One less scientologist in the world - alt.religion.scientology

Message from discussion One less scientologist in the world

Wolf

More options May 30 1998, 3:00 am

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

From: Wolf <wolft...@micron.net>

Date: 1998/05/30

Subject: Re: One less scientologist in the world

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

NoScieno wrote:

> In article <356A367E.6...@micron.net>, wolft...@micron.net says...
> > NoScieno wrote:

> > > In article <35670900....@micron.net>, wolft...@micron.net says...
> > > > *brainwashed
> > > You weren't around to witness a huge discussion re' brainwashing that had
> > > critics' virtual fingers around each others virtual throats a while back?

> > I enjoyed parts of it.

> To each their own. I didn't care for it. 'Twas gilding the lily.

And the battle of who controls the minds continues eh?

> > > Oh, yes the argument was very intense at times. A hundred thousand lines
> > > at the least, and it branched off into dozens of other subjects, but it's
> > > the way usenet is. That is to say, **nothing** like Scientology.

> > Really? I was involved with Scn for over two decades. You are wrong.

> Sure. I'm wrong and you're an airplane.

Now you're using the wgert tactic of avoiding the point of contention.
I'm not sure who you hung out with while a Scn., but most of the people
I dealt with were well-read, open minded and acutely aware of the world
around them. Of course, I didn't hang out with SO types... they were too
zombie-like and fanatical for my tastes... not to mention uninformed.

> > > ARS is

> > > the opposite of your assessment. The vast majority of posters possess an
> > > intelligence and open-mindedness which allows them to express their ideas
> > > while also considering other viewpoints.

> > Some do. Some don't.

> I'll read that as a grudging agreement of sorts.

I'd say the same thing about Scn. Read it how you wish.

> > > What you label "the commonality
> > > of the mindless majority" is simply the consensus that invariably evolves
> > > as a natural consequence.

> > Like brainwashing you mean? Or drinking kool-aid at Jonestown?

> Curious example insofar as not everyone at Jonestown went willingly. No,
> more like "general agreement," as quite distinct from "unquestioning
> acceptance," which was my take on your use of the phrase. Look Wolf,
> there's a long list of claims that LRH made which he had no foundation
> for. From Waterbury's fictitious Montana land holdings on up, reality as
> revealed by the historical record falls far short of the CoS' official
> LRH biography. The Old Man's life has been *researched*, much to the
> dismay of Co$. He was a con man and a liar who never placed anyone's
> well-being before his own welfare. As a means to attain his goal of
> smashing his name into history and farting through silk for the rest of
> his life he created a lie called Dianetics and a con called Scientology.
> The Co$ is stuck with that, as are the few Scientologists who are still
> sucking the witch's tit, whether or not they still pour their money into
> the scam. That's the *consensus* here, okay? Go run that 'til your
> needle floats.

You ex-SO people's diatribes all do seem to run together and melt into
one common theme. WTF cares if Hubbard was a charismatic BS'er? I knew
that about him in 1967. So what? George Washington was a slave owner and
I don't see anyone denying the validity of the Republic because he was.
Hubbard is dead. He created a colorful past. He re-wrote other's works
and claimed them for his own. Scn is valid because Scientologists say
so. They keep spending dough on it despite the BS of Hubbard and his
history. Remove your own prejudice (perhaps based on negative SO
experiences) from the equasion and that's what you have. If you really
mean to reform Scn and it's mngmnt you won't accomplish it with charges
of brainwashing, fools and a dead man's ego.

> > Ahh.. you used VFP, you must have been SO. Correct me if I'm wrong.

> Yeah. If "VFP" infringed anyone's copyright, bill me.

Testy aren't we?

> > >Truth has a knack
> > > for finding the light of day through free and open communication.

> > Truth (whatever that means to you) has no knack whatsoever. People have
> > knacks.

> Sure truth has a knack (and truth means *what is*, not what is imagined
> or pretended). Or do you think we just stumble across it here and there
> by chance, as Hubbard claimed he did while having a tooth fixed?

I'd suggest this isn't the proper place for a philosophical discussion
of truth. I'll just say that your answer of *what is* is the definition
of reality in Scn parlance. And we all know that reality is defined by
the views of those doing the realizing.

> > Many on ARS have a knack for demonizing what they don't
> > understand. Others demonize it because they're bored.

> Co$ demonizes itself by abusing its welcome wherever it goes.

This explains it's income and membership? People pay the big bucks
because they know it's full of shit?

> > A very select few on ARS are valid critics of Scn who keep their own
> > minds despite the 'consensus' you think they all must inevitably reach.

> I suppose you have an idea of what a "valid" critic is; as far as I'm
> concerned anyone who expresses an opinion on the work of others is a
> critic. If I go see a movie and tell someone what I think of it, I'm a
> movie critic.

You're right. Having an opinion makes one a critic. But it doesn't make
the criticism valid. That's the major problem with ARS. Too many
assholes with mere opinions.

> > They're so frightened they send in low-level drones? You must feel
> > awfully powerful.

> I feel awfully free when I read the wgerts. Co$ sends in the drones
> because there's not much else they really *can* do about the ARSCC Flap,
> is there?

Why bother? I wouldn't worry about a bunch of broke dick critics who,
FTMP, resort to pleas for stamps and money orders and checks to pay
their rent. At least you have Minton, who I suspect may have about as
much money as FSO earns in a couple of weeks.

> > I have a knack for annoying people who'd much prefer not to think about
> > things.
> I have a knack for thinking about things, which annoys people who would
> prefer not to believe that they'd wasted 20 years chasing space cooties.

You're the clown who joined the SO. If anything was a waste, that
certainly qualifies. As for my 20 years in Scn, it was fun, profitable
and I learned much that has been a boon to me since. I didn't even have
to spend $100,000 or sign a billion year contract... that stuff is for
losers.

> FWIW

> Dr. No

> P.S. Read this, then play-doh demo why the Co$ hates Gerry Armstrong:

> Bare-Faced Messiah by Russell Miller

Read it. As well as every other book that ARS-androids quote, mimic and
treat as scripture.

> Cigaret, Wolf?

I'm trying to quit, but a nice Cuban would be appreciated.

Wolf

Reply to author Forward