apologists pretty
soon. When are you going to realize that you can not defend the criminal
cult of scientology, and at the same time be a thinking human being?

Michael T. Richter

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

John Stirling Walker <Geistes...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<6dv3pa$28a$1...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> Cute, Anti-Cult...

> ..but what are "laundry balls"???

(Another) fraud perpetrated by your cult.

--
Michael T. Richter - m...@ottawa.com - http://24.112.92.82/~mtr
"A man cannot live intensely except at the cost of the self."


Michael T. Richter

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

John Stirling Walker <Geistes...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<6dvaf0$2ha$1...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...

> As I've tried to explain, Dianetics IS scientific in precisely the way
> that, alone, research into realities of the human being, a spiritual
> being, can be. It is YOUR expectation, and that of those like you, as
> to what "science" "must" be which leads to your own misunderstanding
> (the ultimate foot-bullet!!!)

The word "science" applies to a particular method used to discover
objective truth. Hubbard used that term because he wanted the credibility
of that term. If Dianetics is purely subjective, as you assert, it is not
science.

Even if this were the case; even if Hubbard did not mean "science in the
conventional sense", it is largely irrelevant. Hubbard still made many
statements about objective reality. All of them -- 100% of them -- were
completely false: "Clears" do not have total recall and nor are they
immune to colds. Morning sickness is not caused by mothers surreptitiously
trying to abort their children. Unconscious people cannot recall what was
said around them while unconscious.

All of these claims (and many more) are made in Dianetics. All of them are
statements of objective reality, not subjective. All of them are false.

jbwebb

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

John Stirling Walker wrote:
>
> Dear Anti-Cult,
>
> It's you, like the other materialistically-inclined (or should I say
> spiritually-challenged?), who have not truly READ Dianetics.
>

John, just curious = are you married? Did your wife ever attempt
abortion while pregnant with knitting needles? Did anyone you know do
this? Doesn't it seem odd to you how fixated LRH was on self attempted
abortion ? I found that the strangest, most perverted part of
Dianetics. In fact, all the references to knitting needles, abortion,
husband kicking the wife while pregnant, etc., just struck me as totally
alien. Did you think so, or did you relate to Dianetics?

In an earlier post, I noted that I read Dianetics while attempting to
become pregnant through high-technology. I had spent 10s of thousands
of dollars in my attempts. A lot of my cousins and friends were in the
same position as me, at the same time. The thought of any of us, or
anyone in my family acting as LRH described was ludicrous.

Didn't you think he seemed rather fixated on that subject? Why? Do you
know? I never really could figure where his hatred came from. Do you
know? Perhaps you could enlighten me and my mind would be less
antagonistic to LRH and his Dianetics.

Take care
Joni

gerry armstrong

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

On Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:11:36 -0700, Geistes...@webtv.net (John
Stirling Walker) wrote:

>Dear CillyPuddy,
>
>I am unlike most other people in the Scientology field, in that I really
>understand that questions mean an opportunity to tell the truth. LRH
>actually termed answering people's questions a form of helping them, so
>I never hesitate to answer any question meant SINCERELY, though I am
>very practiced (I think) at not doing Q&A!
>
>I personally see that LRH clearly was LEARNING himself as he advanced
>his research. Judging Scientology by hidden standards or external
>"proofs" violates the very spirit of the tech. There may, as a matter
>of simple fact, NOT be any Clears at the moment with "total memory
>recall" (I wouldn't know, not having "tested" every single one, or ANY
>single one, for that matter...); there is sufficient clarifcation of the
>cause of this in his later research results, for those who have ears to
>hear. I have never been interested in the application of verification
>methods for the physical sciences being applied to life or "social"
>sciences, because ONE human being who finds real value in the practice
>of a certain technique is, in fact, perfect "evidence" of the value of
>that technique. Most Clears I know personally certainly have a
>substantially better recall and communication ability than the
>non-Clears that surround and try to invalidate them.
>
>Yours very true-ly,
>
>J.S.W. (Jack)
>Geistes...@webtv.net

Are you clear? I mean, as Scientology uses that phrase.

Gerry


Rasta Robert

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:29:32 -0700,

Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) wrote
in article <6dvnms$38n$1...@newsd-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
in the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology:

>
>Progressively bored,
>
Does that mean you feel you are moving into disinterest, or
into monotony? Does progressivly mean you are going up the
tone scale, so it'll be disinterest -> contentment -> mild
interest from here on?

Rasta Robert
--//->
--
DDS - Dust Detector Subsystem - The DDS weighs 4.2 kilograms and uses an average
of 5.4 watts of power. The DDS can measure from 3x10^-7 to 1x10^2 impacts per second.
(NB: adress modified to foil spambots)

zza...@mcc.ac.uk

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

John Stirling Walker (Geistes...@webtv.net) wrote:
: Re: Hubbard's portrayal of Dianetics as scientific...
: Dear Pimoty,
: As I've tried to explain, Dianetics IS scientific in precisely the way

: that, alone, research into realities of the human being, a spiritual
: being, can be. It is YOUR expectation, and that of those like you, as
: to what "science" "must" be which leads to your own misunderstanding
: (the ultimate foot-bullet!!!)
: Jack

Please word-clear "science". It has an exact, well understood meaning and
cannot be re-interpreted to support an arbitrary argument.

David Gerard

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 16:45:16 -0700, Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling
Walker) wrote:

:I'm as uninterested in materialistic notions of "logic" as I am in all
:other pseudo-"science"...


I think Jack has just explained himself and his responses on a.r.s
thoroughly.


--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
Picket $cientology: 14/15 Mar 1998 http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/demo.htm
LA, DC, Atlanta, Sacramento, Toronto, Poole UK, Melbourne ... add YOUR city!

Pimoty

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

ZZassgl: Please word-clear "science". It has an exact, well understood meaning

and cannot be re-interpreted to support an arbitrary argument.>>

Which did not stop Hubbard (and JSW) from actually trying. If you cannot do the
science, redefine it. A marvelous concept....
The one who controls the language controls thought....

Laudanum

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

On Sat, 7 Mar 1998 20:42:52 -0700, Geistes...@webtv.net (John
Stirling Walker) wrote:

>Oh, CillyPuddy:
>
>I don't know what I can do for you.
>
>I've read Dianetics, cover to cover, without expecting it to be science
>in the sense you seem to be unable to escape from.


>
>We are dealing with SPIRITUAL BEINGS when we examine humanity.

And you say you've read that tripe cover to cover?

Engrams are a cellular property, not a spiritual one.

Go back and read it again, until then, ESAL.

-Laudanum
--
The goddamn clay table has more brains than him, alright?
-Howard Stern on John Travolta

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Laudanum's Headspace http://www.geocities.com/~laud/


0 new messages