The Fair Game Time line
wbarwell
THE SCIENTOLOGY FAIR GAME TIMELINE
W. C. Barwell 7-3-04
Version II
***************************************************************************
This Fair Game Timeline is copylefted 2004. This list may be freely
distributed or webbed. E-mail wbar...@mylinuxisp.com if you have
any items you might want to offer for possible inclusion on this list
or to point out typos or other errors.
***************************************************************************
1950
"Dianetics - the Modern Science of Mental Health" first published
simultaneously as a two part article in Astounding Science Fiction
and as a full book.
"JUDICIAL ETHICS"
....
"An ideal society would be a society of unaberrated persons, clears
conducting their lives within an unaberrated culture: for either the
persons or culture may be aberrated."
....
"Perhaps at some distant date, only the unaberrated person will
be granted civil rights before the law."
[Here we can see at this early date Hubbard's dividing people
into two groups, scientologically processed people and lessor
persons who do not deserve civil rights. Later he would redefine
ethics to mean that which furthers Scientology's expansion
and define those who hinder that as unethical, as "Suppressive
Persons" or "Groups". SPs were labelled later as "Fair Game",
without
rights. Here in the chapter "Judicial Ethics" we see the attitude
that has been the basis of fair game and similar policies of
Scientology were with Scientology from the beginning.]
- WCB
****************************************************************************
1951
"Science of Survival" first published
"Such people should be taken from society and as rapidly
and uniformly institutionalized.
....
No social order which desires to survive dares overlook its stratum of
1.1s.
No social order will survive which does not remove these people from
its
midst.
....
The only answers would seem to be the permanent quarantine of such
persons
from society to avoid the contagion of their insanities and and the
general
turbulencee they bring to any order, thus forcing it lower on the scale,
or processing such persons until they have attained a level on the tone
scale
which gives them value."
[Some parts of Science of Survival would later be used in
"Introduction to Scientology Ethics", and the misleading
1951 copyright notice would be found in "Introduction to
Scientology Ethics" which was first actually published in 1968.]
- WCB
****************************************************************************
1955
Manual of Dissemination of Materials
Collected from writings of Hubbard in Ability Magazine
"The DEFENSE of anything is untenable. The only way to defend
anything is to ATTACK, and if you forget that you will lose
every battle that you engage in, whether it is in terms of
personal conversation, public debate, or a court of law.
NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. Do yourself, much
MORE CHARGINGS and you will WIN."
(Capitols in original)
"Should you ever be arrested for practicing Scientology,
treating people, make very sure long before the time comes that
you have never used drugs, or surgery, and have never prescribed
a diet, or vitamins, and when the times might come, make very
sure that you immediately and instantly, with two or three hours
after your receipt of that warrant, have served on the signer
of that warrant, a personal civil suit for $100,000.00 in
damages for causing a Man of God going about his business
in his proper profession and for bring abouembarrassingng
publicity and molestation."
---------------
THE BRAIN WASHING MANUAL
A book written by Hubbard and published anonymously
as an attack on psychiatry.
[Thus by 1955 Hubbard was already playing dirty tricks.]
-WCB
http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brain-Washing-manual.html
http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-front.jpg
http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-back.jpg
http://home.tiscali.de/alex.sk/A_Stickley2.html
---------------
SCIENTOLOGY OPERATIONS BULLETIN 8
"The brainwashing manual that came into our hands so mysteriously,
is being released, not to unmock psychiatry, but as a necessary
piece of information..."
**************************************************************************
1959
MANUAL OF JUSTICE
(Out of copyright now)
"Investigation by outside sources"
Overt investigation of someone or something
should by an outside detective agency should
be done more often and hang the expense."
http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_hubb.htm
****************************************************************************
1965
HCOPL 7 Mar 65 Issue 1
[Widely misdated as 1 Mar 65 but actually 7 Mar 65]
Suppressive Acts -Suppression of Scientology
and Scientologists - The Fair Game Law
"A suppressive person or group becomes fair game.
.......
The homes, property, places and abodes of people
who have been active in attempting to suppress
Scientology or scientologists are beyond all
protection of Scientology Ethics unless absolved
by later Ethics or an amnesty"
trulyly suppressive person or Group has no rights
of any kind as Scientologists and actions taken
against them are not punishable under Scientology
Ethics codes."
[A webbed report on HCOPL 7 Mar 65, 23 Dec 65
and the subsequent versions and reissues,
"Scientology (R): The history of a Policy Letter -
A detailed study or the transformation of HCO PL
23 Dec 65 is webbed and is very good.]
- WCB
See: http://mccalcon.notlong.com
--------------
HCOPL 2 April 65
Administration Outside of Scientology
"You see, none is fair game until he
or she declares against us."
-------------
ETHICS ORDER
September 17, 1965
"Subject: suppressive Person
1. J.F. "Jack" Horner is hereby declared a suppressive person
for the reasons hereby given:
....
IV. Declared "Fair Game"
-------------
HCOPL 16 August 65
COLLECTIONS FROM SPs AND PTSs
"Civil Court action against SPs to collect monies
owed may be resorted to as they are fair game."
-------------
HCO Executive letter 27 Sept 65
AMPRINISTICS
"Treatment - They are fair game, can be sued or harassed.
...
(2) Harass these persons in any possible way.
....
(4) Tear up any meeting held and get names of
those attending and issue SP orders on them
and you'll get rid of a lot of rats."
-------------
HCOPL 23 December 65
Revised version of 7 March 65.
[Most inflammatory lines (See 7 Mar 65 above)
are dropped from this version.
Revised versions adding to list of "High Crimes"
were reissued 31 December 1979 as HCOPL 23 Dec 65R,
was itself cancelled and replaced by HCOPL 16 May 80 Issue II.
Reissued HCOPL 23 Dec 65RA (25 Aug 1988) and again
HCOPL 23 Dec 65RB (8 January 1991) and yet again as
HCOPL 7 March 65RB (4 November 2001)
See "The History of a Policy Letter etc."
See http:// macc...@notlong.com for the long and complex history
of this HCOPL.
- WCB
**************************************************************************
1966
HCOPL 15 Feb 66
Attacks on Scientology
"(4) Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime, based
on actual evidence on the attackers to the press.
....
Don't ever submit tamely to an investigation
of us. Make it rough on the attackers all the way."
--------------
February 17, 1966
Hubbard sets up the "Public Investigation Section"
And starts hiring PIs to investigate critics of Scientology.
A private investigator named Vic Filson is hired to create dossier
on every psychiatrist in England. A month later a horrified
Filson goes public with this to the press.
A Piece of Blue Sky - Jon Atack page 160.
---------------
HCOPL 18 Feb 66
ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY - CONTINUED
"G.2.3 - Suits against sources of libel and slander."
--------------
HCOPL 17 Feb 66
Public Investigation Section
Limited Distribution
"(3) Collect as many case histories as possible on
individuals of that group specializing on those
that can be lead to criminal prosecution by state or
world agencies."
--------------
March 1 1966
The "public Investigation Section" is reorganized
into the more blandly named Guardian Organization.
______________
HCO Executive letter of 5 Sept 66
Subject: How to do a NOISY investigation.
"Soon as one of those threats start you
get a Scientologist or Scientologists to
investigate noisily."
[Source - The Foster Report]
*************************************************************************
1967
HCOPL 18 Oct 67
Penalties for Lower Conditions
"Enemy -May be deprived of property or injured or
by any Scientologist without any discipline of
the Scientologists. May be tricked, lied to,
sued or destroyed."
[See HCOPL 21 July 68 updated version of this HCOPL]
- WCB
------------------
HCOPL 18 Oct 67
POLICY AND HCOB ALTERATIONS
HIGH CRIME
"Recently, during the reorganization of WW, it came
to light in some continental orgs ECE SECS an SECs
have an (sic) occasion actually ordered that certain Pol Ltrs
and HCOBs were not to be followed.
------------------------ (Original in italics)
....
Any executive issuing such an order shall hereafter be
considered as committing a high crime..."
[Source: Foster Report]
**************************************************************************
July, 1968
"Introduction to Scientology Ethics" is first published.
This work is a collection mainly of earlier Hubbard
HCOBs, HCOPLs and various items from Hubbard's books and
tapes. It has been through several editions, and is required
reading in some basic Scientology courses.
"Ethics is reason and the contemplation of optimum
survival".
"All that ethics is for - the total reason for its
existance and operation - is simply the additional
tool necessary to apply the technology of Scientology."
[Here Hubbard redefines ethics in a startling and
self serving manner. This sentence is in early versions
of Introduction to Scientology Ethics" but is edited out
in post 1973 editions]
- WCB
-----
HCOPL 21 July 68
Penalties for Lower Conditions
(replaced ENEMY definition of HCOPL 18 Oct 67)
"ENEMY - Suppressive Person order. May not be
communicated with by anyone except and Ethics
Officer, a Master at Arms, a Hearing Officer,
or a board or committee. May be restrained or
imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules of
the group he sought to injure as he sought to
bar fair practices for others."
[Source: Foster Report]
------------
HCOPL 21 Oct 68
CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME
"Fair Game may not appear on any
Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
This P/L does not cancel any treatment or
handling of an SP."
[Source: Foster Report]
--------------------------
29 November 1968
CODE OF REFORM
"1. Cancellation of disconnection as a relief to those suffering
from familial suppression.
2. Cancellation of security checking as a form of confession.
3. Prohibition of any confessional materials being written down.
4. Cancellation of declaring people Fair Game.
If you yourself have observed any further aspect of this Church's
activities that you feel calls for reform, please let us know.
29 November 1968
THE ACADEMY OF SCIENTOLOGY
THE HUBBARD GUIDANCE CENTRE"
[This Code of Reform is not signed by Hubbard but by seven
members of the "Board of Directors". But see HCOPL 7 Mar 69.]
-WCB
[Source: Dumbleton - Powles report, 3 February 1969]
*************************************************************************
1969
3 February 1969
Dumbelton-Powles Report
New Zealand
This was a report of an investigation into Scientology in
New Zealand. It concentrated on Scientology disconnection
policies, and focused on Scientology in New Zealand rather
than general Scientology activities worldwide.
http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/nz-pref.html
----------------
HCOPL 16 Feb 69 Issue II
CONFIDENTIAL
BATTLE TACTICS
"One cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections.
He deprives the enemy of political advantageconnectionsns and
power. He takes over enemy territory. He raids and harasses.
All on a thought plane - press, public opinion, governments, etc.
Seeing it as a battle, one can apply battle tactics to
thought actions."
...
"Never treat a war like a skirmish. Treat all skirmishes like
wars."
[This document shows Hubbard's attitudes towards critics.
This HCOPL will be reissued 24 September 1987. it is referenced
in the 8 Sept 74 and 1991 GO and OS intelligence training hat check
sheets.]
- WCB
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/pl-battle-tactics.html
........................................
HCOPL 16 Feb 69 Issue IV
CONFIDENTIAL
TARGETS, DEFENSE
"The Vital targets on which we must invest most
of our time are:
...
T1. Depopularizingng the enemy to the point of total obliteration.
T2. taking over the control or allegience of the heads or proprietors
of all news media."
----------
HCOPL 7 Mar 69
[Name unknown at this time. I have not seen the whole HCOPL,
just excerpts from the Dumbleton-Powles report of 3 February
1969, which see. - WCB]
"The policy which cancels the policy of disconnection, cancellation
of the Fair Game law, the cancellation of security checks, and
no records allowed on confessional materials, plus the new code
of the Scientologist. have accomplished every reform suggested
to us. lets get the show on the road."
[Apparently this HCOPL, unlike the 29 Nov 68 "CODE OF REFORM
(which see) was signed by Hubbard.]
- WCB
HCOPL 2 Dec 69
Covert intelligence: Data Collection of December 2, 1969
"Essentially a covert operation is intended to embarrass,
discredit, or overthrow or remove an actual or possible
opponent. it is a small war carried on without its true
source being disclosed."
*************************************************************************
1970
Sectarian Healers and Hypnotherapy
A Study for the Committee on the Healing Arts.
By Professor Jonathan A. Lee - Ontario, Canada
Chapter 4 Scientology and Dianetics
"An incident which occurred at the Toronto Organization in 1967
serves to illustrate how members are disciplined. Internal dissention
between two executives, both trained at Saint Hill. lead to one
charging the other with "high crimes against Scientology" and declaring
him a Suppressive person. Although the accused executive appealed to
Saint Hill for restitution, the appeal was rejected. A bulletin
labelled "The Fair Game Law"(issued by Hubbard) was posted on the
Toronto centre bulletin board for a few months.
It informed all Scientologists that any actions that they took that
otherwise might be offensive against Scientology standards, would
not so be considered when directed at SPs; these people were to be
regarded as "fair game" for any sort of attack.
See: http://xenu.ca/papers/lee.html
-----------------
HCOPL 6 Oct 70 Issue III
ETHICS PENALTIES
"The Following HCOPLs are cancelled:"
HCO PL 26 Sept '67 Conditions for Scn Orgs addition to
Applying Formulas.
HCO PL 18 Oct '67 issue IV Penalties for Lower Conditions.
HCO PL 20 Oct '67 issue II Conditions Penalties New Employees
and Persons Newly on Post
HCO PL6 Oct '67 Condition of Liability"
"The motto is, "Hat don't Hit".
[Purported by some to have cancelled "Fair Game",
This cancels HCOPL 18 Oct '67, but not HCOPL 21 July '68
That displaced HCOPL 18 Oct '67. The "ENEMY - Fair Game.."
provision of HCOPL 18 Oct '67 had made for very bad PR in
England in the press at that time, even getting attention in
the Parliament. See the 1994 Hana Whitfield declaration.]
- WCB
[Source: Foster report 1971]
*************************************************************************
1971
Enquiry into the Practices and Effects of Scientology
(AKA The Foster Report)
[Chapter 7 "Scientology and its Enemies" has a good selection
of HCOPLs and related materials. Widely webbed.]
- WCB
See: http://xenu.net/archives/audit/foster07.html
****************************************************************************
1972
GO 011272 LRH
CONFIDENTIAL: Black Propaganda
"Black Propaganda is a covert communication of
false info intended to injure, impeded, or destroy the
activity or life of another person, group, or nation,
usually issued from a false or removed source from the
actual instigator."
....
Our propaganda is dirty, but it is not black
because it is true. Black Propaganda is essentially
false."
************************************************************************
1973
A new edition of "Introduction to Scientology Ethics"
is issued. All mentions of Fair Game are now removed
from this edition and subsequent editions to come.
*************************************************************************
1976
INTRODUCTION TO SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS is reprinted.
-----------
Spring 7 (otherwise undated)
OPERATION STREET MAN
[A document seized from Scientology in the 1977 FBI raids.]
"PROJECT INFO
B1 has enough terminals in the field in strategic positions
to bring about the decline of Gabe Cazares as a political
candidate both locally and nationally.
....
4. CONDITIONAL: Based on the successful results of Channels
A & B, the possibility of an amended complaint filed against
Cazares is to be looked over. It should be one in which the
City of CW is let off the hook in defense of Cazares as mayor
and directed to him as an individual. This will tie him up with
large legal commitments and deny him funds for any campaign
bid in February for Mayor."
htttp://spaink.net/cos/SecrServ/ops/op.htm
----------------
Operation "SPEEDY GONZALES"
3 Mar 1976
A document seized in the FBI raids of July 1977 of
Scientology offices.
"SPEEDY GONZALES"
"MAJOR TARGET
To ruin Mayor Gabriel Cazares political career by spreading a
scandal about his sex life broadly.
...
Note: THIS IS TO BE SAID TO ALL SPOKEN TO:
"DID YOU HEAR THAT THE MAYOR OF CLEARWATER--CAZARES--IS
IS HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH LARRY GALANTIS' MOTHER...HE'S
IN (CLASS)ie:Psych 201""
[This Fair Game operation against Clearwater, Florida Mayor
Gabe Cazares was discovered in papers seized in the 1977
FBI raid on Scientology.]
http://spaink.net/cos/SecrServ/ops/ops.htm
----------------------
3 Mar 1976
Data #1 Re: Mayor Cazares
A document seized in the FBI raids of July, 1977 of
Scientology offices. Concerns Clearwater Mayor Gabe Cazares
"On either 13 March or 14 March, the mayor picked up a young
woman."
http://spaink.net/cos/SecrServ/ops/op.htm
-----------------------
3 Mar 1976
RE: ALPINE, TEXAS/CAZARES
A document seized by the FBI in July, 1977 in raids on
Scientology offices. Regarding Clearwater Mayor Gabe Cazares.
"Feb 25, mission fired to Alpine, Texas with major target
to provide documentations usable by legal and Info of the facts
surrounding the alleged birth of Gabriel Cazares there in Jan 31,
1920 with purpose of completing a standard B1 investigation
there to provide documented facts of use."
http://spaink.net/cos/SecrServ/ops/ops.htm
-------------------------------------
5 Mar 1976
RE: BASE
A documents seized in the FBI raids of July, 1977 of
Scientology offices. Concerns Clearwater Mayor Gabe Cazares
"He is working as well on getting 2d data on Cazares Mistress who
looks from the description like a perfect for us--rumored to be after
the mayor for financial consideration--mayor rumored to be devoted
to her."
http://spaink.net/cos/SecrServ/ops/op.htm
------------------
23 March 1976
ITALIAN FOG
One of two documents seize by the FBI in July, 1977 raids
on Scientology offices. Part II of ITALIAN FOG is dates
November 3, 1976.
"MAJOR TARGET: To discredit C W's Mayor and weaken his power in his
attacking actions at the Base.
VITAL TARGETS:
To locate a Mexican that can carry it without any negative kickbacks.
To get documentations mocked up and "planted".
....
5. When the above is done, recruit a Mexican FSM (one who
has done similar actions before ) See that the Docs are put in
proper files showing that the Mayor was married in Mexico
about 25 years ago. A Mexican girl will have to be dug up.
One that can't be located.
http://spaink.net/cos/SecrServ/ops/ops.htm
____________________________
1 April 1976
OPERATION FREAKOUT
Op Freakout Main Planning Document
This document was seized in the July 1977 FBI raid on Scientology
head quarters.
"MAJOR TARGET: To get P.C. (Paulette Cooper) incarcerated in a
mental institute or jail, or at least hit her so hard she drops
her attacks."
"I'm going to kill you basterds. I am going to bomb you.
Kissinger is a traitor. I am going to bomb him to."
[A GO document that describes how to frame Paulette Cooper for a
bomb threat, which plan was in fact carried out. There are at least
6 known Freak out documents. All are widely webbed in facsimile
form JPG) and as transcripts. Perhaps the most infamous fair game
operation from Scientology. This document lists 4 "channels",
that is, plans.
1. Call in bomb threats using somebody sounding like Cooper
to Arab Embassies.
2. Creating written bomb threats and mailing them to frame Cooper.
3. Having an agent impersonating Cooper make bomb threats at a
laundry mat so it is called in to police.
4. Having an agent calling the FBI after 3. to make sure it
is investigated.]
- WCB
http://home/snafu.de/tilman/krasel/cooper/
----------
5 April 76
Re: P.C. Operation
A GO document planning action against Paulette Cooper
This document was seized in the July, 1977 FBI raid on Scientology
headquarters.
"P.C. has been arrested before for bomb threats against the C of S.
We reinforce this backround and get her arrested."
[This document had one "channel" or plan, to have an agent
impersonating Cooper "act crazy" at a laundry mat and make
bomb threats.]
- WCB
http://home/snafu.de/tilman/krasel/cooper
------------
13 April 1976
RE: P.C. OP FREAKOUT
This document was seized in the July, 1977 FBI raid on Scientology
offices.
"Attached is approve Op Freakout. This additional channel
should really have her put away.
...
2) Drunk takes sheet with lovelies' prints (fingerprints)
to AG 1 (agent 1) beng sure to get no prints on it.
.....
3) Write the following letter on a library typewriter and address
the envelope to Kissinger in Wash. DC on the same typewriter."
[This "Op" had one channel" or plan, to obtain Cooper's
fingerprints by ruse on a blank sheet of paper and use
that to type a bomb threat and mail it to Henry Kissinger.]
- WCB
http://home/snafu.de/tilman/krasel/cooper/
------------
ALLARD APPEAL
58 Cal. App 3d 453
Hearing Denied
July 15, 1976
"-----------------------footnote-----------------------
(4.) The trial court gave appellant almost the
entire trail within which to produce evidence that the
fair game policy had been repealed. Appellant failed to
do so, and so the trial court thereafter permitted the
admission of Exhibit 1 into evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------"
------------
3 Nov 76
ITALIAN FOG II
A document seized by the FBI in the July, 1977 raids on
Scientology Offices. Concerning Clearwater Mayor Gabe Cazares.
"MAJOR TARGET: To discredit CW's Mayor and weaken his power in
his attacks at base by reducing his credibility.
VITAL TARGETS: To locate a Mexican who can carry this
project out without any kickbacks. Recruit him and train him.
....
To get the documentations mocked up and "planted".
....
* NOTE: AS PART OF THE SECURITY - IF A BRIBE IS USED
DATA SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE PERSON ACCEPTING THE BRIBE
TO PINPOINT A FALSE WHO IN HIS MIND IDEALLY ONE OF THE MAYOR'S
DEADLY ENEMIES SO THAT IF THE OPS GETS BLOWN UP TO THE PERSON
WHO WAS BRIBED THAT PERSONS WOULD GIVE DATA ON THE PLANTED WHO
AND S. WOULD NEVER COME UP."
http://spaink.net/cos/SecrServ/ops/ops.htm
3 Nov 1976
COMPLIANCE REPORT
A document seized by the FBI in July, 1976 in a raid
on Scientology offices. Regarding Clearwater Mayor Gabe Cazares.
"Many actions have been done on this target which have brought about
a product as called for in the target. Phone calls, 3P letters,
spreading rumors inside his camp, contributing to disorganization
in his camp, giving data to Young on Cazares, all contribute
to a final outcome with the headline.."YOUNG SWAMPS CAZARES
FOR CONGRESS".
[3P letters means third party letters, that is letters designed
to bring discord between to parties by a third party.]
- WCB
http://spaink.org.co/SecrServ/ops/ops.htm
-----------------------
OPERATIONS OFFICER
[Undated, but about 1967-7.
Seized from GO in the July 1977 raid.]
WCB
"OPERATIONS OFFICER
Successful:
....
(7) When hitting a group or individual, hitting their
financial and comm lines
.....
Unsuccessful:
....
(4) Harassment"
[This and many other GO documents are widely webbed.]
-WCB
**************************************************************************
1974
9 Sept 74 Confidential Intelligence Course
"GUARDIAN ORDER
GO 1314 9 September 1974
Info Bureau only
CONFIDENTIAL
------------
INTELLIGENCE COURSE
-------------------
...
SEQUENCE: This checksheet is done once through, with study tech
fully applied. Starrates are noted with an asterisk (*).
...
-18-
(2) PL 1 Mar 65, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS *________"
[This is the official GO course Intelligence training hat pack
check list. This PL 1 Mar 65 is the "Fair Game Law" HCOPL originally
written by Hubbard in 1965. This was seized in the 1977 FBI raids on
Scientology's headquarters.]
- WCB
http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/ic_conts.htm
***************************************************************************
1979
3 Dec 79
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Mary Sue Hubbard et al Criminal Case No. 78-401
"Moreover, a review of the documents seized in the two Los Angeles,
California searches, which have since been unsealed by this Court,
show the incredible and sweeping nature of the criminal conduct of
the defendents and the organization which they lead. These crimes
include the infiltration and theft of documents from a number of
prominent private national and world organizations, law firms and
newspapers; the execution of smear campaigns and baseless law
suits to destroy private individuals who had attempted to exercise
their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression; the framing
of private citizens who had been critical of Scientology, including
the forging of at least one innocent person; violation of the civil
rights of prominent private figures and public officials."
[This memorandum covers many notorious actions of Scientology
including the fair gaming of Paulette Cooper, Gabe Cazares and
others.]
- WCB
***************************************************************************
1980
HCOPL 22 July 80
CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME - MORE ABOUT
" "Fair Game" was cancelled and has remained cancelled
because it was found to be misinterpreted by those
antipathetic to Scientology to authorize justice actions of
more severe nature than expulsion.
There was no reason to retain it as part of our
justice system if there was any way it could be misinterpreted
in that way.
Justice is a much abused subject. Too many men of evil
intent have used the disguise of "justice" to forward evil and
malicious and destructive ends."
[This HCOPL was itself cancelled by HCOPL 8 Sept 83.
See Atack "Religion or Intelligence Agency?" for more information.]
-WCB
------------------
SCIENTOLOGY'S WAR AGAINST JUDGES
(The American Lawyer -December 1980)
"At the same time the church was issuing "Guardian Programme
Orders" (directives to church members telling them to use
"standard overt sources" and "any suitable guise interviews") to
monitor the activities of of all district court judges presiding over
the FOIA suits. In 1977 that directive was extended to all 15 active
judges in the D.C.federal district court."
[American lawyer is an influential legal journal that thus
gave a heads up to Scientology attacks and fair gaming of
judges involved in suits with Scientology. A good source
for general fair game activities of judges up to 1980 from
the legal profession itself. Widely webbed.]
- WCB
*************************************************************************
1981
Mr. Jakob Anderson vs The Church of Scientology Denmark
March 11-16 1981
[Widely available webbed - In English]
[Vibeke Dammon, an ex-GO operative testifies as
to GO fair game practices]
- WCB
-----------------------------------------------------------
"DAMMAN - At one time it was mentioned in one of these
meetings that B-1 had been successful in having a
Dutch professor, who had attacked the Scientologists,
sent to a mental hospital? (sic)
JACOBSEN - Did they succeed?
DAMMAN - Yes, they succeeded.
----------------------------------------------------------
-----------
US vs Kember, Budlong Sentencing Memorandum
(Undated) 1981
"It is interesting to note that he Founder of their organization,
unindicted co-conspirator L.Ron Hubbard, wrote in his dictionary
entitled "Modern Management Technology Defined" That "truth is what is
_true_ for you, and "illegal" is that which is "contrary to statistics
or policy" and not pursuant to Scientology's "approved program".
Thus with the Founder-Commodore's blessings they could wantonly
commit crimes as long as it was in the interest of Scientology."
"They believed they had _carte blanche_ to violate the rights of others
in order to destroy them, burglarize private, and public offices and
steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and organizations
that the Church had sued. These suits were filed by the Church for the
sole purpose of of financially bankrupting its critics and in order to
create an atmosphere of fear so that critics would shy away from
exercising
the First Amendment rights secured them by the Constitution."
"To these defendants and their associates, however, anybody who
did not agree with them was considered an enemy against whom the
so called "fair game doctrine' could be invoked."
"This policy, together with the actions of the defendants who represent
the very top leadership of the Church of Scientology, brings into
question
their claim the Church prohibited the commission of illegal acts."
"Defendants, through one of their attorneys, have stated that the fair
game policy continued in effect well after the indictment in this case
and the conviction of the first nine co-defendants.
Defendents claim that the policy was abrogated by the Church's
Board of Directors in late July or Early August, 1980, only after
the defendants' personal attack on Judge Richey.
Transcript of September 5, 1980 at 14."
[Widely webbed, this important document is admission
fair game was policy as late as August 1980 despite
numerous claims from Scientology that Fair Game had
been cancelled in 1968, which was the position of Helena
Kobrin, RTC lawyer of record, on Alt.religion.scientology
in 1996.]
- WCB
***********************************************************************
1982
May 5 - 10, 1982
Clearwater Hearings, Clearwater Florida
[5 days of hearings on past Scientology actions including
appearances of Attorney Michael Flynn,Paulette Cooper and others.
Videos are available as well as transcripts of these hearings
plus other materials such as declarations and other legal
documents. Participants testified under oath.]
-WCB
http://lisatrust/bogie.nl/Media/cwhearings.htm
*************************************************************************
1983
HCOPL 8 Sept 83
CANCELLATIONS OF ISSUES ON SUPPRESSIVE ACTS AND PTs
[I have not seen this.]
-WCB
Cancels HCOPL 22 July 80
[See Atack, "Religion or Intelligence Agency?"
for more information.]
- WCB
**************************************************************************
1984
In the lawsuit against Gerald Armstrong, where fair game played
a role in determining Armstrong's state of mind, Scientology
presents a declaration from a college professor Frank K. Flinn,
and argues that fair game is a "core practice" of Scientology
and therefore protected as "religious expression".
Testimony Frank K. Flinn testimony in church of Scientology
California, 1984 Vol.23 pp. 4132 - 4160
Jon Atack General Report of Scientology
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/dec-atack-gen-rept-1995-05-09
---------
Breckenridge Decision
June 20 1984
[Judge Breckenridge hands down decision in the case of Mary Sue
Hubbard vs Gerald Armstrong. Finding for Armstrong, Breckenridge
finds among other things, Scientology did indeed practice Fair Game
policies.]
- WCB
"I addition to violating and abusing its member's civil-rights
the organization over the years with its "Fair Game" doctrine
has harassed and abused those persons not in the Church whom
it perceives as enemies."
.......
"Yet she (Mary Sue Hubbard) was the head of the Guardian Office for
many years and among other things authored the infamous order
"GO 121669" which directed culling of supposedly confidential
P.C. files/folders for purposes of internal security."
"Defendents, through one of their attorneys, have stated that
the fair game policy continued in effect well after the
indictment in this case and the conviction of the first nine
defendents. Defendents claim the policy was abrogated by
the Church's Board of Directors in late July or early August,
1980, only after the defendents' personal attack on Judge Richey.
Transcript of September 5, 1980 at 14."
-------------------
23 July 84
The Latey Decision in the lawsuit "Re: B & G (Minors) (Custody)
Delivered in High Court (Family Division), London 23 July 1984"
"To give two illustations: Beginning in 197 the Church of Scientology
began a campaign of persecution against Dr. Clark. They wrote letters
to the dean of Harvard medical school and the director of the
Massachusetts
General Hospital. But they refused to gag him. Their agents tracked
down and telephoned several of his patients and interviewd their
neighbors
looking for evidence to impugn his private or personal actions.
They submitted a report to a committee of the Massachussetts State
Senate. On three occasions over the last five years a Scientology
"front" called the Citizens Committee on Human rights have brought
complaints against him to the Massachussetts Medical Board of
Registration
alledging improper professional conduct. In 1980 he was declared a
"Number one enemy" and in 1981 they brought two law suits against him
(Summarily dismissed but costly and worrying). They distributed
leaflets
at the Massachussetts General Hospital offering $25,000 to employees
for evidence that would lead to his conviction on any charge of
criminal
activity."
**************************************************************************
1987
HCOPL 24 September 87
CONFIDENTIAL
BATTLE TACTICS ISSUE II
[Reissue of 16 September 1969
Issued with various GO investigator hat packs.]
- WCB
************************************************************************
1989
**************************************************************************
1987
HCOPL 24 September 87
CONFIDENTIAL
BATTLE TACTICS ISSUE II
[Reissue of 16 September 1969
Issued with various GO investigator hat packs.]
- WCB
************************************************************************
1989
26 October 1989
LARRY WOLLERSHEIM VS. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
Cal Appeal 3D 872 2o Cal Rpt 331
2nd Dist 1989
"The complaint alledged appellant intentionally and negligently
inflicted severe emotional injury on respondant through certain
practices including "auditing", "disconnection" and "fair game".
We conclude there was substantial evidence to support a factual
finding the "auditing" as well as other practices in this case
we conducted in a coercive environment. Thus none of them qualify
as "voluntary religious practices" entitled to constitutional
protection under the First Amendment religious freedom guaranties."
"Evidence was introduced that at least during the time relevant
to Wollersheim's case, "fair game" was a practice of retribution
Scientology threatened to inflict on "suppressives", which included
people who left the organization or anybody who could pose a threat
to the organization."
"Evidence was also introduced detailing Scientology's retribution
policy, sometimes called "fair game.""
"Finally when Wollersheim was able to leave the church it subjected him
to financial ruin through its policy of fair game."
"(4)Conducting a retributive campaign of "fair game" against
Wollersheim and particularly against his business enterprise."
"Scientology asserts that all four courses of conduct comprising the
Intentional infliction religiouse forms of religious expression
protected
by the freedom of religion clause clauses of the United States
Constitution and California Constitutions, We conclude that
wouldreligious
be protected religious activity even if Wollersheim freely
participated."
...
"B. Even Assuming the Retributive Conduct Sometimes Called "Fair
Game is a Core Practice of Scientology, It Does Not Qualify For
Constitutional Protection."
http://lermanet.com/scientology/legal/
Scientology argued that fair game was a form of "religious expression"
and as such, is "protected speech". The court rejected that argument.
-WCB
************************************************************************
1991
OSA Investigation Officer Full Hat Check Sheet
Exact date unknown
EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE
OFFICE OF SPECIAL AFFAIRS
...
CONFIDENTIAL
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL AFFAIRS
INVESTIGATION OFFICER
FULL HAT CHECKSHEET
....
DRILLS ARE TO BE DONE TO THEIR FULL RESULT. If you are not a fast
flow student you must star-rate checkout all items marked with an
asterisk (*). (ref: HCOB 13 Aug 72RB FAST FLOW TRAINING)
..........
SECTION J: PTS/SP DATA
...
6. HCO PL 23 Dec SUPPRESSIVE ACTS _______
65RB SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY
Revison 8.1.91 AND SCIENTOLOGISTS
....
-26-
25. HCO PL Exec Ltr 27 Sept 65 "Amprinistics" _______
26. Ed 149 Int Branch 5 Project
2 Dec 65 Project Squirrel _______
[Item 25, Amprinistics ,which see above, commands certain people
be fair gamed. here it is obviously used as a model for OSA
behavior.]
- WCB
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/osa-int-ed-508r.html
*************************************************************************
1994
ROBERT VAUGHN YOUNG DECLARATION
10 Oct 94
[In the case of Dr. Uwe Geertz and Steven Fishman, RVY as
expert witness delivered this declaration in response
to a declaration by Scientology lawyer Lynn Farney.
This declaration is concerned largely with the Fair Game
policies of Scientology.]
- WCB
"The Hubbard Policy letter that introduced Fair Game
asserted that individuals considered suppressive persons
could be the subject of "1st degree murder, arson,
disintergration of persons or belongings."
- Jon Atack
****************************************************************************
1996
The Fair Game FAQ
A FAQ found on the Scientology official website "Church of
Scientology FAQ homepage. The exact date of composition and author
are unknown to me. But the bottom of the page reads, "(c) 1996-2003
Church of scientology International". Until I know better I will
list this as 1996.
- WCB
"Fair Game was cancelled in 1968, more than 30 years ago, expressly
because it was susceptible to misinterpretation and abuse."
[Actually the claim that it was "susceptible to abuse" would have come
from Hubbard's HCOPL 22 Dec 80. The 3 Feb 68 code of reform offers
no reasons for cancellation, nor does HCOPL 7 Mar 69 except to say
"..it seems that new policies evolved have ended in reform for severe
internal discipline systems". However, Scientology here ignores the
fact that Scientology argued in court that "fair game" was
Conreligiousnally protected religous behavior under the 1st amendment
in the Wollersheim case, Christofferson-Titchbourne cases and others
well past 1968. Plus the fact the "fair game law" HCOPL of 7 Mar
1965 was still being promulgated in such Scientology books as
"Modern Management Technology Defined" published as late as 1986.
See 15, June 98, Court Decision OVG Hamburg, and that HCOPL 1 Mar 65
was listed a sa star rated item in the 1974 GO training hat check
sheet.]
- WCB
**********************************************************************
1998
15 June 98
Court Decision OVG Hamburg, Germany (Hamburg Administrative appeals
Court) Bs III 65/96
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/germany/ovg6596.html
["Scientology had sued the city of Hamburg and the Hamburg Parliament
because of a report that had mentioned "fair game" and concluded
that even massive crimes against Scientology-critics would not
be a "suppressive act"according to Scientology ethics.
(http://home.snafu.de/tilman/caberta1.html
The court has doubts whether HCOPL 10.9.1983 has 1) removed the term
"fair game" and 2) brought another definition. The reason is
the defendent showed a 1986 book "Modern Management Technology Defined"
which has the definition of "fair game" as in HCOPL 23.12.1965 and
specifically refers to it. The conclusion that massive crimes
against Scientology-critics are not considered "suppressive acts
is correct because "suppressive acts" are only acts against Scientology
or Scientologists, not against "suppressive persons".]
- Tilman Hausherr
[Documents at the site above are in German]
-WCB
********************************* END
**************************************
--
"If I saw a man beating a tied up horse, I could
not prove it was wrong, but I'd know it was wrong."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
Roadrunner
me doing this now, and not with the expected result.
> THE BRAIN WASHING MANUAL
> A book written by Hubbard and published anonymously
> as an attack on psychiatry.
>
> [Thus by 1955 Hubbard was already playing dirty tricks.]
> -WCB
>
> http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brain-Washing-manual.html
> http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-front.jpg
> http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-back.jpg
> http://home.tiscali.de/alex.sk/A_Stickley2.html
>
> ---------------
>
> SCIENTOLOGY OPERATIONS BULLETIN 8
>
> "The brainwashing manual that came into our hands so mysteriously,
> is being released, not to unmock psychiatry, but as a necessary
> piece of information..."
"... already playing dirty tricks."? The claim does not hold, it is very
unlikely that he wrote that.
http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/hubbard_vs_nwo.html#brainwashingman
ual
For sake of truthfulness you should not make that unsupported claim.
> ----------
>
> HCOPL 7 Mar 69
> [Name unknown at this time. I have not seen the whole HCOPL,
> just excerpts from the Dumbleton-Powles report of 3 February
> 1969, which see. - WCB]
HCO PL is not found in my records.
> -----------------
>
> HCOPL 6 Oct 70 Issue III
> ETHICS PENALTIES
>
> "The Following HCOPLs are cancelled:"
> HCO PL 26 Sept '67 Conditions for Scn Orgs addition to Applying
Formulas.
> HCO PL 18 Oct '67 issue IV Penalties for Lower Conditions.
> HCO PL 20 Oct '67 issue II Conditions Penalties New Employees and
Persons Newly on Post
> HCO PL6 Oct '67 Condition of Liability"
>
> "The motto is, "Hat don't Hit".
>
> [Purported by some to have cancelled "Fair Game",
> This cancels HCOPL 18 Oct '67, but not HCOPL 21 July '68
It did actually, this is confirmed in the issue that cancelled HCO PL 6 Oct
70 III:
HCO PL 19 Oct 71"Ethics Penalties Reinstated":
Start quote:
"HCO Policy Letter of 6 October 1970 Issue III "Ethics Penalties" which
cancelled the penalties formerly asssigned for conditions is now CANCELLED.
"The following HCO PLs which the 6 Oct 70 Issue III PL cancelled are
reinstated in full:
HCO PL 26 Sept '67 Conditions for Scn Orgs Addition to Applying Formulas.
HCO PL 21 Jul '68 Penalties for Lower Conditions
HCO PL 20 Oct '67 Issue II Conditions Penalties New Employees and Persons
Newly on Post
HCO PL 6 Oct '67 Condition of Liability"
End quote.
> *************************************************************************
>
> 1983
>
> HCOPL 8 Sept 83
> CANCELLATIONS OF ISSUES ON SUPPRESSIVE ACTS AND PTs
>
> [I have not seen this.]
> -WCB
What do you want to know about this HCO PL? It cancels 4 HCO PL's (including
the below mentioned one) and that's about it.
>
> Cancels HCOPL 22 July 80
> [See Atack, "Religion or Intelligence Agency?"
> for more information.]
> - WCB
>
> **************************************************************************
>
****************************************************************************
>
> 1996
>
> The Fair Game FAQ
> A FAQ found on the Scientology official website "Church of
> Scientology FAQ homepage. The exact date of composition and author
> are unknown to me. But the bottom of the page reads, "(c) 1996-2003
> Church of scientology International". Until I know better I will
> list this as 1996.
> - WCB
>
> "Fair Game was cancelled in 1968, more than 30 years ago, expressly
> because it was susceptible to misinterpretation and abuse."
>
> [Actually the claim that it was "susceptible to abuse" would have come
> from Hubbard's HCOPL 22 Dec 80. The 3 Feb 68 code of reform offers
> no reasons for cancellation
It got cancelled after 3 Feb 68, not before.
> , nor does HCOPL 7 Mar 69 except to say
> "..it seems that new policies evolved have ended in reform for severe
> internal discipline systems". However, Scientology here ignores the
> fact that Scientology argued in court that "fair game" was
> Conreligiousnally protected religous behavior under the 1st amendment
> in the Wollersheim case, Christofferson-Titchbourne cases and others
> well past 1968.
These court cases will not hold the argument. Court cases are about claims
of people and what some did.
> Plus the fact the "fair game law" HCOPL of 7 Mar
> 1965 was still being promulgated in such Scientology books as
> "Modern Management Technology Defined" published as late as 1986.
Unrealistic claim as this was a dictionary. It doesn't say that it is in
use, it defines a word. Although it could have mentioned there that it was
cancelled since.
> See 15, June 98, Court Decision OVG Hamburg, and that HCOPL 1 Mar 65
> was listed a sa star rated item in the 1974 GO training hat check
> sheet.]
HCOPL 1 Mar 65 was superseded by 1974. Although the term Fair Game was not
removed prior to 1979. The old green volumes though do mention underneath
the refence that Fair Game was cancelled as it did on the version of this PL
found in any hat packs compilation that I know of.
> - WCB
So here you go!
Roadrunner
Roadrunner
this prior to me doing this now, and not with the expected result. The
expected result is everybody thinks like me, a brainwashed cultist.
> THE BRAIN WASHING MANUAL
> A book written by Hubbard and published anonymously
> as an attack on psychiatry.
>
> [Thus by 1955 Hubbard was already playing dirty tricks.]
> -WCB
>
> http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brain-Washing-manual.html
> http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-front.jpg
> http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-back.jpg
> http://home.tiscali.de/alex.sk/A_Stickley2.html
>
> ---------------
>
> SCIENTOLOGY OPERATIONS BULLETIN 8
>
> "The brainwashing manual that came into our hands so mysteriously,
> is being released, not to unmock psychiatry, but as a necessary
> piece of information..."
"... already playing dirty tricks."? The claim holds, it is very likely
that he wrote that.
For sake of truthfulness I am glad you make that supported claim.
> ----------
>
> HCOPL 7 Mar 69
> [Name unknown at this time. I have not seen the whole HCOPL,
> just excerpts from the Dumbleton-Powles report of 3 February
> 1969, which see. - WCB]
HCO PLs inconvenient to my brainwashing are not found in my records.
> -----------------
>
> HCOPL 6 Oct 70 Issue III
> ETHICS PENALTIES
>
> "The Following HCOPLs are cancelled:"
> HCO PL 26 Sept '67 Conditions for Scn Orgs addition to Applying
Formulas.
> HCO PL 18 Oct '67 issue IV Penalties for Lower Conditions.
> HCO PL 20 Oct '67 issue II Conditions Penalties New Employees and
Persons Newly on Post
> HCO PL6 Oct '67 Condition of Liability"
>
> "The motto is, "Hat don't Hit".
>
> [Purported by some to have cancelled "Fair Game",
> This cancels HCOPL 18 Oct '67, but not HCOPL 21 July '68
It did not actually:
HCO PL 19 Oct 71"Ethics Penalties Reinstated" does not cancel fair game.
> *************************************************************************
>
> 1983
>
> HCOPL 8 Sept 83
> CANCELLATIONS OF ISSUES ON SUPPRESSIVE ACTS AND PTs
>
> [I have not seen this.]
> -WCB
You don't need to.
>
> Cancels HCOPL 22 July 80
> [See Atack, "Religion or Intelligence Agency?"
> for more information.]
> - WCB
>
> **************************************************************************
>
***************************************************************************
*
>
> 1996
>
> The Fair Game FAQ
> A FAQ found on the Scientology official website "Church of
> Scientology FAQ homepage. The exact date of composition and author
> are unknown to me. But the bottom of the page reads, "(c) 1996-2003
> Church of scientology International". Until I know better I will
> list this as 1996.
> - WCB
>
> "Fair Game was cancelled in 1968, more than 30 years ago, expressly
> because it was susceptible to misinterpretation and abuse."
>
> [Actually the claim that it was "susceptible to abuse" would have come
> from Hubbard's HCOPL 22 Dec 80. The 3 Feb 68 code of reform offers
> no reasons for cancellation, nor does HCOPL 7 Mar 69 except to say
> "..it seems that new policies evolved have ended in reform for severe
> internal discipline systems". However, Scientology here ignores the
> fact that Scientology argued in court that "fair game" was
> Conreligiousnally protected religous behavior under the 1st amendment
> in the Wollersheim case, Christofferson-Titchbourne cases and others
> well past 1968.
These court cases are evidence.
> Plus the fact the "fair game law" HCOPL of 7 Mar
> 1965 was still being promulgated in such Scientology books as
> "Modern Management Technology Defined" published as late as 1986.
More evidence.
> See 15, June 98, Court Decision OVG Hamburg, and that HCOPL 1 Mar 65
> was listed a sa star rated item in the 1974 GO training hat check
> sheet.]
More evidence fair game was never canceled.
> - WCB
So here you go for the 500th time!
Roadrunner/Spacetraveler
--
"Allah is great. I am greater!" -- Š Roadrunner/Spacetraveler
Roadrunner
Roadrunner
wbarwell
> I respond to this only once. I have seen various commenting on this
> prior to me doing this now, and not with the expected result.
>
>> THE BRAIN WASHING MANUAL
>> A book written by Hubbard and published anonymously
>> as an attack on psychiatry.
>>
>> [Thus by 1955 Hubbard was already playing dirty tricks.]
>> -WCB
>>
>> http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brain-Washing-manual.html
>> http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-front.jpg
>> http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-back.jpg
>> http://home.tiscali.de/alex.sk/A_Stickley2.html
>>
>> ---------------
>>
>> SCIENTOLOGY OPERATIONS BULLETIN 8
>>
>> "The brainwashing manual that came into our hands so mysteriously,
>> is being released, not to unmock psychiatry, but as a necessary
>> piece of information..."
>
>
> "... already playing dirty tricks."? The claim does not hold, it is
> very unlikely that he wrote that.
>
>
http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/hubbard_vs_nwo.html#brainwashingman
> ual
>
> For sake of truthfulness you should not make that unsupported claim.
>
>
In my good judgement that claim is well supported.
If he did not write it all him self or plagarized
it, which I doubnt, he most certainly published it and
spread it around. It was most certainly not written
by Russians.
It was a dirty trick by Hubbard.
>> ----------
>>
>> HCOPL 7 Mar 69
>> [Name unknown at this time. I have not seen the whole HCOPL,
>> just excerpts from the Dumbleton-Powles report of 3 February
>> 1969, which see. - WCB]
>
> HCO PL is not found in my records.
It is also not on www.scientology.coms list
of official HCOPLs. At this time there was a
suppoesd amensty and claims of changes to regain
blown Scientologists but as Vosper said in his
book, nothing really changed.
No mention of this in Vosper. This was also passed
on about this time to Omar Garrison who was writing
on Scientology.
As far as I know, this is the only two mentions of
this supposed cancellation.
I strongly suspect a limited for purposes
of getting Dumbleton-Powles off their back.
Neither Anderson nor Foster report anything
like this.
>
>> -----------------
>>
>> HCOPL 6 Oct 70 Issue III
>> ETHICS PENALTIES
>>
>> "The Following HCOPLs are cancelled:"
>> HCO PL 26 Sept '67 Conditions for Scn Orgs addition to Applying
> Formulas.
>> HCO PL 18 Oct '67 issue IV Penalties for Lower Conditions.
>> HCO PL 20 Oct '67 issue II Conditions Penalties New Employees and
> Persons Newly on Post
>> HCO PL6 Oct '67 Condition of Liability"
>>
>> "The motto is, "Hat don't Hit".
>>
>> [Purported by some to have cancelled "Fair Game",
>> This cancels HCOPL 18 Oct '67, but not HCOPL 21 July '68
>
> It did actually, this is confirmed in the issue that cancelled HCO PL 6
> Oct 70 III:
But the 1974 and 1976 OECs did have
this 18 Oct 67 was appended to 23 Dec 65 in the OECs.
---
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:ml.cden Copyright (c) 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
This 23 December reissue changed Justice to Ethics, and Division
2 (earlier Org Board numbering system) to Division 4, and added B(
1 ) and the three paragraphs following E. ]
[Note: See HCO P/L 21 October 1968, Cancellation of Fair Game,
and HCO P/L 15 November 1968 which removes disconnection as a
condition, on page 489. ]
---
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead,
Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 OCTOBER 1968
Remimeo
CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME
The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME
may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling
of an SP.
-----------
What he has done here is pointedly state that policy and
treatement of fair gamed persons is not cancelled
And that is the whole point here.
--------
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead,
Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 DECEMBER 1965 (Replaces HCO Policy
Letter of 7 March 1965, Issue I. This was originally misdated as 1
March 1965)
Gen Non-Remlmeo
...
ETHICS SUPPRESSIVE ACTS SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND
SCIENTOLOGISTS THE FAIR GAME LAW
---------
Fair game is in place, policy has not changed,
just do not use those words.
Fair Game was very much in force here.
This is why they were unable to prove
to a judge Fair Game was really cancelled in the
Allard case, and why Allard won.
Allard's Fair Game charge against CoS
was disallowed by a judge but with the
provisio CoS show evidence of their claim.
The 1974 OEC would have placed them in jepordy
of perjury making further claims. So they
made no attempt to lie to a judge probably
knowing full well Allard's lawyers were waiting for
them to try.
I will in future updated versions deal more
forefully with this issue.
> HCO PL 19 Oct 71"Ethics Penalties Reinstated":
>
> Start quote:
> "HCO Policy Letter of 6 October 1970 Issue III "Ethics Penalties" which
> cancelled the penalties formerly asssigned for conditions is now
> CANCELLED.
>
> "The following HCO PLs which the 6 Oct 70 Issue III PL cancelled are
> reinstated in full:
> HCO PL 26 Sept '67 Conditions for Scn Orgs Addition to Applying
> Formulas. HCO PL 21 Jul '68 Penalties for Lower Conditions
> HCO PL 20 Oct '67 Issue II Conditions Penalties New Employees and
> Persons Newly on Post
> HCO PL 6 Oct '67 Condition of Liability"
> End quote.
>
But they referenced Oct 67 in the addendum to
23 Dec 65, the now infamous fair game law.
They can't have it both ways.
>
>>
*************************************************************************
>>
>> 1983
>>
>> HCOPL 8 Sept 83
>> CANCELLATIONS OF ISSUES ON SUPPRESSIVE ACTS AND PTs
>>
>> [I have not seen this.]
>> -WCB
>
> What do you want to know about this HCO PL? It cancels 4 HCO PL's
> (including the below mentioned one) and that's about it.
I have now seen it several times but have no been
able to trace source of this issue. It seems
well known to free zone sources, but it is not found
on the official list of issues of HCOPLs et al on
www.scientology org. The original 80 cancellation is
likewise not found there either. The 1980 cancellation
was not by Hubbard.
.....
Doing this, we all can win.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:dr
Copyright (c) 1980
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
There are few references to this, as far as I can tell,
all going back to Atack. Again, way to trace it easily.
----------
The 1983 cancellation is also not by Hubbard.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL
CSI:pm:iw
Copyright © 1983
by the Church of Scientology
International
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
--------------------
I will probably in the next time line version
deal with this issue.
Allard most certainly does, and so does Titchbourne for
exactly the same reasons.
---------
August 16, 1979
PORTLAND, Ore. - (AP) A jury awarded more than $2 million in damages
Wednesday to a 22-year-old woman who claimed the Church of Scientology
defrauded her by failing to fulfill promises of improving her life.
OEC 1965 with HCOPL 23 December 65 and the 18 Oct 67
appended HCOPL would have made it hard to argue
CoS did not have a "Fair Game" laws and the
1976 appendment of HCOPL Oct 21, 67 would have
made it hard to argue what was in fact policy
in regards to fair game.
I need to add the Titchborne case to the timeline
in any case. Reviewing this carefully is in my list
of things to be done.
>
>> Plus the fact the "fair game law" HCOPL of 7 Mar
>> 1965 was still being promulgated in such Scientology books as
>> "Modern Management Technology Defined" published as late as 1986.
>
> Unrealistic claim as this was a dictionary. It doesn't say that it is
> in use, it defines a word. Although it could have mentioned there that
> it was cancelled since.
>
It shows it was indeed in play in the Managment Dictionary,
still in force in the 1991 OSA hat pack and PTS-SP packs,
among others. With the Armstrong cases and Wollersheim appeal
where fair game was argued to be core practices and thus
protected first amendment religius activity, all combined
makes it hard to argue in any serious way, fair game was not policy.
>> See 15, June 98, Court Decision OVG Hamburg, and that HCOPL 1 Mar
>> 65 was listed a sa star rated item in the 1974 GO training hat
>> check
>> sheet.]
>
> HCOPL 1 Mar 65 was superseded by 1974. Although the term Fair Game was
> not removed prior to 1979. The old green volumes though do mention
> underneath the refence that Fair Game was cancelled as it did on the
> version of this PL found in any hat packs compilation that I know of.
>
>> - WCB
>
>
> So here you go!
>
> Roadrunner
Scientology's official claim on the website says it was
cancelled in the 60's, which obviously is not so.
1n 2005 Pat Harney, public affairs director, Church of Scientology,
Flag Service Organization, stated in a reply to me in the
St Petersburg Times, that "The "fair game" policy was canceled
in 1968 because it was being misinterpreted, as Barwell is doing
in this current letter."
Again, OEC's 1974, 1976, PTS-SP hat packs, the Mo
Budlong and Jane Kember admissions, et al ad nauseum show it
most certainly was in force.
As did examples of that such as Paulette Cooper show
Fair Game most certainly was in force well into the mid
70's until the 1977 raids.
RTC's own Helena Kobrin also has claimed that in the past,
its the standard CoS "shore story".
It was policy, the 1974 - 1976 OECs show that pretty
convincingly.
Mrs Roadrunner
This is truly the highest kind of impersonating one can get involved in!
Thank you so much, Roadrunner!
Mrs Roadrunner, aka Mrs Spacetraveler
--
"Allah is great. My husband is greater!" -- © Mrs. Spacetraveler
Roadrunner
"wbarwell" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11vfa5i...@corp.supernews.com...
A claim which by no means you can support, did you consult the link I
provided you? I am not going to argue with you about this, but persons that
can reason will see the subjectivity in your persistence, and because of
that you will loose credibility. I hope that you realize that.
>
> >> ----------
> >>
> >> HCOPL 7 Mar 69
> >> [Name unknown at this time. I have not seen the whole HCOPL,
> >> just excerpts from the Dumbleton-Powles report of 3 February
> >> 1969, which see. - WCB]
> >
> > HCO PL is not found in my records.
>
>
> It is also not on www.scientology.coms list
> of official HCOPLs.
My list is a lot longer than that one!
Which explains why it became superfluous, and thus cancelled as a separate
issue.
> ---
> L. RON HUBBARD
>
> LRH:ml.cden Copyright (c) 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
> RESERVED
>
> This 23 December reissue changed Justice to Ethics, and Division
> 2 (earlier Org Board numbering system) to Division 4, and added B(
> 1 ) and the three paragraphs following E. ]
>
> [Note: See HCO P/L 21 October 1968, Cancellation of Fair Game,
> and HCO P/L 15 November 1968 which removes disconnection as a
> condition, on page 489. ]
>
> ---
>
> HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead,
> Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 OCTOBER 1968
>
> Remimeo
>
> CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME
>
> The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME
> may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
>
> This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling
> of an SP.
As the main Fair Game issue was cancelled previously by HCOPL 21 July '68 it
could not have been actionable at the time when HCO PL 21 Oct 68 was issued.
You would have an argument if HCO PL 21 Jul 68 did not exist, but it does
exist.
I get the impression you want something to be there, which is not present.
If a certain action is cancelled it supersedes all the references discussing
this action issued at an earlier date. To be actionable again, it needs to
be reinstated.
>
>
> >
> >>
> *************************************************************************
> >>
> >> 1983
> >>
> >> HCOPL 8 Sept 83
> >> CANCELLATIONS OF ISSUES ON SUPPRESSIVE ACTS AND PTs
> >>
> >> [I have not seen this.]
> >> -WCB
> >
> > What do you want to know about this HCO PL? It cancels 4 HCO PL's
> > (including the below mentioned one) and that's about it.
>
>
> I have now seen it several times but have no been
> able to trace source of this issue. It seems
> well known to free zone sources, but it is not found
> on the official list of issues of HCOPLs et al on
> www.scientology org. The original 80 cancellation is
> likewise not found there either. The 1980 cancellation
> was not by Hubbard.
If it is not found on the present official list that means that it is not
valid at present and cancelled.
Ask staff oldtimers if they know about this in use, not only the few that
are claiming stuff in court. In SO it was known cancelled and not in use.
And if discussed it was talked about as in past tense.
> >> See 15, June 98, Court Decision OVG Hamburg, and that HCOPL 1 Mar
> >> 65 was listed a sa star rated item in the 1974 GO training hat
> >> check
> >> sheet.]
> >
> > HCOPL 1 Mar 65 was superseded by 1974. Although the term Fair Game was
> > not removed prior to 1979. The old green volumes though do mention
> > underneath the refence that Fair Game was cancelled as it did on the
> > version of this PL found in any hat packs compilation that I know of.
> >
> >> - WCB
> >
> >
> > So here you go!
> >
> > Roadrunner
>
> Scientology's official claim on the website says it was
> cancelled in the 60's, which obviously is not so.
Sorry, it was cancelled. Church reference history show this very clearly.
You basically have a couple of court cases of mostly the same persons
complaining and claiming. Would you actually have been part in the
organization as staff then you would have known that it was not even a
subject of discussion amongst staff.
>
> 1n 2005 Pat Harney, public affairs director, Church of Scientology,
> Flag Service Organization, stated in a reply to me in the
> St Petersburg Times, that "The "fair game" policy was canceled
> in 1968 because it was being misinterpreted, as Barwell is doing
> in this current letter."
>
> Again, OEC's 1974, 1976, PTS-SP hat packs, the Mo
> Budlong and Jane Kember admissions, et al ad nauseum show it
> most certainly was in force.
This unfolds to me that you don't know how the policy letter system
practically works. If one later policy takes away some action, it supersedes
any and all references talking about such an action.
>
> As did examples of that such as Paulette Cooper show
> Fair Game most certainly was in force well into the mid
> 70's until the 1977 raids.
>
> RTC's own Helena Kobrin also has claimed that in the past,
> its the standard CoS "shore story".
>
> It was policy, the 1974 - 1976 OECs show that pretty
> convincingly.
? They show it was not in use, and staff confirms that it was something that
was actionable in the past. I guess your list will remain unadjusted.
Roadrunner
wbarwell
We have all been over this several times now in ARS.
There are varying claims.
But this BM has comments about Dianetics no Russians
would write. A dead giveaway that whatever its ultimate
beginnings Hubbard circulated his version. And he did
circulate it.
>
>>
>> >> ----------
>> >>
>> >> HCOPL 7 Mar 69
>> >> [Name unknown at this time. I have not seen the whole HCOPL,
>> >> just excerpts from the Dumbleton-Powles report of 3 February
>> >> 1969, which see. - WCB]
>> >
>> > HCO PL is not found in my records.
>>
>>
>> It is also not on www.scientology.coms list
>> of official HCOPLs.
>
> My list is a lot longer than that one!
>
There are a number of HCOPls, and HCOBs and more
not in OECs, Blue Volumes et al.
What matters is what Scientology owns up to
or can be clearly linked to Scientology published
materials.
Unless I have confirmation or written
materials, I have only secondary sources.
Of course there were many restricted or
secret materials also. GO hat packs would
not be known well except for FBI raids for example.
I do not have access to 'year books' and other
materials.
No, it was not superflous. There was a certain amount
of contradictions here but that was pure CYA.
The real issue was the Fair Game law and the firm
hint policies did not change.
Then we look at what Scientology actually did.
Cooper was a choice example.
We need look no further.
>
>> ---
>> L. RON HUBBARD
>>
>> LRH:ml.cden Copyright (c) 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
>> RESERVED
>>
>> This 23 December reissue changed Justice to Ethics, and Division
>> 2 (earlier Org Board numbering system) to Division 4, and added B(
>> 1 ) and the three paragraphs following E. ]
>>
>> [Note: See HCO P/L 21 October 1968, Cancellation of Fair Game,
>> and HCO P/L 15 November 1968 which removes disconnection as a
>> condition, on page 489. ]
>>
>> ---
>>
>> HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead,
>> Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 OCTOBER 1968
>>
>> Remimeo
>>
>> CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME
>>
>> The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME
>> may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
>>
>> This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling
>> of an SP.
>
> As the main Fair Game issue was cancelled previously by HCOPL 21 July
> '68 it could not have been actionable at the time when HCO PL 21 Oct 68
> was issued. You would have an argument if HCO PL 21 Jul 68 did not
> exist, but it does exist.
>
No, don't start this crap again, its is simply wrong.
So long space traveler.
--
Roadrunner
I get those who sell this Brainwashing E-book on the ebay to change their
description by just saying adjust your description or risk being reported to
ebay harbour. How is that for an argument?
Your claims will not stick, that's the short of it. When people hear the
other arguments they will conform and ask themselves but why does Barwell
continue to claim that what he claims. Doesn't he know about this?
You don't need the same data at 2 places. Superfluous it gets if so.
> There was a certain amount
> of contradictions here but that was pure CYA.
> The real issue was the Fair Game law and the firm
> hint policies did not change.
>
> Then we look at what Scientology actually did.
What some few and same persons claim that they did. That's not Scientology.
You are denying that 21 Jul 68 exist. You don't like these consequences as
it doesn't support your belief that Fair Game was never cancelled.
>
> So long space traveler.
Wrong, he/she got the data from me in the first place.
> > I get the impression you want something to be there, which is not
> > present. If a certain action is cancelled it supersedes all the
> > references discussing this action issued at an earlier date. To be
> > actionable again, it needs to be reinstated.
> >
> > Ask staff oldtimers if they know about this in use, not only the few
> > that are claiming stuff in court. In SO it was known cancelled and not
> > in use. And if discussed it was talked about as in past tense.
> >
> > Sorry, it was cancelled. Church reference history show this very
> > clearly. You basically have a couple of court cases of mostly the same
> > persons complaining and claiming. Would you actually have been part in
> > the organization as staff then you would have known that it was not
> > even a subject of discussion amongst staff.
You ignored the above. Enough and good bye.
Roadrunner
I am being defamed and forged here
Roadrunner schrieb:
> I respond to this only once. I have seen various commenting on this prior to
> me doing this now, and not with the expected result.
Show the world what a superficial and dishonest guy, WC Barwell is,
Roadrunner.
--
Barbara Schwarz
L. Ron Hubbard: "THE CRIMINAL ACCUSES OTHERS OF THINGS WHICH HE HIMSELF
IS DOING. THE CRIMINAL MIND RELENTLESSLY SEEKS TO DESTROY ANYONE IT
IMAGINES MIGHT EXPOSE IT. THE CRIMINAL ONLY SEES OTHERS AS HE HIMSELF
IS."
L. Ron Hubbard: "HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, TOO."
http://www.thunderstar.net/~Schwarz/
(I am concerned about Dave Touretzky's activities.)
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
Other interesting websites:
http://www.cchr.org
http://67.154.46.4/ Free Speech Store
http://www.amatterofjustice.org/
Mrs Roadrunner
2. Why did L Ron Hubbard, himself, practice fair game before and after his
fair game polices were published or "canceled"?
3. Why did L Ron Hubbard order Scientologists to apply the fair game
policies before and after they were "canceled"?
4. The Church of Scientology's practice of fair game has gone on without
interruption since L Ron Hubbard published the first fair game policies in
the 1950s. Why did he never stop it?
Husband, why have you never answered these questions?
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
Spacetraveller drove himself off with contradictions that made it
impossible to argue further. Now he ( Michel Snoeck) gives it another
try.
cross reference search Michel Snoek and Spacetraveller:
http://www.google.se/search?q=%22Michel+Snoeck%22+spacetraveller&num=50&hl=sv&hs=pD5&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&filter=0
Googling Michel Snoeck:
http://www.google.se/search?q=%22Michel+Snoeck%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
Ulf
Roadrunner
"Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140342588....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Roadrunner = most likely Michel Snoeck = most likely Spacetraveller.
> Spacetraveller drove himself off with contradictions that made it
> impossible to argue further.
As I recall was the mission of this Spacetraveler dude accomplished. You
talk about it as if you have been wronged by this dude, but can't be honest
about it.
> Now he ( Michel Snoeck) gives it another
> try.
> cross reference search Michel Snoek and Spacetraveller:
>
http://www.google.se/search?q=%22Michel+Snoeck%22+spacetraveller&num=50&hl=s
v&hs=pD5&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&filter=0
>
> Googling Michel Snoeck:
>
http://www.google.se/search?q=%22Michel+Snoeck%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&
client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
>
> Ulf
You are giving free advertisement to some person here.
RR
Mrs Roadrunner
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
Roadrunner skrev:
> "Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140342588....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Roadrunner = most likely Michel Snoeck = most likely Spacetraveller.
> > Spacetraveller drove himself off with contradictions that made it
> > impossible to argue further.
>
> As I recall was the mission of this Spacetraveler dude accomplished. You
> talk about it as if you have been wronged by this dude, but can't be honest
> about it.
What mission was that?
Me wronged by ST - lol , he was just another co$ operative with lousy
communicative skills
> > Now he ( Michel Snoeck) gives it another
> > try.
> > cross reference search Michel Snoek and Spacetraveller:
> >
> http://www.google.se/search?q=%22Michel+Snoeck%22+spacetraveller&num=50&hl=s
> v&hs=pD5&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&filter=0
> >
> > Googling Michel Snoeck:
> >
> http://www.google.se/search?q=%22Michel+Snoeck%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&
> client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
> >
> > Ulf
>
> You are giving free advertisement to some person here.
>
> RR
The Fair Gamy policy is still in action :
The Fair Game policy is still applied , to the contrary of claims made
by different posters on this board.
What basis do I have for this statement?
I have been subjected to it myself after exposing, and with the help
of collegues,
putted a stop to Narconon in my region in Sweden. ( The matter is
still pending in court. Final ruling has not been made) The stop could
, with worst case scenario, be just temporary.
After having a feisty debate in the newspapers with Co$ Public
Relation Officer of Sweden and with some other scienos , the Fair
Gaming started. First a bunch of members from cchr protested outside
the hospital and outside the psychiatric clinic. The OSA officer from
Stockholm, rented a local in my hometown at the same time ( to
organize the actions of course) and had an add in the paper where she
proclaimed an open house for citizens to get informed about
scientology.
The clinic was also intruded by Co$ members spreading pamflettes all
over the place and to the harassment of the patients in the
waitingroom.
Several phonecalls and a letters to the management of "my" clinic was
made by OSA , with the intention to get me fired or at least strongly
reprimanded because of my actions against Co$ and Narconon.
A retired professor of governmental law was hired by Co$, to
investigate the judicial situation and preferably to get my ass in the
courtroom.
A smearing campaign was launched in the newspaper ( Black PR ) against
me , using some poor women who had turned to me for help regarding her
friend who was in the claws of Narconon.
Co$ made written allegations to the ,police, the regional governmental
office, the National Board of Health and Wellfare , requesting some
kind of legal actions against me.
All this happened during the period of spring 2003 to the summer 2004.
This far the only consequence for me personally has been the
inconvenience of making an investigation of my own of Narconon and
Co$.
My and my collegues medical arguments against Narconon can be read at:
http://www.holysmoke.org/narconon/narconon-denied-permission.htm
and http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/experts_condemnes_narconon.htm
The Swedish PRO of OSA:
http://www.freedommag.org/swedish/img/hom_image03.jpg
Gullevi Almgren
What stirred all this up?
http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/narconon_investigation_by_.htm
and
http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/narconondebateinenglish.htm
Ulf
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
One of the many fans of the http://www.parishioners.org skrev:
> Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam wrote:
> > Roadrunner skrev:
> >
> > > "Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1140342588....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> You need help, Ulf. Do something against your persecution mania.
>
>snip spew and false citations>
Oh yes I forgot to mention - Co$ had no success with any of the filed
complaints. On the other hand success and Co$ ....... well if not
mutual exclusive, you could say that the two doesn´t seem to go hand
in hand.
Ulf
Roadrunner
>
> Roadrunner skrev:
>
> > "Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1140342588....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Roadrunner = most likely Michel Snoeck = most likely Spacetraveller.
> > > Spacetraveller drove himself off with contradictions that made it
> > > impossible to argue further.
> >
> > As I recall was the mission of this Spacetraveler dude accomplished. You
> > talk about it as if you have been wronged by this dude, but can't be
honest
> > about it.
>
> What mission was that?
That's what the dude said as I recall. Somewhere there is an end of the
line, where nothing more can be achieved. As I recall certain data was to be
incorporated in these ARS files.
> Me wronged by ST - lol , he was just another co$ operative with lousy
> communicative skills
Any who created such an attention as that dude did, does not have lousy
communicative skills.
>
> > > Now he ( Michel Snoeck) gives it another
> > > try.
> > > cross reference search Michel Snoek and Spacetraveller:
> > >
> >
http://www.google.se/search?q=%22Michel+Snoeck%22+spacetraveller&num=50&hl=s
> > v&hs=pD5&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&filter=0
> > >
> > > Googling Michel Snoeck:
> > >
> >
http://www.google.se/search?q=%22Michel+Snoeck%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&
> > client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
> > >
> > > Ulf
> >
> > You are giving free advertisement to some person here.
> >
> > RR
>
> The Fair Gamy policy is still in action :
> The Fair Game policy is still applied , to the contrary of claims made
> by different posters on this board.
>
> What basis do I have for this statement?
>
> I have been subjected to it myself after exposing, and with the help
> of collegues,
> putted a stop to Narconon in my region in Sweden. ( The matter is
> still pending in court. Final ruling has not been made) The stop could
> , with worst case scenario, be just temporary.
What do you expect? No resistence if you act against them. I know about
Narconon in Sweden, I know these guys. These persons in fact went to the
schools and talked to the kids about drugs and how it had taken control of
their lives. Narconon got them off of it. If you fight these persons then
what does that tell about you?
RR
Jommy Cross
<43f992c3$1...@news.wineasy.se>:
>
>"Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1140408437.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I have been subjected to it myself after exposing, and with the help
>> of collegues,
>> putted a stop to Narconon in my region in Sweden. ( The matter is
>> still pending in court. Final ruling has not been made) The stop could
>> , with worst case scenario, be just temporary.
>
>What do you expect? No resistence if you act against them. I know about
>Narconon in Sweden, I know these guys. These persons in fact went to the
>schools and talked to the kids about drugs and how it had taken control of
>their lives. Narconon got them off of it. If you fight these persons then
>what does that tell about you?
Hey, Space. Long time no see. Great to see you're maintaining the same
dumb arguments.
The Holy Tech will never die, huh?
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
Roadrunner skrev:
> "Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140408437.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Roadrunner skrev:
> >
> > > "Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1140342588....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Roadrunner = most likely Michel Snoeck = most likely Spacetraveller.
> > > > Spacetraveller drove himself off with contradictions that made it
> > > > impossible to argue further.
> > >
> > > As I recall was the mission of this Spacetraveler dude accomplished. You
> > > talk about it as if you have been wronged by this dude, but can't be
> honest
> > > about it.
> >
> > What mission was that?
>
> That's what the dude said as I recall. Somewhere there is an end of the
> line, where nothing more can be achieved. As I recall certain data was to be
> incorporated in these ARS files.
According to whom and by whos order?
> > Me wronged by ST - lol , he was just another co$ operative with lousy
> > communicative skills
>
> Any who created such an attention as that dude did, does not have lousy
> communicative skills.
So s/he who creates the most attention has the most developed
communicative skills? Hmm.
> >
> > > > Now he ( Michel Snoeck) gives it another
> > > > try.
> > > > cross reference search Michel Snoek and Spacetraveller:
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.google.se/search?q=%22Michel+Snoeck%22+spacetraveller&num=50&hl=s
> > > v&hs=pD5&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&filter=0
> > > >
> > > > Googling Michel Snoeck:
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.google.se/search?q=%22Michel+Snoeck%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&
> > > client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
> > > >
> > > > Ulf
> > >
> > > You are giving free advertisement to some person here.
> > >
> > > RR
> >
> > The Fair Gamy policy is still in action :
> > The Fair Game policy is still applied , to the contrary of claims made
> > by different posters on this board.
> >
> > What basis do I have for this statement?
> >
> > I have been subjected to it myself after exposing, and with the help
> > of collegues,
> > putted a stop to Narconon in my region in Sweden. ( The matter is
> > still pending in court. Final ruling has not been made) The stop could
> > , with worst case scenario, be just temporary.
>
> What do you expect? No resistence if you act against them. I know about
> Narconon in Sweden, I know these guys.
You probably do.
>These persons in fact went to the
> schools and talked to the kids about drugs and how it had taken control of
> their lives. Narconon got them off of it. If you fight these persons then
> what does that tell about you?
You and I certainly has contradictory opinions about Co$ and its
frontorg Narconon.
Roadrunner
>
> Roadrunner skrev:
>
> > "Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1140408437.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Roadrunner skrev:
> > >
> > > > "Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
> > > > news:1140342588....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > Roadrunner = most likely Michel Snoeck = most likely
Spacetraveller.
> > > > > Spacetraveller drove himself off with contradictions that made it
> > > > > impossible to argue further.
> > > >
> > > > As I recall was the mission of this Spacetraveler dude accomplished.
You
> > > > talk about it as if you have been wronged by this dude, but can't be
> > honest
> > > > about it.
> > >
> > > What mission was that?
> >
> > That's what the dude said as I recall. Somewhere there is an end of the
> > line, where nothing more can be achieved. As I recall certain data was
to be
> > incorporated in these ARS files.
> According to whom and by whos order?
To me and as I recalled, go back on track and find out if you like. Whose
order is basically irrelevant, I never asked myself that question. Although
I figured that it was a free mind doing it.
> > > Me wronged by ST - lol , he was just another co$ operative with lousy
> > > communicative skills
> >
> > Any who created such an attention as that dude did, does not have lousy
> > communicative skills.
> So s/he who creates the most attention has the most developed
> communicative skills? Hmm.
Basically yes. I've seen the responses: "Would be very bad news if
Spacetraveler was back.". To me that sounds like the dude communicated.
> You probably do.
Are you saying here that it is not good to go to the schools and give
lectures about the devastating effects of drugs to the kids? Is this what
you are actually saying here?
RR
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
What I am actually saying is that Co$ and Narconon has no usable
knowledge about drugeffects
whatsoever and that the primary goal is getting more paying victims in
to the cult. That is what I am saying.
Ulf
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit
atrocities.
[Voltaire]
"This volume probably contains more promises and less evidence per page
than has any publication since the invention of printing."
- Review of "Dianetics", Scientific American, 1951
Roadrunner
> >
> > Are you saying here that it is not good to go to the schools and give
> > lectures about the devastating effects of drugs to the kids? Is this
what
> > you are actually saying here?
> >
> > RR
>
> What I am actually saying is that Co$ and Narconon has no usable
> knowledge about drugeffects
> whatsoever and that the primary goal is getting more paying victims in
> to the cult. That is what I am saying.
What you are saying then is that these persons going from school to school
were either never addicted to drugs themselves, or they are faking that they
got off drugs through using the Narconon program.
> As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit
> atrocities.
It is not about belief, it is about what works.
These people in Narconon then must be liars and are going around and lying
to schoolkids then. You can't have it both ways, it is either this or that.
RR
Roadrunner
"Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140447423.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Roadrunner skrev:
>
> > "Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1140408437.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Roadrunner skrev:
> > >
> > > > "Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1140342588....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > Roadrunner = most likely Michel Snoeck = most likely Spacetraveller.
> > > > > Spacetraveller drove himself off with contradictions that made it
> > > > > impossible to argue further.
> > > >
> > > > As I recall was the mission of this Spacetraveler dude accomplished. You
> > > > talk about it as if you have been wronged by this dude, but can't
> > > > be honest
> > > > about it.
> > >
> > > What mission was that?
> >
> > That's what the dude said as I recall. Somewhere there is an end of the
> > line, where nothing more can be achieved. As I recall certain data was to be
> > incorporated in these ARS files.
> According to whom and by whos order?
Why ask me? Do you think you are going to get a logical answer?
> > > Me wronged by ST - , he was just another co$ operative with lousy
> > > communicative skills
> >
> > Any who created such an attention as that dude did, does not have lousy
> > communicative skills.
> So s/he who creates the most attention has the most developed
> communicative skills? Hmm.
That's what Hubbard says yes. I've seen the responses: "Would be very bad
news if Spacetraveler was back.". To me that sounds like the dude
communicated badly. Just like I do.
> You probably do.
That's because I'm an indoctrinated Scientologist. You are not saying here
that it is not good to go to the schools and give lectures about the
devastating effects of drugs to the kids. But that is how I will choose to
"understand" what you say.
Is there anything else you would like to say or ask that I can misevaluate
and misinterpret for you?
RR, aka Spacetraveler
--
John
"Roadrunner" <Ro...@runner.com> wrote in message
news:43fa24f9$1...@news.wineasy.se...
> snip
>
>> >
>> > Are you saying here that it is not good to go to the schools and give
>> > lectures about the devastating effects of drugs to the kids? Is this
> what
>> > you are actually saying here?
>> >
>> > RR
>>
>> What I am actually saying is that Co$ and Narconon has no usable
>> knowledge about drugeffects
>> whatsoever and that the primary goal is getting more paying victims in
>> to the cult. That is what I am saying.
>
> What you are saying then is that these persons going from school to school
> were either never addicted to drugs themselves, or they are faking that
> they
> got off drugs through using the Narconon program.
Why does narconon refuse to run peer-reviewed studies that would show it's
claimed efficacy?
Roadrunner
"Jack S. Carter" <jacks...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140468863.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Roadrunner wrote:
> > snip
> >
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying here that it is not good to go to the schools and
give
> > > > lectures about the devastating effects of drugs to the kids? Is this
> > what
> > > > you are actually saying here?
> > > >
> > > > RR
>
> lecture about the devasting effects of drugs and the proper means for
> treating drug abuse.
Seems to me that those who are self ex-addicts know a great deal about what
it is about. And have a better sense of reality about than those who have
not.
> > > What I am actually saying is that Co$ and Narconon has no usable
> > > knowledge about drugeffects
> > > whatsoever and that the primary goal is getting more paying victims in
> > > to the cult. That is what I am saying.
> >
> > What you are saying then is that these persons going from school to
school
> > were either never addicted to drugs themselves, or they are faking that
they
> > got off drugs through using the Narconon program.
>
> Anecdotal accounts are meaningless from a scientific standpoint.
Scientific dogma's are useless compared to actual products.
> The person undergoing the Narconon treatment is not in a position to
> determine whether or not the Narconon treatment was more or less
> effective than any other treatment or no treatment at all.
So, a person who first was on drugs and then got off it and stayed off it
can not determine that he did so. Interesting.
>
> In order to determine efficacy one must perform scientific studies.
>
> If you want to show that Narconon's sauna treatment, running program,
> hot oil treatment, and niacin overdosing are efficacious then you need
> to provide scientifically valid studies that prove it.
All you need is get actual products.
> Your type of logic is why people are scammed by laundry balls. (i.e.
> "My clothes came clean after I put a laundry ball in! So they must
> work") However people forget that washing machines without soap
> perform equally as well as washing machines with laundry balls.
No, it's the other way around. If you get a product then it works. Going for
the idea that even if something has shown to get products, and then still
wanting/needing to perform scientific studies... well, that gets laughable.
If you start your car and all is fine, do you take your car to repair to
look into you starter to ensure that it will start the next time also?
> >From what evidence is available, we know that Narconon is not as
> effective as claimed by CoS -- and we know that the Niacin level
> prescribed by Narconon are considered dangerous and unhealthy by many
> professionals.
And what do these professionals say about prozac, amfetamine and all that?
>
> > > As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit
> > > atrocities.
> >
> > It is not about belief, it is about what works.
> > These people in Narconon then must be liars and are going around and
lying
> > to schoolkids then. You can't have it both ways, it is either this or
that.
> >
> > RR
>
> No it isn't, this or that.
>
> The people in Narconon might not be liars if they honestly believe that
> the system works. If they are going around and promoting this program
> to schoolkids, then they are merely misinformed and uneducated.
>
> Scientific efficacy is not demonstrated by anecdotal tales. Otherwise
> you have snake oil salesmen putting people on TV saying how rubbing eel
> feces on their face makes people look 10 years younger. And there is
> a guaranteed certainty that at least one victim of the treatment will
> agree that the product "works".
>
> That is why double blind studies were invented.
>
> That is also why Narconon (or CoS) has ever had their program
> critically evaluated by 3rd party professionals. They strongly suspect
> that they are selling a pile of BS that is dangerous to their clients
> livers.
Narconon is claimed to be some frontgroup for Scientology, to probably get
more people inside Scientology and brainwashed (something), the claim
however remains unsupported as far as Narconon itself goes.
May be you should get into Narconon and see for yourself. Theorizing outside
of it and listening to proclaimed experts of some sort will not give you the
answer if something works.
RR
Roadrunner
"John" <ju...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:dtdf3g$776$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
Who says they do?
RR
John
So you can point us to the relevant studies! Excellent.
Roadrunner
You make a claim, then you flee from that, and throw something else back
into my face. Excellent.
RR
John
>
snip
>> >>
>> >> Why does narconon refuse to run peer-reviewed studies that would show
>> >> it's
>> >> claimed efficacy?
>> >
>> > Who says they do?
>>
>> So you can point us to the relevant studies! Excellent.
>
> You make a claim, then you flee from that, and throw something else back
> into my face. Excellent.
>
>
Let's see... Narconon is 30 years old or so. No peer reviewed studies
published.
Firstly, Narconon are the ones making the claims for efficacy, so it's up to
them to back up those claims.
Secondly, you're right in a sense. Narconon don't refuse to get the studies
done, they just stop operating in areas where people ask them to back up
their claims. Like when they got kicked out of California recently.
Let me re-phrase the question. Do you believe there are peer-reviewed
independant studes that corroborate Narconon's claimed success rates?
Roadrunner
It is as follows. If you have the timetable of say your train. You have been
traveling for quite a while now, and the train is always there waiting for
you to get on. Would you require an evaluation or peer review done about if
the train is going to be there tomorrow after it has been there for various
years?
Ever visited Narconon and actually talked to these guys, get yourself
informed and so on?
RR
John
Hmm... thanks for attempting to give the impression that Narconon works as
reliably as a train. It's one of the more dubious analogies I've ever seen.
Why not just say, "No, there are no peer-reviewed independant studies"?
>
> Ever visited Narconon and actually talked to these guys, get yourself
> informed and so on?
Yes, I have, actually. They were unable to present me with any peer-reviewed
independant studies to back up their claims, and could not give me any good
reason why.
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
Roadrunner wrote:
> snip
>
> > >
> > > Are you saying here that it is not good to go to the schools and give
> > > lectures about the devastating effects of drugs to the kids? Is this
> what
> > > you are actually saying here?
> > >
> > > RR
> >
> > What I am actually saying is that Co$ and Narconon has no usable
> > knowledge about drugeffects
> > whatsoever and that the primary goal is getting more paying victims in
> > to the cult. That is what I am saying.
>
> What you are saying then is that these persons going from school to school
>> were either never addicted to drugs themselves, or they are faking that they
> got off drugs through using the Narconon program.
What I am ACTUALLY saying is that Co$ and Narconon has no USABLE
knowledge about drugeffects whatsoever and that the primary goal is
getting more paying victims in to the cult. That is what I am saying.
>
> > As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit
> > atrocities. [Voltaire]
> >
> > "This volume probably contains more promises and less evidence per page
> > than has any publication since the invention of printing."
> > - Review of "Dianetics", Scientific American, 1951
> It is not about belief, it is about what works.
> These people in Narconon then must be liars and are going around and lying
> to schoolkids then. You can't have it both ways, it is either this or that.
>
> RR
They are lying yes, as they are lying when they say the Narconon
"program" works, as they are lying in applications to authorities.
Read all about it here. OOOps I forgot you are not allowed to do that ,
but to other interested parties her goes:
http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/narconon_investigation_by_.htm
Lies and attempeted fraud when Narconon falsiefied a well known
professors signature :
http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/sammanstallning/app26.pdf
Economical flowchart in Co$:
http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/sammanstallning/internal_orgchartbil30.jpg
Joint expert statement on the Narconon "program"
Ulf
"This volume probably contains more promises and less evidence per page
than has any publication since the invention of printing."
- Review of "Dianetics", Scientific American, 1951
"What can we say to a man who tells you that he would rather obey God
than men, and that therefore he is sure to go to heaven for butchering
you? Even the law is impotent against these attacks of rage; it is like
reading a court decree to a raving maniac. These fellows are certain
that the holy spirit with which they are filled is above the law, that
their enthusiasm is the only law that they must obey."
[Voltaire, 1764]
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
Joint expert statement on the Narconon "program":
http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/experts_condemnes_narconon.htm
Ulf
"Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting
convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day."
- Bertrand Russel -
Uncle Tom's manor
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam wrote:
>
> Joint
You are so confused, psych Brettstam. Your mind is as forgetful as that
of a person you just electro-shocked.
~~~~
Victoria ("Tory" "Magoo") Christman: "F*ck you!"
(She was found in contempt of court for refusing to give up her
harassment.) She disconnected from husband and son. Just ran out of
them.
~~~~
"I thought I was an alien myself. So I am in fact a space alien invader
disguised as psychiatrist plotting and conspiring all day long." --
Senior psychiatrist Ulf Brettstam
"ECT (Electro Convulsive Therapy), one of the best validated medical
treatment in the history of medicine." -- Senior psychiatrist Ulf
Brettstam
And now dig this: http://www.ect.org/effects.shtml
~~~~
Redneck William "Charlie" Barwell, from Houston, Texas, is a documented
hate monger, liar and spammer:
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/barwell.htm
He is member of the weird and money oriented SubGenius cult but
hypocritically attacks and defames Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.
Barwell signed his postings as "pope", and his mental state is
questioned by others. Barwell wrote he loves cats in white wine sauce,
drinks beer, rum and loves skunks.
~~~~
French hate monger Roger Gonnet: "I am a patented criminal, I got every
vices, and I have as single fixed idea and only obsession humanity's
death, (me living, everyone else dead). I am preaching satan and
hells... I am a monarchist-royalist as well as a Stalinist-Hitlerian
strong follower; I hate every people."
~~~~
Roadrunner
And that's all you did, asking about peer-review? Personal observation and
experience is more reliable and valuable than peer-review. You are using it
as a puppet to not actually look. this world is not about peer-review, it is
about what you looking what you have in front of you, and you looking for
yourself. Peer-review is others, where are you in all this?
RR
Roadrunner
<MarkKn...@singapore.com> wrote in message
news:1140491647.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Roadrunner wrote:
>
> > > Let me re-phrase the question. Do you believe there are peer-reviewed
> > > independant studes that corroborate Narconon's claimed success rates?
> >
> > It is as follows. If you have the timetable of say your train. You have
been
> > traveling for quite a while now, and the train is always there waiting
for
> > you to get on. Would you require an evaluation or peer review done about
if
> > the train is going to be there tomorrow after it has been there for
various
> > years?
>
> that it is timely or effective at meeting any deadlines.
And studies need to be done to ensure it's get on time tomorrow as well? You
are missing the point. Start looking for yourself! Peer-review is some other
person(s).
RR
>
> Some people say the Narconon train is right on time while other people
> say the train is always late and sometimes crashes.
>
> When you want to figure out which train company is the most timely, you
> shouldn't just ask some guy out on the street, because he might ride
> the only train that is on time in the whole system.
>
> To determine the best train system from a timeliness perspective, you
> still need to perform unbiased 3rd party studies of the companies
> involved.
>
> > Ever visited Narconon and actually talked to these guys, get yourself
> > informed and so on?
>
> I've never been strapped in an electric chair or a gas chamber, but I
> have a good idea of what goes on when people are.
>
> Why do you suppose that no peer-reviewed 3rd party study in 30 years
> has shown Narconon to be effective and safe?
>
Roadrunner
<MarkKn...@singapore.com> wrote in message
news:1140491040.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Roadrunner wrote:
> > > Roadrunner wrote:
> > > > > > Are you saying here that it is not good to go to the schools and
> > give
> > > > > > lectures about the devastating effects of drugs to the kids? Is
this
> > > > what
> > > > > > you are actually saying here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RR
> > >
> > > It is preferred to have people that are better trained and educated to
> > > lecture about the devasting effects of drugs and the proper means for
> > > treating drug abuse.
> >
> > Seems to me that those who are self ex-addicts know a great deal about
what
> > it is about. And have a better sense of reality about than those who
have
> > not.
>
>
> The people undergoing the treatments are good for anecdotal evidence,
> they aren't useful for determining efficacy, as any trained scientist
> would know.
And of course only those who have studied something (but have been far from
experiencing anything personally) are more convincing and can reach people
better. Right on!
>
>
> > > > > What I am actually saying is that Co$ and Narconon has no usable
> > > > > knowledge about drugeffects
> > > > > whatsoever and that the primary goal is getting more paying
victims in
> > > > > to the cult. That is what I am saying.
> > > >
> > > > What you are saying then is that these persons going from school to
> > school
> > > > were either never addicted to drugs themselves, or they are faking
that
> > they
> > > > got off drugs through using the Narconon program.
> > >
> > > Anecdotal accounts are meaningless from a scientific standpoint.
> >
> > Scientific dogma's are useless compared to actual products.
>
> Science isn't dogma. Science changes continually when new studies
> demonstrate it should change.
You are dealing with people. People are subjective. Subjective people decide
what to look at, what to study, what to analyze. If their attention is
directed to some other direction, they will not find out anything useful.
>
> Scientology is dogma. Scientology is unrelenting, repeated,
> ignorant, and blind following of the rantings of a madman. According
> to Scientology, Hubbard was never wrong about anything.
According to Hubbard he was finding out about things, and therefore had to
test things. You do what you can.
>
> Safe and effective products, and especially medical products, need to
> be evaluated from a scientific viewpoint.
Great, but people can be bought, scientists can be bought. Any idea what
money the medical industry makes. You have to keep people sick if you are to
continue making money out of them.
>
> It's quite possible that many other treatment alternatives to Narconon
> provide superior results with a less dangerous program.
Such as?
> Its also
> possible that people have a better chance of succeeding in drug
> treatment if they don't use Narconon and just handle the problem
> themselves. Without doing a study to determine efficacy, all you have
> is worthless anecdotal evidence.
>
> > > The person undergoing the Narconon treatment is not in a position to
> > > determine whether or not the Narconon treatment was more or less
> > > effective than any other treatment or no treatment at all.
> >
> > So, a person who first was on drugs and then got off it and stayed off
it
> > can not determine that he did so. Interesting.
>
> That isn't what I said.
>
> I said that person isn't able to determine the efficacy of THE PROGRAM
> as a whole. He can say that he went to Narconon and it made him feel
> better or he can say that he was able to stay drug free for a certain
> amount of time after Narconon. That is useless information when
> determining the overall efficacy of A PROGRAM. All that tells you, is
> that Mr. Bill Smith says Narconon helped him -- but that doesn't mean
> he wouldn't have had a better chance without Narconon. You need
> studies to show that.
If you get 100 persons coming to that personal determination, then does that
say something? Don't you think that you may be are invalidating the wins of
a person that got better with the helop of something if you are cutting it
into little pieces like you do. You say that they can't be believed for what
they say.
>
> > > In order to determine efficacy one must perform scientific studies.
> > >
> > > If you want to show that Narconon's sauna treatment, running program,
> > > hot oil treatment, and niacin overdosing are efficacious then you need
> > > to provide scientifically valid studies that prove it.
> >
> > All you need is get actual products.
>
> And you need to test those products in double-blind studies to find out
> if they work.
You are not getting it. If something works it will get people in that will
do the program. If it does not do what it says that it does you soon have to
file for bankruptcy. You can see to it (buy people) to ensure that some
alternative to medication (from medical industry) gets discarded of. You can
arrange results as you choose if you can get to the rgith people and then
use PR to it generally accepted.
>
> > > Your type of logic is why people are scammed by laundry balls. (i.e.
> > > "My clothes came clean after I put a laundry ball in! So they must
> > > work") However people forget that washing machines without soap
> > > perform equally as well as washing machines with laundry balls.
> >
> > No, it's the other way around. If you get a product then it works. Going
for
> > the idea that even if something has shown to get products, and then
still
> > wanting/needing to perform scientific studies... well, that gets
laughable.
> > If you start your car and all is fine, do you take your car to repair to
> > look into you starter to ensure that it will start the next time also?
>
> Car starters are repeatedly tested over thousands and thousands of
> cycles before they are ever put inside of a vehicle.
We are talking about when it ended up in your car, not before.
>
> Some products undergo cyclical testing in the millions of cycles before
> they are put in general use.
>
> Narconon has never been shown to be safe or effective in the treatment
> of drug addiction.
>
> And that is something Narconon needs to prove if they want to be
> respected.
Relate you personal observations/experiences with Narconon, it's people and
it's clients? If all you can say is that they can't show their peer-review
reports or something, then you are on the wrong path.
>
> >
> > > >From what evidence is available, we know that Narconon is not as
> > > effective as claimed by CoS -- and we know that the Niacin level
> > > prescribed by Narconon are considered dangerous and unhealthy by many
> > > professionals.
> >
> > And what do these professionals say about prozac, amfetamine and all
that?
>
> They say the prozac is a powerful drug with numerous side effects that
> is sometimes useful in the treatment of certain diseases and disorders.
Not at it's introduction.
>
> They say amphetamine is a powerful drug with numerous side effects and
> high addiction potential that is sometimes useful in the treatment of
> certain diseases and disorders.
>
> I'm not sure what "all that" refers to, but if you want to specify more
> pharmaceuticals, my answer will be the same. In general, these are
> prescribed when doctors feel the potential benefit from their use
> outweighs the proven side-effects from the drugs.
Or some money put into their pocket if they subscribe some more to their
patients.
> Scientology owns the copyright for Narconon's course materials.
> Scientology has the power to alter, change, or eliminate Narconon from
> existence.
Actually they can most certainly not. It is separate. All the CoS can do is
to withdraw the use of some symbols. There is no law about that you can not
use something.
> I haven't seen the claim about Narconon being a front for brainwashing.
> The fact that it is a front for Scientology isn't disputed as far as I
> can tell.
>
> > May be you should get into Narconon and see for yourself. Theorizing
outside
> > of it and listening to proclaimed experts of some sort will not give you
the
> > answer if something works.
>
> The question of whether or not "something works" is determined by
> performing controlled scientific studies.
>
> Without performing such studies, you cannot tell what exactly "is
> working" or anything "is working" at all.
Where are you? You rely on others telling you what is right or proven. That
is the short of it!
RR
Roadrunner
>
> Roadrunner wrote:
> > snip
> >
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying here that it is not good to go to the schools and
give
> > > > lectures about the devastating effects of drugs to the kids? Is this
> > what
> > > > you are actually saying here?
> > > >
> > > > RR
> > >
> > > What I am actually saying is that Co$ and Narconon has no usable
> > > knowledge about drugeffects
> > > whatsoever and that the primary goal is getting more paying victims in
> > > to the cult. That is what I am saying.
> >
> > What you are saying then is that these persons going from school to
school
> >> were either never addicted to drugs themselves, or they are faking that
they
> > got off drugs through using the Narconon program.
>
> What I am ACTUALLY saying is that Co$ and Narconon has no USABLE
> knowledge about drugeffects whatsoever and that the primary goal is
> getting more paying victims in to the cult. That is what I am saying.
And that's why Narconon does not get bankrupt, as they will not get income
and it does not do anything. Makes sense to you?
>
>
> >
> > > As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit
> > > atrocities. [Voltaire]
> > >
> > > "This volume probably contains more promises and less evidence per
page
> > > than has any publication since the invention of printing."
> > > - Review of "Dianetics", Scientific American, 1951
>
> > It is not about belief, it is about what works.
> > These people in Narconon then must be liars and are going around and
lying
> > to schoolkids then. You can't have it both ways, it is either this or
that.
> >
> > RR
>
> They are lying yes, as they are lying when they say the Narconon
> "program" works, as they are lying in applications to authorities.
Alright they are lying. Lying however only works for a little while. Then
tell me why does Narconon still exist?
>
> Read all about it here. OOOps I forgot you are not allowed to do that ,
> but to other interested parties her goes:
>
> http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/narconon_investigation_by_.htm
>
> Lies and attempeted fraud when Narconon falsiefied a well known
> professors signature :
>
> http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/sammanstallning/app26.pdf
>
> Economical flowchart in Co$:
>
> http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/sammanstallning/internal_orgchartbil30.jpg
>
> Joint expert statement on the Narconon "program"
Any of these things can be fixed. Personal observation and evaluation is the
only thing you actually can rely on. One can theorize anything into the
ground till it vanishes, big deal.
RR
barbz
> "Jack S. Carter" <jacks...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140468863.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Roadrunner wrote:
>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Are you saying here that it is not good to go to the schools and
>
> give
>
>>>>>lectures about the devastating effects of drugs to the kids? Is this
>>>
>>>what
>>>
>>>>>you are actually saying here?
>>>>>
>>>>>RR
>>
>>It is preferred to have people that are better trained and educated to
>>lecture about the devasting effects of drugs and the proper means for
>>treating drug abuse.
Yes. The Narconon program in public schools was reviewed last year, and
found to be an utter load of horsepucky. Therefore, they are no longer
allowed to give their presentations to public school children in Boston,
Hawaii, and California. The reasoning there was, "Let's use programs
that present accurate, truthful information about drugs and drug
addiction." Can't argue with that.
>
>
> Seems to me that those who are self ex-addicts know a great deal about what
> it is about. And have a better sense of reality about than those who have
> not.
Not really. Addicts aren't experts in pharmacological science, they
often don't understand WHY they got addicted or what motivates them to
either return to it or stay clean. There is certainly enough information
from legitimate studies to understand the forces behind addiction. And,
letting a bunch of junkies in to connect with school children is just
wrong. Especially if they're Scientologists.
>
>
>
>>>>What I am actually saying is that Co$ and Narconon has no usable
>>>>knowledge about drugeffects
>>>>whatsoever and that the primary goal is getting more paying victims in
>>>>to the cult. That is what I am saying.
>>>
>>>What you are saying then is that these persons going from school to
>
> school
>
>>>were either never addicted to drugs themselves, or they are faking that
>
> they
>
>>>got off drugs through using the Narconon program.
>>
>>Anecdotal accounts are meaningless from a scientific standpoint.
>
>
> Scientific dogma's are useless compared to actual products.
You need to word clear 'dogma' and 'scientific.' What you just said is
an oxymoron. There's no such thing as a scientific dogma. That's what
makes science, science. A thing must not only be proven once, it must
show the same results when tested repeatedly. Dogma is just unproven
theory, like Jesus turning water into wine. Narconon is completely
unproven theory devised by Hubbard, a college dropout in no position to
produce theories about things he knew nothing of.
>
>
>
>>The person undergoing the Narconon treatment is not in a position to
>>determine whether or not the Narconon treatment was more or less
>>effective than any other treatment or no treatment at all.
>
>
> So, a person who first was on drugs and then got off it and stayed off it
> can not determine that he did so. Interesting.
Reread the sentence until you comprehend it. Your response is
nonsensical. The statement was, "The person undergoing the Narconon
treatment is not in a position to determine whether or not the Narconon
treatment was more or less effective than any other treatment or no
treatment at all."
What does that mean? It doesn't mean the person cannot determine whether
or not he got off and stayed off drugs, dummy. It means that the person
who gets off drugs cannot know whether the Narconon treatment had any
more effect than if he'd just sat home alone, detoxing not-to-quietly in
a corner. See the difference? If not, that's just sad.
>
>
>>In order to determine efficacy one must perform scientific studies.
>>
>>If you want to show that Narconon's sauna treatment, running program,
>>hot oil treatment, and niacin overdosing are efficacious then you need
>>to provide scientifically valid studies that prove it.
>
>
> All you need is get actual products.
No. All you need is verifiable data. What the hell is a "product?"
Narconon refuses to participate in studies to prove its effectiveness.
The few studies NOT carried out by Scientology itself show it to be less
effective than a person quitting without any program at all. Moreover,
Narconon fails to follow up on its 'graduates.' So, nobody knows if they
stay clean or not. It's out the door with them, unless they're guilt
tripped into working at a Narconon out of sheer gratitude to the group
they gave thousands of dollars to for the service.
You haven't read http://narconon-exposed.org, have you? Maybe you
should. It has well documented information, as opposed to unattributed
testimonials of happy cult users.
>
>
>
>>Your type of logic is why people are scammed by laundry balls. (i.e.
>>"My clothes came clean after I put a laundry ball in! So they must
>>work") However people forget that washing machines without soap
>>perform equally as well as washing machines with laundry balls.
>
>
> No, it's the other way around. If you get a product then it works. Going for
> the idea that even if something has shown to get products, and then still
> wanting/needing to perform scientific studies... well, that gets laughable.
> If you start your car and all is fine, do you take your car to repair to
> look into you starter to ensure that it will start the next time also?
The point being, Narconon has a faulty starter. There is no way to
verify its success once clients leave. The one study actually done by a
third party, non-Scientology clinic showed that Narconon has a 2%
success rate. People quitting on their own without help have a 10%
success rate. Only by dropping out the people who failed to complete the
study did Narconon arrive at its '80%' success rate figure. In the real
world, those people would have been counted as failures, and rightly so.
2% is pretty abysmal.
>
>
>
>>>From what evidence is available, we know that Narconon is not as
>>effective as claimed by CoS -- and we know that the Niacin level
>>prescribed by Narconon are considered dangerous and unhealthy by many
>>professionals.
>
>
> And what do these professionals say about prozac, amfetamine and all that?
Let's not get off the subject there. We're not talking about
"amfetamine" and prozac. We're talking about Niacin. Giving massive
doses of niacin to a person with compromised liver function is like
putting a gun to their head. It's dangerous, and can cause permanent
liver damage. One thing many addicts and alcoholics suffer from is
compromised liver function. Therefore, it's a bad idea to give them
toxic doses of niacin. It's even worse to tell them that the flush is
"toxins leaving your body." That's a load of crap. Niacin is a
vasodilator which causes capillaries close to your skin to expand,
resulting in a flush. It's not radiation leaving your body. That's a
clue that Narconon's program is pure bolonium. Narconon's program puts
people at risk. Liver damage is a slow death. This is proven as fact.
Remember now, we're not talking about Prozac and "amfetamines." I don't
see why you brought that into the discussion, it's nonsequitur to the
topic at hand. We're not talking about "psychs" or "psych drugs."
Were you trying to suggest that, by mentioning these drugs, it's somehow
okay for Narconon to poison its clients?
Actually, no. The Purif administered by Narconon is the same purif
purchase by public Scientologists, and the courses are from the Green
Vols. Many Narconon clients continue on to join Scientology. Why is
that, do you suppose?
>
> May be you should get into Narconon and see for yourself. Theorizing outside
> of it and listening to proclaimed experts of some sort will not give you the
> answer if something works.
Again, you don't have to swim with sharks to find out if they bite. This
argument is sheer foolishness. You seem to be saying that it's not
possible to learn from other people's mistakes. That is totally
erroneous thinking, typical of Scientologists. That argument does not
hold water. A person who already knows the components of the Narconon
program would be foolish to try it. They will be dosed with toxic levels
of vitamins, including the dangerous niacin, and there is not one good
reason to subject yourself to that.
>
> RR
>
>
--
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
xenu...@netscape.net
"Every week, every month, every year, every decade and now
every century, Scientology does weird and stupid things
to damage its own reputation."
-Steve Zadarnowski
"Comparing Scientology to a motorcycle gang is a gross, unpardonable
insult to bikers everywhere. Even at our worst, we are never as bad as
Scientology."
-ex-member, Thunderclouds motorcycle "club"
"$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign:
terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business
opportunity.
$cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide."
-Chris Leithiser
Kim P
"science"- it is what proves a scientific discovery or disproves it - it
is what ALL self-respecting scienctists submit their studies to - so
that they can become useful in helping other scientists take those
discoveries and make new ones - building blocks as it were.
Narconon is nothing more than a sham cooked up by a fourth rate hack
sci-fi writer without a clue as to how addiction works, how it is
treated, or even basic biology. The purif is neither medically nor
scientifically sound. It is useless in treating or detoxifying anyone.
I suggest you broaden your horizons and see that there is much more to
peer review than the cult lets on.
What I experience is hardly relevent to scientific study since anecdotal
evidence is not reliable - what I experience is affected by many many
things including delusional beliefs that what I am experiencing is
helpful - when in fact nothing is helpful at all.
Kim P
barbz
"According to Hubbard." Proven liar, criminal, drug and wife abuser,
paranoid schizophrenic. Yeah. I wouldn't buy a used car from the man,
let alone rely on his dubious "research" to run my life.
Strange, people have never found any evidence of his "research."
>
>
>>Safe and effective products, and especially medical products, need to
>>be evaluated from a scientific viewpoint.
>
>
> Great, but people can be bought, scientists can be bought. Any idea what
> money the medical industry makes. You have to keep people sick if you are to
> continue making money out of them.
Oh, please. That is such a spurious argument! So we are just supposed to
rely on anectdotal accounts of Scientologists instead? Since Scientology
representatives have repeatedly been caught lying, why would you think
their statements hold more value than trained, legitimate experts in the
field? Scientology certainly has an interest in convincing people that
they're fucked up, so they can sell them courses! And, it's likely that,
while a percentage of scientists are unethical, 100% of true believers
are, because to them, 'ethical' has been redefined to mean 'anything
that keeps Scientology working.' Hence the lies.
>
>
>>It's quite possible that many other treatment alternatives to Narconon
>>provide superior results with a less dangerous program.
>
>
> Such as?
Google "drug rehabilitation." There are more things out there than are
dreamt of in your philosophy. Ever hear of the Betty Ford Clinic, to
name just one...
>
>
>>Its also
>>possible that people have a better chance of succeeding in drug
>>treatment if they don't use Narconon and just handle the problem
>>themselves. Without doing a study to determine efficacy, all you have
>>is worthless anecdotal evidence.
Worthless anecdotal evidence is the fuel that runs the Scientology PR
machine.
>>
>>
>>>>The person undergoing the Narconon treatment is not in a position to
>>>>determine whether or not the Narconon treatment was more or less
>>>>effective than any other treatment or no treatment at all.
>>>
>>>So, a person who first was on drugs and then got off it and stayed off
>
> it
>
>>>can not determine that he did so. Interesting.
>>
>>That isn't what I said.
>>
>>I said that person isn't able to determine the efficacy of THE PROGRAM
>>as a whole. He can say that he went to Narconon and it made him feel
>>better or he can say that he was able to stay drug free for a certain
>>amount of time after Narconon. That is useless information when
>>determining the overall efficacy of A PROGRAM. All that tells you, is
>>that Mr. Bill Smith says Narconon helped him -- but that doesn't mean
>>he wouldn't have had a better chance without Narconon. You need
>>studies to show that.
>
>
> If you get 100 persons coming to that personal determination, then does that
> say something? Don't you think that you may be are invalidating the wins of
> a person that got better with the helop of something if you are cutting it
> into little pieces like you do. You say that they can't be believed for what
> they say.
That's right. Especially when they are REQUIRED to write up a "big win"
at the end. If you don't write, you don't graduate. It's that simple.
Why would anyone believe an anecdotal account drawn from duress?
>
>
>>>>In order to determine efficacy one must perform scientific studies.
>>>>
>>>>If you want to show that Narconon's sauna treatment, running program,
>>>>hot oil treatment, and niacin overdosing are efficacious then you need
>>>>to provide scientifically valid studies that prove it.
>>>
>>>All you need is get actual products.
>>
>>And you need to test those products in double-blind studies to find out
>>if they work.
>
>
> You are not getting it. If something works it will get people in that will
> do the program. If it does not do what it says that it does you soon have to
> file for bankruptcy. You can see to it (buy people) to ensure that some
> alternative to medication (from medical industry) gets discarded of. You can
> arrange results as you choose if you can get to the rgith people and then
> use PR to it generally accepted.
No, you don't get it. If Narconon works at all, it isn't because of the
program, it's because the people find themselves in a situation where
drug and alcohol abuse is rather difficult. (that's not to say they
can't access drugs...Narconon Warner Springs has already had one OD.)
So, away from drugs and alcohol, people don't use drugs and alcohol.
Since people quitting drugs has a rate of 10% success as opposed to
Narconon's 2%, it's pretty clear that the Narconon program mainly
results in churning out new Scientologists. They're merely swapping
addictions.
Which implies that SOME don't. Duh. Subscribe? Like to Prozac Weekly or
something?
It is not seperate. Narconon IS Scientology, it uses Scientology courses
and a Scientology "detox" practice. And they lie about the connection
between Narconon and Scientology. Pretty unethical behavior from "the
most ethical people on the planet," wouldn't you say?
Or do you subscribe to the Scientology notion that lying is okay, and
the end justifies the means?
>
>
>
>>I haven't seen the claim about Narconon being a front for brainwashing.
>> The fact that it is a front for Scientology isn't disputed as far as I
>>can tell.
>>
>>
>>>May be you should get into Narconon and see for yourself. Theorizing
>
> outside
>
>>>of it and listening to proclaimed experts of some sort will not give you
>
> the
>
>>>answer if something works.
>>
>>The question of whether or not "something works" is determined by
>>performing controlled scientific studies.
>>
>>Without performing such studies, you cannot tell what exactly "is
>>working" or anything "is working" at all.
>
>
> Where are you? You rely on others telling you what is right or proven. That
> is the short of it!
>
> RR
>
>
I'd rather rely on standard studies than anecdotal nonsense from a
brainwashed Rondroid.
Kim P
I really should reread before I press send.... DOH!
I mean to say : "when in fact nothing in the purif/narconon is helpful
not nothing... I apologize for any misunderstandings this has created
Kim P
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
To other readers: I am answering in Swedish due to the fact that
Roadrunner is located in Stockholm. ( As was Spacetrollop )
>
Som du vet är det inte Narconon som har de finansiella musklerna utan
den sk kyrkan , som håller skiten under armarna. Det är bara en
tidsfråga innan korthuset rasat. De inkomster man har haft ffa i
Stockholm ( där du sitter) har man utpressat från
socialförvaltningarna efter att ha raggat "kunder" på plattan
,"hjälpt" dem med att ansöka om ekonomiskt bistånd, efter avslag
överklagat till länsrätt sedan till kammarrätten allt enligt
välkänt scientologmönster - utnötnings och uttröttningstaktik i
domstol. Socialförvaltningarna har varken personal eller ekonomiska
resurser att hålla på och bråka och de flesta har resignerat. Detta
är våra skattemedel som i slutändan bekostar David Miscavieges
lyxbilar. Vad tycker du om det?
De stackare som fastnar i Narconon , får sedan arbeta i princip
gratis.
In english:
As you well know, it is not Narconon that has the financial muscles,
but the so called church that in fact is holding "the shit" org under
the armes. It is just a matter of time til the cardhouse is falling.
The income Narconon has had especially in Stockholm ( were you are
located) has been "blackmailed" from the local boards of wellfare by
more or less kidnapping drugaddicts from Sergel square ( a well known
hangaround for drugabusers and drugcommerce in Stockholm city)
then "helped" the stoned out client to file a request for financing the
"treatment" at Narconon with the board of wellfare, appeal in court
when denied, appeal to higher court and so on. A well known
scientologist strategy - wear them down with frivilous filings and
judicial battleing.
The local boards in Stockholm doesn´t have the financial or personal
resources and most of the boards has simply resigned. It is our
taxpayer money that pays for David Miiscavieges luxury cars in the end.
What do you think about that? Those poor suckers that get stuck in
Narconon will have to do slavework for practicaly free.
> >
> > >
> > > > As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit
> > > > atrocities. [Voltaire]
> > > >
> > > > "This volume probably contains more promises and less evidence per
> page
> > > > than has any publication since the invention of printing."
> > > > - Review of "Dianetics", Scientific American, 1951
> >
> > > It is not about belief, it is about what works.
> > > These people in Narconon then must be liars and are going around and
> lying
> > > to schoolkids then. You can't have it both ways, it is either this or
> that.
> > >
> > > RR
> >
> > They are lying yes, as they are lying when they say the Narconon
> > "program" works, as they are lying in applications to authorities.
>
> Alright they are lying. Lying however only works for a little while. Then
> tell me why does Narconon still exist?
Slappheten, inkompetensen och indolensen hos länstyrelsetjänstemän
samt den sk kyrkans intresse av att hålla liv i skiten. That´s why.
In english:
Flaccid, incompetent and indolent civil servants with the regional
board of authorities, plus the "church:s" interest of keeping the
Narconon maneure alive and kicking, that´s why.
> > Read all about it here. OOOps I forgot you are not allowed to do that ,
> > but to other interested parties her goes:
> >
> > http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/narconon_investigation_by_.htm
> >
> > Lies and attempeted fraud when Narconon falsiefied a well known
> > professors signature :
> >
> > http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/sammanstallning/app26.pdf
> >
> > Economical flowchart in Co$:
> >
> > http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/sammanstallning/internal_orgchartbil30.jpg
> >
> > Joint expert statement on the Narconon "program"
>
> Any of these things can be fixed. Personal observation and evaluation is the
> only thing you actually can rely on. One can theorize anything into the
> ground till it vanishes, big deal.
Vad menas med detta? Vad är det som kan fixas? Har du läst mina
länkar?
Systematiska och objektiva observationer med statistiska vetenskapliga
utvärderingar kan man möjligen lita på. Anekdotiska inlärda
subjektiva "berättelser" har föga bevisvärde i dessa sammanhang.
Eller som Hubbard gjorde. fantiserade och hallucinerade sig fram i
livet.
In english:
What do you mean? What can be fixed? Have you read my links?
Systematic objective observations , statistically and scientifically
evaluated , can possibly be trusted and relied on. Anecdotical,
rehearsed subjejctive stories gives little or no evidence in this
context. Or as Hubbard did: fantasized and hallucinated himself through
life.
> RR
Ulf
John
Exactly wrong.
You are using it
> as a puppet to not actually look. this world is not about peer-review, it
> is
> about what you looking what you have in front of you, and you looking for
> yourself. Peer-review is others, where are you in all this?
>
I have no reason to seek personal experience from narconon, as I do not have
a drug abuse problem.
If Narconon claims an 80 percent cure rate, they should be able to back that
figure up with some studies. If they can do as they claim, then there is
*NO* reason why they can't produce the study that shows it. Why do they shy
away from it?
Basically you are saying I should take their word for it, or perhaps get
addicted to something so as to check whether they can actually cure me. Why
should I believe them? Because they say so? They have a vested interest, in
that they charge large amounts of money. When someone says they can do
something, and charges mightily for the service, it's up to them to prove
they can do what they say, and the proof required is not especially onerous
to produce, if their results were genuine.
Simkatu
Roadrunner wrote:
> <MarkKn...@singapore.com> wrote in message
> news:1140491647.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Roadrunner wrote:
> >
> > > > Let me re-phrase the question. Do you believe there are peer-reviewed
> > > > independant studes that corroborate Narconon's claimed success rates?
> > >
> > > It is as follows. If you have the timetable of say your train. You have
> been
> > > traveling for quite a while now, and the train is always there waiting
> for
> > > you to get on. Would you require an evaluation or peer review done about
> if
> > > the train is going to be there tomorrow after it has been there for
> various
> > > years?
> >
> > The train in this case is not Narconon, because no studies have shown
> > that it is timely or effective at meeting any deadlines.
>
> And studies need to be done to ensure it's get on time tomorrow as well? You
> are missing the point. Start looking for yourself! Peer-review is some other
> person(s).
Studies need to make sure that the train arrived on time last week,
last year, and the last 20 years, because it is not clear that Narconon
(still using your train analogy) has ever been reliably on time.
Trains involve thousands and thousands of passengers and thousands of
timed stops throughout the day. Asking a couple Joe Blows if the
Narconon train got them to work on time is not an effective or useful
means in determining if the whole train system is any good. There are
a number of people that also complain that Narconon is late often and
makes people sick. And there are studies that show that the level of
niacin prescribed by Narconon is sometimes dangerous to the liver.
Even if I did ride on a timely train, I wouldn't bet that the train
system I was on was the timeliest, safest, or best method, without
doing further research.
Narconon makes the claim that it is safe and effective.
It is Narconon's responsibility to demonstrate that claim properly.
Twistycreek
g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Simkatu" <Simk...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Narconon (Re: The Fair Game Time line
Date: 21 Feb 2006 14:13:22 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <1140560002.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <11vdnlf...@corp.supernews.com>
<1140342588....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<43f8728e$1...@news.wineasy.se>
<1140408437.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<43f992c3$1...@news.wineasy.se>
<1140447423.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<43fa1622$1...@news.wineasy.se>
<1140466030....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<43fa24f9$1...@news.wineasy.se>
<dtdf3g$776$1...@perki.connect.com.au>
<43fa48d0$1...@news.wineasy.se>
<dtdiq4$8sv$1...@perki.connect.com.au>
<43fa673c$1...@news.wineasy.se>
<dtdsqi$dl5$1...@perki.connect.com.au>
<43fa...@news.wineasy.se>
<1140491647.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<43fb143f$1...@news.wineasy.se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.237.116.62
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1140560010 7446 127.0.0.1 (21 Feb 2006
22:13:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:13:30 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <43fb143f$1...@news.wineasy.se>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=129.237.116.62;
posting-account=HImBwQ0AAAA14iqqTm4TOYboAwrwQd0F
Roadrunner wrote:
> <MarkKnopf...@singapore.com> wrote in message
John
"Simkatu" <Sim...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140560002.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
snip
>
> Studies need to make sure that the train arrived on time last week,
> last year, and the last 20 years, because it is not clear that Narconon
> (still using your train analogy) has ever been reliably on time.
> Trains involve thousands and thousands of passengers and thousands of
> timed stops throughout the day. Asking a couple Joe Blows if the
> Narconon train got them to work on time is not an effective or useful
> means in determining if the whole train system is any good. There are
> a number of people that also complain that Narconon is late often and
> makes people sick. And there are studies that show that the level of
> niacin prescribed by Narconon is sometimes dangerous to the liver.
>
> Even if I did ride on a timely train, I wouldn't bet that the train
> system I was on was the timeliest, safest, or best method, without
> doing further research.
>
If Narconon is a train ride, then you stand only a 15 percent chance of
getting to where you're going, the ticket costs $15,000 to start with with a
chance of much more, for the whole ride you are subjected to scientology
propaganda over the intercom while the ticketmaster comes around every day
to punch you in the liver.
Gerry Armstrong
Well, it's a train that apparently never leaves the station, but has
been there for various years, always waiting for people to get on.
You pay, you get on, the sociopath running the operation pockets your
money, and the train doesn't work. So it isn't the worst of analogies.
>Why not just say, "No, there are no peer-reviewed independant studies"?
>
>
>>
>> Ever visited Narconon and actually talked to these guys, get yourself
>> informed and so on?
>
>Yes, I have, actually. They were unable to present me with any peer-reviewed
>independant studies to back up their claims, and could not give me any good
>reason why.
>
>
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
ladayla
I have looked for myself. I audited in the Narconon facility in LA for
as long as I was able to put up with the filth. Toward the end of my
auditing there, the cockroaches crawling over my materials and over my
emeter and over me and over my PC and over every surface in the place,
I got them to agree to let the PCs come to my home for their auditing.
Then I had a bunch of junkies in my home. Well, I don't think so. While
at Narconon, I saw people who were given the choice by a Judge to
either go to jail or go to Narconon. They had chosen Narconon. Several
tried escaping, but were brought back by Narconon staff. One committed
suicide. None that I saw or heard of were stably cleaned up, and off
drugs/alcohol. The place was run by a druggie. The staff didn't know
jackshit about rehabilitation. The only thing they knew was that stats
were due on Thursday at 2 p.m.
la
Gavino Idda
Gavino Idda
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
Ulf
Roadrunner
Then you have more faith in what others find out/think than in your own
judgment based on personal observation.
>
> You are using it
> > as a puppet to not actually look. this world is not about peer-review,
it
> > is
> > about what you looking what you have in front of you, and you looking
for
> > yourself. Peer-review is others, where are you in all this?
> >
>
> I have no reason to seek personal experience from narconon, as I do not
have
> a drug abuse problem.
If you are going to judge you need to get involved, if you do not you remian
an outsider judging something you have not personally looked into. Since
when are volunteers people who a drug abuse problem?
> If Narconon claims an 80 percent cure rate, they should be able to back
that
> figure up with some studies. If they can do as they claim, then there is
> *NO* reason why they can't produce the study that shows it. Why do they
shy
> away from it?
>
> Basically you are saying I should take their word for it, or perhaps get
> addicted to something so as to check whether they can actually cure me.
No, I say that you should look for yourself and not relying on what some
other try to tell you.
> Why
> should I believe them? Because they say so? They have a vested interest,
in
> that they charge large amounts of money. When someone says they can do
> something, and charges mightily for the service, it's up to them to prove
> they can do what they say, and the proof required is not especially
onerous
> to produce, if their results were genuine.
Go to rehabilitation somewhere else and check what they ask. To those
without government support.
RR
Roadrunner
We are still in the area of others telling you what to think of something.
> There are
> a number of people that also complain that Narconon is late often and
> makes people sick. And there are studies that show that the level of
> niacin prescribed by Narconon is sometimes dangerous to the liver.
You are thoroughly checked out by a physician before you are allowed to go
on the program.
>
> Even if I did ride on a timely train, I wouldn't bet that the train
> system I was on was the timeliest, safest, or best method, without
> doing further research.
>
> Narconon makes the claim that it is safe and effective.
>
> It is Narconon's responsibility to demonstrate that claim properly.
Become a volunteer and see for yourself! I wanted to know, so I did that for
a while. It did take away my prejudices about the whole thing.
RR
Roadrunner
"ladayla" <mor...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:1140565138.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I could imaging that yes. You describe one place at one time. If the judge
were giving them a choice, then I assume that no funds were asked by
Narconon.
RR
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Twistycreek" <an...@comments.header> wrote in message
news:FGM3MVVZ3876...@twistycreek.com...
> Studies need to make sure that the train arrived on time last week,
> last year, and the last 20 years, because it is not clear that Narconon
> (still using your train analogy) has ever been reliably on time.
It remains to be seen - using this metaphor - if NarCONon has ever been on
the "tracks", or if NarCONon has ever been a train. Scientology's fake
"detox" program isn't even a tricycle, as it's more like a rusty treadmill
that hasn't been upgraded in 50 years. Scientologists shrieking "It's a
high-speed train!" over and over again doesn't make it so, as more and more
know every day.
> Trains involve thousands and thousands of passengers and thousands of
> timed stops throughout the day. Asking a couple Joe Blows if the
> Narconon train got them to work on time is not an effective or useful
> means in determining if the whole train system is any good.
But they're NOT "Joe Blow" - the interviewees are always clones of "Ron".
--
http://BuffaloScientologyInfo.com - http://www.xenu.net
http://PerkinsTragedy.org - http://www.xenutv.net
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.xenutv.com
http://www.scientology-lies.com
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
http://www.scientology-kills.org
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
* " You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way
you can control anybody is to lie to them."
* -- L. Ron Hubbard, "Technique 88"
*
* "...Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her
crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes
exist...."
* L. Ron Hubbard, "Critics of Scientology", November 5, 1967
*
* "All men shall be my slaves! All women shall succumb to my charms! All
mankind shall grovel at my feet and not know why!"
- L. Ron Hubbard, "Personal Affirmations"
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
Only to those who think only THEY "know" about things. Quite a common
mistake made by L. Ron Hubbard in constructing his mind-control ufo cult
Scientology. But of course being a cult means never having to admit the
real world has bearing.
> You are using it
> as a puppet to not actually look. this world is not about peer-review, it
> is
> about what you looking what you have in front of you, and you looking for
> yourself. Peer-review is others, where are you in all this?
This is an invalid argument, as this world isn't "about" personal experience
at the expense of reality.
An absence of peer-review is when a person begins to wonder if their
consciousness was three feet behind their body while going down stairs, as
if becoming non-corporeal was a common thing for some people including
themselves.
Peer review in such a situation presents tempering of such manufactured
situations with observations made by other people than that single person,
people who most likely didn't note anything beyond that person not paying
attention enough to notice their head about to hit something hanging off the
ceiling.
Scientology manufactures such rationalizations as "externalizing" as a
multiple function falsehood: [1] "I meant to do that", [2] "My body is so
stupid and disposable", [3] "Thanks to Scientology I am nurturing the Sooper
Powerz suppressed by this psych-controlled society", and [4] "I am Special
and Superior to Wogs(tm)".
In reality however none of the above ever covers up the simple fact that one
wasn't paying attention and hit their head on something hanging from the
ceiling. Nor will Scientology's lies cause the bruise to go away faster
than the body can normally.
In my Scientology-ignorant days I didn't realize that my ex-fiancé had
become duped, even when she told me how she'd "made a coffee mug fly across
the room with her mind" in 1987. I put it up to her susceptibility to
so-called experts, and a tendency to embrace the new-agey crap that was
floating around a lot in the late 80s. In retrospect I realize that she was
engaging in self-delusion, turning the reality of simply getting mad and
throwing a coffee mug across the room, into "I made the mug fly across the
room just by being really mad."
If you leave out the use of her hand to launch the mug the above "personal
experience" is still essentially true on a low level, but a deception
overall, because of the omission of the use of her hand, which was a
critical factor in launching said mug.
I didn't discern the above just based on the poor girl telling about the
above so-called "event", which by itself such is easily seen as just a
looney claim made for bizarre reasons involving a desperate need for
validation and self-improvement; it was when I met the person who had helped
her to "figure out what happened" that I realized she was being
manipulated... but it would be a number of years before I made the
correlation with the "ashtray routine", and had learned more about
Scientology.
Kim P
does and its various overdoses of vitamins is more compelling than any
puff piece of PR scientology cranks out. The entire purif is based on
faulty science to begin with add to that the overdoses of vitamins and
minerals mixed with oils, and way too many hours spent in a sauna and
you have a recipe for potential harm that is not worth any amount of
imagined help.
Taking more vitamins than you need - especially niacin and vitamin a can
cause liver damage, kidney damage - excessive time in a sauna can have
debilitating affects on a person's blood pressure, heart rate - included
in that is also potential for dehydration is very high o electralight
imbalances can induce hallucinations among other more serious problems
such as seizures, heart failure, and death.
This so-called detox does nothing to detox and narconon does nothing to
address the addictions process - how, why, and what it means to have an
addiction - it is nothing more than religious quackery disguised as
science and should be banned everywhere - relegated to history for all
eternity.
Kim P
Zinj
This fallacy easily exposes incompetence of your own 'conclusion
reaching process', and, by implication, demonstrates your (trained)
predisposition to 'delusional thinking'.
Zinj
--
'Think For Yourself!' says Scientology; and then adds: 'Don't forget to
pick up your copy of 'What I Think' from the table by the door, before
you leave.'
Roadrunner
"ladayla" <mor...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:1140565138.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I have looked for myself. I audited in the Narconon facility in LA for
> as long as I was able to put up with the filth. Toward the end of my
> auditing there, the cockroaches crawling over my materials and over my
> emeter and over me and over my PC and over every surface in the place,
> I got them to agree to let the PCs come to my home for their auditing.
> Then I had a bunch of junkies in my home. Well, I don't think so. While
> at Narconon, I saw people who were given the choice by a Judge to
> either go to jail or go to Narconon. They had chosen Narconon. Several
> tried escaping, but were brought back by Narconon staff. One committed
> suicide. None that I saw or heard of were stably cleaned up, and off
> drugs/alcohol. The place was run by a druggie. The staff didn't know
> jackshit about rehabilitation. The only thing they knew was that stats
> were due on Thursday at 2 p.m.
I could imaging that yes. But I can also photoshopping it: make it look
like whatever I want. You describe one place at one time. That is not all
places at all times. So it doesn't count. If the judge were giving them a
choice, then I assume that no funds were asked by Narconon. If the judge
were giving them drugs, then I assume L Ron Hubbard was right about wog
justice.
RR, aka Spacetraveler
--
"Allah is great. I am greater!" -- Š Roadrunner
Roadrunner
I'm an indoctrinated Scientologist. I am never wrong.
>
> You are using it
> > as a puppet to not actually look. this world is not about peer-review,
it
> > is
> > about what you looking what you have in front of you, and you looking
for
> > yourself. Peer-review is others, where are you in all this?
> >
>
> I have no reason to seek personal experience from narconon, as I do not
have
> a drug abuse problem.
I am the world's greatest philosophyer. Read carefully what I write. If you
are going to judge you need to get involved, if you do not you remian an
outsider judging something you have not personally looked into. Since when
are volunteers people who a drug abuse problem?
> If Narconon claims an 80 percent cure rate, they should be able to back
that
> figure up with some studies. If they can do as they claim, then there is
> *NO* reason why they can't produce the study that shows it. Why do they
shy
> away from it?
>
> Basically you are saying I should take their word for it, or perhaps get
> addicted to something so as to check whether they can actually cure me.
No, I am not intelligent enough to say something like that. I say that you
should look for yourself and not relying on what some other try to tell
you. Unless that some other is me.
> Why
> should I believe them? Because they say so? They have a vested interest,
in
> that they charge large amounts of money. When someone says they can do
> something, and charges mightily for the service, it's up to them to prove
> they can do what they say, and the proof required is not especially
onerous
> to produce, if their results were genuine.
Go to rehabilitation somewhere and check if they have patients who think
and talk like me. If you find any, run away quickly.
By the way, why won't I answer Mrs Roadrunner's questions about L Ron
Hubbard and his practice of fair game until the day he dropped dead with
Vistaril in his blood and needle punture marks in his butt? Scientology is
not able to help me with that. Maybe you can.
Roadrunner
You must listen only to what I tell you. Not others.
> There are
> a number of people that also complain that Narconon is late often and
> makes people sick. And there are studies that show that the level of
> niacin prescribed by Narconon is sometimes dangerous to the liver.
Yes. Ignore them.
>
> Even if I did ride on a timely train, I wouldn't bet that the train
> system I was on was the timeliest, safest, or best method, without
> doing further research.
>
> Narconon makes the claim that it is safe and effective.
>
> It is Narconon's responsibility to demonstrate that claim properly.
Forget it. It will happen never.
barbz
Psst! Yo, buddy! Wanna spend $40 on some blue laundry balls? They
really, really work!
Idiot. You are a con man's dream, you poor, trusting, mindless git.
>
>
>> You are using it
>>
>>>as a puppet to not actually look. this world is not about peer-review,
>
> it
>
>>>is
>>>about what you looking what you have in front of you, and you looking
>
> for
>
>>>yourself. Peer-review is others, where are you in all this?
>>>
>>
>>I have no reason to seek personal experience from narconon, as I do not
>
> have
>
>>a drug abuse problem.
>
>
> If you are going to judge you need to get involved, if you do not you remian
> an outsider judging something you have not personally looked into. Since
> when are volunteers people who a drug abuse problem?
Has been looked into by people with backgrounds which give them the
experience needed to evaluate a program like Narconon. You, the idiot on
the street, are in no position to evaluate anything. In fact, all you're
doing is regurgitation the droning arguments instilled in you by
Scientology. Kinda suggests you ain't thinkin for yourself. Especially
when I read "Since > when are volunteers people who a drug abuse problem?"
I suspect what you MEANT to say was, "Since when are volunteers people
who HAVE a drug abuse problem?"
Well, the cult, I mean Narconon, often tries to recruit its "graduates"
to work for Narconon. "You owe us. We got you hooked on Ron." There are
more junkies working for Narconon than there are qualified, educated
counselors. You'd know that if you quit regurgitating the Narconon
brochures and actually LOOKED FOR YOURSELF! But you can't do that, can
you? Tch.
>
>
>>If Narconon claims an 80 percent cure rate, they should be able to back
>
> that
>
>>figure up with some studies. If they can do as they claim, then there is
>>*NO* reason why they can't produce the study that shows it. Why do they
>
> shy
>
>>away from it?
>>
>>Basically you are saying I should take their word for it, or perhaps get
>>addicted to something so as to check whether they can actually cure me.
>
>
> No, I say that you should look for yourself and not relying on what some
> other try to tell you.
That makes no sense. It would require him to
1. get addicted
2. go thru the Narconon program
3. get addicted again
4. go thru another rehab program
Otherwise, he's just going to be relying on someone else's opinion,
right? And yet, you think that for some reason we should listen to you,
rather than rely on information produced by solid research. Some guy's
anecdotal testimonial holds more worth than a qualified evaluation? Is
that what you're saying?
>
>
>>Why
>>should I believe them? Because they say so? They have a vested interest,
>
> in
>
>>that they charge large amounts of money. When someone says they can do
>>something, and charges mightily for the service, it's up to them to prove
>>they can do what they say, and the proof required is not especially
>
> onerous
>
>>to produce, if their results were genuine.
>
>
> Go to rehabilitation somewhere else and check what they ask. To those
> without government support.
Again, are you suggesting John become an addict so he can properly
evaluate these programs?
>
> RR
barbz
Ah, that explains why you sound exactly like a Narconon brochure...
barbz
I think you'd better break it down for him. I'm sure he has no idea what
delusional thinking is. Or the faultiness of his conclusion reaching
process. Or thinking.
Break it down! ;)
Roadrunner
RR
Zinj
> Fake posting prior to this.
>
> RR
Whaddya mean Spacey?
Whether as 'Spacetraveler' or 'Roadrunner' your post have *always* been
'fake'.
Zinj
--
Scientology: The Science of Believing Anything You Like
This is the 'Tech' This is the Session.
Roadrunner
> >>>And that's all you did, asking about peer-review? Personal observation
> > > > and
> > > >>>experience is more reliable and valuable than peer-review.
> >>
> >>Exactly wrong.
> >
> >
> > Then you have more faith in what others find out/think than in your own
> > judgment based on personal observation.
>
> Psst! Yo, buddy! Wanna spend $40 on some blue laundry balls? They
> really, really work!
> Idiot. You are a con man's dream, you poor, trusting, mindless git.
Why the unpleasantness? It's you that relies on what other will tell you,
not me.
> > If you are going to judge you need to get involved, if you do not you
remian
> > an outsider judging something you have not personally looked into. Since
> > when are volunteers people who a drug abuse problem?
>
> Has been looked into by people with backgrounds which give them the
> experience needed to evaluate a program like Narconon. You, the idiot on
> the street, are in no position to evaluate anything. In fact, all you're
> doing is regurgitation the droning arguments instilled in you by
> Scientology. Kinda suggests you ain't thinkin for yourself.
It is still you that let others find out for you! I don't think that I sound
like a person who is spreading blindly droning arguments. I want you get
into the real physical world of Narconon.
> Especially
> when I read "Since > when are volunteers people who a drug abuse problem?"
> I suspect what you MEANT to say was, "Since when are volunteers people
> who HAVE a drug abuse problem?"
Yeah, sorry.
> Well, the cult, I mean Narconon, often tries to recruit its "graduates"
> to work for Narconon. "You owe us. We got you hooked on Ron." There are
> more junkies working for Narconon than there are qualified, educated
> counselors. You'd know that if you quit regurgitating the Narconon
> brochures and actually LOOKED FOR YOURSELF! But you can't do that, can
> you? Tch.
I was a volunteer, and I am as far from being a Narconon graduate as can be,
never even smoked, never used alcohol. There are people around who want to
help.
I am not hooked, and no one told me that I owe someone anything. Sorry, I
looked through all the documentation I could get my hands on, I like reading
and finding out. What you tell does not match my personal experiences.
Sorry! The only connection with Scientology I have seen at the location
where I was, was that the study was done in the local Scn organization, and
also some the processing, and that's about it. In fact, no person in
Narconon ever persuaded me to join Scientology either. There was no same
account, it was fully independent, I have seen the bookkeeping.
It may very well be different at some other place, but the 2 Narconon's that
I personally have been involved with did not operate as you say they do.
Alright!? Can you actually have this, that my experiences as I relate them
to you?
> >>If Narconon claims an 80 percent cure rate, they should be able to back
> > that
> >>figure up with some studies. If they can do as they claim, then there is
> >>*NO* reason why they can't produce the study that shows it. Why do they
> > shy away from it?
> >>
> >>Basically you are saying I should take their word for it, or perhaps get
> >>addicted to something so as to check whether they can actually cure me.
> >
> >
> > No, I say that you should look for yourself and not relying on what some
> > other try to tell you.
>
> That makes no sense. It would require him to
> 1. get addicted
> 2. go thru the Narconon program
> 3. get addicted again
> 4. go thru another rehab program
So, I never went through these steps. What do you think, that every person
in Narconon is an ex-addict? However did you come to that idea?
>
> Otherwise, he's just going to be relying on someone else's opinion,
> right? And yet, you think that for some reason we should listen to you,
> rather than rely on information produced by solid research. Some guy's
> anecdotal testimonial holds more worth than a qualified evaluation? Is
> that what you're saying?
No, I don't think that anyone should listen to me. But I also don't think
that one should get addicted prior to being able to find out about Narconon.
You can see if persons get better or not if you are there. I recall that
about 60% (something) actually stayed off the drugs, when I was during about
a year or so. And various of them stayed in Narconon helping guiding new
persons to go through the program, so that's true.
> > Go to rehabilitation somewhere else and check what they ask. To those
> > without government support.
>
> Again, are you suggesting John become an addict so he can properly
> evaluate these programs?
It's you that is suggesting that, not me.
RR
Roadrunner
RR
Roadrunner
> The problem is the medical science that has looked at what the purif
> does and its various overdoses of vitamins is more compelling than any
> puff piece of PR scientology cranks out. The entire purif is based on
> faulty science to begin with add to that the overdoses of vitamins and
> minerals mixed with oils, and way too many hours spent in a sauna and
> you have a recipe for potential harm that is not worth any amount of
> imagined help.
I worked as a volunteer for about a year, during which time I have never
seen anyone harmed. If there were the slighest indication of something going
wrong, it was given full attention immediately.
>
> Taking more vitamins than you need - especially niacin and vitamin a can
> cause liver damage, kidney damage - excessive time in a sauna can have
> debilitating affects on a person's blood pressure, heart rate - included
> in that is also potential for dehydration is very high o electralight
> imbalances can induce hallucinations among other more serious problems
> such as seizures, heart failure, and death.
It can cause damage if you continue taking such dosages for a long period of
time. Most go theough the sauna program in about a week, some 2, very few 3
weeks.
>
> This so-called detox does nothing to detox and narconon does nothing to
> address the addictions process - how, why, and what it means to have an
> addiction - it is nothing more than religious quackery disguised as
> science and should be banned everywhere - relegated to history for all
> eternity.
What I personally have seen is that it actually does.
RR
Roadrunner
RR
Roadrunner
"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e663df37...@news.day.sbcglobal.net...
Why are you impolite to me? What have I ever done to you? Give other people
some credit if they relate from personal experiences.
RR
Roadrunner
> > This fallacy easily exposes incompetence of your own 'conclusion
> > reaching process', and, by implication, demonstrates your (trained)
> > predisposition to 'delusional thinking'.
> >
> > Zinj
>
> I think you'd better break it down for him. I'm sure he has no idea what
> delusional thinking is. Or the faultiness of his conclusion reaching
> process. Or thinking.
>
> Break it down! ;)
Seems like some are fighting wars here. Treat others as you yourself want to
be treated. It is impolite to talk to others about what is wrong with
someone, and indulge in this kind of chitchat. Is this how things are done
on the ARS?
RR
Roadrunner
"Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140540294.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Roadrunner wrote:
> "Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140493040.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Roadrunner wrote:
> > > snip
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you saying here that it is not good to go to the schools and
> give
> > > > > lectures about the devastating effects of drugs to the kids? Is
this
> > > what
> > > > > you are actually saying here?
> > > > >
> > > > > RR
> > > >
> > > > What I am actually saying is that Co$ and Narconon has no usable
> > > > knowledge about drugeffects
> > > > whatsoever and that the primary goal is getting more paying victims
in
> > > > to the cult. That is what I am saying.
> > >
> > > What you are saying then is that these persons going from school to
> school
> > >> were either never addicted to drugs themselves, or they are faking
that
> they
> > > got off drugs through using the Narconon program.
> >
> > What I am ACTUALLY saying is that Co$ and Narconon has no USABLE
> > knowledge about drugeffects whatsoever and that the primary goal is
> > getting more paying victims in to the cult. That is what I am saying.
>
> And that's why Narconon does not get bankrupt, as they will not get income
> and it does not do anything. Makes sense to you?
To other readers: I am answering in Swedish due to the fact that
Roadrunner is located in Stockholm. ( As was Spacetrollop )
>
Som du vet är det inte Narconon som har de finansiella musklerna utan
den sk kyrkan , som håller skiten under armarna. Det är bara en
tidsfråga innan korthuset rasat. De inkomster man har haft ffa i
Stockholm ( där du sitter) har man utpressat från
socialförvaltningarna efter att ha raggat "kunder" på plattan
,"hjälpt" dem med att ansöka om ekonomiskt bistånd, efter avslag
överklagat till länsrätt sedan till kammarrätten allt enligt
välkänt scientologmönster - utnötnings och uttröttningstaktik i
domstol. Socialförvaltningarna har varken personal eller ekonomiska
resurser att hålla på och bråka och de flesta har resignerat. Detta
är våra skattemedel som i slutändan bekostar David Miscavieges
lyxbilar. Vad tycker du om det?
De stackare som fastnar i Narconon , får sedan arbeta i princip
gratis.
In english:
As you well know, it is not Narconon that has the financial muscles,
but the so called church that in fact is holding "the shit" org under
the armes. It is just a matter of time til the cardhouse is falling.
Respons: How much time do you need? It has been 40 years now (1966) since
Narconon emerged. Still seems going strong.
The income Narconon has had especially in Stockholm ( were you are
located) has been "blackmailed" from the local boards of wellfare by
more or less kidnapping drugaddicts from Sergel square ( a well known
hangaround for drugabusers and drugcommerce in Stockholm city)
then "helped" the stoned out client to file a request for financing the
"treatment" at Narconon with the board of wellfare, appeal in court
when denied, appeal to higher court and so on. A well known
scientologist strategy - wear them down with frivilous filings and
judicial battleing.
The local boards in Stockholm doesn´t have the financial or personal
resources and most of the boards has simply resigned. It is our
taxpayer money that pays for David Miiscavieges luxury cars in the end.
What do you think about that? Those poor suckers that get stuck in
Narconon will have to do slavework for practicaly free.
Respons: May very well be so, I don't know about this.
> >
> > >
> > > > As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to
commit
> > > > atrocities. [Voltaire]
> > > >
> > > > "This volume probably contains more promises and less evidence per
> page
> > > > than has any publication since the invention of printing."
> > > > - Review of "Dianetics", Scientific American, 1951
> >
> > > It is not about belief, it is about what works.
> > > These people in Narconon then must be liars and are going around and
> lying
> > > to schoolkids then. You can't have it both ways, it is either this or
> that.
> > >
> > > RR
> >
> > They are lying yes, as they are lying when they say the Narconon
> > "program" works, as they are lying in applications to authorities.
>
> Alright they are lying. Lying however only works for a little while. Then
> tell me why does Narconon still exist?
Slappheten, inkompetensen och indolensen hos länstyrelsetjänstemän
samt den sk kyrkans intresse av att hålla liv i skiten. That´s why.
In english:
Flaccid, incompetent and indolent civil servants with the regional
board of authorities, plus the "church:s" interest of keeping the
Narconon maneure alive and kicking, that´s why.
> > Read all about it here. OOOps I forgot you are not allowed to do that ,
> > but to other interested parties her goes:
> >
> > http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/narconon_investigation_by_.htm
> >
> > Lies and attempeted fraud when Narconon falsiefied a well known
> > professors signature :
> >
> > http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/sammanstallning/app26.pdf
> >
> > Economical flowchart in Co$:
> >
> > http://ulf.ing-steen.se/~ulf/sammanstallning/internal_orgchartbil30.jpg
> >
> > Joint expert statement on the Narconon "program"
>
> Any of these things can be fixed. Personal observation and evaluation is
the
> only thing you actually can rely on. One can theorize anything into the
> ground till it vanishes, big deal.
Vad menas med detta? Vad är det som kan fixas? Har du läst mina
länkar?
Systematiska och objektiva observationer med statistiska vetenskapliga
utvärderingar kan man möjligen lita på. Anekdotiska inlärda
subjektiva "berättelser" har föga bevisvärde i dessa sammanhang.
Eller som Hubbard gjorde. fantiserade och hallucinerade sig fram i
livet.
In english:
What do you mean? What can be fixed? Have you read my links?
Systematic objective observations , statistically and scientifically
evaluated , can possibly be trusted and relied on. Anecdotical,
rehearsed subjejctive stories gives little or no evidence in this
context. Or as Hubbard did: fantasized and hallucinated himself through
life.
I relate from my experiences. Are you telling me that they have no value?
You can come up with 100 hundred such reports, but when I see people getting
better, then I see people getting better.
RR
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
finances?
> The income Narconon has had especially in Stockholm ( were you are
> located) has been "blackmailed" from the local boards of wellfare by
> more or less kidnapping drugaddicts from Sergel square ( a well known
> hangaround for drugabusers and drugcommerce in Stockholm city)
> then "helped" the stoned out client to file a request for financing the
> "treatment" at Narconon with the board of wellfare, appeal in court
> when denied, appeal to higher court and so on. A well known
> scientologist strategy - wear them down with frivilous filings and
> judicial battleing.
> The local boards in Stockholm doesn´t have the financial or personal
> resources and most of the boards has simply resigned. It is our
> taxpayer money that pays for David Miiscavieges luxury cars in the end.
> What do you think about that? Those poor suckers that get stuck in
> Narconon will have to do slavework for practicaly free.
>
> Respons: May very well be so, I don't know about this.
Well I do and I am telling you.
Your personal experiences are only of importance to you, says nothing
about Narconon efficancy. By the way, what professional medical merits
can you provide and by doing so giving a bit more credit to your
evaluation?
Your ducking of questions and evasive nonsensical and reductive
communicative style is identical to your postings when you used the
nick Spacetraveler.
Why not enhance your experience on the Narconon topic by reading the
links I provided?
Ulf
barbz
> snip
>
>
>>>>>And that's all you did, asking about peer-review? Personal observation
>>>>>and
>>>>>
>>>>>>>experience is more reliable and valuable than peer-review.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then you have more faith in what others find out/think than in your own
>>>judgment based on personal observation.
>>
>>Psst! Yo, buddy! Wanna spend $40 on some blue laundry balls? They
>>really, really work!
>>Idiot. You are a con man's dream, you poor, trusting, mindless git.
>
>
> Why the unpleasantness? It's you that relies on what other will tell you,
> not me.
I had the advantage of an education which included scientific method,
something you're apparently lacking. That's why. I suffer fools not at
all, and you strike me as exceedingly gullible. Willfully gullible,
which should be a crime.
>
>
>
>>>If you are going to judge you need to get involved, if you do not you
>
> remian
>
>>>an outsider judging something you have not personally looked into. Since
>>>when are volunteers people who a drug abuse problem?
>>
>>Has been looked into by people with backgrounds which give them the
>>experience needed to evaluate a program like Narconon. You, the idiot on
>>the street, are in no position to evaluate anything. In fact, all you're
>>doing is regurgitation the droning arguments instilled in you by
>>Scientology. Kinda suggests you ain't thinkin for yourself.
>
>
> It is still you that let others find out for you! I don't think that I sound
> like a person who is spreading blindly droning arguments. I want you get
> into the real physical world of Narconon.
But, I can look at documented evidence, I don't have to rely on
anectdotal claptrap. That's the difference. Verifiable documentation
means that you can look at the data yourself and arrive at your own
conclusion. This includes testimonials and affidavits under oath, which
are more reliable than "this guy told me so." Combining documentation
with verifiable, sworn affidavits are so much more reliable than what
you're recommending.
I have looked at reviews of Narconon. I don't have any faith in it. Nor
would I expect a Narconon employee or volunteer to offer anything
different than the Narconon brochures, or your posts.
>
>
>>Especially
>>when I read "Since > when are volunteers people who a drug abuse problem?"
>>I suspect what you MEANT to say was, "Since when are volunteers people
>>who HAVE a drug abuse problem?"
>
>
> Yeah, sorry.
>
>
>>Well, the cult, I mean Narconon, often tries to recruit its "graduates"
>>to work for Narconon. "You owe us. We got you hooked on Ron." There are
>>more junkies working for Narconon than there are qualified, educated
>>counselors. You'd know that if you quit regurgitating the Narconon
>>brochures and actually LOOKED FOR YOURSELF! But you can't do that, can
>>you? Tch.
>
>
> I was a volunteer, and I am as far from being a Narconon graduate as can be,
> never even smoked, never used alcohol. There are people around who want to
> help.
Yep, that's one of Scientology's hooks. They reap people who want to
help. I have no doubt you fully believe in the Narconon program.
However, I've talked to quite a few people, and read many more accounts,
of people who went into Narconon addicted and came out a Scientologist.
Other rehab programs don't offer that little extra lagniappe. Yet,
Narconon is patently dishonest about this "feature which might be a bug."
If a family knew the result would be an ex-addict Scientologist, I
suspect that they might choose another rehab project for their loved
one. Do you suppose that's why Narconon strives to cover up its links to
Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard?
>
> I am not hooked, and no one told me that I owe someone anything.
You already said you were a volunteer, not a client. Therefore, the
sentence above is not germane to the argument.
Sorry, I
> looked through all the documentation I could get my hands on, I like reading
> and finding out. What you tell does not match my personal experiences.
> Sorry! The only connection with Scientology I have seen at the location
> where I was, was that the study was done in the local Scn organization, and
> also some the processing, and that's about it. In fact, no person in
> Narconon ever persuaded me to join Scientology either. There was no same
> account, it was fully independent, I have seen the bookkeeping.
Okay, if you aren't a Scientologist, you wouldn't be familiar with the
Green Vols or the courses sold to publics. Right? So you cannot really
evaluate whether or not Narconon is Scientology in sheep's clothing.
>
> It may very well be different at some other place, but the 2 Narconon's that
> I personally have been involved with did not operate as you say they do.
> Alright!? Can you actually have this, that my experiences as I relate them
> to you?
Sure, but you're not in a position to make the argument. By your own
statement, you don't know enough about Scientology and Narconon to make
any sort of evaluation on the connection between the two. It's well laid
out at www.narconon-exposed.org
Anyone can look at the Green Vols and compare the Scientology courses to
those administered by Narconon.
Moreover, it's well documented that the Purif does not perform as
promised. There are, in fact, people whose health was compromised by the
toxic amounts of vitamins, and excessively long hours in a sauna.
This is medically proven. You just don't know what you're talking about,
and the fact that you persist in promoting your ill-informed position is
just annoying.
>
>
>
>>>>If Narconon claims an 80 percent cure rate, they should be able to back
>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>>figure up with some studies. If they can do as they claim, then there is
>>>>*NO* reason why they can't produce the study that shows it. Why do they
>>>
>>>shy away from it?
>>>
>>>>Basically you are saying I should take their word for it, or perhaps get
>>>>addicted to something so as to check whether they can actually cure me.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, I say that you should look for yourself and not relying on what some
>>>other try to tell you.
>>
>>That makes no sense. It would require him to
>>1. get addicted
>>2. go thru the Narconon program
>>3. get addicted again
>>4. go thru another rehab program
>
>
> So, I never went through these steps. What do you think, that every person
> in Narconon is an ex-addict? However did you come to that idea?
What is it you think Narconon does, foo? If you were a volunteer, you
weren't a client. If you were a client and you weren't an addict, you
were an alcoholic. So, which is it?
>
>
>>Otherwise, he's just going to be relying on someone else's opinion,
>>right? And yet, you think that for some reason we should listen to you,
>>rather than rely on information produced by solid research. Some guy's
>>anecdotal testimonial holds more worth than a qualified evaluation? Is
>>that what you're saying?
>
>
> No, I don't think that anyone should listen to me. But I also don't think
> that one should get addicted prior to being able to find out about Narconon.
> You can see if persons get better or not if you are there. I recall that
> about 60% (something) actually stayed off the drugs, when I was during about
> a year or so. And various of them stayed in Narconon helping guiding new
> persons to go through the program, so that's true.
>\
Since there's no follow-up on graduates, any percentage you offer is
nonsensical. If you're suggesting that 60% of them stay off drugs while
in the Narconon program, it suggests that 40% of them are tokin' out
behind the outhouse.
That would explain the overdose at the Warner Springs Narconon a couple
years back.
How many of those "various" graduates who stayed to work there became
Scientologists?
>
>
>>>Go to rehabilitation somewhere else and check what they ask. To those
>>>without government support.
>>
>>Again, are you suggesting John become an addict so he can properly
>>evaluate these programs?
>
>
> It's you that is suggesting that, not me.
The alternative seems to be just taking your word for it?
You didn't by any chance wind up this way through VolunteerMatch, did you?
barbz
And your qualifications to make this evaluation is what?
How would you know if it worked or not?
barbz
It's Usenet. Accept it as it is. Or, you have the option to leave. Your
choice.
barbz
Why does your personal experience sound exactly like the promotional
brochures put out by Scientology and Narconon?
That leads us to think that there's something suspicious about your
"personal experience."
Zinj
<snip>
> > This fallacy easily exposes incompetence of your own 'conclusion
> > reaching process', and, by implication, demonstrates your (trained)
> > predisposition to 'delusional thinking'.
>
> Why are you impolite to me? What have I ever done to you? Give other people
> some credit if they relate from personal experiences.
>
> RR
Translation: 'Pay no attention to the button-pushing Scientology
Superman behind the cushion. It's impolite to point out that he thinks
you're too stupid to notice his machinations.'
Zinj
Translation: 'Why do you attack me when you find my warm cuddly hand in
your pocket? What crimes do you yourself have to suspect me of anything
but sterling motives?!! It's cold out here, and, my poor open hands are
chilly and needing the warmth of your trusting buttocks. Your suspicion
demonstrates your evil character. How dare you suspect me of unethical
behavior, when I'm one of the 'most ethical people on the planet'? You
should accept me at face value, because my belief-system teaches me that
you are too stupid to recognize my superior mental abilities.'
John
>
snip
>> >
>> > And that's all you did, asking about peer-review? Personal observation
> and
>> > experience is more reliable and valuable than peer-review.
>>
>> Exactly wrong.
>
> Then you have more faith in what others find out/think than in your own
> judgment based on personal observation.
No, I have more faith in what others attempt to find out about the world in
as objective a manner as possible than rely on personal observation. People
are bad observers and often worse assessors, as any number of psychological
studies will tell you, especially when emotionally involved.
>
>>
>> You are using it
>> > as a puppet to not actually look. this world is not about peer-review,
> it
>> > is
>> > about what you looking what you have in front of you, and you looking
> for
>> > yourself. Peer-review is others, where are you in all this?
>> >
>>
>> I have no reason to seek personal experience from narconon, as I do not
> have
>> a drug abuse problem.
>
> If you are going to judge you need to get involved, if you do not you
> remian
> an outsider judging something you have not personally looked into. Since
> when are volunteers people who a drug abuse problem?
Firstly, obervation by one person in a volunteer role will not determine the
effectiveness of narconon. Secondly, why should I volunteer for narconon?
There are dozens of groups claiming they can help addicts. Should I
volunteer for all of them?
As you seem to be deliberately avoiding the point, I'll reinterate; Narconon
make the claims, it's up to Narconon to back them up with objective
evidence.
>
>> If Narconon claims an 80 percent cure rate, they should be able to back
> that
>> figure up with some studies. If they can do as they claim, then there is
>> *NO* reason why they can't produce the study that shows it. Why do they
> shy
>> away from it?
>>
>> Basically you are saying I should take their word for it, or perhaps get
>> addicted to something so as to check whether they can actually cure me.
>
> No, I say that you should look for yourself and not relying on what some
> other try to tell you.
That's scientology for you. Get the raw meat in.
>
>> Why
>> should I believe them? Because they say so? They have a vested interest,
> in
>> that they charge large amounts of money. When someone says they can do
>> something, and charges mightily for the service, it's up to them to prove
>> they can do what they say, and the proof required is not especially
> onerous
>> to produce, if their results were genuine.
>
> Go to rehabilitation somewhere else and check what they ask. To those
> without government support.
Avoiding the point, I see.
I'm not talking about other rehabs, I'm talking about narconon. What other
rehabs do is irrelevant.
Roadrunner
Roadrunner
Actually it does not.
>
> That leads us to think that there's something suspicious about your
> "personal experience."
You want it to be suspicious.
RR
Roadrunner
Respons: I have seen the bookkeeping if that's what you mean.
> The income Narconon has had especially in Stockholm ( were you are
> located) has been "blackmailed" from the local boards of wellfare by
> more or less kidnapping drugaddicts from Sergel square ( a well known
> hangaround for drugabusers and drugcommerce in Stockholm city)
> then "helped" the stoned out client to file a request for financing the
> "treatment" at Narconon with the board of wellfare, appeal in court
> when denied, appeal to higher court and so on. A well known
> scientologist strategy - wear them down with frivilous filings and
> judicial battleing.
> The local boards in Stockholm doesn´t have the financial or personal
> resources and most of the boards has simply resigned. It is our
> taxpayer money that pays for David Miiscavieges luxury cars in the end.
> What do you think about that? Those poor suckers that get stuck in
> Narconon will have to do slavework for practicaly free.
>
> Respons: May very well be so, I don't know about this.
Well I do and I am telling you.
Why should I believe you if you don't believe what I say?
Respons: I am a witness to the fact.
By the way, what professional medical merits
can you provide and by doing so giving a bit more credit to your
evaluation?
Respons: So you say that I need medical merits to be able to adjudicate if
some person gets better, and stays of drugs?
Your ducking of questions and evasive nonsensical and reductive
communicative style is identical to your postings when you used the
nick Spacetraveler.
Respons: It's you that says that I am.
Why not enhance your experience on the Narconon topic by reading the
links I provided?
Respons: That's not experience. That's some writing that appears on some
site (yours I pressume).
RR
Roadrunner
> Roadrunner wrote:
> > snip
> >
> >
> >>>>>And that's all you did, asking about peer-review? Personal
observation
> >>>>>and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>experience is more reliable and valuable than peer-review.
> >>>>
> >>>>Exactly wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Then you have more faith in what others find out/think than in your own
> >>>judgment based on personal observation.
> >>
> >>Psst! Yo, buddy! Wanna spend $40 on some blue laundry balls? They
> >>really, really work!
> >>Idiot. You are a con man's dream, you poor, trusting, mindless git.
> >
> >
> > Why the unpleasantness? It's you that relies on what other will tell
you,
> > not me.
>
> I had the advantage of an education which included scientific method,
> something you're apparently lacking. That's why. I suffer fools not at
> all, and you strike me as exceedingly gullible. Willfully gullible,
> which should be a crime.
You are getting accusive, why?
> >>>If you are going to judge you need to get involved, if you do not you
> >
> > remian
> >
> >>>an outsider judging something you have not personally looked into.
Since
> >>>when are volunteers people who a drug abuse problem?
> >>
> >>Has been looked into by people with backgrounds which give them the
> >>experience needed to evaluate a program like Narconon. You, the idiot on
> >>the street, are in no position to evaluate anything. In fact, all you're
> >>doing is regurgitation the droning arguments instilled in you by
> >>Scientology. Kinda suggests you ain't thinkin for yourself.
> >
> >
> > It is still you that let others find out for you! I don't think that I
sound
> > like a person who is spreading blindly droning arguments. I want you get
> > into the real physical world of Narconon.
>
> But, I can look at documented evidence, I don't have to rely on
> anectdotal claptrap. That's the difference. Verifiable documentation
> means that you can look at the data yourself and arrive at your own
> conclusion. This includes testimonials and affidavits under oath, which
> are more reliable than "this guy told me so." Combining documentation
> with verifiable, sworn affidavits are so much more reliable than what
> you're recommending.
What is all that compared to looking for yourself, not in documented
testified socalledevidence. No, real life and you being physically there and
see for yourself.
Ah, only those that were clients get hooked.
>
> Sorry, I
> > looked through all the documentation I could get my hands on, I like
reading
> > and finding out. What you tell does not match my personal experiences.
> > Sorry! The only connection with Scientology I have seen at the location
> > where I was, was that the study was done in the local Scn organization,
and
> > also some the processing, and that's about it. In fact, no person in
> > Narconon ever persuaded me to join Scientology either. There was no same
> > account, it was fully independent, I have seen the bookkeeping.
>
> Okay, if you aren't a Scientologist, you wouldn't be familiar with the
> Green Vols or the courses sold to publics. Right? So you cannot really
> evaluate whether or not Narconon is Scientology in sheep's clothing.
I can evaluate that actually. Either way Narconon uses materials developed
by Scientology, and so what?
> >
> > It may very well be different at some other place, but the 2 Narconon's
that
> > I personally have been involved with did not operate as you say they do.
> > Alright!? Can you actually have this, that my experiences as I relate
them
> > to you?
>
> Sure, but you're not in a position to make the argument. By your own
> statement, you don't know enough about Scientology and Narconon to make
> any sort of evaluation on the connection between the two. It's well laid
> out at www.narconon-exposed.org
Why do you think I don't know about Scientology?
>
> Anyone can look at the Green Vols and compare the Scientology courses to
> those administered by Narconon.
It is very well known that Narconon uses that data.
>
> Moreover, it's well documented that the Purif does not perform as
> promised. There are, in fact, people whose health was compromised by the
> toxic amounts of vitamins, and excessively long hours in a sauna.
>
> This is medically proven. You just don't know what you're talking about,
> and the fact that you persist in promoting your ill-informed position is
> just annoying.
I was there for about a year, but I don't know about anything. I have seen
nothing. Let's say that I do not agree with you and you simply can't have
that.
Ah, you have to be client, otherwise you can not know. But peer-reviewers
that only look at some papers and such, they know it all.
> >
> >
> >>Otherwise, he's just going to be relying on someone else's opinion,
> >>right? And yet, you think that for some reason we should listen to you,
> >>rather than rely on information produced by solid research. Some guy's
> >>anecdotal testimonial holds more worth than a qualified evaluation? Is
> >>that what you're saying?
> >
> >
> > No, I don't think that anyone should listen to me. But I also don't
think
> > that one should get addicted prior to being able to find out about
Narconon.
>
> > You can see if persons get better or not if you are there. I recall that
> > about 60% (something) actually stayed off the drugs, when I was during
about
> > a year or so. And various of them stayed in Narconon helping guiding new
> > persons to go through the program, so that's true.
> >\
> Since there's no follow-up on graduates, any percentage you offer is
> nonsensical. If you're suggesting that 60% of them stay off drugs while
> in the Narconon program, it suggests that 40% of them are tokin' out
> behind the outhouse.
> That would explain the overdose at the Warner Springs Narconon a couple
> years back.
What is the percentage of success of any other method, and what about their
percentage that did not make it? You will continue to find fault as long as
I don't give you a 100% success figure.
>
> How many of those "various" graduates who stayed to work there became
> Scientologists?
Some, but not very many actually.
>
> >
> >
> >>>Go to rehabilitation somewhere else and check what they ask. To those
> >>>without government support.
> >>
> >>Again, are you suggesting John become an addict so he can properly
> >>evaluate these programs?
> >
> >
> > It's you that is suggesting that, not me.
>
> The alternative seems to be just taking your word for it?
> You didn't by any chance wind up this way through VolunteerMatch, did you?
You take the word of peer-reviewers? Start taking your own word, not mine
and not someone else that is.
RR
Roadrunner
>
> "Roadrunner" <Ro...@runner.com> wrote in message
> news:43fc3164$1...@news.wineasy.se...
> >
> snip
> >> >
> >> > And that's all you did, asking about peer-review? Personal
observation
> > and
> >> > experience is more reliable and valuable than peer-review.
> >>
> >> Exactly wrong.
> >
> > Then you have more faith in what others find out/think than in your own
> > judgment based on personal observation.
>
> No, I have more faith in what others attempt to find out about the world
in
> as objective a manner as possible than rely on personal observation.
People
> are bad observers and often worse assessors, as any number of
psychological
> studies will tell you, especially when emotionally involved.
Meaning you are unable to adjudicate if a person get better or not.
>
> >
> >>
> >> You are using it
> >> > as a puppet to not actually look. this world is not about
peer-review,
> > it
> >> > is
> >> > about what you looking what you have in front of you, and you looking
> > for
> >> > yourself. Peer-review is others, where are you in all this?
> >> >
> >>
> >> I have no reason to seek personal experience from narconon, as I do not
> > have
> >> a drug abuse problem.
> >
> > If you are going to judge you need to get involved, if you do not you
> > remian
> > an outsider judging something you have not personally looked into. Since
> > when are volunteers people who a drug abuse problem?
>
> Firstly, obervation by one person in a volunteer role will not determine
the
> effectiveness of narconon. Secondly, why should I volunteer for narconon?
> There are dozens of groups claiming they can help addicts. Should I
> volunteer for all of them?
You join the ones you want to know more about, this may not be all of them.
>
> As you seem to be deliberately avoiding the point, I'll reinterate;
Narconon
> make the claims, it's up to Narconon to back them up with objective
> evidence.
I think people who have been on drugs for 30 years and more, and got off of
it, is quite impressive. Talk with these people and listen to what they have
to say.
>
> >
> >> If Narconon claims an 80 percent cure rate, they should be able to back
> > that
> >> figure up with some studies. If they can do as they claim, then there
is
> >> *NO* reason why they can't produce the study that shows it. Why do they
> > shy
> >> away from it?
> >>
> >> Basically you are saying I should take their word for it, or perhaps
get
> >> addicted to something so as to check whether they can actually cure me.
> >
> > No, I say that you should look for yourself and not relying on what some
> > other try to tell you.
>
> That's scientology for you. Get the raw meat in.
I have not been recruted into Scientology by Narconon, no attempts were
made.
>
> >
> >> Why
> >> should I believe them? Because they say so? They have a vested
interest,
> > in
> >> that they charge large amounts of money. When someone says they can do
> >> something, and charges mightily for the service, it's up to them to
prove
> >> they can do what they say, and the proof required is not especially
> > onerous
> >> to produce, if their results were genuine.
> >
> > Go to rehabilitation somewhere else and check what they ask. To those
> > without government support.
>
> Avoiding the point, I see.
>
> I'm not talking about other rehabs, I'm talking about narconon. What other
> rehabs do is irrelevant.
No, it is not. One has to compare.
RR
barbz
barbz
Actually, it does. I've read enough Narconon propaganda to recognize it
when it comes under my shoe.
>
>>That leads us to think that there's something suspicious about your
>>"personal experience."
>
>
> You want it to be suspicious.
No, it IS suspicious. You are basically requesting that people take your
word for something. And your word clearly parallels the promotional
bullshit fulminated by Narconon and the "church" of Scientology.
If you wish, I can go through my files and your posts, and put the Big
Picture together for you. I am telling you, your posts and the Narconon
PR are cut of the same cloth.
Say the word, and I'll make the effort.
barbz
Why should we assume bookkeeping records would make any sense to you?
You've seen 'em. Why are you qualified to evaluate 'em?
Mrs Roadrunner
He is professional accountant. He worked for Arthur Andersen.
>
>--
>--
>Barb
>Chaplain, ARSCC
>xenu...@netscape.net
>
>"Every week, every month, every year, every decade and now
>every century, Scientology does weird and stupid things
>to damage its own reputation."
> -Steve Zadarnowski
>
>"Comparing Scientology to a motorcycle gang is a gross, unpardonable
>insult to bikers everywhere. Even at our worst, we are never as bad as
>Scientology."
> -ex-member, Thunderclouds motorcycle "club"
>
>"$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign:
>terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business
>opportunity.
>
>$cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide."
> -Chris Leithiser
Mrs Roadrunner, aka Mrs Spacetraveler
--
"Allah is great. My husband is greater!" -- © Mrs. Spacetraveler
Zinj
>
> "Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140630986.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Are you saying you have first hand info and knowledge about Narconons
> finances?
>
> Respons: I have seen the bookkeeping if that's what you mean.
Does Narconon regularly allow its 'volunteers' to look at its books?
According to you, Narconon has practically nothing to do with
ScientologyŽ, yet, I strongly suspect that your 'volunteer' effort was
under Scientology aegis.
*More* than 'strongly' in fact :)
Zinj
--
Scientology: Come for the placebo; stay for the mind fuck.
Roadrunner
"John" <ju...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:dtimom$t4k$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
>
> "Roadrunner" <Ro...@runner.com> wrote in message
> news:43fc3164$1...@news.wineasy.se...
> >
> snip
> >> >
> >> > And that's all you did, asking about peer-review? Personal
observation
> > and
> >> > experience is more reliable and valuable than peer-review.
> >>
> >> Exactly wrong.
> >
> > Then you have more faith in what others find out/think than in your own
> > judgment based on personal observation.
>
> No, I have more faith in what others attempt to find out about the world
in
> as objective a manner as possible than rely on personal observation.
People
> are bad observers and often worse assessors, as any number of
psychological
> studies will tell you, especially when emotionally involved.
Meaning you are scientific. I am not.
>
> >
> >>
> >> You are using it
> >> > as a puppet to not actually look. this world is not about
peer-review,
> > it
> >> > is
> >> > about what you looking what you have in front of you, and you looking
> > for
> >> > yourself. Peer-review is others, where are you in all this?
> >> >
> >>
> >> I have no reason to seek personal experience from narconon, as I do not
> > have
> >> a drug abuse problem.
> >
> > If you are going to judge you need to get involved, if you do not you
> > remian
> > an outsider judging something you have not personally looked into. Since
> > when are volunteers people who a drug abuse problem?
>
> Firstly, obervation by one person in a volunteer role will not determine
the
> effectiveness of narconon. Secondly, why should I volunteer for narconon?
> There are dozens of groups claiming they can help addicts. Should I
> volunteer for all of them?
Stop being logical.
>
> As you seem to be deliberately avoiding the point, I'll reinterate;
Narconon
> make the claims, it's up to Narconon to back them up with objective
> evidence.
I think people who have been on drugs for 30 years and more, and got off of
it, is quite impressive. Talk with these people and listen to what they
have
to say. It is not scientific but so what?
>
> >
> >> If Narconon claims an 80 percent cure rate, they should be able to back
> > that
> >> figure up with some studies. If they can do as they claim, then there
is
> >> *NO* reason why they can't produce the study that shows it. Why do they
> > shy
> >> away from it?
> >>
> >> Basically you are saying I should take their word for it, or perhaps
get
> >> addicted to something so as to check whether they can actually cure me.
> >
> > No, I say that you should look for yourself and not relying on what some
> > other try to tell you.
>
> That's scientology for you. Get the raw meat in.
I have not been recruted into Scientology by Narconon, no attempts were
made. I was already into Scientology.
>
> >
> >> Why
> >> should I believe them? Because they say so? They have a vested
interest,
> > in
> >> that they charge large amounts of money. When someone says they can do
> >> something, and charges mightily for the service, it's up to them to
prove
> >> they can do what they say, and the proof required is not especially
> > onerous
> >> to produce, if their results were genuine.
> >
> > Go to rehabilitation somewhere else and check what they ask. To those
> > without government support.
>
> Avoiding the point, I see.
>
> I'm not talking about other rehabs, I'm talking about narconon. What other
> rehabs do is irrelevant.
Yes, it is but so what?
RR, aka Spacetraveler
--
"Allah is great. I am greater!" -- Š Roadrunner
barbz
> "barbz" <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:KB1Lf.363$V27.223@fed1read06...
>
>>Roadrunner wrote:
>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>And that's all you did, asking about peer-review? Personal
>
> observation
>
>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>experience is more reliable and valuable than peer-review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Exactly wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Then you have more faith in what others find out/think than in your own
>>>>>judgment based on personal observation.
>>>>
>>>>Psst! Yo, buddy! Wanna spend $40 on some blue laundry balls? They
>>>>really, really work!
>>>>Idiot. You are a con man's dream, you poor, trusting, mindless git.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why the unpleasantness? It's you that relies on what other will tell
>
> you,
>
>>>not me.
>>
>>I had the advantage of an education which included scientific method,
>>something you're apparently lacking. That's why. I suffer fools not at
>>all, and you strike me as exceedingly gullible. Willfully gullible,
>>which should be a crime.
>
>
> You are getting accusive, why?
Accusitive? I am asking you to put data where your mouth is. All we're
getting is anectdotal PR for Narconon from you. I accuse you of being
willfully gullible, true. But that's because you obviously only know the
side of the argument acceptable to Scientology. Why haven't you been
able to look at sites like http://narconon-exposed.org?
That site contains a lot of verifiable, documented, researchable
information that you seem doggedly unwilling to look at, for some reason.
Therefore, I conclude that you know nothing of the scientific method way
of evaluating data. Therefore, your opinion is just that. Your opinion.
You know what they say about opinions, don't you? Like assholes,
everybody's got one.
>
>
>
>>>>>If you are going to judge you need to get involved, if you do not you
>>>
>>>remian
>>>
>>>
>>>>>an outsider judging something you have not personally looked into.
>
> Since
>
>>>>>when are volunteers people who a drug abuse problem?
>>>>
>>>>Has been looked into by people with backgrounds which give them the
>>>>experience needed to evaluate a program like Narconon. You, the idiot on
>>>>the street, are in no position to evaluate anything. In fact, all you're
>>>>doing is regurgitation the droning arguments instilled in you by
>>>>Scientology. Kinda suggests you ain't thinkin for yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>It is still you that let others find out for you! I don't think that I
>
> sound
>
>>>like a person who is spreading blindly droning arguments. I want you get
>>>into the real physical world of Narconon.
>>
>>But, I can look at documented evidence, I don't have to rely on
>>anectdotal claptrap. That's the difference. Verifiable documentation
>>means that you can look at the data yourself and arrive at your own
>>conclusion. This includes testimonials and affidavits under oath, which
>>are more reliable than "this guy told me so." Combining documentation
>>with verifiable, sworn affidavits are so much more reliable than what
>>you're recommending.
>
>
> What is all that compared to looking for yourself, not in documented
> testified socalledevidence. No, real life and you being physically there and
> see for yourself.
Let us assume that you, as a person, haven't got the tools to properly
evaluate Narconon, because you have no background in the drug rehab or
physiology fields. Real life and whatnot will be interpreted by your
ignorant, uninformed mind. What did you "see for yourself?" People not
doing drugs while they were inside the Narconon program?
Do you know what happened and what they did after they left? No?
Then how can you say it's effective?
Another slithery response. Read back, try responding again. Hooked on
what? Heroin? Scientology? You don't have to be in Narconon to get
hooked on Scientology. Scientology offers a ganion of many hooks, one of
which is wanting to help people. So quit trying to be clever. You and I
both know what we're talking about. (word clear 'ganion' if that gives
you a problem. A ganion is a series of hooks on one line, if you want to
save time.)
>
>
>>Sorry, I
>>
>>>looked through all the documentation I could get my hands on, I like
>
> reading
>
>>>and finding out. What you tell does not match my personal experiences.
>>>Sorry! The only connection with Scientology I have seen at the location
>>>where I was, was that the study was done in the local Scn organization,
>
> and
>
>>>also some the processing, and that's about it. In fact, no person in
>>>Narconon ever persuaded me to join Scientology either. There was no same
>>>account, it was fully independent, I have seen the bookkeeping.
>>
>>Okay, if you aren't a Scientologist, you wouldn't be familiar with the
>>Green Vols or the courses sold to publics. Right? So you cannot really
>>evaluate whether or not Narconon is Scientology in sheep's clothing.
>
>
> I can evaluate that actually. Either way Narconon uses materials developed
> by Scientology, and so what?
So what is the fact that Narconon tries to pretend to be unattached to
Scientology, when in fact, it's Scientology in a different wrapper. They
are dishonest about the relationship, that's "so what."
>
>
>
>>>It may very well be different at some other place, but the 2 Narconon's
>
> that
>
>>>I personally have been involved with did not operate as you say they do.
>>>Alright!? Can you actually have this, that my experiences as I relate
>
> them
>
>>>to you?
>>
>>Sure, but you're not in a position to make the argument. By your own
>>statement, you don't know enough about Scientology and Narconon to make
>>any sort of evaluation on the connection between the two. It's well laid
>>out at www.narconon-exposed.org
>
>
> Why do you think I don't know about Scientology?
What do you know about Scientology?
>
>
>>Anyone can look at the Green Vols and compare the Scientology courses to
>>those administered by Narconon.
>
>
> It is very well known that Narconon uses that data.
Maybe "well known" in the alternative reality bubble of Scientology.
But, when Narconon tries to sell its tripe to the wog world, they bend
over backwards to separate themselves from Scientology. Why do you think
that is? As I said, that is a dishonest, unethical representation.
>
>
>>Moreover, it's well documented that the Purif does not perform as
>>promised. There are, in fact, people whose health was compromised by the
>>toxic amounts of vitamins, and excessively long hours in a sauna.
>>
>>This is medically proven. You just don't know what you're talking about,
>>and the fact that you persist in promoting your ill-informed position is
>>just annoying.
>
>
> I was there for about a year, but I don't know about anything. I have seen
> nothing. Let's say that I do not agree with you and you simply can't have
> that.
What do you know about overdoses of niacin, and excessively long hours
in a sauna, and the detrimental effects of those things on a substance
abuser's health?
I don't think you understand that the result of a review constitutes
papers. When you say, "only look at some papers and such," you fail to
recognise that those papers are the result of many, many hours of
observation, research, and study. Of course the EP is going to be a
paper. What do you expect, a TV show?
"Looking at some papers and such" actually means looking at the
distillation of hundreds or thousands of hours worth of work. How silly
of you to discard that work with such a negligent flap of your hand!
>
>
>>>
>>>>Otherwise, he's just going to be relying on someone else's opinion,
>>>>right? And yet, you think that for some reason we should listen to you,
>>>>rather than rely on information produced by solid research. Some guy's
>>>>anecdotal testimonial holds more worth than a qualified evaluation? Is
>>>>that what you're saying?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, I don't think that anyone should listen to me. But I also don't
>
> think
>
>>>that one should get addicted prior to being able to find out about
>
> Narconon.
>
>>>You can see if persons get better or not if you are there. I recall that
>>>about 60% (something) actually stayed off the drugs, when I was during
>
> about
>
>>>a year or so. And various of them stayed in Narconon helping guiding new
>>>persons to go through the program, so that's true.
>>>\
>>
>>Since there's no follow-up on graduates, any percentage you offer is
>>nonsensical. If you're suggesting that 60% of them stay off drugs while
>>in the Narconon program, it suggests that 40% of them are tokin' out
>>behind the outhouse.
>>That would explain the overdose at the Warner Springs Narconon a couple
>>years back.
>
>
> What is the percentage of success of any other method, and what about their
> percentage that did not make it? You will continue to find fault as long as
> I don't give you a 100% success figure.
We're not talking about other methods. We are talking about Narconon's
bogus claim of 70%- 80% success rate. This unrealistic statistic has
already been explained to you. I am sure that rehab statistics vary, but
one datum is that people who quit without any help at all succeed at
approximately 10%
Narconon's "unmassaged" data puts them at a 2% success rate.
70% is unrealistic. 100% would also be considered fantasy.
>
>
>>How many of those "various" graduates who stayed to work there became
>>Scientologists?
>
>
> Some, but not very many actually.
Heh. Right. You have no solid numbers, you're just pulling this out of
your ass. Just like Hubbard. Clue: 70% of Narconon grads become
Scientologists. You can verify this by doing some research online, just
as I did. Google is your friend or your enemy, depending.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>Go to rehabilitation somewhere else and check what they ask. To those
>>>>>without government support.
>>>>
>>>>Again, are you suggesting John become an addict so he can properly
>>>>evaluate these programs?
>>>
>>>
>>>It's you that is suggesting that, not me.
>>
>>The alternative seems to be just taking your word for it?
>>You didn't by any chance wind up this way through VolunteerMatch, did you?
>
>
> You take the word of peer-reviewers? Start taking your own word, not mine
> and not someone else that is.
>
> RR
>
>
The problem you seem to have is in a MU of the term 'peer reviewers.'
This means that many people studying the same thing review data and
agree. This means they all have experience in the field of, say, drug
rehab, have collected their own data to compare with their fellow
researchers. You, on the other hand, are some uneducated voice in the
void, screeching, "Listen to me! I saw stuff, I know!" all the while
mimicking a Narconon brochure text file.
barbz
I have talked to people who have been on Scientology for thirty years
and got off of it, is quite impressive. Maybe you should shut up and
listen to what they have to say. Like, oh, Tory, for instance.
>
>
>>>>If Narconon claims an 80 percent cure rate, they should be able to back
>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>>figure up with some studies. If they can do as they claim, then there
>
> is
>
>>>>*NO* reason why they can't produce the study that shows it. Why do they
>>>
>>>shy
>>>
>>>>away from it?
>>>>
>>>>Basically you are saying I should take their word for it, or perhaps
>
> get
>
>>>>addicted to something so as to check whether they can actually cure me.
>>>
>>>No, I say that you should look for yourself and not relying on what some
>>>other try to tell you.
>>
>>That's scientology for you. Get the raw meat in.
>
>
> I have not been recruted into Scientology by Narconon, no attempts were
> made.
Were you a Scientologist before you volunteered at Narconon? If you
were, there'd be no need to recruit you, would there. Were you already
in when you volunteered?
>
>
>>>>Why
>>>>should I believe them? Because they say so? They have a vested
>
> interest,
>
>>>in
>>>
>>>>that they charge large amounts of money. When someone says they can do
>>>>something, and charges mightily for the service, it's up to them to
>
> prove
>
>>>>they can do what they say, and the proof required is not especially
>>>
>>>onerous
>>>
>>>>to produce, if their results were genuine.
>>>
>>>Go to rehabilitation somewhere else and check what they ask. To those
>>>without government support.
>>
>>Avoiding the point, I see.
>>
>>I'm not talking about other rehabs, I'm talking about narconon. What other
>>rehabs do is irrelevant.
>
>
> No, it is not. One has to compare.
>
> RR
>
>
But you're saying that one shouldn't look at both sides of the overblown
Narconon statistics, that we should just take your word for it "that it
works." Just like people who promote Scientology use the same argument,
without anything to back up their assertions.
"Scientology saved my life."
--A Roofer
Roadrunner
"barbz" <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:KB1Lf.363$V27.223@fed1read06...
> Roadrunner wrote:
> > snip
> >
> >
> >>>>>And that's all you did, asking about peer-review? Personal
observation
> >>>>>and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>experience is more reliable and valuable than peer-review.
> >>>>
> >>>>Exactly wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Then you have more faith in what others find out/think than in your own
> >>>judgment based on personal observation.
> >>
> >>Psst! Yo, buddy! Wanna spend $40 on some blue laundry balls? They
> >>really, really work!
> >>Idiot. You are a con man's dream, you poor, trusting, mindless git.
> >
> >
> > Why the unpleasantness? It's you that relies on what other will tell
you,
> > not me.
>
> I had the advantage of an education which included scientific method,
> something you're apparently lacking. That's why. I suffer fools not at
> all, and you strike me as exceedingly gullible. Willfully gullible,
> which should be a crime.
You are getting exasperated, why? Don't you enjoy trying educate someone
indoctrinated into idiocy?
> >>>If you are going to judge you need to get involved, if you do not you
> >
> > remian
> >
> >>>an outsider judging something you have not personally looked into.
Since
> >>>when are volunteers people who a drug abuse problem?
> >>
> >>Has been looked into by people with backgrounds which give them the
> >>experience needed to evaluate a program like Narconon. You, the idiot on
> >>the street, are in no position to evaluate anything. In fact, all you're
> >>doing is regurgitation the droning arguments instilled in you by
> >>Scientology. Kinda suggests you ain't thinkin for yourself.
> >
> >
> > It is still you that let others find out for you! I don't think that I
sound
> > like a person who is spreading blindly droning arguments. I want you get
> > into the real physical world of Narconon.
>
> But, I can look at documented evidence, I don't have to rely on
> anectdotal claptrap. That's the difference. Verifiable documentation
> means that you can look at the data yourself and arrive at your own
> conclusion. This includes testimonials and affidavits under oath, which
> are more reliable than "this guy told me so." Combining documentation
> with verifiable, sworn affidavits are so much more reliable than what
> you're recommending.
What is all that compared to looking for yourself, not in documented
testified socalledevidence. No, real life cult indoctrination and you being
Ah, now you want me to be germane. I will not get hooked on that.
>
> Sorry, I
> > looked through all the documentation I could get my hands on, I like
reading
> > and finding out. What you tell does not match my personal experiences.
> > Sorry! The only connection with Scientology I have seen at the location
> > where I was, was that the study was done in the local Scn organization,
and
> > also some the processing, and that's about it. In fact, no person in
> > Narconon ever persuaded me to join Scientology either. There was no same
> > account, it was fully independent, I have seen the bookkeeping.
>
> Okay, if you aren't a Scientologist, you wouldn't be familiar with the
> Green Vols or the courses sold to publics. Right? So you cannot really
> evaluate whether or not Narconon is Scientology in sheep's clothing.
You are telling me my indoctrination makes me follow my leader like a
sheep, and so what?
> >
> > It may very well be different at some other place, but the 2 Narconon's
that
> > I personally have been involved with did not operate as you say they do.
> > Alright!? Can you actually have this, that my experiences as I relate
them
> > to you?
>
> Sure, but you're not in a position to make the argument. By your own
> statement, you don't know enough about Scientology and Narconon to make
> any sort of evaluation on the connection between the two. It's well laid
> out at www.narconon-exposed.org
Why do you think I don't know about Scientology? Don't you remember me? I
am Spacetraveler. Fair game was canceled! Oh, is that why you think I don't
know about Scientology?
>
> Anyone can look at the Green Vols and compare the Scientology courses to
> those administered by Narconon.
It is very well known that Narconon uses that data. Even I know that.
>
> Moreover, it's well documented that the Purif does not perform as
> promised. There are, in fact, people whose health was compromised by the
> toxic amounts of vitamins, and excessively long hours in a sauna.
>
> This is medically proven. You just don't know what you're talking about,
> and the fact that you persist in promoting your ill-informed position is
> just annoying.
I was there for about a year, but I don't know about anything. I have seen
nothing. I am indoctrinated. What do you expect?
that only look at some papers and such, they know it all. Why do you follow
the scientific method? Just because scientists do, doesn't mean you have
to.
Why don't you become an indoctrinated Scientologist? It's so much easier
to think when you don't really have to think.
> >
> >
> >>Otherwise, he's just going to be relying on someone else's opinion,
> >>right? And yet, you think that for some reason we should listen to you,
> >>rather than rely on information produced by solid research. Some guy's
> >>anecdotal testimonial holds more worth than a qualified evaluation? Is
> >>that what you're saying?
> >
> >
> > No, I don't think that anyone should listen to me. But I also don't
think
> > that one should get addicted prior to being able to find out about
Narconon.
>
> > You can see if persons get better or not if you are there. I recall that
> > about 60% (something) actually stayed off the drugs, when I was during
about
> > a year or so. And various of them stayed in Narconon helping guiding new
> > persons to go through the program, so that's true.
> >\
> Since there's no follow-up on graduates, any percentage you offer is
> nonsensical. If you're suggesting that 60% of them stay off drugs while
> in the Narconon program, it suggests that 40% of them are tokin' out
> behind the outhouse.
> That would explain the overdose at the Warner Springs Narconon a couple
> years back.
What is the percentage of success of any other method, and what about their
percentage that did not make it? You will continue to find fault as long as
I pull statistics out of my ass.
>
> How many of those "various" graduates who stayed to work there became
> Scientologists?
Some, but not very many actually. Most are smarter than that.
>
> >
> >
> >>>Go to rehabilitation somewhere else and check what they ask. To those
> >>>without government support.
> >>
> >>Again, are you suggesting John become an addict so he can properly
> >>evaluate these programs?
> >
> >
> > It's you that is suggesting that, not me.
>
> The alternative seems to be just taking your word for it?
> You didn't by any chance wind up this way through VolunteerMatch, did you?
You take the word of queer-viewers? Start taking my own word as gospel
true,
mine and not someone else that is.
RR, aka Spacetraveler