My Expell/Declare
Fluffygirl
just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled. I
will not be in regular email or usenet conversation mode, however, for
at least several days if not longer.
The expulsion was on the grounds of leaving Scn publicly and
connection to SPs. I don't yet have a copy of the expell/declare.
Really, as I know from having been expelled one other time and talking
to so many others, what it boils down to is that no one gets expelled
unless the church is angry at them. Whether the grounds for anger be
real or imagined, trumped up or legitimate is another issue. But
basically, piss them off enough, run afoul of some politicking, and an
expell-declare is likely.
I have not publicly departed Scn. I have stated I was inactive with
CofS and that it largely had much to do with certain communications I
had with them. This fact.
When I first discovered this ng I thought everyone here was stark
raving bonkers. Evil. Up To No Good. In great excitement I called up
the Org, was connected with the DSA, Ann Ruble (nka Ann Pearce) and
asked her if she knew about this terrible thing I just found on the
internet. She told me it's poison, stay away from it, yadda yadda.
After a couple more months of lurking (hard to tear myself away) I
started posting. Gingerly at first, then jumped in with both feet. I
was quite party line in those days because I figured that what I'd
always been told was true. I then saw that the ex CofS members, Free
Zoners, and the more sane critics (and even some of the not so sane
ones!) was true, that they weren't lying. As I mentioned before, I
then decided that these were anomalies. After a time, I found that
these occurrences/abuses, etc, were not anomalies and weren't rare.
But I still hung in there, hoping for reform, hoping to work within
the system.
My first disappearance from the group was due to a somewhat friendly
meeting with the DSA, Ann, and another executive of the Org who was a
very close family friend. Ann said OSA wanted to know whose side I
was on, even though I'd been posting all pro- CofS stuff. And she said
she wanted me to do what was true for me. She was really nice until
she called me "disingenuous" which is something people on ars like to
say sometimes, too. I started wondering if it was the new word for the
week! Anyway, I agreed to stop posting for my own good and Ann said if
I ever wanted to know the REAL DEAL, the TRUTH, I could ask her and
she'd be happy to tell me. Even then, I thought to myself "I doubt
this!".
It didn't feel right to be stifled like that, so after a year or so I
started to post again. This time, after just a few weeks, OSA
contacted the Org again. My friend was contacted. We had a shouting
match in my living room with my friend saying "JUST STAY AWAY FROM
THEM!" and leaving.
I started up again after a couple weeks, and was called by my friend.
I did some fast talking and got him off my case. Told him I'd deal
with OSA directly, which I did. I got an email address for someone
there who's on this particular situation, and sent some emails
announcing my intent to post again. I got no reply and then indicated
by another email that I'd take this silence as assent.
Then I got called in to the Org for a briefing. The DSA had my friend
give me all these references to read about anti social personalities
and so forth. Most of you will know or know of the ones. I then handed
my friend a stack of LRH references about free communication, etc.
Then I heard nothing for a couple months.
August 20, 2001, I was told to come in and have a nice meeting of the
minds. It was not nice. And there was no meeting of the minds. My
friend and another man, Justin Smith from HCO were there. Justin did
most of the talking and had apparently been briefed as to what to say.
He brought up my civil rights and how the Org would not want to see
them infringed and this was irrelevant. Religions have nothing to do
with rights granted or withheld by the government of the land in which
one lives unless one lives in a theocracy. This was just PR and
something he'd been briefed to say, I believe. He started to get
sarcastic and rude. I passed out my LRH quotes again and they fell to
the floor. So I started reading them aloud. They said "This is the
reference we are going by" - indicating the reference on adherence to
suppressive groups.
So it ground on a bit. (or should that be "grinded"? Probably not.) No
one getting anywhere. My friend was yelling,sort of like my husband
when he thinks I've done something spectacularly weird. THAT kind of
yelling. Justin Smith continued to be rude and snide.
They then gave me an ultimatum to decide, leave ars or get expelled. I
said I'd need several days. Justin said that proved I was in "doubt"
and gave me one day. Then we talked some more, and then he said,
"Well, you know, you have to call by 6:30 tonight (it was about 2 pm
already). " and I said "what about the one day?" He indicated that he
just now changed it. Because he could, I suppose.
It was then that I realized there was no hope. They'd continue to ask
for/demand my money and time all the while treating me with contempt.
Strictness is one thing, contempt's another. I decided to walk away.
I was contacted by my friend asked to come in and get a meter check. I
was not nice about it. I refused.
I waited to post for a bit, only doing some askme.com stuff as
Voltaire's Child. Then I jumped back in, billing myself as inactive.
I decided that if the church views me as an ex member, that they would
have to officially make that determination, that I wasn't going to
just hand it to them. I then decided to stop self censoring (I'd been
doing so less and less, before that, decrying the culling of pc
folders, etc, but I'd still done so, a bit.) altogether.
I then started writing exactly what I thought, and knew, sometimes
taking CofS sanctioned (I assume they are, anyway.) contributors to
task on things.
A number of critics still saw me as a member of the group, calling it
"my cult" and so on. This made no sense, but then again, this black
and white thinking is just as prevalent in CofS, if not more so, as it
EVER was here.
Then in late April, the church sent DSA Gwen Barnard from Portland to
see me. I refused to see her without an appointment. So she had to
make 2 300 mile round trips. We talked for a long time, she was very
sweet. But I wasn't buying it. She offered me a job writing puff
pieces on social issues for her. I nicely declined. The idea was to
distract me from ARS. I told her the church should honor its creed.
We talked probably for 2 or 3 hours.
Anyway, we ended off and I heard nothing more except that I was on a
list of people not to call for events, which was on HCO color flash
paper (goldenrod) which is what Jana (ladayla) was referring to a
couple weeks or so ago.
At that time, J &I weren't expelled, but we are now.
More later.
Christopher Wood
And are you going to do your steps A-E?
Wonder what kind of effective blow against which enemy your (past) org
might want you to do?
Interesting that the org staff thought the Hubbard directive on staying
connected to suppressive persons etc. was more important than the Hubbard
directives on open and free communication.
Post the actual declare if/when you get it, should be an interesting read.
Good luck.
--
-- Scientology's gate is down. --
Canadian Scientology information is now at:
http://xenu.ca/
Elizabeth Ann Cox
still waiting. Its not for lack of effort on our part.
--
Elizabeth Ann Cox
aka, Bunnyann
Doubt is not a crime; simply a reasonable response to tyranny!
Shark <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3bb7f56e...@nntp.lightlink.com...
> Wow fluffy... congratulations!! Or should I say condolances? :-/
>
> I've been wonder for quite a while now, how a CoS member could
> criticize the church (as you've been doing) and not get kicked out.
> Maybe they changed their ways or they are just really comm-laggy. I
> guess we know which one now.... :-)
>
> Welcome to the wog world! Or freezone, as it may be.
> --
> Church of Scientology does not want you to see this website:
> www.xenu.net
mimus
>I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
>just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled. I
>will not be in regular email or usenet conversation mode, however, for
>at least several days if not longer.
>
>The expulsion was on the grounds of leaving Scn publicly and
>connection to SPs. I don't yet have a copy of the expell/declare.
<snip>
Damn. Takin' it from both sides, eh?
Please do post the declare.
I saw
many people
reduced to
incoherent babbling,
stripping off clothes,
crawling around on the ground,
banging heads, limbs and other body parts
against furniture and walls,
barking,
losing all sense of one's identity
and intense and persistent suicidal ideation.
--Declaration of Andre Tabayoyon
I'm an OT.--Lisa McPherson
If you imagine 40-50 Scientologists
posting on the Internet every few days,
we'll just run the SP's right off the system.
It will be quite simple, actually.
--Elaine Siegel, OSA INT (1996)
Case 5/BTLA/SP1/BAD
KSJ
(And, BTW: Xenu Xenu Xenu!)
Steve Zadarnowski
>They then gave me an ultimatum to decide, leave ars or get expelled.
Well, that's Scientology's freedom for you, Fluffs.
You're only as free as far as the bOrg control extends,
and as we all know, Scientology has no power around here.
You've always told it the way you see it, and I admire
that.
S
---
"The Church of Scientology is as generous as the members are stupid.
Constant giving is the price of membership, nothing monetary rolls
downhill. No disaster so great, no human suffering so profound that
it causes money to roll downhill." - Ted Mayett
Elizabeth Ann Cox
I know it hurts. You will find that you don't miss the church, you don't
miss many things. You do miss those you thought were your friends. You
worry for them, and you hurt for them because you know they pay a price. But
there is nothing you can do to help them. You can only hope for the best
for them; as I hope for the best for the two of you.
--
Elizabeth Ann Cox
aka, Bunnyann
Doubt is not a crime; simply a reasonable response to tyranny!
mimus <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bb5fd2d...@news.zoomnet.net...
ti...@freedom.net
:)
Seriously, I've always thought you were genuine even when you were
posting party line material. You showed a lot of strength and the behind
the scenes testimonial below was real interesting. The Church showed
it's true colors - if the officials you describe below had any sense at
all, they'd have realized that you were one of the best representations
of a Scientologist on this forum.
I wish you the best.
~ tikk
ars web page summary {
> www.altreligionscientology.org
reed slatkin media resource {
> www.slatkinfraud.com
________________________________________________________________________
Protect your privacy! - Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net
barb
>
<snip hellacious story>
A long time ago, back when you were still posting the party line, before
you were really listening to what was being said here, I suggested that
a good way for you to discover the true nature of Scientology was to go
in and question L. Ron Hubbard's writings or biography. Had you done so,
you would have already experienced what you're about to encounter. Now,
hopefully, they'll leave you alone. Had you never posted to ARS and just
quietly left, they probably would have. Of course, had you never found
ARS, you'd probably still be in. Welp, now you're declared. Had you
stayed in and undergone heavy processing for years and years, you would
have been deClaired, reduced to the programmed ronbots we see displayed
here to our sorrow.
AAAnyways, it's time for the Official ARSCC Way to Security briefing.
Policy will not allow them to let you alone. Therefore, it will be a
good idea for you and John to take some measures to cover your
asses.(CYA)
You've read this before, I'm sure.
Get a crosscut shredder and use it on all docs if you don't have one
already.
Especially shred anything with friends' addresses on it.
Password protect all accounts if you haven't done so. Bank, utilities,
what have you.
Don't leave anything in your car that you would not wish the cult to
see. Not even for a second!
Get a good burglar alarm.
Inform your neighbors and ask them to keep an eye out for strange cars,
lurkers, trashcan divers. If your neighborhood gets DA fliers
distributed, use that as an excuse to counter with information as to
what the heck is going on and why.
Don't leave your pets outdoors when you're gone.
Be leery of new associations, especially friendly ones who seem to have
an unnatural desire to know you better and be your best friend.
Keep in mind that at any given time, you are being watched and conduct
yourself accordingly. It's a pain in the butt, true. But you may get to
like it.
Beware of strange plants that appear in your garden overnight.
In a way, I'm sorry this happened to you, but it was inevitable. The
cult isn't about freedom, self improvement, or high sounding ideals.
It's about money. They say that stuff to suck good, well-meaning people
into their maw. That's why they expelled you, in part. You bought into
the idealistic claptrap they dished up, and the last thing they really
want is honest, forthright people cluttering up the place.
I wish you and John all the best. Watch your backs.
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
http://members.home.net/bwarr1/index.htm
SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE $CIENTOLOGY? Sign the petition at
http://www4.PetitionOnline.com/cofs1/
"Every week, every month, every year, every decade and now
every century, Scientology does weird and stupid things
to damage its own reputation."
-Steve Zadarnowski
"Comparing Scientology to a motorcycle gang is a gross, unpardonable
insult to bikers everywhere. Even at our worst, we are never as bad as
Scientology."
-ex-member, Thunderclouds motorcycle "club"
"$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign:
terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business
opportunity.
$cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide."
-Chris Leithiser
Konchok Penday
amaflu...@yahoo.com (Fluffygirl) wrote in thread "My
Expell/Declare", on 29 Sep 2001 09:15:46 -0700, :
Dear Fluffygirl:
====================
CONGRATULATIONS!
====================
You always struck me as *FAR* too sane
to remain stuck in $cientology very long.
You proved it!
Welcome to the Free World!
WELCOME 2
ACTUALITY!
THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING YOUR
ROLE IN THE COSMIC DRAMA NOW!
REBOOT YOUR MIND!
. . . DO UCP AND SEE!
O
--- )
\
Konchok Penday
<K...@net-prophet.net>
Research & Technical Writer
Recipient of the Alex Yakovlev
Technical Excellence Award :-)
Flounder & Prophet of Gods Church:
Send Donations by paypal.com:
"No Gift Too Large . . . or Small!"
========================================
WHAT THE BUDDHA SOUGHT IS FOUND!
AND YOU CAN KNOW IT NOW FOR FREE!
TEST THE UNIVERSAL CLEARING PROCESS:
COMPARE PAST AND FUTURE TO PRESENT!
========================================
UCP: TRANSFORMING PERSONAL CONSCIOUSNESS SINCE
THE SECOND MILLENNIUM: ONE BODHI-SATTVA AT A TIME!
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
GET YOUR DUCKS IN A ROW! @ net-prophet.net
UCP *USENET* POSTS @ alt.clearing.technology
ACT + ARS free news server: news2.lightlink.com
THE UCP WITNESS SCHOOL IS NOW OPEN!
GLOBAL SERVICE AT REASONABLE RATES:
DO A 24-HOUR APPRENTICESHIP BY PHONE!
RE-EVALUATION COUNSELORS: RE-EVALUATE!
EXIT COUNSELORS: UCP CURES $CIENTOLOGY!
CHECK OUT THE ONLINE UCP JOURNAL:
http://www.geocities.com/factnot2/UCP/ucp.htm
DOWNLOAD THE FREE UCP *VIRTUAL WITNESS* NOW!
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/download/vw091b.zip
This TINY program fits easily on a floppy disk!
Extract the vw091b.zip file to it's own directory.
Read "ReadMe.htm" and LINKS, then simply open
"VirtualWitness.htm" in your browser, *LOOK* at
your LIFE, and ANSWER the SIMPLE QUESTIONS!
YOU WILL RAISE YOUR OWN AWARENESS, NOW!
==================================================
mimus
>Shark <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:3bb7f56e...@nntp.lightlink.com...
>
>> Wow fluffy... congratulations!! Or should I say condolances? :-/
>>
>> I've been wonder for quite a while now, how a CoS member could
>> criticize the church (as you've been doing) and not get kicked out.
>> Maybe they changed their ways or they are just really comm-laggy. I
>> guess we know which one now.... :-)
>>
>> Welcome to the wog world! Or freezone, as it may be.
>
>I have still never been officially declared. Neither has Arnie. We are
>still waiting. Its not for lack of effort on our part.
>
>Elizabeth Ann Cox
>aka, Bunnyann
>Doubt is not a crime; simply a reasonable response to tyranny!
That's like being refused your actual diploma at the last minute.
It sucks.
>> Church of Scientology does not want you to see this website:
>> www.xenu.net
--
Warrior
Back when I was posting articles like "Claire commits 'suppressive acts'"
I was certain that this would be the inevitable result if you continued
to post to and/or read ars. Many readers of ars no doubt recall my
exchanges with Enzo Piccone, in which I stated that it is policy of
the cult ("unequivocal" is the word Scientology uses) that maintaining
a connection with "SPs" is itself a "suppressive act". (See Scientology
Policy Directive 28 "Suppressive Act - Dealing With a Declared Suppres-
sive Person", dated 13 August 1982, and HCO Policy Letter of 16 May 1980
Issue II "Ethics: Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and
Scientologists").
Mind you, I have never for one moment considered that you *were* actually
committing suppressive acts; I was simply pointing out the truth with
regards to Scientology policy.
I will repeat it again. It *is* policy that Scientologists in good
standing are _not_ supposed to be posting to, or reading ars. By the
issuance of the "SP Declare" on you and John, Scientology again has
shown itself to be the hypocritical organization it is.
Take comfort in the fact that you are free to seek the truth.
Welcome to the land of "SPs", Claire and John!
All the best,
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.offlines.org
In article <40f7d2ce.01092...@posting.google.com>,
arnie lerma
wrote:
>I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
>just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled. I
>will not be in regular email or usenet conversation mode, however, for
>at least several days if not longer.
>
>The expulsion was on the grounds of leaving Scn publicly and
>connection to SPs. I don't yet have a copy of the expell/declare.
>
>Really, as I know from having been expelled one other time and talking
>to so many others, what it boils down to is that no one gets expelled
>unless the church is angry at them. Whether the grounds for anger be
>real or imagined, trumped up or legitimate is another issue. But
>basically, piss them off enough, run afoul of some politicking, and an
>expell-declare is likely.
>
>I have not publicly departed Scn. I have stated I was inactive with
>CofS and that it largely had much to do with certain communications I
>had with them. This fact.
>
well, I have known for sometime that Scientology LIES....
now you do... congratulations!
>When I first discovered this ng I thought everyone here was stark
>raving bonkers. Evil. Up To No Good. In great excitement I called up
>the Org, was connected with the DSA, Ann Ruble (nka Ann Pearce) and
>asked her if she knew about this terrible thing I just found on the
>internet. She told me it's poison, stay away from it, yadda yadda.
blinders must always be tied securely shut....
>
>After a couple more months of lurking (hard to tear myself away) I
>started posting. Gingerly at first, then jumped in with both feet. I
>was quite party line in those days because I figured that what I'd
>always been told was true. I then saw that the ex CofS members, Free
>Zoners, and the more sane critics (and even some of the not so sane
>ones!) was true, that they weren't lying. As I mentioned before, I
>then decided that these were anomalies. After a time, I found that
>these occurrences/abuses, etc, were not anomalies and weren't rare.
>But I still hung in there, hoping for reform, hoping to work within
>the system.
smile
>
>My first disappearance from the group was due to a somewhat friendly
>meeting with the DSA, Ann, and another executive of the Org who was a
>very close family friend. Ann said OSA wanted to know whose side I
>was on, even though I'd been posting all pro- CofS stuff. And she said
>she wanted me to do what was true for me. She was really nice until
>she called me "disingenuous" which is something people on ars like to
>say sometimes, too. I started wondering if it was the new word for the
>week! Anyway, I agreed to stop posting for my own good and Ann said if
>I ever wanted to know the REAL DEAL, the TRUTH, I could ask her and
>she'd be happy to tell me. Even then, I thought to myself "I doubt
>this!".
good for you..
>
>It didn't feel right to be stifled like that, so after a year or so I
>started to post again. This time, after just a few weeks, OSA
>contacted the Org again. My friend was contacted. We had a shouting
>match in my living room with my friend saying "JUST STAY AWAY FROM
>THEM!" and leaving.
this is a very insightful description of the various types of
'handlings' attempted by Scn. I really appreciate your posting of
these details... you will be webbed on the
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/ pages
Yeah, they are good at rude and snide.....
>
>They then gave me an ultimatum to decide, leave ars or get expelled. I
>said I'd need several days. Justin said that proved I was in "doubt"
>and gave me one day. Then we talked some more, and then he said,
>"Well, you know, you have to call by 6:30 tonight (it was about 2 pm
>already). " and I said "what about the one day?" He indicated that he
>just now changed it. Because he could, I suppose.
>
>It was then that I realized there was no hope. They'd continue to ask
>for/demand my money and time all the while treating me with contempt.
>Strictness is one thing, contempt's another. I decided to walk away.
make my day....
>
>I was contacted by my friend asked to come in and get a meter check. I
>was not nice about it. I refused.
>
>I waited to post for a bit, only doing some askme.com stuff as
>Voltaire's Child. Then I jumped back in, billing myself as inactive.
>I decided that if the church views me as an ex member, that they would
>have to officially make that determination, that I wasn't going to
>just hand it to them. I then decided to stop self censoring (I'd been
>doing so less and less, before that, decrying the culling of pc
>folders, etc, but I'd still done so, a bit.) altogether.
>
>I then started writing exactly what I thought, and knew, sometimes
>taking CofS sanctioned (I assume they are, anyway.) contributors to
>task on things.
Theres nothing quite as exhilarating than for a person to begin
really saying just what it is they feel and think...
>
>A number of critics still saw me as a member of the group, calling it
>"my cult" and so on. This made no sense, but then again, this black
>and white thinking is just as prevalent in CofS, if not more so, as it
>EVER was here.
yea well, I havent read any of your posts for a very long time...
I could see the program at work in your early posts... I dont like
chatting with programs... especially ron's, but i do like people who
have the guts to be themeselves.
>
>Then in late April, the church sent DSA Gwen Barnard from Portland to
>see me. I refused to see her without an appointment. So she had to
>make 2 300 mile round trips. We talked for a long time, she was very
>sweet. But I wasn't buying it. She offered me a job writing puff
>pieces on social issues for her. I nicely declined. The idea was to
>distract me from ARS. I told her the church should honor its creed.
they are sickly sweet ... and will say anything to get their stats
up.
>
>We talked probably for 2 or 3 hours.
>
>Anyway, we ended off and I heard nothing more except that I was on a
>list of people not to call for events, which was on HCO color flash
>paper (goldenrod) which is what Jana (ladayla) was referring to a
>couple weeks or so ago.
>
>At that time, J &I weren't expelled, but we are now.
Take BOW!
Arnie Lerma
>
>More later.
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the new millenium
http://www.lermanet.com/grifters.htm - mentioned 4 January 2000 in
The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"
You want Bigots? http://members.home.net/bwarr1/Movie2.html
Magoo
CONGRATULATIONS!!!! I don't know what you plan to do with this, but I hope
you continue doing what you do best: speaking your mind.
What a shame for these turkeys to do such a moronic thing to you. You were
constantly there trying to tell their side of things, as well as ack the
truth. Naturally, as they ~always~ do..it's their way, or no way. More and
more people are leaving for this very reason. It is no way to live,,,and
people are tired of it.
I hope you and John are celebrating, and not taking this as a loss. I think
it may hurt more when they "do it to you"...but just remember, you did it to
yourself. You told the truth, honestly and with great diplomacy. IF they
find that criminal,,,,do you really want to get back into a group like That?
I have enjoyed your posts, and I only hope we see more of them. Welcome to
the ultimate OT level :))))
Yahoooooooooooooooo. You idiots, OSA>>>what could you POSSIBLY be thinking.
Tell DM he is ~the~biggest Nazi, Real SP I know. (** and you OSA bots ain't
far behind..backing him up. Hitler could not do what he did alone....just
remember that.))
And to anyone lurking, remember please:
The way out
IS
The
Nearest
Door!!!!
Love to you and John. CLaire....
May your life grow and open as you want it to. Thank you for all the effort
you have put out, and all the courage it has taken to speak the truth.
:)
Tory/Magoo~dancing in the moonlight~
"Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40f7d2ce.01092...@posting.google.com...
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
>just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled. I
>will not be in regular email or usenet conversation mode, however, for
>at least several days if not longer.
>
>The expulsion was on the grounds of leaving Scn publicly and
>connection to SPs. I don't yet have a copy of the expell/declare.
>
>Really, as I know from having been expelled one other time and talking
>to so many others, what it boils down to is that no one gets expelled
>unless the church is angry at them. Whether the grounds for anger be
>real or imagined, trumped up or legitimate is another issue. But
>basically, piss them off enough, run afoul of some politicking, and an
>expell-declare is likely.
>
>I have not publicly departed Scn. I have stated I was inactive with
>CofS and that it largely had much to do with certain communications I
>had with them. This fact.
That's an interesting distinction I don't think $cientology, that is,
the entity doing the declaring, would accept as reason not to declare
you.
>
>When I first discovered this ng I thought everyone here was stark
>raving bonkers. Evil. Up To No Good.
Even me, right?
> In great excitement I called up
>the Org, was connected with the DSA, Ann Ruble (nka Ann Pearce) and
>asked her if she knew about this terrible thing I just found on the
>internet. She told me it's poison, stay away from it, yadda yadda.
Cool. A.r.s. at cause over death itself.
>
>After a couple more months of lurking (hard to tear myself away) I
>started posting. Gingerly at first, then jumped in with both feet. I
>was quite party line in those days because I figured that what I'd
>always been told was true.
It had to be true too because it was true for you.
> I then saw that the ex CofS members, Free
>Zoners, and the more sane critics (and even some of the not so sane
>ones!)
Yay, that's me. This is a love poem from Claire.
>was true, that they weren't lying. As I mentioned before, I
>then decided that these were anomalies. After a time, I found that
>these occurrences/abuses, etc, were not anomalies and weren't rare.
>But I still hung in there, hoping for reform, hoping to work within
>the system.
Yes, you did.
>
>My first disappearance from the group was due to a somewhat friendly
>meeting with the DSA, Ann, and another executive of the Org who was a
>very close family friend. Ann said OSA wanted to know whose side I
>was on, even though I'd been posting all pro- CofS stuff.
It was that you were engaging all us critics, even the not so sane
ones.
> And she said
>she wanted me to do what was true for me. She was really nice until
>she called me "disingenuous" which is something people on ars like to
>say sometimes, too.
Yes, it is indispensable to the critic's lexicon.
> I started wondering if it was the new word for the
>week! Anyway, I agreed to stop posting for my own good and Ann said if
>I ever wanted to know the REAL DEAL, the TRUTH, I could ask her and
>she'd be happy to tell me. Even then, I thought to myself "I doubt
>this!".
This is an exciting story, Claire. I sure hope it ends well.
>
>It didn't feel right to be stifled like that, so after a year or so I
>started to post again.
We got you on the rebound. I am so glad I took the chance to respond
to you or communicate to you at all these past couple of years.
>This time, after just a few weeks, OSA
>contacted the Org again. My friend was contacted. We had a shouting
>match in my living room with my friend saying "JUST STAY AWAY FROM
>THEM!" and leaving.
>
>I started up again after a couple weeks, and was called by my friend.
>I did some fast talking and got him off my case. Told him I'd deal
>with OSA directly, which I did. I got an email address for someone
>there who's on this particular situation, and sent some emails
>announcing my intent to post again. I got no reply and then indicated
>by another email that I'd take this silence as assent.
What a great opportunity you have. You can communicate freely to
anyone you want, including the people who declared you. You can demand
justice. I hope you post the text of the declare when you get it,
copyrighted or notl.
>
>Then I got called in to the Org for a briefing. The DSA had my friend
>give me all these references to read about anti social personalities
>and so forth. Most of you will know or know of the ones.
Yep. I'm definitely one of those anti social personalities, yep, that
goes without saying.
> I then handed
>my friend a stack of LRH references about free communication, etc.
Yes!
>
>Then I heard nothing for a couple months.
WoW! During which time you posted to a.r.s. If it's easy for you,
perhaps you could date your various communications with OSA and the
various actions you took throughout this history.
>
>August 20, 2001,
Ah, okay, this dates this incident.
> I was told to come in and have a nice meeting of the
>minds. It was not nice. And there was no meeting of the minds. My
>friend and another man, Justin Smith from HCO were there. Justin did
>most of the talking and had apparently been briefed as to what to say.
>He brought up my civil rights and how the Org would not want to see
>them infringed and this was irrelevant. Religions have nothing to do
>with rights granted or withheld by the government of the land in which
>one lives unless one lives in a theocracy. This was just PR and
>something he'd been briefed to say, I believe. He started to get
>sarcastic and rude. I passed out my LRH quotes again and they fell to
>the floor. So I started reading them aloud. They said "This is the
>reference we are going by" - indicating the reference on adherence to
>suppressive groups.
Wow, let the a.r.s bell of freedom ring!
>
>So it ground on a bit. (or should that be "grinded"? Probably not.) No
>one getting anywhere. My friend was yelling,sort of like my husband
>when he thinks I've done something spectacularly weird. THAT kind of
>yelling. Justin Smith continued to be rude and snide.
>They then gave me an ultimatum to decide, leave ars or get expelled.
This is a great day in the history of a.r.s., and more importantly,
Claire Swazey.
> I
>said I'd need several days. Justin said that proved I was in "doubt"
>and gave me one day.
Poor Justin. The worst thing he could do is report a done on any of
his operating targets.
> Then we talked some more, and then he said,
>"Well, you know, you have to call by 6:30 tonight (it was about 2 pm
>already). " and I said "what about the one day?" He indicated that he
>just now changed it. Because he could, I suppose.
A Scientologist controls. And a Scientologist controls because he can.
You never hear wogs (R) saying "A wog (R) controls." It really goes
without saying.
>
>It was then that I realized there was no hope. They'd continue to ask
>for/demand my money and time all the while treating me with contempt.
>Strictness is one thing, contempt's another. I decided to walk away.
Hey, Claire, even that mean old Mr. Armstrong, clearly one of the not
so sane ones, didn't demand your money and didn't treat you with
contempt.
>
>I was contacted by my friend asked to come in and get a meter check. I
>was not nice about it. I refused.
Yeah, really, what good would a meter check, which was probably their
sleazy last attempt to give you a sec check, have done? It would only
have given the people who treat you with contempt another opportunity
to treat you with contempt; by your giving them more of your life to
hold against you contemptuously. I bet they'd secretly video you if
they got you into a "meter check."
>
>I waited to post for a bit, only doing some askme.com stuff as
>Voltaire's Child. Then I jumped back in, billing myself as inactive.
>I decided that if the church views me as an ex member, that they would
>have to officially make that determination, that I wasn't going to
>just hand it to them. I then decided to stop self censoring (I'd been
>doing so less and less, before that, decrying the culling of pc
>folders, etc, but I'd still done so, a bit.) altogether.
Yep, and now your folders are fair game.
>
>I then started writing exactly what I thought, and knew, sometimes
>taking CofS sanctioned (I assume they are, anyway.) contributors to
>task on things.
>
>A number of critics still saw me as a member of the group, calling it
>"my cult" and so on. This made no sense, but then again, this black
>and white thinking is just as prevalent in CofS, if not more so, as it
>EVER was here.
But really how were we to know that you'd really broken with the
Scientology cult? You knew what cult I was talking about. It had been
your cult, and at some point, it stopped being your cult. At first and
for a long time you followed the doctrine, I think, of "my cult right
or wrong." Then at some point, certainly after the August 20 meeting,
you decided "not my cult."
>
>Then in late April,
Did we go back in time?
> the church sent DSA Gwen Barnard from Portland to
>see me.
Gwen must have some success getting potential shore flaps under
control. Gwen Mayfield Barnard has been OSA for eons.
> I refused to see her without an appointment. So she had to
>make 2 300 mile round trips. We talked for a long time, she was very
>sweet. But I wasn't buying it. She offered me a job writing puff
>pieces on social issues for her. I nicely declined. The idea was to
>distract me from ARS. I told her the church should honor its creed.
Yay, Claire!
>
>We talked probably for 2 or 3 hours.
>
>Anyway, we ended off and I heard nothing more except that I was on a
>list of people not to call for events, which was on HCO color flash
>paper (goldenrod) which is what Jana (ladayla) was referring to a
>couple weeks or so ago.
>
>At that time, J &I weren't expelled, but we are now.
>
>More later.
Thank you, Claire. This is the coolest report. I know, coming from
your arch enemy that isn't much of a compliment. But maybe I'm not
your arch enemy.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Keith Henson
wrote:
>I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
>just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled. I
>will not be in regular email or usenet conversation mode, however, for
>at least several days if not longer.
>
>The expulsion was on the grounds of leaving Scn publicly and
>connection to SPs. I don't yet have a copy of the expell/declare.
Clair, you tried, you really tried, to get CoS to reform. And they
kicked you in the teeth.
I am impressed by your persistence and your unwillingness to let them
force you into violating your conscience.
The way things are going, *all* the good people inside are going to be
thrown out.
My very best wishes to you and John.
Keith Henson
thomlove
Well, I hope you intend to continue up the Bridge. (watch the flack I
get for that comment!)
Now that you are officially off the CofS Bridge, you can now continue on
the exact same Bridge off CofS lines.
thomlove
realpch
>
> I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
> just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled. I
> will not be in regular email or usenet conversation mode, however, for
> at least several days if not longer.
>
> The expulsion was on the grounds of leaving Scn publicly and
> connection to SPs. I don't yet have a copy of the expell/declare.
<snip>
Ah geeze Claire, so much for the longest running demonstration on ARS
that the Church of Scientology might just possibly consider letting it's
members think and speak for themselves.
My best wishes to you.
Peach
LronsScam
Scn'gy. I thought that because of your ability to both be a critic of Scn'gy
-- even only slightly; so slightly that most ARSers didn't notice -- and to
be a Scn'gst, that Scn'gy has become more benign from the one I was aware of.
You were a testament to their side of the story that they allow those
insiders freedoms that were only pondered about by the cult apologists and
Scn'gy alike. You are a testament, but not of a new, more gentle Scn'gy.
Now they can claim you are an "apostate" and your side of the story is not to
be believed. You will be shunned by your former Scn'gy friends as an SP and
not to be communicated with. You will be transformed into a criminal by the
Scn'gy PR wagon, that disposes of any threat to its stature in that fashion.
You may see how nasty these people really are. In some ways it will *prove*
the critic's side of it. But make no mistake about it, it's no real win as
far as I'm concerned. The real win would only have come if you could have
been you and a Scn'gst too.
I don't know if there is an answer to your dilemma. Like I said I feel bad
for you and indeed I do. You are in the unsavory position of having supported
CoS and the tech for a long time. It's obvious that you believe in it even if
only partly. It really should work and does work on paper. But in reality
Hubbard -- the one I ultimately blame -- never created Scn'gy to be this
peaceful, love giving, freedom organization that many Scn'gsts believe.
I know it must not have been easy to say you were declared, and I thank you
for being open about it. It's not easy to do since you are going to hear in
greater or lesser degrees that "I told you so," from so many ARS
participants. In some ways I am saying that. But not entirely.
There was a time I wished on you the pain the negative parts of Scn'gy, like
fair game and disconnection, imparts on those it doesn't agree with. I think
you might remember such a statement made by me. If I can, I take that back
now if it's even possible to do so. It's not an easy thing what you are going
to do or what you have done. You have bucked the odds in being so open about
Scn'gy on this news group while staying a Scn'gst. It took guts what you did
and it's well respected by me. I wish there were more Scn'gsts like you. CofS
only holds its power in ignorance. And that's why your free speech within its
ranks is so vilified.
Good luck with your affair. You may need it. I don't envy your position at
all.
The addy of Fluffygirl <amaflu...@yahoo.com>,
In article ID <40f7d2ce.01092...@posting.google.com>,
On or about 29 Sep 2001 09:15:46 -0700,
In this thy group <alt.religion.scientology> cometh;
Fluffygirl says...
LronsScam
In article ID <9p50a...@drn.newsguy.com>,
On or about 29 Sep 2001 10:27:30 -0700,
In this thy group <alt.religion.scientology> cometh;
Warrior says...
>
>
>Thanks for very much posting this, Claire.
>
>Back when I was posting articles like "Claire commits 'suppressive acts'"
>I was certain that this would be the inevitable result if you continued
>to post to and/or read ars. Many readers of ars no doubt recall my
>exchanges with Enzo Piccone, in which I stated that it is policy of
>the cult ("unequivocal" is the word Scientology uses) that maintaining
>a connection with "SPs" is itself a "suppressive act". (See Scientology
>Policy Directive 28 "Suppressive Act - Dealing With a Declared Suppres-
>sive Person", dated 13 August 1982, and HCO Policy Letter of 16 May 1980
>Issue II "Ethics: Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and
>Scientologists").
>
>Mind you, I have never for one moment considered that you *were* actually
>committing suppressive acts; I was simply pointing out the truth with
>regards to Scientology policy.
>
>I will repeat it again. It *is* policy that Scientologists in good
>standing are _not_ supposed to be posting to, or reading ars. By the
>issuance of the "SP Declare" on you and John, Scientology again has
>shown itself to be the hypocritical organization it is.
>
>Take comfort in the fact that you are free to seek the truth.
>
>Welcome to the land of "SPs", Claire and John!
Speaking or Enzo, I haven't heard from him in a long time. Any news from him?
ladayla
I don't think that Claire and/or John is in any danger from Huborg. Claire
showed in her early posts that she had no data other than that given to her by
Huborg, and now she has public data. So far as holding a post in an Org where
secret info of any sort would be known by her, she has not done so. She has not
picketed. She's done nothing to cause them to devote attention or manpower to
her destruction. Other than posting here, she has posed no threat to their
stats. The worst thing that will happen is that some of the people whom she
thought were her friends will disconnect from her.
Also, Ann Ruble and other OSA terminals know full well that if they harrass her
in any way, this entire NG will know of it and spread the word over the planet.
So. Welcome to ARS in a new unit of time, Claire. You needn't give up anything
that you care about in Scn. You will no doubt find that there is more Scn going
on in the world outside Huborg than there is within it.
The group that has expelled you is not the group that you (or I) joined.
Whatever it is that they are doing, it is NOT Scientology.
jana
Catarina Pamnell
wrote:
>I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
>just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled.
I have been expecting this. Still, I am a bit sad for you. It's easier
when you walk away on your own decision.
And while I could say "this proves I'm right" or something, I actually
think it would have been much nicer to be surprised by hearing a story
of how the church had changed, that they no longer kick people out for
communicating... but no such luck this time.
The best to you and John. And do take care now.
Catarina
WazNScn
touch with many whom you considered friends, but -- welcome to the real world,
where you can live life and actually grow as a free spirit!
ptsc
>I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
>just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled. I
>will not be in regular email or usenet conversation mode, however, for
>at least several days if not longer.
I have to say congratulations and condolences at the same time, because it must
be a drag to be treated that way by an organization you spent so much time
defending.
Still, congratulations, because Scientology declaring you says so much more
about them than about you, and yet I feel somehow sad, because it's depressing
to watch such stupidity as an organization kicking out their most intelligent
and articulate defenders in a form of slow-motion suicide.
As they continue kicking out their intelligent and rational defenders, they
demonstrate their own insanity. They continue to promote and reward total
nutcases like Peter Ramsay, who are blatant thugs, at the same time,
contributing ultimately to their own demise. Strategically I celebrate this,
but as a human being it makes me sad.
In any case, welcome to the Wog World!
ptsc
Bid
Please stay with us :-)
Bid
On 29 Sep 2001 09:15:46 -0700, amaflu...@yahoo.com (Fluffygirl)
wrote:
>I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
Steve Plakos
arnie lerma wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2001 09:15:46 -0700, amaflu...@yahoo.com (Fluffygirl)
> wrote:
>
> >I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
> >just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled. I
> >will not be in regular email or usenet conversation mode, however, for
> >at least several days if not longer.
> >
> >The expulsion was on the grounds of leaving Scn publicly and
> >connection to SPs. I don't yet have a copy of the expell/declare.
> >
> >Really, as I know from having been expelled one other time and talking
> >to so many others, what it boils down to is that no one gets expelled
> >unless the church is angry at them. Whether the grounds for anger be
> >real or imagined, trumped up or legitimate is another issue. But
> >basically, piss them off enough, run afoul of some politicking, and an
> >expell-declare is likely.
> >
> >I have not publicly departed Scn. I have stated I was inactive with
> >CofS and that it largely had much to do with certain communications I
> >had with them. This fact.
> >
>
> well, I have known for sometime that Scientology LIES....
> now you do... congratulations!
Claire has known this for some time, the next step is the realization that HUBBARD
LIED. It is at that moment she will need the good intentions and support from the
ARSCC(wdne).
Steve
Dave Bird
>I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
>just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled. I
>will not be in regular email or usenet conversation mode, however, for
>at least several days if not longer.
>
>The expulsion was on the grounds of leaving Scn publicly and
>connection to SPs. I don't yet have a copy of the expell/declare.
Welcome to the real world; now you know exactly what CofS are like.
You've made your choices and you have the result, which is probably
the only sensible one for you. I don't know which way you will go,
whether into the Freezone -- though I think you've said the Tech
doesn't do anything for you -- or become poster child of the
critics like Tory B, or just go on being an independent commentator.
You may find a lot of people you knew in CofS have decided they
no longer know you; and this can't be unexpected, as it was what
you -- or at least what the average member -- did when you were in.
In time you may look back on it rather as you do some of the weird
fashions you wore when you were fourteen: "did I really go round
like that?" ("was I really once a clam?"). And in time you'll come
to realise that yes, you did; and yes, it was silly; and no, you
are no longer that; and, yes, it is all part of you then and now.
Anyway, welcome back to reality. You are welcome to talk to me
in England (email first), or Andreas in Norway, or the LMT people:
you may find it useful to talk to a few people, especially those
who have been through the same experience.
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE).
Phineas Fogg
I know you like the tech, etc., but the same kind of mindset that leads to
all that is wrong with Scientology
is a close sibling to all of that you think is right about it. Both have
the same parent, L. Ron Hubbard.
By the way, I learned a long time ago that "doubt" is nature's doorway to
higher states of being, and the
fact that Scientology eschews it is proof that it, not you, is the
"suppressive".
Very good post, by the way.
Phineas Fogg
>Fluffygirl <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40f7d2ce.01092...@posting.google.com...
> I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
> just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled. I
> will not be in regular email or usenet conversation mode, however, for
> at least several days if not longer.
>
> The expulsion was on the grounds of leaving Scn publicly and
> connection to SPs. I don't yet have a copy of the expell/declare.
>
> Really, as I know from having been expelled one other time and talking
> to so many others, what it boils down to is that no one gets expelled
> unless the church is angry at them. Whether the grounds for anger be
> real or imagined, trumped up or legitimate is another issue. But
> basically, piss them off enough, run afoul of some politicking, and an
> expell-declare is likely.
>
> I have not publicly departed Scn. I have stated I was inactive with
> CofS and that it largely had much to do with certain communications I
> had with them. This fact.
>
> When I first discovered this ng I thought everyone here was stark
> raving bonkers. Evil. Up To No Good. In great excitement I called up
> the Org, was connected with the DSA, Ann Ruble (nka Ann Pearce) and
> asked her if she knew about this terrible thing I just found on the
> internet. She told me it's poison, stay away from it, yadda yadda.
>
> After a couple more months of lurking (hard to tear myself away) I
> started posting. Gingerly at first, then jumped in with both feet. I
> was quite party line in those days because I figured that what I'd
> always been told was true. I then saw that the ex CofS members, Free
> Zoners, and the more sane critics (and even some of the not so sane
> ones!) was true, that they weren't lying. As I mentioned before, I
> then decided that these were anomalies. After a time, I found that
> these occurrences/abuses, etc, were not anomalies and weren't rare.
> But I still hung in there, hoping for reform, hoping to work within
> the system.
>
> My first disappearance from the group was due to a somewhat friendly
> meeting with the DSA, Ann, and another executive of the Org who was a
> very close family friend. Ann said OSA wanted to know whose side I
> was on, even though I'd been posting all pro- CofS stuff. And she said
> she wanted me to do what was true for me. She was really nice until
> she called me "disingenuous" which is something people on ars like to
> say sometimes, too. I started wondering if it was the new word for the
> week! Anyway, I agreed to stop posting for my own good and Ann said if
> I ever wanted to know the REAL DEAL, the TRUTH, I could ask her and
> she'd be happy to tell me. Even then, I thought to myself "I doubt
> this!".
>
> It didn't feel right to be stifled like that, so after a year or so I
> started to post again. This time, after just a few weeks, OSA
> contacted the Org again. My friend was contacted. We had a shouting
> match in my living room with my friend saying "JUST STAY AWAY FROM
> THEM!" and leaving.
>
> They then gave me an ultimatum to decide, leave ars or get expelled. I
> said I'd need several days. Justin said that proved I was in "doubt"
> and gave me one day. Then we talked some more, and then he said,
> "Well, you know, you have to call by 6:30 tonight (it was about 2 pm
> already). " and I said "what about the one day?" He indicated that he
> just now changed it. Because he could, I suppose.
>
> It was then that I realized there was no hope. They'd continue to ask
> for/demand my money and time all the while treating me with contempt.
> Strictness is one thing, contempt's another. I decided to walk away.
>
> I was contacted by my friend asked to come in and get a meter check. I
> was not nice about it. I refused.
>
> I waited to post for a bit, only doing some askme.com stuff as
> Voltaire's Child. Then I jumped back in, billing myself as inactive.
> I decided that if the church views me as an ex member, that they would
> have to officially make that determination, that I wasn't going to
> just hand it to them. I then decided to stop self censoring (I'd been
> doing so less and less, before that, decrying the culling of pc
> folders, etc, but I'd still done so, a bit.) altogether.
>
> I then started writing exactly what I thought, and knew, sometimes
> taking CofS sanctioned (I assume they are, anyway.) contributors to
> task on things.
>
> A number of critics still saw me as a member of the group, calling it
> "my cult" and so on. This made no sense, but then again, this black
> and white thinking is just as prevalent in CofS, if not more so, as it
> EVER was here.
>
> Then in late April, the church sent DSA Gwen Barnard from Portland to
> see me. I refused to see her without an appointment. So she had to
> make 2 300 mile round trips. We talked for a long time, she was very
> sweet. But I wasn't buying it. She offered me a job writing puff
> pieces on social issues for her. I nicely declined. The idea was to
> distract me from ARS. I told her the church should honor its creed.
>
> We talked probably for 2 or 3 hours.
>
> Anyway, we ended off and I heard nothing more except that I was on a
> list of people not to call for events, which was on HCO color flash
> paper (goldenrod) which is what Jana (ladayla) was referring to a
> couple weeks or so ago.
>
> At that time, J &I weren't expelled, but we are now.
>
> More later.
Steve Plakos
corporate management, only slavish adherence to their orders will keep one
in good standing. Knowing how much of your life has revolved around
scientology and knowing how difficult it must have been to do your A-E the
last time around, it isn't likely that you can take this news with a lot
of equanimity. My wish for you and John is that you keep searching for a
truth larger than self; that's why most people join the Cof$ in the first
place and you know conclusively that being inside the "church" is not
necessary to keep up the search. Good Luck.
Steve
welcome.to/ars
-0700 in <40f7d2ce.01092...@posting.google.com>
>The expulsion was on the grounds of leaving Scn publicly and
>connection to SPs. I don't yet have a copy of the expell/declare.
>
>Really, as I know from having been expelled one other time and talking
>to so many others, what it boils down to is that no one gets expelled
>unless the church is angry at them. Whether the grounds for anger be
>real or imagined, trumped up or legitimate is another issue. But
>basically, piss them off enough, run afoul of some politicking, and an
>expell-declare is likely.
This is quite unfortunate and rather sad as I see no valid ground for
such an expell/declare. If anything you have done more to defend the
valid aspects of Scientology than many but this is the kind of cultic
mentality that can be found on both sides: if you are not for us, you
are against us. This is wrong.
>I have not publicly departed Scn. I have stated I was inactive with
>CofS and that it largely had much to do with certain communications I
>had with them. This fact.
Right - which is why I kept you in my "Scientologists" category on my
Who's Who page rather than in the Freezoners one, which you clearly
were internally for quite a while now already. Guess I can move you
there now.
Good luck in your new life,
--
Bernie
http://welcome.to/ars
Sam Rouse
I wanted to add something to this thread, but ptsc pretty well summed up my
sentiments.
Take care,
Sam
In article <56ccrtktcgjupfovj...@4ax.com>, ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT
barb
I heard he got sucked into the Slatkin fiasco. Did he win? Did he lose?
Who knows?
ultram...@webtv.net
"made an example of you".
I know how you must feel. (having committed no crimes)
www.janes.com Security & Defense News
barb
>
> In article <3BB60352...@home.com>, barb says...
>
> I don't think that Claire and/or John is in any danger from Huborg. Claire
> showed in her early posts that she had no data other than that given to her by
> Huborg, and now she has public data. So far as holding a post in an Org where
> secret info of any sort would be known by her, she has not done so. She has not
> picketed. She's done nothing to cause them to devote attention or manpower to
> her destruction. Other than posting here, she has posed no threat to their
> stats. The worst thing that will happen is that some of the people whom she
> thought were her friends will disconnect from her.
> Also, Ann Ruble and other OSA terminals know full well that if they harrass her
> in any way, this entire NG will know of it and spread the word over the planet.
> So. Welcome to ARS in a new unit of time, Claire. You needn't give up anything
> that you care about in Scn. You will no doubt find that there is more Scn going
> on in the world outside Huborg than there is within it.
> The group that has expelled you is not the group that you (or I) joined.
> Whatever it is that they are doing, it is NOT Scientology.
>
> jana
I suspect if she keeps posting to ARS, she will attract the attention of
Dept. 20.
Of course, that's "only" the PR branch, right? So why would they care?
Hope I'm wrong. I really mean that. Claire is an honest, forthright
person who I've admired for her adherence to her own standards and
refusal to let the cult "think for herself." Her final betrayal would be
complete if OSA started to pull its stupid tricks on her and her husband
as a reward for them trying to uphold the phony ideals of Scientology.
I'm sorry for that, I really am. Betrayal is always a horrific thing. I
know Claire is strong enough to withstand it and overcome it, but I'm
afraid that Scientology, aka OSA, is going to leave a little scar on her
soul and make her just a bit more squinty-eyed and cynical about the
world. That's not necessarily a bad thing; I'm squinty-eyed as hell, but
I don't wish it upon others.
So passes the glory of the world you thought you knew...
Kaeli
For the longest time, you have tried to defend the CoS..and sadly enough,
you and John were most likely the most calm and rational Scientologists I
have seen. The ones I've met in person merely yell "what are your crimes"
or run and hide like rabbits.
I will state my opinion here: you and John deserve better than an
organization such as the CoS, which has, in many ways, has corrupted and
has hurt people.
I am happy that you are now out, but my condolences to your loss of
friends there.
Kaeli.
Fluffygirl wrote:
> I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
> just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled. I
> will not be in regular email or usenet conversation mode, however, for
> at least several days if not longer.
>
> The expulsion was on the grounds of leaving Scn publicly and
> connection to SPs. I don't yet have a copy of the expell/declare.
>
> Really, as I know from having been expelled one other time and talking
> to so many others, what it boils down to is that no one gets expelled
> unless the church is angry at them. Whether the grounds for anger be
> real or imagined, trumped up or legitimate is another issue. But
> basically, piss them off enough, run afoul of some politicking, and an
> expell-declare is likely.
>
> I have not publicly departed Scn. I have stated I was inactive with
> CofS and that it largely had much to do with certain communications I
> had with them. This fact.
>
Michael 'Mike' Gormez - www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
<cw...@xenu.ca> wrote:
>Post the actual declare if/when you get it, should be an interesting read.
Right away I can tell you it contains something like: "could not maintain
the ethical standards we expect" blabla..
They always use that. And it is quiet logical for them too, considering
the following from the fascistic book:
"All that Ethics is for - the totality of the reason for its
existence and operation - is simply that additional tool necessary
to make it possible to apply the technology of Scientology."
Mike
--
Why are these people dead Scientology?
http://www.xenu.net/archive/deaths
SCN Lurker
>I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
>just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled.
<snip story leading to declare>
Wow, I'm kind of surprised by this. At some level, I thought it might
happen, but analytically, I didn't.
I didn't think it would happen because of exactly the reaction that is
occurring right now. I'm sure your story will end up being repeated
many times to fit various agendas, which of course = bad PR.
IIRC, declares have to be approved at least at the CLO/FOLO level.
Was this the case with yours?
I wonder if it was on lines at the FB level (where OSAI is).
Hmmm.
- SCN Lurker
mimus
<mgo...@chello.nl> wrote:
>In article <3bb5f909$1...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Christopher Wood"
><cw...@xenu.ca> wrote:
>
>>Post the actual declare if/when you get it, should be an interesting read.
>
>Right away I can tell you it contains something like: "could not maintain
>the ethical standards we expect" blabla..
>
>They always use that. And it is quiet logical for them too, considering
>the following from the fascistic book:
>
> "All that Ethics is for - the totality of the reason for its
>existence and operation - is simply that additional tool necessary
>to make it possible to apply the technology of Scientology."
Which follows directly from the Scientological definition of "ethics":
QUOTE:
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 JUNE 1968
Remimeo
Flag Order
ETHICS
The Purpose of Ethics is
TO REMOVE COUNTER INTENTIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.
And having accomplished that the purpose becomes
TO REMOVE OTHER INTENTIONNESS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.
Thus progress can be made by all.
END QUOTE
With a definition of "ethics" like that, it must of course be very
very easy to be "the most ethical people on the planet".
> Why are these people dead Scientology?
> http://www.xenu.net/archive/deaths
I saw
many people
reduced to
incoherent babbling,
stripping off clothes,
crawling around on the ground,
banging heads, limbs and other body parts
against furniture and walls,
barking,
losing all sense of one's identity
and intense and persistent suicidal ideation.
--Declaration of Andre Tabayoyon
I'm an OT.--Lisa McPherson
If you imagine 40-50 Scientologists
posting on the Internet every few days,
we'll just run the SP's right off the system.
It will be quite simple, actually.
--Elaine Siegel, OSA INT (1996)
Case 5/BTLA/SP1/BAD
KSJ
(And, BTW: Xenu Xenu Xenu!)
Magoo
I was told I was declared by the Justice Chief (17 years old) at Flag on the
phone.
I reminded her that Hubbard has a Policy called
"If it isn't in writing, it isn't true"
And I told her, per LRH< until she got something to me IN WRITING>>>>
I was NOT declared!
She got it to me in 2 days.
:)
Get it ...it's fun to have.
My best to you again ;)))
Tory/Magoo~still dancing~
"Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40f7d2ce.01092...@posting.google.com...
> I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
"El Roto"
<ti...@freedom.net> wrote in message
news:trc0m7s...@corp.supernews.com...
> Can we call you 'De-Claire' now?
>
> :)
>
> Seriously, I've always thought you were genuine even when you were
> posting party line material. You showed a lot of strength and the behind
> the scenes testimonial below was real interesting. The Church showed
> it's true colors - if the officials you describe below had any sense at
> all, they'd have realized that you were one of the best representations
> of a Scientologist on this forum.
>
> I wish you the best.
>
>
> ~ tikk
My thoughts, exactly. I know I posted several unkind comments about you
when I first hit the ng, Claire, but over time I realized I was wasn't being
fair to you and was wrong to do so. It's sad to see you, who took the time
to post in a thoughtful manner, be shunned by the group you represented so
well.
Steve G.
Beverly Rice
> amaflu...@yahoo.com (Fluffygirl) wrote:
> >I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
> >just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled.
> Wow, I'm kind of surprised by this. At some level, I thought it might
> happen, but analytically, I didn't.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thus the most amusing oxymoron regarding the lying PR that
Co$ puts out about ~DIEnetics and $cientology~ . . . .
there is ~nothing~ analytical about Co$ as there is no
~SANITY~ in Co$ . . .
Co$ is the epitamy of being ~REACTIVE~.
It HAS to be reactive as it was based on the twisted mind
of Hubbard . . .
and like it or not . . .
the "Ill One" was completely reactive.
ARC = As-Ising the Real Co$,
Beverly
Beverly Rice
Claire, I honestly don't think that being declared
is a bad thing . . . other than the possible disconnection
that some members may be foolish enough to obey regarding
you.
I wish you the best on this, and will be intersted to
see how Co$ plays this one out.
If they are not careful, this could be very bad for them
because you have not been "attacking" them, and should they
be foolish enough to attack you publicly (or even privately
because if they do I hope you let us know) . . .
it will completely demonstrate IN THE OPEN that everything
that has been exposed about them is true . . .
and I believe that at least part of their game is to do
their best to try to shake that image . . .
at least publicly.
If at anytime, however, they should try to harm you, you
know that you have many voices here that will be there for
you.
ARC = As-Ising the Real Co$,
Beverly
> I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
Cry
you know you're right, it takes about 500 years to achieve vindication
re: Galileo..
Stay the course and you'll see it in our lifetime.
Good luck, however you choose to handle your situation.
Cheers,
Cry, B.Sc.
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>SCN Lurker wrote:
>> amaflu...@yahoo.com (Fluffygirl) wrote:
>
>> >I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
>> >just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled.
>
>> Wow, I'm kind of surprised by this. At some level, I thought it might
>> happen, but analytically, I didn't.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>Thus the most amusing oxymoron regarding the lying PR that
>Co$ puts out about ~DIEnetics and $cientology~ . . . .
>
>there is ~nothing~ analytical about Co$ as there is no
>~SANITY~ in Co$ . . .
>
>Co$ is the epitamy of being ~REACTIVE~.
Epitome.
Welcome back Beverly.
$cientology is a mix of intellect and reaction, conscious and
subconscious and unconscious, much like all of us. But these parts of
man, his ability to create habits and follow them, his ability to do
all sort of calculations and mental exercises, his ability to do
anything he can do, are all used for $cientology's purpose.
>
>It HAS to be reactive as it was based on the twisted mind
>of Hubbard . . .
>
>and like it or not . . .
>
>the "Ill One" was completely reactive.
There again, he was reactive, and he was slyly calculating, and he was
a mix of all his God-given abilities or weaknesses. He used them too
much of the time for unholy purposes.
(Yes, yes, I know, loserclam, have I known anyone else who was slyly
calculating?)
It isn't so much Hubbard's great or ungreat mind. It's what he used
his mind for.
A simple mind used for the right purpose is better than genius used
for a wrong one. $cientology uses its people's minds, simple or
genius, for a very wrong purpose.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Cry
wrote:
>On 29 Sep 2001 09:15:46 -0700, amaflu...@yahoo.com (Fluffygirl)
>wrote:
>
>>I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
>>just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled. I
>>will not be in regular email or usenet conversation mode, however, for
>>at least several days if not longer.
>>
>>The expulsion was on the grounds of leaving Scn publicly and
>>connection to SPs. I don't yet have a copy of the expell/declare.
>
>Clair, you tried, you really tried, to get CoS to reform. And they
>kicked you in the teeth.
>
>I am impressed by your persistence and your unwillingness to let them
>force you into violating your conscience.
>
>The way things are going, *all* the good people inside are going to be
>thrown out.
Am I the only one getting a humorous image of Heber and Poodleboy in a
situation like that which Croebe and Hisst found themselves in in the
last book of "Mission Earth"? The last two $cientologists on the
planet, withdrawn from the SP world into a bunker deep undergound,
passing the time away taking turns auditing each other (as they allow
themselves to communicate only with each other), falling deeper and
deeper into insanity :P
Hubbard WAS a visionary in that respect.
Cheers,
Cry, B.Sc.
Michael Reuss
>I just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled.
I'm sorry that this had to happen, but it probably was inevitable,
given your more recent rhetoric and attitudes toward Scientology's
wrongdoing.
This will be their loss, not yours, Claire. I know you will have the
strength to blaze your own spiritual trail. We've seen this over and
over from declared ex-members, people like Tory, Heidrun, the Barnes'
and many, many others.
Without you, the Co$ will lose a voice of moderation and tolerance,
and become just a tad bit more zealous, a tad bit more fanatic. And
for my money, that is exactly the 180 degrees wrong direction for them
to be going at this point in their history.
>I have not publicly departed Scn. I have stated I was inactive with
>CofS and that it largely had much to do with certain communications I
>had with them. This fact.
Facts have nothing to do with this. This is about power and control,
only. This declare is about preventing your "infectious" ideas, the
ideas of a tolerant, somewhat open-minded, non-zealous Scientologist
from spreading within the ranks and thereby diminishing the fanaticism
and unthinking commitment that Scientology fosters.
>My friend was contacted. We had a shouting
>match in my living room with my friend saying "JUST STAY AWAY FROM
>THEM!"
... but be sure to think for yourself in the process... ;-)
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
Kymus
>I
>just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled.
Congratulations. Being declared is the church's equivalent of a bar/bat
mitzvah - a way of welcoming you into adulthood.
Expulsion is the beginning of an adventure. Treat is as an adventure and may
you never be the same again.
!! Internet encryption = terrorist secure phones.
!! Internet anonymity = a chink in the armor not needed by the innocent.
>> Vote accordingly.
David Gerard
Cry <C...@ARSCC.org> wrote:
:Am I the only one getting a humorous image of Heber and Poodleboy in a
:situation like that which Croebe and Hisst found themselves in in the
:last book of "Mission Earth"?
Yes, you're the only one who made it to the last book of 'Mission Earth'.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.rocknerd.org/
"I am glad to see that Armageddon is coming back into fashion. Nuclear
holocausts were a tremendously important part of my childhood. I can't
imagine how we've managed without them for so long." (Andrew Rilstone)
Hartley Patterson
> My first disappearance from the group was due to a somewhat friendly
> meeting with the DSA, Ann, and another executive of the Org who was a
> very close family friend.
IIRC your final post then was 'I still think you are trying to destroy my
religion', which convinced me you had to have been an OSA attempt at
creating a 'moderate' Scientologist!
I was wrong. Welcome to the wog world. Your free billion year ARSCC
membership card will be in the post along with the Rules, please note
#45: "Publically criticising other ARSCC members is obligatory".
--
"I think of my beautiful city in flames"
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
A medieval spreadsheet, enturbulating entheta and how to outrun
Thread. PGP ID: 0xC27CDDDC
Tommy
hatted to and remain a Scientologist" theory.
Tommy
--
"If people get in your way,
they need to be dealt with one way or another."
Jeff Quiros, Scientology spokesman
"Warrior" <war...@entheta.net> wrote in message
news:9p50a...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Thanks for very much posting this, Claire.
>
> Back when I was posting articles like "Claire commits 'suppressive acts'"
> I was certain that this would be the inevitable result if you continued
> to post to and/or read ars. Many readers of ars no doubt recall my
> exchanges with Enzo Piccone, in which I stated that it is policy of
> the cult ("unequivocal" is the word Scientology uses) that maintaining
> a connection with "SPs" is itself a "suppressive act". (See Scientology
> Policy Directive 28 "Suppressive Act - Dealing With a Declared Suppres-
> sive Person", dated 13 August 1982, and HCO Policy Letter of 16 May 1980
> Issue II "Ethics: Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and
> Scientologists").
>
> Mind you, I have never for one moment considered that you *were* actually
> committing suppressive acts; I was simply pointing out the truth with
> regards to Scientology policy.
>
> I will repeat it again. It *is* policy that Scientologists in good
> standing are _not_ supposed to be posting to, or reading ars. By the
> issuance of the "SP Declare" on you and John, Scientology again has
> shown itself to be the hypocritical organization it is.
>
> Take comfort in the fact that you are free to seek the truth.
>
> Welcome to the land of "SPs", Claire and John!
>
> All the best,
> Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
> http://warrior.offlines.org
>
> In article <40f7d2ce.01092...@posting.google.com>,
> Claire Swazey (amaflu...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> >
> >I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
> >just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled. I
> >will not be in regular email or usenet conversation mode, however, for
> >at least several days if not longer.
> >
> >The expulsion was on the grounds of leaving Scn publicly and
> >connection to SPs. I don't yet have a copy of the expell/declare.
> >
> >Really, as I know from having been expelled one other time and talking
> >to so many others, what it boils down to is that no one gets expelled
> >unless the church is angry at them. Whether the grounds for anger be
> >real or imagined, trumped up or legitimate is another issue. But
> >basically, piss them off enough, run afoul of some politicking, and an
> >expell-declare is likely.
> >
> >I have not publicly departed Scn. I have stated I was inactive with
> >CofS and that it largely had much to do with certain communications I
> >had with them. This fact.
> >
> >When I first discovered this ng I thought everyone here was stark
> >raving bonkers. Evil. Up To No Good. In great excitement I called up
> >the Org, was connected with the DSA, Ann Ruble (nka Ann Pearce) and
> >asked her if she knew about this terrible thing I just found on the
> >internet. She told me it's poison, stay away from it, yadda yadda.
> >
> >After a couple more months of lurking (hard to tear myself away) I
> >started posting. Gingerly at first, then jumped in with both feet. I
> >was quite party line in those days because I figured that what I'd
> >always been told was true. I then saw that the ex CofS members, Free
> >Zoners, and the more sane critics (and even some of the not so sane
> >ones!) was true, that they weren't lying. As I mentioned before, I
> >then decided that these were anomalies. After a time, I found that
> >these occurrences/abuses, etc, were not anomalies and weren't rare.
> >But I still hung in there, hoping for reform, hoping to work within
> >the system.
> >
> >My first disappearance from the group was due to a somewhat friendly
> >meeting with the DSA, Ann, and another executive of the Org who was a
> >very close family friend. Ann said OSA wanted to know whose side I
> >was on, even though I'd been posting all pro- CofS stuff. And she said
> >she wanted me to do what was true for me. She was really nice until
> >she called me "disingenuous" which is something people on ars like to
> >say sometimes, too. I started wondering if it was the new word for the
> >week! Anyway, I agreed to stop posting for my own good and Ann said if
> >I ever wanted to know the REAL DEAL, the TRUTH, I could ask her and
> >she'd be happy to tell me. Even then, I thought to myself "I doubt
> >this!".
> >
> >It didn't feel right to be stifled like that, so after a year or so I
> >started to post again. This time, after just a few weeks, OSA
> >contacted the Org again. My friend was contacted. We had a shouting
> >match in my living room with my friend saying "JUST STAY AWAY FROM
Brendan Heading
>In article <3BB60352...@home.com>, barb says...
>
>I don't think that Claire and/or John is in any danger from Huborg. Claire
>showed in her early posts that she had no data other than that given to her by
>Huborg, and now she has public data. So far as holding a post in an Org where
>secret info of any sort would be known by her, she has not done so. She has not
>picketed. She's done nothing to cause them to devote attention or manpower to
>her destruction.
Indeed, Claire is one of the only Scientologists (as in the practice,
not the church) to give the critics a run for their money. In a properly
organized, honourable outfit, she'd have been a vital asset.
--
"I begin to suspect my own sanity every once in a while. "
(LR Hubbard,"Coordination of Classes of Processes" 1 Nov 1956)
Scientology/Dianetics : tax-exempt child abuse and neglect?
www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
Beverly Rice
> I believe this puts the kibosh on the "You can post to a.r.s.
> without being hatted to and remain a Scientologist" theory.
Well, you know, critics already know these things :-)
Sometimes it just takes an actual expreience to make what
critics have said to be seen as a reality by others.
It is very sad.
John C. Randolph
Congratulations.
-jcr
Fluffygirl
--
In cyberspace no one can hear you scream...
"Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3bb6...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Hey Claire...
>
> CONGRATULATIONS!!!! I don't know what you plan to do with this, but I hope
> you continue doing what you do best: speaking your mind.
I do, indeed.
>
> What a shame for these turkeys to do such a moronic thing to you. You were
> constantly there trying to tell their side of things, as well as ack the
> truth. Naturally, as they ~always~ do..it's their way, or no way. More and
> more people are leaving for this very reason. It is no way to live,,,and
> people are tired of it.
>
> I hope you and John are celebrating, and not taking this as a loss. I
think
> it may hurt more when they "do it to you"...but just remember, you did it
to
> yourself. You told the truth, honestly and with great diplomacy. IF they
> find that criminal,,,,do you really want to get back into a group like
That?
I do not plan to apply for reentry. I had already thought this out.
I'm still a Scn'ist and I'd already distanced myself from the church after
my August 20th, 2002 "handling".
>
> I have enjoyed your posts, and I only hope we see more of them. Welcome to
> the ultimate OT level :))))
:-)
>
> Yahoooooooooooooooo. You idiots, OSA>>>what could you POSSIBLY be
thinking.
> Tell DM he is ~the~biggest Nazi, Real SP I know. (** and you OSA bots
ain't
> far behind..backing him up. Hitler could not do what he did alone....just
> remember that.))
>
> And to anyone lurking, remember please:
>
> The way out
>
> IS
>
> The
>
> Nearest
>
>
> Door!!!!
>
> Love to you and John. CLaire....
>
> May your life grow and open as you want it to. Thank you for all the
effort
> you have put out, and all the courage it has taken to speak the truth.
>
> :)
I think things will be fine.
Thanks for the kind words.
C
Fluffygirl
--
In cyberspace no one can hear you scream...
"LronsScam" <n...@here.now> wrote in message
news:9p56ju$blk$0...@216.155.32.143...
> I guess in many ways I feel bad for you but worse for the state of affairs
in
> Scn'gy. I thought that because of your ability to both be a critic of
Scn'gy
> -- even only slightly; so slightly that most ARSers didn't notice -- and
to
> be a Scn'gst, that Scn'gy has become more benign from the one I was aware
of.
> You were a testament to their side of the story that they allow those
> insiders freedoms that were only pondered about by the cult apologists and
> Scn'gy alike. You are a testament, but not of a new, more gentle Scn'gy.
>
> Now they can claim you are an "apostate" and your side of the story is not
to
> be believed. You will be shunned by your former Scn'gy friends as an SP
and
> not to be communicated with. You will be transformed into a criminal by
the
> Scn'gy PR wagon, that disposes of any threat to its stature in that
fashion.
> You may see how nasty these people really are. In some ways it will
*prove*
> the critic's side of it. But make no mistake about it, it's no real win as
> far as I'm concerned. The real win would only have come if you could have
> been you and a Scn'gst too.
Well, I do know that a few friends have already distanced themselves from
me. I, in turn, earlier, had distanced myself from some CofS friends, too,
knowing that they would just NEVER understand.
But I do have some who do not plan to disconnect from me.
And I'm lucky, too, in that many of my friends are non Scn'ists.
People I met at work, through my mortgage women's group, etc, and, of
course, here. So I'm fortunate and I don't feel alone.
I am still a Scn'ist but not, of course, a member of CofS. But then again,
in my own heart I walked away from the organization on August 20th. I don't
like being treated with contempt by people who ask me repeatedly for my
money and my time.
>
> I don't know if there is an answer to your dilemma. Like I said I feel bad
> for you and indeed I do. You are in the unsavory position of having
supported
> CoS and the tech for a long time. It's obvious that you believe in it even
if
> only partly. It really should work and does work on paper. But in reality
> Hubbard -- the one I ultimately blame -- never created Scn'gy to be this
> peaceful, love giving, freedom organization that many Scn'gsts believe.
>
> I know it must not have been easy to say you were declared, and I thank
you
> for being open about it. It's not easy to do since you are going to hear
in
> greater or lesser degrees that "I told you so," from so many ARS
> participants. In some ways I am saying that. But not entirely.
Right.
>
> There was a time I wished on you the pain the negative parts of Scn'gy,
like
> fair game and disconnection, imparts on those it doesn't agree with. I
think
> you might remember such a statement made by me. If I can, I take that back
> now if it's even possible to do so.
Of course it is. Look, Scammie, people say stuff all the time- things they
feel at the time. Later, with some things, with some people, they may find
that they either no longer feel that way or that they wish to modify their
earlier point of view. Happens all the time. So it's all right, it really
is.
>It's not an easy thing what you are going
> to do or what you have done. You have bucked the odds in being so open
about
> Scn'gy on this news group while staying a Scn'gst. It took guts what you
did
> and it's well respected by me. I wish there were more Scn'gsts like you.
CofS
> only holds its power in ignorance. And that's why your free speech within
its
> ranks is so vilified.
>
> Good luck with your affair. You may need it. I don't envy your position at
> all.
Thanks for the kind words.
Now, you guys see- this is a prime example of why I wanted to stay on a.r.s.
For me, it's not about SPs and Social Personalities, good guys and bad guys,
it's about PEOPLE and the fact that there is something to learn from just
about everybody.
C
basicbasic
> >
> Still, congratulations, because Scientology declaring you says so much more
> about them than about you, and yet I feel somehow sad, because it's depressing
> to watch such stupidity as an organization kicking out their most intelligent
> and articulate defenders in a form of slow-motion suicide.
>
Thank you for your remarks. You here demonstrate you are the
opposite of "sp". For me it has been even more depressing. I feel,
and hope that the Declare, of Claire will be a turning point. That
those who want SCn. will leave the church, and go freezone. They here
have demonstrated they want slaves, not free beings.
> As they ontinue kicking out their intelligent and rational defenders, they
> demonstrate their own insanity. They continue to promote and reward total
> nutcases like Peter Ramsay, who are blatant thugs, at the same time,
> contributing ultimately to their own demise. Strategically I celebrate this,
> but as a human being it makes me sad.
Humanity lives.
bb
Fluffygirl
"Steve Plakos" <stav...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3BB64AEA...@concentric.net...
> Your story proves that dedication to LRH's *words* mean nothing to
> corporate management, only slavish adherence to their orders will keep one
> in good standing. Knowing how much of your life has revolved around
> scientology and knowing how difficult it must have been to do your A-E the
> last time around,
I have never done the A - E steps.
As I have written before, I took that expell/declare and made them take it
back.
A-E steps are done on metaphorical bended knee, begging for mercy, admitting
that one really screwed up, etc.
I did not do that. I never would.
>it isn't likely that you can take this news with a lot
> of equanimity.
Actually (I kid you not) I went shopping and made myself a nice dinner and
watched tv that night that I found out.
>My wish for you and John is that you keep searching for a
> truth larger than self; that's why most people join the Cof$ in the first
> place and you know conclusively that being inside the "church" is not
> necessary to keep up the search. Good Luck.
I'll be fine.
C
Patrick J. Volk
wrote:
Claire,
You are one of the Scientologists I respect here. I do have to say
that. You show in your posts that you do think about things.
I guess they figure they cannot control you. I certainly am glad
about that.
You did open the door a bit, inviting debate and conversation about
Scientology, but they powers that be don't want you to. Perhaps they
fear you won't give the party line.
I hope things work out. You are a breath of fresh air into what can
be a sometimes stale conversation!
Sincerely,
Patrick Volk
Feisty
> just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled. I
> will not be in regular email or usenet conversation mode, however, for
> at least several days if not longer.
>
> The expulsion was on the grounds of leaving Scn publicly and
> connection to SPs. I don't yet have a copy of the expell/declare.
>
My thoughts are with you. Even though I have not posted on alot of your
threads and posts, I have read alot of them. I don't think I've experienced
such frankness and objectiveness since I've been reading ars. You seem to be
a very fair person. I feel that you now know what the answers are to your
questions, and the actions which you need to take. And my, have I seen you
try.
I sense that you have enjoyed practicing and learning from Scn but see that
you are not the type to stand in judgement of the applied principles. I also
see that you perceive what some of the teachings mean and that it is hard to
apply
some of these fairly as well. Just my opinion, that you are too smart to need
so many rules and ways to act. I think that you are well equipped with a
strong
sense of what you need to succeed by being able to read, observe and act on
whatever you damn well please.
I am sorry for your loss, but have no doubt that you have everything you need
to carry you through this difficult time. You have an asset in the people
here on ars to begin with, as I have seen this ng dotted with much discussion
by you.
I didn't know you were married. You have each other to get by too, and hope
that will help. Your husband is a lucky man to have such a thoughful and
caring person by his side.
May you see better says,
Feisty
BlindJ...@webtv.net
1 and #2 (John
McMaster and John Imburgia)and a lecture in 1969 by Heber Jentz.Don't
worry Claire ,you will be ok.Life goes on.BlindJoe,...
Phil Scott
wrote:
>Actually (I kid you not) I went shopping and made myself a nice dinner and
>watched tv that night that I found out.
All Right! :)
Phil Scott
welcome.to/ars
17:06:57 -0700 in <3bb796b7$1...@news2.lightlink.com>
>"Steve Plakos" <stav...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:3BB64AEA...@concentric.net...
>>it isn't likely that you can take this news with a lot
>> of equanimity.
>
>Actually (I kid you not) I went shopping and made myself a nice dinner and
>watched tv that night that I found out.
Of course. Inwardly, you were out already, and the fact that you are
confident the tech is available outside doesn't make you feel as you
lost anything at that level.
--
Bernie
http://welcome.to/ars
Firefly
"welcome.to/ars" <a...@welcome.to> wrote in message
news:im6grtsqllrusld98...@4ax.com...
Besides, what else is there to do? Claire fought the good fight and then
was rejected by people she doesn't respect for reasons she doesn't respect.
(Or so I gather from her post.) A little shopping, some good food, and
a little light entertainment seem like a perfectly reasonable response to
me.
Personally, I hope she also had herself a big ol' slice of chocolate cake
to go with it all.
Firefly
roger gonnet
Shark <n...@spam.com> a écrit dans le message :
3bb7f56e...@nntp.lightlink.com...
> Wow fluffy... congratulations!! Or should I say condolances? :-/
>
> I've been wonder for quite a while now, how a CoS member could
> criticize the church (as you've been doing) and not get kicked out.
> Maybe they changed their ways or they are just really comm-laggy. I
> guess we know which one now.... :-)
It was my idea also; but scienos are so hungrily searching money that they
can't even get rid easily of people who have become visibly "enemies" - i
mean, enemies, from the scn viewpoint, because my opinion remains that
Claire has still a lot of way to do to get rid of the brainwashing. But she
has done the very best first step, which was the most difficult: going after
the other side of the cards. Therefore, Claire is not yet really "enemy" of
the clam thing, she's just a freezoner.
From my viewpoint, FZoners can become, soon or late, the new scieno
organization, when that one shall have been destroyed because of its crimes.
Who knows what the FZ most successful chiefs will do then? Who knows which
of the Hubbard policies they'll accept or follow?
roger
Nick Andrew
>A certain ladayla, of alt.religion.scientology "fame", writes :
>>In article <3BB60352...@home.com>, barb says...
>>
>>I don't think that Claire and/or John is in any danger from Huborg. Claire
>>showed in her early posts that she had no data other than that given to her by
>>Huborg, and now she has public data. So far as holding a post in an Org where
>>secret info of any sort would be known by her, she has not done so. She has not
>>picketed. She's done nothing to cause them to devote attention or manpower to
>>her destruction.
>Indeed, Claire is one of the only Scientologists (as in the practice,
>not the church) to give the critics a run for their money. In a properly
>organized, honourable outfit, she'd have been a vital asset.
I'd just like to give my best wishes to Claire and John; I think
being publically rejected by the Cult can only be a good thing and
will help you to get on with your lives.
Declaring them was a stupid move by the Cult - but remember, a break from
the organisation was inevitable; even though Claire _was_ a very rare
example of a Scientologist actually talking _and_ listening on ARS, the
good PR she caused for the Cult was strictly temporary, and she would
turn away from the Cult eventually (the truth converts most people
eventually).
Nick.
--
Do not send me email copies of postings. Keep it in USENET please.
Cry
As a reward, not a substitution.
Cheers,
Cry, B.Sc.
Fluffygirl
"Tommy" <Tommy_sp**ges...@xs.net> wrote in message
news:b7Dt7.7512$Ik6.348...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> I believe this puts the kibosh on the "You can post to a.r.s. without
being
> hatted to and remain a Scientologist" theory.
Well, one can indeed do that. As long as one is willing to suffer the wrath
of CofS. A group that does not adhere to it's own creed.
C
>
justWog
First, my condolences *and* congratulations to Claire and John... it has
been interesting to watch you grow and open your eyes by participating
here. Claire, consider this an open invitation on my behalf to join
server irc.scientologylies.com... your and John's presence would likely
be most welcomed there. :) <Bunny, Xine and others are likely envious
of your "golden-rod" and have to pump you for pointers on how to get
their own.>
;-)
Now for the sad little Lex-creature...
Shame on you Lex for cheapening Claire and John's expulsions from
scientology with your whimpering about not being allowed on a certain
irc server in this thread. But hey, that's how you operate.
I take back my offer i made in email a month or more ago as you
obliviously aren't ready to discuss the abuses of scientology [which you
don't care about] or have any useful purpose to be allowed on
irc.scientologylies.com... you just continue to act like your friend
diane. Scientology is the main topic on merk's server... you just don't
get it. Your hate of many is blinding you or you're really just insane
and trolling us.
btw, i'm only anonymous to you and the cult; i've picketed, ocr'ed court
docs, spoke on "call-in" radio shows, written letters and have a
critical website which has prevented several folks from getting sucked
in by narconon and the cult's school in town... so, what have *you* done
Lex? I thought so.
Interestingly, there are several scientologists (looks around for
lurkmonstr) welcome on #scn, even the irk of Bernie could probably
participate there if he cared (looks around for noots & efish). ;-)
justWog
(who is busy and also doing a revamp of his website soon
in light of the "religious" terrorism of Sept 11, 2001...
fuck all the fanatics operating under the guise of "religion")
------
For instant IRC chat access via java chat, visit
<http://www.geocities.com/wog_world/irc.html>
for quick info and chat about Scientology & all its' front groups
(Dianetics, WISE, CCHR, NarCONon, Criminon, ABLE, The Way to
Happiness Foundation and Applied Scholastics).
On 30 Sep 2001 23:55:08 -0400, x <naa...@vhost.shocking.com> wrote about
Re: My Expell/Declare in msg id <3bb7...@news2.lightlink.com>:
>...i guess i know better than anyone how you feel at the moment.
>I've been declared too recently, by critics. Funny but the cases
>are very similar. I spoke my mind and so did you, bad mistake ma'm.
>Thou i don't recret anything, done whats done.
>
>I guess what you hate the most is that they separate you from the
>people you like too, not just themselfs. They wouldn't do it if their
>intention would be noble. Blocking people because of their opinions
>are usually the result of fear, even how much they try to convince
>themselfs otherwise.
Android Cat
we always saw eye to eye <grin>, but arguing with you was a lot of
challenging/enjoyable than all the DA attacks and roboposts. I suspect
you were something of a touchstone for many critics. (A stone which one
rubbed "gold" against to see how pure it was.)
My only comment to CoS is: <Ren mode>What were you theenking?!</Ren
mode>
You now no longer have to answer to CoS, and you certainly don't have to
answer to ARS. So here's you're new cognition: "Who do you *want* to
be?" Good luck on the journey!
Oh! A relevant .sig line from SlashDot where posts can be rated up or
down: "Someone posted a reply which I completely disagreed with. So I
mod'ed it up +1 Interesting."
Ron of that ilky.
P.S. Don't forget to write. (Like anyone could stop you! ;^)
Thomas J Best
amaflu...@yahoo.com wrote on 3/10/01 11:43 AM:
Hello there, Claire! I can't say I'm surprised. I would express my
sympathy, but then I don't believe that being expelled by $cn
is necessarily a bad thing. I do hope you aren't too distressed, and
that they don't run the usual dirty tricks on you and yours.
This has been a bit of a test message. Wonder what it'll look like?
Catch you later.
tam
Human Rights Defense (ShyDavid)
crime behaves. Why do you continue to call this criminal business
a "church?"
----
"The problem with Scientology is not their wish to influence society
with their fundamentals (however debatable those may be), but their
method of proceeding about it. The internal texts of the group which
were written by their founder and which have permanent validity praise
the strategy of infiltration, the disparagement of opponents and the
furtive takeover of control." --- State Security Advisory Commission,
July 1998
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Fluffygirl
"Human Rights Defense (ShyDavid)" <HR-De...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3bbf694b.917403@localhost...
> This is not how an actual church behaves: it is how organized
> crime behaves. Why do you continue to call this criminal business
> a "church?"
'Cuz it is one.
All throughout history have certain churches perpetrated unethical and even
illegal behavior. That did not mean they were not churches.
It simply meant that these churches were involved in wrongdoing and other
unsavory things.
Nor does the commission of illegal or unethical actions constitute or confer
church-hood on a group, either.
Simply put, that's just not part of the mix.
A church can do unethical things. Those things may be part of their belief
system (as with thuggees) or they may not be. But that doesn't make it any
the less of a church.
It does, however, indicate the fact that this is a church that is not
beneficial.
The type of act a person or group commits does not automatically change the
designation or title of that person or group. But what it DOES do is alert
others as to whether or not that individual or group is a fit one with which
to be associated.
C
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
What is it that makes $cientology a "church", besides the motions to avoid
taxation, and the use of the word "Church" in front of "$cientology" - and
of course the enforcement to all members to call it so, in order to make it
appear "true"?
"Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bbf...@news2.lightlink.com...
Fluffygirl
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1002412202.5021.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Okay, you're the ex-member.
Yes and damned proud!
>
> What is it that makes $cientology a "church", besides the motions to avoid
> taxation, and the use of the word "Church" in front of "$cientology" - and
> of course the enforcement to all members to call it so, in order to make
it
> appear "true"?
>
Well, according to Webster's, here's the definition. Now, # 3 work pretty
well if not the others.
Main Entry: 1church
Pronunciation: 'ch&rch
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from
Late Greek kyriakon, from Greek, neuter of kyriakos of the lord, from kyrios
lord, master; akin to Sanskrit sura hero, warrior
Date: before 12th century
1 : a building for public and especially Christian worship
2 : the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
3 : a body or organization of religious believers: as a : the whole body of
Christians b : DENOMINATION c : CONGREGATION
4 : a public divine worship
5 : the clerical profession
**end quoted text**
Ok, now if I were you or if I were Shy David, I'd probably say "Claire, what
makes you think it's a religion?"
Ok, Claire sez time for more cut'n'paste:
Main Entry: re.li.gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio
supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare
to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the
supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re.li.gion.less adjective
**end pasted text**
Well, many of those definitions work. CofS/Scn pays little attention to
deities but does concentrate heavily on supernatural and spiritual things.
(Such as the OT stuff)
Also definition 2 works as Scn has a whole body of beliefs and of customs
relating to those beliefs.
It IS a religion AND a church but CofS DOES do things that it should not,
that it must not be permitted to do.
In addition, Scn itself, the philosophy, has some self-serving elements in
it that make CofS' unethical customs quite possible.
Doesn't make it any the less a religion or a church but what we've got here
is a flawed one.
A church or religion can be flawed and still be a church or religion.
And in my book constitutional religious freedom does not extend to illegal
or immoral practices such as treatment of children (adults, too, if it comes
to that) in the SO and of unethical recruiting and regging practices.
Claire
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
>
>
> "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1002412202.5021.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > Okay, you're the ex-member.
>
> Yes and damned proud!
>
> >
> > What is it that makes $cientology a "church", besides the motions to
avoid
> > taxation, and the use of the word "Church" in front of "$cientology" -
and
> > of course the enforcement to all members to call it so, in order to make
> it
> > appear "true"?
> >
>
> Well, according to Webster's, here's the definition. Now, # 3 work pretty
> well if not the others.
>
>
> Main Entry: 1church
> Pronunciation: 'ch&rch
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately
from
> Late Greek kyriakon, from Greek, neuter of kyriakos of the lord, from
kyrios
> lord, master; akin to Sanskrit sura hero, warrior
> Date: before 12th century
> 1 : a building for public and especially Christian worship
$cientology is not a public church. You have to join first.
> 2 : the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
It's only religious in terms of its manic repetition and attachment, not as
a process of faith.
> 3 : a body or organization of religious believers: as a : the whole body
of
> Christians b : DENOMINATION c : CONGREGATION
> 4 : a public divine worship
> 5 : the clerical profession
Nuff said there. Or as they said in "Brewster's Millions" tonight, "None of
the above."
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1002492058.3458.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
There are some Christian churches one has to join first. And some
Wiccan churches. And some of other religions.
This doesn't disqualify it.
> > 2 : the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
>
> It's only religious in terms of its manic repetition and
> attachment, not as a process of faith.
"Body Thetans" may be ridiculous to you and I, but they are accepted
as an article of faith by the faithful.
> > 3 : a body or organization of religious believers: as a : the
> > whole body
> of
> > Christians b : DENOMINATION c : CONGREGATION
> > 4 : a public divine worship
> > 5 : the clerical profession
>
> Nuff said there. Or as they said in "Brewster's Millions" tonight,
> "None of the above."
Scn'y churchs do welcome converts, and they have clerics.
I would venture to say most of them even now believe they are
clerics. And since they do in fact deal with an immortal spirit, that
qualifies as divinity.
Personally, I don't think the "Church" of Scn'y can have it both
ways--be both a religious body and a business---I think they should
have to choose which legal ground they are going to be able to
defend.
But even so, they do qualify as a church, even if they don't act like
you think (or I think, for that matter) a church should act.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO8DS0kktf2e/DGsoEQLHoACfVdkkjGyMSmQ2Ded4EpoORuy3B1kAn29o
qRQ5VNPwKOq99SMn9xGvIqM6
=bEvd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steve Plakos
First, I agree that people should be allowed to organize and proclaim a belief
in anything they want provided it does not harm others. Proviso #1: The Cof$
does harm others and it does it deliberately and with malice and it should lose
it's protection under Internal Revenue Service rulings granting it 501(c)3
status.
Fluffygirl wrote:
The operative text is "a body or organization of religious believers." Proviso
#2: If you, Claire, want to organize people to practice the religion of
"Scientology" I would write letters for you to the IRS in support of your
recognition provided *you* do not became that which we, the both of us, oppose
in the Cof$. IOW, the Cof$ is an organization but that does not make it a
legitimate religion, but you and the rest of the Diaspora should be free to
practice your religion without constraint.
>
>
> Ok, now if I were you or if I were Shy David, I'd probably say "Claire, what
> makes you think it's a religion?"
>
> Ok, Claire sez time for more cut'n'paste:
>
> Main Entry: re.li.gion
> Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio
> supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare
> to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
> Date: 13th century
> 1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the
> supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
> beliefs, and practices
> 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
> 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> - re.li.gion.less adjective
>
> **end pasted text**
>
> Well, many of those definitions work. CofS/Scn pays little attention to
> deities but does concentrate heavily on supernatural and spiritual things.
> (Such as the OT stuff)
Proviso #3: You're simply wrong about the Co$; it does not fit any of the above
definitions because neither the current owners nor LRH desired to service or
worship God, a commitment or devotion to religious faith or a set of personal or
institutionalized religious attitude. LRH and his successors want to make
money. There is no evidence, zero, that Hubbard or DM or any their minions (not
including publics or lower level staff) have any religious commitment
whatsoever. YOU, OTOH, I believe feels some "spiritual" connection with
scientology and regardless of what I think of LRH and his motives, writings,
lectures, or successors and you should have every right to practice your
religion freely.
>
>
> Also definition 2 works as Scn has a whole body of beliefs and of customs
> relating to those beliefs.
>
> It IS a religion
Depends upon what the definition of "it" is in this context
> AND a church
Not the Cof$, but the "philosophy" and I'll agree with you
> but CofS DOES do things that it should not,
> that it must not be permitted to do.
Agreed.
> In addition, Scn itself, the philosophy, has some self-serving elements in
> it that make CofS' unethical customs quite possible.
>
> Doesn't make it any the less a religion or a church but what we've got here
> is a flawed one.
>
> A church or religion can be flawed and still be a church or religion.
Agreed.
>
>
> And in my book constitutional religious freedom does not extend to illegal
> or immoral practices such as treatment of children (adults, too, if it comes
> to that) in the SO and of unethical recruiting and regging practices.
>
> Claire
I agree again.
Steve
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com> wrote in message
news:jq4w7.18910$JN.6...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
So, "for public" doesn't count?
> This doesn't disqualify it.
>
> > > 2 : the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
> >
> > It's only religious in terms of its manic repetition and
> > attachment, not as a process of faith.
>
> "Body Thetans" may be ridiculous to you and I, but they are accepted
> as an article of faith by the faithful.
How are BTs an "article of faith"?
> > > 3 : a body or organization of religious believers: as a : the
> > > whole body
> > of
> > > Christians b : DENOMINATION c : CONGREGATION
> > > 4 : a public divine worship
> > > 5 : the clerical profession
> >
> > Nuff said there. Or as they said in "Brewster's Millions" tonight,
> > "None of the above."
>
> Scn'y churchs do welcome converts, and they have clerics.
$cientology churches thrive on converts, also known as "fresh meat". They
anoint "ministers" because of Hubbard's directive to do so, in order to
further give the impression of being a "church", so to gain tax-free status.
> I would venture to say most of them even now believe they are
> clerics. And since they do in fact deal with an immortal spirit, that
> qualifies as divinity.
Since lots of people in the same room repeating the same thing together does
not in itself make it true, I'd say we disagree.
> Personally, I don't think the "Church" of Scn'y can have it both
> ways--be both a religious body and a business---I think they should
> have to choose which legal ground they are going to be able to
> defend.
>
> But even so, they do qualify as a church, even if they don't act like
> you think (or I think, for that matter) a church should act.
So is bin Laden's bunch of happy (or unhappy, after this evening!) campers a
religion? They welcome converts, believe much the same thing, and espouse
the idea that they are the voice of Islam - yet many Moslems disagree
completely.
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1002495491.18283....@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:jq4w7.18910$JN.6...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote
> > in message
> > news:1002492058.3458.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3bc0...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com>
> > > > wrote in message
> > > > news:1002412202.5021.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
(snip)
>
> > "Body Thetans" may be ridiculous to you and I, but they are
> > accepted as an article of faith by the faithful.
>
> How are BTs an "article of faith"?
Are you claiming them to be real? If not, they are by definition, an
"article of faith".
>
> > > > 3 : a body or organization of religious believers: as a : the
> > > > whole body
> > > of
> > > > Christians b : DENOMINATION c : CONGREGATION
> > > > 4 : a public divine worship
> > > > 5 : the clerical profession
> > >
> > > Nuff said there. Or as they said in "Brewster's Millions"
> > > tonight, "None of the above."
> >
> > Scn'y churchs do welcome converts, and they have clerics.
>
> $cientology churches thrive on converts, also known as "fresh
> meat". They anoint "ministers" because of Hubbard's directive to
> do so, in order to further give the impression of being a "church",
> so to gain tax-free status.
As do many Christian churches. Ever watched a televangelist? Their
focus is on making tax free money.
> > I would venture to say most of them even now believe they are
> > clerics. And since they do in fact deal with an immortal spirit,
> > that qualifies as divinity.
>
> Since lots of people in the same room repeating the same thing
> together does not in itself make it true, I'd say we disagree.
And your point is...?
Because it doesn't in itself make it untrue, either.
> > Personally, I don't think the "Church" of Scn'y can have it both
> > ways--be both a religious body and a business---I think they
> > should have to choose which legal ground they are going to be
> > able to defend.
> >
> > But even so, they do qualify as a church, even if they don't act
> > like you think (or I think, for that matter) a church should act.
>
> So is bin Laden's bunch of happy (or unhappy, after this evening!)
> campers a religion? They welcome converts, believe much the same
> thing, and espouse the idea that they are the voice of Islam - yet
> many Moslems disagree completely.
Yes.
Next question?
Look, a religion doesn't have to be a benign thing to be a religion.
I think Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are despicable people, and I
don't like their brand of Xtianity--but it is certainly a religion.
So was Thuggee. So are many, many religions I don't happen to like.
The definition of religion isn't about whether you like them, or
whether I like them. It's simply not dependent on being "nice". The
things it's dependent on are the qualities of being about spirit, not
provable by science (despite claims of being "scientific" designed to
impress the hoped-for converts--after all, there's a branch of
Xtianity called "Christian Science" which is also not scientific)
and a thing called "faith" and "improvement of spirit". Those are all
things which Scn'y claims to be about regardless of what you or I
think of the efficaciousness of those claims and beliefs.
Religion is about spirituality. This is what the average Scn'ist
thinks they are in Scn'y for, regardless, again, of what you or I
think of that spirituality.
Therefore, Scn'y *is* a religion.
The abuses of the "Church" of Scientology stand as abuses,
nonetheless. And either the "Church" will reform--unlikely---or it
will be replaced, by more religious offshoots such as the Freezoners
practice, again, quite apart from what you, or I, or anyone else
thinks of those practices.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO8Dj7Ektf2e/DGsoEQLpZACgxONsA4FWYDR2RQ0Knwe7wKDhm0oAoKjD
A71N9BYOAxWl+mOjNosli7Xl
=FY5M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John
"Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com> wrote in message
news:jq4w7.18910$JN.6...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
I thought it was all scientifically verified? You don't need faith for that :)
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"John" <ju...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:9pr0ds$8nu$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
Just because they claim it is doesn't make it so, anymore than
Church of Christ, Scientist using Christian Science in the same
phrase makes what they do science.
It's faith. And yes, I saw the smiley. Felt like being pedantic.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO8Ec90ktf2e/DGsoEQLh3gCg6yYzlbMIx5x7KZVMTnDiiBk8z+MAoMhI
NlsgjuaJryiKvOptMl8mGDuY
=3jh1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John
I've never even *heard* of the Church of Christ, Scientist.
But the image is delicious.
<60's Beach-bum Jesus walking through lab wearing white coat and
smoking a pipe>
"My research has shown conclusively that God = Love, for all
values of God. Using this knowledge I've been working on a
new type of weapon for use against the Romans.... I call it,
<unveil>
The Love Bomb!"
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
Since "faith" requires a religion in itself to be applicable in this
context, one would have to sincerely believe $cientology to be a religion in
order to think that what $cientologists practice are acts of faith. There
is enough evidence out there that $cientology is only a religion in the
words of Hubbard and his subsequent followers. So you're saying that, if
$cientology insists that it's true enough times, that it is true?
> Look, a religion doesn't have to be a benign thing to be a religion.
> I think Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are despicable people, and I
> don't like their brand of Xtianity--but it is certainly a religion.
> So was Thuggee. So are many, many religions I don't happen to like.
Pat Robertson - as religious as he claims to be, and despite the number of
people who may believe that he speaks with "God's voice" - does NOT lead a
religion. He is merely an aberrant spokesperson for a small group of people
who purport to be "Christians", and, unfortunately, give ammunition to
anti-Christians who claim such ridiculous pap to be SOP for Christianity.
Fortunately this is not the case.
Thuggee was a cult under Hinduism. Even the denisens of
soc.religion.hinduism say so. I'm not sure even the Thuggee's insisted
publicly that they were a religion - and for a fact they never even
attempted to be named one through a tax-exempt status campaign.
> The definition of religion isn't about whether you like them, or
> whether I like them. It's simply not dependent on being "nice". The
> things it's dependent on are the qualities of being about spirit, not
> provable by science (despite claims of being "scientific" designed to
> impress the hoped-for converts--after all, there's a branch of
> Xtianity called "Christian Science" which is also not scientific)
> and a thing called "faith" and "improvement of spirit". Those are all
> things which Scn'y claims to be about regardless of what you or I
> think of the efficaciousness of those claims and beliefs.
Christian Science is as you said, a BRANCH. It is not a RELIGION. The use
of the "Xtian" bit - a popular anti-Christian device of language that
indicates much enmity - is noted.
> Religion is about spirituality. This is what the average Scn'ist
> thinks they are in Scn'y for, regardless, again, of what you or I
> think of that spirituality.
The "average $cientologist" shouts that "$cientology is a religion" because
that is what they are told to do, directly and indirectly. This again does
not make it so. As it is, the IRS doesn't deem $cientology as a religion
either. Yet $cientology claims this "win" over the IRS to be proof that
they are. Which then is the case?
> Therefore, Scn'y *is* a religion.
If 10,000 accountants all agree that the practice of predicting the ebb and
flow of the stock market is a religious process, does this make accountancy
a religion? Nope.
> The abuses of the "Church" of Scientology stand as abuses,
> nonetheless. And either the "Church" will reform--unlikely---or it
> will be replaced, by more religious offshoots such as the Freezoners
> practice, again, quite apart from what you, or I, or anyone else
> thinks of those practices.
This is irrelevant to the issue of whether $cientology is a religion or not.
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"John" <ju...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:9prakr$gvc$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
Never heard of Christian Science? They actually believe illness is
an illusion, and faith alone will cure anything.
My grandparents died of the illusion of cancer (paternal) and my
paternal aunt died of an illusion of breast cancer, easily treatable
if she'd actually done it instead of relying on "Christian Science
practicioners" instead of real medical doctors.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO8HMHEktf2e/DGsoEQKkvwCeMAG9WdQ6IaUxVFe27ZxSjVdAraoAnjHr
k1STug/tee5iqCFAj5aQmWfS
=oP4w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1002538881.256.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Lu5w7.18922$JN.6...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote
> > in message
> > news:1002495491.18283....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:jq4w7.18910$JN.6...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > > "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com>
> > > > wrote in message
> > > > news:1002492058.3458.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3bc0...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1002412202.5021.0...@news.demon.co.uk..
> > > > > > .
> >
> > (snip)
> >
>
(more snips)
> >
> > > So is bin Laden's bunch of happy (or unhappy, after this
> > > evening!) campers a religion? They welcome converts, believe
> > > much the same thing, and espouse the idea that they are the
> > > voice of Islam - yet many Moslems disagree completely.
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Since "faith" requires a religion in itself to be applicable in
> this context, one would have to sincerely believe $cientology to be
> a religion in order to think that what $cientologists practice are
> acts of faith. There is enough evidence out there that $cientology
> is only a religion in the words of Hubbard and his subsequent
> followers. So you're saying that, if $cientology insists that it's
> true enough times, that it is true?
Huh? Your statement is not making sense. Are you saying that no
religion is a religion unless people outside the religion accept that
it is a religion?
People who consider themselves Scn'ists believe in it, by definition.
I don't believe in Roman Catholicism, either, and there are plenty of
Protestants who think the Roman Catholics are not only antireligious
but also demonic. This doesn't disqualify the Roman Catholic Church
from being a religion.
I repeat, since you seem to have trouble comprehending. Scn'y deals
with an immortal spirit. That means it is a religion.
> > Look, a religion doesn't have to be a benign thing to be a
> > religion. I think Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are despicable
> > people, and I don't like their brand of Xtianity--but it is
> > certainly a religion. So was Thuggee. So are many, many religions
> > I don't happen to like.
>
> Pat Robertson - as religious as he claims to be, and despite the
> number of people who may believe that he speaks with "God's voice"
> - does NOT lead a religion. He is merely an aberrant spokesperson
> for a small group of people who purport to be "Christians", and,
> unfortunately, give ammunition to anti-Christians who claim such
> ridiculous pap to be SOP for Christianity. Fortunately this is not
> the case.
Ah, I see. Your claim is that if you don't like it, that makes it
irrelgious. Sorry. I thought for a while I was talking to a rational
human being. I was wrong.
> Thuggee was a cult under Hinduism. Even the denisens of
> soc.religion.hinduism say so. I'm not sure even the Thuggee's
> insisted publicly that they were a religion - and for a fact they
> never even attempted to be named one through a tax-exempt status
> campaign.
Cutl and religion are different aspects of the same thing. They
didn't get tax exempt status because they did not survive to such
niceties of law. Also, tax exemption does not equal religious status,
even under the law.
I'd suggest doing some reading, and possibly take a step back from
rhetoric and learn rational discussion. I've attempted to discuss
rationally in the past but you have a huge habit of falling back on
knee jerk assertations and repeating them without regard to
rationality. In your mind, cult =bad, Cofs=evil, and apparently
religion=good, therefore cult or CofS cannot possibly =religion. This
is a logical fallicy.
> > The definition of religion isn't about whether you like them, or
> > whether I like them. It's simply not dependent on being "nice".
> > The things it's dependent on are the qualities of being about
> > spirit, not provable by science (despite claims of being
> > "scientific" designed to impress the hoped-for converts--after
> > all, there's a branch of Xtianity called "Christian Science"
> > which is also not scientific) and a thing called "faith" and
> > "improvement of spirit". Those are all things which Scn'y claims
> > to be about regardless of what you or I think of the
> > efficaciousness of those claims and beliefs.
>
> Christian Science is as you said, a BRANCH. It is not a RELIGION.
> The use of the "Xtian" bit - a popular anti-Christian device of
> language that indicates much enmity - is noted.
It's a religion. Sorry you do not agree, but that doesn't mean it's
not so. Btw, you keep making bald-faced assertations just like the
CofS shills. I suggest you bone up on logic. You may wind up actually
being able to discuss this instead of me making a point and you not
addressing it but instead stating the same irrational statements over
and over again, as if they would hammer the opposing viewpoint down.
They won't.
> > Religion is about spirituality. This is what the average Scn'ist
> > thinks they are in Scn'y for, regardless, again, of what you or I
> > think of that spirituality.
>
> The "average $cientologist" shouts that "$cientology is a religion"
> because that is what they are told to do, directly and indirectly.
> This again does not make it so. As it is, the IRS doesn't deem
> $cientology as a religion either. Yet $cientology claims this
> "win" over the IRS to be proof that they are. Which then is the
> case?
The IRS is not in the business of deciding what is or is not a
religion, and notice, I did not bring that argument in, as the
agreement with which they were granted a tax exemption was entered
into illegally, and should not have used tax dollars to proclaim they
were a bona fide religion.
As for the "average Scn'ist', how many do you know? (I know several.)
I can assure you that the ones I know believe it to be a religion
because it deals with their immortal spirit.
> > Therefore, Scn'y *is* a religion.
>
> If 10,000 accountants all agree that the practice of predicting the
> ebb and flow of the stock market is a religious process, does this
> make accountancy a religion? Nope.
Does accountancy deal with an immortal spirit? Nope. This is what's
known as a non-sequitor.
> > The abuses of the "Church" of Scientology stand as abuses,
> > nonetheless. And either the "Church" will reform--unlikely---or
> > it will be replaced, by more religious offshoots such as the
> > Freezoners practice, again, quite apart from what you, or I, or
> > anyone else thinks of those practices.
>
> This is irrelevant to the issue of whether $cientology is a
> religion or not.
No, it is not, because the Freezoners practice Scn'y.
But I can see talking to you is akin to talking to a brick wall. I
don't like trying to reason with a brick wall. It reminds me of an
old Heinlein saying. "Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time,
and annoys the pig."
When you're ready to have a logical and rational discussion, instead
of falling back on non-sequitors, ad hocs, and straw men, I'll
respond. Until then, though I may call you on your bald faced
assertations, I won't bother trying to convince you, just the readers
who may be lurking. No point in annoying the pig.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO8HQsUktf2e/DGsoEQIlhwCfXQfCLSPpXp1VAEIiKwdWARJV3o0An1ie
+NkKxLNDvUN6JZTmqUo8w434
=WvTG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John
Ahhh, so church of christ, scientist is the long form name for
the christian scientists. Fair enough then.
>
> My grandparents died of the illusion of cancer (paternal) and my
> paternal aunt died of an illusion of breast cancer, easily treatable
> if she'd actually done it instead of relying on "Christian Science
> practicioners" instead of real medical doctors.
It's an awful thing when that happens. A friend of a friend of mine
with cancer dropped her chemo in favour of a local guru who promised
her he could cure her. She degenerated rapidly and died. My friend
took it quite badly, as you would expect.
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
Alas, merely saying so doesn't make it true. It's a con artist! It's a
religious guru! Which one do you gravitate to? :)
>
> > > Religion is about spirituality. This is what the average Scn'ist
> > > thinks they are in Scn'y for, regardless, again, of what you or I
> > > think of that spirituality.
> >
> > The "average $cientologist" shouts that "$cientology is a religion"
> > because that is what they are told to do, directly and indirectly.
> > This again does not make it so. As it is, the IRS doesn't deem
> > $cientology as a religion either. Yet $cientology claims this
> > "win" over the IRS to be proof that they are. Which then is the
> > case?
>
> The IRS is not in the business of deciding what is or is not a
> religion, and notice, I did not bring that argument in, as the
> agreement with which they were granted a tax exemption was entered
> into illegally, and should not have used tax dollars to proclaim they
> were a bona fide religion.
Why didn't you bring this argument in? It's a basic kernel for the entire
process of naming the damned thing "the Church of Scientology". It was
after all the intention of Hubbard that the members begin to refer to
themselves as "ministers", and the name be changed to the "Church of
Scientology", not because it was a faith-based belief or whatnot, but
because it helped insure their eventual tax-free status. This does not make
it a church, no matter how many times one crows at sunrise.
> As for the "average Scn'ist', how many do you know? (I know several.)
It's a bit difficult to make a count, as I've preferred to forget most of
the $cientologists I've probably met, mainly because of their "tech" tactics
interfering with my life, and the growing knowledge I gained about
$cientology just by dealing with them, and other more fortunate folks who
either left or were allowed to leave. Hm, come to think of it, two of them
had been children of Scientologists, and forced to go through all the
indoctrination as "school" that the kids got back in the 80s at least, until
being able to leave at age 18; this involved their parents making lots of
sacrifices in deals with the nut-cult to let him get out.
So this being the first time I've ever thought about it, I'd say the number
of Scientologists I've known personally since 1984 would exceed 250. They
were people I knew through jobs, mostly. Others were acquaintences of
workmates.
> I can assure you that the ones I know believe it to be a religion
> because it deals with their immortal spirit.
If I form a religion around the renewal aspect of batteries - and allow the
sub-cults involving AAA, AA, C, D, and 9V kinds - would it be legitimate if
everyone who claimed that Batteria helped their life, by teaching the
principle of regeneration of the immortal battery-soul?
"Batteria changed my life. Before I learned about Batteria I was depressed
and lonely. Now, I know my battery-soul is a LongLast, and only Batteria
can recharge me, enabling me to live forever!"
See, it isn't hard to make this shit up.
> > > Therefore, Scn'y *is* a religion.
> >
> > If 10,000 accountants all agree that the practice of predicting the
> > ebb and flow of the stock market is a religious process, does this
> > make accountancy a religion? Nope.
>
> Does accountancy deal with an immortal spirit? Nope. This is what's
> known as a non-sequitor.
See above.
> > > The abuses of the "Church" of Scientology stand as abuses,
> > > nonetheless. And either the "Church" will reform--unlikely---or
> > > it will be replaced, by more religious offshoots such as the
> > > Freezoners practice, again, quite apart from what you, or I, or
> > > anyone else thinks of those practices.
> >
> > This is irrelevant to the issue of whether $cientology is a
> > religion or not.
>
> No, it is not, because the Freezoners practice Scn'y.
If the "tech" / ritual is practiced by FZ'ers without the criminal stuff, so
long as it remains "true for them", and not the stuff of super-power
evangelical claptrap, it's fine. However, $cientology's "tech" is basically
composed of flim-flam tricks designed to do nothing but keep the inculcate
on The Bridge to illusory super powers. This, in $cientology's case, just
means mo' money, mo' money, mo' money. And lots of disappointment at the
end of the rainbow when one discovers it's a co-opting collaborative
delusion. Trying to create another "$cientology" doesn't sound too good for
people, IMNSHO.
> But I can see talking to you is akin to talking to a brick wall. I
> don't like trying to reason with a brick wall. It reminds me of an
> old Heinlein saying. "Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time,
> and annoys the pig."
Trying to draw me into a personal insult-slinging contest doesn't work here.
> When you're ready to have a logical and rational discussion, instead
> of falling back on non-sequitors, ad hocs, and straw men, I'll
> respond. Until then, though I may call you on your bald faced
> assertations, I won't bother trying to convince you, just the readers
> who may be lurking. No point in annoying the pig.
Declaring something illogical because its acceptance may reveal the cracks
perhaps elsewhere in one's pet belief system is one possibiliity here. All
I did was question the anti-Christian agenda. But since you asked up to a
point, I answered. $cientology is not a religion, it is a con game. See
above.
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
Comedy Saves! $cientology Enslaves!
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
Oh, is this the who's suffered more game?
My father's mother converted to Christian Science, and when my father was
11, in 1938, she died of tuberculosis because she wouldn't get it checked or
treated. No doubt that she believed a great deal that not going to the
doctor was an act of devine faith. Some things however are quite stupidly
harmful. Christian Science is just one of them.
Does one go out to the Arizona desert to a cliff, and fling oneself off,
believing God will catch you? What if God doesn't like to be tested so, and
Bang, it's back to the beginning of the line again, or whatever one
believes? I'll bet that 1000 out of 1000 who do this one are no longer with
us. It's a fair bet.
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1002587133.13475....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > > > > > > uk.. .
No, it was simply a discussion.
I never claimed I suffered from it. I did say my grandparents and my
aunt did.
This was not a huge problem for me, however. Why, do you want to play
"more victim than thou" with someone? I'll have to beg off. I'm not
into victimhood this century. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt,
sent it back, because it didn't fit anymore.
> My father's mother converted to Christian Science, and when my
> father was 11, in 1938, she died of tuberculosis because she
> wouldn't get it checked or treated. No doubt that she believed a
> great deal that not going to the doctor was an act of devine faith.
> Some things however are quite stupidly harmful. Christian Science
> is just one of them.
Yet it's still a religion.
Just because you or I don't like it doesn't make it not a religion.
> Does one go out to the Arizona desert to a cliff, and fling oneself
> off, believing God will catch you? What if God doesn't like to be
> tested so, and Bang, it's back to the beginning of the line again,
> or whatever one believes? I'll bet that 1000 out of 1000 who do
> this one are no longer with us. It's a fair bet.
And this is a propos to the discussion exactly how?
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO8JjeEktf2e/DGsoEQIP8ACgxKtBEN5b6SkSNGNVIOnqKmr+/nAAnjW1
CTVOGvCg9R+WK/F0GHkjHhKe
=llzr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1002586842.13401....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > > > > > > uk.. .
Okay, let's talk about other religions who were founded by con
artists. How about the LDS church? Hell, Christianity itself can't
prove there ever was such a person as Jesus. An early Pope talked in
letters that it was useful to promote the actual existance of Jesus.
Does this mean Xtianity is not a religion?
> > > > Religion is about spirituality. This is what the average
> > > > Scn'ist thinks they are in Scn'y for, regardless, again, of
> > > > what you or I think of that spirituality.
> > >
> > > The "average $cientologist" shouts that "$cientology is a
> > > religion" because that is what they are told to do, directly
> > > and indirectly. This again does not make it so. As it is, the
> > > IRS doesn't deem $cientology as a religion either. Yet
> > > $cientology claims this "win" over the IRS to be proof that
> > > they are. Which then is the case?
> >
> > The IRS is not in the business of deciding what is or is not a
> > religion, and notice, I did not bring that argument in, as the
> > agreement with which they were granted a tax exemption was
> > entered into illegally, and should not have used tax dollars to
> > proclaim they were a bona fide religion.
>
> Why didn't you bring this argument in? It's a basic kernel for the
> entire process of naming the damned thing "the Church of
> Scientology". It was after all the intention of Hubbard that the
> members begin to refer to themselves as "ministers", and the name
> be changed to the "Church of Scientology", not because it was a
> faith-based belief or whatnot, but because it helped insure their
> eventual tax-free status. This does not make it a church, no
> matter how many times one crows at sunrise.
No, it's the basis of what the CofS claims, but it is not the basis
of why Scn'y is a religion.
You are confused. You seem to be confused a lot.
> > As for the "average Scn'ist', how many do you know? (I know
> > several.)
>
> It's a bit difficult to make a count, as I've preferred to forget
> most of the $cientologists I've probably met, mainly because of
> their "tech" tactics interfering with my life, and the growing
> knowledge I gained about $cientology just by dealing with them, and
> other more fortunate folks who either left or were allowed to
> leave. Hm, come to think of it, two of them had been children of
> Scientologists, and forced to go through all the indoctrination as
> "school" that the kids got back in the 80s at least, until being
> able to leave at age 18; this involved their parents making lots of
> sacrifices in deals with the nut-cult to let him get out.
>
> So this being the first time I've ever thought about it, I'd say
> the number of Scientologists I've known personally since 1984 would
> exceed 250. They were people I knew through jobs, mostly. Others
> were acquaintences of workmates.
In other words none that were close and personal friends, whose
belief system and yours were mutually respected.
I know several who respect my belief system as I respect theirs. They
know I won't convert. But that isn't their focus.
> > I can assure you that the ones I know believe it to be a religion
> > because it deals with their immortal spirit.
>
> If I form a religion around the renewal aspect of batteries - and
> allow the sub-cults involving AAA, AA, C, D, and 9V kinds - would
> it be legitimate if everyone who claimed that Batteria helped their
> life, by teaching the principle of regeneration of the immortal
> battery-soul?
Only if there is an adherant who believes it. Then it becomes one.
> "Batteria changed my life. Before I learned about Batteria I was
> depressed and lonely. Now, I know my battery-soul is a LongLast,
> and only Batteria can recharge me, enabling me to live forever!"
>
> See, it isn't hard to make this shit up.
Of course not. However, if you actually believe it, or can convince
some credulous soul, then it becomes a religion. This doesn't in
itself guarantee tax relief, btw, as these are two seperate issues.
> > > > Therefore, Scn'y *is* a religion.
> > >
> > > If 10,000 accountants all agree that the practice of predicting
> > > the ebb and flow of the stock market is a religious process,
> > > does this make accountancy a religion? Nope.
> >
> > Does accountancy deal with an immortal spirit? Nope. This is
> > what's known as a non-sequitor.
>
> See above.
See reply above.
> > > > The abuses of the "Church" of Scientology stand as abuses,
> > > > nonetheless. And either the "Church" will
> > > > reform--unlikely---or it will be replaced, by more religious
> > > > offshoots such as the Freezoners practice, again, quite apart
> > > > from what you, or I, or anyone else thinks of those
> > > > practices.
> > >
> > > This is irrelevant to the issue of whether $cientology is a
> > > religion or not.
> >
> > No, it is not, because the Freezoners practice Scn'y.
>
> If the "tech" / ritual is practiced by FZ'ers without the criminal
> stuff, so long as it remains "true for them", and not the stuff of
> super-power evangelical claptrap, it's fine. However,
> $cientology's "tech" is basically composed of flim-flam tricks
> designed to do nothing but keep the inculcate on The Bridge to
> illusory super powers. This, in $cientology's case, just means mo'
> money, mo' money, mo' money. And lots of disappointment at the end
> of the rainbow when one discovers it's a co-opting collaborative
> delusion. Trying to create another "$cientology" doesn't sound too
> good for people, IMNSHO.
Adults can make those decisions on their own, and will, whatever you
or I think of them. Thus, their religion and religious beliefs don't
depend on your approval.
Or mine.
> > But I can see talking to you is akin to talking to a brick wall.
> > I don't like trying to reason with a brick wall. It reminds me of
> > an old Heinlein saying. "Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes
> > your time, and annoys the pig."
>
> Trying to draw me into a personal insult-slinging contest doesn't
> work here.
I assure you I was not insulting you, merely stating fact, as I see
it.
> > When you're ready to have a logical and rational discussion,
> > instead of falling back on non-sequitors, ad hocs, and straw men,
> > I'll respond. Until then, though I may call you on your bald
> > faced
> > assertations, I won't bother trying to convince you, just the
> > readers who may be lurking. No point in annoying the pig.
>
> Declaring something illogical because its acceptance may reveal the
> cracks perhaps elsewhere in one's pet belief system is one
> possibiliity here. All I did was question the anti-Christian
> agenda. But since you asked up to a point, I answered. $cientology
> is not a religion, it is a con game. See above.
Whatever.
You apparently are incapable of seeing it can be both. That's a
personal problem.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO8JvtEktf2e/DGsoEQJq4wCgynLaXWwSuAgqqwUUThXKrQcRrb4Ani61
O8FM7CUzQ0cpwRttVBIgZWIY
=Q+74
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"John" <ju...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:9ptct7$1rh$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
> > > > > > > > uk.. .
Sure can. But you can't always protect people from stupidity. All's
you can do is warn them ahead of time.
If they don't wanna listen, then it's caveat emptor.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO8JwHkktf2e/DGsoEQKLRACgj7UZxYKz788MIOtNybna7t1T/ckAn1Gq
CbkUglEh4pDXcfb22Og/by09
=3nOJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John
Yeah. The question is, should you be expected to respect someone else's
beliefs when you think their beliefs are silly? Or should you just repect
their right to *have* their beliefs? Love Me, Love my God?
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"John" <ju...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:9ptte7$f5h$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
> > > > > > > > uk.. .
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > message news:3bc0...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Rev. Norle Enturbulata"
> > > > > > > > > > <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > news:1002412202.5021.0...@news.demon
> > > > > > > > > > .co. uk.. .
I respect their right to have their beliefs, and when talking to
those who hold beliefs I may find silly, I find things in common with
those beliefs I hold to discuss. It tends to allow folks to listen
who might otherwise shut a person out who has differing beliefs.
What I do not approve of is abuse of people who are not given the
facts or who are held against their will, or of children or the
elderly or animals.
But otherwise mentally competant adults have a right to do stupid
things to themselves or to hold beliefs I may think are stupid, as
long as they don't harm others.
Which is why I didn't particularly feel bad about the Heaven's
Gaters. They didn't kill any kids, and they were all perfectly happy
about their decision. Though personally, I bet they are feeling
stupid now.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO8J+UEktf2e/DGsoEQIXDwCfeb9fog5YVgWxKHyk14UI0CQZq34AoNXK
xpxugKUk/ei4XTsectd+MEIs
=yHcM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Boudewijn van Ingen
wrote:
Still, if the 'local guru' has broken laws in the process, something should
be done about that.
>- --
>Bright Blessings,
>
>Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
>ARSCC(wdne)
>"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
>and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
>makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
>OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
>right OSA?
>(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
>iQA/AwUBO8JwHkktf2e/DGsoEQKLRACgj7UZxYKz788MIOtNybna7t1T/ckAn1Gq
>CbkUglEh4pDXcfb22Og/by09
>=3nOJ
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
"Faith doesn't move mountains: it levels buildings." -- David Rice
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
Which is not an answer either.
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
That the aspect of such an ouvert test of God cannot be taken as an extreme
act of faith alone. If one falls to one's death as a result of jumping off
a cliff, in the belief that God will save them from the damage sustained in
striking the ground, does this prove that there is no God? Not in the
least. Jumping off cliffs, though, could be a "religion" under a loose
definition as you seem to hold, if enough people say it is.
Perhaps, if the ultimate outward effect of Hubbard's original directives
stated NOT that the appearance of a religion was more important than merely
declaring $cientology a religion alone, this argument wouldn't be taking
place. But the information attesting to this has been published several
times on a.r.s. I'll look it up if you like, but you should be able to
recall this as well.
Tommy
One of my favourite similes:
"As nervous as a Christian Scientist with appendicitis."
Tommy
--
"Bluntly, we are out to replace medicine in the next three years."
L.Ron Hubbard - 1952
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Boudewijn van Ingen" <bo...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3bc78143...@news.xs4all.nl...
> >> > > > > > k.. .
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > "Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> > > > > > > message news:3bc0...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > "Rev. Norle Enturbulata"
> >> > > > > > > > <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > > > > > > > news:1002412202.5021.0...@news.demon.
> >> > > > > > > > co. uk.. .
True. If, say, the local guru tries to suppress information that
people have died, or tries to claim that this is a better medical
treatment, or CHARGES for its quackery, then you can do something--or
should be able to.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO8Maz0ktf2e/DGsoEQI9xQCg8OPOuhQqRE0gnknmW6DRoqLb/UoAoKn8
rymqzjT1UXlvOgg6KDBcXa8u
=UWho
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
Whatever.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1002615658.14936....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > > > > > > uk.. .
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > message news:3bc0...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Rev. Norle Enturbulata"
> > > > > > > > > > <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > news:1002412202.5021.0...@news.demon
> > > > > > > > > > .co. uk.. .
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO8Ma/Uktf2e/DGsoEQJ3RwCgtcIek80QXo0HTHwnC9ASMO1BX1QAnRCd
gvbY0d/7yRQgHgW5Rmxyft8R
=wUoB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1002616100.15093....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > > > > > > uk.. .
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > message news:3bc0...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Rev. Norle Enturbulata"
> > > > > > > > > > <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > news:1002412202.5021.0...@news.demon
> > > > > > > > > > .co. uk.. .
So it could. It would, however, be a short lived one, no doubt.
> Perhaps, if the ultimate outward effect of Hubbard's original
> directives stated NOT that the appearance of a religion was more
> important than merely declaring $cientology a religion alone, this
> argument wouldn't be taking place. But the information attesting
> to this has been published several times on a.r.s. I'll look it up
> if you like, but you should be able to recall this as well.
I venture to say I've been around ars a bit longer than you have. And
I've met Ron Hubbard. So in other words, don't teach grandma to suck
eggs.
Many, many religions have started with the founders conning people
into following their personality. It does NOT mean they don't evolve
into actual religions.
Again, you seem to think that because you disaprove of it, it makes
it not a religion. Again, this sounds like a personal problem.
HAND.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO8McCEktf2e/DGsoEQIR5gCfQlb/0VTXYVd3VK3WFzk4ToZHMWwAmwe0
kM7fjcORF8kb+EufQ/jn1q/7
=SnF9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Tommy" <Tommy_sp**ges...@xs.net> wrote in message
news:O9Aw7.9131$nV1.322...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
(snip )
>
>
> One of my favourite similes:
>
> "As nervous as a Christian Scientist with appendicitis."
>
> Tommy
Cute! I'll save that one up and claim it for my own someday. *evil
gryn*
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO8Mcm0ktf2e/DGsoEQKQngCgmm4+moSqtoT7GAYp3r955GJ/LDEAoKxV
9EsWzrUdBnmVJ5UkBbLRYUj+
=dNxb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----