Remember the Clam Nanny! (was: Re: Why I am a public critic)
Anonymous
The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out. They are doing
everything they possibly can to keep their own membership from reading
this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them
from reading these messages, AND the web pages.
You can be pretty damn sure that the ONLY Scientologists posting here are
doing so with express permission from OSA. And why would they get this
permission? Because they're part of the "Handle ARS" project. (Hello
Whippersnapper!)
Anyone remember the innocent-sounding "Put Scientology On Internet"
campaign?
Starshadow
In article <6n5eb2$v5h$1...@basement.replay.com>, nob...@REPLAY.COM says...
isn't hatted for here, and that is Claire...suffice it to say that I've
talked with her and believe her.
Maybe another too, but I cannot prove it...
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
Inducto
>You can be pretty damn sure that the ONLY Scientologists posting here are
>doing so with express permission from OSA. And why would they get this
>permission? Because they're part of the "Handle ARS" project. (Hello
>Whippersnapper!)
I'd guess Whippersnapper does what he does of his own initiative, though I
suspect CoS _likes_ what he does -- and finds it suits their purposes here --
or they'd "suggest" he do something else.
It does, however, leave some interesting questions for the folks like
Whippersnapper: are they part of the Scientologists Online campaign, and if so
why not; and are they using the CoS big brother software, and if so why not?
And if not, what do they think of this attempt to filter members' internet use,
apparently without warning them of all the specifics and implications in
advance, either?
Inquiringly,
I.
SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG
Induct YourSELF into new realities
Avoid highwaymen on the road to personal and spiritual betterment -- beware
dead ends and unlit paths
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <6n5eb2$v5h$1...@basement.replay.com>,
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
>years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
>program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out. They are doing
>everything they possibly can to keep their own membership from reading
>this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them
>from reading these messages, AND the web pages.
The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
believe that or approve of it.
>You can be pretty damn sure that the ONLY Scientologists posting here are
>doing so with express permission from OSA. And why would they get this
>permission? Because they're part of the "Handle ARS" project. (Hello
>Whippersnapper!)
I was asked not to post. Gently, twice, over the course of several
conversations with an OSA director I know personally. I was never "told"
to do or not do anything, FWIW, nor was a.r.s necessarily the subject of
interest.
You might find it remarkable, and given your paranoia, unbelievable, but I
have also never at any time discussed with anyone any form of strategy or
tactic WRT a.r.s. Even despite the fact I have also corresponded
occasionally with OSA persons who have posted to this group.
Given who and what I know and what I have seen, and regardless of some
enormous egos hereabouts, it appears to me that a.r.s is regarded with a
shrug for the most part by the Church; with the important exception of the
abuse of the Advanced Courses materials.
>Anyone remember the innocent-sounding "Put Scientology On Internet"
>campaign?
I probably cement your fears with a denial, so I'll issue it for my own
amusement and in hopes you sleep fitfully: I am no part of any "campaign"
or organized effort of any kind to deal with this newsgroup or its motley
denizens. Nor does one exist to my knowledge, outside the known persons
and issues surrounding the well-known lawsuits.
- Whippersnapper
"Quiet down or you'll give away my position." -- Calvin
ef
In article <6n5sd4$6...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com
(WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
> The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
> materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
> believe that or approve of it.
this doesn't make sense, whip. why would they be protecting their own
membership from their own materials? and at that... why would they not
trust their own membership to make appropriate choices on their own, as to
what to read or not read?
no, i would think it's the "entheta" thing. not to have the memebership
read anything that might upset or put into question the reality the
organization is trying to instil.
ef
Hud Nordin
In article <6n5sd4$6...@examiner.concentric.net> Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) writes:
>In article <6n5eb2$v5h$1...@basement.replay.com>,
>Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>>The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
>>years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
>>program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out. They are doing
>>everything they possibly can to keep their own membership from reading
>>this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them
>>from reading these messages, AND the web pages.
>
>materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
>believe that or approve of it.
I approve of it -- if it means that when Clearwater, Florida, changes
its name to include some advanced materials, perhaps to Xenu City,
Scientology will protect Scientologists by moving to another city!
Think for yourself...until you encounter the advanced materials, then
run, run away!
--
Hud Nordin <h...@netcom.com> Silicon Valley / The City of Sunnyvale / California
Lisa Chabot
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
>years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
>program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out. They are doing
Of course, these filters only work on PCs. Folks posting from Macs or
Unix accounts would not be nannified.
For example, netcom.com is Unix (although ix.netcom.com is another
matter).
--
non-spam can be sent to lsc at this ISP
Me and my trenchant mouth. --Homer Simpson
Mark W Brehob
WHIPPERSNAPPER (Whip...@cris.com) wrote:
: In article <6n5eb2$v5h$1...@basement.replay.com>,
: Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
: >The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
: >years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
: >program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out. They are doing
: >this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them
: >from reading these messages, AND the web pages.
: The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
: materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
: believe that or approve of it.
[clip]
Then could you explain why the net-nanny blocks out names of known critics?
That sounds fairly unrelated to the Advanced Courses materials.
Perhaps I'm missing something? To me it seems like they protecting
their members from hearing un-good vies of Scientology.
Mark
fraud buster
On 28 Jun 1998 12:52:52 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>In article <6n5eb2$v5h$1...@basement.replay.com>,
>Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>>The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
>>years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
>>program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out. They are doing
>>everything they possibly can to keep their own membership from reading
>>this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them
>>from reading these messages, AND the web pages.
>
>The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
>materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
>believe that or approve of it.
Lie. I have seen the net filter at work. It filters out specific
critics names (i.e. Jon Atac, Keith Wollersheim , Ron Newman, etc. It
also blocks out sites that *don't* have secret scriputres but merely
criticize scientology (an example site would be
www.scientology-kills.net) . It clearly is a form of thought control,
levied upon members to create blind deluded adherence to an
organization that can't take criticism or having its own members
witness alternative pts of view . The "Bridge To Freedom" indeed.
Another lie spouted out by the COS. Maybe if the "Secret Upper
Scriptures" can't stand the light of day, they are worthless and
finding out about them prematurely ruins the pyramid scheme aspects of
the group (i..e the not knowing what comes next so i am going to stay
in it and find out and spend more money ! ) . That is my impression.
Feedback is welcome . :-)
Ydrrisil
>this doesn't make sense, whip. why would they be protecting their own
>membership from their own materials? and at that... why would they not
>trust their own membership to make appropriate choices on their own, as to
>what to read or not read?
actually I think Whip is correct - you are obviously not an ex-scientologist or
you would, I think, see the point he is making. You may find the OT levels
laughable bad sci-fi rubbish but scientologists by and large take them very
seriously indeed.
I realize that this flies against the "they all know its scam" routine but
that will just have to be borne. Scientologists believe that a) the OT levels
are valid and b) that if they read them before they should they will screw
themselves up royally.
As a matter of respect - not for the materials, not for Hubbard but for the
people who genuinely believe in it why try and mock them with it? Catholics
genuinely believe they are eating flesh and blood during the communion which is
not much more bizarre or worrying.
If a scientologist is "exposed" to OT3 materials then they, thereafter, can
only be audited by someone OT 3 and above - most scientologists who are below
that level would a) rather avoid being "enturbulated" and b) avoid the hassle.
The trouble is that there are no critics - at least none that I have seen -
who seem to be willing to deal with Scientologists at least with respect to
their religious beliefs.
Scientologists believe in this stuff - if you ever want to have a dialogue
with them then you need to acknowledge that simple fact.
++++++++++++
Cavaliers - wrong but wromantic
Roundheads - right but repulsive
/\ndroid <at
WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote in message <6n5sd4$6...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>In article <6n5eb2$v5h$1...@basement.replay.com>,
>Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>>The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
>>years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
>>program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out. They are doing
>>everything they possibly can to keep their own membership from reading
>>this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them
>>from reading these messages, AND the web pages.
>
>The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
>materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
>believe that or approve of it.
I never knew Lisa McPherson was part of the Advanced Courses, what part?
"Disposal of Blown PTS SPs"? "Protection of Money Laundering Rackets"?
"Cleaning up Baby Watch Boo-Boos"?
I hope you don't mind if we pull that nannyware apart and see exactly what
OSA doesn't want the rubes to see. (Well, actually I don't care if you mind
or not, deal with it!)
Can anyone point me at a source for that .. hurm .. *SLAVEWARE*, that's it!
(The opposite of freeware.) I have a blank isolated machine I could install
it on. It would be interesting to see if it tries to send a few packets to
OSA now and then, and what it tries to send. Blizzard games is in a bit of
trouble for sending a few registry settings, I'd love to shift the legal
hassle to someone who truly deserves it. We're talking heavy application of
wog law and net ethics! (Knowing the paranoid slimy mindset of CoS, I can't
believe that it doesn't do a little reporting on the side. I've been
expecting Microsoft to step over that line for years.) I doubt my hotmail
account can take an upload, but I have an account behind that one which
probably can. Email first, and we can work something out. Of course, a CoS
link to a virgin copy would be perfect.
Hmm, there's a thought--Careful critics! That slaveware, if given an
internet connection, might be giving away more than you expect. Treat it
like a dangerous computer virus with a cell phone.
/\<.
It's time to free the slaveware!
Scientology: The Gerbil-Wheel to Total Freedom--and you pay by the lap.
Podkayne
> The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
> materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
> believe that or approve of it.
OK - here's a challenge. Install the net nanny. Look at stuff you normally
look at. Post here.
Podkayne
In article <199806281954...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ydrr...@aol.com (Ydrrisil) wrote:
> As a matter of respect - not for the materials, not for Hubbard but for
the
> people who genuinely believe in it why try and mock them with it?
Catholics
> genuinely believe they are eating flesh and blood during the communion
which is
> not much more bizarre or worrying.
Though I do mock their higher-level beliefs, I don't mock *Scns* with it -
it's their lower-level behaviour, and the lower-level belief "100% pure tech
is 100% effective, if it doesn't work it's *your* problem" which concerns
me.
Rebecca Hartong
Ydrrisil wrote in message
> The trouble is that there are no critics - at least none that I have
seen -
>who seem to be willing to deal with Scientologists at least with respect to
>their religious beliefs.
What you've written is true, Ydrrisil, but for me (at least) it's been a
difficult thing to avoid. While I do consider the religious teachings of
Scientology to be a hodge-podge of second-rate gleanings which range from
the ridiculous to the mundane, that is NOT my reason for publicly
criticizing the church of Scientology. I mean, there are all sorts of
organizations out there that promote silly belief systems and I rarely spend
as much time criticizing them as I have spent on Scientology.
Sometimes one type of scorn gets mixed up with the other and I find myself
making posts to the effect of, "The church's behavior during thus-and-such
event was shameful and disgusting, and--oh yeah--Scientology is really
stupid, too." It seems such a waste to hold back when you've got a really
good scorn going, you know? ;-) But, as I've written in the past, it does
tend to confuse the issues when personal scorn for what considers a
ridiculous belief system gets mixed in with public scorn directed at nasty
behavior.
> Scientologists believe in this stuff - if you ever want to have a
dialogue
>with them then you need to acknowledge that simple fact.
I'm tempted to agree with this, but I see a problem... Just how far does a
person have to go in showing respectful acknowledgement of another person's
beliefs? How much tolerance is too much tolerance? I'm not saying we
should outlaw Scientology. Hell, no! I firmly believe that everyone
deserves the right to believe whatever they want as long as no one gets
hurt. There's just something that rankles, though, about having to play
nicey-nicey with people who believe in crazy stuff just to get them to
behave like responsible citizens.
---------------------------------
Rebecca Hartong
http://www.erols.com/hartong
Zinj
In article <3596a...@news.myna.com>, at"<andro...@hotmail.com says...
>
>WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote in message <6n5sd4$6...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>>In article <6n5eb2$v5h$1...@basement.replay.com>,
>>Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>>>The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
>>>years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
>>>program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out. They are doing
>>>everything they possibly can to keep their own membership from reading
>>>this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them
>>>from reading these messages, AND the web pages.
>>
>>materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
>>believe that or approve of it.
>
>"Disposal of Blown PTS SPs"? "Protection of Money Laundering Rackets"?
>"Cleaning up Baby Watch Boo-Boos"?
>
>I hope you don't mind if we pull that nannyware apart and see exactly what
>OSA doesn't want the rubes to see. (Well, actually I don't care if you mind
>or not, deal with it!)
>
>Can anyone point me at a source for that .. hurm .. *SLAVEWARE*, that's it!
>(The opposite of freeware.) I have a blank isolated machine I could install
>it on. It would be interesting to see if it tries to send a few packets to
>OSA now and then, and what it tries to send. Blizzard games is in a bit of
>trouble for sending a few registry settings, I'd love to shift the legal
>hassle to someone who truly deserves it. We're talking heavy application of
>wog law and net ethics! (Knowing the paranoid slimy mindset of CoS, I can't
>believe that it doesn't do a little reporting on the side. I've been
>expecting Microsoft to step over that line for years.) I doubt my hotmail
>account can take an upload, but I have an account behind that one which
>probably can. Email first, and we can work something out. Of course, a CoS
>link to a virgin copy would be perfect.
>
>Hmm, there's a thought--Careful critics! That slaveware, if given an
>internet connection, might be giving away more than you expect. Treat it
>like a dangerous computer virus with a cell phone.
>
>/\<.
>It's time to free the slaveware!
>
>Scientology: The Gerbil-Wheel to Total Freedom--and you pay by the lap.
>
>
>
It would be interesting eh?
Some kind of inventory of all files is a necessity. At the very least maybe a
virus checker that does checksums of files, so that after it's installed you
will have a list of exactly which files were changed or added.
Now THAT would be very interesting.
Zinj
--
I don't believe in the tech; think it's rubbish; think Hubbard was a
megalomaniac who in the end was eaten by the demons he released.
Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
Martin Hunt
In article <6n5eb2$v5h$1...@basement.replay.com>,
nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
>years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
>program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out.
Yeah, but when they upgrade to Windoze 98, the cult net-nanny will
be nuked. :-)
Anyone have the complete list of filter terms?
--
Cogito, ergo sum. http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
"The message is that in combatting entheta articles and
books, legal should be aggressive, fast, persistent and
untiring." - Jane Kember, Guardian World Wide.
Martin Hunt
>The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
>materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
>believe that or approve of it.
Bullshit! The words "Dennis Erlich" and "Anima" have *nothing*
to do with "advanced couses materials", idiot.
"Survival in personal terms was d until the whole activity of
Man could be theoretically explained in terms of self alone.
The looked fairly valid. But then it was applied to the world.
Something was wrong: it did olve problems." - LRH in _Dianetics_
as filtered through the cult's net.nanny software.
Warrior
In article <6n75v3$a...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com
(D Keith Little) wrote:
>
>In fact, I am fully certain some "critics," desirous of mischief, will
>gain knowledge of it specifically in order to engineer anti-Scn pages --
>perhaps even paraphrased descriptions of the OT materials -- that will
>get past the filter.
>
>- Whippersnapper
Good idea, D Keith Little! Thanks for your help by suggesting that!!
rmayf
WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote in message <6n5sd4$6...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>In article <6n5eb2$v5h$1...@basement.replay.com>,
>>The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
>>years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
>>everything they possibly can to keep their own membership from reading
>>this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them
>>from reading these messages, AND the web pages.
>
>materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
>believe that or approve of it.
Ok, but why critic's names? Why don't they trust the members?
>
>
>>You can be pretty damn sure that the ONLY Scientologists posting here are
>>doing so with express permission from OSA. And why would they get this
>>permission? Because they're part of the "Handle ARS" project. (Hello
>>Whippersnapper!)
>
>I was asked not to post. Gently, twice, over the course of several
>conversations with an OSA director I know personally. I was never "told"
>to do or not do anything, FWIW, nor was a.r.s necessarily the subject of
>interest.
>
Why then were you asked not to post, if not to ARS?
>You might find it remarkable, and given your paranoia, unbelievable, but I
>have also never at any time discussed with anyone any form of strategy or
>tactic WRT a.r.s. Even despite the fact I have also corresponded
>occasionally with OSA persons who have posted to this group.
>
>Given who and what I know and what I have seen, and regardless of some
>enormous egos hereabouts, it appears to me that a.r.s is regarded with a
>shrug for the most part by the Church; with the important exception of the
>abuse of the Advanced Courses materials.
>
Then why are OSA persons posting here? Why the cancle attacks?
>
>>Anyone remember the innocent-sounding "Put Scientology On Internet"
>>campaign?
>
>I probably cement your fears with a denial, so I'll issue it for my own
>amusement and in hopes you sleep fitfully: I am no part of any "campaign"
>or organized effort of any kind to deal with this newsgroup or its motley
>denizens. Nor does one exist to my knowledge, outside the known persons
>and issues surrounding the well-known lawsuits.
>
>
I'm a bit confused, you did mention OSA persons posting to the group. Are
they doing it on their own time then? Are you not using the approved net
package? I assume that you've avoided the advanced materials that are
available on the web. Why aren't others trusted to do the same?
>- Whippersnapper
>
>"Quiet down or you'll give away my position." -- Calvin
___________________________________________
They cannot scare me with their empty spaces
Between stars—on stars where no human race is.
I have it in me so much nearer home
To scare myself with my own desert places.--Robert Frost
Thanks,
rmayf
Stephen Jones
>In article <6n5eb2$v5h$1...@basement.replay.com>,
>Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>>The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over
20
>>years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
>>program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out. They are doing
>>everything they possibly can to keep their own membership from reading
>>this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them
>>from reading these messages, AND the web pages.
>
>The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
>materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
>believe that or approve of it.
Whip, you're not a stupid man. I'd like to see you address what many other
critics in this thread have pointed out; the filter, based on what others
have posted, is far more aggressive than protecting unsuspecting
Scientologists from OT levels and whatnot. Where is the Freedom in that?
Where is the Thinking For Yourself in that? Do you need this sort of
protection, Whip? Who would you impose this type of protection on?
Even if the filter is in place merely to block access to Advanced Levels;
is the Church of Scientology saying that there are some members who cannot
think for themselves? Does the Church of Scientology trust their
membership? If so, why implement this software solution?
Would you run this software? Are members told they are running a filter? If
not, is that acceptable? Can you make lemonade with these lemons?
loads of questions,
Stephen Jones
Stephen Jones
>>this doesn't make sense, whip. why would they be protecting their own
>>membership from their own materials? and at that... why would they not
>>trust their own membership to make appropriate choices on their own, as
to
>>what to read or not read?
>
>actually I think Whip is correct - you are obviously not an ex
>scientologist or you would, I think, see the point he is making. You may
>find the OT levels laughable bad sci-fi rubbish but scientologists by and
>large take them very seriously indeed.
>I realize that this flies against the "they all know its scam" routine but
>that will just have to be borne. Scientologists believe that a) the OT
>levels are valid and b) that if they read them before they should they
>will screw themselves up royally.
If Scientologists fear ruining their case by reading materials they are not
ready for, why would they seek them out? What is the point of a filter
that filters information no Scientologist is looking for
> As a matter of respect - not for the materials, not for Hubbard but for
>the people who genuinely believe in it why try and mock them with it?
>Catholics genuinely believe they are eating flesh and blood during the
>communion which is not much more bizarre or worrying.
>If a scientologist is "exposed" to OT3 materials then they, thereafter,
>can only be audited by someone OT 3 and above - most scientologists who
>are below that level would a) rather avoid being "enturbulated" and b)
>avoid the hassle.
Ok. If Scientologists would prefer not to endure such hardships, I imagine
they wouldn't rush to a web site and click on the clearly marked link
entitled "Secret Scientology Secrets: THE OT LEVELS". Why do they need to
be protected from something they wouldn'tdo? Are the OT levels on the web
secretly disquised as recipes for chicken?
Stephen Jones
> The trouble is that there are no critics - at least none that I have seen
-
>who seem to be willing to deal with Scientologists at least with respect
to
>their religious beliefs.
> Scientologists believe in this stuff - if you ever want to have a
dialogue
>with them then you need to acknowledge that simple fact.
J.M. Ivler
WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
> I was asked not to post. Gently, twice, over the course of several
> conversations with an OSA director I know personally. I was never "told"
> to do or not do anything, FWIW, nor was a.r.s necessarily the subject of
> interest.
The why are ther Scientologists PAID to post here?
> You might find it remarkable, and given your paranoia, unbelievable, but I
> have also never at any time discussed with anyone any form of strategy or
> tactic WRT a.r.s. Even despite the fact I have also corresponded
> occasionally with OSA persons who have posted to this group.
And there you have it folks. An open admission that OSA folk post here.
Now, let's see. Almost all the critics post under their own names, Ward,
Lerma, Dennis, Scarff, Deana, Ray, etc. The OSA/ They use fake names and
e-mail addresses from "free providers" like hotmail.
They also are big on the accusation thing. They accuse the critics of
being paid to post here. But we all know what Hubbard said... accuse
people of what you are doing. They do that very well. They are paid to
post, the critics aren't.
Deana Holmes
On 28 Jun 1998 12:52:52 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
>materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
>believe that or approve of it.
>
>abuse of the Advanced Courses materials.
Information suggests that I, a person who has never been in
Scientology, am one of the people whose name is in the Scn net.nanny
filter. I would like to know why I am included in this list.
Perhaps you could make enquiries upward and get back to me on that,
Whip.
(Here's one reason why, I'm sure:
http://www.xmission.com/~mirele/lisamcp.html )
Deana
mir...@xmission.com
====================
Our unanimous affirmance of the Court of Appeals' judgment concerning
16-1-20.2 makes it unnecessary to comment at length on the District
Court's remarkable conclusion that the Federal Constitution imposes no
obstacle to Alabama's establishment of a state religion.
========================
Wallace V. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <6n6q99$ju5$1...@news.net-quest.com>,
J.M. Ivler <iv...@net-quest.com> wrote:
>WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
>> I was asked not to post. Gently, twice, over the course of several
>> conversations with an OSA director I know personally. I was never "told"
>> to do or not do anything, FWIW, nor was a.r.s necessarily the subject of
>> interest.
>
>The why are ther Scientologists PAID to post here?
There ARE?
>> You might find it remarkable, and given your paranoia, unbelievable, but I
>> have also never at any time discussed with anyone any form of strategy or
>> tactic WRT a.r.s. Even despite the fact I have also corresponded
>> occasionally with OSA persons who have posted to this group.
>
>And there you have it folks. An open admission that OSA folk post here.
Hardly. As the most obvious examples, Cory Brennan and Andrew Milne were
two a.r.s posters who had connections to OSA. In Cory's case, I am fairly
sure it was entirely on her own initiative, and only incidental to her
work in CCHR. Andrew, I presume, probably did it as a part of his job,
though I have no direct knowledge of that.
I get the impression people who haven't a clue see OSA as some sort of
secret agency. But from the standpoint of your average Scientologist,
they are pretty much open and accessible.
>Now, let's see. Almost all the critics post under their own names, Ward,
>Lerma, Dennis, Scarff, Deana, Ray, etc. The OSA/ They use fake names and
>e-mail addresses from "free providers" like hotmail.
My impression is, there's lots of that on all sides. Anonymity can be
either an act of prudence, or a tool of irresponsibility.
Myself, I prefer to keep personal details generally out of view, in part
because there are clueless gits out there who may decide to engage in
real-world harassment. But I am known (however slightly) personally to
some who have posted to this newsgroup.
While I am by reason of personal circumstance pretty much immune to
harassment, this may not be the case for others. Imagine the damage that
could sometimes be done if someone were to embark upon a campaign of
anti-Scn PR at some Scientologist's place of work. This is the sort of
thing that happens daily now in Germany, and a startling number of a.r.s
denizens are unconcerned. Some applaud it.
Some of the "critics," notably Tilman, will subject individuals to
unwanted scrutiny or exposure on the newsgroup and/or on his website for
absolutely no reason but the fact of being Scientologists.
On at least one occasion, an anonymous critic was rudely "outed" by a
pro-Scn poster known as "Vera," herself anonymous. While I place *very*
little credence in most of the hysterical claims of harassment, "blood
attacks" and pet killings by some of the anti-Scn folks; still they have
as much right to privacy as anyone else.
While some people seem emboldened by the shield of anonymity to act
truly outrageously, it is still not often a good argument against anyone's
position in a debate.
>They also are big on the accusation thing. They accuse the critics of
>being paid to post here.
I've seen very little of that without some basis. More often, the profit
motive of people like Wollersheim and his associates has been pointed out,
the whining money-solicitations of folks like Erlich and Lerma (who
created their own legal headaches) and the pretty-much indisputable fact
that some "critics" are receiving financial support from Minton.
>But we all know what Hubbard said... accuse
>people of what you are doing.
Hey, *there's* a new one.
I recall though he did say, "The overt doth speak loudly in accusation."
>They do that very well. They are paid to
>post, the critics aren't.
Can Henson state unequivocally (and truthfully) that he hasn't received
financial support from Minton? Can Grady?
Lerma rarely posts here without soliciting funds. He has admitted he uses
the money for whatever he pleases.
While it can be argued that the Church itself has a financial interest in
good PR, it's ridiculous to assert that individual members or even staff
at any level have any such motive for participation here. Staff pay is
rarely more than a stipend, particularly for Sea Org members. Individuals
would obviously be far better off doing whatever earns their living.
Now, while I realize I am responding to a clueless person here, the
accusations are perennial, so I've taken the trouble to offer my
perspective.
- Whippersnapper
"How come I'M not allowed to do that?!" -- Calvin
CLKates
Whippersnapper,
You say you are protecting Scientologists from OT data they aren't ready for.
You know, it's kind of like the fact that you don't turn on your computer and
see naked women. You also don't connect to the net and automatically see Xenu,
either.
But I don't believe that "Dennis Erlich" is an OT Level, nor "Lisa McPherson."
Hemet is also not an OT level, and Mark Ingber, yes, of Int Mgmt and the
Watchdog Committee, who got his own name filtered out, may have done OT levels,
but is not an OT level.
"Clambake" is also not an OT level. Neither are your lawyers. Keith, Ron,
Deana, Grady, Lawrence Wollersheim, Arnie, and the other critics are also not
advanced material.
Maybe Hubbard wrote some of it at Gilman Hot Springs, but that doesn't make the
place itself an advanced material..Freezone isn't an advanced material, it's an
alternative source.
And, ohh...my favorite, "picket". Glad to hear that picketing is now not only
an SP level, but an OT level as well.
Charlotte Kates
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <6n6mna$k...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <199806281954...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> ydrr...@aol.com (Ydrrisil) wrote:
>
>>>this doesn't make sense, whip. why would they be protecting their own
>>>membership from their own materials? and at that... why would they not
>>>trust their own membership to make appropriate choices on their own, as
>to
>>>what to read or not read?
>>
>>actually I think Whip is correct - you are obviously not an ex
>>scientologist or you would, I think, see the point he is making. You may
>>find the OT levels laughable bad sci-fi rubbish but scientologists by and
>>large take them very seriously indeed.
>
>>I realize that this flies against the "they all know its scam" routine but
>>that will just have to be borne. Scientologists believe that a) the OT
>>levels are valid and b) that if they read them before they should they
>>will screw themselves up royally.
>
>If Scientologists fear ruining their case by reading materials they are not
>ready for, why would they seek them out? What is the point of a filter
>that filters information no Scientologist is looking for
It actually makes very good sense on several levels.
How does one avoid reading something of which one has no detailed
knowledge? You'd practically have to read it first.
If you're a Web-surfing Scientologist and looking for good news about Scn,
Scn businesspersons, other Scientologists, etc., it can be a hassle to
weed thru the copious (and extremely repetitive) Web links "critics" have
entered in all the search engines.
Why not have a tool that does it for you to some degree?
And what about Scientologists with kids? Haven't those parents a right to
some control?
>> As a matter of respect - not for the materials, not for Hubbard but for
>>the people who genuinely believe in it why try and mock them with it?
>>Catholics genuinely believe they are eating flesh and blood during the
>>communion which is not much more bizarre or worrying.
>
>>If a scientologist is "exposed" to OT3 materials then they, thereafter,
>>can only be audited by someone OT 3 and above - most scientologists who
>>are below that level would a) rather avoid being "enturbulated" and b)
>>avoid the hassle.
This is perceptive, Ydrrisil, and quite true.
...
Someone challenged me to do my own web-surfing with the filter. I'll
decline, both because I don't wish to bother and because others will
undoubtedly dissect the filter in detail.
In fact, I am fully certain some "critics," desirous of mischief, will
gain knowledge of it specifically in order to engineer anti-Scn pages --
perhaps even paraphrased descriptions of the OT materials -- that will
get past the filter.
Inducto
From: Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER):
>Hardly. As the most obvious examples, Cory Brennan and Andrew Milne were
>two a.r.s posters who had connections to OSA. In Cory's case, I am fairly
>sure it was entirely on her own initiative, and only incidental to her
>work in CCHR. Andrew, I presume, probably did it as a part of his job,
>though I have no direct knowledge of that.
Cory has signed herself "Cory Brennan, Director of Special Affairs, LA Org" on
posts from TNX (reposted to a.r.s. anonymously) that were from around the end
of the time she was posting here, but sources had claimed she held precisely
this position in the middle of the time that she was posting most actively --
and dodging tough questions. Doesn't sound as innocuous as just CCHR.
There's also the tendency of CoS posters to post most around the time stats are
due on Thursday; if they're not posting as part of their duties, they're
obviously including it in their personal stats, and if staff were posting on
their own I would expect it to be at sometime other than the peak period for
completing stats that count for job performance. And analyses of Cory's
posting pattern showed that she tended to post most in the period right before
2:00 Thursday.
>On at least one occasion, an anonymous critic was rudely "outed" by a
>pro-Scn poster known as "Vera," herself anonymous.
And then "Vera" was accidently outed do to a slip up by CoS in Ward's court
case, as having been . Oddly most of the pro-CoS accounts that post to a.r.s.
from AOL also have no personal profile, and are not the same people who post to
AOL's internal boards. And how would Vera have known to "out" an anonymous
critic unless she was party to CoS' investigations? Similarly, some of the
other pseudonymous posters here have been shown from time to time to be in
posession of "inside" information, only hours old. Mike Smith's occasional
posts finding some small point to ridicule, indicate to me that he reviews
a.r.s. extensively if not in full, and I can't imagine why he'd take the time
to do so unless its part of his job. And don't forget all the snippets of text
from CoS' websites posted in various "spam attacks", which copyrighted material
it's hard to believe CoS would have tolerated the posting of had these not been
officially sanctioned operations. The preponderance of evidence and
circumstance clearly indicates ongoing OSA operations through multiple
individuals and accounts.
I'll have to admit that those who see OSA pulling the strings of every CoS
member who posts here, and quite a few newbies, seem to me to be stretching the
issue to a ridiculous extent. Though don't forget that "RonsAmigo" started out
by pretending to be a critic.
Tilman Hausherr
In <6n74nl$6...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com
(WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>Some of the "critics," notably Tilman, will subject individuals to
>unwanted scrutiny or exposure on the newsgroup and/or on his website for
>absolutely no reason but the fact of being Scientologists.
You are a liar. You must say "but the fact of mentioning the scientology
membership on their website or in scientology magazines".
I could also say that people are having articles in Freedom Magazine and
unwanted scrutiny or exposure for absolutely no reason but the fact of
being psychiatrists.
Scientology is a hate group. It is only fair to present members of that
hate group, so that critics can see where the funds come, and can see
what this hate group members do.
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Zinj
In article <35b2280b...@news.snafu.de>, til...@berlin.snafu.de says...
Having been 'outed' by Rod the bot I would like to say something here.
to start with.. I didn't post in my own name for a couple of years since I
worked for the government. As of the time that 'Rod' outed me I no longer did..
so it didn't bother me.
My name is:
Joe Lynn
9939 1/2 Farralone Ave.
Chatsworth Ca. 91311
Tel: (818) 993-0403
I'm still Zinjifar because I'm an old BBSer.. and happen to like nicks
especially mine :)
as a statement:
I represent noone
nor does anyone pay me god knows that's true
I am a sychophantic hero worshipper
and I think Keith Henson is certainly one of my heroes
I began picketting because they wouldn't let him.
(by the way.. Grady Ward is also one of my heroes and I look forward to his
poodle book)
I don't want the destruction of scientology.. although I understand the people
with deeply ingrained trauma that do.
I want a scientology that can't pay for golf courses at hemet.. can't pay for
Gene Ingram the swine can't pay for anything but what they claim that they are:
which is an applied religious technology
go for it you squirming remnants of a poodle's lifted leg
In my opinion Scientology is a cult
a mind-control cult at that.
I began working with self-hypnosis 30 years ago
I stopped because I found out that it was possible to bypass all of the filters
I had spent my life making for my mind.
I put those filters there for good reason :)
Auditine is self-hypnosis
it is mind control
Most scientologists are very honest and dedicated people
they are not evil
The entire goal of scientology is evil
think about it dear little scientologists.. the goal of scientology is EVIL
think about it
Zinj
In article <6n79eb$d...@drn.newsguy.com>, war...@entheta.net says...
>>gain knowledge of it specifically in order to engineer anti-Scn pages --
>>perhaps even paraphrased descriptions of the OT materials -- that will
>>get past the filter.
>>
>>- Whippersnapper
>
>
>Warrior
>See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
the Arscc paramilitary pulls out it's parasols and goes walking in the noonday
sun with the para crime fighters who found the thugees in the underbrush and
para shot them till they stopped killing tavelers in the name of para kali
thank god
Stephen Jones
In article <6n75v3$a...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>In article <6n6mna$k...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
>Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <199806281954...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>> ydrr...@aol.com (Ydrrisil) wrote:
>>>I realize that this flies against the "they all know its scam" routine
>>>but that will just have to be borne. Scientologists believe that a) the
>>>OT levels are valid and b) that if they read them before they should
>>>they will screw themselves up royally.
>>If Scientologists fear ruining their case by reading materials they are
>>not ready for, why would they seek them out? What is the point of a
>>filter that filters information no Scientologist is looking for
>It actually makes very good sense on several levels.
I disagree.
>How does one avoid reading something of which one has no detailed
>knowledge? You'd practically have to read it first.
If it is labeled, SCIENTOLOGY SECRETS - THE OT LEVELS, I think the
concerned Scientologist would be wise enough to avoid reading
it....wouldn't you? Aside from a clear label, another factors would warn
the Scientologist: Context. Who is displaying a page with Advanced Levels.
The CoS wouldn't display such a page. Who would? A critic. Context,
Whip. The fact that the CoS does not publish Advanced material on the web
for all to see should be a warning to Scientologists should they
"accidently" encounter such materials.
>If you're a Web-surfing Scientologist and looking for good news about Scn,
>Scn businesspersons, other Scientologists, etc., it can be a hassle to
>weed thru the copious (and extremely repetitive) Web links "critics" have
>entered in all the search engines.
>
>Why not have a tool that does it for you to some degree?
Sure, why not. Obviously the CoS has a few coders, why not create a
program that does exactly what you describe. Scientologists could download
it from the CoS web site and install it on their machines. The CoS could
even charge for it (GoodNews 98!). I don't care what kind of filter you
want to run. I think the individual would want to have some control over
the filter, though.
>And what about Scientologists with kids? Haven't those parents a right to
>some control?
Without a doubt. Parents can install any filter they want. How BabyWatch
98 gives a parent control over what their children see is beyond me. The
parent has *no* control. The CoS has control. Can a parent examine and
alter the list of filtered terms? I don't think so. By installing
BabyWatch 98, the parent gives control of their own and their children's
web surfing to the CoS.
<snip>
>Someone challenged me to do my own web-surfing with the filter. I'll
>decline, both because I don't wish to bother and because others will
>undoubtedly dissect the filter in detail.
The information will no doubt come from the "critics". Once again, critics
giving you information the CoS will not. I think you don't wish to bother
because you'd resent the CoS telling you what you could or could not read.
Of course, Scientologists are not as bright as you and might end up in
trouble.
>In fact, I am fully certain some "critics," desirous of mischief, will
>gain knowledge of it specifically in order to engineer anti-Scn pages --
>perhaps even paraphrased descriptions of the OT materials -- that will
>get past the filter.
Who are these Scientologists hunting and searching for OT materials? It
seems you think there are loads of "scientologists" desirous of mischief
hunting for these OT materials.
Stephen Jones
Anthony F. Roberts
In article <199806290431...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
clk...@aol.com (CLKates) wrote:
> Whippersnapper,
>
> You say you are protecting Scientologists from OT data they aren't ready for.
> You know, it's kind of like the fact that you don't turn on your computer and
> see naked women. You also don't connect to the net and automatically see Xenu,
> either.
Whipper seems more concerned with "protecting" scienos from
the OT levels than Hubby was, who apparently had grand
designs -- with _Revolt to the Stars_ -- to cause a plague
of deaths from pneumonia. No, I don't mean from the script,
either, though from the sound of it his screenwriting
career in the early 80s wasn't a smashing success...
The "don't post OT data 'cause it's restimulative" excuse is
pretty lame anyway; I mean, hearing about the Xenu incident
is supposed to kill those who aren't ready, not just cause
ARC breaks and the like.
Anthony
--
"The Wrong Thing to Do Is Something" - Xenu
"Japanese is a baby-talk." - L. Ron Hubbard
© Anti-Cult ®
On 29 Jun 1998 00:42:11 EDT.
Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER).
From: Concentric Internet Services.
Wrote on the subject: Re: Remember the Clam Nanny! (was: Re: Why I am a
public critic):
[snip, snap, snot]
>In fact, I am fully certain some "critics," desirous of mischief, will
>gain knowledge of it specifically in order to engineer anti-Scn pages --
>perhaps even paraphrased descriptions of the OT materials -- that will
>get past the filter.
>
>
>- Whippersnapper
Thanks for reminding me of that project Whip.
Now, is there anyone out there that would like to snail mail me a copy
of the Scientology Web Spam CD? I would really like to see how the
netnanny is constructed, and I would also bet that whoever made it,
could not resist putting his or her names in some vital files. Send me
the CD, and I'll rip out the vital code and post to this NG the data I
can find out about it and its origin.
My adress is as follows:
Sten-Arne Zerpe
Kristinelundsvagen 24
S-171 50
Solna
Sweden
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the
orgs say what is legal or not."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
********* I'm so entheta I mock up *your* reactive mind too *********
*********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ************
* Multimedia: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm *
******** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) ********
***** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm ****
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy
WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
> I get the impression people who haven't a clue see OSA as some sort of
> secret agency. But from the standpoint of your average Scientologist,
> they are pretty much open and accessible.
You ARE kidding, right? Seems that a $cn spokesperson claimed that the
OSA does not exist. I'll go and fetch the Dejanews archive if you like.
As far as OSA being open and accessible to the average Scientologist -
the principal's office was pretty much open and accessable, but going
there was seldom by choice and usually a losing proposition.
Tommy
--
"I don't make the mistake of mixing my beliefs with reality.."
"I don't believe anything I write."
Keith (Gunbunny) posted to a.r.s.
Rob Clark
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 17:40:35 -0400, "Rebecca Hartong" <har...@erols.com> wrote:
>> Scientologists believe in this stuff - if you ever want to have a
>>dialogue with them then you need to acknowledge that simple fact.
>I'm tempted to agree with this, but I see a problem... Just how far does a
>person have to go in showing respectful acknowledgement of another person's
>beliefs? How much tolerance is too much tolerance? I'm not saying we
>should outlaw Scientology. Hell, no! I firmly believe that everyone
>deserves the right to believe whatever they want as long as no one gets
>hurt. There's just something that rankles, though, about having to play
>nicey-nicey with people who believe in crazy stuff just to get them to
>behave like responsible citizens.
diplomacy: the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a stick.
rob
Marcus Hill
WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
>
> The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
> materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
> believe that or approve of it.
>
Really? Then why does the filter include, just to pick a single
example with no connection with advanced courses whatsoever,
"Lisa McPherson"? Is it, perhaps, because the real reason for the
filter is to prevent Scientologists from seeing *any* material that
might cause them to blow?
********* Song of Steel LRP at http://www.netlrp.uk.com/sos **********
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?" -Albert Einstein
Marcus.
Zinj
In article <3597a491....@news.mindspring.com>, xe...@mindspring.com
says...
Walk softly, carry a big stick, and keep some hot dogs handy
Rob Clark
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:29:18 GMT, xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>diplomacy: the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a stick.
got it slightly wrong, and missed the attribution:
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.
Will Rogers
rob
Lisa Chabot
Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If Scientologists fear ruining their case by reading materials they are not
>ready for, why would they seek them out? What is the point of a filter
>that filters information no Scientologist is looking for
I figure they're out to protect their members from the same sort of tactics
they've been known to employ: it used to be, many Scientology pages had
keywords in the header, which had nothing to do with Scientology or the
page contents, but which might attract search engine hits--such as "Star Trek".
Recently, however, they seem to have stopped this stupid seduction.
Or, assume some well-known critic has web page about some hobby, and
a non-ARS-reading Scientologist is doing a web search about the same
hobby...they hit this web page, which may or may not contain covert
entheta, or they look at the critic's other pages. Hubbard only knows
what dangers lay in wait.
.
. of course, no rational Scientologist would ever go here:
. http://www.rahul.net/~lsc/squirrel/
.
--
non-spam can be sent to lsc at this ISP
Me and my trenchant mouth. --Homer Simpson
Karl Kluge
Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) writes:
> In article <6n5eb2$v5h$1...@basement.replay.com>,
> Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
> >The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
> >years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
> >program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out. They are doing
> >everything they possibly can to keep their own membership from reading
> >this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them
> >from reading these messages, AND the web pages.
>
> The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
> materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
> believe that or approve of it.
Yes, but one can contrast the CoS approach to the Advanced Courses materials
and USENET with that of the LDS Church and their Temple Ceremony. To the
best of my knowledge they have never sued anyone for posting the text of
the ceremony. In fact, I've seen it said that the Temple Ceremony is so
sacred that to acknowledge the correctness of the posted text by suing would
be unacceptable.
Also, while Mormons are certainly discouraged from reading the text if they
haven't gone through the ceremony and commenting on it if they have, to the
best of my knowledge they have sufficient respect for the maturity of their
members not to require them to use net filters to prevent them from doing so.
Podkayne
> If you're a Web-surfing Scientologist and looking for good news about Scn,
> Scn businesspersons, other Scientologists, etc., it can be a hassle to
> weed thru the copious (and extremely repetitive) Web links "critics" have
> entered in all the search engines.
"repetitive"? PKB!
Is this a tacit admission that the attempt to enter the ClamSpam "in all the
search engines" has failed?
Podkayne
In article <6n6m2u$9...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen Jones
<snj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Would you [Whip] run this software?
Already asked, he said no.
Podkayne
> >- Whippersnapper
> >
> >"Quiet down or you'll give away my position." -- Calvin
Amazing how many times Whip's random sig generator comes up with an
appropriate quote.
John Mark Ockerbloom
In article <6n5sd4$6...@examiner.concentric.net>,
WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
>In article <6n5eb2$v5h$1...@basement.replay.com>,
>Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>>The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
>>years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
>>program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out. They are doing
>>everything they possibly can to keep their own membership from reading
>>this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them
>>from reading these messages, AND the web pages.
>
>The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
>materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
>believe that or approve of it.
So, tell me, then, in which of the Advanced Courses materials does the
phrase "Lisa McPherson" appear? According to earlier posts, that's one
of the phrases censored by the "nanny" software.
Want to revise your claim above about why CoS[tm] is trying to block
members' access to critical information?
John Mark Ockerbloom
Deana Holmes
On 29 Jun 1998 00:42:11 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>If you're a Web-surfing Scientologist and looking for good news about Scn,
>Scn businesspersons, other Scientologists, etc., it can be a hassle to
>weed thru the copious (and extremely repetitive) Web links "critics" have
>entered in all the search engines.
Whip: let me offer you a suggestion.
If you're a public Scn, and you're trying to search on (for example)
David Miscavige, you will get way in excess of 1000 hits. You'll ask
why as you look at the web pages which don't seem to have anything to
do with David Miscavige. Then you'll realise as you look at the
source code for the Scn pages you have pulled up (all 1000 + ) that
David Miscavige's name has been entered as a META tag for *every*
*single* *one*--99% + of which have nothing to do with Mr. Miscavige.
All I can figure is that the man wants to get his name out there...his
name, Guilliame Leserve's name, Marty Rathbun's name....
I DARE you to take a look at the source code of your Scn pages, and
then come back and tell us that it's not designed to clog search
engines.
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <podkayne1-290...@205-15-71.ipt.aol.com>,
That's because quite often I choose them deliberately, as I did that one.
- Whippersnapper
"No one understands my work." -- Calvin
Steve A
> Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
> >The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
> >years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
> >program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out. They are doing
>
> Of course, these filters only work on PCs. Folks posting from Macs or
> Unix accounts would not be nannified.
>
> For example, netcom.com is Unix (although ix.netcom.com is another
> matter).
This only applies if you are posting via a shell account: if your
Windoze machine is making http/POP/NNTP connections to a server, then
the operating system under which the server is irrelevant (except
insofar as it affects performance and reliability - sensible ISP's
DON'T run NT). The nanny script is clearly running on the local PC, so
the unexpurgated information arrives somewhere within the TCP/IP stack
before getting sanitised.
--
Practicing medicine without a licence? You decide:
"Step Four - Cures for Illness
You will now find BTs and clusters being cures for illnesses
of the body part. Handle all such BTs and clusters by blowing
them off. "Cures for Illness" will then cease to read.
[NOTS 34, Fair Use excerpt]
Steve A, SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12.
<SARCASM>I am a Scientologist</SARCASM>
Tommy
Podkayne wrote:
>
> > >- Whippersnapper
> > >
> > >"Quiet down or you'll give away my position." -- Calvin
>
> Amazing how many times Whip's random sig generator comes up with an
> appropriate quote.
Well, he can't say I didn't warn him....
Rob Clark
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 07:25:32 -0500, Tommy <Tommy_sp...@xs.net> wrote:
WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
> I get the impression people who haven't a clue see OSA as some sort of
> secret agency. But from the standpoint of your average Scientologist,
> they are pretty much open and accessible.
[people who haven't a clue. i guess you mean heber! what is this business of
denying OSA's existence in germany, while people sign themselves DSA in letters
to the editor in the united states? i suppose it is simply more scientological
stupidity, people so drilled in lying they couldn't tell the truth with a gun to
their head, who tell so many lies they can't possibly hope to keep them
straight.]
Heber Jentzsch, president of the Los Angeles-based Church of
Scientology International, said the group was "shocked that Germany
would engage so brazenly in criminal acts against our church."
With about 100 people working for its Office of Special Affairs, the
church has its opponents followed by private detectives and
establishes "black lists" of its enemies, according to a report
compiled by the Hamburg intelligence services.
The Church of Scientology qualified the report as "pseudo-theory,
malicious, completely made-up and far from the truth," adding that
the idea of an Office of Special Affairs was a "delayed April
fools."
---
German agent charged with illegal spying on Scientologists
Publication: Agence France-Presse
Date: Jun 23, 1998
[quoted from <rnewman-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>
on dejanews]
--
rob
WHIPPERSNAPPER
That's probably a misquote. It is certainly taken out of context, being
only part of a sentence. What question was asked, and what was the whole
answer?
No one has any cause to deny the existence of OSA. And of course, since
OSA offices are a part of every Scn org, they exist in Germany. I am 100%
certain you are relying on an inaccurate report, whether by misattribution
of a statement as to the question it answers, a misquote or omission of
context, I cannot say.
- Whippersnapper
"I never get to do anything fun." -- Calvin
In article <35997a90...@news.mindspring.com>,
Steve A
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 14:09:21 -0700, "Podkayne" <podk...@aol.com>
wrote:
> In article <6n5sd4$6...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com
> (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>
> > The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
> > materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
> > believe that or approve of it.
>
> OK - here's a challenge. Install the net nanny. Look at stuff you normally
> look at. Post here.
Heh. I like it.
Go on, Whimp - we'll know when you've started, cos of all the
whitespace.
Steve A
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 16:48:41 -0400, "/\\ndroid <at"
<andro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hmm, there's a thought--Careful critics! That slaveware, if given an
> internet connection, might be giving away more than you expect. Treat it
> like a dangerous computer virus with a cell phone.
I would strongly suggest that anyone intending to test out this
excellent example of "Freedumbware" do so behind a firewall,
preferably on a private subnet (so CoS discover your IP address is
192.168.129.1? BFD), and running a packet sniffer on the firewall to
see what's going back and forth.
Like you, I'd expect the CoS to find it irresistable to put
*something* in there that reported back, even if it was only so they
knew who was using the net.nanny.
Incidentally, I am fairly certain that a UK citizen who received this
CD and, as a result, found him/herself with the net.nanny installed,
would have grounds for bringing a prosecution against the CoS under
the Computer Misuse Act, which makes it an offence for an unauthorised
party to modify data on a computer without the permission of the data
owner.
It would not be a clear-cut case, since it would presumably rely on
the fact that the installation software offers no choice, and gives no
indication, that the net.nanny was being installed, while the CoS
would be more than keen to convey the view that, since the user
installed Netscape, he had voluntarily agreed to install the censor,
too.
Steve A
On 29 Jun 1998 00:21:09 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
> In article <6n6q99$ju5$1...@news.net-quest.com>,
> J.M. Ivler <iv...@net-quest.com> wrote:
> >WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
> >> I was asked not to post. Gently, twice, over the course of several
> >> conversations with an OSA director I know personally. I was never "told"
> >> to do or not do anything, FWIW, nor was a.r.s necessarily the subject of
> >> interest.
> >
> >The why are ther Scientologists PAID to post here?
>
> There ARE?
>
>
> >> You might find it remarkable, and given your paranoia, unbelievable, but I
> >> have also never at any time discussed with anyone any form of strategy or
> >> tactic WRT a.r.s. Even despite the fact I have also corresponded
> >> occasionally with OSA persons who have posted to this group.
> >
> >And there you have it folks. An open admission that OSA folk post here.
>
> Hardly. As the most obvious examples, Cory Brennan and Andrew Milne were
> two a.r.s posters who had connections to OSA. In Cory's case, I am fairly
> sure it was entirely on her own initiative, and only incidental to her
> work in CCHR. Andrew, I presume, probably did it as a part of his job,
> though I have no direct knowledge of that.
I'd agree with you regarding Andrew Milne (interesting that he stopped
posting), but I think that Cory Brennan was here on official business,
too. She may have taken the decision herself (so, perhaps, to you that
means that she was not posting on behalf of Scientology - nice
opportunity for some plausible deniability, there), but her posts were
clearly related to her position in Scn and CCHR. Almost everything she
posted was Official Party Line from CCHR, and I find it very hard to
believe that her posting activities were completely unrelated to her
job.
> I get the impression people who haven't a clue see OSA as some sort of
> secret agency. But from the standpoint of your average Scientologist,
> they are pretty much open and accessible.
Sure. But then, so's the FBI. It doesn't mean they get up to things we
don't know about.
But I can understand your view, Whippersnapper - our perceptions of
organisations like OSA will depend on our experience of them. I am
sure that, to most Scientologists, OSA represents the Guardians of the
Tech, chasing down squirrels and rooting out threats to Scientology.
From the point of view of most netizens, though, OSA comes across as
an organisation that is prepared to devote considerable effort and
resources to activities of a somewhat less honourable nature. Over the
years, we have seen posters "outed" by Scientology shills, using
information that was clearly not gained by them; we have seen
activities like the harassment of Grady Ward, the raids against Dennis
Erlich and Arnie Lerma, and many of us who have ever picketed have
been on the receiving end of threats from known OSA personnel.
So our view of OSA might just differ somewhat from yours, Whimp, and
it is purely on the basis of our own experiences. What's true for
us...
>
>
> >Now, let's see. Almost all the critics post under their own names, Ward,
> >Lerma, Dennis, Scarff, Deana, Ray, etc. The OSA/ They use fake names and
> >e-mail addresses from "free providers" like hotmail.
>
> My impression is, there's lots of that on all sides. Anonymity can be
> either an act of prudence, or a tool of irresponsibility.
>
> Myself, I prefer to keep personal details generally out of view, in part
> because there are clueless gits out there who may decide to engage in
> real-world harassment. But I am known (however slightly) personally to
> some who have posted to this newsgroup.
>
> While I am by reason of personal circumstance pretty much immune to
> harassment, this may not be the case for others. Imagine the damage that
> could sometimes be done if someone were to embark upon a campaign of
> anti-Scn PR at some Scientologist's place of work. This is the sort of
> thing that happens daily now in Germany, and a startling number of a.r.s
> denizens are unconcerned. Some applaud it.
>
> Some of the "critics," notably Tilman, will subject individuals to
> unwanted scrutiny or exposure on the newsgroup and/or on his website for
> absolutely no reason but the fact of being Scientologists.
>
> On at least one occasion, an anonymous critic was rudely "outed" by a
> pro-Scn poster known as "Vera," herself anonymous. While I place *very*
> little credence in most of the hysterical claims of harassment, "blood
> attacks" and pet killings by some of the anti-Scn folks; still they have
> as much right to privacy as anyone else.
>
> While some people seem emboldened by the shield of anonymity to act
> truly outrageously, it is still not often a good argument against anyone's
> position in a debate.
>
>
> >They also are big on the accusation thing. They accuse the critics of
> >being paid to post here.
>
> I've seen very little of that without some basis. More often, the profit
> motive of people like Wollersheim and his associates has been pointed out,
> the whining money-solicitations of folks like Erlich and Lerma (who
> created their own legal headaches) and the pretty-much indisputable fact
> that some "critics" are receiving financial support from Minton.
>
>
> >But we all know what Hubbard said... accuse
> >people of what you are doing.
>
> Hey, *there's* a new one.
>
> I recall though he did say, "The overt doth speak loudly in accusation."
>
>
> >They do that very well. They are paid to
> >post, the critics aren't.
>
> Can Henson state unequivocally (and truthfully) that he hasn't received
> financial support from Minton? Can Grady?
>
> Lerma rarely posts here without soliciting funds. He has admitted he uses
> the money for whatever he pleases.
>
> While it can be argued that the Church itself has a financial interest in
> good PR, it's ridiculous to assert that individual members or even staff
> at any level have any such motive for participation here. Staff pay is
> rarely more than a stipend, particularly for Sea Org members. Individuals
> would obviously be far better off doing whatever earns their living.
>
>
> Now, while I realize I am responding to a clueless person here, the
> accusations are perennial, so I've taken the trouble to offer my
> perspective.
>
>
> - Whippersnapper
>
> "How come I'M not allowed to do that?!" -- Calvin
--
Steve A
On 29 Jun 1998 01:22:49 GMT, J.M. Ivler <iv...@net-quest.com> wrote:
> WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
> > I was asked not to post. Gently, twice, over the course of several
> > conversations with an OSA director I know personally. I was never "told"
> > to do or not do anything, FWIW, nor was a.r.s necessarily the subject of
> > interest.
>
> The why are ther Scientologists PAID to post here?
Do remember that we do not have any direct evidence of that fact
(|!AFAIA, IAC), so it might be seen as a little unreasonable to make
the accusation. I realise that there are people here who are clearly
hatted to post, but I'd be reluctant to attempt to characterise that
as "being paid to post here", any more than I would feel I was being
paid to post whenever I make a post to Usenet to do with my work.
Naturally, payment in kind (eg Prozac and ARSCC credits) is a
completely different matter...
> > You might find it remarkable, and given your paranoia, unbelievable, but I
> > have also never at any time discussed with anyone any form of strategy or
> > tactic WRT a.r.s. Even despite the fact I have also corresponded
> > occasionally with OSA persons who have posted to this group.
>
> And there you have it folks. An open admission that OSA folk post here.
> Now, let's see. Almost all the critics post under their own names, Ward,
> Lerma, Dennis, Scarff, Deana, Ray, etc. The OSA/ They use fake names and
> e-mail addresses from "free providers" like hotmail.
Yup. Too frightened even to show their faces. Nonetheless, let's cut
Whimp a little slack - I think that there is a strong possibility that
he is telling the truth, if only because Scn tech does go to
considerable trouble to prevent lateral communication within the
organisation.
> They also are big on the accusation thing. They accuse the critics of
> being paid to post here. But we all know what Hubbard said... accuse
> people of what you are doing. They do that very well. They are paid to
> post, the critics aren't.
It goes deeper than that. Scientologists don't accuse critics of being
paid to post here merely because Hubbard says they should: the warped
mindset of Scientology is much more pervasive than that.
No, Scientologists seem to start from the viewpoint that it is utterly
inconceivable that anyone who knew the "truth" about Scientology could
wish to criticise it. From Scieno responses to critical posts, I'd say
that they rationalise this in one of two ways. Firstly, by believing
that the critic is being fed false information, which is leading him
to criticise the cult - "what about all the good we do? Why do you
only concentrate on the bad things?"; secondly, by believing that the
critic is part of an organisation with an anti-CoS agenda, and that he
or she is being induced to post.
It is not pure coincidence that the character of the opposition that
Scientology perceives to exist is so similar to the character of
Scientology, but I am not sure how deliberate it is, either. One of
the constant problems that must face Scns, especially those on the
net, is that of the cognitive dissonance that arises between their
Scientology-inspired world view and the practical realities of life.
Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force in the mind, as it arises
when one's perception of reality has got so far from the truth that
there is a constant conflict between those perceptions and reality
itself. The mind in such a position tends to flip-flop between the two
states with no "in-between" state: naturally, someone who is being
manipulated by the CoS on an ongoing basis will probably tend to do
rather more flipping than flopping, and will be prepared to swallow
the CoS characterisation of the situation more readily than the
reality, simply because it promises less short-term disruption of the
mind in question's belief system/worldview.
Thus, it is easier for a cultist to believe that we all really *are*
being paid by Eli Lilly and the Marcabs, rather than countenance the
possibility that we are actually here for our own (and somewhat
better) reasons. The ludicrousness of the things that CoS members
appear to be ready to believe rather than accept the legitimacy of an
opposition (a long way from recognising the legitimacy of the
opposition's viewpoints) are indicative, in my view, of how much
effort has gone in to creating and maintaining the artificial mindset
of the Scientology dupe. For example, the issue of the (non-)existence
of the ARSCC has been around, now, for years. Its existence is
regularly denied, and there exists NO evidence to suggest that it does
exist, let alone that it has been funded and supported by drug
companies and Bob Minton. Yet still we see posts from Scienos here
where they clearly believe that such a conspiracy exists.
Michael Reuss
>>The reason for [the Scientology Net Nanny filters], is the Advanced Courses
>>materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
>>believe that or approve of it.
>Whip, you're not a stupid man.
"I'd like to withhold judgement on that until all the facts are in..."
- Gen. Buck Turgidson
> I'd like to see you address what many other
>critics in this thread have pointed out; the filter, based on what others
>have posted, is far more aggressive than protecting unsuspecting
>Scientologists from OT levels and whatnot.
Stephen, of course you realize that Whipper cannot address this issue,
because to do so, he'd have to admit a lot of things that he's
steadfastly maintained are not so.
>Where is the Freedom in that?
There is no freedom in that, and that is precisely the intent by the
software's designer. Scientology seeks to control people, members,
critics, wogs, everyone. Symbolically, what does a filter which blocks
all input from Grady Ward or Keith Henson say about a Scientologist's
freedom? For that matter, what does a one billion year contract say?
Whipper cannot yet allow himself to see this. He has been successfully
brainwashed on this point. He can probably give you a shore story, spoon
fed to him at a prior date, but he cannot provide a meaningful answer.
>Where is the Thinking For Yourself in that? Do you need this sort of
>protection, Whip? Who would you impose this type of protection on?
As Whip is no longer involved directly in the daily political reality of
Scientology, he would have no vested interest in controlling anyone via
such censorship. The organization of Scientology does have a vested
interest in controlling people.
But back when he was still a staffer, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that
Whipper would have figured out a way to justify and/or impose any number
of constraints on the freedoms of his fellow Scientologists, just as the
staff still do when they send someone to the RPF or the babywatch.
>Even if the filter is in place merely to block access to Advanced Levels;
>is the Church of Scientology saying that there are some members who cannot
>think for themselves?
Of course they don't trust their members. Brainwashing demands constant
reinforcement of the "correct" message and constant vigilance against
"incorrect" messages. A program of brainwashing succeeds when it gets
the victim to censor himself without direct supervision. Even being out
for years, Whipper is still at that point.
--
Michael Reuss (remove nospam from address to reply by e-mail)
Honorary Kid
Michael Reuss
> Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>> J.M. Ivler <iv...@net-quest.com> wrote:
>>And there you have it folks. An open admission that OSA folk post here.
Of course they do. Spam bombers and hotmail haters.
>I get the impression people who haven't a clue see OSA as some sort of
>secret agency. But from the standpoint of your average Scientologist,
>they are pretty much open and accessible.
Uh, let's just say, that hypothetically speaking, a public Scientologist
(in good standing) wanted to see the OSA headquarters on the top two
floors of the building which houses the LRH museum on Hollywood Blvd.
Would they be allowed in?
>>Now, let's see. Almost all the critics post under their own names, Ward,
>>Lerma, Dennis, Scarff, Deana, Ray, etc. The OSA/ They use fake names and
>>e-mail addresses from "free providers" like hotmail.
>My impression is, there's lots of that on all sides. Anonymity can be
>either an act of prudence, or a tool of irresponsibility.
>Myself, I prefer to keep personal details generally out of view, in part
>because there are clueless gits out there who may decide to engage in
>real-world harassment. But I am known (however slightly) personally to
>some who have posted to this newsgroup.
I have no problem with your level of anonymity, Whipsnap. You always
post under the same pseudonym. Rod Fletcher and Wgert are another story.
>While I am by reason of personal circumstance pretty much immune to
>harassment, this may not be the case for others. Imagine the damage that
>could sometimes be done if someone were to embark upon a campaign of
>anti-Scn PR at some Scientologist's place of work.
Aw, no, I can't imagine that. I'll bet Dennis Erlich, Grady Ward, and
Rob Clark couldn't imagine that either. That would just be awful if
someone actually interfered with someone's employment over something
that is essentially only a political debate.
Even worse, imagine if someone interfered with your family.
>This is the sort of thing that happens daily now in Germany, and a
>startling number of a.r.s denizens are unconcerned.
Give details, please. The stories I've read about Germans being
discriminated against seem to be largely overblown puffery, for the most
part. Like the German lady who went to FLAG, was on staff for a couple
of years, and then filed for "asylum" from German tyranny. What a joke.
The Germans have the right to pass laws which protect their democratic
government from authoritarian, fascist political groups, of which
Scientology is clearly one.
>Some of the "critics," notably Tilman, will subject individuals to
>unwanted scrutiny or exposure on the newsgroup and/or on his website for
>absolutely no reason but the fact of being Scientologists.
Tilman is merely publicizing public web pages.
But there's something else interesting in this sentence. It's the tacit
conclusion in your labeling of Tilman that it is somehow being unfair to
Scientologists to call them Scientologists, that being a Scientologist
is somehow intrinsically embarrassing. If so, the memetic war is going
nicely for the critics ;-).
>On at least one occasion, an anonymous critic was rudely "outed" by a
>pro-Scn poster known as "Vera," herself anonymous. While I place *very*
>little credence in most of the hysterical claims of harassment, "blood
>attacks" and pet killings by some of the anti-Scn folks; still they have
>as much right to privacy as anyone else.
The outing of TarlaStar was distasteful to me for the following reasons.
It likely required a professional level of investigation to find out her
true identity, and by posting her name and address under those
conditions, the outing could very easily be viewed as an implied warning
from Scientology for her to shut up.
>While some people seem emboldened by the shield of anonymity to act
>truly outrageously, it is still not often a good argument against anyone's
>position in a debate.
IMO, Wgert is the piggiest fucker who ever posted to the newsgroup.
>While it can be argued that the Church itself has a financial interest in
>good PR, it's ridiculous to assert that individual members or even staff
>at any level have any such motive for participation here. Staff pay is
>rarely more than a stipend, particularly for Sea Org members.
Whip, this is just stupid on your part. The issue is not the dollar
amount of an OSA staffer's pay. The motivation to post to a.r.s is due
to that the OSA person's *job* is to post here, and that they've been
ordered or hatted to "handle" a.r.s by their superiors within the cult.
>Individuals
>would obviously be far better off doing whatever earns their living.
They would be better off, that's true. But they wouldn't have access to
their drug of choice, auditine.
Stephen Jones
In article <359ada6b...@news.frii.com>,
mre...@rmi.nospam.net (Michael Reuss) wrote:
>> Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>
>>>The reason for [the Scientology Net Nanny filters], is the Advanced
>>>Courses
>>>materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
>>>believe that or approve of it.
>>Whip, you're not a stupid man.
>"I'd like to withhold judgement on that until all the facts are in..."
> - Gen. Buck Turgidson
>> I'd like to see you address what many other
>>critics in this thread have pointed out; the filter, based on what others
>>have posted, is far more aggressive than protecting unsuspecting
>>Scientologists from OT levels and whatnot.
>Stephen, of course you realize that Whipper cannot address this issue,
>because to do so, he'd have to admit a lot of things that he's
>steadfastly maintained are not so.
Yeah, it does seem that way. I was hoping he'd try to defend it some more.
In defending it, he'd have to think about. That couldn't be bad..right?
Perhaps he did think about and that is why he stopped trying to defend it?
Who knows. Perhaps we've just been hasty and haven't given him enough
time. Let's wait and see. Perhaps Russell can lend us his viewpoint if
Whip doesn't feel like it. Claire is interesting, what about her?
Certainly *someone* can offer a lively defense of
BabyWatch....critics...lurkers....anyone? C'mon, my understanding of
CoSNetNanny is that it is simply a stealth program, uncontrolable by the
user, engineered to hide criticism of the CoS. What's wrong with that?
Stephen Jones
Chris Owen
>> secret agency. But from the standpoint of your average Scientologist,
>> they are pretty much open and accessible.
Really? Can you tell me why the OSA staff in London work behind a
closed combination-locked door, then?
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| WORLD'S BIGGEST SINCLAIR WEB ARCHIVE: |
| http://www.nvg.unit.no/sinclair |
| OFFLINE VERSION: http://www.nvg.unit.no/sinclair/plansinc.zip |
Ron Newman
In article <6ne7hr$3ji$1...@news.net-quest.com>, J.M. says...
>
>WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
>> I wrote
>> >Now, let's see. Almost all the critics post under their own names, Ward,
>> >Lerma, Dennis, Scarff, Deana, Ray, etc. The OSA/ They use fake names and
>> >e-mail addresses from "free providers" like hotmail.
>
>> My impression is, there's lots of that on all sides. Anonymity can be
>> either an act of prudence, or a tool of irresponsibility.
>
>and drop-mail account. (a regular would be someone like wgert who was
>posting up to 20 posts a day at one point).
What about Claire Swazey? She seems "real" to me, and she posts to
other newsgroups on subjects totally unrelated to Scientology.
(See DejaNews.)
Jim Byrd
In article <6ne7hr$3ji$1...@news.net-quest.com>, J.M. says...
>I have yet to see ONE "regular" pro Scientology poster not use an alias
>and drop-mail account. (a regular would be someone like wgert who was
>posting up to 20 posts a day at one point).
There was one, years ago: Andrew Milne. He stopped posting just before
the big spam attack, and hasn't been seen here since. No one has any
idea what happened to him.
At one time I posted that he should find a job working for the tobacco
companies, since Scientology is the tobacco company of religions.
Keith Henson
J.M. Ivler (iv...@net-quest.com) wrote:
: WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
snip
: > Can Henson state unequivocally (and truthfully) that he hasn't received
: > financial support from Minton?
Why should I? I have thanked everyone who has helped me, some publicly
and some privately. More than once it has been used for groceries. Of
course, you may consider it a crime to receive financial support from
anyone who opposes the criminal scam to which you belong, but that just
sounds silly to those outside of scientology.
Can Grady?
Why should Grady? It is part of the public record that RTC wants every
penny that Grady gets from Bob Minton, and that they know exactly how
much that is.
: You seem to miss the point. Let me try again. Is Henson or Grady and
: employee of Mr. Minton? Do they report to him? Did they start posting
: under his direction? Do they have to provide posting stats to him? Is her
: paying them for posting on the net? No!
: Now, let's try again and I'll keep the words simple. Critics are not paid
: to post. OSA Church of Scientolgy people are. I may have bought a T-Shirt
: from Ray, but that doesn't mean I pay him to post. I may have sent Arnie a
: few bucks, but that doesn't mean I pay him to post either. I may have
: donated space on a server for the LA picket pictures, but that doesn't
: mean that I get a check from the ARSSC (do I?).
Who knows? :-) Keith Henson
Ron Newman
>>I have yet to see ONE "regular" pro Scientology poster not use an alias
>>and drop-mail account. (a regular would be someone like wgert who was
>>posting up to 20 posts a day at one point).
>
>other newsgroups on subjects totally unrelated to Scientology.
>(See DejaNews.)
Or, for that matter, "Wonderful" Russell Shaw. He's definitely
real; people I know have met him.
Stanley Anderson
Michael Reuss <mre...@rmi.nospam.net> writes:
>>While it can be argued that the Church itself has a financial interest in
>>good PR, it's ridiculous to assert that individual members or even staff
>>at any level have any such motive for participation here. Staff pay is
>>rarely more than a stipend, particularly for Sea Org members.
>
>Whip, this is just stupid on your part. The issue is not the dollar
>amount of an OSA staffer's pay. The motivation to post to a.r.s is due
>to that the OSA person's *job* is to post here, and that they've been
>ordered or hatted to "handle" a.r.s by their superiors within the cult.
>
OSA poster gets paid per message posted), wages (the OSA poster gets paid
an hourly wage regardless of how many messages are posted) and salary (the
OSA poster gets paid whether he/she posts or not). I don't doubt that some
of the persons using the wgert and rod_fletcher accounts may even be
'volunteers' doing amends projects or such...
Stan Anderson
David Gerard
On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 07:05:22 GMT, ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A)
wrote:
:Incidentally, I am fairly certain that a UK citizen who received this
:CD and, as a result, found him/herself with the net.nanny installed,
:would have grounds for bringing a prosecution against the CoS under
:the Computer Misuse Act, which makes it an offence for an unauthorised
:party to modify data on a computer without the permission of the data
:owner.
:It would not be a clear-cut case, since it would presumably rely on
:the fact that the installation software offers no choice, and gives no
:indication, that the net.nanny was being installed, while the CoS
:would be more than keen to convey the view that, since the user
:installed Netscape, he had voluntarily agreed to install the censor,
:too.
*ahem* Remember that the participants in Scientologist On-Line are
required to sign an agreement to use the CSI-specified filtering program.
I think that would count as consent. Details (and a scan of the agreement)
on Deana Holmes' site.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
"Mottos are good. Mottos make statements of intent. Mottos go on coats of arms
so that anyone thinking of sharpening their lance in anticipation of a little
internecine dust-up gets the chance to see what he's up against. 'We eat our
opponents' babies' (preferably rendered in Latin) tends to inspire rather more
fear in potential upstarts than 'Mine's a pink gin' (whatever that is in
Latin)." - Steve A
X-DAY IS THIS SUNDAY! PAY YOUR US$30 *NOW*! http://www.subgenius.com/
Fredric Lord Xenu Rice
J.M. Ivler <iv...@net-quest.com> wrote:
>WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
>> I was asked not to post. Gently, twice, over the course of several
>> conversations with an OSA director I know personally. I was never "told"
>> to do or not do anything, FWIW, nor was a.r.s necessarily the subject of
>> interest.
>The why are ther Scientologists PAID to post here?
In any event, I think he is lying and ewas instructed to lie.
--- "de omnibus dubitandum" All is to be doubted - Descartes ---
24-hour file archive access: (626) 335-9601 (FidoNet 1:218/890.0)
The Skeptic Tank Base Address: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/
Skeptic Tank archive list: index.htm
The One True Expert: Creationist lunatics: mantrack.htm
So where's the proof? We keep asking...: proof.htm
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <6n5sd4$6...@examiner.concentric.net>,
WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> writes:
>In article <6n5eb2$v5h$1...@basement.replay.com>,
>Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>>The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
>>years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
>>program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out. They are doing
>>this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them
>>from reading these messages, AND the web pages.
>
>materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
>believe that or approve of it.
The filter deltes the name Lisa MacPherson. Why: is she
an upper level material?
[POSTED & MAILED]
In article <6n6den$s...@enews2.newsguy.com>, Rebecca Hartong writes:
>I'm tempted to agree with this, but I see a problem... Just how far does a
>person have to go in showing respectful acknowledgement of another person's
>beliefs? How much tolerance is too much tolerance? I'm not saying we
>should outlaw Scientology. Hell, no! I firmly believe that everyone
>deserves the right to believe whatever they want as long as no one gets
>hurt. There's just something that rankles, though, about having to play
>nicey-nicey with people who believe in crazy stuff just to get them to
>behave like responsible citizens.
In article <one.hopes-280...@news.portal.ca>, ef writes:
>> The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
>> materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
>> believe that or approve of it.
>
>this doesn't make sense, whip. why would they be protecting their own
>membership from their own materials? and at that... why would they not
>trust their own membership to make appropriate choices on their own, as to
>what to read or not read?
It isn't *SENSE* but we do know it is Scientology dogma, that you
mustn't read O T Levels before you actually do that level. But where
does Lisa fit into that theory?
In article <3596a...@news.myna.com>, /\ndroid <at writes:
>I never knew Lisa McPherson was part of the Advanced Courses, what part?
>"Disposal of Blown PTS SPs"? "Protection of Money Laundering Rackets"?
>"Cleaning up Baby Watch Boo-Boos"?
In article <uxsl1Mdl...@islandnet.com>, Martin Hunt writes:
>Bullshit! The words "Dennis Erlich" and "Anima" have *nothing*
>to do with "advanced couses materials", idiot.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Steve A
> *ahem* Remember that the participants in Scientologist On-Line are
> required to sign an agreement to use the CSI-specified filtering program.
> I think that would count as consent. Details (and a scan of the agreement)
> on Deana Holmes' site.
Hmmmm. As I understand it, issues of consent, explicit or otherwise,
are something of a legal minefield.
Oh well, nice try.
Deana Holmes
On 29 Jun 1998 22:26:33 GMT, sp...@cs.cmu.edu (John Mark Ockerbloom)
wrote:
>In article <6n5sd4$6...@examiner.concentric.net>,
>WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
>>In article <6n5eb2$v5h$1...@basement.replay.com>,
>>Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>>>The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
>>>years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
>>>program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out. They are doing
>>>everything they possibly can to keep their own membership from reading
>>>this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them
>>>from reading these messages, AND the web pages.
>>
>>The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
>>materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
>>believe that or approve of it.
>
>So, tell me, then, in which of the Advanced Courses materials does the
>phrase "Lisa McPherson" appear? According to earlier posts, that's one
>of the phrases censored by the "nanny" software.
Or Deana Holmes.
Or Keith Henson.
Or Grady Ward.
Or Dennis Erlich.
or...or...or...
I asked you before, whip, why my name was being blocked by the Scn
net.nanny, and as far as I can tell, I haven't yet gotten a straight
answer.
Care to cough one up sometime before the millennium?
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <359f55c...@enews.newsguy.com>,
You err if you believe I'm obligated to respond. Be assured I neither
wrote the filter nor use it, nor have any particular duty to answer your
questions or anyone's with respect to it -- or indeed anything at all.
Is your name associated with any postings of the Advanced Courses
material? That's certainly the case with Grady, Henson, Erlick, etc.
I recall something along that line in your posts.
FWIW, I remain convinced the OT stuff is the primary reason for the
filter. Scientologists can read whatever they like. But for those not
yet on the Advanced Courses, those materials are the exception.
Scientologists are expected to avoid them.
The filter is a voluntary thing, and I think no one who uses it is
unaware of its effects. It harms you none at all. So I wonder why it
bothers you so much?
- Whippersnapper
"Bad news, Mom. I sold my soul to the devil." -- Calvin
Ralph Hilton
On 03 Jul 1998 20:42:18 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>
>The filter is a voluntary thing, and I think no one who uses it is
>unaware of its effects. It harms you none at all. So I wonder why it
>bothers you so much?
>
Not true. You are not told when it is installed. Nor how to turn it on or off
nor how to uninstall it.
It harms those who are stopped from seeing what is actually going on in
Scientology.
--
Ralph Hilton
http://Ralph.Hilton.org
Stephen Jones
In article <6njtpa$4...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>In article <359f55c...@enews.newsguy.com>,
>Deana Holmes <mir...@newsguy.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>I asked you before, whip, why my name was being blocked by the Scn
>>net.nanny, and as far as I can tell, I haven't yet gotten a straight
>>answer.
>>
>>Care to cough one up sometime before the millennium?
>You err if you believe I'm obligated to respond. Be assured I neither
>wrote the filter nor use it, nor have any particular duty to answer your
>questions or anyone's with respect to it -- or indeed anything at all.
Your point?? Isn't this true for everyone?
>Is your name associated with any postings of the Advanced Courses
>material? That's certainly the case with Grady, Henson, Erlick, etc.
>
>I recall something along that line in your posts.
Set blinders to kill!
Jeez, I admire your thrift. Trying to squeeze blood from a stone. C'mon,
Whip, your dog ain't hunting. How is Lisa M's name associated with
advanced material?
I know, I know....you'll take the Fifth......not obligated.....no duty.
>FWIW, I remain convinced the OT stuff is the primary reason for the
>filter. Scientologists can read whatever they like. But for those not
>yet on the Advanced Courses, those materials are the exception.
>Scientologists are expected to avoid them.
Ok, you think the OT stuff is the primary reason for the filter...do you
think there are any secondary reasons?
>The filter is a voluntary thing, and I think no one who uses it is
>unaware of its effects. It harms you none at all. So I wonder why it
>bothers you so much?
How would they be aware of its effects, Whip? Do they know exactly what
the filter filters? Where is this information available. Thanks to the
extrodinary resoucefulness of a bunch of critics, I imagine ars will be the
first place one could find information regarding the exact nature of the
filter. I don't see how a Scienotologist could be aware of the complete
effects of the filter. How could they,Whip? To the best of my knowledge,
the CoS has not released a list of terms/phrases/names blocked by the
filter.
As far as voluntary....the CoS won't allow a Scientologist to put up an
official I'm A Scientologist web page with signing the contract that also
obliges them to install this filter that is filtering whatever the CoS
finds fit. Why doesn't the CoS allow members the opportunity to use the
filter without hitching it to their ability to publish a sanctioned web
page? It seems like a creeepy form of killing two birds with one stone.
Create a large online presence of Scientologists *and* make sure those
online Scientologists don't run across the vast online information critical
of the CoS. If Scientologists want to use this filter that is their
business. Why doesn't the CoS allow them the abiltity to modify the list
of terms being filtered and why don't they offer the filter on its own?
You are really sticking your head in the sand on this one, Whip.
Stephen Jones
Fredric Lord Xenu Rice
>> >
>>
>> He only thinks and posts, as ordered by his masters. He's merely
>> waiting for the directive listing the lies to be told and their
>> triggering conditions. Until then, he has to fall back on deep
>> programmed phrases, like "You err if you believe I'm obligated to
>> respond", or one of their stock anti-psych misdirectors.
>I don't think Whippersnapper is a OSA volunteer. He's not taken any
>Scientology services in years and is probably banned because of some
>earlier connections with squirrel groups. And I suppose his presence
>here is probably related to some hope that the ban will be lifted.
Could he actually believe that his behavior here is something the crime
syndicate would find positive? That would be a delusion greater than the
Galatic Overlord.
Robert Hummels
> You err if you believe I'm obligated to respond. Be assured I neither
> wrote the filter nor use it, nor have any particular duty to answer your
> questions or anyone's with respect to it -- or indeed anything at all.
>
> material? That's certainly the case with Grady, Henson, Erlick, etc.
OK Whip.....how about Heidrun Beer. She has NEVER posted
or even been associated with the upper level material.
I was told by the webmaster at scientology.org that she was
"not a reliable terminal" but she has never been declared.
Many on the list have never been declared.
Is this not a squirrel action to declare someone with a software program
and not even grant them a comm-ev?
bob
Scientologist for REFORM!
WHIPPERSNAPPER
Robert Hummels <humm...@csi.com> wrote:
>WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
>
>> You err if you believe I'm obligated to respond. Be assured I neither
>> wrote the filter nor use it, nor have any particular duty to answer your
>> questions or anyone's with respect to it -- or indeed anything at all.
>>
>> Is your name associated with any postings of the Advanced Courses
>> material? That's certainly the case with Grady, Henson, Erlick, etc.
>
>OK Whip.....how about Heidrun Beer. She has NEVER posted
>or even been associated with the upper level material.
Sure she has. I made an extremely cursory search and instantly found her
message number 34c21401...@news.atnet.at for example. Look it up if
you wish to bother, and try Dejanews for (I do not doubt) lots more.
>I was told by the webmaster at scientology.org that she was
>"not a reliable terminal" but she has never been declared.
>Many on the list have never been declared.
>
>Is this not a squirrel action to declare someone with a software program
>and not even grant them a comm-ev?
It looks to me like you have a problem with evaluation of information.
This is a ridiculous statement.
- Whippersnapper
"...he reflects upon his many heinous crimes." -- Calvin
Zane Thomas
>>OK Whip.....how about Heidrun Beer. She has NEVER posted
>>or even been associated with the upper level material.
>
>Sure she has.
Yeah, yeah whipper. But what about _you_? Why does ScienoSitter
block other scientologists from seeing what you write?
Zane
Mike O'Connor
Scientology.
-Mike
Censored by Scientology
Lurker#5
says...
>
>Whippersnapper,
>
>You say you are protecting Scientologists from OT data they aren't ready for.
>You know, it's kind of like the fact that you don't turn on your computer and
>see naked women.
<snip>
>Charlotte Kates
Obviously you are anti-freedom of choice. I suppose if you hated Jews enough you
would tell them they had to eat pork or Amish had to wear make-up or Mormons had
to drink alcohol - because you think the should. After all, they *could* do all
these things. It certainly wouldn't hurt - millions of others do. But they
*choose* their faith. You do not have to subscribe to it. That's your choice.
But to display a lack of intelligence to the degree that you assert that because
*you* leave a religion everyone else should do the same is pitiful. Wake up and
smell the coffee. You're are covering yourself up with ignominy.
© Anti-Cult ®
Lurker#5.
From: Newsguy News Service [http://www.newsguy.com].
Wrote on the subject: Re: Remember the Clam Nanny! (was: Re: Why I am a
public critic):
Hi Wgert, you old re used OSA operative!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the
orgs say what is legal or not."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
********* I'm so entheta I mock up *your* reactive mind too *********
*********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ************
* Multimedia: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm *
******** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) ********
***** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm ****
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hummels
>
> In article <35A3B231...@csi.com>,
> Robert Hummels <humm...@csi.com> wrote:
> >WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
> >
> >> You err if you believe I'm obligated to respond. Be assured I neither
> >> wrote the filter nor use it, nor have any particular duty to answer your
> >> questions or anyone's with respect to it -- or indeed anything at all.
> >>
> >> Is your name associated with any postings of the Advanced Courses
> >> material? That's certainly the case with Grady, Henson, Erlick, etc.
> >
> >or even been associated with the upper level material.
>
> message number 34c21401...@news.atnet.at for example. Look it up if
> you wish to bother, and try Dejanews for (I do not doubt) lots more.
So you mean her Thank You post to Zennon for helping
to spread the tech to the world was full of Upper Level
Material?
> >I was told by the webmaster at scientology.org that she was
> >"not a reliable terminal" but she has never been declared.
> >Many on the list have never been declared.
> >
> >Is this not a squirrel action to declare someone with a software program
> >and not even grant them a comm-ev?
>
> It looks to me like you have a problem with evaluation of information.
> This is a ridiculous statement.
I think they sent me to the EO during that part of the
course :-) something I could not word clear about higher
data or some such thing. Thank goodness, cause she handed
me the SP/PTS course and Intro to Scientology Ethics which
lead to me doing a doubt formula and exiting the Church due to
it's out points on all grades.
OK....so it is not a squirrel act then...but LRH had a few things to
say about this type of cutting comm lines and restricting access to
data...
"The only thing that could be said to aberrate communication would be
restriction, or fear of restriction"
- Dianetics 55 chapter 8 "The Application of Communication"
"When the student is taught data, he should be given a high power of
choice over the data in which he is instructed, but he should be
instructed in such a way that he can achieve the reality of the data"
- LRH tape of 14 Nov 56 "Training Methods" 15ACC-23.
"You cannot teach a man how he should judge something and still have him
judge something"
- LRH tape of 24 Jan 62 "Training - Duplication" SHSBC-104 renumbered
SHSBC-108.
It appears this is another attempt by the Church to gain a victory
no matter what the cost....
"The next major point on the decline is that point where management is
management for the sake of managing for its own good, not according to
the demised goal maker's codes of goals, but preserving only some tawdry
shadow of these such as 'patriotism', 'your king', 'the American way',
'every peasant his own landlord', etc."
- LRH Article of 9 Jan 51 "An Essay On Management"
Yep...LRH KNEW what you guys would be about when he
was gone...
ARC,
bob
Scientologist for REFORM!
R R M Tweek
>
>Obviously you are anti-freedom of choice.
From d32l.dll - sites you may not visit:
[csulib.ctstateu.edu]
[dra.library.ualberta.ca]
[ducatalog.lib.duke.edu]
[libraries.colorado]
[library.ucsc.edu]
[library.uow.edu.au]
[library.uq.edu]
[library.utulsa.edu]
[muse.library.carleton]
[sabio.library.Arizona.edu]
[utcat.library.utoronto.ca]
[www.lib.monash.edu.au]
[www.lib.ox.ac.uk]
From n32l.dll - newsgroups you may not read:
[comp.org.eff.talk]
Just about says it all. Doesn't it?
--
tw...@netcom.com tw...@io.com | Net filter software released by the cult
DoD #MCMLX tw...@ccnet.com | of $cientology finds that articles from
sig...@tweekco.ness.com | this account are too dangerous to read.
WHIPPERSNAPPER
Robert Hummels <humm...@csi.com> wrote:
>WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
>>
>> In article <35A3B231...@csi.com>,
>> Robert Hummels <humm...@csi.com> wrote:
>> >WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
>> >
>> >> You err if you believe I'm obligated to respond. Be assured I neither
>> >> wrote the filter nor use it, nor have any particular duty to answer your
>> >> questions or anyone's with respect to it -- or indeed anything at all.
>> >>
>> >> Is your name associated with any postings of the Advanced Courses
>> >> material? That's certainly the case with Grady, Henson, Erlick, etc.
>> >
>> >OK Whip.....how about Heidrun Beer. She has NEVER posted
>> >or even been associated with the upper level material.
>>
>> Sure she has. I made an extremely cursory search and instantly found her
>> message number 34c21401...@news.atnet.at for example. Look it up if
>> you wish to bother, and try Dejanews for (I do not doubt) lots more.
>
>So you mean her Thank You post to Zennon for helping
>to spread the tech to the world was full of Upper Level
>Material?
She discusses upper levels in dozens of posts.
http://www.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?QRY=Insert query text here, and
use+pluses+for+spaces&ST=PS&authors=con...@atnet.at
>> >I was told by the webmaster at scientology.org that she was
>> >"not a reliable terminal" but she has never been declared.
>> >Many on the list have never been declared.
>> >
>> >Is this not a squirrel action to declare someone with a software program
>> >and not even grant them a comm-ev?
>>
>> It looks to me like you have a problem with evaluation of information.
>> This is a ridiculous statement.
>
>I think they sent me to the EO during that part of the
>course :-) something I could not word clear about higher
>data or some such thing.
Must be, because what the hell is "higher data"?
>Thank goodness, cause she handed
>me the SP/PTS course and Intro to Scientology Ethics which
>lead to me doing a doubt formula and exiting the Church due to
>it's out points on all grades.
Lemme get this right... the organization, without which you'd never have
known Scn existed, wasn't worthy of your support, help, etc. because - ?
It wasn't forwarding the purposes of Scientology? Wasn't helping anyone
(you included)? Am I anywhere near the mark?
>OK....so it is not a squirrel act then...
You really do miss points.
>but LRH had a few things to
>say about this type of cutting comm lines and restricting access to
>data....
>
>"The only thing that could be said to aberrate communication would be
>restriction, or fear of restriction"
>- Dianetics 55 chapter 8 "The Application of Communication"
>
>"When the student is taught data, he should be given a high power of
>choice over the data in which he is instructed, but he should be
>instructed in such a way that he can achieve the reality of the data"
>- LRH tape of 14 Nov 56 "Training Methods" 15ACC-23.
>
>"You cannot teach a man how he should judge something and still have him
>judge something"
>- LRH tape of 24 Jan 62 "Training - Duplication" SHSBC-104 renumbered
>SHSBC-108.
Wonderful quotes. I suggest you look up the ones wherein a high-toned
individual can be expected to "cut entheta lines" or words to that effect.
And try and find a reference that says LRH himself didn't establish the
secrecy of the upper levels.
>It appears this is another attempt by the Church to gain a victory
>no matter what the cost....
What I see is an effort to limit exposure to upper level stuff and to chop
a few entheta lines.
I see a filter which is used voluntarily, without coercion, and openly
offered. The "cost" at worst is that users of the filter may miss things
they WANT to see on occasion. Let's forget for the time being what you
and these other so-called "critics" want them to see, because they have
made a conscious decision and they aren't interested.
Besides, if what YOU say is true, the answer to all their supposed
problems is in the Doubt formula, and no one's censoring that.
>"The next major point on the decline is that point where management is
>management for the sake of managing for its own good, not according to
>the demised goal maker's codes of goals, but preserving only some tawdry
>shadow of these such as 'patriotism', 'your king', 'the American way',
>'every peasant his own landlord', etc."
>- LRH Article of 9 Jan 51 "An Essay On Management"
>
>Yep...LRH KNEW what you guys would be about when he
>was gone...
Who's "you guys"?
- Whippersnapper
"You'd think planets like this were a dime a dozen!" -- Calvin
R R M Tweek
[comp.org.eff.talk]
==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====
Control: cancel <tweekEv...@netcom.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <tweekEv...@netcom.com>
Message-ID: <cancel.twee...@netcom.com>
From: cl...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Sender: tw...@netcom.com (R R M Tweek)
Approved: cl...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.test
Date: 11 Jul 1998 00:54:58 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Organization: Despams 'R Us
NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.54.101.68
X-Trace: 10 Jul 1998 18:56:18 -0700, 202.54.101.68
Lines: 2
Path: ...!newspeer.monmouth.com!novia!nntp3.cerf.net
!news.inovion.com!despams.ocunix.on.ca!despam
Despams 'R Us
Michael Reuss
>> Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>>FWIW, I remain convinced the OT stuff is the primary reason for the
>>filter.
>Then explain this entry, Keith:
>HENSON
>HEWARRIOR
>HILIPPEALLARD
>HIPPERSNAPPER
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Silly man. Trusting in them while they don't trust you...
Thanks, Martin. This says everything that needs to be said about
Scientology's contempt for people who are not "in."
--
Michael Reuss (remove nospam from address to reply by e-mail)
Honorary Kid