Scientology, Tom Cruise & Medication and My Life while on Medication As a Scientologist
Magoo
Much has been written and spoken about recently having to do with
Scientology
And what it's all about, thanks to Tom Cruise attacking publicly medications
People are taking.
This didn't go over too well, and for someone like me, who spent
30 Y E A R S
Fighting this exact insanity he rants about, it's delightful to see people
getting to hear it
In public, and comment on it. Thank you Tom Cruise!
While I was a member of the organization known as "The Church of
Scientology",
I was told I had to get off the much needed medications I was to take to
control Epilepsy.
Being a true believer, I dove right in, following just as Tom says.
Yes, I was put on intense programs of vitamins. I was told these vitamins
were all I needed to 'Handle" Epilepsy, that really it was just a lack of
magnesium. Adel Davis was the source both Hubbard used, and numerous
Scientologists trying to tell me what I needed, and didn't need. Please let
me make this perfectly Clear: NONE of these people, just as Tom Cruise is
not trained medically, none of the people telling me I must get off the
medications my Doctor prescribed were medically trained.
Sadly, their programs didn't work AT ALL. I began having seizure after Grand
Mal Seizure within the "Churches" of Scientology. What happened then? Well,
first they'd take care of me briefly, but then, always, it came back to me.
Who was I connected to that I was having seizures? Scientology believes one
must be connected to someone evil, if they're sick in any way. Also, it was
implied there was something VERY wrong with me, and very bad. I must handle
it with their counseling, which I struggled with for really 30 years.
Granted, one might read it and ask, "What is wrong with you, that you would
follow such a program?" That's an excellent question, and all I can say is
Scientology is like an extremely slow train of mind control. Once on, and
believing Hubbard actually had THE answers, one tends to turn off things
that are not right. A perfect example is Tom Cruise.
Tom is now at almost the top level of Scientology. He's supposed to have
near supernatural powers. However, in the basic Creed of a Scientologist it
says, "Man has the inalienable right to free speech, free thought". However,
Tom Cruise is not allowed to speak with me. Ok, he *could* .however, on the
mind control train, one is trained not to ever speak with "Suppressives", as
they are truly so evil, they could harm you.
ME???? Little old me??? Well, in truth, once I left Scientology and began
speaking out, they declared me, one of their top producing members, a
suppressive person, and I promise you, Tom Cruise wouldn't meet with me if
you paid him! That's a violation of the very Creed he says he follows, but
he'll have 'tech' (Hubbard's writings) to explain why it's Ok. I understand
that, however, I will never, ever understand ALL of my 30 year friends
'Disconnecting" from me, just because I changed my mind. Not one of them
called me, or even asked, "What happened?" Neither would Tom Cruise...even
if we were in the same room. He knows, just as he told Matt.
Oh I know, he could explain why not with tons of adjectives about
"religious bigots", 'destructive people" etc. I know, as I used to believe
the same junk. The sad truth is this: I realized, and hopefully Tom will
too, that ALL the people that were declared Suppressives couldn't possibly
ALL be as bad as Scientology said. Many were on their Top 10 list of great
Scientologists, to be junked over night.
Anyways, I spent years trying to get off of the medications I needed,
unsuccessfully.
I went back on the medications I needed, as my Mother had pointed out, "No,
Dianetics won't fix it! Tory, they're going to KILL you!" I had fallen in
the shower and broke my front teeth, and was losing my memory daily. Finally
I agreed to return to taking my medications. I spent years and years and
years being looked down on, Just as Tom did the other day, by Scientologists
who thought they knew better.
I cannot say it enough: Scientology IS dangerous to your health. Granted,
there are many nice Scientologists, and most have no idea what I'm speaking
about. There ~is~ a very dark side to Scientology, and all I can say is
study BOTH sides, and make up your own mind.
If you'd like to find out more about it, please stop by www.xenu.net and
read up on the many stories from X-Members who spent years within
Scientology.
It's terrific to be finally free. Thank you Tom Cruise for showing the world
one of the key reasons I left.
Tory Christman
Aka: Magoo!
Burbank, CA
In Scientology for 30 years
Out for 5 years!
Free at last J
--
For more information about this, please see:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.xenutv.com
http://www.torymagoo.org
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/toryonosa.htm
http://www.altreligionscientology.org
mag...@charter.net
"Those that give up essential liberty
to purchase a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Burbank, CA
(818) 841-3632
--
Tory/Magoo~Dancing in the moonlight~
In Scientology for 30 years, out for 4 years and 11 months
For thinking and speaking my mind, I am:
Declared SP and Expelled from C of S (Woo hoo!)
(SP 6 ^ with Cumulative Cluster)
Free at LAST!
For more information about this, please see:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.xenutv.com
http://www.torymagoo.org
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/toryonosa.htm
http://www.altreligionscientology.org
mag...@charter.net
"Those that give up essential liberty
to purchase a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Burbank, CA
(818) 841-3632
Magoo
I'm s u r e Tommy Boy has No Clue that Hubbard himself was on many
medications for years while TC was "in".
Finally, he died with the very psych drugs in him that TC rants about. What
would he say to that? He'll never hear it.
If he did, he'll lie and say, "I don't care", or 'That's not true". Either
way, the Plexiglas is DOWN, and he can't/he won't hear it.
How can you tell if a Scientologist is lying?
If their lips are moving.
Tory/Magoo~
X-Scientologist after 30 years "in"
Free at last :)
"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:42c63d10$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
Magoo wrote:
Thanks for posting this - hopefully people on the inside can read it,
recognise the truth of it and say "that can't be right - really."
The belief that problems like epilepsy are spiritual (and not physical) is
one thing.
Another thing is that the runaway solipsism at the heart of the belief
system of the criminal organisation known as the "church" <spit> of
$cientology teaches that physical illness is caused by spiritual problems
(bad case of space alien ghost infestation) and the victims get
encouragement to falsely practice medicine in something like "NED for OTs
Series 34" titled "THE SEQUENCE FOR HANDLING A PHYSICAL CONDITION" which
encourages the victims to use an e-meter to solve problems with examples
given such as "poison."
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/nots34-criminals.htm
So, never mind psychosomatic illnesses or faith healing, what the criminal
organisation describes as "physical conditions" are given solutions which
involve the e-meter (and Body Thetans and everything). This is not only
stupid, it is also illegal according to the FDA.
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NOTs/commentary/nots34-oconnor.txt
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mdk Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 211 585
"Pourqoi ?" "On m'a payait pour ca" 'Le Samourai'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCxkyeimJs3AlyPBIRAr+zAJ9Opz6PKoti8F/5olmTK5KI7Naq1gCg1Yon
L6taRVL4BQjUfuFv6Po1HeI=
=pCyM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Spacetraveler
>
> Much has been written and spoken about recently having to do with
> Scientology
>
> And what it's all about, thanks to Tom Cruise attacking publicly
medications
>
> People are taking.
>
> This didn't go over too well, and for someone like me, who spent
>
> 30 Y E A R S
>
> Fighting this exact insanity he rants about, it's delightful to see people
> getting to hear it
>
> In public, and comment on it. Thank you Tom Cruise!
>
> While I was a member of the organization known as "The Church of
> Scientology",
>
> I was told I had to get off the much needed medications I was to take to
> control Epilepsy.
You were told and did not find out what LRH said on the matter.
> Being a true believer, I dove right in, following just as Tom says.
Meaning you just 'believe' what some persons tell you without being critical
about and verify it.
I feel sad about how you have been treated, I am very wel aware of the
stupidy of many staff in the organziation. I could have taken it as a full
time job to only report all the idiocy I have seen day after day.
Scientology never was and never will be a miracle cure. It requires a dose
of doingness and willingness of those who want to be cured. Paying money and
sitting in a chair will not do it.
Spacetraveler
Ramona
everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example. Another example of your
blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.
You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
garbage out.
Ramona
Spacetraveler
"Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120311823.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
> everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
> The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example.
Meaning that you APPROVE of introducing an action solely based on 'secret'
research. Interesting. You know, you simply don't know if Dr. Gilberg has
committed fraud, because no one can verify his supposed research as he
destroyed it. Who is believing blindly here.
In addition friend Tory stories tell much about what some has 'told' to her.
And to quote her she said that after she left she had some people show her
things she has not been aware of. Things she very simply could have checked
out herself by consulting an OEC volume.
> Another example of your
> blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
> be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.
> You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
> garbage out.
Something tells me that you are not exactly a newbee. You have adjusted
amazingly quick to the irrational reasoning and attacking language as is
commonly used by various of the critics. Who are you really?
By the way you really do talk nonsense.
Spacetraveler
Skipper
epilepsy. Apparently doing that level didn't make him "a god" like he
wanted to achieve in $cientology (I couldn't believe it when he told me
that was his aim).
In article <42c63d10$1...@news2.lightlink.com>, Magoo
Magoo
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6lyxe.28432$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
>
> "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120311823.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
>> everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
>> The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example.
>
> Meaning that you APPROVE of introducing an action solely based on 'secret'
> research. Interesting. You know, you simply don't know if Dr. Gilberg has
> committed fraud, because no one can verify his supposed research as he
> destroyed it. Who is believing blindly here.
>
> In addition friend Tory stories tell much about what some has 'told' to
> her.
Who told me what? This is, once again, your falsehoods added into a very
real, live story of one person who lived with the insanities Tom Cruise is
speaking of.
I'm telling you what I *LIVED*.
Quit changing what actually happened.
Scientology~is~ (and was) quite dangereous to your health:
both physical, and mental.
> And to quote her she said that after she left she had some people show her
> things she has not been aware of. Things she very simply could have
> checked
> out herself by consulting an OEC volume.
They showed me the "OEC Volume" (**Hubbard's tech, Tom Cruise has been
taught in, also). You are an idiot, I'm sorry to say.
>
>> Another example of your
>> blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
>> be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.
One more example of your own insanities. I'm sorry for you.
>> You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
>> garbage out.
Yeah..........that's must be it~ So anyone listening to Tom Cruise..this is
the OTHER side of it, when getting someone off of medications they're
supposed to take, and quit..and it doesn't work...here's one example of what
I'm talking about.
See how *I'm* suddenly wrong?
Thanks ST....you guys do it every time!
>
> Something tells me that you are not exactly a newbee. You have adjusted
> amazingly quick to the irrational reasoning and attacking language as is
> commonly used by various of the critics. Who are you really?
ROTFLOL!
>
> By the way you really do talk nonsense.
Are you saying that to me?
Great. Thanks, ST...really terrific. I appreciate your perfect examples!
Tory/Magoo~~
>
> Spacetraveler
>
>
Magoo
"Skipper" <skipsp...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:020720050857560658%skipsp...@charter.net...
> You're not the only one. There's an OT8 in Glendale with grand mal
> epilepsy. Apparently doing that level didn't make him "a god" like he
> wanted to achieve in $cientology (I couldn't believe it when he told me
> that was his aim).
No kidding!
Hey...I'm one of TONS of people with medical conditions of all kinds who
were told this, by Scientology. How about the people who died from being
told not to take their medications, or at the hands of Scientologists trying
to sit in for Doctors when people needed medical help?
This was just posted on Operation Clambake, and I think he wrote some
excellent things:
Posted on Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 3:49 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tory, your story speaks to the dangerous and sweeping ignorance of CoS. When
Scientology begins with ignorance -- such as the belief that epilepsy
medicine should not be taken -- all it can attain is a deeper ignorance that
becomes life threatening or even fatal.
When it is an article of religious faith that going to "Wog" doctors or
taking "Wog" medicine is a sign of weakness and a lack of faith in LRH, then
a situation obtains where the untrained religious extremists of CoS
basically say, "We know more than medical and scientific experts. Our
spiritual knowledge and homeopathy trumps even the best doctors at Harvard
and UCLA."
(Note: "Wog" is a CoS epithet which refers to we non-Scientologists who are
deemed barbaric and unenlightened filth because we have not embraced LRH and
his glorious teachings. We are also called "raw meat" by Scientology's
Registrars as we, once registered for CoS services, possess the money that
is needed to feed the Beast of Scientology. Charming isn't it? We are raw
meat. That is what Scientologists think of us as being. We are not even
human to them, we are Wog's and raw meat.")
It is fashionable amongst the ignorant religious extremists of Scientology
to think that L.Ron Hubbard's pronouncements on medicine are superior to a
doctor's twelve years of medical training plus years of medical practice in
treating human diseases. Indeed, Scientologists consider LRH superior to all
of medicine, science, and Harvard, Cambridge, Cal Tech, MIT, and every other
university. This happens because Scientologists believe that Hubbard is God
and that God is infallable.
Medically ignorant Scientologists can be very sincere and yet a person can
become sincerely dead if they listen to these Scientology non-experts and
don't take the medicines a doctor prescribes.
Scientologists love to wallow in medical horror stories, and they are out
there, but the exceptions do not disprove medicine or psychiatry. One cannot
argue from exceptions for it is a logical fallacy.
Scientologists, really the OSA PR hacks, do intellectually dishonest things
such as citing the butchery of Nazi doctors and then saying that all
psychiatrists are exactly like Nazi doctors. Tom Cruise did this. He said
that Adolphine is a psychiatric drug named after Adolph Hitler.
Let us examine Tom Cruise's claims about Adolphine to see if Tom knows what
he is talking about.
What is Adolphine?
It is methadone, or synthetic heroin. It is not a psychiatric drug as Tom
Cruise claimed; it is rather a synthetic opiate, an addicting pain killer
that can be abused by drug addicts.
From a website about the history of methadone, which I will link, we read:
"it is dishonest to state that "methadone" had widely been used during the
war as a painkiller and a substitute for morphine under the trade name
Dolophin (Dolophine), allegedly derived from Hitler's first name Adolf.
Also, stating that Amidon had been called Adolfin (Adolphine) among soldiers
and civilian people is entirely unfounded. In fact, the name Adolphine was
created in the US in the early 1970s: "The invention of the term 'Adolphine'
by New York City street linguists in the 1970s was an apparent attempt to
discredit methadone treatment by those unsympathetic to it, using the Hitler
association" (BYRNE 1995, 20; see also KLEBER 2002)."
ref: http://www.indro-online.de/historymethadone.htm
So we see that Tom Cruise was uninformed on both counts. First, he got the
name wrong. The pre-WWII German scientists who were working on synthetic
analgesics, this to have a source of pain medicine for wounded German
soldiers should Germany's supply of opium be cut off in wartime, first
called Dolphine "Compound Va 10820 (BOCKMÜHL/EHRHART 1949; SCHAUMANN 1952).
Va 10820 was to become known as methadone no sooner than 1947." op. cit.
And folks, I got this off of Google. It was the first hit when I queried
"Adolphine drug history" it was not hard to find. Tom Cruise, if he is
allowed internet access, should have checked his "facts" before acting like
an expert on The Today Show.
Second, Tom Cruise is ignorant about classes of medicines. Dolphine, or what
we now call Methadone, is not a psychiatric drug. We read, again from a
Google search:
"Methadone, as an opiate, is an addictive central nervous system depressant.
It product analgesia or insensitivity to pain, sedation, slowing of
respiration, lowering of blood pressure, constipation, slowing of pulse and,
in some patients, nausea. The subjective effects following single doses in
non-addicted individuals are similar to those noted after morphine or heroin
use: feelings of well-being, drowsiness and euphoria."
ref: http://www.discoveryhouse.com/methadone/
minformation.aspx
So Methadone, or what is called Dolphine, is an opiate used to treat heroin
addiction and chronic pain. It is not what is called a psychopharmaceutical
because of its depressive effect on the central nervous system.
Tom Cruise was resorting to sensationalism and even then he had his facts
incorrect. There is simply no solid evidence to support TC's contention that
the drug was named after Adolph Hitler, and second, Dolphine is not a
psychiatric medicine.
For Tom Cruise to dismiss all of psychiatry based upon a glib, and wholly
incorrect, association of Dolphine with Nazism and, by extension psychiatry
with Nazism is so immensely intellectually dishonest as to cause thinking
people to dismiss Tom Cruise as an ignorant fool, a tool of Scientology's
hate campaign against psychiatry.
Tom Cruise may be smart about acting and his finances, but he is a dangerous
religious extremist when it comes to psychiatry and medicine. Strip Tom
Cruise of his sleek Hollywood image and we see an ignorant and angry
religious fundamentalist, a rude and uneducated hillbilly whose acting
talent saved him from a career as a greeter at Wal Mart. His smile would
have at least got him that far.
Tory is correct when she says, "Anyways, I spent years trying to get off of
the medications I needed, unsuccessfully. I went back on the medications I
needed, as my Mother had pointed out, 'No, Dianetics won't fix it! Tory,
they're going to KILL you!' I had fallen in the shower and broke my front
teeth, and was losing my memory daily. Finally I agreed to return to taking
my medications. I spent years and years and years being looked down on, Just
as Tom did the other day, by Scientologists who thought they knew better."
Religious fundamentalism of any stripe is dangerous. Carl Sagan warned
against the type of pseudoscience we see in Scientology. Don_Carlo quoted
one of my favorite Sagan quote in another xenu.net thread that concerned
Tory's epilepsy:
Begin Quote: "Psuedoscience differs from erroneous science. Science thrives
on errors, cutting them away, one by one. False conclusions are drawn all
the time, but they are drawn tentatively. Hypotheses are framed so they are
capable of being disproved. A succession of alternative hypotheses is
confronted by experiment and observation. Science gropes and staggers toward
improved understanding. Proprietary feeling are of course offended when a
scientific hypothesis is disproved, but such disproofs are recognized as
central to the scientific enterprise.
"Pseudoscience is just the opposite. Hypotheses are often framed precisely
so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a prospect of
disproof, so even in principle they cannot be invalidated. Practitioners are
defensive and wary. Skeptical scrutiny is opposed. When the pseudoscientific
hypothesis fails to catch fire with scientists, conspiracies to suppress it
are deduced." End Quote ref: pages 20-21, "Demon Haunted World."
ref: http://discus.xenu.net/discus/messages/730/
1823.html?1009633941
LRH's work can be disproved and has been widely discredited by both
scientists and by former Scientologists, some of whom tried his "applied
religious philosophy" for decades and found that it failed to deliver on its
main promises.
In order to defend his ignorant and incorrect religious views, however, Tom
Cruise linked Nazism and psychiatry. The Nazis murdered twelve million Jews
and Tom Cruise wants to associate the Holocaust with psychiatry. Tom Cruise
cheapened the deaths of twelve million Jews in Hitler's death camps in order
to promote his own religious extremism. If this does not show just how
craven Tom Cruise is in his dangerous religious fantacism, then I don't know
what will. For Tom Cruise to so casually walk on the backs of the Holocaust
dead in order to take a cheap shot at psychiatry defies human decency and
betrays his utter spiritual poverty and isolation from human suffering. All
Tom Cruise apparently feels are the stirrings that are brought about by his
romantic life. He is still an adolescent, still a naif.
Tom Cruise is an ignorant person and a religious extremist. The vicious CoS
lies he parrots apparently never bother Tom because he doesn't know they are
lies and doesn't check his facts. All he does is to recite his lines just
like in a movie.
As an aside, in his last movie "Collateral" Tom Cruise played a hitman and
murdered people in cold blood. We all know that Tom is not a hitman, but as
the religious person he claims to be, how can he play a murderer? LRH wanted
a world without violence and yet Tom is perpetuating violence in his movies.
I'm sorry, but it just seems amoral for Tom Cruise to take money to portray
a murderer when CoS wants to end violence in the world. I guess Tom was just
following the orders of the director? I guess Tom's art is not real life and
allows an otherwise ethical Tom Cruise to be excused from his vaunted CoS
ethics for 120 minutes on the big screen for $20 million?
Tom Cruise is just the propaganda puppet of a sinister cult bent on world
domination, and if world domination means taking away the medicines that
people need, then that is exactly what Scientology will do if it ever had
the power.
*****
I conclude by reminding Tom of some particularly powerful dialogue written
by Aaron Sorkin. Tom will be familiar with these lines:
JESSEP
You want answers?
KAFFEE
I think I'm entitled to them.
JESSEP
You want answers?!
KAFFEE
I want the truth.
JESSEP
You can't handle the truth!
*****
How about it, Mr. Cruise? Can you handle the truth?
'.)
_____________
Thanks.....
Tory/Magoo~~>
Spacetraveler
"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:42c63d10$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Scientology, Medication and My Life While "In", On Medication
>
> Much has been written and spoken about recently having to do with
> Scientology
>
> And what it's all about, thanks to Tom Cruise attacking publicly
medications
>
> People are taking.
>
> This didn't go over too well, and for someone like me, who spent
>
> 30 Y E A R S
>
> Fighting this exact insanity he rants about, it's delightful to see people
> getting to hear it
>
> In public, and comment on it. Thank you Tom Cruise!
>
> While I was a member of the organization known as "The Church of
> Scientology",
>
> I was told I had to get off the much needed medications I was to take to
> control Epilepsy.
You were told and did not find out what LRH said on the matter because his
Scientology had indoctrinated you to do what you were told.
> Being a true believer, I dove right in, following just as Tom says.
Meaning you did what all we indoctrinated Scientologists do. Good, you were
keeping Scientology wonking.
I feel sad about how indoctrinated Scientologists are and how it affects
the way they are treated, I am very wel aware of the degrees of stupidy of
staff in the organziation due to indoctrination. Some very stupid, some not
so very, but all stupid. I could have taken it as a full time job to only
report all the idiocy I have seen day after day but I was too busy with my
own idiocty. Scientology never was and never will be a miracle cure. It
requires a dose of doingness and willingness of those who want to be cured.
Paying money and sitting in a chair will not do it. Believing conspiracy
theories that excuse Hubbard's totalitarian policies and practising helps
and I strongly recommend it.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
>That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
>everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
>The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example. Another example of your
>blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
>be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.
>You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
>garbage out.
I was one of those 'evaluated' by David Miscavige for the Golden Age of
Tech when he found 'the blind leading the blind'. I don't always know where
I'm going but I lead to there very well. You have seen I am a scientist and
great thinker and how courage I have... a true renaissance man of the 21
century. I could not be all this without my great leadership qualities.
Flush for now but I will lead you to enlightenment after I have gotten
Gerry Armstrong through Steps A to E.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
>
> "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6lyxe.28432$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
> >
> > "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1120311823.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
> >> everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
> >> The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example.
> >
> > Meaning that you APPROVE of introducing an action solely based on
'secret'
> > research. Interesting. You know, you simply don't know if Dr. Gilberg
has
> > committed fraud, because no one can verify his supposed research as he
> > destroyed it. Who is believing blindly here.
> >
> > In addition friend Tory stories tell much about what some has 'told' to
> > her.
>
> Who told me what? This is, once again, your falsehoods added into a very
> real, live story of one person who lived with the insanities Tom Cruise is
> speaking of.
Little girl, stand for what you have said. I have a whole bunch of links of
posts with applicable sayings from you.
>
> I'm telling you what I *LIVED*.
No, you tell what some have done to you, when you just sat there, paying
your money, sitting in a chair, and begging "free me". There is a song from
"The Who" that goes like that...
>
> Quit changing what actually happened.
> Scientology~is~ (and was) quite dangereous to your health:
> both physical, and mental.
If you follow blindly advices taht are not even found in Scientology, of
course you are at risk, but that would be YOUR doing.
Sorry girl, you are not very sane... start looking at what is right in
front of you.
Spacetraveler
Notice! Fake 'Spacetraveler posting prior to this!
Please notice that repeatedly my impersonator is defending the case of our
friend Gerry Armstrong.
<snip Gerry Armstrong "Spacetraveler impersonator">
posted as: Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Spacetraveler)
through: mail...@dizum.com
What is it called? How is it spelled? Give me an F, give me an A, give me an
I, give me an R, give me an G, give me an A, give me an M, give me an E...
What's that spelled...?
This is how the critics cover up they have no argument that hold to start
with, they simply 'confidently' claim something (no explanation given), they
run (weaseling) or some may even impersonate...
Now how do they do that.... they simply Fair Game... the very tactic they
accuse Scientology of using... and what do we find... they USE it
THEMSELVES...
One way of using it is impersonating pro Scientology posters and ridicule
them...
Spacetraveler
Notice! Fake 'Spacetraveler posting prior to this!
Spacetraveler
>everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
>The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example. Another example of your
>blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
>be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.
>You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
>garbage out.
I was one of those 'evaluated' by David Miscavige for the Golden Age of
Tech when he found 'the blind leading the blind'. I don't always know where
I'm going but I lead to there very well. You have seen I am a scientist and
great thinker and how courage I have... a true renaissance man of the 21
century. I could not be all this without my great leadership qualities.
Flush for now but I will lead you to enlightenment after I have gotten
Gerry Armstrong through Steps A to E.
Spacetraveler
>Ramona
Spacetraveler
"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:42c63d10$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Scientology, Medication and My Life While "In", On Medication
>
> Much has been written and spoken about recently having to do with
> Scientology
>
> And what it's all about, thanks to Tom Cruise attacking publicly
medications
>
> People are taking.
>
> This didn't go over too well, and for someone like me, who spent
>
> 30 Y E A R S
>
> Fighting this exact insanity he rants about, it's delightful to see people
> getting to hear it
>
> In public, and comment on it. Thank you Tom Cruise!
>
> While I was a member of the organization known as "The Church of
> Scientology",
>
> I was told I had to get off the much needed medications I was to take to
> control Epilepsy.
You were told and did not find out what LRH said on the matter because his
Scientology had indoctrinated you to do what you were told.
> Being a true believer, I dove right in, following just as Tom says.
Meaning you did what all we indoctrinated Scientologists do. Good, you were
keeping Scientology wonking.
I feel sad about how indoctrinated Scientologists are and how it affects
the way they are treated, I am very wel aware of the degrees of stupidy of
staff in the organziation due to indoctrination. Some very stupid, some not
so very, but all stupid. I could have taken it as a full time job to only
report all the idiocy I have seen day after day but I was too busy with my
own idiocty. Scientology never was and never will be a miracle cure. It
requires a dose of doingness and willingness of those who want to be cured.
Ramona
Spacetraveler wrote:
> "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120311823.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
> > everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
> > The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example.
>
> Meaning that you APPROVE of introducing an action solely based on 'secret'
> research. Interesting.
Huh?? Not interesting to me. In all honesty I have no idea what you
are attempting to say.
I'm not quite sure why you quoted secret. You do realize that most
research projects are not put on the front page of newspapers with such
titles as: Hey we are testing X mascara for allergic response.
You know, you simply don't know if Dr. Gilberg has
> committed fraud, because no one can verify his supposed research as he
> destroyed it. Who is believing blindly here.
>
Again, what was wanted was the names of the patients. This in not
permissable due to patient doctor confidentiality rules even if a
sociologist wants that information. This does not constitue fraud.
Also consider your source of information. You cannot honestly believe
your source as either credible or reliable.
> In addition friend Tory stories tell much about what some has 'told' to her.
> And to quote her she said that after she left she had some people show her
> things she has not been aware of. Things she very simply could have checked
> out herself by consulting an OEC volume.
>
> > Another example of your
> > blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
> > be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.
> > You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
> > garbage out.
>
> Something tells me that you are not exactly a newbee. You have adjusted
> amazingly quick to the irrational reasoning and attacking language as is
> commonly used by various of the critics. Who are you really?
I am indeed a newbie to alt.religion.scientology. Thank you for the
compliment regarding my quick adjustment. I don't consider my language
"attacking" as for "irrational" that is your opinion and you are
allowed that. How's this adage? The Proof is in the Pudding. I am
well-educated, though that makes me feel like a braggard, and was
conferred a Master's degree (I chose chemistry and biology coursework
as electives, yeah I'm a geek) many, many, many, moons ago. My
favorite hobby remains reading.
>
> By the way you really do talk nonsense.
Again that is opinion. A huge question would then be: if I talk
nonsense, why do you respond? I believe that would make you a fool.
Ramona
xenu.net
>
> Spacetraveler
realpch
Ha ha ha! He's not going to have a lot of fun with you Ramona.
Peach
Ramona
He's not going to have fun with me?! *gasp* Aww why not Peach? I'm
just a playful kitten.
Ramona
Notice! Fake 'Spacetraveler posting prior to this!
Notice! Fake 'Spacetraveler posting prior to this!
Kevin
"Notice! Fake 'Spacetraveler posting prior to this!"
<spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> One way of using it is impersonating pro Scientology posters and ridicule
> them...
>
> Spacetraveler
They do a good job of that themselves
Kevin
"Notice! Fake 'Spacetraveler posting prior to this!"
<spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> One way of using it is impersonating pro Scientology posters and ridicule
> them...
>
> Spacetraveler
They do a good job of that themselves
realpch
>
> realpch wrote:
> > Ramona wrote:
> > >
> > > Spacetraveler wrote:
> > > > Spacetraveler
> >
> > Ha ha ha! He's not going to have a lot of fun with you Ramona.
> >
> > Peach
>
> He's not going to have fun with me?! *gasp* Aww why not Peach? I'm
> just a playful kitten.
>
> Ramona
>
> xenu.net
I know Mrs. Spacetraveler, who occasionally makes an appearance here,
would like you.
; )
Peach
Povmec
Just trying to follow your logic (don't know why I keep trying though).
You believe there is no such thing as victim of abuse or fraud. Is it
what you are saying?
And as far as I understand, she didn't sit on a chair to beg. She ended
up taking her medication while still being member of the church. It
worked fine for her when she came back to her medication. She ended up
leaving scientology and their weird beliefs. And now she is sharing her
experience with scientology.
The abuse is having scientology followers claim that they can cure
epilepsy (among other things). The ones making these false claims are
the one being fraudulous and abusive. Not the persons that are
open-minded enough to believe it could be true and try it.
Whether you like it or not, the fact in her story is pretty simple:
scientology didn't cure her epilepsy, the medications are working very
well. As simple as that.
Clearly, you are in perfectly good health ST. You happened to be lucky,
not every one has this fortune.
Spacetraveler
>
>
> Spacetraveler wrote:
> > "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1120311823.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
> > > everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
> > > The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example.
> >
> > Meaning that you APPROVE of introducing an action solely based on
'secret'
> > research. Interesting.
>
> Huh?? Not interesting to me. In all honesty I have no idea what you
> are attempting to say.
It is not interesting to you because you blindly believe those who in your
personal opinion (or other of whom you approve) match your prejudiced
worldview.
>
> I'm not quite sure why you quoted secret. You do realize that most
> research projects are not put on the front page of newspapers with such
> titles as: Hey we are testing X mascara for allergic response.
You are not very smart. IF YOU CAN'T VERIFY RESEARCH IT IS KEPT SECRET.
>
> You know, you simply don't know if Dr. Gilberg has
> > committed fraud, because no one can verify his supposed research as he
> > destroyed it. Who is believing blindly here.
> >
> Again, what was wanted was the names of the patients.
And they were going to publish those in the newspapers were they not? By the
way you are not responding to my claim.
> This in not
> permissable due to patient doctor confidentiality rules even if a
> sociologist wants that information. This does not constitue fraud.
>
> Also consider your source of information. You cannot honestly believe
> your source as either credible or reliable.
You have no argument in fact. Why? Because it's purely unscientific.
>
> > In addition friend Tory stories tell much about what some has 'told' to
her.
> > And to quote her she said that after she left she had some people show
her
> > things she has not been aware of. Things she very simply could have
checked
> > out herself by consulting an OEC volume.
> >
> > > Another example of your
> > > blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
> > > be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.
> > > You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
> > > garbage out.
> >
> > Something tells me that you are not exactly a newbee. You have adjusted
> > amazingly quick to the irrational reasoning and attacking language as is
> > commonly used by various of the critics. Who are you really?
>
> I am indeed a newbie to alt.religion.scientology. Thank you for the
> compliment regarding my quick adjustment.
It is not a compliment... it means you adapt other people's realites so
quick without even having been able to evaluate them.
> I don't consider my language
> "attacking" as for "irrational" that is your opinion and you are
> allowed that. How's this adage? The Proof is in the Pudding. I am
> well-educated, though that makes me feel like a braggard, and was
> conferred a Master's degree (I chose chemistry and biology coursework
> as electives, yeah I'm a geek) many, many, many, moons ago. My
> favorite hobby remains reading.
Strange, how come you knew so little about Einstein? Also strange is that
you accept Dr. Gilbert's destroying his research just like that, and in fact
defending him for it. Some serious doubt was casted on those studies. And he
destroys the research preventing a possible fraud to be exposed. And you
people talk about confidentiality? But of course all the names of the
persons were going to be published in the newspapers were they not. You know
little about science and verification. No wonder so many adopted the
evolution doctrine.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
Yeah, that's right, just playing around. Thank you...
Spacetraveler
Kevin
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, that's right, just playing around. Thank you...
>
> Spacetraveler
Looks like she was making fun of you.
*points and laughs*
Spacetraveler
"Kevin" <e...@joes.net> wrote in message
news:eat-C8AA9E.1...@news.charter.net...
Of course, you have to resort that approach if you can't win by argument....
.-)
She in fact has no case in regards to defending Dr. Gilbert. People sound of
mind see and understand my reasoning. And the critics? Who cares about what
they say...
Spacetraveler
Kevin
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, you have to resort that approach if you can't win by argument....
> .-)
Is that what Scientology has taught you?
Barbara Schwarz
Spacetraveler is persistant, convincing and does not commit crimes
against others as the ARS anti-religious exrtemists do.
You can't claim that for yourself, "Kevin".
Barbara Schwarz
Kevin
"Barbara Schwarz" <Stilllov...@myway.com> wrote:
> Spacetraveler is persistant,
Yes, most scientologists are. Persistant as spreading lies.
I too am persistent Barbara.
>convincing
Only to those that are weak minded like you Barbara.
> against others as the ARS anti-religious exrtemists do.
I am not an anti-religious extremist. Stop being dishonest Barbara
Schwarz. You are lying.
> You can't claim that for yourself, "Kevin".
>
> Barbara Schwarz
Sure i can.
I just did,
Spacetraveler
"Barbara Schwarz" <Stilllov...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1120343859....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I've quite him now, see how this little conspirator defames Tom Cruise in
the titles of his postings... childish and baseless... People have a
problem with spontanity. Cruise was spontanious, and people attack him for
it.
Spacetraveler
Kevin
> I've quite him now, see how this little conspirator defames Tom Cruise in
> the titles of his postings... childish and baseless... People have a
> problem with spontanity. Cruise was spontanious, and people attack him for
> it.
>
> Spacetraveler
No, people have a problem with nutjobs.
People didn't have a problem with Tom's spontaniety before he started
making an ass out of himself with this Scientology bullshit.
John Vreeland
I can't say I am upset with T.C.'s embracement of Scientology. He
attracts a great deal of attention to it, which in my eyes is a good
thing.
All this rubbish about his height, sexual preference, and ability to
act is irrelevant.
__
To be inerrant is to never know the truth.
John Vreeland - replace "eye-tripoli" with the appropriate tetragrammaton
Kevin
John Vreeland <vree...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I can't say I am upset with T.C.'s embracement of Scientology. He
> attracts a great deal of attention to it, which in my eyes is a good
> thing.
All of the attention is bad however.
More people are finding out what a crock Scientology actually is.
Jommy Cross
<spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in msg
<3Buxe.28419$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net>:
<snip>
>Scientology never was and never will be a miracle cure. It requires a dose
>of doingness and willingness of those who want to be cured. Paying money and
>sitting in a chair will not do it.
Although you also have to pay money and sit in a chair.
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Ramona
I have to ask, what are the views of Mrs. S.T.? Does this person also
believe as scripture the tabloids as S.T.? I sure hope not.
Ramona
Ramona
Spacetraveler wrote:
> "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120332598....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Spacetraveler wrote:
> > > "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1120311823.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
> > > > everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
> > > > The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example.
> > >
> > > Meaning that you APPROVE of introducing an action solely based on
> 'secret'
> > > research. Interesting.
> >
> > Huh?? Not interesting to me. In all honesty I have no idea what you
> > are attempting to say.
>
> It is not interesting to you because you blindly believe those who in your
> personal opinion (or other of whom you approve) match your prejudiced
> worldview.
I hate to be the one to break this you you S.T., but we are ALL blinded
by prejudices based on our unique life experiences. In case that was
too difficult for you to understand, I am saying, you too are blinded
by your own "prejudiced worldview."
>
> >
> > I'm not quite sure why you quoted secret. You do realize that most
> > research projects are not put on the front page of newspapers with such
> > titles as: Hey we are testing X mascara for allergic response.
>
> You are not very smart. IF YOU CAN'T VERIFY RESEARCH IT IS KEPT SECRET.
Ad hominem on your part. Tsk, tsk. My complaint was in your sentence.
It's structure caused me to not understand the point you were
attempting to make.
What was kept secret? Oh right, it almost escaped me, the ethical
researcher did not want to disclose the names of the subjects. The
names are what was wanted, not the information derived from the
experiment.
>
> >
> > You know, you simply don't know if Dr. Gilberg has
> > > committed fraud, because no one can verify his supposed research as he
> > > destroyed it. Who is believing blindly here.
> > >
> > Again, what was wanted was the names of the patients.
>
> And they were going to publish those in the newspapers were they not? By the
> way you are not responding to my claim.
>
> > This in not
> > permissable due to patient doctor confidentiality rules even if a
> > sociologist wants that information. This does not constitue fraud.
> >
> > Also consider your source of information. You cannot honestly believe
> > your source as either credible or reliable.
>
> You have no argument in fact. Why? Because it's purely unscientific.
It is against the rules to divuldge information regarding patients.
What?! It is not a part of science to disclose the names of test
subjects. Again, patient/doctor confidentiality is necessary. You
understand why, Oh I do hope?!
>
> >
> > > In addition friend Tory stories tell much about what some has 'told' to
> her.
> > > And to quote her she said that after she left she had some people show
> her
> > > things she has not been aware of. Things she very simply could have
> checked
> > > out herself by consulting an OEC volume.
> > >
> > > > Another example of your
> > > > blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
> > > > be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.
> > > > You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
> > > > garbage out.
> > >
> > > Something tells me that you are not exactly a newbee. You have adjusted
> > > amazingly quick to the irrational reasoning and attacking language as is
> > > commonly used by various of the critics. Who are you really?
> >
> > I am indeed a newbie to alt.religion.scientology. Thank you for the
> > compliment regarding my quick adjustment.
>
> It is not a compliment... it means you adapt other people's realites so
> quick without even having been able to evaluate them.
Oh, it is indeed a compliment taken by me. As for realities, I accept
my own. I don't read "The NationalScientologyBrainFeeder" as fact,
"evaluating" the garbage written as truth. But you do and garbage in =
garbage out.
>
> > I don't consider my language
> > "attacking" as for "irrational" that is your opinion and you are
> > allowed that. How's this adage? The Proof is in the Pudding. I am
> > well-educated, though that makes me feel like a braggard, and was
> > conferred a Master's degree (I chose chemistry and biology coursework
> > as electives, yeah I'm a geek) many, many, many, moons ago. My
> > favorite hobby remains reading.
>
> Strange, how come you knew so little about Einstein?
That would be you S.T. for writing (libel) as truth, untruths regarding
Einstein. For shame, for shame.
Also strange is that you accept Dr. Gilbert's destroying his research
just like that, and in fact
> defending him for it.
Hurray for Dr. Gilberg for protecting his patients to the point in
which he willingly destroyed his own research for their defense. I
think that makes me respect him the more so.
Some serious doubt was casted on those studies.
By whom? Oh that's right, that "Trashyly Journal" questioned his
non-production of Names, names names.
And he
> destroys the research preventing a possible fraud to be exposed.
He destroyed the research to protect his patients' names from being
exposed to a sociologist. Did you consider that you are possibly
committing libel against Dr. Gilberg?
And you
> people talk about confidentiality? But of course all the names of the
> persons were going to be published in the newspapers were they not. You know
> little about science and verification. No wonder so many adopted the
> evolution doctrine.
haha, lolroflmao. That last sentence is beautiful. Evolution
sweetie-pie is not a doctrine, but a theory....scientific theory. I'd
tell you to look up the definition, but I have little faith in your
willingness to look up that which is not in your paradigm.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof This
site will explain to you what theory means. Remember, we are not
talking about every day usage, but scientific theory. There is a
difference.
http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm I'm guessing you would
add gym time to the classroom. hehe
You suggest I have little understanding of science or of verification.
What university level hard science coursework have you taken? I would
love to compare your hard science background with mine. What studies,
by that I mean experiments-you seem to not "get" the lingo, have you
participated? By participated, I don't mean you were one of the
studied, but where one of the researchers.
Ramona
lisamcpherson.org
>
> Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
>
>
> Spacetraveler wrote:
> > "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1120332598....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Spacetraveler wrote:
> > > > "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1120311823.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
> > > > > everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no
better.
> > > > > The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example.
> > > >
> > > > Meaning that you APPROVE of introducing an action solely based on
> > 'secret'
> > > > research. Interesting.
> > >
> > > Huh?? Not interesting to me. In all honesty I have no idea what you
> > > are attempting to say.
> >
> > It is not interesting to you because you blindly believe those who in
your
> > personal opinion (or other of whom you approve) match your prejudiced
> > worldview.
>
> I hate to be the one to break this you you S.T., but we are ALL blinded
> by prejudices based on our unique life experiences. In case that was
> too difficult for you to understand, I am saying, you too are blinded
> by your own "prejudiced worldview."
You need to have an argument for that opinion. You are not providing that. I
however give you my exact reasoning how I came to some conclusion.
> >
> > >
> > > I'm not quite sure why you quoted secret. You do realize that most
> > > research projects are not put on the front page of newspapers with
such
> > > titles as: Hey we are testing X mascara for allergic response.
> >
> > You are not very smart. IF YOU CAN'T VERIFY RESEARCH IT IS KEPT SECRET.
>
> Ad hominem on your part. Tsk, tsk. My complaint was in your sentence.
> It's structure caused me to not understand the point you were
> attempting to make.
>
> What was kept secret? Oh right, it almost escaped me, the ethical
> researcher did not want to disclose the names of the subjects. The
> names are what was wanted, not the information derived from the
> experiment.
Unfortunately for you I have various friends in Sweden that keep me updated,
and this is not what they tell me about this. So it seems that what you
claim was a some kind of PR stunt making it easier for Dr. Gilberg to
justify himself. I also don't see why one only wants names, your argument
does not make sense.
It is interesting that you stress 'ethical' researcher. I don't find a
researcher ethical if he destroys his research material that was a cause for
putting a lot of children on amfetamine. I call that criminal... there is no
other name for it... it is criminal...
> > > You know, you simply don't know if Dr. Gilberg has
> > > > committed fraud, because no one can verify his supposed research as
he
> > > > destroyed it. Who is believing blindly here.
> > > >
> > > Again, what was wanted was the names of the patients.
> >
> > And they were going to publish those in the newspapers were they not? By
the
> > way you are not responding to my claim.
> >
> > > This in not
> > > permissable due to patient doctor confidentiality rules even if a
> > > sociologist wants that information. This does not constitue fraud.
> > >
> > > Also consider your source of information. You cannot honestly believe
> > > your source as either credible or reliable.
> >
> > You have no argument in fact. Why? Because it's purely unscientific.
>
> It is against the rules to divuldge information regarding patients.
>
> What?! It is not a part of science to disclose the names of test
> subjects. Again, patient/doctor confidentiality is necessary. You
> understand why, Oh I do hope?!
You are twisting here. You stress one interpretation to make look like a
fool. You failed. It is not about names.
You are involved with theory in = theory out. Theory however is not the
world we live in.
> >
> > > I don't consider my language
> > > "attacking" as for "irrational" that is your opinion and you are
> > > allowed that. How's this adage? The Proof is in the Pudding. I am
> > > well-educated, though that makes me feel like a braggard, and was
> > > conferred a Master's degree (I chose chemistry and biology coursework
> > > as electives, yeah I'm a geek) many, many, many, moons ago. My
> > > favorite hobby remains reading.
> >
> > Strange, how come you knew so little about Einstein?
>
> That would be you S.T. for writing (libel) as truth, untruths regarding
> Einstein. For shame, for shame.
>
> Also strange is that you accept Dr. Gilbert's destroying his research
> just like that, and in fact
> > defending him for it.
>
> Hurray for Dr. Gilberg for protecting his patients to the point in
> which he willingly destroyed his own research for their defense. I
> think that makes me respect him the more so.
>
> Some serious doubt was casted on those studies.
>
> By whom? Oh that's right, that "Trashyly Journal" questioned his
> non-production of Names, names names.
>
> And he
> > destroys the research preventing a possible fraud to be exposed.
>
> He destroyed the research to protect his patients' names from being
> exposed to a sociologist. Did you consider that you are possibly
> committing libel against Dr. Gilberg?
Your approach clearly shows how very unscientific you go about this.
>
> And you
> > people talk about confidentiality? But of course all the names of the
> > persons were going to be published in the newspapers were they not. You
know
> > little about science and verification. No wonder so many adopted the
> > evolution doctrine.
>
>
> haha, lolroflmao. That last sentence is beautiful. Evolution
> sweetie-pie is not a doctrine, but a theory....scientific theory. I'd
> tell you to look up the definition, but I have little faith in your
> willingness to look up that which is not in your paradigm.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof This
> site will explain to you what theory means. Remember, we are not
> talking about every day usage, but scientific theory. There is a
> difference.
At school it is taught as if being a proven fact. That's the reality of it.
It is not taught as a scientific theory. No other options are given to our
children. The outcome is the only interesting part of all this and how to
actually judge something.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm I'm guessing you would
> add gym time to the classroom. hehe
>
> You suggest I have little understanding of science or of verification.
> What university level hard science coursework have you taken? I would
> love to compare your hard science background with mine. What studies,
> by that I mean experiments-you seem to not "get" the lingo, have you
> participated? By participated, I don't mean you were one of the
> studied, but where one of the researchers.
Irrelevant. I am only interested in how you respond here and now...
Spacetraveler
Povmec
Spacetraveler wrote:
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof This
> > site will explain to you what theory means. Remember, we are not
> > talking about every day usage, but scientific theory. There is a
> > difference.
>
> At school it is taught as if being a proven fact. That's the reality of it.
> It is not taught as a scientific theory. No other options are given to our
> children. The outcome is the only interesting part of all this and how to
> actually judge something.
ST, I want to hear your alternative theory of evolution. As far as I've
read, the evolution one is the one that fits perfectly with the
observed facts - which form a mountain of evidences. If your
alternative theory fits well with the facts, I'm sure it will deserve
closer scrutiny. Are you talking about creationism? If so, forget about
it, it fails at the first few analysis.
Ray.
Ramona
I have "friends" who thnk that you are nuts and not terribly bright.
That is opinion.
> It is interesting that you stress 'ethical' researcher. I don't find a
> researcher ethical if he destroys his research material that was a cause for
> putting a lot of children on amfetamine. I call that criminal... there is no
> other name for it... it is criminal...
I find it very ethical to not break doctor/patient confidentiality. >
>
>
>
> > > > You know, you simply don't know if Dr. Gilberg has
> > > > > committed fraud, because no one can verify his supposed research as
> he
> > > > > destroyed it. Who is believing blindly here.
> > > > >
> > > > Again, what was wanted was the names of the patients.
> > >
> > > And they were going to publish those in the newspapers were they not? By
> the
> > > way you are not responding to my claim.
> > >
> > > > This in not
> > > > permissable due to patient doctor confidentiality rules even if a
> > > > sociologist wants that information. This does not constitue fraud.
> > > >
> > > > Also consider your source of information. You cannot honestly believe
> > > > your source as either credible or reliable.
> > >
> > > You have no argument in fact. Why? Because it's purely unscientific.
> >
> > It is against the rules to divuldge information regarding patients.
> >
> > What?! It is not a part of science to disclose the names of test
> > subjects. Again, patient/doctor confidentiality is necessary. You
> > understand why, Oh I do hope?!
>
> You are twisting here. You stress one interpretation to make look like a
> fool. You failed. It is not about names.
I make you look like a fool? Oh S.T. no way. You do that all by
yourself. And yes, it is about names.
Ah but you are from the "put sins in writing, file it and kept it for
potential alledged blackmail" crowd. Speaking of which, how is it that
the I.R.S. changed without notice the tax status of CO$?
You do not understand the world theory. Stop. Look up misunderstood
word.
Again, you do not understand the word theory in science. You are using
the common language definition. The Theory of Gravity is also JUST a
theory. Follow yet you who has clearly not studied any hard sciences?
>
>
> >
> > http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm I'm guessing you would
> > add gym time to the classroom. hehe
> >
> > You suggest I have little understanding of science or of verification.
> > What university level hard science coursework have you taken? I would
> > love to compare your hard science background with mine. What studies,
> > by that I mean experiments-you seem to not "get" the lingo, have you
> > participated? By participated, I don't mean you were one of the
> > studied, but where one of the researchers.
>
> Irrelevant. I am only interested in how you respond here and now...
It is relevant because the subject is science and how experiments are
conducted. You claim that Gilberg committed fraud in his study, but
you don't even know how to define theory. You clearly do not
understand the basics so you appear astoundingly ignorant yet readily
willing to spew nonsense.
I love this next adage and it appears to apply well in this case.
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open
your
mouth and remove all doubt.
Dr. Wayne S. Amato
>
> Spacetraveler
Barbara Schwarz
I agree. Too bad that people have to be stiff to not get in troubles.
But then they could be mistaken for being dead and be burried alive.
Barbara Schwarz
Kevin
"Barbara Schwarz" <Stilllov...@myway.com> wrote:
> I agree. Too bad that people have to be stiff to not get in troubles.
> But then they could be mistaken for being dead and be burried alive.
>
> Barbara Schwarz
What are you blabbing about now?
--
-----------------------
http://www.xenu.net/
Magoo
"Spacetraveler" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
news:X29X629Z3853...@anonymous.poster...> news:42c63d10$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>> Scientology, Medication and My Life While "In", On Medication
>>
>> Much has been written and spoken about recently having to do with
>> Scientology
>>
>> And what it's all about, thanks to Tom Cruise attacking publicly
> medications
>>
>> People are taking.
>>
>> This didn't go over too well, and for someone like me, who spent
>>
>> 30 Y E A R S
>>
>> Fighting this exact insanity he rants about, it's delightful to see
>> people
>> getting to hear it
>>
>> In public, and comment on it. Thank you Tom Cruise!
>>
>> While I was a member of the organization known as "The Church of
>> Scientology",
>>
>> I was told I had to get off the much needed medications I was to take to
>> control Epilepsy.
>
> You were told and did not find out what LRH said on the matter because his
> Scientology had indoctrinated you to do what you were told.
I love the way you continue to twist things around. Thankfully, the rest of
the world can see, hear, read, and understands just fine what DID go down,
vs you endless attemtps to make me wrong. Too funny.
>
>
>> Being a true believer, I dove right in, following just as Tom says.
>
> Meaning you did what all we indoctrinated Scientologists do. Good, you
> were
> keeping Scientology wonking.
You know, your labels don't change one second what did happen, and why.
Scientology IS dangerous to one's health, and that story ain't changing. Tom
Cruise (and you too) are terrific examples of the "EP" (Results) of being a
Scientologist, esp. at "OT". There are a few exections, but they're very few
that I've met.
>
> I feel sad about how indoctrinated Scientologists are and how it affects
> the way they are treated, I am very wel aware of the degrees of stupidy of
> staff in the organziation due to indoctrination.
Does that make you feel better...smarter...calling others "Stupid"? Thank
you for showing who you really are.
Some very stupid, some not
> so very, but all stupid.
Yeah..it didn't have anything to do with your master's writings, did it? You
are too funny. Hubbard was a classic hypocrit, and you don't/can't see it.
I could have taken it as a full time job to only
> report all the idiocy I have seen day after day but I was too busy with my
> own idiocty.
Daily you prove your own idiocies, unwillingness to SEE what did happen, and
your blocked senses. I'm sorry for you.
You think you're better. So do most Scientologists. Until they wake up.
Scientology never was and never will be a miracle cure. It
> requires a dose of doingness and willingness of those who want to be
> cured.
And your crap ...suggesting I wanted to be 'cured' is so far from what
occurred, it's ridiculous. I got into Scientology to help others, I joined
the Sea Org to do so, and I continued trying to "Fix my problem" so I could
get back to what I joined for. It was only when I finally realized that
entire BS program was run by people like you.........who cannot see, cannot
read, cannot think, that I finally began to wake up.
> Paying money and sitting in a chair will not do it.
Which if you knew any of my life within Scientology, you would know what a
moron you sound like.
Believing conspiracy
> theories that excuse Hubbard's totalitarian policies and practising helps
> and I strongly recommend it.
I bet you do. I do not. I also recommend for those trapped inside, trying to
sort things out, that you read the Web sites. Gather INFORMATION (not this
jerks 'think')...and then, after you've read both sides, make up your mind,
if you want to be in Scientology or not.
The simple truth is you can find the vast majority of what is good within
Scientology in books in the library for free (see Self Help Section) or
Barnes and Noble, for $19.99.
Good luck, and Happy 4th of July. One suggestion: If you are still stuck in,
take back your independence this week-end!
Remember Hubbard's Final PL:
The way OUT
IS
The Neeeeeeeeeeeeearest
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR!!
*((Hey! HE Took it, why not YOU?))
:)
Tory/Magoo~~
www.xenu.net
www.xenutv.com
www.torymagoo.org
www.lermanet.com/cos/toryonosa.htm
www.altreligionscientology.org
>
> Spacetraveler
>
>
>
Spacetraveler
> > You need to have an argument for that opinion. You are not providing
that. I
> > however give you my exact reasoning how I came to some conclusion.
You missed this one...
> I have "friends" who thnk that you are nuts and not terribly bright.
> That is opinion.
Which you do not support with data...
> > It is interesting that you stress 'ethical' researcher. I don't find a
> > researcher ethical if he destroys his research material that was a cause
for
> > putting a lot of children on amfetamine. I call that criminal... there
is no
> > other name for it... it is criminal...
>
> I find it very ethical to not break doctor/patient confidentiality.
It was not going to be broken...
http://www.gu.se/Aktuellt/GU-journalen/4-03/nyhet1.html
It says amongst other this:
"Gillberglägret har i debatten givit allmänheten en bild av att det handlar
om offentligt beskådande, att vem som helst får läsa. Att kammarrättens dom
enbart gäller forskaren Eva Kärfve och barnläkaren Leif Elinder, som båda är
belagda med sekretess, kommer sällan fram."
Briefly it says that the Gillberg team have given the impression that it
involves putting it on public view. The court order however says that it
will only be released to 2 person who also had to swear secrecy relating to
this researchmaterial.
Meaning you have no argument.
> > > What?! It is not a part of science to disclose the names of test
> > > subjects. Again, patient/doctor confidentiality is necessary. You
> > > understand why, Oh I do hope?!
> >
> > You are twisting here. You stress one interpretation to make look like a
> > fool. You failed. It is not about names.
>
> I make you look like a fool? Oh S.T. no way. You do that all by
> yourself. And yes, it is about names.
No, names got nothing to do with it.
http://www.gu.se/Aktuellt/GU-journalen/4-03/nyhet1.html
Get someone to translate it for you.
You rely on rumour and hearsay. You bought the Gillberg team version just
like that, without verifying. Great scientific approach you have, just
f***ing great...
> Again, you do not understand the word theory in science. You are using
> the common language definition. The Theory of Gravity is also JUST a
> theory. Follow yet you who has clearly not studied any hard sciences?
I use the definition that I find suitable and as found in dictionaries. The
scientific defitinion is not very well understood by the common man, further
I find it misleading. So... I don't use it in that way, I believe that my
discussions with Keith Henson on this subject were clear enough.
Science is not about playing with words, science is research, testing and
evaluation. Using a certain difficult language makes that you can manipulate
the uninitiated listener. I think that is false.
> > > http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm I'm guessing you would
> > > add gym time to the classroom. hehe
> > >
> > > You suggest I have little understanding of science or of verification.
> > > What university level hard science coursework have you taken? I would
> > > love to compare your hard science background with mine. What studies,
> > > by that I mean experiments-you seem to not "get" the lingo, have you
> > > participated? By participated, I don't mean you were one of the
> > > studied, but where one of the researchers.
> >
> > Irrelevant. I am only interested in how you respond here and now...
>
> It is relevant because the subject is science and how experiments are
> conducted. You claim that Gilberg committed fraud in his study
I actually did not... I pointed out that you do not know if he committed
fraud, but we have some indicators that point in that direction...
Science is also 'exact' observation and not assuming things and getting
ahead of things...
>, but
> you don't even know how to define theory. You clearly do not
> understand the basics so you appear astoundingly ignorant yet readily
> willing to spew nonsense.
You failed to discredit me. Pity I don't have these articles in english, it
is Swedish, and my Danish is well enough to understand it, I was stationed
for a while in Copenhagen in AOSH.
>
> I love this next adage and it appears to apply well in this case.
>
> It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open
> your
> mouth and remove all doubt.
Indeed it is... but it did not turn out very well for you...
Spacetraveler
Kevin
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You failed to discredit me.
No actually, he did a pretty good job at discrediting you.
Hell, you discredit yourself.
It's not that hard.
--
http://www.xenu.net/
Don't let the cancer known as Scientology fool you.
Kevin
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think actually that you only impress the uneducated ones and the
> feebleminded.
>
> Spacetraveler
So what you are saying is, you are impressed.
Spacetraveler
I think actually that you only impress the uneducated ones and the
feebleminded. When it comes to source materials and real research you miss
out on a lot. For this reason I am not worried. It's YOU that make YOU
wrong...
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
I like to think actually that you only impress the uneducated ones and the
feebleminded, even if I know it's not true. When it comes to source
materials and real research you miss out on all the conspiracy theories.
The reason I am worried is that I always FAIL to make you wrong, and YOU
don't make YOURSELF wrong like I always DO...
Povmec
Spacetraveler wrote:
> I like to think actually that you only impress the uneducated ones and the
> feebleminded, even if I know it's not true. When it comes to source
> materials and real research you miss out on all the conspiracy theories.
> The reason I am worried is that I always FAIL to make you wrong, and YOU
> don't make YOURSELF wrong like I always DO...
Ah you... LOL. You almost fooled me into asking what is it you did
wrong last time... You remember me 28 years ago? I was leaning toward
crazy ideas, your little sarcasms in the back of my head brought me
back to reason, though I ended up spending a lot for UFOs conspiracy
theories... Thanks for it. Glad to see you still work to bring others
back from lunacy.
Ray.
Spacetraveler
You are welcome!
Spacetraveler
>
>Ray.
Spacetraveler
"Povmec" <pov...@xenu-directory.net> wrote in message
news:1120445385....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
You are responding to an imposter...
Spacetraveler
Notice! Fake 'Spacetraveler posting prior to this!
Please notice that repeatedly my impersonator is defending the case of our
friend Gerry Armstrong.
<snip Gerry Armstrong "Spacetraveler impersonator">
posted as: Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Spacetraveler)
through: mail...@dizum.com
What is it called? How is it spelled? Give me an F, give me an A, give me an
I, give me an R, give me an G, give me an A, give me an M, give me an E...
What's that spelled...?
This is how the critics cover up they have no argument that hold to start
with, they simply 'confidently' claim something (no explanation given), they
run (weaseling) or some may even impersonate...
Now how do they do that.... they simply Fair Game... the very tactic they
accuse Scientology of using... and what do we find... they USE it
THEMSELVES...
One way of using it is impersonating pro Scientology posters and ridicule
them...
Spacetraveler
Notice! Fake 'Spacetraveler posting prior to this!
Spacetraveler
> > >
> > > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:6lyxe.28432$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1120311823.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > >> That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
> > > >> everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no
better.
> > > >> The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example.
> > > >
> > > > Meaning that you APPROVE of introducing an action solely based on
> > 'secret'
Gilberg
> > has
> > > > committed fraud, because no one can verify his supposed research as
he
> > > > destroyed it. Who is believing blindly here.
> > > >
to
> > > > her.
> > >
very
> > > real, live story of one person who lived with the insanities Tom
Cruise is
> > > speaking of.
> >
> > Little girl, stand for what you have said. I have a whole bunch of links
of
> > posts with applicable sayings from you.
> >
> > >
> > > I'm telling you what I *LIVED*.
> >
> > No, you tell what some have done to you, when you just sat there, paying
> > your money, sitting in a chair, and begging "free me". There is a song
from
> > "The Who" that goes like that...
>
> Just trying to follow your logic (don't know why I keep trying though).
>
> You believe there is no such thing as victim of abuse or fraud. Is it
> what you are saying?
You have some responsibility yourself.
> And as far as I understand, she didn't sit on a chair to beg. She ended
> up taking her medication while still being member of the church.
Exactly, "she" did that. She herself put her in that situation. That is like
sitting in a chair and waiting.
> It
> worked fine for her when she came back to her medication. She ended up
> leaving scientology and their weird beliefs. And now she is sharing her
> experience with scientology.
So, "equal rights for all" is a weird believe?
>
> The abuse is having scientology followers claim that they can cure
> epilepsy (among other things). The ones making these false claims are
> the one being fraudulous and abusive. Not the persons that are
> open-minded enough to believe it could be true and try it.
Where is this claim made, where?
> Whether you like it or not, the fact in her story is pretty simple:
> scientology didn't cure her epilepsy, the medications are working very
> well. As simple as that.
>
> Clearly, you are in perfectly good health ST. You happened to be lucky,
> not every one has this fortune.
Let's say that Tory trusted the wrong persons and was caught in an
infiltrated organzation.
Spacetraveler
Ramona
Spacetraveler wrote:
> snip
>
> > > You need to have an argument for that opinion. You are not providing
> that. I
> > > however give you my exact reasoning how I came to some conclusion.
>
> You missed this one...
>
> > I have "friends" who thnk that you are nuts and not terribly bright.
> > That is opinion.
>
> Which you do not support with data...
Your own words support your lack of understanding. I will note such
when I reach it below.
>
> > > It is interesting that you stress 'ethical' researcher. I don't find a
> > > researcher ethical if he destroys his research material that was a cause
> for
> > > putting a lot of children on amfetamine.
An ethical researcher will indeed "throw" his data rather than
compromise integrity. Watch out now S.T. there are many definitions
for the word throw. Will you insert the correct definition? Let us
hope.
I call that criminal... there
> is no
> > > other name for it... it is criminal...
What is criminal is that a doctor is asked to compromise his patients.
Get that through your few gray matter cells.
T
> >
> > I find it very ethical to not break doctor/patient confidentiality.
>
> It was not going to be broken...
> http://www.gu.se/Aktuellt/GU-journalen/4-03/nyhet1.html
>
> It says amongst other this:
> "Gillberglägret har i debatten givit allmänheten en bild av att det handlar
> om offentligt beskådande, att vem som helst får läsa. Att kammarrättens dom
> enbart gäller forskaren Eva Kärfve och barnläkaren Leif Elinder, som båda är
> belagda med sekretess, kommer sällan fram."
>
> Briefly it says that the Gillberg team have given the impression that it
> involves putting it on public view. The court order however says that it
> will only be released to 2 person who also had to swear secrecy relating to
> this researchmaterial.
>
> Meaning you have no argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Gillberg
The Gothenburg university made an internal investigation, that
dismissed the accusations. Kärfve and Elinder then demanded access to
the research material behind the so called Gothenburg study about DAMP,
but the university denied them this. They then took it to the court,
that decided that the two critics would be allowed to take part of the
material, although the research material on patients falls under
secrecy.
In May 2004 Gillberg and three of his coworkers destroyed the 12 - 27
years old research material, claiming that the secrecy of the
participating patients would be broken if they were handed out to
Kärfve and Elinder. In June 2005, Gillberg and the principal of
Göteborgs Universitet were convicted by court for not handing the
material over to Kjärre and Elinder.
>
>
> > > > What?! It is not a part of science to disclose the names of test
> > > > subjects. Again, patient/doctor confidentiality is necessary. You
> > > > understand why, Oh I do hope?!
> > >
> > > You are twisting here. You stress one interpretation to make look like a
> > > fool. You failed. It is not about names.
> >
> > I make you look like a fool? Oh S.T. no way. You do that all by
> > yourself. And yes, it is about names.
>
> No, names got nothing to do with it.
> http://www.gu.se/Aktuellt/GU-journalen/4-03/nyhet1.html
> Get someone to translate it for you.
>
> You rely on rumour and hearsay. You bought the Gillberg team version just
> like that, without verifying. Great scientific approach you have, just
> f***ing great...
>
>
> > Again, you do not understand the word theory in science. You are using
> > the common language definition. The Theory of Gravity is also JUST a
> > theory. Follow yet you who has clearly not studied any hard sciences?
>
> I use the definition that I find suitable and as found in dictionaries.
Hahahaha, this is one of those places in which you prove yourself
ingnorant. When discussing science, science definitions must be used
for logic.
> The
> scientific defitinion is not very well understood by the common man, further
> I find it misleading.
Oh oh, here is more illogic. Using a science definition regarding
science is misleading. That is precious. Logic would state that using
a non-science defintion regarding science is misleading.
So... I don't use it in that way, I believe that my
> discussions with Keith Henson on this subject were clear enough.
I have no idea what you discuss with Henson.
> Science is not about playing with words, science is research, testing and
> evaluation.
Exactly that is why the appropriate definition MUST be used, not layman
definitions which are irrelavant and nonsensical.
Using a certain difficult language makes that you can manipulate
> the uninitiated listener.
Oh oh, there you go again will your nonsense. If you do not understand
the definitions regarding the topic of science, learn them. To use the
incorrect definition makes for illogic. Again, the theory of gravity
is just a theory in the same sense that the theory of evolution is just
a theory. When you understand that concept we can move on in the
discussion of Science. Until then, please don't play that you
understand real science.
I think that is false.
If the "uninitiated" listener does not understand scientific
terminology, it is not my responsibility to teach the listener. It is
the responsibility of the reader to learn that same terminology, not
mine to reduce my language and incorrectly present information.
Again, the theory of gravity is a theory in the same way that the
theory of evolution is a theory. When you understand that, we can have
discussion regarding science, real science.
>
>
> > > > http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm I'm guessing you would
> > > > add gym time to the classroom. hehe
> > > >
> > > > You suggest I have little understanding of science or of verification.
> > > > What university level hard science coursework have you taken? I would
> > > > love to compare your hard science background with mine. What studies,
> > > > by that I mean experiments-you seem to not "get" the lingo, have you
> > > > participated? By participated, I don't mean you were one of the
> > > > studied, but where one of the researchers.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. I am only interested in how you respond here and now...
> >
> > It is relevant because the subject is science and how experiments are
> > conducted. You claim that Gilberg committed fraud in his study
>
> I actually did not... I pointed out that you do not know if he committed
> fraud, but we have some indicators that point in that direction...
> Science is also 'exact' observation and not assuming things and getting
> ahead of things...
>
> >, but
> > you don't even know how to define theory. You clearly do not
> > understand the basics so you appear astoundingly ignorant yet readily
> > willing to spew nonsense.
>
> You failed to discredit me. Pity I don't have these articles in english, it
> is Swedish, and my Danish is well enough to understand it, I was stationed
> for a while in Copenhagen in AOSH.
Bully for you and...? You assume I am unilingual? Here is a hint, my
sister's we not born in the U.S., neither were my parents, nor their
parents. Oh but then in addition I am familiar with other languages.
That and 50 cents still won't get me a cup of coffee.
>
> >
> > I love this next adage and it appears to apply well in this case.
> >
> > It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open
> > your
> > mouth and remove all doubt.
>
> Indeed it is... but it did not turn out very well for you...
Yes, it was awful showing your science illiteracy. But it was
necessary.
>
> Spacetraveler
Ramona
Ramona
If you in all honesty would like to better educate yourself in science,
I will be happy to get you going. Just let me know if you would like
internet links or textbooks.
regards,
Ramona
Ramona
S.T.,
Since it is clear you don't know about doctor/patient rules, look up
HIPAA laws. That will get you a start. Then you will understand that
2 people promising to keep names confidential (wink, wink, nod, nod) is
still not acceptable.
Ramona
lisamcpherson.org
Spacetraveler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Gillberg
Answer: You obviously did not consult the data as presented at the link I
provided. Also are you not in the least confounded about how this court
order came about? Would they not have known about the laws of
confidentiality? And how many times had this court order be issued?
> > > > What?! It is not a part of science to disclose the names of test
> > > > subjects. Again, patient/doctor confidentiality is necessary. You
> > > > understand why, Oh I do hope?!
> > >
> > > You are twisting here. You stress one interpretation to make look like
a
> > > fool. You failed. It is not about names.
> >
> > I make you look like a fool? Oh S.T. no way. You do that all by
> > yourself. And yes, it is about names.
>
> No, names got nothing to do with it.
> http://www.gu.se/Aktuellt/GU-journalen/4-03/nyhet1.html
> Get someone to translate it for you.
>
> You rely on rumour and hearsay. You bought the Gillberg team version just
> like that, without verifying. Great scientific approach you have, just
> f***ing great...
Respons: I happen to notice that there is NO response to the above... why?
> > Again, you do not understand the word theory in science. You are using
> > the common language definition. The Theory of Gravity is also JUST a
> > theory. Follow yet you who has clearly not studied any hard sciences?
>
> I use the definition that I find suitable and as found in dictionaries.
Hahahaha, this is one of those places in which you prove yourself
ingnorant. When discussing science, science definitions must be used
for logic.
Answer: Not on a public discussion board like this newsgroup. You see,
generally I DO find that various scientists use this as an argument. Here
you are to use common language.
> The
> scientific defitinion is not very well understood by the common man,
further
> I find it misleading.
Oh oh, here is more illogic. Using a science definition regarding
science is misleading. That is precious. Logic would state that using
a non-science defintion regarding science is misleading.
Answer: Most definitely it is not. Some made up these definitions, some
implemented certain procedures. Once Churchleaders had the argument that the
Bible was God's word and was not allowed to be translated. Providing an
opportunity for the Churhleaders to fool around as they pleased. And then we
had Luther who objected and translated the Bible into German.
> So... I don't use it in that way, I believe that my
> discussions with Keith Henson on this subject were clear enough.
I have no idea what you discuss with Henson.
Answer: Do a Google search if you want. I don't care.
> Science is not about playing with words, science is research, testing and
> evaluation.
Exactly that is why the appropriate definition MUST be used, not layman
definitions which are irrelavant and nonsensical.
Answer: You are being nonsensical in fact. Many of these special adapted
definitions have been introduced not even so very long ago.
> Using a certain difficult language makes that you can manipulate
> the uninitiated listener.
Oh oh, there you go again will your nonsense. If you do not understand
the definitions regarding the topic of science, learn them. To use the
incorrect definition makes for illogic. Again, the theory of gravity
is just a theory in the same sense that the theory of evolution is just
a theory. When you understand that concept we can move on in the
discussion of Science. Until then, please don't play that you
understand real science.
I think that is false.
If the "uninitiated" listener does not understand scientific
terminology, it is not my responsibility to teach the listener. It is
the responsibility of the reader to learn that same terminology, not
mine to reduce my language and incorrectly present information.
Again, the theory of gravity is a theory in the same way that the
theory of evolution is a theory. When you understand that, we can have
discussion regarding science, real science.
Answer: With common language. If I can discuss these things in common
language then everyone can.
Science is not about playing with words, science is research, testing and
evaluation.
> > > > http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm I'm guessing you would
> > > > add gym time to the classroom. hehe
> > > >
> > > > You suggest I have little understanding of science or of
verification.
> > > > What university level hard science coursework have you taken? I
would
> > > > love to compare your hard science background with mine. What
studies,
> > > > by that I mean experiments-you seem to not "get" the lingo, have you
> > > > participated? By participated, I don't mean you were one of the
> > > > studied, but where one of the researchers.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. I am only interested in how you respond here and now...
> >
> > It is relevant because the subject is science and how experiments are
> > conducted. You claim that Gilberg committed fraud in his study
>
> I actually did not... I pointed out that you do not know if he committed
> fraud, but we have some indicators that point in that direction...
> Science is also 'exact' observation and not assuming things and getting
> ahead of things...
Answer: NOt response here either. Does that mean you acknowledge?
> >, but
> > you don't even know how to define theory. You clearly do not
> > understand the basics so you appear astoundingly ignorant yet readily
> > willing to spew nonsense.
>
> You failed to discredit me. Pity I don't have these articles in english,
it
> is Swedish, and my Danish is well enough to understand it, I was stationed
> for a while in Copenhagen in AOSH.
Bully for you and...? You assume I am unilingual? Here is a hint, my
sister's we not born in the U.S., neither were my parents, nor their
parents. Oh but then in addition I am familiar with other languages.
That and 50 cents still won't get me a cup of coffee.
Answer: Does this mean you are able to discern the context of the article?
You don't query the data in that article though...? Data that sheds quite a
different light on your claims...! WHY do you not query the context of the
article, WHY?
> > I love this next adage and it appears to apply well in this case.
> >
> > It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open
> > your
> > mouth and remove all doubt.
>
> Indeed it is... but it did not turn out very well for you...
Yes, it was awful showing your science illiteracy. But it was
necessary.
answer: Insults and the usual playing around do not get you out of this mess
you got yourself into. You are to use common language on this newsgroup so
that ALL can understand and follow what you claim. We are not discussing a
scientific specialism here. If you are unable to adjust to common language
re this then I may have to perceive here that you have a 'language
illiteracy'.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
I think you are false, you insult and assume a lot of things. YOU dear girl,
run from the arguments as displayed in the article that I supplied. YOU
attempt to picture me as if I don't know where I talk about or for being
scientifically illiterate. When ALL I have done is to talk about these
matters in commonly used language so that ALL can follow the discussion. I
have quite a few years behind me as being a researching scientist, meaning
that I know the drill. I have seen lots of socalled scientists 'hiding'
behind the argument that you are using right now!
Spacetraveler
Ramona
Spacetraveler wrote:
> "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120501785.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > S.T.,
> >
> > If you in all honesty would like to better educate yourself in science,
> > I will be happy to get you going. Just let me know if you would like
> > internet links or textbooks.
>
> I think you are false, you insult and assume a lot of things. YOU dear girl,
> run from the arguments as displayed in the article that I supplied. YOU
> attempt to picture me as if I don't know where I talk about or for being
> scientifically illiterate.
You paint yourself as scientifically illiterate when you use the wrong
definition.
When ALL I have done is to talk about these
> matters in commonly used language so that ALL can follow the discussion.
Again, it's the wrong definition so that those scientifically
illiterate will be on the wrong page.
>I
> have quite a few years behind me as being a researching scientist, meaning
> that I know the drill.
hahahaha, RIGHT!!!! lolroflmao
I have seen lots of socalled scientists 'hiding'
> behind the argument that you are using right now!
Funny, those scientist...real ones, were using the same definition as
I. When everybody else is against you, perhaps you need to consider
that you are the problem.
>
> Spacetraveler
Ramona
Ramona
Spacetraveler wrote:
> <snip insults and various>
>
> > > I find it very ethical to not break doctor/patient confidentiality.
> >
> > It was not going to be broken...
Two people being told is breaking confidentiality, even if they pinky
promised not to tell. Get that into your head.
Your assumptions is incorrect.
Also are you not in the least confounded about how this court
> order came about?
Nope.
> Would they not have known about the laws of
> confidentiality?
Yes, but that does not mean that the court would acknowledge them.
And how many times had this court order be issued?
>
>
> > > > > What?! It is not a part of science to disclose the names of test
> > > > > subjects. Again, patient/doctor confidentiality is necessary. You
> > > > > understand why, Oh I do hope?!
> > > >
> > > > You are twisting here. You stress one interpretation to make look like
> a
> > > > fool. You failed. It is not about names.
> > >
> > > I make you look like a fool? Oh S.T. no way. You do that all by
> > > yourself. And yes, it is about names.
> >
> > No, names got nothing to do with it.
> > http://www.gu.se/Aktuellt/GU-journalen/4-03/nyhet1.html
> > Get someone to translate it for you.
> >
> > You rely on rumour and hearsay. You bought the Gillberg team version just
> > like that, without verifying. Great scientific approach you have, just
> > f***ing great...
>
> Respons: I happen to notice that there is NO response to the above... why?
I have stated the same facts and you ignore them. You are capable of
rereading.
>
>
> > > Again, you do not understand the word theory in science. You are using
> > > the common language definition. The Theory of Gravity is also JUST a
> > > theory. Follow yet you who has clearly not studied any hard sciences?
> >
> > I use the definition that I find suitable and as found in dictionaries.
>
> Hahahaha, this is one of those places in which you prove yourself
> ingnorant. When discussing science, science definitions must be used
> for logic.
>
> Answer: Not on a public discussion board like this newsgroup. You see,
> generally I DO find that various scientists use this as an argument. Here
> you are to use common language.
That is idiotic. If the subject matter is science, scientific
definitions are appropriate. If the subject is religion, religious
definitions are appropriate. Simply because you don't understand the
defintions or are too lazy to look them up, should not be the reason
for failing to use the CORRECT definitions.
>
> > The
> > scientific defitinion is not very well understood by the common man,
> further
> > I find it misleading.
>
> Oh oh, here is more illogic. Using a science definition regarding
> science is misleading. That is precious. Logic would state that using
> a non-science defintion regarding science is misleading.
>
> Answer: Most definitely it is not.
On what planet??
Some made up these definitions, some
> implemented certain procedures.
What ?!?
Once Churchleaders had the argument that the
> Bible was God's word and was not allowed to be translated. Providing an
> opportunity for the Churhleaders to fool around as they pleased. And then we
> had Luther who objected and translated the Bible into German.
Oh Luther, great example. Read "on the jews and their lies."
>
> > So... I don't use it in that way, I believe that my
> > discussions with Keith Henson on this subject were clear enough.
>
> I have no idea what you discuss with Henson.
>
> Answer: Do a Google search if you want. I don't care.
I don't care, so why bring up Henson?
>
> > Science is not about playing with words, science is research, testing and
> > evaluation.
>
> Exactly that is why the appropriate definition MUST be used, not layman
> definitions which are irrelavant and nonsensical.
>
> Answer: You are being nonsensical in fact. Many of these special adapted
> definitions have been introduced not even so very long ago.
Look up the definition instead of wasting my time showing me your
science illiteracy.
>
> > Using a certain difficult language makes that you can manipulate
> > the uninitiated listener.
>
> Oh oh, there you go again will your nonsense. If you do not understand
> the definitions regarding the topic of science, learn them. To use the
> incorrect definition makes for illogic. Again, the theory of gravity
> is just a theory in the same sense that the theory of evolution is just
> a theory. When you understand that concept we can move on in the
> discussion of Science. Until then, please don't play that you
> understand real science.
>
> I think that is false.
Of course you do. You wouldn't admit to not knowing something. Since
you don't understand elementary science, there is no sense wasting my
time with conversing with you.
>
> If the "uninitiated" listener does not understand scientific
> terminology, it is not my responsibility to teach the listener. It is
> the responsibility of the reader to learn that same terminology, not
> mine to reduce my language and incorrectly present information.
>
> Again, the theory of gravity is a theory in the same way that the
> theory of evolution is a theory. When you understand that, we can have
> discussion regarding science, real science.
>
> Answer: With common language. If I can discuss these things in common
> language then everyone can.
Wrong, they will not understand correctly. That's the problem.
> Science is not about playing with words, science is research, testing and
> evaluation.
>
>
> > > > > http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm I'm guessing you would
> > > > > add gym time to the classroom. hehe
> > > > >
> > > > > You suggest I have little understanding of science or of
> verification.
> > > > > What university level hard science coursework have you taken? I
> would
> > > > > love to compare your hard science background with mine. What
> studies,
> > > > > by that I mean experiments-you seem to not "get" the lingo, have you
> > > > > participated? By participated, I don't mean you were one of the
> > > > > studied, but where one of the researchers.
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. I am only interested in how you respond here and now...
> > >
> > > It is relevant because the subject is science and how experiments are
> > > conducted. You claim that Gilberg committed fraud in his study
> >
> > I actually did not... I pointed out that you do not know if he committed
> > fraud, but we have some indicators that point in that direction...
Right, sure that's what you said. Uhuh. Just as long as you believe
that.
> > Science is also 'exact' observation and not assuming things and getting
> > ahead of things...
>
> Answer: NOt response here either. Does that mean you acknowledge?
No sense responding to someone without a clue.
>
>
> > >, but
> > > you don't even know how to define theory. You clearly do not
> > > understand the basics so you appear astoundingly ignorant yet readily
> > > willing to spew nonsense.
> >
> > You failed to discredit me.
You did that yourself.
Pity I don't have these articles in english,
> it
> > is Swedish, and my Danish is well enough to understand it, I was stationed
> > for a while in Copenhagen in AOSH.
>
> Bully for you and...? You assume I am unilingual? Here is a hint, my
> sister's we not born in the U.S., neither were my parents, nor their
> parents. Oh but then in addition I am familiar with other languages.
> That and 50 cents still won't get me a cup of coffee.
>
> Answer: Does this mean you are able to discern the context of the article?
> You don't query the data in that article though...? Data that sheds quite a
> different light on your claims...! WHY do you not query the context of the
> article, WHY?
I have stated and restated. Simpy because you refuse to pay attention
is not my issue but your own.
>
>
> > > I love this next adage and it appears to apply well in this case.
> > >
> > > It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open
> > > your
> > > mouth and remove all doubt.
> >
> > Indeed it is... but it did not turn out very well for you...
>
> Yes, it was awful showing your science illiteracy. But it was
> necessary.
>
> answer: Insults and the usual playing around do not get you out of this mess
> you got yourself into.
Again, you are not worth talking to regarding science since you are
clearly illiterate in the field.
You are to use common language on this newsgroup so
> that ALL can understand and follow what you claim. We are not discussing a
> scientific specialism here. If you are unable to adjust to common language
> re this then I may have to perceive here that you have a 'language
> illiteracy'.
Considering that you use the wrong definition when another is clearly
appropriate I would consider you the illiterate. You have completely
shown yourself incapable of learning on topic definitions, so I will no
longer waste my time until you learn the difference between the layman
use of theory which is not applicable in the subject of sciene despite
your desire to want it so V. the actual term of theory in science which
includes scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory Oddly enough even this dictionary
separates science from other definitions. Perhaps other people dont
desire ignorance as a state of mind.
If you need to revisit my responses, review what I have posted. The
horse is surely dead and beaten.
Ramona
>
> Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
In my opinion dear Ramona made some serious errors of negligence.
This girl just buys stories and assumes them to be correct. She has no
interest what so ever to go into detail about them either. The outcome is
that she blindly protects Dr. Gilbert who originated the DAMP phenomena. The
discussions of the last years re this DAMP may have indicated this DAMP
being a fraud. Then the correctness of the research and it's findings was to
be verified, but Dr. Gilbert refused to let other researchers having access
to this material. Several times by court order he was ordered to do so, and
finally he destroyed the material. At this time we have the DAMP designation
and no research in existence backing up the correctness of it's existence.
For me this is EVERYTHING BUT SCIENCE. But dear Ramona defends it anyhow.
In any case a researcher who destroys his research material so that it can
not be verified is everything but a scientist.
Spacetraveler
"Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120574058....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Spacetraveler
Any can see that your communications are literally loaded with continuous
insults and make wrongs. You will never admit being in error about anything.
You have stated your opinion, and blindly you will continue to support that.
See, a true scientist does not use this kind of insulting language. You
defend a stand, you are not here to learn or find out something you did not
know before. that my dear girl in MY opinion is highly unscientific!
Spacetraveler
realpch
> > Funny, those scientist...real ones, were using the same definition as
> > I. When everybody else is against you, perhaps you need to consider
> > that you are the problem.
>
> Any can see that your communications are literally loaded with continuous
> insults and make wrongs. You will never admit being in error about anything.
> You have stated your opinion, and blindly you will continue to support that.
> See, a true scientist does not use this kind of insulting language. You
> defend a stand, you are not here to learn or find out something you did not
> know before. that my dear girl in MY opinion is highly unscientific!
>
> Spacetraveler
But, but, but,...that's what YOU do!
Peach
Spacetraveler
Meaning research can never be verified if testpersons are involved. Then why
can it be used to implement a term like DAMP. And you call yourself
scientific. There is nothing anymore that supports the credibility of DAMP,
so we may as well cancel it!!! According to scientific rules!
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
"realpch" <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:42CAE387...@aol.com...
You see, I offer a logical reasoning.... where is your logical reasoning....
hmmm...
Don't make claims you can not support in some way as to make it credible...
Spacetraveler
Magoo
Yeah......so let's get this straight: If a woman is abused by a man, raped,
tortured, harmed...you'd say:
"Well, she just sat there, didn't she?"
F*** Idiot.
Tory/Magoo~~Not afraid to speak out~Proving daily
Scientology IS dangerous to your health. Thanks ST...you're a terrific
example!
>
> Spacetraveler
>
>