Scientology myths
Jack Craver
I was a member of COS for 4 years. I was also a Staff member for a very
short time. For those of you that have not been a member of COS, I would
like to dispell some myths that have been circulated about scientology:
1) Brainwashing -
Total nonsense.
2)Hypnotizing -
Again, total nonsense.
3) Abuses -
I personally never witnessed any kind of abuse whatsoever.
4) Freedoms -
No-one ever tried to lock me up. No-one ever made me do anything I didn't
want to do.
5) Scientologists -
Most scientologists I have known are bright and courageous people that are
trying to change themselves and the world, for the better. From reading
the posts on this newsgroup, one could easily get the impression that
scientologists are all evil, malicious people trying to manipulate the
entire world into some kind of police state. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER
FROM THE TRUTH. This is not to say scientology doesn't have some bad
apples, particularly in the leadership area, but the intention of most
scientologists is good-will. I wonder what the intention is of the people
who speak disparingly of scientologists.
--
Lightnin Rod
"A candle in the darkness"
BorkBorkem
From: "Jack Craver" <inm...@bellsouth.net>
>I was a member of COS for 4 years. I was also a Staff member
> for a very short time. For those of you that have not been a
> member of COS, I would like to dispell some myths that have
> been circulated about scientology:
>1) Brainwashing - Total nonsense.
>2)Hypnotizing - Again, total nonsense.
Both of these terms require careful definition to define exactly
what is meant though. There's the popular conception of
what hypnosis is (which is often way off the mark compared to
what is learned about it by people of long experience in studying
it) and of course "brainwashing" is a term that gets tossed around
so much when people disagree stridently with the opinions of others
of important issues of politics/ideology/etc that I hesitate to
suggest it does have any distinct meaning, other than in reference
to some historical events, which is rarely what the term is used
for anymore.
>3) Abuses - I personally never witnessed any kind of
> abuse whatsoever.
What do you consider to be abuse, and what is not abuse, though?
Does it matter that it was simply out of your site? "I know
noooooooothink" was good for Sergeant Schultz in Hogan's Heros,
and I do genuinely believe that most Germans living under Nazis
didn't know the horrors happening in the death camps - just as
extensive Nazi efforts at suppression of the truth sought to achieve.
Doesn't change what should be reported as historically accurate though.
>4) Freedoms - No-one ever tried to lock me up. No-one ever
> made me do anything I didn't want to do.
Well, that's good. But the problem in many discussions concerning
groups of people is finding the "representative case". Anecdotes
alone aren't proof. Some people involved in Scientology were
apparently unlawfully and unethically imprisoned/detained and
otherwise intimidated. Some weren't.
I take it you have not yet had the religious experience of knowing
that hired and licensed thugs are watching your kids walk to school
(the good reasons being ...) because you dared to speak out about
injustice going on.
>5) Scientologists - Most scientologists I have known are bright
> and courageous people that are trying to change themselves
> and the world, for the better.
In their own minds, so were Bolsheviks. So this impression doesn't
tell us much.
> From reading the posts on this
> newsgroup, one could easily get the impression that scientologists
> are all evil, malicious people trying to manipulate the entire world
> into some kind of police state. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER
> FROM THE TRUTH. This is not to say scientology doesn't have
> some bad apples, particularly in the leadership area, but the
> intention of most scientologists is good-will. I wonder what the
> intention is of the people who speak disparingly of scientologists.
>--
>Lightnin Rod
>"A candle in the darkness"
Simple information, gathered, commented on, distributed. Unfortunately
ars has its share of bad apples too. But ars on the whole is
basically a bunch of people who have intentions of good-will: to
enlighten people about the Scientology experience that the CoS will
hire thugs to suppress, and so is difficult to come by otherwise.
Andreas Heldal-Lund
On 4 Jul 1997 17:00:18 GMT, "Jack Craver" <inm...@bellsouth.net>
wrote among other things:
> 5) Scientologists -
> Most scientologists I have known are bright and courageous people that are
> trying to change themselves and the world, for the better. From reading
> the posts on this newsgroup, one could easily get the impression that
> scientologists are all evil, malicious people trying to manipulate the
> entire world into some kind of police state. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER
> FROM THE TRUTH. This is not to say scientology doesn't have some bad
> apples, particularly in the leadership area, but the intention of most
> scientologists is good-will. I wonder what the intention is of the people
> who speak disparingly of scientologists.
I disagree with your impression regarding this newsgroup.
There has been a lot of good posts making it absolutely clear
that the critisism is about the _organisation_ and not the
common Scientologist. In most posts there are also references
to web pages which state this even clearer.
I would suggest you lurk the newsgroup a bit more.
Yours forever,
Admiral Andreas Heldal-Lund
TOXE CXI
_____________________________________________________
OPERATION CLAMBAKE --> http://home.sol.no/heldal/CoS/
RonsAmigo
Hi Jack,
I would agree with your thumbnail sketch of this newsgroup but
would also advise you not to waste your breath in debate with
these guys. Perhaps a little background material is in order.
1) The apparent purpose of the ARSCC (ars central committee)
is to "innoculate" netizens against "Scientology" by exposing
it as an evil cult. The fact that the "Scientology" they expose
doesn't even vaguely resemble Scientology as it exists in the
real world, while obvious to you and I, is not so obvious to most
of the ARS regulars. In fact, you will soon be labeled
just another OSA stooge, here to disseminate the C of S party
line, a brainwashed dupe, or a sincere individual who somehow
was just never exposed to the dark side of Scientology. Most
ARSCC members sincerely believe that this apparent purpose
is the groups actual purpose.
2) The actual purpose of the ARSCC is to restimulate others
in such a way as to create a misassociation between Scientology
and that which they restimulate. (I.E. heavy incidents on the track)
The result, is that their victims target Scientology rather than the
restimulated incidents and those who are doing the restimulating.
Thus in a very real sense, many of the ARS regulars are in truth
victims of SPs who now dramatize by running on others
what was ran on them.The ARSCC is in fact an "evil criminal
cult" which interestingly enough, is exaclly what it calls Scientology.
The very real but few textbook SPs behind the operation have
safepointed themselves by making the very idea that SPs exist
at all a joke. They have also successfully created an environment
where anything Hubbard, is dismissed out of hand by most.
Thus the chances of their victims ever catching on and
springing the trap they find themselves in is highly remote.
In fact few, even after reading material such as this, even suspect
they are in a trap. The primary product of the ARSCC is: thoroughly
duped individuals who rather than devoting their time to flourishing,
prospering and winning in life, devote their time instead to fighting
a vicious evil criminal cult which exists only in the minds of the
ignorant and the highly restimulated." As you read what
is posted to this NG, notice that the primary operation ran by the
ARSCC is exactly and precisely what they accuse the C of S of. (I.E.
Scientologists are brainwashed/hypnotized into a trap which they
don't even know is a trap, into Scientology instead of into life etc.)
3) Atypical events are presented as typical events in order to shore
up the their delusional out of present time view of what Scientology
is. A prime example of this is the Lisa McPhearson tragedy.
A common rejoinder to any positive post about the workability of
Scientology is, "Sure, just like Lisa."
4) You will find the degree to which ARSers believe the C of S
controls the personal lives and indeed even the thoughts of its
members to be nothing short of hilarious but believe me, most
of them are sincere in these strange beliefs.
5) One of the primary objections the critics have is that the C of S
attacks its enemies rather than rolling over and let itself be destroyed.
They promote the idea that simply being critical of the C of S is
enough to get one branded an enemy and subjected to all kinds
of unwarrented attack.
6) The hypnosis/brainwashing stuff is the primary theory by which
those SPs who were found out and expelled (and others) justify their
earlier affiliation with the the C of S. One prominent critic
(Diane Richardson) was all but driven out of this newsgroup because
she was not being willing to tow the ARSCC party line with respect
to this nonsense.
7) Some myths you missed are as follows:
a) That LRH's scientific breakthroughs are not valid because
they haven't been subjected to rigourous peer reviews. What is
missed is the obvious fact that conducting a peer review requires
a peer. Should anyone successfully train and intern through
Class 8 and thus qualify as a "peer" the would of course not
be acceptable because they would be a Scientologist. I'm sure
you get the catch 22 of this think. Why they think any Scientologist
would be interested in proving anything to them in the first place is
beyond me.
b) The lunatic fringe believes that Scientology is trying to clear
the planet in the same way Hitler was with his "final solution."
Almost too bizzarre to even comment on except it gives you
some idea of how thoroughly restimulated these people are.
c) Scientologists don't believe in standard and normal medical
practices.
d) And a new one, Scientology is an "information disease."
I hope this helps.
Amigo
Jack Craver <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<01bc889c$1b4f7880$3b2c6020@jacks-box>...
> I was a member of COS for 4 years. I was also a Staff member for a very
> short time. For those of you that have not been a member of COS, I would
> like to dispell some myths that have been circulated about scientology:
> 1) Brainwashing -
> Total nonsense.
> 2)Hypnotizing -
> Again, total nonsense.
> 3) Abuses -
> I personally never witnessed any kind of abuse whatsoever.
> 4) Freedoms -
> No-one ever tried to lock me up. No-one ever made me do anything I
didn't
> want to do.
> 5) Scientologists -
> Most scientologists I have known are bright and courageous people
that are
> trying to change themselves and the world, for the better. From
reading
> the posts on this newsgroup, one could easily get the impression that
> scientologists are all evil, malicious people trying to manipulate the
> entire world into some kind of police state. NOTHING COULD BE
FURTHER
> FROM THE TRUTH. This is not to say scientology doesn't have some bad
> apples, particularly in the leadership area, but the intention of most
> scientologists is good-will. I wonder what the intention is of the
people
> who speak disparingly of scientologists.
> --
> Lightnin Rod
> "A candle in the darkness"
>Posted an Mailed
Lightnin Rod,
Joe Harrington
(posted/mailed)
I'll have to agree with Jack's assessment of the average, public
Scientologist or staff member, in the lower org, not under the shadow of
the Sea Org, or located in Southern California or Clearwater, FL.
The vast majority of criminal activities and abuses occur in the Sea
Org, or in the orgs staffed or micromanaged by the Sea Org.
The flow of ANY information about unlawful and abusive activities of the
Scientology leadership or flaps in other parts of the Scientology
network is CLOSELY controlled by OSA and the average public
Scientologist and lower org staff member is totally clueless about these
subjects.
Scientology management is careful to prempt, with internal and external
propaganda, the effects of any of this data in the event it might slip
out to the public or staff.
"Xenu" "BTs", "RPF" etc etc are for the most part unknowns to the
average public Scientologist. Assuming EVERY Scientologist is privy to
the subjects discussed in this forum is a Myth about Scientologists.
Joe
James Wood
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 4 Jul 1997 21:41:44 GMT, rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
>
>I hope this helps.
>
I'm sure it does help, RonsA. At least Jack will know your
opinion of this newsgroup. However, I still don't know your
opinions on the questions I've been posting for you and that
you've been completely nonconfront about.
You see, that's where people begin to think that the great
things some people say about scientology can't be true. They say
you improve communication, but you can't even engage in a simple
conversation if it contains "entheta" or something on the bridge
you haven't reached yet. It seems to be just a great excuse to
avoid subjects you'd rather not discuss. None of the questions
I've asked have anything to do with copyrighted materials or the
sacred scriptures that you may not have reached yet, so
pneumonia isn't a risk. Why can't you answer?
By the way, I don't think I'm upset that your tech hasn't been
peer-reviewed, just that Hubbard called it a "science" and then
ignored all the rules and proofs that go along with proving
scientific fact. (I know that you have your own meaning for
words, so did he change the meaning of the word "science" too?)
Then a religion. Then a religious technology. What exactly is
it? - oh, and also those great claims about OT powers. No one
has ever seen any. If they did exist, wouldn't the results be
plain? What would you say to that? See? These are all questions
that don't come anywhere near making you step into any risky
areas for you regarding the civil law or your health. Why can't
you answer?
(And I'll repost the other questions for you if you can't find
them.)
>Amigo
>
James
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBM71zsHDrjbE8Rx35AQGsYAP9HhEOSEK6WIkVzRqWnQVrm0eC+kQiQ6X2
7k1PvTA6Rf0MWjGL8L2Jafjk08nFM+t12JC+LcDxCrg89UmArMmTPYwUYr/GmGYw
qMVND8beCj36UIR19e7fo0yzAUDW0ARtvs1cbEmE9T1IoXhS2ef13PG6QZUnGVij
g596+qRoloE=
=eRMS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Andreas Heldal-Lund
On 4 Jul 1997 21:41:44 GMT, rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
> Hi Jack,
>
> I would agree with your thumbnail sketch of this newsgroup but
> would also advise you not to waste your breath in debate with
> these guys. Perhaps a little background material is in order.
But you amigo, has breath to spare??
I believe you are afraid what a live debate here can do to a
member of CoS. And your fear is well founded, most members of
CoS would IMHO not go back to CoS if they went a round on ARS.
So keep scaring them off, prove we are on the right track. :)
Ted Mayett (KoX)
On Fri, 04 Jul 1997 21:02:05 GMT, h...@netcom.com did not write this
post (Grady Ward) wrote:
>So, you believe in Xenu, Christianity an R6 delusion of a madman, Christ a
>pedophile, Gorilla Goals, and all the other nonsense? You know I was able to
>stare down "Rear" Admiral David Miscavige more than half-a-dozen times until
>he finally broke down into a nutty indecent ouburst about being publicly
>buggered. What a scientology weakling. And he is your leader???
>
You is one bad mo fo Grady.
--
Ted Mayett OT 1.1
http://xenu.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/globloc.cgi
Ted Mayett (KoX)
On Fri, 04 Jul 1997 19:52:53 GMT, te...@skylink.net (Ted Mayett (KoX))
wrote:
>On 4 Jul 1997 17:00:18 GMT, "Jack Craver" <inm...@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>2)Hypnotizing -
This was posted before. It was
________________
On Tue, 06 May 1997 21:00:35 -0700, azyuwish <azyu...@concentric.net>
wrote:
>I found this text very interesting:
>
>ho...@light.lightlink.com wrote:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> - From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 9 - November 1992
>>
>> Another Look at Hypnosis
>> By Lawrence West, USA
>>
>> While visiting a Clearing Practitioner friend of mine in San Francisco
>> in 1989 I noticed that he was doing hypnosis on some clients to help
>> them quit smoking. I found myself a bit shocked and amazed, but
>> decided to find out why he was doing this 'off-beat practice'. After
>> all Ron had given us some stern warnings about hypnosis in "Dianetics
>> - - The Modern Science of Mental Health". After talking to him for a
>> while about hypnosis, I decided that I really didn't know much about
>> it from practical experience. I had just accepted someone else's ideas
>> and stable datum without finding out for myself. On returning home to
>> Southern California I began to look around for a hypnosis school where
>> I could study the subject first hand with a master of the subject. I
>> wanted to find out for myself.
>>
>> During this time, the late summer of 1989, I began reading about
>> hypnosis and talking with other Clearing Practitioners and my students
>> about the subject. I found those who had never been in the Church to
>> have an open mind about hypnosis. Those who had been in the Church
>> were like me, suspicious and somewhat afraid of the whole idea. I
>> decided to do an experiment. Every time I met someone new I introduced
>> myself as a hypnotist or hypnotherapist. I found that in almost 100%
>> of the cases, this was received favorably. A typical comment being, "A
>> hypnotist helped my mother get over her fear of snakes" or "I could
>> use that; do you have a card." In almost all cases, the response was
>> favorable or at least neutral. This seemed to be quite a contrast to
>> the 80% or so negative reaction when you say you have something to do
>> with Dianetics or Scientology. In seemed that the hypnotists, at
>> least, had much better PR in the population at large.
>>
>> Why so? Had I been missing out on something?
>>
>> About this time a student of mind had put out some brochures in a
>> local clothing store promoting herself as a Clearing Practitioner
>> doing Clearing. She received a phone call from a somewhat nervous,
>> agitated man who asked her in shaky voice, "Does this have anything to
>> do with Dianetics?" After thinking a second and knowing for sure that
>> this was a "churchie," she replied, "No! It is hypnosis." He said,
>> "Thank you, that's all I wanted to know," in an even more frightened
>> and agitated voice. She said, "Wait, don't you want to know more?" The
>> reply, "I'm into Dianetics and I am not interested in hypnosis!" He
>> hung up abruptly and that was all she ever heard on the matter, no
>> visit from the gestapo, no further contact or harassment. My comment
>> to her was, "Now, for sure, I am going to find a good school of
>> hypnosis so that I can have one of those hypnosis certificates on my
>> wall whether I use it or not." The metaphor being, "This is some kind
>> of great 'bug spray' against RTC (RTC, the organisation holding
>> various trademarks and copyrights on Rons work, which has fought
>> rather vicously against anything they regarded as competition. Ed.)
>> creeps, it is like holding a cross up to a vampire." In any case, it
>> will keep distractions off our lines so that we can do our work.
>>
>> I try it out
>>
>> By September of 1989 I was enrolled in a 150 hour certification course
>> in Los Angeles at one of the leading hypnosis training academies. I
>> also took a weekly 50 hour course at one of the local night schools.
>> During this period of time, in the fall of 1989, as a part of these
>> courses, I allowed myself to be hypnotised hundreds of times and
>> hypnotised other students in the course hundreds of times. The first
>> thing I found was that I was very good at it right from the start,
>> perhaps as a result of my 20 years of putting people "in session." The
>> second thing I found was that the experience of being hypnotised was
>> quite pleasant, like being 'in session.' I found it to be quite
>> relaxing and at no time did I feel other-determined or unconscious. At
>> all times I was fully aware and self-determined. I even went to
>> hypnosis stage shows where I volunteered to be hypnotised on stage
>> with a group. I could do all the tricks required, yet I remained fully
>> conscious and aware of what was going on. I did some test to be sure
>> that I was not fooling myself. It seemed that I could be in the state
>> or out of it as I so determined. This could be because of my 700 or so
>> hours of Clearing over 20 years. I did notice that those around me
>> seemed to be unconscious of their surroundings. Perhaps, it is true
>> that a Clear cannot be hypnotised; however, a Clear can enter or exit
>> the state of hypnosis at will, and while in the state, can do all the
>> 'tricks' that a hypnotised subject can do.
>>
>> I finished my training by late November of 1989 and received a
>> certificate as a Certified Clinical Hypnotherapist. I even tested my
>> new abilities by attending a fire walk in early December of 1989. I
>> walked across the blazing coals twice and received only one small
>> burn. I immediately ran it out solo and erased the incident and the
>> pain.
>>
>> Two major techniques
>>
>> There are two major techniques that most good hypnosis training
>> schools teach. One is the induction of the state of hypnosis along
>> with suggestions for improvement and the other is regression work
>> which is not unlike Book One Dianetics. The regression procedure dates
>> back to before 1950 to the work of Breuer and Freud in the 1890s.
>>
>> Perhaps this is the 'few bits of Freudian therapy' that L. Ron Hubbard
>> learned from Commander Snake Thompson that he applied to the ex-POWs
>> he worked with at Oak Knoll Naval Hospital after the war. I know also,
>> from talking with A.E. van Vogt that LRH was a skilled and powerful
>> hypnotist. Van Vogt speaks of a time when he saw LRH hypnotize several
>> people after a meeting of The Science Fiction Writers Guild in 1947.
>>
>> Conclusion
>>
>> As I began to put all my experience together, I came to some startling
>> conclusions.
>>
>> These are:
>>
>> 1. Dianetics comes out of Hubbard's research and use of hypnosis.
>>
>> The countdown, the concept of the 'file clerk,' finger snapping, the
>> canceller, the idea of regression, and the concept that aberration
>> comes from some subconscious mechanism all can be seen in the earlier
>> practice of hypnosis. Remember Ron was a total master of hypnosis and
>> was well read on the subject. My experience is that if you count
>> someone down, the vast majority of people will go into a hypnotic
>> trance whether you want them to or not.
>>
>> I believe, also, that the breath test, can squeeze and the command
>> 'start of session' as a ritual-like beginning to a session is enough
>> to put a well conditioned subject into a state of hypnosis. And I
>> think most preclears could be classified as well-conditioned subjects.
>> It doesn't matter if you want to or not, it still happens.
>>
>> I am not saying that this is wrong or bad, it is just an observation I
>> have made after some intensive study of hypnosis. This study has made
>> me realize how absolutely easy it is to put someone into a hypnotic
>> state. In Freud's time it took an hour or so to induce hypnosis. Today
>> a skilled practitioner can induce the same state in less than 30
>> seconds.
>>
>> Snap and they are in a hypnotic state. I think it is because we have
>> watched so much television. Television viewing induces a trance and
>> this induction is repeated thousands of times. Now it is very easy to
>> induce a trance in a member of the TV generation. This has some
>> frightening implications when you see the amount of negative garbage
>> coming from television.
>>
>> When you say, 'Start of Session' you have someone who is "interested
>> in own case and willing to talk to the practitioner," but you also
>> have someone who is, to some degree, in a state of hypnosis, i.e., a
>> hypnotic trance. That is one of the reasons we have the Clearing
>> Practitioner Code: to protect that person while he is in a very
>> suggestible state.
>>
>> Knowing all this doesn't really change the way we do Clearing, it just
>> means that we now have a deeper understanding of what is going on in
>> session. And I am saying this with the realization that I may be
>> offending some of the more orthodox Hubbardians. I definitely agree
>> that hypnosis is no 'parlor game.' The next question is, "Why did Ron
>> so strongly disavow the practice of hypnosis?" I have a theory about
>> that and that is startling conclusion number two.
>>
>> 2. L. Ron Hubbard saw the need to separate Dianetics from hypnosis.
>>
>> In the late 40s and earlier 50s, a person practicing hypnosis openly
>> could be arrested for practicing medicine without a license. This was
>> quite common during that period of time. So by saying, "this is not
>> hypnosis and I disavow hypnosis," in so many words, Ron was creating
>> something new and different called Dianetics. This, in a sense, was a
>> marketing ploy to take Dianetics out of the realm of psychotherapy and
>> medicine in order to protect himself and future practitioners from
>> arrest and prosecution (persecution also). Dianetics was, of course, a
>> great breakthrough and Ron discovered a multitude of new methods and
>> practices which greatly advanced the practice of regression hypnosis.
>>
>> 3. When you hypnotize someone by some means, after telling him that
>> you are not using hypnosis, he has no way to resist unwanted
>> suggestions.
>>
>> Here is what I think is my biggest startling realization on this
>> subject. And I think it is the reason for the formation and
>> perpetuation of cults. In my training with master hypnotist and master
>> teacher of hypnosis, Gil Boyne, a student in the class asked the
>> following question, "What if the subject doesn't like the suggestion
>> and doesn't want to follow it?" Gil answered, "He simply won't follow
>> it." "Why?" "Because he knows he is hypnotized and can simply choose
>> not to." For the class this was a surprising answer from a man who has
>> practiced hypnosis for over 40 years. For me, this answer led to a
>> further realization. What if you tell someone what you are doing is
>> not hypnosis and, yet, engage him in practices that induce a state of
>> hypnosis. My conclusion was: He will enter a state of hypnosis, not
>> know that he has been hypnotized and not be able to resist any
>> suggestion he is given from the person or group that put him in the
>> hypnotic trance.
>>
>> Now we begin to see why some organizations and television have such a
>> powerful influence over their helpless victims. I am certainly not
>> referring here to any of the Free Zone groups or other independent
>> practitioners that do Clearing or Viewing outside the Church of
>> Scientology.
>>
>> If someone says, "I am going to hypnotize you." and you agree and go
>> ahead with it you are still left with some critical factor to screen
>> out unwanted or irrational suggestions.
>>
>> In many organization which are referred to as cults (See IVy Nr, 1
>> page 25, with material from The Cult Awareness Network, and the book
>> "Combatting Cult Mind Control", by Steven Hassan, Park Stree Press
>> 1988 ISBN 0-89281-243-5. Ed IVy,) the participants are told over and
>> over in many different ways that what they are doing has nothing to do
>> with hypnosis. At the same time drills, meditations, exercises and
>> sessions are done which put them into a very profound, deep, waking,
>> eyes open, hypnotic trance. If they are also overworked, kept awake
>> for long hours or denied food, this greatly enhances the trance. Now
>> these people have no critical factor left to resist suggestions and
>> will accept whatever they are told. They become willing members of
>> organizations that purport to be the 'only source of the only
>> solution,' in the words of the late Jack Horner.
>>
>> These are people who have been deeply hypnotized yet do not know that
>> they have been. They manifest all the behaviors of the cult members
>> which have been presented in other articles by many authors over the
>> last 10 to 15 years. I think it is pretty obvious what I am talk
>> about. In the many hypnosis organizations I have studied with and
>> visited over the past 4 years which practice hypnosis and say that is
>> what they do, I have never seen this 'cult-like' behavior. I have only
>> seen some very self-determined people who think for themselves, the
>> type of people the average cult member hates and fears. These people
>> understand the mechanics of hypnosis and are, therefore, not
>> susceptible to cult brainwashing, which these hypnosis organizations
>> are not into in the first place. It seems knowledge is the best
>> defense against hidden hypnotic influence. It could be that people
>> outside the Church of Scientology in the independent field and Free
>> Zone were not susceptible to this mechanism and this is what caused
>> them to leave or be expelled from the Church.
>>
>> I think that most cults and cult leaders do not realize what they are
>> doing. I think that they are victims of their own deception. They
>> actually fear those who think for themselves. For sure, they do try,
>> overtly or covertly, to push out those people who resist or don't go
>> along with this covert hypnotic influence. After all, 'one bad apple'
>> might spoil the whole barrel. Welcome to the bad apple club! I look
>> forward to comments and criticisms of what I have written here. This
>> is, after all, just my viewpoint and I would be interested in what
>> others have to say. (Also very welcome in the form of letters to IVy,
>> and will be forwarded at once to Lawrence, Ed.) I can be contacted
>> through "International Viewpoints".
>>
>> - --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Posted to alt.clearing.technology Sun May 4 18:00:26 EDT 1997
>> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/ivy/iv-09-08.txt
>> http://www.clearing.org/archive
>> Send mail to arc...@lightlink.com saying help
>> Send mail to ho...@lightlink.com if you wish a directory
>> finger ho...@lightlink.com for PGP key.
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: 2.6.2
>>
>> iQBVAwUBM20G+z4RxM7qO/z1AQHtXwH+PonXwjluj7MOvgFNde/jUq2UoSBVFAOx
>> Uw5uXMba49u0FPW2fklkJtQ3VTlcWAvS8GuiYrjo59nFedxHuCjLqA==
>> =BSaX
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Homer Wilson Smith News, Web, Telnet Art Matrix - Lightlink
>> (607) 277-0959 SunOS 4.1.4 Sparc 20 Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>> ho...@lightlink.com in...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com
__________________
wynot
>I was a member of COS for 4 years. I was also a Staff member for a very
>short time. For those of you that have not been a member of COS, I would
>like to dispell some myths that have been circulated about scientology:
>
><List of myths omited for space.>
>
>5) Scientologists -
> Most scientologists I have known are bright and courageous people that are
> trying to change themselves and the world, for the better. From reading
>the posts on this newsgroup, one could easily get the impression that
>scientologists are all evil, malicious people trying to manipulate the
>entire world into some kind of police state. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER
>FROM THE TRUTH.
Hi Jack. I have a dear friend who is an auditor at the local branch.
He is everything you say about scienos; I could even add honest and
ethical. In no way is she an evil or malicious person.
But he is also deluded, wandering in a vision of truth with a capital
T. She believes that he can smoke tobacco without fear of cancer or
heart-lung disease. She believes that all the evil in the world stems
from psychologists and psychiatrists. He believes that he can warp
time somehow, and arrive places faster than a normal, un-enhanced
human. She believes that by changing the word used to describe a thing
that it will change, though some wonderful transmigration, the thing
itself. All of these beliefs are contrary to reality.
If he were able to think about it, I am certain that she could
convince himself that Lisa McPherson's death and Lisa Marie Presley's
illness were not directly caused by the tenets of the church she holds
so dear. Or that much of the wrongdoing of the leaders of his church
is not attributable solely to the false teachings of LRon Hubbard.
> I wonder what the intention is of the people
>who speak disparingly of scientologists.
>--
>Lightnin Rod
>"A candle in the darkness"
I hope I have not spoken disparagingly of my friend, who is the only
Scientologist I know. I hope that our friendship stays intact. I hope
that my friend will recognize the mistakes of judgement that allow
continuing association with the CofS, and the self delusions required
to maintain her beliefs. I hope that we will be able to laugh over a
game of chess again, because since the church entered his life, we
have not.
'Til next time;
wynot
"The CDA's vagueness undermines the likelihood that it has been
carefully tailored to the congressional goal of protecting minors
from potentially harmful materials."
The Honorable J.Stevens, delivering the opinion of the Court, in which
Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer,
joined.
DeoMorto
sdf posted:>> Most scientologists I have known are bright and courageous
people that are
trying to change themselves and the world, for the better. From
reading
the posts on this newsgroup, one could easily get the impression that
scientologists are all evil, malicious people trying to manipulate the
entire world into some kind of police state. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER
FROM THE TRUTH. <<
you say you were a scientologist for four years and on staff for a brief
period. How far did you get on the bridge and why aren't you on it now?
For someone who is supposed to be dispelling myths you really dont have
that much data on which to go on do you? I presume that you were not in
the Sea Org nor in management.
I was - for over a decade.
You seem to lack even the basic knowledge of what scientology is aiming
to do and, like most scientologists, you seem to lack any idea of
following through on the logic of what it is you intend to do.
Let me give you one example
Scientology is going to "clear the planet" right?
How is it going to do this? Think about it for a minute. Think about iot
for another couple of minutes.
If it doesn't succeed in that goal then it fails as a religion doesn't
it? So, of all things this goal should be laid out in stone,
It isn't.
How are you going to forcibly clear every christian and muslim who
doesn't want anything to do with the "religion"?
Ethics.....
DeoMorto
Ronsamoeba posted:>>The actual purpose of the ARSCC is to restimulate
others
in such a way as to create a misassociation between Scientology
and that which they restimulate. (I.E. heavy incidents on the track) <<
so Rons Amoeba - you are stating - for the record, that the incidents as
laid out by Hubbard actually happened?
Yes or no?
DeoMorto
>>You know, those individuals that get involved with scientology because
they
are seeking some kind of truth, some kind of answers... I still say that
ars is the dark home of a pack of elitist snobs and ego-maniacs and you
and
your 'OPERATION CLAMBAKE' sig proves it. Also, I don't lurk, Admiral.<<
so how long have you been reading the newsgroup then? Did you just start
the other day, read all the postings and decide to post a reply?
Or have you been around for a while, following the comings and goings
and the postings. If its the latter, Jack, its called lurking.
I would actually describe ars as the home of a bunch of disparate people
all with their own views, some good, some bad, some incoherent, some very
coherent.
The big difference between ARS and the minute world of scientology is
that on this NG you can discuss the subject anyway you want to.
Try that in the church sometime and you may find out how enlightened and
spiritually wonderful it all is.
And oh yes - I have seen plenty of nasty little things in scientology -
I suggest that you go to your local OSA and ask about the scientologists
who went to jail in Sweden in the 1980's for the false credit apps to pay
for their services. Just one example.
Jack Craver
Jens Tingleff <jens...@imaginet.fr> wrote in article
<jensting-ya0240800...@snews2.zippo.com>...
> In article <01bc88f2$05512b40$012f6020@jacks-box>, "Jack Craver"
> <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Grady Ward <h...@netcom.com did not write this post> wrote in article
> [....]
> > >
> > > Are you referring to the cult members who stole my pcketing leaflets?
> > Wow,
> > > that is sure an enlightened philosophy. Perhaps Eugene Martin
Ingram's
> > theft
> > > of photographs of my children from my mother. Now are you saying
*that*
> > > represents scientology? Or maybe the RMGROUP or the raid on Dennis
or
> > Arnie?
> > >
> > > >>How am I supposed to respond to this? How do I know scientologists
> > stole your >>>leaflets? Or your childrens pictures from your mother?
> > Because you say so?
> > >>>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> > >
>
> Bingo! Now apply that nugget of wisdom to your first post in this thread.
> Then think..
>
>
>
> Jens
>
> ------ No PGP signature, no authenticity. Vive La France!! ---------
> http://www.imaginet.fr/~jensting/. Scientology[tm]?? Check it out at
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/mpoulter/scum.html *and*
> http://www.scientology.org/. Report to alt.religion.scientology ;-)
>
I must be doing something wrong. In my first post you labled me a 'FOOL'.
Now you are attributing a 'nugget of wisdom' to me. Scary.
Anyway, since I did not accuse anyone of any crime in my first post in this
thread, why should I need to supply any evidence? Am I required to research
and distribute evidence to support every statement I make on this NG? If I
had accused scn of brainwashing, I think at that point I would be compelled
to produce some proof. But it doesn't matter. I'm not here to satisfy your
requirements. I'm here to shine a light on all you rats. You chronics that
talk so lovingly about this putrid ars.
Jack
Andreas Heldal-Lund
On 5 Jul 1997 02:36:02 GMT, "Jack Craver" <inm...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> When you use the term 'clam' or 'zombie' or 'clone', are you referring to
> the organization scientology, or to the individuals within that
> organization?
I never use the term 'zombie' or 'clone' so I don't know what you
mean with those examples. When it comes to 'clam' you can read the
explanation in my page (click on the image of 3 actual clams).
I use it just like I call myself 'wog' in the same debate, if you
don't get the joke without it being explained first you got a
problem.
> You know, those individuals that get involved with scientology because they
> are seeking some kind of truth, some kind of answers... I still say that
> ars is the dark home of a pack of elitist snobs and ego-maniacs and you and
> your 'OPERATION CLAMBAKE' sig proves it. Also, I don't lurk, Admiral.
Have you read Operation Clambake and the reason for it?
You admit you don't lurk, but still you come in here and make
poor caracteristics about the newsgroup. First rule on UseNet
is to lurk a group before you start posting to it, so that you
get a general understanding about what's going on there. There
are lot's of web pages out there that can help you getting up
to paste.
Bev
Jack Craver wrote:
> But it doesn't matter. I'm not here to satisfy your
> requirements. I'm here to shine a light on all you rats. You chronics that
> talk so lovingly about this putrid ars.
You are doing a wonderful job here. Your posts do speak very well of
your intentions and you are doing the readers a great service by giving
them some unique insights into yourself.
Beverly
DeoMorto
Jack Lack posted:>> But it doesn't matter. I'm not here to satisfy your
requirements. I'm here to shine a light on all you rats. You chronics that
talk so lovingly about this putrid ars.<<
truth - as you intially claimed - it's just an all out little attack that
you want to indulge in? Something you can attach to an O/W write up to
show you have made up for all those little things you did wrong.
Boy you didn't manage to maintain your facade very long did you? All it
took was a couple of messages and you were suddenly dribbling down your
chin in righteous fulmination.
Get outta here - you have absolutely no idea what it is you are
purporting to defend and seemingly even less idea of what it is you are
purporting to attack.
You don't seem very skilled at either approach. I would suggest that you
do something more suited to your talents as your amends - perhaps
polishing the floor of the FH basement..
Jack Craver
Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote in article
<33df3ff5...@news.snafu.de>...
> In <01bc889c$1b4f7880$3b2c6020@jacks-box>, "Jack Craver"
> <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >I was a member of COS for 4 years. I was also a Staff member for a very
> >short time.
>
> Why didn't you stay? You are assumed to stay 2 1/2 or 5 years.
>
>>>What is your reason for asking?
>
> >1) Brainwashing -
> > Total nonsense.
>
> We rather call it "thought reform" or "coercive persuasion".
>
> >>I call it a lot of crap
>
> >2)Hypnotizing -
> > Again, total nonsense.
>
> See other article
>>>The other article is 454 lines that is completely anti-scientology
biased and written in the middle sixties. It also references other
web-sites. Do you plan on giving me a test later on also? Give me a break!
I can show you reports from American tobacco companies that claim smoking
doesn't do any harm. Arguments from authorities are useless. If you want to
believe that you were brainwashed and/or hypnotized, nothing I can say will
stop you. Just don't inflict your victim-mentality on me.
>
> >3) Abuses -
> > I personally never witnessed any kind of abuse whatsoever.
>
> Then why didn't you stay? Also, it depends how you define abuse. I
> consider it an abuse to force weekly rising statistics. The german
> labor(!) court even said that there is a risk to the health. And they
> should know it, as labor court, correct?
>
>How are the stats 'forced' to rise every week. And if they don't?...This
entire statement is ambigous. What risk did the German Labor Court refer
to? Finally, the mistakes that have been made by "authorities" are many.
One can safely conclude that authorities are not privy to any special
powers and are prone to error. Statements such as "because they are the
labor court, they should know about health" are useless. Besides, there are
no authorities...only 'experts' at best.
> >4) Freedoms -
> > No-one ever tried to lock me up. No-one ever made me do anything I
didn't
> >want to do.
>
> This is rather for sea org members, or for publics who go psychotic
> (e.g. Lisa McPherson).
>
> But ask yourself: why did Leisa Goodman lie when she said there is no
> basement in the Fort Harisson Hotel? Obviously she had something to
> hide.
>
> Are you a walking e-meter? What special powers do you have that allows
you to know the thoughts of another?
>
> >5) Scientologists -
> > Most scientologists I have known are bright and courageous people that
are
> > trying to change themselves and the world, for the better.
>
> This is true. But they support the activities of the management, that
> performs what people complain abou, like harassing critics, lying to the
> public.
>
>>>People living in glass houses should refrain from propelling objects
with mass.
Why are they ridiculed??
>
> What did you do in scientology? Did you ever evaluate a personality test
> for a public? Then you committed a fraud, as the result of the test is
> always the same (you need scientology).
>
> I'll get over it.
>
> > From reading
> >the posts on this newsgroup, one could easily get the impression that
> >scientologists are all evil, malicious people trying to manipulate the
> >entire world into some kind of police state. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER
> >FROM THE TRUTH.
>
> I suggest you read "intro to scientology ethics". It contains exactly
> that.
>
>>>Youv'e got to be joking
>
> >This is not to say scientology doesn't have some bad
> >apples, particularly in the leadership area, but the intention of most
> >scientologists is good-will.
>
> Again, this is true. But the "good-will" is one that doesn't respect
> other opinions.
>
>>> Are we speaking of scientology...or ars.
>
> > I wonder what the intention is of the people
> >who speak disparingly of scientologists.
>
> I suggest you read the personal stories at
> http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/mystory/
>
> Tilman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Michael Voytinsky
RonsAmigo <rons...@aol.com> wrote in article
> 1) The apparent purpose of the ARSCC (ars central committee)
You are forgetting that ARSCC does not exist.
> is to "innoculate" netizens against "Scientology" by exposing
> it as an evil cult. The fact that the "Scientology" they expose
> doesn't even vaguely resemble Scientology as it exists in the
Well, lets take a look at a small number of claims made by ARSCC (WDNE)
about Scientology. Please tell me what the truth is:
1) Lisa McPherson died of dehydration after two weeks in the custory of her
fellow Scientologists. Maybe you can tell us what really happened? (Not
that I did not ask before.)
2) According to the "secret" OT3 scriptures, 75 million years ago leader of
the Galactic Federation called Xenu nuked about 170 billion people in
volcanoes on Earth (then called Tegeeack). We now have spirits of many of
these people (called body thetans) stuck to us - and these body thetans
"just hold us back". Is this, or is this not, Scientology doctrine? You
keep refusing to answer this one as well.
3) L. Ron Hubbard states in his writings that the empirical claims that he
makes are well research. Where can I find this research? Where are the
clinical studies? All we have is anonymous case studies.
4) Scientology is extremely expensive.
This is just a sampling.
> 2) The actual purpose of the ARSCC is to restimulate others
> in such a way as to create a misassociation between Scientology
> and that which they restimulate. (I.E. heavy incidents on the track)
Have you considered the possibility that the reason people react so
strongly to "heavy incidents of the track" is because these things are
simply the most ridiculous things that they ever heard?
> 3) Atypical events are presented as typical events in order to shore
> up the their delusional out of present time view of what Scientology
> is. A prime example of this is the Lisa McPhearson tragedy.
Is the Church of Scientology refusal to cooperate with authorities on this
matter also atypical?
> 7) Some myths you missed are as follows:
> a) That LRH's scientific breakthroughs are not valid because
> they haven't been subjected to rigourous peer reviews.
You are missing the point, RonsAmigo. Ron himself claimed that Dianetics
and Scientology are backed by thorough research. Where can we find this
research?
Scientology makes certain very specific claims that should be easy enough
to verify even without exposing any "sensitive" stuff. A Clear is
supposed to have higher IQ then a pre-clear. Do we have any independent
tests of this? Surely it would not be all that difficult to have an
independent third party do a before and after IQ test?
> b) The lunatic fringe believes that Scientology is trying to clear
> the planet in the same way Hitler was with his "final solution."
Can not say I have ever seen anything like this on this newsgroup.
--
Michael Voytinsky
mich...@igs.net
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv/
----- Question Authority? Sez who?
Tilman Hausherr
In <01bc8962$808c2600$472e6020@jacks-box>, "Jack Craver"
<inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >2)Hypnotizing -
>> > Again, total nonsense.
>>
>> See other article
>>>>The other article is 454 lines that is completely anti-scientology
>biased and written in the middle sixties. It also references other
You consider it biased, etc., just because you don't like it. You will
accept no text that has another opinion than yours. Then why are you
here?
Also you don't tell if there is anything basic that changed in auditing
after that report.
>web-sites.
Untrue. It doesn't reference other websites.
>Do you plan on giving me a test later on also? Give me a break!
>I can show you reports from American tobacco companies that claim smoking
>doesn't do any harm. Arguments from authorities are useless. If you want to
>believe that you were brainwashed and/or hypnotized, nothing I can say will
>stop you. Just don't inflict your victim-mentality on me.
In other words, you will consider no evidence. Then why start a
discussion? And how am I a victim? I am not even a scientologist, have
never been.
>>
>> >3) Abuses -
>> > I personally never witnessed any kind of abuse whatsoever.
>>
>> Then why didn't you stay? Also, it depends how you define abuse. I
>> consider it an abuse to force weekly rising statistics. The german
>> labor(!) court even said that there is a risk to the health. And they
>> should know it, as labor court, correct?
>>
>>How are the stats 'forced' to rise every week. And if they don't?...
You know it. You won't be allowed to have "libs", to go to sleep, etc.
>This
>entire statement is ambigous. What risk did the German Labor Court refer
>to?
A general health risk. You are just trying to Q&A.
>> But ask yourself: why did Leisa Goodman lie when she said there is no
>> basement in the Fort Harisson Hotel? Obviously she had something to
>> hide.
>>
>> Are you a walking e-meter? What special powers do you have that allows
>you to know the thoughts of another?
You evade the issue? Why did she lie?
Rest is similar, and your quoting style is weird, makes it impossible to
see your responses.
Tilman
Diane Richardson
On 4 Jul 1997 21:41:44 GMT, rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
>Hi Jack,
>
>I would agree with your thumbnail sketch of this newsgroup but
>would also advise you not to waste your breath in debate with
>these guys. Perhaps a little background material is in order.
>
>1) The apparent purpose of the ARSCC (ars central committee)
>is to "innoculate" netizens against "Scientology" by exposing
>it as an evil cult. The fact that the "Scientology" they expose
>doesn't even vaguely resemble Scientology as it exists in the
>real world, while obvious to you and I, is not so obvious to most
>of the ARS regulars. In fact, you will soon be labeled
>just another OSA stooge, here to disseminate the C of S party
>line, a brainwashed dupe, or a sincere individual who somehow
>was just never exposed to the dark side of Scientology. Most
>ARSCC members sincerely believe that this apparent purpose
>is the groups actual purpose.
I think part of this, at least, is due to the fact that so many of the
ex-Scientologists[tm] who post here were Sea Org. They relate their
Sea Org experiences and others reading this newsgroup (who have had no
personal experience with the CoS, like me) accept these Sea Org
stories as representative of the "Church" of Scientology[tm] as a
whole.
This is analogous to a former nun posting horror stories about what
occurred in her convent. Others reading these stories conclude that
such practices take place in every local parish of every Roman
Catholic Church, which isn't the case at all. The experiences of a
nun are far different from the experiences of a typical Roman Catholic
parishioner.
Should *all* Roman Catholics be condemned if abuses occur in one
monastic order or even in one convent? Should *all* Roman Catholics
be held responsible for these abuses? What if a Roman Catholic says,
"Well, such abuses may occur, but I'm not going to endanger my eternal
salvation by refusing Communion in protest"?
I don't think there are "right" or "wrong" answers to the questions I
raise above. No absolutes, only opinions. Numerous ex-Scientologists
have commented here that what the typical public scieno experiences
has little to do with what occurs in the Sea Org. They have cautioned
others not to assume that public scienos know about Sea Org
conditions. That advice is generally ignored.
[And now for the necessary disclaimer. I do not believe that the
Roman Catholic Church is an eeeeevil or kriminal cult. I brought up
the Roman Catholic Church because it is an organization whose
practices are well known, not because it is guilty of employing the
same tactics as the "Church" of Scientology[tm]. No, the Roman
Catholic Church did not murder Lisa McPherson. No, the Roman Catholic
Church does not normally engage in throwing children in chain lockers.
No, the Roman Catholic Church does not offer free personality tests on
public streets. If you want to engage in a flamewar, find someone
else -- I'm too busy at the moment to indulge in one.]
I'll try to address other points you raise in your response in another
post, RonsAmigo.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On 4 Jul 1997 21:41:44 GMT, rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
[snip]
>2) The actual purpose of the ARSCC
This assumes, of course, that there really *is* an ARSCC. I hate to
repeat the obvious, but ARSCC is a fictitious organization. It
doesn't exist. The numerous (and sometimes very loud) disagreements
among critics of Scientology[tm] who post to this newsgroup are pretty
strong evidence that critics are not following any particular
game-plan.
You've followed this newsgroup long enough to know this, RonsAmigo.
Remember the amazing flamewar between Dennis Erlich and Martin Hunt,
or was that before your time here? You've certainly witnessed
division of opinion regarding the credibility of certain well-known
personalities like Steven Fishman, Garry Scarff, Lavenda Van Schaick
and Larry Wollersheim. Some critics will agree with one another on
one specific point and loudly disagree with each other on other
issues. If a.r.s. is being directed by an organization, that
organization isn't doing a very good job of controlling its members,
let alone telling them what to say.
>is to restimulate others
>in such a way as to create a misassociation between Scientology
>and that which they restimulate. (I.E. heavy incidents on the track)
>The result, is that their victims target Scientology rather than the
>restimulated incidents and those who are doing the restimulating.
You assume here that Hubbard's theory regarding the mind is accurate
(I disagree with your assumption) as well as assuming that Hubbard's
teachings about Suppressive Persons in society are also accurate (I
disagree with you on that, too).
>Thus in a very real sense, many of the ARS regulars are in truth
>victims of SPs who now dramatize by running on others
>what was ran on them.The ARSCC is in fact an "evil criminal
>cult" which interestingly enough, is exaclly what it calls Scientology.
>The very real but few textbook SPs behind the operation have
>safepointed themselves by making the very idea that SPs exist
>at all a joke. They have also successfully created an environment
>where anything Hubbard, is dismissed out of hand by most.
I think there's a much more sensible (and much more mundane)
explanation to the phenomenon you've witnessed here.
It doesn't have anything to do with restimulating heavy incidents on
the track or textbook SPs. Hubbard's "applied religious philosophy"
offers simplistic explanations for complex human interactions.
I reached the opinion that Hubbard's attribution of problems to
Suppressive Persons was bogus when I read Hubbard's writings,
not from anything I read on this newsgroup. I didn't need anyone to
tell me what to think about this -- I read what Hubbard wrote and
thought about what I read.
>Thus the chances of their victims ever catching on and
>springing the trap they find themselves in is highly remote.
>In fact few, even after reading material such as this, even suspect
>they are in a trap. The primary product of the ARSCC is: thoroughly
>duped individuals who rather than devoting their time to flourishing,
>prospering and winning in life, devote their time instead to fighting
>a vicious evil criminal cult which exists only in the minds of the
>ignorant and the highly restimulated."
I've been reading this newsgroup far longer than you have, RonsAmigo,
and I haven't been duped. As to flourishing, prospering and winning
in life -- you have no idea what I'm doing when I'm not posting to
a.r.s. and I'm sure you don't know about the personal lives of others
who post here either. Are you really so positive that they are less
successful, less prosperous, or less happy with their lives than you
are?
This, of course, is perhaps the weakest point of Hubbard's "applied
religious philosophy"; i.e., application of standard tech "standardly"
inevitably (according to the CoS) leads to measurable results -- more
money, more control over your life, more power over others, more
happiness, greater intelligence. I don't think you'd be willing to
bet that your wins (personal income, stable personal relationships,
educational achievements, etc.) in life exceed the wins of all CoS
critics who post to this newsgroup.
>As you read what
>is posted to this NG, notice that the primary operation ran by the
>ARSCC is exactly and precisely what they accuse the C of S of. (I.E.
>Scientologists are brainwashed/hypnotized into a trap which they
>don't even know is a trap, into Scientology instead of into life etc.)
I think you're engaging in the same sort of overripe hyperbole that
I've criticized critics for indulging in. There are plenty of a.r.s.
posters who post without having the vaguest hint of a clue, but
they're not posting because they're being controlled by vicious SPs.
They're posting because they want to post, and they're engaging in
black-and-white thinking because they want to view the world that way.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Jens Tingleff
In article <01bc894d$b215ee00$472e6020@jacks-box>, "Jack Craver"
<inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Jens Tingleff <jens...@imaginet.fr> wrote in article
> <jensting-ya0240800...@snews2.zippo.com>...
> > In article <01bc88f2$05512b40$012f6020@jacks-box>, "Jack Craver"
> > <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Grady Ward <h...@netcom.com did not write this post> wrote in article
> > [....]
> > > >>>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> > > >
[..]
> I must be doing something wrong. In my first post you labled me a 'FOOL'.
> Now you are attributing a 'nugget of wisdom' to me. Scary.
Ah, there's hope for everyone, even for you. Anyway, I didn't attribute the
nugget of wisdom to you. I merely noted that you posted it...
>Anyway, since I did not accuse anyone of any crime in my first post in this
>thread, why should I need to supply any evidence? Am I required to research
You made statements that accusations against the Co$ were false because you
had not experienced these baaad things. At which point I quote "Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence".
Like I said, think about it.
Zinjifar
Diane wrote>
snip>
I'd post the body of your text but my newsserver won't let me since my
reply is too short.
Sigh.
Damn technology.
>I think part of this, at least, is due to the fact that so many of the
>ex-Scientologists[tm] who post here were Sea Org. They relate their
>Sea Org experiences and others reading this newsgroup (who have had no
>personal experience with the CoS, like me) accept these Sea Org
>stories as representative of the "Church" of Scientology[tm] as a
>whole.
>
>This is analogous to a former nun posting horror stories about what
>occurred in her convent. Others reading these stories conclude that
>such practices take place in every local parish of every Roman
>Catholic Church, which isn't the case at all. The experiences of a
>nun are far different from the experiences of a typical Roman Catholic
>parishioner.
>
>Should *all* Roman Catholics be condemned if abuses occur in one
>monastic order or even in one convent?
>Diane Richardson
Eeegad! Can my life be so full?
Can this really be the Diane Richardson I've heard so much about?
In any case, the arguments here are less than I've been led to expect.
It is nice to see that you consider the Sea Org stuff horror stories, rather
than trying some 'nice' way to understand them.
The comparison with the Catholic Church is pretty specious though.
To start with, nobody's condemning either Scientologists or Catholics.
At least not here.
The Church of Scientology is being condemned though, as would the Catholic
Church if it used private investigators, DAing and lawsuits to destroy critics.
Seems to me that even with "The Last Temptation of Christ" that while apalled,
the Church didn't attempt to eliminate what I'm sure they could only see as a
direct attack on all that was good and holy.
Next; a church is founded on an idea; it's not just a social club if it's
really a church.
That means that it has to be judged from the top down.
As far as it's a religion, a church is hierarchical, and if the central beliefs
are flawed, then what the clam on the street does really isn't important.
Especially not if his donations go to fund the 'horror stories' you mention.
Lastly, if the jesuits have secret spanking sessions that we don't know about,
we also probably don't care.
It's when the jesuits run amok and begin spanking heathens for the crime of
talking about Thomas Aquinas that we begin to smell something fishy in
clamland.
In any case Diane, nice to meet you, and I hope you're around some more.
Zinj
RonsAmigo
DeoMorto <deom...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970705132...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Ronsamoeba posted:>>The actual purpose of the ARSCC is to restimulate
> others
> in such a way as to create a misassociation between Scientology
> and that which they restimulate. (I.E. heavy incidents on the track) <<
>
> so Rons Amoeba - you are stating - for the record, that the incidents
as
> laid out by Hubbard actually happened?
>
> Yes or no?
>
DeoMorto,
Don't you think altering my name is a bit juvenile?
Any experienced auditor can recount many occasions where preclears,
with no previous knowledge of the incidents described in "History of Man",
contact and run such incidents on their own. There is no question that
the described incidents exist in the mind. Nor is there any question (at
least in the minds of those with expertise and experience in the area)
that running such incidents can and does produce remarkable results.
Hubbard did not "lay out" these incidents. Without coaching, they
came up over and over again in a wide variety of preclears. He just
wrote them down. (The difference between invention and discovery
if you will) Belief in these incidents is not a factor in auditing, nor is
belief in such incidents required of Scientologists.
However, In the post you quoted, I was referencing not just the "History
of Man" variety of incidents. For instance, because of their recent
history,
Germans are particularly susceptible to such restimulation but the "whole
track" incidents restimulated are in recent history. Some misassociate
Scientologists as Jews that they have huge overts on and others
misassociate Scientologists with Nazis whom they hate with real passion.
Thus Germans are more likely to fall victim to those who would keep them
suppressed than some others. The truth of course is simply that
Scientologists are Scientologists.
Amigo
RonsAmigo
Hello again!
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote in article
<33be85e7...@snews.zippo.com>...
> On 4 Jul 1997 21:41:44 GMT, rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >4) You will find the degree to which ARSers believe the C of S
> >controls the personal lives and indeed even the thoughts of its
> >members to be nothing short of hilarious but believe me, most
> >of them are sincere in these strange beliefs.
>
> I think there *are* critics here who have an unrealistic understanding
> of the average Scientologists'[tm] life, even though there have been
> others here who have tried to offer a more realistic picture. I think
> the tendency to present all Scientologists[tm] as mindless,
> brainwashed dupes whose lives are totally controlled by the CoS is an
> artifact of the need by some critics (by no means all critics) to view
> this dispute as an ongoing battle between "good" (CoS critics) and
> "evil" (the CoS). This need to view the world in black-and-white
> terms does not lead to rational (or critical) thinking.
As bright as you are, Diane, I can't believe you got this 180 degrees out.
The ongoing battle is between "good" the (C of S) and "evil". (the C of S
critics) :)
Perhaps glib exposure to LRH materials may lead to such b&w thinking,
but true understanding with the ability to apply is quite another matter.
> This need to see the world in black-and-white terms is more prevalent
> among Scientologists[tm] than it is among CoS critics, however.
> Hubbard's "applied religious philosophy," in fact, leads people to
> engage in this sort of thinking. Blaming the evils of the world on
> psychs or SPs, for example, is nothing more than institutionalized
> black-and-white thinking.
Evil dose exist in this world and when one REALLY looks one
finds that Hubbard's theories re: SPs and Psychs are not as far fetched
as they may first appear. As a concrete example take a good look at the
decline in SAT scores in the public school system and the role/influence
that the mental health community has played in changing schools from
places of education into what they are today. I contend that the
continuing and
blatant destruction of the US system of public education is out-and-out
EVIL. In even a cursory view of changes introduced in the last 30 years
which may have contributed to this decline, the passage of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act in 1965, leaps out as a crucial turning point.
The ESEA opened schools to the "benefits" of psychiatry and "psychiatric
think" and the results of this major change in approach speak for
themselves.
> >5) One of the primary objections the critics have is that the C of S
> >attacks its enemies rather than rolling over and let itself be
destroyed.
> >They promote the idea that simply being critical of the C of S is
> >enough to get one branded an enemy and subjected to all kinds
> >of unwarrented attack.
>
> I've criticized the CoS plenty during my time here, and I've yet to be
> "attacked" in any but inconsequential ways. I have, however, seen
> others subjected to some pretty vicious retribution. In my opinion,
> some of this retribution (e.g., against Grady Ward and Dennis Erlich)
> has gone far beyond anything that any rational organization might
> consider justified or warranted. The fact that this retribution is
> being carried out by a organization that calls itself a "church" makes
> it even less understandable or acceptable.
I'm not as familiar with the Ward case as I am with the Erlich case.
I also knew Dennis casually when he was in the C of S. I feel the
legal action taken against Dennis to be entirely appropriate and all
but invited by Dennis. I wouldn't call seeking justice when ones
intellectual property rights have been infringed, "retribution."
>
> >6) The hypnosis/brainwashing stuff is the primary theory by which
> >those SPs who were found out and expelled (and others) justify their
> >earlier affiliation with the the C of S. One prominent critic
> >(Diane Richardson) was all but driven out of this newsgroup because
> >she was not being willing to tow the ARSCC party line with respect
> >to this nonsense.
>
> I haven't been driven out of anything, RonsAmigo. :-)
> Some of the less rational critics who post to the newsgroup might not
> appreciate my opinions, but that sure doesn't mean that I won't or
> can't continue expressing my opinions in this very public forum.
Okay
>
> >7) Some myths you missed are as follows:
> >a) That LRH's scientific breakthroughs are not valid because
> >they haven't been subjected to rigourous peer reviews. What is
> >missed is the obvious fact that conducting a peer review requires
> >a peer. Should anyone successfully train and intern through
> >Class 8 and thus qualify as a "peer" the would of course not
> >be acceptable because they would be a Scientologist. I'm sure
> >you get the catch 22 of this think. Why they think any Scientologist
> >would be interested in proving anything to them in the first place is
> >beyond me.
>
> "Peer reviewed" does not mean that the auditor cannot be a
> Scientologist[tm], RonsAmigo. What's wrong with
> non-Scientologists[tm] developing protocols and conducting studies
> utilizing Class 8 Scientology[tm] auditors?
There is quite a support team required to deliver auditing standardly.
>
> Here's an example of the sort of "peer-reviewed" research that could
> easily be undertaken without changing or interrupting the standard
> tech in any way:
>
> One of the CoS claims is that a Scientologist[tm] increases his IQ by
> learning and applying Hubbard's "study tech." CoS "intelligence
> tests" have regularly been administered before and after the course to
> measure gains made by course participants.
>
> Why not allow non-CoS researchers to administer a non-CoS validated
> intelligence test (the WAIS, for example) to course participants
> instead? The same test could be administered to a matched control
> group of individuals who do not take the course. Changes in IQ levels
> among both groups could be examined and compared and the data could be
> statistically analyzed.
This would certainly be interesting, but I'm sure you know as an ARS
regular that rightly or wrongly, the C of S has no interest in proving
anything to anybody.
>
> What reason would the CoS have for not permitting such a validation of
> the claims they make? Do you know? I think I know--it's because they
> know their claims can't stand up to rigorous scientific evaluation.
> Do you agree?
No I don't agree. To the contrary, I have no doubt that other well written
and
appropriate tests would demonstrate what our "OCA" and current IQ tests
already demonstrate, that scientology works! I once saw the records of
other tests being used to track auditing results which tracked with the
current tests but for the life of me I don't recall the details. I'll ask
around
and post more if I can.
There is no scarcity of before and after tests on Scientologists.
All it would take would be for a control group to take the same
tests, whistle at crystals or whatever for a few weeks, and then
be retested after which statistical results could be tabulated.
OTO as a Scientologist I tend toward a "why bother" frame of
mind. Regardless of how positive the results turned out do you think
that it in any way would change the fixed ideas of the hard-core
ARSCC crowd. I think not.
> >b) The lunatic fringe believes that Scientology is trying to clear
> >the planet in the same way Hitler was with his "final solution."
> >Almost too bizzarre to even comment on except it gives you
> >some idea of how thoroughly restimulated these people are.
>
> Just more of the black-and-white thinking some a.r.s. critics engage
> in to justify their fervor.
See that, Gregg, BC, Roland, Tilman? More proof that Diane works
for OSA!
(sorry Diane, I couldn't resist some evil deep down in my soul that I
haven't yet addressed with auditing made me do it. Either that or
I'm suffering an adverse reation to the "twinkie" I just ate. )
:))
> Personally, I'm much more concerned about
> some other religious groups than I am about the CoS in this regard.
> The reason for this is because the CoS is so small that any threat
> they might present is literally inconsequential.
>
> >c) Scientologists don't believe in standard and normal medical
> >practices.
>
> Actually, from the contact I've had with Scientologists[tm], as a
> group they seem to have a genuine distrust of traditional medicine.
> Hubbard certainly seemed to have had nontraditional attitudes about
> the causes of illness. On the other hand, the movement towards
> "alternative medicine" is widespread nowadays, and I'd say that the
> skepticism with which the CoS treats traditional medicine is pretty
> well mirrored by at least a large segment of the larger population
> now.
My experience is that the attitudes toward conventional medicine
among Scientologists are probably overall just a little more critical
than none-Scientologists. It is of course standard practice within
the C of S to insist upon routine and normal medical handlings if
one is to recieve auditing etc. And there are BTW, many terrific
GPs who are Scientologists.
>
> >d) And a new one, Scientology is an "information disease."
>
> That's not at all new. Conway & Siegelman invented that term more
> than a decade ago. It's neither descriptive nor accurate and has
> never caught on, even among the anticult crowd.
Watch it lady! You could be starting another endless, "DIANE PUT UP OR
SHUT UP" thread with this one. There are those on ARS who believe such
theories hold as much water as say the germ theory of disease. I'm sure
you'll be hearing from them. I recently did a little study of the area
and
came away very unimpressed. I prefer thoeries that lead to a positive
result as opposed to theories which allow one to pontificate grandly
but not really DO anything new.
>
> Diane Richardson
> ref...@bway.net
>
Amigo
BorkBorkem
[NOTE: Posted and mailed. Also note, Jack's
newsreader using an advancing sidemarker,seems,
rather than omitting one for his posts, so that
his fresh comments appear as
>> comment generation one
> comment generation two
>>> Fresh Comment
rather than
>> comment generation one
> comment generation two
Fresh comment
From: "Jack Craver" <inm...@bellsouth.net>
> From: BorkBorkem <borkb...@aol.com>
>> From: "Jack Craver" <inm...@bellsouth.net>
>> >I was a member of COS for 4 years. I was also a Staff member
>> > for a very short time. For those of you that have not been a
>> > member of COS, I would like to dispell some myths that have
>> > been circulated about scientology:
>> >1) Brainwashing - Total nonsense.
>> >2)Hypnotizing - Again, total nonsense.
>>
>> Both of these terms require careful definition to define exactly
>> what is meant though. There's the popular conception of
>> what hypnosis is (which is often way off the mark compared to
>> what is learned about it by people of long experience in studying
>> it) and of course "brainwashing" is a term that gets tossed around
>> so much when people disagree stridently with the opinions of others
>> of important issues of politics/ideology/etc that I hesitate to
>> suggest it does have any distinct meaning, other than in reference
>> to some historical events, which is rarely what the term is used
>> for anymore.
>>>> Quite a few people seem to have a good idea of what these terms mean.
Yes, but do those people have any good reason to suppose what
they consider those terms to mean corresponds of actual events
in life? I've read considerable discussion in this newsgroup where
the definition of "hypnosis" and "brainwash" seems a "result
oriented" definition: whatever definition will wind up supporting a
finding of some variety of occult control over another's mind is
to be the definition and other phenomena that exhibit the whole
range of logically associated questions and issue get ignored.
For instance it has LONG been asserted by the more careful
students of hypnosis that convincing someone to do something
against their will is NOT an effective employment of hypnosis.
Hypnotize a girl and tell her she will now have sex with you and
the probable result is she "snaps out of it" and slaps your face,
unless she was willing to have sex with you when in a normal
alert state, for instance. Most literature I've read on hypnosis
emphasises the CONSENSUAL nature of the process.
The question of whether Scn involves hypnosis or brainwashing
is not well handled, to date, in ars, because there tends to be
more assertion about the language and authoritative posturing
than careful review, I believe. I suspect "convenient" rather than
careful definitions of the phenomena are too often used.
> >3) Abuses - I personally never witnessed any kind of
> > abuse whatsoever.
>
> What do you consider to be abuse, and what is not abuse, though?
>
>>> I'll amend that statement... I personally never witnessed anyone
harmed
as a >>>result of scientology.
That's good. Of course that's just one set of observations, though.
If others on ars report they've seen harm or report the harm they've
experienced, I take it that would stand as a good report, and you're
personally better experience of it doesn't really undercut it though?
In other words, we'd be adding your experience into the hopper to
help show a statistical picture, but it doesn't rule out including in the
picture other very different experiences?
>>
>> Does it matter that it was simply out of your site? "I know
>> noooooooothink" was good for Sergeant Schultz in Hogan's Heros,
>> and I do genuinely believe that most Germans living under Nazis
>> didn't know the horrors happening in the death camps - just as
>> extensive Nazi efforts at suppression of the truth sought to achieve.
>> Doesn't change what should be reported as historically accurate though.
>>
>>>> I can't believe it. Here's a guy on ARS that is actually interested
in
> accuracy.
>
Yup. Thanks or noticing.
>>
>> >4) Freedoms - No-one ever tried to lock me up. No-one ever
>> > made me do anything I didn't want to do.
>>
>> Well, that's good. But the problem in many discussions concerning
>> groups of people is finding the "representative case". Anecdotes
>> alone aren't proof. Some people involved in Scientology were
>> apparently unlawfully and unethically imprisoned/detained and
>> otherwise intimidated. Some weren't.
>
>>>I don't buy this. Flag officers, Ethics officers, and some local staff
would >>>sometimes would occasionally attempt to intimidate me, but in
four
years I never >>>even heard a whisper about imprisonment.
>>
Again, though, there are reports to the contrary available on the
webpages listed in ars and in ars. If you get a chance read Monica
Pignotti's autobiography, among the many fine autobiographies to
be found. She was there when the first "introspection rundowns"
started up. Read the RPF stories. The Young's have made interesting
court declarations, along with others. So I suppose maybe your
point of view could change with broader exposure to the raw data
available through ars.
>> I take it you have not yet had the religious experience of knowing
>> that hired and licensed thugs are watching your kids walk to school
>> (the good reasons being ...) because you dared to speak out about
>> injustice going on.
>>
>>>>No, I haven't. But I have spoken out to many levels of staff without
retaliation.
>>
Indeed, Scientology is a multi-tier animal. I think Monica Pignotti's
autobiography captures the essence of what you're talking about here
when she recounts how the mission holder she was friends with
didn't like "org people", as she cryptically called them. On the fringes
there are many people who believe in intellectual freedom and open
dialogue as the superior way of living, but at the core its a mini Reich
ruthlessly kept intimidated and dialogueless by the Gestapo of the
Church leadership. I too had conversations of a very open nature in
SOME layers of Scientology, and knew better than to speak candidly
in OTHERS. No one at the top wants to ever debate, I'd summarize,
as ability to handle a debate civilly and by sound principles is not
emphasized in Scientology. Heck, the old man would have lost too
many, because he just didn't know how!!!
Jack Craver
Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote in article
<33c480ef...@news.snafu.de>...
> In <01bc8962$808c2600$472e6020@jacks-box>, "Jack Craver"
> <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> >2)Hypnotizing -
> >> > Again, total nonsense.
> >>
> >> See other article
> >>>>The other article is 454 lines that is completely anti-scientology
> >biased and written in the middle sixties. It also references other
>
> You consider it biased, etc., just because you don't like it. You will
> accept no text that has another opinion than yours. Then why are you
> here?
Why have you snipped my original text, where I said I could show you
reports from American tobacco companies that claim smoking is not harmful?
It's not that I consider the report biased, Tilman, it IS biased. This is
not a judgement call. The problems I have with your 'Anderson Report' is as
follows:
1) There is no independant confirmation of these 'facts'.
2) There is no substantive debate on this 'evidence' by knowledgeable
proponents of all points of view.
3) I believe you are overly attached to this report because it easily
explains some of scientology's allure (auditing).
4) Hypnosis is vague and qualitative rather than quantitative. I tend to be
mighty skeptical on such subjects.
I do like to have an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.
The reason I'm here is to throw the cold, clear light of reason in this
dark madhouse. To refute people that make wild and unfounded statements
about scientology...like yourself.
>
> Also you don't tell if there is anything basic that changed in auditing
> after that report.
>
> >web-sites.
>
> Untrue. It doesn't reference other websites.
Excuse me Tilman, it was your following post that suggested I read some
personal stories at some website.
>
> >Do you plan on giving me a test later on also? Give me a break!
> >I can show you reports from American tobacco companies that claim
smoking
> >doesn't do any harm. Arguments from authorities are useless. If you want
to
> >believe that you were brainwashed and/or hypnotized, nothing I can say
will
> >stop you. Just don't inflict your victim-mentality on me.
>
> In other words, you will consider no evidence. Then why start a
> discussion? And how am I a victim? I am not even a scientologist, have
> never been.
>
My criteria for considering evidence is listed above. As to the rest of
your question above (about being a victim), the answer is mating with the
question.
> >>
> >> >3) Abuses -
> >> > I personally never witnessed any kind of abuse whatsoever.
> >>
> >> Then why didn't you stay? Also, it depends how you define abuse. I
> >> consider it an abuse to force weekly rising statistics. The german
> >> labor(!) court even said that there is a risk to the health. And they
> >> should know it, as labor court, correct?
> >>
> >>How are the stats 'forced' to rise every week. And if they don't?...
>
> You know it. You won't be allowed to have "libs", to go to sleep, etc.
>
> >This
> >entire statement is ambigous. What risk did the German Labor Court refer
> >to?
>
I'm not trying to be evasive here Tilman, its just that some of these
questions are difficult to understand You are asking me about a German
labor court that says a general health risk occurs if stats are forced up
and staff are not allowed to sleep?.
And somehow, because they are indeed the German labor court, 'they should
know'.
Sorry pal, I'll have to pass on this one.
> A general health risk. You are just trying to Q&A.
>
> >> But ask yourself: why did Leisa Goodman lie when she said there is no
> >> basement in the Fort Harisson Hotel? Obviously she had something to
> >> hide.
> >>
> >> Are you a walking e-meter? What special powers do you have that allows
> >you to know the thoughts of another?
>
> You evade the issue? Why did she lie?
>
And so Tilman, if I don't give you an answer about why someone lied, then
I'm evading the issue. You overestimate me Tilman, but even so, Ill give
you the answer.
The answer is - Why don't you go ask her?
Jack Craver
I smell a bucket of chum.
wynot <wy...@cyberatl.net> wrote in article
<33bdf31e...@news.cyberatl.net>...
> On 4 Jul 1997 17:00:18 GMT, "Jack Craver" <inm...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I was a member of COS for 4 years. I was also a Staff member for a very
> >short time. For those of you that have not been a member of COS, I would
> >like to dispell some myths that have been circulated about scientology:
> >
> ><List of myths omited for space.>
> >
> >5) Scientologists -
> > Most scientologists I have known are bright and courageous people that
are
> > trying to change themselves and the world, for the better. From reading
> >the posts on this newsgroup, one could easily get the impression that
> >scientologists are all evil, malicious people trying to manipulate the
> >entire world into some kind of police state. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER
> >FROM THE TRUTH.
>
> Hi Jack. I have a dear friend who is an auditor at the local branch.
> He is everything you say about scienos; I could even add honest and
> ethical. In no way is she an evil or malicious person.
> But he is also deluded, wandering in a vision of truth with a capital
> T. She believes that he can smoke tobacco without fear of cancer or
> heart-lung disease. She believes that all the evil in the world stems
> from psychologists and psychiatrists. He believes that he can warp
> time somehow, and arrive places faster than a normal, un-enhanced
> human. She believes that by changing the word used to describe a thing
> that it will change, though some wonderful transmigration, the thing
> itself. All of these beliefs are contrary to reality.
> If he were able to think about it, I am certain that she could
> convince himself that Lisa McPherson's death and Lisa Marie Presley's
> illness were not directly caused by the tenets of the church she holds
> so dear. Or that much of the wrongdoing of the leaders of his church
> is not attributable solely to the false teachings of LRon Hubbard.
>
> > I wonder what the intention is of the people
> >who speak disparingly of scientologists.
Gregg Hagglund
In article <01bc896d$be11a800$5411f8ce@default>, "Michael Voytinsky"
<SPAMBLOCK...@igs.net> wrote:
(snip)
>
>> b) The lunatic fringe believes that Scientology is trying to clear
>> the planet in the same way Hitler was with his "final solution."
>
>Can not say I have ever seen anything like this on this newsgroup.
>
>
>--
>Michael Voytinsky
Well Michael, you have missed it from me, therefore I will repeat it.
After 'Clearing the Planet' Hubbard admits or contends that a certain portion
of the population would remain incurably aberrated, (2.5%) that is: resistant to
Scientology, passively or actively. This would include all deaf persons,
currently about IIANM 160 million people. Let alone anyone who still believed
that God was not an implant and that Christ was not also. And the mentally
challenged like those beautifully innocent DownSyndrome Endurers.
These individuals, who in Hubbards world would have no citizens rights,
would be 'disposed of quietly and without sorrow'.
MURDERED AS PER HUBBARD DOCTRINE!
Now, I do not, for one second believe that this circumstance
will ever come to pass. IMHO it is simply impossible.
However, it is an aim and ambition of Hubbard and therefore
of the Co$. Imposssible as it is, it is nevertheless despicable
and reprehensible, yet the TechnoNeoNazi Co$ has never disavowed it.
And while this aim of world domination is unlikely in the Extreme,
the Body count will continue to rise and the other tolls upon human
dignity, security and human rights exacted by the mindless and malignant
TechnNeoNazi Co$ Machine upon anyone whom they chose to target as SP,
whether inside the Cult or Out, will continue.
The RPF and the likely lonely silent graves outside of Hemet and attempts
some successful, to uterly destroy critics, are just a taste.
It is not that I rationally fear or apprehend the Co$ will achieve Hubbards
Fascist and Elitest SuperHuman Scientology Final Agenda.
The Co$ TechnoNeoNazi Machine in its fruitless attempts to realize
Hubbards 'Utopia' is, however, dangerous.
It is the blood spilled of the innocents by the Co$, and the wrecked lives
by the Co$, both inside the cult and out, in the past, right now, and
in the future,
that I abhor and oppose.
So, yes RingWormo: I oppose this Hubbardian Ambition:
"Scientology is trying to clear
the planet in the same way Hitler was with his "final solution.""
Because it *is* distinctly and clearly part of Hubbards 'Endgame
Scenario' in his (unrealisable) world conquest ambition.
IMHO The difference between Hubbard and Hitler is only one of
political success.
They are morally indistinguishable Human Filth.
Gregg SP4
http://www.cgocable.net/~elrond
--
" I'm sure it's obvious to all who read my stuff, that I have
serious problems when it comes to being able to communicate."
- -RonsAmigo, Official OSA Shill on ARS
$cientology Lawyer Bait: Co$ cures Cancer?:
"Step Four - Cures for Illness You will now find BTs and clusters
being cures for illnesses of the body part. Handle all such BTs and
clusters by blowing them off. 'Cures for Illness' will then cease to read."
--- ררר L.R.Hubbard © ??? ---
Gregg Hagglund
In article <19970705224...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
(snip)
>See that, Gregg, BC, Roland, Tilman? More proof that Diane works
>for OSA!
No, RingWormo,
DR has adopted the POV that the Hypnotic and Undue Influence
techniques of the Co$ Auditing and other processes do not in fact exist,
contrary to voluminous subjective data and 'anecdotal' evidence that
it does. This is also the OSA line. That we can disagree about this is a
healthy demonstration of the possible diversity of points of view
in the real world of Free Speech. Scientologists who share my point
of view are disciplined if they express it or blow. This is includes many
of the apparent 7,950,000 people who eschewed their affiliation with the Co$
over the last 47 years or so. Including the 99,300 Canadian Scientologists
claimed by Al Buttnor on CFRA who did *not* state Scientology as their
'faith' on the last census.
>
(snip)
> And there are BTW, many terrific
>GPs who are Scientologists.
Well, you have one less GP in Canada.
Seems the Xenu story was something new.
Questions were asked of the Co$ and not answered.
Then the Lisa M. websites were visited.
Phone calls were made to three of the five Forensic Pathologists
who concurred with Dr Woods findings.
You have one less GP now.
And six surprised Dentists who discovered that Sterling Mangement
is a CO$ front. A few changes made there, I assure you.
And several outraged PTAs who have been let in on Applied Scholastics
orgins and affiliations. September will be such an interesting month
at the Boards of Education in the Toronto Area.
You know, people *do* hate being decieved by your TechnoNeoFacsist
Cult.
I wonder why that is?
On another vein, I see you have admitted that *no* research *has * been done
to provide defintive proof that the Co$ tech works. Just anecdotal.
Therefore, I should ask: How long do you propose to remain a
proponent of Co$ Airware?
Or, if you wish to return to your previous position,
just where is the definitve research data to prove
the Scientific Claims of Scientology?
>'Naked as the Emperor' Amigo
David Gerard
:I was a member of COS for 4 years. I was also a Staff member for a very
:short time.
So why did you leave?
:3) Abuses -
: I personally never witnessed any kind of abuse whatsoever.
So that means that
http://www.best.com/~dkeith/lisam.htm
never happened, because YOU weren't there to see it? Yes or no?
:5) Scientologists -
:Most scientologists I have known are bright and courageous people that are
:trying to change themselves and the world, for the better. From reading
:the posts on this newsgroup, one could easily get the impression that
:scientologists are all evil, malicious people trying to manipulate the
:entire world into some kind of police state. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER
:FROM THE TRUTH. This is not to say scientology doesn't have some bad
:apples, particularly in the leadership area, but the intention of most
:scientologists is good-will. I wonder what the intention is of the people
:who speak disparingly of scientologists.
I agree pretty much with that paragraph, actually. (but 'disparingly'?
what word did you mean?)
The intention of individual Scientologists and the direction Scientology
points in are quite different things.
Think of Scientology as a machine for grinding up good intentions.
So, why DID you leave?
:Lightnin Rod
I remember you, you were in 'Woody' mode before. It's nice to see you
posting more coherently.
:"A candle in the darkness"
"... will be blown out by a Scientologist if you carry it in Clearwater."
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/
http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~gerard/ (European mirror)
http://www.prysm.net/~cuthulu/fun/ (US mirror - fast!)
David Gerard
On 5 Jul 1997 02:36:02 GMT,
Jack Craver <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
:When you use the term 'clam' or 'zombie' or 'clone', are you referring to
:the organization scientology, or to the individuals within that
:organization?
When I use them, it's to refer to those who act like their brain has
been taken over by a mind-virus.
It's really quite amazing to meet real-life Scientologists and hear
the exact same phrases come out of their mouths, over and over.
:You know, those individuals that get involved with scientology because they
:are seeking some kind of truth, some kind of answers...
And how does that make Scientology therefore a good thing? It may show
it's an ATTRACTIVE thing, but not a GOOD one.
:I still say that
:ars is the dark home of a pack of elitist snobs and ego-maniacs and you and
:your 'OPERATION CLAMBAKE' sig proves it. Also, I don't lurk, Admiral.
You don't lurk, you just post? You haven't been posting in a while. So
did you read the newsgroup without posting in that time? (Hint: that's
the definition of 'lurking'.)
BorkBorkem
From: rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo)...
>> Ronsamoeba posted: ...
>DeoMorto,
> Don't you think altering my name is a bit juvenile?
>Amigo
Yes, it's juvenile. That brings us to another relevant point.
Much of ars (-) behavior might stem from the deep influence
the early and continuing "cyberpunk" element in it had/has.
If so, we might not need to invoke more elaborate explainations,
particularly ones that attempt to reach into the thoughts of
someone known only from slight information in their posts.
There's WAY to much attempts at debating by "mind reading"
in ars as it is. The cyberpunk is an influential person in
cyberspace, and tends to promote styles of communication
which are, shall we say, unproven for their full worth compared
to more carefully styled forms of discourse which derive from
a careful study of the history of intelligent discourse.
There is considerable (+) behavior in ars, particularly from people
who are mostly inclined to protect and promote intellectual
freedom, and see the fact of the CoS assaulting this freedom as
merely a particular instance of a broader concern for preserving
the more successful and worthwhile aspects of the present
civilization. Diane Richardson is a well known figure of this type,
taking a sabbatical at present. (And probably doing research for
coming posts. She's well known for careful research of her
positions.)
Unfortunately a lot of folks in ars fit a description a Supreme Court
justice once found in an important case involving juvenile rights
to free speech. He noted that he didn't know whether the youth
in question should be regarded as simply an ill disciplined brat or
a very bright young man of high principles, but noting his age he
thought he could be either in the space of 10 minutes!!!
Heck, I bet I fit into that class!
Vell ve see hu-a et goose, koos et-a iznut goink a vee.
BORK BORK BORK!
Martin Hunt
In article <33be93dd...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Jul 1997 19:29:39 +0200, jens...@imaginet.fr (Jens
>Tingleff) wrote:
>
>>In article <33be683b...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>>>
>>> This is analogous to a former nun posting horror stories about what
>>> occurred in her convent.
>>
>>Ah, well, in my *opinion* the more precise analogy would be if someone told
>>horror stories about the Vatican, not "any old convent." The Sea Org is
>>what $cientology wants it all to be about, as it were.
>
>Is it? Where did Hubbard write that all Scientologists[tm] should
>belong to the Sea Org?
Jens analogy, fwiw, is more accurate. If DM is the Scientology "Pope",
then the Sea Org is the Vatican, not just any old convent. Rinder and
Yager and so forth would be cardinals with some control.
The Sea Org is the controlling arm of the cult; it runs Scientology.
I've been engaged in an interesting exchange with a former missionaire
(part of the reason I haven't been posting much) who has made this
point abundantly clear to me. The Sea Org, via fired off missions
to all outlying orgs, runs the show. It has power, unlike your
convent analogy. Of course, comparing Scientology to the RC church
is a bit of a lost cause anyway, but Jens is right on this one.
>It is my understanding that he set up the Sea Org as an elite group of
>Scientologists[tm] who were willing to devote their lives (*all* of
>them -- <grin>) to forwarding the faith. That is, of course, the
>purpose of the religious vocation in the Roman Catholic Church.
They are so willing, I suppose you could say. To that extent, perhaps
the analogy holds.
>If you can support your statement that "the Sea Org is what
>$cientology wants it all to be about" with a specific reference,
>please do. I've never seen anything written by Hubbard that makes
>such a claim. I doubt that the Vatican would like to see all Roman
>Catholics become monks, nuns, and priests either.
The Sea Org runs Scientology. It's intrinsic to the policy; read the
Flag Orders, I believe there's some 3,000 of them, for a reference.
Alas, I do not have any, or I'm sure I could dig you up some juicy
quotes about just how important the SO was to Hubbard, and just how
much power it has. When a staffer sees a Sea Org missionaire descending
on his or her org with their unlimited ethics powers, there's a
tightening of the muscles around the asshole. I don't know if "the
SO is what Scn wants it all to be about" is right or not, as it's a
bit vague, but the SO is a lot more than some insignificant group of
little import, as, perhaps, a single convent in the RCC might be
seen. More like the Vatican or something. Or to draw an analogy
to the US government, DM is the president, the SO is Congress.
RTC, CMO, all those other higher orgs are all parts of the Sea Org.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. ARS + Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
"Hong Kong people should drop the baggage of [the brutal Tiananmen Square
massacre of June 4th, 1989]" - Chief Executive-designate Tung Chee-hwa
The river water has already removed the well water's democratic
legislature; how long will it be before the filthy river water
completely pollutes the well?
Geoffrey Burling
On 5 Jul 1997 14:11:39 GMT, "Jack Craver" <inm...@bellsouth.net>
saith:
>I must be doing something wrong.
That's okay, Jack. I'll do something wrong all of the time. Then
someone corrects me. Usually I learn from it & gorw a little. Or maybe
not. In either case, life goes on.
>Anyway, since I did not accuse anyone of any crime in my first post in this
>thread, why should I need to supply any evidence? Am I required to research
>and distribute evidence to support every statement I make on this NG?
Well, Jack, CoS has been accused of lots of crimes by folks here in
ARS, & they furnish a lot of evidence to back this up. That whole
matter about Lisa McPherson started because one ARS regular found
evidence that a woman who arrived DOA at a local hospital had been
staying for 17 days at a known CoS-owned hotel. And other people have
been adding evidence to this, such as the fact her body had been
gnawed on by cockroaches.
If I were you, I'd find it a lot easier to convince people that I'm
right if I could provide evidence for what I'm saying. You see,
there's so many misrepresentations about Scientology, & so much false
information that a few independant verifications would make it easier
for people to think well of its membership.
> If I
>had accused scn of brainwashing, I think at that point I would be compelled
>to produce some proof. But it doesn't matter. I'm not here to satisfy your
>requirements. I'm here to shine a light on all you rats. You chronics that
>talk so lovingly about this putrid ars.
So we're the liars? I try to document everything I post here, & you're
welcome to call me on any errors in citation I make. One of the rules
I've tried to play by since the beginning is not to post anything I
couldn't prove to a disinterested third party, & if make a mistake I -
for one - would like to know about it so I could respond or correct
the mistake.
BTW, I suspect you have what you would term a ``misunderstood word"
here. You wrote ``chronics" when I suspect you meant ``critics".
Please attempt to communicate again.
Geoff
Zane Thomas
"Jack Craver" wrote:
>3) Abuses -
> I personally never witnessed any kind of abuse whatsoever.
I did.
>4) Freedoms -
> No-one ever tried to lock me up. No-one ever made me do anything I didn't
>want to do.
I saw it done.
>5) Scientologists -
> Most scientologists I have known are bright and courageous people that are
> trying to change themselves and the world, for the better.
Sadly they don't know how to apply rational thought. If they did they
would never accept El Wrongs incredible pile of unsubstantiated
premises and faulty logic.
zane za...@die.spammer.mabry.com
*** spammer busters ***
Monica Pignotti
RonsAmigo wrote:
<snip>
> I accept that, but when one looks beyond the idea that labeling
> people SPs is simply a way of demeaning the enemies or
> critics of the C of S, one finds that there is a workable body
> of technology on the subject that is of value. My experience with
> the subject is that when one locates a person antisocial toward
> the preclear (who the preclear is considerable adverse effect of)
> and then assist that preclear to handle the situation so that
> he is no longer at such effec,t considerable benefits can be had.
> In particular, the phenomenon known as emotional "roller-coaster"
> is often easily and terminatedly handled in this way. Additionally
> accident proneness, chronic illness not responding to normal
> medical treatment and a host of other situations are routinely
> handled with this technology. In very rare cases a person is so
> suppressed that no "handle" is possible and it comes down to
> the personal choice of disconnecting either from Scientology or
> from the source of the suppression.
When I was in Scientology I used to believe that too. What we're
talking about here is being connected to people who are hostile or
antagonistic to Scientology, not the "preclear". That's the reality of
it. If someone in Scientology is connected to someone who is hostile to
it, they have a PTS situation they have to work out regardless of
whether or not the person is hostile to the individual. Since leaving,
my experiences have been very different. I have been involved in many
different alternative forms of psychotherapy and have encountered a
number of people in my life who have been "antagonistic" to my
involvement in them. By Scientology's line of reasoning, this would
mean that I could not benefit from them unless I handled or disconnected
from the antagonistic person. Well, I've got news for you. I stayed
connected to people (even friends I see on a daily basis) who were
against what I was doing and guess what, I still got great benefits. If
a therapy is really worth it's salt, it will stand up to someone
critical of it and it won't make a bit of difference if you have people
in your life who are "antagonistic" to what you are doing. If the wins
and gains are real, they cannot be invalidated by having a dialogue with
someone who does not agree with you or even by someone who is openly
hostile. Scientology's PTS/SP policy is just another excuse to justify
why the tech works much much less than 100% of the time. It is also a
tool to mentally isolate you from the rest of the world.
Monica Pignotti
ted
"Jack Farmer" <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
... snipt bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit, which
ended in 39 lines like this:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <---- Heh! Clam lip print!
>>
>>
>>
>>
...snipt 27 of them little ankle-biter-sig-things ...
>>
>>
>>
Ted
--
======================================================================
t...@ibexbsc.com -- All day smirkin/jokin/degrading without a web
page
Bored? Stupid? Thinking of getting suckered by the vile
International Criminal Syndicate founded by the dead SF hack
with the hammy face? (Elron Hubbard, since you asked) Get
the facts about the blood sucking vampires of the soul and
wallet, $cientology, at:
http://home.sol.no/heldal/CoS/
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/home.html
http://www.ezlink.com/~rayr/scieno.htm
http://www.whidbey.net/~skyhawk/cos/
http://wwwperso.hol.fr/~rgonnet
Speaking only for myself. "Do you know where your BTs are, tonight?"
======================================================================
Diane Richardson
On Sun, 06 Jul 1997 00:37:01 GMT, mre...@rmi.nospam.net (Michael
Reuss) wrote:
[snip]
>>One prominent critic (Diane Richardson) was all but driven out of
>>this newsgroup because she was not being willing to tow the ARSCC
>>party line with respect to this nonsense.
>
>I think Diane was embarrassed by her own lame opinions. She apparently
>had some sense of shame or pride or something. Of course, she's not
>physically prevented from posting here. I hope she comes back someday.
>Maybe you should learn something from this episode. Ridicule is power.
>Mass movements are very powerful.
I have nothing to be embarrassed or ashamed about, Michael. I'm
curious as to why you feel justified attributing emotional reasons for
my recent absence from this newsgroup. Should I do the same and
conjecture that you've been shamed into silence when you're away from
the newsgroup, too?
Ridicule can only be powerful when it is solidly based on fact.
Name-calling, of the sort that takes place here so often, holds no
more power on a.r.s. than it does on grade-school playgrounds. There
might have been some children who admired the bullies who taunted
other children with derogatory nicknames and vicious taunts back when
I was a child. I was not among them. From what I can remember, most
of those who followed the bullies did so out of fear that they
themselves might be subjected to such attacks if they did not conform.
Even as children, not all individuals are quite so heavily imbued with
the herd mentality as that. Some children are capable of recognizing
when a "mass movement" is nothing more than herd mentality. Some
adults, alas, never quite become that perceptive.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On 6 Jul 1997 00:08:01 -0700, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt)
wrote:
[snip]
>The Sea Org runs Scientology. It's intrinsic to the policy; read the
>Flag Orders, I believe there's some 3,000 of them, for a reference.
>Alas, I do not have any, or I'm sure I could dig you up some juicy
>quotes about just how important the SO was to Hubbard, and just how
>much power it has. When a staffer sees a Sea Org missionaire descending
>on his or her org with their unlimited ethics powers, there's a
>tightening of the muscles around the asshole. I don't know if "the
>SO is what Scn wants it all to be about" is right or not, as it's a
>bit vague, but the SO is a lot more than some insignificant group of
>little import, as, perhaps, a single convent in the RCC might be
>seen. More like the Vatican or something. Or to draw an analogy
>to the US government, DM is the president, the SO is Congress.
>RTC, CMO, all those other higher orgs are all parts of the Sea Org.
Perhaps you're not aware of the RCC's hierarchical structure.
Religious orders (e.g., convents) do not report to the bishop in whose
diocese their facilities are located. They are independent of the
normal command structure of the Church. Rather, they report directly
to their order's officials, who report to the Vatican. If a local
bishop does not like what a specific convent is doing, he cannot
change it himself, even though the convent is in his diocese --
he must petition the order's officials. There have been many disputes
caused because of religious orders' independence of the standard
ecclesiastical heirarchy; for example, when a very liberal order runs
a school located in a diocese run by a very conservative bishop.
(This is something of an oversimplification of the matter, but I
believe it's indicative of the situation.)
As to convents being insignificant groups of little import, I doubt if
many would agree that the Jesuits lack power or authority within the
ranks of RC leadership. The same can be said for Dominicans,
Franciscans, etc. They wield a great deal of power and influence over
matters in the Vatican--much more than their numbers would warrant. I
suspect Hubbard patterned the Sea Org on the structure of RC religious
orders.
RC religious orders, of course, were (and still are) the organizations
responsible for "expanding" the Church into new areas, for insuring
that the "standard tech" was being delivered (need I bring up the
Inquisition?), and for higher education provided by the Church (the
"higher orgs"). The Vatican's financial management, as well as most
other administration, is largely directed by those in orders. They
are the "elite" of the RCC, just as the Sea Org is the "elite" of the
CoS.
Hubbard was no more innovative when he established the Sea Org than
when he developed other aspects of his "applied religious philosophy."
He looked around for something he thought "worked" and borrowed it--
perverting it in the process.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Joe Harrington
Diane Richardson wrote:
>
> Hubbard was no more innovative when he established the Sea Org than
> when he developed other aspects of his "applied religious philosophy."
> He looked around for something he thought "worked" and borrowed it--
> perverting it in the process.
I think comparing Scientology with the original Church of Rome is very
appropiate. Like the RCC, Hubbard offering the ONLY way to Salvation and
personal immortality through a "religious" practice, and offered his
counterpart to the Catholic "Sacred Scriptures" and orthodoxy, and
allowed NO other interpretation of them. The RCC disparaged heathens and
pagans and Scientology covertly disparages the "wogs" and followers of
"implanted" religions.
Like the early Church of Rome, Scientology started out as a panacea for
the common man. It later became a "religion" for the rich. The RCC sold
indulgences to the rich and Scientology sells OT "certificates" to their
elite rich clientele.
Like the RCC that stamped out unorthodox writings and reform movements
started by Gnostic Christians, Scientology ruthlessly oppresses
dissident members and autonomous breakaway groups.
Like the RCC that eventually seduced the government of Rome and won
status as the "State" religion, Scientology's many front groups have
this as their sole objective. This is the greatest potential danger to
freedom of the mind and spirit.
Joe
spbill
In article <33BFAE...@worldnet.att.net>,
Monica Pignotti <Pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[..]
>If a therapy is really worth it's salt, it will stand up to someone
>critical of it and it won't make a bit of difference if you have
>people in your life who are "antagonistic" to what you are doing.
>If the wins and gains are real, they cannot be invalidated by having
>a dialogue with someone who does not agree with you or even by
>someone who is openly hostile.
Well said, Monica.
>Scientology's PTS/SP policy is just another excuse to justify
>why the tech works much much less than 100% of the time.
I've been claiming that for years.
Great minds must think alike :)
spbill
Keith
On 5 Jul 1997 22:46:31 GMT, rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo),
<19970705224...@ladder01.news.aol.com> wrote :
->> >b) The lunatic fringe believes that Scientology is trying to clear
->> >the planet in the same way Hitler was with his "final solution."
->> >Almost too bizzarre to even comment on except it gives you
->> >some idea of how thoroughly restimulated these people are.
->>
->> Just more of the black-and-white thinking some a.r.s. critics engage
->> in to justify their fervor.
->
->See that, Gregg, BC, Roland, Tilman? More proof that Diane works
->for OSA!
Yea, I know the feeling Diane!
->
->(sorry Diane, I couldn't resist some evil deep down in my soul that I
->haven't yet addressed with auditing made me do it. Either that or
->I'm suffering an adverse reation to the "twinkie" I just ate. )
->:))
The twinkie defense! That won't cut it Ronsamigo that worked once in SF, but I
don't think the ARSCC will allow that.
->
->> Personally, I'm much more concerned about
->> some other religious groups than I am about the CoS in this regard.
->> The reason for this is because the CoS is so small that any threat
->> they might present is literally inconsequential.
->>
->> >c) Scientologists don't believe in standard and normal medical
->> >practices.
->>
->Amigo
Your doing a fine Job here Amigo. Keep up the good work.
Keith
-----------------------------------------------------------
! Keith Wyatt http://www.teleport.com/~kewyatt !
! PO Box 18357 Salem, OR 97305 503-373-4696 !
! PGP KEY by finger and keyservers !
-----------------------------------------------------------
roger gonnet
Perhaps is there some basis on this, Diane; but nevertheless, in France,
we say: "On est toujours le con de quelqu'un d'autre" -meaning every
body is someone else's ass.
Every intellectual reasoning can be blocked and crushed under tons of
"bird's words". What are you trying to do whenever making others wrong
by intellectual reasonings?
Roger
> Diane Richardson
> ref...@bway.net
Jack Craver
--
Lightnin Rod
"A candle in the darkness"
David Gerard <f...@thingy.apana.spaaaamtraaaaap.org.au> wrote in article
<slrn5rspi...@thingy.apana.org.au>...
> On 4 Jul 1997 17:00:18 GMT,
> Jack Craver <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> :I was a member of COS for 4 years. I was also a Staff member for a very
> :short time.
>
>
> So why did you leave?
>
Why do you care?
>
> :3) Abuses -
> : I personally never witnessed any kind of abuse whatsoever.
>
>
> So that means that
>
> http://www.best.com/~dkeith/lisam.htm
>
> never happened, because YOU weren't there to see it? Yes or no?
>
No, it means I didn't personally witness it.
>
> :5) Scientologists -
> :Most scientologists I have known are bright and courageous people that
are
> :trying to change themselves and the world, for the better. From reading
> :the posts on this newsgroup, one could easily get the impression that
> :scientologists are all evil, malicious people trying to manipulate the
> :entire world into some kind of police state. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER
> :FROM THE TRUTH. This is not to say scientology doesn't have some bad
> :apples, particularly in the leadership area, but the intention of most
> :scientologists is good-will. I wonder what the intention is of the
people
> :who speak disparingly of scientologists.
>
>
> I agree pretty much with that paragraph, actually. (but 'disparingly'?
> what word did you mean?)
>
despairingly
>
> The intention of individual Scientologists and the direction Scientology
> points in are quite different things.
>
> Think of Scientology as a machine for grinding up good intentions.
>
> So, why DID you leave?
>
>
So, why DO you care?
> :Lightnin Rod
>
>
> I remember you, you were in 'Woody' mode before. It's nice to see you
> posting more coherently.
>
>
> :"A candle in the darkness"
>
>
> "... will be blown out by a Scientologist if you carry it in Clearwater."
>
>
>
>
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <19970706002...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>> Don't you think altering my name is a bit juvenile?
>
>>Amigo
>
>Yes, it's juvenile. That brings us to another relevant point.
>Much of ars (-) behavior might stem from the deep influence
>the early and continuing "cyberpunk" element in it had/has.
The only meaning I know for "cyberpunk" is a kind of science fiction
involving a pessimistic low-life/street-life culture in a high-tech
future. Perhaps you are trying to say that it derives from the
styles of speech and thought found in *hacker* culture? I can't see
any particular evidence of such. It's not my background, nor AFAIK
that of most others here.
--
@_______. .
( /"\ Dave Bird St Hippo of Augustine
xemu ||--||(___) 1st Canine Chapel of Bob Dobbs' Dog
'" '"'---' in the Church of the SubGenius.
Diane Richardson
On 5 Jul 1997 22:46:31 GMT, rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
[snip]
>> This need to see the world in black-and-white terms is more prevalent
>> among Scientologists[tm] than it is among CoS critics, however.
>> Hubbard's "applied religious philosophy," in fact, leads people to
>> engage in this sort of thinking. Blaming the evils of the world on
>> psychs or SPs, for example, is nothing more than institutionalized
>> black-and-white thinking.
>
>Evil dose exist in this world and when one REALLY looks one
>finds that Hubbard's theories re: SPs and Psychs are not as far fetched
>as they may first appear. As a concrete example take a good look at the
>decline in SAT scores in the public school system and the role/influence
>that the mental health community has played in changing schools from
>places of education into what they are today. I contend that the
>continuing and blatant destruction of the US system of public education
>is out-and-out EVIL. In even a cursory view of changes introduced in the last
>30 years which may have contributed to this decline, the passage of the Elementary
>and Secondary Education Act in 1965, leaps out as a crucial turning point.
>The ESEA opened schools to the "benefits" of psychiatry and "psychiatric
>think" and the results of this major change in approach speak for
>themselves.
I've chosen to reply to this particular point in your response, as I
believe it's a good example of the statement I made above.
The CoS (along with some other fringe-type movements) have attempted
to forward the "argument" that a decline in SAT scores is directly
related to a collaboration between mental health professionals and
public school officials. This argument is fraudulent. Those who
forward this argument have misrepresented statistics and manipulated
them in an effort to support their own agenda, which has nothing to do
with improving schools or educating children.
It's very easy to accept a pre-digested argument when that argument
supports a conclusion you wish to believe, RonsAmigo. It's much more
challenging to evaluate the data for yourself and reach your own
conclusions. Has L. Ron Hubbard's tech enabled you to do that for
yourself? If it has, the facts you need to examine this issue are
readily available, both on the web and in your local public library.
Interpreting SAT scores to draw conclusions about the quality of
education is fraught with problems. Without examining the matter
thoroughly, it is easy to draw incorrect conclusions from them.
SAT score statistics are available on the web from the National Center
for Educational Statistics at:
http://nces01.ed.gov/nces/pubs/ce/c9622a01.html
You will find that the *proportion* of students who took the SAT has
changed dramatically over the years. The statistics from the NCES
only go back to the mid-1970s, but even here, note that the percentage
of students who took the SAT rose from 31.8% in 1975 to 41.8% in 1995.
Even more significantly, the percentage of minority-group students who
took the SAT more than doubled from 15% in 1976 to 31% in 1995.
How does this affect interpretation of national SAT scores? Think
about it a bit. Back when I was a high school senior, in 1964, only a
small number of students from my school took the SATs. This minority
was composed of the best students in the class, those who knew they
would be attending college. The situation at my alma mater is quite
different nowadays, although the socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics of the school district have not changed. The majority
of students at the school now take the SAT, not just the "academic
elite" of the high school. Would you agree that the *proportion* of
high school students taking the SAT would have an effect on the
national average SAT scores? I would hope that you do.
There are many other factors to consider in your analysis, and I
can't possibly address them all here. There is one fact, however,
that I urge you not to ignore. You can find this addressed in a RAND
report summary available at
http://www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB8008/
"The Use and Misuse of Test Scores in Reform Debate"
If you read this report summary, you will see that test scores did,
indeed, decline through the second half of the 1960s and continued
their decline through the 1970s. What you will also note, however, is
that these scores declined for both public and *private* school
students. The scores declined for both U.S. and *Canadian* students.
If, as you claim, the decline in test scores is a direct result of the
inclusion of mental health professionals in public school systems
through implementation of the ESEA, how do you explain the drop in
*private* school SAT scores? Private schools were not affected by the
ESEA. Nor were schools in Canada, although Canadian students, too,
exhibited the same decline in scores as did students from the U.S.
I don't know whether you have a personal distrust/dislike of "psychs"
outside of your CoS affiliation or if you've adopted this attitude
from membership in the CoS. Whatever the source, your acceptance of
CoS propaganda linking lower SAT scores with mental health
professionals is bogus. This conspiracy theory is not unique to
Scientology[tm]--there are other organizations that forward the same
argument. I'm familiar with them, I've heard them argue their points
in person, and I can assure you that they're every bit as kooky as the
black helicopter folks. They cannot support their claims with hard
data -- nor can you or the CoS.
This is what I meant when I accused the CoS of fostering
"black-and-white" thinking, RonsAmigo. I don't think you are
brainwashed. I don't think you are stupid. I don't think you serve
as a mouthpiece for OSA. Rather, I think you accepted information
from a source you trust -- your church -- that supported opinions you
already held. We all do that to some extent. I was flustered when
the partial birth abortion statistics given out by pro-choice groups
were acknowledged as faulty. I hope that we're both thoughtful enough
to examine the data for ourselves and draw our own conclusions from
them.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Tilman Hausherr
What I wonder is why scientology schools don't publish their own SAT
statistics, and why in 40 years of scientology no scientologist has
acomplished a breakthrough in science. I wonder if Amigo can enlighten
us on that topic.
Bernie
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>It is my understanding that he set up the Sea Org as an elite group of
>Scientologists[tm] who were willing to devote their lives (*all* of
>them -- <grin>) to forwarding the faith. That is, of course, the
>purpose of the religious vocation in the Roman Catholic Church.
To start with, welcome back, Diane. I understand that you do not
have much time for this NG, and I don't blame you. As far as I
am concerned, at least, it's always with a great pleasure that I
read you.
>If you can support your statement that "the Sea Org is what
>$cientology wants it all to be about" with a specific reference,
>please do. I've never seen anything written by Hubbard that makes
>such a claim. I doubt that the Vatican would like to see all Roman
>Catholics become monks, nuns, and priests either.
Were does the C org hold its quarter? It is my understanding
that any staff from any org can chose to become a C org member.
It is not clear to me why you think that C org members are
treated differently, or that experiences within the C org
quarters are different than in the rest of the organization. For
this to happen, they would need to have their own quarter to
start with. Where is it?
Is it mandatory to be a C org member in order to work on the
ship or at Flag? I don't know. Even though I was never there, I
don't believe that staff experience is fundamentally different
there than, for example, in the European quarters.
>>The Sea Org is nearly deified by the Co$ management, continuing the fine
>>example set by Ron in such works as "Ron's Journal 67". [Can one even get
>>the highest levels (on the Freewinds) if one is not in the SO?
>Of course they can. If the CoS limited its top levels only to Sea Org
>staff, they wouldn't be making any income from those levels. From
>what I've heard, most Sea Org people have difficulty receiving *any*
>upper level auditing at all.
Where did you heard that, Diane? As I said, in a given staff,
some are C org members, some are not. I never saw any difference
being made on this basis.
In the GO WW, for example, there were no problems for staff in
getting auditing, and I was never aware of a distinction being
made between C org members and others.
>I doubt if few Sea Org people if any
>(outside of the crew and staff of the Freewinds) ever get to take that
>training.
Why not?
>A "religion" that regards material wealth as proof of
>spiritual attainment isn't about to offer its highest and most
>expensive levels to paupers.
They do. Material wealth in Scn is regarded in terms of
"exchange". It can be money, but it can also be services or
work. A lot of dedicated work would be equivalent to a lot of
money.
As a matter of fact, in addition to your normal 2 1/2 hour daily
allowance, you received bonuses, as credit in actual money, for
training/auditing when your stats were up. I still have such an
account at Saint Hill ensuing from my work for the GO WW. I even
*still* receive (17 years later) regular mail from Saint Hill
encouraging me to *use* the money I have on account there!
>I think you're confusing the Sea Org with OTs. There are plenty of
>Sea Org personnel who haven't attained OT status (in fact, from what
>I've read I'd guess that the majority of present-day Sea Org people
>are not OTs or even close to it).
>Hubbard wanted his Sea Org people to be revered for their commitment,
>their willingness to sacrifice personal comfort and security for
>advancement of the "faith."
Yes, and it was also said that (1) training is as important as
auditing and (2) work itself (for Scn of course) is as useful to
get you over your "case" than training and auditing. So, staff
member kind of view their work as a kind of auditing as well.
It is true that often they skip their training or auditing time
in order to get on with their work, but it was always available
if they wanted to take it. In fact, the management often had to
almost force their staff to use their 2 1/2 hour daily time for
training or auditing.
>That's, of course, what the Roman
>Catholic Church (among others) has done for eons. The very fact that
>the Vatican is populated by priests, not by laypeople is mirrored by
>the situation at Clearwater.
I don't think that your assumption to the effect that the abuses
reported are specific to the C org and that they do not occur in
other quarters (more or less what I understand from what you
say). I don't think that life for the staff on the Ship or at
Flag are any worse than the life of staff in other quarters.
What I think is that the example of abuses given probably did
happen, but that they are blown out of all proportion in an
attempt to depict the whole organization in a black and negative
pictures. It does not have much to do with or without the C org.
Nor is the C org an elite. There are no test or selection in
order to join the C org. All you have to do is sign a billion
year contract. That only does make the C org member a very
dedicated one, and under such conditions, and especially near
the top, more might be expected from such a member than from
others. In this respect, you may be right. But, overall, the
difference in actual treatment between C org members and normal
staff doesn't strike me as very different.
Bernie
Warrior
RonsAmigo wrote:
>
> Evil dose [sic] exist in this world and when one REALLY looks one
> finds that Hubbard's theories re: SPs and Psychs are not as far fetched
> as they may first appear. As a concrete example take a good look at the
> decline in SAT scores in the public school system
Amigo: this is a generality! You call it a "concrete example"! Which
school systems are you referring to? In the district I live in, many
schools have very high SAT scores on average.
> and the role/influence that the mental health community has played in
> changing schools from places of education into what they are today.
Please tell me what "role" the "mental health community has played".
Also please tell me what these "places of education" have been changed
into.
> I contend that the continuing and blatant destruction of the US system of
> public education is out-and-out EVIL.
What "continuing and blatant destruction" are you referring to?
> In even a cursory view of changes introduced in the last 30 years
> which may have contributed to this decline,
What "changes" were "introduced in the last 30 years"? I also note
that these vague "changes" _may_ have "contributed to this decline".
First you allege some vague "changes"; then you state they "may have
contributed to this decline", which is speculation. Lastly you state
that a "decline" has occurred without any supporting evidence. What
a phony "argument"!! What sheer brilliance!! What *LOGIC*, Amigo!!
> the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965,
> leaps out as a crucial turning point.
> The ESEA opened schools to the "benefits" of psychiatry and "psychiatric
> think" and the results of this major change in approach speak for
> themselves.
Please explain how the "ESEAA opened schools to the 'benefits' of
psychiatry and 'psychiatric think'. Just what is "psychiatric think"
anyway? And what are the supposed "results of this major change"?
Amigo, I find that you are the *ACTUAL SP* !!! You speak in false
assumptions, generalities, critical comments, and innuendo. *YOU* are
the one who has OVERTS against the mental health profession!!! Come on,
apply ElRon's tek to yourself!!! You are a nattering asshole who sees
"SPs" everywhere in the public education system, "psychs", "mental
health community, etc. You are one paranoid person, Amigo!!! Delusional
and paranoid.
Pathetic...
Warrior
Bev
Joe Harrington wrote:
> RonsAmigo,
> Do you subscribe to Hubbard's view that the Modern day psychiatrists are
> bogeymen and they are also responsible for the increase in criminal
> activities, and psychiatry is a revivification of long-gone whole track
> implanters who enslaved entire galaxies of people?
> Do you subscribe to Hubbard's views, outlined line in his 1967 tape,
> Ron's Journal, that psychiatrists, along with various international
> bankers, intelligence agencies and arms dealers, are part of a
> well-financed international cabal against Hubbard and his organization?
I would also be interested in knowing how much of LRH's conspiracy
theories written above you believe to be true. All of the above, or
part of it, or none of it?
Please let us know, I know I am interested in hearing from a public
Co$ member how much of the above that LRH stated you believe and I think
a few other readers here would be interested also.
Also, StvJ and wgert, I would like to know what you believe of the above
conspiracy Ron outlined in his Journal as well.
Please answer the question.
Beverly
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In <33BFE146...@hol.fr>, roger gonnet<dictio...@hol.fr> writes:
>Diane Richardson wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 06 Jul 1997 00:37:01 GMT, mre...@rmi.nospam.net (Michael
>> Reuss) wrote:
>>
>> >>One prominent critic (Diane Richardson) was all but driven out of
>> >>this newsgroup because she was not being willing to tow the ARSCC
>> >>party line with respect to this nonsense.
>> >
>> >I think Diane was embarrassed by her own lame opinions. She apparently
>> >had some sense of shame or pride or something. Of course, she's not
>> >physically prevented from posting here.
>>
>> curious as to why you feel justified attributing emotional reasons for
>> my recent absence from this newsgroup. Should I do the same and
>> conjecture that you've been shamed into silence when you're away from
>> the newsgroup, too?
>> Ridicule can only be powerful when it is solidly based on fact.
>> Name-calling, of the sort that takes place here so often, holds no
>> more power on a.r.s. than it does on grade-school playgrounds.
Really? There are any number of examples of Diane being evasive and
dishonest in not answering legitimate points, to the extent of having
gone into the valence of Whippersnapper; and of being a hypocrite,
arguing even against scientific method (which she believes in) when
it suits the line she is taking out of personal malice.
That can't be dismissed as namecalling---the problem is that it is
in substance true, and the name "hypocrite" simply follows from it.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'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(:)
Bev
Diane Richardson wrote:
> Hubbard was no more innovative when he established the Sea Org than
> when he developed other aspects of his "applied religious philosophy."
> He looked around for something he thought "worked" and borrowed it--
> perverting it in the process.
You know, that hits home, and that's also one thing that I find to be
sadly amusing. As well as the Co$ structure, a lot of the theory in
Dianetics also comes from various other "sources". a.c.t. has talked
about that and has really expounded on it. Ironically, Hub borrowed the
majority of the workable parts of Dianetics from those studied or studying
in the "psych" field.
Same with his educational ~breakthrough~. Using a dictionary, learning
on a gradient and the use of demonstration and then calling it HIS
breakthrough technology. Like, that was an original thought.
Beverly
Martin Hunt
In article <33bfa5a...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>Perhaps you're not aware of the RCC's hierarchical structure.
Diane, I'm not really interested in the Roman Catholic Church or
it's "hierarchical structure."
The Sea Org controls and runs Scientology.
Jens analogy-correction was spot-on.
You were wrong; your analogy was faulty.
Alan Furman
In article <H8zvzMdl...@islandnet.com>,
Martin Hunt <mar...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>Or to draw an analogy
>to the US government, DM is the president, the SO is Congress.
>RTC, CMO, all those other higher orgs are all parts of the Sea Org.
You want analogies? I'll give you analogies...
Outer Party Sea Org
Inner Party DM & users of the gym at Gold
Proles Publics & wogs
Thought Police Ethics
Ministry of Truth OSA
Ministry of Love RPF
Ministry of Peace CCHR
Eurasia/Eastasia Psychs
Big Brother Source
Emanuel Goldstein Erlich/Wollersheim
Victory Gin Kools(tm)
Newspeak Clamspeak
Reference: G. Orwell, _Nineteen Eighty-Four_
--
====al...@aimnet.com * LPC * LPUSA * ISIL * IOS * KoX * Netscab Squealer====
LEGALIZE FREEDOM >>>> http://www.lp.org * UBI LIBERTAS IBI PATRIA
"There is an inherent conflict whenever senior exec. branch officials are to
be investigated by the DOJ and its appointed head, the AG." Janet Reno, 1993
RonsAmigo
Martin Hunt <mar...@islandnet.com> wrote in article
<hE+vzMdl...@islandnet.com>...
> In article <19970705204...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
>
> >Obviously I know that the ARSCC is not a formal chartered organization
> >but I would nonetheless argue that it does exist.
>
> Quote of the week.
>
> [tender love-exchange between Diane and RonsAsshole snipped]
~~~~~~~~~~
Being the manure gentleman that you are, I'm sure you meant
to say, "RonsAmigo." ..... Ah, sorry. Make that "mature" gentleman.
Diane and I? Love?
Nah. But I will admit to being at least "in like" with Diane.
She has many qualities I find admirable, plus I like her style.
>
> BTW, the arscc does not exist; I should know, as I'm the founder.
>
Once read a poem which I believe was attributed to Ogden Nash. May
have even read it on this NG. To the best of my recollection it went as
follows:
----------------------------------------
The other day upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
Gee I wish he'd go away
---------------------------------------
Amigo
Diane Richardson
On Sun, 6 Jul 1997 20:41:59 +0100, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>Really? There are any number of examples of Diane being evasive and
>dishonest in not answering legitimate points, to the extent of having
>gone into the valence of Whippersnapper; and of being a hypocrite,
>arguing even against scientific method (which she believes in) when
>it suits the line she is taking out of personal malice.
>That can't be dismissed as namecalling---the problem is that it is
>in substance true, and the name "hypocrite" simply follows from it.
Post your evidence that I have been evasive and dishonest, Mr. Bird.
Exactly where have I been hypocritical? Without evidence, your
statements are nonsensical, but then that is the only thing readers
here have learned to expect from your missives.
As usual, the point of your incoherent post completely escapes me.
I'd suggest that you go back to plonking the Witch of Zun.
For some, grade-school name-calling is the highest form of discourse
they might ever hope to attain. Rational discussion is beyond your
grasp.
Diane RIchardson
ref...@bway.net
Mike O'Connor
In article <19970704214...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
> I would agree with [...]
> I hope this helps.
Hello. What is your name? You are hiding. -Mike
Joe Harrington
Diane Richardson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 Jul 1997 23:52:34 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure if you mean "headquarters" or "berthing" here, Bernie.
> If you mean "headquarters," the Sea Org was, of course, originally
> headquartered (and berthed) aboard the Apollo. The Sea Org later was
> headquartered (and berthed) at Flag in Clearwater. I understand
> that's still the headquarters of the Sea Org, although I could
> certainly be mistaken about that.
Clearwater is the home of the Flag Land Base, considered a Sea Org org,
manned by Sea Org members. All Sea Org orgs, such as Flag Land Base, the
several Advanced Orgs etc. are all manned by Sea Org members. All Sea
Orgs and lower orgs and their personnel are ultimately controlled by
the RTC and Scientology International Management, located in California
(Los Angeles and the Gold Base in the Palm Springs area).
> Do you mean living quarters different from those of non-Sea Org staff?
> From my understanding, which could well be wrong, some staff live in
> communal quarters while others live in their own homes, depending on
> their marital status and circumstances. I have been led to believe
> that Sea Org staff must live in Sea Org quarters--at least when they
> are living at Flag or in LA. When they are sent as "missionaires" to
> lower orgs, of course, there are not enough Sea Org members to justify
> separate berthing arrangements, so I imagine they live where they can.
This is correct and often the senior organization that authorized the
mission will bill the lower org for any/all expenses incurred by the
missionaries.
> From my discussions with Scientologists[tm] in various stages of
> leaving the organization, Sea Org members definitely dislike being
> sent off to a lower org as a "missionaire" because of the lack of CoS-
> provided food and housing. While at Flag or LA, they receive food and
> housing free of charge. When sent to lower orgs, they must provide
> this for themselves out of the meager living stipend they receive from
> the CoS. This is difficult to do.
Usually the missionaries will crash in one of the apartments of the
senior staff at the org they were sent to and not incur any motel
expenses. They are provided with cash to cover expenses for food and
lodging, and they must fully account for and justify EVERY penny upon
their return to their home base. In addition, the returning missionaire
is subjected to a RMSC (Returning Missionaire Security Check) to assure,
amongst many things, that ALL money was properly spent and accounted
for.
> It's my understanding that the RPF exists only for Sea Org members.
> I realize that staff members can be placed in lower ethics conditions
> and be required to work their way back, but I hadn't heard that they
> could be subjected to the RPF.
This is correct. The Sea Org is pretty much a closed society. Little if
any mention is made in publications and bulletins available to public
Scientologists and non-Sea Org staff members. Mention of "RPF", to my
knowledge, only made in the Tech and Admin dictionaries. Directives and
documents regarding the "RPF" are Sea Org only issues and they are not
generally available outside of the confines of a Sea Org org.
I find it amusing that some naive critics confront public Scientologists
and non-Sea Org staff members about abuses in the RPF, or imply that
public Scientologists or lawyers are subject to being sent to the "RPF".
> Some organizations, such as RTC and the CSI are, I believe, staffed
> *only* by Sea Org members. I remember this being discussed in CoS
> lawsuits against the IRS when they were attempting to get tax-exempt
> status for these organizations (before the IRS capitulation).
This is correct.
Joe
Andreas Heldal-Lund
On 6 Jul 1997 23:28:32 GMT, "Jack Craver" <inm...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote in article
> <33eb4c75...@news.snafu.de>...
[SNIP WORST ANSWER ON ARS THIS MONTH]
Jack, you just gave proof you mentally a kid not capable of
conducting a sane debate, and defenitely not able to answer
logical questions. You either don't know what the hell you
are talking about, or you have a _big_ communication problem.
You may still believe in your disillusioned mind that you
are in control here, that shines through your answers. I
have to tell you, you are a tragic laugh...
No offence, you just need to get down on earth.
Yours forever,
Admiral Andreas Heldal-Lund
TOXE CXI
_____________________________________________________
OPERATION CLAMBAKE --> http://home.sol.no/heldal/CoS/
roger gonnet
Bev wrote:
>
> Joe Harrington wrote:
>
> > RonsAmigo,
>
> > Do you subscribe to Hubbard's view that the Modern day psychiatrists are
> > bogeymen and they are also responsible for the increase in criminal
> > activities, and psychiatry is a revivification of long-gone whole track
> > implanters who enslaved entire galaxies of people?
>
> > Do you subscribe to Hubbard's views, outlined line in his 1967 tape,
> > Ron's Journal, that psychiatrists, along with various international
> > bankers, intelligence agencies and arms dealers, are part of a
> > well-financed international cabal against Hubbard and his organization?
>
> I would also be interested in knowing how much of LRH's conspiracy
> theories written above you believe to be true. All of the above, or
> part of it, or none of it?
how could they answer, Bev? they should have to understand firts WHAT
exactly elwrong was speaking of: as long as they are into scam-tchurdch,
they can't get that!
>
> Please let us know, I know I am interested in hearing from a public
> Co$ member how much of the above that LRH stated you believe and I think
> a few other readers here would be interested also.
>
> Also, StvJ and wgert, I would like to know what you believe of the above
> conspiracy Ron outlined in his Journal as well.
Me too; i 'd like also to add this to the list of conspiracies imagined
by
EelHerr Hasch: what is the ratio of auditors (top best 1/10000 of the
planet) who were declared - showing an auditors' conspiracy; how many of
the best GO's Members were SP'ed or traitors, showing an conspiracy from
OSA-GO... againsit the interests of ellhubbie?
What I'd like to add is this: how many times did LRH treat the DM as an
SP ??.??
Roger
Jens Tingleff
> Diane Richardson wrote:
>
> > Hubbard was no more innovative when he established the Sea Org than
> > when he developed other aspects of his "applied religious philosophy."
> > He looked around for something he thought "worked" and borrowed it--
> > perverting it in the process.
>
> You know, that hits home, and that's also one thing that I find to be
> sadly amusing. As well as the Co$ structure, a lot of the theory in
> Dianetics also comes from various other "sources". a.c.t. has talked
> about that and has really expounded on it. Ironically, Hub borrowed the
> majority of the workable parts of Dianetics from those studied or studying
> in the "psych" field.
>
Well put, both of you
> Same with his educational ~breakthrough~. Using a dictionary, learning
> on a gradient and the use of demonstration and then calling it HIS
> breakthrough technology. Like, that was an original thought.
>
Not only did he borrow, he also perverted. Big time, as in for instance the
"study tech". While using demonstrations is all very well (and something
that a lot of university education sadly neglects, due to lack of funding
and bad attitudes from professors), raising clay demos to an exalted status
is just plain silly. Using proper examples can aid the teaching of
seemingly abstract subjects marvellously (e.g. using computer graphics to
illustrate the workings of mathematical manipulations on a given input) -
but clay demos just doesn't seem to be a good way of visualising seemingly
abstract concepts. (Well, *you* try to clay demo a Fourier Transform ;-) )
While looking words up in a dictionary has its obvious advantages, the idea
that one should completely "clear" a word before proceeding with reading a
text is nonsense. Also, dictionaries only go so far. I would argue that
lots of material need an understanding of context which goes beyond what a
dictionarry can teach. Finally, I think lots of people can understand and
enjoy a text without knowing exactly what the words mean, the stellar
example of this being "Jabberwocky" by "L Carroll" from 'Through the
looking-glass'.
All in all, "study tech" in only one example of how Hubbard the incompetent
borrowed, and then perverted, the findings and practices of others.
Disheartening..
Jens
------ No PGP signature, no authenticity. Vive La France!! ---------
http://www.imaginet.fr/~jensting/. Scientology[tm]?? Check it out at
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/mpoulter/scum.html *and*
http://www.scientology.org/. Report to alt.religion.scientology ;-)
Diane Richardson
On Mon, 07 Jul 1997 10:35:15 +0200, jens...@imaginet.fr (Jens
Tingleff) wrote:
>In article <33c03c7...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 6 Jul 1997 20:41:59 +0100, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>> <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>[..]
>> >That can't be dismissed as namecalling---the problem is that it is
>> >in substance true, and the name "hypocrite" simply follows from it.
>>
>> Post your evidence that I have been evasive and dishonest, Mr. Bird.
>> Exactly where have I been hypocritical? Without evidence, your
>> statements are nonsensical, but then that is the only thing readers
>> here have learned to expect from your missives.
>>
>[..]
>>
>> For some, grade-school name-calling is the highest form of discourse
>> they might ever hope to attain. Rational discussion is beyond your
>> grasp.
>>
>
>"that is the only thing readers here have learned to expect from your
>missives" followed by an attack against name-calling? Hmmm.
>
>Oh well, if y'all must..
I have not called David Bird any names, Jens. A cursory check of
dejanews will give you ample evidence of David Bird's penchant for
name-calling.
Diane Richardson
(aka the Witch of Zun) ;-)
ref...@bway.net
Rebecca Hartong
In article <1997070623...@etex.electrotex.com>, war...@electrotex.com wrote:
>RonsAmigo wrote:
>>
>> Evil dose [sic] exist in this world and when one REALLY looks one
>> finds that Hubbard's theories re: SPs and Psychs are not as far fetched
>> as they may first appear. As a concrete example take a good look at the
>> decline in SAT scores in the public school system
>
> Amigo: this is a generality! You call it a "concrete example"! Which
>school systems are you referring to? In the district I live in, many
>schools have very high SAT scores on average.
Hmm.. maybe, Warrior.
But my theory is that the overall decline in SAT scores is actually due to an
increase in the number of Scientologists. (Well, either that or an increase
in the consumption of Cheez Whiz. Maybe it's a combination of the two:
Scientology and Cheez Whiz.)
Hey, statistics don't lie! (Ever!) There's got to be some relationship.
Sol
Roland wrote:
>
> RonsAmigo wrote:
> > PTSness. Such a person gets in trouble when their goal for auditing
> > or training shifts from self-betterment to proving the antagonistic
> > source wrong. The vast majority of such situations are "handled"
> > without disconnection.
Unfortunately the poor sod at the receiving end of all this ...
generally with no connection to Scientology ... suddenly finds their
Scientology friend is acting a tad argumentative. After a while that
same person starts to undermine your opinion at every opportunity, make
spurious connections about your opinions on matter completely unrelated,
cast doubts on your sexuality, etc etc ... anything that will allow them
to 'handle' the situation to the satisfaction of their case supervisor.
Finally when all that fails ... they just walk away!
Having been on the receiving end ... I'd asked the simple question
"12000 pounds is a lot of money to go to Flag isn't it ... are you sure
it's worth it" .... it excalated to the point that sharing the house
with this person was unbearable. Looking back ... I made it easy for him
by :
a) Not undersatnding what was happening
b) Leaving
> What a sick and stupid con. And you admit to being a part of it.
As far as cons go ... I wouldn't call it stupid ...it's a bloody clever
one! ;o)
--
Sol
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Nortel opinions and mine often coincide...but probably not this time.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\\||/ MAG#94151 UKMC#501 DoD#50117 RB#01 YI#1 SI#11.21
^ ~ Semper in excretum, nil profundum variat.
(` @ @) Non illigitimum carburundum!
` .. Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum
\ ~ Web page updated June'97 - Quake & Cadwell
"' http://www.spirant.demon.co.uk/
Jack Craver
Geoffrey Burling <lly...@no.spam.agora.rdrop.com> wrote in article
<33bf1eee...@news.zippo.com>...
> On 5 Jul 1997 14:11:39 GMT, "Jack Craver" <inm...@bellsouth.net>
> saith:
>
<hack>
> Well, Jack, CoS has been accused of lots of crimes by folks here in
> ARS, & they furnish a lot of evidence to back this up.
Where is the evidence on brainwashing or hypnotism. Where is the evidence
that scientology causes husbands to kill thier wives or people to commit
suicide? Wher is the evidence that scientology plans genocide?
> If I were you, I'd find it a lot easier to convince people that I'm
> right if I could provide evidence for what I'm saying. You see,
> there's so many misrepresentations about Scientology, & so much false
> information that a few independant verifications would make it easier
> for people to think well of its membership.
>
Independant verification is available under my post titled "Myths of
Scientology"
> > If I
> >had accused scn of brainwashing, I think at that point I would be
compelled
> >to produce some proof. But it doesn't matter. I'm not here to satisfy
your
> >requirements. I'm here to shine a light on all you rats. You chronics
that
> >talk so lovingly about this putrid ars.
>
> So we're the liars? I try to document everything I post here, & you're
> welcome to call me on any errors in citation I make. One of the rules
> I've tried to play by since the beginning is not to post anything I
> couldn't prove to a disinterested third party, & if make a mistake I -
> for one - would like to know about it so I could respond or correct
> the mistake.
>
I don't know if you personally are a liar, but...lets just say you're
running with a bad crowd, Geoff.
> BTW, I suspect you have what you would term a ``misunderstood word"
> here. You wrote ``chronics" when I suspect you meant ``critics".
> Please attempt to communicate again.
>
> Geoff
>
>
I meant chronics, in a derogatory kind of way.
Joe Harrington
(posted/mailed)
Jens Tingleff wrote:
>
> In article <33C03D...@worldnet.att.net>, joe...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > (posted/mailed)
> >
> > Bernie wrote:
> > >
> > > ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Is it mandatory to be a C org member in order to work on the
> > > ship or at Flag? I don't know. Even though I was never there, I
> > > don't believe that staff experience is fundamentally different
> > > there than, for example, in the European quarters.
> >
> > I guess you've really been out of touch, Bernie. The Freewind is the
> > FSSO (Flag Ship Service Org). ALL of the staff are Sea Org. The Flag
> > Land Base is a Sea Org complex. ALL of the staff are Sea Org.
> >
> > > >>The Sea Org is nearly deified by the Co$ management, continuing the fine
> > > >>example set by Ron in such works as "Ron's Journal 67". [Can one even get
> > > >>the highest levels (on the Freewinds) if one is not in the SO?
> > >
>
> Hey, that's some of my stuff! <grin>
>
> Let's rephrase that last QUESTION to read "Can one even get the highest
> level (on the Freewinds) if one is not in the SO?"
>
> Joe seems to make the point that the answer is no (or I misunderstood
> something *again*)
>
> Jens
Jens,
(to clarify)
The "highest level" currently available in Scn is "OT8". This level is
available aboard the Freewinds. The Freewind is considered the FSSO
(Flag Ship Service Org), and it is manned by Sea Org members.
One does NOT have to be a Sea Org member to do OT8. Sell your soul,
house, car, and your children, pay the cashier, get your sec checks,
your other OT "certs", and anyone can be an OT8 and part of the Big
Thetan Club.
Most Sea Org never receive their lower grade auditing , let alone ANY
"OT" levels.
Joe
Jens Tingleff
Ah, if we're picking nits, I would like to point out that I wasn't accusing
you of calling Dave names, I was merely pointing to the thrust of your
statement[1] - i.e. that Dave's postings were somehow not generally sound.
Throwing an accusation like this against the output of a person is not too
far removed from name-calling (although I can just about perceive a
difference..).
All this IMHO, of course, and hardly worth the electrons used to transmit it.
> Diane Richardson
> (aka the Witch of Zun) ;-)
OK, one brownie point for not getting all steamed up..
Jens
[1] AS I UNDERSTAND IT! Hm, I wonder why I was overcome with the urge to
qualify everything in this post. Must be some overt/withhold (or whatever
it's called) ;-)
Tilman Hausherr
In <01bc8a64$ab4dda20$292f6020@jacks-box>, "Jack Craver"
<inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> And why are you not reading it?
>
>Because its been recommended by you.
That, of course, is a very good reason.
But relax, Jack: words don't kill. That web site has different stories
by different people. You can decide for yourself if you believe them or
not.
>> Why did you leave staff?
>
>Why do you care?
I think that your own story would confirm the criticism about
scientology. You would also see that your story is quite similar to one
of the other stories I collect. See also my response in another thread.
>> Is there a word you didn't understand?
>
>just concepts
>
>> Labor court knows about work. They decide work disputes.
>
>And I'm glad they do.
>
>> Labour = Work. Need a dictionary?
>
>I need an aspirin.
I explained the concept. Labor courts rule in labor disputes, they
overview labor conditions, so they are very qualified about it. They are
also unbiased.
>> Let me ask you the question differently.
>>
>> - Is it OK for scientologists to lie, when it helps in the media?
>
>Only if it helps me.
Sorry Jack, but lying is not liked in the real world.
>> - If Dennis Erlich wasn't imprisoned, would it be neccessary to lie
>> about the basement?
>
>Not to me
But Lie-sa did it anyway. Truth is that Dennis was imprisoned there.
>> And what do you feel when a scientologists is caught with lying?
>
>He should be forced to spend an hour answering your questions.
Ha, ha... You really don't like to read ars. But you keep coming back.
>I get it now. Tilman is the secret weapon ars uses on guys like me. Tilman,
>of all posters in this theater of the damned, you are the biggest
>pain-in-the-ass! God, I am so relieved to be finished with this. Gotta find
>aspirin......
<blush>
Don't you know what Hubb said about Aspirin? That it "destroys mental
images"? Why don't you try a touch assist instead?
Tilman
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) brewed up the following, and served it
to the group:
>Hi Jack,
>
>I would agree with your thumbnail sketch of this newsgroup but
>would also advise you not to waste your breath in debate with
>these guys. Perhaps a little background material is in order.
>
>1) The apparent purpose of the ARSCC (ars central committee)
>is to "innoculate" netizens against "Scientology" by exposing
>it as an evil cult. The fact that the "Scientology" they expose
>doesn't even vaguely resemble Scientology as it exists in the
>real world, while obvious to you and I, is not so obvious to most
>of the ARS regulars. In fact, you will soon be labeled
>just another OSA stooge, here to disseminate the C of S party
>line, a brainwashed dupe, or a sincere individual who somehow
>was just never exposed to the dark side of Scientology. Most
>ARSCC members sincerely believe that this apparent purpose
>is the groups actual purpose.
Amigo! Long time no hear! Nice that you'll talk to everyone EXCEPT
those who ask you a direct question. Another shining example of the
tech (bs).
>2) The actual purpose of the ARSCC is to restimulate others
>in such a way as to create a misassociation between Scientology
>and that which they restimulate. (I.E. heavy incidents on the
track)
Guess again, Amigo. The actual purpose of the ARSCC (which does not
exist--how many times do we have to remind you?) is to spread the
TRUTH (remember that? TRUTH?) about the murdering criminal cult of
$cientology.
>The result, is that their victims target Scientology rather than
the
>restimulated incidents and those who are doing the restimulating.
>Thus in a very real sense, many of the ARS regulars are in truth
>victims of SPs who now dramatize by running on others
>what was ran on them.The ARSCC is in fact an "evil criminal
>cult" which interestingly enough, is exaclly what it calls
Scientology.
Indeed. How many have died as a direct result of ARSCC (wdne) Tech?
>The very real but few textbook SPs behind the operation have
>safepointed themselves by making the very idea that SPs exist
>at all a joke. They have also successfully created an environment
>where anything Hubbard, is dismissed out of hand by most.
>Thus the chances of their victims ever catching on and
>springing the trap they find themselves in is highly remote.
>In fact few, even after reading material such as this, even suspect
>they are in a trap. The primary product of the ARSCC is: thoroughly
>duped individuals who rather than devoting their time to
flourishing,
>prospering and winning in life, devote their time instead to
fighting
>a vicious evil criminal cult which exists only in the minds of the
>ignorant and the highly restimulated." As you read what
>is posted to this NG, notice that the primary operation ran by the
>ARSCC is exactly and precisely what they accuse the C of S of.
(I.E.
>Scientologists are brainwashed/hypnotized into a trap which they
>don't even know is a trap, into Scientology instead of into life
etc.)
Odd. I find myself "flourishing and prospering" in life much better
now than 17 years ago when I was conned by the cult of $cientology.
You conveniently keep forgetting that many of us have been there,
Amigo.
>3) Atypical events are presented as typical events in order to
shore
>up the their delusional out of present time view of what
Scientology
>is. A prime example of this is the Lisa McPhearson tragedy.
>A common rejoinder to any positive post about the workability of
>Scientology is, "Sure, just like Lisa."
So you admit that the death of Lisa McPherson is a result of
$cientology? We're still waiting for the information you claim to
have on Lisa McPherson that we don't, Amigo.
>4) You will find the degree to which ARSers believe the C of S
>controls the personal lives and indeed even the thoughts of its
>members to be nothing short of hilarious but believe me, most
>of them are sincere in these strange beliefs.
Since many of us experienced the "church" of $cientology firsthand,
we have valid concerns. I have yet to see a single shred of
evidence or reason from you as to why I should believe otherwise.
>5) One of the primary objections the critics have is that the C of
S
>attacks its enemies rather than rolling over and let itself be
destroyed.
>They promote the idea that simply being critical of the C of S is
>enough to get one branded an enemy and subjected to all kinds
>of unwarrented attack.
^^^^^^^^^
[ob.spell.flame] The tech (bs) shines again.
Why was Paulette Cooper attacked, Amigo?
>6) The hypnosis/brainwashing stuff is the primary theory by which
>those SPs who were found out and expelled (and others) justify
their
>earlier affiliation with the the C of S. One prominent critic
>(Diane Richardson) was all but driven out of this newsgroup because
>she was not being willing to tow the ARSCC party line with respect
>to this nonsense.
I assure you--I make no attempt to "justify" my "affiliation" with
the cult of $cientology. It happened. I am ashamed of it. I have
moved on, however.
>7) Some myths you missed are as follows:
>a) That LRH's scientific breakthroughs are not valid because
>they haven't been subjected to rigourous peer reviews. What is
>missed is the obvious fact that conducting a peer review requires
>a peer. Should anyone successfully train and intern through
>Class 8 and thus qualify as a "peer" the would of course not
>be acceptable because they would be a Scientologist. I'm sure
>you get the catch 22 of this think. Why they think any
Scientologist
>would be interested in proving anything to them in the first place
is
>beyond me.
ROTFLMAO!!! By this definition, no scientific advance in history
could have been possible. After you've run this idiotic bit of
"logic" past the next ten-year-old you meet, and he finishes
laughing HIS ass off at you as well, try word-clearing "scientific
method" for a while.
>b) The lunatic fringe believes that Scientology is trying to clear
>the planet in the same way Hitler was with his "final solution."
>Almost too bizzarre to even comment on except it gives you
>some idea of how thoroughly restimulated these people are.
Would you care to explain your "amigo's" admonition to "dispose of
quietly and without sorrow" those (such as the deaf) who cannot be
"helped" by the tech (bs)?
>c) Scientologists don't believe in standard and normal medical
>practices.
Why was Lisa McPherson removed from a hospital which could have
helped her, to be taken to the hotel where she died? Where is your
"information" at, Amigo? We're all still waiting.
>d) And a new one, Scientology is an "information disease."
Nope, an old one.
>
Amigo--what are you doing still hanging around this mass of entheta?
Where is your confront? The tech (bs) has failed you miserably,
Amigo. Like it has failed everyone ever conned into the door of an
org.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBM8FFUan8flYc1m/ZAQGdmwf+POYegbJTfd3Z2/ndA26VYAEzVqzGL6WO
zJh33mGMQaz8FmvRaey6TJPgUxg/W/6CiT+I1rYVUZ/+pgwRqhRGFURY6SugWMAP
tDIZ2rjPh6R1gcrLBT7zDqsXBaXkwnwYRgRjx6J50KRZLW9cx5R5TCiWjApe1oOH
5pjagSF+mwvKhgGbFqIKehaTJY6gK6Xcz6olW8UcwQJWKlso77U5HI8ua0cDyBtT
R9uHCjtNMDbPgct7NBZAm4q+CSPwLkUVn50YzDF3KtHs4KClgBubRVrEGJSZ4tef
9W86OW3mvq3dYjTYxeRBMHxKzHZUeSeFzZxI7FlyZI7dnIuAFzRqcg==
=ONLL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------
Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer,
my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. Any
resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic.
The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold
them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the
existence of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god
coefficient. (A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism
is beyond the scope of this article.)
the above e-mail address remains fictional. the real one continues to
be bc9...@concentric.net (for the moment...)
*SP2*
...bc...
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <19970707030...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
BorkBorkem <borkb...@aol.com> writes:
>From: Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>:
>>BorkBorkem <borkb...@aol.com> writes:
>>>Ron's Amigo:
>>>>
>>>> Don't you think altering my name is a bit juvenile?
>>>
>>>Much of ars (-) behavior might stem from the deep influence
>>>the early and continuing "cyberpunk" element in it had/has.
>>
>>The only meaning I know for "cyberpunk" is a kind of science fiction
>>involving a pessimistic low-life/street-life culture in a high-tech
>>future. Perhaps you are trying to say that it derives from the
>>styles of speech and thought found in *hacker* culture? I can't see
>>any particular evidence of such. It's not my background, nor AFAIK
>>that of most others here.
>
>"punk" aspect is useful, though, in its implication of the very juvenile
>nature of many netizens. Juvenile for the most obvious reason:
>they aren't very old. Like much of the net, I suspect that the modal
>age of posters of some of the worse forms of nyah-nyah posts is
>probably early teens.
I don't know who the "nyahnyah" posters are. As a description of
regular contibutors to ARS it is just wrong. From the portrait gallery
I would say that almost all are in the age-range 25 to 45 (I am in
my early forties). From what they say, most are university educated and
about half are computer professionals.
>tactics that uptrended. Just at the present moment we are
>seeing in ars a downtrend of the mostly picket-and-taunt oriented
I don't equate the two. Taunting is easy, picketing takes a certain
amount of effort and guts.
>poster, which might be seasonal or might not, though it remains a
>dominant thrust of posting often. Diane Richardson and Joe Harrington
>are the best posters, the ones with substance to contribute on a
>consistent basis, and look at how their threads get pawed over without
>much improvement to the threads.
Uhunh. You must have different criteria to me. I'm not much bothered
that people write in perfect scholarly style, once their posts have
a reasonable degree of intelligibility. I'm more concerned with
content. Diane Richardson I don't rate because she is lying, evasive
and hypocritical. Joe Harrington is very good as an information source;
I don't agree with him when he defends the tech; sometimes he retains
an inhuman cult coldness that makes me very angry.
Most important for any unbiased observer is surely primary contributions
rather than discussion -- I mean personal first reports of pickets,
trials, events and of articles seen in the media -- and when acting as
expert witnesses to their knowledge of Scn tech and procedures or
firsthand experience of imprtant events in Scn. Which doesn't
include you, at least yet. I freely admit I am not a primary
contributor (except for occasional picket reports), and I don't
think everyone should shut up from commenting who is not such.
I also enjoy people who write interestingly and with passion such
as Grady, Henri, and Pope Charles; Anima has also written some
good stuff lately.
>The bottom line is that I can scan over my subdirectories since
>Spring '95 and I count less than 50 posts that I saw the purpose of
>singling out and retaining for their scholarly or argumentative value.
I'm not sure I save stuff for scholarly or argumentative content;
"informational" or "historic" would be my criteria---court documents,
government reports, etc.
>By contrast I usually drop a newsgroup that doesn't produce at
>least 10 serious-savable posts in a month, which means that I
>subscribe to a lot of alt newsgroups during their peak period of
>mature usefulness but wind up dropping them after a few months.
Actually ARS is remarkably rubbish-free. Parts of it may be low grade
and rapidly skipped, but they are at least on topic. Some other
large groups like alt.censorship are only readable on "browse".
>So I do mean "cyberpunk", but not necessarily just "hacker" or
>"hacker poser"
Hmm. I think you are way off beam.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <01bc8a6f$07852320$292f6020@jacks-box>,
>Geoffrey Burling <lly...@no.spam.agora.rdrop.com> wrote in article
><33bf1eee...@news.zippo.com>...
>> On 5 Jul 1997 14:11:39 GMT, "Jack Craver" <inm...@bellsouth.net>
>> saith:
>>
><hack>
>> Well, Jack, CoS has been accused of lots of crimes by folks here in
>> ARS, & they furnish a lot of evidence to back this up.
>
>Where is the evidence on brainwashing or hypnotism. Where is the evidence
>that scientology causes husbands to kill thier wives or people to commit
>suicide? Wher is the evidence that scientology plans genocide?
>
>> If I were you, I'd find it a lot easier to convince people that I'm
>> right if I could provide evidence for what I'm saying. You see,
>> there's so many misrepresentations about Scientology, & so much false
>> information that a few independant verifications would make it easier
>> for people to think well of its membership.
>>
>
>Independant verification is available under my post titled "Myths of
>Scientology"
As opposed to "scientology myths" or "ARS myths". I can't find anything
from you of that title in the last 30 days of news. Could you give a
date and message I/D? I very much doubt that you did provide
independEnt verification of anything there, but I would like to
check up on it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In article <33C07B...@worldnet.att.net>,
Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>I find it amusing that some naive critics confront public Scientologists
>and non-Sea Org staff members about abuses in the RPF, or imply that
>public Scientologists or lawyers are subject to being sent to the "RPF".
I hope I know the distinction by now :-> of course it's fair enough
to confront low level clams with the abuses of RPF done in the Sea Org
(not, of course, to them). As to lawyers....many are hired hands, not
even Scientologists. I'm not sure what status the Ho has -- is she Scn
staff? Some senior CoS management such as Moxon happen to be attorneys
so I suppose they are Sea Org and could be sent to RPF.
When people talk about the 'Ho, or the hired hands, being sent on RPF
then I assume it is just a joke.
Alan Furman
In article <33C07B...@worldnet.att.net>,
Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>[...]
>In addition, the returning missionaire
>is subjected to a RMSC (Returning Missionaire Security Check) to assure,
>amongst many things, that ALL money was properly spent and accounted
>for.
We're supposed to believe their bullshit, and they don't even trust
each other.
Fucking Stalinist creeps.
Steve Jebson
David Gerard wrote:
>
> On 6 Jul 1997 17:44:32 GMT,
> Jack Craver <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> :David Gerard <f...@thingy.apana.spaaaamtraaaaap.org.au> wrote in article
> :<slrn5rspi...@thingy.apana.org.au>...
> :> On 4 Jul 1997 17:00:18 GMT,
> :> Jack Craver <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> :> :I was a member of COS for 4 years. I was also a Staff member for a very
> :> :short time.
> :> So why did you leave?
> :Why do you care?
>
> Because I'm interested in knowing more about the subject. You
> appear to be a fan of the stuff - why would you leave?
>
We had one of these a few years back, somebody from Canada. He had the
same story 'Everything was perfect, nothing was wrong, I just left for
the hell of it.' He was better at it than Jack - actually answered
questions about other stuff, as long as you didn't ask why he left.
It's sad, really. They're so forbidden to say or think anything nega-
tive that they can't even dig up a cover story about why they left.
And besides that, so stuck on gaining imaginary ground with tricks that
they can't admit to being members.
It reminds me of the time just before I left the Sea Org. One of my
jobs was answering the phone at one of the Cedars orgs. One of our
staff people was promoted out of the org up to Gold. But that caused
trouble when his family called to speak to him. I was supposed to
reassure the family and tell them there was nothing to worry about.
But I wasn't allowed to say where he actually was (the base was supposedly
secret) and I wasn't allowed to say that I wasn't allowed to say
(having secret bases was bad PR, I guess). His father was a judge -
it was his job to see through liars much more experienced and polished
than myself. It took him all of 15 seconds or so to figure out that
I was holding back on him. And after that, he understandably became
very nervous and wondered what we were hiding from him. After a few
calls, he started getting very upset indeed. And I wasn't able to
contact the guy at Gold to have him call his parents and calm them down.
For security reasons, it was almost impossible to get a message there.
I didn't stick around to learn how this ended, but it wouldn't sur-
prise if that man shortly after disconnected from his family, who were
suddenly turning 'SP'.
The real joke in all of this is that the ultra-super-never-mention-it
secret location of Gold had already been published in Newsweek. It
was easy as pie for anyone except Co$ members to learn. Utterly
pointless aggravation and pain caused just because Co$ is so obseesively
unable to just tell the truth.
Martin Hunt
In article <33c04df3...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>Then don't comment on what I write, Martin. You apparently have a
>difficult time ignoring my posts. Let me encourage you to do so.
Diane, I comment on what I choose to. I'm not about to ignore
the mistaken impression of Scientology you're giving.
Your analogy was wrong, and Jens was right to correct it. The
Sea Org is the controlling arm of Scientology.
You were wrong, Diane; why don't you just admit it.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. ARS + Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
Note: spamkilling software in effect; include "xenu" or "arscc" in headers
if your email does not get through.
Gregg Hagglund
In article <iB18e1Ay...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird---St Hippo of
Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <01bc8a6f$07852320$292f6020@jacks-box>,
>Jack Craver <inm...@bellsouth.net> writes:
(snip)
>>Independant verification is available under my post titled "Myths of
>>Scientology"
>
>As opposed to "scientology myths" or "ARS myths". I can't find anything
>from you of that title in the last 30 days of news. Could you give a
>date and message I/D? I very much doubt that you did provide
>independEnt verification of anything there, but I would like to
>check up on it.
IMHO Jack thinks independent verification is: 'because I say so',
which is a carry over of the false reasoning of 'Source is always right'.
He doesn't want to have to supply information that anyone else can
go and check out by themselves. This is because he is expressing opinion,
based on conceptions he is afraid to substantiate because he fears his premise:
'ARS criticisms are unfair' is false.
This insecurity stems from facing the VAST compendium of independently
verifiable information coalescing on/thru ARS.
Very daunting, I assure you.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
(snip)
>When people talk about the 'Ho, or the hired hands, being sent on RPF
>then I assume it is just a joke.
Has it been verified yet that Mike Rinder is doing an RPF stint at Hemet?
> |~/ |~/
>~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'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(:)
Gregg SP4
http://www.cgocable.net/~elrond
--
" I'm sure it's obvious to all who read my stuff, that I have
serious problems when it comes to being able to communicate."
- -RonsAmigo, Official OSA Shill on ARS
$cientology Lawyer Bait: Co$ cures Cancer?:
"Step Four - Cures for Illness You will now find BTs and clusters
being cures for illnesses of the body part. Handle all such BTs and
clusters by blowing them off. 'Cures for Illness' will then cease to read."
--- ררר L.R.Hubbard © ??? ---
Karl Mac Mc Kinnon
Critics of Scientology are 1.1 on the Tone Scale.
Source commandeth that no one under 2.0 have any civil rights.
You figure it out.
Monica Pignotti
RonsAmigo wrote:
>
> Hello Monica,
>
> Monica Pignotti <Pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> <33BFAE...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > RonsAmigo wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I accept that, but when one looks beyond the idea that labeling
> > > people SPs is simply a way of demeaning the enemies or
> > > critics of the C of S, one finds that there is a workable body
> > > of technology on the subject that is of value. My experience with
> > > the subject is that when one locates a person antisocial toward
> > > the preclear (who the preclear is considerable adverse effect of)
> > > and then assist that preclear to handle the situation so that
> > > he is no longer at such effec,t considerable benefits can be had.
> > > In particular, the phenomenon known as emotional "roller-coaster"
> > > is often easily and terminatedly handled in this way. Additionally
> > > accident proneness, chronic illness not responding to normal
> > > medical treatment and a host of other situations are routinely
> > > handled with this technology. In very rare cases a person is so
> > > suppressed that no "handle" is possible and it comes down to
> > > the personal choice of disconnecting either from Scientology or
> > > from the source of the suppression.
> >
> > When I was in Scientology I used to believe that too. What we're
> > talking about here is being connected to people who are hostile or
> > antagonistic to Scientology, not the "preclear".
>
> <snip>
>
> To the contrary, Monica, I have done many "PTS Handlings" on
> friends and family who have no connection to Scientology or to
> anti-Scientologists, and to a great result. Being "connected" to
> somebody who is antagonistic to Scientology is just one form of
> PTSness.
Yes, that is true, but that is not the form of PTSness that we were
discussing here that you are trying to divert me from discussing with
you. Flunk for Q&A.
>Such a person gets in trouble when their goal for auditing
> or training shifts from self-betterment to proving the antagonistic
> source wrong. The vast majority of such situations are "handled"
> without disconnection.
To clarify, I'm referring specifically to those PTS situations where the
person is connected to people who are hostile/antagonistic to
Scientology. In such a case, the person is declared PTS and must handle
or disconnect. If the antagonistic person won't be "handled" than
disconnection must occur or there can be no further training or
processing. Are you denying this?
> I've noticed in earlier posts your all but non-existent understanding
> of LRH auditing technology. When I first began reading your posts,
> I assumed that you did know better, but for reasons of your own
> presented a false picture of the technology. I later came to realize
> that in fact you have no clue re: Scientology "tech." It is now equally
> evident that you also have no clue with regards to the basics of
> Scientology ethics. A glib, surface understanding of Scientology is
> not enough to insure the stellar results that are possible with the
> subject, and it does not surprise me in the least that you are no
> longer with us and are instead flitting from one form of "alternative
> therapy" to another.
Nice try, RonsAmigo but your ad hominem attacks and diversions are not
going to work with me and I don't think many on this newsgroup are going
to fall for them either. The issue is: Is it not true that a person in
Scientology must handle or disconnect from anyone who is against the
organization? Of course it is and you know it. The belief here is that
anyone who is "PTS" will not be able to hold onto their auditing gains
and that is what I was challenging.
Monica Pignotti
Phillip Zadarnowski
borkb...@aol.com (BorkBorkem) wrote:
>So I do mean "cyberpunk", but not necessarily just "hacker" or
>"hacker poser" (which greatly outnumber the real hackers. I think
>every 10 year old trying to seem 16 by acting like a drug dealer
>a decade ago has been replaced by a 10 year old trying to seem
>16 by posing like a hacker). Reading ars, like many newsgroups,
>is like reading 30 book reports that announce "Federalism sucks. Why
>doesn't everyone just along with out it?"
Looks like another fucking useless message with no archiveable
qualities to me. Who gives a fuck what ARS "reads" like? I don't
think the ARSCC has a Literary position in the anti-cos heirarchy,
and it aint on offer to psuedo-cyberpunk intellectuals either.
Yet another poster who has minimal control of a newsreader and
doesn't know how to bypass crap. I can manage 400 postings an
hour without batting an eyelid, no matter what the content is.
HINT: Don't read CRAP.
Karl Mac Mc Kinnon
In article <33bfb1ba...@snews.zippo.com> ref...@bway.net writes:
>Even as children, not all individuals are quite so heavily imbued with
>the herd mentality as that.
Maybe less than 1% of 1%.
I've been looking at Western societies, and it seems they modle
themselves off of colonial-insect societies. I think "Hive mentality"
might be a bit better. In a herd, everyone (except identical twins) is a
genetically unique individual. Herds have room for rules-governed
diversity. Insects, on the other hand, are genetically identical. The
difference between a warrior termite and her sister worker termite is
dietary.
The structure of Scientology makes L. Ron Hubbard, Mr. 8 himself,
the Queen "Source" Insect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Alexis McKinnon | And as your fantasies are broken in two
P.O. Box 193 | Did you really think this bloody road would
South Milwaukee, WI 53154| Pave the way for you? - Jeff Buckley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <jensting-ya0240800...@snews2.zippo.com>,
>> >"that is the only thing readers here have learned to expect from your
>> >missives" followed by an attack against name-calling? Hmmm.
>> >
>> >Oh well, if y'all must..
>>
>> I have not called David Bird any names, Jens. A cursory check of
>> dejanews will give you ample evidence of David Bird's penchant for
>> name-calling.
Not exactly what I do, but I don't mind admitting I will try to nail
opponents with a sarcastic tag of some kind, and when it is accurate
it is quite effective in denting their credibility: mike smith <3'
age three really does seem like a lost three year old, for example.
>Ah, if we're picking nits, I would like to point out that I wasn't accusing
>you of calling Dave names, I was merely pointing to the thrust of your
>statement
>All this IMHO, of course, and hardly worth the electrons used to transmit it.
>
>> Diane Richardson
>> (aka the Witch of Zun) ;-)
Works best on people with no sense of humour who get steamed up about it
though :-)
Actually you will find that Hubbard, Miscavaidge, $cientology, and
its pretentions to be a "Church"<spit>, all -- presumably because they
demand a dignity they don't deserve -- are met by a barrage of scorn
and derision on this N/G, part of which is a plethora of mocking
or altered names for them. The same seems to have rubbed off on
their less popular advocates such as your (?former)
opponent Whimpersnapper.
Keith
On Sun, 06 Jul 1997 21:01:31 -0400, Bev <dbj...@iag.net>,
<33C03F...@iag.net> wrote :
->
->> Do you subscribe to Hubbard's views, outlined line in his 1967 tape,
->> Ron's Journal, that psychiatrists, along with various international
->> bankers, intelligence agencies and arms dealers, are part of a
->> well-financed international cabal against Hubbard and his organization?
->
->I would also be interested in knowing how much of LRH's conspiracy
->theories written above you believe to be true. All of the above, or
->part of it, or none of it?
->
->Please let us know, I know I am interested in hearing from a public
->Co$ member how much of the above that LRH stated you believe and I think
->a few other readers here would be interested also.
->
->Also, StvJ and wgert, I would like to know what you believe of the above
->conspiracy Ron outlined in his Journal as well.
->
->Please answer the question.
->
->Beverly
I'm not answering for the above people, but take a look at what the evil
psychotwist have done. Isn't funny how the "NEWTHINK" has created a world with
no rules, morals or boundaries. If it feels good, "JUSTDO IT". Also have you
ever watched the TV talk shows. They are filled with these psycho babble
idiots and their patients who are just absolutely strange. Recently, it came
out that good old psych Dr. Spock was a distant and remote father to his kids.
Now here was a "Dr" whom millions looked to for child-rearing advice and it
turns out he never practiced what he preached.
If you murder someone it was your parents fault because your mother didn't
breast feed you right and your father yelled at you when you spilled milk.
Don't forget the good old "twinkie defense" used by whom? Lawyer's and
Psychotwist in the assassination defense of the SF mayor.
Do I need to go on? To tell you the truth I would trust a Scientologist before
I trusted the opinion of one of the well-trained monkey psychs. Of course, I'm
speaking for myself and not for any of the above people.
Keith
SHHHHH, BE VERRRY VERRY QUIET I'M HUNTING PSYCHOTWIST"
Psychotwist is inspired by Mike Tyson.
roger gonnet
Monica Pignotti wrote:
>
> DeoMorto wrote:
> >
> >I have audited over 2000 hours, well over, in fact if I bother to add it
> >all up I would probably be able to claim 4000, but I'll settle for 2000. >I have audited over 800 hours of the False Purpose Rundown on people,
> > including whole track sec checks etc.
> >Unlike you I am actually familiar with what I am talking about.
> >I have never run across a pc who has run anything I have read or seen in
> >History of Man or any of the other whole track stuff.
> > I have never seen any pc run any incident connected with OT3
I have had one pc running something that could be taken for OT III; the
strange thing is that that pc did not do more than a LF on this, no
LFBDs, no special cogs, nothing really special at running it... during
his/her life repair.
I tried myself, like many probably, to see if they were some "HOM"
incidents. Nothing. No clams, no black boxes, no nothing!
Roger
- and yet,
> > according to the big man - this incident altered this sector of the
> >universe 75 million years ago - how come you don't bump into it in >session with many many pcs? Hard to believe that it all happened and >they didn't notice.
> > Until Hubbard says they should notice it - and then Voila! they do.
>
> Same here. I audited hundreds of PCs and Pre-OTs and they never came up
> with any of the HOM stuff. Makes me wonder what RonsAmigo is basing
> this statement on - is he taking LRH's word for it as most
> Scientologists do? As for OTIII, that is definitely given to the people
> before they run it, in Elwrong's handwriting.
>
> Monica Pignotti
roger gonnet
Karl Mac Mc Kinnon wrote:
>
> Critics of Scientology are 1.1 on the Tone Scale.
This is the tone best known from elwrong himself. You know certainly
why. He had bought a mirror.
Roger
Martin Hunt
In article <33c21915...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>I was wrong, Martin.
Your analogy was faulty, Diane.
>Does that make you feel better?
No. Particularly when you go on to withdraw your admission that
your anaology was faulty in the next few sentences:
>I certainly hope so. Please consider
>this an all-purpose admission of error. Any time I write anything
>with which you disagree, just pull out this post and read my
>ready-made acknowledgement that you are always right and I am always
>wrong.
Interesting projection. Diane, you are often right, and I am often
wrong. However, I've yet to see you say you were wrong about anything,
ever, even once. Why is such a simple, easy admission so hard for you?
>I apologize for disagreeing with you, Martin.
And where do all the sardonic jibes come from? Why are you so
hyper defensive? It's like you're always in a state of raised
hackles. Can you de-adrenalize, please?
>Please consider this an all-purpose apology to you. Whenever you read
>anything of mine that offends, irritates, or otherwise irks you, just
>pull out this post and read my ready-made apology to you.
>
>You've publicly admitted your fascination with me on this newsgroup,
>Martin. I guess I should be flattered by the attention you give to my
>posts and the time you've devoted to analyzing my motives for posting.
Actually, my replies were very, very short; up to this one.
>If anyone on this newsgroup deserves the label "Diane groupie" it is
>you.
Hmm; can I add that to my .sig? Anyway, Jens was right and you were
wrong. It was just a simple faulty analogy - the kind people make all
the time. I fail to see why this upsets you so much.
The natural thing with Usenet is to read along, come up to something
one disagrees with or sees is in error, and then post a counter
argument or correction. I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd
guess that something over half of all Usenet posts are corrections.
Why not take it in stride?
Try this on for size, instead of always resorting to absolute
rigidity and inflexible, stiff-backed "rightness":
1. post something.
2. someone says, "hey, that's not quite right"
3. post "thanks", or something else.
Instead of:
1. post something.
2. someone says "hey, that's not quite right"
3. post a lengthy defence diverting the topic and using every rhetorical
device to hand to prove your "rightness."
4. someone else says "hey, the second person was right; blah is more like
blah"
5. post a few snide remarks at person number two, leading to the
usual:...
6. flame war. But in this case:...
6. a restatement of the obvious.
7. another snide, sarcastic and defensive post.
8. another restatement of the obvious.
9. a snide, saractic "admission", which is really more of an flame.
10. another restatement of the obvious, along with a summary of the
exchange to date.
11. ?
Diane, the Sea Org is the power base in the cult; Jens analogy was
more accurate than yours. It isn't much like a convent in structural
terms; it's more significant than that, more central, holds more power,
etc.
Looking forward to more defensive, hotile remarks; keep 'em coming. :-)
Martin Hunt
In article <33bfb1ba...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>Ridicule can only be powerful when it is solidly based on fact.
>Name-calling, of the sort that takes place here so often, holds no
>more power on a.r.s. than it does on grade-school playgrounds. There
>might have been some children who admired the bullies who taunted
>other children with derogatory nicknames and vicious taunts back when
>I was a child. I was not among them. From what I can remember, most
>of those who followed the bullies did so out of fear that they
>themselves might be subjected to such attacks if they did not conform.
Yes, and lord knows you're not a bully, right? You'd never write
something like:
"But as for me -- all I have to say is that if Arnie Lerma has the
gall to ever post his "Internet is the Liberty Tree" harangue
again, I will tear into him like a pit bull into a toy poodle."
What lovely mental imagery that provides; a steamroller of a pit bull
on steroids at that.
>Even as children, not all individuals are quite so heavily imbued with
>the herd mentality as that. Some children are capable of recognizing
>when a "mass movement" is nothing more than herd mentality. Some
>adults, alas, never quite become that perceptive.
Riiiight. Well, I've seen some pretty sickeningly sycophantic posts
from some of your AOL friends here. Why don't you just slap them down?
Personally, I hate it when people come on to me that way; just ask
Margaret or Neil about these two points...
You seem to know a lot about bullying and group think and the "herd
mentality." Maybe you can teach us what you've learned with your
perceptive, adult insight? ;-)
Alec
Keith wrote in article <33c1f43...@news.teleport.com>...
>On Sun, 06 Jul 1997 21:01:31 -0400, Bev <dbj...@iag.net>,
><33C03F...@iag.net> wrote :
>
>
>->
>->> Do you subscribe to Hubbard's views, outlined line in his 1967 tape,
>->> Ron's Journal, that psychiatrists, along with various international
>->> bankers, intelligence agencies and arms dealers, are part of a
>->> well-financed international cabal against Hubbard and his
organization?
>->
>->I would also be interested in knowing how much of LRH's conspiracy
>->theories written above you believe to be true. All of the above, or
>->part of it, or none of it?
Hubbard did not originate this "oligarchy" conspiracy. Like the rest of
his stuff he plaigerized and claimed it as his own.
In the 1960's in a Bavarian (I believe it's in Bavaria) town at a hotel
called The Bilderburg Hotel, a group of select world leaders held a meeting
as they have done regularly for no one really knows how long. These
individuals consider they own the world and that they will determine its
future to suit themselves. I personally have seen pictures of this hotel
at the time of this meeting. I saw for myself, two Kennedys, and some
other statesmen walking into the hotel. This group of leaders are referred
as "Bilderburgers" since that time. I know that this group includes some
Rothschilds, some Germans (Baviarians?) called Baron von (sorry, i don't
remember von whats), and others so wealthy they could only be bored with
the world as we know it.
There is a political hierarchy which includes "The council of Five", the
Federal Reserve, Committee on Foreign relations (CFR), the Trilateral
Commission, and another council which governs the CIA, the (then) KGB,
British Intelligence, and other strata which I don't remember. The
political strata becomes allegedly religous as they become fostered by
"Illuminati", and other world "spiritual" groups. There are some major
alignments, or "side-choosing", taking place these last several decades.
This data has been secret from long back into history. Some of it is
revealed in a book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", by Michael Baigent, et al.
This book traces the leadership trust back to Jesus through Joseph of
Arimethea--reported to be a distant cousin of Jesus'--and also to King
Arthur (fun, huh?). Supposedly, Hitler's Third Reich, was a terribly
misguided effort of this group. For centuries there has been competition
for recognition as the "Most Holy" political group--sort of a "Divine
Rights of Kings" concept. This is traceable back to the construction of
the pyramids--and beyond. On the U.S. dollar bill there is a picture
(obverse) of a pyramid with the "all-knowing eye", under which is
inscribed, "Novus Ordo Seclorum" (New World Order). On the floor of the
King's Chamber in the great pymarid of Gizeh, there is a "time-line"
history of world events from before Abraham, through to 1951. I have
endured the attempts of various religious groups to sway me into their
postion on this subject. They always seem to be coercive and adamant about
your acceptance. To me it seems to be a crucial battle for world
leadership for the following millenia. I haven't chosen sides yet, and am
currently in apathy on the subject. I think that when I (or anyone)
choose, I will need to be prepared to defend it with my life. That Hubbard
included Wilson in the "small group" of world controllers, was merely
because he was the appointed official at that time in England. In recent
decades, disenfranchised parties have attempted to expose the group and
their intentions. Lyndon LaRouche published this data in the 1980's. I
learned about it in 1970 from a religious group called the Stelle Group,
founded by Eklal Kueshana who claims some spiritual license. It will be
found that spiritual transition groups generally choose sides--I believe
that the shamballists (who foster the Illuminati), are perhaps the highest
spiritual reference for this political thrust. It is debatable whether
these clandestine world leaders have mankind's best interests at heart.
Hubbard's connection to all this, as with the rest of his spew, is to add
weight to his claim to spiritual authority. Until around 1950, this was
all somewhat confidential, so it was a real coup for him to be one of the
first to announce his knowledge of it.
So you will find people who have knowledge of this other than
Scientologists.
---Alec
Eric Rapp
Jack Craver wrote:
> I do like to have an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.
> The reason I'm here is to throw the cold, clear light of reason in this
> dark madhouse. To refute people that make wild and unfounded statements
> about scientology...like yourself.
First of all, "not so open that my brains fall out" is most likely the
most amazing non sequitor I have ever read. I really have to thank you
for that, it'll come in handy the next time I want to stop any
conversation dead.
As far as "wild and unfounded claims about Scientology" go, how about
the claims that Scientology itself makes for Clears and OT's? Perfect
recall...no disease...power over space and time... oddly enough, these
don't seem to have been substantiated. Hm, come to think of it, I
*just* read a post by Ron's Amigo, in which he blithely states that he
has no doubts about the results of scientific tests of Scientologists
vs. Wogs (presumably he means some sort of intelligence or performance
testing). Talk about wild and unfounded.
eric
SP2
Yavo Lem
And for those who simply couldn't get the message, there was the
Inquisition.
YL
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Jack Craver" <inm...@bellsouth.net> brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
<snip>
>> See other article
>>>>The other article is 454 lines that is completely anti-
scientology
>biased and written in the middle sixties. It also references other
>web-sites. Do you plan on giving me a test later on also? Give me a
break!
>I can show you reports from American tobacco companies that claim
smoking
>doesn't do any harm. Arguments from authorities are useless. If you
want to
>believe that you were brainwashed and/or hypnotized, nothing I can
say will
>stop you. Just don't inflict your victim-mentality on me.
So whence cometh the arguments defending Co$? They are all based on
the authority of Elrong. That authority is based on NOTHING. Why
did you join $cientology? Why did you leave? Read the postings
around here, and learn what the hell you are talking about, sparky.
Then try posting again.
>> >3) Abuses -
>> > I personally never witnessed any kind of abuse whatsoever.
>>
>> Then why didn't you stay? Also, it depends how you define abuse.
I
>> consider it an abuse to force weekly rising statistics. The
german
>> labor(!) court even said that there is a risk to the health. And
they
>> should know it, as labor court, correct?
>>
>>How are the stats 'forced' to rise every week. And if they
don't?...This
>entire statement is ambigous. What risk did the German Labor Court
refer
>to? Finally, the mistakes that have been made by "authorities" are
many.
>One can safely conclude that authorities are not privy to any
special
>powers and are prone to error. Statements such as "because they are
the
>labor court, they should know about health" are useless. Besides,
there are
>no authorities...only 'experts' at best.
Why did Lisa McPherson die? Drop the sophistry and answer the
questions. Why did Lisa McPherson die? Do you have an answer?
Does your sniveling "church" have an answer? Do you even CARE why
she died? Do you even CARE about anything? Why did you leave
$cientology? Did you actually leave $cientology? You come here
with both barrels blasting away, and you tell us nothing. Why are
you here? Answer the fucking questions!
>> >4) Freedoms -
>> > No-one ever tried to lock me up. No-one ever made me do
anything I
>didn't
>> >want to do.
>>
>> This is rather for sea org members, or for publics who go
psychotic
>> (e.g. Lisa McPherson).
>>
>> But ask yourself: why did Leisa Goodman lie when she said there
is no
>> basement in the Fort Harisson Hotel? Obviously she had something
to
>> hide.
>>
>> Are you a walking e-meter? What special powers do you have that
allows
>you to know the thoughts of another?
Answer your own question, asshole. Why did Lisa McPherson die?
That's my question. I left $cientology on my own. Why wasn't Lisa
allowed to? Why did Lisa McPherson die? ANSWER THE QUESTION,
ASSHOLE!!!! Or else, slink away like the rest of your $cientologist
buddies. Don't confront. Don't communicate. We continue to be
unimpressed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBM8L3uKn8flYc1m/ZAQGJlQf9HDEW7Jwta6FinSHLzOOXWdBQripxEt9F
UZAazcDCPsTzCzPC++00+GXOWdg7S1swHNLhPASOubMj2jvvI1jGuMwFz47EsuBF
JOQxrzbdEcQMTZxnTq0ASKtuKrR8X3A6PFjfhfqGJDuhB23yFs3OWsN8Nknids5w
fZsY1D+B2JXm0FdlrRogBz4QseUdliGY+y+T198gKnk2RZlLNoyedYn6eCQe6lbs
Pssp6SpHE/V1xMAY6HwcKPibMSeo56XZhGKD4TxvNjILweaMvpBn5Lf1XW2Ut19R
k0zulE17q2/Lhz7F1Shroie81ybEydSRDwP6GRWOoJrKpNmjwTSFjg==
=S11Y
Diane Richardson
On 8 Jul 1997 13:31:47 -0700, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt)
wrote:
>In article <33c21915...@snews.zippo.com>,
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>>I was wrong, Martin.
>
>Your analogy was faulty, Diane.
Since you've admitted that you don't know about the hierarchy of the
Roman Catholic Church and stated that you don't wish to learn about
it, I don't understand how you can claim that the analogy was faulty.
If you wish to point out the flaws in the analogy, do so. We can
discuss our differences of opinion. I have already attempted to do
this with you, unsuccessfully.
>>Does that make you feel better?
>
>No. Particularly when you go on to withdraw your admission that
>your anaology was faulty in the next few sentences:
>
>>I certainly hope so. Please consider
>>this an all-purpose admission of error. Any time I write anything
>>with which you disagree, just pull out this post and read my
>>ready-made acknowledgement that you are always right and I am always
>>wrong.
Since you have already stated you have no interest in discussing why
you believe the analogy is faulty, I can only assume that you are
interested only in an admission of error from me and and apology for
the error.
That's what I offered you, Martin.
>Interesting projection. Diane, you are often right, and I am often
>wrong.
It was not a projection, Martin. I'm amazed at your eagerness to
offer up psychological analyses of me based on nothing more
substantial than my Usenet posts. Like most people, I'm far too
complex to understand than that.
>However, I've yet to see you say you were wrong about anything,
>ever, even once. Why is such a simple, easy admission so hard for you?
I have admitted errors numerous times on a.r.s. and offered apologies,
even to the likes of Andrew Milne. I have addressed this a.r.s. myth
in detail in the past, providing examples of admissions of error and
apologies that I have offered in the past.
I have readily admitted that I've been wrong. I'm not sure why it's
so important for you to believe otherwise.
>>I apologize for disagreeing with you, Martin.
>
>And where do all the sardonic jibes come from? Why are you so
>hyper defensive? It's like you're always in a state of raised
>hackles. Can you de-adrenalize, please?
My hackles are not raised. I do not have adrenaline surging through
me as I post. I'm not sure why you believe you are capable of
assessing my emotional state by reading my words. Your perception of
my emotional state is very, very inaccurate.
>>Please consider this an all-purpose apology to you. Whenever you read
>>anything of mine that offends, irritates, or otherwise irks you, just
>>pull out this post and read my ready-made apology to you.
>>
>>You've publicly admitted your fascination with me on this newsgroup,
>>Martin. I guess I should be flattered by the attention you give to my
>>posts and the time you've devoted to analyzing my motives for posting.
>
>Actually, my replies were very, very short; up to this one.
You have posted lengthy "analyses" of me on a.r.s., Martin. If anyone
doubts this, a simple dejanews search on Martin's id and the subject
"Diane Richardson" will pull up at least one of them posted just a few
months ago.
>>If anyone on this newsgroup deserves the label "Diane groupie" it is
>>you.
>
>Hmm; can I add that to my .sig? Anyway, Jens was right and you were
>wrong. It was just a simple faulty analogy - the kind people make all
>the time. I fail to see why this upsets you so much.
It doesn't upset me at all. Why are you so sure that I am upset?
>The natural thing with Usenet is to read along, come up to something
>one disagrees with or sees is in error, and then post a counter
>argument or correction. I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd
>guess that something over half of all Usenet posts are corrections.
>Why not take it in stride?
I was taking it in stride. After reading your reply to my response to
Jens, I attempted to engage you in a discussion of the issues raised
by my analogy. Rather than discussing the matter, you replied with:
___________________
Diane, I'm not really interested in the Roman Catholic Church or
it's "hierarchical structure."
The Sea Org controls and runs Scientology.
Jens analogy-correction was spot-on.
You were wrong; your analogy was faulty.
_____________________
That response, and the one that followed, made it quite clear that you
had no desire to discuss the issues raised by the analogy. Your only
purpose in posting was to tell me that I was wrong, without defending
your opinion.
That's what I tried to do with my follow-up admission and apology,
Martin.
If you'd really prefer to discuss the analogy rather than flame away
about who is wrong and who is right, let's do that.
You state above the "The Sea Org controls and runs Scientology."
Nothing in my analogy contradicts this statement. I'm not sure what
makes you think that I disagree with this or have a different view of
it.
Can you show me what, specifically, in my analogy disputes this?
If you had read my response to you, rather than brushing it aside, you
might have seen where I note that RC religious orders are far from
insignificant entities. The Jesuits, for example, wield an enormous
amount of power and control in the Vatican, just as the Sea Org does
in the CoS. Do you agree that the Jesuit position in the RCC and the
Sea Org position in the CoS are comparable?
[snip]
>Diane, the Sea Org is the power base in the cult; Jens analogy was
>more accurate than yours. It isn't much like a convent in structural
>terms; it's more significant than that, more central, holds more power,
>etc.
If you will refer back to my original post on this thread, you will
see that I was not comparing the Sea Org to a convent. I was
comparing ex-Sea Org members' horror stories to an ex-nun's horror
stories about what occurred in her convent.
I did not claim that the Sea Org was an insignificant aspect of the
CoS. The analogy I offered was that accepting ex-Sea Org members'
horror stories as representative of the CoS as a whole was no more
accurate than accepting an ex-nun's horror stories as representative
of a typical Roman Catholic parishioners' experiences with the RCC.
Do you believe that public Scientologists[tm] are placed in the RPF,
that they are thrown in chain lockers, that they are placed on the
"Running Program" at Gold? I don't think you do.
I do not believe that the Sea Org horror stories are the type of
incidents that public Scientologists[tm] regularly experience during
their affiliation with the CoS. I think that many anti-CoS posters
here are under the misconception that such abuse is a regular
occurrence in missions and lower orgs.
Roman Catholics hear about abuses that occur within their Church's
religious orders. I don't think these stories are particularly
effective in convincing them that the RCC is an evil organization that
must be destroyed. Do you agree with that?
Just as the Sea Org wields an enormous amount of power and control
over the CoS, religious orders hold influence and power over the
Vatican. I believe that L. Ron Hubbard patterned the Sea Org after RC
religious orders. Do you disagree with my opinion on that?
Up to this point, you have refused to explain what it is about my
analogy that you find "wrong." I will be glad to engage in a
flame-free discussion of this analogy with you if you so desire. If
you don't wish to discuss the analogy, I can only surmise that all you
wish is an admission of error from me and an apology from me.
I've already offered that to you and that doesn't seem to satisfy you
either. What is it that you're really asking of me, Martin?
>Looking forward to more defensive, hotile remarks; keep 'em coming. :-)
I've given up trying to predict what you might consider defensive or
hostile. It appears that you consider anything I write defensive
and/or hostile, and back up your assertion with your own brand of
armchair pseudo-psychoanalysis of me.
Whateve. . . if, as you stated in this message, all you'd really like
to see from me is an acknowledgement that you disagree with my
analogy, I'll do that.
Thanks, Martin!
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On 8 Jul 1997 13:58:48 -0700, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt)
wrote:
>In article <33bfb1ba...@snews.zippo.com>,
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>>Ridicule can only be powerful when it is solidly based on fact.
>>Name-calling, of the sort that takes place here so often, holds no
>>more power on a.r.s. than it does on grade-school playgrounds. There
>>might have been some children who admired the bullies who taunted
>>other children with derogatory nicknames and vicious taunts back when
>>I was a child. I was not among them. From what I can remember, most
>>of those who followed the bullies did so out of fear that they
>>themselves might be subjected to such attacks if they did not conform.
>
>Yes, and lord knows you're not a bully, right? You'd never write
>something like:
>
>"But as for me -- all I have to say is that if Arnie Lerma has the
>gall to ever post his "Internet is the Liberty Tree" harangue
>again, I will tear into him like a pit bull into a toy poodle."
>
>What lovely mental imagery that provides; a steamroller of a pit bull
>on steroids at that.
What do you consider "bullying" about the above quote, Martin?
Has it stopped Arnie Lerma from posting his Liberty Tree essay to this
newsgroup? Did it produce dozens of posts mocking Lerma's sentiments?
Was Lerma laughed off the newsgroup because of this sarcastic quip?
You know as well as I that it did none of those things, nor was it
intended to.
Arnie Lerma repetitiously posted a screed in which he detailed reasons
why Scientologists[tm] should be forbidden to hold government
positions. Many of the reasons he gave for keeping
Scientologists[tm] out of the government directly refuted the concept
of personal liberty he endorses in his "Liberty Tree" essay. Perhaps
you are incapable of recognizing the irony in supporting the civil
liberties of everyone *but* Scientologists[tm], as Arnie Lerma
appeared to do in the post to which I was responding. The point was
not lost on other readers.
I do not understand why you consider the above quote an example of
bullying behavior. The only ridicule expressed in it was
self-ridicule. Do you think that describing myself as a "pit bull"
somehow insults Arnie Lerma?
>>Even as children, not all individuals are quite so heavily imbued with
>>the herd mentality as that. Some children are capable of recognizing
>>when a "mass movement" is nothing more than herd mentality. Some
>>adults, alas, never quite become that perceptive.
>
>Riiiight. Well, I've seen some pretty sickeningly sycophantic posts
>from some of your AOL friends here. Why don't you just slap them down?
What do you mean by "slap them down," Martin? What do you want me to
do? Could you be specific and post an example of what you consider a
"sickeningly sycophantic post" from an "AOL friend" of mine? I have
not used my AOL account (if, indeed, it is still active) for more than
a year. Do you think I hold court somewhere deep within some AOL
inner sanctum? I do not. I no longer even have the AOL software on
my computer.
The friends I made on AOL are Judith Bradford, Tashback, Neil Woods,
and Cerberus. The only post Judith Bradford has made recently was an
endorsement of Rob Clark's apology for lying about the line he claimed
was a forgery. I fail to see how that post could be considered
"sickeningly sycophantic."
Neil Woods recently posted a series of AOL CoS folder messages. I was
not the subject of his posts and was not mentioned in them. I also
fail to see how those posts could be considered "sickeningly
sycophantic."
Tashback has posted responses to pro-CoS posters' a.r.s. messages
here. None of them mention me at all. How are her posts "sickeningly
sycophantic"?
I haven't seen Cerberus post to this newsgroup for quite some time,
sadly.
I don't believe I ever ran into Rebecca Hartong on AOL, if she ever
had an account there at all. The only contact I've had with Rebecca
is here on the newsgroup. We have, perhaps, exchanged 3 or 4 e-mails
over the years we've both participated on a.r.s. While I respect her
opinions and enjoy reading her posts, we could hardly consider
ourselves friends. Do you include her in the group you call my "AOL
friends"?
Have I missed anyone that you consider my "AOL friend"? If so, please
let me know who it is you consider belongs in that category.
>Personally, I hate it when people come on to me that way; just ask
>Margaret or Neil about these two points...
I don't know what you mean by "coming on to you that way." In fact,
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about at all. No one
has "come on to me," at least not as I understand that phrase, and I
certainly don't see how what you're describing constitutes "herd
mentality."
>You seem to know a lot about bullying and group think and the "herd
>mentality." Maybe you can teach us what you've learned with your
>perceptive, adult insight? ;-)
I know nothing, Martin. You know everything. I would not even dare
think that I might be able to teach you anything.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Keith
On 6 Jul 1997 18:23:49 -0700, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt),
<7zDwzMdl...@islandnet.com> wrote :
->In article <33bfa5a...@snews.zippo.com>,
->ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
->
->>Perhaps you're not aware of the RCC's hierarchical structure.
->
->Diane, I'm not really interested in the Roman Catholic Church or
->it's "hierarchical structure."
->
->The Sea Org controls and runs Scientology.
I thought the critics claimed the DM was the leader of CoS and in control of
it, despite DM's claim he is not. Boy, this newsgroup sure gets confusing.
Hi Diane, I'm interested in the RCC's structure so can you point to a any good
books about it. I'm a member of the Cult of RCC so I would appreciate any
information.
Keith
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Look at it this way--try to tell someone Catholicism is evil,
especially a person who was raised catholic and tried to be a
relatively good person all his life. If you started by talking
about evil Catholicism, they wouldn't even read it. Now, if you
started by saying how you'd been hurt by being in a religion, they
might be shocked, but they might give it a read."
LeAnn Bae
<slrn5qt67...@thingy.apana.org.au>
-----------------------------------------------------------
! Keith Wyatt http://www.teleport.com/~kewyatt !
! PO Box 18357 Salem, OR 97305 503-373-4696 !
! PGP KEY by finger and keyservers !
! Proud member of the Cult of Catholicism. Hail Mary. !
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stefek Zaba
In article <33c2db0b...@snews.zippo.com> Diane Richardson wrote (in
response to Martin Hunt - I'm replying in my own right, not on behalf of
Martin Hunt):
[ major snippage ]
>
> Roman Catholics hear about abuses that occur within their Church's
> religious orders. I don't think these stories are particularly
> effective in convincing them that the RCC is an evil organization that
> must be destroyed. Do you agree with that?
>
"In convicing them that the RCC is an evil organisation that must be
destroyed"? No. But in causing doubt about the degree to which the
authority of the hierarchy should be unquestioned? Yes. In causing
incidents or worries about the behaviour of clergy or religious around
young children (say) which were previously dismissed as "couldn't possibly
be true" to be more carefully thought through? Yes.
Likewise, therefore, it makes sense to shed light on the abuses which do
occur in the Sea Org. As an organisation run closely on Scientology
principles, an outside observer is expected to find it reflecting a model
to which Scientologists may aspire, or at least endorse. (Please don't
let's get sidetracked into Vatican-II notions of "many vocations of equal
value", Diane!). On hearing many, plausibly documented, accounts of abusive
behaviour in the Sea Org, an outside observer is entitled to query the
morality of the sponsoring organisation; a member remote from the Sea Org
is entitled to doubt the infallibility of Source and of those now running
Scientology. A current member will, however, approach any evidence of
abuses in the Sea Org with a great degree of scepticism.
> Just as the Sea Org wields an enormous amount of power and control
> over the CoS, religious orders hold influence and power over the
> Vatican. I believe that L. Ron Hubbard patterned the Sea Org after RC
> religious orders. Do you disagree with my opinion on that?
>
Yes, I disagree that the RC Church is the model for Scientology's
organisation in general, or that of the Sea Org. Much more convincing to me
is the idea that it's an attempt by Hubbard to live out his fantasies of
being A Great Naval Commander, gaining the position which he felt was
unjustly denied him when serving in the US Navy. I believe that the
particular use of written orders, packed full of abbreviations ("HCOB" or
whatever), the very rigid hierarchies of both function and rank, the
uniforms, and even the foul language in use on the Apollo, reflect that
heritage much more closely than that of an RC religious order.
Stefek
Dave Bradley
Mmm...So if it was so great in the Co$ why did you leave, Jack?
Ran out of money perhaps?
And if the gang down ot the org are all so wonderful etc. why do you
feel the need to defend them under a psuedonym?
Diane Richardson
On 9 Jul 1997 13:49:45 -0700, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt)
wrote:
[snip]
>Diane, I challenge you now to not repeat this logical error and
>define the subset of the ars posters who are about to be labelled
>now with this this new generalization. Who are the "mythologizers"?
>I want names. Is Keith Henson a mythologizer? Is Rebecca Hartong
>a mythologizer? Is Rons Amigo a mythologizer?
You have done your part in forwarding a.r.s. myths, Martin. I guess
that would make you an "a.r.s. mythologizer," along with Kim Baker and
the other people with whom you shared gossip.
Let me state that I would not bring up this incident if it were not
for your "challenge." I believe it's something better left forgotten,
but since you are insisting, I will cooperate.
You may recall that, in the midst of a vicious flamewar with Dennis,
you claimed that I was committing adultery. Your words were, I
believe, something to the effect that Dennis was "fucking Diane behind
her husband's back." If you insist, I will locate the entire post and
repost it here in full. I think you will agree that I am not
misrepresenting what you wrote.
Kim Baker, at about the same time, also brought up that myth. She was
not quite so blunt about it, asking me, rather, if I was really
committing adultery and asking if I didn't think such unethical
behavior might afffect my credibility on the newsgroup.
Immediately after you posted your comment, I e-mailed you. It was not
a flame (although I certainly would have been justified for roasting
you over that comment). I explained to you that I had been divorced
for about a decade and that I was certainly not committing adultery
with anyone.
You did not reply to my post. You did, however, repeat the charge in
yet another post directed at Dennis. Once again, I e-mailed you to
let you know that I was not married -- that, in fact, I had not been
married for quite some time. Once again, you failed to respond to my
e-mail message.
Months later, you offered me a rather belated apology for your
defamatory and inaccurate comment about me. You told me that Kim
Baker had not passed the "myth" along to you in e-mail. You stated
that she had not been the source; rather, the source was someone who
corresponded with both of you and who was considered a credible source
of valid information by a.r.s. "regulars."
When I asked you to identify the person spreading such a "myth" behind
my back, you refused to reveal your source. I have never again asked
you about who was spreading such inaccurate gossip about me. In fact,
I've never mentioned the entire episode since.
Although you apologized to me privately, you never corrected the
"myth" you participated in spreading about me on this newsgroup. Kim
Baker and Ron Newman engaged in some sort of attempted cover-up of her
post -- doing a "Rob Clark" by claiming that she had not written the
message in spite of irrefutable evidence that she had. I guess I have
to include Ron Newman in the category of "mythologizers" as well.
I hope I have answered the "challenge" to your satisfaction, Martin.
You were more than willing to forward inaccurate, defamatory gossip on
this newsgroup when it suited your purpose. You have never felt any
compunction to publicly correct the errors you forwarded, even when
you knew that the gossip you were engaging in was entirely wrong.
Now I will offer you a challenge, Martin. I will agree to continue
expanding my list of "a.r.s. mythologizers" if you will agree to post
the names of all the people who were engaging in e-mail gossip about
my marital status.
You recently expressed your dislike of "backchannel" information,
shared only among the "elite," when you were criticized for posting
#scientology channel IRC logs on the newsgroup. Here's your chance to
prove you mean what you say.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Ron Newman
In article <33c4165c...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
[to Martin Hunt]
> Although you apologized to me privately, you never corrected the
> "myth" you participated in spreading about me on this newsgroup. Kim
> Baker and Ron Newman engaged in some sort of attempted cover-up of her
> post -- doing a "Rob Clark" by claiming that she had not written the
> message in spite of irrefutable evidence that she had. I guess I have
> to include Ron Newman in the category of "mythologizers" as well.
And you'd probably be right to do so. This wasn't one of my
prouder moments on a.r.s.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
In article <33eb4c75...@news.snafu.de>, til...@berlin.snafu.de
(Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
> In <01bc899d$a67fdec0$472e6020@jacks-box>, "Jack Craver"
> <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Because 1. this logic would invalidate every report, 2. there is no
> independant report that auditing is not hypnosis.
>
> >It's not that I consider the report biased, Tilman, it IS biased. This is
> >not a judgement call. The problems I have with your 'Anderson Report' is as
> >follows:
> >1) There is no independant confirmation of these 'facts'.
>
> Oh yes, there is. Will you believe them or will you claim they copied
> from the anderson report? Or will you say they can't be independant, as
> they are anti-scientology?
>
> - Kenneth Robinson, UK minister of health
> - The court in The People vs. Stephen Cooper
Has this anything to do with Kathleen Wilson? Can you post some
excerpts of it or post a URL?
> - Conway and Siegelman
>
> and...
>
> - readers digest 9/81
Add the recent Belgian parliament sect-commission report which last May
was approved by the parliament with 126 votes pro and 17 against.
-313/7 -95 /96 - http://www.dekamer.be/documents/313/7.pdf
Page 80,
About auditing: "This psychoanalytical technique is called 'confession'.
When an interesting experience is unearthed, the patient must relive that
under light hypnosis until the experience can be confronted without
effect. The memory is uncharged. The ideal is to get 'clear'."
Page 308,
Regarding the scientology company U-Man: "A couple of their courses are
remarkably reminiscent of hypnosis."
I really wished that some of the other France/Dutch speaking ars'ers would
dig into this report, I simply don't have the time for it.
Mike
In Dutch: http://www.dekamer.be/cgi-bin/docs.bat?l=n&dir=313
France? : http://www.dekamer.be/cgi-bin/docs.bat?l=f&dir=313