How to get a scientologist to talk to you.
Michael Leonard Tilse
Copyright (c) 2003, Michael Leonard Tilse, All rights reserved. No
scientology organization or entity has any authorization to copy,
print or store this essay in any form, including electronic messaging
systems, databases, hardcopy or as information stored on information
storage and retrieval systems. Doing so is a violation of my
copyright. Anybody else can read it and print it and share it as long
as it is in its original form, unaltered and with this copyright
notice intact. This essay is my opinion, authored for individuals and
expressed under my inalienable rights of freedom of expression,
speaking and writing, recognized and unrecognized.
27 September 2003 Copyright (c) 2003, Michael Leonard Tilse
How to get a Scientologist to talk to you.
Recently I wrote an essay entitled: "How to talk to a scientologist."
Now revised to version 1.1 It seems to be well received and useful.
But it has been mentioned that it is hard get scientologists to really
talk with you. Instead, they seem to be interested only in recruiting,
or if you are a critic, making you wrong.
Now, I think this is a limited view. When I was in scientology and
talking with my friends who were scientologists, many times we would
talk about how mad we were that somebody was doing unethical things,
or our failures or things that we knew we needed to fix about
ourselves.
We all hoped that we could use scientology to improve these things.
And we were privately amazed and disgusted when someone on OT VII
would refuse to pay rent for a house they occupied and then also
refuse to leave the house. And the scientologist who was owner
couldn't get them thrown out because the deadbeat was "high on the
bridge."
Or I heard about a scientologist company owner who gave the weeks
payroll to the IAS and then gathered the staff and told them the
company was now a "Patron", and they would have to wait to get paid.
(Actual event described as a "win", and communicated to me by IAS West
US Membership Tour staff.)
We would have these kinds of talks where we shared our feelings and
our opinions, the internal scientology gossip, quite often in the best
give and take manner of the scientology communication formula. Real
communication.
But, no matter how much these kind of events horrified me or my
friends, we would never reveal them to any non-scientologists. It
would be bad "PR". And so no real communication about these matters
would escape the fold. Or so we thought.
When I was in scientology and talking to someone who was not a
scientologist I would suppress my dissatisfactions and try to win them
over to become a scientologist. And when I confronted a critic I would
try to intimidate them and make them wrong. So strong was my
self-created hope that scientology worked for me that the trance like
state of needing to remain in scientology continued in the face of
these things that didn't make sense. It was a picture of scientology
that I kept putting in front of my eyes, kept hoping for, instead of
the actual state of things.
There is another reason why you cannot get a scientologist to really
talk to you. It is because they are intent on *doing something to
you*. In most cases, this is the so-called "dissemination drill" This
"dissem" drill is designed to bring you to understanding that
scientology is for you. It has specific parts to it and a
scientologist who is trying to recruit you is going through the steps
of the drill. Their attention is on the drill and how to move you
through it, not on really communicating with you. Some times their
communication is only feigned so as to make it appear they are really
interested in you, when really they are intent on doing the drill to
get you "in."
One thing used is the steps of "help", "control", "communication" and
"interest". First will come a discussion or mention of "help" and how
people should be helped. And of course it is hard to disagree with
that. Next will be a mention of or perhaps an example of "control".
Such as you bringing them a book when they asked or passing the salt
cellar they requested. An explanation follows about control not being
bad if it is direct and unharmful. Perhaps the idea that control of a
car is good contrasted with lack of control. And it is hard to
disagree there also. And so on with communication which we also agree
is necessary. By then we are supposed to be interested in what the
scientologist has to say.
I think these steps, while appearing benign, are really a kind of
hypnotic induction that makes it difficult to disagree with the
scientologist while making the subject of this procedure suggestible.
Of course, even though Hubbard was a master hypnotist, scientologists
would deny that this has anything to do with hypnotism. Even if it was
hypnotism, it might be justified as being useful, as long as it made
more scientologists.
Another thing that happens, if you are a critic and they know it, is
that they will use scientology principles to try to introvert you or
chop off your communication.
An instance is the famous "LaserClam" who posts to the usenet news
group "alt.religion.scientology." This thing posts questions designed
to make a person posting to or reading the forum to introvert. These
are similar to questions that would be used in scientology style
counseling, designed to bring upsetting feelings to the forefront for
repair. But in such a forum no repair can occur, only upset. Surely a
black use of scientology technology.
So, I have some basis for understanding why a critic or an outsider
sometimes can't get a scientologist to talk to them.
What is the solution? I have no pat answer. Certainly any
communication you make with the idea to forcibly or slyly "change
their mind", will be met with resistance. That is not a way to real
communication.
So, how DO you get a scientologist to talk with you?
I have a suggestion, which might alienate various critics, but which I
want to explore in this essay. Call it a working hypothesis. It
extends from my own experience and the experiences I have read in the
stories of ex-scientologists. Among them Tory Christman and Arnie
Lerma. And lest you think otherwise, no, I'm not covertly trying to
make you into a scientologist.
You see, one of the reasons I am out of scientology is that I
experienced a refusal to apply scientology basics by staff members,
ethics officers and management. In fact it might be the basic reason.
I couldn't understand how the simplest basics of scientology writings
were being ignored wholesale when I tried to apply them to my
experiences in the church itself.
Having the understanding of scientology basics that I do, and being
faced with the continued refusal of the church of scientology to use
them created the conflict that eventually drove me out. I tried for
years to figure out why this was happening. I tried to fix myself by
getting scientology counseling. Yet, in the end I simply couldn't
reconcile how I was being treated, as compared with what I expected
from studying basic scientology principles.
I think Arnie Lerma experienced an extreme form of this same kind of
conflict. When he was threatened with physical harm if he didn't call
off his impending marriage to Hubbard's daughter Suzette, on orders
from the "top", it was a conflict. I think that at a basic level, this
was so obviously NOT scientology that it broke the trance. As he
relates, it shattered the "pavlovian conditioning".
What happened to Lisa McPherson was not scientology. This is one
reason why many scientologists have a hard time believing what you say
about it. It is simply inconceivable that it would happen. But once
they read official documents like the felony indictments, read the
deposition transcripts, it begins to dawn on them that what happened,
and is being vigorously defended by the church, would never have
happened if simple basic scientology like "if you are sick, see a
doctor" had been applied. And reading that is something that breaks
the trance if they can get that far.
Tory Christman is another example. I believe that when she was
confronted with the actions of the OSA "mafia", (as she calls it),
that she had been lured into working for, she observed a blatant
conflict with basic scientology principles. That with everything else
finally shattered the "Truman Show" for her so she was ready when
Andreas of www.xenu.net sent her a compassionate email.
Given these stories and others, I have the hypothesis that the reason
people leave scientology is that they realize it is no longer actually
scientology, and it isn't working.
A scientologist who hasn't left yet is still trying to make
scientology work, and still thinks with the basics of it.
So to really get a scientologist to talk to you, if they are not
disenchanted yet, you're gonna have to learn some basic scientology.
And use it.
Why is that? One reason is that any scientologist is a sucker for
scientology. They respond to it. After all, there they are, right?
Another is that some of the basic understandings in scientology, for
good or ill, do seem to be workable. Even if Hubbard was a lunatic.
My theory is this: You have to get them to directly compare their
actual environment in scientology with the picture they have of
scientology. And you can use some basic scientology and their
knowledge of it to do that. You can get them talking to you and then,
if it goes well, looking at scientology instead of reflexively
defending it.
I would start with not invalidating them for being a scientologist.
Just don't criticize them at all. When an church of scientology staff
or OSA member harassing a picket line invalidates a critic they are
actually violating scientology. They are using a form of black
scientology. Don't respond in kind, communicate in the way scientology
itself teaches!
One basic to use is the scientology concepts of affinity, reality and
communication. In scientology this is known as ARC. It is an
interesting concept.
The affinity point explains why you are more willing to talk with
people you like.
The reality point explains why you have more to talk about with people
who have similar ideas or experiences.
The communication point explains that it can increase both affinity
and reality.
All this together is supposed to equal understanding.
Now, I don't care if this concept and its application REALLY works or
not. Or who wrote it or invented it. The point is, a scientologist is
trained on this, he lives it. It works for him. And if you use it when
you are trying to get him to talk to you, it will work, because it
works for HIM.
Find a reason to like this person. Be compassionate. Be willing to be
near them, be willing to have them communicate. After all, it could
have been you, once. Or still.
Figure out something that you can agree on, because in scientology,
agreement equals reality. See if you can discuss things that you don't
have in conflict. Baseball, the weather, how hard it is to get shoes
that fit. Don't talk about the obvious things you have disagreement
on, like Hubbard, or "it isn't a religion."
If they insist on saying things you don't like, let them know that
they aren't building much affinity. And that it is hard to communicate
if they insist on doing that. If they assert things are true that you
don't agree with, let them know that you don't have much reality with
that and you would like to communicate about things you both agree
with. If they try to invalidate you or try to introvert you, call them
on it as a black use of scientology.
All these things are easier with family members or friends because you
already have affinity and reality with them on things that don't
involve Scientology.
If you feel that they are *doing something*, be upfront about it. Ask
them if they are doing a dissem drill or some kind of handling? Tell
them you want to really talk together, not be the subject of some
"process." Have them tell you about what they were doing. Did it seem
to be working? What did they think of your reactions? If they were
going to continue, what would they do next? And then find out if there
is anything they think you might both agree on?
Another tactic is for you to use the dissem drill. I think reversing
this on a scientologist you want to talk with will pull them right
into communication.
Use the help, control, communication, interest to draw them in. Use
ARC to get them talking with you.
You can continue on in this line until you and the scientologist are
on a good conversational friendly level. If you read "Dianetics 55" or
"Problems of work" by Hubbard, these can give you an idea of the
basics the scientologist works on. And give you something to talk
about.
Let them know you are there to listen. And to help. Mention your own
experiences, things you actually know to be fact. Saying things about
what other people have said is, I think, a losing game. They can tune
you out and justify doing it as "you are spreading lies." Because it
is secondhand. But your own experience is powerful. It is you and your
truth testifying.
If you take this approach, you will wind up in communication with your
scientologist.
Then take to heart my other essay, "How to talk to a scientologist." I
think you might both have a win. ;-)
Michael Leonard Tilse
some...@stromboli.org
snip
Michael, have you read any of the articles written by Ken Urquhart on Jon
Atack's book "A Piece of Blue Sky"?
They're at http://www.freezoneamerica.org/ivy/bluesky/
Here's an exerpt from the first one.
Who are you talking about, Jon?
Supposing that these are words that issued from LRH's mouth and that they
convey what Jon wants us to assume they convey, then they show LRH in a
manipulative and cynical frame of mind, certainly at the time that he spoke
them. Supposing that he was at that time manipulative and cynical, did he
remain so throughout his career? I saw him daily over several years, with
gaps. I never saw him in a manipulative and cynical frame of mind with
regard to what he was promising to deliver to the public in return for
their money, although I would say that he did become clearly cynical as he
aged. I did not see a man who was in the business of selling pieces of blue
sky. I could not have lived with myself had I served such a man as closely
as I served LRH. I would never have involved myself in an outfit that was
dedicated to hoodwinking the public. I will stake my life that there are
many, many individuals who worked on the ship and in various offices around
the world who feel exactly as I do.
I will swear on my own immortality that there was about the man a core of
sanity and integrity, of power, strength, clarity. He had an energy and a
brilliance to him that glowed and sparkled super-humanly. He had a
tenderness that could include with respect and genuine unreserved liking
any person that came within his notice - yes, until he chose to feel
otherwise, true. When engaged with another, that other would know that he
or she were to LRH the most important person in the universe. He had a deep
understanding of how people worked and he was capable of working with them,
as absorbed in his work as any true artist is absorbed in the act of
creation.
And he had within him a streak of ungovernable rebellion against
mediocrity, against hypocrisy and pretence, against lifeless acceptance of
any status quo, and a contempt for those who would restrain him out of
their fear of his bigness. He chose to operate on a planet where the things
he hated are very normal.
But in his awareness of his bigness he allowed himself differences from
others, differences that led him into paths which misdirected his energy
and brilliance and alloyed his sanity and integrity. Part of him was a
swashbuckling regular old space-opera buccaneer having a wonderful time
getting away with wickednesses that really did not do much damage to anyone
except the arrogant and the self-interested.
As a man of sanity, integrity, energy, and brilliance, and as an
ungovernable rebel against dull authority, he let his vanity run away with
his energy and brilliance. Then his energy and brilliance ran off beyond
the reach of his integrity and sanity. In this complexity, he pitted
himself against the forces that govern Planet Earth, and he went down. His
sanity and integrity as a being gave way to his urge to rebel, to snap his
fingers under the nose of authority, and to gather his treasure any way he
could - and bury it to fund the next life cycle.
In going down he put himself in a position where the little people could
spit on him.
Hence, A Piece of Blue Sky.
LaserClam
>Date: 9/28/03 1:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <692e81d1.03092...@posting.google.com>
>
>An instance is the famous "LaserClam" who posts to the usenet news
>group "alt.religion.scientology." This thing posts questions designed
>to make a person posting to or reading the forum to introvert. These
>are similar to questions that would be used in scientology style
>counseling, designed to bring upsetting feelings to the forefront for
>repair. But in such a forum no repair can occur, only upset. Surely a
>black use of scientology technology.
Well, file a Knowledge report on me, but be sure
that you quote the Policy Letter that I'm violating.
I might even be given a Committe of Evidence and
declared Suppressive Person, what do you think
Mike? I might even stop.
Invader Zim
How would you feel if you were declared?
zim
Ball of Fluff
"LaserClam" <lase...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030928040819...@mb-m25.aol.com...
Ya don't have to have had a Comm Ev to be expelled.
Just ask me...or my husband.
C
Ball of Fluff
"Skipper" <aint...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:280920030923462022%aint...@charter.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> It's easy to get a clamoron to talk to you - just wave money. Always
> worked with their Flounder.
And here we can see why many Scn'ists tend to not want to talk to critics.
I'm an exception, but, believe me, most people, oddly enough, tend not to
like to be called names and such.
I've pointed out before that some critics- certainly not all but quite a
few- alienate one of their target audiences.
That is to say, that they claim to want to help Scn'ists, but then actually
when they do encounter any on a discussion forum of any sort, spend no
little amount of time in various scoldings, snide commentary, etc.
C
Bob Sullivan
>
>
>"Skipper" <aint...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:280920030923462022%aint...@charter.net...
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> It's easy to get a clamoron to talk to you - just wave money. Always
>> worked with their Flounder.
>
>And here we can see why many Scn'ists tend to not want to talk to critics.
No, what we see is another example of Claire's serfacs.
Who are these 'many Scn'ists' who 'tend to not want to talk to critics'?
Give some names, or else all you have done is express another of YOUR
opinions. Or perhaps your BT's elected you spokesperson?
Bob
John
"Michael Leonard Tilse" <goo...@draemr.com> wrote in message
news:692e81d1.03092...@posting.google.com...
> 27 September 2003 How to get a Scientologist to talk to you. Essay
> Copyright (c) 2003, Michael Leonard Tilse, All rights reserved. No
> scientology organization or entity has any authorization to copy,
> print or store this essay in any form, including electronic messaging
> systems, databases, hardcopy or as information stored on information
> storage and retrieval systems. Doing so is a violation of my
> copyright. Anybody else can read it and print it and share it as long
> as it is in its original form, unaltered and with this copyright
> notice intact. This essay is my opinion, authored for individuals and
> expressed under my inalienable rights of freedom of expression,
> speaking and writing, recognized and unrecognized.
>
> 27 September 2003 Copyright (c) 2003, Michael Leonard Tilse
>
>
> How to get a Scientologist to talk to you.
>
>
>
> One thing used is the steps of "help", "control", "communication" and
> "interest". First will come a discussion or mention of "help" and how
> people should be helped. And of course it is hard to disagree with
> that. Next will be a mention of or perhaps an example of "control".
> Such as you bringing them a book when they asked or passing the salt
> cellar they requested. An explanation follows about control not being
> bad if it is direct and unharmful. Perhaps the idea that control of a
> car is good contrasted with lack of control. And it is hard to
> disagree there also. And so on with communication which we also agree
> is necessary. By then we are supposed to be interested in what the
> scientologist has to say.
>
> I think these steps, while appearing benign, are really a kind of
> hypnotic induction that makes it difficult to disagree with the
> scientologist while making the subject of this procedure suggestible.
Note that getting your mark to agree with you, to get in the habit of saying
"yes" to you, is a well known sales technique.
Cerridwen
>27 September 2003 How to get a Scientologist to talk to you. Essay
>Copyright (c) 2003, Michael Leonard Tilse, All rights reserved. No
>scientology organization or entity has any authorization to copy,
>print or store this essay in any form, including electronic messaging
>systems, databases, hardcopy or as information stored on information
>storage and retrieval systems. Doing so is a violation of my
>copyright. Anybody else can read it and print it and share it as long
>as it is in its original form, unaltered and with this copyright
>notice intact. This essay is my opinion, authored for individuals and
>expressed under my inalienable rights of freedom of expression,
>speaking and writing, recognized and unrecognized.
>
>27 September 2003 Copyright (c) 2003, Michael Leonard Tilse
>
>
>How to get a Scientologist to talk to you.
>
>
>Recently I wrote an essay entitled: "How to talk to a scientologist."
>Now revised to version 1.1 It seems to be well received and useful.
>But it has been mentioned that it is hard get scientologists to really
>talk with you. Instead, they seem to be interested only in recruiting,
>or if you are a critic, making you wrong.
<snip>
Thanks so much for taking the time to post this information. I'm always
happy to see an Ex-Scientologist doing serious work here. I look forward
to reading more.
Cerri
"Critical thinking demands we question the unproven, not that we meekly
accept it." Diane Richardson
For Stats on Scn go to: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/
For News on Scientology go to: http://www.scientologywatch.org
exscio
well-written and surely sounds heartful. Yet -- it seems the writer has
limited capacity for self-reflection, entranced as he is by his
proximity to LRH. He overlooks the obvious fact that con-artists are
successful precisely because they appear charming, non-manipulative,
knowledgeable, and so forth. They make you feel that you're "the most
important person in the universe" (to quote his essay) when they focus
their attention on you (sizing you up in the process.) Urquhart doesn't
seem to have looked beyond the obvious, nor seems to have considered
basic psychological phenomena such as projection in his paean to LRH.
Truth Seeker
Yes, everything with them is a "handle".
>
>One thing used is the steps of "help", "control", "communication" and
>"interest". First will come a discussion or mention of "help" and how
>people should be helped. And of course it is hard to disagree with
>that. Next will be a mention of or perhaps an example of "control".
>Such as you bringing them a book when they asked or passing the salt
>cellar they requested. An explanation follows about control not being
>bad if it is direct and unharmful. Perhaps the idea that control of a
>car is good contrasted with lack of control. And it is hard to
>disagree there also.
A Person is not a car! Controlling MEST is one thing,
controlling people another.
> And so on with communication which we also agree
>is necessary. By then we are supposed to be interested in what the
>scientologist has to say.
But the Scientologist isn't interested in what you have to say,
just getting you in or getting a stat from you.
>
>I think these steps, while appearing benign, are really a kind of
>hypnotic induction that makes it difficult to disagree with the
>scientologist while making the subject of this procedure suggestible.
>Of course, even though Hubbard was a master hypnotist, scientologists
>would deny that this has anything to do with hypnotism. Even if it was
>hypnotism, it might be justified as being useful, as long as it made
>more scientologists.
>
>Another thing that happens, if you are a critic and they know it, is
>that they will use scientology principles to try to introvert you or
>chop off your communication.
>
>An instance is the famous "LaserClam" who posts to the usenet news
>group "alt.religion.scientology." This thing posts questions designed
>to make a person posting to or reading the forum to introvert. These
>are similar to questions that would be used in scientology style
>counseling, designed to bring upsetting feelings to the forefront for
>repair. But in such a forum no repair can occur, only upset. Surely a
>black use of scientology technology.
One of OSA tricks on this newsgroup is apply black Scientology.
But it's not just LaserClam, there is many others. Here is a earlier
post of the list of Scientologists who are all employing black
Scientology on this newsgroup against critics.
"List of Scientologists pretending to be critics on this newsgroup"
>
>So, I have some basis for understanding why a critic or an outsider
>sometimes can't get a scientologist to talk to them.
It's because Scientology has shifted their view of your
identity. "wogs", "the abberated", "out ethics", "SP's", "PTS's" are
identities in Scientology not to be listened to, so they don't.
>
>What is the solution? I have no pat answer. Certainly any
>communication you make with the idea to forcibly or slyly "change
>their mind", will be met with resistance. That is not a way to real
>communication.
>
>So, how DO you get a scientologist to talk with you?
You can't it's a waste of time.
>
>I have a suggestion, which might alienate various critics, but which I
You mean, the real critics will get wise to this indirect
Scientology sales pitch. He's trying to give you a course in
Scientology under the cloak of "How to talk to a scientologist"
>want to explore in this essay. Call it a working hypothesis. It
>extends from my own experience and the experiences I have read in the
>stories of ex-scientologists. Among them Tory Christman and Arnie
>Lerma.
Now your making a mistake my good man. A mistake I once made
before myself. Tory & Arnie are not Ex-Scientologists. They were put
out in the field to "handle" guys like you and me. They are here to
route your but back into Scientology or stop you from talking to the
outside world about what you saw when you were in. Those two are not
what they appear to be.
> And lest you think otherwise, no, I'm not covertly trying to
>make you into a scientologist.
Believe me you can't make them into something they allready are.
>
>You see, one of the reasons I am out of scientology is that I
>experienced a refusal to apply scientology basics by staff members,
>ethics officers and management. In fact it might be the basic reason.
>I couldn't understand how the simplest basics of scientology writings
>were being ignored wholesale when I tried to apply them to my
>experiences in the church itself.
>
>Having the understanding of scientology basics that I do, and being
>faced with the continued refusal of the church of scientology to use
>them created the conflict that eventually drove me out. I tried for
>years to figure out why this was happening. I tried to fix myself by
>getting scientology counseling. Yet, in the end I simply couldn't
>reconcile how I was being treated, as compared with what I expected
>from studying basic scientology principles.
Yes, there is a big GAP between what's written in the books and
what happens in the real world.
>
>I think Arnie Lerma experienced an extreme form of this same kind of
>conflict. When he was threatened with physical harm if he didn't call
>off his impending marriage to Hubbard's daughter Suzette, on orders
>from the "top", it was a conflict. I think that at a basic level, this
>was so obviously NOT scientology that it broke the trance. As he
>relates, it shattered the "pavlovian conditioning".
Who knows if any of that was real or made up by the church to
shore up his identity as a ex-scientologist.
>
>What happened to Lisa McPherson was not scientology. This is one
>reason why many scientologists have a hard time believing what you say
>about it. It is simply inconceivable that it would happen. But once
>they read official documents like the felony indictments, read the
>deposition transcripts, it begins to dawn on them that what happened,
>and is being vigorously defended by the church, would never have
>happened if simple basic scientology like "if you are sick, see a
>doctor" had been applied. And reading that is something that breaks
>the trance if they can get that far.
>
>Tory Christman is another example. I believe that when she was
>confronted with the actions of the OSA "mafia", (as she calls it),
Tory Chirstman is still in the church. How can you make a
connection between Tory's phony leaving of Scientology and what
happened to Lisa. They are worlds appart. No trance has been broken
for Tory, she's so IN she's decided to go undercover and act like a
critic to help the church. Please don't try to identify these two
storys because they are worlds appart. Tory is still in a trance big
time. Her "Story" was made up so everybody will believe it because it
sounds so believable.
>
>Given these stories and others, I have the hypothesis that the reason
>people leave scientology is that they realize it is no longer actually
>scientology, and it isn't working.
Before you form a hypothesis about why people leave Scientology
you should first talk people who REALLY have left first.
>
>A scientologist who hasn't left yet is still trying to make
>scientology work, and still thinks with the basics of it.
>
>So to really get a scientologist to talk to you, if they are not
>disenchanted yet, you're gonna have to learn some basic scientology.
>And use it.
Is this person PROMOTING Scientology? One of Scientology's big
tricks is to try to get you to look at Scientology. You don't need to
learn shit about Scientology to talk to someone. First off, no matter
WHAT you say, even if you do know some basic Scientology is going to
work! They are under mind control, you are wasting your time, I've
tried. As long as they identify you as "wog", "abberated", "out
ethics", "SP's", or "PTS's" it is impossible to talk to them. They
have to come out of it on there own like I did.
Are you trying to sell Scientology by saying its the only way to
talk to Scientologists? This person seems to be trying to get you to
learn some basic Scientology.
>
>My theory is this: You have to get them to directly compare their
>actual environment in scientology with the picture they have of
>scientology. And you can use some basic scientology and their
>knowledge of it to do that. You can get them talking to you and then,
>if it goes well, looking at scientology instead of reflexively
>defending it.
How are you going to do this if they won't talk to you. Oh, that's
right, TAKE A SCIENTOLOGY COURSE, RIGHT!
>
>I would start with not invalidating them for being a scientologist.
>Just don't criticize them at all. When an church of scientology staff
>or OSA member harassing a picket line invalidates a critic they are
>actually violating scientology. They are using a form of black
Violating Scientology, NO - Using Black Scientology Yes.
>scientology. Don't respond in kind, communicate in the way scientology
>itself teaches!
Don't go on the picket in the first place unless you want them to
know who you are, Very bad idea.
One of Scientology's big things is to mix the truth in with lies
just like this guy is doing now. He gives you some truth and then
mixes it with a pitch.
>
>One basic to use is the scientology concepts of affinity, reality and
>communication. In scientology this is known as ARC. It is an
>interesting concept.
Yeah, and he wants you to be interested like he is. Giving us a
Scientology course on the ARC triangle are we! This guy is a
Scientologist. More bullshit.
>
>The affinity point explains why you are more willing to talk with
>people you like.
>
>The communication point explains that it can increase both affinity
>and reality.
>
>All this together is supposed to equal understanding.
Your taking a Scientology course right now, did you know? He's
teaching you Scientology under the bullshit cover of "This is how to
talk to a Scientologist"
>
>Find a reason to like this person. Be compassionate. Be willing to be
>near them, be willing to have them communicate. After all, it could
>have been you, once. Or still.
If your a critic you better stay the fuck away from them,
especially if they are staff. Not in a million years will you ever get
through to these guys, they must find there own way out. If you are
identified by them as a critic they will only try to stop you.
>
>Figure out something that you can agree on, because in scientology,
>agreement equals reality. See if you can discuss things that you don't
>that fit. Don't talk about the obvious things you have disagreement
>on, like Hubbard, or "it isn't a religion."
Again, this dick is teaching you about the ARC triangle. He's
giving a course right here on this newsgroup.
>
>If you take this approach, you will wind up in communication with your
>scientologist.
No, you might wind up a Scientologist and that's this guys hope.
>
>Then take to heart my other essay, "How to talk to a scientologist." I
>think you might both have a win. ;-)
He's talking about having a win. He's a Scientologist. You think
by the title of the post, it's about "How to talk to a scientologist"
but at the same time he's giving you a course on the ARC triangle.
This is another covert way to try to dissiminate Scientology under the
cloak of "How to talk to a Scientologist". He is mixing Scientology
shit in with an apparent critical post. More OSA bullshit!
ONE OF SCIENTOLOGY'S BIG THINGS IS TO GIVE YOU SOME TRUTH MIXED
IN WITH A PITCH!! You see, while he's apparently telling you "How to
talk to a Scientology" he really is trying to give you a basic
Scientology course!
>
>
>Michael Leonard Tilse
Truth Seeker
"A man must purify himself, no man can purify another"
======================================
If you want to know what Scientology doesn't want you to know, take
a look these posts that I've put up earlier on this newsgroup. (That's
if the Church of "Suppress Free Speech" hasn't illegally cancelled
them)
"Scientology's Plan to Stop Critics & Criticism on this newsgroup"
"The key to how Scientology is handling this newsgroup"
"The FAQ for Alt.Religion.Scientology"
"List of Scientologists pretending to be critics on this newsgroup"
"Tactics OSA uses to stop critics on this newsgroup"
"The Magical Transformation of Church Member into Critic"
"How Scientology is playing both sides of the coin"
"Scientology's Decoy System"
"The 3 beliefs Scientology wants the world to believe"
"Some different Ways to "Handle" Scientology"
"How Scientology Traps New Members"
"Scientology's Trick to keep people from REAL criticism"
"Weaknesses of the Church of Scientology"
"How Scientology creates identity confusion"
Truth Seeker
critics about the ARC triangle while he thinks he's reading about how
to talk to a scientologist"
He's baiting the critic in with "How to get a scientologist to
talk to you" and while you think your going to read about that, you
start reading about the ARC triangle. It's a trick to get a critic to
read about Scientology indirectly. This is a standard OSA tactic.
arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com
<clea...@newsguyNOSPAM.com> wrote:
Good question Bob
Good luck extracting an answer from ball of fluff you will get
as a response.
Arnie
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the new millennium
Secrets are the mortar binding lies as bricks together into prisons for the mind
Support http://www.lermanet.com - mentioned 4 January 2000 in
The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"
arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com
Seeker) wrote:
>The title of this post should be: "How to give a Scientology course to
>critics about the ARC triangle while he thinks he's reading about how
Truth Seeker's purpose is to fix the lousy results when one
searches for the
Truth about Scientology....
Where's the beef?
Here's the BEEF!
(updated with pictures!)
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/miscavige.htm
Dear David Miscavige,
It was a day in perhaps 1976
I went to your father's house outside of philadelphia
I was there as CHIEF PETTY OFFICER ARNIE LERMA FLAG SERVICE CONSULTANT
EASTERN UNITED STATES I was there with my best freind Gary Lowe
Gary and I were decked out in full sea org regalia
Galactic Federation symbol festooned upon our captains hats
brass chain lanyards draped across our chests.
White shirts with epaulettes to hold the brass chain.
During "THE REG CYCLE" to get money out of your dad. there was a noise
from the backyard window I could see a kids face at my bottom right,
pressed up to the screen, with hands on each side of his face to cut
the glare so he might see who was in the living room with his dad.
I asked your dad what was that?
(scraping noise of hands and perhaps nose on window screen)
He said: Oh, that's my son david, he is playing in the back yard, I
guess he wanted to see who was here"
David... What were you thinking when you held your hands up along side
your face , to block the sunlight on the screen, so you could see
inside?
Were Gary and I the first uniformed "Sea Org Officers" you had ever
seen?
Did you decide right then, that you wanted to be 'just like us"?
Arnie Lerma
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TALES FROM THE CULT II
Author: "Jesse Prince"
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:01:39 -0400
This story is dedicated to all of the ruined families
and broken relationships caused by the criminal cult of
Scientology. Maybe some will understand a little better.
If memory serves me right the year in question was 1985.
As an aside in all honesty I must say "achieving" the state
of clear did nothing to improve my memory like being set up.
Anyway, as I sat in my office at Golden Era Productions
wishing time would go by faster than it was, I got an urgent
phone call from Vicki Aznaran. Vicki was the Inspector
General of RTC, IG for short. She told me she had received
an urgent phone call from Miss Cabbage's wife Shelly.
Shelly told Vicki to make sure I was around the Gold Base
for the rest of the day as there was a major flap going on
that I needed to help handle.
This was just the kind of news I hated the most and the
terror stomach started to set in like rigamortis.
After agonizing for a few hours I received a second
phone call to meet Miss Cabbage in the Qualifications
division of Gold. Dutifully I went to Qual and met with
Davey and he explained things to me. Davey said he had just
returned from Philadelphia in John Travolta's private plane
to get his father out of jail. Davey's father Ron Miss
Cabbage senior was arrested for raping a young woman who's
name escapes me now. Davey had been screaming and screaming
at his dad and old Ronnie looked very contrite when I saw
him.
continues HERE
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/miscavige.htm
arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com
Seeker) wrote:
(nothing, as usual beyond what his project orders state)
http://www.lermanet.com/osa/osawhoiswho.htm
>On 27 Sep 2003 22:28:12 -0700, goo...@draemr.com (Michael Leonard
>Tilse) wrote:
>>
>>
>>How to get a Scientologist to talk to you.
>>
>>
Where's the beef?
Shy David
Tilse) wrote:
> How to get a Scientologist to talk to you.
Wave a credit card in front of his face.
--
"Hats off to you Mr. Middleton for refusing to sell your soul to
these slime." -- Bob Minton, Mon 27 Jul 1998 19:48:34 GMT
Frog
>The piece quoted below by Ken Urquhart, in defense of LRH, is
>well-written and surely sounds heartful. Yet -- it seems the writer has
>limited capacity for self-reflection, entranced as he is by his
>proximity to LRH. He overlooks the obvious fact that con-artists are
>successful precisely because they appear charming, non-manipulative,
>knowledgeable, and so forth. They make you feel that you're "the most
>important person in the universe" (to quote his essay) when they focus
>their attention on you (sizing you up in the process.) Urquhart doesn't
>seem to have looked beyond the obvious, nor seems to have considered
>basic psychological phenomena such as projection in his paean to LRH.
What's obvious is that you have limited capacity to look at what's outside
of the box of your opinions.
Read the rest of the article I excerpted and the other ones in the series.
You will find some of the very best and harshest criticism ever made of
Hubbard. You'll like that. But you'll have to take the box off your head
to understand what else he says.
http://www.freezoneamerica.org/ivy/bluesky/
Frog
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>You have to understand something. Humbug had them all hypnotized to
>think they were special and above it all. HYPNOSIS. Some of them never
>got over it. One of them who got Miscarriage to sign his See Yuck
>contract is over in Amsterdam right now smoking dope, maybe planning
>another S&M movie.
>
>People who were in Humbug's "inner circle" would do the damndest stuff,
>totally contrary to Humbug's principles yet think nothing of it. Like
>getting three abortions while working right next door to Humbug. What
>was that he said about that in Diuretics?
>
>Don't take anything anyone who worked with Humbug or anything they say
>seriously if they have anything good to say about him, because for a
>while he had them convinced they were gods and doing immortal things.
>So he hypnotized them all, screw him, he's way past fish food now, and
>his "church" will soon be deep-sixed, too.
Thinking his "church" will be deep-sixed soon only goes to show how deluded
you are. It'll never happen. That's why it needs to be reformed.
Scientologists are deluded because they're indoctrinated. Remember being
an indoctrinated Scientologist, Skip Press?
That was then. What's your excuse for being deluded now?
>In article <3F77A5...@freeatlast.com>, exscio
Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>You have to understand something. Humbug had them all hypnotized to
>think they were special and above it all. HYPNOSIS. Some of them never
>got over it. One of them who got Miscarriage to sign his See Yuck
>contract is over in Amsterdam right now smoking dope, maybe planning
>another S&M movie.
>
>People who were in Humbug's "inner circle" would do the damndest stuff,
>totally contrary to Humbug's principles yet think nothing of it. Like
>getting three abortions while working right next door to Humbug. What
>was that he said about that in Diuretics?
>
>Don't take anything anyone who worked with Humbug or anything they say
>seriously if they have anything good to say about him, because for a
>while he had them convinced they were gods and doing immortal things.
>So he hypnotized them all, screw him, he's way past fish food now, and
>his "church" will soon be deep-sixed, too.
Thinking his "church" will be deep-sixed soon only goes to show how deluded
you are. It'll never happen. That's why it needs to be reformed.
Scientologists are deluded because they're indoctrinated. Remember being
an indoctrinated Scientologist, Skip Press?
That was then. What's your excuse for being deluded now?
>In article <3F77A5...@freeatlast.com>, exscio
><exs...@freeatlast.com> wrote:
>
Ball of Fluff
"arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com" <ale...@nospam.bellatlantic.net> wrote in
message news:3f785a5d....@news.verizon.net...
> On 28 Sep 2003 12:01:10 -0700, Bob Sullivan
> <clea...@newsguyNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
I totally support the right of anyone to post or publish anything they like.
It may not be something with which I agree, and I certainly, like scads of
others, will comment every now and again, but I'd far rather have the
freedom to participate on forums like this, or to communicate or hear about
others who essay their own efforts such as websites, pickets- than to have
to be nervous every time the phone rings during Foundation hours because it
might be the Org trying to handle me, or to field calls at my place of
business because my husband posted something on a.b.s. that OSA didn't like.
Yes, I've a strong interest in content and in commenting on same, but I've
also got just as strong an interest in seeing people write according to the
dictates of their consciences and inclinations. And in the latter, it's not
a question of content. That would be censorship based on specious
justification.
No, it's people's freedom to discuss as they choose.
Which is why I selected the nick "Voltaires Child" on askme.com.
C
Truth Seeker
critics about the ARC triangle while he thinks he's reading about how
Truth Seeker
Ball of Fluff
"Truth Seeker" <doubledr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f7913ee...@News.Individual.NET...
> The title of this post should be: "How to give a Scientology course to
> critics about the ARC triangle while he thinks he's reading about how
> to talk to a scientologist"
>
> He's baiting the critic in with "How to get a scientologist to
> talk to you" and while you think your going to read about that, you
> start reading about the ARC triangle. It's a trick to get a critic to
> read about Scientology indirectly. This is a standard OSA tactic.
So why not actually discuss things instead of just taking pot shots at
various contributors?
Who knows, you could enjoy it...
C
Truth Seeker
critics about the ARC triangle while he thinks he's reading about how
to talk to a scientologist"
He's baiting the critic in with "How to get a scientologist to
talk to you" and while you think your going to read about that, you
start reading about the ARC triangle. It's a trick to get a critic to
read about Scientology indirectly. This is a standard OSA tactic.
Truth Seeker
Look, if someone is going to give a course on the ARC triangle,
they need to be upfront about! Dont' cloak it under the "How to talk
to a Scientologist" front. If someone wanted to read about that they
could pick up a Hubbard book.
Zinj
amaflu...@yahoo.com says...
Any resemblance between a Trough Slurper post and
'communication' is as errant as it is intended. This charade
*is* however completely 'per policy'.
Zinj
--
ScientologyŽ - Deliberately killing no more than 0.5 percent of
its members since 1953
JB@nowhere
"Frog" <FrogRe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:2NB30CAC3789...@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Skipper <aint...@charter.net> wrote:
> >X-No-Archive: Yes
> >
> >You have to understand something. Humbug had them all hypnotized to
> >think they were special and above it all. HYPNOSIS. Some of them never
> >got over it. One of them who got Miscarriage to sign his See Yuck
> >contract is over in Amsterdam right now smoking dope, maybe planning
> >another S&M movie.
> >
> >People who were in Humbug's "inner circle" would do the damndest stuff,
> >totally contrary to Humbug's principles yet think nothing of it. Like
> >getting three abortions while working right next door to Humbug. What
> >was that he said about that in Diuretics?
> >
> >Don't take anything anyone who worked with Humbug or anything they say
> >seriously if they have anything good to say about him, because for a
> >while he had them convinced they were gods and doing immortal things.
> >So he hypnotized them all, screw him, he's way past fish food now, and
> >his "church" will soon be deep-sixed, too.
>
> Thinking his "church" will be deep-sixed soon only goes to show how
deluded
> you are. It'll never happen. That's why it needs to be reformed.
>
> Scientologists are deluded because they're indoctrinated. Remember being
> an indoctrinated Scientologist, Skip Press?
>
> That was then. What's your excuse for being deluded now?
You mean, aside from the fact that you're a moron? None, as far as I know.
Jack
>
>
>
> >In article <3F77A5...@freeatlast.com>, exscio
> ><exs...@freeatlast.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The piece quoted below by Ken Urquhart, in defense of LRH, is
> >> well-written and surely sounds heartful. Yet -- it seems the writer has
> >> limited capacity for self-reflection, entranced as he is by his
> >> proximity to LRH. He overlooks the obvious fact that con-artists are
> >> successful precisely because they appear charming, non-manipulative,
> >> knowledgeable, and so forth. They make you feel that you're "the most
> >> important person in the universe" (to quote his essay) when they focus
> >> their attention on you (sizing you up in the process.) Urquhart doesn't
> >> seem to have looked beyond the obvious, nor seems to have considered
> >> basic psychological phenomena such as projection in his paean to LRH.
> >>
> >>
> >> some...@stromboli.org wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 27 Sep 2003, goo...@draemr.com (Michael Leonard Tilse) wrote:
> >> > snip
> >> >
> >> > Michael, have you read any of the articles written by Ken Urquhart on
Jon
> >> > Atack's book "A Piece of Blue Sky"?
> >> >
> >> > They're at http://www.freezoneamerica.org/ivy/bluesky/
> >> >
> >> > Here's an exerpt from the first one.
> >> >
> >> > Who are you talking about, Jon?
Get a clue, moron, this is directed at frog. I know what you are your
andwhat your "network" is doing. Best of luck. You're gonna' need it...
JB@nowhere
> The title of this post should be: "How to give a Scientology course to
> critics about the ARC triangle while he thinks he's reading about how
> to talk to a scientologist"
>
> He's baiting the critic in with "How to get a scientologist to
> talk to you" and while you think your going to read about that, you
> start reading about the ARC triangle. It's a trick to get a critic to
> read about Scientology indirectly. This is a standard OSA tactic.
You know - he's right!!!
Allow me to post a lot of the correct URLs. You see, "truth seeker" CANNOT
post a URL - he doesn't have authorisation.
Sorry, folks. I'll help him along, OK?
Here we go...
--
"Pay no attention to the person behind the screen" ("truth seeker") - The
Wizard of ODZ
If you want TRUTH, look at these:
If you're truly interested in finding out information on the Criminal Cult
of $cientology, go to any of these links - ignore the thing behind the
screen:
<http://www.xenu.net/index.html>
<http://www.lisamcpherson.org/>
<http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.jl-jj-scientology.html>
<http://w4u.eexi.gr/~antbos/XENU.HTM>
<http://www.xenu-city.net/index.html>
<http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/alter/>
<http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/>
<http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/>
<http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/>
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=OT+III>
<http://www.xenu.de/>
<http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/cooper/index.html>
<http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/>
<http://www.altreligionscientology.org/>
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/room174.html
http://lisa.whyaretheydead.net/
and, just to be fair -
Jack
$cientology ~HATES~ the internet - and with goo reason. It LIES
Ball of Fluff
"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19e364bb7...@news2.lightlink.com...
> In article <3f79...@news2.lightlink.com>,
> amaflu...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > "Truth Seeker" <doubledr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3f7913ee...@News.Individual.NET...
> > > The title of this post should be: "How to give a Scientology course to
> > > critics about the ARC triangle while he thinks he's reading about how
> > > to talk to a scientologist"
> > >
> > > He's baiting the critic in with "How to get a scientologist to
> > > talk to you" and while you think your going to read about that, you
> > > start reading about the ARC triangle. It's a trick to get a critic to
> > > read about Scientology indirectly. This is a standard OSA tactic.
> >
> > So why not actually discuss things instead of just taking pot shots at
> > various contributors?
> >
> > Who knows, you could enjoy it...
> >
> > C
>
> Any resemblance between a Trough Slurper post and
> 'communication' is as errant as it is intended.
Well, I rarely walk away from a chance to give a nice lil' ol' homily.
C
Zinj
amaflu...@yahoo.com says...
Them's some 'true homily grits'
Truth Seeker
critics about the ARC triangle while he thinks he's reading about how
to talk to a scientologist"
He's baiting the critic in with "How to get a scientologist to
talk to you" and while you think your going to read about that, you
start reading about the ARC triangle. It's a trick to get a critic to
read about Scientology indirectly. This is a standard OSA tactic.
Truth Seeker
critics about the ARC triangle while he thinks he's reading about how
to talk to a scientologist"
He's baiting the critic in with "How to get a scientologist to
talk to you" and while you think your going to read about that, you
start reading about the ARC triangle. It's a trick to get a critic to
read about Scientology indirectly. This is a standard OSA tactic.
Chris Severn
wrote:
>The title of this post should be: "How to give a Scientology course to
>critics about the ARC triangle while he thinks he's reading about how
>to talk to a scientologist"
>
> He's baiting the critic in with "How to get a scientologist to
>talk to you" and while you think your going to read about that, you
>start reading about the ARC triangle. It's a trick to get a critic to
>read about Scientology indirectly. This is a standard OSA tactic.
"Truth Seeker", you dickhead. You really really need to learn grammar.
Particularly the difference between "you're" and "your". It's very very
simple. If you can replace the word with "you are", then it's spelled
"you're". If you can't, then it's "your". Get it ? Got it ? Good.
Please get that right, and then you can continue posting your insane drivel.
Chris
Truth Seeker
critics about the ARC triangle while he thinks he's reading about how
to talk to a scientologist"
He's baiting the critic in with "How to get a scientologist to
talk to you" and while you think you're going to read about that, you
start reading about the ARC triangle. It's a trick to get a critic to
read about Scientology indirectly. This is a standard OSA tactic.
Truth Seeker
"A man must purify himself, no man can purify another"
=====================================================
If you want to know what Scientology doesn't want you
to know, take a look these posts that I've put up earlier on
this newsgroup. (That's if the Church of "Suppress Free Speech"
hasn't illegally cancelled them)
"Scientology's Plan to Stop Critics & Criticism on this newsgroup"
"The key to how Scientology is handling this newsgroup"
"Why you should stay away from Scientology"
Chris Severn
wrote:
>The title of this post should be: "How to give a Scientology course to
>critics about the ARC triangle while he thinks he's reading about how
>to talk to a scientologist"
>
> He's baiting the critic in with "How to get a scientologist to
>talk to you" and while you think you're going to read about that, you
>start reading about the ARC triangle. It's a trick to get a critic to
>read about Scientology indirectly. This is a standard OSA tactic.
Very good. Thankyou.
Chris.
Truth Seeker
critics about the ARC triangle while he thinks he's reading about how
to talk to a scientologist"
He's baiting the critic in with "How to get a scientologist to
talk to you" and while you think you're going to read about that, you
start reading about the ARC triangle. It's a trick to get a critic to
read about Scientology indirectly. This is a standard OSA tactic.
Dave Bird
Leonard Tilse <goo...@draemr.com> writes:
Let's be honest, if someone who thinks Scientology or at least the
current Church management is harmful and destructive then wants to
talk to a Scientologist then -- vicey versey -- nine times out of
ten he does it to convince the Scientologist out of scientology
or at least the current Church, and if he only seeks to gain
the other's confidence he probably does so in order to apply
such a purpose later. Of course he does this because he thinks
it is a good and benevolent thing to do, that the world will better
off for reducing the strength of CofS and the Scientologist better
off for leaving it. So far, so similar. Of course the difference
is that there is only one reality, and that in reality scientology
is nonsense and the church of scientology a bunch of shameless thieves.
He is right, and the scientologist is deluded.
Now you can certainly get in touch with a Scientologist on the
level of basic humanity: somebody who has children might say
"I have kids, you have kids, how are yours doing," etc. But this
can go only one of two ways. Either the two genuinely want a truce,
the nature of which is that neither will advance their purpose.
Or there is some ulterior motive in it, if only to convince the
other person that you are approachable and human so as to apply
persuasion later.
>Find a reason to like this person. Be compassionate. Be willing to be
>near them, be willing to have them communicate. After all, it could have
>been you, once. Or still.
>
>Figure out something that you can agree on, because in scientology,
>agreement equals reality. See if you can discuss things that you don't
>have in conflict. Baseball, the weather, how hard it is to get shoes
>that fit. Don't talk about the obvious things you have disagreement on,
>like Hubbard, or "it isn't a religion."
>
>If they insist on saying things you don't like, let them know that they
>aren't building much affinity. And that it is hard to communicate if
>they insist on doing that. If they assert things are true that you don't
>agree with, let them know that you don't have much reality with that and
>you would like to communicate about things you both agree with. If they
>try to invalidate you or try to introvert you, call them on it as a
>black use of scientology.
>
>All these things are easier with family members or friends because you
>already have affinity and reality with them on things that don't involve
>Scientology.
Another approach is, as you say, "breaking up the game": if they are
using some scientology technique, tell them you know what they're doing
and it isn't working. This will, at least, break up the process they
are applying to you. Where you go next is up to you.
>
>If you feel that they are *doing something*, be upfront about it. Ask
>them if they are doing a dissem drill or some kind of handling? Tell
>them you want to really talk together, not be the subject of some
>"process." Have them tell you about what they were doing. Did it seem to
>be working? What did they think of your reactions? If they were going to
>continue, what would they do next? And then find out if there is
>anything they think you might both agree on?
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
.................................................................
A society without a religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.