shills - alt.religion.scientology

Message from discussion shills

Claire Swazey

More options Jul 9 1998, 3:00 am

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

From: Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>

Date: 1998/07/09

Subject: Re: shills

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

Hi, Warrior, my dear!

Warrior wrote:

> In article <MPG.100b630518d65331989...@nntp.lightlink.com>,
> starshad...@mindless.com says...

> > My belief is that they haven't experienced its pervasiveness, not that
> >they are lying. Just my guess.

> > The Swazeys have been pretty straightforward, insofar as they are
> >willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those beliefs
> >support.

> The Swazeys have claimed that they have been Scientologists for years.
> There is no way that they could not be aware of Scientology policies
> regarding disconnection, "SPs" and "PTSes". So for them to be making
> the statements about disconnection being rare, etc. is bullshit.

Well, we have been Scientologists for years. And it really is rare.
But rare does not mean never. And that does not mean abuses do not
occur. It's always sad when LRH policy isn't applied standardly, huh
Warrior? :-) But seriously, I'm not making this stuff up. I cover it
again in my post today responding to Jour's Questions for Claire
posting, I imagine you may find that interesting...

> With all due respect, Starshadow, the Swazeys have NOT been completely
> honest in their postings. From what I have gathered, you were never a
> member of Scientology, so I don't expect you to have the same ability
> to spot BS.

I have been honest. Although I admit that I refuse to divulge private
personal information about myself that you do not need to know, which
may constitute a bit of an evasion, still I have not been lying. I do
not need to tell you about what services and posts I've taken and held,
any more than I need to let you know my bra size.

> It is so damned obvious to me that they have been playing a PR game
> here on the NG. But you would probably have to have been a member
> to be able to spot _all_ the bullshit Scientologists post here.

Actually, I have not. I haven't been sent by anybody. Anyway, which is
it, first you want to say that I must be here against CofS wishes, then
you alternate this absurd claim with the even more absurd claim that
maybe I am working out a liability formula and now it's a PR game. What
this tells me is that you don't know what I'm doing here, but you are
going to try and press different buttons til something goes beep.

> Of course, even those who never were members can and do spot much of
> the BS.

> Warrior
> See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/

So we are not in agreement. And your experiences with Scn have
obviously been different than mine and so you don't have the same
outlook as I have.Well,it would be odd if you did.I can deal with the
fact that you feel as you do, yet it seems to me from things you have
posted in the past four days or so, that you are not comfortable with or
willing to accept the fact that I could have been in Scn for a goodly
amount of time with a variety of experiences, and still feel as I do.
This should not bother you, Warrior. You knew there were still
Scientologists around,right? I mean, of course you didn't know about my
unique singular qualities, but still, you need (IMNSHO) to get
accustomed to the fact that someone could have a totally different
outlook from you and actually not be lying.

If you were to think I was incorrect,which you do, fine. But I'm just
amazed at your inability to add 2 and 2 together and get anything other
than a held-down 7.

Your friend,
Claire

Reply to author Forward