Proposed Christmas Truce?
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)
Russ,
I think a Christmas truce will only be fair when org staff and others in
the Church of Scientology are given Christmas Day off. This would
include hired attorneys and suchlike.
From my calendar, I see that Christmas is on a Thursday this year. It's
my understanding that org staff will be working, crunching stats for the
2 pm reporting deadline.
I also recall that Helena K. Kobrin (or her paralegal) sent one of her
legal threat letters regarding www.scientology-kills.com on Thanksgiving
morning last month.
If you expect us to take this request for a truce seriously, then the CoS
needs to really do something. I'd suggest giving people Christmas Day
off.
After all, isn't Scientology supposed to be compatible with all
religions? Or does the whole notion of the R6 implant hold sway?
Regards,
Deana
Deana M. Holmes
alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995
Defied David Miscavige's Intention Beams, November 1, 1997
mir...@super.zippo.com
WESFAGER
>After all, isn't Scientology supposed to be compatible with all
>religions? Or does the whole notion of the R6 implant hold
In the $cientology version of the Christmas story, Joseph and Mary and all the
others were not sent to Bethlem to be taxed,
rather XEMU called them into to be taxed and then shot them up with glygol and
transported them to Teegachi.
Now I say, find out what on what day XEMU was born, was he in waddling clothes
or a space suit, did any wise men show up bearing gifts, which, if any,
galatic star was shining brightly and so forth. Armed with this data I say we
make a proposal to the $cios. We'll call a truce on XEMUMAS if they'll truce
on CHRISTMAS.
Wes Fager
Alec
WESFAGER wrote in message <19971219165...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
We'll call a truce on XEMUMAS if they'll truce
>on CHRISTMAS.
>Wes Fager
Have you noticed the similarity? COS...Saddam Hussein?
The criminal wants a truce with the cops. The terrorist wants a truce with
people of good will.
Don't hold your breath waiting for COS to honor any truce.
It would be downstat for OSA to have a truce. So it's just a ruse. Some
ploy to attract attention. Corrupt, abusive persons always seem to take
advantage of the good nature of others.
Joe Harrington
WESFAGER wrote:
>
> >After all, isn't Scientology supposed to be compatible with all
> >religions? Or does the whole notion of the R6 implant hold
>
> In the $cientology version of the Christmas story, Joseph and Mary and all the
> others were not sent to Bethlem to be taxed,
> rather XEMU called them into to be taxed and then shot them up with glygol and
> transported them to Teegachi.
>
> Now I say, find out what on what day XEMU was born, was he in waddling clothes
> or a space suit, did any wise men show up bearing gifts, which, if any,
> galatic star was shining brightly and so forth. Armed with this data I say we
> on CHRISTMAS.
>
> Wes Fager
Here is Scientology's view of Christmas, part of the Sacred Scriptures,
that Hubbard developed from his "research" on Heaven:
> Hubbard described the terrain of Heaven,
>
> "The gates of the first series are well done, well built. An
> avenue of statues of saints leads up to them. The gate pillars are
> surmounted by marble angels. The entering grounds are very well
> kept, laid out like Bush Gardens in Pasadena, so often seen in the
> movies. Aside from the implant boxes which lie across from each
> other on the walk there are other noises and sounds as though the
> saints are defending and berating."
>
> "The second series, probably in the same place, shows what a
> trillion years of overt acts does (or is an additional trick to
> collapse one's time). The place is shabby. The vegetation is
> gone. The pillars are scruffy. The saints have vanished. So have
> the angels. A sign on one (the left as you enter) says `This is
> Heaven'. The right has a sign "Hell" with an arrow and inside
> the grounds one can see the excavations like archaeological
> diggings with the raw terraces, that lead to "Hell". Plain wire
> fencing encloses the place. There is a sentry box beside and
> outside the right pillar. The roadway `leading up' to the gates
> is deeply eroded. An effigy of Joseph, complete with desert
> clothing is seen approaching the gates (but not moving) leading
> a donkey which `carries' the original Madonna and child from
> `Bethlehem'. The implanting boxes lie on either side of this
> `entering' path at path level."
>
> Hubbard concluded:
>
> "Further, we have our hands on an appalling bit of technology
> where the world is concerned. With rapidity and a Meter it can be
> shown that Heaven is a false dream and that the old religion was
> based on very painful lie, cynical betrayal."
>
Perhaps the orgs should consider building a Christmas display, based
upon their Sacred Scriptures, and invite the public to celebrate
Christmas with them.
Peace on Earth, indeed.
Joe
Garry Scarff
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series) <mir...@super.zippo.com> wrote in
article <349b7716...@snews2.zippo.com>...
> Russ,
>
> I think a Christmas truce will only be fair when org staff and others in
> the Church of Scientology are given Christmas Day off. This would
> include hired attorneys and suchlike.
>
> From my calendar, I see that Christmas is on a Thursday this year. It's
> my understanding that org staff will be working, crunching stats for the
> 2 pm reporting deadline.
>
> I also recall that Helena K. Kobrin (or her paralegal) sent one of her
> legal threat letters regarding www.scientology-kills.com on Thanksgiving
> morning last month.
>
> If you expect us to take this request for a truce seriously, then the CoS
> needs to really do something. I'd suggest giving people Christmas Day
> off.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Deana
Oh, please, people!!! SCIENTOLOGY DOES NOT WANT A TRUCE. Their very
integrity
is at stake again because of the pending announcement in the McPherson
case, they
fear what Wollersheim & his attorneys are going to do, they respond to
philanthropists
by killing pets and dumping them on doorsteps. And you seriously think
they are offering
you the peace pipe? Even I'm not that stupid.
RonsAmigo
>Deana M. Holmes wrote:
<snip>
>Defied David Miscavige's Intention Beams, November 1, 1997
Yet another ARS lunatic.
David Miscavige was in a different city entirely and
this nut-case "defied his intention beams."
By their sigs you shall know them.
Amigo
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Proposed Christmas Truce?
>From: mir...@super.zippo.com (Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series))
>Date: Fri, Dec 19, 1997 08:35 EST
>Message-id: <349b7716...@snews2.zippo.com>
>
>Russ,
>
>I think a Christmas truce will only be fair when org staff and others in
>the Church of Scientology are given Christmas Day off. This would
>include hired attorneys and suchlike.
>
I can not dictate who gets which days off in any org - anymore than I can tell
restaurants not to make their staff work on Christmas. Nor was that my
intention.
>From my calendar, I see that Christmas is on a Thursday this year. It's
>my understanding that org staff will be working, crunching stats for the
>2 pm reporting deadline.
>
>I also recall that Helena K. Kobrin (or her paralegal) sent one of her
>legal threat letters regarding www.scientology-kills.com on Thanksgiving
>morning last month.
>
>If you expect us to take this request for a truce seriously, then the CoS
>needs to really do something. I'd suggest giving people Christmas Day
>off.
>
What I was first suggesting - and still am - was that we all be polite to one
another.
Name calling and making generalizations about "all Scientologists think" or
"all critics think" are not only unproductive but usually wrong anyway.
Setting all of ~this~ crap aside - you have things you want to accomplish in
your life. You have people you care about and love. Me too. That was the
original point - to put our attention on THOSE things for a bit. I can't see
how that would harm anybody.
And it doesn't matter at all who *doesn't want to participate*. There will be
those (on both sides) who just can't bear the idea of being truly nice - if
only for a little while. So what?
This message has reached some already. None here need permission to be decent.
Russell
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)
rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
Pffffth.
You've become a raving lunatic, RonsAmigo. Your posts are getting more
and more on the edge.
In fact, I'm now beginning to wonder whether your posts more accurately
reflect what's going on inside Scientology than we know.
And in other matters, when are you going to bring a bunch of OTVIIIs to
picket my house again? It's pretty cold right now, so you'd probably
freeze off your soft tenders, but don't let that stop you.
The address is (although I'm sure OSA could give it to you):
1857 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 phone 801/467-9213
I'd appreciate a phone call first.
I'll be waiting for you and yours. After you get through picketing me,
maybe you can run up to Alta or Snowbird and take in some awfully fine
skiing.
Deana
Deana M. Holmes
alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995
Defied David Miscavige's Intention Beams, November 1, 1997
spbill
In article <19971220065...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
>>Deana M. Holmes wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Defied David Miscavige's Intention Beams, November 1, 1997
>
>Yet another ARS lunatic.
>
>David Miscavige was in a different city entirely and
>this nut-case "defied his intention beams."
It is a well-known fact that scientology OT's are capable of being in
several different places at the same time.
spbill
Your SP Declare is waiting for you at the end of the Bridge.
Sign up now for your next step.
Ron Newman
In article <19971220094...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
> What I was first suggesting - and still am - was that we all be polite to one
> another.
>
> Name calling and making generalizations about "all Scientologists think" or
> "all critics think" are not only unproductive but usually wrong anyway.
>
> Setting all of ~this~ crap aside - you have things you want to accomplish in
> your life. You have people you care about and love. Me too. That was the
> original point - to put our attention on THOSE things for a bit. I can't see
> how that would harm anybody.
>
> And it doesn't matter at all who *doesn't want to participate*. There will be
> those (on both sides) who just can't bear the idea of being truly nice - if
> only for a little while. So what?
>
> This message has reached some already. None here need permission to be
> decent.
A question for Russell:
As part of a Christmas truce, would you be willing to temporarily
take down this web page?
http://www.dancris.com/~rshaw/
There's quite a bit of impoliteness on that page; it is not a message
of love.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Martin Hunt
>>Deana M. Holmes wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Defied David Miscavige's Intention Beams, November 1, 1997
>
>Yet another ARS lunatic.
>
>David Miscavige was in a different city entirely and
>this nut-case "defied his intention beams."
What, do David Miscavige's intention beams have a limited *range*?
>By their sigs you shall know them.
>
>Amigo
No shit:
From: wg...@loop.com (wgert)
wgert
Read the Rogues Gallery of ARS Bigots (for a glimpse into the insanity
that is Scientology):
www.dancris.com/~rshaw
--
Cogito, ergo sum. FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
"I don't 'think' anymore. I mean, it's actually an effort to go back
down into that level again." - Success story from "P.S.", an OT V.
Martin Hunt
>I can not dictate who gets which days off in any org - anymore than I can tell
>restaurants not to make their staff work on Christmas. Nor was that my
>intention.
Restaurants are commercial enterprises; *bad* analogy. :-)
Suppose you could dictate who gets Christmas day off in Scientology.
Suppose you were David Miscavige, and your word was law within
Scientology. Would you have them take the day off?
Must "total freedom" always mean total obedience to command intention
and nose to the grindstone? Can't the poor staffers have one lousy
day off?
Valerie Emanuel
RonsAmigo wrote:
> Yet another ARS lunatic.
>
> David Miscavige was in a different city entirely and
> this nut-case "defied his intention beams."
>
>
> Amigo
I'd say you're about a 1.5 on the Tone scale.
Let's keep that upTone feeling at this joyous Holiday season, shall we?
Valerie
How about going to www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/2881 and
answering my questions? Just a thought. Isn't there one single current
CoS member with nerve enough to do this? (My thanks to Warrior.) It's
not even a critical page!
William Barwell
In article <67htcg$60r$6...@hirame.wwa.com>, Bloody Viking <nos...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>Martin Hunt (mar...@islandnet.com) wrote:
>
>: Must "total freedom" always mean total obedience to command intention
>: and nose to the grindstone? Can't the poor staffers have one lousy
>: day off?
>
>salted up lake? No! Not on LRH's watch, not on LRH's ship, not in LRH's
>navy!
>
>In the real Navy, on a ship driving along, they might not make you work
>but you do stand your watches though. However, they generally put some
>effort into a decent meal. Maybe LRH was on some really bad ships during
>his Navy career!
Not that many actually, and he was captain.
Well. once for a month, once for 80 days and a few weeks
as a navigations officer. He spent a few weeks on aship being transported
to australia, and a few weeks confined to ship until he could be
transported back in disgrace. He spent more time in sick bay actually
that on any real sea duty.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Warrior
mar...@islandnet.com says...
>
>wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>
>>I can not dictate who gets which days off in any org - anymore than I can tell
>>restaurants not to make their staff work on Christmas. Nor was that my
>>intention.
Hell, not only may you not dictate it, "Wonderful Russ", but you and your
fellow culties don't ~even~ get to ~vote~ on whether your cult allows it!
>Restaurants are commercial enterprises; *bad* analogy. :-)
It's a good analogy, in a way...
Well, I can show you a policy where Hubbard wrote: "We are a financial
institution not a bank." It's in OEC Vol III - in one of the policies on
credit and the lack of giving credit (it's "out-exchange").
And go ask some good ol' timers (like Ron Skinner, Gary Vigue, Loren
Zanier, Bobby Giles or Ron Yoder) about "galley duty" for the staff. Ask
how many staff they cooked for at the Complex, FOLO WUS, etc. on Christmas
Day.
Was any old time staff member able to get away to Falling Springs
Lodge, north of Azusa with fellow staff for a party? If so, how many
years was this "allowed"?
>Suppose you could dictate who gets Christmas day off in Scientology.
>Suppose you were David Miscavige, and your word was law within
>Scientology. Would you have them take the day off?
It would violate policy.
>Must "total freedom" always mean total obedience to command intention
>and nose to the grindstone? Can't the poor staffers have one lousy
>day off?
One must hope some reform is possible.
>Cogito, ergo sum. FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
>
>"I don't 'think' anymore. I mean, it's actually an effort to go back
> down into that level again." - Success story from "P.S.", an OT V.
Was this you, Pat Silverman, who wrote that "success story"?
Warrior
Bev
Keith Henson wrote:
> RonsAmigo (rons...@aol.com) wrote:
> : David Miscavige was in a different city entirely and
> : this nut-case "defied his intention beams."
> That's really interesting Amigo. You mean (*) skipped out on the IAS
> meeting? (At least the LA one.) I figured we were at cause, but to
> cause him to skip out of this meeting is really awesome. I wonder
> who Deana saw, because she has seen pictures of him. Does scientology
> look all over for doubles of the head clam?
If you've seen many Co$ gloss pubs and adverts, there are quite a few
of smaller framed male Co$ members who have their hair in similar cut
and color and are starched looking.
The question is, was the person Deana thought was DM wearing his
naval outfit? I doubt DM would come out to the curb without an
entourage.
I have had a Mormon come to the door before (I live near a big mall
and main street to get Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses more than I
think I should) who even looked a bit like DM in stature and facial
appearance.
You have to give DM credit, he is always quite well groomed and
looks good. Now, if only he would be somewhat nicer :-)
> Hmm. You *sure* (*) was not there? Because someone mentioned to me
> that he thought the presentation of "think for yourself" was completely
> stupid, and they implied (*) had said it. Was he there by video?
He has done video appearances before.
Beverly
Bloody Viking
Martin Hunt (mar...@islandnet.com) wrote:
: Must "total freedom" always mean total obedience to command intention
: and nose to the grindstone? Can't the poor staffers have one lousy
: day off?
Of course not. Do you get a day off when you're on a ship driving across a
salted up lake? No! Not on LRH's watch, not on LRH's ship, not in LRH's
navy!
In the real Navy, on a ship driving along, they might not make you work
but you do stand your watches though. However, they generally put some
effort into a decent meal. Maybe LRH was on some really bad ships during
his Navy career!
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
"A man's car is his battleship"
1573795 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
NoGoot
In article <67htcg$60r$6...@hirame.wwa.com>, nos...@wwa.com (Bloody Viking)
writes:
>Martin Hunt (mar...@islandnet.com) wrote:
: Must "total freedom" always
>mean total obedience to command intention
: and nose to the grindstone? Can't
>the poor staffers have one lousy
: day off?
Of course not. Do you get a day
>off when you're on a ship driving across a
salted up lake? No! Not on LRH's
>watch, not on LRH's ship, not in LRH's
navy!
In the real Navy, on a ship
>driving along, they might not make you work
but you do stand your watches
>though. However, they generally put some
effort into a decent meal. Maybe LRH
>was on some really bad ships during
his Navy career!
Bloody Viking does a good job of putting it back into Hubbard's perspective.
One of his *stated* reasons for going to sea in the Sea Organization (every new
S.O. member is taught this) was that the sea was a difficult environment in
which to live. Being at sea required that the staff member be on his toes
constantly (e.g. if you drop a tool on dry land, you pick it up; if at sea,
it's going to the bottom never to be seen again.). For this reason, the Sea
Org staff member is to act as though he's in an environment as potentially
dangerous as the sea. Maybe that's one of the reasons for all the paranoia.(?)
NoGoot
Keith Henson
: <snip>
: >Defied David Miscavige's Intention Beams, November 1, 1997
: Yet another ARS lunatic.
: David Miscavige was in a different city entirely and
: this nut-case "defied his intention beams."
That's really interesting Amigo. You mean (*) skipped out on the IAS
meeting? (At least the LA one.) I figured we were at cause, but to
cause him to skip out of this meeting is really awesome. I wonder
who Deana saw, because she has seen pictures of him. Does scientology
look all over for doubles of the head clam?
Hmm. You *sure* (*) was not there? Because someone mentioned to me
that he thought the presentation of "think for yourself" was completely
stupid, and they implied (*) had said it. Was he there by video?
Keith Henson
WONDERFULR
In a message dated 97-12-20 09:40:01 EST, you write:
> Subj: Re: Proposed Christmas Truce?
> Date: 97-12-20 09:40:01 EST
> From: rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman)
> To: wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR)
>
> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
> alt.religion.scientology)
>
> A question for Russell:
>
> As part of a Christmas truce, would you be willing to temporarily
> take down this web page?
>
> http://www.dancris.com/~rshaw/
>
> There's quite a bit of impoliteness on that page; it is not a message
> of love.
>
I agree with you. It is not.
The reason I did not volunteer to take it down for the holidays is I do not
know if I can. I do not do the web page work myself and do not know how to
take it down - or put it back up, either.
The Fishman link was broken for some time, and even that was a problem to get
handled. As I am - in this case - dependant upon others to get the actual work
done, I did not want to promise to have it down by Christmas, as I did not
know if that was a promise I could keep.
Russell
Alec
WONDERFULR wrote in message
<19971220094...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Proposed Christmas Truce?
>>From: mir...@super.zippo.com (Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series))
>>Date: Fri, Dec 19, 1997 08:35 EST
>>Message-id: <349b7716...@snews2.zippo.com>
[Russ:]
>What I was first suggesting - and still am - was that we all be polite to
one
>another.
>
>Name calling and making generalizations about "all Scientologists think" or
>"all critics think" are not only unproductive but usually wrong anyway.
>
>Setting all of ~this~ crap aside - you have things you want to accomplish
in
>your life. You have people you care about and love. Me too. That was the
>original point - to put our attention on THOSE things for a bit. I can't
see
>how that would harm anybody.
>
>And it doesn't matter at all who *doesn't want to participate*. There will
be
>those (on both sides) who just can't bear the idea of being truly nice -
if
>only for a little while. So what?
>
>This message has reached some already. None here need permission to be
decent.
>Russell
If one will consider the LRH writings against being "reasonable" with
critics of Scientology, you can see how big Russell is being in this matter.
LRH wrote very much about many things. There are some things I can identify
as worthwhile, but my research reveals many things about LRH and Scientology
that differ sharply with his followers. One mismatch though, is that
"Former" Scientologists have already taken a stand for "everything" that LRH
wrote--and then took a differing stand. To this extent "Formers" can see
both sides. For a Scientologist to take a look at both sides reflects the
dogged search drive characteristic of "my kind of people"--which includes
disallowing the "Orders" of any religious leader that we discontinue our
quest and settle in for only his findings--especially if his findings
include any contradictions.
I can't help wonder though, how Ethics and OSA personnel will take to
this--although every Scientologist is free to choose for himself.
Yours,
Alec
Tilman Hausherr
In <19971221070...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, wonde...@aol.com
(WONDERFULR) wrote:
>The reason I did not volunteer to take it down for the holidays is I do not
>know if I can. I do not do the web page work myself and do not know how to
>take it down - or put it back up, either.
So who does?
And why are they hiding?
Afraid of the sunlight?
And why is my name in the META tags, but not in the readable text?
"There was a being who did secret acts,
he had to hide hide hide hide"
(L. Ron Hubbard, "The worried being")
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Doe1thru5
>[Russ:]
>>
>>Name calling and making generalizations about "all Scientologists think" or
>>"all critics think" are not only unproductive but usually wrong anyway.
Now there's an idea run *up-a-pole* (in-joke) that I'll salute. Of course with
Misenla's recent ars post forwarding AOL COSer concern over "greyness" (how in
the world did they guess my favorite color?) we might ponder if that's not only
a good idea here but everywhere. Why? Because in a very complex world with
very complex people populating it to be unequiped to think about the grey zones
in greys rather than a binary black&white is to be unequiped for... what's that
word?.... ah yes.... survival.
d15
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)
Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:
>Keith Henson wrote:
>> RonsAmigo (rons...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>> : David Miscavige was in a different city entirely and
>> : this nut-case "defied his intention beams."
>
>> That's really interesting Amigo. You mean (*) skipped out on the IAS
>> meeting? (At least the LA one.) I figured we were at cause, but to
>> cause him to skip out of this meeting is really awesome. I wonder
>> who Deana saw, because she has seen pictures of him. Does scientology
>> look all over for doubles of the head clam?
>
>If you've seen many Co$ gloss pubs and adverts, there are quite a few
>of smaller framed male Co$ members who have their hair in similar cut
>and color and are starched looking.
>
>The question is, was the person Deana thought was DM wearing his
>naval outfit? I doubt DM would come out to the curb without an
>entourage.
This is what happened. I was picketing, and being pretty single-minded
about it, since I was being harassed at all times by at least one
Scientologist (and sometimes more). I would look across the street to
the front of the Shrine Auditorium to see what was going on. It was
during one of these looks that I saw the fellow that I believe was DM.
He had a Sea Borg dress blue suit on, with more fruit salad on the front
than you could eat at a sitting, and he was flanked by two *taller* guys,
also in Sea Borg dress blues with tons of fruit salad. These three stood
in the front of the Shrine and proceeded to stare at me. I asked my
handler, "Is that David Miscavige?" but he would not answer me.
Because of the height, the hair, and the excessive amount of fruit salad
on the front of the Sea Borg uniform, as well as the fact that he was
flanked by other guys with tons of fruit salad on their Sea Borg
uniforms, I believe it was DM. I do not understand otherwise why three
high-ranking Sea Borgers would come out on the sidewalk to stare at me,
or why my handler would refuse to answer.
Although I cannot give a definitive answer, I do believe it was DM.
>I have had a Mormon come to the door before (I live near a big mall
>and main street to get Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses more than I
>think I should) who even looked a bit like DM in stature and facial
>appearance.
>
>You have to give DM credit, he is always quite well groomed and
>looks good. Now, if only he would be somewhat nicer :-)
We could test this proposition....
<message to David Miscavige>
Hey David!
The skiing in Utah is *wonderful* right now. How about you take a few
days off from running your church and you come to Utah? I'd be happy to
show you around, that sort of thing. I'm really serious, too.
You guys know how to get ahold of me, if you wanna do this.
Deana
Deana M. Holmes
alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995
Defied David Miscavige's Intention Beams, November 1, 1997
Conner
On Sun, 21 Dec 1997 03:38:59 GMT, in message
<hkhensonE...@netcom.com>, hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>RonsAmigo (rons...@aol.com) wrote:
>: >Deana M. Holmes wrote:
>
>: <snip>
>
>: >Defied David Miscavige's Intention Beams, November 1, 1997
>
>: Yet another ARS lunatic.
>
>: David Miscavige was in a different city entirely and
>: this nut-case "defied his intention beams."
>
>That's really interesting Amigo. You mean (*) skipped out on the IAS
>meeting? (At least the LA one.) I figured we were at cause, but to
>cause him to skip out of this meeting is really awesome. I wonder
>who Deana saw, because she has seen pictures of him. Does scientology
>look all over for doubles of the head clam?
<rant alt = "dont read if you dont like explicit descriptons
of depravity">
doesn't surprise me, keith. not after 30 critics shut down the
fort harrison hotel for 3 days. the critics are really awesome,
because they're dicating how scn operates. it's a shame scn
isn't something more than some loser organization, with a loose-
sphinctered anophile as its 'spiritual' 'head'.
how many sperm fit on the head of a dick, davey? how
many are discharged into the bowels of scientology, waiting
to impregnate all the degraded rondroids with the spirit of truth?
to have them come forth in some alien form to destroy scientology as
scientologists would have it.
but wait. the lawn ornament apparently isn't in charge. it's
some wog lawyers, who could give a shit less (and frequently
do) about scientology. alll they care about is money. which is
what the critics have said all along. wog lawyers, who drag
the wee lawn ornament by his leash to his very public, very
humiliating, daily buggering at the hands of scamizdat, and
anyone else who wants a piece. step right up, boys!
nay, i say. davey likes it. it's the scientology experience,
to be screwed. why worry about it?
aren't scientologists everywhere proud? isn't everyone else
puking their guts out at the depravity, when they're not laughing
them out that the incompetent spectacle of a torpid staggering
scientology, lurching through the streets like some zombie (but no
longer with the power to scare), tthen crawling on it's knees to suck
the dick of ars out of abject terror at it's power and pervasiveness.
heh.
</rant>
-- see...@ix.netcom.com (Conner, nee Number 3)
Note: the header address is wrong!
Friends of Dennis Erlich Club (www.netcom.com/~seekon/friends.html)
Conner
On 21 Dec 1997 07:09:07 GMT, in message
[clip]
>>
>> http://www.dancris.com/~rshaw/
>>
>> There's quite a bit of impoliteness on that page; it is not a message
>> of love.
>>
>
>I agree with you. It is not.
>
>The reason I did not volunteer to take it down for the holidays is I do not
>know if I can. I do not do the web page work myself and do not know how to
>take it down - or put it back up, either.
what a hypocrite. the materials are under your name and password.
surely even you have the ability to change a filename here and there.
you have several days. are you saying you have not way to
contact someone to do something in that time?
you are disingenuous, russel shaw. as is your proposed 'truce'
and i see you are still lying on your page, even though i pointed out
your lie, and asked you to correct it. the Friends of Dennis Erlich
Club has not, does not, will not pay his child support
payments. The Friends of Dennis Erlich Club will collect monies
to defray attorney fees and other legal expenses to enable him
to defend himself against charges of child abuse, and to defend
himself against abusive scientology practices related to his
family situation.
you are a liar and a hypocrite, russel shaw. i will not participate
in your truce, because it is not a truce, but a ruse to lull critics.
hubbard gave no quarter, neither do scientologists. tell me which
orgs will be closed on christmas, so that their people can attend
mass, can be with family.
i will not participate in your truce, because i am not really at
war, except with injustice and untruth, and the vigilance against
these must be eternal. and i will choose my own time to post
or not. as you may choose your own time to read or not.
not only are you a liar and a hypocrite, russel shaw, so is the
church of scientology. a true whore of babylon, drunk on the
blood of the saints, now seeking only to justify itself with whining
pewling appeals to religion, to a bankrupt and derelict 'religion'
created by a lying, abusive madman. willing to prostitute itself
to the IRS or anything else to gain respectability. inviting
public buggering on the internet, so that it can mewl about how
it is the victim.
and if that's not enough, it's willing to shut itself down so that
itmost indoctrinated and senior members can't hear the truth
from a handful of critics. what a loser this so-called church
is, russel. aren't you just a tiny bit sick of it yourself, inside
the stinking mask of your own hypocrisy?
<spit> scientologists. liars. deludians. losers. failures.
<spit>
Michael Reuss
> wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>> From new...@thecia.net (Ron Newman)
>> A question for Russell:
>> As part of a Christmas truce, would you be willing to temporarily
>> take down this web page?
>> There's quite a bit of impoliteness on that page; it is not a message
>> of love.
No, don't take down your web page, Russ. I mean, it's so, so, so...
Scientological. It describes your cult-think better than 1000 critics
could.
>I agree with you. It is not.
Right! Your web site is a convenient part of Op. Foot Bullet. I refer
people to the page all the time. I know that 99.99999% of all people
reading your page will think you're nuts! Don't take it down, please?
>The reason I did not volunteer to take it down for the holidays is I do not
>know if I can.
Oh man...
--
Michael Reuss (remove nospam from address to reply by e-mail)
Honorary Kid