SP Times: Jett Travolta's death feeds rumors of autism
Eldon
--------
www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/article961991.ece
A video from last November may reveal more about Jett Travolta than
all the speculation. Just two minutes long, the encounter between
paparazzi and the Travolta family takes place outside a Paris
restaurant.
The paparazzi surround John, wife Kelly Preston, son Jett and daughter
Ella Bleu, 8, as they're getting into an SUV. The mood is friendly,
but John and an attendant — possibly one of the omnipresent nannies —
flank Jett. John takes the boy's hand. Jett has a distant look. He
makes no eye contact. John and the attendant guide him into the SUV
and gently buckle him in. The boy says nothing, but raises his hands
to his head.
Millions of people have seen the video on TV and the Internet, but to
Dana Ando of St. Petersburg the scene seems familiar. She watched it
several times and recognizes the distant look, the hand gestures, the
parents' protectiveness. In the paparazzi video she saw Cameron, her
10-year-old autistic son.
"A parent like me can spot an autistic kid a mile away."
<snip>
Autism United, a national group representing 15,000 parents, urged
the Travoltas to become advocates in a statement Monday. The release
repeated the claim that Scientologists view autism as nothing more
than a "psychosomatic" disease.
But Scientology spokesman Tommy Davis said these conclusions were a
canard.
First of all, he said, the church has no policy on whether autism is
real or fabricated. It is not addressed in church practice.
The confusion may stem from the church's well-known opposition to
psychiatry, which it considers a practice not based in science.
Members may not take "mind-altering" psychiatric drugs, Davis said.
But how about a drug like Depakote, which is prescribed for seizures
but also sometimes used for psychiatric conditions such as bipolar
disorder?
"Sure, if they had seizures, why not? If that was what was advised by
a doctor, why not?"
There could be a problem, however, for a Scientologist engaged in the
practice of "auditing." In a 1972 lecture, Scientology founder L. Ron
Hubbard said that spiritual counselors ran into conflicts when
auditing church members taking drugs for epilepsy. Church members are
required to "go off the drug" during auditing.
------
Hey, Tommy, did LRH say that or not?
Tigger
Tigger
I wish some of these media types would show and/or quote Roxanne
Friend on "Nightline" or the Sally Jessy Show and then ask Davis or
Cruise why was Roxanne kidnapped to keep her from getting treatment
for her cancer, which is a physical disease. There are several more
cases that the media could ask David and Cruise about. Why don't
they?
Hartley Patterson
> I wish some of these media types would show and/or quote Roxanne
> Friend on "Nightline" or the Sally Jessy Show and then ask Davis or
> Cruise why was Roxanne kidnapped to keep her from getting treatment
> for her cancer, which is a physical disease.
Scientology spokespersons don't care. They know that many wog journalists
believe in something they call 'balance', whereby they have to give equal
air time to... say 99.9% of scientists and the nutter who believes that
AIDS doesn't exist, MMR causes autism or the Queen (God bless her) is a
lizard.
'Balance' saves the journalist and his readers the trouble of thinking. In
the fantasy world of the non-thinker all these contradictory ideas can
exist simultaneously, as Shroedinger's cat can be both alive and dead.
And always remember, IT'S A SCAM. They don't have to convince you or me,
they only have to convince a small percentage of people to open their
wallets
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
Monica Pignotti
> There could be a problem, however, for a Scientologist engaged in the
> practice of "auditing." In a 1972 lecture, Scientology founder L. Ron
> Hubbard said that spiritual counselors ran into conflicts when
> auditing church members taking drugs for epilepsy. Church members are
> required to "go off the drug" during auditing.
> ------
>
saying that auditors "ran into conflicts" when auditing people taking
epilepsy meds doesn't mean that the require people to go off it during
auditing. On the contrary, if you read Tory Magoo's accounts of her
experience although people lower on the totem pole tried to tell her
she had to go off her meds to be audited, every time she appealed it
uplines, she got the response that she could be audited all the way up
the OT levels while on anti-seizure meds. The people who told her she
had to go off them were not operating according to any kind of formal
written Scientology policy. Not every word from every LRH tape is
policy.
Here is a posting she made in 2000 to ars, with a detailed account of
her experience:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/43becfdf9f116727/a8f10b3aaf770b41?lnk=gst&q=I+am+sending+Tory%27s+full+OK#a8f10b3aaf770b41
Here are the excerpts where she wrote about appealing it to people
higher in the organization. The first time:
"Debbie Mace asked me "When are you going to go Clear? At the time I
hadn't spotted I was from last lifetime, (and HI Arthur Hubbard, if
you see this! You helped me spot this, as well as Bill, later) I told
her really because of my body situation, it will have to be next
lifetime. She told me to write it up to Snr C/S FLAG, David Mayo. OK,
I did. What did Mr.Snr C/s of the world write back? "Get your PTSness
handled". I wrote him back and said "THAT"S F'ing IT???YOU are the
stupid senior Case supervisor ON THE PLANET and you say the same thing
ALL of these morons say here in LA???!" I was really, really pissed!
He wrote me a 3-page hand written letter saying that he said blah, not
blah and Yes! I did need to take my medicine, and he would back me up
all the way at Flag, and I could do up through OT 3! That was huge for
me! ( Hi David, if you read this, thank you for that!)"
and the second time, even after David Mayo left:
"I know Ray Mittoff personally, and I WANT MY FOLDERS SENT TO RTC, and
let them decide who is correct!" This was a huge win for me???..as I
was tackling the very thing that had hurt me so for 20 years, face to
face, at the TOP! Give it your best shot, huh? Well, here I was doing
it! It took about a month (and what a long month that was!) but
finally one night the Senior C/S INT called the Tech Sec at Flag and
said "I am sending Tory's full OK to do her OT levels, and I want you
to personally call her and apologize". PHEW! Also, many, many others
were stopped on their own auditing due to medication. So the Senior C/
S INT wrote an INT Bulletin and I am the first example in it.
Basically, if a person needs medication, they should get it! I am not
sure if you can grasp the win of this for me????.but it was HUGE. They
also crammed (corrected) the ENTIRE FLAG LAND BASE on this issue:Every
tech terminal. "
So if this is an accurate account and it seems credible to me, it
looks like just the opposite of what you and others here are
asserting. Not only do they let people get audited who are on anti-
seizure meds, they even wrote an INT Bulletin based on her case that
specifically involved anti-seizure meds, saying that people needing
meds should get them and they crammed the entire Flag Land Base to
correct the people who had told her she needed to get off her meds to
continue on the OT levels. So, whatever LRH said on a tape in 1972, it
doesn't look like they ever had any policy against people taking meds
and the people lower in the organization who tried to suggest this
very dangerous course of action of going off meds were sent to
cramming by the Senior C/S International.
Monica
Eldon
Well, maybe for the same reason they don't attack Christian or Rev.
Moon's cult more heavily.
Both of those superstitious orgs own major newspapers (including the
Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Times). Scientology
mostly just bullies the media.
Eldon
> On Jan 9, 8:26 am, Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com> wrote:> There could be a problem, however, for a Scientologist engaged in the
> > practice of "auditing."
In the first place, I didn't write that. I quoted an article from the
Saint Petersburg Times. Thank you so much for not misquoting me.
In the second place, you're really full of shit trying to excuse
Scientology's confused and restrictive policies that fucking KILL
PEOPLE, you stupid, snitty bitch.
So here are the mother of an autistic kid, plus John Travolta's
brother, saying "It sure looks like autism!"
And here you are, saying they are not qualified to diagnose (or
apparently even allowed to open their mouths to suggest it might me).
So they should just shut the fuck up. Isn't that pretty much what you
said, Monica?
Maybe in the long run, it's too bad LRH didn't slam your sorry ass
into the chain locker for a week or two just to let you experience
what autism is like. That might have given you a fucking clue.
> In a 1972 lecture, Scientology founder L. Ron
> > Hubbard said that spiritual counselors ran into conflicts when
> > auditing church members taking drugs for epilepsy. Church members are
> > required to "go off the drug" during auditing.
> > ------
>
> I'd really like to see the exact quote from that 1972 lecture. Hubbard
> saying that auditors "ran into conflicts" when auditing people taking
> epilepsy meds doesn't mean that the require people to go off it during
> auditing. On the contrary, if you read Tory Magoo's accounts of her
> experience although people lower on the totem pole tried to tell her
> she had to go off her meds to be audited, every time she appealed it
> uplines, she got the response that she could be audited all the way up
> the OT levels while on anti-seizure meds. The people who told her she
> had to go off them were not operating according to any kind of formal
> written Scientology policy. Not every word from every LRH tape is
> policy.
> Here is a posting she made in 2000 to ars, with a detailed account of
> her experience:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread...
barbz
And then people who have epilepsy, which is a type of disease which gives
them seizures, are almost always found on some minor drug that prevents
them from getting these—they call them petit mal seizures. Thats
epilepsy. I dont care how they call it. Sometimes they really seize and
sometimes its just slight. One of those, if an epileptic ever took you
by the hand and so forth, hes liable to break every bone in your hand,
if he suddenly had a seizure. But the doctors keep them on something to
prevent this. Its just a tranquilizer and they keep them on that one
year, year in and year out. And then you come along as an auditor and
you try to audit the pc and you tell the pc that hell have to go off
that drug. And then all of a sudden, why something will happen from
someplace or another that the pc will tell the doctor that they have
been taken off the drug by the auditor. And the doctor will call up
plaintively asking you to please put her back on the drug because she
needs this. And you get into a collision between medical treatment and
so on. Now Ive been using a lot of medical words here or chemical words
really. Just dont pay any attention to them because theyre mostly
gobbledygook, and theres an awful lot of gobbledygook words.
Gobbledygook just means nonsense chatter, you see. Theres an awful lot
of them.
EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURE No.2
A lecture given to the Flag Dianetic Auditing Team on 7 April 1972.
C7204C07 SO
EXPANDED DIANETICS AND WORD CLEARING
--
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
"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
xenufrance
I don't think Hines is right about if the chruch interfered or not: the cult
is obvously so powerfully brainwashing its members of such an importance and
such a long time that they obey to the visible or invisible oprders, the
"style" -- they go after dictionaries for small details, they go after touch
assists rather than getting an aspro, and lose considerable time and money
and specific decisions like depriving someone of his medicine, like in Kyle
Brennan father case, whose activity has perhaps killed his son.
"Eldon" <Eldo...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
bb496f27-503f-4f15...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Monica Pignotti
> On Jan 9, 6:47 pm, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 9, 8:26 am, Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com> wrote:> There could be a problem, however, for a Scientologist engaged in the
> > > practice of "auditing."
>
> In the first place, I didn't write that. I quoted an article from the
> Saint Petersburg Times. Thank you so much for not misquoting me.
If that is the case, you should have indicated that, rather than
posting it as if they were your own words.
> In the second place, you're really full of shit trying to excuse
> Scientology's confused and restrictive policies that fucking KILL
> PEOPLE, you stupid, snitty bitch.
LOL. Eldon is throwing a tantrum again because he doesn't like my
postings.Is that the best you can do is call me a "stupid, snitty
bitch"? I suppose it sure beats actually responding to the content of
my posting.
> So here are the mother of an autistic kid, plus John Travolta's
> brother, saying "It sure looks like autism!"
Mothers of autistic kids are not qualified to diagnose autism, nor is
Travolta's brother. Autism is assessed for in a very specific manner.
Teachers can recommend someone get tested, but they cannot diagnose
and mother's certainly cannot -- parents of autistic kids are the last
people in the world to be objective, not to mention that most lack of
any kind of training.
> And here you are, saying they are not qualified to diagnose (or
> apparently even allowed to open their mouths to suggest it might me).
> So they should just shut the fuck up. Isn't that pretty much what you
> said, Monica?
I'm saying that it is highly irresponsible and cruel for people to be
engaging in unwarranted speculation in the face of this tragedy.
> Maybe in the long run, it's too bad LRH didn't slam your sorry ass
> into the chain locker for a week or two just to let you experience
> what autism is like. That might have given you a fucking clue.
You're really off the deep end, Eldon and you have no clue about
autism if you think getting locked up in a chain locker would give
someone the "experience". Your postings just get more and more
ignorant. What's happened to you? Was it that much of a blow for you
to have lost your legal case that you've gone off the deep end? Keep
it up. You're responses to me are showing your true colors and more
self-refuting than any response I could write. You haven't refuted a
word of what I wrote about how Scientology actually has a policy that
does require people to go to the doctor and that people on anti-
seizure meds can and do get audited. Tory, in fact, states in her
affidavit and the posting I referenced below that she was audited all
the way to OT VII while on anti-seizure meds. She was not forced to
stop taking them. Come clueless people in lower positions tried to
tell her she had to go off them, she challenged them and appealed all
the way up to Senior C/S International and at two different points of
time, the final decision was the same: she was allowed to be audited
AND to take her meds. Not only that, but a policy was written and the
entire Flag Land Base was sent to cramming for their errors in saying
she could not be on meds. Do you think she was lying about that?
But no, you can only call me names. How pathetic.
Alex Clark
> Travolta's brother. Autism is assessed for in a very specific manner.
> Teachers can recommend someone get tested, but they cannot diagnose
> and mother's certainly cannot -- parents of autistic kids are the last
> people in the world to be objective, not to mention that most lack of
> any kind of training.
It's not about objectivity, because it isn't *their* children they're
assessing. Your implication that they're not being objective suggests that
emotion is brought into the equation by this parent, for which there is no
indication. She was pointing out that Jett Travolta exhibited many
text-book symptoms of autism - signs which she was well qualified to
recognise having seen them in her own son.
Bear in mind as well that she's not some random nutjob who's come along and
said "he was autistic" out of the blue. Medical doctors who have seen
footage of the child have also raised the same concerns. Autism is
difficult to diagnose, largely because the spectrum is so broad, but there
are key behavioural aspects which doctors know to look for.
Travolta's brother was, for a time, close to Jett and *he* claimed that he
exhibited behaviour that correlated to autistic symptoms. For that, he was
shunned by John & Kelly. Seems a little extreme, don't you think? "Hey
bro, I think your son may have autism, you should get him treated" - "Get
out of our lives forever". Overreact much?
If Jett was not autistic the way the Travoltas claim, what explanation do
they have for his autistic-like behaviour as exhibited every time he was
ever seen on film (which was rare)? Are they going to claim this was also
another undocumented side effect of Kawasaki syndrome, just like the
seizures?
Also, did they get medical confirmation that their son was NOT autistic? If
so, by which doctor? Was it the same doctor that recommended Jett stop
taking his life saving anti-seizure medication because of concerns about
organ damage?
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 8:26 am, Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> There could be a problem, however, for a Scientologist engaged in the
> >> practice of "auditing." In a 1972 lecture, Scientology founder L. Ron
> >> Hubbard said that spiritual counselors ran into conflicts when
> >> auditing church members taking drugs for epilepsy. Church members are
> >> required to "go off the drug" during auditing.
> >> ------
>
> > I'd really like to see the exact quote from that 1972 lecture. Hubbard
> > saying that auditors "ran into conflicts" when auditing people taking
> > epilepsy meds doesn't mean that the require people to go off it during
> > experience although people lower on the totem pole tried to tell her
> > she had to go off her meds to be audited, every time she appealed it
> > uplines, she got the response that she could be audited all the way up
> > the OT levels while on anti-seizure meds. The people who told her she
> > had to go off them were not operating according to any kind of formal
> > written Scientology policy. Not every word from every LRH tape is
> > policy.
> > Here is a posting she made in 2000 to ars, with a detailed account of
> > her experience:
> > Here are the excerpts where she wrote about appealing it to people
> > higher in the organization. The first time:
>
> > "Debbie Mace asked me "When are you going to go Clear? At the time I
> > hadn't spotted I was from last lifetime, (and HI Arthur Hubbard, if
> > you see this! You helped me spot this, as well as Bill, later) I told
> > her really because of my body situation, it will have to be next
> > lifetime. She told me to write it up to Snr C/S FLAG, David Mayo. OK,
> > I did. What did Mr.Snr C/s of the world write back? "Get your PTSness
> > handled". I wrote him back and said "THAT"S F'ing IT???YOU are the
> > stupid senior Case supervisor ON THE PLANET and you say the same thing
> > ALL of these morons say here in LA???!" I was really, really pissed!
> > He wrote me a 3-page hand written letter saying that he said blah, not
> > blah and Yes! I did need to take my medicine, and he would back me up
> > all the way at Flag, and I could do up through OT 3! That was huge for
> > me! ( Hi David, if you read this, thank you for that!)"
>
> > and the second time, even after David Mayo left:
>
> > "I know Ray Mittoff personally, and I WANT MY FOLDERS SENT TO RTC, and
> > let them decide who is correct!" This was a huge win for me???..as I
> > was tackling the very thing that had hurt me so for 20 years, face to
> > face, at the TOP! Give it your best shot, huh? Well, here I was doing
> > it! It took about a month (and what a long month that was!) but
> > finally one night the Senior C/S INT called the Tech Sec at Flag and
There is nothing in that statement that Scientology has a policy that
people on meds for seizures must go off them. Nowhere did he say that
this means that people who are getting audited should, as a policy, be
taken off their meds. When Hubbard gave an order, he didn't just state
it in an obscure course tape. He issued bulletins and policy letters.
There is no bulletin or policy letter saying that people have to go
off their seizure meds to be audited. In fact, according to Tory's
affidavit, Scientologists have gone all the way up through the OT
levels while on these medications, including Tory herself who was
appealed it to the highest level, Senior C/S, and even got them to
write a policy on it and correcting the entire Flag Land Base on their
telling her she couldn't. Not every word LRH utters on a tape is
policy.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
> > Mothers of autistic kids are not qualified to diagnose autism, nor is
> > Travolta's brother. Autism is assessed for in a very specific manner.
> > Teachers can recommend someone get tested, but they cannot diagnose
> > and mother's certainly cannot -- parents of autistic kids are the last
> > people in the world to be objective, not to mention that most lack of
> > any kind of training.
>
> It's not about objectivity, because it isn't *their* children they're
> assessing.
That doesn't matter. Someone who has a child with autism is very
emotionally caught up in the issue and cannot be objective, especially
if they have no professional training on assessment.
>Your implication that they're not being objective suggests that
> emotion is brought into the equation by this parent, for which there is no
> indication.
Duh. Do you really think that a parent who has a child diagnosed with
autism is not emotional about it? Besides that, being a parent doesn't
give them the proper qualifications to assess for autism. That takes
training in specialized assessment measures that only certain
psychologists and physicians have.
> She was pointing out thatJettTravolta exhibited many
> text-book symptoms of autism - signs which she was well qualified to
> recognise having seen them in her own son.
No, she is not qualified to diagnose. She can point out symptoms but
that doesn't necessarily mean the person has autism. Some people have
autistic-like behaviors who are not autistic and to fling that label
around is downright irresponsible.
> Bear in mind as well that she's not some random nutjob who's come along and
> said "he was autistic" out of the blue. Medical doctors who have seen
> footage of the child have also raised the same concerns. Autism is
> difficult to diagnose, largely because the spectrum is so broad, but there
> are key behavioural aspects which doctors know to look for.
Medical doctors who have seen the footage have not pronounced a
diagnosis or they would be in major trouble with their boards. All
they have said is that it "looks like" it could be autism but they
know that a formal assessment is needed. I can't believe I'm really
having to engage in a serious discussion about whether papparazzi
footage is a valid basis for labeling someone as autistic. That is so
ridiculous that it isn't even controversial.
> Travolta's brother was, for a time, close toJettand *he* claimed that he
> exhibited behaviour that correlated to autistic symptoms. For that, he was
> shunned by John & Kelly. Seems a little extreme, don't you think? "Hey
> bro, I think your son may have autism, you should get him treated" - "Get
> out of our lives forever". Overreact much?
That has nothing to do with whether the brother was qualified to
diagnose Jett. He wasn't. John Travolta's relationship with his
brother is not anyone's business but his own and his brother's.
> IfJettwas not autistic the way the Travoltas claim, what explanation do
> they have for his autistic-like behaviour as exhibited every time he was
> ever seen on film (which was rare)? Are they going to claim this was also
> another undocumented side effect of Kawasaki syndrome, just like the
> seizures?
Again, this is none of your business. Have you ever heard of the words
"I don't know". The fact is that we do not know and may never know.
Instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions, why not have just a wee
bit of humility and admit that we do not know the facts surrounding
the case and that these facts are none of our business.
> Also, did they get medical confirmation that their son was NOT autistic? If
> so, by which doctor? Was it the same doctor that recommendedJettstop
> taking his life saving anti-seizure medication because of concerns about
> organ damage?
Again, we don't know and jumping to unwarranted conclusions is giving
Scientology critics a really rotten reputation and deservedly so. The
fact that we don't have answers to these questions is not evidence
that we should jump to an unwarranted conclusion.
Monica
Tigger
First: There are many questions that need to be answered about Jett's
death. Many of them raised by the actions of the Travoltas
themselves.
Second: John Travolta is a celebrity. The death of any child,
which is surrounded in "mystery", even if the parents aren't movie
stars, will get some press coverage. The "church" is out there to
prevent its "story"......why should not the other side be presented?
Third: Travolta (and his wife) have been high-profile OUT-SPOKEN
Scientologists for a long time.
Among other things....Travolta has touted the "touch assists" in
national news and that he has used them to effectively cure people.
Preston has been on national TV, before Congress and other places to
attack psychiatry and psych drugs.
Fourth: There have been many cases of
Scientologists who have been damaged and/or died because they adhered
to or were forced to adhere to what Scientologists 'BELIEVED' was
Hubbard's doctrine, whether or not there was any OFFICIAL HUBBARD
POLICY LETTER
sent out.
Question: Does ANYONE know
what EACH and EVERY policy letter Hubbard sent out said?
Fifth: H:ow many times did Hubbard issue a policy letter and then he
or his followers did not follow the policy letter.....For example:
FAIR GAME policy was supposed to have been rescinded, but we all know
it wasn't....it just got a new name and is still
working today.
Sixth: After Lisa McPherson's death a "clause" was added which came
to be known (at least outside of "the church") as the Lisa McPherson
clause which (if signed)
released the "church" from any liability whatsoever.
LISA McPherson CLAUSE
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Scientology/ReleaseForms/Introspection.html
Seventh: Hubbard "preached" long and hard about the effectiveness of
Dianetics and Scientology to "cure" this, that and the other PHYSICAL
DISEASE...(not to mention all his BS about mental ailments).
Apparently many (most? all?) Scientologists did and still do believe
what "Ron said".(note the never-ending promotion of "touch
assists".)
Sure critics need to offer condolences on the death of Jett Travolta,
but that does not mean we should not question if that death could have
been prevented.
Tigger
Ball of Fluff
"Tigger" <Tiggeri...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:414f9595-3824-4107...@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps. But I've seen truly vicious posts by some people- not you- but by
some others- about it.
These are grieving parents whose child was prone to seizures and who was
taking Depakote- a prescribed medicine- for them. Kudos to the Travoltas for
obtaining the seizure meds their child needed.
Furthermore, there is NO guarantee that if Jett *is* autistic (which may
well be the case) that he wouldn't have died or that his autism would have
been better managed and treated under AMA approved medical care. All their
treatments for autism are experimental.
C
Astrid...@yahoo.com
Never a Scilon, I share in Eldon's frustration with Monica, who has
turned into quite the apologist for Scientology.
When discussing “facts” regarding “up is down, down is up” Scientology
it is important to be grounded in one key concept; Hubbard’s
biographical information and history. Hubbard was an ambitious sci fi
writer, a compulsive liar, perhaps mentally ill, who developed
Scientology as an elaborate scam for money and power. That is, he WAS
NOT, a scientific genius (see Einstein, Freud, or Jung for that) who
developed brilliant theories about anything, let alone theories to
“save the planet,” cure the mentally ill, prevent disease, unlock
human potential, or even make people happy.
At around 100,000 members worldwide, Scientology, as much money as it
has and attention it gets via Travota and Cruise, is still the lunatic
fringe, and a scam. In spite of its bloated claims, complete with
space opera religion tacked on for tax purposes, and "It's the
psychs!" theories, Scientology has not given anyone super powers, or
come out with a single scientific, educational, humanitarian or
medical breakthrough.
Monica is a better apologist and defender of this wacky cult and its
celeb members than Tommy Davis, since as an active Scientologist, he
just lies and keeps secrets as a matter of policy. Monica makes
ridiculous nutter arguments, because she spent five years of her life
with her head stuffed up LHR’s ass, devoted to this claptrap. At this
point, I’m more mystified when there are people like Eldon, who were
in this cult, but now seem so normal and rational!
R. Hill
<snip>
> Furthermore, there is NO guarantee that if Jett *is* autistic (which may
> well be the case) that he wouldn't have died or that his autism would have
> been better managed and treated under AMA approved medical care. All their
> treatments for autism are experimental.
>
> C
>
> www.claireswazey.com
Do you have a list of what you call "AMA approved medical care" for
autism? I can't find this with a cursory search.
There is this site which seems very well done (they provide a nice
research summaries for all listed treatments), but it's not AMA as far
as I can tell:
http://www.asatonline.org/resources/treatments_desc.htm
--
Ray.
Eldon
Well thanks for saying so, Astrid, but I believe you're overly
complimentary. For example, if I were entirely normal and rational,
why would I take such delight in getting Skippy wound up every time he
posts some off-topic political screed?
Eldon
wrote:
> "Tigger" <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote in message
He was not taking Depakote or any other anti-seizure meds. They
stopped giving it to him some time back.
>
> Furthermore, there is NO guarantee that if Jett *is* autistic (which may
> well be the case) that he wouldn't have died or that his autism would have
> been better managed and treated under AMA approved medical care. All their
> treatments for autism are experimental.
The AMA doesn't "approve" anything but treatments for the side effects
of autism such as seizures. The actual treatments are psychological
interaction stuff like cognitive-behavioral therapy.
>
> C
>
> www.claireswazey.com
Beth
> On Jan 9, 7:12 pm, "Alex Clark" <a...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > > Mothers of autistic kids are not qualified to diagnose autism, nor is
> > > Travolta's brother. Autism is assessed for in a very specific manner.
> > > Teachers can recommend someone get tested, but they cannot diagnose
> > > and mother's certainly cannot -- parents of autistic kids are the last
> > > people in the world to be objective, not to mention that most lack of
> > > any kind of training.
>
> > It's not about objectivity, because it isn't *their* children they're
> > assessing.
>
> That doesn't matter. Someone who has a child with autism is very
> emotionally caught up in the issue and cannot be objective, especially
> if they have no professional training on assessment.
>
> >Your implication that they're not being objective suggests that
> > emotion is brought into the equation by this parent, for which there is no
> > indication.
>
> Duh. Do you really think that a parent who has a child diagnosed with
> autism is not emotional about it? Besides that, being a parent doesn't
> give them the proper qualifications to assess for autism. That takes
> training in specialized assessment measures that only certain
> psychologists and physicians have.
I think you are off-base about this. A person with experience
observing certain behaviors can be very attuned to picking them up in
others. The fact that the person has an emotional involvement doesn't
automatically discredit his/her powers of observation.
For instance, people will often observe that another person appeared
to be drunk. Generally there's no blood test or breath analysis used--
it's based on the person's behavior. If someone whose father was an
abusive alcoholic says, "Then this drunk guy came into the office..."
I'm not going to be suspicious and go "Oooh, maybe she just thinks he
was drunk because her father was an alcoholic!"
No one has denied that it's impossible for a lay observer to make a
professional diagnosis of Jett, yet you keep repeating that as if it
refutes what people observed. It doesnt. If someone says, "Based on my
experience, he seemed to be autistic," that's all it means.
>
> > She was pointing out thatJettTravolta exhibited many
> > text-book symptoms of autism - signs which she was well qualified to
> > recognise having seen them in her own son.
>
> No, she is not qualified to diagnose. She can point out symptoms but
> that doesn't necessarily mean the person has autism. Some people have
> autistic-like behaviors who are not autistic and to fling that label
> around is downright irresponsible.
Why do you insist that when people say "recognize symptoms" they mean
"make a clinical diagnosis"? Recognizing symptoms is a pretty simple
concept. If another person takes it to mean it's a confirmed
diagnosis, then that person is not very smart.
Beth
Alex Clark
> autism is not emotional about it?
So you're saying she was emotionally distorted in her evaluation of Jett
Travolta to say "he shares the same autistic characteristics of my son"? I
think it's as much arrogant presumption on your part to assume she's biased
as it is anyone else's (according to you) to assume she's qualified, if not
more so.
What are you trying to say, that her emotional attachment to her own son
makes her *want* to see autism in others' children?
> Besides that, being a parent doesn't
> give them the proper qualifications to assess for autism.
So you won't accept for a moment that because she's had an autistic child
herself that she's better qualified than the average lay person to notice
those characteristics in others?
> That takes
> training in specialized assessment measures that only certain
> psychologists and physicians have.
> Some people have
> autistic-like behaviors who are not autistic and to fling that label
> around is downright irresponsible.
Wrong. Autism is an extremely broad spectrum, and likely affects far more
people than have actually been diagnosed with it. To suggest that someone
may be partially autistic due to them exhibiting autistic-like symptoms is a
simple observation. To state categorically that a person is *NOT* autistic
*despite* them exhibiting those characterstics? Now THAT is irresponsible.
> Medical doctors who have seen the footage have not pronounced a
> diagnosis or they would be in major trouble with their boards. All
> they have said is that it "looks like" it could be autism but they
> know that a formal assessment is needed.
Of course! No professional MD is going to make a diagnosis from a few
minutes of film footage here and there.
But notice that they share the same views as this "irresponsible" parent who
also has an autistic child? "Hmm, looks like he's exhibiting autistic
characteristics".
Are we seeing a pattern yet?
> I can't believe I'm really
> having to engage in a serious discussion about whether papparazzi
> footage is a valid basis for labeling someone as autistic. That is so
> ridiculous that it isn't even controversial.
Part of diagnosing autism is examining behaviour. It cannot be done with a
simple blood test, sweetheart. People, including doctors, have been
examining the available footage and forming hypotheses based on what they
see.
No concrete conclusions, no official diagnoses (don't get your knickers
knotted honey), just observations and theories. A lot of peoples' theories.
Which happen to be the same.
> That has nothing to do with whether the brother was qualified to
> diagnose Jett.
But you just said you cannot diagnose someone from a few clips of papparazi
footage here and there?
Well guess what, Travolta's brother didn't. He spent lots of personal time
with the boy. And he STILL came to the same conclusion.
And what of John & Kelly's reaction to that? I'm pretty sure if I
approached my brother and suggested that he get his child professionally
checked out for autism, his response wouldn't be "get out of our lives
forever".
> Instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions, why not have just a wee
> bit of humility and admit that we do not know the facts surrounding
> the case and that these facts are none of our business.
We don't know the facts because they change with each press release. Head
trauma? Yes. Wait, no. Seizure? Before or after hitting head? Who found
him? How long was he lying there? WHY don't they know most of these simple
things? Why are they being so cagey with the details?
Yeah, I know, it must be an extremely difficult time for John & Kelly. So
why not let their handlers or press managers come clean with ALL the details
of what happened so that the press will stop speculating, making a hard time
even harder.
> Again, we don't know and jumping to unwarranted conclusions is giving
> Scientology critics a really rotten reputation and deservedly so.
Jumping to conclusions is bad. Asking questions surrounding the death of a
child is not.
Ignoring those questions? Now THAT would be irresponsible.
It isn't just scientology's critics that are asking these questions, it's
people who don't even know what scientology is really about that want to
know. Perhaps the confusion surrounding his death and the fact that the
details change every day has made people smell a rat?
> The fact that we don't have answers to these questions is not evidence
> that we should jump to an unwarranted conclusion.
The fact that people are speculating is not motivation to stop asking
questions about a child's death either.
Spare me the bleeding heart "let John and Kelly" grieve bullshit. How about
someone finds out exactly why their son died, what caused it, and determine
if his parents' faith had anything to do with his death?
Alex Clark
> taking Depakote- a prescribed medicine- for them. Kudos to the Travoltas
> for obtaining the seizure meds their child needed.
This is not in line with what John & Kelly's latest story seems to be. My
understanding is that Jett had been off his seizure medication for a long
time because they claimed it was causing organ damage.
Interestingly, one of the symptoms of Kawasaki disease is also to cause
organ damage. Must have taken a mighty fine physician to determine that the
medication, not Kawasaki disease, was responsible for the organ damage and
to recommend that Jett be taken off his life saving seizure meds.
> Furthermore, there is NO guarantee that if Jett *is* autistic (which may
> well be the case) that he wouldn't have died or that his autism would have
> been better managed and treated under AMA approved medical care. All their
> treatments for autism are experimental.
Autism, whether he had it or not, isn't what killed Jett. But that isn't
the whole point behind the "Autismgate" Travolta saga.
If he did have autism, then this serves as proof that they were denying the
existence of a medical condition in their son. There's a pretty steep
difference in recognising a condition and seeking alternative treatment
(i.e. scientological) and denying that condition altogether, and this
further proves that they may have been putting their belief system ahead of
the well being of their son.
If that's the case, then as harsh as it may sound, they don't need to be
"left to grieve in peace" - they need to be taken in for questioning.
My focus of respect isn't so much for the grieving family as it is for the
dead child, and like it or not I think there are some pretty serious
questions that need answering surrounding his death.
henri
wrote:
>No one has denied that it's impossible for a lay observer to make a
>professional diagnosis of Jett, yet you keep repeating that as if it
>refutes what people observed. It doesnt. If someone says, "Based on my
>experience, he seemed to be autistic," that's all it means.
I think a lay observer can say that what is reported about Jett's
condition is consistent with autism. I also don't think what John
Travolta's brother Joey Travolta said can easily be discounted,
either.
But I also don't think it's necessarily a good idea, in discussing the
Jett Travolta situation with people, to get sidetracked off into an
argument about whether he had autism. There just isn't the kind of
hard medical diagnostic information available to come to a conclusion
on it.
Also, there are conditions very similar to autism that aren't autism.
Childhood disintegrative disorder springs to mind. You couldn't
distinguish between that and autism without knowing the full medical
history of the person. In Jett's case, the Travoltas apparently went
out of their way to avoid developing any kind of useful medical
history on this subject, according to numerous witnesses including his
own brother.
The critical facts are that Jett had some kind of neurological
condition and that it caused seizures, and that the direct cause of
his death was a seizure. Whether it was autism or something like
autism isn't really important. It could have even been some kind of
bizarre sequelae from Kawasaki. I have no way of knowing that and
neither does anyone else. Not even a doctor could give us a
conclusive diagnosis from what we have now.
But whatever it was, it caused a fatal seizure.
Did Travolta's delusional cult beliefs cause him to forsake medicine
that could have saved his son? It certainly seems probable. There
isn't a speck of actual fact out there that is inconsistent with this
probability, and in fact, his own lawyer has publicly claimed that the
Travoltas took Jett off the one drug he claims to have had him on:
Depakote.
We will likely never know, since the Bahamas have agreed to cover it
up and apparently do no investigation despite having probable cause
that in most jurisdictions would be enough to investigate. I guess if
you're rich and famous, there are different rules for being able to
dispose of your kids without questions being asked.
barbz
>> These are grieving parents whose child was prone to seizures and who was
>> taking Depakote- a prescribed medicine- for them. Kudos to the Travoltas
>> for obtaining the seizure meds their child needed.
>
> This is not in line with what John & Kelly's latest story seems to be. My
> understanding is that Jett had been off his seizure medication for a long
> time because they claimed it was causing organ damage.
>
> Interestingly, one of the symptoms of Kawasaki disease is also to cause
> organ damage. Must have taken a mighty fine physician to determine that the
> medication, not Kawasaki disease, was responsible for the organ damage and
> to recommend that Jett be taken off his life saving seizure meds.
Also interesting, the Purif can cause organ damage. And, after Kawasaki
Syndrome was "diagnosed" (by whom? Authority Kelly Preston?) they put
this two year old kid on the purif. So it is written. Did the physician
take massive doses of niacin into account during evaluation? Or did they
even bother to tell the doctor about subjecting Jett to the stupid
Scientology "ritual?"
>
>
>> Furthermore, there is NO guarantee that if Jett *is* autistic (which may
>> well be the case) that he wouldn't have died or that his autism would have
>> been better managed and treated under AMA approved medical care. All their
>> treatments for autism are experimental.
>
> Autism, whether he had it or not, isn't what killed Jett. But that isn't
> the whole point behind the "Autismgate" Travolta saga.
>
> If he did have autism, then this serves as proof that they were denying the
> existence of a medical condition in their son. There's a pretty steep
> difference in recognising a condition and seeking alternative treatment
> (i.e. scientological) and denying that condition altogether, and this
> further proves that they may have been putting their belief system ahead of
> the well being of their son.
>
> If that's the case, then as harsh as it may sound, they don't need to be
> "left to grieve in peace" - they need to be taken in for questioning.
>
> My focus of respect isn't so much for the grieving family as it is for the
> dead child, and like it or not I think there are some pretty serious
> questions that need answering surrounding his death.
>
>
Eldon
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:17:12 -0800 (PST), Beth <moontac...@yahoo.com>
Do you mean that in the sense of disposing of Suppressive Persons
"quietly and without sorrow?" Or do you mean disposing of his earthly
remains by having him cremated as a decoy ambulance made a trip to the
airport?
They may well have tried to put some spin on the circumstances of the
kid's death, but I doubt they resorted to euthanasia. If he was as
profoundly autistic as he appeared in that video, probably the dumbest
thing they did was flying him off to vacations in Paris and the
Bahamas, which was bound to be stressful. Tom Cruise's movie Rainman
was pretty authentic in that respect.
barbz
scrape dirt over the poo left by the utterly stupid and destructive
"teachings" of L. Ron Hubbard, does it? Why, no, why would a decoy make
the wogs think Scientologists are anything but the "most ethical people
on the planet" that they claim to be?
realpch
> condition and that it caused seizures, and that the direct cause of
> his death was a seizure. Whether it was autism or something like
> autism isn't really important. It could have even been some kind of
> bizarre sequelae from Kawasaki. I have no way of knowing that and
> neither does anyone else. Not even a doctor could give us a
> conclusive diagnosis from what we have now.
>
> But whatever it was, it caused a fatal seizure.
>
> Did Travolta's delusional cult beliefs cause him to forsake medicine
> that could have saved his son? It certainly seems probable. There
> isn't a speck of actual fact out there that is inconsistent with this
> probability, and in fact, his own lawyer has publicly claimed that the
> Travoltas took Jett off the one drug he claims to have had him on:
> Depakote.
>
> We will likely never know, since the Bahamas have agreed to cover it
> up and apparently do no investigation despite having probable cause
> that in most jurisdictions would be enough to investigate. I guess if
> you're rich and famous, there are different rules for being able to
> dispose of your kids without questions being asked.
Well, I wouldn't assume anyone was covering anything up, however I
wouldn't expect local authorities to attempt any type of rigor which
might upset or inconvenience grieving parents who are also rich and
famous, and who, according to their lights, treated their boy very well.
For those who support such a view, they did a commendable job of keeping
him close, and out of the spotlight. If it had been me, I'd have used my
public position to relentlessly discuss neurological disorders, though I
would have protected my child as I saw fit, consistent with an attitude
of, "Here's my kid, wanna make something of it?"
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Patrick Volk
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Jan 9, 7:12 pm, "Alex Clark" <a...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> > Mothers of autistic kids are not qualified to diagnose autism, nor is
>> > Travolta's brother. Autism is assessed for in a very specific manner.
>> > Teachers can recommend someone get tested, but they cannot diagnose
>> > and mother's certainly cannot -- parents of autistic kids are the last
>> > people in the world to be objective, not to mention that most lack of
>> > any kind of training.
>>
>> It's not about objectivity, because it isn't *their* children they're
>> assessing.
>
>That doesn't matter. Someone who has a child with autism is very
>emotionally caught up in the issue and cannot be objective, especially
>if they have no professional training on assessment.
Interesting viewpoint, which really kind of disallows everyone to
voice an opinion. Simply put:
- Only those who have been close enough to Jett can make the
diagnosis.
- But, they cannot be objective if they're family members.
- And, the parents don't believe in autism, so they didn't have any
authoritative analysis done.
>
>>Your implication that they're not being objective suggests that
>> emotion is brought into the equation by this parent, for which there is no
>> indication.
>
>Duh. Do you really think that a parent who has a child diagnosed with
>autism is not emotional about it? Besides that, being a parent doesn't
>give them the proper qualifications to assess for autism. That takes
>training in specialized assessment measures that only certain
>psychologists and physicians have.
Never mind that autism is a condition of degrees. There are levels of
impairment. The more pronounced cases I think even nonprofessionals
can call autism.
>
>> She was pointing out thatJettTravolta exhibited many
>> text-book symptoms of autism - signs which she was well qualified to
>> recognise having seen them in her own son.
>
>No, she is not qualified to diagnose. She can point out symptoms but
>that doesn't necessarily mean the person has autism. Some people have
>autistic-like behaviors who are not autistic and to fling that label
>around is downright irresponsible.
Essentially, you're saying nobody can diagnose. How convenient!
>
>> Bear in mind as well that she's not some random nutjob who's come along and
>> said "he was autistic" out of the blue. Medical doctors who have seen
>> footage of the child have also raised the same concerns. Autism is
>> difficult to diagnose, largely because the spectrum is so broad, but there
>> are key behavioural aspects which doctors know to look for.
>
>Medical doctors who have seen the footage have not pronounced a
>diagnosis or they would be in major trouble with their boards. All
>they have said is that it "looks like" it could be autism but they
>know that a formal assessment is needed. I can't believe I'm really
>having to engage in a serious discussion about whether papparazzi
>footage is a valid basis for labeling someone as autistic. That is so
>ridiculous that it isn't even controversial.
Why would they be in trouble with thier boards?
What's the big deal? Is it because they're Scientologists, it's
totally inconceivable that they can have an autistic child?
>
>> Travolta's brother was, for a time, close toJettand *he* claimed that he
>> exhibited behaviour that correlated to autistic symptoms. For that, he was
>> shunned by John & Kelly. Seems a little extreme, don't you think? "Hey
>> bro, I think your son may have autism, you should get him treated" - "Get
>> out of our lives forever". Overreact much?
>
>That has nothing to do with whether the brother was qualified to
>diagnose Jett. He wasn't. John Travolta's relationship with his
>brother is not anyone's business but his own and his brother's.
>
>> IfJettwas not autistic the way the Travoltas claim, what explanation do
>> they have for his autistic-like behaviour as exhibited every time he was
>> ever seen on film (which was rare)? Are they going to claim this was also
>> another undocumented side effect of Kawasaki syndrome, just like the
>> seizures?
>
>Again, this is none of your business. Have you ever heard of the words
>"I don't know". The fact is that we do not know and may never know.
>Instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions, why not have just a wee
>bit of humility and admit that we do not know the facts surrounding
>the case and that these facts are none of our business.
Yes, it's an 'unfortunate accident', I mean a weekend doesn't go by
where a perfectly healthy 16-year old falls and dies in the
bathroom.... perfectly normal, happens in the wog world every day....
Uh-huh.
>> Also, did they get medical confirmation that their son was NOT autistic? If
>> so, by which doctor? Was it the same doctor that recommendedJettstop
>> taking his life saving anti-seizure medication because of concerns about
>> organ damage?
>
>Again, we don't know and jumping to unwarranted conclusions is giving
>Scientology critics a really rotten reputation and deservedly so. The
>fact that we don't have answers to these questions is not evidence
>that we should jump to an unwarranted conclusion.
Also like how we're not supposed to even mention autism, nor can
parents of autistic children be qualified to identify autism, but
those limitations don't apply to Kawasaki disease.
I think it's been established:
a) Jett had some condition.
b) Jett had a condition which required fairly close attention.
c) Jett's parents' religion does not believe mental illness is
physical.
d) There appears to be some questions as to the amount of time Jett
was in the bathroom. Reports indicate several hours.
e) The autopsy report lists seizure as the cause of death (which is
not a cause of death... Seizure leading to cardiac arrest, or
respiratory arrest is proper), which is questionable.
f) That the 'close attention' Jett required didn't appear to be
present when he died.
Autism comes up mainly because it makes those pieces fit together.
Epilepsy is another one.
You point out that you can audit and take anti-seizure medication
(based on heresay at least), but can YOU prove Jett was undergoing
auditing or any Scieno-type stuff?
I would also point out that Kawasaki disease doesn't fit the
circumstances.
You make it rather obvious you're some kind of Scientology apologist.
>
>Monica
>
Ball of Fluff
"R. Hill" <rh...@xenu-directory.net> wrote in message
news:gkaohi$uos$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> Ball of Fluff wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Furthermore, there is NO guarantee that if Jett *is* autistic (which may
>> well be the case) that he wouldn't have died or that his autism would
>> have been better managed and treated under AMA approved medical care. All
>> their treatments for autism are experimental.
>>
>> C
>>
>> www.claireswazey.com
>
> Do you have a list of what you call "AMA approved medical care" for
> autism? I can't find this with a cursory search.
Just my way of saying
"Established medicine that's got rilly kewl doctors wid MDs and like they
got da AMA and sometimes da APA an' shit like that."
C
Ball of Fluff
"Alex Clark" <al...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4968...@news2.lightlink.com...
>> These are grieving parents whose child was prone to seizures and who was
>> taking Depakote- a prescribed medicine- for them. Kudos to the Travoltas
>> for obtaining the seizure meds their child needed.
Hi, Alex,
Could you do me a favor? When you quote a text, could you leave in the
attribute such as "Ball of Fluff wrote" ? Makes it easier to tell who you're
replying to.
>
> This is not in line with what John & Kelly's latest story seems to be. My
> understanding is that Jett had been off his seizure medication for a long
> time because they claimed it was causing organ damage.
>
> Interestingly, one of the symptoms of Kawasaki disease is also to cause
> organ damage. Must have taken a mighty fine physician to determine that
> the medication, not Kawasaki disease, was responsible for the organ damage
> and to recommend that Jett be taken off his life saving seizure meds.
>
>
>> Furthermore, there is NO guarantee that if Jett *is* autistic (which may
>> well be the case) that he wouldn't have died or that his autism would
>> have been better managed and treated under AMA approved medical care. All
>> their treatments for autism are experimental.
>
> Autism, whether he had it or not, isn't what killed Jett. But that isn't
> the whole point behind the "Autismgate" Travolta saga.
>
> If he did have autism, then this serves as proof that they were denying
> the existence of a medical condition in their son. There's a pretty steep
> difference in recognising a condition and seeking alternative treatment
> (i.e. scientological) and denying that condition altogether, and this
> further proves that they may have been putting their belief system ahead
> of the well being of their son.
>
> If that's the case, then as harsh as it may sound, they don't need to be
> "left to grieve in peace" - they need to be taken in for questioning.
I don't think so. Medical science has no cure for autism. So parents are
within their rights not to go to a doctor for it. People are acting as if
the Travoltas had a child with an infection and then they denied him
antibiotics and bandages.
C
Piltdown Man
Alex Clark <al...@microsoft.com> wrote...
<snip>
> We don't know the facts because they change with each press release.
> Head trauma? Yes. Wait, no. Seizure? Before or after hitting head?
> Who found him? How long was he lying there? WHY don't they know most
> of these simple things? Why are they being so cagey with the details?
This is a fine little example of why these Travolta threads have me in a
state of increasing disbelief. Is this really going on? Why the fuck do you
think you have any right at all to someone else's private medical
information? Why the fuck do you think you have the right to imply that if
people don't blurt out every last detail of events surrounding their
teenage son's death in public, they're being "cagey", and therefore,
presumably, by implication, hiding some guilty secret? Is there some
special bit of legislation in the US that says people who make their living
as actors forfeit all their rights to privacy, and must provide any random
stranger who ask for it with the full medical records of a recently
deceased child?
> Yeah, I know, it must be an extremely difficult time for John & Kelly.
> So why not let their handlers or press managers come clean with ALL the
> details of what happened so that the press will stop speculating, making
> a hard time even harder.
Why the fuck do you think "the press" has any role to play at all in the
private lives of private citizens? Somewhere along the line, the kind of
people who make their living selling trashy newspapers, or making trashy TV
programmes, devoted to 'celebrities' have somehow acquired a special right
to see every single bit of private information of anyone they choose to
write about?
Black Mamba
news:01c9742e$ee778e20$LocalHost@gateway...
Agreed. Because this is an anti-Scientology discussion group and all
Scientologists are guilty until proven innocent as a norm. Not that there is
anything wrong with that.
However...it can also be that elsewhere perhaps some lady in Chicago,
Illinois for example threw her own autistic son down a flight of stairs in a
fit of rage killing him. She then tells the Chicago police that he fell who
after peforming an autopsy determine that she is telling the truth and the
the whole town turns out to mistakenly mourns the *accidental* death of her
son while she in fact gets away with murder.
Right? I think that is why. Not that you are wrong. It is just obvious that
you like a lot of other people want your privacy respected and that is
understandable but with the press this is seldom ever possible anyway.
Regardless.
Larry
{LaserClam Is Like A Pit Viper!}
l.l.lipshitz
<A47al.8496$2w3....@newsfe19.iad>:
[...]
| Also interesting, the Purif can cause organ damage. And, after Kawasaki
| Syndrome was "diagnosed" (by whom? Authority Kelly Preston?)
both preston and travolta have stated that their
doctor and the hospital doctors diagnosed jett's
kawasaki syndrome.
|they put
| this two year old kid on the purif. So it is written.
dox, please.
[...]
--
-elle
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
people are not only innately stupid,
they are ambitiously so. -kk
l.l.lipshitz
<getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote in
<YuqdndKO79u54_TU...@posted.internetamerica>:
[...]
| I don't think so. Medical science has no cure for autism. So parents are
| within their rights not to go to a doctor for it. People are acting as if
| the Travoltas had a child with an infection and then they denied him
| antibiotics and bandages.
medical science has no cure for diabetes either. i'm
going to guess you'd think that parents have less
choice about visiting a doctor for that. we are
assuming that autism has no other health effects
that might need a doctor's attention. i don't know,
does it?
barbz
Heh. You think celebrities have private lives? Think again.
They CHOOSE to put themselves in the public spotlight. Travolta thinks
he's as big as Marilyn Monroe and Elvis.
Do you think THEY had any privacy?
barbz
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:57:06 -0800, barbz <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote in
> <A47al.8496$2w3....@newsfe19.iad>:
>
> [...]
>
> | Also interesting, the Purif can cause organ damage. And, after Kawasaki
> | Syndrome was "diagnosed" (by whom? Authority Kelly Preston?)
>
> both preston and travolta have stated that their
> doctor and the hospital doctors diagnosed jett's
> kawasaki syndrome.
>
>
> |they put
> | this two year old kid on the purif. So it is written.
>
> dox, please.
>
> [...]
>
>
Purif following the KS diagnosis.
Eldon
<piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
> Alex Clark <a...@microsoft.com> wrote...
>
> <snip>
>
> > We don't know the facts because they change with each press release.
> > Head trauma? Yes. Wait, no. Seizure? Before or after hitting head?
> > Who found him? How long was he lying there? WHY don't they know most
> > of these simple things? Why are they being so cagey with the details?
>
> This is a fine little example of why these Travolta threads have me in a
> state of increasing disbelief. Is this really going on? Why the fuck do you
> think you have any right at all to someone else's private medical
> information? Why the fuck do you think you have the right to imply that if
> people don't blurt out every last detail of events surrounding their
> teenage son's death in public, they're being "cagey", and therefore,
> presumably, by implication, hiding some guilty secret? Is there some
> special bit of legislation in the US that says people who make their living
> as actors forfeit all their rights to privacy, and must provide any random
> stranger who ask for it with the full medical records of a recently
> deceased child?
Oh, they don't *have* to provide anything. But so far, what they have
gratuitously provided is one discrepancy after another. Is it any
wonder so many people are curious about whether the kid hit his head
on the bathtub and lay there overnight or not? Wasn't it a bit cagey
to send a hearse to the airport while the body was being cremated?
They asked for all this lurid speculation.
Alex Clark
>> Head trauma? Yes. Wait, no. Seizure? Before or after hitting head?
>> Who found him? How long was he lying there? WHY don't they know most
>> of these simple things? Why are they being so cagey with the details?
>
> This is a fine little example of why these Travolta threads have me in a
> state of increasing disbelief. Is this really going on? Why the fuck do
> you
> think you have any right at all to someone else's private medical
> information?
That I have the right to it? I don't. But I think the authorities do. If
I neglect my child and he dies from a seizure (or is it head trauma? I've
lost track!) do you not think maybe someone SHOULD be looking at the medical
records in detail?
Or would it be an invasion of privacy for the authorities to get to the
bottom of why a 16yr old child died while under supposedly close
supervision?
> Why the fuck do you think you have the right to imply that if
> people don't blurt out every last detail of events surrounding their
> teenage son's death in public, they're being "cagey", and therefore,
> presumably, by implication, hiding some guilty secret?
I have the right to imply anything I want in a free country, for starters.
Secondly, I *certainly* have the right to point out some glaring
indescrepancies in the story, or rather stories, surrounding the death of a
child that's being reported widely by every major news outlet.
Are you "implying" that despite the massive news coverage, everyone should
ignore it? Hey look, an elephant is in the room!
> Is there some
> special bit of legislation in the US that says people who make their
> living
> as actors forfeit all their rights to privacy, and must provide any random
> stranger who ask for it with the full medical records of a recently
> deceased child?
Again, I'm not asking for those details personally. But I do think they
should be investigated very closely by someone objective.
If the Travoltas want privacy and want the speculators to go away, they're
doing a damn fine job of getting precisely the opposite result. The more
they cloud the issue with contradictory statements, the more people are
going to ask questions.
Are you going to "why the fuck" everyone into silence if they dare to ask
something as straightforward as "did he die from the seizure or the head
trauma that he may or may not have had"?
> Why the fuck do you think "the press" has any role to play at all in the
> private lives of private citizens? Somewhere along the line, the kind of
> people who make their living selling trashy newspapers, or making trashy
> TV
> programmes, devoted to 'celebrities' have somehow acquired a special right
> to see every single bit of private information of anyone they choose to
> write about?
I suppose the whole pesky little Freedom of the Press thing might have
something to do with it (once again, living in a free country over here -
not sure about you). Are people entitled to privacy? Sure. But when
you're a major Hollywood megastar, you follow a controversial faith, and
your son dies at age 16, you're going to get the press asking questions.
It's a fact of that kind of life.
Don't tell me the Travoltas are new to the press-game either, they're
seasoned veterans. Surprising then that they can't even get simple details
straight about their son's death when it comes to making a press release.
So far we have two completely different causes of death, and two completely
different times/places of death.
We're not talking about someone's taxes. We're talking about the premature
death of a child. If his parents played some role in it through negligence,
then YES - they should be brought to justice.
Whether or not your bleeding little heart likes it, that WILL involve asking
questions.
Alex Clark
"l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrngmktdh...@01-101.155.popsite.net...
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:05:35 -0800, Ball of Fluff
> <getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote in
> <YuqdndKO79u54_TU...@posted.internetamerica>:
>
> [...]
>
> | I don't think so. Medical science has no cure for autism. So parents
> are
> | within their rights not to go to a doctor for it. People are acting as
> if
> | the Travoltas had a child with an infection and then they denied him
> | antibiotics and bandages.
>
> medical science has no cure for diabetes either. i'm
> going to guess you'd think that parents have less
> choice about visiting a doctor for that. we are
> assuming that autism has no other health effects
> that might need a doctor's attention. i don't know,
> does it?
Of course it does, and they vary. One I'm aware of is bowel problems which
I think tends to present more in children than adults with it, but I'm not
certain. It's by no means the only one however, and parents with autistic
children generally seek medical treatment of the symptoms.
Alex Clark
"Ball of Fluff" <getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote in message
news:YuqdndKO79u54_TU...@posted.internetamerica...
> I don't think so. Medical science has no cure for autism. So parents are
> within their rights not to go to a doctor for it. People are acting as if
> the Travoltas had a child with an infection and then they denied him
> antibiotics and bandages.
Autism Spectrum Disorder has a wide variety of side effects though,
including (but not limited to) bowel problems. Whilst autism itself is
currently incurable, the symptoms *can* be treated and can significantly
improve the quality of life for many.
Also, the Travoltas DID have a child with a history of seizures and DID
admit to taking him off his anti-seizure medication. They did this despite
knowing that a seizure could be fatal for him. They did this because they
were told that his medication was causing organ damage, despite the fact
they claim he had Kawasaki disease which *also* causes organ damage.
Something does not make logical sense. Even if he did NOT have Kawasaki
disease, it would be very unusual for a doctor to recommend taking the child
off the anti-seizure medication. In a choice between the child taking
medication which causes organ damage over the long term, or a sudden death
scenario of a seizure, the former is almost always preferable to the latter.
Prolonging the patient's life, as long as it's a good quality of life, is
preferable because it increases the options.
I'd love to know which physician thought it was a good medical call to take
him off his potentially life saving anti-seizure meds to prevent the organ
damage that was going to happen anyway due to his Kawasaki disease.
Monica Pignotti
It is not an "apologist for Scientology" to call Scientology critics
out on jumping to unwarranted conclusions. The best way to expose the
abuses of Scientology is through finding actual evidence that points
to the truth about what is going on, not engaging in exaggeration or
jumping to conclusions for which there is no evidence. That is the way
to lose credibility quickly and why the anti-Scientology movement to
date has been such an abysmal failure. Using a cheesy paparazzi film
as "evidence" and then engaging in amateur armchair diagnosis is not a
credible way to prove anything. But no, for some of you true
believers, anyone who questions this is a "Scientology apologist"
because you apparently are unable to think in anything other than us
vs. them, black and white terms.
> When discussing “facts” regarding “up is down, down is up” Scientology
> it is important to be grounded in one key concept; Hubbard’s
> biographical information and history. Hubbard was an ambitious sci fi
> writer, a compulsive liar, perhaps mentally ill, who developed
> Scientology as an elaborate scam for money and power.
That is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is critics
jumping to highly unwarranted conclusions based on a paparazzi video.
> That is, he WAS
> NOT, a scientific genius (see Einstein, Freud, or Jung for that) who
> developed brilliant theories about anything, let alone theories to
> “save the planet,” cure the mentally ill, prevent disease, unlock
> human potential, or even make people happy.
That doesn't mean that you can view a paparazzi film of Jett Travolta
and diagnose him. To attempt to do so makes you and anyone else who
buys into this just as quacky as Hubbard.
>
> At around 100,000 members worldwide, Scientology, as much money as it
> has and attention it gets via Travota and Cruise, is still the lunatic
> fringe, and a scam. In spite of its bloated claims, complete with
> space opera religion tacked on for tax purposes, and "It's the
> psychs!" theories, Scientology has not given anyone super powers, or
> come out with a single scientific, educational, humanitarian or
> medical breakthrough.
>
> Monica is a better apologist and defender of this wacky cult and its
> celeb members than Tommy Davis, since as an active Scientologist, he
> just lies and keeps secrets as a matter of policy. Monica makes
> ridiculous nutter arguments, because she spent five years of her life
> with her head stuffed up LHR’s ass, devoted to this claptrap. At this
> point, I’m more mystified when there are people like Eldon, who were
> in this cult, but now seem so normal and rational!
So it is a "nutter" argument to challenge the validity of conclusions
made on the basis of a paparazzi film. I see, coming from you and your
convoluted topsy turvy thinking on this matter, that is a complement.
I left Scientology 32 years ago and have never done any of the tech
since then. I learned from my experience, but your anti-scientology
zealotry is no different in form from any active cult member. If it is
"normal and rational" to you to diagnose a poor child based on a
paparazzi film, you really have things upside down and I feel very
sorry for you because you have lost all perspective and are unable to
view the nuttiness that is posted her the way any sane person outside
this small circle of zealous anti-Scientologists would view you. If
you want to see a "nutter" look in the mirror, sweetheart.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
No, you are misinformed. It takes specialized training to be able to
diagnose autism and it cannot be diagnosed by anyone from viewing a
short paparazzi film. Emotional investment was just one factor -- the
main factor I was noting is that autism cannot be diagnosed by people
not trained in valid assessment instruments. It is very dangerous to
take the attitude that it can because people can get stuck with a
label for life that doesn't fit them.
>
> For instance, people will often observe that another person appeared
> to be drunk. Generally there's no blood test or breath analysis used--
> it's based on the person's behavior. If someone whose father was an
> abusive alcoholic says, "Then this drunk guy came into the office..."
> I'm not going to be suspicious and go "Oooh, maybe she just thinks he
> was drunk because her father was an alcoholic!"
That is not the same thing. "Drunk" is not a formal diagnosis. Autism
is a very specific condition for which scientifically validated
assessment tools have been developed.
>
> No one has denied that it's impossible for a lay observer to make a
> professional diagnosis of Jett, yet you keep repeating that as if it
> refutes what people observed. It doesnt. If someone says, "Based on my
> experience, he seemed to be autistic," that's all it means.
Oh yes they have. People are gossiping and engaging in completely
unwarranted speculation and jumping to conclusions when the facts are
not in and may never be known.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
> > Duh. Do you really think that a parent who has a child diagnosed with
> > autism is not emotional about it?
>
> So you're saying she was emotionally distorted in her evaluation of Jett
> Travolta to say "he shares the same autistic characteristics of my son"? I
> think it's as much arrogant presumption on your part to assume she's biased
> as it is anyone else's (according to you) to assume she's qualified, if not
> more so.
I do not think she is in a position to be objective about it but that
is only part of the problem. The other part of the problem is that she
lacks the professional training to diagnose autism. It isn't a matter
of arrogance. It's just the opposite -- It's a matter of having the
humility to recognize when one doesn't have the proper professional
training to render a diagnosis. Qualification isn't a matter of
opinion. Either one has the proper professional credentials and
training and one does not. Being a parent is not part of the requisite
credentials to diagnose autism. People who are enmeshed in their own
emotional experiences are the most dangerous because they lack the
professional distance to recognize that not everyone with autism is
alike and tend to project their own experiences onto others. I know
qualified mental health professionals who have kids with autism who
won't themselves get involved in that area because they have the
humility and intelligence to recognize that they are unable to be
objective.
> What are you trying to say, that her emotional attachment to her own son
> makes her *want* to see autism in others' children?
That could well be the case, but what I'm also saying is that being a
parent does not qualify one to diagnose autism. It takes a
professional to do that.
> > Besides that, being a parent doesn't
> > give them the proper qualifications to assess for autism.
>
> So you won't accept for a moment that because she's had an autistic child
> herself that she's better qualified than the average lay person to notice
> those characteristics in others?
No, I won't accept that. In fact, her emotional involvement might make
her opinions even more problematic. It's much like the person who has
been abused or has been in a cult and then sees it in anything even
remotely similar.
> > That takes
> > training in specialized assessment measures that only certain
> > psychologists and physicians have.
> > Some people have
> > autistic-like behaviors who are not autistic and to fling that label
> > around is downright irresponsible.
>
> Wrong. Autism is an extremely broad spectrum, and likely affects far more
> people than have actually been diagnosed with it.
No, it is not "wrong". I am aware that Autism is a broad spectrum, but
what I am saying is that even though people might be walking around
not knowing they are autistic, that doesn't mean that just anyone or
some parent can diagnose it from a tabloid film. It also doesn't give
people license to fling the label around. If someone is in the
spectrum and doesn't know it, that doesn't give some untrained person
the right to label them -- that person would still need to be examined
and assessed by a qualified professional.
>To suggest that someone
> may be partially autistic due to them exhibiting autistic-like symptoms is a
> simple observation. To state categorically that a person is *NOT* autistic
> *despite* them exhibiting those characterstics? Now THAT is irresponsible.
I never stated "categorically that the person is *NOT* autistic" so
please stop putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that people
shouldn't make the positive assertion that he is, based upon a
paparazzi film but rather, get a diagnosis from a qualified
professional. Is that really so difficult for you to understand? In
this case we'll never know because the child in question is dead. We
have to live with the more honest conclusion that we just don't know
so stop distorting what I am saying. I never said he was *NOT*. I am
saying I do not know, nor do you, nor does some parent.
>
> > Medical doctors who have seen the footage have not pronounced a
> > diagnosis or they would be in major trouble with their boards. All
> > they have said is that it "looks like" it could be autism but they
> > know that a formal assessment is needed.
>
> Of course! No professional MD is going to make a diagnosis from a few
> minutes of film footage here and there.
That is my point. If a professional is not going to make it how
arrogant is it for a lay person to think they can jump to such a
conclusions?
> But notice that they share the same views as this "irresponsible" parent who
> also has an autistic child? "Hmm, looks like he's exhibiting autistic
> characteristics".
>
> Are we seeing a pattern yet?
No, because the parent has no professional training to make any kind
of assessment and it is arrogant and dangerous to assume that they
can.
> > I can't believe I'm really
> > having to engage in a serious discussion about whether papparazzi
> > footage is a valid basis for labeling someone as autistic. That is so
> > ridiculous that it isn't even controversial.
>
> Part of diagnosing autism is examining behaviour. It cannot be done with a
> simple blood test, sweetheart.
Duh, I know that, sweetheart. Nevertheless, autism is diagnosed with a
validated behavioral assessment, sweetheart, not casual observation of
a cheesy paparazzi film.
>People, including doctors, have been
> examining the available footage and forming hypotheses based on what they
> see.
> No concrete conclusions, no official diagnoses (don't get your knickers
> knotted honey), just observations and theories. A lot of peoples' theories.
> Which happen to be the same.
My point, honey right back atcha, is that this kind of speculation is
a waste of time and nothing more than mean spirited gossip that is
nobody's business. You are the one with knotted knickers and a very
twisted sense of what is decent behavior, I might add.
> > That has nothing to do with whether the brother was qualified to
> > diagnose Jett.
>
> But you just said you cannot diagnose someone from a few clips of papparazi
> footage here and there?
You've taken my statement out of context, sweetheart. Go back and
reread what I wrote, or is it too complex for you to grasp? I was
listing a number of separate issues. Diagnosis is one issue. Being
emotionally involved is another.
> Well guess what, Travolta's brother didn't. He spent lots of personal time
> with the boy. And he STILL came to the same conclusion.
"Lots of personal time" does not mean he is qualified to jump to
unwarranted conclusions, honey.
> And what of John & Kelly's reaction to that? I'm pretty sure if I
> approached my brother and suggested that he get his child professionally
> checked out for autism, his response wouldn't be "get out of our lives
> forever".
You do not know the Travoltas personally. You are basing this
allegation on tabloid reports. None of us knows what actually
happened. If a sibling inappropriately meddles in something that is
none of his or her business and that persists, it could be a valid
reason to want to get the person out of one's life. We just don't know
what actually happened.
> > Instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions, why not have just a wee
> > bit of humility and admit that we do not know the facts surrounding
> > the case and that these facts are none of our business.
>
> We don't know the facts because they change with each press release. Head
> trauma? Yes. Wait, no. Seizure? Before or after hitting head? Who found
> him? How long was he lying there? WHY don't they know most of these simple
> things? Why are they being so cagey with the details?
Do you really expect grieving parents to immediately go to every cheap
tabloid reporter and spill their guts and tell all? Have a little
decency. They aren't being "cagey". They are reacting as any normal
grieving parents are. The public has no right to know anything. It is
nobody's business but the people officially assigned to investigate,
if it is determined an investigation is warranted, which we just don't
know right now.
>
> Yeah, I know, it must be an extremely difficult time for John & Kelly. So
> why not let their handlers or press managers come clean with ALL the details
> of what happened so that the press will stop speculating, making a hard time
> even harder.
Why should they have to satisfy the press and every tabloid reporter?
And it could just be that not even John and Kelly know exactly what
happened and why. It takes time and investigation for these kinds of
facts to be uncovered sometimes. You'll just have to have a little
patience, honey, although it is really none of your business.
Monica
ǝsnǝb1ǝʇǝq
> the anti-Scientology movement to
> date has been such an abysmal failure.
>
> Monica
René Artois/
Youuuuuu stupid woman!
/René Artois
Kim P
> l.l.lipshitz wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:57:06 -0800, barbz <xenu...@netscape.net>
>> wrote in <A47al.8496$2w3....@newsfe19.iad>:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> | Also interesting, the Purif can cause organ damage. And, after
>> Kawasaki | Syndrome was "diagnosed" (by whom? Authority Kelly Preston?)
>> both preston and travolta have stated that their
>> doctor and the hospital doctors diagnosed jett's
>> kawasaki syndrome.
>>
>>
>> |they put | this two year old kid on the purif. So it is written.
>> dox, please.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
> Preston and Travolta were quoted as saying they put their son on the
> Purif following the KS diagnosis.
>
Preston on Montel Williams 2003
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/sources/media/montel120303.htm
WILLIAMS: But with Jett, you started him on a program that I think is
talked about in this book by L. Ron Hubbard. It's "Clean--Clear Body and
Clear Mind."
Ms. PRESTON: Exactly.
WILLIAMS: Why don't you tell us a little bit about this?
Ms. PRESTON: Well, this is a p--program that's detailed in the book. We
basically store all of these chemicals and poisons and toxins that you
breathe, eat, you know, that you're around constantly. Radiation from
the sun, you store it in your fatty tissues. And over the years it
builds up, and this is a program of how you can detoxify it completely
and purify your body. It's brilliant
Eldon
> "Ball of Fluff" <getoffmy...@fluffentology.com> wrote in messagenews:YuqdndKO79u54_TU...@posted.internetamerica...
>
> > I don't think so. Medical science has no cure for autism. So parents are
> > within their rights not to go to a doctor for it. People are acting as if
> > the Travoltas had a child with an infection and then they denied him
> > antibiotics and bandages.
>
> Autism Spectrum Disorder has a wide variety of side effects though,
> including (but not limited to) bowel problems. Whilst autism itself is
> currently incurable, the symptoms *can* be treated and can significantly
> improve the quality of life for many.
>
> Also, the Travoltas DID have a child with a history of seizures and DID
> admit to taking him off his anti-seizure medication. They did this despite
> knowing that a seizure could be fatal for him. They did this because they
> were told that his medication was causing organ damage, despite the fact
> they claim he had Kawasaki disease which *also* causes organ damage.
And then there's the "brilliant" Purification Rundown, which also
might cause organ damage. So there's three possibilities.
And then there are some equally effective anti-seizure medications
that might not have caused organ damage.
Beth
think it's gossiping and completely unwarranted speculation for people
to report signs of drunkenness without having scientific proof of it?
>
> > No one has denied that it's impossible for a lay observer to make a
> > professional diagnosis of Jett, yet you keep repeating that as if it
> > refutes what people observed. It doesnt. If someone says, "Based on my
> > experience, he seemed to be autistic," that's all it means.
>
> Oh yes they have. People are gossiping and engaging in completely
> unwarranted speculation and jumping to conclusions when the facts are
> not in and may never be known.
>
> Monica
>
The speculation is not "completely unwarranted." I've seen people here
and on WWP give well-reasoned, detailed explanations for their
speculation. "Completely unwarranted" would be speculation that Jett
was an idiot savant or the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard.
Sure, some people have jumped to conclusions. I don't like seeing
people say something like "Travolta's autistic son." But I don't think
that should preclude thoughtful discussion of the possibility. But
again, you and I are coming from a **very** different place, because,
as I said, I don't believe that pointing out symptoms is the same
thing as diagnosis.
Beth
Beth
> "Ball of Fluff" <getoffmy...@fluffentology.com> wrote in messagenews:YuqdndKO79u54_TU...@posted.internetamerica...
Well, it's always possible that no doctor thought it was a good idea.
People have been known to disregard their doctors' advice.
Beth
barbz
Kelly Preston is a spokesthingie for CCHR. And Scientologists are the
Authority.
It's quite likely this whole tragedy stemmed from untrained people
playing doctor.
Eldon
Orr maybe from trained doctors of chiropractic, naturopathy or
osteopathy like the idiot who treated Jeremy Perkins.
l.l.lipshitz
wrote in <LWual.7809$tD1....@newsfe07.iad>:
| l.l.lipshitz wrote:
| > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:57:06 -0800, barbz <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote in
| > <A47al.8496$2w3....@newsfe19.iad>:
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > | Also interesting, the Purif can cause organ damage. And, after Kawasaki
| > | Syndrome was "diagnosed" (by whom? Authority Kelly Preston?)
| >
| > both preston and travolta have stated that their
| > doctor and the hospital doctors diagnosed jett's
| > kawasaki syndrome.
| >
| >
| > |they put
| > | this two year old kid on the purif. So it is written.
| >
| > dox, please.
| >
| > [...]
| >
| >
| Preston and Travolta were quoted as saying they put their son on the
| Purif following the KS diagnosis.
yes, i know. *when*?
are we assuming jett did the purif immediately upon
release from the hospital when he was 2? i don't
know, because i've not read anything about when he
did it, how many times he did it, or over what span
of time he did it. if you have definitive info,
please post it.
i also don't know if scn has a minimum age for the
purif (i would hope!). i asked before and was
pointed to a picture of kids in a sauna at the
mace-kingsley family center, but those kids were
12 not 2.
Maureen
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:04:58 -0800, barbz <xenub...@netscape.net>
> wrote in <LWual.7809$tD1.7...@newsfe07.iad>:
> | l.l.lipshitz wrote:
> | > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:57:06 -0800, barbz <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote in
> | > <A47al.8496$2w3.5...@newsfe19.iad>:
Maybe around the same age Hubbard recommends 'auditing' children? That
is, if any tech is worked in conjunction with the detox...
"A lot of children are in light trance ... Children are quite
suggestible.
The curve of hypnosis rises steadily until its highest level about 10
years of age, and then falls clear off at about 15 or 16. Then they
don't believe anything."
(R&D 3, p.319);
And I also ponder the damage to the child's lymphatic system, (hence,
the swelling) if he experienced the detox when so young, from the
excessive heat of the sauna. Thermo-regulation issues. The med use of
"Depakote" cannot have caused such inflammation in conservative
amounts....As if they gave it to him, after the damage was done, to
cover...?
Maureen
Eldon
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:04:58 -0800, barbz <xenub...@netscape.net>
> wrote in <LWual.7809$tD1.7...@newsfe07.iad>:
> | l.l.lipshitz wrote:
> | > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:57:06 -0800, barbz <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote in
> | > <A47al.8496$2w3.5...@newsfe19.iad>:
> | >
> | > [...]
> | >
> | > | Also interesting, the Purif can cause organ damage. And, after Kawasaki
> | > | Syndrome was "diagnosed" (by whom? Authority Kelly Preston?)
> | >
> | > both preston and travolta have stated that their
> | > doctor and the hospital doctors diagnosed jett's
> | > kawasaki syndrome.
> | >
> | >
> | > |they put
> | > | this two year old kid on the purif. So it is written.
> | >
> | > dox, please.
> | >
> | > [...]
> | >
> | >
> | Preston and Travolta were quoted as saying they put their son on the
> | Purif following the KS diagnosis.
>
> yes, i know. *when*?
>
> are we assuming jett did the purif immediately upon
> release from the hospital when he was 2? i don't
> know, because i've not read anything about when he
> did it, how many times he did it, or over what span
> of time he did it. if you have definitive info,
> please post it.
At the time of the 2003 interview, he was 11 years old, so he was
probably 10 or younger when he did the purif.
Tigger
> >> wrote in <A47al.8496$2w3.5...@newsfe19.iad>:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, it was pretty clear that it was the Purification Rundown. No
mention of Scientology was made either.
Rick Ross said:
Quote:
Preston wants "to help parents safeguard…children from environmental
toxins." The actress is also involved in a non-profit organization
called the "Children's Health Environmental Coalition" (CHEC)
(Snip)
Preston also apparently used "Montel" as a venue to feature her fellow
Scientologist Michael Wisner. He was introduced as the "Toxicologist
to the Stars." Wisner then also promoted Hubbard's teachings and a for-
profit private clinic in Sacramento.
However, the touted "Toxicologist" apparently failed to help his own
son Gregory Wisner who died with the toxin cocaine still present in
his body, after being involved in a program that featured his father's
approach.
Wisner's son participated in a detoxification drug treatment program
called Narconon, which is based upon the very same process Preston
described on Montel to "clear" the body of toxins.
Scientologists more commonly call this process the "Purification
Rundown."
End of Quote
I saw that Montel show and if I remember correctly, Preston also
talked about being sunburned when she was seven years old and wearing
a bikini. On the "detox" program, she claimed the sunburn appeared
again on her body which hadn't been covered by the bikini. It was
probably the "niacin flush", but did she mock up the non-appearance of
sunburn on body parts covered by the bikini?
Tigger
Cult News.com: Montel Williams, a shill for
Scientology?
http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000031.html
Eldon
That is a pretty deceptive and convincing effect. What happens is that
there is some capillary damage from sunburn, so the niacin flush will
occur in the same areas where you were sunburned.
Tigger
Well thank you, Dr. Eldon! I didn't know that. Thank Xenu......I
only asked a question and didn't jump to conclusions. :-)
Tigger
>
>
>
> > Tigger
>
> > Cult News.com: Montel Williams, a shill for
> > Scientology?http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000031.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
barbz
barbz
Niacin is a vasodialater, if I remember it right. Sunburned skin has
damaged capillaries that will expand and return that red "flush when
niacin overdoses kick in. Oh wait...that's just the radiation leaving
your system. Never mind.
Patrick Volk
Would it be reasonable to presume that there was something up with
Jett? Autism is the consensus choice, but ultimately the base problem
isn't relevant.
I do not feel it is a great leap of logic to say that critics are
interested because it is a condition which Scientology specifically
doesn't readily acknowledge. Be it autism, or epilepsy (I should point
out that the coroner did not see Jett have a seizure, nor would he
likely be trained in the diagnosis of epilepsy, so it is doubtful.
However, you seem to be alright with that).
Your argument essentially is a strawman, because you're appealing to
authority here where it is pretty obvious one will not be forthcoming.
If the Travolta's talked to someone qualified to make the diagnosis,
they would be disavowing the tenets of Scientology, would they not?
>That is the way
>to lose credibility quickly and why the anti-Scientology movement to
>date has been such an abysmal failure. Using a cheesy paparazzi film
>as "evidence" and then engaging in amateur armchair diagnosis is not a
>credible way to prove anything. But no, for some of you true
>believers, anyone who questions this is a "Scientology apologist"
>because you apparently are unable to think in anything other than us
>vs. them, black and white terms.
And here is where you start to tear apart your own construction.
Someone died of a condition, and it turns into critics being bad.
>
>> When discussing “facts” regarding “up is down, down is up” Scientology
>> it is important to be grounded in one key concept; Hubbard’s
>> biographical information and history. Hubbard was an ambitious sci fi
>> writer, a compulsive liar, perhaps mentally ill, who developed
>> Scientology as an elaborate scam for money and power.
>
>That is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is critics
>jumping to highly unwarranted conclusions based on a paparazzi video.
I contend that Jett's specific condition is, epilepsy is as
unrecognized under Scientology than autism, isn't it?
You're asking for proof on something direct proof doesn't exist. Are
police board-certified medical professionals to be able to identify
alcohol intoxication? No. But their opinion counts, doesn't it?
>
>> That is, he WAS
>> NOT, a scientific genius (see Einstein, Freud, or Jung for that) who
>> developed brilliant theories about anything, let alone theories to
>> “save the planet,” cure the mentally ill, prevent disease, unlock
>> human potential, or even make people happy.
>
>That doesn't mean that you can view a paparazzi film of Jett Travolta
>and diagnose him. To attempt to do so makes you and anyone else who
>buys into this just as quacky as Hubbard.
Keep tearing that strawman apart. People analyzing the limited
information available (where the people controlling the exposure have
a vested interest to limit said exposure) isn't quacky.
16-year-olds with problems generally don't die in the bathroom.
There's generally no debate as to how long they spent alone. The fact
JT performed CPR is irrelevant. Admirable (albeit expected), but
irrelevant. Even if it was some time, 911 would tell the person to do
CPR until the doctors said otherwise (in the US, I think the only
reason to not would be livor mortis, or rigor - signs the deceased has
been so for a while).
>>
>> At around 100,000 members worldwide, Scientology, as much money as it
>> has and attention it gets via Travota and Cruise, is still the lunatic
>> fringe, and a scam. In spite of its bloated claims, complete with
>> space opera religion tacked on for tax purposes, and "It's the
>> psychs!" theories, Scientology has not given anyone super powers, or
>> come out with a single scientific, educational, humanitarian or
>> medical breakthrough.
>>
>> Monica is a better apologist and defender of this wacky cult and its
>> celeb members than Tommy Davis, since as an active Scientologist, he
>> just lies and keeps secrets as a matter of policy. Monica makes
>> ridiculous nutter arguments, because she spent five years of her life
>> with her head stuffed up LHR’s ass, devoted to this claptrap. At this
>> point, I’m more mystified when there are people like Eldon, who were
>> in this cult, but now seem so normal and rational!
>
>So it is a "nutter" argument to challenge the validity of conclusions
>made on the basis of a paparazzi film. I see, coming from you and your
>convoluted topsy turvy thinking on this matter, that is a complement.
I think you're missing the issue. If Jett had autism, that's not a
problem. If Jett had autism and his parents don't believe autism is a
valid diagnosis, that isn't a problem.
The problem for me is if Jett had autism (or epilepsy, or really any
condition which would be treatable), and his parents opted to take the
Scientology route not using medication (which some critics frankly are
debating), but did not provide supervision in lieu of medical
assistance.
That indicates blind faith in Scientology. I would have that problem
with any other religion in that case, to be frank. Any belief system
which discourages doing all you can for your kids, and imbues you with
a dangerous sense of security defies logic.
>I left Scientology 32 years ago and have never done any of the tech
>since then. I learned from my experience, but your anti-scientology
>zealotry is no different in form from any active cult member.
Not entirely sure of that... How qualified are you?
> If it is
>"normal and rational" to you to diagnose a poor child based on a
>paparazzi film, you really have things upside down and I feel very
>sorry for you because you have lost all perspective and are unable to
>view the nuttiness that is posted her the way any sane person outside
>this small circle of zealous anti-Scientologists would view you. If
>you want to see a "nutter" look in the mirror, sweetheart.
The core argument here simply is, whether Scientology prevented or
strongly discouraged taking steps to treat the childs' condition.
Anything else is a strawman, plain and simple.
And I should point out, your argument cuts both ways. We're not
qualified to diagnose autism as much as the Travolta's are qualified
to rule out autism, right?
Like I said, your point is irrelevant.
Pat
>
>Monica
>
l.l.lipshitz
| On Jan 12, 9:25 am, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote:
[...]
| > i also don't know if scn has a minimum age for the
| > purif (i would hope!). i asked before and was
| > pointed to a picture of kids in a sauna at the
| > mace-kingsley family center, but those kids were
| > 12 not 2.
|
| Maybe around the same age Hubbard recommends 'auditing' children? That
| is, if any tech is worked in conjunction with the detox...
yeah, that could be. personally, tho, i would
hope the minimum age for the purif was somewhat
higher than that for auditing.
| "A lot of children are in light trance ... Children are quite
| suggestible.
| The curve of hypnosis rises steadily until its highest level about 10
| years of age, and then falls clear off at about 15 or 16. Then they
| don't believe anything."
| (R&D 3, p.319);
hubbard implies that kids under 10 are being
hypnotized (is this auditing??), which, even if
applicable to the purif, doesn't really say if
there is an acceptable minimum age.
i cannot imagine any parent subjecting a 2-yr-old
to extreme heat and megadoses of vitamins. but
then there's alot of things that scnists do that i
can't imagine. i'd still like to see more
substantive info....
| And I also ponder the damage to the child's lymphatic system, (hence,
| the swelling) if he experienced the detox when so young, from the
| excessive heat of the sauna. Thermo-regulation issues. The med use of
| "Depakote" cannot have caused such inflammation in conservative
| amounts....As if they gave it to him, after the damage was done, to
| cover...?
jett had swollen lymph nodes because that's a
symptom of kawasaki syndrome. i'm pretty sure that
would have cleared up with treatment. where are you
getting lymphatic system damage and inflammation?
Maureen
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:39:04 -0800 (PST), Maureen <Lermanet...@gmail.com>
Intersting the cult spammed that word in the 1999 'sporge.'
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/search?q=lymphedema&
(posted this last week):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/20cf2ecee4850a9d
I wonder if these problems occurred chronically after the 'detox'
What is lymphoedema?
* Lymphoedema is the swelling of a body part due to a build up of
lymph fluid in the tissues.
http://www.lymphnotes.com/article.php/id/36/
“The use of hot tubs and saunas carries a risk for precipitating, or
exacerbating, lymphedema in at risk patients.”
Overheating – Hot baths, spas, saunas and excessive exercise may lead
to swelling.
http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/lymphedema-hereditary
With $cientology doctors, and years of unknown info, it's hard to say,
but a young kid in sauna(s) can exacerbate or cause things to surface
under bodily stress....
Maureen
you may have answered as getting it confused with a B Schwartz post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/20cf2ecee4850a9d
My point would be more that they used the term, "swollen lymph
glands,' rather than 'lymphedema,' something that could well have been
caused by the sauna at a young age.
They tend to give drugs to members to immobilize them mentally -
permanently, Hubbard McPherson, Jeremy Perkins. That is convenient for
covering the inadequate or absent medical attention. We would be
distracted to be thrown that curve ball, as to the real cause and PR
flap. . Someone used the term 'dub-in' this past week. "Swollen Lymph
glands,' covers lymphedema quite nicely. As well as the use of evil
psych drugs that rendered him so sick, that he became a fatality.
Maureen
Ball of Fluff
Ball of Fluff
> On Jan 10, 6:47 pm, "Ball ofFluff" <getoffmy...@fluffentology.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Tigger" <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:414f9595-3824-4107...@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > First: There are many questions that need to be answered about Jett's
> > > death. Many of them raised by the actions of the Travoltas
> > > themselves.
>
> > > Second: John Travolta is a celebrity. The death of any child,
> > > which is surrounded in "mystery", even if the parents aren't movie
> > > stars, will get some press coverage. The "church" is out there to
> > > prevent its "story"......why should not the other side be presented?
>
> > > Third: Travolta (and his wife) have been high-profile OUT-SPOKEN
> > > Scientologists for a long time.
> > > Among other things....Travolta has touted the "touch assists" in
> > > national news and that he has used them to effectively cure people.
> > > Preston has been on national TV, before Congress and other places to
> > > attack psychiatry and psych drugs.
>
> > > Fourth: There have been many cases of
> > > Scientologists who have been damaged and/or died because they adhered
> > > to or were forced to adhere to what Scientologists 'BELIEVED' was
> > > Hubbard's doctrine, whether or not there was any OFFICIAL HUBBARD
> > > POLICY LETTER
> > > sent out.
>
> > > Question: Does ANYONE know
> > > what EACH and EVERY policy letter Hubbard sent out said?
>
> > > Fifth: H:ow many times did Hubbard issue a policy letter and then he
> > > or his followers did not follow the policy letter.....For example:
> > > FAIR GAME policy was supposed to have been rescinded, but we all know
> > > it wasn't....it just got a new name and is still
> > > working today.
>
> > > Sixth: After Lisa McPherson's death a "clause" was added which came
> > > to be known (at least outside of "the church") as the Lisa McPherson
> > > clause which (if signed)
> > > released the "church" from any liability whatsoever.
>
> > > LISA McPherson CLAUSE
> > >http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Scientology/ReleaseForms/Introspection.html
>
> > > Seventh: Hubbard "preached" long and hard about the effectiveness of
> > > Dianetics and Scientology to "cure" this, that and the other PHYSICAL
> > > DISEASE...(not to mention all his BS about mental ailments).
> > > Apparently many (most? all?) Scientologists did and still do believe
> > > what "Ron said".(note the never-ending promotion of "touch
> > > assists".)
>
> > > Sure critics need to offer condolences on the death of Jett Travolta,
> > > but that does not mean we should not question if that death could have
> > > been prevented.
>
> > Perhaps. But I've seen truly vicious posts by some people- not you- but by
> > some others- about it.
>
> > These are grieving parents whose child was prone to seizures and who was
> > taking Depakote- a prescribed medicine- for them. Kudos to the Travoltas for
> > obtaining the seizure meds their child needed.
>
> He was not taking Depakote or any other anti-seizure meds. They
> stopped giving it to him some time back.
>
>
>
> > Furthermore, there is NO guarantee that if Jett *is* autistic (which may
> > well be the case) that he wouldn't have died or that his autism would have
> > been better managed and treated under AMA approved medical care. All their
> > treatments for autism are experimental.
>
> The AMA doesn't "approve" anything but treatments for the side effects
> of autism such as seizures. The actual treatments are psychological
> interaction stuff like cognitive-behavioral therapy.
>
>
Right. Because neither the AMA or the APA has a standardized reliable
cure or treatment that consistently delivers certain results according
to certain pre established criteria. YMMV quite widely and wildly. So
I have nothing but sympathy (not in the Scn sense of the word) for any
parent of a child with autism or similar disorders for which there are
no standardized reliable cures and/or treatments that consistently
deliver certain results according to certain pre established criteria.
C
l.l.lipshitz
wrote in <72ee2b9d-7533-4c07...@r41g2000prr.googlegroups.com>:
| On Jan 13, 9:07?am, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote:
[...]
| > jett had swollen lymph nodes because that's a
| > symptom of kawasaki syndrome. i'm pretty sure that
| > would have cleared up with treatment. where are you
| > getting lymphatic system damage and inflammation?
|
| Intersting the cult spammed that word in the 1999 'sporge.'
|
| http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/search?q=lymphedema&
so you came up with the idea that jett had
lymphatic system damage and inflammation based
on a stupid sporge? they also spammed the word
'invisibleness' -- are you going to tell me that
jett was disappearing?
| (posted this last week):
|
| http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/20cf2ecee4850a9d
and i responded:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/cc9c4ac3821d808d>
| I wonder if these problems occurred chronically after the 'detox'
|
| What is lymphoedema?
| * Lymphoedema is the swelling of a body part due to a build up of
| lymph fluid in the tissues.
what is stupid bigotry?
* picking a medical condition out of a catalog
based on nothing more than a desire to attack scn.
| http://www.lymphnotes.com/article.php/id/36/
| ?The use of hot tubs and saunas carries a risk for precipitating, or
| exacerbating, lymphedema in at risk patients.?
|
| Overheating ? Hot baths, spas, saunas and excessive exercise may lead
| to swelling.
|
| http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/lymphedema-hereditary
|
| With $cientology doctors, and years of unknown info, it's hard to say,
| but a young kid in sauna(s) can exacerbate or cause things to surface
| under bodily stress....
this is a sleazy insinuation fueled by anti-scn
prejudice.
| you may have answered as getting it confused with a B Schwartz post:
|
| http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/20cf2ecee4850a9d
no, i didn't. schwarz was the reasonable one, and
i only responded to (and agreed with) 1 comment she
made. the rest of my response was to you (repeated
above).
| My point would be more that they used the term, "swollen lymph
| glands,' rather than 'lymphedema,' something that could well have been
| caused by the sauna at a young age.
yes, they used the term 'swollen lymph glands'
meaning swollen lymph glands (like you get with
mumps) and not 'the accumulation of lymph in
soft tissue with accompanying swelling, often of
the extremities'. word-clear lymphedema.
| They tend to give drugs to members to immobilize them mentally -
| permanently, Hubbard McPherson, Jeremy Perkins. That is convenient for
| covering the inadequate or absent medical attention. We would be
| distracted to be thrown that curve ball, as to the real cause and PR
| flap. . Someone used the term 'dub-in' this past week.
what?
|"Swollen Lymph
| glands,' covers lymphedema quite nicely.
no, it doesn't. please word-clear 'lymphedema'.
this is the kind of shit that unqualified people
disgorge when 'diagnosing' someone.
|As well as the use of evil
| psych drugs that rendered him so sick, that he became a fatality.
what??
Maureen
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:58:28 -0800 (PST), Maureen <Lermanet...@gmail.com>
> wrote in <72ee2b9d-7533-4c07-b4a6-b105decd8...@r41g2000prr.googlegroups.com>:
> | On Jan 13, 9:07?am, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> | > jett had swollen lymph nodes because that's a
> | > symptom of kawasaki syndrome. i'm pretty sure that
> | > would have cleared up with treatment. where are you
> | > getting lymphatic system damage and inflammation?
> |
> | Intersting the cult spammed that word in the 1999 'sporge.'
> |
>
> so you came up with the idea that jett had
> lymphatic system damage and inflammation based
> on a stupid sporge? they also spammed the word
> 'invisibleness' -- are you going to tell me that
> jett was disappearing?
>
> | (posted this last week):
> |
>
> and i responded:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/cc9c4ac38...>
>
> | I wonder if these problems occurred chronically after the 'detox'
> |
> | What is lymphoedema?
> | * Lymphoedema is the swelling of a body part due to a build up of
> | lymph fluid in the tissues.
>
> what is stupid bigotry?
> * picking a medical condition out of a catalog
> based on nothing more than a desire to attack scn.
Nope. To the observation that Jett's swollen lymph glands could have
been caused by something else, for which could possibly be the detox.
It is an observation, has nothing to do with bigotry. Falling into the
same search for "when Jett did the detox." 2 + 2 = 4 (you know?)
Hubbard A =A = A
>
> | http://www.lymphnotes.com/article.php/id/36/
> | ?The use of hot tubs and saunas carries a risk for precipitating, or
> | exacerbating, lymphedema in at risk patients.?
> |
> | Overheating ? Hot baths, spas, saunas and excessive exercise may lead
> | to swelling.
> |
> | http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/lymphedema-hereditary
> |
> | With $cientology doctors, and years of unknown info, it's hard to say,
> | but a young kid in sauna(s) can exacerbate or cause things to surface
> | under bodily stress....
>
> this is a sleazy insinuation fueled by anti-scn
> prejudice.
Is this the same poster, or what?
>
> | you may have answered as getting it confused with a B Schwartz post:
> |
> | http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/20cf2ecee...
>
> no, i didn't. schwarz was the reasonable one, and
> i only responded to (and agreed with) 1 comment she
> made. the rest of my response was to you (repeated
> above).
>
> | My point would be more that they used the term, "swollen lymph
> | glands,' rather than 'lymphedema,' something that could well have been
> | caused by the sauna at a young age.
>
> yes, they used the term 'swollen lymph glands'
> meaning swollen lymph glands (like you get with
> mumps) and not 'the accumulation of lymph in
> soft tissue with accompanying swelling, often of
> the extremities'. word-clear lymphedema.
I am not a Scientologist. I do not take orders, sorry.
>
> | They tend to give drugs to members to immobilize them mentally -
> | permanently, Hubbard McPherson, Jeremy Perkins. That is convenient for
> | covering the inadequate or absent medical attention. We would be
> | distracted to be thrown that curve ball, as to the real cause and PR
> | flap. . Someone used the term 'dub-in' this past week.
>
> what?
To cover other medical (and financial) reasons. and the 'tech doesn't
work.'
As in causing fatalities because of PTS bad bad, body thetans.
>
> |"Swollen Lymph
> | glands,' covers lymphedema quite nicely.
>
> no, it doesn't. please word-clear 'lymphedema'.
> this is the kind of shit that unqualified people
> disgorge when 'diagnosing' someone.
>
> |As well as the use of evil
> | psych drugs that rendered him so sick, that he became a fatality.
>
> what??
I don't think you understand, that's OK.
Alex Clark
news:slrngmpvj1...@01-018.155.popsite.net...
> no, i didn't. schwarz was the reasonable one, and
> i only responded to (and agreed with) 1 comment she
> made.
If you're seriously calling Barbara Schwarz "reasonable" in any context, I'm
pretty sure you've just lost any respect and credibility you may have had on
this group.
l.l.lipshitz
wrote in <HvRal.30053$3_4....@newsfe10.iad>:
since you made the claim that '...they put this two
year old kid on the purif. So it is written.',
shouldn't google be YOUR friend?
besides, google hates me. i couldn't find anything
more specific than 'preston blamed household
cleaners and fertilizers, and said that a
detoxification program based on teachings from the
church of scientology helped improve his health'.
barbz
on the purif after he started seizing, and it improved him. Can't find
it now. Since he started having seizures at age 2, if they are to be
believed, it sounds like a very young child was subjected to the
parents' playing doctor, Scientology style.
realpch
Barbara has often made reasonable comments and observations, though they
can be delivered right next door to some unreasonable ones.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Alex Clark
news:496D7809...@aol.com...
> Barbara has often made reasonable comments and observations, though they
> can be delivered right next door to some unreasonable ones.
Fruitbat? Where and when has she ever said anything reasonable?
So far we've had German Secret Service descended from the Nazis who are
trying to have her killed, brainwashed, captured, experimented on, and of
course destroy scientology (and run ARS).
We've had ear implants that these "psychs" inserted into you, me, and every
other critic on ARS.
We've had secret submarine bases underwater in various lakes.
We've had Marty Rathbun being her ex husband, ex lover, ex brother in arms,
who has now been kidnapped and replaced with an imposter.
Same goes for Elron - any time anyone posts a YouTube vid of him spouting
his usual brand of crazy, that's his imposter - trained by the German SS
Psychs of course.
Reasonable people don't get banned from every public access computer in
Utah.
Reasonable people don't get banned from ever filing any more injuctions
because the thousand or so they've already filed have wasted enormous
amounts of court time and taxpayers money.
The real miracle here is that someone as undeniably clinically insane as she
is can even use a computer.
l.l.lipshitz
wrote in <496d...@news2.lightlink.com>:
as if this group had any respect or credibility. :)
schwarz said: 'none of you guys met jett. you just
saw a few pictures of him. you are also no expert
on any fields.'
regardless of the usual flaming lunacy she posts,
this one comment is quite reasonable. or don't you
think so?
--
-elle
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Alex Clark
> schwarz said: 'none of you guys met jett. you just
> saw a few pictures of him. you are also no expert
> on any fields.'
>
> regardless of the usual flaming lunacy she posts,
> this one comment is quite reasonable. or don't you
> think so?
Lets see:
> schwarz said: 'none of you guys met jett.
A fair assumption.
> you just saw a few pictures of him
Incorrect. Many, including myself, have seen video footage of him, heard
his parents talk about him in interviews and heard experts' opinions on
Kawasaki disease. There's much more than "just a few pictures" out there
regarding Jett.
> you are also no expert on any fields.
And here we reach Barbie Fruitbat Schwarz's usual brand of crazy, dressed up
to make her sound normal.
What makes her so sure nobody on here is an expert in *any* field? Other
than the fact she firmly believes we all work for the German Psych SS? What
particular field is she an expert in that makes her qualified to condemn us
all as being Nazis? I have expertise in my particular field. I have
siblings and relatives who are have medical expertise beyond GP training,
including cardiology and behavioural medicine.
There are some on here who's postings you can take with a pinch of salt.
Barbara Schwarz? Take hers with all of Bonneville.
She is the internet equivalent of the crazy bag lady on the street who
refers to the dead rats surrounding her as her babies and yells "LOOK WHAT
THE GOVERNMENT DID TO ME!" at passersby. Some days she can be laughed at.
Otherwise she can be safely ignored.
barbz
And sometimes, she'll throw a cat or two...
Ball of Fluff
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:05:35 -0800, Ball ofFluff
> <getoffmy...@fluffentology.com> wrote in
> <YuqdndKO79u54_TUnZ2dnUVZ_rPin...@posted.internetamerica>:
>
> [...]
>
> | I don't think so. Medical science has no cure for autism. So parents are
> | within their rights not to go to a doctor for it. People are acting as if
> | the Travoltas had a child with an infection and then they denied him
> | antibiotics and bandages.
>
> going to guess you'd think that parents have less
> choice about visiting a doctor for that. we are
> assuming that autism has no other health effects
> that might need a doctor's attention. i don't know,
> does it?
Ah, but Diabetes does have effective standardized treatment that has
been proven to reliably and stably manage diabetes in almost everyone.
The results of insulin and other meds is/are very much a known
quantity.
I really don't think they can say that about autism.
Now, I used to do a LOT of reading up on autism (when I was in my
teens and twenties I very much wanted to work one day with disturbed
children but since I was ridiculed at every turn by CofS members I
eventually ended up abandoning that goal.) and I had the impression
that the main effects and symptoms of autism are behavioral. There
could be some newer information on autism that I haven't read.
Claire
www.claireswazey.com
Barbara Schwarz
> "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:slrngmpvj1...@01-018.155.popsite.net...
>
> > i only responded to (and agreed with) 1 comment she
> > made.
>
> pretty sure you've just lost any respect and credibility you may have had on
> this group.
Apparently, you can't live without smearing my name, you
insignificant, insecure, hostile, little louse.
Your problem is that you think that I am like you and that is why I
don't deserve any respect.
I am not like you and I am very proud of being nothing like you, Mr.
Robert Clark.
Barbara Schwarz
Barbara Schwarz
> Alex Clark wrote:
>
> > "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:slrngmpvj1...@01-018.155.popsite.net...
> > > i only responded to (and agreed with) 1 comment she
> > > made.
>
> > pretty sure you've just lost any respect and credibility you may have had on
> > this group.
>
> can be delivered right next door to some unreasonable ones.
>
> Peach
> --
> Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
> Save some dough, save some grief:http://www.xenu.nethttp://www.scientology-lies.com
Peach, but you forgot to mention that I didn't made the unreasonable
onces! :)
Barbara Schwarz
Barbara Schwarz
> "realpch" <real...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:496D7809...@aol.com...
>
> >Barbarahas often made reasonable comments and observations, though they
> > can be delivered right next door to some unreasonable ones.
>
> Fruitbat?
These are the comments that Mr. Clark made. It is him who has the lose
screws as you can see.
“Firebomb it, demolish it with a rented crane and ball, firebomb it
again and then salt the ground so that nothing will ever grow there
again. And then if you’re up for it, firebomb it again.”
On April 12, 1995, Clark posted a similar message to an anti-religious
newsgroup suggesting they also blow up Churches of Scientology.
In a newsgroup posting of February 20, 1995, Clark admits to a history
of destructive behavior.
“…I realized that I was surrounded by enemies in kindergarten, that I
could read and they couldn’t, etc. I was surrounded by Visigoths,
Barbarians, the worst of all things, idiots, ordinary people. How did
I respond? Severely enough that they sent me to shrinks for years
afterward.”
Clark’s claim of early psychiatric treatment appears to have done him
little good. In later years his destructive behavior resulted in
criminal charges and arrests.
In 1990, Clark and his roommate were arrested for hacking into
Carnegie-Mellon University computers. The Computer Emergency Response
Team at Carnegie-Mellon, in cooperation with law enforcement,
investigated this illegal computer usage when it was discovered that
unknown individuals were illegally accessing university computer
accounts and using those accounts to unlawfully access other computer
systems. Clark was caught in the act of destroying a file on a system
he had illegally accessed.
It was also discovered that Clark had illegally accessed computer
systems at Los Alamos National Laboratory. He was charged with
multiple counts of unlawful computer usage and theft of service. He
was made to pay $750 in reparations to the university and was placed
in an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition Program for two years.
Clark’s life appears to have continued on a downhill slide. In the
mid-1990’s, he became increasingly involved with anti-religious
extremists, posting to their internet newsgroup, and participating in
hate marches designed to intimidate and harass Church parishioners and
staff. Postings indicate that circa 1995 he became unemployed and
homeless, moving from place to place, relying on the charity of like-
minded people he had met over the Internet.
On September 20, 1996, Clark was again arrested in Pennsylvania, this
time for speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol. Although
Clark denied he had been drinking, a blood test revealed he had lied;
his blood alcohol level was well above the legal limit.
On a newsgroup frequented by individuals who discuss their emotional
problems, Clark revealed insights into his behaviour that could lead
him to be characterized as mentally disturbed.
On February 20th, 1995, one day after Clark issued his first firebomb
terrorist threat against the church, he wrote:
“The moment anyone even approaches criticism of me, I immediately leap
for the jugular. I have those reflexes. I accept criticism as
immediately valid and true and go on to slamming whoever slammed me. …
Not by defending myself, but by attacking, a habit which the net
encourages. Some people immediately start defending themselves. This
is a bad move. This lets them know _where_ they hurt you. You f***ers
do not know where to hurt me. You know enough to call me a ‘faggot’
but I’d just laugh at that. You could call me a ‘whiny ex-junkie’ but
I’d laugh at that, too. And regardless of where you hit me I’d respond
in the same way–full frontal assault. So you wouldn’t be able to tell.
… you’d know that I get _real_ nasty and real smart and real vicious,
enough to make you look like an utter fool in front of everyone and on
usenet that’s the supreme punishment.”
As his acts of hatred against Scientologists increased, apparently so
did his self-loathing. In one posting of March 20, 1995, he stated:
“Yeah, sometimes I’m so disgusted with myself and everything else that
the only sensible thing seems to be to take a razor blade and slash
the shit out of myself until the sight of blood satisfies me. And
sometimes that’s not enough. Sometimes I heat up the razor blade over
a Bic and burn myself with the f***er, just to drown out the rest of
the world in blinding pain.”
In a second posting of the same date, Clark wrote:
“I’m such an absolute [vulgarity deleted] nothing, a total [vulgarity
deleted] fraud. … I destroy everything I touch with my lies, I’ve
murdered every one of my friends, I’ve killed everything I hate
myself.
“…I ought to just go into work and shoot everyone there. Even the
people I like. Hell, I’d be doing them a favor. I can even leave a
note, something so insane and confused it’d make the news everywhere.”
And on September 7th, 1995, Clark wrote:
“I just want to go away where nobody knows me and where nobody can
reach me and where I don’t have to hurt anybody else and oh, god, yes.
Life is a process of either being f***d over or f***g over other
people, and I sure did a hell of a job of f***g over the only person I
ever did care about in a real way, not long ago.
“Maybe you’ll hear some day what a f***g phony I am, and the
incredible shitheel thing I did, but not from me. Life is vile. And so
am I. I only ought to hang out with people who are indestructible
untouchable cynical bastards.
“My own capacity to hurt people sometimes terrifies me.”
Clark became, and continues to be, a strong supporter of Keith
Henson’s hate campaign against Scientology and its parishioners.
Henson, a convicted hate criminal who fled to Canada to avoid
imprisonment in California, has committed acts described in a opinion
by Canada’s Department of Justice as acts of terrorism.
Clark seen here at a hate-march
with anti-religious extremist
Keith HensonClark has participated in hate demonstrations with Henson
and maintains a website filled with propaganda targeted, not just at
the Church, but at the law enforcement officials who have acted to
arrest a fugitive who had illegally entered Canada and was perceived
as extremely dangerous. Using insulting and foul language, he heavily
attacked the District Attorney who prosecuted Henson, posting on
September 13, 2000, the following statement:
“Now now now … just because the DA is a criminally insane idiot who
ought to be in prison and brutally sodomized by a gang of Nazi
Lowriders doesn’t mean there’s any call for talk like that.”
The above posting demonstrates not only Clark’s disrespect for law
enforcement, but also his willful disregard for the law.
Recent newsgroup postings show his continuing attitude toward law
enforcement.
29 Jan 2002 - His comments about the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force:
“Remember, if you disagree with their definition of ‘terrorist,’ that
means YOU, too, are ALSO a ‘terrorist.’ ‘Terrorist’ is just a word
these jackbooted Nazi thugs use that means ‘people who disagree with
us.’”
31 Jan 2002 - His comments regarding U.S. Attorney General John
Ashcroft:
“Ashcroft is a Nazi who belongs in a prison. It should be against the
law to be so f***ing stupid.”
“Remember that Ashcroft was only available to be put in a Cabinet
position because he had lost an election to a corpse.”
On September 9, 1995, while participating in a newsgroup discussion
about “debate” tactics on the internet, Clark clearly, and perhaps
foolishly, laid out the strategy he uses to whip up hatred: feeding
slanderous lies to gullible people on the internet. Here, in his own
words, are the tactics Clark has been using for years against the
Church of Scientology, law enforcement officials, and, for that
matter, anyone he dislikes or hates:
“There are all kinds of rhetorical kicks-in-the-groin that you can get
away when people agree with you.
“Poisoning the well is another good one. Predict their future actions
and describe them in the most negative terms you can muster. Then when
they do it, say you predicted it and point out again how sleazy it
was.
“Don’t quit harping on them until they blow up and give you more
embarrassing quotes and then harp on them, too. It’s possible to be a
real pain in the ass with this one. An entire newsgroup can be ruined
by doing this to excess.
“If you can’t but are continuing the argument just out of sheer
orneriness, just continually slur them and make fun of everything you
can think of. If you find out they volunteer at an orphanage, suggest
they have an unwholesome interest in children. And then keep insulting
them until they get sick of it then proclaim victory.
“If you must compare them to someone, drag out some fairly obscure and
non-cliche murder or criminal and point out some similarity between
them.
“Claim that they post too much, at least a dozen times a day. Say that
you’d respond to their points if you had the time, but you have much
more important things to do. Then post twenty articles attacking them
on the same day.
“Make an offensive pun on their name and repeat it over and over again
until it catches on and other people start using it.
“Attack the company they work for and say that their products suck and
have lousy documentation. … Accuse them of sucking up to the idiot
president of the company. All presidents of companies are idiots.”
Whether he is “Henry” or “Henri” or “ptsc” or some other pseudonym
Clark is out there continuing to use such methods to spread hatred via
the Internet on a daily basis.
Barbara Schwarz
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:51:14 -0600, Alex Clark <a...@microsoft.com>
> wrote in <496d0...@news2.lightlink.com>:
> | "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote in message
> | news:slrngmpvj1...@01-018.155.popsite.net...
> | > i only responded to (and agreed with) 1 comment she
> | > made.
> |
> | pretty sure you've just lost any respect and credibility you may have had on
> | this group.
>
> as if this group had any respect or credibility. :)
>
> saw a few pictures of him. you are also no expert
> on any fields.'
>
> regardless of the usual flaming lunacy she posts,
> this one comment is quite reasonable. or don't you
> think so?
>
> --
> -elle
> --------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
>
> even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
On Jan 14, 3:01 pm, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:51:14 -0600, Alex Clark <a...@microsoft.com>
> wrote in <496d0...@news2.lightlink.com>:
> | "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote in message
> | news:slrngmpvj1...@01-018.155.popsite.net...
> | > no, i didn't.schwarzwas the reasonable one, and
> | > i only responded to (and agreed with) 1 comment she
> | > made.
> |
> | If you're seriously callingBarbaraSchwarz"reasonable" in any context, I'm
> | pretty sure you've just lost any respect and credibility you may have had on
> | this group.
>
> as if this group had any respect or credibility. :)
>
> schwarzsaid: 'none of you guys met jett. you just
> saw a few pictures of him. you are also no expert
> on any fields.'
>
> regardless of the usual flaming lunacy she posts,
> this one comment is quite reasonable. or don't you
> think so?
You do me no favor by posting that. I do not need defense.
You guys all have one problem: what you can't imagine, you fear.
I posted from my experience that you guys never had to experience. I
post about observations that you guys could make but had not the
courage to make. That doesn't make me into a flaming lunacy but rather
you guys in hopeless cowards and dummies.
Do not speak up for me, Elle. I do not like half friends. Either you
are completely on my side or not at all. I am a 100 % in anything that
I do. If you can't give me 100% keep your 10% and give it to Robert
Clark, he needs any support he can get. He is very insecure.
And he is vitamin deficiancy. He always posts of fruits. Poor hostile
guy.
Barbara Schwarz
>
Barbara Schwarz
> "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:slrngmsklq...@01-193.155.popsite.net...
>
> > saw a few pictures of him. you are also no expert
> > on any fields.'
>
> > regardless of the usual flaming lunacy she posts,
> > this one comment is quite reasonable. or don't you
> > think so?
>
> Lets see:
>
>
> A fair assumption.
>
> > you just saw a few pictures of him
>
> Incorrect. Many, including myself, have seen video footage of him, heard
> his parents talk about him in interviews and heard experts' opinions on
> Kawasaki disease. There's much more than "just a few pictures" out there
> regarding Jett.
>
> > you are also no expert on any fields.
>
> And
YOU are the bum, you are the instable person and the only reason why
you write all these lies and defamation about me is because I am
nothing like you.
If I would be like you, I would hate myself too.
Barbara Schwarz
Those who spread hatred via the internet, upon investigation, are
often found to have two qualities in common: criminal backgrounds and
a tendency to display signs of mental or emotional instability.
Robert W. Clark, of York, Pennsylvania, has a considerable history of
instigating hatred on the Internet. On February 19th, 1995, writing
under the pseudonym of “Henry,” (or “Henri”) Clark posted a message
urging an individual to firebomb his local Church of Scientology.
Kat
> And sometimes, she'll throw a cat or two...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkMvKeX7erI
like this? :P
Alex Clark
news:7b0f6e89-38a9-42c1...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> Your problem is that you think that I am like you and that is why I
> don't deserve any respect.
No, I think you're an escaped mental patient who needs to be put back in her
straight jacket and back on her meds.
That's not why you don't deserve any respect though - that part you bring
upon yourself with every single post here.
Alex Clark
You rattled the Fruitbat's cage, which will in turn switch this entire
thread from reasoned discussion of Jett's death to batshit-insanity derived
accusations of German SS Psych's, ear implants, me being Robert Clark and
probably being responsible for kidnapping Marty Rathbun, and of course the
underwater submarine bases.
I sometimes wonder if J.J. Abrahms got his ideas for lost from reading
Barbara Schwarz's posts. Didn't he have ties to scientology a long time
ago?
"l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrngmsklq...@01-193.155.popsite.net...
realpch
Now, now. Those are the things most people remember. However, those are
not the only statements she makes and opinions she opines.
Skipper
"opinions she opines" ?
You worked long and hard on that one, huh?
Eldon
Some autistic people have digestive problems or food allergies that
can apparently affect their mood and behavior. But you're right; it's
hit or miss, and there is no singular remedy as there is with
diabetes.
>
> Clairewww.claireswazey.com
Tigger
researchers. A few years ago, who ever heard of DNA? How many
years did it take to discover that mot peptic ulcers are caused by
bacteria and can be cured by antibiotics?
How many years did it take to find a "remedy" for diabetes, which in
some cases, can not be "cured" by diet and/or weight loss, but can
only be "controlled" by regular monitoring and pills and/or
injections.
Which seems to be the case for seizures. Which begs the question, IF
Jett was not getting anti-seizure meds,
how was he being treated for his "numerous" seizures?
Who knows.....some day it may be discovered that autism is caused by
some virus or abnormal gene. One thing for sure, medical science is
searching for causes and cures....The "Church" of Scientology is
not.....it's still relying on the 50 plus year old bogus and/or out-of-
date opinions of a science FICTION writer.
Tigger
>
> > Clairewww.claireswazey.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
l.l.lipshitz
<BarbaraSc...@excite.com> wrote in
<00589ab5-133d-4ebf...@p23g2000prp.googlegroups.com>:
[...]
| You do me no favor by posting that. I do not need defense.
| You guys all have one problem: what you can't imagine, you fear.
i'm not very imaginative.
| I posted from my experience that you guys never had to experience. I
| post about observations that you guys could make but had not the
| courage to make. That doesn't make me into a flaming lunacy but rather
| you guys in hopeless cowards and dummies.
maybe it's both: your loony and we're all dummies.
or maybe you're a dummy and we're all loony.
| Do not speak up for me, Elle. I do not like half friends.
i am not your friend. neither am i your enemy.
|Either you
| are completely on my side or not at all.
i'm not on your side, i'm on my side.
|I am a 100 % in anything that
| I do.
see, that's the problem. alot of people here see
the world in black and white only. not me. i'm
very grey.
|If you can't give me 100% keep your 10% and give it to Robert
| Clark, he needs any support he can get. He is very insecure.
ok. hi rob. i like you and read all your posts.
they are always entertaining and often very
insightful. oops, i guess that was more than 10%....
| And he is vitamin deficiancy. He always posts of fruits. Poor hostile
| guy.
maybe you should send him a fruit basket?
--
-elle
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
Ball of Fluff
"Tigger" <Tiggeri...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6497a337-84b1-45f0...@r22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Good points but I will also play devil's advocate (rare, huh?) and just
point out that even if that does happen- which it very well could happen-
that most Scn'ists would just say "function monitors structure" which means,
of course, that you can totally have a structural problem with the body but
that there would be something "theta" or, shall I say, directed/caused by
the being him or herself behind it. I actually do have that point of view
but I'm also pro psychology, pro psychiatry and pro psychiatric meds if the
person just isn't getting better otherwise. Although I believe in mind over
matter, I also believe that if something (like an SSRI or other med) gives a
person a leg up, helps him out, then it does and that person would be a
helluva lot better off than having a psychotic break because he could not
make and maintain rationality.
C
Ball of Fluff
"l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote in message
BS doesn't know the difference between Rob Clark and Alex Clark.
'Nuff said there.
C
Ted Mayett
<elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:59:43 -0800 (PST), Barbara Schwarz
><BarbaraSc...@excite.com> wrote in
><00589ab5-133d-4ebf...@p23g2000prp.googlegroups.com>:
>
>[...]
>
> | You do me no favor by posting that. I do not need defense.
> | You guys all have one problem: what you can't imagine, you fear.
>
> i'm not very imaginative.
>
Awesome. Sig material!
--
Ted Mayett
Critical information regarding Scientology:
http://www.solitarytrees.net
l.l.lipshitz
<ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote in
<ln7an4tbddfa7ov2n...@4ax.com>:
| On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:58:47 +0000 (UTC), "l.l.lipshitz"
| <elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote:
[...]
| > i'm not very imaginative.
|
| Awesome. Sig material!
|
| --
| Ted Mayett
| Critical information regarding Scientology:
| http://www.solitarytrees.net
how come it's not in your sig?
Ted Mayett
<elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:47:17 -0500, Ted Mayett
><ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote in
><ln7an4tbddfa7ov2n...@4ax.com>:
> | On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:58:47 +0000 (UTC), "l.l.lipshitz"
> | <elk...@seesig.invalid> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
> | > i'm not very imaginative.
> |
> | Awesome. Sig material!
> |
> | --
> | Ted Mayett
> | Critical information regarding Scientology:
> | http://www.solitarytrees.net
>
> how come it's not in your sig?
Because I didn't think of it, duh.